or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911 - Page 2  

post #41 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Okay, devil's advocate then: Bush got into office with the intention of using a war get SH out. So he goes to the intelligence community and sexes up/hard-sells what American intelligence has. So now we have SH dragging his feet on inspections, and the sexed up intel. Then America (and several other countries) invade and install, let's face it, a VERY favorable governing body. Oil starts flowing (is this new contry a member of OPEC? hmmmmm....).

So both Blair, Bush and the late great ruling party of Spain, among others, have gone out on a huge limb on presumably (for the sake of argument) false intelligence.

What is the payoff here? Why expose yourself politically without a major payoff that is either strategic or monetary?

Anyone?

Its a question of ideology. Richard Perle and company have been hot to trot for this since Bush I. They felt it would domino the entire middle east into some form utopia where cats and dogs play together. The post war planning indicates that these guys truely believed we, the coalition, would be welcomed with open arms by all. Its apparent the powers that be thought once SH was toppled life would instantly improve. Most middle east analysts disagreed with these ideas and said "hey your gonna need move than 100,00 trops there for at least 5 years". In fact an administration official was canned for saying as much (I can't recall his name and I'm too lazy to look it up. It was White I believe), but the administration was blinded by ideology and visions of grandeur. BushCo firmly believed, IMO, that this conflict would takes days, and the cleanup would take a couple of months. They were wrong.

The domino theory was applied to Afganastan also. Its been two years there and there isn't much governmental control outside Kandahar.

Joseph Cirincione at the Carnagie Institute for International peace said "You can't bring democracy at the tip of a bayonette." I don't know if he originated that but He's said it quite a few times and its true. Democracy only comes when the people being ruled decide they want a change. Or in the case of Post WWII Japan democracy come when 40% of the male population is killed, two atomic bombs are dropped and the US amintans a 15 year controlling presence.

Now the question becomes do the ends justify the means? In 99.99% of the case no. We learned a lot from the Jewish internments and the experiments performed by German doctors at that time. Was it worth it? NO. We destabilized a country in order to extract oil. We're breeding more and more terrorists instead of addressing the fundamental issues. We've diverted our attention from disrupting terrorist organizations to toppling two bit dictators. Was it worth it? Time will tell, but my hunch is no. Who knows, maybe after 20 years of sanctions SH might have changed his tune and decided to reenter the world society as a "good leader" ala Libya. We'll never find out now.

We squandered world positive opinion for an ideological turnaround in the middle east instead of using diplomacy to change minds. We could have given Sauid Arabia an ultamatium but we didn't. We could have said "All you dictators out there look out because here we come!" We didn't. We didn't. We relied on force which the only thing force ever beget was force.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #42 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
controlling the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world is no major payoff. Privatizing Iraq's business structure is no major payoff. I guess billions of $ in contracts are minor payoffs.

No, I'm not joking.

Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!


Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #43 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Wasn't one the first two bombs U-238 based? [potentially dumb question] can't you harvest U-238 from seawater?

No, and No. U-238 requires very high energy neutrons to fission. U-238 is bread to Pu-239 wich like U-235, will fission using low energy neutrons (less than 1MeV if I recall from a past life as a physics major).

Can you get U-238 from SW? yes you can get all naturally occuring elements from SW. The question is how much SW is required? You'de need an entire ocean to get significant amounts of any trace element from SW.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #44 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, I'm not joking.

Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!


Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.

No, Iraq is not a voting member of OPEC so in theory they could set their own market price as the Russinans do.

Yes, we are controlling the oil supply via contracts the Halliburton and Bechtel.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #45 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, I'm not joking.

Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!


Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.

You give the impression of a kid with fingers covering his ears and yelling "no, no, it can't be true. It can't be true!!"
post #46 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.

You could at least look it up.
post #47 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Faust9: you seem to know a lot about that subject. Could you please tell me if light water nuclear reactors can be used to make weapons?

Most reactors are light water reactors. Heavy water reactors use Deuterium oxide or tritium oxide. Both Deuterium and tritium are water molecules with heavy isotopes of Hydrogen (H-2 and H-3 respectivly). Heavy water rfeactors are used mostly for research or for 238 reactors. 238 reactors are not used in comercial applications because the cost of producing heavy water exceeds the cost of uranium enrichment in most cases. The really crazy reactors are the ones that use liquid sodium as a moderator.

