News Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[Rev Prez]

Certainly;
First NATO is currently led by a British leader Lord Robertson
http://www.nato.int/cv/secgen/robert-e.htm

What a ridiculous thing to say. Lord Robertson is the Secretary General--he is the chair and spokeperson for a mutual defense committee. SACEUR and SACLANT, the military commanders of forces deployed under NATO mandate, are and always have been Americans.

And here's a chronology of action taken in the Kosovo campaign
http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/account/chrono.htm

Which doesn't say a damn thing. Determined Falcon was primarily a US operation, with American air and special warfare assets forming the bulk of deployed forces.

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I seriously doubt that. You did not defend Poland, Austria, Belgium, Holland nor France against Hitler's invasion.

That is true, but we certainly drove him back out (with the help of other Allied forces - but mostly US troops). Have you forgotten that little detail, which happened to cost us 200,000 troops, some of whom were family members of those of us? Are you just going to pass off that detail, like a fart in the wind?

I wish that when people post references they would read them first! The links you posted ALL referred to Clinton's efforts to keep the coalition together AFTER the bombing campaign was in full swing.
Per the link I posted (if you read it) Britain and France were the first to deploy forces in the region. In the case of the British on Feb 19th 1999. At that time the US had sent an envoy Holbrooke through the Contact Group, to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Serbs. It was after the ceasefire he negotiated broke down that the US agreed to support a bombing campaign under the auspices of NATO but would still not commit ground forces. This air campaign (and thus the US military involvement) began on Mar 24th 1999. Geez you never let facts stand in the way of a good theory do you?

Oh yeah? Try this one, from August 12th 1998:

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/kosovo.htm

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Clinton Administration has set American policy on a course that is likely to lead to some sort of U.S.-led NATO military intervention in the troubled Serbian province of Kosovo within the next few months, perhaps within weeks.

Just give up already...you can do it, just say "quetzal, you were right."

Here is an interesting snipet on the Kosovo war (from Wikipedia), that will maybe help answer all the rest of you out there who have expressed your valued opinions on the matter:

The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations to use force in Yugoslavia but justified its actions on the basis of an "international humanitarian emergency". Criticism was also drawn by the fact that the NATO charter specifies that NATO is an organization created for defence of its members, but in this case it was used to attack a non-NATO country which was not directly threatening any NATO member. NATO countered this argument by claiming that instability in the Balkans was a direct threat to the security interests of NATO members, and military action was therefore justified by the NATO charter.

Many on the left of Western politics saw the NATO campaign as a sign of US aggression and imperialism, while right-wingers criticised it as being irrelevant to their countries' national security interests. Veteran anti-war campaigners such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Justin Raimondo, and Tariq Ali were prominent in opposing the campaign. However, in comparison with the anti-war protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the campaign against the war in Kosovo aroused much less public support.

Interesting that it wasn't popularly seen as "a sign of US aggression and imperialism" when Europe was involved (except by Noam Chomsky, but who listens to him anyway?). There were no WMD in Kosovo, Kosovo was not threatening the rest of Europe in any way whatsoever. Certainly Kosovo did not attack the rest of Europe.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The President had a higher disapproval rating just before the 2004 election than he did in July of 2001. He went on to win by a 3 million vote margin and, more importantly, expanded his margin in the electoral college. So what's the big deal?

ok, whatever dude. i will bet you a beer that he (Republican) loses...and that is coming from someone who voted for him (Bush)

 

[Rev Prez]

ok, whatever dude. i will bet you a beer that he loses...and that is coming from someone who voted for him.

Dun, the guy isn't running again!

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Dun, the guy isn't running again!

Rev Prez

I mean the Republican (either McCain or Guilliani)

 

[Art]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Lord Robertson is the Secretary General--he is the chair and spokeperson for a mutual defense committee. SACEUR and SACLANT, the military commanders of forces deployed under NATO mandate, are and always have been Americans.

Perhaps things have changed in Bush's America even more than I thought. Here in europe the military still take their orders from civilians.

