Posted by
timothy
on from the absence-of-evidence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Severalnewsoutlets are reporting that the United States has officially ended the The Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
The US Presidential election is over, now we see the following:
Employment again tanks
Trade deficit skyrocketing
Torture still going on in Iraqi prisons
The war is going worse than we thought (the prez actually admitted)
No WMD stockpiles found
Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election
result illustrated this clearly.
"The Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for the search, goes on, but its focus now is trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency."
Well, at leas they have full employement.
Don't spend all that political capital at the same gumball machine.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
You're assuming the people are stupid and tricked (baffled). They aren't. The people of this country know we didn't go into Iraq because of WMD. They don't care. They know we are mistreating prisoners. They don't care. They may not know the details, like Bush's lawyer saying Guantanamo isn't under US or Cuban law. The details don't matter.
Americas aren't stupid. They're mean.
Call someone "enemy" or "illegal" and the majority doesn't care what you do to them.
Re:Well DUH!
by
Carbonite
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The US Presidential election is over, now we see the following:
I'm not going to get into a debate on the veracity of your statements, but none of the claims you listed are post-election news. The economy and Iraq both received very extensive news coverage before the election so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Not all Americans are like this. Just most of them.
I am embarrassed by my own country.
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election result illustrated this clearly.
I found the whole election to be ironic. This election was about "values," supposedly. Apparently it's morally right to support an administration with a culture of trampling on human rights, "disappearing" thousands of "enemy combatants," outright torture, lying to start a war, killing 100,000 innocent civilians, and destroying the lives of millions of others. But at least we don't have some pinko liberal gay loving, womens rights supporter. Hmm.
Hopefully Dubya will take his track record of success in Iraq and fix healthcare (stop those frivolous lawsuits by family of people who get killed by their doctors, or by unsafe medication approved by the FDA in bed with industry), the economy (put it on my credit card, the kids will pay later), and social security (destroy it now, while there's still time!)
Get on the No Accountability Train '04! Whoo whoo!
Where is the outrage? I'll tell you what the outrage is. About 1500 soldiers have been killed, another 10,000+ have been wounded, and perhaps 100,000 Iraqis are dead, and I'm still paying $1.80 for a gallon of gas. UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE. How many people do I have to kill to get some cheap gas around here?
OK, now that was pretty sarchastic.
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, good old American values like taking responsiblity...yet running a nearly half a trillion dollar deficit with a nearly 8 trillion dollar debt. Ah, yes not paying your debts, that's responsibility right there.
Oh but, don't worry China and Japan are bailing you out Mr. Bush. Yes, selling your country to Asia, good old American values.
Re:Well DUH!
by
superpulpsicle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, two of the more well influential journalists quit in the middle of a war, that's no coincidence. We obviously have alot of things to hide.
Just count 20 years from now, and all of us Americans will be as shocked as the Germans citizens who discovered the prisoner camp mistreatments for the first time.
The US Presidential election is over, now we see the following: Employment again tanks
Trust me, I'm the last person on Slashdot who would hold up Bush for anything but ridicule, but the employment numbers are still going up... for now. In the last year, employment almost recovered the 2+ million jobs lost since Bush took office. Granted, those are false numbers, pumped up by unsupportable tax cuts that are making states go broke. I suspect that Bush supporters may have even hired people as an under-the-radar campaign contribution (but try finding proof of such a tinfoil concept).
But at the moment, of all the things we can bash Bush with, employment isn't one of them. Check back in a couple of months, though.
-- Stressed? Me?
Of course not.
Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
No, I'm the last person on Slashdot who would support W.
You are quite correct, that employment is actually increasing. The quality of those jobs relative to the jobs that were lost during the recession I do not know, though I've read that many people switching jobs have ended up taking significant cuts in pay and/or benefits. There are a lot of new jobs that have to be created to employ new people entering the workforce, something like 150k/month.
Also, to be fair, a President has less impact on the day-to-day economy than is typically thought. Longer term is a different story and I have grave reservations about the trends in the fiscal deficit and the tax policy and spending that includes US$4.5e9/month in Iraq.
Finally, it is true that employment figures during 2004 showed some growth due to government hiring, which is ironic considering the GOP stance against big government.
Many of my fellow Americans - bless them - they're really good people at heart - prefer to live in a myth and to listen to people that help maintain that mythology. They want to be part of a story where they play the good guys and they defeat the bad guys and it's easy to tell the two apart. The power of a delusion is strong and, unfortunately, conditions will have to get a lot worse before the cognitive dissonance creates a willingness to re-examine the facts. It's a shame, I'd rather people not have to learn such hard lessons from experience of hardship that I see coming like a train down the tracks.
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
It's a shame, I'd rather people not have to learn such hard lessons from experience of hardship that I see coming like a train down the tracks.
Yep. But at least I was able to benefit from it. I figured if Kerry won, stocks would slide short-term, but long-term they'd rebound with sound fiscal policy. If Bush won, stocks would spike sharply, then long-term they'd slip on Bush's cut-and-spend philosophy. Bush won, so I was able to take out a loan on my 401(k) (which is basically a "sell") in December just before the stock market peaked. I'll pay it off (a "buy") over the long term, as stock prices slide. Sell high, buy low, in no particular order.
Greedy bastards. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. At least there was no conflict of interest in the voting booth: I didn't vote for either one.
-- Stressed? Me?
Of course not.
Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
That is completely irrelevant to anything a president does, because his job is not to make sure you have a job. The president is supposed to be as capable of making jobs as I am able to make jobs by busting out car windows for auto places to fix by hiring more people to fix the thousands I'm going to break. The President should have nothing to do with the economy with the exception of the powers defined specifically in the Constitution.
Re:Well DUH!
by
superpulpsicle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Like I said, wait 20 years. The gassing and incinerating was not public knowledge until years after Allies troops invaded German territory. At the time of the war, nazi mistreatment was not on your daily newspaper covers.
Vice versa, cheerleader posing is about the only thing acceptable enough to broadcast. Since it won't hurt Bush's chance of getting back in the office.
When does this state of excess cognitive dissonance occur? The one that causes a willingness to re-examine the facts.
If history is any lesson, then this re-examination may be far into the future. I believe that as individuals, in isolation, re-examination can occur; but it will not happen until death for a mass of people unless forced from without (see, Germany.) Hence, short of being conquered, I firmly believe that no matter what course this administration stears us through half of America will believe it was the right path until the day they die.
Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, had to say: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Well put. There's an amusing little article on CNN that discussed the true complexity of anti-U.S. sentiment in Iraq vs. Bushco's promoted fantasy that it's all bin Laden's doing. And to any and all Bush voters: thanks a lot for flushing the country down the toilet, morons. Your children will enjoy paying off the $500 billion dollar bill for your stupidity while you die in the street after Social Security is bankrupted. Family values my ass.
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's like forcing Jews to eat pork. Or forcing Christians to piss on a crucifix. Some people DO have values.
Sure, some people do... but why are you bringing up Christians and Jews?
That's not as impressive a number as it sounds... remember, during the years 1991-1998, we killed 1 million children in Iraq. That's over 100K per year. So actually, things have gotten better over there since we invaded...
Your children will enjoy paying off the $500 billion dollar bill for your stupidity while you die in the street after Social Security is bankrupted. Family values my ass.
Social Security is already going to be bankrupt in a few years. Anyone counting on it for retirement is a complete moron.
BTW -- though I didn't vote for W -- he did have a better plan for reforming SS than Kerry.
-- I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
W's massive budget deficits are what caused the Social Security problem.
WTF are you talking about? Social Security has been on the road to bankruptcy for years, because no politician can afford to cut benefits to seniors (which is the only way we're going to get out of this mess).
W's done a lot of stupid things, but ruining Social Security isn't one of them.
-- I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
That's the job of Congress, as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution; to wit:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
-- "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Social Security is already going to be bankrupt in a few years
That is a deliberate LIE that is repeated over and over again by the Bush administration.
The TRUTH is that Social Security is fully funded until 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration. The Congressional Budget Office thinks it can go until 2052). At that point its trust fund runs out, and benefits will have to be reduced, taxes increased, or a combination of both. Without tax-increases, Social Security should still be able to pay out 73% of benefits in 2042, going to 68% in 2078.
That is a far cry from "bankrupt in a few years".
That is a deliberate LIE that is repeated over and over again by the Bush administration.
The TRUTH is that Social Security is fully funded until 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration. The Congressional Budget Office thinks it can go until 2052). At that point its trust fund runs out...
Ummm... the trust fund's already gone, moron. It was "used" to make the deficit look smaller during the 90's (and before?). Social Security will be paying out more than it's taking in by 2018. That's only 12 years away...
-- I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
Thanks for playing, dimwit. "taking out more than it's taking in" does not equal "bankrupt". It means that after 2018 the size of the trust fund will start to diminish (it's currently still growing). It is true that money was borrowed from the trust fund. However that just means that the trust fund will need to start collecting on those IOUs.
You could go read the reports by the Social Security Administration or the Congressional Budget Office yourself, but I'm sure you're much happier believing Bush's lies...
Yes social security was in trouble before, but before the massive tax-cuts, 9/11, more massive tax-cuts, the war, and even more massive tax cuts we had a budget surplus that would have been used to help fix it. Bush's plan for Medicare Drug benefit was to hand a large wad of tax money to pharmacutical companies. I suspect that this whole private account/stock market crap won't amount to anything other to inflated stock prices his corporate buddies can cash out on.
I've been wrong before, and I hope I'm wrong now. Whatever problems existed before Bush got in are going to be hurt by a rapidly increasing debt.
$1.80 a gallon? That's so cheap! In Australia we're paying about $A5/gall (I'd guess just under $US4).
Stop whinging.
-- What a long, strange trip it's been.
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I am embarrassed by my own country.
I'm the same way. I think of Ewan McGreggor in Trainspotting. "Alot of people hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. Do you know who I hate? I hate us. I hate the Scots." I'm starting to identify with that scene a little too much.:)
Lets get something straight. There is no "trust fund" for social security. It's a marketing gimmick to make people feel like the program is safe. The social security tax revenues go into the general fund. As long as their is a federal debt, their is no money sitting in an account somewhere waiting to be spent on social security entitlements. Currently, social security revenues less social security payments are a net plus on the federal revenue stream.
The trust fund reminds me of the briefcase full of money in the movie Dumb and Dumber. If you open it up (even today) all you're going to find are a bunch of IOUs. "This one is for the war on terror. I'd hang on to that one."
I think the real debate about SS should be more focused on wether we have the right system for the type of country we have now and into the future.
Should we have a pay as you go system (like we have now) or should we have a some sort of savings and investment system.
Personally, I think the pay as you go system is a flawed design. It was an easy political sell when they system was created since retirees could immediately draw on the full promised benefits of the system. It it was sold as an investment system, look how hard it would have been to convince people that it was worth doing. Retirees would receive next to nothing out of the program when it was launched and it would have felt like a massive tax increase on the workers at that time.
Basically, the politicians of that time took the political high road of providing for the elderly, but punted on the problem of requiring a constantly increasing workforce to the future.
Moving the system to a personlized system (notice I didn't say privatized, they're not the same thing) will be painful for lots of people. I think that it fits our society better, though. You pay for your own retirement benefit over the course of your working years. As long as the transition is started soon and spread out over many years, it may not be that bad. It would eventually get the social security monkey off the government's back and let it concentrate on it's many other functions.
There are many positive aspects of moving toward zero population growth for our country. Consumption of natural resources, environmental issues, employment opportunites, etc. are all helped by lowering the growth of our population. Social Security currently isn't one of them.
No matter how you feel about Bush, at least he is opening up the discussion.
That's not as impressive a number as it sounds... remember, during the years 1991-1998, we killed 1 million children in Iraq. That's over 100K per year. So actually, things have gotten better over there since we invaded...
We'll see, it's hard to get mortality and morbidity rates when the invasion destroyed the infrastructure for collecting that data. I'm sure it's on the list, right after the government "elections"...
Oh, and America can't claim full credit for the deaths of those innocent children. The 1999 report by UNICEF showed that mortality in children under age 5 were double what they were 10 years before. So at best, America murdered half a million children due to sanctions. I think destroying an entire government infrastructure already damaged by massive sanctions is just icing on the cake.
-- Here come da fudge!
Re:Well DUH!
by
ArsonSmith
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Ohh yea, I forgot. Let's feed them to the gas chamber then.
-- Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
No matter how you feel about Bush, at least he is opening up the discussion.
He could do much better opening up the discussion about taxcuts, Medicare, Medicaid, or the general fund, all of which have much bigger problems than Social Security. There is no Social Security crisis, no matter how often Bush says there is. He fabricated a "crisis" with regard to Iraq, and now he's fabricating another "crisis".
Young men and women, sitting in barracks in Iraq, sighing about having to go out on patrol yet again through IED land where distinguishing from the liberated and the insurgents is aggravatingly difficult. It's re-enlistment time....what should I do...
Fifty-year-old workers, getting laid off and spending time at home unemployed. Thinking about the pension that vaporized, the health insurance monthly premium cost.
You're right, it does take death or close to it for some people to come to a realization ("If I really am Superman, then I shouldn't just be rushing straight toward the ground this fast...my vaunted sideways flying powers aren't what they ought to be....")
Only some of the people that voted for the President are so fervent they'd go down with the ship. When the 2 terms are up in 2008, they will complain about the mess that the country is in as much as anyone. Their old favorite pundits, trying to blame it on the "liberals in Congress", will seem tired and inappropriate.
Don't forget the cynical slackers, either, that can be motivated by less than death and remain perceptive despite outward appearance.
One of the biggest losses for the country is that the winning mentality of "We know we're right and you're a bunch of whiny Frenchmen, liberals, etc." is that, not only has the administration lost support from the rest of the world, but it has lost support from half of all Americans who have no enthusiasm for the current course of the country. The losing side are unable to support a delusion because they don't see any logic in it - the winning side either has no logical argument or doesn't even care to construct and present a logical argument for their policies.
Bereft of the support of half of America, the President will have to rely upon his true believers to provide double support because the rest of the country have their thrown up their hands with skepticism. So, the sons and daughters of rural America, that half of America that voted for W, are providing double support for the President's vision by putting their lives on the line and mortgaging their fiscal future with deficit spending.
Sorry, I intended to cheer you up and lift you out of your pessimism, but I'm afraid I've only compounded it.
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Well DUH!
by
Scrameustache
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
The TRUTH is that Social Security is fully funded until 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration. The Congressional Budget Office thinks it can go until 2052). At that point its trust fund runs out, and benefits will have to be reduced, taxes increased, or a combination of both
Umm, no. The Social Security Trust Fund consists of a bunch of T-Bills. That is, the government lent the money to itself, and then spent it.
When Social Security revenues drop below outlays (2018, in current projections), the government must begin borrowing more, or raising taxes, or a combination, so it can pay off the IOU's it wrote to itself.
2042, when the "Trust Fund" is bankrupt marks the point when those IOU's run out, NOT the point when taxes must be raised, or deficit must increase to cover Social Security outlays.
In other words, the Social Security Trust Fund is a MYTH! It never has existed. Social Security was described originally as a "retirement fund" that everyone "invested" in. This to convince Americans (who at the time weren't too happy accepting "charity" - it used to be embarrassing, according to my Father-in-Law, who grew up in the Great Depression).
But it was ALWAYS structured as a Ponzi Scheme - we pay to support the current recipients, in hopes that when our turn to be a recipient comes, new suckers will be found to pay for our share.
--
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
and the executive branch both proposes legislation, and carries out congress's wishes.
geez...
-- ... hi bingo...
Re:Well DUH!
by
ichimunki
·
· Score: 2, Informative
United States GDP: $10,990,000,000,000.
7% of US GDP: $769,300,000,000.
Saudi Arabia GDP: $287,800,000,000.
Number of Saudi Arabias it would take to produce 7% of what the U.S. does: 2.67.
The odds that whatever you're saying about Saudi Arabia having a "7 percent share in [the U.S.] economy" is a load of [cow manure]: 100%.
-- I do not have a signature
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All I can say is I am glad you people were not alive before or during WWII. Otherwise we would be flying a Nazi flag like the rest of the Nazi conquered world..........
I don't want to wait until there is a crisis before anything is done. Imagine if there hadn't been an enormous mobilization of talent for the y2k bug. I count that one as a crisis averted. It would be great if the same could be done for Social Security.
It's my opinion that the current program is doomed because of it's basic structure. We should be pointing the finger at our grandparents and crying foul for allowing such a system to be created in the first place.
How could they have been so short-sighted as to think that our country, finite in size and resources as it is, could run a system that requires a constantly increasing population?
It is feasible that we could wind up with a situation where only one or fewer workers exist for every retiree. The social security system did not take into account changes in longevity or economics.
Can the current system be converted entirely to a pay your own way system? No. There would still have to be a provision to help those people on Social Security that are never able to pay into the system. Also, an individualized system could still be overwhelmed by a quantum leap in longevity.
The idea of being able to earn a return on the money I pay into the system and being able to leave it to my family if I die early I find very attractive. Even if the government has to take a portion of that money to help people that haven't been able to pay into the system.
The war in Iraq was never really about WMDs in Iraq, but that those in that region who mean to harm us, might be able to procure one there. Essentially, Iraq's WMD threat was more posed than current.
Future historians will come to realize that once the reconstruction of Iraq is complete, the dymanics of the whole region will be forever and drastically changed, just as it was with Germany and Japan after World War II.
In the mean time, we get to baby sit the 2nd largest (cheaply pumped) oil supply in the world. Not a bad babysitting fee if you ask me.
The trust fund is very real. I is composed of US Treasury bonds that are earning interest and can be redeemed at a future date.
To say that the trust fund is just a bunch of IOU's implies that the US government is deliberately planning to default on its debt. Only the US and UK have never defaulted on a debt payment.
In the financial world there is the concept of the risk free rate of return. The rate on US treasury bonds IS the risk free rate of return, meaning that there is zero risk of default.
If the government backing the world's reference currency were to default on its debt, the result would be an economic collapse that would make Social Security the least of our problems.
Your post, like much of republican propaganda is either misinformed, or deliberately misleading.
Yes, the American government is an rife with idiots. However, Bush is still chief among them, the stated reason for privatizing Social Security isn't to prevent the bankruptcy (even if it were, the stated measures would be obviously insufficient). The problem is the government has been giving itself interest free loans from the social security surplus. Now the justification for privatizing at least part of social security is because... it hasn't been generated much interest on it's massive surpluses. Well that much is obvious, and both major U.S. parties are responsible for that.
However, it more than likely that any attempt by Bush to privatize part of Social Security will end up costing most American's more than they gain. However, on the up side, regardless of how successful the privatized accounts are stock brockers, analysts, and con men all stand to make a killing.
The trust fund is not real. It is an accounting gimmick used by the federal government to mislead the general public. At one point it was even referred to as a "lock box". Rediculous. The fact that the balance of funds used in the general budget each year is tracked by setting aside treasury bonds just complicates the accounting to the point where very few people can follow it. If the federal government is responsible for paying both principal and interest on its bonds, how can interest be earned in the trust fund?
The government would recognize and interest revenue in the trust fund and a corresponding interest expense in the general fund. It's a wash. The trust fund dosen't earn anything, it's just a method the government uses to make it sound like it's being responsible.
Let me make this point clear: I never meant to imply that the US government would deliberately plan to default on it's debt. Neither would they allow a default due to any type of negligence.
I find it interesting that you state that "Only the US and UK have never defaulted on a debt payment." I'm not sure if that's true, but I'll take your word for it. That being said, how can you then go on to talk about risk free rates of return when every country on the planet except two have defaulted on some government obligation? Doesn't sound very risk free to me.
There really is no such thing as a risk free rate of return. While US treasury bonds are extremely low risk, there is still a small element of risk involved. If there were no risk, there wouldn't be any interest paid on them.
If the government felt it needed to default on some of it's debt, it certainly would shake things up. China would get hammered since they own a huge portion of the US debt. The rest of the world would probably move very quickly to the yen, euro and gbp. You would definitely see some winners and losers in a US debt default situation, but I doubt you would see a worldwide economic collapse.
As far as being deliberately misleading, I don't think that's a fair statement. I'm just trying to follow the money. I have no direct ties to either political party, the social security administration or any other branch of the federal or any state governments. What possible motive would I have for deliberately misleading slashdot readers? You might want to check your tinfoil hat for small punctures.
As far as being misinformed, that's certainly possible. That's one of the reasons I welcome the debate on the subject as long as it's a serious discussion that stays on topic. The left wing whacos and the right wing zealots can both stay out of it if you ask me. Unforturnately that knocks out about 80% of the slashdot community:)
You are confusing production with ownership. The product is produced in the United States. It is owned (in a stock holdings percentage fashion) by Saudi Arabians. I have no idea what the real percentages and figures are, but your calculations are only confirming how alarming (if it is true - as "Fahrenheit 911" stated) 7% would be.
Future historians will come to realize that once the reconstruction of Iraq is complete, the dymanics of the whole region will be forever and drastically changed, just as it was with Germany and Japan after World War II
Yes, because we are the victors of World War III (U.S. and England vs. little old Iraq). I think the jury might still be out.
we get to baby sit the 2nd largest (cheaply pumped) oil supply in the world
I'm sure the Nazis thought it was a good thing: taking all that art, gold, and technology. I wonder what could happen to make it seem like not such a good thing?
Yes, because we are the victors of World War III (U.S. and England vs. little old Iraq). I think the jury might still be out.
Well, I hardly consider the 200K or so troops involved in Iraq and Afganistan consituted a "World War."
This is much more on the scale of the Korean War. And probably just as easily forgotten in 50 years.
I'm sure the Nazis thought it was a good thing: taking all that art, gold, and technology. I wonder what could happen to make it seem like not such a good thing?
Ok, well art and gold they did take; as for technology, well, their superior technology and military tactics is what allowed them to take the art and gold in the first place.
Anyway, we digress
If you are infering that we are "taking" the old, well, that's just ignorant. We aren't taking anything. All we want to do is buy it at a fair market price. "Fair" being the operative word.
We're there to babysit those oil fields to make sure nothing slows the flow of oil. The oil must flow! Otherwise the price of gas goes up and that doesn't make anyone happy, particularly Americans, Now does it?
You can deny the existence of the trust fund all you want, but it is real, and contains real Treasury bonds that must be repaid. There is an accounting gimmick where the Social Security surplus is used to purchase the Treasury bonds, and at the same time is subtracted from the deficit. This does not affect the reality of the bonds in the trust fund or the government's obligation to repay them.
Let me make this point clear: I never meant to imply that the US government would deliberately plan to default on it's debt.
But to say that the trust fund does not exist either denies the existence of these Treasury bonds, or implies that the government plans to default on them. Both of these assertions are false.
There really is no such thing as a risk free rate of return.
If there were no risk, there wouldn't be any interest paid on them.
Ok, so the trust fund does not exist, the risk free rate of return does not exist, and even if it did, it would be zero. Can you back any of this up, or do you just "know" it?
You say you welcome a serious debate, but you deny the existence of basic facts relevant to the issue, and show lack of knowledge about others. And if we're to have a serious debate, let's refrain talk about tinfoil hats - agreed?
I made the statement about your post being misinformed or deliberately misleading because of these factually incorrect statements you have made.
Some Republicans may sincerely want to reform Social Security to address the demographic problems it faces. The real motivation behind privatization, though, is a desire to weaken the program in preparation for eliminating it. Their problem is that the program is popular, effective, and cost-efficient, so they cannot overtly advocate its demise. It must be done gradually and privatization is the first step.
Those who want to weaken Social Security must depend on the general public not learning the facts about the program, because the facts are against them. They wish to create misperceptions about the program, and one of those is that the trust fund does not exist. They say that it is only a collection of "worthless IOU's", ignoring the fact that ALL bonds are IOU's. And as I said before, Treasury bonds are the least risky bonds that exist.
Your opinions may be different than mine, but I have been careful to ensure that mine are based in fact. You acknowledged the possibility that you may be misinformed, and I would (respectfully) suggest to you that this is the case.
Based on the facts I have researched, I (and many others) have come to these conclusions:
Privatization will take a program that is fully funded for the next forty years and plunge it into almost instant deficit.
Establishment of the private accounts will not "fix" Social Security. Part of the existing defined-benefits system will remain, and that will face the same problems as the existing program - only sooner.
Transition costs will be massive, at a time when the deficit and public debt are at record levels. 1-2 trillion dollars is going to have to be borrowed over the next 10 years alone.
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Brits are another royal family that are heavily invested in the US.
I think you and I probably agree on more things than are apparent in our discussion. I'm sure we both have the best interest of Americans at heart. I would like to see a system that is both fair and effective.
With that in mind, could you clarify a few items for me in your previous post?
The real motivation behind privatization, though, is a desire to weaken the program in preparation for eliminating it. Their problem is that the program is popular, effective, and cost-efficient, so they cannot overtly advocate its demise. It must be done gradually and privatization is the first step.
I'd really like to know what made you arrive at this conclustion about privatization. Why would the republicans even bother to mention the issue? What motivation could they have that would make them want to eliminate sucha successful program. They are risking alienating one of the largest and most politically active demographic groups in the country.
When you use the term privatization, does that mean personalized accounts of some sort that are managed by non-government entities? Or would you include the possibility of governmentally maintained personal accounts where the funds are invested in non-government debt and securities?
They say that it is only a collection of "worthless IOU's", ignoring the fact that ALL bonds are IOU's. And as I said before, Treasury bonds are the least risky bonds that exist.
The problem as I see it isn't that the borrowing of the Social Security surplus is recorded with treasury bills, it's that the government is borrowing from itself. (And paying interest to itself is just rediculous)
Each election, my state floats about 5 or 6 bond issues targeted to fund some capital project like school construction or bridge repair. If they are approved, they get dumped into the market and the proceeds finance the project. Imagine if the government could make the state department of educatino buy the bonds. All it does is reallocate funds between agencies. It doesn't raise any capital and the interest is a wash.
Transition costs will be massive, at a time when the deficit and public debt are at record levels. 1-2 trillion dollars is going to have to be borrowed over the next 10 years alone.
Wouldn't the bulk of this new debt be used to pay off old debt? It is essentially calling in the old loans and allowing the government to issue new debt to cover it. It's like getting a loan to pay your baloon payment.
There is nothing that says the transition to a new system has to happen all at once. Many projections regarding SS go out as much as 50 years. If a new system were phased in over a sufficiently long period, I think the transition costs would be relatively easily absorbed. You'd also have the program migrated in less than a generation. Some sort of sliding participation system could make the transition work.
Personally, I haven't seen an actual plan for the new program(s) being discussed or considered. I'd be grateful if you could point me to one of the programs you looked at while you were doing your research. If some sort of radical, self serving program is being contemplated, I'll certainly be against it.
Note that Social Security is failing because it has turned into something it was not meant to be - a general retirement income. Originally, Social Security retirement age was set at the average life expectancy, and so half the population didn't live to collect at all, and most of the ones who did collect only collected for a few years.
Now, unfortunately, MOST of the population lives to collect, and the majority of them collect for rather more than ten years.
So, the fundamental basis for the idea is too expensive for the current tax rates. And will continue to be so, as long as average life-expectancy continues to increase.
it hasn't been generated much interest on it's massive surpluses
No, that's not quite the issue - if you had invested the money paid into SS on your behalf (as if it really was the retirement account it has been billed as since the New Deal), you'd be getting a better return than your monthly SS check. Even if you just bought T-Bills with it, much less if you invested it halfway wisely.