Its been awile since I've had chemistry so I might have the chemical names wrong for heavy water but the isotope names should be correct.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #48 of 386
Quote:
Halliburton's connection to Cheney was a constant theme. Democrats have seized on the issue of whether Cheney who receives deferred compensation from the company was linked to a decision to award to Halliburton no-bid Iraq contracts, which have a potential payout of $18 billion.

Link

There are hundreds of sources where you can find the info.

Faust9: os is that a yes then? They can be used to make weapons?

Edit. Just re-read your post Faust. I think I know the answer now.
post #49 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
No, Iraq is not a voting member of OPEC so in theory they could set their own market price as the Russinans do.

Yes, we are controlling the oil supply via contracts the Halliburton and Bechtel.


But they are a member [yes?]


on Halliburton and Bechtel...then they are handling distribution and giving American interests favorable treatment?


on the nuke thing, check out this quote:

Quote:
The first nuclear weapon used in anger was Little Boy. Untested, it was detonated over Hiroshima with a yield equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT, or 15 kilotons. Little Boy used 132.8 pounds of HEU enriched to a little over 80 percent in the fissile isotope U-235. It was 10 feet long, 28 inches wide, and weighed 9000 pounds.

is this correct?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #50 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You could at least look it up.


Yes, but when it is so blatantly obvious why GWB took out SH to fill his personal bank account to some here it should be straightforward to say why.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #51 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
But they are a member [yes?]


on Halliburton and Bechtel...then they are handling distribution and giving American interests favorable treatment?


on the nuke thing, check out this quote:



is this correct?

Yes, this is correct, but U-235 is not U-238. U-238 is normally a beneign isotope is will ony fission if exposed to neutrons of a specific energy. U-235 has a larger cross section for absorption for low energy neutrons (which are easire to come by) thus it can be used as a nuclear weapon. Remember though 15kg's of 235 are needed for well designed bombs. Only 0.72% of natural uraninum is U-235, the other 99% is U-238. You need about One metric ton of yellow cake to produce those 15kg's. One metric ton is about 5000lbs BTW. Also the purification process relies on Flourine gas in a 1-1 ratio with the uranium. So that's another key to the puzzle which is hard to hide.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #52 of 386
Yes, Iraq is an official member, but I dare say BushCo will ensure that changes. Iraq could drive the price of oil as easily as Saudi Arabi if and when it gets to full production capability.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #53 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
You give the impression of a kid with fingers covering his ears and yelling "no, no, it can't be true. It can't be true!!"


Actually, I'm asking for you to engage in an old technique known as "explaining yourself."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #54 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Yes, Iraq is an official member, but I dare say BushCo will ensure that changes. Iraq could drive the price of oil as easily as Saudi Arabi if and when it gets to full production capability.



That would make things complicated for SA.

Pretty interesting stuff guys. Some good points. I'm off to Frontline's Web site

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #55 of 386
In fact, U-238 is so beneign that it is used to make depleated uranium shells for vulcan cannons and the like. Think of it like this, a normal bullit hits like a fist. A depleted U bullit hits like a baseball bat due to the extra mass thus the extra momentum. U-238 shells don't explode on contact they just hit hard enought to penetrate. I'm not trying to say U-238 shells wont get you sick if you carry it in your pocket for a few weeks. It probably will. I am saying though that 238 is the undesired isotope for weapons grade materials so it has been relegated to conventional shells and for breeding to Pu-239.

argh I said 235 when it should have been 238
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #56 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That would make things complicated for SA.

Pretty interesting stuff guys. Some good points. I'm off to Frontline's Web site

What makes Russian oil a thorn in the side of OPEC? Russian oil sets its own price and is on a reserve large enough to force OPEC to sell at lower prices in so as to not lose market share. Iraq sits on the 2nd largest reserve in the world as we know it and thus could dominate oil prices and drive market share if it stayed independent of OPEC.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #57 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, but when it is so blatantly obvious why GWB took out SH to fill his personal bank account to some here it should be straightforward to say why.

No one said that. But I doubt his wallet, and dad's(Carlyle Group)is gonna take a hit over this.
Quote:
Actually, I'm asking for you to engage in an old technique known as "explaining yourself."

We were, you still didn't want to get it. Thanks for "contributing".
Quote:
There is none so blind as he who does not want to see
post #58 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
is this correct?

