WMD may have been destroyed pre-war

[imported_Kranar]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Iraq may have destroyed its purported chemical and biological weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday in an effort to explain why none had been found.
------------------------------------------------------

Interesting times we live in.

[Edited on 5-28-2003 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

Full article is available here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=12&u=/nm/20030527/ts_nm/iraq_rumsfeld_weapons_dc_1

[Revalos]

Nah...why destroy what you can sell to your neighbors (Iran, Syria, probably Turkey).

I found it really amusing that an unnamed source in Washington even stated at one point that "we know they have WMD, we sold them some in the 80s."

[imported_Kranar]

Wow, looks like WMD wasn't the primary reason for entering Iraq afterall, according to Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense.

He's quoted as saying that the primary reason was to withdraw the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. His exact quote I don't remember, just watched it on CNN but it was something like "For bureucratic reasons, we settled on the issue of WMD, because we all agreed on that issue."

The only thing more pathetic than this, is that the only sign of weapons thus far, was some radiation that turned out to be depleted uranium used by the U.S. in the first Gulf War. That, and some pesticides that turned out to be of no use.

[Edited on 5-30-2003 by Kranar]

[Ravenstorm]

And another 'smoking gun' of another kind:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4P3OVJUQVEMOWCRBAELCF EY?type=topNews&storyID=2854519

[imported_Kranar]

Sheesh... it's no wonder very few countries supported the war in the first place.

I wonder if Britain will ever support another war with the U.S. again.

[Gokkem]

Yes its too bad that Saddam is no longer in power. Think of all those lives that will be saved now, all those people jailed wrongfully who are now free.

Saddam needed to be removed from power. If I recall correctly, there was evidence found linking him even more to Al Qaeda. It was just a matter of time. Now the reasoning behind the war may have been slightly flawed (and even that can be debated, us peons have no clue what the full story is), but the end result needed to happen no matter how.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Saddam needed to be removed from power. If I recall correctly, there was evidence found linking him even more to Al Qaeda. >>

You recall poorly. There was no evidence at all.

<< It was just a matter of time. Now the reasoning behind the war may have been slightly flawed (and even that can be debated, us peons have no clue what the full story is), but the end result needed to happen no matter how. >>

No matter how? So some nukes would have been fine with you? It isn't enough to be responsible in how you act anymore, you can just act like animals do what you want when you want, kill whomever whenever?

Must be so easy for you to make that statement in the comfort of your own home.

How about the next time the U.S. feels like pissing on another country, they leave all other countries out of it. Don't ask for Canada's help, nor Britain's help, nor anyones help. You want to act like animals fighting a war and deceiving the public, then tell your government to deceive your own citizens, tell them you don't mind being lied to and used but make sure you realize that others do mind. We're not all peons, some of us have standards; we don't feel like doing anything we want in anyway we choose simply because we have the power to, and to be quite frank, we're simply getting fed up with the lies and deception.

Yeah, Saddam is gone, and so are thousands of innocent lives. I hope that helps you sleep at night.

[Edited on 5-31-2003 by Kranar]

[Siefer]

When did we kill thousands of innocent people? Gee, we must have killed them when we invaded Kuwait for the sole purpose of land and oil 12 years ago. Wait, nm that was Iraq. Anyway, oh yeah it must have been when we used that poison gas against the people who didn't conform to our Stalinist ideals. Hold on, I'm pretty sure that was Iraq too. Hmm, lets see, what else am I missing...

[Siefer]

Oh yeah one more thing. If any innocents were killed during this war it was probably Iraq's fault for:

A) Invading a sovereign nation and plundering it to shit

B) Being huge dickheads for 12 years and lying to the world

C) Putting their military hardware in civilian areas

You can pick A, B, or C but no matter which one you pick you will always be an idiot.

[Warriorbird]

Damn. Sounds like us. Credibility, well...we may be powerful...but it does mean something.

[imported_Kranar]

<< When did we kill thousands of innocent people? >>

Couple months ago. Should keep up with the news and be ontop of these things.

<< Stalinist ideals >>

Do you have any idea what Stalinism even is? Please do answer that last question, I need to know if I'm debating with a competent individual, or just wasting my time. If there's one thing I've observed, it's that all these vague, ambiguous words are being thrown around towards Iraq without people even understanding what they mean or how it even applies.

That, was the first of Orwell's warnings 50 years ago. It's quite scary how true it is.

[Red Devil]

http://brain-terminal.com/video/nyc-2003-02-15/

[Black Jesus]

awesome video Red Devil

[Skirmisher]

That anyone even bothers to use the WMD argument at all at this point just astounds me.

[Ilvane]

It's true, the thing that is most disturbing is that we used WWD as a reason to go to war, and they if they had destroyed it before the war they had done what they were supposed to be doing in the first place.

Whee!

-A

[Taernath]

If the WMD's were destroyed pre-war (or were never there in the first place), why didn't Saddam open his country to full and unrestricted inspection?

[imported_Kranar]

<< If the WMD's were destroyed pre-war (or were never there in the first place), why didn't Saddam open his country to full and unrestricted inspection? >>

It was open to full and unrestricted inspection, including palaces and military sites.

[Ilvane]

Just to sort of put it into perspective..Could you imagine what we would do if suddenly for example England decided to order us to allow them to inspect everything in our country for weapons and told us basically that we had to tell them where everything was, or else?

Do you think we'd do that? I doubt it.:-P

Of course, we don't have weapons of mass destruction either.

-A

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Just to sort of put it into perspective..Could you imagine what we would do if suddenly for example England decided to order us to allow them to inspect everything in our country for weapons and told us basically that we had to tell them where everything was, or else?

Do you think we'd do that? I doubt it.:-P

Of course, we don't have weapons of mass destruction either.

-A

Seeing as they don't have the force of arms to enforce their demands I would assume we would reject any such edicts.

The US, as has been shown quite plainly, did have the power to enforce those demands.

Arguing the whole WMD issue at this point is to me similar to those who still feel the need to bring up the whole electoral vote vs. the popular votes casted. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either, but It's done, lets move on for goodness sake

[imported_Kranar]

<< Arguing the whole WMD issue at this point is to me similar to those who still feel the need to bring up the whole electoral vote vs. the popular votes casted. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either, but It's done, lets move on for goodness sake >>

So an atrocity is okay after you've comitted it, is what you're saying? Like, you go in and kill thousands of people, but that's alright, because it's all in the past, now it's time to find the next 1000 people to kill, and then the next 1000, and so on...

I mean... for goodness sake, as you so eloquently put it, it's not like it's the end of the world... it's just war, not like anyone of us knows any Iraqi's or will meet any of them to give a damn if they die or not. Now is just the time to relax like nothing ever happened.

Amen...

[Edited on 6-16-2003 by Kranar]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Arguing the whole WMD issue at this point is to me similar to those who still feel the need to bring up the whole electoral vote vs. the popular votes casted. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either, but It's done, lets move on for goodness sake >>

So an atrocity is okay after you've comitted it, is what you're saying? Like, you go in and kill thousands of people, but that's alright, because it's all in the past, now it's time to find the next 1000 people to kill, and then the next 1000, and so on...

I mean... for goodness sake, as you so eloquently put it, it's not like it's the end of the world... it's just war, not like anyone of us knows any Iraqi's or will meet any of them to give a damn if they die or not. Now is just the time to relax like nothing ever happened.

Amen...

[Edited on 6-16-2003 by Kranar]


The above response from some here would not surprise me Kranar, but from you it does.

You say the above as if no good at all for the Iraqi people has come from the actions taken and that we just went in there because we wantd to kill alot of people simply because we wanted to kill alot of people.

You may not agree with the reasons given for initiating these events, but I don't know what I'm going to say to you if you refuse to concede that much good has and will come from all this to the Iraqi people in general.

Did innocent people die? Of course. But the sad thing is that innocent people died under Saddam as well and that they will at least have the right to protest and speak their minds which is a lot more than many had before.

