For Idiots: Bush's original war arugment

[whottt]

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out. ...


What is so damn bad about that statement?


Because everyone thought he had WMD, and had for a half decade?

And furthermore...if it was for Oil why go to the UN first, why say there were WMD when there were none?

[whottt]

I want ya'll to tell me what was so misleading about that statement....

[Nbadan]

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

What unacceptable behavior is that? Breaking Security council resolutions? Israel has snubbed the UN for years regarding it's own nuclear weapons program and today possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. Where's your outrage, whoot?

[boutons_]

Sunni Saddam was bluffing about the nukes, his enemy was Shiite Iran that he had already attacked, not the US.

"suspecting" there were nukes isn't suffiicient for starting a war. Terminally unserious dubya doesn't/didn't realize it, but war is serious business. He's wasted 10's of 1000s of US lives, bodies, and minds for absolutely no benefit to the US or the world, while Afghanistan is STILL not under control.

No matter how many suspected Saddam's nukes, only Repugs/PNAC/AEI/neo-cunts agitated aggressively, cherry picking and fabricating the intelligence to support their bullshit case, classifying/hiding/supressing all doubts about that intel, bullying and sliming dissenters as traitors and as being soft on terror (Saddam was not a jihadi terrorist).

If nukes were the primary and sufficient reason, then why all the lies about yellowcake, Saddam+WTC, Saddam+al Quaida, aluminum tubes, mobile bio-weapons labs?

Because, after thorough inspection for years by the UN inspectors, all dubya and dickhead had were suspicions about nukes, not ANY evidence of nukes.

The Repugs/neo-cunts wanted that war for oil NO MATTER WHAT, and they'd tell any lie to get that war going. They don't care now that the intel was "bad" , and they didn't care then about bad intel (they fucking CREATED bad intel before the invasion).

Well, they got their fucking war, and they have totally botched it. And you bad-ass war-mongers want these fucking incompetent Repugs to go after Iran? They'd fuck that up, too.

[whottt]

My bad..that was John Kerry speaking in 1997.

[whottt]

boutons...he made the best case he could and used the AUMF to his benefit...

That's politics plain and simple, that's trying to get what you want out of the law, and every politician in the world does it...and just about every Pres ever given similar power, has used it.


You can argue it was for oil...you can also argue that it was not being willing to take a chance on their intel being wrong. You can argue it was both, but what you can't say is that he didn't attempt to make it a multilateral action.

Fuck no those countries aren't going to get paid for us doing the dirty work...fuck them, if they want that Oil then they should have signed on, but see, they were signed on already. We're paying for the war...might as well be American Companies(and the other contributers) that benefit.


We pay for the UN, it stabs us in the back...
We rebuilt Europe, they mostly stab us in the back
So on and so forth...fuck em.


Bottom line is that Saddam needed to go...he should have been taken out long before. Our intel was inaccurate in the first war, way underestimating him, and that was when he we had good intel.



And you continually overlook the toll the sanctions were taking on the Iraqi people, and you would have them consigned to indefinite suffering, while Saddam lives high...that's what you would do boutons...indefinite suffering of the people, while Saddam lives it up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Whott try and answer some simple questions. Which branch of govt has the highest level of access to intel? Which branch is responsible for vetting the information and passing it along to other branches? If one branch of govt was given bad information are they at fault for the aftermath? Or is the branch that purposely gave out only half of the information at fault? ........ (jeopardy theme)............................................ .................................................. .....Considering Congress never got the full picture from Bush and the boys it's hard to try and pin the unecessary war on them. Wouldn't Bush be ultimately responsible for the unecessary war? Considering the GOP is the party of 'personal accountability/responsibility'?

[xrayzebra]

What unacceptable behavior is that? Breaking Security council resolutions? Israel has snubbed the UN for years regarding it's own nuclear weapons program and today possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. Where's your outrage, whoot?

Israel is not going around telling the world that Iran, Syria
or any other nation has no right to exist.

[exstatic]

http://www.uncoveror.com/niger.jpg

[whottt]

Whott try and answer some simple questions. Which branch of govt has the highest level of access to intel? Which branch is responsible for vetting the information and passing it along to other branches? If one branch of govt was given bad information are they at fault for the aftermath? Or is the branch that purposely gave out only half of the information at fault? ........ (jeopardy theme)............................................ .................................................. .....Considering Congress never got the full picture from Bush and the boys it's hard to try and pin the unecessary war on them. Wouldn't Bush be ultimately responsible for the unecessary war? Considering the GOP is the party of 'personal accountability/responsibility'?


Our intelleigence in the mid-east nearly completely dismantled during the Clinton era...

He and the UN sat there with their thumbs up their asses after Saddam kicked out the Weapons inspectors for 4 fucking years.

During that time Clinton and virtually every world leader made the same claims Bush made, and there was military actions being to Iraq during this period.

The only thing Bush did differently, was actually take Saddam out.


Instead of just sitting htere getting sucked off and shooting an occassional cruise missle, while the infant mortality rate in Iraq skyrocketed....

ANd the funniest thing is...the only part of the UN sanctions that actually was maintained was the ones that punished the people, Saddam was getting stuff through the UN that was on the sanctioned list, that was useful for the creation of WMD.




Sorry but Bush isn't the only corrupt politician, he's not the only one to act in the interests of his country, and he's damn sure not hte first President to use a loophole in situational powers ceded to him by congresss, to engage America in a war. It's been done by a ton of Presidents...including Lincoln.

The Civil War was started by Lincoln while Congress was in recess.