My understanding is that both Fat Man and Trinity were Plutonium. Little Boy was not.
post #59 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I'm off to Frontline's Web site

Why not go to the best sources? www.nuclearweaponarchive.org www.fas.org

As for saddam, there wasn't a chance in hell he was getting a nuke for a variety of reasons, most of them explained way back in the early 90s.
post #60 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Link

There are hundreds of sources where you can find the info.

Faust9: os is that a yes then? They can be used to make weapons?

Edit. Just re-read your post Faust. I think I know the answer now.

I'm sorry for not giving a simple yes/no response. Can lightwater reactors be used to produce fissle material? Yes.

Also, giant you are correct about FatMan, LittleBoy, and Trinity. I should learn to answer questions in a more direct manner.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #61 of 386
Thread Starter 
please be patient and read this:

I think that it only sounds like denigrating the reasons for the war by saying that they are economic . . . the reasons were Ideologic first and the economics (which appear, from outside to be: well connected American Companies getting their coffers stuffed etc) are part of the ideology.

however, that ideology demands that the US remain in a position of ascendency in economic terms: meaning, that the ideologues felt that the US would need more say in the markets in the future, especially as the whole 'peak oil' stuff hits the fan . .
but
they also want to have the markets opened up to other controling forces such as the "democracy' that they imagined would flower in the region because of the war. This would release that region from a retrograde economic monopoly: OPEC . .
at least that is how I imagine that they view it.

The problem is that the ideology sees ideological friends in the well connected companies (Bechtel Hali oil etc and etc) so they don't see it as the rest of the world sees it . . . they imagine that it is all for the best in the long run to have people they can count on ideologically behind them . .
The thing is is that this sense of 'trust' due to shared values in a cause is lost amid the shuffle, if it ever existed, and what takes over is a network of economic and power interests which assumes a shared goal is being met through what otherwise would be pure power/profit motivations . . . the ideology is only a myth that accompanies the power connections . . .

So the problem then is that the ideology is part and parcel a Capitalist ideology that fancies itself as being for 'Democracy' and rights but is really about economic power supplanting any other form of exchange and value . . . nobody in the game would themselves see this about what they are doing . . . because they only see what allows them to continue doing what they are doing . . . which is conquer and expand their markets . . . they tell themselves that it is self evident that it is for democracy and rights for their markets to win because that is what they share with all of their inter-connected power supporting 'friends'.

Ideology is a thin vaneer of self-deception . . . I wouldn't say that the truth is economic but it is partly so . . at least much more so than the ideologues would admit to themselves.

my darker side simply sees the whole situation is Medieval, except it is masked by the 21st century illusions of "democracy" and 'nation states' . . .
meaning that what we have is really just a small set of Economic Royalists playing games of power and territory with serfs and economic slaves . .. .naawwww\
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #62 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Why not go to the best sources? www.nuclearweaponarchive.org www.fas.org

As for saddam, there wasn't a chance in hell he was getting a nuke for a variety of reasons, most of them explained way back in the early 90s.

I like how nuclear weapons archive lists Iraq, and South Africa (who already gave up its nuclear ambitions) as shadowy nuclear regimes while N.Korea, Iran and Libya are no-shows.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #63 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
please be patient and read this:

I think that it only sounds like denigrating the reasons for the war by saying that they are economic . . . the reasons were Ideologic first and the economics (which appear, from outside to be: well connected American Companies getting their coffers stuffed etc) are part of the ideology.

however, that ideology demands that the US remain in a position of ascendency in economic terms: meaning, that the ideologues felt that the US would need more say in the markets in the future, especially as the whole 'peak oil' stuff hits the fan . .
but
they also want to have the markets opened up to other controling forces such as the "democracy' that they imagined would flower in the region because of the war. This would release that region from a retrograde economic monopoly: OPEC . .
at least that is how I imagine that they view it.

The problem is that the ideology sees ideological friends in the well connected companies (Bechtel Hali oil etc and etc) so they don't see it as the rest of the world sees it . . . they imagine that it is all for the best in the long run to have people they can count on ideologically behind them . .
The thing is is that this sense of 'trust' due to shared values in a cause is lost amid the shuffle, if it ever existed, and what takes over is a network of economic and power interests which assumes a shared goal is being met through what otherwise would be pure power/profit motivations . . . the ideology is only a myth that accompanies the power connections . . .