Even if they thought that the US was acting solely for their own interests(most seeming to say that we were moving to gain control of the oil producing territories) that they did not weep for Saddam.

Hating the US is not the same as supporting Saddam.

You can dislike the reasons, but to simply discount all the good that will come from this is like sticking your head in the sand just because you do not like what you see.

[Parkbandit]

The search for WMD isn't over yet and you have people saying "See! See, I told you so! Bush made the whole thing up!"

When they are found, they will say "See, I told you Bush would plant them there!"

Whatever.

Continue to look at the world through rose colored glasses... thinking that we should all hold hands and sing and dance.

The fact are:

Iraq had/has WMD. No one can refute this as they used them on Iran/Kurds.

Iraq had 12 years and 13 UN Resolutions to either show they destroyed them or allow us access to destroy them. They chose not to.

Iraq had TONS of chemical suits, gas masks and vials of counter agents. Why did they have all this equipment at the front lines? Did they think the US would use those type weapons on them? No.. they had that equipment because they needed protection from their own weapons.

And the argument that "Well the US has WMD.. why can't Iraq? couldn't be more ignorant. Don't use it because it shows a lack of ability for complex thought.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar

It was open to full and unrestricted inspection, including palaces and military sites.

Even the notoriously liberal NY Times discussed the improbability of this Kranar. Where are you getting this incorrect information from? Al-Jazeera?

Next thing you are going to say is that the US was able to interview the Scientists in the program without them being threatened?

[Black Jesus]

Of course Park Bandit, don't forget as Kranar put it before, Al-Jazeera is unbiased and much more credible than any of the completely spun US networks.

The US is always wrong in the eyes of the world. It's the nature of the beast. The havenots obviously don't want what is better for the US, so screw em. We aren't citizens of the world, we are citizens of the US. It's much better to act and have been wrong than to not act and have been right.

[imported_Kranar]

<< It's much better to act and have been wrong than to not act and have been right. >>

That statement says it all.

Thank you.

[Black Jesus]

You are welcome.

[Black Jesus]

I don't think you understand what I meant...

It's better to act and be wrong about the reasoning that brought you to action than to not act and suffer the consequences because you couldn't convince France and Kranar.

[Taernath]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Just to sort of put it into perspective..Could you imagine what we would do if suddenly for example England decided to order us to allow them to inspect everything in our country for weapons and told us basically that we had to tell them where everything was, or else?

Do you think we'd do that? I doubt it.:-P


That's a very poor analogy.

For one, the American populace isn't living in fear of rape and torture under a military dictatorship, (though I'm sure there are a few out there who'd like to think otherwise). Also, to the best of my recollection we haven't gassed thousands of Canadians or Mexicans and tried to take them over.

If the US were run similar to Iraq, then I'd welcome foreign intervention.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Black Jesus
Of course Park Bandit, don't forget as Kranar put it before, Al-Jazeera is unbiased and much more credible than any of the completely spun US networks.


Yea... that claim still makes me chuckle.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Yea... that claim still makes me chuckle. >>

Believe me, it's not half as funny as you posting a commonly known urban legend as being fact.

The simple truth is I never made that claim anyways. Perhaps you're confusing Al-Jazeera with the BBC? I never watch Al-Jazeera, for one reason and only one reason. I don't speak Arabic.

I'm surprised that you guys do speak Arabic to know so much about what Al-Jazeera stands for.

Or is your opinion of Al-Jazeera just spoon-fed to you? Now be honest and think about it. Even if you don't wish to publically post your response, it's worth it to be honest to yourself. Have ANY of you watched even a minute of it to be able to make up your OWN mind on the issue?

If not, that's fine, your opinion is your own and you're free to aquire it from whomever. My only worry nowadays is that too much opinion is being spoon-fed to the public. Just like we're told to buy one car over another car, or buy one product over another, opinions are now being marketed to mass audiences. That to me is wrong.

And just to clarify, my source came from an interview with Hans Blix.

Just remember:

"It's much better to act and have been wrong than to not act and have been right."

That's the world we live in folks.

[Makkah]

<<Have ANY of you watched even a minute of it to be able to make up your OWN mind on the issue?>>

Nah... that whole War Acts infringement (yes the one where they showed our prisoners, blah blah blah) kinda turned me off of al-Jazeera.

rht

[imported_Kranar]

<< Nah... >>

That's exactly the answer I was anticipating.

The reason I think this is incredibly funny is because CNN, NBC, ABC, and many other U.S. news agencies get their information on the middle-east from Al-Jazeera. CNN was recently, and successfully, sued for not giving credit to Al-Jazeera for using their stories.

Anyways, none of you, not even I, know much about Al-Jazeera to know whether it's biased or not, but the fact that someone of you love to put it down all the while watch THEIR news through CNN, I find not only ironic, but a true testiment to the flawed and erroneous thinking of some on these boards.

Well... continue having your opinions spoon-fed, and may this world reek of irony in the process.

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

<< The search for WMD isn't over yet and you have people saying "See! See, I told you so! Bush made the whole thing up!" >>

Heck, we're not the only ones saying it.

Too much of a short attention span eh? Incase you forgot, Rumsfeld is saying that the weapons may have been destroyed, and Wolfowitz is saying that the war wasn't even about weapons of mass destruction, it was to get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia.

Maybe it shocks me more than it shocks you because I know when MY government deceives me, it's not taken lightly.

That same short attention span is the reason why the U.S. has forgotten about Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.

So... in 1-2 weeks, when Iraq becomes a thing of the past, who do you plan on going in after? Remember, you don't even have to be right in your actions, or have the right reasons. You just have to act, and from the looks of what Black Jesus said, any silly excuse, right or wrong, is good enough for the American public to support in killing mass civilians.

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Kranar]

[Makkah]

<<That's exactly the answer I was anticipating. >>

And that's exactly the rebuttal I expected. You dodging the main point of my post.


rht

[imported_Kranar]

<< You dodging the main point of my post. >>

I asked you if you watched Al-Jazeera to make a well formed opinion of what Al-Jazeera shows or doesn't show.

You replied no. The reason I didn't respond to your other comment is because I don't think you even know what your point is. You said the following:

"that whole War Acts infringement (yes the one where they showed our prisoners, blah blah blah) kinda turned me off of al-Jazeera."

War Acts infringment, there is no such thing as a War Act to infringe apon. When was such War Act passed into law? Furthermore blah blah blah isn't a point that one can argue, let alone respond to. Perhaps you're refering to Iraq's illegal taping of POWs, that is infact illegal according to the Geneva Convention. That Al-Jazeera aired it, however, is no more illegal than CNN airing Iraqi POWs, which is not illegal. That's what a free press is all about, the news is allowed to show virtually all information, even if the information was released illegally. Ever heard of a whistleblower? What many of them do is illegal, but a news agency which reports what they have to say is not illegal, and furthermore the news agency doesn't even have to disclose the name of the whistleblower. CNN had even debated showing the tape of the U.S. POWs, but decided only to show segments of it and blur out the names at the request of the Defense Department (CNN received millions of dollars from the Defense Department for their war coverage so it doesn't surprise me that they complied).

So I'll give you one more chance, and I'll make it a little more straightforward with the hopes that you'll put a little more thought into your answer instead of a "blah blah blah" response:

Is your opinion of Al-Jazeera as a news-agency, based on Al-Jazeera itself, or are you like 99 percent of Americans, and you've never seen 1 minute of Al-Jazeera to know what it stands for, and what it doesn't?

Keep in mind, in your ignorance, you do accept Al-Jazeera every single time you watch CNN, ABC, or NBC news. They get their source of news on the middle-east from Al-Jazeera and pay tons of cash for their agreement. So whether Al-Jazeera turns you on or off on a conscious level, the bottom line is you support their network and accept their news.

That's the irony Makkah, that's the entire point of my post which you ignored. Some people's opinions are spoon-fed to them without them even knowing it or knowing why they even believe in it.

