Is War with Iraq unavoidable? [Archive] - The Buffalo Range, where the Buffalo fans roam!

shiva2999

August 8th, 2002, 6:55:24 PM

Since it wasn't me that introduced the Nazis into this thread.....

http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm

exerpt...

"Doing business with the enemy is nothing new to the Bush family. Much of the Bush family wealth came from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. Several business operations managed by Prescott Bush – the president’s grandfather - were seized by the US government during World War II under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

On October 20, 1942, the federal government seized the Union Banking Corporation in New York City as a front operation for the Nazis. Prescott Bush was a director. Bush, E. Roland Harriman, two Bush associates, and three Nazi executives owned the bank’s shares. Eight days later, the Roosevelt administration seized two other corporations managed by Prescott Bush. The Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both managed by the Bush-Harriman bank, were accused by the US federal government of being front organizations for Hitler’s Third Reich. Again, on November 8, 1942, the federal government seized Nazi-controlled assets of Silesian-American Corporation, another Bush-Harriman company doing business with Hitler."

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

— Herman Goering
Nazi Air Force (Luftwaffe) commander
at the Nuremberg Trials

"The great masses of the people... more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one"

— Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf

One of thousands of articles about the Reichstag fire of 1933...

http://idid.essortment.com/nazireichstag_rghx.htm

exerpt...

"On the night of February 27th, Berlin was rocked by a fire that blazed through the Reichstag Building, the German House of Parliament. The building was absolutely gutted. Called out to watch the massive bonfire, Adolf Hiltler exclaimed, “This is a God-given signal.” He was, in fact, delighted with what he saw. The very next day, Hitler met with President von Hindenburg, and pressured him into giving him dictatorial powers. This was a vital step for the Nazis. Now Hitler no longer relied upon the votes of the deputies in the Reichstag, where the Nazis did not enjoy a majority.

The following day, Chancellor Hitler took the radical steps of denying all legal guarantees of personal liberty, freedom of speech and the right of assembly by official decree. This step sent a shiver up many Berlin spines, as the people saw the destroyed Reichstag building as a symbol of the death of German democracy.

Blame for the fire was directed towards a Dutch Communist by the name of Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was picked up in the Reichstag grounds while the blaze was still in progress. A case was built around him that placed the simple minded Dutchman as the scapegoat of a sinister Communist plot to destabilise the nation. However, the beneficial aspects of the destruction of the Reichstag building for the Nazis did not go unnoticed and many people speculated that it was actually Chancellor Hitler who was the mastermind behind the plot."

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

— Mark Twain
The Mysterious Stranger
1916

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it...."

— General Douglas MacArthur
1957

"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."

— General Colin Powell
when asked about the number of Iraqi people
who were slaughtered by Americans
in the 1991 "Desert Storm" terror campaign:

"The trouble is that when American dollars earn only six percent over here, they get restless and go overseas to get 100 percent. The flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to defend some lousy investment of the bankers. We should fight only for the defense of our home and the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It had its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations and a 'Big Boss' — supernationalistic capitalism.

"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.

"I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.

"War is a racket."

— General Smedley D. Butler
former U.S. Marine Commandant
in Common Sense
November 1935

"I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don't care what the facts are."

— President George Bush
1988

Bush was demonstrating his patriotism by excusing an act of cold-blooded mass-murder by the U.S. Navy. On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner. All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace.

And finally....

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. ... And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government, I mean, I want to empower people, I don't - you know, I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to talk into a country and say, We do it this way, so should you. ... I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course." - George W. Bush, during the second presidential debate, October 11th, 2000

shiva2999

August 8th, 2002, 7:18:34 PM

Sorry, I guess I was being too subtle.

The syntax of the question is wrong.

It should be do you think Iraq can avoid a war with us?

We have nothing to "avoid".

"Avoiding" implies a circumstance beyond our control.

This circumstance has been totally designed.

THATHURMANATOR

August 8th, 2002, 7:21:47 PM

Exactly Shiva, we are the ones making the decisions.

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 7:30:27 PM

I knew it...it's all an elaborate conspiracy by American corporations and the American government.

This is almost as impressive of snow job as when they (the US government) had as believing the Japanese had attacked Hawaii...man these guys are good.

Thank God for shiva2999's uncommon grasp of the truth.

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 7:47:16 PM

Originally posted by reeves84
NoCtUrNaL
What are the reasons that we should attack Iraq?

Because Saddam Hussein is supposedly developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and he has a history of using them, even against his own citizens.

He attacked, without provocation, a neighboring country, murdering and torturing the citizens of that country. He'd still be there and perhaps in other countries in that region had we not interceded. In other words, he's shown a proclivity to do what ever he pleases no matter the consequences...as long as he's not killed.

You know what's funny...if Saddam was allowed to do whatever he wanted to, and he took over control of most of the Middle East and in doing so effected the price of oil to the point you'd be paying $10 a gallon to fill up your car or 5 times as much to heat your house, you'd be the first one to bitch...and the last thing you'd be concerning yourself with would be how the Bills might do.

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 7:58:31 PM

Originally posted by reeves84
Many countries, including my own, have developed such weapons. Some of those countries, including my own, have used them against their own citizens. Should we invade ourselves? Russia? Britain? China?

That describes many countries in the world, including most of Africa and Asia. Why not invade China for taking over Tibet? Britain for taking over Ireland? The States for taking over parts of Mexico? And surely South Africa was a prime case for invasion a few years ago, and Zimbabwe is right now.

We'll get to those countries after Saddam sleeps with the fishes. :D

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 8:02:53 PM

Originally posted by reeves84
So, when do we nuke the States?:D

You mean there's a state in this country that's using chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons against the U.S.? Where are they...let me at'em. :rolleyes:

shiva2999

August 8th, 2002, 9:00:44 PM

You know Nocturnal, I can certainly understand the attraction of the "swaggering tough guy with a chip on his shoulder" pose you've adopted along with so many of your countrymen.

Like the neighbourhood bully who woke up one morning and discovered someone had put sugar in the gas tank of his hotrod.

So someone's gonna get it. and nobody better get in your way or question who you decide gets it, because now that you've been *****ed with, everyone's a suspect and you reserve the right to kick the asses of anyone you suspect of ever having harbored thoughts of putting sugar in your gas tank. Like Fonsi with an edge. Personally, I think it's a little gay though, but that's just me.

However there are serious questions here that you may want to consider while you slick back your ducktail and flip your switchblade open and closed..

It's a given, I believe, that the U.S. can kick the asses of any country it chooses to.

Taking over Iraq shouldn't be that difficult.

But there are two questions attached to that.

1. Is it moral to attack Iraq. Granted Saddam is a bad guy who the world would be better off without, but so far that is the only justification, that Saddam is a bad guy who the world would be better off without.

Gassing the Kurds happened almost twenty years ago during bthe U.S. supported and instigated war against Iran.

They invaded Kuwait who was slant drilling their oil after consultation with the American ambassador who assured Saddam the U.S. would stay out of Arab-Arab conflicts.

Since the Gulf War over ten years ago, Iraq hasn't been proved to be involved or a sponsor of ANY act of terrorism.

Scott Ritter, ex marine and U.N. weapons inspector says Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are baloney.

2. Assuming no one gives a sh*t about the morals of an invasion, the next question is, is it a good idea?

It will be expensive. It will be bloody.

They just had a report from Baghdad on Connie Chung tonite. The woman reporter said all the people on the street don't understand why the U.S. is so hostile and they all think it's because the U.S. wants to take over Iraqi oil.

So when the invasion comes the questions then are, do we get the right wing fantasy of a nation gladly turning their backs on their leaders and throwing flowers in front of the American liberation force?

Or is it going to be vicious street to street fighting of a scale that will make Black Hawk Down look like a boyscout jamboree?

Who knows.

Once the country is conquered and Saddam either killed, captured or fled, what then?

Who knows.

Do you think the U.S. invading Iraq makes the world a safer or more dangerous place?

Are the terrorists going to give up, depressed at how badly things are going for them?

I don't think so.

Saudi Arabia after Iraq. Iran after Saudi Arabia.

Be careful what you wish for.

You just may get it.

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 9:46:56 PM

You're right...it would involve bloodshed and difficulty…the world would be better off if we simply let the tyrants and terrorists do as they please. :rolleyes:

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 9:55:23 PM

Originally posted by shiva2999

Be careful what you wish for.
You just may get it.

Cool, then I'll eventually get a world where all nations have democratic rule. :D

shiva2999

August 8th, 2002, 10:32:57 PM

Oh hoh, it's all about democracy, is it?

What about Cuba then? North Korea? Syria? Libya? Somalia? Pakistan?

Why not gloriously and selflessly fight a war to instill democracies in these countries?

Maybe because.....

There's no payoff?

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 10:37:44 PM

Originally posted by shiva2999
Oh hoh, it's all about democracy, is it?

What about Cuba then? North Korea? Syria? Libya? Somalia? Pakistan?

Why not gloriously and selflessly fight a war to instill democracies in these countries?

We're a powerful country, but we still have to pick our fights. It would be nice if we could cure all the worlds problems overnight, but some things just take time, and Saddam just about reached the end of his.

shiva2999

August 8th, 2002, 11:05:20 PM

Speaking about democracy, I know a country where they "elected" a president even though he got 540,000 less votes than his opponent but won on a technicality through the results of vote rigging by the "winner's" brother and a corrupt 5-4 ruling by the supreme court with all 5 voting for the "winner" having been appointed by the "winners" party.

Should we go to war with them? (They also have the world's largest collection of weapon's of mass destruction).

NoCtUrNaL

August 8th, 2002, 11:23:23 PM

Originally posted by shiva2999
Speaking about democracy, I know a country where they "elected" a president even though he got 540,000 less votes than his opponent but won on a technicality through the results of vote rigging by the "winner's" brother and a corrupt 5-4 ruling by the supreme court with all 5 voting for the "winner" having been appointed by the "winners" party.