 

[Art]

Oh yeah? Try this one, from August 12th 1998:

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/kosovo.htm

This is simply a party political rant aimed at the Clinton administration by the Republican party whilst in opposition. Here's a sample quote from your source

The only missing element appears to be an event -- with suitably vivid media coverage -- that would make intervention politically salable, even imperative, in the same way that a dithering Administration finally decided on intervention in Bosnia in 1995 after a series of "Serb mortar attacks" took the lives of dozens of civilians -- attacks, which, upon closer examination, may in fact have been the work of the Muslim regime in Sarajevo, the main beneficiary of the intervention.

I hate to disapoint you but the US does not lead NATO although they are generally the biggest contributor in terms of fire power when action is taken. However the decision whether action is taken is determined by consensus of the 26 member countries. During the Kosovo campaign the NATO SG was Javier Solana, a Spaniard.
If the US were the dominant member do you not think they would have used this position to get NATO to attack Iraq?

 

[Art]

Interesting that it wasn't popularly seen as "a sign of US aggression and imperialism" when Europe was involved (except by Noam Chomsky, but who listens to him anyway?). There were no WMD in Kosovo, Kosovo was not threatening the rest of Europe in any way whatsoever. Certainly Kosovo did not attack the rest of Europe.

Precisely. When the US intervenes soley on a humanitarian basis they have wide popular support from the rest of the world which is the point I made when I raised Clinton's support of the Kosovo campaign as an example of America being praiseworthy.
Try to understand few if any of us here are anti-american; it is the current administration we have a problem with as do a majority of americans.

 

[Rev Prez]

Perhaps things have changed in Bush's America even more than I thought. Here in europe the military still take their orders from civilians.

I think you need to actually bother looking up how NATO is organized. You're making some pretty silly remarks.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

Iraq is not in our own backyard, let alone on our own continent. Kosovo, however, WAS in the backyard of Europe, who sat and did nothing until Clinton held a massive PR campaign to convince other NATO leaders that it needed to be done. You see, Europe has a tendency for inaction and criticizes those who do actually take action.

The reference to "Alabama", and the ludicrous example that it poses, was to illustrate this point. (It also was a tongue-in-cheek joke about Alabama, but I don't think that you got it).

Thanks for playing, try again next time.

So you DID miss Galloway, or you probably do not want to be remembered about it.

 

[Muaddib]

It would seem that it is the present US government that the world requires protection from! The US had worldwide support for it's attack on Afghanistan because we accepted the legitimacy of the attack against the Taliban who were providing a safe haven for OBL and refusing to hand him over. The attack on Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with America's defense and everything to do with America's economy. We do not support wars where the objective is to secure oil for American industry.

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the defense of America?... Well intelligence agencies from the US, and other countries, including Russia said otherwise. The only reason why Russia, China, France, Germany and a few others didn't want a war in Iraq was because they were getting themselves rich off the Oil For Food program...while they were selling banned technology and other military technology to Iraq instead of selling them what was needed for the Iraqi people like food, medicines, water treatment parts, etc, etc.

Which is why most of the world thought America under the Clinton administration was a much nicer friendlier entity than it is under the paranoid Bush regime. Also FYI it was Nato who provided support for the Bosnian muslims of which America is just one member.

Yeah, the communist Chinese government surely loved the Clinton administration...they were spying on the US, stealing and buying what they could not steal from our military secrets like never before...

 

[Art]

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the defense of America?... Well intelligence agencies from the US, and other countries, including Russia said otherwise. The only reason why Russia, China, France, Germany and a few others didn't want a war in Iraq was because they were getting themselves rich off the Oil For Food program...while they were selling banned technology and other military technology to Iraq instead of selling them what was needed for the Iraqi people like food, medicines, water treatment parts, etc, etc.

Yeah, the communist Chinese government surely loved the Clinton administration...they were spying on the US, stealing and buying what they could not steal from our military secrets like never before...

......

 

[Muaddib]

So is this the prelude to Bush finally admitting that oil WAS the issue in Iraq but it is okay because it is a 'National Security' issue?

If oil was the whole issue about Iraq it would have been a lot cheaper and better to have just bought the oil, but that was not the whole issue with Iraq...and of course we could have also have kept all the oil of iraq since the first Gulf War, since the whole country was under ours for the taking if we wanted to...

You see nothing wrong with securing a foreign national from the sovereign territory of Italy and smuggling that individual to a third nation, Egypt for torture.

