CNN reports on WMDs and David Kay

[Moogie]

<table width="90%" border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="1" bordercolor="#63635A" bgcolor="#E7E7E2" align="center"><tr><td style="font-size: 12px; font-style: italic;">For some time now, the Democrats have been yelling and screaming that "Bush lied us into war in Iraq by lying about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. David Kay, the weapons inspector says so!"<br></td></tr></table><br><br>Well, after much straight "reporting" of the ranting and raving by Kennedy, Schumer, H. Clinton & Co., CNN has finally set the record straight. They aired a segment of Kay testifying before a Senate panel that "the best intelligence showed that Iraq possessed WMD's prior to the invasion", and that the intelligence services of France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain and other countries also believed that Iraq possessed WMDs. And, in part of the testimony, Mr. Kay directly addressed Senator Kennedy to remind him that he believed it too!<br><br>A shot of Kennedy showed him feeling very uncomfortable.<br><br>I wouldn't have believed CNN would air that segment it if I hadn't seen it with my own two blood-shot eyes, shortly after 8PM, EST, 28 Jan 2004.<br><br>Comments? Thoughts? Rants?<br><br>

[Paratima]

My main comment would be that the "intelligence services" seem to be misnamed.

Inspector Cloiseau would be proud! :p

Or, Bond, where are you when we need you?

[Moogie]

I do have a point that I forgot to bring up.

When the president has credible evidence of a threat, he is obligated to act. So, based on the available evidence, whether it was accurate or not, he had to act to remove the threat.

Considering Iraq's record towards its neighbors (Kuwait, Iran), and its documented intentions towards Saudi Arabia, which are strategic partners of the US, and Iraq's documented support of Al Quaida, Bush had no option but to order invasion and destruction of the Iraqi regime.

[wirthi]

Originally posted by Moogie
I do have a point that I forgot to bring up.

When the president has credible evidence of a threat, he is obligated to act. So, based on the available evidence, whether it was accurate or not, he had to act to remove the threat.
That's this "clear and present danger thing" (I'm currently reading "Clear an present danger" by Tom Clancy :D )?

Just one wrong word here: It's not that he "had" to act, but that he was "allowed" to.

Considering Iraq's record towards its neighbors (Kuwait, Iran), and its documented intentions towards Saudi Arabia, which are strategic partners of the US, and Iraq's documented support of Al Quaida, Bush had no option but to order invasion and destruction of the Iraqi regime.
Sorry, Moogie, but I don't agree.

I won't start arguing about US participation in the war Iraq-Iran now (you should know better about that than I do).

So, your consitution gives your president the right to invade a country on the other side of the world, just because your "strategic partners" are possibly in danger? The same country that is supporting Osama bin Laden, where he was born, where his money is, etc.? [ You say I can't prove that? Can you prove Iraq supported Al Quaida? ] Who gives you this right? You just take it!

We can now discuss where the WMDs have gone, where they are hid, or why the intelligence agencies think there were there. Fact is: they are not there. Wasn't that what Bush said to be the reason why the US attacked Iraq?

Wirthi

PS: I, too, like Saddam being removed from leadership. I just dislike the way you did it ...

[Chinasaur]

Well the Hutton Whitewash exonerated Blair, and Kay is part of the spin control machine to pin the blame on the CIA instead of Bush.

People will believe whatever fits their particular model of the world so that it causes them no discomfort.

*****

This is all just so much BS. The world hates the US because we turned our backs on our Revolutionary roots and support thug governments like Iraqs Hussein, Irans Shah, Nicaraguas Somoza, Kuwaits Sabah clan, etc, etc, etc. If you lay down with dogs, dont be surprised if you get up with fleas. The world hates us because we supported/support governments that brutalize their citizens so American companies can earn vast sums of money.

This is all about money and oil, and not `imminent threats` from WMD. Its about threats to American companies profits.

Anyone who thinks its ok to break international law and remove a government just because they want to, or can, is guilty of supporting a rogue government.

This whole thing is about as perverted as signs that say `God Bless our Troops`. AS IF GOD TAKES SIDES IN KILLING! Gimme a break!! What part of `Thou Shall NOT kill` dont these people understand? Do they think about those signs?

Yes God, go and Bless our troops so they can go and kill other humans. Thats the religion of the Crusade, and if you arent a student of history you should read up. A lot of today looks a lot like the beginning of the Crusades. Do you think its okay to kill because some of us got killed? For you Christians out there...who are soooo ready and itching to extract some revenge for 9.11, dont you recall something about `turn the other cheek`?

Does anyone REALLY believe that MORE killing will stop the cycle of violence?

Do you?

Only the soldier prays for peace. And the most vocal proponents of WAR are those who have never served...and those are the scariest people of all.

NO MORE WAR.

[Fozzie]

I see you taking that wishy washy liberal stance of yours again.:D ;)

[Chinasaur]

If you stand for nothing, youll fall for anything.

:Pokes:


PS .. I think the front page should be reserved for DC/FreeDC pertinent `stuff` ONLY...NOT for posting `views`. Otherwise, everyone should get front page access to post their views. Lets keep it in the Lounge where it belongs.

Clear?

[GHOST]

Its about threats to American companies profits.

The definition of America's stragegic interests.