Bush's plan is basically one of the many alternatives floated over the years to SS. It is intended to shift SS more toward that "retirement account" (that it is advertised as) and away from that "Ponzi scheme" (that it really is). The weaning away WILL be painful. Perhaps as painful as leaving SS alone for the politicians in 2018 to deal with (and it must be dealt with by then - its surpluses are being used to finance the government now, and they'll go away then - so new taxes to pay for what now comes from SS surpluses, as well as increasing (annually) new taxes to pay for Social Security as its surpluses become increasingly large deficits.
Myself, I don't think Bush's reform plan will happen - Congress is essentially cowardly. They won't vote to do something unpopular and expensive that can be put off till the next Congress. And the next. And the next....
That said, I doubt Bush's plan is especially bad. The alternatives all involve raising Social Security and Income taxes. Quite a lot. And right now, SS taxes are most of the Federal taxes that MOST Americans pay (when the employer's share is included, and don't think it's not part of what the employer considers when salary time comes around - it's part of doing business).
Ultimately, it is part and parcel of the deficit. Which everyone (except Congress) dislikes. Evidence is that Congress will spend every dime they can get their hands on. So raising taxes won't make the deficit go away (more tax revenue just means more to spend, historically). The government tightening its belt might, but there seems to be no way to make them do that, other than a hypothetical Balanced Budget Amendment. And I'm willing to bet that the escape clause such an Amendment must have (to deal with unpleasantness like war and such) will be invoked every year, regular as clockwork, to go beyond "balanced" and into deficit.
At least until the dollar stops being the reference currency for the world. Then we'll have a nice long depression while we re-adjust to NOT being the biggest borrower on the planet (because people won't be willing to lend)....
--
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Well DUH!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ha!...you americans have Bush's dick in your mouth and don't neven noticed!
I disagree. I think americans are both stupid and mean.
Stupid in that they managed to vote in some hilbilly gung-ho cowboy for another four more wars. To just under half the population, our thoughts are with you all.
Mean in that they can kill so many innocents and blame it all on some phantom WMD's. damn americans
I spent 6 years in the US (93-99) and met hundreds of people. Have also travelled a bit in other countries outside my own (Norway).
In no other place did I come across the level of self-depreciation I find in America. It seems to have become modish to put your fellow countrymen down as ignorant, mean dupes. This is the underlying assumption of M. Moore and much of the coastal liberal/democratic establishment.
But such analysis strikes me as less sophisticated than it intends to sound.
If liberals are, as I believe, right in assuming that all nationalities and ethnic groups on the average are very much alike, and the US has amongst the longest traditions of democracy and freedom of speech (albeit imperfect, there as elsewhere), this presumed stupidity or meanness can only be explained by conspiracies. I find it unconvincing.
"if you don't like it, LEAVE!!!"
I can't helpt but sigh out loud everytime I hear that one. I live in a particularly "conservative" area, and the Bush fans are everywhere. It is perhaps this often repeated statement, above others, that describes Americans. Earlier in this thread, people were talking about what is wrong with Americans. Americans are mean, ignorant, self-righteous, etc. This sums it up.
The people who support a war on some strange terms of "liberation" and "freedom" want voices of opposition silenced or deported. It's pathetic how many people are unable to see the problem with claiming to support democracy and condemn Saddam's torture and warmonering. We invaded Iraq and shut down his tortorous prisons, only to reopen them and continue torturing people (we'll torture our way, thanks). The same people that argue in favor of torture are absolutely sickened American POWs displayed on TV. "My god those savages!" they they think to themselves or tell their buddies at work.
Pay no mind that we invaded the country, how dare they resist.
Pay no mind that we have actively supported military dictatorships ever since WWII, even to this day (this of course includes Saddam's regime during its worst atrocities).
Pay no mind that virtually all intelligence assesments of Iraq tell us that they were no threat to us or that they had aided Al-Qaeda in any way.
Pay no mind that we were horrified at the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, but most could care less about the 100,000+ that have been killed on our hands in Iraq (that's at least 33 dead Iraqi's for every American killed, go us!).
Bush's supporters, generally speaking, are either ignorant of these facts, don't care about them, or are unable to put them side by side to tell to paint the picture of what has taken place.
Whatever, I can't write anymore of this. Most of you know all these things. Some Bush supporter please explain yourself in a coherent matter. If your response disregards the value of human life born outside of this country, then it's not worth typing out.
-me
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
-- Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
We know that Iraq DID have WMD at one time, but they were taken/dismantled/whatever.
Sadaam was trying to convince the world that he had WMD. Why? I don't know.
Practically everyone with power to make policy (from both major parties) believed they were there.
We were, apparently, wrong.
There were other real reasons to attack Iraq. They were real, and were (still are) fairly obvoious, and even stated. The other reasons, however, were not as exciting, so didn't get as much mention (still don't). Whether or not all the reasons combined were sufficient to make the war worthwhile is another discussion.
Since the war started, though, our practical options have become severly limited.
-- Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
We were, apparently, wrong.
Stop saying WE as if you were actually involved in any process that requires thinking. You're just a tool who watches faux news and masturbates at home wearing a 4-star general's uniform.
Both the Kay and the Duelfer reports found hard evidence that Iraq was persuing illegal weapons programs. That alone, coupled with the terms of Iraq's cease-fire, was enough to justify a restart of the Gulf War.
When you get defeated in a war, you obey the terms of the cease-fire. When you dick around with inspectors, create a web of corruption at the United Nations, and generally try to weasel your way out of your obligations -- well, don't be surprised if it all comes crumbing down.
Remember when the administration said, RE WMD, it was a "slam dunk case", and that "we know where they are" ? Remember the satellite photos ?
It was all crap. Crapcrapcrap, and they knew it. Bush should be impeached, and the rest of his administration should be in jail.
And, yes, people from both major political parties believed Iraq had WMD. But it was the Republicans who decided to act on this "hunch", with no real evidence, and launch a war.
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And you're point is... what? Nobody is contesting that he had, for example, long range conventional missiles he wasn't supposed to have. That wasn't the justification for the war.
And, again, I urge you not to make up bizarre justifications after the fact. Bush stood up and told the American people on numerous occasions that we should support his war push because the big bad man either had the WMDs, or was attempting to get them.
This is patently false. Your conjecture about the legal issues regarding international law are a different subject which is not being discussed here. In the event that Bush is hauled in front of an international court to answer for his actions in Iraq, we can discuss the issue there.
My point, which stands quite firmly rooted in the truth, is that Bush pushed the war on the basis of Iraqi WMDs posing a threat to American interests and he was entirely wrong, and he possibly flat-out lied.
If you can't respond to that point without trying to branch the discussion off in different directions, then don't waste my time by responding.
but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq. The media did this because they knew that many people (yourself obviously included) wouldn't bother to remember or read the actual State of the Union address where Bush cited the actual reasons to eliminate Saddam from power. Hint: WMD was one of several reasons, and not the top one.
Saddam had the capability to either make them
This statement has been factually verified by the survey teams. It appears that once again, you are only getting your information from what the media chooses to tell you rather than the actual source. Let me help. The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period. Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled? Let me guess: You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country. I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The senate security committee has the exact same intelligence information that Bush had. All of them which included many Democrats, agreed that Saddam was a threat and gave Bush permission to go ahead with the war. Now all of them were wrong, but I have a hard time believing that given the same information one can say that Bush was purposfully misleading us, and that others were simply duped. How bought the obvious conclusion is that they were all wrong, but not intentially so because Saddam was trying to make it look like he had the weapons. Such weapons generally exist as deterants and Saddam thought they would deter us attacking him. He obviously miscalculated, as we obviously miscalculated him. These things happend. Take off the tin-foil hat please.
Re:Great...
by
EnderWiggnz
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i've never been wrong about starting a war that so far has killed over 100,000 iraqis, 1300 US troops, unkown number of contractors has cost umpty-ump billion dollars, and has people comparing coverring iraqis in their own feces, and piling them in a pyramid to a cheerleading competition.
miscalculated? this isnt a fucking trig class where you go "oops, well, i guess i miscalculated that answer, i guess we should go kill another hundred thousand people"
Oh and destroying the entire bug planet was right?
Re:Great...
by
michaelggreer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
However, the UN inspectors found (correctly) that there were no WMD prior to the war. The threat of war was essential in getting the inspectors back in, but the rush to war after they found no evidence of WMD was dishonest. The administration made fun of the inspectors, but the fact is they were right. If everyone believed Bush then, we know better now.
one queen survived... and gave me nightmares for years until i rescued her sorry ass.
-- ... hi bingo...
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq.
Conjecture. Bush and his administration have gone on record numerous times, in some cases going so far as to claim they actually knew where the weapons were, to say that the justification for invasion was, in fact, WMDs.
The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled?
The false dillema fallacy. Not only have you have not proven they would ever have been stockpiled, you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.
Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country.
You have not proven this would happen.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Needless to say, you have not even begun to convince me, and you're argument needs some serious work.
~TxMxP
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Okay... I'm at a loss. I see an awful lot of passages saying, in effect "there was infrastructure available which could be turned into production and/or weaponization labs".
I see nothing indicating that was being done and, to the contrary, several indicating quite explicitly that it was NOT being done.
More importantly, in the rare cases where it's indicated that there might be something worth looking into, the case is almost always that the activity ended in the mid-90s, long before Bush and his friends were saying they knew where these things were.
I invite you to read the Deulfer report, preferably without taking things way out of context and slapping your own preconceived notions into the tiny crevices where they clearly don't fit.
In fact, everything I've found in the "Key Findings" section so far is a damning indictment of just how wrong the pre-war statements were. Lots of places where it says "could've done this but didn't". Nothing really to support the assertions of the Bush administration.
The war was unjustified. Bush's actions to invade Iraq appeared sound at the time (that's why we went in), but all the premises were flawed -- the reasons given, we realize, are not valid.
While I don't excuse Bush's actions, neither was this his own fault. The entire government system failed us twice: in lacking accurate intelligence to save the WTC, and in lacking accurate intelligence to save Iraq.
Yet I supported Bush's reelection (well, second to Badnarik of course, but he had no chance). Kerry would have either pulled us out of Iraq, which would be the wrong course, or remained in Iraq, which Bush would've done more effectively. (On domestic policy I agree slightly more with Bush, so if the two were equal, I would've sided with Bush.)
You might argue that admitting our mistake and pulling out would've saved the remnants of our reputation and recovered some goodwill. I claim that this would've been at the expense of the current pseudo-stability in Iraq. Once we invaded, unless we have US-run free elections (LOL), some angry terrorist bent on justifiable revenge would've seized power. In the interest of my personal safety, I prefer a US regime in Iraq to a regime angry at the US.
To reiterate: yes, Bush was wrong. Yet his choices remain the least wrong of all the possible ones. America has only wrong moves ahead of it. We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us. It's a wrong policy, but unfortunately, we have no other choice -- we have nobody brave enough to try to change it and risk not managing it.
One of the reasons people didn't like presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan in the early 1900s was that he was calling for freedom for the questionably-seized Philippines. After we had held the land for so many years, we couldn't just let it go -- and we couldn't have a president who practically would encourage the Filipinos to revolt.
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq.
I'm calling your bluff. Cite the other reasons. In fact, here's a link to the transcript from January 29, 2003. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to look, but all I found was stuff like:
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.
Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.
Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.
Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?
The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.
Where, pray tell, is the spin if not from Bush himself? Do I have the wrong State of the Union? If so, please point out which one and the parts of the transcript you refer to. Give me facts if you want me to believe in blaming the media for this.
-- US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Apparently you don't believe in carefully reading peoples posts, either. Neither he nor anyone else on this thread offered a 150,000 figure.
To answer the question which you were trying to ask, yes, the study was peer-reviewed. The authors were of Johns Hopkins, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They randomly surveyed households covering 7800 individuals. Since they are using sampling methodologies there are two sources of error: sampling and model. The relative sampling error would be in the low single digit range. The modeling error is nearly impossible to determine, but it would be unusual for it to be off by more than 10%. So figure 15% total to be sure. That leaves you with 95% certainty that there were more than 85,000 Iraqi civilian casualties.
To reiterate: yes, Bush was wrong. Yet his choices remain the least wrong of all the possible ones. America has only wrong moves ahead of it. We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us. It's a wrong policy, but unfortunately, we have no other choice -- we have nobody brave enough to try to change it and risk not managing it.
Upon reading this, I instantly recalled that the same thinking led Germans to support the war effort in 1939-1945. Now, I'm the last person to compare Bush with You Know Who (a clever kludge to avoid the consequences of You Know What Law of Usenet) or today's USA with You Know Which Country, but the mindset is comparable. A country chooses a leader. A leader makes choices. A country starts to see the choices were WRONG. So what? Do they change their course of action? No, that would be too much shock to bear. They think up another justification for it: "we were wrong, but we have no other choice now". WRONG AGAIN. Look into history and see what comes out of it.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us.
You're wrong. At least in Europe, which has a rather strained relations with America, most people like America (and have many good reasons for it) and American people (altough this liking sometimes has a bit paternal aspect). What the world doesn't like is a couple of people around, and including, your current president.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
The problem was that You Know Which Country couldn't survive attacks. We can, which means that any attacks will last longer.
While You Know Who was in power (geez, I sound like I'm writing a Harry Potter fanfic), You Know Which Country wasn't the one suffering. It was You Know Which Race within that country, and the neighboring countries. You Know Which Citizens remained relatively safe (well, as safe as you could be in a world war).
The US has sufficient more power that we're very unlikely to lose a world war if it comes down to it. We're also sufficiently low in intelligence that we're unlikely to make the other side ever give up.
I only supported Bush insofar as I didn't support anyone else; I didn't see anyone who had a clear and sensible plan for recovery, not even third party candidates.
You want to change our course of action. Let me ask, change it to what? The only way I can see is to put public pressue on Bush. That I fully support.
America cannot continue like this (in both sense of the word "cannot"). But there's nothing like World War II to change it...yet. And for the moment, the war has not come.
Conjecture. Bush and his administration have gone on record numerous times, in some cases going so far as to claim they actually knew where the weapons were, to say that the justification for invasion was, in fact, WMDs.
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
You're joking, right? Conjecture? No basis in fact? Do you even read a newspaper? The Oil for Food scandal is huge. Saddam was buying off entire nations with it. It was rotten to the core. And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.
Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Selective quoting. Convenient how you left off the original qualifier "Let me guess." I still stand by the guess because your position is one of personal hatred for Bush and is not based in fact.
It is not immaterial, it demonstrates hypocrisy.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Cognitive dissonance is not ad hominem (brush up on your fallacies). Cognitive dissonance is the simultaneous holding of two opposing ideas.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. (ie, we know he had them and used them. To assume he would never have them again or use them again is asinine.)
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
So, basically we have three main reasons for invading Iraq:
1. Stop WMDs. 2. Break another support structure for Al Qaeda 3. Liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil monster.
Now. Number 1 proved to be a goose chase, but not for the reasons you think. NOT because Saddam was Mr. Poor, Misunderstood National ruler crushed under the evil heel of the U.S. No, No. 1 proved wrong because Saddam played a very dangerous game where he tried to pretend he still had WMD. Probably to keep his Middle Eastern neighbors from invading his country.
However, No. 2 and No. 3 are still valid. So, if only 66% of the reasons for toppling a regime exist then it was a bad idea to do it?
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:Great...
by
h4x0r-3l337
·
· Score: 4, Informative
the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else
bull-shit. The Bush administration flat out said that he had WMD. They claimed to have proof. At some point they even claimed they had found them. None of that turned out to be true.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there. -
Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. - Gen. Tommy Franks,
Press Conference, March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003
We found the weapons of mass destruction - George W. Bush, Polish TV Interview, May 29, 2003
1. Stop WMDs.
2. Break another support structure for Al Qaeda
3. Liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal, evil monster.
As I said, Cite them. Show me where Bush publicly announced those as the reasons. Come on, the speech transcripts are everywhere. Show me one spot where these three are in the same Bush speech. Your 66% formulation doesn't work if Bush spent 80% of his time on #1. #1 we agree upon. #2 has yet to be proven. The 9/11 commission couldn't even find a direct Al Queda/Saddam link. #3 is almost never mentioned. I'm not trying to troll you as much as hope that you will cite real sources rather than the blanket "media wants you to believe" rhetoric being regurgitated. Thanks.
-- US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
There were (probably) two reasons Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs. Firstly, he had to look like a strongman at home and locally (Iran, Syria, etc) so he could retain power. Secondly, he was probably hoping he could bluff the US into not attacking. You may remember his frantic backpedal when it became obvious he couldn't.
I also doubt that Bush and his merry band of criminals actually ever believed in WMDs or the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq - people like Rove and Rumsfeld have been advocating invasion of Iraq for about 20 years now.
I agree, however, that post-invasion options are limited. There is a haunting air of familiarity (Vietnam) about it all. I hope all the Americans who voted for Bush enjoy the reintroduction of Selective Service...
Show me how the world (and more particularly Iraq) is better off. I agree that he is a monster, and that Iraq _should_ be better off without him, but look at the current situation for the average Iraqi citizen: no clean water, unreliable (at best) power supply, people still being tortured in Abu Graib (?sp), villages being accidently blown up by ill-directed smart bombs, the country is still being run by spivs in silk suits, etc. This does not look like an improvement to me.
Actually, there was never any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq until after the US pretaliatory invasion, so you're down to 33%.
Also, I seriously doubt that Iraq is going to be free of rule by brutal, evil monsters in the near future (whatever the outcome of the coming election and the ensuing civil war), so you're now down to about 0%.
Leave Iraq as soon as possible. Nearly no Iraqis wish you (or us, as my country is there too) inside their borders. Give Iraqi government enough money to rebuild their army and police.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Bush should be impeached, and the rest of his administration should be in jail.
They're just catching up with Pinochet now. I hope to live long enough to see the war crimes trials of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of their merry gang of mass-murderers. And I hope they live long enough to see the inside of cells. Those Iraqi civilians who died (and are still dying) did nothing to deserve what happened to them. There will be justice.
We have long memories. I won't be satisfied until the Republicans are nothing but a gaggle of withered fanatics, a faded memory of evil, like the KKK now. As for the Democrats, I couldn't give a shit. They abdicated their final, vestigial claim to legitimacy when they forced us into the choice of Rich Yalie Bonesman A versus Rich Yalie Bonesman B. That sent the clear message that the purpose of the two-party system is to protect those in power from people like us making a real choice.
-- Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In my opinion, war was justified the moment Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41.
No way. He should've got a fucking medal for that.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective.
Hmm; the weapons inspectors were there to prevent Iraq from having WMDs. After the war we find, lo and behold, no WMDs in Iraq. Not even evidence that they can point to to say "look, they were here".
So the inspectors were ineffective in what way, exactly?
The UN weapons inspection programme might have been a tedious, frustrating cat-and-mouse chase for everyone involved, but it still looks better than the alternative we have now.
> At least in Europe, which has a rather strained relations with America, most people like America (and have many good reasons for it) and American people (altough this liking sometimes has a bit paternal aspect). What the world doesn't like is a couple of people around, and including, your current president.
Way back in the '80s people around the world were saying that they liked the American people, but were completely baffled by our choice of leadership.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re: Great...
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
> Hint: WMD was one of several reasons, and not the top one.
Guess that's why Powell played it down when he presented the case to the UN, huh.
> The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period.
What the Administration likes to forget to tell you is that practically any nation in the world could start producing bioweapons within six months.
> Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Another alternative would have been to crack down on the corruption rather than ignoring it.
The Bush Administration has been trying to put an anti-UN spin on the scandal, but it's about to kick them in the balls.
You really should have read more carefully. If you had, you would have noticed the;P at the bottom of my post. That means its a joke...you're supposed to laugh.
Sorry don't know why I thought he said 150,000. Either way if you have that many extra deaths in a year in a country that small. You are going to have massive burial problems. Wonder if they got any statistics from morges and whatnot finding out if they had large increase in deaths. Its hard to believe that country wide you can have such a significant increase in the death population and not notice....Apparently they are all basing this on death rate before and after war. So one has to assume that pre-war death rate was accurate.
till, the situation of your average Iraqi isn't actually particularly fucking amusing.
Yah, I agree. I'm a bit past the point of being pissed...so I'm trying really hard not to lose my sense of humor -- particluarly with the rhetoric that's being thrown around. I think that all that's left to do is make fun of the rhetoric.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled?
The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council resolutions are evident and they continue to this hour. The regime has never accounted for
a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists, all in direct defiance of Security Council (Resolution) 1441.
This deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, the vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors. In intercepted conversations, we have heard orders to conceal materials from the U.N. inspectors.
And we have seen, through satellite images, concealment activity at close to 30 sites, including movement of equipment before inspectors arrive.
It sounds like you do not know enough about this subject to even have an opinion.
85,000 vs 25,000,000 spread over two years works out to 1.7 deaths per 1000 people. The pre war death rate was 5.66 deaths per 1000. That amounts to a 30% increase in death rates. For comparison the US rate is 8.34 deaths per 1000. So by 'bringing democracy' to Iraq we have managed to increase their death rate upwards towards our own. Just goes to show how brutal life was under Sadaam.
Burying your head in the sand will not make it go away.
Ok, now I'm having a hard time beliving a war torn country like Iraq is having a lower death rate than the US. Could it be that death rate reporting is improving over time?
We're pretty much the Iraqi government right now. Unless you propose to give money to Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, I think we'd need to wait until elections - and necessarily, coalition-run elections.
We are leaving Iraq as soon as possible. There's enough public outcry and latent bad sentiment that we won't stay too long after there's a stable government.
I've seen this from a few different people now, and its a weird effect. There's a section of the country that was essentially "Democrat-proofed", meaning that no matter how bad Bush f**ked up, or who ran against him, they would have still voted Republican.
I spoke with a few different people who said (paraphrasing now), "Yes, Bush screwed up, he makes me wince when he speaks in public, there's lots of people dead because of him, and he didnt catch the guy who killed 3000 Americans, but Kerry just didn't give me a reason to vote for him". One of these people even said that they made their mind up after watching the debates!
If you're riding in a car, and the driver ignores all advice and gets you hopelessly lost, do you say "Let's let him keep driving, because nobody else knows where we are"? That's crazy.
Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else
There is a proof by existence here. Saddam did have chemical WMD at one point. It is referenced here
http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/cwbw/Ch14.pd f
Not that it matters that much, you are just wrong.
- yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion).
Why? This sound like it is just your way of eliminating the good things that will come of this from your reasoning, and I find it highly duplicitous. You should be jumping for joy that hundreds of thousands will no longer be murdered, and the millions who fled Iraq can go home. Unless you just hate bush and want to "dethrone" him.
of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this. Well, he was wrong.
Wrong about what? That terrorists could use weapons supplied by Saddam to attack the US? I guess we will never find out if this scenario could come to be.
The reasoning for war with Iraq was approved of by both parties, so the idea that its because of something only bush knew is bogus. Your elected democrats also voted to give Bush the power to go to war on the same intelligence.
If the democrats were complicitous, then you have to ask the deeper question, which is "why did we do this?" You don't bother to think deeper than "Oh look, there were no WMD, so the whole thing was wrong." I'll offer you a reason: we had to prevent Saddam Hussein or the terrorists from controlling the middle east, because the entire world runs off of oil, and if they control the oil supply it isn't in the world's best interest (unless you are France and have a bunch of deals lined up with the victor).
If the democrats were not complicitous then they are fools, and should be voted out of office.
Imagine, if you can, trying to convince an entire country that is divided by a bunch of crazy ideas, and that the entire country was convinced by a person. That's a pretty daunting task. The person chose and emphasized a reason that resonated with the people, because it is too difficult to have a dialogue on international affiars with the American people.
If you don't like that things weren't discussed more deeply, then I suggest you take it up with the press, that willingly pursued the one dimensional arguments of George Bush.
--
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Americans are under the impression that all hell will break loose if they pull out, which is not the case. Iraqis are not savages! If America pulls out UN Peacekeepers can move in temporarily until the Iraqis themselves assemble a security force. It would be nice if the US stuck around to rebuild what they bombed but not completely necessary.
Of course not. It's just that there are a few savages in parts of Iraq, and the US is currently the peacekeeping force. What do you think would happen if the police force in major cities of the US not only stopped working, but they let it be known that nobody would be getting arrested?
There was looting after the attacks, even under the noses of the just-arrived US troops. That's human nature. There would've been looting if the same thing happened to New York, right?
If America pulls out UN Peacekeepers can move in temporarily until the Iraqis themselves assemble a security force.
I think what we're doing is replacing the UN Peacekeepers step with the Coalition troops step. Yes, I know the coalition is mostly US. But we're accomplishing the same thing, more or less.
Besides, a UN peacekeeping force would most likely be the Security Council telling the Coalition, "Hey, you're already there, why don't we give you our Official UN Blessing?" or at worst calling out NATO. I don't think UN has any troops of its own - at least not enough to maintain Iraq without its own police force.
A lot of people apparently think that there's somebody other than the US who's capable of leading sufficient military forces. Other than an alliance of a few European countries (not just one), there really isn't anyone willing and able to serve the same cause. This isn't Americocentrism, just recognizing the facts. I would prefer, for the world's sake, that America not have the hegemony it maintains, but such is the world today.
Shouldn't that read "WMDs were named as THE justification for the 'preemptive' invasion."
Re:Motivation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
From the 2003 State of the union
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
Ok buddy, if you really think that the Abu Ghraib scandal where suspected terrorists were forced to built naked pyramids and such is equivalent to the mass execution by gassing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds then you really have problems. And I'm sure George W. Bush personally ordered the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib right?
Re:Motivation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, Rumsfeld took full personal responsibility for that.
And when it comes to the systematic institutionalised torture of prisoners of war by the country that claims to lead the free world: if that doesn't disturb you then I'd suggest it's you who has the problem.
I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?
Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."
-- Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Playing the devil's advocate, however, raises some very legitimate arguments in the other direction. Iraq's responsibility was not just to disarm, but to declare how it had disarmed and allow complete, unrestricted access to inspectors to verify that this had taken place. Hussein's regime consistently failed to comply with those aspects of the program, and thus left room for doubt regarding whether disarmament had actually taken place. He was clearly trying to maintain uncertainty on that question to keep his enemies in check, while buying time in hopes that the US and its allies would eventually allow the sanctions to lessen and eventually end altogether.
I'm no fan of Bush*, but I do see the overthrow of Hussein as justified. The failure here is an underestimation of resources to win the peace, and an "our way or the highway" attitude that has left the US carrying the greatest cost and positioning our troops there as a local target for every car-bombing extremist in the Middle East.
* I think the most distressing part of the presidential campaign was when Kerry caught Bush in a debate justifying the Iraq war since "we were attacked on 9/11," and yet that didn't make much difference to the voting public. Clearly that lie was proclaimed loud and long enough for many people to buy in...
Re:The ends
by
Paul+Jakma
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"... but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy,.. "
And even that has not been accomplished. Dozen or more Iraqis die each day at presently in bombings. The violence is worse than ever. The elections later this month might end up boycotted by most Sunnis, if they can even take place. There's a distinct chance of civil war if the USA were to withdraw it's troops , and hence even further violence. OTOH, as long as US troops are actively involved in Iraq's security, there will be violence (insurgents against US and Iraqi National Guard troops, and the resulting retaliatory measures).
