So, Iraq Disarmed?

[Jaltus]

If so, why did they say on their own TV network that they had fired two SCUDS at Kuwait?

So much for disarming. So much for telling the truth.

So much for the liberal's crying foul.

Maybe now the world will start to see that American's are not after oil fields, that we are not after expansion. After all, we are raising money to give to the upcoming new Iraqui government. We are seizing Saddam's funds and putting them in trust with the UN for Iraq. How many other countries are willing to do that? It has already been reported that Germany is probably going to seize the money and keep it for themselves.

How many other countries can say they are willing to set aside their national agenda in order to deliver a hurting people? How many other countries would not have retaliated after having been attacked? How many other countries would have given warning after warning when already in a state of war for over a decade?

International journalists are with nearly every single unit we have on the field of combat.

Do you really think the US is in this for profit? As it stands, we are going to lose billions from this war, and Bush has already announced we will keep none of the money we have seized, nor any of the land.

When will the world wake up and realize that we are sending our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones to die not just for our sake, but for the sake of the Iraqui people and the international community?

Sure, if Bush breaks his promises, call him on it. until then, gives us your prayers, not your hatred.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 08:11 PM
Jaltus:

If so, why did they say on their own TV network that they had fired two SCUDS at Kuwait?

So much for disarming. So much for telling the truth.

So much for the liberal's crying foul.

Maybe now the world will start to see that American's are not after oil fields, that we are not after expansion. After all, we are raising money to give to the upcoming new Iraqui government. We are seizing Saddam's funds and putting them in trust with the UN for Iraq. How many other countries are willing to do that? It has already been reported that Germany is probably going to seize the money and keep it for themselves.

How many other countries can say they are willing to set aside their national agenda in order to deliver a hurting people? How many other countries would not have retaliated after having been attacked? How many other countries would have given warning after warning when already in a state of war for over a decade?

International journalists are with nearly every single unit we have on the field of combat.

Do you really think the US is in this for profit? As it stands, we are going to lose billions from this war, and Bush has already announced we will keep none of the money we have seized, nor any of the land.

When will the world wake up and realize that we are sending our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones to die not just for our sake, but for the sake of the Iraqui people and the international community?

Sure, if Bush breaks his promises, call him on it. until then, gives us your prayers, not your hatred.


gives us your prayers, not your hatred. Amen

[Mr Stick71]

Rock on!

[GrayPilgrim]

:thumb:

[Socrates]

:thumb: Also, let's not forget how Israel did NOT retaliate when Iraq fired Scuds at them, although they were a non-combatant nation. And how Palestinians danced in the streets at the time. Oh, but of course our resident anti-semites will still claim that the Israelis are the aggressors and we must try to understand what drives the PLO to mass murder.

Actually, Kuwait was a major bankroller of the PLO terrorists, who showed their gratitude by supporting Iraq'a invasion. So one good thing to come out of it was loss of a major financier of a major terrorist organisation.

[PuritanD]

:thumb: :thumb:

[efta777]

Amen, Jaltus.
Unfortunately, you know as well as I do that Bush still won't get the credit he deserves, especially from all of these anti-war protestors, who are fighting not for peace, but for Iraq's freedom to murder its own people and others.

[kiwimac]

Oh Yes, God forbid that they should defend themselves! Especially against the all mighty US army.

Especially with old, barely-worthy-of-the-name cruise missiles like scuds. Did we notice any chemical or biological agents being used? NO! Why not? Perhaps because he has none!

Kiwimac

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

What do Scuds have to do with anything? They have nothing to do with their disarmament. We knew all along that they had Scuds, and Iraq never denied having them. Scuds are missiles, not biochemical missiles, just missiles. They were widely used during the first Gulf war, and according to the corresondents and weapons people on television earlier today (I was watching it on MSNBC), they were mostly known to carry conventional warheads, not chemical warheads. The fear of Scuds was that they could potentially be equipped with chemical warheads, but typically they are not. Remember, they were required only to get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction ... not all weapons. They weren't required to get rid of Scuds, only the chemical warheads that could outfit them. The Scuds used in the first Gulf War and so far in this one have carried conventional warheads. You'll have to do better than that.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:56 PM
efta777:

Amen, Jaltus.
Unfortunately, you know as well as I do that Bush still won't get the credit he deserves, especially from all of these anti-war protestors, who are fighting not for peace, but for Iraq's freedom to murder its own people and others.

No, see that would be incorrect. The lot of you war supporters are trying to incorrectly equate the following two statements:

1) War is not the best or only solution

2) Leave Saddam alone and in power

Why is it that you all cannot see that these are not the same statement? For God's sake, if you're going to paint a picture of us, at least attempt to paint it accurately! You really look foolish otherwise.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:00 PM
Socrates:

:thumb: Also, let's not forget how Israel did NOT retaliate when Iraq fired Scuds at them, although they were a non-combatant nation. And how Palestinians danced in the streets at the time. Oh, but of course our resident anti-semites will still claim that the Israelis are the aggressors and we must try to understand what drives the PLO to mass murder.
Two more statements that aren't equal (although Socrates doesn't want you to know this):

1) Israel is not innocent of aggressions and wrongdoing, and they sponsor, as a matter of policy, some activities that would be defined as terrorism.

2) Jews are evil.

See, Socrates, the first statement is merely a realistic observation that counters your Zionist notions that Israel is at all time innocent of aggression and wrongdoing. The second statement, which is not at all equal to the first one, is anti-semitic.

[kiwimac]

Eireann,

The big thing here is they fought back! How dare they!, they should have just rolled over and let the US have its way with them, don't they know the yanks are there to liberate them! for goodness sake?

Kiwimac

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:04 AM
kiwimac:

Eireann,

The big thing here is they fought back! How dare they!, they should have just rolled over and let the US have its way with them, don't they know the yanks are there to liberate them! for goodness sake?

Kiwimac
Something else that was interesting (from Fox News): Those two Scud missiles that were launched (they were launched at Kuwait, by the way, not Israel) were launched at a Coalition command post "somewhere inside Kuwait" (the reporter wasn't allowed to say where). The reporter said they were considering it a terrorist attack. When he said that, I started laughing so hard that my soda came out my nose (which was quite painful, by the way)! I mean, did I miss something? Was I mistaken in thinking that we are already at war? Doesn't war generally involve two sides fighting, or is there a new rule to war that only one side is allowed to fight and the other is just supposed to sit there and take it? Is that how it works now? If the US attacks, it's war, but if Iraq fights back, it's terrorism? Gotta love our media! :rofl:

[Solly]

J and others. Iraq was not required to become one big demilitarized zone, only to disarm of designated weapons. We knew they had their steam driven scuds which couldn't hit a barn door from the inside. On the other hand, when it was found that their other missile system could do possible damage, it was destroyed.

However, there will be questions to ask if Iraq doesn't use its alledged stockpile of WMD, or if the "International Coalition" of America, Britain, Iceland and Fernando Poo don't find anything major.

[John Reece]

For Jaltus:

:thumb:

[Vorkosigan]

Jaltus:
Maybe now the world will start to see that American's are not after oil fields, that we are not after expansion.

Jaltus, it is about oil and gas. And imperial power. And breaking up OPEC. And getting Bush re-elected. And continuing the suppression of dissent in the US.

After all, we are raising money to give to the upcoming new Iraqui government. We are seizing Saddam's funds and putting them in trust with the UN for Iraq. How many other countries are willing to do that?

Jalt, Iraqi overseas funds have been frozen since 1991 and are only thawed as part of a UN overseen program.

It has already been reported that Germany is probably going to seize the money and keep it for themselves.

By who? Evidence, please.

How many other countries can say they are willing to set aside their national agenda in order to deliver a hurting people?

Yes, we're going to deliver them: first we're going to kill thousands of them, and then we're going to deliver them into the hands of a dictator appointed by us. And then we're going to abandon them, as we did with Afghanistan. Did you see? The President "forgot" to request the money for the Afghan reconstruction program.

How many other countries would not have retaliated after having been attacked?

Jaltus, Iraq has never attacked the United States.

How many other countries would have given warning after warning when already in a state of war for over a decade?

We are not now, and have never been, in a state of war with Iraq.

International journalists are with nearly every single unit we have on the field of combat.

All under tight Pentagon leash...

Do you really think the US is in this for profit?

Your point of view is naive. The US is not in it for profit for the nation as a whole, but for a small subset of its companies, namely, oil and gas firms and related enterprises, such as the several companies connected to Cheney, for example. This is in part a massive subsidy for a small set of well-connected enterprises.

As it stands, we are going to lose billions from this war, and Bush has already announced we will keep none of the money we have seized, nor any of the land.

We won't need to, if we hand it off to a puppet of ours.

Yes, we are using billions. We are willing, apparently to spend $200 billion to replace a hostile dictator with a friendly one, but we can find nothing to spend on malaria research, trade programs with the Third World, business development in Africa.....the list goes on. Jaltus, your priorities are all screwed up. As one commentator noted, it is a mark of the corruption of western politics that so much is spent on killing people, and so little on nurturing them.

When will the world wake up and realize that we are sending our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones to die not just for our sake, but for the sake of the Iraqui people and the international community?

When the US stops murdering people to support its oil and gas companies, and its own imperial ambitions. When it abides by international law, the international courts and the UN. Do you think the world is ticked off at us for no reason at all? Bush has chosen to gut the international system -- whose prime beneficiary is in fact the US -- for the sake of knocking over a tinpot dictator who is no threat to anyone, and replacing him with another. Fifty years of cooperation flushed down the tube.

Sure, if Bush breaks his promises, call him on it. until then, gives us your prayers, not your hatred.

It is not hatred of the US that motivates anti-war types; many of us, like me, have served our country overseas. We just want to get rid of the cancer at the top of the government that is strangling our democracy, plunging our nation into debt, and killing thousands for no good reason at all.

Vorkosigan

[kiwimac]

Now Vorkosigan,

Its not fair to use logic when replying to Jaltus! He is after all not at all used to it!

Kiwimac:whip:

[Jaltus]

Suppression of dissent in the US? What country are you from?

As for the state of war, AFAIK, war has never been undeclared since the gulf war (is undeclared a word?).

How can you anti-war types claim to know the motivation of the government? You assume the worst of the US government and the best for the Iraqui government when quite the opposite makes the most sense.

As for the SCUD missles, according to both CNN and Fox news, these were missles that had been reported destroyed by Iraq. I never said they were part of the treaty, I said that Saddam lied about them, which he did.

Chemical weapons have not been used yet, but that does not mean they don't exist nor does it mean that the are not there. An argument from silence is not a good argument.

As for this being a war to help liberate Iraq, of course it is. You have yet to show any proof to the contrary. You keep asserting this war is about oil, but you show no evidence. Claims about OPEC and all are just baseless claims, you have no proof.

Saddam has tortured his own people, sponsored hate crimes, and you want to protect him? Why?

If the US did the same things Saddam did, you would denounce us in a second. Instead you fabricate some claim about how dissonance in the US is being suppressed, when the country we are marching against has literally killed hundreds of thousands for possibly being against their government.

You reasons are non-existent in most cases.

I will admit that war is never a good answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. I do not have all the information about what is going on, and neither do you. Strangely enough, I tend to trust that the people in power make the right decisions if I do not have the information to gainsay them. Why is it that the leadership of this country are guilty until proven innocent?

Kiwimac,

Your attempts at mocking my intelligence are quite laughable, I assure you. As for not being used to logic, definitely not from you, for you never use any. For some reason, sophomore seems to fit you quite well.

[Vorkosigan]

Jaltus:
Suppression of dissent in the US? What country are you from?

The US.

As for the state of war, AFAIK, war has never been undeclared since the gulf war (is undeclared a word?).

I'm sorry. Can you show me the Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq? I missed that one....

As far as I can see, the war on Iraq is completely illegal. The President has simply steamrollered over the Constitution.

How can you anti-war types claim to know the motivation of the government? You assume the worst of the US government and the best for the Iraqui government when quite the opposite makes the most sense.

I don't "assume" the worst about the US. I follow the money, and the gas pipelines, and the oil company fortunes, and the secret meetings, and the US policy declarations from the early 1990s, written by the men who are now Bush's advisors. I do not accept the categories of analysis handed to me by the media, and neither should you. And of course, I have some professional background in public policy analysis, since in fact I make money writing consulting reports on public policy for a foreign government.

Nor do I assume the "best" about Hussein. Hussein is an evil man who has broken every treaty he ever made, and lied and cheat his way to power, and keeps it by oppressing his citizens. I am aware, however, that the war is both unconstitutional and against international law, that it is not sanctioned by the international community, and that war is just one of a range of policy responses that might be appropriate in these circumstances. Killing people is almost never necessary.

As for the SCUD missles, according to both CNN and Fox news, these were missles that had been reported destroyed by Iraq. I never said they were part of the treaty, I said that Saddam lied about them, which he did.

Yes and no. Iraq reported that it destroyed all its Scuds after the war, and the inspectors were able to account for each and every one of its 819 Scuds it purchased from abroad. Problem was, a limited number of Scuds were made in Iraq. Apparently not very well, either, if it was actually Scuds that were fired.

Chemical weapons have not been used yet, but that does not mean they don't exist nor does it mean that the are not there. An argument from silence is not a good argument.

