BlatantEcho
Topic Author
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:42 pm

The NY Times is reporting today that members of congress are calling for at least an independent investigation into Gulf War 2.0

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/politics/28PREX.html?pagewanted=1&hp
--------

Now, is this political poo throwing, or serious stuff? I'm an American before I'm a democrat or republican or whatever, so leave your political baggage at the door, I don't want to hear it, nor does anyone else.

Since Dr. Kay's final report the conclusion was that there effectively haven't been WMDs in Iraq for years, nor could there have been. Furthermore, Dr. Kay seemed surprised how basic intelligence didn't produce these obivous findings.

--------
500+ of our finest dead because of bad info? Well, the war is close to over, we can't change that. Ultimately the president gives the go ahead, but this is a pretty big fuck up, does someone need to hang for this or what?

George
They're not handing trophies out today
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:47 pm

Hang Saddam.



.
Jeff
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

JeffM

Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:49 pm

JeffM: Hang Saddam.

...before he could talk!
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:20 pm

Well the UN inspectors didn't find anything ... DUBYA SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT HANGS....
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:24 pm

It depends if it would be a serious investigation, or a witch-hunt mixed with election-year politiking.

Clearly, the assumptions that the U.S. and UK governments had going in were wrong, or at least exaggurated. There should be an investigation into how this happened and why. However I think that this should not be made into a media circus. I would argue that even the results of the investigation should not be anounced in press conferences, but made low key. The idea is to find out how the system malfunctioned and address it - not to use the information for partisan politics.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Cfalk

Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:29 pm

God forbid that politicians would actually be held accountable for any wrongdoing!
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:44 pm

There should be an independent ad thorough investigation into the events leading to the invasion and the illegal occupation of Iraq. Who were the people making the plans, and what was the time frame in which these decisions were made and finalised, and what were the intelligence inputs at the time and so on.

The links between Haliburton and these men in the Administration must also be probed. Did any money change hands? If not what was the relationship?

It is important that the real facts come out.

-Roy
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:46 pm

Holding people accountable is one thing; manipulating an investigation for political gain is another. This is already a valid concern, as shown by a Democratic senatorial strategy memo discovered last fall. It recommended delaying an investigation in order to extract maximum political leverage in an election year (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031105-115322-8236r.htm). Neither party's motives are exactly pure.

Perhaps the wisest solution would be an independent, nonpartisan investigatory panel, like the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, with broad powers to subpoena documents and witnesses. Taking the investigation out of Congress' direct control makes it much less likely that the process and its findings will be used for partisan mud-slinging in either direction. We need to find out why our intelligence, under Clinton as well as Bush, and that of most other nations was flawed, not start another round of political bickering.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
dragon-wings
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:55 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:48 pm

You all should read this. It's a interview Tom Brokaw did with former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/

In my opinion there are some very interesting (damaging) points David Kay makes in the interview.

Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
 
BlatantEcho
Topic Author
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:11 pm

Cfalk- I agree with you.

It is very hard to determine what is political grandstanding, and what remarks carry credible substance, especially when we talk about a political firestorm that is Iraq Invasion and Occupation.

George
They're not handing trophies out today
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:25 pm

Yeah lets take some of the quotes from Kay's interview. It should be noted that Kay was an "weapons expert" for NBC before he went to Iraq this time.


Tom Brokaw: You found evidence of programs that were in place but no weapons.

DK: There were a lot of small activities. Now, in the missile field it’s quite different. There were actually large, purposeful programs going on in that area.


TB: Intelligence report says ... "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with range in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

DK: Well, I think it’s got elements that we have certainly seen are true. The area that it’s probably more seriously wrong in is in the nuclear area.

TB: The president described Iraq as a gathering threat — a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description?

DK: I think that’s a very accurate description.

TB: But an imminent threat to the United States?

DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
dragon-wings
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:55 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:37 pm

L-188 in the first quote you left out some things. Here is the whole exchange.

Tom Brokaw: You found evidence of programs that were in place but no weapons.

DK: There were a lot of small activities. Now, in the missile field it’s quite different. There were actually large, purposeful programs going on in that area. But in chemical, biological and nuke, it was rudimentary.

Here is the exchange I thought would be damaging

TB: David, as you know the vice president of the United States and Secretary of State Powell say, “We still don’t know the end result. We could still find these weapons.”

DK: Well, Tom, let me explain how we came — how I came to a different conclusion. If there weren’t stockpiles of weapons, there must have been a production process which required plants, required people and would have produced documentation. But we have seen nothing that would indicate large-scale production.

Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:40 pm

Except that is not GW being quoted by Tommy.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:09 am

Everyone should read all of what Kay has been saying and not just the DNC taking points from CNN and the NYTimes.

Some of this was already said by L-188 but it is worth repeating.

- Saddam had active WMD programs. He was diverting large sums of money into these programs but the scientists involved were not producing the materials Saddam wanted. Some of the scientists were diverting money from the programs and giving Saddam just enough to convince him and his cronies that they possessed plenty of chemical and biological weapons.

- Saddam had an active biological/chemical program that had already produced a weaponized version of the poison Ricin. The program was active at the start of the war.

- Saddam’s missile program was much father along than anyone knew. They possessed and were secretly producing missiles that violated multiple U.N. resolutions.

- Terrorist groups were moving freely throughout Iraq and had access to Iraqi weapon arsenals and sooner or later would have acquired WMD’s from someone in Iraq. Some of these terrorists groups (Ansar al-Islam being the largest) have ties to Al-Qaeda.