Moral arguments aside, on a purely statistical basis, it seems a safe bet Iraqis are more at risk of violent death now than under Saddam. Which makes it very hard to justify this regime-change, especially with the bleak prospect for stability in near-term in Iraq.
WMD: Nope
Democracy in Iraq: Nope (maybe next month?)
Stability in Iraq: Worse than under Saddam
Sigh..
-- I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
The source of the forged documents was on the French Payroll.
"The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France."
"After being exposed in the international press, French intelligence can hardly be amused or happy with him," one western diplomat said. "Martino may have thought the safest thing was to hand himself over to the Italians." Investigators in Rome suspect that Mr Martino was first engaged by the French secret services five years ago, when he was asked to investigate rumours of illicit trafficking in uranium from Niger."
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
' OTOH, as long as US troops are actively involved in Iraq's security, there will be violence (insurgents against US and Iraqi National '
Then why did Saddam's forces engage in large-scale violence against Iraqi citizens, filling mass graves for years.... without the presence of US troops in the country? Your premise is flawed.
> to declare how it had disarmed and allow complete, > unrestricted access to inspectors to verify that this had taken > place.
One problem is if you give an ultimatum to someone, they should have a reasonable belief that if they cooperate, you will live up to your end of the bargain.
One major problem I had was that Bush was asking Iraq to prove a negative-- prove they don't have WMDs any longer. Of course, even a school child knows that you can't prove you don't have something.
The problem is, Iraq let the weapons inspectors back in (remember, we pulled them out to begin with), and let them search. The weapons inspectors found nothing, but Bush kept taunting them. So Iraq lived up to their part of the bargain (they let the inspectors back in), but Bush went to war anyway.
One of Bush's biggest crimes is that his actions demeaned America so much that he actually made a murderous dictator the "good guy" in this situation!
Iraq's actions were worthy of continued sanctions and of the strategy of containment -- which we now know worked. Going to war against a third world, poverty stricken nation, and killing upwards of 150,000 Iraqi citizens plus more than 1000 U.S. soldiers was certainly not the only or best course of action.
-- Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, incl
> Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs?
Oh, you mean these people?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within th
I bet a steak dinner Saddam is gloating with that phrase in his Guantanamo Bay cell.
Guard1: Did you hear, no WMD in Iraq! Guard2: What? You mean the war was unjustified? Guard1: Shh... Saddam will hear you. Saddam: Too late! Told you so! Told you so! *dances*
-- Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
One major problem I had was that Bush was asking Iraq to prove a negative-- prove they don't have WMDs any longer. Of course, even a school child knows that you can't prove you don't have something.
Quite the contrary, it would have been very easy to prove disarmament. Providing documentation as to how and when such activities occured, and allowing inspectors to check out the sites and scrap material to verify the truth of the documentation would have done the job.
Don't forget that the Iraqis constantly played games with the inspectors, delaying them at the front gates of facilities while trucks streamed out the back, etc. Obfuscation was a deliberate tactic on Hussein's part.
Don't try to confuse the issue with facts. Leftest raving about how we shouldn't be in Iraq is probably about equal to what it would be if we went to kill Osama Bin Laden on Sept 10th.
"He's not a threat!!!" "He is just sitting in his cave playing cards with his friends and family." "There is no evidence he was orcistrating an attack on the US."
-- Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it,"...
Now ? Peaceful ? democracy ? Do they really have the gall to say so ?
And the UN inspectors went back in during 2003 and couldn't find anything. Then America invaded, kicked UN inspectors out and rolled its own inspectors. They couldn't find anything as well. So, what was your point? The fact that wherever and how hard they looked and searched, since they didn't exist, they couldn't be found. The problem is, you can't prove a negative statement. Damn logics.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
You're fucking view of reality is flawed! The united states has killed over 100,000 iraqis in the last year, how the fuck is this not large-scale violence against Iraqi citizens?
and this time the us troops are in country. without saddam. how can you type over the fucking cognitive dissonance in your head?
let me get this straight: saddam killing iraqis=bad us killing iraqis=good!!!
positioning our troops there as a local target for every car-bombing extremist in the Middle East.
Because, of course, we all know that it is much more preferable to have car bombing extremists in the middle east targeting civilians in Kansas. I mean, how outrageous. When Bush said war on terrorism he actually meant it? Like for real? I mean, with soldiers and everything?
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything.
Bull crap. They let inspectors back in only because we parked 150,000 troops at their doorstep. Why did we do that? Because Iraq was in blatent violation of over a dozen unanimous UN resolutions as he had not allowed the mandated inspections to take place since 1998.
And have you even read any of the Duelfer report? I have only had time to read through about 200 pages of it, but it is very clear that Iraq had no intention of honoring its cease-fire obligations to disarm. To quote Duelfer himself:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.
No, Iraq did not let the inspectors back in to "prove" that they had disarmed. And on Jan 27, 2003, Hans Blix made it clear to the UN Security Council that Iraq was not fully cooperating with the inspections.
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs?
You remember incorrectly. There was little dispute about if Iraq had weapons- the only dispute was what we should do about it. We knew he had them- we had seen him use them for cryin out loud. He was required to prove that he had fully disarmed, and he refused. And after 12 years of deception and uncooperation, the only safe assumption we could make was that he still had them. The fact that the guy apparently did get rid of the WMD in secret has no bearing on the decision.
Of all of the bogus reasons people have to justify their hatred of George Bush, the fact that he thought that Iraq had WMD is one of the more asinine ones.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
OK, look, I don't know how much enthusiasm I have for re-hashing this whole deal. But I'll respond to your question asking "What was your point?" The point is that whether WMDs are found or not is only of marginal relevance. The UN resolutions required Saddam's regime to cooperate fully and totally with inspectors. No one argues that it ever came close to doing this. (You really ought to read that Ken Pollack book -- it is quite eye-opening.)
Saddam's many obstructions and obfuscations clearly gave the impression that he was hiding something. In this, the grandparent post is engaged in revisionist history. At the time, remember, the question wasn't whether or not Hussein had programs regarding the development of WMDs; it was what to *do* about it. The fact that the UN declined to enforce its own resolutions is tragic (for the UN, I mean, and the extent to which it can be taken seriously as an international institution), but it doesn't abrogate the US's responsibility to act (particularly post-9/11, when it became painfully obvious that the US [along with perhaps Israel] had the most to lose, should Saddam provide WMDs to terrorist organizations).
OK, I really need to get off this subject now. One can legitimately argue that we should have focused on Al Qaeda, or that the Iraqi operation has been bungled horribly, or any number of things. But the whole BUSH LIED!!! meme is stupid and doesn't pass the sniff test. In all the billions of rants I have heard about this, I just have heard no compelling evidence that Bush & Co. weren't quite sincere about what *they* believed. You don't have to *agree* with them to see that.
- Alaska Jack
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
do you have that parade of lies on your desk, ready to cut and paste into any discussion?
Dozen or more Iraqis die each day at presently in bombings. The violence is worse than ever.
Uh, no it isn't. Conservative estimates are that Saddam killed between 200,000 and 2,000,000 people during his 20+ year reign. Even using the low end of that estimate, that averages out to about 2 dozen people per day. This is not meant to minimize the current suffering in Iraq- it is only meant to demonstrate that there was no status quo.
A friend of mine told me that her 85 year old grandmother in Baghdad has registered to vote for the first time in her life, and she is excited as hell about it. Why can't we talk about the good along with the bad?
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
raq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs?
I think to most Americans, these things have just become clichés. Each mini-scandal leaked out with so little fanfare that by the time each was proven true, they had lost their bite. Had each of these things been released to the press and proven in a single day, we might have impeached Bush. But instead, half the country is exhausted with hate and the other half is wondering what big deal is.
Really Bush is using the same tactic Clinton used during the Lewinski crap: Deny, deny, deny until it's common knowledge that your wrong, and then admit it. By then, no one cares.
First, please identify these "lies" to which you refer. This isn't a rhetorical question -- I really want to know. What do you consider a lie? Since you don't name a *single* example (surely easy to do, when confronted by a whole "parade" of them), one is left with the impression that you consider a "lie" something that just doesn't jibe with the way you want to see things.
Second, no, it wasn't on my desk. It was saved to directory on my computer. But I did keep it "ready to cut and paste into any discussion," particularly ones like this: That try to revise history by saying Bush is the only one that believed Iraq had WMDs, and all the democrats and foreign intelligence services believed otherwise. It just warn't so.
Third -- have I fact checked any of it? Well, if you mean have I tracked down Madeline Albright and asked if she indeed said such-and-such statement while hooked up to a lie detector, then no. On the other hand, her quote comes from a CNN article, (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/29/iraq.albright/), so what can I tell you? Here's another one (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/iraq.html) and another one (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.c gi?entry_id=3487) and... well, you get the idea. Why not just try googling specific phrases you're suspicious about?
Do I need to remind you that Clinton signed an assassination order for Osama after the Cole incident? Still, I have a tendency to agree- but the response should have been far more targeted. Bin Laden was NEVER in Iraq, and the closest we seem to be able to come to linking him to al Qaida is a few payoffs to family members after certain attacks on Israel and the fact that his agents had lunch in the same restaurant, but at different tables, as Mohammad Atta.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:The ends
by
EnderWiggnz
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i can see why you brought up clinton, a blowjob is comparable to starting an aggressive war, and killing hundreds of thousands, without cause.
* I think the most distressing part of the presidential campaign was when Kerry caught Bush in a debate justifying the Iraq war since "we were attacked on 9/11," and yet that didn't make much difference to the voting public. Clearly that lie was proclaimed loud and long enough for many people to buy in...
There was no lie. Bush was motivated to act against Iraq because of 9/11. This does not mean that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, it just means that you cannot prosecute a war against terrorism while ignoring one of the biggest supporters of international terrorism.
Iraq was not a new problem- they had been a festering threat for the entire decade before 9/11. 9/11 just showed us what can happen if you ignore a festering threat for too long.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
I wasn't comparing the scandal, just how they dealt with the reaction.
Re:The ends
by
GOD_ALMIGHTY
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The justification for invading was that Iraq presented a threat. Not finding WMD or any programs proves that the invasion was unnecessary for dealing with the threat. The only reason people were still debating over whether or not he had WMD were Conservative pundits going on crap intelligence from "heroes in error" like Chalibi and the Iraqi National Congress.
No intelligence organization actually believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US or it's allies. They knew that his capabilities were so reduced and that the existing programs had managed to cripple his ability reinstate any WMD programs. Whether or not he intended to honor the cease-fire or any other treaty in the future was irrelevant. We don't invade countries based on such flimsy rationales. The question to invade was based on the nature and level of threat that Saddam in power posed. Rational and reasonable people argued that it was a dumb idea, that the nature and level of threat would not be improved by invasion, especially one as incompetent as the Bush Administration managed to provide.
Your attempt to equivocate Saddam's future intentions with the evidence is part of the intellectual dishonesty and weakness that got us into this mess. You are also attempting to equivocate the claim that Bush thought Iraq had WMD with the claim that Bush thought invading was going to help the situation. The first claim is simply an over-simplification of the second. The fact that you have chosen to attack the first, rather than the second, undermines the credibility of your reasoning.
Personally, I dislike George Bush, because I hate tyranny and totalitarianism. Bush is like Plato, he uses the language of the Open Society to promote the Closed one. His ends justify his means and his idea of Justice is a social ideal, not an individualists one. The pattern of rewarding loyalty to his own power and treating disloyalty as the ultimate crime is also one of Plato's ideals of Justice. I don't need any bogus reasons to dislike Bush, I've got plenty of rational ones based on the historical record.
BTW, perhaps all of your reading can actually provide a meaning to the phrase "WMD-related program activities". I want to make sure my next hobby isn't a cause for invasion -- so far I've been lucky with the fake oil well in the front yard.
-- Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
It would probably be preferable if there were actually "car bombing extremists" from the Middle East in Kansas (or anywhere else in the US), but there aren't. Infact, I'd be that most (if not all) of them are in the Middle East.
Could you back up those "conservative estimates" with some links? because thats a lot of people.
(you do realize that, in this context, "conservative estimates" means the low estimate, not estimates by conservatives.)
--
fear is the mind killer
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so, we ignored North Korea, and attacked Iraq?
listen to me: Iraq has never posed a threat to the United States. Never. Not through fictitious WMD's, nor through balsa-wood remote-control planes, nor through "supporting terrorism", not even through this mysterious "attempt on ghwb's life"
Iraq has never been a threat. Never.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He was required to prove that he had fully disarmed, and he refused.
I hereby accuse you of having WMD. Please prove otherwise.
The justification for invading was that Iraq presented a threat.
Correct- "grave and gathering threat", IIRC.
Not finding WMD or any programs proves that the invasion was unnecessary for dealing with the threat.
Whoa there. Have you read any of the ISG report? We did not find the WMD stockpiles that we were expecting- instead we found infrastructure, materials, and documentation to restart mass production of WMD as soon as we turned our back. We found over a dozen WMD programs that the UN had no idea existed. The inspections WERE NOT WORKING.
No intelligence organization actually believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US or it's allies.
Your attempt to equivocate Saddam's future intentions with the evidence is part of the intellectual dishonesty and weakness that got us into this mess.
Let's look at Saddam's history. He has attempted to illegally invade 2 of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), one of which led to the 3rd most deadly war this century (Iran). He launched unprovoked attacks against two other nations (Israel and Saudi Arabia). He launched chemical weapons attacks on multiple occasions- even attacking his own people. He was in violation of 17 unanimous UN Security Council resolutions. He fired on US aircraft almost daily for several years. He directly supported and collaborated with numerous terrorist groups, including several that target US interests (this earned him a spot on the US State Department list of State sponsors of Terrorism as far back as 1979). He tried to assassinate a former US president. He commissioned several direct terrorist attacks on the US during the 1990s that we were able to foil, including an attack on the US run Radio Free Europe. Intelligence (both from us and from our allies) indicated that he was trying to attack us more. He had successfully concealed over a dozen WMD programs from the UN for 12 years, and clearly had no intention of living up to his cease-fire agreements.
You claim that this is not a threat. Who is being more dishonest?
Personally, I dislike George Bush, because I hate tyranny and totalitarianism.
Guess what? George Bush dislikes tyranny and totalitarianism. So do "neocons" and Republicans. My bet is that you made up your mind years ago that you hated him, and ever since you are stubbornly trying to justify that hatred.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Not quite. Iraq had WMD. There is no question about that- we even saw Iraq use them. So after the first Gulf War, UNSCOM presented them with a list of all known WMD that needed to be destroyed (Iraq accepted this list). Iraq was required to let UNSCOM monitor the destruction of these weapons, or at minimum, Iraq was to provide UNSCOM with enough information to verify that they were actually destroyed (records, interviews, locations, etc). UNSCOM did monitor the destruction of many of these weapons, but Iraq was never able to fully account for all of the weapons on the list- instead they were caught deceiving UNSCOM dozens of times.
This is clearly not proving a negative. UNSCOM, and later UNMOVIC, were looking to resolve specific questions about Iraq's disarmament.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.... The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam's government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the "Anfal," in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq's far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert. Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is clearly not proving a negative.
Yes it is. I hereby accuse you of lying when you said you ate breakfast this morning. Please prove you ate it.
Iraq was caught lying? Big deal, every nation on earth does it. But if they happen to have destroyed something and didn't collect the evidence necessary at the time, they can't exactly travel back in time, can they?
For all we know they sold any WMDs they had to terrorists. Not exactly a nice thing to do, but it still means that they don't possess the WMDs any more, doesn't it?
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Iraq was not a new problem- they had been a festering threat for the entire decade before 9/11. 9/11 just showed us what can happen if you ignore a festering threat for too long.
It's really too bad the terrorists who claimed responsiblity for the attacks were located in fucking Afghanistan, then, isn't it?
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, Bin Laden had announced publically that he was considering launching attacks on the US.
There's just one teensy tiny problem. His base of operations is in Afghanistan. Not Iraq.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What? Is your google-finger broken?
The links you provide are interesting, because they show that Saddams murders are actually brutal and genocidal killing to stop an actual independence wish and uprising. But in essence, this is not so different from the recent violent crackdown on Falluja by US army. Don't forget for instance that when Iraq aligned with USSR, Kurd leaders decided to align with US and allied with Iran: this was a major betrayal, and in any country of the world including US, is such a situation occured in a region, instantly the army will go and make things in order (although of course, civilians should be spared).
Its pointless to continue this when you can read exactly what UNMOVIC was asking for. If they couldn't provide direct evidence, UNMOVIC was asking for any documents or a list of personnel that they could interview and permission to actually interview them. It is not trivial to dispose of chemical and biological weapons, and it is laughable that Iraq would not be able to provide any info to support their claims. Iraq never cooperated with this.
For example, Iraq claimed that they unilaterally took 1.5 tonnes of Vx into the desert and dumped it onto some concrete to destroy it (Appendix II, paragraph 16). Later, when inspectors were finally told about this, they went to the site, and they were able detect some traces of Vx. But when they asked if they could interview anybody that was there or loaded the trucks or ANYTHING to verify that it was about 1.5 tonnes, Iraq refused to cooperate. So we know that some Vx was destroyed there, but we have no idea how much. It is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam was lying about the quantity, especially considering his history.
Asking them to let you talk to people that participated in this activity is not the same as saying "Prove you don't have Vx".
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
#1- I think you are confusing some terms. There is no evidence that the Saudi government supports terrorism. On the contrary they have been extremely helpful in the War on Terror helping us capture hundreds of known terrorists. It would be foolish to turn on one of our biggest supporters in the area. Now, there are Saudi citizens that promote terrorism, but that is probably true of every country. #2- The first step is not invasion- that is the last resort. In the case of Iraq, we endured over 12 years of failed diplomacy before we resorted to military action.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its not that bad- we went into Afghanistan first, remember? Doh!
19 of them were in America on 9/11. I think there's a reason they aren't now, and that reason is Iraq.
-- You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If they couldn't provide direct evidence, UNMOVIC was asking for any documents or a list of personnel that they could interview and permission to actually interview them.
Since Saddam was perfectly capable of coercing people into saying whatever the hell he wanted them to, I don't see his failure to cooperate as a sign he was hiding anything.
Later, when inspectors were finally told about this, they went to the site, and they were able detect some traces of Vx. But when they asked if they could interview anybody that was there or loaded the trucks or ANYTHING to verify that it was about 1.5 tonnes, Iraq refused to cooperate. So we know that some Vx was destroyed there, but we have no idea how much.
And you think that an interview would help us determine that?
It is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam was lying about the quantity, especially considering his history.
No, it's not unreasonable. But it is unreasonable to consider this proof that he still had WMD. If he had granted permission for the interviews, we would have turned around and accused them of lying anyway, wouldn't we? Or are you arguing that we would have believed some government officials but not others?
Like I said, for all we know, he destroyed a small amount, sold the rest to terrorists, and tried to cover it up. Or maybe he really did destroy it all. An interview wouldn't prove that. Or he could have destroyed a little and stockpiled the rest. The point is, we didn't have evidence to reach a conclusion. And I don't know about you, but I expect evidence when somebody wants to invade another country for something.
Asking them to let you talk to people that participated in this activity is not the same as saying "Prove you don't have Vx".
So can I phone up your wife to check that you had breakfast? Why would I believe her? And if you said no, would that constitute evidence that you didn't, in fact, eat breakfast?
There's plenty of reasons Saddam wouldn't want his government workers to get too friendly with outsiders. Even if he had no WMD, they could still leak intelligence. If I were in his position, I'd understand that I couldn't prove to the rest of the world that I didn't have WMD, so I might as well prevent any intelligence leaks that could put me at a further disavantage during the inevitable war.
Let's go with the 1M killed, Saddam has been in power since 1979, 25 years. So that would be:
(1*10^6)/(25*365) = 109 killed/day
If we go with the 500k figure, it'd be 54/day obviously.
The US has been in Iraq for 1 year and 9 months now. If we presume Iraq under US control has matched Saddam's 'death rate' (reasons aside, the US has had some cause to conduct military operations in Iraq obviously, and many deaths have not been due direclty to US actions), at 54/day:
54*(1*365+3*28) = 24246
at 109/day, that'd be 48k people dead.
Note that 24k is the very lower bound of the number of people believed killed in this conflict. So the lower bound of death rate in *this* conflict matches a mid-estimate of the death rate under Saddam. The upper bound of the recent report on mortality rates in Iraq since the conflict was 100k. Which'd be 222/day death rate.
Saddam killed a lot of people, he was an evil man. But the instability in Iraq since the US invasion is killing people there at least as quickly, if not at twice or quadruple the rates as under Saddam.
-- I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Note that 24k is the very lower bound of the number of people believed killed in this conflict.
No it isn't. Last time I checked iraqbodycount.net, it was between 15k and 17k. Tragic none the less, but I have noticed that they include Iraqis killed by attacks from insurgents in those counts, and I don't agree with that.
And the 100k number comes from the Lancet study that was discredited almost immediately after release. They relied on a flawed methodology to collect their data, and even with that their margin of error with 95% confidence was +/- 98,000. So they were only able to say that they were 95% sure that there were between 2,000 and 200,000 casualties- not a very strong analysis.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:The ends
by
GOD_ALMIGHTY
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
None of the programs were active. The materials were all old, quite probably remnants of pre GWI programs. The inspections ' purpose was to disarm and keep Iraq from developing WMD. Today's announcement proves they were successful.
If you are going to take anything Putin says without checking the background or finding some non-Russian corroboration, I can't take your opinion seriously. Putin has even his most ardent Western supporters wondering about his intentions for the future of Russia, he may be Russia's next totalitarian dictator.
Again, your list is common knowledge, the fact that Saddam was a bad guy is common knowledge. Do you use an automatic rifle for killing gnats in your house? At the start of GWII Saddam had no capabilities of attacking his neighbors, was considered just as evil as America by Bin Laden and was impotent at best when it came to terrorism. He never actually paid any of the money he promised to Palestinian suicide bomber's families. Zaqarwi was part of group that wanted to overthrow him. Saddam had to spend so much energy just keeping himself in power, that he could have done little to damage the rest of the world.
Ignoring the possible freedom the Iraqi people might have, after this bloody mess is done with, how is America more secure now? Our forces are stretched thin, Bin Laden has endorsed Zaqarwi and our best hope are Shiites that have strong ties with the mullahs of Iran. That doesn't even begin to bring up the Kurdish issue. How has this war improved American domestic security? I really would like someone to answer that question. I have yet to see anything in Iraq that justifies the cost of 200 Billion dollars, 10,000 wounded and nearly 1500 dead Americans. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or the destruction of Iraq's already crumbling infrastructure.
The insurgents are smart and effective, they regularly cause less civilian casualties in their assaults than the American forces, they kill workers on infrastructure projects, frustrating our efforts to win hearts and minds (30 workers from one sewage plant alone). For more facts.
George W Bush has more in common with tyrants and a love for totalitarianism. I really don't think he's thought his political ideology through enough to realize it, but it first showed in his Calvinist moral theology which is prevalent among Christians who call themselves Evangelicals. The Neo-Cons are tyrants all. If you knew anything about them, you'd realize this. They follow Strauss, who was a big believer in Plato, the mother of all tyrants and friend to totalitarians throughout history. As for the rank and file GOP, many have been deceived, but don't want to admit it, others are tyrants and totalitarians wholeheartedly, see the Religious Right for examples.
The Bush Administration treats all criticism as an enemy; which is the primary sign of a totalitarian. This behavior is the opposite of the Liberal and Democratic principles which gave this country it's greatness. You should read more Pericles, I recommend his Funeral Oration in Thucydides II.
Of course you could also read Popper who had the following to say about totalitarians who treat criticism as disloyalty:
Democrats who do not see a difference between a friendly and a hostile criticism of democracy are themselves imbued with the totalitarian spirit. Totalitarianism, of course, cannot consider any criticism as friendly, since every criticism of such an authority must challenge the principle of authority itself.
-- Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:The ends
by
NonSequor
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Hussein deserved to be taken out of power, there's no doubt about that, but I just don't think he was a pressing concern. I seriously doubt that Saddam would have attacked the US if he did have the weapons. Saddam was a secular leader and I don't think he was ever interested in a jihad against the US. I think the only scenario where Saddam might have attacked the US would be if he built his army back up and developed bioweapons then attacked his neighbors again and threatened the US with the bioweapons if we intervened.
I think that the real reason for the Iraq war was to test the domino theory that some conservative pundits were tossing around. They were hoping that a democracy in Iraq would lead to revolutions in neighboring states. If it worked, it would solve a lot of our problems. But it never had a chance of working in the first place.
-- My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
> I think to most Americans, these things have just become clichés. Each mini-scandal leaked out with so little fanfare that by the time each was proven true, they had lost their bite. Had each of these things been released to the press and proven in a single day, we might have impeached Bush.
It's more than that. Compare the six years and $30,000,000 spent investigating Whitewater, and the incessant news coverage in spite of nothing ever being proven. The most glaring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld scandals don't get even a tiny fraction of that kind of attention.
The late-night NBC 30-minute news segment didn't even include the current no-WMD story in its headlines.
I use to ask the question a few times of week on what Bush lied about, when a poster said he did.
The response I got ranged from the silly/stupid like
"When he says is name is George Bush, it is George W Bush." and stuff like that.
However the very rare times that I got beyond that the replies were that president bush and all the nations that supported the action knew that WMD did not exist at the time he sent in troops.
So we can't make a pre-emptive strike against another person? Just because he has only killed his own people and invaded one other contry obviously makes him a non threat to the US.
-- Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
what if the WMDs never existed in the first place... how do you prove you destroyed the nukes you never even had... or the biological weapons that were only really an underfunded pipe dream.
--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Asking them to let you talk to people that participated in this activity is not the same as saying "Prove you don't have Vx".
So if Iraq had produced twenty 'truck drivers' who all 'drove a bunch of tanks into the desert' where 'guys in rubber suits dumped them out onto concrete' and 'have no idea what was in those tanks, but we were told to stay far away,' you'd take that as sufficient proof?
-- Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Last time I checked iraqbodycount.net, it was between 15k and 17k.
Iraqbodycount.net counts confirmed civilian deaths reported by multiple sources. It's the "absolutely no doubt" lower floor-limit of deaths, as they state on their own site, their figure is a sample of the number of confirmed deaths in Iraq. Quite useful figure, but remember what it is.
And but I have noticed that they include Iraqis killed by attacks from insurgents in those counts, and I don't agree with that.
Feel free. But those deaths wouldnt have occured under Saddam. In the same vein, be sure to exclude casualties arising from the Iran-Iraq war from the "Deaths under Saddam" figure (wouldnt have occurred without western encouragement).
the 100k number comes from the Lancet study that was discredited almost immediately after release.
Misinterpreted, yes, in both directions. Critiqued too. I dont remember discredited though.
They relied on a flawed methodology to collect their data,
The methodology was not ideal, but the situation in Iraq makes it very difficult. As you point out, their confidence interval was very broad as a result. The report itself discusses limitations in the methodology btw. Further, the Fallujah cluster was excluded from the results because it was felt not to representative of Iraq - with Fallujah included the figures are higher.
even with that their margin of error with 95% confidence was +/- 98,000.