Jaltus, elementary logic: no evidence of chemical weapons has been found. Therefore, there is no reason to assume he has any. You've stood the burden of proof on its head. By your argument, Hussein possesses a fleet of Iowa-class battleships. "They have not been used yet, but that does not mean they don't exist nor does it mean that the are not there."

In any case, chemicals are not WMDs and certainly not worth invading a country and trashing it over.

As for this being a war to help liberate Iraq, of course it is. You have yet to show any proof to the contrary.

I don't need proof. I just look back at all our wars. Not once have we ever installed a democracy in the small countries we have occupied. Every one became a dictatorship of one sort or another.

You keep asserting this war is about oil, but you show no evidence. Claims about OPEC and all are just baseless claims, you have no proof.

Well, let's see. If we don't invade North Korea, which has a much better collection of weapons than Hussein, is much nastier, and is a much more dangerous threat to its neighbors, but we do invade Iraq, there is probably some salient difference. Could it be oil?

But if logic doesn't work for you, let's try another one. The underlying doctrine of this little imperial escapade was laid down in the Bush Classic Administration in the early 1990s. There is a good discussion of the way the NeoCon strategic thinking has evolved over the years in this piece at Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/themes/1992.html). As one discussant points out:

Now you have to remember, these are exactly the same people [in 1992] who are most influential right now in the U.S. government, and in the formation of U.S. strategic policy. It's Dick Cheney as defense secretary. It's Paul Wolfowitz as undersecretary [of defense] for policy. And it's a guy named Scooter Libby who is, right now, Dick Cheney's chief of staff and chief strategist, who was deputy to Paul Wolfowitz. And they were the three drafting authorities for this Guidance.

The original national security document was sanitized after a public furor. It's a measure of how far the US has plummeted that there has been so little protest over the war, not that there has been so much.

But if you don't like that, perhaps you should read Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's letter to Clinton in 1998 urging Hussein's removal because he was a threat to the oil supplies. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-03.htm) "In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'." Recognize any of that? Yet it was written in 1998.

Saddam has tortured his own people, sponsored hate crimes, and you want to protect him? Why?

This type of accusation is ridiculous. Jaltus, only one person in this conversation has put their life and loved ones on the line working for a democracy and independence movement in another country, and it isn't you. I don't want to protect Hussein. I'd like to see him go. I don't think killing thousands of people, shooting up the national debt, wrecking a whole country, destabilizing a sensitive region of the world and calling down terrorism on the US is the right way to go about it.

Torture is not a problem for the US, Jaltus. Can recall the recent furor over the torture of prisoners under US care, by other nations? Apparently torture is OK if our allies engage in it using our prisoners for practice, but a no-no if Hussein does. Your 'arguments' are all based on double-standards.

If the US did the same things Saddam did, you would denounce us in a second. Instead you fabricate some claim about how dissonance in the US is being suppressed, when the country we are marching against has literally killed hundreds of thousands for possibly being against their government.

Jaltus, why it you think that Hussein is bad when he kills Iraqis, but we are good when we kill Iraqis? Killing Iraqis is wrong in both cases, or it is wrong in neither? Can you see the fundamental problem with your thinking? We have no international legal sanction and no domestic legal sanction for this war. All the deaths we are causing are illegal. We are committing a crime, pure and simple.

I will admit that war is never a good answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. I do not have all the information about what is going on, and neither do you.

Quite true. The problem is why you trust people who ask you to believe them, but nevertheless treat you like a mushroom, keeping you in the dark and feeding you fertilizer. Did you see that the Admin used forged documents to attack Hussein? Were you watching when they claimed Bin Laden's tape linked the two, even though Bin Laden hates Hussein and the tape clearly indicated that? Has the Administration presented definitive evidence of a link between Iraq and 9-11? No, because there isn't one. Yet almost half the public believes there is!

Strangely enough, I tend to trust that the people in power make the right decisions if I do not have the information to gainsay them.

I don't. Several years working in Washington for foreign media groups, as a consultant and as a Taiwan independence activist, while watching the unabated stream of deceit cured me of any delusions I might have in that area. This is part of a larger design to project US power in central asia, secure oil and gas pipeline routes, and so on.

Why is it that the leadership of this country are guilty until proven innocent?

Why is it that you trust people who have repeatedly lied to you? Why is it that history suggests nothing for you? Look at Afghanistan. We destroyed the Taliban in 2001. Have our troops left Afghanistan yet? (Jaltus [i]think[i/]: fifty years after WWII they are still in Germany!) One report in the paper today said that they can expect to be there for six years. Is Afghanistan a democracy? Have we showered the Afghans with cash? Are we engaged in building long-term civic institutions there? No. Did you see George Monbiot's article in the Guardian today? Karzai flew to Washington to beg Bush for cash. The US gave him an additional $50 million, but insisted that $35 million go for a hotel in Kabul. Afghanistan's government budget is $450 million....we're spending billions to oust Hussein, but Bush would not give a penny to Afghanistan.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

Fortunately, Kiwi, nobody's tried logic on Jaltus yet :tongue:

We are going around in circles. To me, Saddam's past action suggests he is a future threat, and we should get him now, while we have the chance. To you, Saddam is broken and useless, and our war is about oil, power, and wealth. Neither of us can prove our assertions to acceptably. So, I think, we just have to agree to disagree.

[Socrates]

I wrote:


Also, let's not forget how Israel did NOT retaliate when Iraq fired Scuds at them, although they were a non-combatant nation. And how Palestinians danced in the streets at the time. Oh, but of course our resident anti-semites will still claim that the Israelis are the aggressors and we must try to understand what drives the PLO to mass murder.

Eireann, who is evidently Saddam's ambassor to Theology Web, replied:
Two more statements that aren't equal (although Socrates doesn't want you to know this):

1) Israel is not innocent of aggressions and wrongdoing, and they sponsor, as a matter of policy, some activities that would be defined as terrorism.Again, Eireann the Appeasenik misses the point. That is, Israel was not involved in the GULF War when Saddam attacked Israel with Scuds, to the cheering of Palestinian terrorists dancing in the streets. Evidently Eireann saw nothing wrong with Saddam's attack on Israel. He probably saw nothing wrong with his attack on Kuwait either.

2) Jews are evil.I leave that sort of nonsense to Streicher-Cherith.
See, Socrates, the first statement is merely a realistic observation that counters your Zionist notions that Israel is at all time innocent of aggression and wrongdoing.Where have I made such a claim? I've said the opposite. But they are FAR more often the VICTIM of terrorism.

[Epoetker]

Foolish Vorkos. :argh:If the foreign governments took your incredibly erroneous, half-researched, and biased analysis, its no wonder our diplomacy has failed so miserably. Correcting these fantasies will not heal the long-term damage you caused, but at least you'll get to see the magnitude of the information you so incompetently missed.


I'm sorry. Can you show me the Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq? I missed that one....

Congress, for the rather good reason that Americans are highly reluctant to declare war unless hit first(and paradoxically aware that if accused of ignoring a threat till it was too late, they will lose their seats) now simply gives out authorizations for the President to use force in dire situations. In 1991:

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910113-168336.htm

Most recently, we have the resolution re-authorizing the use of force:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2319045.stm

Now, it has all the elements of a Declaration of War, just not the title, "Declaration of War." What are you whining about?


As far as I can see, the war on Iraq is completely illegal. The President has simply steamrollered over the Constitution.

Doth the Constitution say that "Congress shall word every war declaration with "THIS IS A DECLARATION OF WAR!" Noooo, it merely says that they have the power to declare war. The fact that they cede the timing of the implementation of this declaration to the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the armed forces in no way negates the constitutionality. Maybe you want this loophole closed, but it's not an argument for its illegality.


And of course, I have some professional background in public policy analysis, since in fact I make money writing consulting reports on public policy for a foreign government.

You deserve termination for your incompetent and incomplete analysis.


Nor do I assume the "best" about Hussein. Hussein is an evil man who has broken every treaty he ever made, and lied and cheat his way to power, and keeps it by oppressing his citizens. I am aware, however, that the war is both unconstitutional and against international law, that it is not sanctioned by the international community, and that war is just one of a range of policy responses that might be appropriate in these circumstances. Killing people is almost never necessary.

The international community puts no force behind the laws it enacts. The international community would like to see America humbled by any means possible, and a bad war in Iraq would accomplish this. Nearly all law "enforcement" is done by US/British troops, and those of French, German, or Belgian ilk have repeatedly shown incompetence as bad as yours in protection of civilians from murderous dictators.


Yes and no. Iraq reported that it destroyed all its Scuds after the war, and the inspectors were able to account for each and every one of its 819 Scuds it purchased from abroad. Problem was, a limited number of Scuds were made in Iraq. Apparently not very well, either, if it was actually Scuds that were fired.

And so? It's a MATERIAL BREACH of Resolution 1441 to not have declared and brought them forth. You seem quite adept at ignoring the text of UN resolutions when it comes to Iraq but reading all sorts of restrictions into the US constitution and international law when it suits you. Pure hypocritical syncophancy.


Jaltus, elementary logic: no evidence of chemical weapons has been found.

Weapons specifically equipped for chemical dispersal have been found. They denote the existence of chemicals to fill them. And the person assigned to find them is horribly, terribly, incompetent, barely deserving of the "inspector" title. As are you.


Therefore, there is no reason to assume he has any.

Aside from the fact that he was shown to have thousands of gallons before, buried at the bottom of the Tigris river, hidden from weapons inspectors until one of his sons, whom he later killed, told them about it? Do you know a THING about what's known as "experimental manipulation?"


You've stood the burden of proof on its head. By your argument, Hussein possesses a fleet of Iowa-class battleships. "They have not been used yet, but that does not mean they don't exist nor does it mean that the are not there."

Idiot. Hussein was never shown to have ever had an Iowa class-battleship, but he HAS been shown to have previously possessed Chem/bio weapons. Your reverting to the most reductive logic, divorced from all previous reality, is nothing short of astonishing.


In any case, chemicals are not WMDs and certainly not worth invading a country and trashing it over.

Shifting the goalposts over definitions? They certainly killed a heck of a lot of PEOPLE back in the 80s.


I don't need proof. I just look back at all our wars. Not once have we ever installed a democracy in the small countries we have occupied. Every one became a dictatorship of one sort or another.

Japan is a dictatorship? Germany is a dictatorship? Chile is a dictatorship? Democracy isn't something you foist on a conquered enemy immediately! Security, order, and the rule of law(with actual force behind it) have to be established first, along with the elimination of the diseased organs of the old regime.


Well, let's see. If we don't invade North Korea, which has a much better collection of weapons than Hussein, is much nastier, and is a much more dangerous threat to its neighbors, but we do invade Iraq, there is probably some salient difference. Could it be oil?

And you aren't even considering the fact that we aren't taking the easier target first? That we're trying to keep Iraq from becoming the logistical nightmare that IS NK? Such vacuity is frightening in foreign correspondents.


But if you don't like that, perhaps you should read Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's letter to Clinton in 1998 urging Hussein's removal because he was a threat to the oil supplies. "In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'." Recognize any of that? Yet it was written in 1998.

So what? It remains as true today as it was back then. You want a unanimity of a bunch of countries with differing interests and wildly different levels of representative legitimacy?


This type of accusation is ridiculous. Jaltus, only one person in this conversation has put their life and loved ones on the line working for a democracy and independence movement in another country, and it isn't you.

What have you done aside from writing destructive, wrongheaded, and erroneous foreign policy correspondences?


I don't want to protect Hussein. I'd like to see him go. I don't think killing thousands of people[QUOTE]

Why the HECK do you consider that a given?

[QUOTE]shooting up the national debt

See above.


wrecking a whole country

See above.


destabilizing a sensitive region of the world

Why should murderous dictatorships have stable governments? Shouldn't they be prey to democratic revolution?


and calling down terrorism on the US is the right way to go about it.

Terrorism is called down on the US when the terrorists perceive weakness, not strength!


Torture is not a problem for the US, Jaltus. Can recall the recent furor over the torture of prisoners under US care, by other nations? Apparently torture is OK if our allies engage in it using our prisoners for practice, but a no-no if Hussein does. Your 'arguments' are all based on double-standards.

Morally blinkered fool. The US tortures in order to get information on terrorists to SAVE lives. Hussein tortures people as punishment for perceived slights against him. Which is worse, or are you going to handwave moral equivalence again?


Jaltus, why it you think that Hussein is bad when he kills Iraqis, but we are good when we kill Iraqis? Killing Iraqis is wrong in both cases, or it is wrong in neither?

We generally only aim for the Iraqis that are shooting at US. Hussein aims for any who criticize him. It's not a particularly tough decision to make.


Can you see the fundamental problem with your thinking?

You have revealed the fundamental disease in YOUR thinking, the total inability to make any judgements based on motive. Outcome-based morality like yours is a horrible ideology that has and will lead to many more deaths than the US has ever inflicted in all of its wars.


Did you see that the Admin used forged documents to attack Hussein? Were you watching when they claimed Bin Laden's tape linked the two, even though Bin Laden hates Hussein and the tape clearly indicated that? Has the Administration presented definitive evidence of a link between Iraq and 9-11? No, because there isn't one. Yet almost half the public believes there is!

So the public is stupid. I'm not, you're doing your best to convince us you are.