Anyhow, I await your response.

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Kranar]

[Black Jesus]

Spin spin spin eh Kranar? There hasn't exactly been a mass killing of civilians. It's been minimal at worst.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Spin spin spin eh Kranar? >>

Is that so. The civilian death toll is at around 3000-4000. I suppose then that the attacks of September 11th, according to your logic, were minimal at worst.

They weren't to me, or to most anybody.

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Kranar]

[Black Jesus]

They are two very different things. September 11th was one attack, one instant almost. This was a several week long campaign. These are minimal casualities compared to past wars. Look at the stats for the Soviets in Afghanistan or the 8 year war between Iraq and Iran. Mass killing of civilians is Hiroshima, not this.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Spin spin spin eh Kranar? >>

Is that so. The civilian death toll is at around 3000-4000. I suppose then that the attacks of September 11th, according to your logic, were minimal at worst.

They weren't to me, or to most anybody.

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Kranar]

I'll take your word on the total number of Iraqi civilian deaths although to be honest I thought it was a bit higher.

Where I must take issue is with your comparison. In one instance the deaths of as many non combatants was the actual desired goal and all efforts went into that end. In the other not even you can deny the expense not only in dollars, but in American soldiers wounded and killed to do just the opposite in their attempts to keep civilian casualties as low as possible.

[imported_Kranar]

<< I'll take your word on the total number of Iraqi civilian deaths although to be honest I thought it was a bit higher. >>

Perhaps I should have clarified. The confirmed number of civilian deaths thus far is between 3000-4000, I don't remember the exact count. That is not the total number of deaths, but just those that have been counted thus far.

<< In one instance the deaths of as many non combatants was the actual desired goal and all efforts went into that end. In the other not even you can deny the expense not only in dollars, but in American soldiers wounded and killed to do just the opposite in their attempts to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. >>

How is this point at all relevant? You're a human being, your father is a human being, tomorrow your father dies because a cruise missle blasted his brain 3 miles away into the desert. Do you sit there and think: Ah... it's alright, the U.S. is just doing their job. I may die tomorrow, but that's okay too, because the U.S. is well... is just doing it's job.

Life is life, ones life is not any less valuable because the U.S. went in there with some almighty self-righteous purpose, or because some jack-off decided to fly a plane into a building.

When 3000 people die, that's a lot of lives gone, and the question remains: why?

Was it because of WMD? Well not according to Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz. According to his own words, the war was for BUREAUCRATIC reasons in removing the U.S. army from Saudi Arabia.

Who is the U.S. to decide which civilians are going to die for the sake of removing a dictator? Does the U.S. now have some policy of flipping a coin and deciding which leaders shall stay, and which shall go?

My anger from this war stems from the fact that my country, and the world, was lied to. We were told to go to war with this country to make the world a safer place, and when we knew that this war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, we were labled as a dissapointment and a poor member of the international community. My response is that next time the U.S. wants to arbitrairly piss on a poor third world country, they leave everyone else out of it. If you Americans don't mind having constant wars, having it on your T.V., having it marketted to you with nice flashy graphics and pictures of everyone all happy and smiling because the U.S. saved them, this fictitious vision that the U.S. is going to bring world peace by going after Saddam and whomever else, and that you are the world's saviour, then so be it. If that's what makes you feel all nice inside and proud to be an American: fine. But leave the rest of the world out of it, because for the past 50 years, since World War II, the world community is still waiting for a single shred of peace to come out of the U.S. and its perpetual state of warfare. Since World War II, where ever the U.S. has acted on its own, it has simply destroyed, rendered into a pile of dust.

And to anyone who thinks this was about removing Saddam, ask yourself: since when has the U.S. ever engaged in a full blown war with 200 thousand soldiers to remove 3 people from a country (Hussein and his two sons)?

Removing a leader is not done by snapping your fingers, pushing the war button, and letting it all unfold before your eyes with "shock and awe". Removing a leader takes civilian resistance, takes years of influencing a nation into overthrowing their leader. Take Iran for example, where the U.S. is slowly, but surely, gaining more influence in the country into having a revolt, effectively weakening the government.

If 200 billion dollars was spent in doing that, instead of spending it on bombs and blowing up buildings, the results would be more than incredible. You'd have a population that would understand the need for resistance/revolt, instead of a population forced into one. It would eliminate the anxiety and chaos that is happening right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would ensure that such a revolt is permanent.

Blowing up buildings and crushing a country into submission does nothing for either party. In the long run, it just makes for more chaos. I mean look at Afghanistan, the last country you pissed on. It's now controlled by a mob. Hamid Karzai can't do anything about it so he's trying to negotiate with this mob/army, and for all we know the Taliban can return to power.

So I guess I'm just amazed that even today, many Americans think that they can solve the world's problems with the war-button. That even today, Americans think that Iraq is going to be some democratic and wonderful country down the road. Of course, we all know that two-three years from now, the attention will be off of Iraq, and there will be a new enemy to fight, another reason to push the war-button, and so everyone will forget about Iraq and it will be left, once again, in the dust.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Kranar]

[Skirmisher]

>>How is this point at all relevant? You're a human being, your father is a human being, tomorrow your father dies because a cruise missle blasted his brain 3 miles away into the desert. Do you sit there and think: Ah... it's alright, the U.S. is just doing their job. I may die tomorrow, but that's okay too, because the U.S. is well... is just doing it's job.<<

Well intent does matter, or so you have seemed to say. If intent does not matter then why the concern over the WMD pretext? Just be happy a horrible dictator is gone and at a relatively low price.

Please do not get all indignant at that either, because change on a national level is not a minor thing, so several thousand deaths while tragic to all the familes touched is still a bargain in the view of history.

>>Who is the U.S. to decide which civilians are going to die for the sake of removing a dictator? Does the U.S. now have some policy of flipping a coin and deciding which leaders shall stay, and which shall go? <<

Actually, yes. And so does every other country in the world. Its called acting in their own interests. Sometimes we can simply "make" events happen, more often we as most other countries must make do with nudges here and there to try to push events in the direction that best suits us.


>>My anger from this war stems from the fact that my country, and the world, was lied to. We were told to go to war with this country to make the world a safer place, and when we knew that this war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, we were labled as a dissapointment and a poor member of the international community.<<

But you knew all along that the WMD was at best a good reason to make a move the US desired in the first place. You were not fooled. Why the anger in that case? If you are angry at anyone be angry at your own government for not acting in a more forcefull manner in demonstarting its outrage at what you see as such a flimsy excuse.

Maybe they had their own agenda to be concerned with. How shocking that, a government that looks after its own country first

>>Removing a leader is not done by snapping your fingers, pushing the war button, and letting it all unfold before your eyes with "shock and awe". Removing a leader takes civilian resistance, takes years of influencing a nation into overthrowing their leader.<<

Well thats one way, I think its pretty clear that even though you and others may be unhappy with it, there was another way.


>>If 200 billion dollars was spent in doing that, instead of spending it on bombs and blowing up buildings, the results would be more than incredible. You'd have a population that would understand the need for resistance/revolt, instead of a population forced into one. It would eliminate the anxiety and chaos that is happening right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would ensure that such a revolt is permanent.<<

Possibly, or maybe we would just have another Cuba. In any event, you would still be upset with the US for meddling in the affiars of another state.

>>So I guess I'm just amazed that even today, many Americans think that they can solve the world's problems with the war-button. That even today, Americans think that Iraq is going to be some democratic and wonderful country down the road. Of course, we all know that two-three years from now, the attention will be off of Iraq, and there will be a new enemy to fight, another reason to push the war-button, and so everyone will forget about Iraq and it will be left, once again, in the dust. <<

I also am amazed to see you lumping all americans together in a pool. You make the same mistkaes that others here do that you so often refute in doing so.

Acknowledge that perhaps not all of us are as naive as you seem to believe. The US did NOT invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people, although I will not argue with you the fact that the Iraqi people will be better off without Saddam. Not even the most bitter enemies of the US in the middle east try to say that.