Yep.
So they were only able to say that they were 95% sure that there were between 2,000 and 200,000 casualties- not a very strong analysis.
It's a confidence level. Further, your memory is wrong, it was 0.95 probability that the true figure lay between 8k and 194k. This is a confidence level which reflects on the statistical probability btw, it doesnt mean that 8,000 deaths is a probable # of deaths. It simply means 8,000 deaths is as probable as 200,000 - and both lie at the very extremities of probability. But it *is* a useful indication that mortality since the conflict probably lies between around 50 to 140k deaths. (Again, the lower and upper of those figures are at same probability - according to this survey, and they are far more probably than 2k or 200k, though the confidence level for that interval would be lower, obviously).
Essentially, it's unlikely that Iraq is a safer place now than it was under Saddam. It's quite likely it's just as dangerous, reasonably likely that it is more dangerous, possibly even far more dangerous.
I'm not trying to make any judgement about the intentions of the US in the Iraq conflict, or it's responsibilities, I'm just commenting on the change it has wrought on Iraq. Some will view the present instability and danger as a worthwhile ill to get Iraq towards a safe, peaceful democracy. Only time and history will tell whether that view will be borne out.
-- I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Hussein was in Iraq and was considered as much if not more of a threat than Osama before 9/11.
By who? Most of the military analysts I heard considered Iraq to be "contained". It had been nearly a decade since Hussien had attacked any of his neighbors (no-fly zone attacks, were arguably in Iraqi airspace). We had basically settled down into a routine where his scientists lied to him, every once in a while his boys would take a potshot at us, and we'd destroy an asprin factory in return. Quite peacefull for dealing with a culture that considers atomatic assault rifles to be a neccessary part of a wedding celebration.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So if Iraq had produced twenty 'truck drivers' who all 'drove a bunch of tanks into the desert' where 'guys in rubber suits dumped them out onto concrete' and 'have no idea what was in those tanks, but we were told to stay far away,' you'd take that as sufficient proof?
Why the hell are you asking me that? I'm not a UNMOVIC inspector. I suppose the inspectors would have to weigh the credibility of the witnesses compared to the available evidence.
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Providing documentation as to how and when such activities occured, and allowing inspectors to check out the sites and scrap material to verify the truth of the documentation would have done the job
Unless your bureaucracy lost the documentation, or destroyed part of it. Especially if you want people to believe you have WMDs. After what, it is impossible to prove anything.
Obviously, if the documentation existed, the invading army would have found it, long ago.
And
invading a country because it has destroyed bureaucratic paperwork is simply ludicruous.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
19 of them were in America on 9/11. I think there's a reason they aren't now, and that reason is Iraq.
You should take geography lessons. Iraq is not Saudi Arabia. It is exactly like you said France was a great ally of the US in the Iraqi Bush war, because it is in Europe and the European UK was an ally of the US.
Some Americans are just fucking retarded
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its not that bad- we went into Afghanistan first, remember? Doh!
And then you went in Saudi Arabia because most of the terrorists were Saudis.
Oops not, you just invaded the wrong country, Egypt. Or was it Iraq?
This wasn't your garden-variety bureaucratic fuckup. Immediately as a result of Gulf War I, the responsibility was on Hussein to disarm, document, and allow for verification. Deception on this point was a deliberate tactic, not the result of "lost documentation".
Bush was motivated to act against Iraq because of 9/11.
s/motivated/given the window of opportunity/
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No. No, it is not okay to make pre-emptive strikes against a soverign country which the world's intelligence agencies agreed posed no threat to America's safety. It's also not okay to use one thing (the attacks for which an Afganistan fundamentalist group took credit for) to justify doing a completely non-related thing (attacking a regime in a completely different country that hates the group in Afghanistan). Are you aware that the Muslim fundamentalists had tried to create revolutions by murdering heads of state in a number of middle eastern countries? Do you believe for a second that Sadaam wants that group in his country?
What America did is not okay. We were assaulted, but instead of retaliating, we murdered the assailant's brother because we thought he might have a weapon.
Quite the contrary, it would have been very easy to prove disarmament. Providing documentation as to how and when such activities occured, and allowing inspectors to check out the sites and scrap material to verify the truth of the documentation would have done the job.
No, that is not true. The Iraqis had no control over most of the situation. Things were destroyed or misplaced or hidden by them or by us, people who know what had been destroyed or where it had been sent were killed. Chaos everywhere. No, it is not possible to prove *ANYTHING* in such situations. Not just the things and the people, but of course the records and evidence.
Doesn't matter anyway. Dubya was going to have his war no matter what. http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html is an interesting explanation of many of the deeper reasons--but rather a heavy read on the fundamentalist mind.
-- Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In fact, I bet you wouldn't recognize a threat even if it hijacked your planes and flew them into your buildings...
Oh, yeah totally. Iraq really is a threat. I totally agree. It's really too bad that the group claiming responsibility for the attacks is situated in fucking Afghanistan. NOT IRAQ.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As soon as we find evidence that they support international terrorism?
It is dangerous to talk about terrorism without using the correct terminology. You would be advised to use the new, more accurate terms to illustrate your point. For instance, find should be replaces with the more accurate "find", and it's not evidence, but "evidence".
The new sentence would be:
As soon as we "find" "evidence" that they support international terrorism?
Okay, have it your way. Dubya isn't lying. In that case, he simply has no idea of what is going on and he's totally incompetent. Lots of evidence for that, too.
So which do you prefer? Dubya knows and lies, or he doesn't know and he's fucking up? Or would you prefer to mix and match depending on the issue and the particular counterfactual statements and results?
-- Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Thank you, I will, although I don't think pointing out the obvious really makes it "my way."
"Dubya isn't lying. In that case, he simply has no idea of what is going on and he's totally incompetent. Lots of evidence for that, too. "
You're perfectly welcome to believe this. I don't think the evidence supports it, but you can make a much better case for it than you can for the BUSH LIED!!! scenario.
"So which do you prefer? Dubya knows and lies, or he doesn't know and he's fucking up? Or would you prefer to mix and match depending on the issue and the particular counterfactual statements and results?"
Obviously I would prefer neither of these, so I assume the question is rhetorical. You also seem to be expecting me to mount some big defense of President Bush. I'm not inclined to do so. I simply pointed out that the BUSH IS A LYING! LIAR! WHO LIED!! meme doesn't make much sense to me. If you can accept that and still think he's a terrible president, well hey, knock yourself out.
Nope. It's the liberals that keep making things up that conservatives say.
Still, it's pretty sad that liberals would turn their back on any oppressed people purely because they have hold a vicious hatred for the party that's trying to do something about it. Really shows their colors.
If conservatives were doing it, they'd be labeled racist or sexist. But the liberals are doing it, and I consider them completely racist and sexist. The Democrats have just because the party of "No".
"No" to everything the republicans say and "No" to any new ideas.
Nope. It's the liberals that keep making things up that conservatives say.
No, that's the figurehead of your party says and continues to say.
Still, it's pretty sad that liberals would turn their back on any oppressed people purely because they have hold a vicious hatred for the party that's trying to do something about it. Really shows their colors.
No liberal thinks we should turn our backs on those in Iraq; we're commited at this point because of Bush. We would not be commited if he had listened to the UN's weapons inspectors and our intelligence agencies when they said there's no real reason to go over there. We shouldn't turn our backs on the Iraqis, but their situation is worse now than it was previously because Bush and friends could only BS Americans instead of the rest of the world. Had we actually gotten support to remove Saddam in the name of human rights instead of supposed 9/11-related terrorism and not non-existant WMDs, the story would be different because we'd actually have a force over there large enough to handle the situation, the story would be much, much different.
The icing on the cake is that Bush's republicans (I know many who laugh at Rove and friends) still stand by the whole thing.
Re:The ends
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
how many of those were rebels, who armed themselves to throw saddam out after George Bush sr. told iraqis to stand up against their evil dictator? when iraqis started to rebel, usa suddenly stopped it's military operation there, shook hands with saddam and left iraqi rebels to die under saddams iron fist.
was it "freedom to iraq!", or was it "oil to america!"?
They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
Yeah, pretty much all I read besides/. is NewsMax and the Washington Times. Why do you ask?
> They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
Probably the CIA filched them and sold them to Iran in order to fund black ops in South America.
Iraq really still does have WMD. Its just another government coverup. You see, we sold them the WMD and have the receipts. If the WMDs were found then it would come out that they got them from us. So its better if they are not found.
-- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
You forgot about the 3 oceanliners that steamed from Iraq a month before the war and did circles in the Indian Ocean under radio silence. Nobody seems to know what happened to them.
But seeing as how we're still finding bits of mines from German U-Boats off the US coast and the folly of proving a negative, it will be interesting to come back in twenty years and find out if we've learned anything new.
The crackpots may very well stick to the "buried in the desert" argument because it's impossible to prove them wrong - then again it's impossible to prove that they're wrong.
Sometimes it's not necessary to win an academic argument today. All we know for certain is that none have been found. Everything else is educated guesses and speculation - on both sides.
-- My God, it's Full of Source! OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"Oh, this is just the liberal bias media, being biased, really they found some stuff, but the bias you know, the bias, biases out the truth. Israel and a conservative American government actually has never done anything wrong ever, it's just the bias makes it like it is. There's a liberal bias, did you know that?"
"We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
George W. Bush avoided serving in the Vietnam war, now he has his own going. Some of us learned something from Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby while others read about Goats.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 2
Here's the classes of WMDs that I find insignificant, first of all (all of which I could, with some research, point to stories about):
1. East German Sarin with an expiration date of 1989. 2. left over poison gas residue of various types on various pieces of scrap metal found in the desert. 3. Aluminum tubes with multiple possible uses. 4. Large ammounts of conventional weapons that the allied forces thought were so insignificant that they didn't even bother to secure them.
Did I miss anything? Was ANYTHING found outside of these categories at all? Note, NONE of these categories were outside of the UN resolutions, as expired gas could be considered to be destroyed, dead ammo could be considered to be destroyed, conventional weapons were allowed, and there WERE other uses for the aluminium tubes.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
srobert
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Several Cans of Raid were found under Saddam's bathroom sink. There may also have been a straight razor in his medicine cabinet. It is no longer there but we have before and after photos of Saddam's face indicating that he may have once had one in his possession.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Since the UN weapons inspectors knew Iraq had chemical weapons when they were thrown out in the '90s, the real question shouldn't be "did we find anything signifigant now?", but "what happened to them if they are no longer there?"
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 1
Well, considering that in 1998 and 1999, Iraq had a very public display of destroying a lot of weapons, and provided us with several thousand pages of documentation on it, I'd suggest that maybe, just maybe, Iraq's weapons destruction progrom was actually NOT the lie that our government thought it was.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Proof.
~TxMxP
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
will_die
·
· Score: 1
You also have aircraft and some other heavy military equipment that was found buried in the sand.
Also the 1.77 metric tons of "highly radioactive material" (UN words), which the US took.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 1
The first is arguably not a WMD. The second though, is quite interesting- got a source for it?
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
will_die
·
· Score: 1
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 1
THANK YOU! That certainly counts. Why isn't the administration using this to prove their WMD claims?
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
will_die
·
· Score: 1
On main reason is this administration likes to keep closed lips. Another example is that people have been criticizing Bush for never visiting people wondered in war or calling the parents of thoses who died, that has not been the case however they just don't release press accounts when they do this.
Re:So did they ever find any SIGNIFICANT WMDs?
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 1
Which is a major mistake in two big ways. One is that it leads to lies. The other is that this is supposedly a democratic republic- and in any given form of democracy, State Secrets simply make no sense. BATTLEFIELD secrets make sense. Secrets affecting CURRENT information gathering and battlefield situations make sense. Keeping secrets that have already been outed in the foreign press makes no sense. Keeping closed lips about what you did last week makes no sense. Keeping a tight lid on casualties when you should be having every damned funeral bradcast in an effort to give the hopeless and the homeless a reason to volunteer for your military in search of a life with meaning makes no sense.
So much of what the neocons have done seem entirely opposite to their stated objectives that it makes them appear to be incompetent idiots at best- and dangerous subversives working for the terrorists at worst.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Heil Hitler!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thanks for including some antisemitism in there.
Re:Heil Hitler!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
lgf is well known as a radically pro-israel site to the point that it borders on hysterics and insanity when its users defend Israel. The users have gone so far as to suggest that mass genocide and forced sterilization campaigns are the only "solution" to the "problem" of Palestineans.
The grandparent posts statement is meant to mock the extremist views that permeate LGF on the subject of Israel, not invoke anti-semitism.
~TxMxP
Re:Heil Hitler!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh yeah, there was some serious anti-Semitism in my post! Like where I said Israel sucked and where I said I hate Jews....oh no, wait, I said absolutely nothing like that. Considering sarcasm, the only thing I said about anything close to Semites was that it's not true that Israel has done absolutely nothing bad.
Actually, everyone look at parent. This is about the quality of rebuttals you get from LGF when you critique anything it holds dear.
Example dialog:
Someone sensible: "Israel is running a big deficit this month because is spends too much on military, it even requires the U.S. to bail them out. They should get their spending into line."
LGF Lizadroid or whatever they call themselves: "Nazi! Hail Hitler! You're an anti-Semite!"
Re:Heil Hitler!
by
spacecowboy420
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Not anti-Semitic jackass, anti-Zionist. If you listen to Air America radio or other progressive programs, some of the main speakers are Jews. They can't stand the Bush/Sharon policies as well. As an aside, there is a large group of Jews in Israel that can't stand the Zionist policies either. These policies are of the "right", not the Jews.
Understand; not anti-Semitic, but anti-religious crusade - whichever religious agenda, it's wrong to push it on other people. If you know ANYTHING about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you know it is pure and simple religious fanaticism. Zionist think the land is bestowed to them by God and will kill all that oppose - in the name of God. Those that stand up to them are "Terrorists".
-- ymmv
Re:Heil Hitler!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm(original poster) not even anti-Zionist. I've got nothing against a Jewish people striving to make their own nation. And I certainly do not support the tactics used by many Palestinians. Violence in this situation does not achieve anything. All I'm saying is that the Israeli government is not immune to criticism; contra the claptrap spouted on LGF which allows no room for criticism.
If you listen to Air America radio or other progressive programs
I've listened to Air America (AM1360 in San Diego) multiple times, and they almost never cover anything progressive. All they ever do is bash Bush or other Republicans. They may think that that counts as being progressive, but it sure doesn't benefit any of the many progressive causes out there.
It would benefit them (Air America) and U.S. progressives if they occasionally had actual progressives on to talk about the good they are doing and how listeners can join in and become a part of the progressive movement.
But it must be easier and more fun to do show after show after show of the setting up and the knocking down of Republican boogieman strawmen.
If you know ANYTHING about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you know it is pure and simple religious fanaticism.
and if you knew anything about middle east history, you will see that the wars have nothing to do with religious fanaticism, and have everything to do with control of WATER.
religion is just a means to the end. this (and all) ME conflicts are always about control of water.
always.
-- ... hi bingo...
Re:Heil Hitler!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
' Not anti-Semitic jackass, anti-Zionist '
It is the same thing. Hatred of "zionists" is a code-word for hatred of Jews.
' Those that stand up to [Jews] are "Terrorists '
What else can you call it but terrorism, when they routinely execute civilians for the crime of being Jewish?
Yeah, it's unfortunate that more time is spent bashing than anything else. It's too bad they learned from Rush, A.C. , O'Reilly, etc etc. Hell, those right wing media nutjobs have made entire CAREERS out of whining about liberals.
first, every (and i mean every) single war, ever fought has been about economics, specifically: 1) control of natural resources 2) control of trade routes
in the middle east, the absolutely most important, and least available resource is potable water, and control of these water sources is critical to survival.
anyway, this latest intifada started over a waste-water dispute to water olive trees. israel bulldozed the trees to remove the "need" (and economic production). then the pallies started blowing people up. (i'm actually kindof hopeful that with Abbas elected that everyone can stop killing each other for a... little bit at least)
simply, water in the ME is critical to survival, and there isnt enough to go around. so they all have been fighting over it... forever.
religion is a means to control people... Marx had that whole "opiate of the masses" thing correct, and what better way to stir up peoples irrational emotions than to play on religion?
i mean, you dont tell people to die for water, no more than you can tell people to die for oil, or for the silk road through afghanistan (long irrelevent, except for historical reference). So, you make something up, like religion, or communism, or freedom.
if you wanna read more, theres a really good book on this called "The Lexus and The Olive Tree" that specifically goes into this facet of the entire ME conflict.
one of the most frustrating aspects of this is: the US has nuclear technology available that cost-effectively desalinates water. We wont share it, though.
Look, I'm not saying water is unimportant. Scarce resources are a cause in any war. However, take a look at the ground, and talk to the people. They really believe this religion shit. Religion is not just a paper mask in front of "material" causes. It is a real motivator. Marx is wrong. For instance, why did Israel get founded in the first place? For water?
However, if you remove the desperation from people's lives, their attachment to extreme religiosity will diminish. People just want to have happy, meaningful lives, however they can get it. But that doesn't mean water is everything, any more than that gold is everything. Politics is complex, and your thesis too simple.
Re:Heil Hitler!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>the only thing I said about anything close to Semites was that it's not true that Israel has done absolutely nothing bad.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention lately. Nowadays criticizing Israeli government policy or, heaven forbid, acknowledging that the Palestinians have some legitimate greivances, counts as 'anti-semitism'.
Surprising some were not faked
by
justanyone
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me: * maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful); * most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging); * no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful); * there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it. 1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news. 2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made. 3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials. 4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or: 5. ATF decides to test it independently, or: 6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or: 7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or: 8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or: 9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts. I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
-- Carl Sagan
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
Ironsides
·
· Score: 1
most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging);
Most of the people in the military are more ethical than 99% of the civilian populas. Read up on the military code of conduct. Among other things that are illegal and unethical in the military are officers fraternizing with enlisted personel (this means outside of work)(reasons are to keep officers from making bad decisions in life and death situations) and infidelity to a spouse or with someone who is married.
There are about 1.3 million active duty millitary personnel. I am willing to be that in any comparably sized group from this country you will people who are a lot less ethical. That is not to say there aren't the occasional bad eggs, as there are. But the military tries to identify and kick them out asap.
* there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
Also too many people who would have to keep their mouth shut in order to pull it off.
Disclaimer: Both parents were career military, as are many of the people I know.
-- Fly me to the moon
Let me sing among those stars
Let me see what spring is like
On jupiter and mars
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
bhima
·
· Score: 1
I wonder when does the "you broke enough enough stuff so you getting kicked out" rule come into force?
After all even in the pottery barn they have rules of engagement... or at lest they did when I was shagging one of their cashiers:)
That must happen after they quit looking for WMD and After they give on having election lines where snipers shoot people.
-- Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I wonder when does the "you broke enough enough stuff so you getting kicked out" rule come into force?
Sometime after January 30 is my guess, depending on who gets elected of course (or maybe just as important, who doesn't).
That must happen after they quit looking for WMD and After they give on having election lines where snipers shoot people.
There's that too- right now the Shia and Kurds are looking at being the big winners in the January 30 election- because it's a sure bet anybody voting in the Sunni Triangle will be voting for their last time.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
bhima
·
· Score: 1
Hey! I just looked, there's one near were I live (in Wien).
Must be due to all the politicians there.
-- Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
temojen
·
· Score: 1
Following the rules does not mean you're ethical.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
dameron
·
· Score: 1
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it.
I think the Bush administration considers (or considered) much of the intelligence community to be too disloyal to carry out such a smoking gun fraud, and I don't think the CIA has any great affection for the NeoCons.
Of course with his purges Bush will eventually reshape that organization. The intelligence community needs to be "reality based" and has to live in this world for their own safety. The NeoCons don't. It's be interesting to see how that all shakes out.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have another theory: the checks/balances aren't actually present/effective, but nobody had the nerve to attempt it because of the sheer magnitude of the crime.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
hackstraw
·
· Score: 1
Faking was unnecessary. The public was already emotionally distressed after 9/11, and as your sig implies, the popular opinion was that the war was due to 9/11.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
daveo0331
·
· Score: 1
So how come I've never heard of Abu Ghraib style prisoner abuse going on in civilian prisons and jails in the US? It certainly isn't lack of opportunity; the US incarcerates over 2 million people.
And what happens when a Navy ship is in port? What does it mean to "drink like a sailor?"
I don't think the military exactly qualifies as a shining example of red-state values. Or blue-state values, either.
-- Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
fenris_23
·
· Score: 1
Just as a devil's advocate... If the CIA decided to plant the evidence, why would they make it that obvious? Why not just plant some material of Russian or French origin?
In any case, I doubt an external party (another agency) would be able to piece it together. There would most likely be only the minimum necessary number of people who would be aware of something like that as it would - in my opinion at least - constitute high treason. And as such, it's not like they would email out a memo about it.
In any case, I think you are placing far too much competence on these people (groups 1 - 9 that is). I have often found conspiracy theories a bit quaint considering the dipshits that are appointed to run the agencies.
Most of the people in the military are more ethical than 99% of the civilian populas.
-- Ironsides
Yeah, because volunteering to be trained as serial killer is the ethical thing to do.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc.
Because if they do that *and* people get to know about it, Bush would have to resign (in the best case). And there are quite a number of potential CIA agents who would like Bush to resign...
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
shanen
·
· Score: 1
I think the only remaining limit on Dubya's power is "impeachable offense" and they decided the faking would be such. As you noted, there are a whole lot of things that could go wrong with such a forgery, and the resulting impeachment would be really hard even for Republicans to vote against.
On the other hand, the tin-hat crowd thinks that there was yet another foulup during the invasion, and a large CIA gang was wiped out by accident after they had gotten into Baghdad.
-- Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:Surprising some were not faked
by
PostItNote
·
· Score: 1
> So how come I've never heard of Abu Ghraib style prisoner abuse going on in civilian prisons and jails in the US? It certainly isn't lack of opportunity; the US incarcerates over 2 million people.
Because nobody talks about it and cameras aren't allowed. When gang rape is such a problem in prison that it is a recurring joke, even for California's Director of Prisons (or some title like that), it is a pretty shameful thing. The fact that we don't do anything about the horrendous nature of the US prison system is largely because most people feel that if you are in prison, then you must have done something to deserve what you get.
But prisoner abuse is rampant in the US - it's so common that it is simply NOT NEWS.
And just the month before, we gave up an additional $20 billion + to our trading partners in bad trade agreements.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:In other news...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Congress' nonpartisan fiscal watchdog said the 2005 shortfall now stands at $114 billion, about $16 billion less than for the same period last year. The 2005 fiscal year began on Oct. 1.
Yea, great. Thanks for going offtopic to point out that the expected overall deficit for 2005 has helpfully gone down by less than 1% and the current government's incredibly reckless spending binge is down by less than 13% over last year's feeding frenzy. That's great.
In other words, we're not "totally fucked" now, we're just "completely fucked".
Do you even understand what a trade deficit is? It has nothing to do with "bad trade agreements", it's about free market forces. But please don't let the truth get in the way of Bush bashing, carry on...
It has nothing to do with "bad trade agreements", it's about free market forces.
Any trade agreement that allows "free market forces" to take advantage of disparate standard of living to the detriment of the ordinary people of both coutnries is indeed a BAD TRADE AGREEMENT, no matter what free traitors like Clinton and Bush tell you.
The purpose of allowing a free market to begin with is to provide your citizens with jobs so that the government does not have to support them. The jiffy* that the free market ceases to fullfill this goal, or is allowed to continue without fullfilling this goal, it has changed from being a good for society to an evil. Comparative advantage becomes nothing more than bullshit, and the gap between the rich and the poor grows until EITHER the government steps in to stop it or civil war happens. My guess is that most modern economists are betting on the second. If they wanted to prevent the second, they'd be urging the government to enact the first in the form of anti-trade measures.
* A Jiffy, as defined in the Commodore Vic 20 Programmer's Manual, is 1/60th of a second.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:It was not a "pre-emptive war".
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It was Bush and his people who said it was "pre-emptive". So either they are wrong or they lied. You still have to pick one.
Bush and co are laughing right now.
by
xutopia
·
· Score: 1
They are in such disbelief that they got reelected despite all signs that they were cheating, lying and self-serving thiefs that they think now they don't need any justification. They can do as they please so long as it makes military or oil hungry jacks richer.
Anyways not that it matters but they do not need excuses anymore. That war on terror jocker card can be used anytime they please! Thankfully we have conditionned crowds to eat it up.
The lesson here is clear: If you are a nation that the US may not like, and you don't have nuclear weapons, then you are vulnerable to attack and occupation by the US. They will, if they wish to, invent lies about you having said weapons, and attack you, with or without a general concensus from the rest of the civilized world.
So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
That, my friends, is the moral of this story.
-Laxitive
Re:consequences
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Frighteningly enough, I think you're exactly right. We could be rapidly heading toward a situation far less stable and more dangerous than the Cold War ever was.
So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
*sigh* That's a really bad idea, too. If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating. Our official policy is to respond to WMD in kind-and that means breaking out our still significant nuclear weapons. Even if we chose not to use them, the response from the military, and the American people at large, would be devastating to say the least. Think of a demand for vengeance on a scale that would make the response to 9/11 look calm.
A lot of countries, even the ones who opposed the invasion of Iraq, believed they had WMDs. Why? Who knows-maybe they bought into our propaganda, maybe they had intelligence that said Iraq had the weapons, maybe they just plain didn't trust Saddam. I can understand two and three, one is just gullibility on the part of their intelligence services.
If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating.
Obviously. However, the point is that the US does not attack countries with nuclear weapons. Getting nuclear weapons is the number one priority for any nation that is conceivably a target of the US (approximately anywhere but North America, Australia and Western Europe).
-- I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Hell, I think we should have used WMDs when we had the chance- and paid Bin Laden back by nuking his two favorite cities, Mecca and Medina. But NO that would have angered the bin ladens and al sauds- both of whom pay Bush a pretty hefty bribe whenever he's campaigning.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:consequences
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
*cough*North Korea*cough*
Nail hit on. the. head.
Re:consequences
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
-- Adolf Hitler
"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think"
-- Adolf Hitler
Yes, I know about Godwin's law. But these quotes are way too appropriate.
Why not add in the George Orwell line from 1984 about how we were always at war.
How the heck do you WIN the War on Terrorism? As long as there's one poor, disnefranchised person who feels his life is worthless except to strike out, there will be terrorism. I heard someone say War on Terror is like War on Wind or War on Rain.
Someone please send an ambassador to Terrorism and ask for surrender.
-- The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
> > So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
> *sigh* That's a really bad idea, too. If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating. Our official policy is to respond to WMD in kind-and that means breaking out our still significant nuclear weapons. Even if we chose not to use them, the response from the military, and the American people at large, would be devastating to say the least. Think of a demand for vengeance on a scale that would make the response to 9/11 look calm.
I don't see any reason for North Korea to fear a US invasion.
AFAICT, most of the power of nuclear weapons is in having them rather than in using them.
This is an important and under-repeated point: Iraq was, in fact, our best friend in the region. There's fairly clear evidence that Iraq requested US permission to invade Kuwait in 1991, and believed (mistakenly) that they had gotten it; they were genuinely surprised when we took issue with it.
