So Far, Iraq Worse Than 'Nam

[Nbadan]

CLINTON, N.Y., Oct. 24 (AScribe Newswire) -- "The nearly 2,000 Americans killed in combat (1,998 on October 24, 2005) in Iraq since 2003 are more than were lost in Vietnam combat in the first four years of U.S. combat (1961-1965, when just over 1800 died). This total is more than were lost in the last two years of combat (1971-1972, when just over 1600 died)," recounts Maurice Isserman, co-author of "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s."

"Today public opinion polls show that the percentage of Americans who believe that it was a mistake for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq is roughly comparable to the number of Americans who believed it was a mistake for the U.S. to go to war in Vietnam in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive in 1968. The principal difference between the anti-war opposition of 2005, and that of 1968, is that in the Vietnam war a significant group of Democratic Party leaders - starting with Senators Morse and Gruening in 1964 and eventually including such figures as Senators Fulbright, McCarthy, Kennedy (Robert and Ted), and McGovern - joined the opposition to the war. This lent legitimacy and influence to the opposition. Today, the Democratic party, with a few brave exceptions, mostly in the House of Representatives, is supportive of or silent about the war," observes Isserman.

MORE: Ascribe.org (http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20051024.120319&time=13)


58,249 troops are known to have died in Vietnam, but we have lost more troops in 2.5 years in Iraq than in the first four years of Nam.

[ChumpDumper]

That's marginally interesting, but it's not like we can leave anytime soon.

I would like to know what the tangible goals for Iraqi self-sufficiency are though, or if the occupation is going to be more or less permanent.

[Clandestino]

dan and his selective statistics... too funny.

[Marcus Bryant]

Difference is, major combat ops are over and, oh yeah, the US actually knocked out their target.

1965? How about '73?

[Jelly]

"The nearly 2,000 Americans killed in combat (1,998 on October 24, 2005) in Iraq since 2003 are more than were lost in Vietnam combat in the first four years of U.S. combat (1961-1965, when just over 1800 died).),"


The first combat troops did not arrive until March 8, 1965. Between '61 and '64 the U.S. only had a few thousand military advisors in Viet Nam. Sounds like you've found another deceitful source to quote.

I don't know how many Americans died between '61 and March 65, but even if it was anywhere near 1800, than you are basically comparing wartime casualties to pre-wartime casualties, which makes the Iraq situation seem fairly tame.

[SpursWoman]

Not to make light of any who have died, but you know that 500 of the 2000 were not killed in combat, right?

[boutons]

The 500 were killed how? accidents? friendly fire?

[Yonivore]

Not to make light of any who have died, but you know that 500 of the 2000 were not killed in combat, right?
Anybody counting the enemy dead?

No?

Why not? It's the only fact that's even remotely relevant to even bringing up the number of American dead.

[boutons]

"Anybody counting the enemy dead?"

Enemy body counts are back. They were meaningless in Viet Nam as a measure of "progress" in "winning" that war, who expects them to be useful now?

dubya's SOB's are desparate to show ANYTHING positive coming out of Iraq, so body counts are back.


==========================

washingtonpost.com


Enemy Body Counts Revived

U.S. Is Citing Tolls to Show Success in Iraq

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; A01

Eager to demonstrate success in Iraq, the U.S. military has abandoned its previous refusal to publicize enemy body counts and now cites such numbers periodically to show the impact of some counterinsurgency operations.

The revival of body counts, a practice discredited during the Vietnam War, has apparently come without formal guidance from the Pentagon's leadership. Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said they knew of no written directive detailing the circumstances under which such figures should be released or the steps that should be taken to ensure accuracy.

Instead, they described an ad hoc process that has emerged over the past year, with authority to issue death tolls pushed out to the field and down to the level of division staffs.

So far, the releases have tended to be associated either with major attacks that netted significant numbers of enemy fighters or with lengthy operations that have spanned days or weeks. On Saturday, for instance, the U.S. military reported 20 insurgents killed and one captured in raids on five houses suspected of sheltering foreign fighters in a town near the Syrian border. Six days earlier, the 2nd Marine Division issued a statement saying an estimated 70 suspected insurgents had died in the Ramadi area as a result of three separate airstrikes by fighter jets and helicopters.

That Oct. 16 statement reflected some of the pitfalls associated with releasing such statistics. The number was immediately challenged by witnesses, who said many of those killed were not insurgents but civilians, including women and children.

Privately, several uniformed military and civilian defense officials expressed concern that the pendulum may have swung too far, with body counts now creeping into too many news releases from Iraq and Afghanistan. They also questioned the effectiveness of citing such figures in conflicts where the enemy has shown itself capable of rapidly replacing dead fighters and where commanders acknowledge great uncertainty about the total size of the enemy force.

Nevertheless, no formal review of the practice has been ordered, according to spokesmen at the Pentagon and in Baghdad. Several senior officers and Pentagon officials involved in shaping communications strategies argued that the occasional release of body counts has important value, particularly when used to convey the scale of individual operations.

"Specific numbers are used to periodically provide context and help frame particular engagements," said Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, director of communications for the U.S. military command in Baghdad. He added, however, that there is no plan "to issue such numbers on a regular basis to score progress."

During the Vietnam War, enemy body counts became a regular feature in military statements intended to demonstrate progress. But the statistics ended up proving poor indicators of the war's course. Pressure on U.S. units to produce high death tolls led to inflated tallies, which tore at Pentagon credibility.

"In Vietnam, we were pursuing a strategy of attrition, so body counts became the measure of performance for military units," said Conrad C. Crane, director of the military history institute at the U.S. Army War College. "But the numbers got so wrapped up with career aspirations that they were sometimes falsified."

The Vietnam experience led U.S. commanders to shun issuing enemy death tallies in later conflicts, through the initial stages of the Iraq war. "We don't do body counts on other people," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in November 2003, when asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether the number of enemy dead exceeded the U.S. toll.

That policy appeared to shift with the assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah in November, an operation considered crucial at the time to denying safe havens to enemy fighters. U.S. military officials reported 1,200 to 1,600 enemy fighters killed, although reporters on the scene noted far fewer corpses were found by Marines after the fighting.

A surge in enemy activity this year has generated a corresponding increase in offensives by U.S. and Iraqi forces -- and a rise in the number of U.S. military statements containing numbers of enemy killed.

High-ranking commanders also have contributed to the trend. In January, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, said U.S. and Iraqi forces had killed or captured 15,000 people last year. In May, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned the killing of 250 of insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" as evidence of progress in Iraq.