Should we go to war with them? (They also have the world's largest collection of weapon's of mass destruction).

Ahh, now I see your problem, you're fighting a personal war with reality. :D

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 12:15:37 AM

No, I just dislike liars, cheats and bullies. Of all kinds.

3rdbase

August 9th, 2002, 8:21:48 AM

It is my humble opinion, Shiva, that you start with a conclusion, then scurry around the net looking for supporting evidence. Forget the entire story, disregard context, change events if necessary, but get to the conclusion you support, at all costs.

From Shiva:
"Bush was demonstrating his patriotism by excusing an act of cold-blooded mass-murder by the U.S. Navy. On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner. All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace."
Cold blooded mass murder? Let me add some facts. Iran and Iraq were at war. Events had been escalating and the war zone expanding to include international waters in the Persian Gulf. On May 17 of '87 The USS Stark was attacked by an Iraqi Mirage firing an exocet missile. The Gulf had been mined, resulting in an explosion and significant damage to an uninvolved ship. The US Navy had numerous minesweepers and cruisers in the Gulf to ensure the safe passage of merchant ships in these international waters. Against that backdrop, the US had clearly stated that any attack on a US or merchant ship would be responded to with force. Iran Air 655 takes off out of Bandar Abbas airport. Numerous air defense radars pick up the aircraft. Initially, a radar mistakenly reports a mode two squawk, (for the uninformed, this is a military aircraft mode-commercial aircraft squawk mode three). The aircraft is initially thought to be an Iranian F-14. The Vincennes issues seven challenges to the aircraft on frequencies the aircraft should have been monitoring. More than two of the tracking radars mistakenly report the aircraft is descending and accelerating towards the Vincennes. The Vincennes lauches two Nato Sea Sparrows and the aircraft is destroyed. Not cold blooded, not without many warnings, not in a "commercial corridor in Iranian airspace," but in international airspace in a known war zone, and not responding to any queries. It was a horrible accident but a captain of an airliner would have to be a fool of immeasurable magnitude in order to operate in such a manner.

From Shiva:
"Gassing the Kurds happened almost twenty years ago during the U.S. supported and instigated war against Iran."
So what? Do you think he's changed his ways? It points to a tyrant who will do anything to eradicate his enemies. And who might those enemies be? Israel and the US.

From Shiva:
"They invaded Kuwait who was slant drilling their oil after consultation with the American ambassador who assured Saddam the U.S. would stay out of Arab-Arab conflicts."
I remember this very clearly, and your statement completely disregards context. The meeting with the US ambassador included a discussion of US intentions vis a vis the general situation in the Arab world. The ambassador never remotely suspected Iraq was going to invade Kuwait. The Iraqi interpretation of that meeting led to one of the biggest blunders in judgement in Sadaam's regime. Kind of like a husband and wife engaging in a minor discussion of whether the wife would forgive the husband if he had some minor extramarital affair. She says she probably would, and he interprets this as permission to rape and murder someone. They claimed Kuwait was theirs and they were taking it back.

From Shiva:
"Scott Ritter, ex marine and U.N. weapons inspector says Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are baloney."
Ah, good old Scott Ritter. Is this the Scott Ritter of 1998 who abruptly quit his job as a weapons inspector, complaining of Iraqi obstructionism and US acquiescence stating "Iraq represents a clear and present danger to international peace and security?" The same guy who testified at a joint hearing of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committee that "Iraq has not been disarmed." The US, he claimed, had deliberately thwarted the UN inspections for fear of a confrontation with Iraq. He ripped the Clinton administration for its refusal to back up the inspections with a legitimate use of force, including, but not limited to, removing Sadaam's regime.
No it's the new "changed" Scott Ritter. The one who was admitted back into Baghdad in July 2000. The reason for his trip? To produce a documentary film, "In Shifting Sands," The 90 minute film, which he says he is close to selling to a broadcast outlet, was produced with the approval of the Iraqi government. The same film financed by Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real estate developer who routinely attends, at Sadaam's invitation, conferences held in Baghdad sponsored and subsidized by Sadaam. US intelligence officials say Ritter has been played by Sadaam, claiming if you're an American arms inspector, you're not getting invited to Baghdad unless Sadaam wants you there.

The case for an invasion of Iraq is simple. The guy is capable and desirous of wreaking massive amounts of terror, death and destruction on anybody or any country he chooses, if he is successful in acquiring the required arms. He views himself as some kind of Arab messiah whose legacy will be to unify and restore the Arab world to a preeminent position. How would he do that? The quickest way would be to destroy Israel. He cares much more about what the world will think of him in 200 years rather than 200 days. He is a sick, ticking, growing bomb, and the US has watched Europe tolerate similar regimes until said regimes started realigning the continent, eradicating countries and killing entire generations. We have made mistakes in the past in using the " enemy of my enemy is my friend" posture, and Iraq and Iran are clear examples, but the US posture re Iraq is not bullying. My own opinion is that we don't do it yet. Rather, we continue to attempt to persuade any that will listen to join us, unless he does something foolish. In that event, all bets are off. In my view, an exact analogy can be made to bin Laden. We waited too long, in spite of Clinton Sect. Of Defense William Cohen's singular and persistent warnings, while in office, that we must deal with him.
We passed and we’re paying.

3rdbase

August 9th, 2002, 9:35:38 AM

Originally posted by reeves84
[B]3rd base:

"My own opinion is that we don't do it yet. Rather, we continue to attempt to persuade any that will listen to join us, unless he does something foolish. "

I think that one of the concerns of some people is the rush to judgment. Saddam is a monster, and dangerous.
I would hardly consider a thoughtful conclusion based on his last 21 years as a "rush to judgement."

“It is my humble opinion, Shiva, that you start with a conclusion, then scurry around the net looking for supporting evidence.”

Don’t we all do that?

No, I don't think we all do.
I think the facts guide us to a conclusion. "Facts" that don't include the full story or at times are not facts at all do more harm than good. The problem with the internet and forums such as this is that it is many multiples more difficult and time consuming to derail a falsehood than it is to post one, hence fatigue or lack of time allows these things to survive.

Honestly, no offense, Reeves, but another example. You use the phrase "daddy's unfinished business" or something similar. In my view that is a giant red herring. To upend it would take a long post on UN resolution 687 and a detailed description of the context at the end of the Gulf war, including a review of coalition formces, the situation on the "highway of death" and other theories of the Bush administration's opinion of the liklihood of internal Iraqi revolution in 1991. Very few are willing to take that on, so it survives.

reeves84

August 9th, 2002, 9:47:19 AM

I must admit that "daddy's unfinished business" was probably uncalled for!

I still think there is a fundamental difference of opinion on how Iraq should be dealt with, (and it should be dealt with). There seems to be an increasing difference between European and American opinion on this matter. In Military terms, America does not need any help to do what it wants to do, but does it need “moral backing”?

I think this article summarizes some of the differences very well:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1270793

“Disagreement about Iraq is linked to divergence over Palestine. Simplifying a little, conventional European opinion is that the Middle East will never be stable until the Palestinians have their state, and that to attack Iraq before then risks setting the region on fire. The hawks in Washington see things the other way around. They argue that Iraq destabilises the Middle East because it stokes Palestinian militancy.”

And

“Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the gulf between Europe and America is a sense that basic values and interests are diverging. This idea was crystallised in a recent article by Robert Kagan, an American writer, which has been much circulated and discussed in Brussels. He argues that the EU, being weak, has an interest in a “self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and co-operation”, while the United States believes that “international laws and rules are unreliable” and “true security and the promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.”
Many European policymakers think Mr Kagan has defined a real difference of approach, of which Iraq is a perfect example.”

And a final Kissinger quote: “American power must ultimately rest on a “moral consensus” that the United States is a force for good in the world”

And I don’t know if I have all the answers!

3rdbase

August 9th, 2002, 10:19:23 AM

Well I know I don't have the answers. But I sure like to think that a careful examination of the facts will more likely lead me to them. My view is this; The middle east is a tinderbox. Sadam is very likely to want to cement his place in history by doing something big. He was absolutely humiliated in the "mother of all battles." His military literally deserted him and he survived simply because a coalition. led by Bush the senior, did not think it morally justifiable to annihilate his citizenry, the very same group he coninuously leads to ruin, in order to get to him. There is a dangerous clock ticking over there, involving the entire region. Iran, Saudi Arabia and a few other countries, to a lesser extent, are unstable. If Sadaam gains access to serious intermediate range missiles, and through some convoluted logic decides to force the issue, a real conflagration could occur. Europe has a history of sticking it's head in the sand until some despot is kicking it in the ass, and the US has a bit of a rep for being trigger happy. Any way you cut it, I don't want this guy to fire the starting gun, but I don't want us to go it alone either. My real hope is that we might take some initiative that galvanizes internal opposition forces, and as momentum builds, Europe and the remaining Arab world sees the need to be on the winning team. Sadaam is isolated, overthrown, and Iraq is able to feed it's long suffering people and move on.
Then the Bills go 8-8 this year and win it all next, the day after a Palestinian stae is created, and the Jews and Arabs agree to be Ralph Wilson's guests at the Super Bowl and parade in Buffalo.

reeves84

August 9th, 2002, 10:30:46 AM

Ok, I think we are coming to some sort of agreement here! And I guess that a difference between the sides might well lie in the US belief that Saddam would go for a pre-emptive use of his CBW and nuclear bombs, and the European belief that he won’t. If he does not, it is probably possible to isolate him and allow him to “wither on the vine”.

I have a non-political, military fear as well. The current indications are that Saddam is considering, if invaded, withdrawing his troops to the cities. This would largely negate the technological superiority of the US, and lead to urban fighting. Shades of Stalingrad and Arnhem, and they were horrendous.

My final problem is, “après moi, le deluge” (pardon my French). What do we do next? Is there a viable, pro-western or neutral government available? Or do we have to install a government and leave hundreds of thousands of US troops there to control the country?