Iraq consistently exaggerated their weapons capabilities, and were reluctant to admit how completely powerless they were, because they wanted to deter Iran. Y'know, that other society with whom they've been at periodic war for thousands of years, and against whom we were their allies? Hussein has spent the last ten years trying to walk the line between not antagonizing Washington and not inviting invasion by Tehran.
No, you're right. Godwin's law was aimed more at, "Y'know who else liked single-threaded webservers? The Nazis!!!"
I think that the very specific topic of ways in which open, democratic societies can slide into militant fascism is one to which Godwin's does not apply.
Actually, it's more like a certain past resident shares the moral responsibility for bin Laden's choices- and limited the population of those cities for all time to the same religion that shares a moral responsibility for bin Laden's choices. I hate to put it so bluntly- but there are atheists out there who blame Jesus Christ for the Klu Klux Klan, so it's not outside of the realm of previous thought to blame Mohammed's fundamentalism for al Qaida.
Without those cities, the central complaint of al Qaida- western interferance in the Holy Penninsula- goes away because the Holy Penninsula isn't Holy without the Holy Cities.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sharing a religion with some people who chose to kill some Americans does not cause you to share responsibility for their acts. Even believing that Americans should be killed does not grant you any responsibility if it happens without any involvement on your part.
That's the ethical argument. But the practical argument is even more conclusive: do you genuinely believe that if the US nuked Mecca and Medina that all Muslims (or non-Muslims) who currently hate the US would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, we had a good run of it, but I guess there's nothing left to fight for any more. I'll just be moving along to pacifism now. Thanks for a good game, mate."?
That's the ethical argument. But the practical argument is even more conclusive: do you genuinely believe that if the US nuked Mecca and Medina that all Muslims (or non-Muslims) who currently hate the US would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, we had a good run of it, but I guess there's nothing left to fight for any more. I'll just be moving along to pacifism now. Thanks for a good game, mate."?
No- I think it would spawn one of three responses, depending on the person:
1. Atheism- because God let the Holy Cities be destroyed, some young people would be quick to suggest that the whole religion is a bunch of hogwash and that Mohammed was at best a good general and at worst a con artist. 2. It would be the start of attracting those who do hate the United States to our ports of entry, where we could easily exterminate them IF we pair it with a reasonable border security policy (note, this is where the whole plan falls down currently- there are some very powerfull business interests that are against border secuirty in the United States) 3. It would be a good start to an invasion of Saudi Arabia- as they're dealing with the deaths we could take over conclusively and put an end to this dangerous nonsense about a "Nation of Islam" built on "Koranic Justice".
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Lying by understatement: an object lesson.
by
manyoso
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,... not so much.
Re: Lying by understatement: an object lesson.
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 1
> Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
> After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,... not so much.
I liked Umansky's tart assessment at Slate: "the Iraq Survey Group, which when last heard from was still hot on the trail for banned weapons, has in fact folded its tent, and it did so about three weeks ago. (No, you didn't miss the White House announcement.)"
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Lying by understatement: an object lesson.
by
rev_sanchez
·
· Score: 1
It's probably just like when you lose your sunglasses. The minute you stop looking for them they turn up.
Just after the war we were told what dumbasses some of us were for thinking that the US troops would have heavy casualities invading Iraq. Of course, we thought that because we were told over and over again about the massive amounts of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons Iraq had. It was logical to assume that a madman with those weapons would use those when threatened.
I don't think the Bush administration really believed that Iraq had the weapons. I think they believed that they'd find just enough weapons related junk that they could hype up to justify the war. Anyone who didn't agree with our reason to go to war after that was against our troops and unpatriotic.
I'm not so cynical to believe that this was just about oil. I believe that there were a lot of reasons to go to do something but nothing significant enough to mobilize the American public behind a war.
-- If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
Re:Lying by understatement: an object lesson.
by
M1FCJ
·
· Score: 1
If not oil and "he tried to kill my dad!" causes, why Iraq? If we were looking for nasty guys to invade, there are more than 20 odd petty dictators all around the world. Why US is not invading Myramar? North Korea? A number of African countries including Liberia?
Unfortunately it was all about oil and petty revenge...
Re:Lying by understatement: an object lesson.
by
dpilot
·
· Score: 1
Unfinished business. It was a loose end from Gulf War I on maintenance.
Of course that says NOTHING about what it is, now. I guess it didn't "spontaneously organize into a Reagon-style free market democracy," as some expected it to.
-- The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Lying by understatement: an object lesson.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
manyoso:"Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion"
That's not really true. They were the primary justification to be sure, but Bush also talked about Saddam being connected to Al Qaeda... which was, surprise, also BS.
That's why I phrased it like I did when I submitted this story. Not to imply that we had any interest in 'spreading democracy' or any of the other after the fact justifactions that are floating around.
Preemption works!
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 2, Funny
We invaded them and they didn't attack us with WMD. What more proof do you need!
Remember the Seinfeld where Babu opens a restaurant at Jerry's suggestion and later regrets it?
It seems oddly fitting here. Just replace the words
'people' with 'WMD' 'Babu' with 'Most of the World' and 'Jerry' with 'GWB'
Most of the World: Quiet!! You shut up!... But where are WMD? You see WMD? Show me WMD. There are no WMD! GWB: You know, I think I'll just take the check. Most of the World: You bad man! You very very bad man! [leaves] GWB thinking: Bad man? Could my mother have been wrong?
Both sides supported war
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Those who opposed Bush's invasion were certainly not "anti-war". The status quo, with Saddam killing 10,000- 20,000 civlians a year on average and engaging in terrorist aggression against neighboring countries were certainly not peace.
Re:Both sides supported war
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Proof.
~TxMxP
Actually, They Are...
by
ackthpt
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm not going to get into a debate on the veracity of your statements, but none of the claims you listed are post-election news. The economy and Iraq both received very extensive news coverage before the election so I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Prior to the election it was treated as speculation and downplayed by the Whitehouse (read: the president and his innercicle of advisors) Since the election they are now admitting failures, regarding how badly the war is going (before 'these were isolated incidents' etc.), the prisoner abuse being cleaned up (now acknowledged it's still happening, even after all the alleged changes to prevent such) and finally having to face the music that the primary and urgent reason for invasion was unfounded.
For what Clinton did he was nearly impeached. For what Bush has done there's little if any talk except among 'wacko liberals'. Why do so few heads (particularly Rumsfeld's) roll in such an administration? Wasn't this fellow supposed to be the president of accountability?
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
> For what Clinton did he was nearly impeached. For what Bush has done there's little if any talk...
You damn' commies are all the same. Getting an illicit blowjob (unless you're a Baptist preacher spending the church's money, of course) is _much_, _much_, _much_ worse than lying to Congress and to the people, starting an illegal pretaliatory war, torturing illegally-held POWs in contravention of the various Geneva Conventions, etc. Shit! Get with the program.
> Wasn't this fellow supposed to be the president of accountability?
I'm sure Dubyah can count, up to three anyway.
-- What a long, strange trip it's been.
Can a War still help the economy
by
n-baxley
·
· Score: 1
The beginning of World War II had a tremendous positive effect on the American economy and helped in large part to pull the country out of the depression. In an age where most of the US military's weaponry is created by a few companies and is largely automated, does a war actually help an economy or simply overburden it with the cost of production without the offsetting abundance of jobs?
Re:Can a War still help the economy
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 1
Worse than that- what little manufacturing that isn't automated is sent overseas, so the economies this war is helping are not our own, but mainly China and India.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Can a War still help the economy
by
Fr05t
·
· Score: 1
The tremedous positive effect on the ecomony was also followed by a tremedous negative effect remember? Roaring 20's to the dirty 30's? If anything large scale war time production is the same as getting drunk off beer, then being hungover the next day when it's worn off.
Now the government is pissing away billions and putting nothing back into the economy with the exception of a few large companies. The return to the American people will be less, plus taxes will soar to keep the gov't from going broke.
Not sure if the short/long term effects will be more or less then past wars but it's going to be bad for the economy either way.
Re:Can a War still help the economy
by
evilmousse
·
· Score: 1
It depends. Entering into WWII was a situation where we created a lot of production and jobs that weren't there before. Post-WWII, few American wars have been at the behest of the hearts of the American people, but instead, at least in part, to legitimize the continuance of the military industry birthed for WWII. Sadly, a healthy chunk of our economy still depends on a need for war, or at least military actions. Death is big business, and we as a country are an addict to it, economically and perhaps even psychologically.
Re:Can a War still help the economy
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 1
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The silence around here is deafeaning.
by
jotaeleemeese
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Well done warmongers. Do you have any sense of outrage yet, or do you need Bush and his sidekick, Rumsfeld (or is the other way around?) raping your close relatives to grow some balls.
Because they are turning the proverbial blind eye to the killing and maiming of Iraqi civilians in the thousends (collateral damage you know)., so maybe the only way you will react is when they turn against you and experience the horrors you are subsidizing with your taxes. Don't laugh, nightmares have a fucking habit of turn into reality.
Very few times I feel the need to despise a human being. Today I only feel uther contempt for the liars that lead you and an undescriptible outrage about how supossedly "god fearing" people can be so tremendously obtuse about the naked truth: you have been had and other people are paying with their lives for your lack of cojones.
The Brits, the Australians, so charitable with the Tsunami victims, so hypocratical and "pragmatic" for keeping the liars in executive office when they should be facing impeachment and trials.
Shame on you all. Big shame on you all.
-- IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Re:The silence around here is deafeaning.
by
Marxist+Hacker+42
·
· Score: 1
Any TRUE warmonger would be outraged at how Iraq has been handled. Sorely lacking in the plan for Iraq and the War on Terror:
1. Sacrifices at home to provide needed material for the troops. 2. Wartime production crowding out civilian production. 3. A draft calling up millions- even though it's obvious that cannon fodder would be usefull, as the enemy is highly limited on manpower. 4. Nukes and terror to break the spirit of the enemy.
All the true warmongers I know are calling for all or part of the above- which means that the Bush Administration is sorely lacking in this area, yet another lie to stack on the mountain of lies.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Survey sez...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're wrong.
The bulk of the people don't have good access to information. And they know it. Some of them have a good excuse, busting their ass 60 hours a week makes it difficult to be informed, especially if Rush is what's playing at work. They quite reasonably distrust a very lazy media that's all but completely abdicated it's responsability. So they fall back on what they know. When in doubt trust people who look and speak like you. It's not an accident that the Republicans put so much into their bullshit folksy image.
In God they trust. More than reason. Blame corporate media.
I fail to see how a symphonic rock band that lonely teen boys listen to in their parent's basements has anything to do with this. (snerk) Oh... THAT Rush...
-- -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
shhhhh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Shhh. These enlightened progressives never said such a thing. All of these quotes come from Rush and Faux News.
SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
SetupWeasel
·
· Score: 1
HA! Green Party! Thank Nader for 2000 for me.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Mycroft_VIII
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You know, I may dissagree with some of the reasons the two of you are angry. I think Kerry would have been as bad or worse than Bush. I don't think Bush is a complete idiot, or deliberately lied about the wmd's. But I do think he's not interested in reduceing the governments burden on it's citizens and is way to happy to sign rights limiting legislation we niegther need nor want.
But a your post well deserves the insightfull mod. One should not just say "this is wrong" and go back to thier easy chair to watch more bread and circuses on tv, but be active if they trully feel something must be done rather than just complain and moan. Perhaps the person you responded is active, perhaps not, but I know where the odds are.
We (I most definately include myself here sadly enough) are way to complacent to only whine about things and someone else to fix it. Guesse who that someone else has to be (well you show you know, but how many others 'get' it?)?
I honestly think if people would stop being sheep and actually think and act for themselves, and take an active role in things, some improvement would be inevitable.
I would rather votes go to the libertarian party myself, but expecting eigther of the two major parties to fix what's broken in our country is kinda like asking a murderer to save you from a rapist.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you want your representatives in Congress to vote their consciences? Then did you vote your conscience? Or, did you vote for some second-rate candidate that you didn't really agree with, because you thought he was "not as bad as Bush"?
I voted for Nader to send a message to both parties that I am not satisfied with the way things are going.
I am not satisfied with the Democrats ignoring poverty, military expansion, and labor rights, and civil rights.
I am not satisfied with their complicity in the war in Iraq.
I am not satisfied with the argument that "at least they aren't as bad as Bush", when they are up to the same tricks.
I don't care how much dirty campaign money they can raise: If they want my vote in the future, they need to get back in touch with progressive issues.
Of course, you might want to hear it from Nader himself about why he didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000:
Al Gore won the election in 2000.
George W. Bush cost Al Gore the election.
No one is entitled to votes, they must be earned.
To say someone is a "spoiler" is to relegate all third-party and independent candidates to second class citizenship. American does not belong to two parties.
The Constitution does not mention parties.
This country had a rich history of third parties.
George W. Bush's recount strategy in Florida cost Gore the election.
The deceptive butterfly ballot, which Democratic officials approved, cost Al Gore the election.
Katherine Harris-style purging of tens of thousands of non ex-felons from the voter roles cost the election.
A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court stop of the recount cost Gore the election. (See Jeffrey Toobin's book Too Close to Call).
Playing the "what if" game, Gore cost Gore the election in Tennessee, Arkansas, and each of the presidential debates.
Except for brief, progressive moments, such as at the convention, which helped his polls, Gore ran the usual, lackluster corporate Democratic campaign.
And they did. They voted for Bush, including more than 250,000 self-identified Democrats in Florida.
Moreover, a Democratic exit poll showed that Ralph's votes came 25% from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest were nonvoters who would have only voted for Ralph.
In other words, more than sixty percent of Ralph's voters would NOT have voted for Gore.
In New Hampshire, exit polls showed that Ralph "took more votes" from Republicans than Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin.
If one accepts the flawed logic that suggests Ralph 'cost' Gore two states (New Hampshire and Florida), then it would also follow that Buchanan 'cost' Bush four states (Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico) in 2000.
CNN's polling data said that if neither Nader nor Buchanan had run, Bush would have beat Gore 48 to 47 percent, with 4 percent who voted not voting.
For the last three years Democrats and media pundits have been smearing Ralph Nader and the Greens -- oblivious to the facts -- looking for a scapegoat for the failures of their own party and its candidates.
It is not the job of third-party or Independent candidates to make sure either of the two major parties wins.
That would be like asking a new start-up to make sure Microsoft or Apple has more market share.
Moreover, there are 100 million people in this country who do not vote. There are plenty of nonvoters for all candidates to attract.
Voting is not a zero-sum game.
Historically, third parties and Independents move very important agendas.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
SetupWeasel
·
· Score: 1
If Nader would have been a better president than Gore or Kerry, I might have voted for him. Nader is a zealot, and we never need zealots in the oval office.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Mr. Nader's is an educated man who has actively and independently worked to improve our society for years and years. Because of his work, we have safer automobiles, better airlines, and far greater consumer protections on a number of fronts. He has done great work for the American populace, against remarkable odds, and has a keen sense of what citizenry means, and a remarkable understanding of the problems facing America that the Gore and Kerry won't even talk about. I can't think of better qualifications to be president.
I would seriously encourage you to read his recent book, The Good Fight, which can be ordered from any number of sources online. Listen to what he has to say before you label him a zealot and discout his candidacy.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
hitchhacker
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
the Green Party?
So you are saying the government is screwing up, and I agree, and you want the government to have more power?
"the problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse."
they can't screw up so royally if they don't have the power to do so.
I say vote for the constitution and a smaller federal government...
-metric
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
funk_doc
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You could also try the lagrest thrid party (larger than all others combined) Here
The Libs are strongly against war, and were not socialists like the greens.
Free yourself, vote Libertarian
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If I had any belief whatsoever that the market could regulate itself, I would definitely go libertarian. Unfortunately, the countless examples of big tobacco, big oil, big pharma, the auto industry, the telecoms, the food industry, and so forth have rather convincingly shown me that the market will not regulate itself.
The government is not intrinsically evil. The perversion of the government by corporations is. The people need to take it back, destroy the notion that "corporations are people", and make them subservient to the public good once again.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
hitchhacker
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> The government is not intrinsically evil.
> The perversion of the government by corporations is.
If the government didn't have the power that it does, then corporations wouldn't pervert it... there would be no reason to. exactly like the quote said:
"the problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse"
The government will always be corrupt, because the corporations will always be more involved with it.
-metric
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"The government will always be corrupt, because the corporations will always be more involved with it."
I think we agree on the current situation, and I think we agree that people should be outraged but are not. Where we disagree is the solution. Cut the strings, you say, and the puppet won't be able to dance. Cut the fingers, I say, and the puppet won't have to.
Government does good things along with the bad. Child protective services is a good thing. Fire departments are good things. National healthcare would be a good thing. Systems to take care of the poor are good things. These are things worth protecting. "Smaller government" is not better unless it is smaller in the right areas.
But our government is only corrupt where we permit it to be. Long ago corporations were not given the rights of people. Long ago they didn't have the massive influence that they now enjoy. Long ago we would have been outraged to hear about the campaign finance scandals and repayments in policy going on these days.
We can make corporations subservient to the people once again, and responsible to the society they are a part of, and if they refuse we can simply revoke their charters and sell of their assets. We can stop our complacent tolerance of this corruption.
Re:SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
hitchhacker
·
· Score: 1
You are making very good arguments, and it is a shame this is so deep in some unknown thread on slashdot that nobody will read.
Rather than replying to your post here, I'm going to move my arguments to a more appropriate forum for debate: government is worse than corporations
Uh... No. The military has fairly strict requirements about what percentage of a product MUST be made in the USA. (I think it is %80 if it isnt %100) There was an issue a few years ago where a company that made the stocking caps for the navy had a label in it that said made in china. In the contract (this is in all of the contracts) it clearly stated that the caps must be made in the usa or a certain amount of it. The company had to recall all the caps and remake them as per the conditions of the contract. Anything the military buys largely, if not completely, comes from the USA. This is for two reasons. One, is so that the military is actually supporting US companies. The other, primary reason, is so that in times of war they do not have to worry about supply issues because we went to war with the country that supplies Equipment X. The military does not want to have to worry about getting anything and as such basically has it all manufactured locally. No one "buys american" like the DoD.
-- Fly me to the moon
Let me sing among those stars
Let me see what spring is like
On jupiter and mars
This was true a few years ago- but I doubt it heavily now. The reason why is obvious- there has been little or NO ramp up of production, NO factories re-opening, to support the War in Iraq. The closest we've come is that GM is buying more parts for China to run the military Hummer line at 1/2 capacity- up from 1/1000ths capacity....
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I don't know why you think a factory would have to re-open. Any factories used are already producing the standard stuff used in training. When ramping up for a "war" as calm as this one they would just need to speed up production a bit. There has been a rampup in porduction. But we are not expending ammo any where near the amount required to demand an increase in the number of factories needed. Besides, the military keeps lots of ammo on hand so that they don't need to ramp up production at the begining.
-- Fly me to the moon
Let me sing among those stars
Let me see what spring is like
On jupiter and mars
When ramping up for a "war" as calm as this one they would just need to speed up production a bit.
That's a part of the point- this war shouldn't be calm, and it shouldn't be taking years, and it SHOULD need more production.
But we are not expending ammo any where near the amount required to demand an increase in the number of factories needed.
Yep, instead our boys are just running out of ammo. Real smart move that.
Besides, the military keeps lots of ammo on hand so that they don't need to ramp up production at the begining.
The War on Terror has been compared to WWII- we were told that 9-11 was the Pearl Harbor of our generation. Well, during WWII, EVERY civilian factory was turned over to war production- including the closed ones. The draft called up millions of soldiers. If this is so damned important, why aren't we doing what it takes to win instead of losing slowly and destroying our economy?
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
2nd reply- needed to look this up- back last May the Arizona Daily Star reported that our boys were running out of ammo and the military was looking to overseas producers because "its biggest ammunition supplier, Alliant Techsystems Inc., can't keep up with demand." (because they've closed too many factories since Vietnam). There's definately a need- but of course "do it on the cheap" is the order of the day.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yes we have completed our search, no we dont have anything to say at this point because we really ended it a month ago but didn't bother to inform you. We dont think its that relavant to the liberation of the country.
Apples and oranges, but....
by
FlimFlamboyant
·
· Score: 1
If a policeman shoots a murderer who fails to comply with the officer's demands, he is considered a hero.
If Bush destroys the government of a mass murderer (by the hundreds of thousands, mind you) who fails to comply with the demands of the U.N., he is considered a criminal.
Does anyone really believe that Saddam complied, or had any intention of complying with the U.N. resolutions?
-- But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
cicatrix1
·
· Score: 1
But what if the policeman is wrong, and the man has in fact not commited a murder (even if he does have a history of wrong doing)? What if he calls the office and they tell him not to do it, but he does it anyway?
--
I know more than you drink.
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
FlimFlamboyant
·
· Score: 1
What if he has a history of murder? And what office is the highest officer in the country supposed to call?
-- But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
cicatrix1
·
· Score: 1
The UN? Remember those guys?
--
I know more than you drink.
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
h4x0r-3l337
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone really believe that Saddam complied, or had any intention of complying with the U.N. resolutions?
He had no WMD. He had no WMD programmes. Sounds to me like he was complying alright...
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
FlimFlamboyant
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Oh yeah, the UN. I remember those guys. Let's all take a trip down memory lane as we examine the members of this fine establishment, defender of freedom and human rights world-wide, shall we?
Iraq (Member since 1945)
Attacks Iran in 1980 in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and customary international law prohibiting wars of aggression.
Uses poison gas against Iranian troops in 1983.
Launches deliberate attacks on Iranian civilian targets.
Guilty of significant breaches of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, using prisoners as human shields and torturing them physically and mentally (and we're sure as hell not talking naked pyramids, either)
Launches a campaign of extermination and genocide against the Kurds of Northern Iraq from 1987-1988 where anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in various manners including chemical.
More wonderful Iraqi humanitarian acts here
Afghanistan (Member since 1946)
Harbored terrorists of the likes of Bin Laden. Even the most staunch lefties don't deny the Taliban's strong connection to Al Quaeda
The Islamic Republic of Iran (Member since 1945)
Cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his cronies sieze control of Iran in 1979 through (what else) terrorism. He establishes a "theocracy" that would make any liberal forget any reference to God that George Bush has ever made; no elections, executions of homosexuals, atheists, adulterers, and prostitutes. Also a major financial contributor to terrorism all over the Middle East.
Pakistan (Member since 1947)
In 1970, Pakistan sets out on one of the largest missions of genocide of this century in an effort to eliminate the Awami League, which demanded regional autonomy for East Pakistan (known today as Bangladesh), and an end to military rule. "Kill three million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands.", said President Yahya Khan. At the least, an estimated 1 MILLION people were killed in this massacre.
Sudan (Member since 1956)
To this very day the Sudanese government, through military action and starvation, is systematically slaughtering the black Sudanese of Darfur.
Cuba (Member since 1945)
Fidel Castro. Need I say more?
Rwanda (Member since 1962)
At the time of admission to the UN, Rwanda was under the control of the ethnic group Hutu, guilty of butchering over a half million people between 1959 and 1994 when they were finally overthrown.
And that is just a few. Many of the above are Islamic states (and members of the UN) that rule their people with an iron fist, employing torture and execution for moral offences that many a liberal would wear as a badge of honor. Why the left continues to support an organization made up of such thugs is beyond comprehension, and demonstrates ignorance on an astronomical level, and an utter lack of perspective.
The utter impotence of the UN comes as no surprise to me when you factor in the scum that has joined its ranks over the years. Remember, France and Germany are NOT the UN! They are merely two nations outnumbered in a large organization of Islamic radicals and communist tyrants.
Some sources:
http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html
http://humphrys.humanists.net/unfree.world.html
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/
-- But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
FlimFlamboyant
·
· Score: 1
He had no WMD. He had no WMD programmes. Sounds to me like he was complying alright...
Well then, maybe you should have lodged a formal complaint against the UN, demanding that they lift their sanctions against Iraq. Saddam had been demanding that all along. Although he as claiming to be in the process of destroying the wepaons that he was supposed to, at the same time, he was not granting full access to UN weapons inspectors as the resolution had demanded. In short, no, he was not in compliance whatsoever, thus the sanctions were not lifted.
Let me put pacifist liberal hat on for a moment... Perhaps if the UN would have just lifted its sanctions long ago, and trusted the word of a mass murderer, this situation would never have escalated to this point. In fact, the UN shouldn't sanction anyone who butchers thousands or even millions their own people, because that'll just make them angry, and make things even worse!
But of course, no one complains when it's the UN.
-- But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
h4x0r-3l337
·
· Score: 1
Iraq had just let the inspectors back in and given them unconditional access. Iraq had turned over thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation regarding the destruction of their WMD. The US didn't even bother reading them all, they just told the inspectors to get back out, and then attacked.
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
FlimFlamboyant
·
· Score: 1
Iraq had turned over thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation regarding the destruction of their WMD.
Yes... "I'm a communist dictator who financially supports terrorism in Israel, and has shot, tortured, and gassed thousands of my own people, but trust me when I tell you that I have no WMDs! Here are documents that I swear are complete and haven't been altered!". Gosh, if we had just trusted the guy like we should have, we could've avoided all of this, yes?
The US didn't even bother reading them all
How are you in a position to know this? What is your source?
-- But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How are you in a position to know this? What is your source?
Physics. There simply wasn't enough time to examine all the documents before they gave Saddam the ultimatum to surrender.
Re:Apples and oranges, but....
by
ThreatAdvisory
·
· Score: 0
Bravo on your use of pre-packaged talking points! How do you have them indexed on your system? By topic or by date?
BTW, the Bush-ster is catching up at a quick rate to the "mass-murder" head count you alluded to before. Or were you trying to say that Saddam conducted all those killings by hand, personally? But certainly no one from overseas would see him (Bush) as a tyrant and murderer, right?
Either way, I'm cool with it, my job is secured for a while:)
Re:Here's a valid justification --
by
the_mad_poster
·
· Score: 1
Wow. Even if that were true, which I wouldn't know because I didn't read it, nor will I, it would only be relevant to the conversation currently underway if you'd presented it to Bush two and half years ago and he'd used it as the justification then.
Please try to stay on topic.
-- Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Here's a valid justification --
by
hackstraw
·
· Score: 1
Wow. Even if that were true, which I wouldn't know because I didn't read it, nor will I
Interesting.
it would only be relevant to the conversation currently underway if you'd presented it to Bush two and half years ago and he'd used it as the justification then.
Its easiest to think of nations as if they were individuals. So a war is like a fight between individuals. What do most fights that you know of happen over? Property disputes, money disputes, and ideology disputes (religion, politics, all that jazz).
Now I believe that Bush had been told about this little incident. I'm sure that Clinton knew it while he was still in office.
Now lets think rationally about what reasons we had to go to war with Iraq. The WMD thing. Sounds good, I almost bought it, especially after Blaire's comments on the matter at the time (honestly, I did buy the "reasons" but I did not believe that they warranted a war). I mean come on, these WMDs, if they did exist had existed for many years in many different countries. Many are sold by either America, or American companies, but that is a different story (yes I know that China and Russian weapons are popular as well). I mean, a war against a country half way around the world to prevent possible terrorist attacks, being that the previous terrorist attack was accomplished with airplanes and box cutters. Does this at all make sense? Keep in mind, that the previous major terrorist attack in this nation was done with diesel fuel and fertilizer (Oklahoma City bombing). To my knowledge, I've never heard of a WMD attempted to be used in a terrorist attack, and I've heard of plenty of car bombs, pipe bombs, airplane hijackings, etc, etc. But, sure, if these bad people got hold of a WMD, I guess that is the logical progression from all of the previous attacks.