- Saddam sent many convoys to Syria in the months before the war. It is not known what was in these them but Kay believes that a large amount of WMD related materials (and possibly WMD themselves) were in these Syrian bound convoys.

- Saddam had an active nuclear program and the intention to acquire nuclear weapons.

- It was Saddam’s responsibility to account for all his WMD. Even Hans Blix said on more than one occasion that Saddam had never accounted for thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons as required by multiple U.N. resolutions.

- Saddam continued to hide his programs from the world even when the U.N. inspectors returned in the months before the war.

- Kay says if anyone is at fault it is the intelligence community, not the leadership of the countries who chose to act based on what was at hand. It was missed by the intelligence agencies of dozens of countries including France, Germany, Russia, Britain, United States, China, and others as well as the U.N. If anyone owes anyone else an apology, it is the intelligence community and not the leaders of the countries.

- The White House never asked for U.S. intelligence to dress up any information or pressured the CIA/DIA/NSA/etc for pro-war materials.

- While Kay says he thinks there is a good chance WMD’s won’t be found, he said it is still possible given how much information is still to be analyzed and how much searching still needs to be done.

Also, here is an interview Kay gave on the Today Show with Matt Lauer.

Began Lauer: "Some people have relied on your earlier statement to say that the US misled the American people into war on the basis of a claim that Saddam had WMDs. Do you think the US misled the American people?"

Kay: "It wasn't only the US who came to that conclusion. The French, Germans, and UN all thought Saddam had WMDs."

Lauer: "If you didn't find WMDs, does that mean they never existed, or could they have been moved prior to war?"

Kay: "We looked at that possiblity but we didn't find evidence that there were large stockpiles prior to the war."

Lauer than ran a clip from Pres. Bush's State of the Union Address from one year ago, in which he stated that Saddam had been employing huge resources to develop WMDs and had built up a large stockpile.

Lauer: "Was that inaccurate?"

Kay: "It was inaccurate in terms of the reality we found on the ground now, but it was accurate in terms of the intelligence at the time.

"It was also accurate in the sense that Saddam did spend large sums of money trying to get WMDs but he simply didn't get what he paid for.

"There was lots of corruption in the Iraq WMD development program."

Lauer: "So scientists lied to Saddam, they told him they could develop WMDs, took huge sums of money and didn't deliver?"

Kay: "Right. There was widespread corruption, lots of money wasted. People were concerned about the money, not about working."

Lauer: "But the intent to develop WMDs was there?"

Kay: "Absolutely, Saddam surely wanted to get WMDs and spent a lot of money trying to do so."

Lauer then showed a clip from Colin Powell at the UN saying Saddam had at least 500 tons of WMDs. Again, Kay explained that Powell was not being intentionally misleading and that his statement was based on the best intelligence available at the time.

Added Kay, responding to what some of the Dems are alleging: "To say there must have been pressure from the White House on the intelligence community is wrong. We've also been wrong about Iran and Libya. We clearly need better intelligence."

Lauer then quoted from Kay's earlier interview with Tom Brokaw in which Kay had said that "if anyone was abused (by faulty intelligence) it was the President of the US rather than the other way around."

Kay confirmed the accuracy of that remark.

Lauer: "Is it true that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam was pushing his nuclear progarm?"

Kay: "Yes, he was pushing hard for nuclear and long range missiles. Look, it's clear the man had the intent. He simply wasn't successful."

"He clearly lied to UN and was in material brach."

In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."

Lauer: "Are your earlier comments being exploited for political reasons?"

Kay: "Inevitably yes, but what we have is a national security issue that shouldn't be exploited as a political issue."

Lauer: "Should we continue to search for WMDs as VP Cheney has suggested?

Kay: "Absolutely."
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:43 am

The Bush administration spent considerable efforts and almost all of its international credibility on the attempt to prove that the UN was ineffective and naive.

What´s now becoming more and more evident by the hour seems to be that the UN inspectors´ assessment was pretty accurate (no, they never said Saddam was "harmless" or "well-intentioned"!) and their work was very effective, while the Bush administration was almost laughably mis-informed (at least partially by choice) and naive concerning the aftermath of the invasion.

It is somewhat difficult to justify claims to leadership based on such a track record.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13438
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:46 am

I watched the interview as well, and it's clear that David Kay agrees with the Administration on the war.

So....any liberals or others who think the President lied care to respond to this post from B757300?

(insert sound of crickets chirping)

Anyone?

(insert sound of crickets chirping)

 Big thumbs up
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Guest

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:17 am

Deja Vu, I swear we had this discussion weeks ago over much the same topic. It just lacked an article from the PinkoCommie Times to back it up.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:58 am

EA CO AS: I watched the interview as well, and it's clear that David Kay agrees with the Administration on the war.

Not exactly. Despite his open admission that he was and still is an avid (and donating) supporter of the republican party he still had the integrity to concede that the factual basis for the war just wasn´t there.

He gets a lot more diffuse when it´s about the political aspects. On the one hand he claims he won´t get into a political assessment of the pre-war situation, on the other he does just that by speculating about what Saddam may or may not have intended.


When you´re looking for a full-scale exoneration of the Bush administration´s Iraq invasion, you´d need proof of the immediate threat to the USA (and to Britain, in the case of the Blair government) which was the primary selling point of this war.