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 12:06:31 PM

"It is my humble opinion, Shiva, that you start with a conclusion, then scurry around the net looking for supporting evidence. Forget the entire story, disregard context, change events if necessary, but get to the conclusion you support, at all costs." - 3rd base

Well, unfortunately, it looks like I have to defend myself from attacks on my character because of my political opinions. Again.

Sorry third, but your opinion above is a nasty absurdity and an ad hominem attack.

So I forget entire stories, disregard context and change events to get to the conclusion I desire at all costs?

Sounds like a pretty good description of a liar. Is that what you're calling me? Because if it is, why don't you just come out and say it.

I start with conclusions and "scurry" around the net looking for supporting evidence?

This is ridiculous. People have suppositions, you know, ideas? Then they try and find evidence to support or disprove those suppositions and ideas?

What you're suggesting is people are not allowed to have opinions about anything until an exhaustive investigation into all aspects and a thorough grounding in history (and who said "history is written by the winners") is achieved.

Admirable but rather pompous, don't you think? Do you measure up to this standard? I know your president doesn't.

Your point about the Vincennes is quibbling. They shot down an unarmed airliner with 290 people on board. How do you suppose this is viewed in the Arab world?

The gassing of the Kurds thing I still don't get. I know gas contravenes the Geneva convention (like guantanamo bay), but it has been used before, and if I'm not mistaken he obtained the gas with the help of the U.S. who supported Iraq in that war.

And besides, How is gassing 5,000 kurds different than blowing them to smithereens? Really?

But saying because he did that he wants to eradicate his enemies, Israel and the U.S. is a wee bit of a stretch, don't you think?

"The ambassador never remotely suspected Iraq was going to invade Kuwait."

Oh, puhleeze! The "who knew" defense. It constantly amazes me that the U.S. can spend 30+ billion dollars a year on intelligence but everyone buys the CIA slapping themselves on the side of the head and saying "Well' how were we supposed to know?" The Americans knew exactly what Saddam was saying and sucked him right in. No wonder he's pissed.

But even since then, he's done nothing to harm the outside world in any way. His country has had to endure brutal sanctions that unicef has stated has cost the lives of half a million Iraqi children. (Didn't stop Dick Cheney from doing business with him though).

Scott Ritter. Are you accusing him of being a liar because he changed his mind? Because he's making a film? Because that film was financed by an American of Iraqi origin?

This certainly seems pretty low for a guy as high minded as yourself. No discussion or refutation of his views. Just innuendo and the startling revelation that U.S. intelligence officials think "he got played". Gee, who would have thought they'd think that!

So sorry, the case against Iraq is not simple just because you say it is.

"The guy is capable and desirous of wreaking massive amounts of terror, death and destruction on anybody or any country he chooses, if he is successful in acquiring the required arms."

This is boogeyman rhetoric. How do you know this? Oh yah, he gassed the Kurds.

"He views himself as some kind of Arab messiah whose legacy will be to unify and restore the Arab world to a preeminent position."

More boogeyman rhetoric. How do you know this? It seem's to me Saddam has his hands full keeping control of his own country. Only a complete idiot in his position (and Saddam's no idiot) would think he could ever mount a serious challenge against Israel or the U.S.

But then that leads us to the madman theory.

"He is a sick, ticking, growing bomb, and the US has watched Europe tolerate similar regimes until said regimes started realigning the continent, eradicating countries and killing entire generations. "

The madman theory combined with an allusion to European appeasement. Nice.

Let me just remind you that Europe and Canada entered both World Wars well before the Americans. America didn't enter the war against Hitler till it was attacked itself at Pearl Harbour.

Don't be so self righteous.

If this war is fought it will be about oil and will be the first step in an attempted military takeover of the entire middle east.

Not to make the bad man stop.

3rdbase

August 9th, 2002, 1:47:21 PM

Shiva,
I'm not attacking your character or calling anyone a liar. The name calling and user name "modification" is part of another thread that I'm not participating in. You stated the following as part of a post:
"From Shiva:
"Bush was demonstrating his patriotism by excusing an act of cold-blooded mass-murder by the U.S. Navy. On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes shot down an Iranian commercial airliner. All 290 civilian people in the aircraft were killed. The plane was on a routine flight in a commercial corridor in Iranian airspace."
I brought forth factual information in an effort to discredit the stated claim of that accident being an "act of cold-blooded mass-murder." It certainly wasn't, and let anyone who reads what I wrote draw his or her own conclusion. When accusations of this magnitude are made, in my view, the author better have some facts to back it up. This context of your post does not lend itself to this idea being a "supposition, you know ideas?"
I'm not accusing Ritter of being anything either, so don't put words in my post. You threw his name out as a credible devotee of the idea that Iraq has no real WMD capability. I noted with alarm his complete turn about between the time he was banging around during Senate testimony and his rebirth a few years later as the official Iraqi apologist. I couldn't care less how it came about, but he's had one amazing transformation during a time when he had no access to back up his new claims.
Your suggestion that the US must have known about the impending invasion because of a budget is an incorrect opinion. The entire event points to the failure US intelligence because of a lack of operatives in the area, and a cultural disbelief that Iraq would attempt such a thing. This was a situation I am absolutely certain of. The US was aware of massive troop movements just prior to the invasion, but believed until the last that it was part of an exercise.
Simply put, you think you're right, I think you're wrong.

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 1:49:32 PM

Originally posted by shiva2999
Only a complete idiot in his position (and Saddam's no idiot) would think he could ever mount a serious challenge against Israel or the U.S.

In a televised speech on the anniversary of the end of the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, Saddam said "<i>the forces of evil</i>" — a reference to the United States and its chief ally, Britain — will "<i>die in disgraceful failure</i>" if they attack Iraq.

Hmm....he said that just the other day. Besides, Saddam's thinking is he'll pick the fight and when the U.S. and Israel retaliate in defense of itself the rest of the Muslim world will get his back.

Stealth01

August 9th, 2002, 1:56:32 PM

Wow.

"In THIS Corner, weighing in at a left-leaning 130-pounds, from Canada, wearing the pink trunks, SHIIIIIVVVAAAAAA!!"

"And in the far corner, weighing in at a conservative 200-pounds, from Chralottesville, wearing the Black trunks, THIIIIRRRRRDDBAASSE!!"

Like a heavy weight bout in here. Lewis and Tyson. Sorry Shiva...you're Iron Mike. :p:

I have my misgivings about a war with Iraq. To be honest, I don't know what is planned or not planned at the national level on them. I haven't seen ANYONE tie them to the 9-11 attacks, though, and that would be my major problem with a war against Iraq. I don't have a problem with attacking them, per se. They've been violating the cease-fire THEY agreed to since the day they signed it, and Saddam has repeatedly proven himself a menace. But to tie it to the war on terror without sufficient evidence of Iraq's involvement in terrorism in, say, the last ten years, is where I think things could get ugly.

If we're attacking them over UN Inspectors, No Fly Zone firings, and so on, then so be it. Just say so and don't give people like Shiva the chance to say that we're disguising real intentions with the war on terror.

At this point, I'm hoping (and trusting) that the national level analysts have something more concrete than I have seen tying Iraq to 9-11. Mohammad Atta meeting with Saddam's intelligence guys seems an awfully tenuous link to me. But I am at the bottom of the intelligence food chain, and there may be things that the administration will make public in the future that prove me wrong.

Until then, we have NOT started a war with Iraq. We have debated it. Planned for it. Leaked it (assuming the NY Times thing was accurate). Hinted at it. Discussed and analyzed it. Perhaps even threatened it.

But until we do it, it's just talk. And no one ever died from talking. (Note: The exception are people who laughed or bored themselves to death reading Shiva's and Wys's "War-and-Peace" posts.)

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 2:08:06 PM

Originally posted by Stealth01
Mohammad Atta meeting with Saddam's intelligence guys seems an awfully tenuous link to me.

Were you one of the jurors in the O.J. trial?

What do you want? How would you like the dots connected? A taped confession and DNA evidence. 50% of homicides in this country go unsolved because of lack of evidence and you want the U.S. government to provide incontrovertible evidence of a link between Saddam and 9/11?

BTW...are you satisfied with the evidence tying Bin Laden to 9/11? If so, what was the clincher for you?

Stealth01

August 9th, 2002, 2:13:57 PM

Shiva:

3rd makes one good point. Just because the intelligence community had tons of money didn't mean they were right about everything. The government repeatedly proves that throwing money at a problem but not throwing the expertise at the same time simply creates MORE of a problem.

And if you'd ever DONE intelligence analysis, you'd realize that like weather forecasting, it's half science, half art. In the last thirty years, the "art" portion of it has started to slide drastically due to the CIA getting out of a human intelligence mode. Let me give you an example:

Let's say that two countries--we'll call them Blue and Red--are nearing conflict over a disputed territory that sits on their borders. Our imagery and electronic sensors tell us that Red has tanks and trucks and equipment building up on the border, and even tells us what kinds. Our techincal intel gives us radar signatures and so on. But Red tells us it's an exercise and not operational preparations. Since they've exercised in that area during this time of year for the last 4 years, all we have is our suspicion that something else is up.

That's where HUMAN intelligence comes into play. Imagery, signals, all that crap CANNOT put you inside the minds of the decision-makers. It doesn't tell you what the King of Red country INTENDS to do. It can't tell you if there are people inside the tents you image or rounds inside the tank turrets. It can't tell you if troops have live ammo or blanks. You need a spy to get in there and ferret out that information. And people trained to evaluate what he finds out as credible or not.

Unfortunately, espionage of that kind is a sticky, messy business that this country decided it wanted, mostly, out of. People get killed, after all, in the spy business. So we spun down that HUMINT capability to a bare minimum. China didn't. Russia didn't. But we did. And THAT is what results in errors in judgement like 3rd pointed out. You can have all the happy-snaps in the world, but without the spy-info to supplement it, all you have is some analyst's opinion on what it's all about.