I don't. Several years working in Washington for foreign media groups, as a consultant and as a Taiwan independence activist, while watching the unabated stream of deceit cured me of any delusions I might have in that area. This is part of a larger design to project US power in central asia, secure oil and gas pipeline routes, and so on.

Well, you've got the methods right. The larger project is to make that region of the world one amenable to democratic trade and one that doesn't produce suicide bombers. You're missing the forest for the trees, as usual.


Why is it that you trust people who have repeatedly lied to you? Why is it that history suggests nothing for you? Look at Afghanistan. We destroyed the Taliban in 2001. Have our troops left Afghanistan yet? (Jaltus [i]think[i/]: fifty years after WWII they are still in Germany!) One report in the paper today said that they can expect to be there for six years.

So what? Turning a centuries-old warlord/khan state into a functional member of the world community takes time. If we had gone on into Baghdad in 1991, it would have taken 5 years to stabilize the region, which is 7 less than we've been conducting the inspections/sanctions charade.


Is Afghanistan a democracy?

Did you expect it to become one overnight?


Have we showered the Afghans with cash?

No, creating a dependency mindset in a people unused to democracy would be highly stupid and counterproductive.


Are we engaged in building long-term civic institutions there? No. Did you see George Monbiot's article in the Guardian today? Karzai flew to Washington to beg Bush for cash. The US gave him an additional $50 million, but insisted that $35 million go for a hotel in Kabul.

Your point (or lack thereof) being?


Afghanistan's government budget is $450 million

As should be expected with such a poor population with a low GDP. Given the length of time the necessary education takes, it may take a generation for it to lift itself out of Fourth World status. But it has to learn to survive as much on its own as possible. That is the nature of free-market democracy.


....we're spending billions to oust Hussein, but Bush would not give a penny to Afghanistan.

Contradicting yourself? You just said Bush gave 50 mill.

[Vorkosigan]

Epoetker:
Correcting these fantasies will not heal the long-term damage you caused, but at least you'll get to see the magnitude of the information you so incompetently missed.

Can't wait...

Now, it has all the elements of a Declaration of War, just not the title, "Declaration of War." What are you whining about?

I'm worried about the Constitutionality of this, as many other thoughtful people are, and about the expansion of Presidential authority. Aren't you?

Maybe you want this loophole closed, but it's not an argument for its illegality.

Unfortunately, a large number of thoughtful people disagree with this position.

The international community puts no force behind the laws it enacts.

Massively incorrect. Perhaps you are unaware of the World Courts, the various GATT procedures, etc, etc, etc. This wide-ranging contempt for international processes is one of the major problems NeoCons have. Right now many international agreements have enforcement mechanisms.

The international community would like to see America humbled by any means possible, and a bad war in Iraq would accomplish this.

Certainly some nations would like to see that. But certainly not the whole community. It's not us against the world, you know.

Nearly all law "enforcement" is done by US/British troops, and those of French, German, or Belgian ilk have repeatedly shown incompetence as bad as yours in protection of civilians from murderous dictators.

Oh please. I live in Taiwan, where the US aided and abetted a murderous dictator for decades. Do you want a list of the murderers the US has supported over the years? The US gets rid of dictators when they serve its purpose, and then installs new ones as necessary. See Iraq for example. Hussein is a former friend and ally of the United States, you know. If he had never invaded Kuwait, he would still be our best buddy.

And so? It's a MATERIAL BREACH of Resolution 1441 to not have declared and brought them forth

The issue is not whether they are in breach; nobody denies that. The issue is whether it is ethically permissable, and wise policy, to wreck a country and slaughter its people in order to respond to this problem. You seem to have settled into a policy of "Hussein is in breach so let's invade Iraq." Hussein has been in breach for 12 years. Why the sudden decision to invade Iraq?

Weapons specifically equipped for chemical dispersal have been found. They denote the existence of chemicals to fill them.

Almost any moderately complex delivery system can be modified to carry chemicals. Much of Hussein's artillery can, for example. Your "weapons" turn out to be one drone and 12 rusty artillery shells that obviously haven't been used in years. Hardly a threat to anyone. It is unsuprising that Hussein has things he can't account for; the Pentagon cannot account for many things either. Did you miss the recent flap on that?

In any case, you seem to think it is justified to invade Iraq if Hussein possesses chemicals. Most of the world's dictators possess such weapons. Do we invade the whole world?

And the person assigned to find them is horribly, terribly, incompetent, barely deserving of the "inspector" title.

Blix is not horribly incompetent, but is a knowledgeable and hardworking man who has been doing this work for years.

As are you.

It's true. I do not deserve the title of weapons inspector. I admit it. :dufus:

Aside from the fact that he was shown to have thousands of gallons before, buried at the bottom of the Tigris river, hidden from weapons inspectors until one of his sons, whom he later killed, told them about it? Do you know a THING about what's known as "experimental manipulation?"

Actually, the defector you refer to, Kamal, said that Hussein destroyed his chemical stocks in response to the inspectors.

The UNSCOM-IAEA inspectors ¡V and hence all U.N. Security Council members ¡V have known for at least four years that, as best the U.N. inspectors could subsequently discover, Kamal did tell the truth, when, in response to the question posed by UNSCOM inspector Nikita Smidovich:

Smidovich: Were weapons and agents destroyed?

Kamal: Nothing remained.

Smidovich: Was it before or after inspections started?

Kamal: After visits of inspection teams. You have an important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq.
Complete article here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31303)

So, according to Kamal, himself, not only were all chem and bio "weapons and agents destroyed", but U.N. inspectors had been "very effective" in ferreting out what the Iraqis had done.

Idiot. Hussein was never shown to have ever had an Iowa class-battleship, but he HAS been shown to have previously possessed Chem/bio weapons.

<sigh> There is no evidence that Hussein possesses chemical weapons at the moment. He may. He may not. But there is no evidence of it from any quarter. As soon as he attacks the troops with chemicals, we have the evidence. As far as anyone knows, they were destroyed.

Shifting the goalposts over definitions? They certainly killed a heck of a lot of PEOPLE back in the 80s.

Actually, the Defense Intelligence Agency originally identified Iran as the perpetrator of the chemical attack. This story was buried when Iraq became the new bad guys. Oceania is at war with Eastasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. That chemical attack was never an issue, as ranking US officials continued to meet with and praise Hussein for well afterward, until he invaded Kuwait.

Japan is a dictatorship?

I suggest you read one of the many good books on democracy in Japan, such as McCormack's The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence or Van Wolferen's tHe Enigma of Japanese Power. Whether Japan is a democracy is an interesting question. It is certainly not a dictatorship in the classic sense. Nor is it a democracy in the classic sense.

And you aren't even considering the fact that we aren't taking the easier target first? That we're trying to keep Iraq from becoming the logistical nightmare that IS NK? Such vacuity is frightening in foreign correspondents.

No, because the Iraq war was planned years ago, so I know it isn't about democracy or even logistics -- which are no problem in the Koreas, right next to Japan and with many major deepwater ports and well-developed airfields, and a dense road and rail net -- no, the Iraq situation is about US power and oil

What have you done aside from writing destructive, wrongheaded, and erroneous foreign policy correspondences?

Never claimed to do that. You've misread my post.

Why should murderous dictatorships have stable governments? Shouldn't they be prey to democratic revolution?

I agree! Having worked for democratic revolution here in Taiwan. But because of that, I also know that a large number of diverse policies can accomplish that goal without slaughtering large numbers of people.

Terrorism is called down on the US when the terrorists perceive weakness, not strength!

Terrorists attacked the US long before Hussein was our enemy. And Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. You have bought a lie.

Morally blinkered fool. The US tortures in order to get information on terrorists to SAVE lives. Hussein tortures people as punishment for perceived slights against him.

I'll let your comments stand as their own condemnation.

Outcome-based morality like yours is a horrible ideology that has and will lead to many more deaths than the US has ever inflicted in all of its wars.

You're the one who is arguing that, based on the outcome of democracy, it is okay to launch a full-scale war. That is not my position. In any case, we are not going to install a democracy in Iraq, so the point is moot. I might even support the war, if I believed the Bush government would install a democracy there. But of course, it won't.

Well, you've got the methods right. The larger project is to make that region of the world one amenable to democratic trade and one that doesn't produce suicide bombers. You're missing the forest for the trees, as usual.

The larger project is to bring a group of countries into the US orbit, by force when necessary, to sell gas and oil to the growing markets of China and India, to get the President re-elected by placing the elections in the middle of a war, and to set up for the next step, which I currently believe to be an attack on Iran. Although we may shy away from that, as we have shied away from tougher nuts like N Korea.

So what? Turning a centuries-old warlord/khan state into a functional member of the world community takes time.

Afghanistan was a functioning member of the world community prior to the Soviet invasion. It has large deposits of gas, and is a vital throughway for the pipeline routes to China and India. That is why we attacked it. The Taliban were in Washington just prior to 9/11 negotiating over pipeline routes.

If we had gone on into Baghdad in 1991, it would have taken 5 years to stabilize the region, which is 7 less than we've been conducting the inspections/sanctions charade.

Oh, I quite agree we should have finished off Hussein in 1991 when we had the legal authority and the support of the world.

Did you expect it to become one overnight?

No, I don't expect, as long as we're running the show, that Iraq will ever be a democracy. The US has a long history of opposing democracy in its client states --- see history of South Korea, Taiwan, etc. It is this lack of awareness of past history I found so disturbing in yours and Jaltus' posts, as well as the uncritical acceptance of Administration lies.

Contradicting yourself? You just said Bush gave 50 mill.

<yawn> No, Bush didn't give a penny originally. The total, after deducting the hotel expenditure, is a paltry $15 million. Are we going to build democracy in Afghanistan? No.

I noticed you completely skipped the analysis that shows that the attack on Iraq is part of a larger plan laid down in the 1990s. Can you address the Rumsfeld letter in your next post?

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

Here is an in=depth discussion on the whole problem of whose gas was responsible for the civilian deaths at Halaba.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. (http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=3549)

The article is posted here; if you go over to the NY Times to find it, you'll need to register and buy it. Bush's claims that Hussein gassed his own people are unsupported by strong evidence.

Vorkosigan

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:39 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42028#post42028)
Vorkosigan:

Here is an in=depth discussion on the whole problem of whose gas was responsible for the civilian deaths at Halaba.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. (http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=3549)

The article is posted here; if you go over to the NY Times to find it, you'll need to register and buy it. Bush's claims that Hussein gassed his own people are unsupported by strong evidence.

Vorkosigan
That's a very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 07:11 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41116#post41116)
Jaltus:
Maybe now the world will start to see that American's are not after oil fields, that we are not after expansion. After all, we are raising money to give to the upcoming new Iraqui government. We are seizing Saddam's funds and putting them in trust with the UN for Iraq. How many other countries are willing to do that?

I would be the last person to claim that I can read the President's mind. However, the fact that the war and subsequent rebuilding of Iraq will cost billions of dollars in no way proves that oil is no factor in all of this.

Who pays the billions of dollars? We, the taxpayers, do. Who gets the resulting benefits from our control of Iraq's oil? The oil companies do. And who's family is heavily in the oil business?

(If you don't think we will control Iraq's oil after all this is over, consider what the attitude of those that will be put in control of Iraq will be to those that put them there.)

[kiwimac]

Jaltus,

Run and hide Boy, you annoy me. Leave the adults to talk and you go play with toys, eh?

Kiwimac

[Jaltus]

which are no problem in the Koreas, right next to Japan and with many major deepwater ports and well-developed airfields, and a dense road and rail net This shows how little you understand North Korea. While I do not consider myself an expert, I do consider friends of mine experts since they were born and raised in South Korea. The reason that the US does not attack North Korea is for the simple fact that South Korea would essentially no longer exist. Until the US takes out the nuclear weapons aimed at the major population centers of South Korea, there can be no attack on North Korea.

Vork,

You continue to claim that the US has or is going to slaughter large numbers of people. Please tell us why you think that. So far, nothing of the kind has happened. In fact, just this evening over 10,000 troops surrendered together at one time. Where is all this slaughtering you like to talk about? Frankly, this sounds like more baseless rhetoric designed to raise emotions and lower IQs (no, this is not a personal attack, is a critique of your methodology). Until you show some evidence backing up this seemingly central claim to your argument about the evil the US is doing by perpetuating this war, your argument rings hollow. Of course, I could be misreading this as a central issue, but considering how often you repeat this little mantra in your posts, I can only assume you really believe this and that it is a central part of your position.

As for the article, that was quite interesting. Do they have any collaborating evidence? I note that they somehow got ahold of a secret intelligence brief, do they ever mention how? I always wonder when a single news agency prints a story, though it turns out to be in the "subscriber only area" when quoted on a website named "overthrow.com." Why should I believe that? If there was another place that verified this, I would likely buy the story hook, line, and sinker. It sounds quite plausible, to tell the truth. however, a little verification seems to be in order.

Like I said, I'll give this administration the benefit of the doubt for now, but I am not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the kind of website you used there.


(If you don't think we will control Iraq's oil after all this is over, consider what the attitude of those that will be put in control of Iraq will be to those that put them there.)There is a world of difference between control and having friends running something. I don't think the US is in control of England, but I'd say we have friends there. I would say the US is not in control of many places, yet we have friends there.