Ok so Bush is corrupt...why aren't you offended at all the corruption in the UN? THe way companies, state sponsored companies in France, and Russia, were violating hte OFF program, signing deals with Saddam for post sanction development deals...the main reasons for their opposition to this war.




Saddam is gone...that's a good thing. Putting some form of Democracy in an Arab country...is a good thing.


What I find so offensive about the lib mindset...


No one uses their right to free speech more, to attack their own govt...than Liberals...

Yet they'd deny that same right to virtually every citizen in the middle east.

People in Iraq, Syria, and Iran take their lives, and the lives of all memebers of their family into dangerous area when they make the slightest criticism of their govts.

You just don't understand how the denials of the most basic human rights and freedoms breeds corruption...you don't underatand how suffering and brutal dictators breed religious fantaticism...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Our intelleigence in the mid-east nearly completely dismantled during the Clinton era...

He and the UN sat there with their thumbs up their asses after Saddam kicked out the Weapons inspectors for 4 fucking years.

During that time Clinton and virtually every world leader made the same claims Bush made, and there was military actions being to Iraq during this period.

The only thing Bush did differently, was actually take Saddam out.


Instead of just sitting htere getting sucked off and shooting an occassional cruise missle, while the infant mortality rate in Iraq skyrocketed....

ANd the funniest thing is...the only part of the UN sanctions that actually was maintained was the ones that punished the people, Saddam was getting stuff through the UN that was on the sanctioned list, that was useful for the creation of WMD.




Sorry but Bush isn't the only corrupt politician, he's not the only one to act in the interests of his country, and he's damn sure not hte first President to use a loophole in situational powers ceded to him by congresss, to engage America in a war. It's been done by a ton of Presidents...including Lincoln.

The Civil War was started by Lincoln while Congress was in recess.




Ok so Bush is corrupt...why aren't you offended at all the corruption in the UN? THe way companies, state sponsored companies in France, and Russia, were violating hte OFF program, signing deals with Saddam for post sanction development deals...the main reasons for their opposition to this war.




Saddam is gone...that's a good thing. Putting some form of Democracy in an Arab country...is a good thing.


What I find so offensive about the lib mindset...


No one uses their right to free speech more, to attack their own govt...than Liberals...

Yet they'd deny that same right to virtually every citizen in the middle east.

People in Iraq, Syria, and Iran take their lives, and the lives of all memebers of their family into dangerous area when they make the slightest criticism of their govts.

You just don't understand how the denials of the most basic human rights and freedoms breeds corruption...you don't underatand how suffering and brutal dictators breed religious fantaticism...

So it's Clinton's fault..funny thing is the after Gulf War I Iraq's capabilities became diminished while Clinton was in office.. SO he did something right. He caught the 93 WTC bombers..put them away...


You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy? Was that considered before ushing into Iraq? You know Whott there were many people, including myself, who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to invading Iraq. My one concern was why so soon? Was the country ready for it? I also had questions about Iraq's ability to hand wmds to terrorists. I agreed with Bush but in the back of my mind I was thinking why so soon. I watched Colin Powell talk of mobile bio weapons labs. I heard about Iraq's drones that could reach the US in 45 minutes, and the stockpiles of wmds which were of a concern to me. I started to question Bush more when he went to the UN and essentially told Saddam prove you don't have them. I thought to myslef how is that possible? I became suspicious from that ,moment on BUT I still gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Then the UN inspectors cam back and said Saddam no longer possessed wmds.. What did Bush do? He asked them to leave. Menwhile back home Dummy Dumsfeld was belittling our allies and the GOP was renaming french fries and then low and behold we invade Iraq..



Ever since then we have heard stroy after story about Bush and company using intel that was 'shaky' to say the least and they knew it.. by this point I was told oh well too bad Bush is a wartime president..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Our intelleigence in the mid-east nearly completely dismantled during the Clinton era...

He and the UN sat there with their thumbs up their asses after Saddam kicked out the Weapons inspectors for 4 fucking years.

During that time Clinton and virtually every world leader made the same claims Bush made, and there was military actions being to Iraq during this period.

The only thing Bush did differently, was actually take Saddam out.


Instead of just sitting htere getting sucked off and shooting an occassional cruise missle, while the infant mortality rate in Iraq skyrocketed....

ANd the funniest thing is...the only part of the UN sanctions that actually was maintained was the ones that punished the people, Saddam was getting stuff through the UN that was on the sanctioned list, that was useful for the creation of WMD.




Sorry but Bush isn't the only corrupt politician, he's not the only one to act in the interests of his country, and he's damn sure not hte first President to use a loophole in situational powers ceded to him by congresss, to engage America in a war. It's been done by a ton of Presidents...including Lincoln.

The Civil War was started by Lincoln while Congress was in recess.




Ok so Bush is corrupt...why aren't you offended at all the corruption in the UN? THe way companies, state sponsored companies in France, and Russia, were violating hte OFF program, signing deals with Saddam for post sanction development deals...the main reasons for their opposition to this war.




Saddam is gone...that's a good thing. Putting some form of Democracy in an Arab country...is a good thing.


What I find so offensive about the lib mindset...


No one uses their right to free speech more, to attack their own govt...than Liberals...

Yet they'd deny that same right to virtually every citizen in the middle east.

People in Iraq, Syria, and Iran take their lives, and the lives of all memebers of their family into dangerous area when they make the slightest criticism of their govts.

You just don't understand how the denials of the most basic human rights and freedoms breeds corruption...you don't underatand how suffering and brutal dictators breed religious fantaticism...