Now, still keep in mind that we are simplifying a nation as an individual. Lets think of "liberating" Iraq as a reason. That sounds noble. But I cannot think of a single example where an individual has physically beat the shit out of someone else with great suffering to themselves in the process in order to be a nice guy and help them out. Maybe I'm wrong. A parent can physically punish its child which causes some distress to the parent as well, but this does not really happen when the child is grown and can and will physically retaliate.
Now lets consider the economic edge. Hmm, this makes a little more sense. If someone is doing something to me to fuck me out of money from now to the end of the foreseeable future, I would kick some ass. Especially if others know of what is going on, and could do the same thing like the first guy and fuck me harder. This is very natural behavior. As for me, I think its understandable, but I also think that we as a nation simply need to pay our bills and focus on what is going on here at home. I believe that our previous behaviors (deficit spending, trade imbalance, being lazy and putting our nose in other people's business, etc) have precipitated what Saddam did.
I'm a troll and proud of it.
Sarcastic.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's "Were you being sarcastic?" for fuck's sake! Christ, look up the words in a fucking dictionary. Irony is a completely different concept.
It's "Were you being sarcastic?" for fuck's sake!
Christ, look up the words in a fucking dictionary. Irony is a completely different concept.
I believe that you are mindlessly repeating the meme started by non-fans of Alanis Morissette who claimed that none of the events in that song were actually ironic.
Sarcasm implies an intentional inflicting of pain (which was absent in the post that I replied to).
Irony implies an attempt to be amusing or provocative by saying the opposite of what is meant.
The referenced statement:
"Yeah, it's unfortunate that more time is spent bashing than anything else. It's too bad they learned from Rush, A.C. , O'Reilly, etc etc. Hell, those right wing media nutjobs have made entire CAREERS out of whining about liberals."
lacks an intent to inflict "pain" on me and therefore does not meet the definition of sarcasm.
I believe that the author was intending to be provocative by using words that carried a meaning opposite to what was said - which is irony.
Were you being sarcastic?
UN Resolutions being violated
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0210unres.pdf your arguement holds no water
Re:UN Resolutions being violated
by
cheezedawg
·
· Score: 1
Considering that only UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are binding or enforceable, go back through that list and tell me which of those other resolutions are were passed under Chapter VII.
(hint: none of them were) (another hint: all of those 17 resolutions against Iraq were passed under Chapter VII, so they are binding and enforceable) (hint #3: you might want to try to educate yourself about a subject before you try to debate it- otherwise you look like a fool)
-- "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:Theocracy is Finally Coming
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Jesus I know taught peace and love. I fear that you have forgotten his message.
Re:Theocracy is Finally Coming
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Jesus I know taught me that nobody fucks with the Jesus. If you pull any of your crazy shit and flash a piece out, he'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger til it goes click.
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds that should be in Fran
by
evilmousse
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for the links. They were informative, though I must regard the first as highly dubious--only because I'm unfamiliar with any of the sources' credibility.
I'm curious though why this uranium hasn't crossed my ears yet while reports (like tfa) that little worthy of WMDs have been found. My unfounded suspicion is that the uranium your article speaks of is of a quality that excludes the potential for being turned into a weapon. (excluding depleted uranium shells, which are useful for their heaviness, not radioactivity). I really don't know though.
The centrifuge as well is hardly damning evidence.. you could accuse 13-year-old-me of a lot for having the anarchist's cookbook, by that logic. Further, is the centrifuge essential to (or indicative of) making atomic weapons? that specific connection was never made--there is no mention of weapons in the article. Lastly, the newsmax link specifically states all highly enriched uranium was exported from Iraq in 1992, and the 2 tons you spoke of was unrefined and low-grade. Quoting from 1 link deep from your atoomspianage.com link at world-nuclear.org: "Some reactors, for example the Canadian-designed Candu and the British Magnox reactors, use natural uranium as their fuel. Most present day reactors (Light Water Reactors or LWRs) use enriched uranium where the proportion of the U-235 isotope has been increased from 0.7% to about 3 or up to 5%. (For comparison, uranium used for nuclear weapons would have to be enriched in plants specially designed to produce at least 90% U-235.)"
I'm not spitting on your face, only trying to exhibit a little due dilligence in understanding the situation. I'm sorry liberal reactionaries have distanced you from thinking liberals.
True, most of us long suspected that the WMD claims were all lies. Of course what we couldnt have expected is for the dangerous materials that we did know about to go missing also!
Anyone remember these stories: Missing Iraqi nuke equipment worries IAEA The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.
High explosives 'missing in Iraq'. The UN's nuclear watchdog has told the Security Council of the theft of nearly 350 metric tons of high explosives from a military complex in Iraq.
Even if we had found WMD in Iraq. How the hell were we going to control them when we couldnt even control the material that we DID know about. Still seems absurd to me.
Maybe the longer-term goal was to focus most anger towards an "invading force" (as perceived by people wanting to do harm to the US), thus placing soldiers in harm's way instead of average Americans living in America.
A powerful force like America has lots of options when confronted with real threats, and redirection is one of them.
So the lesson is that any time the US manages to incite and abuse a large portion of the world so severely with our adventurism that many of them choose to die in order to spite us, we should just go ahead and incite and abuse them even further with even more adventurism-- but somewhere else?
This strikes me as a somewhat unsustainable approach.
Sorry, I heard of that one from Slashdot, should have known better and checked first. Now corrected, and I blame my godless Canadian education system for not teaching more American president quotes.
It's an interesting statement because at first glance the implication might be that the speaker is referring to him/herself, but that's not what it really means. Replacing "you" with "one" works better but doesn't have the same impact on the reader.
Actually...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They're up his ass.
what I've never understood about Christianity
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is that its savior is a Jew.
Lies that lead to office
by
Antony-Kyre
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that a good liar can make it to office, and be set for four more years. Once the candidate is elected, there's no way to really reverse it.
Anyone agree with this idea? For all elected executive positions at the state and federal level, every two years during the general election, we'd always be given the choice to recall the candidates.
Re:Lies that lead to office
by
Dr+Kool,+PhD
·
· Score: 1
It was well known that there were no WMDs in Iraq for at least a year. Even if these findings were released on October 12th 2004 I doubt there would have been any effect on the election results. America knew who it was voting for so I disagree with your assessment of "the problem".
Judging from the election returns, the majority of Americans think WMD are a non-issue.
Just go to http://www.numbersusa.com/ and order a few of their pamphlets and videos. Especially the ones about how Arizona is losing the new Mexican war- and how coyotes and drug runners are teaming up with the Mexican army to smuggle people & drugs into Tuscon.
-- SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
look people
by
Dr+Kool,+PhD
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years. You can continue to point to the lack of WMD in Iraq and claim the war is unjustified, or you can look at all the good that has come out of the liberation of Iraq - the fact that tens of millions of Iraqis are tasting freedom for the first time.
I know pretty much everyone on slashdot is/was against the war, but ask yourself this - if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so. The irony of the whole situation is that the liberation if Iraq is the most liberal war in American history, yet it is the liberals who are against it. What could be a more liberal cause than removing terrorist dictators from power and bringing freedom to the world?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- Kennedy at inauguration.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Re: look people
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years.
And that's going to fix everything, just like we were supposed to believe the invasion would, the capture of Saddam would, the handover of power to the transitional government would, the flattening of Fallujah would,...
The whole argument about morale obligation and how better off the Iraqi people are and how proud we should be for going there can, while ignoring all the facts to the contrary of that argument, can be set aside with one noun: Sudan
Funny how our 'morale' obligation doesn't extend to the people of that country.
If the US tried to liberate Sudan you'd probably complain too. "War for sand" or whatever Sudan's main natural resource is, the liberal left would cry.
The fact is the military is committed to Iraq right now. We don't have the man power to liberate Sudan at this moment. Once Iraq stabilizes then yes, Sudan will become a valid option.
Once Iraq is ruled by Iraqis and defended by Iraqis then our job is done. On January 30th, Iraqi rule will come back, accomplishing the first part. Every day more Iraqi patriots are volunteering to defend their country from terrorist insurgents. It won't be long before Iraq can protect herself.
What about the opportunity cost? How many people would have died in Iraq had we not liberated her, starved or tortured to death by the terrorist Saddam??
And what about the tens of millions of Iraqis who are now free? Is their freedom worth nothing??
How many people would have died in Iraq had we not liberated her, starved or tortured to death by the terrorist Saddam?
Ok, first of all, he was a DICTATOR, not a terrorist, you fucktard.
Secondly, how many people? LESS THAN 137 THOUSAND. AND the museums and archeological sites wouldn't have been looted. Not to mention the environmental impact of all those pipeline fires.
Is their freedom worth nothing?
You're confusing "lawlessness" with "freedom". They went from one dictator who doesn't give a crap about their lives or wellfair to another.
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:look people
by
Dr+Kool,+PhD
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So if you're a dictator then you can't be a terrorist?? Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY. If you deny that Saddam was a terrorist then you either need a dictionary or a brain.
How many MILLIONS of children were starved by Saddam while he piled up his fortune by cheating the oil-for-food program?? That's right I said MILLIONS of children over about 10 years. You do the math.
Re:look people
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
If the US tried to liberate Sudan and completely fucking botched it like in Iraq I'd probably complain. I don't oppose this war because I like Saddam (I don't). I oppose it because it has been clear from day one that the Bush administration was not competent enough to handle it. I've actually called for (competent) US intervention in Sudan.
Now you said elsewhere that "Every day more Iraqi patriots are volunteering to defend their country from terrorist insurgents," but it's just not happening. Every day more Iraqi "patriots" (at least that's how they view themselves) are volunteering to toss grenades and fire rockets at the US troops. It's dissolving into civil war.
Half (53 of 105) of the Iraqi political parties and all (30 of 30) of the individuals have withdrawn from the election. Election workers are resigning to avoid being murdered (all 700 in Mosul). Only a relatively small portion of Iraqis even think the election is legitimate.
It's OVER. It's a fucking train wreck. You can either see that today, like nearly everyone else with a clue, or you can wait to see it on Jan 31st.
Re:look people
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh wait, let's not forget that the US govt did support Saddam in the 80s during the Iraq-Iran war, so much so they supplied Saddam with the same weapons he used on his own people. It wasn't like they magically appeared, and doubtful he could create them by himself, no the Regan Administration supplied Saddam.
Re:look people
by
Scrameustache
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY.
Ok, first of all, one question mark per sentence will be quite enough.
Look at this jokers post history, he's a serial troll.
Furthermore, if you do have a PhD... it's a dark day for American universities. Talk about eroding standards. You are possibly the dumbest troll I have ever seen on slashdot.
Take my advice, delete your account here and go fuck off and apply for a job at fox news you filthy maggot.
Ofcourse if we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place we'd have plenty of resources available for Sudan. disagreeing with the Presidents decision to go into Iraq does not make me a Liberal, John McCain and Pat Buchanan are included on my list of people I greatly admire. It would have been nice if any of the reasons given for going to Iraq had proven to be true. CBS gets crucified and fires 4 execs for getting a story wrong while Tennet and others who completely blew the intelligence behind our reasons for going to war get medals. Bash Liberals all you want, the hypocrisy of the right is mind numbing.
Re:look people
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war?
Very good use of situational ethics. Taking a guy who everyone liked, who's legitimacy as president was unquestioned, who was a brilliant foreign policy maker and who was willing to listen to and make concessions to people who differed in opionin with him and comparing him to a guy who half the country thinks is a blundering moron, who's legitimacy as president has been brought into question not once, but twice, who has effectively given a huge middle finger to international organizations, and who makes people sign an oath of loyalty to hear him speak.
You're saying "Clinton and Bush are two completely different people. But pretend Clinton was in the same situation as Bush..."
My answer is: Clinton would not be and was not in the same situation as Bush. The situation with the Islamic fundamentalists began long before Bush decided to run for office. It is nothing new, and Clinton had to deal with it, too. The difference is that Clinton was a good president.
but ask yourself this - if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so.
What an interesting question! Well, since you asked, yes, I would be against this war, regardless of who the president was. Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, it doesn't matter. Going to war with a soverign nation and justifying it with a lie should make any citizen of this country outraged. I don't know. Maybe if a Democrat had done it, more Republicans would be mad.
Now ask yourself this: Do you think we would be in this war if Gore had been elected, or if Clinton's term as president had began 4 years later and he had been elected in 2000? It's just speculation, but I'm pretty sure the men in question would have all handled it differently.
The question now is, will a secular government in Iraq thwart the efforts of al Qaeda and bin Laden and thus make the US "safer"? I really doubt it. bin Laden will use these elections as a tool to recruit more Islamic extremists on the basis that the US hates Muslims. Gotta look at the big picture here.
if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so.
This is my official request to Repubs and Conservatives everywhere; stop trotting this ridiculous shit out when you run short of valid arguments. If nothing else it insinuates to me that politics has devolved in your mind to simple partisan allegience.
Me? I'm not pissed at this administration because they're Repubs, or because they're Conservatives (or, more rightly, Neo-Conservatives). I'm pissed because, whether or not I agree with their plans and goals, they've yet to not fuck one of them up. Not only do I disagree with the vast majority of their undertakings, they've failed miserably at executing all of them. If they worked for me they'd be fired for gross incompetence, regardless of their surnames.
Oh, wait... they do supposedly work for me. For all of us. Why the hell are they still in the office?
Lastly, as many other posters have pointed out, WMD were not a reason for the war, they were the reason. Liberating Iraq was not. And, if it were, my first question would have been "So, I assume they've asked us to liberate them, hey?"
Judging by the fact that they're still throwing bombs instead of the predicted flowers, I'm guessing the answer was a resounding No.
My 43 year old reservist brother, father of two, got called to active duty over xmas and is currently in Kuwait training for the show. I know he'd appreciate it if all of you war supporters would head on over and give him a hand... it might increase his chances for safe return.
So if you're a dictator then you can't be a terrorist?? Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY. If you deny that Saddam was a terrorist then you either need a dictionary or a brain.
How many MILLIONS of civilians have been killed by the US? Thats right, I said MILLIONS!
I would still be anti-war, for one simple reason. Iraq was a fucking SOVEREIGN NATION. No matter how bad the situation in Iraq was, the US did not have the right to go invading them. There is one, and only one, body with the authority to invade a nation, and that is the UN. Anyone else invading another country which has not committed an act of war against them is wrong. Period. End of story.
The millions of children were killed by the sanctions. Saddam had the chance to save them and didn't, yes, but it's not him who's responsible for their deaths, it's the people who put the sanctions in place in the first place.
-- I am trolling
Fucking delusionary bozo.
by
jotaeleemeese
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein. None, Zero, Zilch.
Your own Congress has said that much, Rumsfeld had accepted it. So stop it please, don't insult our intelligence.
In the run to the war humanitarian causes were never mentioned. Never. Bush's "preocupation" (hypocrate) were uniquely and exclusively WMDs.
For goodness sake, find yourself the idiotic "axis of evil speech" and look how much Iraqi people featured there.
Stop the denial, it will only delay the finding of a slution to the problem.
-- IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Re:Fucking delusionary bozo.
by
Altus
·
· Score: 1
hes not insulting your intelligence... he believes it... like many americans I am afraid.
--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Yea! pResident "Evil" Bush swore that Iraq would be devoid of WMD by 2005, and, thanks to his risky sacrifices, we're finally free of that terrible threat! Now, with democracy just a couple of weeks away, we'll finally see those parades and flowers he promised... what's Arabic for "funeral procession"?
--
--
make install -not war
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds that should be in Fran
by
Scrameustache
·
· Score: 1
justified in thinking that Iraq was a real threat to the world.
The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council resolutions are evident and they continue to this hour. The regime has never accounted for
a vast arsenal of deadly biological and chemical weapons. To the contrary, the regime is pursuing an elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists, all in direct defiance of Security Council (Resolution) 1441.
This deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, the vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors. In intercepted conversations, we have heard orders to conceal materials from the U.N. inspectors.
And we have seen, through satellite images, concealment activity at close to 30 sites, including movement of equipment before inspectors arrive.
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds that should be in Fran
by
Scrameustache
·
· Score: 1
The centrifuge
Has been proven to be nothing more than distorted "intelligence". It was based on the purchase of a number of aluminium tubes that, it turns out, were destined to become conventional rockets:
February 5, 2003. In his presentation to the UN, Powell alleged that Iraq had intended to use the aluminum tubes for a centrifuge program and not for artillery rockets as experts from both the U.S. Energy Department and IAEA had argued. To support the administration's case, he cited unusually precise specifications and high tolerances for heat and stress. He said, "It strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so." [Washington Post, 2/5/03g] Powell also contended that because the tubes were 'anodized' it was unlikely that they had been designed for conventional use. [Washington Post, 3/8/03] But this argument had been discredited earlier in an October 9, 2002 report by nuclear physicist David Albright. [Institute for Science and International Security, 10/9/03] Powell failed to mention that Iraq had rockets identical to the Italian Medusa 81 mm rockets, which were of the same dimensions and made of the same alloy as the 3,000 tubes that had been intercepted in July 2001. [Washington Post, 8/10/03] This had been reported just two weeks earlier in the Washington Post. [Washington Post, 1/24/03]
March 7, 2003. Chief Weapons Inspector ElBaredei told the UN Security Council: "Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets." [Los Angeles Times, 3/7/03; Washington Post, 3/8/03; Associated Press, 3/7/03; CNN, 3/7/03; New York Times, 3/8/03; Reuters, 3/7/03]
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds that should be in Fran
by
Profane+MuthaFucka
·
· Score: 1
All the people who were in a position to speak about the weapons say there weren't any. And now you morons are saying that they got snuck out to Syria.
Give it up. GW Bush lied, and you're too fucking stupid to realize it.
Fucking cock licking cunt whore. I am ejaculating into your nose, and you are snorting it furiously. Little bitch.
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think
WASHINGTON -- The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found.
Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either.
A quote from the Chief U.S. weapons hunter on the absence of WMDs in a thread about the U.S. saying there's no WMDs... off-topic? WOW! Now THAT is blindly pushing an agenda!
I hope some honest moderators will go through the thread to undo the dammage that bozo is doing. I doupt I'm the only one on the recieving end of this moderator abuse. Let's just hope the metamod backlash takes his moderation privileges away, he's hurting America with it.
Stop your whining. It doesn't matter if you're right.
Also, you're a fucking hypocrite because you mod-bombed me a few days ago. Fucking loser. Cum in yer eye!
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds that should be in Fran
by
pi_rules
·
· Score: 1
March, 2003.. okay.
So that link I posted (http://www.atoomspionage.com/Irakrecent.htm) from JULY 2003 about them finding more parts for a centrifuge buried in a physicists garden...?
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds that should be in Fran
by
pi_rules
·
· Score: 1
The centrifuge as well is hardly damning evidence.. you could accuse 13-year-old-me of a lot for having the anarchist's cookbook, by that logic.
How many countries had you invaded by 13? There -IS- a bit of difference there!
Thank you for the links. They were informative, though I must regard the first as highly dubious--only because I'm unfamiliar with any of the sources' credibility.
Just keep googling -- you'll find plenty more! I just picked a few random ones that came up.
Some reactors, for example the Canadian-designed Candu and the British Magnox reactors, use natural uranium as their fuel.
Valid point, but it requires one to ignore reasonably factual information.
Do you seriously think that a 3rd world country sitting on giant fossil fuel repositories run by a mad man were looking for a cleaner more environmentally friendly energy source? Honestly now, can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that if Saddam had weapons grade uranium he'd try and make electricity out of it?
You didn't hear about this because it wouldn't get ratings. It requires a bit of thinking and the American population just isn't up to that task. Put the pieces together though: Low enriched uranium, device to make weapons grade uranium, people in place to get the job done, in a country run by a lunatic, motive to build an a-bomb.... what's the next step? This wasn't some misguided effort to make an espresso machine!
Hey don't look at me
by
Sir+Homer
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I was told that Iraq had something to do with 911 and had the capability to do much worse and would. Given that information, I was for the invasion of Iraq because it was retaliatory, not pre-emptive. Now that we've discovered that neither fact was true and made up, I'm against the war in Iraq and believe that the bush administration lied to us and should be impeached.
Now we're being told that sadam was an evil dictator and it was our duty to remove him from power and bring freedom to the Iraqi people. We're being told he was killing innocent Iraqi's and torturing them... I bet they're really glad that's not happening to them anymore.
If bush would have said "we're going to invade Iraq and take out sadam because he's trying to undermine our economy by selling oil for the euro rather than the dollar, because he tried to kill my daddy, because we need to insure that the American military has oil for years to come and because I owe some of my good ol' boys some favors and I want them to make a lot of money rebuilding Iraq." Then I would have been against the war, but would not have felt such an urgent need to impeach the bush administration. Likewise, if clinton had simply admitted "yep I got a bj" I'd have not felt the need to impeach him either. But they both lied to us and that cannot be tolerated in a democracy.
Before any of you right-wing nutcases think I'm some kind of a left-wing freak let me just say this... being against the war is not the same thing as being against American soldiers. I'm not the guy who's putting on a $50 million party to celebrate winning an election while the soldiers in Iraq don't have the armor they need. Let me also say that if you're going to do something, do it right... Bush Sr. should have finished the job.
The idea of a little war or police action is stupid... we need to get back to the basics of war... it's a freaking land grab and needs to be treated as such. In our civilized society we try to sugar coat it and try not claim Iraq for ourselves. We make sure that our puppets are the only ones running for election. If we get to the point were we need to use military might, the we need to do it up right and slaughter those who choose to fight us and claim the country for ourselves. However the way we do it nowadays is we put in a puppet dictator who, by definition, has no morals in the first place and wonder why they turn on us 10 or 20 years later. Of course the best thing to do, is try like hell to avoid war in the first place.
Go ahead and point to a single instance where Saddam had setup production facilities or anything else.
There aren't any because he was not pursuing it.
The reports only said that he intended to pursue those programs if he could.
None of the reports have even a single instance of an actual purchase or construction that would show Saddam attempting to reconstruct any of those programs.
Re:Slashdot: News for Nerds that should be in Fran
by
evilmousse
·
· Score: 1
How many countries had you invaded by 13? There -IS- a bit of difference there!
give me a break, i'm being nice enough here. of course there's a difference there, that's why it's a comparison and not a mirror.
technical plans for centrifuge:: iraq anarchist's cookbook:: youngme
if you need it spelled out: as dangerous as the potential could be, it rarely gets that far, due to my/iraq's own ineptitude and need to sneak around about it.
Do you seriously think that a 3rd world country sitting on giant fossil fuel repositories run by a mad man were looking for a cleaner more environmentally friendly energy source?
As a broad generalization? No. Looking at the facts in your own links without prior conclusion? Yes.
about Urenco: (http://www.exportcontrols.org/urenco.html) "Uren co developed from a joint Dutch, German and British initiative set up in the 1970s following the signing of the Treaty of Almelo. Since that time, Urenco has been a leader in the field of uranium enrichment by the gas centrifuge. It provides low enriched uranium for nuclear power utilities worldwide."
My previous post's quote said, power plants tend to use roughly 5%-enriched uranium, and weapons require specially-manufactured 90%-enriched uranium. I've tried to research what I can about the TC-11 centrifuge, but I'm still not finding that explicit link that it's a critical component to weapons-uranium, which is vastly more difficult to manufacture, and not what I'd expect a company servicing power companies to provide. However, the word 'supercritical' is tied to the centrifuge often enough, and though I haven't found the explicit meaning of that, it does sound like that could mean weapons-grade. Then again, it's also called a 'super critical GAS centrifuge' meaning it uses supercritical gas, rather than meaning it makes supercritical uranium. I tried and failed to find a source to make that distinction. My suspicions remain that the centrifuge is capable of making 5%ish and not 90%ish, and the difference in difficulties of making each is incredible.
Honestly now, can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that if Saddam had weapons grade uranium he'd try and make electricity out of it?
I can make any conjecture you want me to. Let's stick to fact-finding before interpretation instead.
I've browsed too many sites to link, so instead let me pass on the best search results i got: here
Many of them seem comprehensive, but unfortunately most are dated information from 96-98ish. It's interesting though, Iraq apparantly had a much bigger centrifuge program already back when they were our allies in the 80s. Many of the sites make horrible predictions of what Iraq could have been producing had the first gulf war not happened. It's too dated and too much info overload for me to digest at the moment tho.
We had people in Iraq prior to our invasion.
by
khasim
·
· Score: 1
The war was unjustified. Bush's actions to invade Iraq appeared sound at the time (that's why we went in), but all the premises were flawed -- the reasons given, we realize, are not valid.
Some of us realized that PRIOR to our invasion.
Other people simply cannot accept the facts until their Leader has allowed them to.
While I don't excuse Bush's actions, neither was this his own fault. The entire government system failed us twice: in lacking accurate intelligence to save the WTC, and in lacking accurate intelligence to save Iraq.
Bullshit.
We had UN inspectors in Iraq PRIOR to our invasion.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world to check and confirm the "facts" that Bush was claiming he had back then.
Back then, the "reasons" given for the UN people not finding the stuff that Bush "knew" was there were: #1. The UN people couldn't find their own ass with both hands.
#2. That just shows how well Saddam has hidden them.
Bush had an agenda and he chose which "facts" to present in his speeches to the US public.
You might argue that admitting our mistake and pulling out would've saved the remnants of our reputation and recovered some goodwill. I claim that this would've been at the expense of the current pseudo-stability in Iraq.
There is no stability (pseudo or otherwise) in Iraq. Go ahead and walk down any street outside the GreenZone wearing a tee shirt saying "I'm an American" and see how long you last.
Once we invaded, unless we have US-run free elections (LOL), some angry terrorist bent on justifiable revenge would've seized power. In the interest of my personal safety, I prefer a US regime in Iraq to a regime angry at the US.
Look at the political assassinations that are happening right now.
Why will those stop after the elections?
To reiterate: yes, Bush was wrong.
No, Bush lied.
Yet his choices remain the least wrong of all the possible ones.
No, the sanctions were working and could have been left in place without any threat to the US.
America has only wrong moves ahead of it.
No, because of Bush, we only have a selection of choices of differing degrees of death and destruction that we can be responsible for.
We have been trying for years to make other countries fear us instead of love us, and if we abandon that policy, they will neither fear us nor like us.
No. It will take a long time, but we can have allies again.
It's a wrong policy, but unfortunately, we have no other choice -- we have nobody brave enough to try to change it and risk not managing it.
There are 100,000+ people willing to risk their lives in Iraq. Because your chicken-hawks are happy with the situation does not mean that our troops are cowards.
From the very beginning, this has been about the neo-con agenda (that includes Bush) to establish more control in the mid-east.
Because they're a bunch of cold-war chicken-hawks, they had no understanding of the actual situation and their egos wouldn't let them believe otherwise.
Which leaves us in the quagmire we're currently in.
This is all Bush's fault. He is the man at the top. He set the schedule. He set the conditions.
You voted for him.
That's below even your low standards.
by
khasim
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why not just read his State of the Union address where he outlines the case instead of cherry picking?