And exactly this point is factually obliterated by Kay´s testimony, his attempts at political damage control notwithstanding.


There´s this strange fantasy image of the UN and the rest of the world believing Saddam to be a nice uncle to cuddle with. Alas, in reality the UN inspectors and basically everyone around the planet knew very well he was a murderous dictator. Many even knew that already when he was still an american pet during the Reagan era!

The only possible justification for shoving aside the UN and spitting the world in the face would have been an immediate danger to the USA (and Britain). In that case, the UN charta even grants you every right to go it alone!

But since we now know with certainty that the invaders were all wrong about this particular point and the UN inspectors had a realistic view of Iraq and did an excellent job in suppressing WMD programs, it is equally clear that the problem would have called for international cooperation to reign in Saddam and make Iraq more free than it was under Saddam and more stable than it - sadly - is now.


What you´d need is just not there. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I just wish it hadn´t taken thousands of killed iraqis and hundreds of killed americans, britons and others to make you believe the facts that everybody else has seen right from the beginning. You have been told!
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:08 am

Well, the war is close to over.....

Say what now?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13438
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:21 am

you´d need proof of the immediate threat to the USA (and to Britain, in the case of the Blair government) which was the primary selling point of this war.

Ok, once again, since you clearly weren't paying attention:

In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."


Certainly sounds like an immediate threat if you ask me! But then again, the problem is with your choice of words; what exactly constitutes an "immediate threat" anyway?

Is it when someone says they want to kill you? Or is it when they actually grab the gun? Or when they've grabbed it AND loaded it? Or is it only when they level it at you and start to exert pressure on the trigger?

What you or I perceive as an immediate threat may be wildly different than what the guy down the street or your barber or your grocer or even the President of the United States may consider an "immediate threat."

I'll trust the judgment of the President on this one, thanks.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:22 am

"JeffM: Hang Saddam.

...before he could talk!"

Klaus if they were really afraid of what Saddam might say the US would have never let him out of that hole alive, instead they dragged him out and let Iraqi Governing Council members talk to him at the airport.

If someone were really trying to prevent Saddam from talking, dragging out of that hole alive and putting him on trial would have been the last thing they would have done.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

EA CO AS

Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:48 am

EA CO AS: Ok, once again, since you clearly weren't paying attention:

That´s it for you??? Oh my; You poor, frightened bunny! Big grin
They´ve really taken your balls away with their incessant scaremongering, haven´t they?  Insane


Iraq was in no way ready or close to deploying weapons that would have been able to threaten the USA. Not even the US-provided Anthrax would have been fit for that. That´s basically what Kay reports when he´s talking about facts and not about his support for his own republican president.

If that would have been the real reason, several other countries would have been far, far more urgent - North Korea, for instance. They have a murderous and ruthless dictator and they even claim themselves that they have WMDs! Which may be exaggerated, but it seems enough to deter an US invasion, for some peculiar reason...

It is clearly evident that someone is taking you for a ride; And it´s not those evil europeans, for a change.  Wink/being sarcastic


Just think about it!
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:40 am

If anyone is going to be afraid of what Saddam has to say, it will be the French, Germans, and Russians. Bits and pieces are starting to come out that companies in these countries and their respective governments were doing business with Iraq in violation of the sanctions.

- Weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for removing Saddam. He was an admitted sponsor of terrorists and was a persistent, destabilizing force in the Middle East.

- Removing Saddam not only prevents him from every providing support to terrorists that we're still at war with but it provides a chance to have radical change in the Middle East and maybe move the people out of the 12th century and into the modern, free world.

- Since the fall of Saddam, Iran has agreed to inspections of its nuclear program where before it was stonewalling. Libya has agreed to give up its WMD programs and to turn over all weapons and materials to the U.S., U.K., and U.N.

Oh, and if Bush lied, so did these people.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...." -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." - Patty (Osama Mama) Murray, October 9, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." - John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

B757300

Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:50 am

B757300, what you need is not a better cut-and-paste, what you need is more attention to what´s going on.  Wink/being sarcastic

Practically nobody claimed that Saddam was anything but a cruel dictator. The fundamental question regarding the Bush War is if the immediate urgency was justified. And of those arguments of the Bush administration where they claimed they "knew better" than the rest of the world not a single one of them has turned out to be true! That is a stunningly bad record!

The uncontested ruthlessness of the Saddam / Baath regime with all its well-known main and side effects would have been an excellent basis for an international cooperation to pursue the (obviously effective!) inspections to the end and then find a unanimous way to increase the pressure on the regime to relinquish control over their population. A prime chance being bombed to hell for delusions of world domination.

The result? Everybody now knows:

a) The Bush administration was basically wrong about everything ("Can they get anything right?").

b) The US military is visibly stretched to its limits - and its limits are far narrower than the world domination strategists would have anyone believe. Especially as the world has turned out to be rather cool to the idea of being dominated. Surprise, surprise!  Insane

c) Instead of a broad base in alliances and consensual cooperation, this administration has basically turned the entire planet against the USA, unnecessarily damaging the bonds to many of their formerly closest allies. "We don´t need you!" may sound great for a short petulant moment, but it gets old real fast. Some of the damage is strategic and unrecoverable.


B757300: If anyone is going to be afraid of what Saddam has to say, it will be the French, Germans, and Russians. Bits and pieces are starting to come out that companies in these countries and their respective governments were doing business with Iraq in violation of the sanctions.

I can only say: Bring it on!