So it's Clinton's fault..funny thing is the after Gulf War I Iraq's capabilities became diminished while Clinton was in office.. SO he did something right. He caught the 93 WTC bombers..put them away...


You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy? Was that considered before ushing into Iraq? You know Whott there were many people, including myself, who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to invading Iraq. My one concern was why so soon? Was the country ready for it? I also had questions about Iraq's ability to hand wmds to terrorists. I agreed with Bush but in the back of my mind I was thinking why so soon. I watched Colin Powell talk of mobile bio weapons labs. I heard about Iraq's drones that could reach the US in 45 minutes, and the stockpiles of wmds which were of a concern to me. I started to question Bush more when he went to the UN and essentially told Saddam prove you don't have them. I thought to myslef how is that possible? I became suspicious from that ,moment on BUT I still gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Then the UN inspectors cam back and said Saddam no longer possessed wmds.. What did Bush do? He asked them to leave. Menwhile back home Dummy Dumsfeld was belittling our allies and the GOP was renaming french fries and then low and behold we invade Iraq..



Ever since then we have heard stroy after story about Bush and company using intel that was 'shaky' to say the least and they knew it..

[boutons_]

Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated how naive the Repugs/neo-cunts were to assume the US could invade and then install successful, stable, self-sustaining democracy, that took many decades to establish in the USA.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hell is where we are, and retro-actively saying the Repugs had good intentions in grabbing Iraqi oil is total ex post facto bullshit.

The majorities of both countries (as are most countries in the region, minus secular, westernized Israel) are comparatively very backward (vs. industrial democracies), with no legal/judicial/political/industrial/middle-class underpinnings required by democracy.

That's tough shit for the people in those countries, but invading them hasn't achieved anything, not for them, not for the USA, while 10s of 1000s of those people have died and will continue to die directly as a result of the Repugs and their incompetent, unnecessary bullshit wars.

I note that the US hasn't invaded other countries like the Horn of Africa, Darfur, Zimbabwe, West Africa, Myanamar where the people are oppressed and denied democracy. But, they don't have any oil compared with Iraq.

A Frenchman once said "Countries don't have friends. They only have interests". The Repugs invaded Iraq because they were interested in the oil, not because they wanted to make friends.

[xrayzebra]

You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy? ..

Ah, yes some very astute reasoning. Some people just
cant function unless they live under a dictator. They
are just not capable of being free to choose their own
government.

[01Snake]

I note that the US hasn't invaded other countries like the Horn of Africa, Darfur, Zimbabwe, West Africa, Myanamar where the people are oppressed and denied democracy. But, they don't have any oil compared with Iraq.



Are these countries threats to the U.S?

[whottt]

You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy..



The first Democracy in History was in what is now known as Iraq....

Representative Government was invented there.

Institutions for higher learning was invented there.


Up until about 400 years ago the Mid-East Culture was always among the most advanced...the came the decay of the Ottoman Empire.



The Mid-East didn't do this to themselves...

It's been conquered and reconquered and invaded, it's partitioned, and governed by Europe, by Ottoman Empire.


They've had governments imposed on them, religion forced on them time and time again.


THe guys didn't embrace Islam...evne the fucking Arabs didn't embrace it...it was imposed on them them same way catholicism was imposed on the indigenous American people conqured by Spain.


IT's riches and dispute over who would raid them, was the heart of WWII, and WWII, it's at the heart of Usama's ultimate gain(to rule Saudi Arabia and ressurect the OttomanEmpire)...i



But when it turned into a true inhosplitable shithole...that was Europe did that. Post WWI and WWII. And most of our fuck ups n that region have come from listening to Europe.


Who paritioned Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan? Israel and the Palestinians?


You know who did that shit? The British and the French...


When the people were given the chance, nearly every country favored a constitutional monarchy or even Democracy...

Then they got caught between us and the Russians in the ColdWar...


The Russians were the ones that revived and funded Islamic Terror...the Russians funded the PLO oroginally.


Every fucking free election in the region was corrupted by the fucking Soviets trying to stick one of their #$%34w commie rulers in power.





The Iranians hating us because we overthrew Mossadeq?


That was a British plan. And all our little covert governmental coups during the cold war were taken directly out of the Bristish play book...




Europe is a collection of elitist assholes and they always have bee, they've always thought they've known what's best for everyone, they've always imposed their culture on people...


I mean after WWI, who fucked Germany with crushing economic war reparations? Against our advice...

France.


And you guys want to follow them on this...they are the ultimate snobs and they wouldn't know how to install a legit government if you put a gun to their head.




Sersiously...study up on some war history sometimes...


Then you'll see why I lost respect for you guys the second you embraced a candidate who wanted Europe to lead us on this.


Europe created this middle -east...

Just like Europe created WWI and WWII...

And the Vietnam War

And the Korean War



Why do you think 200 million Native Americans speak a European Language and practice European Religions in Mexico and LA....

Because fucking Europe imposed it on them...

Cultural anniahlation on a scale unmatched...took away theiru entire cultural identity...it was either convert to superior European concepts..or live as slave.


And now you guys want to listen to these same countries...




They aren't like us...they never have been, they may look like us, they may talk like us, but they are the most elitist culture ont he planet.


Not all of them...actually a lot of the Eastern European nations are very similar in values to us, but Western Europe...and traditional European Powers...

Russia
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
Portugal
The UK


Those guys are assholes...