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.
WMD Report
That took about 15 seconds in Google.
The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.
Inspectors were shown over a 9 year period to be ineffective. Define the level of force to be used in your forceful reinstatement.
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think he wasn't working to bring down the entire sanctions from within the U.N.
Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion: #1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US. #2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US. #3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US. #4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
from JULY 2003 about them finding more parts for a centrifuge buried in a physicists garden...?
From JANUARY 2005:
Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer (search) is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that
Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either.
Actually, if you've been following the news reports closely, WMD's were found and that's been totally downplayed by everyone.
Link 1 - http://middleeastreference.org.uk/ios030912.html This describes the UK's (not the USA's) dossier on IRAQ. They felt like he was working on a nuclear program, which we now know to be the case, in mobile units, which are most likely no longer in Iraq.
http://osborn-scientific.com/PDF/Positive_test_f or _terror_toxins_in_Iraq.htm This link confirms that WMD's were being produced in Iraq.
This is what the BBC had to say http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/29022 59.stm
The French even thought that they had WMD's before we invaded.
I'm pretty ticked over all of this. After 9-11 happened, all these people sat around, whining and wringing their hands "Why didn't the government DO something?"
Now that something's being done, the same people are sitting around whining and wringing their hands "Why are we in Iraq?"
Did you not read the title of this article?
Straight from the horses mouth:
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons and the administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will be found
What are you smoking if you think they found WMD. The Bush administration admits that they haven't found any, and that they probably wont.
So, what you're saying is that the administration is down playing the fact that WMD were found.
agree with the war then"enlist".
by
malbosher
·
· Score: 1
I think most people cannot except that we were lied to aboout wmd's. If one still thinks that the war is worth it I suggest putting your money where your mouth is and enlist
This is what I first expected to happen when we invaded. Scary-sounding weapons would be "found" right away, and the US public would be eager to accept this retroactive evidence of the morality of our war.
But after some thought, it's just not tenable. Pulling off such a scheme would require the involvement of at least hundreds of people, and more likely thousands. (Military and intelligence agencies are designed to work as large cooperative bureaucracies, with lots of internal checks and paperwork on transactions. A few rogue people concealing their actions from the rest of the organization is exactly what they're designed to prevent.)
There's no way for the Administration to confidently expect every one of them to choose to keep mum for years or decades. Even if a certain number of them were to be given, "Don't ask why you're burying this shipping container, soldier!" orders, they'd pick it up pretty quickly when suddenly Fox news started showing pictures of that container and that site a week later.
It would be slightly closer to feasible for the Administration to just declare that weapons had been found, referring to no real objects whatsoever. But even in that case, you'd have many military and intelligence personnel who would expect to have some involvement in the location, disposal, verification, or documentation of this, and they'd pretty quickly figure out that not only hadn't they, neither had anyone else.
Really, this is just part of the more general rule that anything grandiose enough to be called enough a "conspiracy" is just too unstable to work.
We Won't Let the Door Hit Our Ass On The Way Out
by
Shihar
·
· Score: 1
The US wants very badly to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Even if the US is 100% evil, it isn't making any evil points by pissing around in Iraq. Right now Iraq is one big expense for the US. It is costing money, lives, and the ability to project strength in other places in the world. There is a reason why US is beating on Iraq repeating "HAVE ELECTIONS NOW" over and over again. The US wants Iraq to have government that they are not responsible for so that they can start handing over the responsibility of that place to someone else - and when I say handing over responsibility, I mean they want to write a check and run.
The only reason why the US has not simply packed up and left is because even the US is not that short sighted. If the US left it would create a security vacuum that would be quickly filled with civil war. I can't possibly see how leaving Iraq tomorrow would be compassionate to the Iraqi people. If the US left tomorrow, Iraq would be made up of three (or more) warring nations the next day. The US is willing to spill blood, but it isn't willing to have the amount of blood that would be spilled in the security vacuum of its leaving would create on its hands. Take even the most liberal figures of dead Iraqis and move the decimal point over once or twice if you want to understand the level of bloodshed that a security vacuum in that nation would create.
I see lots of people say that the US should just leave, but then what? What do YOU think would happen if the US left tomorrow? Would Iraq become a happy utopia land? I doubt it. If you understand even a little about the religious and ethnic friction in Iraq, you know that Iraq has all the makings of being the next Serbia. Like the Communist government that held Serbia's ethnic groups back from killing each other, the US is the only thing holding them back right now - and a quick glance at the news shows that even most powerful military on the world is having a damn hard time keeping them from killing each other. Remove the most powerful military in the world that is currently acting as a buffer between these groups and you are talking about some truly horrible bloodshed.
If you have a better idea, that doesn't involve a few million dead Iraqis locked in a civil war that would almost certainly include Syria, Iran, and Turkey, I am all ears.
Re:We Won't Let the Door Hit Our Ass On The Way Ou
by
RWerp
·
· Score: 1
In Fallujah, US military wanted to all cars from the citizens and make them wear indetyfying badges (like in ghetto). You way out would be much easier if you kept such ideas in the place where they belong (dustbin). I understand that the US can't move out today, but it should do it as fast as possible without causing civil war. What makes me angry that nobody in the US thinks that something should be done to atone for the damage they've done to Iraq and the world (the second: by undermining international law).
BTW, you mistaken Serbia with former Yugoslavian Republic, which Serbia was a part of.
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
GODWIN WAS A NAZI!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Therefore I call for a complete, retroactive revocation of Godwin's law. In its place, I would like to institute the SMURF law, 'cause anyone who invokes the SMURFS to win an argument is obviously a NAZI.
Let a beleaguered SMURF long represent the tyranny of Godwin.
Re:look people -strange arithmetic
by
Kilamanjaro
·
· Score: 0
It's not so much about being for or against "removing terrorist dictators from power and bringing freedom to the world", as you distractedly put it. Others elsewhere in this subject have posted on how this was only one of 22 reasons (other than WMD's) given by Bush and Co AS their WMD case weakened and then fell apart.
The 'strange arithmetic' is that you seem to imply the 'trophy' in this war is to have removed a terrorist dictator (as you put it) from power, and that the price paid and being paid was/is worth it (and you quote John F. Kennedy's famous line about "..we shallpay any price, bear any burden,....in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.") to emphasise that.
Well aside from the quibbling point that JFK talked about "survival and success" which seems to me to indicate something is ALREADY alive (liberty), which for sure it was not and is still not in Iraq, {and won't be force-cloned, golemd, or Frankinstein-like brought to life by family-taking JDAM bursts and multi-generation depleted uranium poisoning), I have to wonder about the sanity in thinking the price is worth the trophy.
Strange Arithmetic I:
For instance, the present reckoning (widely discussed, minority dissented) is that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died from American/Coalition strikes since the Iraq war begun. More than 50% of those casualties are women and children, according to to the first reliable study of the death toll by Iraqi and US public health experts. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,133874 9,00.html - The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and first reported in the Lancet medical journal).
By contrast, the Vietnam War was the longest military conflict in U.S. history (1959-75 total; 65-73 US). The hostilities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans with another 304,000 were wounded. As Richard Nixon said in 1985 "No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now" so I'm not about to get into it other than the round number of total number of Americans killed.
The comparison point is that it took Saddam some 24 years to kill (attributed) some 300,000 Iraqis (mass grave number confirmations remain today at circa 5,000 - higher numbers are at best guesstimates since no count has presently been done). So in 18 months or so we're halfway to having killed a third as many civilians as Saddam did in 24 years, and, if the figures are to be believed, just shy of killing as many women and children as we lost men in the entire conflict of Vietnam. I don't think removing Saddam is worth that price, either to us, or to those Iraqis so touched.
Sure, those Iraqis that survive us are glad Saddam is gone, but if you had been able (theoretically) to say before hand, look guys it's gonna cost you 50,000+ women and children blown to bits, and environmental poisoning that's going to be around for a few thousand years (does the raging argument about Yucca Mountain ring any bells?), I am not exactly filled with confidence that either us (the American people, not the government), or the Iraqi people would have said "Come on down!"
Strange Arithmetic II
We're just shy of having lost forever more than 1,500, mostly, young men and women who are never coming home from a war whose premise (WMDs) never existed, and was known not to exist before it began. From ALL the published formal and informal polls such as have been done and released about the inclination of the Iraqi people (Sunni and Shiites, though not the Kurds), they say (who knows what will be done) that they're intent is to form a representative Islamic government (Sharia law and other elements in some way to be included).
So here's strange arithmetic II: We pay the price and bear the burden of the lives of 1500 of our best (and the suppressed stories of the legion of our wounded, disabled
I also doubt that Bush and his merry band of criminals actually ever believed in WMDs...
I agree. It was only a ploy to get citizen support.
Now, me? I like $2/gallon gasoline, as opposed to $5 or $10. But you can't tell 250 million idiots that that's the reason we have to go kill a great many innocent bystanders. He had to lie.
The era a leader who can't lie is voted into office is the era the country falls.
Re:We Won't Let the Door Hit Our Ass On The Way Ou
by
GreyArtist
·
· Score: 1
The US wants Iraq to have government that they are not responsible for so that they can start handing over the responsibility of that place to someone else
The only reason the US Government thinks it is important to leave a democracy-friendly government in power is to ensure that Iraq is involved in the western capitalist ventures of the future (with U.S. companies leading the way), not because they are worried about a massive civil war. The problem with imposing sanctions on Iraq was that the government of Iraq was laughing in our face (We have oil, idiots). Of couse everyone in our government would love to abdicate themselves of the responsibility of policing Iraq, but its the price you have to pay when you want to subvert the interests of a large percentage of the people there, for your own.
Iraq was embroiled in civil and neighborly war before we invaded, and will be after we remove our troops, regardless of the superpower affiliations of any existing regime. (For that matter, they are embroiled in civil war now - most of the casualties being Iraqi on both sides of the current conflict.) It is pure rhetoric or naivete to claim that the US has any altruistic mission in the Middle East. The only thing left to discuss is the magnitude of their purely selfish motives, and in what directions they extend.
Why is Bush sticking to this story?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why is Bush still sticking to the story that the invasion of Iraq = a safer America? This is only true if Saddam had viable WMD ready to use against America. If that threat is not there, then Buch can't honestly say that Iraq is about American safety.
http://www.flowers.theshoppingwiz.com
Press Secretary sets us straight
by
mattbatten
·
· Score: 0
I got interested in the white house press conference from jan 14 2005: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20 050114-3.html Q = reporter in the press gaggle. MR. McCLELLAN = Scott McClellan (White House Press Secretary) report = "Mapping the Global Future" report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 project located at http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.htm l. The key passage of the report states: "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."
Listen to the way McClellan distorts the reporters interpretation of the passage from the report.
START --> Q There's a report out that Iraq could become an important breeding ground for terrorism. Is the President concerned about that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the report talks a lot more -- about a lot more than that. We welcome the report. I think the report confirms that our strategy of staying on the offensive and spreading freedom to win the war on terrorism is the right approach. We are in a struggle of epic proportions and the stakes are high, and the President believes it's important to continue to advance freedom in a dangerous region of the world because it will make the world a more peaceful place, and make America more secure. And so I think that's the -- this report is a speculative report about things that could happen in the world, but we welcome the report and --
Q To what extent is he concerned that Iraq has become, or is becoming a breeding ground for terrorism --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we talked about this before -- the terrorists recognize how high the stakes are. We're fighting them abroad so that we don't have to fight them here at home. And the way to win the war on terrorism is to stay on the offensive and work with the international community to bring to justice those who seek to do us harm, and to work together to advance freedom, particularly in the broader Middle East region. And that's how we ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.
Q But has the war -- did the war create a vacuum that has made it more conducive for terrorists to use Iraq as a base?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about that during the campaign. I mean, that's just a misunderstanding of the war on terrorism.
Q -- the President to talk about this, as a central front of the war on terrorism, when essentially, what the report is suggesting is that it is a central front created by and essentially helping terrorism.
MR. McCLELLAN: Did the report say that?
Q -- insinuating that it's a place where it's a breeding ground for --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the report, like I said, confirms that we have the right strategy for winning the war on terrorism, which is to stay on the offensive and go after the terrorists, and to work to spread freedom and hope to regions of the world that have only known tyranny and oppression. And the war on terrorism is won by staying on the offensive and spreading freedom.
We are staying on the offensive to defeat the terrorists, and to suggest otherwise is just a misunderstanding. We are fighting them abroad so that we don't have to fight them at home. The terrorists recognize how high the stakes are. The elections coming up in Iraq are a significant achievement for the Iraqi people, and it's another step forward on the path to democracy in Iraq. And when we achieve peace and democracy in Iraq, it will be a significant blow to the ambitions of the terrorists and their ideology of hatred and oppression that they espouse.
Q Does the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's the stakes that are involved. This i
-- http://www.theworldiswatching.org/
You forgot one...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ironically enough, someone modded my post "off-topic". As if disinformation and revisionist history was off-topic to this thread.
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Stop getting your news from Rupert Murdoch.
by
Truth_Quark
·
· Score: 1
Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY.
I think that "Terrorism" is better defined as the under-resourced side of an asymmetrical war.
How many MILLIONS of children were starved by Saddam while he piled up his fortune by cheating the oil-for-food program??
Saddam's financial position was assured when he took over the country in 1979. (While we spread the blame for this, do recall that the USA supported and funded the Ba'ath party and it's coup of 1963 because the government was pro-soviet). But he did not starve millions of children by cheating the oil for food program. The oil for food program was of itself insufficient, and did not allow the importing of pharmaceuticals that would stop infant mortality due to disease. This is why Bin Laden was anti both America and Hussein. He resented Hussein as an irreligious hedonist, but he resented America for the death and starvation of millions of innocent (Muslim) children, by mechanism of sanctions.
Talking to one of my colleagues who worked for Saddam, I gather that he spent money well and freely in trying to get food and education to the people, but development was difficult under sanctions - nonetheless very substantial irrigation projects were accomplished under Saddam Hussein, with a veiw to providing more food to the people. It was one of the things he is not hated for. There were things that he was hated for, by Bin Laden, and by others.
Yes, but... what about WMD??? (AND Syria!)
by
The+Datamangler
·
· Score: 1
Nice stuff on social security.....
WMD, hmmmmm..... Oh yeah, the reason to go to war. (and that Saddam was a bad man- certainly not for oil!)
"Some people say" that the WMD's were moved to Syria before we got there. Debka.com, an Israeli mouthpiece with an international slant on things Middle East, said back in January 2003 that Iraq was shipping its WMD's to Syria and hiding them in farm fields. Debka is pro Israel, and pro US when it suits them. They also said Syria was next after Iraq, and then Iran- looks like they got those two backwards.(or not-see below)
On the other hand, a recent CIA analysis (the Duelfer report) of Saddam 's interviews in prison say he was playing a shell game and pretending to have WMD's. Check out this page http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-956.html
to yet ANOTHER forum for discussions about the philosophy of "I know that you know that I know that you know that....".
"Special to World Tribune.com GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT.COM Monday, October 18, 2004 Charles Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month he could not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, said at the Oct. 6 hearing that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war. "A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." "
Now THAT's good intelligence. We know what we know, we don't guess. We leave THAT to the FOX news "reporters". The upshot being that the report clearly stated that there were no WMD's to be found, but they could have left the country.
What I want to know is when will the Bush Admin pull out the card that says we have to go into Iran or Syria to find WMD's?
Debka.com says this: (these are the last 2 of 9 demands the US supposedly sent to Syria.)
8. Hand over to US or Iraqi authorities 55 top officials and military officers of the former Saddam regime, who are confirmed by intelligence to be established in Syria and running the guerrilla war in Iraq out of their homes and offices.
(An address, telephone number and cell phone number were listed beside each name).
But the punchline was in the last demand.
9. Syria had better make sure that none of the Kornet AT-14 anti-tank missiles which it recently purchased in large quantities from East Europe turn up in Iraq. US intelligence has recorded their serial numbers to identify their source. DEBKAfile's military sources add: Because he cannot afford to buy advanced fighter planes and tanks, Assad purchased massive quantities of the "third generation" Kornet AT-14 anti-tank weapons.
Just in case any are found in Iraq, General Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq has already received orders from the commander-in-chief in the White House to pursue military action inside Syria according to his best military judgment.
Enjoy!!!
-- sig wig dig jig rig big mig fig gig higg rig pig tig zig
You know what they say...
by
Sierpinski
·
· Score: 1
Its easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Preempt another preemptive War
by
jbeach
·
· Score: 1
To: United Nations General Assembly
We, the undersigned, urge you, the members and officers of the United Nations General Assembly, to pass a resolution against and to use all of your diplomatic and political powers to prevent an attack on the sovereign nation of Iran by the United States of America and/or her allies.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/NWinIran/petition.ht ml
-- The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Slashdot Mirror
Employment again tanks
Trade deficit skyrocketing
Torture still going on in Iraqi prisons
The war is going worse than we thought (the prez actually admitted)
No WMD stockpiles found
Where is the outrage? There's no outrage because people have been so baffled with bullsh!t they don't know what to believe, a 50/50 election result illustrated this clearly.
"The Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for the search, goes on, but its focus now is trying to help counter the Iraqi insurgency."
Well, at leas they have full employement.
Don't spend all that political capital at the same gumball machine.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm sure we'll get a lot of war/Bush supporters here that pop up with all sorts of justifications now, but look, the justifications given over and over by Bush and his crew was that they (the wmds) were either there, or that Saddam had the capability to either make them, or get them from someone else.
Not only are they apparently not there (notwithstanding the "Syrian conspiracy theory" and such), a conclusion backed by three reports (Kay, 9/11, Duelfer) and this, the justification cannot be changed now just because it was wrong in the first place (in other words, you can't come back and respond to this news story by saying "but we liberated the iraqis" - yes, we did, but that wasn't the justification given for war, so it's a topic for a different discussion). Bush and his pals didn't say "we're going in because Saddam is an evil wicked little man who mistreats his people" in anything more than the most superficial manner. He did it by evoking images (well, that was more Cheney's job, actually) of an Iraq-backed attack spready doom across the continental United States and saying he knew something we didn't about all this.
Well, he was wrong. You can either sit and make stupid excuses and try to say "well, it doesn't matter because of..", but the fact is, this administration was wrong.
Responsible people would now stand up and explain what happened and what they plan to do about the fallout caused by their error. Irresponsible people, or people who were lying in the first place, will come back and try to change the subject or sweep it under the rug.
I'd like to think that the United States is a responsible nation, but with the way this has been addressed by this administration - attempting to shake its head and say no, really, we were right even though almost nothing we said before the war was true - and the way it's unlikely about to be addressed here, I have serious doubts that this country is currently anything close to responsible.
That's fine though. Keep it up. We'll see how long the rest of the world puts up with us if our trustworthiness turns into a chronic, glaring problem. You can only stay a superpower for so long when you rely on the rest of the world for your way of life and you're not willing to change it when you can't rely on the world anymore. Bring out the "woo woo! america is teh r0xx0rz!" crap instead of admitting you're wrong. We'll see just how well that works in the long run.
(on an unrelated note, why did this disappear from the frontpage...?)
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Shouldn't that read "WMDs were named as THE justification for the 'preemptive' invasion."
I thought about writing a long list to document where Bush or a member his administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was about protecting America, right?
Iraq even allowed the weapons inspectors in to prove they didn't have anything. Remember how the Bush administration mocked the U.N. weapons inspectors whose search turned up nothing? Remember the ultimatum that Bush gave Iraq -- disarm within 72 hours or else? And Fox News gleefully put a countdown clock on the screen? Remember the forged documents--not the ones from CBS; the ones supposedly from Nigeria saying that Iraq tried to acquire fissionable material? Remember the aluminum tubes?
Remember how reasonable, rational people said there was no proof Iraq had WMDs? Remember how millions of people all over the world protested this war before it started? Remember when scores of diplomats resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service because of these false claims of WMDs? John Brady Kiesling wrote in his resignation letter, "We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam."
However, I think I speak for nearly 50% of the country when I say that my head exploded from the incredible sense of "I told you so." I'm not happy to be right -- I'm sad for our country and what it turned into.
And to all the Conservatives who say, "The weapons of mass destruction may not be found, but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, so it was worth it," I respond with, "The ends do not justify the means."
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
/. is NewsMax and the Washington Times. Why do you ask?
Yeah, pretty much all I read besides
Over to Little Green Footballs to watch them contort around this one!
"Oh, this is just the liberal bias media, being biased, really they found some stuff, but the bias you know, the bias, biases out the truth. Israel and a conservative American government actually has never done anything wrong ever, it's just the bias makes it like it is. There's a liberal bias, did you know that?"
George W. Bush avoided serving in the Vietnam war, now he has his own going. Some of us learned something from Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby while others read about Goats.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Here's the classes of WMDs that I find insignificant, first of all (all of which I could, with some research, point to stories about):
1. East German Sarin with an expiration date of 1989.
2. left over poison gas residue of various types on various pieces of scrap metal found in the desert.
3. Aluminum tubes with multiple possible uses.
4. Large ammounts of conventional weapons that the allied forces thought were so insignificant that they didn't even bother to secure them.
Did I miss anything? Was ANYTHING found outside of these categories at all? Note, NONE of these categories were outside of the UN resolutions, as expired gas could be considered to be destroyed, dead ammo could be considered to be destroyed, conventional weapons were allowed, and there WERE other uses for the aluminium tubes.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Thanks for including some antisemitism in there.
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me:
* maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful);
* most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging);
* no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful);
* there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it.
1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news.
2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made.
3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials.
4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or:
5. ATF decides to test it independently, or:
6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or:
7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or:
8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or:
9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts.
I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
-- Kevin
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
In other news, the U.S. government ran a $1 billion dollar surplus in the month of December.
So, what you're saying is that the WMDs really weren't under Dubya's couch?!
"Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
So I guess now we can hang the banner back up?
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
It was Bush and his people who said it was "pre-emptive". So either they are wrong or they lied. You still have to pick one.
Anyways not that it matters but they do not need excuses anymore. That war on terror jocker card can be used anytime they please! Thankfully we have conditionned crowds to eat it up.
That's what you get when you vote for a puppet in the White House. That and that you, the people, just couldn't make up you mind.
find | grep WMD 2>/dev/null
It's not that hard!
I hope I'm not the only one with a deep sense of dispair for our once-great country.
it's been sold out. the rich have bought-and-paid for it with the help of religious fundamentalists.
it's juts so sad
The US Presidential election is over
/. politics section?
Hmm, didn't they want to remove the US flag from the
The lesson here is clear: If you are a nation that the US may not like, and you don't have nuclear weapons, then you are vulnerable to attack and occupation by the US. They will, if they wish to, invent lies about you having said weapons, and attack you, with or without a general concensus from the rest of the civilized world.
So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
That, my friends, is the moral of this story.
-Laxitive
"Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
... not so much.
Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,
We invaded them and they didn't attack us with WMD. What more proof do you need!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Remember the Seinfeld where Babu opens a restaurant at Jerry's suggestion and later regrets it?
... But where are WMD? You see WMD? Show me WMD. There are no WMD!
It seems oddly fitting here. Just replace the words
'people' with 'WMD'
'Babu' with 'Most of the World'
and 'Jerry' with 'GWB'
Most of the World: Quiet!! You shut up!
GWB: You know, I think I'll just take the check.
Most of the World: You bad man! You very very bad man! [leaves]
GWB thinking: Bad man? Could my mother have been wrong?
Those who opposed Bush's invasion were certainly not "anti-war". The status quo, with Saddam killing 10,000- 20,000 civlians a year on average and engaging in terrorist aggression against neighboring countries were certainly not peace.
Prior to the election it was treated as speculation and downplayed by the Whitehouse (read: the president and his innercicle of advisors) Since the election they are now admitting failures, regarding how badly the war is going (before 'these were isolated incidents' etc.), the prisoner abuse being cleaned up (now acknowledged it's still happening, even after all the alleged changes to prevent such) and finally having to face the music that the primary and urgent reason for invasion was unfounded.
For what Clinton did he was nearly impeached. For what Bush has done there's little if any talk except among 'wacko liberals'. Why do so few heads (particularly Rumsfeld's) roll in such an administration? Wasn't this fellow supposed to be the president of accountability?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The beginning of World War II had a tremendous positive effect on the American economy and helped in large part to pull the country out of the depression. In an age where most of the US military's weaponry is created by a few companies and is largely automated, does a war actually help an economy or simply overburden it with the cost of production without the offsetting abundance of jobs?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Well done warmongers. Do you have any sense of outrage yet, or do you need Bush and his sidekick, Rumsfeld (or is the other way around?) raping your close relatives to grow some balls.
Because they are turning the proverbial blind eye to the killing and maiming of Iraqi civilians in the thousends (collateral damage you know)., so maybe the only way you will react is when they turn against you and experience the horrors you are subsidizing with your taxes. Don't laugh, nightmares have a fucking habit of turn into reality.
Very few times I feel the need to despise a human being. Today I only feel uther contempt for the liars that lead you and an undescriptible outrage about how supossedly "god fearing" people can be so tremendously obtuse about the naked truth: you have been had and other people are paying with their lives for your lack of cojones.
The Brits, the Australians, so charitable with the Tsunami victims, so hypocratical and "pragmatic" for keeping the liars in executive office when they should be facing impeachment and trials.
Shame on you all. Big shame on you all.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You're wrong.
The bulk of the people don't have good access to information. And they know it. Some of them have a good excuse, busting their ass 60 hours a week makes it difficult to be informed, especially if Rush is what's playing at work. They quite reasonably distrust a very lazy media that's all but completely abdicated it's responsability. So they fall back on what they know. When in doubt trust people who look and speak like you. It's not an accident that the Republicans put so much into their bullshit folksy image.
In God they trust. More than reason. Blame corporate media.
Shhh. These enlightened progressives never said such a thing. All of these quotes come from Rush and Faux News.
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
Uh... No. The military has fairly strict requirements about what percentage of a product MUST be made in the USA. (I think it is %80 if it isnt %100) There was an issue a few years ago where a company that made the stocking caps for the navy had a label in it that said made in china. In the contract (this is in all of the contracts) it clearly stated that the caps must be made in the usa or a certain amount of it. The company had to recall all the caps and remake them as per the conditions of the contract. Anything the military buys largely, if not completely, comes from the USA. This is for two reasons. One, is so that the military is actually supporting US companies. The other, primary reason, is so that in times of war they do not have to worry about supply issues because we went to war with the country that supplies Equipment X. The military does not want to have to worry about getting anything and as such basically has it all manufactured locally. No one "buys american" like the DoD.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Yes we have completed our search, no we dont have anything to say at this point because we really ended it a month ago but didn't bother to inform you. We dont think its that relavant to the liberation of the country.
If a policeman shoots a murderer who fails to comply with the officer's demands, he is considered a hero.
If Bush destroys the government of a mass murderer (by the hundreds of thousands, mind you) who fails to comply with the demands of the U.N., he is considered a criminal.
Does anyone really believe that Saddam complied, or had any intention of complying with the U.N. resolutions?
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
It's "Were you being sarcastic?" for fuck's sake! Christ, look up the words in a fucking dictionary. Irony is a completely different concept.
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0210unres.pdf
your arguement holds no water
The Jesus I know taught peace and love. I fear that you have forgotten his message.