[wirthi]

Originally posted by Chinasaur
This is all about money and oil, and not `imminent threats` from WMD. Its about threats to American companies profits.
And why's that not the official position?

And, no, we don't hate you for that, we just think you'r crazy, and that it's no wonder you'r the #1 target of terrorism when you annoy (if not attack) all those "evil" countries ...

Wirthi

[pointwood]

1. I think it's a good thing that Saddam is gone.

2. It's difficult to know, but to me, it doesn't seem like there really was any good reasons for attacking Iraq. You should have finished him off when you had the chance (the Gulf war).

3. Goats are cool :jester:

[Paratima]

Well, Pointy, two out of three ain't bad.

Goats, in my experience, are delicious! :p

[Hinton]

Originally posted by Moogie
When the president has credible evidence of a threat, he is obligated to act. So, based on the available evidence, whether it was accurate or not, he had to act to remove the threat.


There was no threat towards USA. Everyone knew that.


Originally posted by Moogie

Considering Iraq's record towards its neighbors (Kuwait, Iran), and its documented intentions towards Saudi Arabia, which are strategic partners of the US, and Iraq's documented support of Al Quaida, Bush had no option but to order invasion and destruction of the Iraqi regime.

USA backed the Iraqi invasion of Iran, USA supplied WMD's to IRAQ to use against IRAN.

There is no way Iraq was planning any invasion against either Saudia Arabia or Kuwait, and even if it did, that would not have warranted an invasion of Iraq since USA has a very strong millitary presence in theese two countries and would be able to stop such an attack without the slightest problem.


And Iraq's documented support of Al Quaida, what are you smoking dope and watching FOX news at the same time?


/me hates himself from getting into this.

[Moogie]

Seems this discussion has brought alot of you out! That's a good thing. It's great to have a debate where folks can voice their opinions in a civilized manner (mostly).

That being said...here are my thoughts. First off, a bit off the subject, I think this is a good place to post all different kinds of things. You've got Dyy, Cyg as well as myself you can always email articles to, and you can also post your own articles in this forum if you don't want them to show up on the front page. Yes, this is all about DC, computers..etc..but it's also nice to throw some coals in the fire and get people to post. It stirs up some activity..maybe pulls some folks in to post where they wouldn't necessarily take part. That's a good thing. But that's just my opinion, and I don't hold the strings.

Secondly, let me just point out that I am not in FAVOR of war. Period. But, as I have tried to convey, perhaps there are some times where it is justifiable, though I hesitate to use that word. I intensely dislike the idea that we, or anyone else are getting killed.

Thirdly, I am a Christian, and I have never once itched for revenge for 9.11. I would be happy to debate the Crusades issue with you if you'd like to start another post.

Lastly, Hinton. I don't smoke dope. :) I tend to be passionate at looking at all sides of the story. I am factual, which, given the nature of my job now, and who I work for, is understandable. Rest assured, if you can show me some facts to point me in another direction, I'm open to discussion.

Now...my rebuttal.....

Uhh...here's a sorta timeline, with US responses. Given the long list of offenses by Iraq against US interests, Iraqi "regime change", which was first articulated by none other than Bill Clinton, is eminently justifiable. Please note: The House of Reps AND the Senate, by a sizable majority, including most Democrats, specifically authorized the Prez to invade.

World Trade Center 1 - The Bombing On February 26, 1993, lead by a man who had entered the United States on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef. Iraq, although implicated, gets a free pass.

The Airplane Conspiracy - The planned bombing of US airliners while they were airborne in 1995, also lead by Ramzi Yousef. Again, Iraq gets a free pass.

Khobar Towers bombing - 1996. Al Quaeda. Iraq support/training/supplies strongly suspicioned, but conclusively proven. Clinton White House declines to push Saudis for aggressive investigation. Iraq walks.

US Embassy bombings 1998. Al Quaeda. Explosives believed to be supplied by Iraq. Suspicion, but no proof. Iraq gets a free pass. Funding supplied by bin Laden - proven. Saudi Arabia exiles bin Laden.

USS Cole, docked in the port of Yemen to take on fuel. Bombed by operatives of Al Quaeda. No known Iraqi involvement.

Iraq, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, gave payments to the families of suicide bombers who blew up Israeli targets. This went on right up to the day of the invasion.

And yes, Chinasaur, partially it IS about the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil. If that oil supply stops, YOU (and I, and everyone else) will wind up paying much much more for oil products - gasoline, motor oil, anything that contains plastic (which is based on oil). As you may have noticed, the economy isn't in that great of shape. An oil crisis wouldn't help at all. That makes Saudi and Kuwait strategic allies of the US, and a threat to them and their oil is definitely a "clear and present danger".

Mostly, to me at least, the removal of that particular mass-murdering, 2nd rate thug is definitely a Good Thing.

Please note: Assad of Syria is being polite, Iran isn't busy threatening the US (internal problems, mostly), and Libya has stopped it's nuclear program. Think the example of Saddam might have influenced them?

[wirthi]

Originally posted by Moogie
Secondly, let me just point out that I am not in FAVOR of war. Period. But, as I have tried to convey, perhaps there are some times where it is justifiable, though I hesitate to use that word. I intensely dislike the idea that we, or anyone else are getting killed.
Very few people are. But some see it as a possible alternative (and I mean both sides here, I count the terror attack as "war", too). That's where the problem starts.
Uhh...here's a sorta timeline, with US responses. Given the long list of offenses by Iraq against US interests, Iraqi "regime change", ...
You mean those terror attacks? How many can you name where you can really prove (not just assume) that the Iraqi goverment took part in? That few allow you to attack a whole country and kill 10.000 people (sorry, don't know the actual number).