The Pentagon says its policy is still to try to avoid publicizing enemy body counts. But the U.S. military command in Baghdad does keep a running tally of enemy dead that is classified, and field commanders now have authority to release death tolls for isolated engagements in the interest, officials said, of countering enemy propaganda and conveying the size and presumed effectiveness of some U.S. military operations.

"For a discrete operation, it's a metric that can help convey magnitude and context," said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman.

The release of such figures also can serve to boost the morale of U.S. forces and bolster confidence "that their plans and weapons work effectively," said Marine Lt. Col. David Lapan, spokesman for the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, which operates in western Iraq.

Lapan said in an e-mail message that no "threshold" exists for deciding when to release an enemy death toll, adding that such decisions are made "on a case-by-case basis."

He indicated that the numbers are frequently derived from advance estimates of how many enemy fighters are at a targeted site, which explains why the death counts can sometimes get released so soon after an attack. Lapan said improvements in surveillance and targeting techniques allow for "greater certainty about the numbers of casualties we inflict in some situations."

In the case of the disputed Oct. 16 tally in Ramadi, Lapan stood by the figure of 70 enemy dead, saying the Marines "had information from a variety of sources that gave us confidence in the number of enemy fighters killed in the engagements."

Still, defense specialists such as Crane cautioned that enemy body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan are prone to inaccuracy and are of questionable significance. The murky nature of the conflicts, they said, make it difficult to know at times who is an insurgent, a criminal or an innocent civilian.

"There still are problems in identifying who is who, just as there were in Vietnam," Crane said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

================================

Transcript
Enemy Body Counts Used
U.S. Once Again Publicly Acknowledges Numbers

Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; 1:00 PM

Washington Post staff writer Bradley Graham was online Monday, Oct. 24, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his story on the U.S.'s use of body counts, a practice abandoned after the Vietnam War but now unofficially reinstated to demonstrate success against the insurgency in Iraq.

Enemy Body Counts Revived. ( By Bradley Graham, Oct. 24, 2005

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Bradley,

Given how much the Pentagon strove to avoid Iraq/Vietnam comparisons, why would they reinstate enemy body counts as part of the daily news cycle? If anything, those counts were part of what ended up souring so much of the public on Vietnam, as they seemed to become a symbol of the administration's detachment from reality.

Bradley Graham: There's no plan that I found to make the enemy body counts part of any daily cycle. The trend lately has been to release such figures only occasionally, when the estimated numbers of enemy killed are particularly significant. As for why they are releasing any at all, they say it has to do mostly with an attempt to counter enemy propaganda and also convey to the public the scale and significance of certain operations.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Has the death of the 18 children been confirmed in the death of 70 "insurgencies" last week. That brings up the question of how are targets confirmed to be insurgence before an attack is made.

Bradley Graham: I'm not aware of any military confirmation of the 18 number. And the Marines are standing by their initial estimate of 70 insurgents. They're saying they had multiple confirmations of that figure, but they haven't specified who or what those confirming sources were.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: One of the most shocking aspects of the U.S. occupation of Iraq has been the American unwillingness to acknowledge the number of civilians killed by U.S. forces. But, at least, they weren't putting forward "body counts" of suspected enemies killed, as they did in Vietnam.

Now that the policy has changed to report the number of suspected enemies killed, will DoD spokesmen to report the number of innocent civilians killed?

Bradley Graham: I'm not aware of any plan to start reporting on the number of innocent civilians killed. One of the questionable gaps in the U.S. military's approach to targeting, as I've pointed out to senior officials many times, is the lack of effort that goes into determining just how many civilians were killed in an air strike. This contrasts with the meticulous pre-strike planning that the military says is done to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: How can they count bodies of enemies when the enemies don't wear a uniform or identifying clothes? Since many civilians are apparently killed in the course of killing these enemies, won't they get counted too? I don't think it'll show how successful we are to be counting dead civilians. How will they differentiate?

Bradley Graham: Military officials say they have ways of differentiating. But in the field, soldiers talk about the difficulty of knowing who all the bad guys are and distinguishing them from the rest. This is the point that Conrad Crane, the military historian, makes in the story.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Any fear of 'My Lai II' in an effort to 'pad the numbers'????

Bradley Graham: Sure, some worry about such falsification creeping into the process again. And it's not clear to me what steps are being taken to guard against that.

_______________________

Pacifica, Calif.: So the failed policy from Vietnam of reporting on the number of enemy killed has returned.

I haven't seen corresponding reporting by the Pentagon of the number of civilians, mostly women and children, killed during military engagements. I suppose the U.S. "precision" strikes rarely involve civilians.

Please explain how the Pentagon counts the number of insurgents killed from a jet traveling near supersonic speed at an altitude of 25 to 30,000 feet. At times, these numbers seem to come out of thin air, literally.

When reports on the ground clearly contradict the claims that civilians are not killed in these attacks it throws into question all that we are told. How can a mere observer of events (i.e. your readers) make heads or tails of what is really going on?

Bradley Graham: For air strikes by high-flying, fast-moving jets, the casualty counts appear to be derived from advance estimates of how many bad guys were suspected of being at or in the targeted site just before it was struck. Military officials say a lot of work goes into determining this number, using various surveillance and reconnaissance methods. The estimate, they say, weighs heavily in the decision to hit the target in the first place. As for sorting out differing accounts after a particular incident, there's often nothing a reader can do at first except to keep an open mind and wait for further reporting to determine the truth.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: The attack on Fallujah in April, 2004 by the Marines was apparently cut short by the Pentagon when reports of mass civilian casualties (600 or more) were released by reporters on the ground there. The soccer stadium was actually turned into a burial ground.

I believe the release of enemy body counts became more common in this general time frame. Do you think reports from events like Fallujah helped lead the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq to counter the "on the ground" reporting of "collateral damage" with their own numbers?

Bradley Graham: My impression is that at least part of the impetus for the revival of enemy body counts has come from the military's desire to counter reports of collateral damage, which are indeed played up by Zarqawi's network and others.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: I was a bit surprised and disturbed by the prominence of your article about enemy body counts in Iraq on the Post's front page.

I follow war news as closely as anybody and have not gotten the impression at all that the military or administration is trying to make their case through tallies of enemy dead a la McNamara and Vietnam. In fact, it's been the opposite -- they repeatedly emphasize that Iraq will not - and cannot - be won by conventional military means.

The examples cited in the article are from official counts of engagements where it would have made little sense to NOT give the estimated enemy casualties (along with the American and Iraqi dead and wounded). And if the military hadn't announced the enemy dead, wouldn't journalists like yourself pressed them for an estimate?