So the US not knowing Iraq was going to invade is plausible. You can choose to disagree, but the budget alone doesn't support your argument. (I was in Korea, by the way, so I wasn't watching Iraq and didn't see intel about them until after they invaded...in other words, I don't know if we knew).

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 2:20:08 PM

Originally posted by Stealth01
In THIS Corner, weighing in at a left-leaning 130-pounds, from Canada, wearing the pink trunks, SHIIIIIVVVAAAAAA!!"

HOLY $H!t....shiva2999 is FROM CANADA? WHO EVEN GIVES A FLYING F00K WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT OUR FOREIGN POLICY?

God forbid we Americans start sitting in judgment of what Canada does or doesn't do. We could spend millenniums numerating its many faults.

Stealth01

August 9th, 2002, 2:22:44 PM

Originally posted by NoCtUrNaL

Were you one of the jurors in the O.J. trial?

What do you want? How would you like the dots connected? A taped confession and DNA evidence. 50% of homicides in this country go unsolved because of lack of evidence and you want the U.S. government to provide incontrovertible evidence of a link between Saddam and 9/11?

BTW...are you satisfied with the evidence tying Bin Laden to 9/11? If so, what was the clincher for you?

First off, night-boy, I am paid to analyze stuff like this, so I know a little something about connecting the dots. Been doing it for 18 years, and have only been wrong in a prediction once. Do you have ANY idea how many Islamic radicals Iraq's intelligence service meets with on a daily basis? Probably dozens. Atta could have been reporting on bin Laden's wehreabouts, Hizballah plans (since Iraq is Sunni and cannot stand the Shiite Hizballah), and so forth. Or he COULD have been getting assistance with the attacks. I don't care so much about convincing ME. I personally think Iraq knew or was involved. But the rest of the WORLD needs some convincing if we expect to get ANY support in attacking them. We can believe until the cows come home, but until we convince the rest of the world -- or at least our closest allies -- we will only hurt ourselves and cause more 9-11s by attacking Iraq.

Second, yes I am convinced bin Laden is behind 9-11. There are repeated, overlapping, and voluminous bits of evidence (and in almost every imaginable discipline of intel) tying him to the attacks, including his videotaped discussion of the planning that went into them. Most of what I have is classified, but there is MORE than enough evidence just in the news to convince me. I see NEITHER about Iraq. Maybe I'm just outside the loop right now -- I hope so anyway -- but I also hope that information goes public before we do anything. That way, we have some allies and don't alienate the whole world in our actions.

Third, OJ is innocent. Everyone knows his son did it and he covered for him. The glove didn't fit OJ, but they never tried it on his son.

(That's a joke...I'm kidding)

Stealth01

August 9th, 2002, 2:25:18 PM

Yep, Shiva's a from out socialist neighbor to the north.

Judge their actions? Who cares about their actions? Wait....what actions?

(Actually, Canadian troops have been steadfast allies in Afghanistan, and lost their lives due to an American miscalculation)

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 2:31:41 PM

Chris

Mixing the 130 lb lefty vs 200 lb conservative thing with iron mike vs Lennox Lewis doesn't quite work.

A 150 lb lefty Spike Dudley vs 500 lb righty The Big Show would have been much better! Then your entrance as Kurt Angle, Your American Hero, to interfere in the match would have fit right in. "Unbelievably, little Spike Dudley looks like he has the Big Show in a figure four leglock, but wait, who's that, it's Kurt Angle and , oh no, he smashes little Spike Dudley over thehead with a steel chair! Oh my god, that's the most vicious thing I've ever seen JR, it looks like Spike is out cold! Angle is now holding up the Big Show's hand. And the winner is...THE BIG SHOW!

Anyway, as for the rest of your post, I'm glad to see you agree with me.

Stealth01

August 9th, 2002, 2:36:20 PM

Agree with you, Shiva? On some things. The difference is that I trust GW (the President, in this case, not the coach) to do the right thing. I just hope he communicates the justification to the rest of the world clearly enough that they believe us. Show proof. Convert the unbelievers or back off.

I think he will. I hope he will.

ANd he WON the election. Recounts in the districts Gore wanted recounted proved it. Fair and square.

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 2:37:29 PM

Originally posted by Stealth01
Actually, Canadian troops have been steadfast allies in Afghanistan

I think they pulled their "troops" already....there was a riot between two Canadian Girl Scout Troops that needed to be dealt with back home.

Stealth01

August 9th, 2002, 2:41:05 PM

And a Canadian Sniper just set the record for the longest sniper kill ever. Beat out the old record, held by a deceased US Marine sniper from Viet Nam. Something like a mile and a half.

Or, as Majic Johnson would put it in a BK commercial: "Across the desert, over the rock pile, through the windhshield...NOTHING BUT NECK!!"

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 2:44:04 PM

Originally posted by Stealth01

First off, night-boy, I am paid to analyze stuff like this, so I know a little something about connecting the dots. Been doing it for 18 years, and have only been wrong in a prediction once. Do you have ANY idea how many Islamic radicals Iraq's intelligence service meets with on a daily basis? Probably dozens. Atta could have been reporting on bin Laden's wehreabouts, Hizballah plans (since Iraq is Sunni and cannot stand the Shiite Hizballah), and so forth. Or he COULD have been getting assistance with the attacks. I don't care so much about convincing ME. I personally think Iraq knew or was involved. But the rest of the WORLD needs some convincing if we expect to get ANY support in attacking them. We can believe until the cows come home, but until we convince the rest of the world -- or at least our closest allies -- we will only hurt ourselves and cause more 9-11s by attacking Iraq.

Second, yes I am convinced bin Laden is behind 9-11. There are repeated, overlapping, and voluminous bits of evidence (and in almost every imaginable discipline of intel) tying him to the attacks, including his videotaped discussion of the planning that went into them. Most of what I have is classified, but there is MORE than enough evidence just in the news to convince me. I see NEITHER about Iraq. Maybe I'm just outside the loop right now -- I hope so anyway -- but I also hope that information goes public before we do anything. That way, we have some allies and don't alienate the whole world in our actions.

Third, OJ is innocent. Everyone knows his son did it and he covered for him. The glove didn't fit OJ, but they never tried it on his son.

(That's a joke...I'm kidding)

Europe is in denial and always will be....as far as the convincing the billion Muslims the world wide of Saddams intentions and/or his complicity with any terroristic acts, especially those against non-Muslims, forget about it, it's an exercise in futility.

It's like convincing "African Americans" of the guilt of O.J.

50% still think he was innocent and 50% know him to be guilty, but figure it's about time a black man got away with an injustice against the white devils. I think it's the "pay backs a bitch" ideology.

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 3:09:40 PM

3rd

"Shiva,
I'm not attacking your character or calling anyone a liar. The name calling and user name "modification" is part of another thread that I'm not participating in."

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this however I will have the good grace to accept your explanation.

Hopefully, you have the good grace to accept mine.

The reference to the downing of the airliner as an act of cold blooded murder was included directly from the web site where I copied the quote from George Bush, which is what I was interested in anyway. The description of the context of President Bush's quote had an even more accusatory

sentence on the end which I expunged. However the description of it as cold blooded murder slipped through. I apologize for rushing and not doing as thorough an editing job as I usually do. Those who know me know that although I have no problems expressing my opinions, I usually don't indulge in florid and inflammatory name calling.

Reviewing it now, of course I should have edited out the accusation and just mentioned that the quote was in reference to the downing of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes with the loss of all 290 people on board. That way people could have made their own conclusions. However, I still don't see how it's the victim's fault. Was the airspace restricted or just a war zone? The radar malfunctioned. Was that the victim's fault? They didn't answer their warnings. Is that the victim's fault? Or are errors in judgement and technological goofs only allowed on the U.S. side?

And I still find the excuses about the failures of your intelligence communities to be incredibly lame. But hey, they may be true.

But then that begs the question, if you guys are doing such a piss poor job running your own intelligence agencies, why should the rest of the world believe any of your analyses?

It's like saying "Gee, who wouldda thought they'd use the planes to run into the WTC?"

Well, DUH!

But hey, I guess with Dubya as your President, the stupidity defense is a lot more plausible these days.

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 3:34:22 PM

It's funny...a Canadian critiquing Americans or the American Government is like a Cincinnati Bengal fan critiquing the St. Louis Rams. Yeah, the U.S. isn’t perfect, but we're a hell of a lot closer to it then Canada.

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 3:41:14 PM

"Yeah, the U.S. isn’t perfect, but we're a hell of a lot closer to it then Canada." - noc

If you say so, tough guy.

Gee, and I thought things were pretty sweet up here.

EricStratton

August 9th, 2002, 3:53:40 PM

Shiv, the great white north has its warts just like us.

Neither side or the border is without its problems yet ours seem to be the only ones you point out. Much like your apparent facination with finding fault with our president and his political party without finding fault with the other side of the aisle.

Do you think this approach damages your credability in the eyes of this forums readers? It doesn't destroy it to me but I find myself reading some of your opinions (and yes, I read them all) with that in my head.

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 4:05:05 PM

Incisive point Rush Chairman

Our mother used to tell us kids whenever we would begin caviling about a sibling to her, "Mike (my name) should worry about Mike, because Mike is far from perfect".

So in this case, Canadians should worry about Canada, because Canada is far from perfect.

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 4:09:34 PM

So i have to be an equal opportunity critic, do I?

Ok, Tom Daschle is a spineless wimp for not going after Bush harder on The War on Terror.

And Tom Daschle and the rest of the Democrats that rushed to the capitol to demonstrate their love of God after the pledge of allegiance decision should be ashamed of themselves.

But as for Canada, I really can't find too much to complain about.

Maybe you guys could help me with that. Of course that would require that you know something about a country other than the U.S.

