so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-20-2003, 08:57 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Klaus,

Thats because the journalist article primarily rested on incorrect fact, while the Presidents case rested on a large number of facts that were true. I'm not critical of the President on the Niger case, because it was never the key reason for going into Iraq. It was simply another piece of information showing the danger of Saddam. Now that single piece of information is disputed, as does often happen with such intelligence matters. The number of US troops in Iraq is not a secret or the result of special intelligence that can be subject to change. To the journalist the US troop strength, was the key piece of information. For the President, the Niger case was a small piece of information, and not the main reason for going into Iraq.

RONO,

Because it was a small piece of a very large puzzle. Just because a puzzle is missing a small piece or its discovered that the piece does not fit, does not mean you can see the picture the rest of the puzzle makes.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 12:49 AM   #122
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 04:28 AM
id just like to say that war is wonderful for the economy, and bush couldnt even do that right either.

war =
__________________

__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 01:55 PM   #123
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
STING2:
So what do you think was was the key reason for going into iraq?
The Oil and the chance for new US bases after Saudi Arabia thew the US military out of the country?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 04:16 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Klaus,

The key reason for going to war against Iraq was that it became the only way to insure that Saddam was disarmed of his WMD. Saddam and his WMD were a continued threat to every country in the region. Saudi Arabia has not thrown the USA out of the country. There are plans to move a large number of US troops from Saudi Arabia, but there will probably continue to be a smaller presence there for many years to come, as their was prior to Saddams invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:02 PM   #125
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
A few months/weeks before Iraq war the Saudi Kings asked the US military to leave the country. Since they don't have the military power to enforce it it's as much "throwing you out" as they can.
So - where will that "large number of US troops from Saudi Arabia" be moved to? Iraq? - what an coincidence.

You wouldn't say that the Oil and the Strategic importance of Iraq played a keyrole for going to war?

If it was just about the WMDs the invasion increased the risk of a) using the WMDs and b) selling and moving the WMDs in the war-chaos to Terrorist organisations.
Remember that - thanks to the US presure - Iraq started to destroy the Weapons which Mr. Blix was asking for.
Lots of the other UN members weren't asking for much - just for letting Mr. Blix doing his job and waiting for his final report before starting a war.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:02 PM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Klaus,

"A few months/weeks before Iraq war the Saudi Kings asked the US military to leave the country. Since they don't have the military power to enforce it it's as much "throwing you out" as they can."
"So - where will that "large number of US troops from Saudi Arabia" be moved to? Iraq? - what an coincidence."

Do you have an official transcript of this request or a US or Saudi government pronouncement saying this is indeed the case?

There were only a few thousand American troops in Saudia Arabia in any event.


"You wouldn't say that the Oil and the Strategic importance of Iraq played a keyrole for going to war?" Oil was indeed important because of Iraq's potential ability to threaten the supply of it to the world. WMD gave the Iraqi military potential capabilities to help in this regard.

"If it was just about the WMDs the invasion increased the risk of a) using the WMDs and b) selling and moving the WMDs in the war-chaos to Terrorist organisations."

Temporarily it is true that there was an increased chance of the use of WMD, but it was in the context of a military invasion that was going after Iraq's ability to use such weapons immediately. Iraq's options for using WMD against certain civilian targets were complicated by a large scale military invasion of the country to destroy those very weapons.

In order to properely use and get the best effect from WMD, a good deal of planning and ideal conditions are needed. The best time to launch such an attack is after plenty of time and preperation, not in the middle of a fast moving armored invasion of the country.

War-chaos is not the time to be moving and selling sensitive WMD. The Proper transfer, techniques in handling, and training in the use of such weapons, happens best in a time of peace, not war and chaos. In addition, no terrorist organization could offer Saddam the amount of money he siezed from Baghdads central bank.

"Remember that - thanks to the US presure - Iraq started to destroy the Weapons which Mr. Blix was asking for."