Aside from what's in the article itself (and this is directed at The Post's editors, not you) the placement and headline suggests what many in the military suspect about the elite media --- that as a cultural and political matter their instinct is to turn Iraq into the Vietnam narrative, regardless of what's actually happening on the ground.

Bradley Graham: The purpose of the article wasn't to argue that the selective release of body counts is a good or bad thing. Simply that it had started up again. It may be, as you suggest, a sensible thing to try to do. But the fact is, it wasn't being done for years. And there are risks associated with doing so, which the story points out.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your columns and chat. Do you know why we don't have independent reporting on the Iraq war as we used to have for Vietnam?

Bradley Graham: I think we have a lot of excellent independent reporting, with a number of journalists putting their own lives at risk to deliver it.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: On the question of whether civilians would be counted towards the death count, will there be a distinction between civilian terrorists killed and professional combatants killed, and how will they make such a determination as to how fits into a category that is counted?

Bradley Graham: So far, no such distinction is being made in the numbers being released. And I doubt there'll be an attempt to differentiate between hardcore insurgents and others drawn into the fight.

_______________________

Winthrop, Mass.: Are you sure that the military is not putting the effort into real civilian body and damage counts? That would be a serious betrayal of future military efforts to not gather this vital data. It's made even worst by the uniqueness of the current military effort combined with its likelihood of being repeated else where time and time again. Does the military give a reason for not gathering the data? Perhaps they are simply suppressing the information.

Bradley Graham: The military does do extensive bomb-damage assessments, looking at how close a munition came to hitting where it was supposed to hit. But it doesn't try to determine exactly how many innocent victims actually died in an attack. The reason I've been given is that this would be too time consuming and require too many resources to do so. But I agree that gathering such information would seem essential to ensuring that targeting methods improve and that even more is done in the future to avoid civilian casualties.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Since the military seems to have so much information about the Iraqis and other "insurgents" before they call in those precision strikes, can they give estimates on approximately how many people they will have to kill in Iraq to win the war?

Bradley Graham: Seems they're having a hard enough time just trying to figure out how big the insurgency is. Such estimates vary widely and often are caveated with statements from military officials saying no one really knows.

_______________________

Montgomery, Ala.: Wouldn't you agree that releasing the enemy body count could boost the morale of our soldiers and their families.?

Bradley Graham: I think that's certainly part of the rationale for releasing some of the numbers.

_______________________

Belmond, Iowa: Does the U.S. military of 2005 have a policy on what to do with corpses after a battle? I know in WWII they had a "Graves Registration" detail to handle the bodies of both American and Axis dead after a battle. What are they doing in Iraq after the fighting has stopped in a particular area?

Bradley Graham: Normal practice, I'm told, is either to bury enemy bodies or hand them over to local representatives for burial. You may have noticed the recent story from Afghanistan alleging that some U.S. troops there burned and desecrated two Taliban corpses. That purported incident is now under criminal investigation.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Has there been much discussion about the reasonableness of continued prominent reporting of deaths and "body count" from enemy strikes in the media? In other words, is it not a bit misleading -- and not a very helpful exercise in understanding the progress of the war -- to have newspaper headlines (like in today's Washington Post Express) on the death tally from enemy terrorist attacks in Iraq?

Bradley Graham: I hope we never get to the point in the Iraq conflict, or any other conflict in which U.S. soldiers are dying, where we fail to give appropriate prominence to the sacrifices those troops are making.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: The problem with body counts has always been that the objective of war is to defeat your enemy, not just kill people. Does the Pentagon have any figures on what parts of the country are under the control of, or endangered by, the insurgency? That's the only meaningful measure.

Bradley Graham: The Pentagon doesn't provide that kind of statistic. What it likes to point out is that most of the fighting is concentrated in 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces, although those 4 include some of the most populous. Commanders in Iraq will acknowledge that some parts of those provinces--which tend to be where U.S. or Iraqi military presence is lightest--do have insurgent groups moving around relatively unchallenged and effectively controlling some towns and villages.

_______________________

Bradley Graham: Regretfully, I need to sign off now. Apologies to those whose queries I haven't been able to answer. Thanks to everyone for participating.

[RandomGuy]

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends_files/image001.gif


According to the website that tracks these things (http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx), the count it 2199 coalition soldiers killed with 493 killed in accidents. The largest non-hostile fire cause of death is traffic accidents at 180, with helicopter crashes a distant second at 67, and a multitude of other causes comprising the rest. (heart attacks, illness, suicide, etc)

US casualties have hit exactly 2000, pending current confirmation of 3 current deaths.

[RandomGuy]

The interesting thing about this whole thing is that an estimated 36% of Iraqi civilian deaths are attributed to Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all Iraqi civilian deaths.


That translates into over 10000 deaths in two years.

Hardly a case for the Iraqis being "better off" under Bush Administration rule.

[Yonivore]

The interesting thing about this whole thing is that an estimated 36% of Iraqi civilian deaths are attributed to Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all Iraqi civilian deaths.


That translates into over 10000 deaths in two years.

Hardly a case for the Iraqis being "better off" under Bush Administration rule.

Really? I thought 50,000 children were starving each year and that Saddam killed about 300,000 Shi'ites in the South - between 1991 and the invasion.

And, who's responsible for the criminal deaths? The insurgents and terrorists, that's who. I say blame them.

[RandomGuy]

Really? I thought 50,000 children were starving each year and that Saddam killed about 300,000 Shi'ites in the South - between 1991 and the invasion.

And, who's responsible for the criminal deaths? The insurgents and terrorists, that's who. I say blame them.


:spin

Actually the formal insurgency is listed as causing about 9% of the deaths.

You say blame the insurgency because any other conclusion points to the uncomfortable fact that post-invastion security by the Bush Administration has been... less than stellar.

[Yonivore]

:spin

Actually the formal insurgency is listed as causing about 9% of the deaths.

You say blame the insurgency because any other conclusion points to the uncomfortable fact that post-invastion security by the Bush Administration has been... less than stellar.
Well, shit! pre-invasion security by the Hussein Administration wasn't all that hot either...THEY GOT FUCKING INVADED!

[RandomGuy]

Well, shit! pre-invasion security by the Hussein Administration wasn't all that hot either...THEY GOT FUCKING INVADED!

:wtf

Um, yeah.

I am talking about security as in being able to walk down the street without getting bombed by one side or another, not security as in military terms.

Keep spinning.

[Yonivore]

:wtf

Um, yeah.

I am talking about security as in being able to walk down the street without getting bombed by one side or another, not security as in military terms.

Keep spinning.
I guess that would have depended on whether or not you were a friend of the Ba'athis regime, now wouldn't it?

I guess you've forgotten the rape rooms and plastics shredders.