We invaded Iraq for several reasons, all of them self serving. Good came of and will come of it for others than the US. But make no mistake , we are doing what yours and any other government in the world would do if they had the means. The problem is that they dont and so are only left to make noise which they have done quite well.

In the future another power may well move ahead of the US and then they will have more freedom to act as they wish and will. Thats not a question, but just the way of the world.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Well intent does matter, or so you have seemed to say. >>

You gonna answer the question? Would you, or would you not care if your family died and possibly you would die, because some country that you didn't ask for, decided they were going to send 200+ thousand troops to remove 3 people from power?

Simple yes or no will do.

As for the rest of your post we're arguing the same thing then.

I'm just saying that pretending that what you're doing is the right thing to do, is infact wrong, and you're saying that it's okay because anyone else would do it.

You're saying that acting in self-interest, while telling the American public and the world otherwise, is a-okay. I'm saying that it's not.

The President has never said that the U.S. is just acting because he wants to boost the power of the U.S. He said clearly that he went to war to find weapons of mass destruction, and free the Iraqi people. The operation was even titled, Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

We call that deception in Canada. If you think it's okay to have a President lie to you like that, that's cool with me, democracy right? You elect whoever you want to elect. I however would find that troubling, and would never re-elect a leader who decieved me, or the world.

<< But you knew all along that the WMD was at best a good reason to make a move the US desired in the first place. You were not fooled. >>

How many times do I have to say it:

The Deputy Secretary of Defense has STATED IN PLAIN SIMPLE ENGLISH, that the reason for war was NOT WMD, but because of bureaucratic reasons, they needed to go to war in order to remove the U.S. army from Saudi Arabia.

That was NEVER told to Britain, Canada, France, or ANY other country prior to the war. It was revealed at a press conference after the war. The reason for war that the U.S. had the world believe was clearly stated by the President in a world wide televised broadcast delivering an ultimatum to Saddam.

We were told that the U.S. had undeniable proof that Iraq has WMD, and only once the war was over did the Defense Secretary admit that Iraq may have destroyed those weapons prior to the war, and to add insult to injury, the Deputy Secretary of Defense admitting that WMD was not the reason for going to war, bureaucracy was.

Capeesh?

<< we are doing what yours and any other government in the world would do if they had the means. The problem is that they dont and so are only left to make noise which they have done quite well. >>

You're begging the question with that statement. You just made a simple, but common, logical fallacy. All I can do to rebut that argument is to call you on it.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Kranar]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar

That same short attention span is the reason why the U.S. has forgotten about Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.



Because it's not in the headlines does not mean the US has forgotten about Bin Laden or the Taliban... Folks were saying that right before the US nabbed that high ranking Al-Queda guy DURING the Iraq War. :yawn:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Nah... >>

The reason I think this is incredibly funny is because CNN, NBC, ABC, and many other U.S. news agencies get their information on the middle-east from Al-Jazeera. CNN was recently, and successfully, sued for not giving credit to Al-Jazeera for using their stories.



This has nothing to do with Al-Jazeera being a pro-arabic news spinner or not. They sued and won. Big deal. How does that make them not have an arabic spin on their newscasts.

Most of the media in the US claims they have an anti-american slant towards the news. You are correct, I don't speak Arabic.. so I will have to rely on those that bring me the news.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Spin spin spin eh Kranar? >>

Is that so. The civilian death toll is at around 3000-4000. I suppose then that the attacks of September 11th, according to your logic, were minimal at worst.

They weren't to me, or to most anybody.



Sorry Kranar.. there is a BIG difference between what happened in NYC and what happened in Iraq.

[Parkbandit]

I wished I lived in Kranar's simple peaceful little fantasy world where no one did bad and no one fought.

Unfortunately Kranar.. this is not the world the rest of us live in.

[Black Jesus]

what i don't think Kranar is taking into consideration that public foreign affairs are a charade. You think the UN is actually the body that make decisions? Well you are wrong. There are people behind the scenes that make agreements and simply use the UN as a cover to conceal secret deals. You act like France, Russia, and China actually gave a shit about the Iraqis. News flash, they don't. France and Russia opposed war ONLY because it was in their best financial interest to do so. China remained fairly neutral, but leaning towards opposing because as the next super power they CANNOT side with the US. That is it man, if you think any governments, including the Hussein one, care about the Iraqi people you are sorely mistaken, no one does.

[GSAuctions]

Originally posted by KranarWe were told that the U.S. had undeniable proof that Iraq has WMD, and only once the war was over did the Defense Secretary admit that Iraq may have destroyed those weapons prior to the war, and to add insult to injury, the Deputy Secretary of Defense admitting that WMD was not the reason for going to war, bureaucracy was.[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Kranar]

I'm not arguing with you here, but could you post a link to the article where that was stated?

I've heard numerous reasons, theories, and motives for our attack on Iraq. Some of the reasons which our government markets are:
Removing any existing WMD
Removing any facilities or materials which could produce WMD
Removing a government which, if they had WMD, could possibly use them against other nations in the Middle East
Removing a brutal dictator from Iraq - Emancipating the Iraqi citizens
Removing a government which supports terrorism (not saying any direct link to 9/11 or al-Qaida)
Bureaucratic reasons

Some of the reasons which our government doesn't play up are:
OIL
To further US global dominance
Bush's personal agenda to finish the job his namesake didn't
Controlling the new Iraq by putting a US friendly government into place
Spreading US influence throughout the Middle East
Israel wants us to

Those are just a few of the ones I can think of off the top of my head. My point here is, there are several reasons why the US invaded Iraq and only a few of them were focused on prior to the invasion. Some are ridiculous and self serving and some are completely legitimate. Do I think we were misled? I really can't say. I was listening to talk radio the other day regarding this topic and the broadcaster made what I thought was a good point. The US had several reasons for the invasion. Instead of trying to push a bunch of different ideas, they picked the most powerful one. The one that would generate the most reaction and support from people. That's the one they marketed. The broadcaster compared this to arguing a case in a court of law. A lawyer takes the strongest angle he can find and argues for that point. He doesn't clutter the judge and jury's heads with a bunch of information, instead he focuses in on that one main issue. That's what I believe happened here. Does it insult me that our government doesn't think we're capable of dealing with all the facts? Sure it does. Kranar, do you really think the Canadian government is always honest with you? That you're not constantly misled, "spoon-fed" opinions, and brain washed just as we are here in the US? You said you know when you government deceives you. How? Just as many Americans are brain washed into thinking that the war on Iraq was the greatest idea since sliced cheese, there's another group of people who are brain washed into thinking the opposite. What are you basing your opinions on? How do you know what you're being told is fact?

For all we know the WMD were removed or destroyed by Iraq to elicit this sort of global reaction to the US led invasion. Is it possible that Iraq never had any WMD and the US government was lying? Sure it is, we've done it before and we, along with all other governments, do it all of the time. Is it possible that the US will plant evidence of WMD in Iraq and claim they found it? You bet. The fact remains that none of us will probably ever know. I believe that Iraq had or was striving towards obtaining WMD. I believe that Saddam would have used WMD against or to blackmail other Middle East nations. I believe that it was in the best interest of the world to remove the Iraqi government. I recognize that the US's intentions regarding the war on Iraq weren't all in the interest of world peace. I don't believe that we've forgotten about Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. Unfortunately, we all rely on the media to keep us informed of current events. If the media has stopped focusing on the US vs. al-Qaida, then as far as we know the US isn't perusing that anymore.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by GSAuctions]

[imported_Kranar]

<< Most of the media in the US claims they have an anti-american slant towards the news. You are correct, I don't speak Arabic.. so I will have to rely on those that bring me the news. >>

My point exactly. Your opinion of them was spoon-fed to you. You don't know anything about Al-Jazeera, so instead of checking up on it, you just accepted an opinion delivered to you by the news. A news agency which you watch made a subjective statement about Al-Jazeera, not an objective statement. That you accepted the subjective statement to be true indicates that you bought an opinion from them.