I´ve stood behind every single occasion where an iraqi attempt at purchasing restricted material had been uncovered and - where evident - any domestic collusion led to indictment and convictions. Contrary to the USA, european participants in human rights violations can also be prosecuted by the international court. But then, we´re just lowly europeans who will have to abide by the law...

Let´s just watch the proceedings; I´m especially interested in the undoubtedly following inquiry into US efforts to hush up the gassing of the kurds, even trying to blame it on Iran. That will be interesting.


B757300: Weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for removing Saddam.

Oh yes, they were! Until they failed to be found, that is.


B757300: Removing Saddam not only prevents him from every providing support to terrorists that we're still at war

Rubbish! The only known terrorist support by Saddam were the palestinian insurgents. And I´m not aware of any US soldiers participating in the israeli efforts to crush the intifadah.

It took the US invasion to turn Iraq into a magnet for terrorists and suicide bombers, while the withdrawal from Afghanistan has basically given the real terrorists (and the drug lords) free reign again. Quite close to the nuclear weapons of the not-too-stable regime of dictator Musharraf in Pakistan, by the way. Great job, all in all!


B757300: with but it provides a chance to have radical change in the Middle East and maybe move the people out of the 12th century and into the modern, free world.

You mean the "modern world" where the leader of a militarily strong country can have other countries attacked at will, no matter the outcry across the planet? Wow, a dream come true! Or was it a nightmare?


B757300: Since the fall of Saddam, Iran has agreed to inspections of its nuclear program where before it was stonewalling. Libya has agreed to give up its WMD programs and to turn over all weapons and materials to the U.S., U.K., and U.N.

As a result of the diplomatic efforts of several european countries. Bullying doesn´t seem to get you very far, if I´m looking at Iraq today.


B757300: Oh, and if Bush lied, so did these people.

Bush presented "evidence" he knew was false in his state of the union address. I guess a few hundred killed americans would have preferred a president who stuck to lying about a completely irrelevant sexual act!

Uncovering the identity of a secret operative out of spite for uncovering the lie could amount to treason in almost any nation´s book. But for some reason, you don´t seem to worry at all about it.


All in all, you still fail to impress me much.
 
BlatantEcho
Topic Author
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:08 am

front page of NYtimes website is just today:

"Ex-Inspector Calls for Inquiry on Prewar Intelligence"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/international/middleeast/28CND-WEAP.html?hp

I have only one question:
Who's responsible if the fuck ups are as bad as they seem?

George
They're not handing trophies out today
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:29 am

Well BlatentEcho, we can start with Jimmy Carter and his reductions to the US intellegence establishment in the 1970's.

There has been no replacements for the assest that the US lost in that time period.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

L-188

Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:33 am

Intelligence agencies all over the world are far lower funded than the CIA, NSA et cetera and their governments overwhelmingly opposed the war. So it just can´t be the funding.
 
DC10GUY
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 5:52 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:42 am

What should be investigated is why are Americans & Iraqis still dying there ??? Bush has no exit stratagy no direction. (except control of Iraqs oil)
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
 
BlatantEcho
Topic Author
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:50 am

Dc10guy-

as much as I may agree with you, that isn't the issue here.

The question boils down too, who is responsible for getting us IN TO this, on such poor information.

Again, is it just democratic whining when they can? Is this a serious problem with intelligence? Did Bush just go to war for shits and giggles?

Somehow, the system fucked us, and people are starting to demand to know how.

George
They're not handing trophies out today
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:52 am

For once, I agree with the thrust of what Roy was saying. The planets must have a strange alignment this night.  Smile

Holding people accountable is one thing; manipulating an investigation for political gain is another.

Please. What about the war, and our march to it? That was manipulation for political gain on the part of The Administration, was it not? They should be the last ones to bitch if politics enters any investigation. War itself is political manipulation to begin with.

So....any liberals or others who think the President lied care to respond to this post from B757300?

Perhaps he didn't lie, but should not an investigation not be launched into this matter nonetheless? I mean, we had an administration that REALLY wanted to go to war against Iraq-if anyone denies that, they're drinking some interesting Kool Aid or something. They pushed and pushed and pushed for war. And it just so happened that the intel was their best-case scenario. Wouldn't you think, with a war about to commence, that the Administration would have tried to make damn sure the intel was right on the mark? From everything I see, they just took it for what it was, didn't question it, because it fit what they wanted to hear to begin with.

An investigation has to be launched to find out why our intel was this fucked up on such a major issue. If reforms are needed, then so be it-not to shackle intelligence, as happened in the 70's, but to make it more effective and reliable. And an investigation needs to find out why the Administration seemingly wasn't even the least bit skeptical about what was being fed to them.

And again, B757300, please-none of those Democrats you quote pulled the trigger on this war. That lies solely with this President that you are afraid or unable to critisize, namely George W. Bush. Quote whomever you want-you're obviously trying, as usual, to deflect the criticism from where it rightly belongs: the Intelligence community and the Administration.

It's time for an investigation, to find out how on earth we could go to war over information that was so far off the mark. And despite the lame attempts of the administration and it's hangers-on on this board and elsewhere to now try to rewrite history and say the war wasn't about WMD's, the rest of the world doesn't have such amnesia, and remembers why Bush said we were going to war. Let's have an investigation, find out the truth,and move on.
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:00 pm

People do have the right to know what is going on. They just don't make the rules as to WHEN they get to find out.