EricStratton

August 9th, 2002, 4:11:35 PM

I'll disagree for this reason NoC. Canada should worry about us and vice-versa because we are both big-ass neighbors. What we do affects them and to a lesser degree what they do affects us.

Of course the proliferation of small beer companies that put out great product may reduce our dependence on Canadian beer. That could certainly change things.

EricStratton

August 9th, 2002, 4:14:09 PM

Originally posted by shiva2999
So i have to be an equal opportunity critic, do I?

Ok, Tom Daschle is a spineless wimp for not going after Bush harder on The War on Terror.

And Tom Daschle and the rest of the Democrats that rushed to the capitol to demonstrate their love of God after the pledge of allegiance decision should be ashamed of themselves.

But as for Canada, I really can't find too much to complain about.

Maybe you guys could help me with that. Of course that would require that you know something about a country other than the U.S.

No, you can be a one sided critic all you want, just don't get pissy when folks call you on it.

As far as knowing about Canada, I know plenty. I just don't think it's a productive use of my time to drag it all out just to see it in writing.

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 4:15:46 PM

While it may be true that you're closing the "beer gap", as long as the Christian right holds so much power in your country, our strip joints will be better than yours.

EricStratton

August 9th, 2002, 4:17:35 PM

Some states have pretty good strip joints. Of course NJ isn't one of them. No Cloths/No Booze.

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 4:19:57 PM

But what about the Bada Bing Club?

EricStratton

August 9th, 2002, 4:20:26 PM

Stop watching so much TV

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 4:21:47 PM

Originally posted by shiva2999
But as for Canada, I really can't find too much to complain about. Maybe you guys could help me with that. Of course that would require that you know something about a country other than the U.S.

You're either a bored troller or you suffer from Nationalistic sour grapes...which is rather flattering actually.

shiva2999

August 9th, 2002, 4:22:41 PM

"As far as knowing about Canada, I know plenty. I just don't think it's a productive use of my time to drag it all out just to see it in writing."

Ah c'mon. One little bitty criticism. It won't take long. I won't even say anything!

EricStratton

August 9th, 2002, 4:25:46 PM

Sorry Shiv, my day is done.

And for the most part, I like Canada. The Frenchies are a little messed up but hey, every house has that creaky floor.

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 4:28:34 PM

Originally posted by EricStratton
I'll disagree for this reason NoC. Canada should worry about us and vice-versa because we are both big-ass neighbors. What we do affects them and to a lesser degree what they do affects us.

I don't think that's a valid assessment of our relationship with Canada. That's like saying the dog and his tail share equal control of one another.

Stealth01

August 9th, 2002, 4:30:10 PM

Shiva:

Actually, it WAS theorized that terrorist could do that. Several times. But without PROOF, no one wanted to do anything. After all, analysis is really just educated guessing, and no one bases action on educated guesses.

And my point, though you probably won't see it no matter what, is that the failure lay in the misapplicaiton of money almost exclusively on technology while letting the HUMINT abilities die off. Not on not theorizing it was possible. Heck, we have THEORIZED that a nuke could go off in a major city for years, but if it happens, people will wonder why no one predicted it.

Tell ya what, shiva. Why don't you volunteer to be the spy who infiltrates al-Qa'ida and tells us where their next attack comes from? Or at least try to recruit a few good muslim kids to infiltrate and report back to us. See how hard it really is.

NoCtUrNaL

August 9th, 2002, 4:32:35 PM

Originally posted by EricStratton
Sorry Shiv, my day is done.

And for the most part, I like Canada. The Frenchies are a little messed up but hey, every house has that creaky floor.

I think what ES is trying to say is, the problem with creating a litany of Canada’s faults is where to begin.

3rdbase

August 9th, 2002, 5:02:43 PM

Wait a minute. I can handle any criticism of my views by anybody, but strapping an additional 25 pounderos on me is a blow too low to allow. I'm a svelte buck+75. Just threw an hour batting practice to my two boys- both high school players, took 45 ground balls and acquitted myself quite well thank you. Stealth. The first term of service is "though shalt not transmit inaccurate weight figures on fellow posters."
Seriously Shiva, to answer your question re the airspace situation. There were numerous surface combatants in the Gulf. We used to turn our defensive electronic warfare systems off because we were being lit up by so many defense radars the noise was too distracting.The US issued countless warnings stating any perceived threat would be dealt with with deadly force. Understand the context. The Stark had just been whacked with an Iraqi exocet, and a mine had exploded another hull. It was a tense, hair trigger situation. International airspace generally begins at 12 statute miles from any border. No one has jurisdiction. This idiotic Iranian airliner flies right through the middle of it, doesn't resopnd to repeated queries on his intentions and gets whacked. Lost in my story is the context of time. A US aircraft carrier is on station, but much further east, and the aircraft do not have time to intercept and perform a visual ID. The skipper if the Vincennes has info that its a mode two, (read military) transponder aircraft that is descending and accelerating directly at him. He, no doubt, considers the hundreds of lives in his charge and his billion dollar ship and permits his sea sparrows to engage. Predictable results. The US apologizes profusely. There were repeated warinings for weeks before this happened. A horrible accident.

paulbhar

August 13th, 2002, 1:16:11 PM

This is all from a website, so when it says their and our its someone else speaking, not me..

the website is
http://www.interlog.com/~vcc/Problems.html by the way

1. Forced Bilingualism

2. "Immigration indigestion" quite simply means "an upset" as a result of a sense that there have been too many immigrants admitted to Canada, too fast, who are too different.
Factual Support:
A recent survey by the Immigration Association of Canada reports that 58.9% of Canadians in English speaking Canada would support a 5 year moratorium on all immigration to Canada.
Over the course of the last few years, 5000 Somali refugees have been permitted to "invade" a group of six high rise buildings in the Dixon Road area of Toronto.

Before this occurred, the average price per unit in those high risese was $175,000; today the units sell for around $65,000. Further, common element fees have risen sharply because of excessive consumption due to violations of living standards, ignored by politicians at all levels as "too hot to handle.".

Individual Canadians in this situation have paid dearly for our government's failure to recognize the need to revamp Canada's immigration policy.

3. The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was and is a disaster for Canada.
The right of "every individual to be equal before and under the law," as specified in section 15(1) of the Charter, is first, qualified in that section, and then further compromised (one might go so far as to say, "overridden") in favour of the rights of a variety of special interest groups in the following section (section 15 (2)).

Judges can override Parliament if they deem laws to be in violation of the Charter.

Legislatures can use the "notwithstanding" clause (section 33) to override laws passed by Parliament, as Quebec has done with Bill 101, which makes the use of English on many signs illegal.

Section 33 may also be used to override our fundamental freedoms, our legal rights and our equality rights as defined in the Charter itself. (Now you see me; now you don't.")

The Charter legitimizes trial by tribunals. Canadians no longer have a right to trial by a jury of their peers when the maximum punishment for an offence is less than five years imprisonment. In those cases, trial may be by "an independent and impartial" tribunal. (section 11)

Tribunals, when conducted under the auspices of the Human Rights Act, do not necessarily guarantee presumption of innocence, require no strict rules of evidence, are not governed "precedence" and do not permit the cross-examination of witnesses. Thus, these tribunals, which have been introduced into the judicial system, are wide-open, politically biased courts.

Property rights are neither mentioned nor guaranteed in the Charter. This means that the State may confiscate your property without compensation.

Stealth01

August 13th, 2002, 1:19:16 PM

Sorry, 3rd. Didn't mean to fatten you up, there. :D

Ticatfan2

August 13th, 2002, 1:28:05 PM

After a quick view of things...
1st, neither country is even close to perfect,but both are closer then the rest of the world.
2nd The capt of the vincennes did what he had to do,I probably would have shot sooner.
3rd,pound for pound the canadian soldier is the toughest in the world,and alot of the members of the usa armed forces would agree with that,becauce I have read the quotes of american officers and solders. (101 airborne)And I am not ripping the american soldier becauce I have the utmost respect for them.
4th And I have said this before the biggest mistake president bush sr did was not letting saddam have kuwaiti.:)

Stealth01

August 13th, 2002, 3:11:34 PM

Ticat:

I've worked witht he Canadians too, and I agree. Tough bunch, they are. And I love their laid back attitude. Not nearly as retentive as the US military.

However, Kuwait has turned into our staunchest ally over there, so I'm glad we saved their butts.

shiva2999

August 13th, 2002, 4:52:15 PM

Rumsfeld apparently wants to use Special Ops forces to hunt, capture and kill Al Qaeda members all over the world, and even in countries that don't know they're there.

The excuse? "Preparing the battlefield".

Do you think this is a joke or could they possibly be serious?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/12/international/asia/12INTE.html

Rumsfeld Weighs New Covert Acts by Military Units
By THOM SHANKER and JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is considering ways to expand broadly the role of American Special Operations forces in the global campaign against terrorism, including sending them worldwide to capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders far from the battlefields of Afghanistan, according to Pentagon and intelligence officials.

Proposals now being discussed by Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers could ultimately lead Special Operations units to get more deeply involved in long-term covert operations in countries where the United States is not at open war and, in some cases, where the local government is not informed of their presence. This expansion of the military's involvement in clandestine activities could be justified, Pentagon officials believe, by defining it as "preparation of the battlefield" in a campaign against terrorism that knows no boundaries.

(more...)

Ticatfan2

August 13th, 2002, 5:15:04 PM

Well if a proven terrorist was in canada and our gov was protecting him under our(insane) charter of rights and the americans snuck in and killed him,I would look the other way.

shiva2999

August 13th, 2002, 5:52:08 PM

Our govt doesn't protect proven terrorists.

Our charter of rights is not insane.

And personally I don't feel like getting caught in a shootout between Chuck Norris and his boys and some swarthy middle eastern males the next time I take a trip to the 7-11.

Especially if they're in the country without the knowledge of our govt.

Anyway, it looks like Dubya's having a hard time selling his war against Iraq.