World Trade Center 1 - The Bombing On February 26, 1993, lead by a man who had entered the United States on an Iraqi passport under the name of Ramzi Yousef. Iraq, although implicated, gets a free pass.

The Airplane Conspiracy - The planned bombing of US airliners while they were airborne in 1995, also lead by Ramzi Yousef. Again, Iraq gets a free pass.

Khobar Towers bombing - 1996. Al Quaeda. Iraq support/training/supplies strongly suspicioned, but conclusively proven. Clinton White House declines to push Saudis for aggressive investigation. Iraq walks.

US Embassy bombings 1998. Al Quaeda. Explosives believed to be supplied by Iraq. Suspicion, but no proof. Iraq gets a free pass. Funding supplied by bin Laden - proven. Saudi Arabia exiles bin Laden.

USS Cole, docked in the port of Yemen to take on fuel. Bombed by operatives of Al Quaeda. No known Iraqi involvement.

Iraq, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, gave payments to the families of suicide bombers who blew up Israeli targets. This went on right up to the day of the invasion.
All of them are outrageous terror attacks or attempts. They just don't show why Saddam should have been involved.

And yes, Chinasaur, partially it IS about the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil. If that oil supply stops, YOU (and I, and everyone else) will wind up paying much much more for oil products - gasoline, motor oil, anything that contains plastic (which is based on oil). As you may have noticed, the economy isn't in that great of shape. An oil crisis wouldn't help at all. That makes Saudi and Kuwait strategic allies of the US, and a threat to them and their oil is definitely a "clear and present danger".
First, you know where most of the oil from that region goes to? Guess: Europe. So, you lose one or two soldiers every day to ensure Europe get enough oil? Thanks, guys ...

In that paragraph you clearly stated one thing: "we trade our high standard of living for the lives of some goddamn country we don't really care about, that was dumb enough to annoy us a few times, so their lives are pissed now".

Mostly, to me at least, the removal of that particular mass-murdering, 2nd rate thug is definitely a Good Thing.
I fully agree. I just dislike how you gave reasons for the attack. And, as Hinton already stated, some years ago you BACKED his mass murder against Irani people, because it was your interest than to kill Irani people. Great interests. Better stick to collecting stamps, that's interesting too and doesn't kill people :rotfl:

Please note: Assad of Syria is being polite, Iran isn't busy threatening the US (internal problems, mostly), and Libya has stopped it's nuclear program. Think the example of Saddam might have influenced them?
<sarcasm>beep ... Iraq under controll ... beep .... Please insert next enemy ... beep</sarcasm>

You act like the police guard of the world. We (those "good" countries) thank you for that. Just don't think everybody likes the police. I think the reason WHY you are target of so many attack is that you annoy so many people, all around the world. Perhaps you have to redefine your "interestes", keep out of the middle east, and the bombing squads will keep out of your embassies/airplanes/ships (one sidenote: if there was no USS Cole in the harbour of Yemen, there would have been no target ....)



If you don't agree, don't see it as offence. I'm just annoyed by how the US handles world policy and then starts to wonder why there are some freaks attacking them. And that the only answer is more violence.

Wirthi

[rshepard]

You act like the police guard of the world. We (those "good" countries) thank you for that. Just don't think everybody likes the police

I think this is part of the problem. And I think we're going to see an increasing dissatisfaction here in the US with that role. I believe we may be heading back to the kind of isolationism that prevailed prior to WWII. People are going to get tired of being the world's trouble-shooter, and then getting slammed for it. Its a no-win situation (politically)
for us- if we intervene in a trouble spot, we're condemned as war-mongering bullies, and if we stand back and some country gets rolled up, we're condemned for not preventing it.
It's probably a god thing I don't make US policy, because I would have to tell the rest of the world "We quit- deal with your problems yourself.."

/me dons my asbestos suit and goes back to watching FOX

[wirthi]

Originally posted by rshepard
... if we intervene in a trouble spot, we're condemned as war-mongering bullies, and if we stand back and some country gets rolled up, we're condemned for not preventing it.
I suppose you're only condemned by those who you said to defend (like Israel, Saudi-Arabia, ...) if you stopped to support them (with troops).

Everybody would accept US troops defending an allied country (like Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia against Iraq); that's what happened in Gulf War 1991. What happened now is: the US attacked a country. Of course that country (at least it's goverment) was guilty of commiting serveral crimes, that doesn't give you the right to invade it though.

I might be wrong, but the last war an EU member fought independently was the Falklandwar 1982 (Argentinia VS Great Britain). Quite a long time since then. And I don't see any of my immediate interests in danger now.

[Dyyryath]

Originally posted by wirthi
And I don't see any of my immediate interests in danger now.

Which is probably why the thought of the US staying out of everything doesn't bother you. ;)

I have to admit there are times when I feel a little like rshepard: we've spent enough time worrying about the rest of the world. Maybe it's time we brought all of our troops home from *everywhere*. Screw the rest of the world, let them fend for themselves.