And ya'll want to follow them...even after their petty attemps to compete with each other for prestige and power resulted in us becoming embroiled in two World Wars and suffering millions dead...



You want to know their major contributions to the world over the last few hundred years or so?


Comminism
Nazism
Anti-Semitism
Socialism
WWI
WWII
The Palestine Israeli Conflict
Racism(the practice of intelligence classification based on skin tone)


And their greatest...for you libs out there...the American Empire.

If they hadn't kept dragging us into their bullshit power plays...we wouldn't be the World's Police now...something we never wanted, until we figured out it was likely the only way we could avoid being drug into their Wars.


And at the heart of their Anti-Americanism now is just simplyt he fact that we passed them in so many ways...

At the heart of this conflict is their attempts to regain control over the mineral wealth of the middle-east...it is an Economic War between America and the EU, and within the EU over who will emerge as the true power.....well the EU leaders at the time of the Iraq War...The Franco German alliance, or the UK.


I mean I don't know why anyone gives any credibility to France and Germany...read some recent history sometime...

Then tell me when they became better at this than us.


They still can't get along with each other to save their own lives...they still trying to prove who is better. That's why the EU can't get it's shit together.

I don't give a fuck who is better, and I think most Americans looked at them as equals or friends, and see the split as error on our part, when really it's just a selfish attempt to reclaim prestige on their part. At least the Brits are trying to make good on past wrongs...but damned if I am going to follow their lead.

And I can't help it if I like hamburgers and special effects bonanzas...I don't give a fuck who else likes it...and Europe needs to just let it go...and trying being real for once.

[whottt]

Communism is Europe's answer for their own elitism...

Not ours.

We aren't elitist and we never have been...we're the ones who end up doing the fucking dirty work...

We're the plumbers....


To Europe I simply say...If you want to get paid like a plumbers...I suggest you learn to clean up your own shit.

Instead they got us to do it...and now they are dependent on us for it.

They don't look at us like we are some intellectual powerhouse...they look at us as a bunch of hillbillies...that through some fluke surpassed them in just about every facet...

And the far reaching sweep of American culture is their all time envy...

Especially since we don't have to impose ours...we just make movies everyone likes...and junk food. No imposition needed.

[whottt]

So it's Clinton's fault..funny thing is the after Gulf War I Iraq's capabilities became diminished while Clinton was in office.. SO he did something right. He caught the 93 WTC bombers..put them away...

Our reduced intelligence capaiblity in the Mid-East is 100% Clinton's fault.

He was the one that championed cutting it, just like he cut a ton of military funding...

Even Kerry bitched about his cutting the intelligence budget when he was doing it.



Clinton's fault, he's got some of the blame, as do Reagan and Bush I and Carter, and Nixon...and every President going to back to Truman.


The funny thing is, Bush is probably less culpable for the Mid-East situation of any President since WWII...he had been in office for mere months when plans that had been in play for decades came to fruition. And a Presidential passing of the buck caught up to him...buck passing that even included his own father.

It's not about blame to me....could he(Clinton) have done better? Yes he could have. Much better. But hey, hindsight is 20/20, I realize that, do you?


Clinton was a great domestic President and extremely charismatic and likable diplomat, but honestly? His foreign policy was shit...I wasn't paying much attention to it at the time though...since I was thrilled with what was happening domestically.

I think Clinton was the right Presidnet at the right time, given the alternatives, much like Bush has been...

Bush has had a hell of a lot tougher job though.



You mention 'putting a democracy' in the middle east is a good thing. Well maybe some cultures aren't condusive to a democracy? Was that considered before ushing into Iraq? You know Whott there were many people, including myself, who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to invading Iraq. My one concern was why so soon? Was the country ready for it? I also had questions about Iraq's ability to hand wmds to terrorists. I agreed with Bush but in the back of my mind I was thinking why so soon. I watched Colin Powell talk of mobile bio weapons labs. I heard about Iraq's drones that could reach the US in 45 minutes, and the stockpiles of wmds which were of a concern to me. I started to question Bush more when he went to the UN and essentially told Saddam prove you don't have them. I thought to myslef how is that possible? I became suspicious from that ,moment on BUT I still gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Then the UN inspectors cam back and said Saddam no longer possessed wmds.. What did Bush do? He asked them to leave. Menwhile back home Dummy Dumsfeld was belittling our allies and the GOP was renaming french fries and then low and behold we invade Iraq..



Ever since then we have heard stroy after story about Bush and company using intel that was 'shaky' to say the least and they knew it.. by this point I was told oh well too bad Bush is a wartime president..


We couldn't rely on our intel...we were seeking the intel of other countries from Sept 11 on...that was how badly our intel in the region had detrioriated while Clinton wasn't stopping thinkin' about tomorrow. We were having to rely on freaking Italian intelligence at one point.

[boutons_]

nobody forced dubya to invade Iraq.

The Iraq oil war was exclusively the late 90s initiative of the PNAC/AEI/neo-cunt cabal.

Quit blaming Iraq on Clinton and everybody before dubya.

This fiasco, totally unnecessary, is 100% the fault of dubya/dickhead/neo-cunts. They agitated and bullied for it. It was their choice, the failure is exclusively theirs, too.

[whottt]

Every world leader in the 90's said Saddam needed to be removed...

Including Clinton



Bush was the one that did it.



And the only President to cut intelligence funding was Clinton...


Wait.....let me guess, you think former head of the CIA Bush Sr was the one that cut it?

[whottt]

I know boutons...Sadsam being gone = bad



You should be pissed off at the total failure of the international commiunity to remove a dictator that showed no respect for international law, cease fire agreements, sanctions...