Otherwise, your point is well taken. It is true that there is an amount of self-interest in our actions, but it is also true that it is not all about self-interest.

As that one episode of Friends said (I know, TV is not exactly the best place to get philosophy, but this did make a good point), there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. Of course, I would add the disclaimer that there is one selfless act, giving your life for another, but that was not one of the things talked about on the show, hehe.

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]Today @ 04:39 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42188#post42188)
Jaltus:
This shows how little you understand North Korea. While I do not consider myself an expert, I do consider friends of mine experts since they were born and raised in South Korea. The reason that the US does not attack North Korea is for the simple fact that South Korea would essentially no longer exist. Until the US takes out the nuclear weapons aimed at the major population centers of South Korea, there can be no attack on North Korea.[/b]

Certainly, but the previous poster did not mention the threat level, but made a vague remark about "logistics." Logistics is not the issue, but oil, gas, water, and other considerations that do not apply in N Korea.

You continue to claim that the US has or is going to slaughter large numbers of people. Please tell us why you think that.

I don't know -- the last 5,000 years of the history of warfare? It would be wonderful if the killing were greatly limited, but I am pessimistic on that score.

So far, nothing of the kind has happened.

And two whole days gone by too. Have you seen credible casualty figures yet?

In fact, just this evening over 10,000 troops surrendered together at one time. Where is all this slaughtering you like to talk about? Frankly, this sounds like more baseless rhetoric designed to raise emotions and lower IQs (no, this is not a personal attack, is a critique of your methodology).

It's the second day, Jaltus, of what will probably be a long, long involvement with Iraq.

Until you show some evidence backing up this seemingly central claim to your argument about the evil the US is doing by perpetuating this war, your argument rings hollow.

No, the central argument is that any killing is unnecssary, great amounts or small, since the current policy has removed any threat from Hussein, and the since the goal of the action is imperialistic, not democratic, and since we do not have international sanction for our acts.

As for the article, that was quite interesting. Do they have any collaborating evidence? I note that they somehow got ahold of a secret intelligence brief, do they ever mention how?

Which one? Rumsfeld? Pelletiere? Frontline?

verified this, I would likely buy the story hook, line, and sinker. It sounds quite plausible, to tell the truth. however, a little verification seems to be in order.

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html)

PNAC, which sent the letter, has a website here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
where they host the letter which they sent:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
The signatories are at the bottom.

Like I said, I'll give this administration the benefit of the doubt for now, but I am not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the kind of website you used there.

Too bad. Your skeptical judgements are half what they should be.

Otherwise, your point is well taken. It is true that there is an amount of self-interest in our actions, but it is also true that it is not all about self-interest.

For many on the ground, that is quite true. But for those at the top of government, that is not true at all. I make a sharp distinction between ordinary people like you and me, and the venal men who rule us. Have you seen the list of companies for bidding on postwar construction projects in Iraq? All are American. In fact, British MPs complained about it.

that one episode of Friends said (I know, TV is not exactly the best place to get philosophy, but this did make a good point), there is no such thing as a truly selfless act.

Quite true. But, on the other hand, there is such thing as completely venal acts cloaked in justificatory phraseology.

Cheer up! It could be that I am completely wrong, we won't see many civilian casualties, and the war will conclude quickly with little loss of life. Perhaps I am too pessimistic, but then the Turks did enter Iraq today, and the Iranians have had special forces operating inside Iraq for several weeks now. <sigh> It ain't over yet.

Meanwhile, the damage spreads:
Hussein War Uncertainty knocks $1.1 trillion off US stock exchange (http://www.morningstar.ca/globalhome/industry/News.asp?articleid=MTFH19954_2003-03-21_23-58-12_N21193387)

Vorkosigan

[Jaltus]

In my above post I was referring to the same article that Eireann was.

Your stock exchange article is a bit weird. The market had a huge jump this past week. In fact, it is the largest percent increase since 1982, were they real expecting better than that?

I am not necessarily disagreeing, just a bit mystified as to how they could predict a better gain than a near record week.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 10:39 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42188#post42188)
Jaltus:You continue to claim that the US has or is going to slaughter large numbers of people. Please tell us why you think that. So far, nothing of the kind has happened. In fact, just this evening over 10,000 troops surrendered together at one time. Where is all this slaughtering you like to talk about?
According to MSNBC, it was only 8000 troops. But that is merely semantics. Nevertheless, those were regular Iraqi infantry. No one expected them to put up a fight. And there haven't been many casualities (except from the bombings -- BBC gives a somewhat different picture than the American media) because there haven't been many engagements so far. The ground war hasn't really begun yet, and won't begin until our troops reach Baghdad, where the bulk of Saddam's army, including the elite Republican guard and most of their air force and heavy artillery are stationed. That is where the slaughter will take place, if it does.

[Alden]

Yesterday @ 04:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41484#post41484)
kiwimac:

Now Vorkosigan,

Its not fair to use logic when replying to Jaltus! He is after all not at all used to it!

Kiwimac:whip:

:hrm: Yes, and you've shown yourself to be a paragon of logic


Yesterday @ 07:15 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42146#post42146)
kiwimac:

Jaltus,

Run and hide Boy, you annoy me. Leave the adults to talk and you go play with toys, eh?

Kiwimac

Grow up

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 06:46 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42271#post42271)
Eireann:
The ground war hasn't really begun yet, and won't begin until our troops reach Baghdad, where the bulk of Saddam's army, including the elite Republican guard and most of their air force and heavy artillery are stationed. That is where the slaughter will take place, if it does.

Well, they say they won't enter the city, and they won't use artillery against it. Let's hope Hussein's generals get him out of power before it reaches that point.

Vorkosigan

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:46 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42271#post42271)
Eireann:


According to MSNBC, it was only 8000 troops.
Update: BBC just reported about five minutes ago that the entire 51st Division did not surrender, but only one brigade within the division has surrendered. So that brings the total much lower than the 8000 men in the whole division. Also, CNN interviewed one of the retired Generals working in the war room earlier today who said that we have not gotten nearly as many surrenders as we had expected, and the fact that there have been so few casualties is due to the fact that there have been so few engagements so far. He said he expects the fighting with the regular army may not go as easy as they had anticipated. Let's hope he's wrong about that.


03-20-2003 @ 08:11 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41116#post41116)
Jaltus:So much for the liberal's crying foul.
By the way, and I've asked this before and never gotten a straight answer from anyone, but why are you all assuming that only the liberals are crying foul?

[kiwimac]

Alden,

Nope!

More to the point why should I want to? When i have such a fine example of what you can accomplish by crying " I want my War" like a spoiled brat.

Kiwimac

[Vorkosigan]

[Also, CNN interviewed one of the retired Generals working in the war room earlier today who said that we have not gotten nearly as many surrenders as we had expected, and the fact that there have been so few casualties is due to the fact that there have been so few engagements so far. He said he expects the fighting with the regular army may not go as easy as they had anticipated. Let's hope he's wrong about that.

I'll second that.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

Kiwi, do you have anything to add besides a flame?

And Eireann, and Vorkosigan, I agree with your statement.:thumb:

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, CNN this morning confirmed that there were indeed 8000-10,000 surrenders from the 51st, even showing footage.

Now it is true that there have not been as many surrenders as they expect elsewhere, but the 8-10k figure was confirmed, with between 1-3k more (Fox says 2-3k, CNN says 1-2k).

Who knows? With info being so muddled, it is difficult to know who to believe.

As for the comment about liberals, those are the ones who stereotypically are against this war. It is less typing to lump everyone in together.

[yxboom]

Moderator Notice
I have been following and reading your statements. I would encourage you to read the Forum Decorum (a link is in my signature line).

Specifically #2

We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter.
If your intentions on being overtly ridiculous is for no other reasons than to incite anger and frustration your posts will be suspended.

[GrayPilgrim]

As to the number of casualties. With Al Jazira and the other Arabic news agency in the city, they list 100 wounded people in the city of Baghdad. I figure if we had knocked out some place like a hospital it owuld be on the news wires right away. Saddam has had a wonderful PR campaign all along, he has his minister of propaganda to put the stuff out.

As an aside, I did not know that Al Jazira had been banned in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria and other Muslim countries because the leaders are afraid of it.

[flipper]

I think it is highly likely that Saddam Hussein has both chemical and biological weapons. I don't know anything about the stability of biological weapons, but it is easy to keep Sarin and VX in binary forms so that they don't degrade following mixing.

So to argue that Saddam Hussein doesn't have poison gas seems risky. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm wondering where they are, though.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:47 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42479#post42479)
Jaltus:

Hmmm, CNN this morning confirmed that there were indeed 8000-10,000 surrenders from the 51st, even showing footage.
It's quite possibe that has changed since I saw that particular broadcast. At that time they specifically stated that the reports of 8000 surrendering troops were premature because at that time only one brigade had surrendered. They speculated that the remaining brigades might be in the process, but had not done so at that time. It's possible that they have done so by now. I merely raised the point to show how irresponsible and premature the media can often be, especially a biased media.


As for the comment about liberals, those are the ones who stereotypically are against this war. It is less typing to lump everyone in together.
Unfortunately, it would be an innacurate stereotype. I would agree that liberals tend more to be against war in general, but there are more conservatives against this war than there have been in the past, simply because the evidence cited to us by our government for going to war is so sketchy and questionable, and because so much of it has already been disproven. I'd wager that one need not be a liberal to chafe at being lied to.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 10:37 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42637#post42637)
Eireann:
Unfortunately, it would be an innacurate stereotype. I would agree that liberals tend more to be against war in general, but there are more conservatives against this war than there have been in the past, simply because the evidence cited to us by our government for going to war is so sketchy and questionable, and because so much of it has already been disproven. I'd wager that one need not be a liberal to chafe at being lied to.

That's been my experience. I know lots of conservatives against the war. The war is a NeoCon initiative; many PaleoCons are not happy with it at all, and especially not with Bush's handling of our relations with our Allies.

Vorkosigan

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

By the way, I've been meaning to ask this for several posts -- what does NeoCon mean?

[Jaltus]

Neo Conservative.

[Rusty T]

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

"A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

rusty

Scud missiles ARE outlawd under the agreed ceasefire - as are any missles that can travel above 93 miles.

rusty

[kiwimac]

Whether you like it or not Iraq is entitled to defend itself!

Kiwimac

[$cirisme]

So, you oppose the UN?

Oh, and no one is saying Iraq can't(or shouldn't) defend itself, the UN has those in place to prevent using such weapons in an invasion of another country.

[Patroclus]

Whether you like it or not Iraq is entitled to defend itself!

Kiwimac

No kidding?

My question is, "what is the limit?" This question is, of course, for either side. My next question is, "who will use the most prudence?"

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:47 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42701#post42701)
Patroclus:



No kidding?

My question is, &quot;what is the limit?&quot; This question is, of course, for either side. My next question is, &quot;who will use the most prudence?&quot;

In this particular case, where the combatants are the US, Britain, Australia and Iraq, I would say about the only one that history has shown to be prudent might be Australia.

[Jaltus]

You need to meet more Australians. :wink:

[kiwimac]

A couple of SCUDS hardly seems "over-the-top"!

Kiwimac

[Patroclus]

A couple of SCUDS hardly seems "over-the-top"!

It is if they supposedly did not exist.

[$cirisme]

Yesterday @ 05:02 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42683#post42683)
cirisme:

So, you oppose the UN?

Oh, and no one is saying Iraq can't(or shouldn't) defend itself, the UN has those in place to prevent using such weapons in an invasion of another country.




Today @ 02:00 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42841#post42841)
kiwimac:

A couple of SCUDS hardly seems &quot;over-the-top&quot;!

Kiwimac

Was that a yes or a no? :smile:

[Captain Ochre]

Fwiw, I'm hearing that the earlier reports indicating that some Scuds were intercepted were false.
Apparently, the intercepted missiles were shorter-range varieties (and therefore not weapons that Iraq was not supposed to have, unless the warheads contained biological or chemical agents).

[Pilgrim]

Latching on to the scuds eh? I thought it was the WMD that were supposed to be there? But since none have been used and none have been found yet I guess we have to have something to wave as our vindication.


So, you oppose the UN?
Oh, how could we have forgotten, that is the sole perogative of the US government.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:14 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43035#post43035)
Pilgrim:

Latching on to the scuds eh?


The presence of SCUDS would be a good example of Iraqi duplicity, imo. Would you disagree?



I thought it was the WMD that were supposed to be there? But since none have been used and none have been found yet I guess we have to have something to wave as our vindication.


What more do you need on top of the fact that Iraq has definitely had such weapons in the past, and has sent the UN a steady stream of lies regarding their disarmament while doing a pied-piper routine on weapons inspectors?
The UN placed the burden of proof on Iraq. Did the UN make a mistake in so doing?



Oh, how could we have forgotten, that is the sole perogative of the US government.

Should we take that as a "yes" (Pilgrim opposes the UN)?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 01:09 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43032#post43032)
Captain Ochre:

Fwiw, I'm hearing that the earlier reports indicating that some Scuds were intercepted were false.
Apparently, the intercepted missiles were shorter-range varieties (and therefore not weapons that Iraq was not supposed to have, unless the warheads contained biological or chemical agents).
I heard the same thing last night.

[Jaltus]

Uhh, this morning there was footage of a SCUD being intercepted.