It'd certainly be a lot cheaper for us if the Europeans would take up the mantle of 'world cop'. Or maybe they'd just let things run themselves. Either way, who cares? :D

Seriously, though, I doubt that if we pulled our troops back home from everywhere they are stationed abroad that it would make as much difference (at least as far as terrorist attacks go) as you think. Terrorists (especially radical Islamic terrorists) hate us as much for idealistic reasons as they do for our meddling.

It does seem like our foreign policy would be a whole lot simpler if we kept more to ourselves, but rshepard's right; then we'd get the rap for not doing enough.

BTW: I always find it fascinating to hear what our non-American friends have to say about things. It's probably the single greatest feature of the Internet: easy, personal communication with people from different cultures and backgrounds. :thumbs:

[rshepard]

Everybody would accept US troops defending an allied country (like Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia against Iraq); that's what happened in Gulf War 1991. What happened now is: the US attacked a country. Of course that country (at least it's goverment) was guilty of commiting serveral crimes, that doesn't give you the right to invade it though.

What is the line that establishes the "right to invade" ? Is the US supposed to wait until the rest of the world says " OK , now our interests are being threatened, we'd like you to come take care of this"? How many people have to die at the hands of a renegade nation before intervention becomes acceptable?

To return to the "world's policeman" analogy, it seems to me that the world wants us to sit
in the police station and wait for a call that there's trouble, instead of having cars patrolling the streets, trying to prevent a crime from happening. The problem is, it is a lot more costly in terms of men and equipment to set somethimg right than to prevent it from happening in the first place.

[RacerX]

Originally posted by Chinasaur
This whole thing is about as perverted as signs that say `God Bless our Troops`. AS IF GOD TAKES SIDES IN KILLING! Gimme a break!! What part of `Thou Shall NOT kill` dont these people understand? Do they think about those signs?

Yes God, go and Bless our troops so they can go and kill other humans. Thats the religion of the Crusade, and if you arent a student of history you should read up. A lot of today looks a lot like the beginning of the Crusades. Do you think its okay to kill because some of us got killed? For you Christians out there...who are soooo ready and itching to extract some revenge for 9.11, dont you recall something about `turn the other cheek`?



Ok, Everything up until this point has been intelligent. But, please, do not take the Word of God out of context. Especially to use it as a basis of an argument. If you want to use scripture as a standard for an argument you must use it ALL. You cannot pick and choose which part to believe and which part to not.

For all you homelitical, hermeneutical, theological, philisophical people: If you think God doesn't take sides in a war go read Genesis and Joshua again. (Let us also remember some little known individuals such as King David and Gideon.) If you want to base a theology off one sentence (Thou shalt not kill) Why not use "If any man sheds mans blood, by man his blood shall be shed?" (Leviticus, I could give you plenty more) As far as the "turn the other cheek" quote, that would be in Matthew and Mark. But, it says more like this, "If anyone slaps you on the cheek, offer him the other. If any one steals your coat,offer him your tunic." (That is the complete sentence. To catch the context one would have to start further back then continue reading for a while.)

I really do not want to become preachy here. However, one thing that really gets my hackles up is the misuse of scripture.

[wirthi]

Dyy: I don't know if it's good for the world if the US stays out of everything. I just think that woring about everything brings YOU more troubles than staying out of things.

For us europeans it's great that you handle things: you pay the wars, you bring your solders into danger, you take the blame (from us and the rest of the world, condemning you); if it's not working out, we can say "we told you", and if it's working out, we get all the benefits (better world, cheaper oil, etc.)

rshepard: It's not about us agreeing to your operations. It's about the motives of the invasion. The question is as simple as this: is it ok to kill one person to drop the price of oil by a few dollars? Or killing 10 people? Or invading Iraq and killing thousands?