Italy saw that there was nothing wrong with trying to become heroes by not letting know to the US and other coalition countries that they were going to sneak into a third country, Iraq, release a hostage and then try to get him out by driving through checkpoints in Iraq like they had no breaks in their vehicle. Perhaps the french special forces are not smart enough to realize that insurgents have been using that same tactic for suicide attacks against coalition forces...

BTW, perhaps you should watch a couple of the videos on how insurgents really torture people.

 

[Muaddib]

......

That's your argument?...

Case closed. :zzz:

 

[Art]

That's your argument?...

Case closed. :zzz:

I'm sorry I thought you were trying to be humorous. In general, serious contributors post sources to back their assertions. As you never do I assumed your postings were intended to be a little 'comic relief'

 

[The Smoking Man]

If oil was the whole issue about Iraq it would have been a lot cheaper and better to have just bought the oil, but that was not the whole issue with Iraq...and of course we could have also have kept all the oil of iraq since the first Gulf War, since the whole country was under ours for the taking if we wanted to...

You will find that oil agreements with hostiles can be broken and the oil directed to other countries.

For example: if Iraq had got upset with the USA (What are the chances?) they could quite easily have sold their complete supply to the Chinese.

What Shrub saw was the opportunity to take over the second largest field in the world however he did not anticipate the abuse of the fields reducing output to sbout 20% with only a possiblility of 80% recovery.

You will also find that Bush Sr. actually respected the UN decision to not continue on to Baghdad so speculating on what you 'cudda' done is about as fruitless as a punch drunk, aging boxer saying 'I cudda been a contenda'!

Italy saw that there was nothing wrong with trying to become heroes by not letting know to the US and other coalition countries that they were going to sneak into a third country, Iraq, release a hostage and then try to get him out by driving through checkpoints in Iraq like they had no breaks in their vehicle. Perhaps the french special forces are not smart enough to realize that insurgents have been using that same tactic for suicide attacks against coalition forces...

BTW, perhaps you should watch a couple of the videos on how insurgents really torture people.

Maybe you should actually take a look at what I said.

The US Government violated the sovereign nation of Italy and kidnapped someone from within their borders.

They then removed that person from the country ... presumably with no travel documents.

They moved them to a third nation other than America so that they could engage in torture and avoid US law.

What would have been the response of the USA if Italy had kidnapped Prince Bandar Bin Sultan and taken him to China for 'Questioning'?

 

[Mercator]

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the defense of America?... Well intelligence agencies from the US, and other countries, including Russia said otherwise. The only reason why Russia, China, France, Germany and a few others didn't want a war in Iraq was because they were getting themselves rich off the Oil For Food program...while they were selling banned technology and other military technology to Iraq instead of selling them what was needed for the Iraqi people like food, medicines, water treatment parts, etc, etc.





QUOTE]

The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right.

 

[Mercator]

If oil was the whole issue about Iraq it would have been a lot cheaper and better to have just bought the oil, but that was not the whole issue with Iraq...and of course we could have also have kept all the oil of iraq since the first Gulf War, since the whole country was under ours for the taking if we wanted to...

.

You did. Check the US import figures of oil coming form Iraq and compare them with the French, Russian and German figures, you will see your claims are ridiculous. The US has always bought the bulk of Iraqi oil, directly or via middle men.The whole picture changed when Saddam wanted EUROS in stead of DOLLARS for his oil. Do I have to explain to you what that would have meant to the US if they did not intervene? I probably will have to.

 

[Hurkyl]

The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right.

This contradicts nothing Muaddib said...

 

[Mercator]

Italy saw that there was nothing wrong with trying to become heroes by not letting know to the US and other coalition countries that they were going to sneak into a third country, Iraq, release a hostage and then try to get him out by driving through checkpoints in Iraq like they had no breaks in their vehicle. Perhaps the french special forces are not smart enough to realize that insurgents have been using that same tactic for suicide attacks against coalition forces...

QUOTE]
hahaha you should start writing novels.

 

[Mercator]

This contradicts nothing Muaddib said...

Then I have only one advise for you: read again!

 

[Hurkyl]

Then I have only one advise for you: read again!

Okay. I still don't understand how your assertion:

"The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right."

has any bearing, if true, on Muaddib's assertions.