At least, the reporter said it was a SCUD, and it was new footage.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:45 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43155#post43155)
Jaltus:

Uhh, this morning there was footage of a SCUD being intercepted.

At least, the reporter said it was a SCUD, and it was new footage.
Yeah, but the reporters have said that practically every time a missile has been fired. I've seen at least 8 reports so far where they reported incoming Scuds had been fired and/or intercepted. If I were you, I would wait for some confirmation, considering how jumpy and premature the media has been throughout this whole thing.

[Pilgrim]

As it turns out they were not SCUDS but some other type of missle. Although I'm not sure there is much a difference in terms of the range limits.

[Mr Stick71]

A couple of SCUDS can do quite a number to a couple of Israelis.

The way I see it, if you really supported your beloved U.N. so much, you'd enforce their resolutions. Iraq has spit in the U.N.'s face 17 times, and the world blames America when the U.S. actually enforces resolution 1441? Very strange.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45639#post45639)
Mr Stick71:

A couple of SCUDS can do quite a number to a couple of Israelis.

The way I see it, if you really supported your beloved U.N. so much, you'd enforce their resolutions. Iraq has spit in the U.N.'s face 17 times, and the world blames America when the U.S. actually enforces resolution 1441? Very strange.

The resolution was already enforced by overflights, inspections, sanctions and other methods. The world does not might enforcement of resolutions; it is the methods that are being complained about. You have raised a false dichotomy here. Invading whole nations is not the only way to enforce resolutions.

Vorkosigan

[kiwimac]

Moreover,

We will not even mention how many times the Israelis have ignored UN resolutions and look! ... NO US INVASION.

So Mr Stick, I suggest before you open your yap you do some research, eh?

Kiwimac

[Jaltus]

Good evidence, Kiwi.

Oh, wait....

[Fourty-Two]

Yesterday @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45577#post45577)
Pilgrim:

As it turns out they were not SCUDS but some other type of missle. Although I'm not sure there is much a difference in terms of the range limits.

The missiles fired were the Iraqi built Ababil-100, which has a range of 70-90km depending on the size of the warhead loaded. This comes in 60km within the parameters set by the UN of 150km. Do you really think that the Iraqi's are that stupid that they'd use a missile with a range of 450km in the opening stages of a war when the target is 70km away from the nearest launch site? Don't use the "But the guy on the telly said so ..." Jaltus It sounds really weak, particularly when 9 times out of 10 the reporters couln't tell a Tornado from a SCUD, but then again niether can Patriots.



The way I see it, if you really supported your beloved U.N. so much, you'd enforce their resolutions. Iraq has spit in the U.N.'s face 17 times, and the world blames America when the U.S. actually enforces resolution 1441? Very strange.


Why don't the US enforce other UN resolutions? Why not enforce UNSC Resolution 242 which has been in place 3 times longer than 687?
The US itself is guilty of avoiding bio/chemical weapons inspections kicking out inspectors on no less than 4 occasions over the past 6 years.
Nowhere in the resolutions is a full scale attack and occupation mentioned. Nor is there anything advocating the removal of an Administration for failing to comply with a UN resolution.

[GrayPilgrim]

Iraqi Surface-to-surface missles have exceeded the 150km limit. One of the missles that went in to the Gulf was clocked at over 175km.

GP

[Fourty-Two]

Today @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45921#post45921)
GrayPilgrim:

Iraqi Surface-to-surface missles have exceeded the 150km limit. One of the missles that went in to the Gulf was clocked at over 175km.

GP

The missile actually landed in the Bay of Kuwait, not the Gulf and was found by US forensic teams to be of the Ababil-100 make, tested by UNSOM and found to have a range of less than 150km.
The only place i have seen the 175km reported was CNN (when they were claiming them to be SCUDs) and is not mentioned anywhere else.
If there were any validity to the claims or if they were the al-Samoud missiles that were much fussed over before the conflict, the US Command would be using it rather profusely in their propaganda war.
SCUDs aren't the only missiles with a range exceeding 150km, didn't the Weapons inspectors demand that the al-Samoud had a loaded range in excess of the limit by 30km? So even if a missile did reach those distances you suggested, why would there be any surprise?

[Mr Stick71]

Why don't we enforce resolution 242? Probably because the U.N. did a miserable job at keeping the Arabs from trying to conquer Israel in 1967, and so the Arab nations paid a price for their aggression. Israel did give up the Sinai to Egypt when Egypt made it clear that they were done with wars against Israel. Maybe the Palestinians should try that approach.

[GrayPilgrim]

I did not claim they were scud did I not say surface-to-surface?

[Bill the Cat]

Let's just say this war is definitely NOT about oil. We don't import any from Iraq . April 02 we passed a resolution banning import.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn22055.htm
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait 1989, we only got about 25% of our oil from the middle East. Of that, only about 20% of THAT came from Iraq. so that adds up to 5% of our net import.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9143/9143.PDF

As far as Saddam not having chemical weapons, why have all of the pow's come surrendering with GAS MASK in hand?

I am in the US Air Force and I can assure you that no one on this board knows SQUAT about what Hussein has or doesn't have.

[$cirisme]

The resolution was already enforced by overflights, inspections, sanctions and other methods

That is not enforcing 1441! That is enforcing previous resolutions. :ahem:

1441 said that if Iraq did fully, proactively, and unconditionally cooperate, serious consequences would follow.

Guess what, they didn't cooperate and serious consequences are facing them!

:ahem:

[Fourty-Two]

Today @ 11:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46395#post46395)
Bill the Cat:

Let's just say this war is definitely NOT about oil. We don't import any from Iraq . April 02 we passed a resolution banning import.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn22055.htm
Before Iraq invaded Kuwait 1989, we only got about 25% of our oil from the middle East. Of that, only about 20% of THAT came from Iraq. so that adds up to 5% of our net import.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9143/9143.PDF

As far as Saddam not having chemical weapons, why have all of the pow's come surrendering with GAS MASK in hand?

I am in the US Air Force and I can assure you that no one on this board knows SQUAT about what Hussein has or doesn't have.

If your basis for the war not having anything to do with oil lies soley in that the US does not currently import Iraqi oil then it's a rather thin arguement.
For starters the bans on Iraqi oil you cited were put in place as a part of sanctions to enforce US resolutions against Iraq, you yourself noted that before 1991 the US had oil trading relations with Iraq, if Saddam is removed from power do you think that these sanctions will remain?
In 1993 and 1998 current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, petitioned the then President Clintion to make the removal of Saddam Hussein a priority, one of the reasons being that if no action were taken "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.".
Lastly, the US doesn't even need to take nor purchase the oil directly from Iraq to reap the benefits. Once Iraq's oil hits the market the price of crude will drop significantly, you can already see this happening at the mere anticipation of it happening, for a country such as the US who hoards most of its own oil and imports most of its every day use oil, this would be a great economic benefit.


Before Iraq invaded Kuwait 1989,

In what year did Iraq invade Kuwait?

As for accusing everybody of ignorance, perhaps you should keep your mouth shut until you know everybodies back ground. Exactly what extra credibility does being in the USAF give you? You could be the guy who cleans the toilets on an airbase in Alaska.

[Fourty-Two]

Today @ 11:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46404#post46404)
cirisme:



That is not enforcing 1441! That is enforcing previous resolutions. :ahem:

1441 said that if Iraq did fully, proactively, and unconditionally cooperate, serious consequences would follow.

Guess what, they didn't cooperate and serious consequences are facing them!

:ahem:

Actually it said:


13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


It doesn't mention anything about a unilateral invasion. In the previous clause it states:


12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above [that iraq is not complying), in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;


This suggests that the "serious consequences", or however the SC wishes to deal with the situation, would be decided by the Security council, i can't see anything about an unauthorized enforcement of "serious consequences".

[Fourty-Two]

Yesterday @ 09:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46330#post46330)
Mr Stick71:

Why don't we enforce resolution 242? Probably because the U.N. did a miserable job at keeping the Arabs from trying to conquer Israel in 1967, and so the Arab nations paid a price for their aggression. Israel did give up the Sinai to Egypt when Egypt made it clear that they were done with wars against Israel. Maybe the Palestinians should try that approach.

I'm sorry, but Israel has made it's intentions more than clear with settlements in the occupied territories of both the Golan heights and the west bank. It is their obligation to withdraw from the occupied territories under 242:

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209!OpenDocument

[Mr Stick71]

Well, then, what "serious consequences" did the Security Council come up with? Passing another resolution? Giving Iraq the evil eye? What?

We do not need "authorization" from the U.N. to act. Our nation is sovereign. We didn't have authorization in 1999 to act against Yugoslavia's geneocide of the Kosovars, yet we went ahead and ended the state sponsored murders.

[Mr Stick71]

42: "It is their obligation to withdraw from the occupied territories under 242"

It was the U.N.'s obligation to defend Israel from aggression. It has repeatedly failed to do as much. The Golan Heights were the source of a major invasion of Israel by Syria; it should be of no surprise that Israel decided to use the Heights as a buffer zone between their homeland and an aggressive nation. Israel has no reason to trust the United Nations, as the United Nations have never come to their aid when they have been invaded by unprovoked hostile nations.

[Mr Stick71]

Here's some food for thought:

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html

I find this most interesting:
"May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action."

So, the U.N. fails to live up to it's obligation, so Israel is somehow responsible to fulfill theirs to the U.N. and to the aggressive nations? Give me a break!

[Socrates]

Hey MrStick

That was most informative about the Six-Day War :thumb: Alas, the aim of total annihilation of Israel has not changed.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

The point, Mr. Stick, is that there is a double standard. The US is willing to hold Iraq and "unfriendly" countries to one standard, and Israel and "friendly" countries to another. If they want to come down this hard on Iraq for breaking UN resolutions, that's fine. Let this now be the standard for dealing with broken UN resolutions. And let us deal just as harshly with every state that is in violation of UN standards, including Israel and the US.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Here's my suggestion for how the Arab-Israeli conflict should be handled.

1) Strip all parties of weapons and wartime aid that is not domestically produced (no US technology in Israel, not Russian technology in Iraq, etc.)

2) Strip away any political borders that were not earned by the diplomacy or arms of the residents (or their forebears) of said states (in other words, if the Jordanians didn't establish Jordan, take away its borders).

3) Let them fight it out with whatever means they can muster on their own. Keep it a clean fight (hold all participants to the standards of the CWC, for instance). Let them establish themselves.

If Israel can prevail (and they should, if they really are God's chosen people) without being bankrolled, armed and trained by the US, and establish their own borders, rather than having those borders handed to them by the US and Britain, then they will truly deserve the identity of a nation and the respect of the world.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 09:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46528#post46528)
Eireann:

Here's my suggestion for how the Arab-Israeli conflict should be handled.

2) Strip away any political borders that were not earned by the diplomacy or arms of the residents (or their forebears) of said states (in other words, if the Jordanians didn't establish Jordan, take away its borders).


Jordan did not, GB formed it from their protecorates, as they also did with Iraq. Churchill sat in a hotel in Cairo and drew them into existence on a map.

BTW you just defined Israel out of existence by this one.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46548#post46548)
GrayPilgrim:


Jordan did not, GB formed it from their protecorates, as they also did with Iraq. Churchill sat in a hotel in Cairo and drew them into existence on a map.

BTW you just defined Israel out of existence by this one.
I know. Jordan, too, and probably some others. Hence, #3. The difference, though, between Israel and Jordan, is that Jordan was formed to house the people already living there. To my knowledge, there wasn't any large-scale displacent of homes and families involved. The foundation of a state of Jordan occurred by and large on paper only. With the founding of Israel, thousands of people were kicked out of their homes, and millions of people imported from all over the globe to people this new state. That, I believe, is why the Arabs hate them so much, because thousands and thousands of their Arab brethren had to be kicked out in order to create the state of Israel. The Arab states don't see Israel as legitimately belonging to the Israelis; however, I think that if the Israelies fought for their land on an even playing field with no outside interference or aid (to Israel or their foes) and won it by their own might, the Arab world might see Israel a bit differently. But because of the way Israel was formed, the rest of the Arab world sees it as a spit in the face.

[Ishmael]

I don't think the Iraqis are disarmed given that my buddies in the Cav Regiment have been fighting for 72+ hours now without a break. Maybe the little girl Eirean can tell us what she has done for the last 72 hours for her cause?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46564#post46564)
Calvinist:

I don't think the Iraqis are disarmed given that my buddies in the Cav Regiment have been fighting for 72+ hours now without a break.
Well, whoohoo for your buddies. I wish them luck. I also have friends over there, and they're in my thoughts every day. A very close friend of mine was recently shipped over out of a Reserve unit here in Missouri. She's an army nurse. She knows I oppose this war, as does she. She's over there following orders. I've sent her a care package and have written her letters every day since she was sent over. It's important for her to know that although I'm against the clownish administration who sent them over there, I am still all for her. As I've said before, I support the troops who are just over there because they are ordered to be over there. I oppose the clowns who sent them. However, my sentiments do not extend to you, who are sitting there fighting the war from a computer screen. Has your rapid-fire typing helped take any Iraqi settelments yet?