[boutons]

"who's responsible for the criminal deaths?"

Who's responsible for guaranteeing the public safety in Iraq?

The Repubs failure to establish public safety and lawfulness after the invasion "broke Iraq" is the second most glariing failure of the war. As many in the public can see now, as many insiders pointed out, the Repubs rushed into war, with the priority of the 2004 elections, with not enough soldiers, and obviously no planning for the post-invasion phase. rummy shrug his shoulders "stuff happens". lying bastard. He said he had enough troops, he didn't, but he destroyed Shinsheki's career for telling the truth about realistic troop levels.

The failure of the Repubs to assure public safety, to "police" Iraq, has hampered reconstruction of infrastructure, made nearly impossible the reliable provision of basic services like water, electricity, sewage, has hindered democratization, has greatly lengthened the entire occupation (where occupation = death to US and Iraqis).

Sadams' hell has been exchanged for the Repub hell, where the second hell is directly the responsibility and due to the incompetence of the Repubs to execute the war they so lovingly desired.

[nkdlunch]

Difference is, major combat ops are over and, oh yeah, the US actually knocked out their target.


have they?? Why are people still getting killed then?

[RandomGuy]

I guess that would have depended on whether or not you were a friend of the Ba'athis regime, now wouldn't it?

I guess you've forgotten the rape rooms and plastics shredders.


That would be from the people who were detained without trial?

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/145/1296/640/notagulag.jpg

and from the people that were tortured?

http://www.shifting-gears.com/prisoner-abuse-iraq1.jpg


You see the hypocrisy there, right? Then again, probably not.

I know what good the US is capable of, and that is why when we do less than moral things, it drives me crazy. Conservatives in general are unable to admit the other side of the coin, that when we act anything less than 100% morally, we lose that irreplacable commodity: moral authority.

It is images such as those above that make the terrorists case for them. Thanks, GW, I feel a lot safer now that our enemies have ready made propaganda pictures to recruit with.

Losing that moral authority is one of those "intangible" costs/issues of this war that our administration seems incapable of grasping, among so many others.

[Yonivore]

That would be from the people who were detained without trial?

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/145/1296/640/notagulag.jpg

and from the people that were tortured?

http://www.shifting-gears.com/prisoner-abuse-iraq1.jpg


You see the hypocrisy there, right? Then again, probably not.

I know what good the US is capable of, and that is why when we do less than moral things, it drives me crazy. Conservatives in general are unable to admit the other side of the coin, that when we act anything less than 100% morally, we lose that irreplacable commodity: moral authority.

It is images such as those above that make the terrorists case for them. Thanks, GW, I feel a lot safer now that our enemies have ready made propaganda pictures to recruit with.

Losing that moral authority is one of those "intangible" costs/issues of this war that our administration seems incapable of grasping, among so many others.
Enemy combatants aren't due due process...and, the United States of America is vigorously prosecuting those, in the military, that are engaging in criminal acts against detainees, prisoners, and suspected terrorists.

So, what's your point?

There are several hundred thousand military personnel involved in the Iraqi and Afghani operations, painting our entire military and its administration with the brush of a few idiots is irresponsible. Idiots, I hasten to add, that have been held accountable for their actions and are now suffering the consequences.

[gtownspur]

Yeah Random Guy! Fuck the COnstitutiuon and lets finger our clits and masturbate European international dictates so that we can give terrorist a chance at federal courts, which the constitution strictly allows to deny.

[RandomGuy]

Enemy combatants aren't due due process...and, the United States of America is vigorously prosecuting those, in the military, that are engaging in criminal acts against detainees, prisoners, and suspected terrorists.

So, what's your point?

There are several hundred thousand military personnel involved in the Iraqi and Afghani operations, painting our entire military and its administration with the brush of a few idiots is irresponsible. Idiots, I hasten to add, that have been held accountable for their actions and are now suffering the consequences.

They are enemy combatants because a government has waved it's hand and said they don't deserve trials. Is this any different logically than what you were just criticizing Saddam for doing?

I understand your point about Abu Gharaib and the "bad apples" thing and agree with it.

It was not OK for Saddam to torture people that he thought were dangerous to the Iraqi state, but our administration has been advocating shipping people to countries where they DO torture people, and to do loosen the prohibitions that restrain our military from doing similar things. Again, how is that logically different?

Torture is OK or it isn't. Denying people trials is OK or it isn't.

Pick one and stick with it. Double standards make us hypocrites and make us into the monsters we are fighting. I wish people who think detaining people forever without a trial were morally developed enough to see the inherent immorality of such, but as such I can only pray for people to see evil for what it is.

[Spurminator]

Question... If Iraq was in the state it is currently in, and it were not a cause of any US Military action, would we be justified in taking action to try to bring stability? Would the UN?

I don't really have an opinion on this but I'm curious to hear some of your opinions.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah Random Guy! Fuck the COnstitutiuon and lets finger our clits and masturbate European international dictates so that we can give terrorist a chance at federal courts, which the constitution strictly allows to deny.

I was willing to die for the constitution as a member of the armed forces and still am.

It doesn't make us any less strong to give even those who want to kill us trials. It is the moral thing to do.

If you lack enough moral sense to realize that, I geniunely feel sorry for you. It always saddens me to see spiritually stunted people screaming for blood, and denying God-given humanity to people.

Men like Ghandi, Jesus, or Martin Luther King Jr. were no less "strong" because they chose a higher path. On the contrary, it made the force of their arguments and causes much stronger, and they eventually won over physically more powerful foes.

THAT is the power of moral authority.

It is also a "long run" solution. Our culture tends to focus on the short term too much, and that focus costs us more in the long run sometimes, as does some of our current policies.

[Yonivore]

They are enemy combatants because a government has waved it's hand and said they don't deserve trials. Is this any different logically than what you were just criticizing Saddam for doing?

I understand your point about Abu Gharaib and the "bad apples" thing and agree with it.

It was not OK for Saddam to torture people that he thought were dangerous to the Iraqi state, but our administration has been advocating shipping people to countries where they DO torture people, and to do loosen the prohibitions that restrain our military from doing similar things. Again, how is that logically different?

Torture is OK or it isn't. Denying people trials is OK or it isn't.

Pick one and stick with it. Double standards make us hypocrites and make us into the monsters we are fighting. I wish people who think detaining people forever without a trial were morally developed enough to see the inherent immorality of such, but as such I can only pray for people to see evil for what it is.
Acts of War and Criminal Acts are different and, therein lies the fundamental difference...

[Nbadan]

Question... If Iraq was in the state it is currently in, and it were not a cause of any US Military action, would we be justified in taking action to try to bring stability? Would the UN?

