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

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

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?

I'd say that was probably very accurate. The big difference between these countries and the coalition was that these countries refused to start a war to protect their economic interests, while the coalition did start a war so they could enhance theirs. But yes, when it comes to government, there are few saints. The only good guys are a country's conscientious people - not the leaders.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

'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.

They could rename it 'non-enemy non-combatant defense'? Then it will be okay.

 

[Art]

They could rename it 'non-enemy non-combatant defense'? Then it will be okay.

I think if you just call it national defence without capitalising the n and d then it's also okay.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

There are no specific products mentioned in that article, so we are left to make assumptions. But what you don't need assumptions for are the facts that Iraq's Mig-29s and T-80s come from Russia, and nuclear power plants come from France.

Omitting the US from his statement is tantamount to trying to hide the truth.

Either you're missing the point of the statement or are intentionally trying to deflect the conversation away from it: At issue is motivations. Presumably, a country that is profiting from a situation would not want to change it. That fits the facts regarding France and Russia. But then it was brought up that the US also profited from Iraq - well that doesn't fit with the assertion that the US was motivated by profits. You're disproving your own argument by bringing it up!

But beyond that, the motivations issue is two separate questions and whatever the US's motivation, it has no bearing on France's and Russia's motivations. You're trying to avoid admitting that the facts indicate Russia and France were motivated by money!

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

That's true, but how does that fit with the fact that it wasn't just the US's intelligence service? Intelligence services all over the world made the same mistakes. It still means the US made the right decision with bad information and the "coalition of the unwilling" took the same information and made a bad decision.

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.

Go back and read post 161 in case you missed it the first time. Aw heck, I'll quote it to save you the effort of looking for it:

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.

Two separate points were made:

1. The US had the same intelligence everyone else did and that intelligence indicated Iraq was a threat (it even says that specifically in the UN resolution threatening war). Everyone agreed, but only the US chose to act.
2. Other countries were profiting from the status quo and did not want to change it.

So, Art - it is you (et al) who are trying to avoid dealing with those points and are trying to change the subject, not the other way around.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

The Fourth Geneva convention was ratified after WWII and is about POW's, not motivations for war. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? And besides, Japan's motivation was expansion, not defense.

For those who haven't read it, HERE is UN resolution 1441. It says: "Recognizing the threat that Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass distruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."

It also mentions Iraq's connection to terrorism - yes, that's right, the war in Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terrorism.

It goes on:

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions..."

This resolution was unanamously approved! Yes, that's right, the international community was in unanamous agreement before the war that Iraq sponsored terrorism and was a threat to international peace.

 

[Art]

But beyond that, the motivations issue is two separate questions and whatever the US's motivation, it has no bearing on France's and Russia's motivations. You're trying to avoid admitting that the facts indicate Russia and France were motivated by money! That's true, but how does that fit with the fact that it wasn't just the US's intelligence service? Intelligence services all over the world made the same mistakes. It still means the US made the right decision with bad information and the "coalition of the unwilling" took the same information and made a bad decision. Go back and read post 161 in case you missed it the first time. Aw heck, I'll quote it to save you the effort of looking for it: Two separate points were made:

1. The US had the same intelligence everyone else did and that intelligence indicated Iraq was a threat (it even says that specifically in the UN resolution threatening war). Everyone agreed, but only the US chose to act.
2. Other countries were profiting from the status quo and did not want to change it.

So, Art - it is you (et al) who are trying to avoid dealing with those points and are trying to change the subject, not the other way around.

Assuming Russia supplied this intel to the US then maybe the Russians are cleverer than you give them credit for and provided the US with disinformation to get their own back on the US for Afghanistan.
The only other state which 'claimed' conclusive evidence against Sadam was Britain and to say there are suspicions that, like America's, the information was 'fixed' is putting it mildly.
So now I have answered these points will you explain their relevence to the OP?

 

[Mercator]

At issue is motivations. Presumably, a country that is profiting from a situation would not want to change it. That fits the facts regarding France and Russia. But then it was brought up that the US also profited from Iraq - well that doesn't fit with the assertion that the US was motivated by profits. You're disproving your own argument by bringing it up!