So the problem then is that the ideology is part and parcel a Capitalist ideology that fancies itself as being for 'Democracy' and rights but is really about economic power supplanting any other form of exchange and value . . . nobody in the game would themselves see this about what they are doing . . . because they only see what allows them to continue doing what they are doing . . . which is conquer and expand their markets . . . they tell themselves that it is self evident that it is for democracy and rights for their markets to win because that is what they share with all of their inter-connected power supporting 'friends'.

Ideology is a thin vaneer of self-deception . . . I wouldn't say that the truth is economic but it is partly so . . at least much more so than the ideologues would admit to themselves.

my darker side simply sees the whole situation is Medieval, except it is masked by the 21st century illusions of "democracy" and 'nation states' . . .
meaning that what we have is really just a small set of Economic Royalists playing games of power and territory with serfs and economic slaves . .. .naawwww\


I agree. Whenever I see anyone ask the "Why did they do it question" I tend to spew the ideology response. I too believe that "they" though their motives where nobile and that they thought the ends did justify the means. I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs. The problem with their logic is they didn't have an understanding of the region or the culture. Hell, OBL had a $25,000,000 bounty on his head an noone turned him in. That bounty is up to 50 mill now--do they expect OBL to be turned in now?

It boils down to ideology, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the region. Not all people are motivated by the all mighty $$$. Some people beleive in a higher calling. You'd think religuously "fundamental" Bush admin would understand that, but it seems they don't. The only way to crack the shell of the Middle East IMO is via development and education, not war.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #64 of 386
Good post, pfflam.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #65 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
I like how nuclear weapons archive lists Iraq, and South Africa (who already gave up its nuclear ambitions) as shadowy nuclear regimes while N.Korea, Iran and Libya are no-shows.

Gee, I wonder why that might be.
post #66 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
I too believe that "they" though their motives where nobile and that they thought the ends did justify the means. I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs.

I think you're right to a degree. You also have to consider that those idealogues also believe it is the USA should be the only mighty power in the world and impose it's brand of peace. Go to PNAC's website to see what I mean.
Something else to consider is the fact that Saddam was also considering bypassing the dollar and going with the Euro(oik sales)which would have helped further de-stabalize the dollar.
Another thing to consider is the emergence of China as a global power. Going back to what I said about being the mightiest, the only superpower if you will. What do all countries, especially industrialized and emerging countries need to keep their engine going? Oil. Decades from now, when supplies start running low, and prices are sky high, he who controls the oil supplies has a HUGE, monumental advantage.
Quote:
Some people beleive in a higher calling. You'd think religuously "fundamental" Bush admin would understand that, but it seems they don't. The only way to crack the shell of the Middle East IMO is via development and education, not war.

And that can be VERY dangerous.

Just my 2 cents. In US currency.
post #67 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
I've felt for a long time that the purpose wasn't to control the oil supply but to introduce competition to allow an open market to once again regulate fuel costs.

It boils down to ideology, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the region.

faust9, I think it could be said that both purposes you suggest amount to the same thing.

Both 'control' or 'competiton' regulate fuel costs, that is, keep them low; but more important then that is that both those things mean those petrodollars just keep flowing and flowing and flowing. US economic dominance is predicated on oil underground being priced in dollars and those dollars pumping into the market. Any energy transaction (in other words, any economic transaction) results in American wealth being created. That's before you even hit any infrastructure reliance on cheap energy.

The war WAS about oil; American interests; the American way of life. To put it another way, 15,000 Iraqis have died so that people can drive SUVs and get fat.
meh
meh
post #68 of 386
I have been contemplating this issue thouroughly for a couple of days and have come to some conclusions:

1. 9/11 - Although almost every action movie coming from hollywood depicted some crazy terrorist plot, and I think that everyone knew the endless possibilities as far as terrorist attacks go, I think few actually gave them credit enough to be able to pull off any major kind of attack.

9/11 changed everyone's (or most people's) view of this underlying evil. No longer was terrorism a small nuisance, rather a major threat to US security. It was evident that their efforts were far more sophisticated than I think anyone wanted to beleive. The operation of the terrorists, namely the scope and success, provided legitimacy and viability to the whole terrorist movement afoot throughout the world, creating a gelling effect.

IMO after 9/11 Al Qaeda became a viable partner for anti US/Western activities with all of the coverage being their coming of age ad campaign. I mean what better way of recruiting followers and partners?

2. Rogue nations - This is why I think Iraq became a focus, beside the the fact it and it's leader had vowed to bring the US and it's allies to their knees. Ira/SH was a direct contributer to terrorism through palestine. SH had proven that he places no value on human life, even down to his own family. Many felt that SH should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War.