This is false. At the time Mr. Blix entered the country no one was concerned about the Ballistic missiles that were later discovered to be only 20 miles over the allowed range. Rather than an actual Iraqi violation, they were most likely a mistake in Iraqi engineering. Extending the range of a Ballistic missile by 20 miles does not confer any real new advantage. If the Iraqi's were intending to actually cheat with those missiles, the ranges would have been far greater.

None the less, it proved to be a great opportunity for Saddam to dupe the rest of the world into thinking he was really cooperating which was totally false.

Saddam has yet to account for 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax and hundreds of tons of mustard gas among other things that we was found to have as late as 1998 when the inspectors left Iraq.

"Lots of the other UN members weren't asking for much - just for letting Mr. Blix doing his job and waiting for his final report before starting a war."

Mr. Blix's job is pointless if Saddam is unwilling to cooperate. If Saddam was cooperating, all 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, the Anthrax and mustard gas, would be lined up for UN inspectors to look at near Baghdad international airport. The inspectors job was never to find proof that Saddam had WMD, it was Saddam's job to prove that he did not have WMD.

Mr. Blix cannot do his job if Saddam is unwilling to cooperate. Mr. Blix does not have tanks and troops to get through Saddam's military if by chance he thinks he is onto something. Without Saddam's cooperation, it would be impossible for any peaceful inspector to disarm Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:14 PM   #127
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
STING2: chances are high that i posted a link in FYM allready, i am no premium member and therefore i am not allowed to use the search function.
If you can't find it there i'll take another look at my references (could take a week).

Since the Borders of Iraq were controlled the war was a chance to get these things out of the country - Saddam would have interest in it because he could get the money to a new banking account.

The UN members were interested, that's why he destroyed them (some were convinced they were violating the resolutions). With the presure of the US military next to his borders Saddam was willing to do a lot.

It was Mr. Blix job to judge if Saddam cooperates or not - i guess he can do that better than you and me. I know he wasn't 100% happy with the cooperation but he told that it was getting better and better.

So from my point of view a wise President of the US would have taken that chance to solve the Iraq problem without that war.
If that wasn't possible he could have convinced his former allies - and the Pentagon could have used the time to create a plan b "What if Chalabi isn't accepted as the new leader by the Iraqis"

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:18 PM   #128
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Sting: here is one source:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...234390,00.html

it is from february this year but the article is german and you have to pay for it.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 06:30 PM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Klaus,


"Since the Borders of Iraq were controlled the war was a chance to get these things out of the country - Saddam would have interest in it because he could get the money to a new banking account."

Control over the border of Iraq only increased with the start of the war. It in fact made it more difficult to get things in and out since at any moment, US troops could land near you and intercept or fire on you if you that thought you might be Iraqi military or security services or terrorist.


"The UN members were interested, that's why he destroyed them (some were convinced they were violating the resolutions). With the presure of the US military next to his borders Saddam was willing to do a lot."

Saddam gladly destroyed the short range Ballistic missiles that were only 20 miles over their actual range because he knew many around the world including yourself would mistakenly point to this as a sign of cooperation.

Cooperation would come in the form of accounting for 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, thousands of tons of Mustard Gas, etc. Saddam was no more closer to complying with the UN resolutions in 2003 than he was in 1998. Sorry, but that is not a sign of cooperation.

"It was Mr. Blix job to judge if Saddam cooperates or not - i guess he can do that better than you and me. I know he wasn't 100% happy with the cooperation but he told that it was getting better and better."

The type of cooperation that is needed for peaceful disarmament is the type that was shown by Ukraine, Kazaksthan and South Africa when they went under disarmament by the UN. In each case it tool less than a year. Its been 12 year with Saddam and there have been plenty of lies by Saddam and harrassment and barring of UN officials in order to hide his WMD.

Not accounting for 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and thousands of tons of Mustard gas, is not cooperation.