Even Novacula's turning on him!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak12.html

Bush hears war naysayers

August 12, 2002

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

While Saddam Hussein's raving from Baghdad built war fever in Washington last week, calming forces worked behind the scenes. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage have had a heart-to-heart talk with President Bush about the difficulties of initiating war with Iraq. Other influential voices were cautioning against an imminent attack to drive Saddam from power.

The climate is not propitious for a major U.S. military initiative. Official opposition from Germany, Saudi Arabia and Jordan underlined the isolation of American power. A deteriorating situation in Afghanistan builds the one-war-at-a-time argument. The steadfast Republican voices of Jack Kemp and Brent Scowcroft urge restraint. So do members of Congress from both parties, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey last Thursday warning against an unprovoked attack on Iraq.

None of this erases George W. Bush's commitment to change the regime in Baghdad. Nor does it dilute the immense influence of Vice President Dick Cheney, who broke his silence last week to warn against permitting Saddam to develop weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, there was a palpable muffling of American war drums.

(more...)

NoCtUrNaL

August 13th, 2002, 5:59:53 PM

Originally posted by Ticatfan2
"...pound for pound the canadian soldier is the toughest in the world..."

All five of them huh?

shiva2999

August 13th, 2002, 6:07:01 PM

Hey, guess what? Morale sucks at the Pentagon.

This is from the MoonyTimes, so you know it's not left lib propaganda.

http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20020812-77930536

The Washington Times
www.washtimes.com

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

Pentagon battles waning morale
Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published 8/12/2002

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

Morale has collapsed at the Pentagon division that churns out pivotal policy papers to run the war on terrorism, Defense Department employees say.
They say morale reached such a low point that Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy and a major player in war strategy, collected about two dozen of his top managers and ordered them to the Virginia countryside to hash out differences.
During the Aug. 2-3 "off-site," as the government calls such meetings, Mr. Feith listened to gripes about the way the expansive policy apparatus is run. Some complained of extra-long workdays, little feedback on their efforts, Mr. Feith's management style and a stream of white papers (dubbed "snowflakes") from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's sharp pen that must be answered swiftly.
"One woman stood up and told him this was the worst she had seen things in 15 years," said a Pentagon employee who was later briefed on the off-site, held at Airlie House, a conference center in Warrenton, an hour's drive from the Pentagon. "Feith mostly sat and listened."
Mr. Feith is reported to have said that the 10-month-old war on terrorism has thrust a heavy workload on everyone. He assured them Mr. Rumsfeld, a demanding boss, likes the policy arm's products.
One employee reportedly replied, "The reason morale is so low is your people haven't conveyed that message."

(more...)

NoCtUrNaL

August 13th, 2002, 6:16:33 PM

Originally posted by shiva2999
Blah...blah...blah....yadda...yadda....yadda....(i nsert more hot air here)

*YAWN*

Ticatfan2

August 14th, 2002, 9:05:04 AM

Noc,tell your jokes to the members of the 101 that are alive today because of those"5" canadian soldiers and see what they have to say about them.Then you can ask them about the bronze stars,2 with the v for valour that your gov wants to award them.

Sir

August 14th, 2002, 10:24:29 AM

Some people are just ignorant.

Stealth01

August 14th, 2002, 10:37:59 AM

Don't know about morale at the Pentagon, but if I were stuck in over-priced, polluted, political, and cut-throat Washington DC, I'd have low morale!

Special Ops to other countries? Why not? Only if the country is harboring them with government complicity. I agree with Shiva -- if they're there and the government doesn't know (and isn't hostile toward the US like, say, Iran or Iraq), then I would hope our nation works with that government, as we have in the Philippines, Georgia, and a few other places since 9-11.

Does Canada knowingly shelter terrorists? They used to. I believe they have really bellied up to the bar after 9-11 and are sincere in their efforts to help us root the bastards out.

Sir

August 14th, 2002, 11:12:27 AM

Stealth, all countries "knowingly" shelter terrorists because we all know terrorists are everywhere. It was only after 9-11 that we all realized what they're capable of and willing to do, and only after 9-11 did anyone actually start looking for them.

Ticatfan2

August 14th, 2002, 11:40:51 AM

Stealth01

August 14th, 2002, 12:05:55 PM

Point taken, Sir. I don't think it was sheltering them, necessarily, just sitting back and watching, since they technically hadn't done anything wrong in whatever host country we're talking about.

Ticatfan2

August 14th, 2002, 12:17:51 PM

They all live in montreal,so we do know where they are.

Stealth01

August 14th, 2002, 12:31:10 PM

Not all. THere are some in other cities, too. Not as many as there were before, but they're there. Then again, there are some in NYC, San Francisco, Atlanta....

Ticatfan2

August 14th, 2002, 3:28:46 PM

One more thing shiva, Explain how that pedophile in b.c that had child porno in his residence,was charged but the jugde said it was his RIGHT to have it in his house.NOW EXPLAIN THAT ONE TO ME.

shiva2999

August 14th, 2002, 3:58:34 PM

Shiva, Our charter of rights made our parliament irrelevant because any law or rule to be passed does'nt because it's infringing on somebodys rights and canadian traditions are being chuck out the window because all it takes is a complaint by some one who feel his/her right are be abused,ie the mounties hat,The guy who won the right to wear a turban on the force,I could go on and on how nothing is sacred in this country anymore,now the minority rules in this country and that is NOT how things work.

One more thing shiva, Explain how that pedophile in b.c that had child porno in his residence,was charged but the jugde said it was his RIGHT to have it in his house.NOW EXPLAIN THAT ONE TO ME.

Riiiiiigghht....

A mountie wearing a turban? Big Deal.

Nothing is sacred in this country anymore? Big deal.

The minority rules this country? I thought it was Jean Chretien and the Liberals, who were elected by the majority?

And sorry, I'm not familiar with the decision you're talking about. If you can find any background on it and provide links, I'll be glad to read them and comment. Just let me say I find pedophilia reprehensible and child porn pathetic. But child porn doesn't cause pedophilia. Just ask the Catholic church.

NoCtUrNaL

August 14th, 2002, 4:18:19 PM

Originally posted by Ticatfan2
Noc,tell your jokes to the members of the 101 that are alive today because of those"5" canadian soldiers and see what they have to say about them.Then you can ask them about the bronze stars,2 with the v for valour that your gov wants to award them.

All five of them?

Ticatfan2

August 14th, 2002, 4:42:13 PM

Matter of fact noc it is 5(snipers) that are to get the award.Now how did you know that.

Halbert

August 15th, 2002, 3:34:51 AM

Despite my interest in the topic I have been avoiding this thread due to my “deep thoughts posting fatigue”, but today I finally popped the top and opened this thread. Naturally, I have a few comments to bore y’all with.

Originally posted by Stealth01
Agree with you, Shiva? On some things. The difference is that I trust GW (the President, in this case, not the coach) to do the right thing.
You know, I went through a period where liked him in the early parts of the campaign, then lost that feeling during the debates, etc. until I ultimately voted against him, then I liked him for his leadership (as opposed to his articulation) during the 9/11 crisis and began to trust him, and now I’m back farther away from where I started. Based on some positions he’s taken, I’m sorry but I simply don’t trust him to do the right thing. I’m afraid he’s past that point already. I hope he turns me around in the future but I’m not holding my breath. Give me McCain, Powell, or even Chaney and I’ll probably vote for them, but the Dem-dejour is getting my vote come 2004 unless something drastic happens with his horrid domestic policy platform - unlikely.

ANd he WON the election. Recounts in the districts Gore wanted recounted proved it. Fair and square.
I think I’m going to bribe a mod to post a permanent thread on this topic. How much do you want, Sir?

Without question, Junior did NOT win fair and square. There was no alternative but to award him the presidency and I support him in that role (even if I don’t like him), but he simply would not have won if every vote intended for Gore had been properly cast (or be allowed to be cast). The record is very clear and not subject to valid interpretation otherwise: Junior won solely due to gross failures in the polling process on multiple levels. The data is available right on the internet - too bad I didn’t document my research because the evidence is completely compelling. Any reasonable analysis independent of bias clearly shows overwhelming probability that if all the people that intended to vote for Gore AND actually attempted to do so had indeed had their vote counted (or cast) properly he would have easily won (easily meaning by thousands of votes - large relative to the actual margin of victory even with the most Bush-advantageous method of counting the punch card votes in question). Only the most extreme of anomalies (about the same odds of winning Powerball) would have had Bush overtake Gore if all intended voters had their say. I have posted that data in other places and won’t bore everyone with it again, but the point is indisputable. We simply can’t let partisan bias or political overload erase that from our memories for fear we may allow it to happen again. Personally, I’m very embarrassed in front of the world (and history) that we screwed it up that badly and pray we don’t have to suffer that injury again.

Originally posted by reeves84
The Civil War in the States is sometimes called the “war to free the slaves”, and whilst that might have been a consideration, it was one of a host of reasons why the war was fought.
As disgusting as I find slavery and as much as I wish the civil war was fought solely for abolitionist reasons, the fact is that war was fought for the same exact reason that we entered the Gulf War. No, not oil, but for something very similar: money. Despite their misgivings about holding slaves themselves, the Yankees largely ignored slavery until it became obvious they could no longer compete with the enormously cheap labor that slavery brought. If they had figured out a way to counter that advantage the civil war likely would have never been fought. Revisionist history may suggest otherwise, but again, even a relatively superficial research effort produces copious evidence otherwise. Thank GOD we did it, but our motives were not nearly as pure as textbook authors would like us to believe.

Originally posted by 3rdbase
Originally posted by reeves84

“It is my humble opinion, Shiva, that you start with a conclusion, then scurry around the net looking for supporting evidence.”

Don’t we all do that?

No, I don't think we all do.
I think the facts guide us to a conclusion.
Classic philosophy addresses this question directly, perhaps above all others.