3. The UN - More and more, I am seeing the UN for what it really is; a vehicle to facilitate extorting money from the current Anglo/American world power. The UN stopped the US from taking out SH during the first Gulf War. The UN drug its collective feet, as far as enforcement, during 12 years of sanctions and inspections. Billions of dollars of kickbacks and payoffs took place during this time under the guise of humanitarian aid.

4. WMD - Many people smarter than me were of the opinion that SH had or was actively pursuing WMD's. The UN carried on inspections and found banned weapons off and on for 12 years pervious to the Iraq war.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=74177
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/bowman042798.html
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020113271

As late as 1999 the UN felt that Iraq had weapons or in the least, did not fully account for them.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm

Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/...q-353318.shtml

If that is true than I am confused as to why we needed more inspections. Besides that, I think Hans has been an Iraqi inspector the least amount of time, and he knows now that Iraq disarmed 10 years ago? I know that it helps him sell books, but I have a herd time buying it.

The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.

One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.
post #69 of 386
Thread Starter 
We do you post this drivel in this thread? It is all entirely off subject.

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
4. WMD - Many people smarter than me . . . .

yes . .. there are many

many




Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening.

Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion.

As for "being able to make an arguement" that the UN helped to make the war happen:

1). Notice, that once again your very logic takes the form of . . . "if blame must be placed (therefor implying that the war is bad) then it isn't Bush but it is ( -insert whoever here- )"
Why don't you just admit it to yourself unstead of making these ludicrouus excuses?!?!

2). If an arguement can be made then please go ahead and make one.


And I would just say this about Blix: the weapons inspections would have had to continue even if it was suspected by everyone that the weapons did not exist . . . in order to find that out . . . The US admin did not let them finish their job, and what problemthat presented was that it allowed them to lie to us, the US people, about the existence of these weapons . . . something that was being shown to be less and less certain everyday that the inspectors were searchng and finding nothing . . .
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #70 of 386
Good post.

The babarism of the sanctions and the dirty hands that surrounded that whole ordeal, combined with a seemingly endless set of inspections, combined with the recent Jeckel/Hyde "complete absolution" of WMD after 1994, smacks of either gross negligence or subterfuge.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #71 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have been contemplating this issue thouroughly for a couple of days and have come to some conclusions:

1. 9/11 - Although almost every action movie coming from hollywood depicted some crazy terrorist plot, and I think that everyone knew the endless possibilities as far as terrorist attacks go, I think few actually gave them credit enough to be able to pull off any major kind of attack.

9/11 changed everyone's (or most people's) view of this underlying evil. No longer was terrorism a small nuisance, rather a major threat to US security. It was evident that their efforts were far more sophisticated than I think anyone wanted to beleive. The operation of the terrorists, namely the scope and success, provided legitimacy and viability to the whole terrorist movement afoot throughout the world, creating a gelling effect.

IMO after 9/11 Al Qaeda became a viable partner for anti US/Western activities with all of the coverage being their coming of age ad campaign. I mean what better way of recruiting followers and partners?

2. Rogue nations - This is why I think Iraq became a focus, beside the the fact it and it's leader had vowed to bring the US and it's allies to their knees. Ira/SH was a direct contributer to terrorism through palestine. SH had proven that he places no value on human life, even down to his own family. Many felt that SH should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War.

3. The UN - More and more, I am seeing the UN for what it really is; a vehicle to facilitate extorting money from the current Anglo/American world power. The UN stopped the US from taking out SH during the first Gulf War. The UN drug its collective feet, as far as enforcement, during 12 years of sanctions and inspections. Billions of dollars of kickbacks and payoffs took place during this time under the guise of humanitarian aid.

4. WMD - Many people smarter than me were of the opinion that SH had or was actively pursuing WMD's. The UN carried on inspections and found banned weapons off and on for 12 years pervious to the Iraq war.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=74177
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/bowman042798.html
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020113271

As late as 1999 the UN felt that Iraq had weapons or in the least, did not fully account for them.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm

Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003/...q-353318.shtml

If that is true than I am confused as to why we needed more inspections. Besides that, I think Hans has been an Iraqi inspector the least amount of time, and he knows now that Iraq disarmed 10 years ago? I know that it helps him sell books, but I have a herd time buying it.

The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.

One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.