So I DO have to spell it out.

First of all I thank you for this classic: "That the US also profited from Iraq does not fit with the assertion that the US was motivated by profits" . Let that sink in for a while as a prime example of US right wing reasoning.

I still have to see any proof of illegal dealings between France, Russia and Iraq but I don't doubt there will have been, like with so many countries. So Frnace, Russia and other European countries where having a business relationship with Iraq, sanctioned by the UN. So what? The US did too. It sounds cynical now, but all of them including the US were dealing with Iraq. So what? But at a given moment in time something changed the whole equation. Saddam decided to screw Americans and asked Euros for his oil. You don't seem to understand the implications of that simple fact.

Here a link to an article that sums up Saddam's remarks and actions that led directly to the American invasion :
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/history/welcome.html article "President Saddam Hussein believes oil prices are still 75 % below their value"

And here a lenghty but highly interesting article that explains why it was so dangerous for the US when Saddam switched to petro-Euros.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/history/welcome.html : Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars

Ironically, it may still be Saddam having the last laugh. After two years "controlling" Iraq the US did not succeed in securing the oil flow. And it may now be Iran and others switching to the Euro. And in a "democratic country" as Iraq will become, it will be very difficult for the US to invade again when the Iraqi clerics will also turn to the Euro as soon as you turned your backs.
See the same site article: "OPEC considers to use euro for pricing of crude oil"

So the US invaded Iraq to safeguard it's position in oil and it's currency. The only amazing thing about all this is the fact that most European countries chose not to join you in the invasion, despite the fact they knew the US was out in taking their interests by force if they did not. It is a remarkable stance revealing adherence to moral prniciples not often found among politicians.

So yes, the US invaded for profit and dominance. But of course you are free to dream on your silly dreams about WMD and your huge American humanitarian hart. Just don't bother intelligent people with that nonsense.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Fourth Geneva convention was ratified after WWII and is about POW's, not motivations for war. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? And besides, Japan's motivation was expansion, not defense.

Sorry ... Brain Fart Kellog-Briand Pact 1927.

For those who haven't read it, HERE is UN resolution 1441. It says: "Recognizing the threat that Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass distruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."

It also mentions Iraq's connection to terrorism - yes, that's right, the war in Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terrorism.

But I thought 'The war on Terror' was a Bush invention?

In fact, scanning the whole document for the word 'terror' produces this single result and resolution 687 is about the taking of hostages in Kuwait and 688 terrorising its OWN population:

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

In fact, to my knowledge, the declaration of 'War on Terror' is an illegal act in itself because it specifies no actual combattant which must take place under the articles of war, declaration of war.

If it were true then any nation with an axe to grind could point and say "Terrorist" and be thus justified in any action they chose to take.

You'll also see that it fails the test of a presidentially declared war because it has no periodic congressional oversite.

It goes on:

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions..."

This resolution was unanamously approved! Yes, that's right, the international community was in unanamous agreement before the war that Iraq sponsored terrorism and was a threat to international peace.

Oh GOD, why do you persist?

Spell out what the remedies were by all means.

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

When my father promised 'serious consequences' for not finishing my homework, he didn't mean I was going to be beaten to death!

Now, go and read the Downing Street Memo dated July 23, 2002 and then read 1441 dated November 8, 2002. See if you can spot what was happening.

This was written before 1441 was even created:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. [5]

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. [6]

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. [7]

 

[Hurkyl]

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,

Okay, so you think intelligence agencies are lacking in intelligence. So... what is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) said that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

(I added a word I missed last time)

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.

You mean asking questions whose answer I would like to hear? Seems like an appropriate way to do things to me. Oh, I suppose you mean that I should pretend, like you, that not answering a question really is an answer to the question.

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

I generally ask a question because I would like to see it answered. If I decided I would like to argue that national defense is a justification for war, I would do it explicitly.

(And yes, I did notice your use of the word "excuse", and the connotation associated with it, to belittle the opposing stance)

So I DO have to spell it out.

Generally, saying what you mean is better than imlpying it.