Ok, interests again: could please someone sum up your interests on Iraq here, and prove their connection to Iraq?

~~~~~

As Dyyryath statet: it's great to be able to discuss things. Perhaps you are right after all. I just don't believe that, yet :)

Greets,
Wirthi

[rshepard]

The question is as simple as this: is it ok to kill one person to drop the price of oil by a few dollars? Or killing 10 people? Or invading Iraq and killing thousands?

OK, let's throw out the WMD arguments, and the moral issues of letting one country slam another, and just deal with the oil. It isn't about dropping the price by a few dollars, but about keeping the supply stable, at a fair market price, instead of in the hands of some fanatic who could use the oil as a means of blackmailing the nations that depend on that supply to maintain their economies. That is the hard, and admittedly ugly truth, and the sooner people face up to it, the better. If the US stepped aside and allowed allowed such a scenario to develop, I doubt that those nations whose economies were collapsing would stand by, wringing their hands and wishing they had a "moral" reason to take action.

[wirthi]

Originally posted by rshepard
OK, let's throw out the WMD arguments, and the moral issues of letting one country slam another, and just deal with the oil. It isn't about dropping the price by a few dollars, but about keeping the supply stable, at a fair market price, instead of in the hands of some fanatic who could use the oil as a means of blackmailing the nations that depend on that supply to maintain their economies. That is the hard, and admittedly ugly truth, and the sooner people face up to it, the better. If the US stepped aside and allowed allowed such a scenario to develop, I doubt that those nations whose economies were collapsing would stand by, wringing their hands and wishing they had a "moral" reason to take action.
I would agree, if Iraq was THE major oil producer. They are a big player in this business and if they stopped producing the market would react of course. That doesn't mean the market would collapse though. The other OPEC countries would just increase their production, prices would perhaps go up a bit, finito.

And as I stated before, most of Middle-East oil goes to Europe. Brings us back to the other discussion ...

Still worth a war?

EDIT: according to OPEC stats, prior to Gulf War (1) Iraq produced slighly less than 10% of OPEC's production; take into that several big players are not part of OPEC (like USA, Russia, Norway, Mexico, ...) so that Iraq produces much less then 10% of worldwide oil ...

[rshepard]

I wasn't clear in my post, and I apologize. I wasn't referring to the oil in Iraq only, but in the entire region. That is the supply that has to be stabilized. If the Iraqi oil was the issue, then yes, market forces would have compensated. In the same sense, we could have let the Kuwait invasion stand, if we could be sure it would end there. ( Again, leaving
out the morality of allowing a large nation to run over a smaller one.) The question becomes, how many countries do we trade away before we have to act?

[wirthi]

Originally posted by rshepard
I wasn't clear in my post, and I apologize. I wasn't referring to the oil in Iraq only, but in the entire region. That is the supply that has to be stabilized. If the Iraqi oil was the issue, then yes, market forces would have compensated. In the same sense, we could have let the Kuwait invasion stand, if we could be sure it would end there. ( Again, leaving
out the morality of allowing a large nation to run over a smaller one.) The question becomes, how many countries do we trade away before we have to act?
Ok, IF Iraq attacked all the surrounding countries with oil (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Emirates, etc ...) that would have a major input on everything. But that would be like .... Kanada attacking the US, knowing that the rest of the world is on US's side. Not even Saddam is (was) so crazy to do that. It was foolish enough to attack Kuwait in 1991.

You may argue now that he planned such an attack. I think that's highly unlikely. Of course Saddam was a destabilizing factor in the region. Him arranging a war in the region that stopped all the countries there to deliver oil, sorry, but that's too hard to believe.

No, I see a major difference between the US attack now and the first Gulf War. In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait, thus starting the war. It was morally absolutely ok that the US (and other) troops stroke back, in fact the Kuwaits asked for that. It was about "defending a free country from an evil one" then.

This time, the US (and others) attacked this still evil land more or less without a major reason (besides interests, oil, money). One could say your troops invaded an independet country like Iraq did back in 1991, that you are the evil ones this time ...

Wirthi

PS: This thread is doing great things for my TKC and Projekt Orca stats :)

[Moogie]

The proof, or lack therof, of Iraqi assistance/complicity in the terror attacks is traceable to the Clinton administration's lack of resolve in investigating the attacks.

As examples, Saudi Arabia declined to allow the FBI to participate in the nvestigation of the Khobar Towers attack. Yemen very reluctantly allowed some participation, but dragged their heels as hard as they dared.

The Clinton administration didn't press the issue.

Until 11 September, Bush didn't press either. Post 11 September, the situation's been a little different. The problem is the trail is now cold.

BUT...evidence exists that links Iraq to Al Quaeda, specifically to training activities and supply of munitions.

That is good enough for me.

About the oil: If Europe can't get their oil from Saudi/Kuwait/Iraq, they will try to get it somewhere else, thereby driving up the price for the US. Point A to B to C, yes?

About "World's Policeman": The events of Sept 11th show that:

1. Arabs WILL NOT police their own region.
2. Europeans WILL NOT police regions near them.
3. The UN WILL NOT police anything, anywhere.

That leaves Great Britain and the US. Great Britain doesn't lack the will, but does lack resources to do the job properly.

That leaves the US.

I don't like THAT either, but truly, I don't see any option other than allowing barbarians to do as they will.

On another train of thought...

Do you remember the horrified reaction of the UN to the thumping that GB gave to Argentina?

The Iron Lady, quite properly, told the UN to butt out, and went ahead with the thumping.

This is a great discussion folks! Like Dyy said, it' fascinating to see opionions on this subject from different countries around the world.

[Anteraan]

Originally posted by Moogie
BUT...evidence exists that links Iraq to Al Quaeda, specifically to training activities and supply of munitions.

That is good enough for me.

I agree with this.



About "World's Policeman": The events of Sept 11th show that:

1. Arabs WILL NOT police their own region.
2. Europeans WILL NOT police regions near them.
3. The UN WILL NOT police anything, anywhere.

That leaves Great Britain and the US. Great Britain doesn't lack the will, but does lack resources to do the job properly.

That leaves the US.

I don't like THAT either, but truly, I don't see any option other than allowing barbarians to do as they will.

Delicious response - concise and accurate. It's also fair to say that points #1 and #2 were proven long before 9/11.

[wirthi]

Originally posted by Moogie
The proof, or lack therof, of Iraqi assistance/complicity in the terror attacks is traceable to the Clinton administration's lack of resolve in investigating the attacks.

As examples, Saudi Arabia declined to allow the FBI to participate in the nvestigation of the Khobar Towers attack. Yemen very reluctantly allowed some participation, but dragged their heels as hard as they dared.

The Clinton administration didn't press the issue.

Until 11 September, Bush didn't press either. Post 11 September, the situation's been a little different. The problem is the trail is now cold.

BUT...evidence exists that links Iraq to Al Quaeda, specifically to training activities and supply of munitions.

That is good enough for me.Not for me. You don't sentence a criminal to death if you can't prove he's guilty. Should be same here.

About the oil: If Europe can't get their oil from Saudi/Kuwait/Iraq, they will try to get it somewhere else, thereby driving up the price for the US. Point A to B to C, yes?You'r absoluteley right on this. But stopping to deliver all oil from middle east would completely destroy their economy. More than 90% of Iraq's income consists of selling oil. Similar should be true for Saudi Arabia, Emirates, etc. If they stopped selling oil, they would be doomed. Would the US stop to produce cars and computers? I guess not.


About "World's Policeman": The events of Sept 11th show that:

1. Arabs WILL NOT police their own region.
2. Europeans WILL NOT police regions near them.
3. The UN WILL NOT police anything, anywhere.
Arabs probably don't have the power to get rid of Saddam without bad losses on their sides, and no interest in that either (as long as Saddam's the bad guy, Iran and Saudi Arabia look like angels besides him).

Europe has few reasons to play police there. Everything is working fine for us, we get the oil and there's been no big terror attack against Europe lately. We have neither the reason nor the right to attack Iraq.

UN is not here for starting a war but for the opposite thing.

If the US sees it as it's legitimate right to invade a independent country, well, do it but don't think the others will like it.

That leaves Great Britain and the US. Great Britain doesn't lack the will, but does lack resources to do the job properly.Don't ever tell that to a Brit :D :rotfl:

Do you remember the horrified reaction of the UN to the thumping that GB gave to Argentina?

The Iron Lady, quite properly, told the UN to butt out, and went ahead with the thumping.Actually, no, I was only born later that year :)

The case is again a different here. It was English territory AFAIK and was invaded by Argentinian troops (who also demanded that tiny, uninteresting part of the world). Britain had every right to defendet it's country ...


This is a great discussion folks! Like Dyy said, it' fascinating to see opionions on this subject from different countries around the world. And I have to be the only one to support the European position? C'mon guys!

[GHOST]

This is a great little short flash film on the history of American relations
with Iraq.

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

[Moogie]

You all have brought up some seriously good points and it's clear we all have our opions on it. Good reading, and it's clearly given me alot to think about. It is also understood and respected (speaking for myself) that other countries as well as other US citizens) may not agree as to the way it was handled.

But....(and you knew this was coming): :D

Bottom line: What is in the best interests of the United States?

Is it in the best interests of the US to leave in power a dictator who is known to use war gasses on his neighbors (Iran) and his own people (Kurds), do an old-fashioned mugging writ large (Kuwait), launch missiles at a neutral country (Israel in Gulf War I)
and covet to the point of planning an invasion another of his neighbors (Saudi Arabia)?

Is it in the best interest of the US to leave in power a dictator who has provided safe haven to terrorists like the planner of the Achille Lauro high-jack, and training & materiel support to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas?

Short answer, <b>in my opinion</b>, is no.

The rest of the world may not like the way the US did this. But given the circumstances, especially in the wake of September 11th, 2001, the opinion of the rest of the world is strictly of secondary or tertiary concern.

Arrogance on my part? Maybe, maybe not.

It is certain that I support the position of my government: the safety and welfare of the US comes first. Then, and only then, will we consider the opinion of the rest of the world.

Realize, this is an opionion of one US citizen only, and not necessarily a view that is poopular with all.

[GHOST]

http://www.bartcop.com/oil-toon_2.JPG

I was shocked at how all politicians, espescially democrats, caved to this administration's pursuit of war. Only one I remember speaking out bravely was Sen. Byrd. He is still speaking but I don't see it in the mainstream press. The media ownership and control is becoming very consolidated and reporters and columnists and tv reporters are not allowed to say things like they were 20 years ago.

Definition of jpurnalism today- science of how to manipulate the masses.

http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches.html

I glanced at the jan 2004 speeches today. Anybody expecting pension payments in retirement? I'm expecting this country to be bankrupt.

[rshepard]

Definition of jpurnalism today- science of how to manipulate the masses.

I have to disagree with this. Journalism ( and I'm including all the mass-media here- print, radio and television) isn't about manipulating the masses. It's about getting, and keeping, market-share. The media isn't particularly interested in setting the agenda, but rather in re-gurgitating information to the public with whatever slant is currently the most palatable to the largest demographic; because that is what sells, and in the end, it is all about profit.

[wirthi]

Originally posted by Moogie
You all have brought up some seriously good points and it's clear we all have our opions on it. Good reading, and it's clearly given me alot to think about. It is also understood and respected (speaking for myself) that other countries as well as other US citizens) may not agree as to the way it was handled.