You see... news was never supposed to mix fact with opinion. I hope you know that there is a difference. Like when I say there were mass civilian deaths, that's not a fact, that's an opinion. The fact would be when I say there are 3000, or 4000, or how ever many deaths there actually were.

One evaluates credibility based on whether or not the factual content was accurate, one evaluates how thorough ones knowledge is by the precision of the information given, and one evaluates bias based on whether both sides of an issue/controversy have been given equal weighting.

They are not one in the same, so when I say Al-Jazeera is credible, which I did say, I don't in anyway mean they are or aren't biased. I simply mean that the facts they deliver are accurate, which is an opinion of mine, and one based on the knowledge that news agencies world wide, including the BBC, Newsworld, CNN, NBC, and so on, rely on Al-Jazeera for their news on the middle-east.

Anything else you wish to accuse me of saying and laughing to yourself about, is your doing and a result of your poor understanding on the difference between fact, precision and opinion.

<< That is it man, if you think any governments, including the Hussein one, care about the Iraqi people you are sorely mistaken, no one does. >>

I know no one does. So the U.S. can quit pretending that they do with their Operation: Iraqi Freedom. That's my only issue. I do sympathize with the Iraqi's on a smaller level, but overall the U.S. going in there and turning the country to dust for the second time isn't my biggest concern, it's nothing new anyways. Like I said, my issue is that the U.S. dragged other countries along with them in a lie. Canada, France and Britain don't give a damn about removing the U.S. army from Saudi Arabia, why should they ever have helped the U.S. tear Iraq apart to serve that end?

You know how pissed many British are at their government for falling for this lie?

<< I wished I lived in Kranar's simple peaceful little fantasy world where no one did bad and no one fought. >>

Believe me, many people live in peace and comfort, without being bombarded with war after war after war. Or fearing one thing or another with some silly colour coded system. Many Americans I might add, not just in Canada.

It's a good world, I assure you.

<< Sorry Kranar.. there is a BIG difference between what happened in NYC and what happened in Iraq. >>

3000+ people died in both. Now maybe when your son or mother is killed, you will sit back and relax because it was done for a "good cause". But that's not what most people do. If you think an Iraqi is going to sit back and look at his loss or his life as being less valuable than the lives lost on September 11, then you're the delusional one, not me. Furthermore if you personally think an Iraqi life is worth less than any other person's life, then you know I think that's unfortunate, but so be it. My comment had to do with mass civilian casualties. That refers not to a process, but to a statistic, a statistic which is at best case scenario the same for both the attacks of 9/11, and this war. So if you think a mass number of civilians died on 9/11, putting aside how they died, be it natural disaster, terrorist attack, or whatever, then in order for you to be consistent in your thinking, you must accept 3000 Iraqi's dead as also a mass number of civilians.

And for the person looking for an artcle on the reasons for war, just search for it on any news website. I read most of my stuff in the newspaper, but here's one I found:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030529/pl_afp/iraq_us_britain_weapons_030529190059

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Kranar]

[Ravenstorm]

It's really not worth arguing about here. These same people who are trying to justify this are, I'm sure, the same people who were screaming bloody murder about Clinton and Lewinsky. Then again, it's not just here but in our government as well.

Clinton lied about having sex. Impeach him!

Bush lied about the justification for invading another country and killing thousands. And your point is?

The hypocrisy could be amusing under other circustances. I'm just glad that even some Republican politicians aren't willing to rubber stamp it.

Raven

Edited to ask a question:

On the other boards, the pro-war people asked how would we feel once WMD were indeed found? So, how do YOU all feel now that a mountain of evidence is being assembled that shows it's turned out to be a lie? Not that I expect anything other than rationalization.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Ravenstorm]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Kranar

<< we are doing what yours and any other government in the world would do if they had the means. The problem is that they dont and so are only left to make noise which they have done quite well. >>

You're begging the question with that statement. You just made a simple, but common, logical fallacy. All I can do to rebut that argument is to call you on it.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Kranar]

Please expand on that a bit for me so I can be sure what you are referring to?

[i]
How about the next time the U.S. feels like pissing on another country, they leave all other countries out of it. Don't ask for Canada's help, nor Britain's help, nor anyones help. You want to act like animals fighting a war and deceiving the public, then tell your government to deceive your own citizens, tell them you don't mind being lied to and used but make sure you realize that others do mind. We're not all peons, some of us have standards; we don't feel like doing anything we want in anyway we choose simply because we have the power to, and to be quite frank, we're simply getting fed up with the lies and deception.

Yeah, Saddam is gone, and so are thousands of innocent lives. I hope that helps you sleep at night.

[Edited on 5-31-2003 by Kranar]


As soon as the majority of the world stops depending on the United States for stability then you have a deal.

Originally posted by Kranar
<< The search for WMD isn't over yet and you have people saying "See! See, I told you so! Bush made the whole thing up!" >>

Heck, we're not the only ones saying it.

Too much of a short attention span eh? Incase you forgot, Rumsfeld is saying that the weapons may have been destroyed, and Wolfowitz is saying that the war wasn't even about weapons of mass destruction, it was to get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia.

Maybe it shocks me more than it shocks you because I know when MY government deceives me, it's not taken lightly.

That same short attention span is the reason why the U.S. has forgotten about Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.

So... in 1-2 weeks, when Iraq becomes a thing of the past, who do you plan on going in after? Remember, you don't even have to be right in your actions, or have the right reasons. You just have to act, and from the looks of what Black Jesus said, any silly excuse, right or wrong, is good enough for the American public to support in killing mass civilians.

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by Kranar]

First of all, You have the audactity to talk about people and short attention spans because weapons have not been found not even 6 months after the search began? Just to let you in on a little secret. They are still finding buried and hidden munitions in the United States, france and other small countries that were placed there during and before WWII.


Second of all, we forgot about Afghanistan, Taliban, and Al'queda?

Thats a surprise to me.

I guess i'll tell that to my buddies still stationed in Afghanistan and fighting Al'qeada in the phillipines right now.

Whos being spoon fed worthless information now?

[Edited on 6-19-2003 by RangerD1]

Removing a leader is not done by snapping your fingers, pushing the war button, and letting it all unfold before your eyes with "shock and awe". Removing a leader takes civilian resistance, takes years of influencing a nation into overthrowing their leader. Take Iran for example, where the U.S. is slowly, but surely, gaining more influence in the country into having a revolt, effectively weakening the government.



Tell that to 1940's France and the other dozens of countries who have fell to military conquest.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense has STATED IN PLAIN SIMPLE ENGLISH, that the reason for war was NOT WMD, but because of bureaucratic reasons, they needed to go to war in order to remove the U.S. army from Saudi Arabia.

That was NEVER told to Britain, Canada, France, or ANY other country prior to the war. It was revealed at a press conference after the war. The reason for war that the U.S. had the world believe was clearly stated by the President in a world wide televised broadcast delivering an ultimatum to Saddam.

We were told that the U.S. had undeniable proof that Iraq has WMD, and only once the war was over did the Defense Secretary admit that Iraq may have destroyed those weapons prior to the war, and to add insult to injury, the Deputy Secretary of Defense admitting that WMD was not the reason for going to war, bureaucracy was.

Capeesh?

<< [/quote]

No not really.

Lets consider the fact that he did not say that WMD's was not a reason for invading but that it was a reason among many.

It was viewed as the strongest and most likely to get the desired response from the American public and the international community. and because of this was emphasis over other reasons.

That does not mean that WMD's were not an issue, because your arguing a fools argument if you try and make that.

Why you ask?

Because the entire world condemned Iraq for its non compliance. Don't believe me? Read resolution 1441. I'll let you sort through the juicy details, but the it was never in contention that Iraq was in noncompliance and that they probaly posssed WMD's. The only discussion was the action to take because of it.