I don't really have an opinion on this but I'm curious to hear some of your opinions.

There are countries, even in the ME, with bigger structural problems than Iraq. I will repeat what I said in 2001 - going into Iraq without first solving the Palestinian crisis is foolish.

[RandomGuy]

There are several hundred thousand military personnel involved in the Iraqi and Afghani operations, painting our entire military and its administration with the brush of a few idiots is irresponsible. Idiots, I hasten to add, that have been held accountable for their actions and are now suffering the consequences.

I don't agree with the thesis that our troops are monsters. They are far from it. They are some of the best we have to offer, period.

The sad reality is that we are all much less safe because of Bush Administration f***-ups. Turn off the spin machine please, I want a dose of reality.


painting our entire military and its administration with the brush of a few idiots is irresponsible.

pfft: answer this one question:

Do our enemies care about what is responsible?

[RandomGuy]

Acts of War and Criminal Acts are different and, therein lies the fundamental difference...


Mr. Emperor, you have have no clothes...

When wars end, we free the combatants.

When we will win the war and free these men?

[Yonivore]

Mr. Emperor, you have have no clothes...

When wars end, we free the combatants.

When we will win the war and free these men?
When the enemy is defeated or surrenders unconditionally.

[RandomGuy]

When the enemy is defeated or surrenders unconditionally.

"the enemy?"

Which government will sign the surrender?

How many years will this war take?

[RandomGuy]

What constitutes "defeated"?

[Yonivore]

What constitutes "defeated"?
Unconditional surrender or a forced cessation of hostilities through aggressive military action (translation: Kill 'em all).

[RandomGuy]

Unconditional surrender or a forced cessation of hostilities through aggressive military action (translation: Kill 'em all).

How do we know when they are all killed?

What if aggressive military action creates more enemies than it kills?

Is this "war" 100% winnable?
Our own president has said it isn't. Are you calling him a liar?

[RandomGuy]

Everybody who reads this knows you can't answer the questions.

You can't answer the questions because logic and morality is simply not on your side, but you are too stubborn to admit it. You can't handle the truth.

[Yonivore]

"the enemy?"

Which government will sign the surrender?
Ah, well, this is a non-traditional enemy -- isn't it? I'd take a surrender signed by Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, and Zarqawi along with their call to all Jihadies to lay down their arms and cease all terrorist acts.

It also wouldn't hurt if all the Mad Mullahs around the globe would cease their instruction of hate in the Madrassas (sp?) and would also come out and openly condemn acts of terrorism, admit the error of seeking a global caliphate, and recognize non-Muslims as human beings.

That'd be a start -- and, I'd certainly consider releasing, to their countries of origins, those detainees that would affirm their compliance to these calls for a cessation of terrorism from the "surrendering" terrorist leaders around the globe.

We've already defeated the Taliban and the Ba'athist regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq so, their surrender is no longer required. And, we've gained a measure of compliance from Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

I'd say the end of the war is closer today than it was on September 11, 2001.


How many years will this war take?
As many as it takes.

[RandomGuy]

Once again:

What government will sign the surrender?

How many years will this "war" take?

[RandomGuy]

Ah, well, this is a non-traditional enemy -- isn't it? I'd take a surrender signed by Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, and Zarqawi along with their call to all Jihadies to lay down their arms and cease all terrorist acts.


This will never happen and you know it.

SO

You are saying that we detain these men forever without a trial.

Then in the same breath you say that Saddam was wrong for detaining people without trial.

The noun hypocrite has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold
Synonyms: dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender

Which belief do you hold?

It is OK to deny people trials or it isn't?

[Yonivore]

Once again:

What government will sign the surrender?

How many years will this "war" take?
Can't help you there. You apparently want an answer that fits into your breadth of understanding.

[RandomGuy]

We've already defeated the Taliban and the Ba'athist regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq so, their surrender is no longer required. And, we've gained a measure of compliance from Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

I'd say the end of the war is closer today than it was on September 11, 2001.



:lol

If we were fighting "Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia." I might agree with you.

You can't even define who we are fighting, let alone how long it would take or what it will take to win.

If you say you can do any of those things to any certain degree, please let the government in on this special insight, I am sure they could use it. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

This will never happen and you know it.
No, I don't know that. There were people who thought the Japanese would never surrender -- but, they did. Ditto the Germans.



SO

You are saying that we detain these men forever without a trial.
If that keeps them from rejoining their fellow terrorists and re-engaging Coalition troops on the battlefield? Yep.


Then in the same breath you say that Saddam was wrong for detaining people without trial.
I guess that would depend on his justification for doing so. It would also depend on whether or not we agreed with his justification for doing so.


The noun hypocrite has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold
Synonyms: dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender

Which belief do you hold?
You're a simple-minded man, aren't you?

It is OK to deny people trials or it isn't?
War/Crime. There's a difference...

[Yonivore]

:lol

If we were fighting "Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia." I might agree with you.

You can't even define who we are fighting, let alone how long it would take or what it will take to win.

If you say you can do any of those things to any certain degree, please let the government in on this special insight, I am sure they could use it. :rolleyes
I think it is you that doesn't recognize the enemy...Not all wars are fought on the battlefield.

[RandomGuy]

I think it is you that doesn't recognize the enemy...Not all wars are fought on the battlefield.

REALLY?

So when you said that we would win through "aggressive military action" you were just talking out your ass?
:wow

[Yonivore]

REALLY?

So when you said that we would win through "aggressive military action" you were just talking out your ass?
:wow
You're a boring twit RG.

Aggressive military action WHERE and WHEN necessary. Obviously, it didn't require that to bring Libya into line; and, it appears Syria may self-destruct. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are still playing a balancing act between being Western-friendly and Islamo-fascist-facilitators.

Continue being dense...you and I have been down this road before and, this time, I'm leaning toward putting you in the ban box with Nbadan and boutons.

[RandomGuy]

You're a boring twit RG.

Aggressive military action WHERE and WHEN necessary. Obviously, it didn't require that to bring Libya into line; and, it appears Syria may self-destruct. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are still playing a balancing act between being Western-friendly and Islamo-fascist-facilitators.

Continue being dense...you and I have been down this road before and, this time, I'm leaning toward putting you in the ban box with Nbadan and boutons.

I am only a boring twit because I am right.

Your arguments are morally and logically weak. As much as you may attack me, that will not change and everbody who reads this knows it.

[Yonivore]

I am only a boring twit because I am right.

Your arguments are morally and logically weak. As much as you may attack me, that will not change and everbody who reads this knows it.
No, you're a boring twit because you talk in circles and use illogical arguments.