If someone is to blame when it has been proven there are no WMDs, (and it has not yet been proven), then by all means there should be an inquiry into the reasons. But, it could take many months to completely search that country. And I'm afraid such an inquiry is going to point fingers at people in both parties...
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:27 pm

>>>Intelligence agencies all over the world are far lower funded than the CIA, NSA et cetera and their governments overwhelmingly opposed the war. So it just can´t be the funding.<<<

Did these governments overwhelmingly oppose the war due to those intellegence agencies deducing Saddam possessed no WMD's?

Or was the decision to oppose the war motivated by factors unrelated to their respective intel data?

Be specific please.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:48 pm

I forgot to add on my last post a quote by David Kay

“We were almost all wrong,” said the inspector, David Kay, noting that intelligence services in France and Germany, both of which opposed the war, also were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion."

So to me, your statement is trying to convey that opposition governments were opposed due to more accurate intel. Clearly that's not the case.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:52 pm

That was manipulation for political gain on the part of The Administration, was it not?

Um, not according to the Kay report, if you bother to read it. At least he found zero evidence of administration pressure on the intel agencies. He said he wished he had, because it would be much easier to fix.

They should be the last ones to bitch if politics enters any investigation.

I see.... the investigation shouldn't try to find out what's wrong with our intel services and how to fix them, it should be an opportunity for the angry, wounded Dems to get some political traction and fulminate against Evil Bush from their subcommittee hearings. Sure, Congress can return to Kindergarten mentality for a while; there's nothing going on around the world that we should bother knowing in the meantime. Sounds like a lovely plan indeed.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2004-01-29 04:55:08]
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:06 pm

I see.... the investigation shouldn't try to find out what's wrong with our intel services and how to fix them, it should be an opportunity for the angry, wounded Dems to get some political traction and fulminate against Evil Bush from their subcommittee hearings.

You obviously didn't read what I said, did you? I said we need to find out what was wrong, to improve the intel we're getting. But since going to war is a political act-and the politics was obviously trying to help Bush get re-elected this year, then the GOP shouldn't complain if their political opponents interject some politics of the mix. After all, the first political calculation was the decision to go to war.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

FDXmech

Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:38 pm

FDXmech: So to me, your statement is trying to convey that opposition governments were opposed due to more accurate intel. Clearly that's not the case.

The "details" do matter here.

It was generally known that at some point in the past Iraq definitely had WMDs and definitely had active programs to prepare programs for nuclear and other non-conventional weapons (the american Anthrax deliveries are also a known fact).

So that´s where the intelligence agencies were in agreement and there was no dissent.

The picture is not quite as simple when it´s about the claim of recent stockpiles and recently active WMD programs close to completion.

In this case we´ve got that well-known discrepancy:

  • The Bush and Blair administrations claimed there definitely were huge stockpiles and active programs close to deployment(!) which posed a direct and immediate threat which could not bear any delay for a military resolution. For some as yet unexplained reason, however, this "certainty" did not generate any verifyable leads for the UN weapons inspectors, although it should have been very simple to just provide the locations of those "definitely existing" stockpiles and weapons labs. In fact the USA and Britain kept their presumed knowledge close to their chests and did not aid the UN inspectors in locating those alleged (and ultimately nonexistent) resources.


  • Most of the rest of the world saw it slightly differently: They assumed there could have been existing stockpiles (at least of leftovers of the pre-1990 weapons) and possibly active programs (which turned out to be the case, as evidenced by the rocket program dismantled by the UN inspectors). These other countries supplied the UN inspectors with all the information they had so they could verify any suspicions raised.


And as it turns out, the UN inspectors provided a very accurate image and were highly effective in crippling Saddam´s WMD programs.

The essential point in the difference between "coalition" and "opposition" intelligence was the one between "certainty" (which turned out to be false) and "suspicion" (which was verified and partially confirmed, partially disproved).

And the respective governments acted accordingly. You just can´t go to war on a suspicion, but you can on a certainty. It just better be certain if you´re about to kill people.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:51 pm

In a sense, the Bush administration´s blunder provides the possibly unique opportunity to verify the work of the UN inspectors very precisely (assuming the american inspectors do their job properly and without bias, which seems plausible so far).

The - in effect - ringing endorsement of the UN inspector´s work can be the basis to

a) head off any further unilateral adventures under the pretext of "the UN inspector´s general incompetence"

b) push more forcefully for inspections in other cases, thereby strengthening the role of cooperative security initiatives.

When looked at from this angle, this whole mess may ultimately turn out to make an unexpected kind of sense...
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:38 pm

If you recall the inspectors were rushed out of Baghdad by the US. We said enough already! We said Saddam was stalling and hiding and BS'ing. Kay back then as well as Hans Glick said there were no MWDs. And on tv today Kay agreed with both sides of the committee.

I'd say the Oscar Nominations went to the all wrong folks this year!

Best Director, Sen. John Warner - for acting as if he wanted to get to the bottom of this.

Best Actor, David Kay, - for agreeing to everything and everyone while disagreeing with no one on anything.

Best Supporting, Sen. Kennedy - for acting like this was going lead to anything substantive.


The Winners -- everyone who knew where the lies originated and are going to get away with it by placing blame on 'the intell system' as if it's some mysterious entity (with no name) that lurks in a cave.

The Losers -- anyone who watched (me included) because we're never going to know the truth.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:11 pm

Here is a link for you Klaus and company...

date: 1996
Bill Clinton President....