 

[Art]

Okay, so you think intelligence agencies are lacking in intelligence. So... what is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) said that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

(I added a word I missed last time)

You mean asking questions whose answer I would like to hear? Seems like an appropriate way to do things to me. Oh, I suppose you mean that I should pretend, like you, that not answering a question really is an answer to the question.

I generally ask a question because I would like to see it answered. If I decided I would like to argue that national defense is a justification for war, I would do it explicitly.

(And yes, I did notice your use of the word "excuse", and the connotation associated with it, to belittle the opposing stance)


Generally, saying what you mean is better than imlpying it.

Now that's what I call serious obfuscation! You're even mixing unidentified quotes from other people in with mine Trust me Hurkyl you do not need anybody's help to belittle your stance you're doing great all on your own.

If you bother to check back you will find I have already answered your question re intelligence. Though FYI in general if I think you are asking a question to simply waylay the discussion by bogging it down in minor details then rest assured it will be ignored.

BTW It seems to have escaped your attention but this is a discussion board not an interrogation panel with you as the quiz master.

 

[Hurkyl]

I had no intention to suggest the other quotes were made by you. I generally do not name the quotee -- the only reason I had in the first quote is because I was quoting a series of quotes.

I don't see how I can be belittling my stance, because I have not presented one, nor am I even sure if I have one.


If you don't want to answer a question, then don't. Surely posting nonresponses contributes more to "bogging down" a discussion more than asking a question whose answer one would like to hear.

 

[Art]

I had no intention to suggest the other quotes were made by you. I generally do not name the quotee -- the only reason I had in the first quote is because I was quoting a series of quotes.

I don't see how I can be belittling my stance, because I have not presented one, nor am I even sure if I have one.

Presenting your quotes in such a way as to suggest to the readers of this thread that they are all attributable to me belittle your stance (your expression btw not mine) and your credibility as far as I am concerned

If you don't want to answer a question, then don't.

As I stated I already have answered the question you directed at me. Please stop suggesting I haven't, again it is misleading

Surely posting nonresponses, and even making a point of not answering questions, contributes more to "bogging down" a discussion more than asking a question whose answer one would like to hear.

If it's just information you're after you will find Google quite useful.

 

[Informal Logic]

Okay, so you think intelligence agencies are lacking in intelligence.

The poor CIA scapegoats. The intelligence agencies are fine. The intelligence was just "fixed" that is all.

Oh BTW, guess which intelligence source has been the most help in finding members of Al Qaeda? France. Those dirty $@##!*&!

In the meantime, are you all still arguing that the end justifies the means?

 

[Art]

Further evidence of shrub's lies,

T. Michael Moseley

US Air Force Lieutenant General T. Michael Moseley, in "a [July 19, 2003,] briefing to military commanders, ... acknowledged that the Air Force launched offensive operations against Iraq in June 2002. Three months before President George W. Bush appeared before the United Nations to present a case for 'disarming' Iraq, five months before the adoption of UN Resolution 1441 threatening 'serious consequences' if Iraq did not cooperate with weapons inspectors, and a full nine months before the war was officially announced, the Bush administration had already ordered combat operations to begin.

"In the midst of closed-door congressional inquiries and media speculation over whether the Bush administration went to war on the basis of 'manipulated' or 'faulty' intelligence, the response to Moseley's statements has been a deafening silence. Apart from news reports of Moseley's briefing in the weekend Washington Post and New York Times, nothing has been said about what amounts to an admission that the Bush administration lied to the American people for months about its intentions and operations in Iraq.

"Even as US planes were systematically destroying Iraqi air defenses and communications grids in preparation for a land war, under cover of patrolling the so-called 'no fly' zone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm) in the south of the country, Bush was repeatedly insisting that he had made no decision on invading Iraq and was 'hoping for peace.' Moseley's briefing exposes the entire effort to secure United Nations backing and resume weapons inspections as nothing more than a cynical charade, behind which Washington carried on an air war to facilitate the rapid introduction of ground troops once war was publicly proclaimed.

"According to Moseley, the Air Force received its orders from the White House to begin the preparations for a war on Iraq in late 2001--following the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Source: James Conachy, "Military review reveals more government lies: US launched air war against Iraq in 2002," (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/air-j24.shtml) wsws.org, July 23, 2003.