Mr. Blix's job is to verify what Saddam shows him or his claims and nothing else. At the end of Blix's inspection process, Saddam was still in material breech of nearly every UN resolution passed against it and had failed to show Mr. Blix any of the WMD that they had back in 1998. That is not cooperation. If your asked to do something and you don't do it, your not cooperating! Simple as that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 07:01 PM   #130
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
You are right, the UN (incl. the USA) wasted most of the time of the 12 years - but at the end the US was in such a hurry that they couldn't even wait that mr.blix would finish his document.

I see it verry different what Unmovic did and what they were able to do.
If you were right Mr. Schwarzkopf (known from Iraq war 1) must be a verry senile man because he also wanted longer inspections.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 10:42 PM   #131
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Klaus,

Its very simple. You can inspect until hell freezes over, but if Saddam does not cooperate, he is not going to ever be disarmed by the UN inspectors. The UN inspectors are not armed and have no power to force Saddam to do anything. If war would not force Saddam to cooperate, why would UN inspections be able to do that, when it had not done that for 12 straight years. Peaceful inspections are pointless if the dictator in question is not going to cooperate 100%. Either give up the WMD or show the remains of the WMD, its that simple.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 05:40 AM   #132
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
There were no 12 years of inspection Sting, the inspections stoped after UNMOVIC had to remove their inspectors because of US bombings years ago.

You're right you can't inspect if the other side dosn't cooperate, thats why we needed presure (not a war) to make him cooperate.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 08:10 AM   #133
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Sting:
Another OP/ED of PAUL KRUGMAN in the NYTimes:

Quote:
Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.

The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.

Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.

And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."

To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.

How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."

But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden who really did attack America and Kim Jong Il who really is building nukes.

And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.

And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.
Did he correct the numbers of the military or are they still wrong?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 02:22 PM   #134
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Klaus,

"There were no 12 years of inspection Sting, the inspections stoped after UNMOVIC had to remove their inspectors because of US bombings years ago."

Inspectors had to be removed because Saddam was NOT cooperating! Inspectors were removed in November 1998 after 7 and half years of inspections in which Saddam played games with them. In addition, Saddam did not let inspectors back in, in 1999, 2000, 2001, and most of 2002. That is a material breech of Iraq's obligations under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement as well as a violation of resolutions 678 and 687. Those resolutions call for the "use of all means necessary" to bring about Iraqi compliance with the resolutions.

"You're right you can't inspect if the other side dosn't cooperate, thats why we needed presure (not a war) to make him cooperate."

Iraq was already under every sort of pressure short of war. The only thing left was war! War has accomplished what 8 years of inspections over the past 12 years failed to do. Allowing Saddam more time to play his shit games with the inspectors and kill thousands more of his own people would have been a mistake.

"Did he correct the numbers of the military or are they still wrong?"

He is still wrong! It is true that the Army has 33 Brigades, but only 10 of them, not 16, are in Iraq. The 4th infantry division has 3 brigades, the 3rd infantry division has 3 brigades, the 101st division has 3 brigades, all of them in Iraq. One brigade from the third infantry division is withdrawing. In addition, there is one brigade from the 82nd airborne division in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 03:05 PM   #135
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:28 AM
Right, Saddam did not cooperate, thats why the US wanted to bomb Iraq, the Inspectors left, the bombs fell and after that Saddam didn't let the inspectors back into the country.

After that the priority solving the Iraq problem werent verry high. Most people in the world forgot Saddam Hussein until the US government told them that hi WMDs are a danger for the US and he is linked to Ossama Bin Laden.

So it is approx. 1/3rd of the US Army in Iraq? In that situation would it be possible to send the military to Korea? Or how many of the brigades should stay at home for defending the country? (not that i think that canada or mexico will invade the US..)

What do you think about the idea that Turkish troops will support US troops in Iraq now? (i guess a few weeks ago we had the same opinion "bad idea")

As she came home today...
...what's your opinion in the "Jessica Lynch rescue show"?
I've heared that the US military said that her wounds were from a car accident, not from shootings

Do you think the things we saw on TV were "based on a true story" or did we see the true story?

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com