[boutons_]

no, you don't know shit.

Sadsam being in place = better than the terrorist-harboring shithole Iraq is now, and will be worse under Iranian influence after the US leaves in defeat.

[whottt]

no, you don't shit.

Sadsam being in place = better than the terrorist-harboring shithole Iraq is now, and will be worse under Iranian influence after the US leaves in defeat.



Fasle...

The Iranian Theorcracy, while hostile to us...

Is much better than Iraq under Saddam, in terms of equal and human rights...they are still oppressive and medevil about it...but more accountable than a single dictator ruling his minority party over a majority.


And the Shia's aren't the crazy fuckas the Sunnis are anyway.


No Saddam being gone is a good thing...for us, for the Middle East, for the World.

Yeah people are dying...that's what happens in war...but at least now one big obstacle to liberalising the mid-east is gone.


If it was up to Liberals there would be no liberals. In this conflict you stand with just about the most conservative people on the planet.

[Bob Lanier]

Saddam is gone...that's a good thing.
No, it isn't.

[whottt]

Apartheid was a good thing


FTFY....

Minorities ruling over majorities is a good thing eh?


Or only in Iraq?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Every world leader in the 90's said Saddam needed to be removed...

Including Clinton



Bush was the one that did it.



And the only President to cut intelligence funding was Clinton...


Wait.....let me guess, you think former head of the CIA Bush Sr was the one that cut it?


I'm sick and tired of your talk radio rhetoric. Do you want to know why Slick Willy cut the defense and intel budget? Maybe becuase of the Cold War ending? Our military at time was bloated and becoming outdated. Even your chickenhawk hero Cheney was voting to cut weapons and equipment. I believe Dick was into making our military smaller and more mobile... but,but,but that means Dick cut the defense and intel budget... get a clue whott. stop insulting us with these pathetically weak arguments that you wrap around yourself.

[Bob Lanier]

Minorities ruling over majorities is a good thing eh?
Dictatorship is usually better than the alternative.

But don't let me get in the way of your chastisement of your fellow American liberals.

[whottt]

Dictatorship is better than majority rule?


Not if you don't like opressive governments...there's no way for a minority to rule a majory without discrimination and oppression. It's never been done.

[whottt]

I'm sick and tired of your talk radio rhetoric. Do you want to know why Slick Willy cut the defense and intel budget? Maybe becuase of the Cold War ending? Our military at time was bloated and becoming outdated. Even your chickenhawk hero Cheney was voting to cut weapons and equipment. I believe Dick was into making our military smaller and more mobile... but,but,but that means Dick cut the defense and intel budget... get a clue whott. stop insulting us with these pathetically weak arguments that you wrap around yourself.


Ok fine...Whatever..as long you as admit it was Clinton that cut it...thereore any intelligence failures immediately following his administration lie at his feet...you damn sure can't blame Bush II for them. And I don't really see how can you blame him for not trusting ours...it's called erring on the side of caution.

If Saddam was near getting them then better to remove him then wait for him to get them, given his lack of respect for international institutions and law, as well as his known willingness to use them.

[Bob Lanier]

If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings.
The faulty logic of your liberal agitating aside, I have no problem with repressive governance.

[whottt]

The faulty logic of your liberal agitating aside, I have no problem with repressive governance.


LMAO fair enough...at least you are honest. Which is more than Ic an say for our board libs.

I am always willing to respect the opinion of another as long as it's not inherently stupid, contracidtory and misguided....and citing falseities as facts.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

whottt he made a hedge bet involving the lives of young americans, the future of our empire's global reputation, and was damn bull headed about it, i dont get what you're trying to prove

you act as if he asked and asked and asked; this was a blatant unilateral decision and if it was such a compelling argument why did 99% of our allies snuff us when we needed help in such a supposed worthy endeavor?

[xrayzebra]

..... why did 99% of our allies snuff us when we needed help in such a supposed worthy endeavor?


Short memory? Remember the oil for food program and
France and Germany's deals that they had and didn't want to
lose.........guess not or just selective memory.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Short memory? Remember the oil for food program and
France and Germany's deals that they had and didn't want to
lose.........guess not or just selective memory.


RAY.

Not one bit of evidence that anyone in either goverment benefited from the oil for food program. Not one governmental official has ever been accused of benefiting from the oil for food deal. Maybe, just maybe, they were not convinced Iraq was an imminent threat to mankind? Maybe they valued their blood and treasure a little more than we did?

[whottt]

whottt he made a hedge bet involving the lives of young americans, the future of our empire's global reputation, and was damn bull headed about it, i dont get what you're trying to prove

I don't think it's that simple.




you act as if he asked and asked and asked; this was a blatant unilateral decision

Because 2 members of the Security Council were saying they would veto any resolution that involved removing Saddam from power militarily.

They were the ones that cut the discussion short.



and if it was such a compelling argument why did 99% of our allies snuff us when we needed help in such a supposed worthy endeavor?


What makes you think our allies are our allies?

They tend to be our allies, when they need us, and not when we need them...which is fair enough, I just don't understand why no one sees that.

They needed us during the coldwar, that's over now, and all the people living behind walls back then are now cut loose in Europe, and it's changed Europe, at least the traditional powers in Europe....all the Eastern Bloc ones are pretty Pro-Democracy comparitively, unfortunately, they are't a powerful EU force yet.