I'm satisfied with my responses to your nonsense and perfectly willing to let them stand to be read by all.

[RandomGuy]

You're a boring twit RG.

Aggressive military action WHERE and WHEN necessary. Obviously, it didn't require that to bring Libya into line


What brought Libya into line wasn't the invasion of Iraq.

Libya was brought into line because it's oil infrastructure was on the verge of complete collapse. Qadaffi Duck knew this and rather than have the country in an open revolt because the oil dollars stopped, he gave up his programs. Simple economics and self-survival, but hardly fear of the US.

[Yonivore]

What brought Libya into line wasn't the invasion of Iraq.

Libya was brought into line because it's oil infrastructure was on the verge of complete collapse. Qadaffi Duck knew this and rather than have the country in an open revolt because the oil dollars stopped, he gave up his programs. Simple economics and self-survival, but hardly fear of the US.
What brought Libya into line was the invasion of Iraq.

[Yonivore]

Here, read for yourself:

Lessons from Libya and North Korea’s Strategic Choice: Questions and Answers (http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/34675.htm)


QUESTION: Could you elaborate on the role played by … (inaudible) Kim of Korea University. I want you to elaborate on the roles played by the U.K. in the negotiations between Libya and the U.S. and, particularly, whether you have some kind of relevant application of the role in the case of North Korea, for example, whether Japan can play such a (inaudible)-taking role in the negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: I think the role played by the United Kingdom was critical. In fact, it was the United Kingdom that Libya first approached just a very short time before the onset of military force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, saying basically that he didn’t want to have happen to him what was about to happen to Saddam Hussein. So, really the role of the British was most important from the outset. Of course, the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom with respect to Libya had a number of elements in common, not the least of which was the fact that the Pan Am 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, and that a number of unfortunate civilian victims were killed on the ground as well as U.K. citizens killed in the crash itself. We had worked very closely with the United Kingdom over the years in trying to resolve not just Pan Am 103, but a range of other terrorist actions that the government of Libya had committed.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom was the joint work that our intelligence communities had been doing for several years and following the Khan proliferation network and watching its intimate connection with Libya and other countries and the danger that the continuing activity of Khan’s network posed. So that our action through the Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict the shipment of uranium centrifuge equipment bound for Libya in late October 2003 was a critical element in convincing Qaddafi that we knew what he was doing.

I think the most significant political aspect was that the United States and the United Kingdom came to share the judgment that the Libyan government had made this strategic decision to give up the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It was that shared assessment that allowed us to stay closely together in the negotiations. I think it’s fair to say that, so far, in the case of Japan and the Republic of Korea in particular, there’s a shared assessment on the position that the North has taken in the negotiations and the position that we have that we want the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the North’s weapons of mass destruction programs.

[RandomGuy]

No, you're a boring twit because you talk in circles and use illogical arguments.

I'm satisfied with my responses to your nonsense and perfectly willing to let them stand to be read by all.

Let's try logic then.

I will present a logical arugment and you try to refute it.

A--detaining people forever without trials is bad.
B--Saddam detains people forever without trials.
C--The USA detains people forever without trials.

(1) If Saddam detains people forever without trials, then Saddam is bad.

(2) If the US detains people forever without trials, then the US is bad.

This is very simple logic. You admitted that you agreed with premises A, B, and C. So therefore both conclusions 1 and 2 must be logically correct.

[RandomGuy]

What brought Libya into line was the invasion of Iraq.


Please offer proof for this assertion.

I will offer proof for mine momentarily.

[Yonivore]

Let's try logic then.

I will present a logical arugment and you try to refute it.

A--detaining people forever without trials is bad.
Unless releasing them is worse.

B--Saddam detains people forever without trials.
Not anymore.

C--The USA detains people forever without trials.
If they are enemy combatants.

(1) If Saddam detains people forever without trials, then Saddam is bad.

(2) If the US detains people forever without trials, then the US is bad.

This is very simple logic. You admitted that you agreed with premises A, B, and C. So therefore both conclusions 1 and 2 must be logically correct.
No, it's very simplistic logic...there's a difference, and you should learn it.

[RandomGuy]

US government report on Libya (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/libya.html)

Oil export revenues, which account for over 95% of Libya's hard currency earnings (and 75% of government receipts), were hurt severely by... reduced oil exports and production -- in part as a result of US and UN sanctions. With higher oil prices since 1999, however, Libyan oil export revenues have increased sharply, to $18.1 billion in 2004 and a forecast $19.4 billion in 2005, up from only $5.9 billion in 1998. Even with increased oil export revenues, Libya's budget remains highly vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices.

Overall, Libya would like foreign company help to increase the country's oil production capacity from 1.60 million bbl/d at present to 2 million bbl/d by 2008-2010, and to 3 million bbl/d by 2015. In order to achieve this goal, and also to upgrade its oil infrastructure in general, Libya is seeking as much as $30 billion in foreign investment over that period.

The lifting of U.N. and U.S. sanctions, along with possible changes to Libya's 1955 hydrocarbons legislation (the country is drafting a new hydrocarbons law to cover all types of contracts), is likely to prove extremely helpful in boosting the country's oil output. Sanctions had caused delays in a number of field development and Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects, and had deterred foreign capital investment to a significant extent. Also the full lifting of sanctions is important for Libya's oil industry since U.S. companies are leaders in advanced oil and gas technologies, many of which they have under patent.

[RandomGuy]

[Detaining people forever is bad] Unless releasing them is worse.

So you don't think that Premise A was a valid one.

Ok, you set up a logical agument then.

[RandomGuy]

oooh here's another good one from the same report:

Libya's refining sector reportedly was hard hit by UN sanctions, specifically UN Resolution 883 of November 11, 1993, which banned Libya from importing refinery equipment. Libya is seeking a comprehensive upgrade to its entire refining system, with a particular aim of increasing output of gasoline and other light products (i.e. jet fuel). Possible projects include a new 20,000-bbl/d refinery in Sebha (for which Libya is seeking foreign investment), which would process crude from the nearby Murzuq field, and a 200,000-bbl/d export refinery in Misurata.

[RandomGuy]

I will await your proof that invading Iraq caused the Libyan leadership to magically rethink their 20 some odd years of defiance.

[RandomGuy]

This is where the threads usually die off.

Conservatives are horrible at critical thinking and logic, and about the time they realize they have to put up or shut up they simply stop replying...

At the very least this is where RG shuts up on his own and writes the paper on the Sarbanes/Oxley Act for his audit class tomorrow.