Maybe the little girl Eirean can tell us what she has done for the last 72 hours for her cause?
See above. As well, the weekend before the war began, I co-organized a meeting of representative clergymen from all over the St. Louis metropolitan area and the state of Missouri to discuss ways to end religious discrimination and how those ways can be applied on the larger scale. The meeting included a Priest from the St. Louis Catholic Archdiocese, the Public Relations Secretary of the Amahdayyah Movement in Islam, as well as clergy from local Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist churches, a Hindu Temple, and a local Wiccan coven. By the way, I reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not a female. If you're continually calling me "she" out of ignorance, then please pay attention. If you're calling me such for insult, then grow up.

[Ishmael]

Today @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46568#post46568)
Eireann:


Well, whoohoo for your buddies. I wish them luck. I also have friends over there, and they're in my thoughts every day. A very close friend of mine was recently shipped over out of a Reserve unit here in Missouri. She's an army nurse. She knows I oppose this war, as does she. She's over there following orders. I've sent her a care package and have written her letters every day since she was sent over. It's important for her to know that although I'm against the clownish administration who sent them over there, I am still all for her. As I've said before, I support the troops who are just over there because they are ordered to be over there. I oppose the clowns who sent them. However, my sentiments do not extend to you, who are sitting there fighting the war from a computer screen. Has your rapid-fire typing helped take any Iraqi settelments yet?


See above. As well, the weekend before the war began, I co-organized a meeting of representative clergymen from all over the St. Louis metropolitan area and the state of Missouri to discuss ways to end religious discrimination and how those ways can be applied on the larger scale. The meeting included a Priest from the St. Louis Catholic Archdiocese, the Public Relations Secretary of the Amahdayyah Movement in Islam, as well as clergy from local Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist churches, a Hindu Temple, and a local Wiccan coven. By the way, I reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not a female. If you're continually calling me &quot;she&quot; out of ignorance, then please pay attention. If you're calling me such for insult, then grow up.

Hmmm.. no fair making sense. I am glad you are actually exercising your freedom -- hard fought for freedom -- and actually doing something for your cause. God Bless.

And I was insulting you but I will stop now.

Calvinist

[Fourty-Two]

Today @ 12:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46438#post46438)
Mr Stick71:

Well, then, what &quot;serious consequences&quot; did the We do not need &quot;authorization&quot; from the U.N. to act. Our nation is sovereign.

So was Iraq in 1990, are you saying that they were justified in attacking Kuwait to prevent slant mining? It was more a direct threat to Iraq ecconomically than Iraq is in anyway to the US. Double standards yet again ...

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 09:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46569#post46569)
Calvinist:

And I was insulting you but I will stop now.

Calvinist
Thank you.

[$cirisme]

Actually it said:

...exactly what I just said.

Please pay attention!

:ahem:

[$cirisme]

Let this now be the standard for dealing with broken UN resolutions.

That is the stupidest thing you've said in a long time. And believe me, it was hard to choose.

We did not just say, "Oh! They're not complying, let's bomb them!" The resolution itself called for war, it was not anything outside of that.

[Pilgrim]

That makes sense Cirisme. The resolution did call for the use of force. And the threat of force is no threat at all if force does not follow.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46899#post46899)
cirisme:

That is the stupidest thing you've said in a long time. And believe me, it was hard to choose.
Gotta love the way some of you so liberally use the word "stupid" to refer to anything that disagrees with your opinion on the matter, as if it is your opinion that serves as the standard for intelligent response. I'm talking about the entire package, not just the war itself -- sanctions, target-nation resolutions, threats and delivery on those items. Be consistent. If you're going to be willing to wreck the economy of "unfriendly" member states to force them into compliance, it would be terribly hypocritical to not be willing to take the same measures against "friendly" member states. But you would rather call my suggestion "stupid" than entertain any idea that would suggest we should take a harder and more stringent stand with Israel or other friendly states who habitually violate UN resolutions.

When the UN starts levying sanctions and embargos against Israel, France, Germany, Russia, or any other "friendly" state that violates resolutions (including us), then your admonitions might mean something. Until then, they're shallow and meaningless.

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 06:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46421#post46421)
Fourty-Two:



If your basis for the war not having anything to do with oil lies soley in that the US does not currently import Iraqi oil then it's a rather thin arguement.

Hello?? Before the first Gulf war we only imported 5% of our oil from Iraq. That was pre sanction, so 5% wasn't really a lot.


the bans on Iraqi oil you cited were put in place as a part of sanctions to enforce US resolutions against Iraq, you yourself noted that before 1991 the US had oil trading relations with Iraq, if Saddam is removed from power do you think that these sanctions will remain?

probably not after that if Iraq concedes to be honest about the many things left off the report


In 1993 and 1998 current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, petitioned the then President Clintion to make the removal of Saddam Hussein a priority, one of the reasons being that if no action were taken &quot;a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.&quot;.

Well, I'm sure that turmoil in the Middle East would affect global prices. So Mr. Rumsfeld was correct. Saddam has shown in his occupation of Kuwait that he is not above invading a country for no reason whatsoever.


Lastly, the US doesn't even need to take nor purchase the oil directly from Iraq to reap the benefits. Once Iraq's oil hits the market the price of crude will drop significantly, you can already see this happening at the mere anticipation of it happening, for a country such as the US who hoards most of its own oil and imports most of its every day use oil, this would be a great economic benefit.

So we hoard our oil, why fight for more?? That's not what it's about.


In what year did Iraq invade Kuwait?
Aug 2 1990, after the oil import numbers I quoted earlier.


As for accusing everybody of ignorance, perhaps you should keep your mouth shut until you know everybodies back ground. Exactly what extra credibility does being in the USAF give you? You could be the guy who cleans the toilets on an airbase in Alaska.

Well, unless you or someone else on this board is an Iraqi head of state or has personally gone over every inch of Iraq, you don't know. Sorry if that offended you, but them's the facts. As far as what I do in the USAF, I work on the Comm and Nav systems of F-16s. Which doesn't give me anything but a top secret clearance. And have you ever been thru a chemical warfare briefing on your way to Diego Garcia? or have you ever been called up for any war for that matter? Just trying to gauge your background...

Oh and by the way, the toilets are cleaned by contractors, usually the handicapped

[$cirisme]

Sigh, all of that was included in the resolutions themselves.

:ahem:

[Vorkosigan]

Hello?? Before the first Gulf war we only imported 5% of our oil from Iraq. That was pre sanction, so 5% wasn't really a lot.

Hmm...after sanction we imported 7 or 8%, taking about 70% of the Iraqi oil sold under the sanctions regime.

Well, I'm sure that turmoil in the Middle East would affect global prices. So Mr. Rumsfeld was correct. Saddam has shown in his occupation of Kuwait that he is not above invading a country for no reason whatsoever.

"No reason whatsoever" is wrong. "No good reason" would be better.

Well, unless you or someone else on this board is an Iraqi head of state or has personally gone over every inch of Iraq, you don't know

You're standing the burden of proof on its head. If you want to claim that Iraq possesses a certain type of weapon, it is up to you to provide proof.

Vorkosigan

[Bill the Cat]

I never said they DO have them, only that we don't know squat about what he really has. He may have a secret stash of deadly chihuahuas....

[Fourty-Two]

Yesterday @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47121#post47121)
Bill the Cat:





Well, I'm sure that turmoil in the Middle East would affect global prices. So Mr. Rumsfeld was correct. Saddam has shown in his occupation of Kuwait that he is not above invading a country for no reason whatsoever.

Actually those letters were post Gulf war, check the dates. When did Saddam invade Kuwait for no reason? He invaded them in 1990 because they were slant mining Iraqi oil fields, the US essentially gave them the green light to do so, US ambassador to Iraq April Gaspie in a meeting with saddam stated: "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."



So we hoard our oil, why fight for more?? That's not what it's about.


Because if you hoard your oil you have to get oil from else where to use. This is why the dependancy of on imported oil has been increasing since the Regan Administraion. Over 52% of US petrollium products come from imported oil. By introducing freeing Iraqi oil (the second largest oil reserves in the world) into the market the price of oil per barrel will drop dramatically, making in much more affordable for the US to import oil from anywhere. It's a rather basic concept: supply goes up - price comes down. It's also worthwhile noting that 5% is actually quite a high percentage when expressed in real terms - roughly 500,000 barrels a day, and the import of Iraqi oil hit a peak in 2001 of 778,000 barrels a day - this level was achieved without even freeing Iraq's access to the open market.




Well, unless you or someone else on this board is an Iraqi head of state or has personally gone over every inch of Iraq, you don't know. Sorry if that offended you, but them's the facts. As far as what I do in the USAF, I work on the Comm and Nav systems of F-16s. Which doesn't give me anything but a top secret clearance. And have you ever been thru a chemical warfare briefing on your way to Diego Garcia? or have you ever been called up for any war for that matter? Just trying to gauge your background...

Oh and by the way, the toilets are cleaned by contractors, usually the handicapped


Not personally, but I'm pretty sure a guy, lets call him Richard, i had a chat with about the subject over lunch not long ago would have some idea. Richard is a man who could be forgiven for holding a personal vandetta against the Iraqi regime, but chose to throw his voice behind the case for a peaceful resolution. He was quite candid on the subject saying that his facts point to Saddam being in posession of a small cache of chemical weapons, that he does need to be disarmed but that it was quite definite that the US committment to the diplomatic process ended shortly after resolution 1441 was passed. He is one of the most thoughtful, considered and rational men i have ever had the pleasure of knowing, and if the west were to have leaders such as him, we'd be alot better off.

[Mr Stick71]

42, I loved the quote you took from me. Problems with the copy/paste?

As for the slant mining: Don't you think that Iraq would have been better off going to the U.N. first and waiting for the Security Council to do nothing? I don't believe Saddam tried the U.N. either in the Kuwaiti war or in the Iran war, so wouldn't it be Iraq who is applying a double standard? We did go to the U.N. the first time, and it was the U.N. who prevented us from finishing the job. Woo hoo United Nations, way to create more trouble.

I haven't seen convincing evidence of slant mining by Kuwait. Secondly, your assertion that Kuwaits unproven slant mining was a greater economic danger to Iraq than Iraq taking over half the Middle East is pathetic. Most of Iraq's oil fields are not on the Kuwaiti border, but the United States does import a lot of its oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

[Bill the Cat]

And I also didn't get why Iraq had to invade ALL of Kuwait. Just go in and take care of the slant mines and be out, but no, they overstayed their welcome by several months.

I also work ona supply base in the US and I know a bit from the orders that come in what we are anticipating.

You still didn't answer my other question... If Iraq has no chemical weapons (the reason we went in) why have the Iraqui soldiers surrendering been strapping gas masks?

[Vorkosigan]

And I also didn't get why Iraq had to invade ALL of Kuwait. Just go in and take care of the slant mines and be out, but no, they overstayed their welcome by several months.

Another issue, in addition to the alleged slant drilling, was the very real war debt that Iraq owed to Kuwait for financing the Iran-Iraq war. The Kuwaitis want the money repaid. Hussein may have been trying to wipe out the debts by wiping out the debt holder.

Vorkosigan

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48831#post48831)
Bill the Cat:
You still didn't answer my other question... If Iraq has no chemical weapons (the reason we went in) why have the Iraqui soldiers surrendering been strapping gas masks?
That question has been answered several times by several people. As Kiwi pointed out, it is SOP for combat units to include chemical protection as part of their gear as a precaution. It isn't a testimony to their own side having chemical weapons. It can easily be a testimony to their fear that the other side will use chemical weapons. Both Iraq and the US have histories of using chemical weapons and wmd's. Their chemical suits could mean that they have chemical weapons. It can also just as easily mean that they don't trust us not to use chemical weapons.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 09:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48904#post48904)
Eireann:


That question has been answered several times by several people. As Kiwi pointed out, it is SOP for combat units to include chemical protection as part of their gear as a precaution. It isn't a testimony to their own side having chemical weapons. It can easily be a testimony to their fear that the other side will use chemical weapons. Both Iraq and the US have histories of using chemical weapons and wmd's. Their chemical suits could mean that they have chemical weapons. It can also just as easily mean that they don't trust us not to use chemical weapons.

well, I don't think napalm will do any good against the sand dunes. :brow: They don't trust us at all, so I guess maybe they have them for that purpose. But maybe not.

[Ric]

03-20-2003 @ 09:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41116#post41116)
Jaltus:

If so, why did they say on their own TV network that they had fired two SCUDS at Kuwait?

So much for disarming. So much for telling the truth.

So much for the liberal's crying foul.

Maybe now the world will start to see that American's are not after oil fields, that we are not after expansion. After all, we are raising money to give to the upcoming new Iraqui government. We are seizing Saddam's funds and putting them in trust with the UN for Iraq. How many other countries are willing to do that? It has already been reported that Germany is probably going to seize the money and keep it for themselves.

How many other countries can say they are willing to set aside their national agenda in order to deliver a hurting people? How many other countries would not have retaliated after having been attacked? How many other countries would have given warning after warning when already in a state of war for over a decade?

International journalists are with nearly every single unit we have on the field of combat.

Do you really think the US is in this for profit? As it stands, we are going to lose billions from this war, and Bush has already announced we will keep none of the money we have seized, nor any of the land.

When will the world wake up and realize that we are sending our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and loved ones to die not just for our sake, but for the sake of the Iraqui people and the international community?