The cold war is over, old alliances mean nothing, it's a capitalist world now and it's just not good business sense to them, to support us. Business is business, and they'd like nothing more, that to see us go down economically, militarily, every way...because they don't see us as counterbalance to the Soviet Untion any more, they see us as a business competitor. Naively, in this case.

And truthfully, it would not have made any difference had they(Well maybe Russia) supported us militarily, but other than the Brits, the rest of Europe has Jack Shit for military.

I mean we're the ones that carry out all the Major UN and Nato Military Action.

Our biggest opponent was ChIraq...this guy is just about the dirtiest politician in the Europe or North America, go read his background sometime. He had long standing ties.


Other countries have national, economic and political agendas too...but you look at their footprints and you look at ours, and there essentially no comparison as to who has left countries more screwed up and been less culturally sensitive.

[whottt]

RAY.

Not one bit of evidence that anyone in either goverment benefited from the oil for food program. Not one governmental official has ever been accused of benefiting from the oil for food deal. Maybe, just maybe, they were not convinced Iraq was an imminent threat to mankind? Maybe they valued their blood and treasure a little more than we did?




No...there is not a drop of Oil in France and Germany, they are much more dependent on it than we are...and furthermore, the companies that were tied into the OFF scandal, were state owned.


Russian and France both have nationalized pretroleum industries...as does China...probably Germany.


Which governments are into big oil again?


Naive.

[whottt]

Russian and France both have nationalized pretroleum industries...as does China...probably Germany.


.


As does Venezuela, as does Iran....seeing a trend?


There are some other trends...like mass emmigration numbers, that are revealing as well. Emmigration numbers are pretty good indicator of a governments worthiness.


For example, Iran...it sits on huge Oil Reseves, has Nationalized that industry, yet it still has high unemployment, 15%, and mass emmigration ongoing...40% of the population lives below the poverty line.

I mean come on...it sits on more Oil than any country in the World except for 2 or 3 and it's doesn't have a huge population...yet it's got rampant unemployment and no one wants to live there.

Just wait if we go to war with them...

That 15% unemployment, and that 40% below poverty?


That's the terrorists pipeline...and IRan has better numbers than Saudi and Syria...



Nah...you just see, Bush=Bad, that's all you know.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No...there is not a drop of Oil in France and Germany, they are much more dependent on it than we are...and furthermore, the companies that were tied into the OFF scandal, were state owned.


Russian and France both have nationalized pretroleum industries...as does China...probably Germany.


Which governments are into big oil again?


Naive.







So your admitting the notion that the oil for food scandal is not correct? Just another baseless talking point?

Naive? I guess you woulod be considered a 'dead ender'.

[boutons_]

In March 2003, the UN inspectors said they were beginning to receive more cooperation and documents from the Iraqis and asked for more time.

But the decision to invade Iraq was evidence-free and several years old at that point, the neo-cunts/oilcos saw that Iraqi oil there for the slam-dunk taking, the military had put the invasion logistics in place, and Rove had a "president" to re-elect as "war president".

dubya, not Saddam, shut down the UN inspectors by starting the invasion.

The Iraq war and all of the neo-cunt/Faux News/Limbaugh echo/slime machine are based on 100s of small and big lies repeated 1000s of times for years. Whott/yoni/clanny are nothing minuscle screw-jobs and nut-cases in that that lie machine.

[xrayzebra]

The Iraq war and all of the neo-cunt/Faux News/Limbaugh echo/slime machine are based on 100s of small and big lies repeated 1000s of times for years. Whott/yoni/clanny are nothing minuscle screw-jobs and nut-cases in that that lie machine.

This is from an individual who has a trouble putting
together two sentences without using reference to body
parts of a human in the most common of terms.
:clap

[101A]

Dictatorship is better than majority rule?


Not if you don't like opressive governments...there's no way for a minority to rule a majory without discrimination and oppression. It's never been done.

NOT a good week to talk about the US government not being on the "oppressive" side of the ledger - two trees worth of paper in my tax return.

[xrayzebra]

^^And just think about what the original purpose of taxes. And
think about what we use them for today. That will really, really,
make your day.

[Guru of Nothing]

Whottt, I quickly resorted to skimming mode a few responses into this thread, so perhaps I missed your acknowledgement elsewhere, BUT, George W. Bush is completely and utterly full of shit, which leads to absolute futility trying to discuss all of this rationally.

Reality TV
Pathological Liar
He's the decider

[whottt]

Whottt, I quickly resorted to skimming mode a few responses into this thread, so perhaps I missed your acknowledgement elsewhere, BUT, George W. Bush is completely and utterly full of shit, which leads to absolute futility trying to discuss all of this rationally.

Reality TV
Pathological Liar
He's the decider


And what politician isn't?

[Guru of Nothing]

And what politician isn't?

I think Bush has shit oozing from every sweat pore on his body, which does distinguish him from the pack.

I could be wrong.

[whottt]

Thanks but...more info than I needed.

Way, way, way, way, way....way...more info than I needed.













way way way....

[xrayzebra]

RAY.

Not one bit of evidence that anyone in either goverment benefited from the oil for food program. Not one governmental official has ever been accused of benefiting from the oil for food deal. Maybe, just maybe, they were not convinced Iraq was an imminent threat to mankind? Maybe they valued their blood and treasure a little more than we did?

Here is a little refresher course for you GGA. Have a nice
day.

Iraq's Oil for Food Revisited
By Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.

It is payback time. The United States has every intention of sidelining France, Germany and Russia in the lucrative reconstruction of a war-ravaged Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said, last Wednesday, that Washington is bent on "streamlining" the 8 years old U.N. oil-for-food program, now on hold since last Monday.