In response to:
1) This is a Red Herring argument because OBL != SH. The linking of 911 to Iraq was done by the administration with no proof and was as Clarke tonight on 60 minutes will explain and Snow in his book has explained done for preexisting ideological reasons.

2)So has Kim Jong Ill. So has Fidel Castro. So did Stalin and Kruschev. Posturing is part of foreign affairs. Also, as addressed earlier on page one in response to Messiahtosh, SH did the posturing to stay in power. Finally, if we are going to have a policy of toppeling rouge nations then we should have that policy. We shouldn't mask such a policy with "WMD" halfthuths.

3) You need to do a little research here GHWB stopped the advance to Bahdad against the advice of Stormin Normin. Take a peep at this:

Quote:
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

4) People smarter than you were also reading cherry picked information. Again read the views of the intelligency community and you'll se that BushCo had an idea and were hellbent to follow through with it. Why is it that the administration had a secret intelligence agency set up to investigate invading Iraq that George C Tenet wasn't aware of? Read the transcript from Tenets address to congress two or so weeks ago. They wanted war with Iraq. They got war with Iraq.

First line of the first link
Quote:
U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq said they found empty rocket warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents yesterday, but a U.S. official said it did not represent a "smoking gun" that could mean war.

emphesis added.

second link:
This was the same information used to justify the war this time. Notice the date... Thats right 5 years prior to the start of the war. We had inspectors in Iraq at the time giving us NEW information. Send me a link and show me a list of all confirmed WMD or even banned weapons found.

This part is homework for you: compare that list to what the administration said "knew" the location of prior to the war. Compart that to what Powell presented to the UN. Compare the number of weapons found to all of the statements made bu Rummy, and Dick prior to the war... When you do, you'll be shocked because these guys "Knew" where the weapons were prior to the war. Whoop's after the war Rummsfeld retracted his statements. Go figure.

third link:
Have you ever been in the military? If you have, then you know how inefficient paperwork can be. This "incomplete accounting of stores" is not a strong argument becasue:
a) Russia couldn't account for many nuclear arms following the fall of the USSR. Paperwork was the reason. I server under a Captain who was part of the US weapons inspecort team who worked with Russion inspectors to ensure we and they were in compliance with stockpile reduction agreements. That same captain once told my entire crew about how poorly Russian paperwork was maintained. Hmm the second largest power can't keep track of its stocks... I wonder why war and sanction torn Iraq couldn't.

That could never happen here in the US though could it??? It has. We have lost and found weapons and stockpiles.

Quote:
As late as 1999 the UN felt that Iraq had weapons or in the least, did not fully account for them.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-bio.htm

Now, after a war that was based on the same opinion, that SH had untold amounts of WMD, the UN's head WMD inspector feels that SH fully disarmed 10 years ago, that would be 1994. However right before the war the inspectors were urging the US to let inspectors to finish their job.

Report was prepared in 1999 using information from 1998: Hans Blix (most of his inspectors were the inspectors from 1998 BTW) was in Iraq in 2003 able to formulate a more up-to-date opinion.

I don't understand what your getting at with this link:

http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003...aq-353318.shtml

The link advocated more inspections... Also, you sourced a college publication opinion artice as "proof". You need something more substantial than the views of a 21 YO communications major to justify invading Iraq. Here's a link to your sources front page. read the very top of the page:
http://www.dailyiowan.com/media/pape...s/7mjm77m0.pdf

Justify this:
Quote:
The more I read and the more I reason on these subjects, the more I think that the UN's actions did nothing to prevent this war from happening. There are so many conflicting stories and statements with regard to the UN/WMD fiasco. It is extremely disturbing that anyone would put faith in such a flawed organization for any kind of final word.

Finally:
Quote:
One could argue that all of the politics inside the UN actually helped this war on its way.

One could also argue the opposite in that the UN did its best to prevent war. One could argue that if a woman weighs less than a goose then she's a witch but that argument wouldn't hold water.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #72 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
In response to:
1) This is a Red Herring argument because OBL != SH. The linking of 911 to Iraq was done by the administration with no proof and was as Clarke tonight on 60 minutes will explain and Snow in his book has explained done for preexisting ideological reasons.

2)So has Kim Jong Ill. So has Fidel Castro. So did Stalin and Kruschev. Posturing is part of foreign affairs. Also, as addressed earlier on page one in response to Messiahtosh, SH did the posturing to stay in power. Finally, if we are going to have a policy of toppeling rouge nations then we should have that policy. We shouldn't mask such a policy with "WMD" halfthuths.