Seems the info was no good back then as well

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/intl/iraq/wh960708.txt
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:06 pm

uhh Jeff, that letter encompasses non-compliance of UN resolutions for UNSCOM impediments, (mentions the tanker blast in Saudi Arabia -- but doesn't say Iraq was involved),refusal to return Kuwaiti loot from G-1 , No-Fly Zone violations, oppressing Iraqi citizens,illegal oil sales...and most importantly no mention of MWDs nor an impending threat to the US.

It does suggest that a MIF (Multi-International Force) remain in the region for fear for Saddam's instability or him going bonkers -- which he already was.

This pales in comparison with what North Korea has done and is doing. It oppresses and starves it's people, kidnaps and assassinates South Koreans , and is ACTIVELY creating MWDs and test launching them into the Sea of Japan and has threatened the US to it's face. And god only knows how many other UN violations North Korea has blatantly runs a foul.

Now honestly, which one really poses a serious threat to world stability and security?

If you're able, attempt to answer that with a straight face...


BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:30 pm

This pales in comparison with what North Korea has done and is doing. It oppresses and starves it's people, kidnaps and assassinates South Koreans , and is ACTIVELY creating MWDs and test launching them into the Sea of Japan and has threatened the US to it's face. And god only knows how many other UN violations North Korea has blatantly runs a foul.

So, what do you suggest?
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
commander_rabb
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:59 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:49 pm

Ask yourself this question. Who or what duped two of the most respected intelligence communities, that of the United States and Great Britain? Hard to find the answer eh?

Countries just don't go to war on assumptions. People need to remember that.







 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:58 pm

Ask yourself this question. Who or what duped two of the most respected intelligence communities, that of the United States and Great Britain? Hard to find the answer eh?

Hint: Colonel Khadafi figured out the answer to Rabb's question. So he's working his ass off to make sure that he is completely transparent, showing all facitities and documents without making the inspectors having to go on a wild fishing expedition.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:14 pm

I suggest our military be used to stop real threats. The dead US and UK soldiers involved in this facade deserved better than this...much better.

As for North Korea, I'd suggest parking the 7th Fleet off the Korean peninsula the next time they launch a test missile across Japan into the Pacific Ocean. But the reason this wasn't done the 1st time is because this is war where the body count will add up in the 10,000s and Bush just doesn't have the stomach for this kinda fight. I'm not advocating such a confrontation but they have launched a few into the Pacific and we've done nothing. I have to ask myself..if Saddam had the capability (which he did not-- and we knew that)and he launched a Super SCUD or whatever into the Atlantic...what would have done to him? We would have gone ballistic on his ass. But with North Korea..we are acting like..they'll just go away. So if they do cook up something bigger and better than they already have...and we are over in Iraq 'saving the kurds and whoever else....' god forbid. Clearly what I'm saying here is that our priorities are out of sync. Or I as many others here believe are correct...this was all about oil. Just as a war support 'said' with his sign (photo from USA Today) before the invasion 'JUST TAKE THE OIL'...well that guy got his way...I hope he's enjoying what has unfolded since.

Bush, Cheney,Powell and Rice knew going into Iraq that there would be little or no resistance. All we heard on the news was the crack Republican Guard and the Fahadeen forces were the most dangerous! It was gonna get brutal. We fell for the hype and when they cut and ran..the press couldn't stop gloating about how fast the country fell. We lost very, very few troops. It made us proud! And most of us back here..ate it up lock,stock and barrel.

But now, as the body count escalates, jubilation has it's begun to take the shape of a phyrric victory. Our guys are there far longer than they were told and are beginning feel they were lied to. And as the truth emerges even more..the more pissed they're gonna become. A well meaning passenger went up to my brother at an airport recently while he was in uniform and said 'Hey soldier, thanks for protecting our freedom!' my brother paused looked at where this guy had patted him on his shoulder and said 'you have no idea what you're talking about'...and turned and walked away. Now he was there just 4 months. Imagine how some of the guys are gonna feel after returning after year and getting a pat on the back.

Now if these guys are need in North Korea to face a serious threat..what game face will they wear this time? Or is North Korea a joke we can take lightly? You tell me.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:19 pm

As for North Korea, I'd suggest parking the 7th Fleet off the Korean peninsula the next time they launch a test missile across Japan into the Pacific Ocean....I'm not advocating such a confrontation

Make up your mind. A wise man once said that you don't pull your gun unless you are ready to use it. Are you suggesting that the U.S. attack NK if they test a few missiles? Isn't that a pre-emptive war?

I don't believe NK is ready to attack South Korea or anyone else anytime soon. But they do have a history of selling anything to anyone with enough cash. Remember that it is a statistical certainty that one day, a terrorist nuke will go off. So should we wait for a nuke to go off in Los Angeles, and hope that forensic scientists can figure out where the stuff came from? What if they can't? Should we deal with the threat now? Pre-emptive war anyone?

this was all about oil. Just as a war support 'said' with his sign (photo from USA Today) before the invasion 'JUST TAKE THE OIL'...well that guy got his way...I hope he's enjoying what has unfolded since

Bush's enemies always harp on the fact that Bush and his top people come from business backgrounds. So let's look at it from a business standpoint and see if it makes sense. If the administration is in fact looking at oil - i.e. money, this little analysis should give you a pretty good idea whether the argument holds water.