It is a mistake that has been made billions of times to believe that an observer can simply walk around and pick up “facts” that are independent of the biases of the observer. The fact is, any observer is biased by his/her own experiences/perceptions, all of which are based on the dominant thought pattern present in his/her environment. The observer doesn’t simply parachute down into a sterile observation point to chart the events like an automaton. Regression analysis of historical record clearly shows that the observer is bound by the biases of their environment. So the observer indeed does start with a conclusion, however subtle and undetectable, then scurries around looking for supporting evidence. Bottom line: there are a very great number of “truths” that appear to be absolute but are anything but (he says as he tries to make the point that polling projections are indisputable. lol).

Originally posted by 3rdbase
Sadam is very likely to want to cement his place in history by doing something big. He was absolutely humiliated in the "mother of all battles." His military literally deserted him and he survived simply because a coalition. led by Bush the senior, did not think it morally justifiable to annihilate his citizenry, the very same group he coninuously leads to ruin, in order to get to him. If Sadaam gains access to serious intermediate range missiles, and through some convoluted logic decides to force the issue, a real conflagration could occur.
As much as I mourn our world history of bloody conflict and as proud as I am of our slow but steady progress toward non-violent resolution of the vast majority of world disputes, I personally believe Saddam is the single most dangerous man in the world today. Before 9/11 he was just another two-bit dictator, but after that event he is the one man most capable of supporting terrorist intentions on a large scale. You can’t tell me that terrorists aren’t flocking to the famed underground Iraqi bunkers to strategize and wait out the international hunt for their hides - all the while dipping into Saddam's kitty that's made up from diverted WIC programs. It is my feeling he is not simply another Momar Khadafi or Ayatollah Khomeini who will slither back into the woodwork after getting his rump kicked by the international coalition. Rather, he is a megalomaniac who definitely would love to “cement his place in history”, even if he has to die to do it, and probably feels upstaged by his competitive rival/maniac, Osama. The moment he is capable of delivering a weapon of mass destruction he will do it, and he’ll spend his countries food stamps to fund their acquisition. I don’t like the idea of the inevitable civilian casualties or of sending anybody’s troops to die while rooting him out, but 9/11 showed us that many thousands of us are vulnerable to a lunatic with a big gun. It’s the lesser of two very distasteful evils. He must be neutralized.

This message brought to you by Palmolive.

Rebecky

August 15th, 2002, 11:18:55 PM

Whoa back:

Recall that the DS1 Gulf War began the week AFTER the US ambassador, April Glaspie, assured Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the US would take no action. Saddam specifically asked that question of her. The conversation was been recorded and transcribed in all major media outlets. If you don't believe me, enter "April Glaspie" and Iraq in ANY major search engine. It's her claim to infamy.

Recall, too, that the reason for the original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was that Kuwait was slant-drilling and stealing Iraq's oil.

Note, too, that our ally Kuwait is an even more oppressive, ruthless regime than Iraq. The ruling emir and his oil family literally starve the citizens. The literacy rate in Kuwait is still below 2%. Iraq, before DS1, had a thriving middle class, universal health care and over an apprx 90% literacy rate.

The "prize" in Iraq is 112 billion barrels of crude in reserves -- second only to Saudi Arabia. This is an oil war.

EVERY nation in the world, including the UK, has advised the US not to invade Iraq (Tony Blair has been told that his party will lose at least 50 seats in Parliament if he helps the US). Particularly striking, Iraq's neighbors have advised the US not to take this action. They can control Saddam, they know how he works and how to handle him. Particularly King Abdullah of Jordan has a handle on Saddam. They are working with him. He is not crazy; he's predictable, his first priority is "self survival". In order to continue his survival and his rule, he will negotiate and make compromises. He is the glue that holds Iraq together, and the alternatives are worse. Remember, Israel is the ONLY democracy in the ME -- this is a region of monarchies and autocracies.

If the ruling party in Iraq is toppled, there is tremendous fear of another Afghanistan -- anarchy and apparently endless civil war. If this happens in Iraq the entire region may destabilize.

The Kurds in the north have told the US "no way" will they help with an invasion; Saddam has given them a "sweet" deal, one step short of an independent state, and they want to keep that. If we topple Saddam, they will insist upon an independent state, which is the ONE thing Turkey said they cannot endure -- Turkey still considers Kurds as enemies. There will be endless border wars.

The Shi'ites in S Iraq, the majority in the nation, who occupy the oil rich south, are closely tied with Iran and if they do not actually merge with Iran, there will be extremely close ties. They will no longer accept Sunni rule. As Israel has noted to the US, this would place Israel in the position of being surround by "one big Hizbullah" (the Iranian based terrorist group). For this reason, Israel is opposed to an invasion.

The more secular Sunni's of central Iraq, Saddam's group, are a minority who rule Iraq only because of Saddam's iron fist. With him gone, their rule over Iraq ends. They will either accept Shi'ite rule or form their own state, and there will be conflicts with the Shi'ite south.

For these reasons, the ME leaders and Russia are trying to work WITH Saddam Hussein. Saddam is a survivor; he knows if he launches an unprovoked, first attack against the US or Israel, he's toast. He's not very likely to do so. It's not his way. That's why he asked OUR permission before invading Kuwait last go-round. BTW: Iraq and Kuwait have recently signed a treaty of cooperation -- Kuwait will NOT assist us in another war with Iraq. They are now allied with Iraq.

As for the "moral argument", Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are FAR more oppressive regimes than Saddam or the Taliban. The difference is: the House of Saud and the emir of Kuwait "deal" the way the US oil corporations demand, and US oil corps make BIG bucks. The Taliban demanded, and Saddam still demands, a deal which is a little sweeter for the country of the oil's origin. Starving children -- yes, ever since we placed sanctions on the country, over 5000 Iraqi children die every day -- one US physicians group which regularly travels to Iraq reports "images of dehydrated babies mewing like weak kittens". It's a human rights travesty, and it is US who imposed these sanctions. Before DS1, before the sanctions, Iraq had one of the highest average standards of living in the ME. Saddam may be ruthless, as are most of the ME rulers, but he provided the citizens decent food, shelter, universal health care and education. It's a fact -- check it out.

So why ARE we invading Iraq? As I said before, 112 barrels of crude reserves, that's exactly why. Especially now that our planned trans-Afghani oil pipeline (to the Caspian Sea oil fields) looks like a bust because we cannot stabilize the country. The only part of Afghanistan that is secure is the capital, Kabul. The country is decimated by lawless anarchy; the people are asking for the Taliban to return, to return law and order to their war torn nation. The only thing thriving in Afghanistan nowadays is the lucrative poppy/opium crop (which the Taliban had destroyed).

NoCtUrNaL

August 16th, 2002, 1:18:54 AM

Originally posted by Rebecky
The country is decimated by lawless anarchy; the people are asking for the Taliban to return, to return law and order to their war torn nation. The only thing thriving in Afghanistan nowadays is the lucrative poppy/opium crop (which the Taliban had destroyed).

So let me get this straight...the Afghanis what the Taliban back knowing they'll take away their only money making export from them?

Doesn't make sense. LINK (http://www.msnbc.com/news/564809.asp)

NoCtUrNaL

August 16th, 2002, 1:30:03 AM

Originally posted by Rebecky

Recall, too, that the reason for the original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was that Kuwait was slant-drilling and stealing Iraq's oil.

So, next time someone from another country dupes a copyrighted CD from a U.S. company or individual we now have precedence for invading, looting, and murdering its citizens. :rolleyes:

Surely there were less deadly ways of preventing the Kuwaitis from their alleged "slant-drilling".

NoCtUrNaL

August 16th, 2002, 1:46:38 AM

Who knows, perhaps the billions of dollars the U.S. might spend trying to deal with the Middle East problems would be better spent developing alternative forms of energy. Preferably a form of energy that wouldn't make us dependent on other countries natural resources.

I've always thought the more self-sufficient a person is the more discriminating they can be with regard to whom they associate.

shiva2999

August 16th, 2002, 2:22:50 AM

Hal

I agree with everything you said, other than this....

As much as I mourn our world history of bloody conflict and as proud as I am of our slow but steady progress toward non-violent resolution of the vast majority of world disputes, I personally believe Saddam is the single most dangerous man in the world today. Before 9/11 he was just another two-bit dictator, but after that event he is the one man most capable of supporting terrorist intentions on a large scale. You can’t tell me that terrorists aren’t flocking to the famed underground Iraqi bunkers to strategize and wait out the international hunt for their hides - all the while dipping into Saddam's kitty that's made up from diverted WIC programs. It is my feeling he is not simply another Momar Khadafi or Ayatollah Khomeini who will slither back into the woodwork after getting his rump kicked by the international coalition. Rather, he is a megalomaniac who definitely would love to “cement his place in history”, even if he has to die to do it, and probably feels upstaged by his competitive rival/maniac, Osama. The moment he is capable of delivering a weapon of mass destruction he will do it, and he’ll spend his countries food stamps to fund their acquisition. I don’t like the idea of the inevitable civilian casualties or of sending anybody’s troops to die while rooting him out, but 9/11 showed us that many thousands of us are vulnerable to a lunatic with a big gun. It’s the lesser of two very distasteful evils. He must be neutralized.

How, for god's sake, is Saddam the most dangerous man in the world?

Because "he is the one man most capable of supporting terrorist intentions on a large scale."?

Personally, this sounds more like G.W. Bush to me.

Is it because you have a vision of swarthy middle eastern men frolicking underground in Saddam's treasure vault chanting "Death to America"?

Is it because you FEEL "he is a megalomaniac who definitely would love to “cement his place in history”, even if he has to die to do it, and probably feels upstaged by his competitive rival/maniac, Osama."?

What would possibly lead you to think "The moment he is capable of delivering a weapon of mass destruction he will do it"? Has Saddam ever given you the impression he's suicidal?