But....(and you knew this was coming): :D

Bottom line: What is in the best interests of the United States?

Is it in the best interests of the US to leave in power a dictator who is known to use war gasses on his neighbors (Iran) and his own people (Kurds), do an old-fashioned mugging writ large (Kuwait), launch missiles at a neutral country (Israel in Gulf War I)
and covet to the point of planning an invasion another of his neighbors (Saudi Arabia)?
I agree with you here, Moogie. Technically, you are right. EVERYBODY (well ... almost) in the world wished Saddam being removed from power, hated him for what he did.

Selling him he weapons to do this gas attacks, well, it was your interestes then, almost 25 years ago! That's far to long to remember. And, in fact, letting him kill those evil Iranis was legitimate then (your interestes, I know). Now the interests changed direction 180 degrees, now it's better to kill Iraqis, to blame them for using the weapons YOU sold them. Oh, I know, the interestes of your chemical-weapons-companies (making money is their main interest). They are arabs, after all. Other side of the planet, who cares if a few of them get killed, even better if they kill each other.

Just a side-note: in the same way you supported the Taliban first, made them big and so ...


Is it in the best interest of the US to leave in power a dictator who has provided safe haven to terrorists like the planner of the Achille Lauro high-jack, and training & materiel support to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas?What is terror? I quote my personal encyclopedia (the "Brockhaus"): "Terror: horror, menace, oppression". Is't that what you brought to many iraqi people? (ok, that was a bad one; I know you try not to do, but, hey, it's not working out, they didn't receipt you with flowers as you expected ...). What is terror is only a matter of view. Hamas is a freedom-fighting organization (if you are a Palestine). The american fighters in the independence war were terrorists (if you were a british official). It depends on your point of view.


Realize, this is an opionion of one US citizen only, and not necessarily a view that is poopular with all.
As is mine. I respect your opinion, I somehow know why you think so (9/11 is a VERY bad argument in connection with Iraq, but, Europe didn't have something comparably, so who knows how I'd feel if we had ...). Still, I see to many errors in your arguments, too many of them just say "we are the leaders of the world, our interests count, screw what the others think". As I said before, you'r free to do so, but don't think that those others like it :)

Wirthi

[Dyyryath]

I think what Moogie is saying is basically: nations look out for their own best interests first. Every nation does this.

The problem is, when the US does this, the repercussions are far greater than when any other country does it. The US currently has the might to cause enormous changes in the world when it decides that it needs to take action.

The problem is probably less that we are looking out for ourselves first, but rather that we have become so strong that there isn't a good balance left to keep us in check. The world would probably do well with a little more parity.

As it is, we are perfectly capable of brushing aside everyone else's objections when we get angry enough and that's probably not a good thing.

Having said all that, let me also say that I think we did the right thing by Iraq, though not necessarily by using the right arguments. As I've stated in other threads, I was there during the first Gulf War. I remember how things went sour after we left without finishing the job. Politics and agreements didn't help those left behind to suffer Hussein's wrath, and they did very little (other than starve the people of Iraq) to keep him in line afterward.

I think Bush's administration intentionally picked the worst case scenario for Iraq and their WMD programs based on what intelligence they had and then used it to sell the war. I don't necessarily agree with that approach. Saddam's stubborness and lies made this even easier for them. However, if they'd have come out and said:

"Saddam's a bad guy. He has failed to live up to any of the agreements that were made to keep us from taking him out of power the first time. He doesn't show any signs of changing his behaviour. Since he has defaulted on his end of the Gulf War agreements, we are going to reinstate our original intention and remove him from power. Incidentally, this will hopefully stabilize the Middle East and allow us to ensure that he no longer cooperates with terrorist groups or builds weapons of mass destruction."

I'd have supported it. To be perfectly honest, I think we screwed the Iraqis at the end of the first Gulf War. We asked them to stand up to Saddam and then we pulled back due to 'diplomatic' pressure. That was a mistake and it cost an awful lot of people their lives. These were people who were counting on us.

I agree that we are becoming a little too aggressive these days. We're feeling kind of defensive after 9/11 and Americans often consider a strong offense as the best defense. While it does seem to be having some positive effects (Iran, Libya), we need to be careful not to get carried away. Having power is useless if the bad guys don't think you'll use it. Using it all the time, however, also reduces it's effectivness. We need to be careful not to let the balance tip too far one way or the other.

[wirthi]

Originally posted by Dyyryath
I think what Moogie is saying is basically: nations look out for their own best interests first. Every nation does this.
fully agree

Having said all that, let me also say that I think we did the right thing by Iraq, though not necessarily by using the right arguments.
I agree, but I would also note that you thought the Iraqis would like what you did. They didn't, most of them.

Having power is useless if the bad guys don't think you'll use it. Using it all the time, however, also reduces it's effectivness. We need to be careful not to let the balance tip too far one way or the other.
And, if the "bad" guys know they have no chance (war will be declared upon them anyway), so their only chance is to start some kind of guerilla war. I'm no expert on this, but I guess that's why people see some kind of terror as their only chance ...

Wirthi

[Dyyryath]

Originally posted by wirthi
I agree, but I would also note that you thought the Iraqis would like what you did. They didn't, most of them.

Actually, I don't think that's true. What you see on the media isn't always an accurate portrayal. In fact, the media almost always shows the vocal minority. I'd guess that the majority are glad to be out from under Saddam, but justifiably cautious about how long we're going to be there. It's the ones that used to be in power that seem the most unhappy. ;)

[wirthi]

Originally posted by Dyyryath