Assume that the cost of the war in year 1, including everything from military costs to economic and reconstruction aid, is $80 billion (probably on the low side). Assume that years 2-4 cost $60, $40, and $20 billion, and zero thereafter. Also assume that this money also includes the cost of getting Iraqi oil production back to speed.

Historically, the U.S. imports about 800,000 barrels per day from Iraq. Call that a cool million per day, or about 1/3rd of Iraqi capacity. Current oil prices are $33.50 per barrel. Assume that the U.S. TAKES a million barrels per day from Iraq without paying a dime for it. However,as you can't expect oilfield workers to work long without pay or equipment. Production and field development costs for Middle East OPEC countries is roughly $5-$10 per barrel, according to Alfred J. Cavallo of Princeton. Call it $7.50 on average. So the profit margin created by going to war would be $33.50 minus $7.50 = $26 per barrel.

So if we assume that the U.S. takes this oil for the next 20 years, without paying. Assume that the cost of capital is 5% (a decent long-term average). Reaching for my handy-dandy financial calculator, That creates a cash stream which produces an Net Present Value of -$63 billion, compared with the cost of simply buying it from Iraq or elsewhere. Clearly this is a losing proposition. Let's increase the U.S. import rate - up to half of Iraq's pre-1991 capacity. You still have a negative NPV of -$34 billion. Still not a good deal.

And how likely is it that the U.S. could simply take that much oil for 20 years without the Iraqis revolting against the idea (you'd have to add garrisoning costs for a standing army in Iraq for the next 20 years - call it $10-20 billion per year on the low side), or the rest of the world's nations imposing punishing sanctions on the U.S. in retribution for such outright theft of a nation's resources. By the way, taking half their oil without paying would leave Iraq in far worse economic shape than it was during the sanctions of 1991-2002).

So once and for all, the "War for Oil" is nothing more than bulls&%t, so STOP IT!

Bush, Cheney,Powell and Rice knew going into Iraq that there would be little or no resistance.

How do you know this? Certainly they hoped that there would be little resistance, but we were prepared for a lot more casualties. The war itself was expected to cost at least 10,000 U.S. lives. Do you have a source within the White House?

We fell for the hype and when they cut and ran..the press couldn't stop gloating about how fast the country fell.

Again, the hype was in the other direction. Bush and others said that we should expect heavy casualties. The lack of head-on combat or WMD use was a pleasant surprise.

About your brother, sorry, but he sounds like an assh≤. A stranger wanted to show his appreciation for all that he went through. The stranger did not have to do it. Your brother probably had no choice in the matter either. You get orders to go, and you gotta go. So the stranger's comments were a decent courtesy which your brother responded to with rudeness. Would your brother prefer to be called a baby-killer and have eggs thrown at him?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:59 pm

B757300 wrote:

Weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for removing Saddam. He was an admitted sponsor of terrorists and was a persistent, destabilizing force in the Middle East.

As I recall, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says that the WMD peg was the one thing the entire Administration could agree on as the primary selling point for this war. The terrorism angle was thrown in to better fit in with the post 9-11 climate. It's pretty reasonable to assume that Saddam supported terrorists; I don't know that he would go as far as actually admitting it, though.

If the tipping point in the whole war issue was sponsorship of terrorism, then surely the U.S. could have made a case for a similar type of regime change in Saudi Arabia.

While I have no doubt that Saddam did have WMD at some point on some level (let's face it, the guy is crazy like a fox), Bush showed a curious duplicity when North Korea announced it was going forward with plans to develop its own WMD. The White House all of a sudden started talking about making nice and working through diplomatic channels. Mind you, they're dealing with Kim Jong-Il -- a guy who is just plain crazy.

If any country fits into the template of producing WMD, sponsoring terrorism and destabilizing its neighbors (and by extension deserving of a US-led regime change), North Korea is it. Let's not forget the in-flight destruction by North Korean intelligence agents of KAL flight 858 between BGW and AUH in November, 1988 -- 115 people killed. Then there was the North Korean bomb attack in Rangoon against a visiting South Korean government delegation in October, 1983 -- 17 people dead. And the list goes on.

B757300 also wrote:

Removing Saddam not only prevents him from every providing support to terrorists that we're still at war with but it provides a chance to have radical change in the Middle East and maybe move the people out of the 12th century and into the modern, free world.

Couldn't the same be said of Saudi Arabia? Surely coddling a repressive country because of their oil can't be more important than protecting the people of the United States from terrorists and (as neo-cons are wont to point out) the countries that train and harbor them....right?

One other thing that is cause for concern. The bar for impeachment of a sitting President has been lowered to accommodate an utterly laughable act like Clinton getting his knob polished by a Portly Pepper Pot and then lying about it (as would 99.9% of the world's entire male population).

If something like that is cause for an impeachment -- a painfully divisive process which effectively charged the American people 40 million dollars to forcibly read (and listen to) poorly-written porn -- then I shudder to think what Bush could face for sending 500+ of his country's sons and daughters to their graves on the basis of questionable and/or dated intelligence...
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:31 pm

Make up your mind. A wise man once said that you don't pull your gun unless you are ready to use it. Are you suggesting that the U.S. attack NK if they test a few missiles? Isn't that a pre-emptive war?

Yes it is, but Bush has set a new U.S. precedent with the invasion of Iraq. That was pre-emptive. Iraq had offered no threats to the U.S., yet Bush, violating American tradition, fired the first shot in that war-and please, all the Bush rear-end kissers, spare me the "Iraq fired the first shot in '90" bullshit, OK? Different war, different decade, for God's sake. We fired the first shot, and now, since we've set that precedent, I could see Bush striking the DRPK first under the right pretext.