Y'all don't go getting wiggedy-whack. Yo. :nerd

[Yonivore]

What did Saddam's imprisoned do to get detained without a trial? Compare that to what the U.S. detainees are accused.

There's your difference.

[gtownspur]

I was willing to die for the constitution as a member of the armed forces and still am.

It doesn't make us any less strong to give even those who want to kill us trials. It is the moral thing to do.

If you lack enough moral sense to realize that, I geniunely feel sorry for you. It always saddens me to see spiritually stunted people screaming for blood, and denying God-given humanity to people.

Men like Ghandi, Jesus, or Martin Luther King Jr. were no less "strong" because they chose a higher path. On the contrary, it made the force of their arguments and causes much stronger, and they eventually won over physically more powerful foes.

THAT is the power of moral authority.

It is also a "long run" solution. Our culture tends to focus on the short term too much, and that focus costs us more in the long run sometimes, as does some of our current policies.



You make a good point Random Guy. i will concede that you are good with your facts. But you are dead wrong. First the people being detained are not uniformed soldiers of a nation or a formal army. The geneva conv, does not apply to them. Maybe the spirit of the law and not the letter does, but nevertheless you can not make a case for these prisoners at all through the geneva convention, they are not considered POW's by its legal def. Second the constitution which you have vowed to protect allows the detainment and tribunal courts for these people in times of war. Third many of these detainees are not american citizens and thus do not recieve constitutional protection(case in point is Elian gonzalez).

4th had these detainees been only un willing soldiers of a recognized state who play by the geneva rules and warfare youd have a point. But theyre not. they are dangerous individuals seeking destruction on all civilization who hold valuable info that might help save the lives of many of our citizens you have vowed to protect.

5th, torture done for gratification or vengeance is wrong. Torture done to extract info that will save lives is logical and sound policy because it does work and is done in our best interest. Not many people can pass through torture.

6th, your failed attempt to make it a moral issue to not use effective tools to save lifes and protect our children is absurd. Due process courts will only convict the detainees, it will not help in gathering info. Your attempts to deal with detainees might sound altruistic but it doesnt constitute morality. and last but not least, Jesus instructed christians to live by a moral way in which was to further the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not give instructions for nations on how to conduct their affairs. However the Father has given authority to the nations to restore order by the sword as implied in the book of romans.

[RandomGuy]

What did Saddam's imprisoned do to get detained without a trial? Compare that to what the U.S. detainees are accused.

There's your difference.


:spin

I am gonna have to wear out that spinning smiley face...

Both sets of prisoners were/are considered a direct threat to the state.

I noticed that you dodged the other question when I asked you to find *any* proof of your assertion that the invasion of Iraq played any part in Libya's decision to rid itself of WMD's.

Dodge and spin, because you know you are wrong. Try answering a direct question for once, politician.

[gtownspur]

well while your celebrating awnser my post.

[RandomGuy]

Some interesting stuff.


I will get back to you later this week/weekend.

There are some very important philosophical concepts here that need exploring.

....and you are still wrong. :lol


(RG has a paper to write on Section 404 of the Sarbanes/Oxley act and how that relates the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB, or "Peekaboo" as it is affectionately [or not] known) Statement of Auditing Standard #2.)

My apologies, but you will have to wait for the brilliance that is my intellect, as my audit professor has first claim on it at this particlular moment.

[gtownspur]

i will gladly refute anything wrong you will post.

[Yonivore]

:spin

I am gonna have to wear out that spinning smiley face...
Okay, whatever you choose to substitute for rational, reasoned argument is fine by me.


Both sets of prisoners were/are considered a direct threat to the state.
Well, I can't speak for the circumstances under which Saddam Hussein's untried detainees were taken into custody and imprisoned -- although, much of what has been reported by the media, human rights groups, and victims tends to indicate they were pretty much picked up and thrown into prison because they disagreed politically with Saddam Hussein. But, again, you obviously have a better understanding of his rationale than do I.

U.S. detainees, on the other hand, we all taken into custody in the field of battle and are declared as enemy combatants. Do you know of any of the Guantanamo detainees that are there under different circumstances?


I noticed that you dodged the other question when I asked you to find *any* proof of your assertion that the invasion of Iraq played any part in Libya's decision to rid itself of WMD's.
The timing and the assertion by those with whom he spoke that the imminent invasion of Iraq had him frightened of losing power in Libya.

It is likely that Libya would not have acquiesced if there was no danger of a pre-emptive strike. But, you're right in the sense that months of negotiations between Britain, the U.S. and Libya culminated in Libya giving up its program. It wasn't like we said give up your program or we'll invade...but, your an idiot if you don't believe the specter of the Iraqi invasion had any impact. In fact, it's was probably the clincher in the deal.

But, it's nice to see you acknowledge the Bush foreign policy initiative in a positive light for a change.


Dodge and spin, because you know you are wrong. Try answering a direct question for once, politician.
Ask a direct question for once.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, whatever you choose to substitute for rational, reasoned argument is fine by me.

You keep saying that, and yet when I point out the moral inconsistencies in your argument you pooh-pooh them or ignore them completely.



Well, I can't speak for the circumstances under which Saddam Hussein's untried detainees were taken into custody and imprisoned -- although, much of what has been reported by the media, human rights groups, and victims tends to indicate they were pretty much picked up and thrown into prison because they disagreed politically with Saddam Hussein. But, again, you obviously have a better understanding of his rationale than do I.

You want to basically say that "sometimes keeping people without trials forever, like when the US does it, is ok".

So being unethical SOMETIMES is ok. "It is ok to steal if the "victim" is a billion dollar corporation."

This is simple rationalization.

Asserting what you are trying to assert means that we can rationalize unethical behavior when it suits us. In the end rationalization of unethical behavior diminishes us all.

You would HATE it if somebody who was on "welfare" traded that money for drugs. This is a rationalization on that persons part. "It is my money, I can do what I want with it, the big ol' government won't miss it."

Yet when it comes to basic human rights this same process of rationalization is ok.

[RandomGuy]

The timing and the assertion by those with whom he spoke that the imminent invasion of Iraq had him frightened of losing power in Libya.

It is likely that Libya would not have acquiesced if there was no danger of a pre-emptive strike. But, you're right in the sense that months of negotiations between Britain, the U.S. and Libya culminated in Libya giving up its program. It wasn't like we said give up your program or we'll invade...but, your an idiot if you don't believe the specter of the Iraqi invasion had any impact. In fact, it's was probably the clincher in the deal.


I simply ask for some proof of this statement and am still waiting.

All you have offered is the fact that it happened after the US invaded Iraq.

I say it was simply the fact that his oil producing infrastructure was badly in need of upgrading and maintenance, and offer in support of this a candid US government assessment.