Money from Iraqi oil sales currently flows to an escrow account, co-managed by the Security Council's Office of the Iraq Program (OIP) and the Iraqi government. More than $42 billion worth of contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment have been signed since December 1996.

The U.N. states that "supplies and equipment worth almost $26 billion have been delivered to Iraq, while another $11.2 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment are in the production and delivery pipeline". Of these, reports the Washington Post, $8.9 billion in humanitarian goods, including $2.4 billion worth of food, are "ready to be imported into Iraq". The program's budget is c. $10 billion a year.

America and Britain wish to make Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the sole custodian of the program, exclusively empowered to approve applications and disburse funds - as he has hitherto been doing in north Iraq. According to their proposals and the Secretary General's 8-page letter, the program's remit will be extended to cover war refugees as well.

Other novelties: Annan would be authorized to renegotiate contracts - for instance, with Russian, French and Chinese energy behemoths - and prioritize purchases. Additional routes and sites - both inside and outside the besieged country - would be approved for Iraq's energy exports and for the delivery and inspection of humanitarian supplies.

Stratfor, the strategic forecasting consultancy, explains why this stratagem is anti-Russian and, more so, anti-French:

"The process would greatly speed up the aid disbursement process and cut out the middlemen who profit from the contractual go-betweens ... (which) have been almost exclusively French and Russian companies ... French and Russian banks usually have channeled the funds to the appropriate places ... The contracts were bribes to Paris and Moscow to secure French and Russian support for Iraq within the United Nations."

The non-disbursed portion of the fund has now ballooned to equal 2-3 years of Iraqi oil revenues, or more than $40 billion. Iraqi Vice President, Taha Yassin Ramadan, scathingly criticized Annan yesterday for seeking to expand the exclusive role of the U.N. in administering the oil-for-food program. He said the proposal was "based on a colonialist, racist and despicable illusion that pushes the despot oppressors in Washington and London towards eliminating the state of Iraq from existence".

The increasingly cantankerous Mohammed Al-Douri, Iraq's disheveled Ambassador to the U.N., invoked the inevitable conspiracy theory. Iraq, he seethed, is to be eliminated and transformed "into colonies under the control of the world American and Zionist oil mafia". It is "a great insult to the United Nations". Annan's scheme "calls for the forfeiting of the oil of the Iraqi state and implementing the colonial illusion of the removal of the State of Iraq." - he thundered.

The Washington Post quotes a "confidential U.N. paper" as saying that "the U.N. image is already tarnished among the Iraqi people. It will be further damaged if the question of Iraq's oil resources is not managed in a transparent manner that clearly brings benefit to the Iraqi people."

The stalemate costs the under-nourished and disease-plagued people of Iraq dearly. More than three fifths of them - some 14 million souls - rely on the program for daily necessities. Over the weekend, experts from the 15 members of the Council, presided over by Germany, met to iron out the details. They were aided by Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette, Benon Sevan, Executive Director of the OIP, UN Legal Counsel Hans Corell and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Kenzo Oshima.

Negroponte reiterated Washington's mantra that the United States "will ensure that Iraq's natural resources, including its oil, are used entirely for the benefit of the Iraqi people". But Annan did not sound convinced when he exhorted the USA and the United Kingdom in the letter he delivered last week to the Security Council:

"The primary responsibility for ensuring that the Iraqi population is provided with adequate medicine, health supplies, foodstuffs and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs will rest with the authority exercising effective control in the country ... (But) without in any way assuming or diminishing that ultimate responsibility, we, in the United Nations, will do whatever we can to help."

Thus, continues Annan's missive, money in the U.N. account, originally earmarked for equipment and infrastructure, would be diverted to purchase food and medicine "on a reimbursable basis". Who would reimburse the fund he left unsaid. Nor did he limit the newfangled "interim" oil-for-food regime in time.

Whatever the outcome of the recent tussle, the U.N. would still have to rely on the Iraqi government to distribute goods and provide services in the southern and central parts of this California-sized polity. The United Nations' own staff has been withdrawn upon the commencement of hostilities. Annan already conceded that "the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization should be allowed to continue to retain ... the authority to conclude oil contracts with national purchasers".

But Saddam Hussein's regime fails to see the urgency. Baghdad said last Monday that it had distributed food to the populace to last them through August. Even non-governmental organizations in the field claim that no shortages are to be expected until May. So, what's the hurry? - wonder the authorities aloud, as they cower in their offices, awaiting the next, inevitable, blast.

* This article was written on March 23, 2003. Re-reading it the other day gave me an eerie feeling of deja-vu.

Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com You can download 22 of his free ebooks in our bookstore

[George Gervin's Afro]

Here is a little refresher course for you GGA. Have a nice
day.

Iraq's Oil for Food Revisited
By Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.

It is payback time. The United States has every intention of sidelining France, Germany and Russia in the lucrative reconstruction of a war-ravaged Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said, last Wednesday, that Washington is bent on "streamlining" the 8 years old U.N. oil-for-food program, now on hold since last Monday.

Money from Iraqi oil sales currently flows to an escrow account, co-managed by the Security Council's Office of the Iraq Program (OIP) and the Iraqi government. More than $42 billion worth of contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment have been signed since December 1996.

The U.N. states that "supplies and equipment worth almost $26 billion have been delivered to Iraq, while another $11.2 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment are in the production and delivery pipeline". Of these, reports the Washington Post, $8.9 billion in humanitarian goods, including $2.4 billion worth of food, are "ready to be imported into Iraq". The program's budget is c. $10 billion a year.