The Sunday Times in Britain has picked up on this and has obtained data showing the amount of sorties flown and munitions dropped on Iraq rose sharply in this period.
Munitions dropped rose from virtually nothing in March and April 2002 to an average of 10 tons per month between May and August shooting up to 54.6 tons in September.
The suspected intention of this illegal* covert air war being to try and goad Iraq into a response to justify a war and to prepare the ground for the forthcoming invasion.
*congress which is the only body who can declare war in the US did not give shrub authorisation for war until Oct 11 2002 and so the legality of these air strikes is highly questionable.

 

[Hurkyl]

Presenting your quotes in such a way as to suggest to the readers of this thread that they are all attributable to me belittle your stance (your expression btw not mine) and your credibility as far as I am concerned

That doesn't change the fact I had no intention of suggesting all of those quotes were yours.

By the way, if you go back and read, you'll find that "my expression" was to speak of the "opposing stance" (that the war was justifiable), not "my stance".

As I stated I already have answered the question you directed at me. Please stop suggesting I haven't, again it is misleading

I didn't realize I had done such a thing. After all, I am responding to your post in which you suggest my questions will be ignored.

Surely posting nonresponses, and even making a point of not answering questions, contributes more to "bogging down" a discussion more than asking a question whose answer one would like to hear.

If it's just information you're after you will find Google quite useful.

Yes it is. I fail to see the relation to the quoted passage, though.


=== End of responses to Art's post ===

The poor CIA scapegoats.

I'm not sure why you're saying that to me, since Art was the one who said the intelligence agencies were lacking intelligence.

In the meantime, are you all still arguing that the end justifies the means?

Only when the situation calls for it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh, Mercator, could you fix your links?

 

[Informal Logic]

Further evidence of shrub's lies;

The Sunday Times in Britain has picked up on this and has obtained data showing the amount of sorties flown and munitions dropped on Iraq rose sharply in this period.
Munitions dropped rose from virtually nothing in March and April 2002 to an average of 10 tons per month between May and August shooting up to 54.6 tons in September.
The suspected intention of this illegal* covert air war being to try and goad Iraq into a response to justify a war and to prepare the ground for the forthcoming invasion.
*congress which is the only body who can declare war in the US did not give shrub authorisation for war until Oct 11 2002 and so the legality of these air strikes is highly questionable.

We know he lied, and lies just about everything all the time, because he is a habitual lier. And in his recent speech he just kept on doing it--multiple times he continued to link 9-11 to the invasion of Iraq. Where is the outrage in this forum, or even among the general populace of America?

The problem is reflected in the results of the poll stated earlier in this thread:

...responses to a question about whether Bush should be impeached if it is found that he didn't tell the truth about his reasons for initiating the conflict. Forty-two percent said ``yes'' and 50 percent said ``no,'' the latest survey showed.

Clinton could be impeached for lying about having sex (or should we say his definition of sex, i.e. intercourse versus oral), yet 50% of Americans say Bush should not be impeached for lying about going to war, at a total cost in 'blood and treasure' that we have yet to see. This hypocrisy and mentality (the end justifies the means) in our country is the problem--it is truly disgusting and appalling.

 

[Rev Prez]

Clinton could be impeached for lying about having sex (or should we say his definition of sex, i.e. intercourse versus oral), yet 50% of Americans say Bush should not be impeached for lying about going to war, at a total cost in 'blood and treasure' that we have yet to see. This hypocrisy and mentality (the end justifies the means) in our country is the problem--it is truly disgusting and appalling.

Let's try a more productive tact. Are you suggesting it was proper to impeach President Clinton?

Rev Prez

 

[Informal Logic]

...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.

This is just another miscalculation by the Bush regime. Now we are spending astronomical sums in 'nation building' to stabilize an oil-rich country, while other areas of the world (e.g., what was spent on the Tsunami) receive a fraction of financial aid.

 

[Informal Logic]

Another explanation is that fifty percent--the armed half--of the country think that you and the remaining 42 are acting crazy.

Rev Prez

Excuse me, did you post something?