I offer proof, you offer fallacious logic. This is pretty standard for conservatives in general.

Step up to the plate and prove it to me. I promise if you can find some good evidence to support your thesis that I will give it due consideration.

Please try to do better than "I read it in some conservative column" somewhere.

[RandomGuy]

Ask a direct question for once.

What proof can you show me that proves Libya's decision to give up their WMD's was connected to the invasion of Iraq?

[boutons]

When Libya came in from the cold, the Repugs claimed credit for all bogus reasons, but US and EU had been talking to Libya for years about how to do it.

Another angle is that Khadaffi was under pressure from Islamic fundamentalists agitating with the poor. He needed foreign exchange, an upgrade of quality of life from international acceptance and trade, and to bolster himself with his middle classes against the fundamentalists.

dubya and his posse lied if/when they claimed any responsibility for Libya, yawn.

[RandomGuy]

When Libya came in from the cold, the Repugs claimed credit for all bogus reasons, but US and EU had been talking to Libya for years about how to do it.

Another angle is that Khadaffi was under pressure from Islamic fundamentalists agitating with the poor. He needed foreign exchange, an upgrade of quality of life from international acceptance and trade, and to bolster himself with his middle classes against the fundamentalists.

dubya and his posse lied if/when they claimed any responsibility for Libya, yawn.

Exactly. More half-truths for the faithful.

The lies this administration will stoop to would make Goebbels blush...

[Dos]

When Libya came in from the cold, the Repugs claimed credit for all bogus reasons, but US and EU had been talking to Libya for years about how to do it.

So this US of which you speak is control by what kind of adminstration.... lol

[Dos]

no we should be giving back these detainees to the countries from which they came from.. I am sure a nice egyptian or pakastini torture chamber is alot better than club gitmo.... these cowards have it easy at gitmo compared to what they would be getting under islamic justice..... just a thought...

[boutons]

"is control by what kind of adminstration"

... the Libya reconciliation was in 2003. The "years" of groundwork for that reconciliation went back well into the Clintion years.

The Repubs claimed their "BIG STICK" on Iraq is what caused Libya to move, not any Repub "SOFT TALKING" with Libya.

[Dos]

Yeah Hans Blix is in the Bush camp... lol....

Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said Saturday Libya's decision to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, is "welcome" and surmised the action might have been spurred by Gadhafi's fear over "what he saw happen in Iraq." (Full story)




Bush, Blair: Libya to dismantle WMD programs
Gadhafi vows 'transparent and verifiable' process, Blair says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Libya has tried to develop weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles in the past, but has agreed to dismantle the programs, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday in simultaneous televised speeches.

Bush said Libya's leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, had "agreed to immediately and unconditionally allow inspectors from international organizations to enter Libya.

"These inspectors will render an accounting of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and will help oversee their elimination," Bush said.

Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear bomb, a senior administration official said Friday. (Full story)

Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said Saturday Libya's decision to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, is "welcome" and surmised the action might have been spurred by Gadhafi's fear over "what he saw happen in Iraq." (Full story)

"I think we have to learn what did they (Libya) have. They say that they will adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons. They are already party to that treaty and they have had inspections for years," said Blix, interviewed in Sweden.

In a televised address from London, England, Blair said Gadhafi had approached British and U.S. officials in March to see if they could resolve the issue of its weapons programs.

"Libya has stated that weapons of mass destruction are not the answer for Libya's defense," Blair said. "Libya's actions entitle it to rejoin the international community.

"Libya has declared its intention to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and to limit the range of Libyan missiles to no greater than 300 kilometers," Blair said, adding that the Libyan leader has agreed "that this process will be transparent and verifiable."

Libya also agreed to adhere to international agreements on chemical weapons and sign an additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog group.

"This decision by Colonel Gadhafi is an historic one and a courageous one, and I applaud it," Blair said. "It will make the region and the world more secure."

He added, "It demonstrates, too, that countries can abandon programs voluntarily and peacefully."

CIA and British intelligence officials met with Gadhafi and other senior Libyan officials as the three governments negotiated the deal under which the Libyan government would give up its weapons of mass destruction programs, U.S. officials said. CIA officials also visited key sites in Libya during a nine-month period of negotiations that started with meetings in various European capitals.

U.S. officials say Libya has a program to develop a nuclear weapon, including facilities to process and enrich uranium. It has a stockpile of chemical weapons and dual-use facilities that could be used to create biological weapons. The Libyans say they no longer have programs to produce chemical or biological weapons. They have a largely dormant program to develop medium-range missiles based on Scud technology.

According to Jane's, a defense publication based in London, U.S. intelligence officials believed China was helping Libya develop its existing Al-Fatah missile program and that the Libyans were also seeking North Korean long-range missile technology.

"Opposing proliferation is one of the highest targets of the war on terror," Bush said. "The attacks of September 11th, 2001 brought tragedy to the United States and revealed a future threat of even greater magnitude. Terrorists who kill thousands of innocent people would, if they ever gained weapons of mass destruction, kill hundreds of thousands, without hesitation and without mercy."

He added: "Colonel Gadhafi's commitment, once it is fulfilled, will make our country more safe and the world more peaceful."

Bush said U.S. pressure on North Korea and Iran and the war in Iraq "have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction: Those weapons do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences.

"Another message should be equally clear: Leaders who abandon the pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will find an open path to better relations with the United States and other free nations."

International isolation

He said Libya's decision would help lift it out of its isolation.

"With today's announcement by its leader, Libya has begun the process of rejoining the community of nations," Bush said. "Colonel Gadhafi knows the way forward: Libya should carry out the commitments announced today. Libya should also fully engage in the war against terror."

This summer, Libya took responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, which killed 259 people aboard the plane and 11 on the ground.

As part of that deal, Libya agreed to pay each family as much as $10 million -- $4 million when the United Nations lifted sanctions. The U.N. Security Council voted in September to remove the sanctions. U.S. sanctions have remained in place.

Bush also urged Libya to pursue internal reform. However, he warned that "because Libya has a troubled history with America and Britain, we'll be vigilant in assuring its government lives up to all its responsibilities.

"Yet ... old hostilities do not need to go on forever," Bush said. "I hope that other leaders will find an example in Libya's announcement today."

[RandomGuy]

Heh, I would give Mr. Blix the nod when it comes to WMD issues, but not economic ones.

My doctor might have an opinion as to the appropriate capital structure of a soap manufacturer, but I would trust a fianancial analyst more...

[RandomGuy]

Looks like Yoni gave up on this one too...

I guess when you ain't got anything to back up yer bullshit...