3) You need to do a little research here GHWB stopped the advance to Bahdad against the advice of Stormin Normin. Take a peep at this:



4) People smarter than you were also reading cherry picked information. Again read the views of the intelligency community and you'll se that BushCo had an idea and were hellbent to follow through with it. Why is it that the administration had a secret intelligence agency set up to investigate invading Iraq that George C Tenet wasn't aware of? Read the transcript from Tenets address to congress two or so weeks ago. They wanted war with Iraq. They got war with Iraq.

First line of the first link


emphesis added.

second link:
This was the same information used to justify the war this time. Notice the date... Thats right 5 years prior to the start of the war. We had inspectors in Iraq at the time giving us NEW information. Send me a link and show me a list of all confirmed WMD or even banned weapons found.

This part is homework for you: compare that list to what the administration said "knew" the location of prior to the war. Compart that to what Powell presented to the UN. Compare the number of weapons found to all of the statements made bu Rummy, and Dick prior to the war... When you do, you'll be shocked because these guys "Knew" where the weapons were prior to the war. Whoop's after the war Rummsfeld retracted his statements. Go figure.

third link:
Have you ever been in the military? If you have, then you know how inefficient paperwork can be. This "incomplete accounting of stores" is not a strong argument becasue:
a) Russia couldn't account for many nuclear arms following the fall of the USSR. Paperwork was the reason. I server under a Captain who was part of the US weapons inspecort team who worked with Russion inspectors to ensure we and they were in compliance with stockpile reduction agreements. That same captain once told my entire crew about how poorly Russian paperwork was maintained. Hmm the second largest power can't keep track of its stocks... I wonder why war and sanction torn Iraq couldn't.

That could never happen here in the US though could it??? It has. We have lost and found weapons and stockpiles.



Report was prepared in 1999 using information from 1998: Hans Blix (most of his inspectors were the inspectors from 1998 BTW) was in Iraq in 2003 able to formulate a more up-to-date opinion.

I don't understand what your getting at with this link:

http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2003...aq-353318.shtml

The link advocated more inspections... Also, you sourced a college publication opinion artice as "proof". You need something more substantial than the views of a 21 YO communications major to justify invading Iraq. Here's a link to your sources front page. read the very top of the page:
http://www.dailyiowan.com/media/pape...s/7mjm77m0.pdf

Justify this:


Finally:

One could also argue the opposite in that the UN did its best to prevent war. One could argue that if a woman weighs less than a goose then she's a witch but that argument wouldn't hold water.

Oh you guys, there you go again. I linked to some articles that I found that said some things nicely. That article points out that the UN was asking to be let to finish their work. A college comm major may have more brains than most reporters, who knows. but that isn't the point is it.

My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their no loyalty to the office anymore?

What makes me worry about the state of people's minds, is the fact that now that the war is over, it is being found that the UN was a corrupting influence on SH and his regime, yet no-one is questioning the UN's motives. What has this country come to?

Bush is evil and everyone else is innocent like lamb's wool, at least till this election is over, anyway.
post #73 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh you guys, there you go again. I linked to some articles that I found that said some things nicely. That article points out that the UN was asking to be let to finish their work. A college comm major may have more brains than most reporters, who knows. but that isn't the point is it.

My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their no loyalty to the office anymore?

What makes me worry about the state of people's minds, is the fact that now that the war is over, it is being found that the UN was a corrupting influence on SH and his regime, yet no-one is questioning the UN's motives. What has this country come to?

Bush is evil and everyone else is innocent like lamb's wool, at least till this election is over, anyway.

I'm not getting this.

The "corrupt" UN turned out to be right. Hans Blix had a much more accurate picture of WOMD in Iraq then the Bush whitehouse, and was belittled as a tool of evil for his trouble.

What "intentions" can you impute to an orginization that history has vindicated? Are you saying that you suspect them of being in bed with SH which caused them to minimize the threat of WOMD, and it was just lucky for them that they were right?

Whereas Bush was "right" in the sense that he disliked the right guy, even though he was proved to be wrong?

I get the sense that you are arguing from a kind of "all over feeling about things" that includes the rightousness of Bush, the corruption of the UN, and the general OKness of invading Iraq, which is fine.