Also, you state that britain, france and whoever else the fuck you said had no idea about these "other" reasons and that i was only revealed in a press conference.

I just have to ask, how do you have access to secured intelligence and diplomatic information from several of the worlds super powers?

Point is, you don't have a god damn idea what the US told Britain etc, outside of the public media.


Capeesh?

[imported_Kranar]

<< Please expand on that a bit for me so I can be sure what you are referring to? >>

What you're stated is not an argument. Given what you said, you're doing what you're doing because you're the one doing it and can do it, and I'm doing what I'm doing because I'm the one doing it and can't do otherwise. Should our roles be reversed, then you'd be what I'm doing, and I'd be doing what you're doing. See the absurdity? That's why it's begging the question. You can't justify an action because you're capable of performing the action, even if anyone else would perform the action. You fail to justify the argument by doing so.

[Parkbandit]

Kranar.. every news agency delivers facts. That IS the essence of news. But when you claim that Al-Jazeera do so better than most American news outlets because they are leaving out their opinions... that's a bunch of simple anti-American bunk. I don't deny that Fox, CNN, ABC, etc... do deliver the news on their own slants, but if you believe Al-Jazeera doesn't.. then you are deluding yourself. Your argument loses credibility with me if you feel that Al-Jazeera is the 'real truth' coming from the middle east. Nuff said about Al-Jazeera.

And you never did answer my question about Kranar is President Bush. You seem to have all the answers, but when pressed for a simple one, you seem to shy away from answering it.

My opinion is that the Iraqi situation was stretched FAR FAR FAR beyond the normal diplomatic measures and that war was the only way the situation could be solved. You disagree with the war.

So Kranar.. one more time... You are now President Bush in January 2002.

Handle the situation in Iraq. Or don't.. you are President, you can do what you like.

[Parkbandit]

And I hope you never thought I didn't believe that 3000 Iraqi casualties didn't mean anything. That never came from me.

I just didn't like your comparison to 9-11 and the Iraq War. Two totally different senarios.

[imported_Kranar]

<< First of all, You have the audactity to talk about people and short attention spans because weapons have not been found not even 6 months after the search began? >>

When the Secretary of Defense and the President state with absolute conviction that they have proof that there are WMD and know where they are, and then turn around and downplay the importance of WMD, you're damn right I have the audacity to speak like this.

<< I guess i'll tell that to my buddies still stationed in Afghanistan and fighting Al'qeada in the phillipines right now. >>

No, tell your government instead. Tell them that Hamid Karzai has asked himself that he not be ignored, because as it stands he can't fend off the opposing clans/mafia's in Afghanistan who are slowly gaining more influence and power.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Kranar.. every news agency delivers facts. That IS the essence of news. But when you claim that Al-Jazeera do so better than most American news outlets because they are leaving out their opinions... that's a bunch of simple anti-American bunk. I don't deny that Fox, CNN, ABC, etc... do deliver the news on their own slants, but if you believe Al-Jazeera doesn't.. then you are deluding yourself. Your argument loses credibility with me if you feel that Al-Jazeera is the 'real truth' coming from the middle east. Nuff said about Al-Jazeera. >>

News delivers facts, yes. But sometimes they only deliver opinion, which are made to appear as facts. Like when I say "mass civilian casualties died", I'm giving an opinion, yet many may interpret that as being a fact. The news does the same thing, they are supposed to clearly state the facts, without giving an opinion, without using subjective language. But they don't so the end result is that instead of facts being delivered about say... Al-Jazeera, only an opinion is delivered which many confuse to be a fact.

When they want to give an opinion, which is natural, they are supposed to clearly state it as an opinion, and give both sides of the opinion so that the viewer can see a wide range of interpretations.

Now... I don't watch Al-Jazeera, I don't know a damn thing about their opinion whether they love America or want it burned into a hole in the ground. Maybe they play planes crashing into the twin towers with trumpets 24/7, maybe they don't. I don't know, I don't speak arabic, I don't know anyone who does speak arabic who can watch it for me. I don't even have satellite T.V. I don't know a damn thing about that network, other than American agencies get their news from it, which makes it a credible news source. Other than that, I don't know who works for it, what it even looks like, or what their schedule consists of.

Now if you have those facts, and based on those facts you can make an opinion on it, then good for you. If you can't, then your opinion was spoon-fed to you. Big deal, here, I'll use a nicer word for you. Your opinion was administered to you by the news. Happy now?

[Edited on 6-19-2003 by Kranar]

[imported_Kranar]

<< So Kranar.. one more time... You are now President Bush in January 2002. >>

I'd be like... what situation? The fact that I need to remove my troops from Saudi Arabia, like Paul Wolfowitz said was the primary reason for going to war? Simple... I remove my troops and leave.

[imported_Kranar]

<< I just didn't like your comparison to 9-11 and the Iraq War. >>

My comparison was done to show consistency. Black Jesus felt there were no mass casualties in Iraq, I felt that would be inconsistent with most American views, that 3000 dead is a lot of lives lost, 3000 dead is the number of lives lost on September 11. Now I was unaware that a life has more or less value because it was lost in a war, or lost because of a terrorist, or lost because of a natural disaster. I don't think that to be the case, but if some do, then once again, so be it.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< So Kranar.. one more time... You are now President Bush in January 2002. >>

I'd be like... what situation? The fact that I need to remove my troops from Saudi Arabia, like Paul Wolfowitz said was the primary reason for going to war? Simple... I remove my troops and leave.

Simple little world you live in.

The Iraq situation isn't and wasn't as simple as you and your only source Paul Wolfowitz make it out. Oh, and remember about our fact vs opinion discussion? Paul's comments are his opinion. Don't make them out to be facts because they are far from it.

So, simply put Kanar.. you would let the Iraq situation take care of itself with no intervention at all.

Let's all breath a collective sigh of relief then that the powers that be now are not of that mindset. Reminds me of Chamberlain right before WWII.

[imported_Kranar]

<< The Iraq situation isn't and wasn't as simple as you and your only source Paul Wolfowitz make it out. >>

Do you know who Paul Wolfowitz is?

[Edited on 6-19-2003 by Kranar]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It's really not worth arguing about here. These same people who are trying to justify this are, I'm sure, the same people who were screaming bloody murder about Clinton and Lewinsky. Then again, it's not just here but in our government as well.

Clinton lied about having sex. Impeach him!

Bush lied about the justification for invading another country and killing thousands. And your point is?

The hypocrisy could be amusing under other circustances. I'm just glad that even some Republican politicians aren't willing to rubber stamp it.

Raven

Edited to ask a question:

On the other boards, the pro-war people asked how would we feel once WMD were indeed found? So, how do YOU all feel now that a mountain of evidence is being assembled that shows it's turned out to be a lie? Not that I expect anything other than rationalization.

[Edited on 6-18-2003 by Ravenstorm]

Clinton was a charlitan, liar, thief, sneak and an overall piss poor excuse for a President. He tarnished the image to a point where the office became a joke.

People claim George W. lied about the justification of the war... where is this proof? What would be his motive? Oh and PLEASE PLEASE don't use as his motive that "He wanted to beat up Iraq because they threatened his Daddy" because that has to be the biggest load of crap to come down the river in decades.

My opinion is that George W acted on the information he was given. He felt the US was in danger and acted on it. His only motivation was to protect this country.

Certainly, George W is not the smoothest speaking President we have ever had. But there is one thing I can say.. he's probably the only President that I can remember actually trusting. That include everyone from Nixon to Clinton. I didn't feel this same trust level. I think Carter was the only one I didn't feel an overwhelming sense of mistrust.. but he was so politically inept he wasted 4 years.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< The Iraq situation isn't and wasn't as simple as you and your only source Paul Wolfowitz make it out. >>

Do you know who Paul Wolfowitz is?

[Edited on 6-19-2003 by Kranar]

On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 28th and sworn in March 2, 2001 as the 28th Deputy Secretary of Defense. This is Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of duty in the Pentagon.