Granted, Saddam's one highly unpleasant dude, but he has shown NO expansionist tendencies in TEN YEARS and has not been linked to any instance of terrorist activity in the same period (oh yeah, a "czech intelligence agent" claims he saw Mohammed Atta talking to an Iraqi agent in Prague. And then denied it. And then refuted the denial. Woo hoo!).

And I'm sure you've probably dismissed it, since Iraq denied gassing the Kurds, but there are others who have doubts as well. Here's the first result from a google search for "Did the Iraqis really gas the Kurds?"

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

November 18, 1998
Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?

Memo To: Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Iraqi use of Poison Gas

On the Jim Lehrer News Hour Monday night, you repeated the assertion that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people." As the President’s National Security Advisor, I had assumed you of all people would not make such assertions without having supporting evidence. Early this year, on the supposition that the Iraqi situation would blow up again, I made serious inquiries about this charge. On April 7, I sent the following memo to Chairman Jesse Helms of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If you have better information, Mr. Berger, I hope you can supply it, as this is the most serious of all charges made against Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis readily acknowledge using chemical weapons against Iran a few times late in the war, but using such weapons in wartime is not nearly as serious as "gassing his own people."

and in this memo was a quoted section of a "1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania." In it they say...

"In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation -- according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

(more...)

9/11 showed us that many thousands of us are vulnerable to a lunatic with a big gun.

No, it showed us that BILLIONS of us are vulnerable to a lunatic with a big gun.

And Dubya's sure got the biggest gun.

Halbert

August 16th, 2002, 7:56:49 AM

You guys (Rebecky and Shiva) make some very good points and told me a bunch of stuff I was not familiar with. I have been operating under the assumption that Saddam is just short of insane but perhaps I have not done my homework recently. Much of my concern comes from the gassing the Kurds (which would show the extent of his alleged evil) but if that's simply propaganda then the picture changes considerably. Looks like I'm going to have to do a little more detailed research.

I certainly hope that you are correct because I would highly prefer to avoid military conflict.

Stealth01

August 16th, 2002, 8:57:57 AM

Shiva's right that Saddam hasn't been positively connected to any expansionist plans or terrorist attacks in ten years or so. Or if he has, it's information that the higher-levels aren't letting out to the average working schmuck in the intel community, which is entirely possible, but not much help justifying action against him.

However, he DOES have an active checmical and biological program, and we're pretty sure he's still experimenting with nukes. That's not a regime we want controlling WMD, and I would think their shiite neighbors in Iran would agree, since sunnis (Saddam is one) have a hasty habit of killing off Shiite leaders.

So I would suggest that prior to any attack on Iraq, the administration will slowly start putting out whatever bits of evidence they might have. On the other hand, if we don't start seeing that evidence in the next few months, I would guess it's all been an elaborate smoke screen.

Since I don't make policy, that's just a guess, though.

BogusTrumper

August 16th, 2002, 9:14:20 AM

I'm skeptical about how well Saddam ever took care of the people in his country. I understand that it is worse now that there are sanctions in place but it seems to me that I remember seeing stories about just how poor the people in his country were. The fact that people are dying because of sanctions only underscores how indifferent he is to them. He's got plenty of money to build mansion after mansion after mansion.

But obviously whatever things the administration uses to justify their policy, the fact that the Iraq government is repressive is not the main reason for their policy even though they may think it is on of their bigger selling points. It's not exactly about Iraqi oil. It's about all the oil in the area.

shiva2999

August 16th, 2002, 10:09:02 AM

Iraq then and now...

http://www.peacewire.org/campaigns/articles/armstrade/aerospace/sheet7.html

"According to the World Health Organization, prior to 1990, obesity was the biggest health problem in Iraq."

"On August 2nd, 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. Four days later, the U.N. Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq. The United States immediately began a massive military build-up in the Persian Gulf and launched a massive media campaign.

Saddam Hussein was presented as a Middle Eastern Hitler who would take over the world if not stopped. As part of the propaganda campaign a young Kuwaiti girl appeared before a U.S. congressional committee testifying that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers dumping newborn babies out of incubators in hospitals in Kuwait. This story turned the tide of public opinion in the United States in favour of war. After the war ended, we learned that the story was scripted and staged by a New York public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, hired by the Kuwaiti government. The young girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. - her story was fabricated by an ad campaign executive."

(more...)

3rdbase

August 19th, 2002, 9:15:27 AM

1. The claim that Iraq informed the US that it intended to invade Iraq has been a subject of debate from the time of the meeting. I read the transcript long ago. Regardless of the phraseology that was used, Glaspie never informed the Sect. of State or the president that Iraq was going to invade Kuwait. That meeting was the subject of intense scrutiny in the state dept., and was a major blunder by a terrible ambassador. Look at events following this meeting and the Iraqi invasion. There is no way the US would have wanted this to happen. The US will always avoid war when possible. Bush had to single handedly convince an opposing congress to approve the eventual actions. He had to form a coalition among disparate nations to convince them to approve, support and even participate in an action against one of their own. Further, if geographical acquisition was a motivation, why didn't he do just that when it when it was easily within his reach. US forces had the entire remaining Iraqi military trapped on a north/south road leading right into Baghdad. Scores of aircraft were overhead taking turns blowing up military assets, and were called off. Within 24-36 hours the capitol would have been surrendered. Yet he chose to end it. Form a plan to take over land and resources, then when it's easily within your grasp, refuse to do it? Seems a bit incongruous doesn't it? Preventing the invasion would have been an infinitely easier course of action. Glaspie screwed up, pure and simple. A mistake of historical proportions, but ambassador appointments to this level of country are not done by merit. Shirley Temple Black comes to mind.
2. The reason for the invasion was not because of slant drilling. The reason was that Iraq has claimed that it was the rightful owner of Kuwaiti land. Slant drilling was a disputable claim, but certainly no reason for the invasion of a sovereign nation. If so, then fishing rights disputes are a justifiable reason for invasion.
3. I believe it is a real stretch to claim Kuwait is a more oppressive regime than Saddam's governing of Iraq. Literacy rates don't tell the story. If so, then Native American leadership could be termed extremely oppressive. Execution of individuals opposing the regime and their family members is far more serious. So too is looting the national treasury for obscene personal gain, sending teenagers to certain death in war, and engaging in genocide against opposition tribes. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are bad apples, but nowhere near guilty of the same level of crimes, and nowhere near the same level of threat, yet.
4. Regardless of how horrible the situation in Iraq is, it is the direct result off their leader refusing to abide by the agreement he signed to save his ass at the end of the "war." He can push the buttons. He can end it. There's an easy way out, abide by the terms of the surrender and the US will be the first to forward massive humanitarian aid, just like we always have.

We are engaged in the exact same debate now as we were prior to Desert Storm. Now, as then, there is a prevailing myth among the people of the western world and Americans in particular. We believe because we consume the voluminous western and Middle East media output that we are informed. We are not. The authors of these products are marginally knowledgeable, profit driven, and used by nations to deliver spin, not fact or intent. The information provided to the leadership of these countries is vastly different than will ever be known to the media, and forms the real basis for action. Middle Eastern countries are renown for duplicity in their media claims/posture and their real intent. I'm not in favor of a war effort based on current pubic domain evidence, but if some other evidence were provided, like an Iraqi link to last Sep., or another threat from that nation to another, I would be. Regardless, I don't think it's an attempt by the US to gain control of oil assets, and I am certain the US did not desire or intentionally allow the invasion of Kuwait.

shiva2999

August 19th, 2002, 9:35:06 AM

I saw Gen. Schwartzkopf on CNBC with Brian Williams last night.

He made two points.

First he defended the decision not to chase the Iraqi army into Baghdad. He said it was the "right decision, in fact the only possible decision" in the circumstances.

And he said in any military action, the crucial thing for the military was to have the support of the American people, and in this situation the case had not been made yet and needed to be.

I don't think the "We know things you don't know so you'll just have to trust us" rational is going to fly for the American public and I sure know it's not gonna fly for the rest of the world.

3rdbase

August 19th, 2002, 10:23:18 AM

Originally posted by shiva2999
I saw Gen. Schwartzkopf on CNBC with Brian Williams last night.

He made two points.

First he defended the decision not to chase the Iraqi army into Baghdad. He said it was the "right decision, in fact the only possible decision" in the circumstances.

And he said in any military action, the crucial thing for the military was to have the support of the American people, and in this situation the case had not been made yet and needed to be.

I don't think the "We know things you don't know so you'll just have to trust us" rational is going to fly for the American public and I sure know it's not gonna fly for the rest of the world.

Agreed.

There is an ex ambassador to Kuwait who lives in our area and whom I have access to. I'm going to ask him to summerize his views on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait vis a vis the Glaspie meeting. It will take some time, but I'll report his response on this board. Other than that, I'm retiring from here. It's been interesting.

shiva2999

August 25th, 2002, 10:43:51 AM

Another member of the military gives his opinion.

http://tampatrib.com/News/MGA65V9295D.html

Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise
By MIKE SALINERO msalinero@tampatrib.com
Published: Aug 24, 2002

TALLAHASSEE - One of President Bush's top Middle East trouble- shooters warned Friday against war with Iraq, saying it would stretch U.S. forces too thin and make unwanted enemies in the volatile region.
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the president's special envoy to the Mideast, made some of his strongest comments to date opposing war on Iraq. Speaking to the Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee, Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the nation's list of foreign policy objectives.

``I can give you many more [priorities] before I get to that,'' Zinni said when asked if the United States should move to remove Saddam.

Zinni said the country should instead concentrate on negotiating a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and on eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaida terrorist network that launched the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

``We need to make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida can't come back,'' he said."

and....

Bush administration hawks, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have tried to keep the possibility of war with Iraq at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy.

Zinni took a shot at the hawks, noting their lack of military experience. He ticked off several prominent military men who have expressed reservations about the war: Secretary of State Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser under former President Bush; and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of operations in the Persian Gulf War.

``It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way,'' he said, ``and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way.''

The Highway of Death - Desert Storm