And again, B757300, your amnesia over the reason that the Administration publically said the war was necessary is pretty amazing. If it wasn't THE primary reason, why work so hard to get 1441 passed? Why spend months harping on the fact that Saddam was ready to launch attacks with these weapons? Why have Powell make that dramatic presentation in front of the Security Council? Easy-because WMD's were THE REASON, AND THE ONLY REASON, the Administration gave before the war, for going to war. It wasn't till after the war started, and we started to come up empty on the search for weapons that the Administration began rewriting their justifications on the war, and when people like you began bobbing your head up and down in acceptance of these excuses.

It's the WMD's, and the collective amnesia of the Administration and those who simply thirsted for a war like B757300, doesn't change that fact.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:51 am

Make up your mind. A wise man once said that you don't pull your gun unless you are ready to use it. Are you suggesting that the U.S. attack NK if they test a few missiles? Isn't that a pre-emptive war?

I don't believe NK is ready to attack South Korea or anyone else anytime soon. But they do have a history of selling anything to anyone with enough cash. Remember that it is a statistical certainty that one day, a terrorist nuke will go off. So should we wait for a nuke to go off in Los Angeles, and hope that forensic scientists can figure out where the stuff came from? What if they can't? Should we deal with the threat now? Pre-emptive war anyone?
It's called a show of force. The pre-emptive doctrine vis-a-vis Iraq, is a very dangerous policy in my opinion. By your suggestion above....I guess instead of us waiting for LA to get the bomb...are you saying we should go into NK now? Or should we go with your 'I don't believe NK is ready to attack South Korea or anyone else anytime soon.' If you don't think NK is a threat, where is the line to act in order to stop the LA nuke from happening? You don't specify that.

You may not feel a rogue country testing ICBMs are a threat..but it's clear to me they are exactly that and getting stronger,more determined every passing day. We've learned in 1952 that they are fierce fighting force. As we did with China (previously -- watching Mao's ragtag army toss the whole Nationalist gov't) and Vietnam vs us(afterwards). It's a starved and desperate nation -- the most dangerous thing on the planet as man with nothing to loose-- an NK has millions of them.

And how likely is it that the U.S. could simply take that much oil for 20 years without the Iraqis revolting against the idea (you'd have to add garrisoning costs for a standing army in Iraq for the next 20 years - call it $10-20 billion per year on the low side), or the rest of the world's nations imposing punishing sanctions on the U.S. in retribution for such outright theft of a nation's resources. By the way, taking half their oil without paying would leave Iraq in far worse economic shape than it was during the sanctions of 1991-2002).

So once and for all, the "War for Oil" is nothing more than bulls&%t, so STOP IT!


Uhh your calculator left out a minor factor...they won't only be selling to the US..they'll be selling to the 180 plus other nations! Oil production involves more than just selling oil it is the selling of it's infrasture (to american companies) and it's by products as well...again to a world markets..the billions escalate easily. It is about the oil!

Bush, Cheney,Powell and Rice knew going into Iraq that there would be little or no resistance.

How do you know this? Certainly they hoped that there would be little resistance, but we were prepared for a lot more casualties. The war itself was expected to cost at least 10,000 U.S. lives. Do you have a source within the White House?

We fell for the hype and when they cut and ran..the press couldn't stop gloating about how fast the country fell.

Again, the hype was in the other direction. Bush and others said that we should expect heavy casualties. The lack of head-on combat or WMD use was a pleasant surprise.


One of the companies I own deals directly (5 years running) with the a very major news provider, I know exactly what news spin is all about including 'setting up' the audience aka 'the viewers'. News isn't just diseminated...it's cleverly crafted, editorialized and channelled for maximum desired effect (US media that is). Thus the phrase sensationalized media.

About your brother, sorry, but he sounds like an assh<=. A stranger wanted to show his appreciation for all that he went through. The stranger did not have to do it. Your brother probably had no choice in the matter either. You get orders to go, and you gotta go. So the stranger's comments were a decent courtesy which your brother responded to with rudeness. Would your brother prefer to be called a baby-killer and have eggs thrown at him?

The eggs thing may very well happen. It's happened before and it's going to happen again. Esp. if this thing descends into civil war. As for him being an assh<= the next time you see a US marine...think about him seeing his comrades getting blown apart next to him because they stopped to help a kid or a family and what he must be thinking afterwards as it becomes clearer to him...that Iraq was no major threat to the US as it was lead to believe. They have brains too..and they do ask themselves... 'was I placed in harms way for a just cause or was I played like a used CD?' The point is, you and I don't know what's going through their heads. They don't have to 'appreciate' your views for doing what they may have done. They were there and they are very entitled to interpret their experiences as they wish...it was their life on the line...not the well-wishers. The Nuremberg argument of 'I did as I told' argument didn't work in 1945...it won't hold water now. Just as an experiment..next time you see US Marine go pat him on the back and tell him 'Thanks for protecting my freedom'



BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Calls For Investigation Into Iraq War

Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:54 am

How in the world can you violate a tradition? LOL Alpha...that is a stretch even for you? Can you go to jail for violating a tradition? Or... can I get a list of the top ten traditions?? ROFLMAO

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BartSimpson, moo, vrbarreto and 10 guests