For the last seven years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University. SAIS is widely regarded as one of the world's leading graduate schools of international relations with 750 students, studying on campuses in Washington, D.C.; Nanjing, China; and Bologna, Italy. As Dean, he led a successful capital campaign that raised more than $75 million and doubled the school's endowment. Also under his leadership, the curriculum and facilities were modernized and new faculty and programs were added to shift the school's focus from the Cold War to the era of globalization.

From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and force posture at the end of the Cold War.

Under his leadership, the Policy Staff played a major role in reviewing war plans for the Gulf War, and developing and executing plans that successfully raised more than $50 billion in Allied financial support for the war and prevented Iraq from opening a second front with Israel. Other key initiatives included the development of the Regional Defense Strategy, the Base Force, and two presidential nuclear initiatives that led to the elimination of tens of thousands of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons.

During the Reagan administration, Dr. Wolfowitz served for three years as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia - the fourth largest country in the world and the largest in the Moslem world. There he earned a reputation as a highly popular and effective Ambassador, a tough negotiator on behalf of American intellectual property owners, and a public advocate of political openness and democratic values. During his tenure, Embassy Jakarta was cited as one of the four best-managed embassies inspected in 1988.

Prior to that posting, he served three and a half years as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was in charge of U.S. relations with more than twenty countries. In addition to contributing to substantial improvements in U.S. relations with Japan and China, Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz played a central role in coordinating the U.S. policy toward the Philippines that supported a peaceful transition from the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos to democracy.

Dr. Wolfowitz's previous government service included:
Two years as head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff (1981-82):
An earlier Pentagon tour as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs (1977-80), where he helped create the force that later became the United States Central Command and initiated the Maritime Pre-positioning Ships, the backbone of the initial U.S. deployment twelve years later in Operation Desert Shield;
Four years (1973-77) in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, working on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and a number of nuclear nonproliferation issues; and
A year as a Management Intern at the Bureau of the Budget (1966-67).
Dr. Wolfowitz taught previously at Yale (1970-73) and Johns Hopkins (1981). In 1993, he was the George F. Kennan Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College. He has written widely on the subject of national strategy and foreign policy and was a member of the advisory boards of the journals Foreign Affairs and National Interest .

Among his many awards for public service are:
The Presidential Citizen's Medal,
The Department of Defense's Distinguished Public Service Medal,
The Department of State's Distinguished Honor Award,
The Department of Defense's Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, and
The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's Distinguished Honor Award.
Dr. Wolfowitz received a bachelor's degree from Cornell University (1965) in mathematics, and a doctorate in political science from the University of Chicago (1972).

[Parkbandit]

Doesn't mean that what comes out of his mouth is the truth. He IS a politician you know.

[imported_Kranar]

Do you know who Paul Wolfowitz is?

Plagiarism doesn't qualify as an answer.

[imported_Kranar]

<< He IS a politician you know. >

So the answer is no, okay thanks.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< He IS a politician you know. >

So the answer is no, okay thanks.

LOL... don't assume too much Kranar. You would find yourself wrong once again.

I know what you are referring to with Paul. You are referring to a Vanity Fair article where he was misquoted about saying the reason for war with Iraq was to move troops out of Saudi Arabia.

IF you had any clue and stopped reading the NY Times/Washington Post for one moment and did some research.. you would find that the notion would be foolish at best. There were what.. 5000 troops in Saudi Arabia? We could and did move them. We already established a new post in Qatar well before the War. You think we would actually go to war to simply move 5000 troops?

Come on Kranar.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Kranar
Do you know who Paul Wolfowitz is?

Plagiarism doesn't qualify as an answer.

Anyone who read that knows I could never have typed that all out in the few minutes between our posts. You are correct though as I did not post my source. I simply answered your stupid question with a copy/paste from the first google search. I thought maybe you didn't know yourself and were needing the information. :)

[Parkbandit]

Here's the site in case you wish to read further Kranar.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

[Parkbandit]

Hell.. if you are actually in a reading mood.. try this one too:

http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2971

[Black Jesus]

Kranar I have some questions for you. You harp on the fact that 3000-4000 Iraqi civilians were killed because of bombings. Please answer these:

Without US intervention and subsequent push for the lifting of sanctions, how many Iraqis due to the shortage of medical supplies and other humanitarian good?

Without US intervention, how many people would have died from Saddam Hussein's cruelty? I'm guessing those mass grave weren't suicide cults.

If you honestly think the sum of these two answers is less than 3000-4000 I think you are sorely misinformed on the situation there. One of my best friends has been in Iraq since March. I've talked to him a few times over satellite phones and he's said that while he isn't being embraced with open arms everyday, that the people for the most part are appreciative.

[Parkbandit]

Kranar still believes the Oil for Food program was a smashing success for the Iraqi people I bet. No way was it a get rich quick scheme for Saddam, France and the UN. No way.

[quoteWhat you're stated is not an argument. Given what you said, you're doing what you're doing because you're the one doing it and can do it, and I'm doing what I'm doing because I'm the one doing it and can't do otherwise. Should our roles be reversed, then you'd be what I'm doing, and I'd be doing what you're doing. See the absurdity? [/quote]

No i don't. Considering that is how things have been since the beginning of history i don't find it absurd at all.

Originally posted by Kranar
<< First of all, You have the audactity to talk about people and short attention spans because weapons have not been found not even 6 months after the search began? >>

When the Secretary of Defense and the President state with absolute conviction that they have proof that there are WMD and know where they are, and then turn around and downplay the importance of WMD, you're damn right I have the audacity to speak like this.


You know nothing about intelligence, do you?



<< I guess i'll tell that to my buddies still stationed in Afghanistan and fighting Al'qeada in the phillipines right now. >>

No, tell your government instead. Tell them that Hamid Karzai has asked himself that he not be ignored, because as it stands he can't fend off the opposing clans/mafia's in Afghanistan who are slowly gaining more influence and power.

And that means we are ignoring them? Are you familiar with the Optempo of the US military right now? Are you also familiar with their current efforts in Afghanistan?

You like to take one biased side of a story and present it as the end all be all. But since you will undoubtedibly claim to be objective i'll let you answer those questions.

Lets see what you can do.

[iWithout US intervention, how many people would have died from Saddam Hussein's cruelty? I'm guessing those mass grave weren't suicide cults

Heres some interesting facts for you.

Infant mortality rates have risen by a factor of 12 since 1990. Why? Because saddam has been abusing the Oil for food program, in fact he has been using it as a domestic political tool.

50% of the Iraqi population are Children

1 in 8 children die before the age of 5.

1 in 3 is undernourished.

Heres some nice little quotes from Amnesty international.



In 1988 in the village of Halabja, some 5,000 Kurdish children and adults were killed by Iraqi government forces in a deliberate attack using chemical weapons. The slaughter, widely reported around the world, was planned. It marked the beginning of the ''Anfal'' campaign in which tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians lost their lives. The Iraqi Government destroyed hundreds of Kurdish villages, killing or forcibly evacuating the inhabitants or making them ''disappear''.




In the marsh area of southern Iraq after the Gulf war, thousands of Arabs were massacred during Iraqi military operations against the civilian population. The Iraqi military again planned and executed an unjustifiable attack against civilians.



Amnesty International has continued to document gross human rights violations committed on a massive scale in Iraq affecting all sectors of society. These violations, which have been committed by Iraqi military, intelligence and security personnel, have included the arbitrary arrest and detention of tens of thousands of suspected government opponents and their relatives without charge or trial; widespread torture and ill-treatment often resulting in deaths in custody; unfair trials; the ''disappearance'' and extrajudicial execution of hundreds of thousands of people, for political reasons; the introduction of judicial punishments amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or to torture; and the widespread use of the death penalty.