America and Britain wish to make Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the sole custodian of the program, exclusively empowered to approve applications and disburse funds - as he has hitherto been doing in north Iraq. According to their proposals and the Secretary General's 8-page letter, the program's remit will be extended to cover war refugees as well.

Other novelties: Annan would be authorized to renegotiate contracts - for instance, with Russian, French and Chinese energy behemoths - and prioritize purchases. Additional routes and sites - both inside and outside the besieged country - would be approved for Iraq's energy exports and for the delivery and inspection of humanitarian supplies.

Stratfor, the strategic forecasting consultancy, explains why this stratagem is anti-Russian and, more so, anti-French:

"The process would greatly speed up the aid disbursement process and cut out the middlemen who profit from the contractual go-betweens ... (which) have been almost exclusively French and Russian companies ... French and Russian banks usually have channeled the funds to the appropriate places ... The contracts were bribes to Paris and Moscow to secure French and Russian support for Iraq within the United Nations."

The non-disbursed portion of the fund has now ballooned to equal 2-3 years of Iraqi oil revenues, or more than $40 billion. Iraqi Vice President, Taha Yassin Ramadan, scathingly criticized Annan yesterday for seeking to expand the exclusive role of the U.N. in administering the oil-for-food program. He said the proposal was "based on a colonialist, racist and despicable illusion that pushes the despot oppressors in Washington and London towards eliminating the state of Iraq from existence".

The increasingly cantankerous Mohammed Al-Douri, Iraq's disheveled Ambassador to the U.N., invoked the inevitable conspiracy theory. Iraq, he seethed, is to be eliminated and transformed "into colonies under the control of the world American and Zionist oil mafia". It is "a great insult to the United Nations". Annan's scheme "calls for the forfeiting of the oil of the Iraqi state and implementing the colonial illusion of the removal of the State of Iraq." - he thundered.

The Washington Post quotes a "confidential U.N. paper" as saying that "the U.N. image is already tarnished among the Iraqi people. It will be further damaged if the question of Iraq's oil resources is not managed in a transparent manner that clearly brings benefit to the Iraqi people."

The stalemate costs the under-nourished and disease-plagued people of Iraq dearly. More than three fifths of them - some 14 million souls - rely on the program for daily necessities. Over the weekend, experts from the 15 members of the Council, presided over by Germany, met to iron out the details. They were aided by Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette, Benon Sevan, Executive Director of the OIP, UN Legal Counsel Hans Corell and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Kenzo Oshima.

Negroponte reiterated Washington's mantra that the United States "will ensure that Iraq's natural resources, including its oil, are used entirely for the benefit of the Iraqi people". But Annan did not sound convinced when he exhorted the USA and the United Kingdom in the letter he delivered last week to the Security Council:

"The primary responsibility for ensuring that the Iraqi population is provided with adequate medicine, health supplies, foodstuffs and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs will rest with the authority exercising effective control in the country ... (But) without in any way assuming or diminishing that ultimate responsibility, we, in the United Nations, will do whatever we can to help."

Thus, continues Annan's missive, money in the U.N. account, originally earmarked for equipment and infrastructure, would be diverted to purchase food and medicine "on a reimbursable basis". Who would reimburse the fund he left unsaid. Nor did he limit the newfangled "interim" oil-for-food regime in time.

Whatever the outcome of the recent tussle, the U.N. would still have to rely on the Iraqi government to distribute goods and provide services in the southern and central parts of this California-sized polity. The United Nations' own staff has been withdrawn upon the commencement of hostilities. Annan already conceded that "the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization should be allowed to continue to retain ... the authority to conclude oil contracts with national purchasers".

But Saddam Hussein's regime fails to see the urgency. Baghdad said last Monday that it had distributed food to the populace to last them through August. Even non-governmental organizations in the field claim that no shortages are to be expected until May. So, what's the hurry? - wonder the authorities aloud, as they cower in their offices, awaiting the next, inevitable, blast.

* This article was written on March 23, 2003. Re-reading it the other day gave me an eerie feeling of deja-vu.

Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com You can download 22 of his free ebooks in our bookstore



Ray have you even read this? No where is there any evidence that the govt.'s had anything to do with the food for oil program. I know ray it's nice being retired. Time for your nap yet?


Stratfor, the strategic forecasting consultancy, explains why this stratagem is anti-Russian and, more so, anti-French:

"The process would greatly speed up the aid disbursement process and cut out the middlemen who profit from the contractual go-betweens ... (which) have been almost exclusively French and Russian companies ... French and Russian banks usually have channeled the funds to the appropriate places ... The contracts were bribes to Paris and Moscow

That's it? your evidence?

[boutons_]

The US/UK oil-grab war always was, is now intended to benefit US/UK oilcos, primarily, even exclusively.

The US/UK oil-grab war excludes any other countries' oilcos only as a side-effect, not a primary, punitive/vindictive goal.

Iraq oil a zero-sum greed game where US/UK scores 1, everybody else scores 0.

After the Repugs lose Iraq, I expect Iran, China, and Russia to be the big oil winners, with US/UK being the big whiners.

[DarkReign]

This is the first whott thread I have ever read that he didnt call everyone idiots/assholes/etc.

And I actually enjoyed the entire thread and gained some new perspective.

Good thread. :tu

[Bob Lanier]

a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.
The multifaceted Moonie.

http://www.andrewcusack.com/moon4.jpg