Actually, I don't think that's true. What you see on the media isn't always an accurate portrayal. In fact, the media almost always shows the vocal minority. I'd guess that the majority are glad to be out from under Saddam, but justifiably cautious about how long we're going to be there. It's the ones that used to be in power that seem the most unhappy. ;)
Yea, you might be right; Most of them like Saddam being removed and would thank you for that (perhaps not in the public, but ...). Others don't. Still, most would also like to see you leave NOW, not in June or when the hack you plan to do so.

It's again a matter of view. When a *tiny* minority was shown on the media after 9/11 celebrating what had happened (I guess it was in palestine), the US got enraged about them. It was a minority then, too, why bother? Now a minority is commiting suicide attacks against you. It's always that minority that gets in the media. Those terrorists. Or freedom fighters, if you'r on the other side.

[Chinasaur]

There is NO evidence linking al qaeda and Iraq. THAT is one of the main sticking points about this whole invasion lie thing...that Hussein had WMDs (that we gave him), and that he supported al qaeda.

Lets not get revisionist here...produce your `proof`.

The problem with Bush is that he screeches `how dare you not believe me`, when all the evidence points to him being totally NOT believable.

People never learn? You are tools of an administration that is AGAINST you, and FOR business, and the TWO are not mutually compatible. They will send your sons and daughters to die for Oil in Iraq while lying to your face by telling you whatever you want to hear.

Wake up.

[rshepard]

For what it's worth:

I AM NOT ANYBODY'S "TOOL" , AND I STRONGLY RESENT THE SUGGESTION THAT I MIGHT BE.

I doubt you know anyone here well enough to be tossing that kind of accusation around.
But on the off-chance that you or someone else might want to understand my political mindset, here ya go:
The first president I voted for was Nixon- he's also the last president (or any other elected official) I voted for. I have come to believe that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The special interests will dictate policy,and the masses will be told whatever is required to keep them happy. I have no great respect for the president or his policies-- but I don't much care for the alternatives we are being offered either. And it really pi$$es me off when they say "Elect me, I'm not going to be influenced by the special interest groups";
when what they really mean is "Elect me, I'm going to listen to our special interest groups instead of those of the opposition"

Furthermore, who says my interests are incompatible with the interests of business???
As it happens, I am about 6 years from retirement, and am trying to push my portfolios as high as they'll go. What happens to business makes a hell of a lot of difference from my position.

Apologies in advance to anyone offended by my tirade-- this is why I have tended to stay out of these "political threads"

/rant mode off

[RacerX]

President Bush Lied ??-----Really?

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE
ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES --then read this and, if you are the fair-minded person
that I believe you to be--, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003


SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Talk about two-tongued philosophy

[Moogie]

I need to catch up so I can get back in on all the discussions again. :)

[Chinasaur]

Well..long, murderous years later.

And Bush is shown to be a Torturer. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and others approved torture of human beings.

Be aware, International Law does not allow ANY excuse for torture. There is NO excuse for torture that is legal in international law. Only third world dictatorships allow torture.

Guantanamo is going to ALLOW "testimony obatined under torture" to be admitted as evidence. NOBODY but scum like Mugabe and Idi Amin allow testimony obtained under torture as evidence. Yet, the Bush nuts will. Is THAT what you want America? Are you proud of your country for torturing America? And how do you KNOW those people in G-Tmo are guilty?

A lying President, above and byond Nixon, in authorizing illegal spying on Americans.

Who lied "that we don't torture.." "We don't spy on Americans..."

Who is open to be prosecution on War Crimes and Crimes against humanity (torture and civilian infrastructure of Iraq). Who, even the arch-aparatchik Rumsfeld, admitted that "Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11"...

Who is responsible for over 4000 American deaths and probably over 1Million Iraqi's deaths. That is a de factor war crime..and if you can't see that..you need help...

I was right about the US being a "thug" nation. And I got attacked for it.

And everyone was wrong and defended the Ring Wing Taliban Nut Jobs™ in the Bush Regine who have violated International Law and Decency.

Here is your final word about what Good, Honest people KNOW about Bush...who's Nazi-sympathiizer Grandfather (Prescott Bush) rearmed Hitler's Germany...who is implicated in a plot against FDR... Do you refute the BBC?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml



The best condemnation of Bush and his crimes so far..I hope it's admitted as evidence in Bush's War Crimes trial...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24635229#24635229

Hitler had the Reichstag fire..Bush had the Twin Towers. Germans, after the war, declared "we had no choice..we coudn't speak out.."

Is that what Americans years from now will say? "Homeland Security was so tight..they would have taken us to FEMA camps if we spoke out.. .there was nothing we could do...the President himself said "you are with us or against us..""

This is all my opinion of course...not that the rest of the world doesn't agree with good meaning folks in the US... And make no mistake..sooner or later..good people all over the world have spoken for truth and honesty and decency..and they ahve already denounced the US and Americans who go along with this horrible administration.

And all of us who stood up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights..who stood up for the truth and honesty and decency and were attacked..are owed an apology from those who stood with the murderers..and the liars..and the fascists who would take our country from us.

[jasong]

I saw a t-shirt at CafePress that said ¨Nixon 2008.¨ I had to explain the joke to my friend Kenny. He´s intending to vote Republican. I know everybody´s vote counts, but at the moment, a negation is good enough for me.

I REALLY don´t want Hillary in there, but I´ll pull the lever for her if that´s what it takes. She´s probably as corrupt as Clinton, but continued Bush policies is a whole lot worse.

Btw, I highly recommend the movie Zeitgeist, and I can almost guarantee you won´t get sued for downloading a torrent of that particular movie.