Sure, if Bush breaks his promises, call him on it. until then, gives us your prayers, not your hatred.

Let's not forget the Chinese Silkworm Missile that hit Kuwait City. Another banned weapon that Iraq should not have had!

[Fourty-Two]

Today @ 02:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48937#post48937)
Ric:



Let's not forget the Chinese Silkworm Missile that hit Kuwait City. Another banned weapon that Iraq should not have had!

Howcome the silk worm is banned?

CSS-C-2 Silkworm:

MAKER: CHINA
TYPE: CRUISE MISSILE
LENGTH: 20 FEET 6 INCHES
SPAN: 9 FEET 2 INCHES
RANGE: 50 MILES
DIAMETER: 29.5 INCHES
WEIGHT: 5,500 POUNDS
ENGINE: SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER - LIQUID ROCKET CRUISE
TOP SPEED: MACH .8
WEAPON LOAD: 852 POUNDS HIGH EXPLOSIVE
ESTIMATED TOTAL: 200

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49037#post49037)
Fourty-Two:



Howcome the silk worm is banned?

CSS-C-2 Silkworm:

MAKER: CHINA
TYPE: CRUISE MISSILE
LENGTH: 20 FEET 6 INCHES
SPAN: 9 FEET 2 INCHES
RANGE: 50 MILES
DIAMETER: 29.5 INCHES
WEIGHT: 5,500 POUNDS
ENGINE: SOLID ROCKET BOOSTER - LIQUID ROCKET CRUISE
TOP SPEED: MACH .8
WEAPON LOAD: 852 POUNDS HIGH EXPLOSIVE
ESTIMATED TOTAL: 200

Actually it was defined as a seersucker missile, more fuel onboard.

Airborne cruise missiles such as the Silkworm or Exocet can be fired from shipboard launcher systems. The cruise missiles and launchers could easily be hidden inside a cargo vessel until just prior to firing.

Unlike the SCUD, No Dong or DF-11 ballistic missile threats, a cruise missile attack would provide little warning before a strike. Airborne cruise missiles such as Silkworm and Exocet are designed to fly at sea-skimming levels only a few feet above the surface in order to avoid radar contact.

and for a description, see here:
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/c201.asp

[Socrates]

And where were the appeasenik protestors when this latest banned Iraq missile hit a CIVILIAN target in Kuwait? Their silence shows they are not motivated by peace but by hatred of Western values.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49051#post49051)
Bill the Cat:



Actually it was defined as a seersucker missile, more fuel onboard.

Airborne cruise missiles such as the Silkworm or Exocet can be fired from shipboard launcher systems. The cruise missiles and launchers could easily be hidden inside a cargo vessel until just prior to firing.

Unlike the SCUD, No Dong or DF-11 ballistic missile threats, a cruise missile attack would provide little warning before a strike. Airborne cruise missiles such as Silkworm and Exocet are designed to fly at sea-skimming levels only a few feet above the surface in order to avoid radar contact.

and for a description, see here:
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/c201.asp
But why would any of that make it a banned weapon?

[Bill the Cat]

Because they can fly under radar. The resolution wanted to make sure Iraq could not strike Kuwait or Israel undetected any more.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 07:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49146#post49146)
Socrates:

And where were the appeasenik protestors when this latest banned Iraq missile hit a CIVILIAN target in Kuwait? Their silence shows they are not motivated by peace but by hatred of Western values.

'crates, protesting the war IS protesting strikes against civilians made by both sides.

Maybe, though, I'll protest Iraq like Dick Cheney did, and sell it banned equipment in violations of the sanctions. Yes, that's a good idea. Note only do I strike a blow for freedom, I can turn a nice profit on the side too.

Vorkosigan

[Epoetker]

Maybe, though, I'll protest Iraq like Dick Cheney did, and sell it banned equipment in violations of the sanctions. Yes, that's a good idea. Note only do I strike a blow for freedom, I can turn a nice profit on the side too.

Actually, since oil machinery will aid the postwar reconstruction immensely if it's already in place(and untorched), I fail to see why this isn't striking a blow for freedom. So typically American, too, having to ignore those Iraqi-kid-killing sanctions to do it:thumb:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 11:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49268#post49268)
Vorkosigan:



'crates, protesting the war IS protesting strikes against civilians made by both sides.

Maybe, though, I'll protest Iraq like Dick Cheney did, and sell it banned equipment in violations of the sanctions. Yes, that's a good idea. Note only do I strike a blow for freedom, I can turn a nice profit on the side too.

Vorkosigan

Hiya, Vorko.
I have scraped the surface of an investigation of your claim regarding Cheney. The company that Cheney was running acquired another company (French, if I'm not mistaken) that was already selling equipment to the Iraqis.
Your charge against Cheney should be expected to include evidence that Cheney was aware of the actions of the subsidiary company while operating as CEO.
Reference, please?

[Epoetker]

He has none. I had heard of something like this claim before on another board(topic purged, natch,) and the website they referred me to only intimated that Cheney should have known about the transfers in question. Like CEOs are briefed on every major and minor operation of their companies, as Dilbert quite clearly taught us("Make it less technical for my boss, much less for the VP, much, much, less for the CEO.)

It basically seems to be another gnat-straining, camel-swallowing exercise.

[Vorkosigan]

LOL. Cheney's company used subsidiaries to keep it quiet. His was only one of several US companies that did business with US "enemies" under the corporate rule that the enemy of my country is my friend.

http://www.sfbg.com/reality/04.html

As Cheney himself put it, complaining about the sanctions while his company was evading them:

From here (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031903_cheneys_lies_about_halliburton.htm)

"We seem to be sanction-happy as a government," Cheney said at an energy conference in April 1996, reported in the oil industry publication Petroleum Finance Week. "The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments," he observed during his conference presentation.

Sanctions make U.S. businesses "the bystander who gets hit when a train wreck occurs," Cheney told Petroleum Finance Week. "While virtually every other country sees the need for sanctions against Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime there, Cheney sees general agreement that the measures have not been very effective despite their having most of the international community's support. An individual country's embargo, such as that of the United States against Iran, has virtually no effect since the target country simply signs a contract with a non- U.S. business," the publication reported

Cheney knew (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm), so the ignorance defense won't work here.

As for them getting rid of the companies, that won't hold either.
"The divestiture, however, was not immediate. The firms traded with Baghdad for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, according to U.N. records."

The NeoCons at the top are just in it for the $$, 'pet. Why do you think we're in Iraq? Because Bush cares about human freedom? Now that's comedy.

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50028#post50028)
Vorkosigan:

LOL. Cheney's company used subsidiaries to keep it quiet. His was only one of several US companies that did business with US &quot;enemies&quot; under the corporate rule that the enemy of my country is my friend.


Okay, you've repeated the assertions . . . I guess you felt that you needed to do that . . .


http://www.sfbg.com/reality/04.html

"Used subsidiaries to keep it quiet"?
The transactions by Ingersoll-Dresser Pump were underway prior to the acquisition by Halliburton. That fact tends to be buried in the supporting articles that you chose. Contracts signed by Dresser-Rand were apparently blocked by the US govt., and no information is provided regarding Cheney's alleged knowledge of the transactions.
Dresser-Rand was acquired in 1998. Cheney served as CEO through 2000.
"... between 1998 and 1999, under Cheney's watch, two of Halliburton's subsidiaries-Dresser Rand and Inger-Soll Dresser, had engaged in up to $73 million in deals with Iraq for oil supplies and equipment."
http://indy.pabn.org/archives/216dick.shtml

"Halliburton's purchase of Dresser wasn't completed until December 1998. Do you think Mr. Cheney knew about those small sales made by a company Halliburton hadn't yet purchased? Of course not, but Mr. Darsey didn't let those darned facts get in the way of his fiction."
Letter to the Editor,
http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/033002/OPEDOpedLetters.shtml

Your assertiont that Halliburton used the subsidiaries to keep transactions "quiet" is poorly supported at best. It seems that the Iraq deals were baggage that came along with the acquisitions.



As Cheney himself put it, complaining about the sanctions while his company was evading them:

From here (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031903_cheneys_lies_about_halliburton.htm)

&quot;We seem to be sanction-happy as a government,&quot; Cheney said at an energy conference in April 1996, reported in the oil industry publication Petroleum Finance Week. &quot;The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments,&quot; he observed during his conference presentation.

Sanctions make U.S. businesses &quot;the bystander who gets hit when a train wreck occurs,&quot; Cheney told Petroleum Finance Week. &quot;While virtually every other country sees the need for sanctions against Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime there, Cheney sees general agreement that the measures have not been very effective despite their having most of the international community's support. An individual country's embargo, such as that of the United States against Iran, has virtually no effect since the target country simply signs a contract with a non- U.S. business,&quot; the publication reported


Pointing out that Cheney isn't a big fan of unilateral sanctions isn't a very impressive support of your assertions.
Quantity substituted for quality, Vorko?



Cheney knew (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm), so the ignorance defense won't work here.


Did you read the article you cite? It doesn't support your assertion that "Cheney knew".
It doesn't even support its own weaker assertions. Check this out, and try to find the alleged contradiction:
"Cheney has offered contradictory accounts of how much he knew about Halliburton's dealings with Iraq. In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," he denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad.

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he said. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

Cheney modified his response in an interview on the same program three weeks later, after he was informed that a Halliburton spokesman had acknowledged that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq. He said he was unaware that the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

"We inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq," Cheney explained, "but we divested ourselves of those interests."

The divestiture, however, was not immediate. The firms traded with Baghdad for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, according to U.N. records."


Those with an eye toward detecting bias will find it in that article, btw.



As for them getting rid of the companies, that won't hold either.
&quot;The divestiture, however, was not immediate. The firms traded with Baghdad for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, according to U.N. records.&quot;


A corporation cannot drop a subsidiary like a hot potato, so far as I'm aware. I suspect that finding a buyer could take some time. A year or two sounds pretty speedy, compared to acquisitions of which I am aware, and it still appears that the transactions were (very) probably made without Cheney being aware of them.



The NeoCons at the top are just in it for the $$, 'pet. Why do you think we're in Iraq? Because Bush cares about human freedom? Now that's comedy.


Your supporting evidence provided the comedy. Bush is probably motivated primarily by the Constitutional mandate to protect the American people in light of 9/11 and the ability of terrorist organizations to obtain weapons of mass destruction from nations sympathetic to their hatred of the US.

The Iraq operation is going to cost more than what Iraq's oil is worth, as I understand it, and haven't you been the one who has pointed out that we're already receiving a lion's share of Iraqi oil?

[Vorkosigan]

Your supporting evidence provided the comedy. Bush is probably motivated primarily by the Constitutional mandate to protect the American people in light of 9/11

As you are aware, there is no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists. That was a Saudi operation.

and the ability of terrorist organizations to obtain weapons of mass destruction from nations sympathetic to their hatred of the US.

There is no evidence that Hussein, despite 20 years of relations with terrorists, has ever given them any nasty weapons. Quite the contrary; why Hussein should give weapons to people who dislike him and whom he cannot control has never been established.

The Iraq operation is going to cost more than what Iraq's oil is worth, as I understand it, and haven't you been the one who has pointed out that we're already receiving a lion's share of Iraqi oil?

Control of the oil is one among many motivations, and the issue is where the profits go, not what the revenues are. The operation is a subsidy for a few powerful companies.

Speaking of venal and dishonorable men, meet the man whom the Pentagon has selected to run Iraq (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1035780136831)

"But scarcely a dozen years after its launch, Petra Bank was seized by Jordanian authorities and Chalabi was sentenced in absentia to 22 years of hard labour for embezzlement and other crimes. Chalabi's detractors say that, in fleeing Jordan to avoid arrest, he absconded with perhaps $70 million (U.S.), and that some of the farmers and small businesspeople who lost their deposits when Petra Bank collapsed later committed suicide. "

"Chalabi appeared to be washed up in January, 2002, when U.S. officials accused the INC of chaotic bookkeeping and misuse of $97 million (U.S.) in congressional funding."

Chalabi has earned the ire of both State and the CIA. Rarely are those two united on anything. Of course, the NeoCons love him -- birds of a feather and all that.

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 11:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50475#post50475)
Vorkosigan:

Your supporting evidence provided the comedy. Bush is probably motivated primarily by the Constitutional mandate to protect the American people in light of 9/11

As you are aware, there is no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists. That was a Saudi operation.


I'm not aware of any direct link between Hussein's regime and the 9/11 plot. I am aware of Iraq's history of encouraging terrorism, and their past history of developing and using weapons of mass destruction, and I'm also aware of their history of stringing the UN along for ten-plus years.



and the ability of terrorist organizations to obtain weapons of mass destruction from nations sympathetic to their hatred of the US.

There is no evidence that Hussein, despite 20 years of relations with terrorists, has ever given them any nasty weapons. Quite the contrary; why Hussein should give weapons to people who dislike him and whom he cannot control has never been established.


Can you think of a reason why he might sell such weapons to terrorists? (hint: $).



The Iraq operation is going to cost more than what Iraq's oil is worth, as I understand it, and haven't you been the one who has pointed out that we're already receiving a lion's share of Iraqi oil?

Control of the oil is one among many motivations, and the issue is where the profits go, not what the revenues are. The operation is a subsidy for a few powerful companies.