The human rights violations described below are part of a pattern of abuses committed in Iraq over many years. Amnesty International has repeatedly placed these violations on the public record and pressed the Iraqi Government to stop extrajudicial executions, torture, the use of the death penalty and other human rights violations, and to clarify the fate of the hundreds of thousands who have ''disappeared''. The organization's concerns have been consistently ignored by the Iraqi authorities or rejected through blanket denials.

And probaly my favoriate.




In spite of the difficulty of investigating extrajudicial executions and mass killings in Iraq, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people have been the victims of such killings since the 1980s. Various methods have been used, including the use of chemical weapons; mass executions by firing squad; burying people alive or tying heavy weights to their feet and pushing them into rivers; poisoning with thallium and other toxic substances; and ''accidental deaths'' supposedly occurring in rigged car accidents or helicopter crashes. In addition, thousands of people have died in custody apparently as a result of torture or in unclear circumstances.

Of course we all know that this pales in comparison to the 3000 people killed in this war.


This is just for some bathroom reading. Its about Kranar's buddy Saddam Hussein.
Pretty interesting stuff.


http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ?Ope nDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ

P.s. I made about 5 posts and you only respond to one? What are you slipping Kranar?

[Edited on 6-20-2003 by RangerD1]

[imported_Kranar]

<< I made about 5 posts and you only respond to one? >>

RangerD1, I'm sorry you feel left out. I've made all the points I can. Going on back and forth is redundant, apart from your vile insults, I can understand most points made, but I expected insults from you nonetheless. I'm not buddies with Saddam, and the fact you believe otherwise indicates futility of argument. I don't wish to give much attention to you, and once again, I'm sorry if that bothers you. I did once respectfully ask that we ignore one another given your style of debate, one which I am opposed to. You may take what I just said to mean you're right, and I'm wrong, and you've crushed me, and I'm just too scared of you. I am, according to you, a retard as you so eloquently put it, so why waste anymore of your time debating with me?

Apart from that, as far as this debate goes, all I can say is if you truly wish for an answer to your question, just go through this thread over again. There's plenty of information available that does relate to the problems posed.

This debate has no direction anymore. We can go back and forth all day, with you claiming I'm biased, and me claiming you're biased. But my thesis remains as clear as daylight, and it's a thesis that I prefer not to stray away from.

If you forgot what my thesis is, or if you think it has anything to do with Hussein's legitimate authority, then I'm afraid this debate can not continue. Or atleast I have no interest in debating whether Hussein was a wonderful leader or not. If you feel I have made an error somewhere and have stated that I support Hussein, then please do quote me on it so I may verify it.

Also, feel free to response to the thesis, which still stands on page one of this thread. You'll find it has nothing to do with Hussein, and everything to do with international policies.

Bottom line, I don't know where you're getting any of your ideas, but certainly it can't be from me. I read your questions, and they do appear to be under something that I posted earlier, but they have so little to do with this debate that I don't know what you're expecting from me as an answer.

You can't just force a question onto someone without linking the question to the thesis and then expect that person to answer. It's like if out of nowhere I asked you "Why do you support Hitler?" You're essentially asking me why I support Saddam Hussein.

[Edited on 6-20-2003 by Kranar]

[Neildo]

One thing I'd like to bring up is this:

Back when the UN inspectors were doing their work trying to find WMD and the like, what was the time frame given that if they have "full cooperation" with Iraqi scientists, how long would it have been for them to find and dismantle all those WMDs?

6+ months, even more than a year.

That's with FULL COOPERATION, something that obviously was not happening. Anyhow, 6+ months. How long has it been since the war started? Only a couple, without full cooperation. And while we have thousands of troops in the area, it doesn't mean our chances of finding WMDs all of a sudden increases 100%. Our soldiers aren't scientists. It won't do us jack squat if we don't find and interrogate the people who know where they are. All our soldiers could be standing on top of hundreds of WMD bunkers, but they wouldn't know because we can't track down the people who do know.

I can't believe people were expecting WMDs to be found within the first couple weeks of the war. They still have fighting going on, order to restore, supplies to bring in, people to interrogate. That's not going to make their job any more easy. That slows us down even if we have thousands of people in there. Let's also not forget that many people fled the country so there goes some people with good information gone.

We haven't even found Saddam so why do you think finding weapons of mass destruction would be any easier? For all we know, their mobile trucks went into Syria or another country before/during/after the war. Even finding munition dumps or other stockpiles would be hard. We first have to find someone who knows where they are. People seem to think everyone would spill their beans willingly. When people are acting as suicide bombers for money, that shows how fanatical some people are. And those are just normal citizens. I highly doubt Saddam would put unloyal people in charge of his most important operations. Sure, some are giving us information but we haven't found the more important people with the information we need. And heck, for all we know, all those people in the know could be dead.

- N

[imported_Kranar]

<< I can't believe people were expecting WMDs to be found within the first couple weeks of the war. >>

No one was expecting WMD destruction to be found within the first 7 weeks after the war. But there's something else that no one was expecting either, something that you and others want to brush to the side.

No one was expecting Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to admit that the primary reason for war wasn't WMD, but instead Saudi Arabia. And no one was expecting Secretary Rumselfd to change his mind and acknowledge that weapons may have been destroyed prior to the war, after he and the President swore to us they weren't.

That too, no one was expecting, because the entire world was told otherwise prior to the war. Don't stray from that main point, because I will not fall for that trap again.

[Xcalibur]

Personnaly, I prefer being lied to by the U.S. governement than to have that bastard thief running his country like a slave-nation.

What still bugs me is that, knowing that their nation WOULD be free in a matter of weeks, why did the Irakian people didn't revolted against the SO called tyran that was Saddam, caputred him, and delivering him as a proof they were lied and fed up of it?

France is falling into a ridiculous nation, and is jealous of the US, they were greedy and wanted their programs to be still on with Irak.

Remember how France backstabbed us, Canadians AND americains alike when we freed em from the Nazis, they WILLINGLY fought against us on the D-Day, and were very happy when the SS took some of their jews to where we all know.

You can't trust anyone now, and i'm 100% behind the us, as i prefer to have 3000 people being killed cause they REFUSE to be free from their tyran to 3000 innocent workers being killed by a bunch of religious fools...

And Kranar, Chrétien lies EVERY DAMN days to us, you know it.
Hope Martin will be better

[Black Jesus]

I hope that Martin is better too. I'd like to the US and Canada more on the same page than we were with Chretien.

[Neildo]

>>>No one was expecting Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to admit that the primary reason for war wasn't WMD, but instead Saudi Arabia. And no one was expecting Secretary Rumselfd to change his mind and acknowledge that weapons may have been destroyed prior to the war, after he and the President swore to us they weren't.<<<<

Whether it's true or not, yeah, they're idiots for opening their big mouths. But hey, things have to be done that need to be done. Just because majority may vote for war or no war, it doesn't mean we're right. We're little peons. We don't have the guts, smarts, and the like to run the country and make good/bad deicisions that need to be made.

Ignorance is bliss. I'm fine with being lied to so long as it's for a good reason. Whether or not the primary reason of invading Iraq was for WMD, it's still a reason even if not the major one. Saddam and the Bathe party is a danger to society and needed to be flushed out. And they were. They can tell me any reason for invading Iraq if the outcome ends up being the same as it is now.

Complete honesty won't get you very far. If it was said that we're going to war for Saudi Arabia, do you think it would have happened? Nope. Most people aren't capable of making decisions like that. They think that if even one person dies, we can't go to war for whatever reason. Yeah, it'd be nice to think like that in the perfect world but this isn't the perfect world. With complete honesty and letting the citizens control us in the perfect world, we'd have no guns or other weapons. But yay, all of a sudden someone invades us and we all die.

Hell, just to make it more simpler to understand, imagine where Gemstone III would be if the players made all the decisions. It'd be a mess and no longer around. Now magnify that by a lot to represent countries and their people and you get the point. Some things have to be done that may be distasteful in the eyes of players and citizens and it's for the greater cause but the players and citizens don't realize that. They're weak which is why they're not the ones running a country. As if that wasn't obvious, heh.

- N