The Jesus I know taught me that nobody fucks with the Jesus. If you pull any of your crazy shit and flash a piece out, he'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger til it goes click.
Thank you for the links. They were informative, though I must regard the first as highly dubious--only because I'm unfamiliar with any of the sources' credibility.
I'm curious though why this uranium hasn't crossed my ears yet while reports (like tfa) that little worthy of WMDs have been found. My unfounded suspicion is that the uranium your article speaks of is of a quality that excludes the potential for being turned into a weapon. (excluding depleted uranium shells, which are useful for their heaviness, not radioactivity). I really don't know though.
The centrifuge as well is hardly damning evidence.. you could accuse 13-year-old-me of a lot for having the anarchist's cookbook, by that logic. Further, is the centrifuge essential to (or indicative of) making atomic weapons? that specific connection was never made--there is no mention of weapons in the article. Lastly, the newsmax link specifically states all highly enriched uranium was exported from Iraq in 1992, and the 2 tons you spoke of was unrefined and low-grade. Quoting from 1 link deep from your atoomspianage.com link at world-nuclear.org: "Some reactors, for example the Canadian-designed Candu and the British Magnox reactors, use natural uranium as their fuel. Most present day reactors (Light Water Reactors or LWRs) use enriched uranium where the proportion of the U-235 isotope has been increased from 0.7% to about 3 or up to 5%. (For comparison, uranium used for nuclear weapons would have to be enriched in plants specially designed to produce at least 90% U-235.)"
I'm not spitting on your face, only trying to exhibit a little due dilligence in understanding the situation. I'm sorry liberal reactionaries have distanced you from thinking liberals.
True, most of us long suspected that the WMD claims were all lies. Of course what we couldnt have expected is for the dangerous materials that we did know about to go missing also!
.
Anyone remember these stories:
Missing Iraqi nuke equipment worries IAEA
The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.
High explosives 'missing in Iraq'
The UN's nuclear watchdog has told the Security Council of the theft of nearly 350 metric tons of high explosives from a military complex in Iraq.
Even if we had found WMD in Iraq. How the hell were we going to control them when we couldnt even control the material that we DID know about. Still seems absurd to me.
Of course, I wouldnt want to suggest an ulterior motive, but it seems odd that the Oil Ministry was well protected.
Maybe the longer-term goal was to focus most anger towards an "invading force" (as perceived by people wanting to do harm to the US), thus placing soldiers in harm's way instead of average Americans living in America.
A powerful force like America has lots of options when confronted with real threats, and redirection is one of them.
They're up his ass.
Is that its savior is a Jew.
The problem is that a good liar can make it to office, and be set for four more years. Once the candidate is elected, there's no way to really reverse it.
Anyone agree with this idea? For all elected executive positions at the state and federal level, every two years during the general election, we'd always be given the choice to recall the candidates.
I want some, I want some!
Of that smoking pipe you own!
I want some!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please do. It looks pathetic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years. You can continue to point to the lack of WMD in Iraq and claim the war is unjustified, or you can look at all the good that has come out of the liberation of Iraq - the fact that tens of millions of Iraqis are tasting freedom for the first time.
_ you_wont_see_in_the_news - if you haven't seen the pics on this page yet then you need to check them out.
I know pretty much everyone on slashdot is/was against the war, but ask yourself this - if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so. The irony of the whole situation is that the liberation if Iraq is the most liberal war in American history, yet it is the liberals who are against it. What could be a more liberal cause than removing terrorist dictators from power and bringing freedom to the world?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- Kennedy at inauguration.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
http://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_from_iraq
There is no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein.
None, Zero, Zilch.
Your own Congress has said that much, Rumsfeld had accepted it. So stop it please, don't insult our intelligence.
In the run to the war humanitarian causes were never mentioned. Never. Bush's "preocupation" (hypocrate) were uniquely and exclusively WMDs.
For goodness sake, find yourself the idiotic "axis of evil speech" and look how much Iraqi people featured there.
Stop the denial, it will only delay the finding of a slution to the problem.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yea! pResident "Evil" Bush swore that Iraq would be devoid of WMD by 2005, and, thanks to his risky sacrifices, we're finally free of that terrible threat! Now, with democracy just a couple of weeks away, we'll finally see those parades and flowers he promised... what's Arabic for "funeral procession"?
--
make install -not war
You can't take the sky from me...
Has been proven to be nothing more than distorted "intelligence".
It was based on the purchase of a number of aluminium tubes that, it turns out, were destined to become conventional rockets:
You can't take the sky from me...
All the people who were in a position to speak about the weapons say there weren't any. And now you morons are saying that they got snuck out to Syria.
Give it up. GW Bush lied, and you're too fucking stupid to realize it.
Fucking cock licking cunt whore. I am ejaculating into your nose, and you are snorting it furiously. Little bitch.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
And since we know Saddam had a bioweapons program ready to ramp up at a moment's notice and was more than eager to get back into the business, only a fool would think
You can't take the sky from me...
March, 2003.. okay.
So that link I posted (http://www.atoomspionage.com/Irakrecent.htm) from JULY 2003 about them finding more parts for a centrifuge buried in a physicists garden...?
Just keep googling -- you'll find plenty more! I just picked a few random ones that came up.
Valid point, but it requires one to ignore reasonably factual information.
Do you seriously think that a 3rd world country sitting on giant fossil fuel repositories run by a mad man were looking for a cleaner more environmentally friendly energy source? Honestly now, can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that if Saddam had weapons grade uranium he'd try and make electricity out of it?
You didn't hear about this because it wouldn't get ratings. It requires a bit of thinking and the American population just isn't up to that task. Put the pieces together though: Low enriched uranium, device to make weapons grade uranium, people in place to get the job done, in a country run by a lunatic, motive to build an a-bomb.... what's the next step? This wasn't some misguided effort to make an espresso machine!
I voted for the other guy.
I was told that Iraq had something to do with 911 and had the capability to do much worse and would. Given that information, I was for the invasion of Iraq because it was retaliatory, not pre-emptive. Now that we've discovered that neither fact was true and made up, I'm against the war in Iraq and believe that the bush administration lied to us and should be impeached.
Now we're being told that sadam was an evil dictator and it was our duty to remove him from power and bring freedom to the Iraqi people. We're being told he was killing innocent Iraqi's and torturing them... I bet they're really glad that's not happening to them anymore.
If bush would have said "we're going to invade Iraq and take out sadam because he's trying to undermine our economy by selling oil for the euro rather than the dollar, because he tried to kill my daddy, because we need to insure that the American military has oil for years to come and because I owe some of my good ol' boys some favors and I want them to make a lot of money rebuilding Iraq." Then I would have been against the war, but would not have felt such an urgent need to impeach the bush administration. Likewise, if clinton had simply admitted "yep I got a bj" I'd have not felt the need to impeach him either. But they both lied to us and that cannot be tolerated in a democracy.
Before any of you right-wing nutcases think I'm some kind of a left-wing freak let me just say this... being against the war is not the same thing as being against American soldiers. I'm not the guy who's putting on a $50 million party to celebrate winning an election while the soldiers in Iraq don't have the armor they need. Let me also say that if you're going to do something, do it right... Bush Sr. should have finished the job.
The idea of a little war or police action is stupid... we need to get back to the basics of war... it's a freaking land grab and needs to be treated as such. In our civilized society we try to sugar coat it and try not claim Iraq for ourselves. We make sure that our puppets are the only ones running for election. If we get to the point were we need to use military might, the we need to do it up right and slaughter those who choose to fight us and claim the country for ourselves. However the way we do it nowadays is we put in a puppet dictator who, by definition, has no morals in the first place and wonder why they turn on us 10 or 20 years later. Of course the best thing to do, is try like hell to avoid war in the first place.
There aren't any because he was not pursuing it.
The reports only said that he intended to pursue those programs if he could.
None of the reports have even a single instance of an actual purchase or construction that would show Saddam attempting to reconstruct any of those programs.
give me a break, i'm being nice enough here. of course there's a difference there, that's why it's a comparison and not a mirror.
technical plans for centrifuge
anarchist's cookbook
if you need it spelled out: as dangerous as the potential could be, it rarely gets that far, due to my/iraq's own ineptitude and need to sneak around about it.
As a broad generalization? No. Looking at the facts in your own links without prior conclusion? Yes.
about Urenco: (http://www.exportcontrols.org/urenco.html)
"Ure
My previous post's quote said, power plants tend to use roughly 5%-enriched uranium, and weapons require specially-manufactured 90%-enriched uranium. I've tried to research what I can about the TC-11 centrifuge, but I'm still not finding that explicit link that it's a critical component to weapons-uranium, which is vastly more difficult to manufacture, and not what I'd expect a company servicing power companies to provide. However, the word 'supercritical' is tied to the centrifuge often enough, and though I haven't found the explicit meaning of that, it does sound like that could mean weapons-grade. Then again, it's also called a 'super critical GAS centrifuge' meaning it uses supercritical gas, rather than meaning it makes supercritical uranium. I tried and failed to find a source to make that distinction. My suspicions remain that the centrifuge is capable of making 5%ish and not 90%ish, and the difference in difficulties of making each is incredible.
I can make any conjecture you want me to. Let's stick to fact-finding before interpretation instead.
I've browsed too many sites to link, so instead let me pass on the best search results i got: here
Many of them seem comprehensive, but unfortunately most are dated information from 96-98ish. It's interesting though, Iraq apparantly had a much bigger centrifuge program already back when they were our allies in the 80s. Many of the sites make horrible predictions of what Iraq could have been producing had the first gulf war not happened. It's too dated and too much info overload for me to digest at the moment tho.
Other people simply cannot accept the facts until their Leader has allowed them to.Bullshit.
We had UN inspectors in Iraq PRIOR to our invasion.
It would have been the easiest thing in the world to check and confirm the "facts" that Bush was claiming he had back then.
Back then, the "reasons" given for the UN people not finding the stuff that Bush "knew" was there were:
#1. The UN people couldn't find their own ass with both hands.
#2. That just shows how well Saddam has hidden them.
Bush had an agenda and he chose which "facts" to present in his speeches to the US public.There is no stability (pseudo or otherwise) in Iraq. Go ahead and walk down any street outside the GreenZone wearing a tee shirt saying "I'm an American" and see how long you last.Look at the political assassinations that are happening right now.
Why will those stop after the elections?No, Bush lied.No, the sanctions were working and could have been left in place without any threat to the US.No, because of Bush, we only have a selection of choices of differing degrees of death and destruction that we can be responsible for.No. It will take a long time, but we can have allies again.There are 100,000+ people willing to risk their lives in Iraq. Because your chicken-hawks are happy with the situation does not mean that our troops are cowards.
From the very beginning, this has been about the neo-con agenda (that includes Bush) to establish more control in the mid-east.
Because they're a bunch of cold-war chicken-hawks, they had no understanding of the actual situation and their egos wouldn't let them believe otherwise.
Which leaves us in the quagmire we're currently in.
This is all Bush's fault. He is the man at the top. He set the schedule. He set the conditions.
You voted for him.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Looks like you're wrong.The ORIGINAL question was "WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
You failed to do so. You presented a link to a CNN story about the report, not to a specific quote in the report. You can't do that because the report does not say what you claim it says.Actually, if you read the final report, it says that they were effective. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp
"UN sanctions curbed Saddam's ability to import weapons, technology, and expertise into Iraq. Sanctions also limited his ability to finance his military, intelligence, and security forces to deal with his perceived and real external threats."Again, the actual report contradicts your claims. "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specifi c work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
So, in conclusion:
#1. Saddam was not a nuclear threat to the US.
#2. Saddam was not a chemical threat to the US.
#3. Saddam was not a biological threat to the US.
#4. Saddam was not a terrorist threat to the US.
Saddam was not a military threat to the US in any way, shape or form.
From JANUARY 2005:
You can't take the sky from me...
Actually, if you've been following the news reports closely, WMD's were found and that's been totally downplayed by everyone.
f or _terror_toxins_in_Iraq.htm
2 59.stm
Link 1 - http://middleeastreference.org.uk/ios030912.html
This describes the UK's (not the USA's) dossier on IRAQ. They felt like he was working on a nuclear program, which we now know to be the case, in mobile units, which are most likely no longer in Iraq.
http://osborn-scientific.com/PDF/Positive_test_
This link confirms that WMD's were being produced in Iraq.
This is what the BBC had to say http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2902
The French even thought that they had WMD's before we invaded.
I'm pretty ticked over all of this. After 9-11 happened, all these people sat around, whining and wringing their hands "Why didn't the government DO something?"
Now that something's being done, the same people are sitting around whining and wringing their hands "Why are we in Iraq?"
To which I reply - DUH!!!!!!!!!
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
I think most people cannot except that we were lied to aboout wmd's. If one still thinks that the war is worth it I suggest putting your money where your mouth is and enlist
This is what I first expected to happen when we invaded. Scary-sounding weapons would be "found" right away, and the US public would be eager to accept this retroactive evidence of the morality of our war.
But after some thought, it's just not tenable. Pulling off such a scheme would require the involvement of at least hundreds of people, and more likely thousands. (Military and intelligence agencies are designed to work as large cooperative bureaucracies, with lots of internal checks and paperwork on transactions. A few rogue people concealing their actions from the rest of the organization is exactly what they're designed to prevent.)
There's no way for the Administration to confidently expect every one of them to choose to keep mum for years or decades. Even if a certain number of them were to be given, "Don't ask why you're burying this shipping container, soldier!" orders, they'd pick it up pretty quickly when suddenly Fox news started showing pictures of that container and that site a week later.
It would be slightly closer to feasible for the Administration to just declare that weapons had been found, referring to no real objects whatsoever. But even in that case, you'd have many military and intelligence personnel who would expect to have some involvement in the location, disposal, verification, or documentation of this, and they'd pretty quickly figure out that not only hadn't they, neither had anyone else.
Really, this is just part of the more general rule that anything grandiose enough to be called enough a "conspiracy" is just too unstable to work.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp/ kp20040410.shtml
1 .html
. binladen/
(note date)
6 04,314700,00.html
(also note date)
/ kerry-iraq.html
m l
h tml
on on the "worldwide support we have squandered"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.ht
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD03Aa02.
The US wants very badly to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Even if the US is 100% evil, it isn't making any evil points by pissing around in Iraq. Right now Iraq is one big expense for the US. It is costing money, lives, and the ability to project strength in other places in the world. There is a reason why US is beating on Iraq repeating "HAVE ELECTIONS NOW" over and over again. The US wants Iraq to have government that they are not responsible for so that they can start handing over the responsibility of that place to someone else - and when I say handing over responsibility, I mean they want to write a check and run.
The only reason why the US has not simply packed up and left is because even the US is not that short sighted. If the US left it would create a security vacuum that would be quickly filled with civil war. I can't possibly see how leaving Iraq tomorrow would be compassionate to the Iraqi people. If the US left tomorrow, Iraq would be made up of three (or more) warring nations the next day. The US is willing to spill blood, but it isn't willing to have the amount of blood that would be spilled in the security vacuum of its leaving would create on its hands. Take even the most liberal figures of dead Iraqis and move the decimal point over once or twice if you want to understand the level of bloodshed that a security vacuum in that nation would create.
I see lots of people say that the US should just leave, but then what? What do YOU think would happen if the US left tomorrow? Would Iraq become a happy utopia land? I doubt it. If you understand even a little about the religious and ethnic friction in Iraq, you know that Iraq has all the makings of being the next Serbia. Like the Communist government that held Serbia's ethnic groups back from killing each other, the US is the only thing holding them back right now - and a quick glance at the news shows that even most powerful military on the world is having a damn hard time keeping them from killing each other. Remove the most powerful military in the world that is currently acting as a buffer between these groups and you are talking about some truly horrible bloodshed.
If you have a better idea, that doesn't involve a few million dead Iraqis locked in a civil war that would almost certainly include Syria, Iran, and Turkey, I am all ears.
In Fallujah, US military wanted to all cars from the citizens and make them wear indetyfying badges (like in ghetto). You way out would be much easier if you kept such ideas in the place where they belong (dustbin). I understand that the US can't move out today, but it should do it as fast as possible without causing civil war. What makes me angry that nobody in the US thinks that something should be done to atone for the damage they've done to Iraq and the world (the second: by undermining international law).
BTW, you mistaken Serbia with former Yugoslavian Republic, which Serbia was a part of.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
east, west, south and north
;)
Well, technically that's true...
The coolest voice ever.
Therefore I call for a complete, retroactive revocation of Godwin's law. In its place, I would like to institute the SMURF law, 'cause anyone who invokes the SMURFS to win an argument is obviously a NAZI.
Let a beleaguered SMURF long represent the tyranny of Godwin.
It's not so much about being for or against "removing terrorist dictators from power and bringing freedom to the world", as you distractedly put it. Others elsewhere in this subject have posted on how this was only one of 22 reasons (other than WMD's) given by Bush and Co AS their WMD case weakened and then fell apart.
The 'strange arithmetic' is that you seem to imply the 'trophy' in this war is to have removed a terrorist dictator (as you put it) from power, and that the price paid and being paid was/is worth it (and you quote John F. Kennedy's famous line about "..we shallpay any price, bear any burden,....in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.") to emphasise that.
Well aside from the quibbling point that JFK talked about "survival and success" which seems to me to indicate something is ALREADY alive (liberty), which for sure it was not and is still not in Iraq, {and won't be force-cloned, golemd, or Frankinstein-like brought to life by family-taking JDAM bursts and multi-generation depleted uranium poisoning), I have to wonder about the sanity in thinking the price is worth the trophy.
Strange Arithmetic I:
For instance, the present reckoning (widely discussed, minority dissented) is that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died from American/Coalition strikes since the Iraq war begun. More than 50% of those casualties are women and children, according to to the first reliable study of the death toll by Iraqi and US public health experts. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,133874 9,00.html - The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and first reported in the Lancet medical journal).
By contrast, the Vietnam War was the longest military conflict in U.S. history (1959-75 total; 65-73 US). The hostilities in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans with another 304,000 were wounded. As Richard Nixon said in 1985 "No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now" so I'm not about to get into it other than the round number of total number of Americans killed.
The comparison point is that it took Saddam some 24 years to kill (attributed) some 300,000 Iraqis (mass grave number confirmations remain today at circa 5,000 - higher numbers are at best guesstimates since no count has presently been done). So in 18 months or so we're halfway to having killed a third as many civilians as Saddam did in 24 years, and, if the figures are to be believed, just shy of killing as many women and children as we lost men in the entire conflict of Vietnam. I don't think removing Saddam is worth that price, either to us, or to those Iraqis so touched.
Sure, those Iraqis that survive us are glad Saddam is gone, but if you had been able (theoretically) to say before hand, look guys it's gonna cost you 50,000+ women and children blown to bits, and environmental poisoning that's going to be around for a few thousand years (does the raging argument about Yucca Mountain ring any bells?), I am not exactly filled with confidence that either us (the American people, not the government), or the Iraqi people would have said "Come on down!"
Strange Arithmetic II
We're just shy of having lost forever more than 1,500, mostly, young men and women who are never coming home from a war whose premise (WMDs) never existed, and was known not to exist before it began. From ALL the published formal and informal polls such as have been done and released about the inclination of the Iraqi people (Sunni and Shiites, though not the Kurds), they say (who knows what will be done) that they're intent is to form a representative Islamic government (Sharia law and other elements in some way to be included).
So here's strange arithmetic II: We pay the price and bear the burden of the lives of 1500 of our best (and the suppressed stories of the legion of our wounded, disabled
I also doubt that Bush and his merry band of criminals actually ever believed in WMDs...
I agree. It was only a ploy to get citizen support.
Now, me? I like $2/gallon gasoline, as opposed to $5 or $10. But you can't tell 250 million idiots that that's the reason we have to go kill a great many innocent bystanders. He had to lie.
The era a leader who can't lie is voted into office is the era the country falls.
The US wants Iraq to have government that they are not responsible for so that they can start handing over the responsibility of that place to someone else
The only reason the US Government thinks it is important to leave a democracy-friendly government in power is to ensure that Iraq is involved in the western capitalist ventures of the future (with U.S. companies leading the way), not because they are worried about a massive civil war. The problem with imposing sanctions on Iraq was that the government of Iraq was laughing in our face (We have oil, idiots). Of couse everyone in our government would love to abdicate themselves of the responsibility of policing Iraq, but its the price you have to pay when you want to subvert the interests of a large percentage of the people there, for your own.
Iraq was embroiled in civil and neighborly war before we invaded, and will be after we remove our troops, regardless of the superpower affiliations of any existing regime. (For that matter, they are embroiled in civil war now - most of the casualties being Iraqi on both sides of the current conflict.) It is pure rhetoric or naivete to claim that the US has any altruistic mission in the Middle East. The only thing left to discuss is the magnitude of their purely selfish motives, and in what directions they extend.
at the facts: George W. Bush stated to the country that Iraq had WMD's. They didn't.
Derive Politics
Why is Bush still sticking to the story that the invasion of Iraq = a safer America? This is only true if Saddam had viable WMD ready to use against America. If that threat is not there, then Buch can't honestly say that Iraq is about American safety.
http://www.flowers.theshoppingwiz.com
I got interested in the white house press conference from jan 14 2005 : /20 050114-3.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01
Q = reporter in the press gaggle.
MR. McCLELLAN = Scott McClellan (White House Press Secretary)
report = "Mapping the Global Future" report of the National Intelligence
Council's 2020 project located at
http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.htm l.
The key passage of the report states:
"Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide
recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language
proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalized'
and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."
Listen to the way McClellan distorts the reporters interpretation of
the passage from the report.
START -->
Q There's a report out that Iraq could become an important breeding
ground for terrorism. Is the President concerned about that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the report talks a lot more -- about a
lot more than that. We welcome the report. I think the report confirms
that our strategy of staying on the offensive and spreading freedom to
win the war on terrorism is the right approach. We are in a struggle
of epic proportions and the stakes are high, and the President
believes it's important to continue to advance freedom in a dangerous
region of the world because it will make the world a more peaceful
place, and make America more secure. And so I think that's the -- this
report is a speculative report about things that could happen in the
world, but we welcome the report and --
Q To what extent is he concerned that Iraq has become, or is becoming
a breeding ground for terrorism --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we talked about this before -- the terrorists
recognize how high the stakes are. We're fighting them abroad so that
we don't have to fight them here at home. And the way to win the war
on terrorism is to stay on the offensive and work with the
international community to bring to justice those who seek to do us
harm, and to work together to advance freedom, particularly in the
broader Middle East region. And that's how we ultimately defeat the
ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.
Q But has the war -- did the war create a vacuum that has made it more
conducive for terrorists to use Iraq as a base?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about that during the campaign. I
mean, that's just a misunderstanding of the war on terrorism.
Q -- the President to talk about this, as a central front of the war
on terrorism, when essentially, what the report is suggesting is that
it is a central front created by and essentially helping terrorism.
MR. McCLELLAN: Did the report say that?
Q -- insinuating that it's a place where it's a breeding ground for --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the report, like I said, confirms that we have
the right strategy for winning the war on terrorism, which is to stay
on the offensive and go after the terrorists, and to work to spread
freedom and hope to regions of the world that have only known tyranny
and oppression. And the war on terrorism is won by staying on the
offensive and spreading freedom.
We are staying on the offensive to defeat the terrorists, and to
suggest otherwise is just a misunderstanding. We are fighting them
abroad so that we don't have to fight them at home. The terrorists
recognize how high the stakes are. The elections coming up in Iraq are
a significant achievement for the Iraqi people, and it's another step
forward on the path to democracy in Iraq. And when we achieve peace
and democracy in Iraq, it will be a significant blow to the ambitions
of the terrorists and their ideology of hatred and oppression that
they espouse.
Q Does the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's the stakes that are involved. This i
http://www.theworldiswatching.org/
Ignorance is Strength.
Saddam's financial position was assured when he took over the country in 1979. (While we spread the blame for this, do recall that the USA supported and funded the Ba'ath party and it's coup of 1963 because the government was pro-soviet).
But he did not starve millions of children by cheating the oil for food program. The oil for food program was of itself insufficient, and did not allow the importing of pharmaceuticals that would stop infant mortality due to disease. This is why Bin Laden was anti both America and Hussein. He resented Hussein as an irreligious hedonist, but he resented America for the death and starvation of millions of innocent (Muslim) children, by mechanism of sanctions.
Talking to one of my colleagues who worked for Saddam, I gather that he spent money well and freely in trying to get food and education to the people, but development was difficult under sanctions - nonetheless very substantial irrigation projects were accomplished under Saddam Hussein, with a veiw to providing more food to the people. It was one of the things he is not hated for. There were things that he was hated for, by Bin Laden, and by others.
Saddam himself was a WMD.
Begalke
Nice stuff on social security.....
p /t-956.html
WMD, hmmmmm..... Oh yeah, the reason to go to war. (and that Saddam was a bad man- certainly not for oil!)
"Some people say" that the WMD's were moved to Syria before we got there. Debka.com, an Israeli mouthpiece with an international slant on things Middle East, said back in January 2003 that Iraq was shipping its WMD's to Syria and hiding them in farm fields. Debka is pro Israel, and pro US when it suits them. They also said Syria was next after Iraq, and then Iran- looks like they got those two backwards.(or not-see below)
On the other hand, a recent CIA analysis (the Duelfer report) of Saddam 's interviews in prison say he was playing a shell game and pretending to have WMD's. Check out this page http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.ph
to yet ANOTHER forum for discussions about the philosophy of "I know that you know that I know that you know that....".
"Special to World Tribune.com
GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT.COM
Monday, October 18, 2004
Charles Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month he could not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria.
Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, said at the Oct. 6 hearing that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war.
"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." "
Now THAT's good intelligence. We know what we know, we don't guess. We leave THAT to the FOX news "reporters". The upshot being that the report clearly stated that there were no WMD's to be found, but they could have left the country.
What I want to know is when will the Bush Admin pull out the card that says we have to go into Iran or Syria to find WMD's?
Debka.com says this: (these are the last 2 of 9 demands the US supposedly sent to Syria.)
8. Hand over to US or Iraqi authorities 55 top officials and military officers of the former Saddam regime, who are confirmed by intelligence to be established in Syria and running the guerrilla war in Iraq out of their homes and offices.
(An address, telephone number and cell phone number were listed beside each name).
But the punchline was in the last demand.
9. Syria had better make sure that none of the Kornet AT-14 anti-tank missiles which it recently purchased in large quantities from East Europe turn up in Iraq. US intelligence has recorded their serial numbers to identify their source. DEBKAfile's military sources add: Because he cannot afford to buy advanced fighter planes and tanks, Assad purchased massive quantities of the "third generation" Kornet AT-14 anti-tank weapons.
Just in case any are found in Iraq, General Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq has already received orders from the commander-in-chief in the White House to pursue military action inside Syria according to his best military judgment.
Enjoy!!!
sig wig dig jig rig big mig fig gig higg rig pig tig zig
Its easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Why should the US government be any different.
And they said zombies weren't real!
To: United Nations General Assembly We, the undersigned, urge you, the members and officers of the United Nations General Assembly, to pass a resolution against and to use all of your diplomatic and political powers to prevent an attack on the sovereign nation of Iran by the United States of America and/or her allies. Sincerely, The Undersigned http://www.petitiononline.com/NWinIran/petition.ht ml
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.