Maybe you can explain how, if your assertion is correct, it demonstrates the falseness of, for example, the claim that France was selling banned technology to Iraq.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

This is simply a party political rant aimed at the Clinton administration by the Republican party whilst in opposition. Here's a sample quote from your source

Nonetheless, this article came out several months before NATO went into Kosovo. Are you saying that because it came from Republicans that it is somehow untrue and therefore we never went into Kosovo?

I have made it abundantly clear that Clinton was responsible for the Kosovo action, which you still irrationally deny (although I have no idea why). If you go back and read the sources that I have posted, you will see that (as usual) I am right.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Maybe you can explain how, if your assertion is correct, it demonstrates the falseness of, for example, the claim that France was selling banned technology to Iraq.

Maybe I can help.

Go here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2766

What he is saying is that there were far worse products being supplied to Saddam from America.

You do tend to look beyond your borders for scapegoats.

For example, are you aware that Halliburton under Dick Cheney was fined for selling Neutron Pulse Generators to Lybia?

These 'dual use' devices are also used as nuclear detonators.

In light of the fact that good ole' 'Moe' reveled a fully operational nuclear program, we can see that Cheney himself had a lot more impact on the stability of the world than the French did with Saddam considering they still seem to be looking for any WMD in Iraq.

 

[Mercator]

Okay. I still don't understand how your assertion:

"The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right."

has any bearing, if true, on Muaddib's assertions.

Maybe you can explain how, if your assertion is correct, it demonstrates the falseness of, for example, the claim that France was selling banned technology to Iraq.

Omitting the US from his statement is tantamount to trying to hide the truth. It's like saying that America was colonized by Sweden. That's undoubtfully true, but it ommits the real big scale colonists.

 

[Art]

Nonetheless, this article came out several months before NATO went into Kosovo. Are you saying that because it came from Republicans that it is somehow untrue

Yes it is somehow untrue! Clinton was leading the push to gain support for intervention at home in the US. He was not leading the push for action in europe as Britain was already ahead of him there.

and therefore we never went into Kosovo?

?? strange logic , but why am I not surprised

I have made it abundantly clear that Clinton was responsible for the Kosovo action

Only in your own mind

which you still irrationally deny (although I have no idea why.

Uh because you are factually wrong!

 

[Hurkyl]

So his facts were, in fact not wrong. Got it.

So I'll ask his questions again, since you haven't responded to it, and I think I'd like to hear an answer:

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

What is your answer to the allegation that the only reason France, Germany, Russia, and China didn't want war was because they were profitting from the way things were?

 

[Art]

So his facts were, in fact not wrong. Got it.

So I'll ask his questions again, since you haven't responded to it, and I think I'd like to hear an answer:

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

I think the lack of intelligence in the intelligence services has been more than adequately demonstrated to the point of tedium,

What is your answer to the allegation that the only reason France, Germany, Russia, and China didn't want war was because they were profitting from the way things were?

Same tired, old tactics Hurkyl, eh what? Obfuscate the issues by concentrating on the irrelevent. That way you can steer the discussion to what you wished somebody had said rather than what they actually said.

 

[The Smoking Man]

So his facts were, in fact not wrong. Got it.

So I'll ask his questions again, since you haven't responded to it, and I think I'd like to hear an answer:

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

What is your answer to the allegation that the only reason France, Germany, Russia, and China didn't want war was because they were profitting from the way things were?

Ummm ... can you actually state the allegations by the appropriate souce and their source names, please?

I don't actually respond to 'air'.

I've shown you mine. Now YOU show me yours.

Ta.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

Oh and a big PS:

If that is your excuse for war by the way, you had better think again.

'National Defense' is not an excuse for war as applied by the Forth Geneva Convention as penned by the USA when they tried Japan for waging an illegal war.

If that is your excuse, then that would officially drop Bush beside Tojo as a class A war criminal.

You also seem to forget two pieces of evidence to come out of the UK:

1] The Downing Street Memo which proves the evidence you refer to was concocted. For a scientific website, to come up with a premise and then arrange the evidence to prove the allegation? Say it ain't so.

2] Some of the people you have thrown allegations about like for George Galloway have come out and refuted them themselves. If these are the allegations of which you speak, then you have some serious problems: http://deoxy.org/forum/showflat.pl?Board=politics&Number=27141