But when you keep trying to fit the facts into a pattern that supports this non-fact based general feeling, it keeps coming out mangled and incoherent.
Sorry it just does.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #74 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
We do you post this drivel in this thread? It is all entirely off subject.

yes . .. there are many

many




Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion.

As for "being able to make an arguement" that the UN helped to make the war happen:

1). Notice, that once again your very logic takes the form of . . . "if blame must be placed (therefor implying that the war is bad) then it isn't Bush but it is ( -insert whoever here- )"
Why don't you just admit it to yourself unstead of making these ludicrouus excuses?!?!

2). If an arguement can be made then please go ahead and make one.


And I would just say this about Blix: the weapons inspections would have had to continue even if it was suspected by everyone that the weapons did not exist . . . in order to find that out . . . The US admin did not let them finish their job, and what problemthat presented was that it allowed them to lie to us, the US people, about the existence of these weapons . . . something that was being shown to be less and less certain everyday that the inspectors were searchng and finding nothing . . .

-----------------------------------------------------------------

" Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah! That's it! It's a self fulfilling prophecy!





Man, they'll say anything to try to justify this war.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #75 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
My point is that the UN is a corrupt agency and you would do better to question it's [sic] intentions, long before you impute your and my president. Or is their [sic] no loyalty to the office anymore?

Here you go again... you are saying it is disloyal to the office of president to question the intentions of "your and my president". That's utter crap, I've said so before, and you said that you agreed.

It is more unpatriotic and indeed "disloyal" to your country to blindly accept everything "your" president does, without question, as "right".

As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.

Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #76 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Here you go again... you are saying it is disloyal to the office of president to question the intentions of "your and my president". That's utter crap, I've said so before, and you said that you agreed.

It is more unpatriotic and indeed "disloyal" to your country to blindly accept everything "your" president does, without question, as "right".

As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.

Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness.

Please help me with your definition of right and wrong.

Was it right to continue, according to Hans Blix, sham inspections since the mid nineties?

Was it right during that time to take US tax dollars and give them to a brutal regime?

Was it right to, in effect, finance rape rooms, torture chambers, starvation and mass killings during that time? How about the palaces and bunkers?

Was it right to tell the world they cared about the poor people of Iraq when all they cared about was their pocketbooks?

Was it right that the UN passed resolution 1441 if they "knew" there were no WMD's?

What were all of those reports given about all of the unaccounted for WMD's? Was that just a sham also to keep them in Iraq to arrange more kickbacks?

I guess this is the year of the "Flip-Flop".
post #77 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------------

" Yeah . . . I guess the fact that the war happened would be the proverbial 'proof of the pudding' . . .
Was that 'reason' that allowed you to come to that brilliant conclusion. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah! That's it! It's a self fulfilling prophecy!





Man, they'll say anything to try to justify this war.

man you will say anything to blame this president.
post #78 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker As pointed out above, you are constantly stretching very far to defend Bush, with a favorite tactic being attempts to divert blame for actions of the Bush admin. to Clinton, the UN, Kerry, or whoever.

Republican or Democrat, you sure seem to be a Bushlover, to the point of utter blindness. [/B]

Man talk about tactics, the left has used some nasty tactics with regard to this president.

In the blame game no-one wins. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out that there is plenty of responsibility to go around. But you and others seem to think that it is OK to pin it all on Bush. If all you say is true than that would go in the face of the whole "Bush is a big dummy" argument that a lot of the left uses. He is one guy, this is one country. There are so many other players in this thing yet, once again, it is all Bush's fault.

As far as the UN goes, it seems fine to turn to them as the ultimate authority, yet when it comes to their responsibility as said authority, they can't be held accountable. What gives?

I hear the left say stuff like; "Hey Saddam was not a nice guy, but Bush is a LIAR and he misled everyone." Does anyone else see anything wrong with that line?

Blame? I would say it is Bush who is getting the blame laid at his feet by you and the other ABB lovers.

As far as the disloyal thing, I asked a question, it was rhetorical. I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?
post #79 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I question anyone that would choose loyalty to foreign countries like, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the likes in place of their own country that has done so much good throughout the world. I question it even more because it is such a political issue. Am I wrong?

"Your country" is not the same thing as "your president."

Disapproval with your president is not the same as approval with despots.

America is not JUST, ALWAYS, a force for good.

Your point of view is nationalist, and this always leads to blood.
meh
meh
post #80 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
man you will say anything to blame this president.



Well if the shoe fits.............
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911