When did you provide evidence that US companies or coalition governments would control Iraq's oil? I must have missed it.
Do you agree that Iraq's infrastructure needs to be rebuilt in order for the Iraqi people to prosper and for the new government to operate effectively? How do you propose to induce companies to participate in rebuilding infrastructure if they do not profit from the venture? Maybe some French company will do it for free? I don't think so.



Speaking of venal and dishonorable men, meet the man whom the Pentagon has selected to run Iraq (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&amp;call_pageid=971358637177&amp;c=Article&amp;cid=1035780136831)


I just followed one of your rabbit-trails of ethereal evidence. You've got some credibility to restore before I do it again, don't you?

[Jaltus]

Nice non-response to the death-blow your case just took, Vork.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 04:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50438#post50438)
Captain Ochre:

Those with an eye toward detecting bias will find it in that article, btw.
Those with an eye toward bias will find it in any article presented by either side of the argument.


and it still appears that the transactions were (very) probably made without Cheney being aware of them.
And what exactly is it that gives it this "appearance?" It doesn't "appear" that he was unaware because of the facts; it "appears" that he was unaware because that is what you want to believe. He admitted to hurriedly divesting his corporation of those subsidiaries after learning that they were doing illegal trade with Iraq. But that trade continued for a year or more under his control. You can't immediately divest of a company, but you can immediately put a halt to illegal dealings and transactions that are taking place above the table. He didn't. Apparently you think that is because he was unaware. Do you honestly think that if he were worth his salt as a CEO and truly cared about the propriety of their dealings that he would begin a long and tedious divestiture of a company known to have illegal dealings ... and not monitor those dealings in the interim? I would say you're going to have to do some really fancy footwork to get us to believe that tripe.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50795#post50795)
Eireann:


Those with an eye toward bias will find it in any article presented by either side of the argument.


:rofl:
I said an "eye toward detecting bias", not "a biased eye"!



And what exactly is it that gives it this &quot;appearance?


The fact that the deals were apparently done prior to acquisition and continued for approximately one year and not more, combined with the fact that CEO's of gigantic companies tend to delegate.



&quot; It doesn't &quot;appear&quot; that he was unaware because of the facts; it &quot;appears&quot; that he was unaware because that is what you want to believe.


I'm simply assessing the evidence that I was given, which falls short of making Cheney guilty. I'm using the legal approach of forcing the prosecution to make their case prior to calling Cheney guilty. He has the presumption of "not guilty", iow.



He admitted to hurriedly divesting his corporation of those subsidiaries after learning that they were doing illegal trade with Iraq.


You're spinning again. You use "hurriedly" to increase the implication of guilty knowledge. Is that what Cheney said? "Hurriedly"? You say "after learning that they were doing illegal trade with Iraq" for two equally sinister reasons of spinnification: First, Cheney didn't admit that he knew anything about the transactions during that period of time. You're inferring it. Second, the transactions were apparently "illegal" for US companies, and foreign subsidiaries could apparently work out those kind of contracts legally. See where Vorko calles it a "legal loophole".
The spinning just comes naturally to you, does it? Like you don't even have to try? It just comes off your keyboard that way?



But that trade continued for a year or more under his control. You can't immediately divest of a company, but you can immediately put a halt to illegal dealings and transactions that are taking place above the table. He didn't.


You're still assuming that he knew about it . . .



Apparently you think that is because he was unaware. Do you honestly think that if he were worth his salt as a CEO and truly cared about the propriety of their dealings that he would begin a long and tedious divestiture of a company known to have illegal dealings ... and not monitor those dealings in the interim?


You're begging the question by continuing to assume the Cheney knew, for the purpose of your argument.
Big companies buy and sell other companies from time to time. That's big business. There were probably other reasons for selling off the two subsidiaries apart from their contracts with Iraq.
Cheney can't void a legal existing contract even with CEO powers.



I would say you're going to have to do some really fancy footwork to get us to believe that tripe.

I'm resigned to the fact that you'll believe what you want no matter what the evidence shows, Eireann. You have a natural gift for fallacious reasoning.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51109#post51109)
Captain Ochre:

You use &quot;hurriedly&quot; to increase the implication of guilty knowledge. Is that what Cheney said?
No, it's what you said, or significantly implied. Recall this quote: "A year or two sounds pretty speedy, compared to acquisitions of which I am aware ..."


You say "after learning that they were doing illegal trade with Iraq" for two equally sinister reasons of spinnification
See folks, this is what we call "spinning," and Captain Ochre, the unheralded King of Spin, plies his trade well! Bravo, Capt!


The spinning just comes naturally to you, does it? Like you don't even have to try? It just comes off your keyboard that way?
Again, for those who might be a bit confused, an antry from the Captain Ochre dictionary:

Spin: any information, idea, or suggestion that stands in opposition to Captain Ochre's opinion of the situation.

For real spin, see any random Captain Ochre post.

I'm resigned to the fact that you'll believe what you want no matter what the evidence shows, Captain. You have a natural gift for spin, fallacy and diversion.

[Pilgrim]

Interesting that Cheney's old firm just signed a 2 Billion dollar contract with the US to clean up oil refinery fires. All behind the scenes with no other bids considered.

Check this weeks Newsweek for the story. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/892744.asp)

[Bill the Cat]

I work for a supply post for the D.O.D. in my civilian job and just to let you know, the govt does that a whole lot. One bid contracts are very commonplace. The contract is written specifically to exclude everyone else. But so what if Chaney's OLD company got the bid. He doesn't own it any more.

[Pilgrim]

Err, he never actually owned it so that's a bit of a staw man.

But seriously, how many weeks after he leaves office do you think it will be before he is employed by his old firm again?

[Epoetker]

Eh. Hard to say. He's gettin' oooold. And has 5 more years:smile: to go. Might retire.

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 07:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51149#post51149)
Eireann:

No, it's what you said, or significantly implied. Recall this quote: &quot;A year or two sounds pretty speedy, compared to acquisitions of which I am aware ...&quot;


I was countering an earlier insinuation that Halliburton kept the subsidiaries lingering on to conduct deals with Iraq--a claim that itself doesn't sit well with your suggestion that the subsidiaries were dropped like a couple of hot potatos.
You and Vorko spin things one way and another, while I stay in the middle, closer to where the truth probably resides.



See folks, this is what we call &quot;spinning,&quot; and Captain Ochre, the unheralded King of Spin, plies his trade well! Bravo, Capt!

Again, for those who might be a bit confused, an antry from the Captain Ochre dictionary:

Spin: any information, idea, or suggestion that stands in opposition to Captain Ochre's opinion of the situation.

For real spin, see any random Captain Ochre post.

I'm resigned to the fact that you'll believe what you want no matter what the evidence shows, Captain. You have a natural gift for spin, fallacy and diversion.


It would have been more efficient for you to sum up your post with an acronym: IKYABWAI (I Know You Are But What Am I?).

[Ryokan]

Aside from the obvious benefit for Cheney, obviously since CHeny got Halliburton the contract, and used to be important ther, it makes the firm more reliable and trust worthy to the admin, and makes it easier to control than other possible firms. And any other administration would have done the same thing. Its the way things go, and it isn't a sign the admin is evil, our gov. has failed, etc. etc. etc. It is the nature of politics that goes back thousands of years.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Ryokan:

Aside from the obvious benefit for Cheney, obviously since CHeny got Halliburton the contract, and used to be important ther, it makes the firm more reliable and trust worthy to the admin, and makes it easier to control than other possible firms. And any other administration would have done the same thing. Its the way things go, and it isn't a sign the admin is evil, our gov. has failed, etc. etc. etc. It is the nature of politics that goes back thousands of years.

Cheney gets no benefit from Halliburton profits. His deferred benefit package is capped and insured--he gets paid off at a flat rate no matter what happens to Halliburton.

[Ryokan]

he will probably consult there later, though, and be rewarded for his services.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Ryokan:

he will probably consult there later, though, and be rewarded for his services.

Is it fair to call your statement "conjecture"?

[Pilgrim]

Maybe conjecture at that, but it is a reasonable conjecture. Just like the thought that there are WMD or at least Chemical weapons in Iraq is reasonable conjecture.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 02:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Captain Ochre:

Is it fair to call your statement "conjecture"?
Here's another bit of conjecture for you: Greater than 90% of Americans who support the Administration's war will suspect that some form of quid pro quo is a likliehood---even you.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Pilgrim:

Maybe conjecture at that, but it is a reasonable conjecture. Just like the thought that there are WMD or at least Chemical weapons in Iraq is reasonable conjecture.

Hrm? We have intelligence reports indicating the Cheney will accept work with Halliburton once he's finished in his capacity with the Bush administration?
Satellite photos of Halliburton trucks moving (what could be) Cheney's furniture into Halliburton warehouses--stuff like that?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Lazy Agnostic:

Here's another bit of conjecture for you: Greater than 90% of Americans who support the Administration's war will suspect that some form of quid pro quo is a likliehood---even you.

Cite the source of your figure? FWIW, I'm in the 10% category (assuming your figures aren't plucked out of the air). I think that there are transactions taking place that will be called "quid pro quo" that are actually incidental. Pulitzer-hungry journalists will ride those as hard and as far as they can. The primary force behind the war, as I've stated elsewhere, is found in the mandate for the Federal government to protect the citizens of the US.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Captain Ochre:

Cite the source of your figure? FWIW, I'm in the 10% category (assuming your figures aren't plucked out of the air). I think that there are transactions taking place that will be called "quid pro quo" that are actually incidental. Pulitzer-hungry journalists will ride those as hard and as far as they can. The primary force behind the war, as I've stated elsewhere, is found in the mandate for the Federal government to protect the citizens of the US.

They were plucked out of thin conjecture.

You can say you don't believe there's a likliehood of quid pro quo, but I'd bet that most of your comrades here will suspect it's likely that's a little bit of a fib.

I'm beginning to get a picture. A conjecture of a personal nature, if you'll allow--if not, I'll erase this. I suspect you just get off on being contrary. It really trips your trigger, doesn't it?

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 09:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Lazy Agnostic:

They were plucked out of thin conjecture.

You can say you don't believe there's a likliehood of quid pro quo, but I'd bet that most of your comrades here will suspect it's likely that's a little bit of a fib.


I stated my position above clearly, to stand against your ambiguously-worded statement. Let's say that I think that it is 3.2% likely that the war was designed to, say, pay Saddam back for trying to assassinate President George Bush.
You could say: "A-ha! See? You think that there is a (3.2%) likelihood of quid pro quo!"
:zzz:



I'm beginning to get a picture. A conjecture of a personal nature, if you'll allow--if not, I'll erase this. I suspect you just get off on being contrary. It really trips your trigger, doesn't it?

Well, the obvious contrarian answer is "no", but I do enjoy argument. OTOH, I don't enjoy argument when (for instance) my opponent is only capable of arguing by assertion. Opponents who are invincibly ignorant likewise are only worth enough investment to expose their nature.
When I argue, I do not hesistate to affirm a point by my opponent that I think is correct, or even if I think that it may have merit (John Powell might attest to the latter, and perhaps Jimmy Higgins would do so to the former).
I'm aware that affirming any position of an opponent is supposed to be a debate no-no. I disregard that debate guideline, yet I won't pretend that I think I'm wrong when I don't really think I'm wrong.
How's that, Mister Psychology?

[Lazy Agnostic]

Yesterday @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Captain Ochre:

I stated my position above clearly, to stand against your ambiguously-worded statement. Let's say that I think that it is 3.2% likely that the war was designed to, say, pay Saddam back for trying to assassinate President George Bush.
You could say: "A-ha! See? You think that there is a (3.2%) likelihood of quid pro quo!"

I thought we were referring to this post from Pilgrim:

Interesting that Cheney's old firm just signed a 2 Billion dollar contract with the US to clean up oil refinery fires. All behind the scenes with no other bids considered.
Giving the contract to Halliburton without considering other bids would involve a high likelilhood of some quid pro quo for Mr. Cheney---in the minds of most folks---is my guess.

[Ryokan]

Its not an unreasonable guess.

[Ryokan]

In addition, the other reasonable assumption seems to be true as well. I am not going to bet the farm on it, but...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_iraq_chemical_2

And if the inspectors really were there before, then the Inspector Clouseau analogy was even more apt than I thought it was so many months ago.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Lazy Agnostic:

I thought we were referring to this post from Pilgrim:
Giving the contract to Halliburton without considering other bids would involve a high likelilhood of some quid pro quo for Mr. Cheney---in the minds of most folks---is my guess.

I don't draw conclusions based on small amounts of data such as this, if I can help it (and I certainly can, in this case).
How many corporations have the resources to combat large numbers of oil fires (and how many of them are French)?
Does the US have a recent experience that may have influenced the decision (such as the Gulf War fires)?
Did Cheney grant the contract, or supervise the person(s) who did?
Spreading just enough information to make it look like somebody is probably guilty of something is a detestable practice, imo.

[edit to add]
Now that I mention it:
"The Army says it chose KBR for the fires because it was in Kuwait and could work fast"

Also, Pilgrim seemingly conflated a mention of "2 billion" in contracts with the potential value of the oil fire contract, which by itself could be worth up to one billion (probably depending on the number of fires and the like).
So, he was inaccurate and off-topic, afaics.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/892744.asp