for a start, here are some links to data concerning, shifting the view on the above debate--on the implications of reliance on rightwing thinktank infromation in distorting a view of iraq.....

an analysis of the french position that does not originate with Richard perle:

http://www.merip.org/mero/mero102802.html


weapons trade information, general:

http://www.cdi.org/weekly/2002/issue28.html#1
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/arms-exports.cfm

=======
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...tractindex.htm

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
=======

un oil for food program

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/index.html

you might be interested in what this program was, and the fit the information in the times article above against the general pattern of attacking the un that has characterized far right ideological production since the us lost the security council vote to authorize bushwar....

on the other hand, here is a series of links concerning lack of transparency and corruption in the American transitional authority

http://www.soros.org/newsroom/news/i...rency_20040503

some links outlining what is going on around darfur, what the international responses thus far have consisted in.....some are collections of links to specific stories, others are articles.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R...tCountry=SUDAN

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...7&section=news

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/B...StartKey=Sudan

the question of american unilateral intervention in the sudan is moot.
the activity seems to be happening in a variety of other sectors.

Here's a bit of interesting info you may wish to consider:

Who Armed Iraq?

and for you---i cant find the english translations of the article, but the german is still up---andreas zumacher is the swiss journalist who got a copy of the iraqi report to the unsc in thr run-up to bushwar----the report that addressed questions of procurement, naming the corporate sources of the iraqi arsenal--the article itself gives relative levels of supply, etc. the point is that none of the major weapons-supply countries emerges clean from this, that the same arguments the right has tried to limit to toher countries applied equally, of not more fully, to the american position--and that therefore, the whole range of materials used to support the heritage/washington times poisition is disengenuous...

the list:
http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/text

you can find the article by tracking the links.


still looking for the material in english.

a short, incomplete english summary of the above:

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/I...top_secret.htm

and an interview with zumach himself, in english.
it was done with a reporter from the sf chronicle.
dont know why it turned up on the indymedia board.

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/49451

I thought we were talking about Sudan here. Look, Zamunda's statement, is, I think so at least, spot on. Let me tell you a story about CW3 Michael Durant. No, it's not the story of his Super Six-Four Blackhawk, but it's about the situation in Somalia at the time. The shooting range for the Task Force Ranger guys was far enough away that they had to be ferried there by the Night Stalkers. While the Ranger boys were playing in the sand, the Night Stalkers would power down and wait until they were done. Of course, this attracted the attention of the locals, and being the good citizens they were, the pilots would sometimes hand out their MREs and/or bottles of water to the Somalis. However, this soon elevated, more and more Somalis came to the site where they knew that they could get some food. However, the Somalis started fighting amongst themselves for the food and water. It eventually escalated enough that Mike Durant's NVGs were stolen from his Blackhawk. Now, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Durant equated this situation to what they were trying to do in Somalia. The more they tried to help, the more the situation seemed to get worse, because everyone wanted what the U.N. had to offer, and they were willing to kill for it, and the warlords, especially Aideed, were more than willing to oblige. Very soon, the people began to resent Task Force Ranger because of the propaganda put out by Aideed and they soon targeted Task Force Ranger as the source of all their problems, and lead to the incident popularized by the book and movie Black Hawk Down. If we went into Sudan, I pretty much foresee the same thing happening, because the conditions are identical to those that were in Somalia.

As a nearly lifelong resident of the Bay Area, I am quite familiar with the editorial bias of the Chron.

I'll wait for Volcker's commission to come out with their report to get the full story.

I guess that most of you are still missing the point i am trying to make here. we have invaded a country under flawed information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/po...partner=GOOGLE

that they had wmd's, connections with al-quada. Saddam was a bad man no doubt about that. but the same shit is going down in other parts of the world and we don't seem to help them, we just go where the money is. why we are in Iraq is a different thread or is it? I am asking why do we get to pick and choose who lives and who dies in this world? maybe someone should flaw some info about sudan to prevent a genocide there. Seemed to be all right to do get troops into Iraq right? 850 troops killed under flawed info....yeah i would be proud to serve in this army.
Yeah i know..stop flaming mr buck, well i am sick and tired of this administration blaming each other in there games of oil and greed and corruption while innocent lives are ruined. maybe when the draft is re-enstated and the bush gurls get drafted sumthing will happen.

btw wonderwench you may want to read this, cuz i think one of our sources is flawed, mine doesn't mention the USSR or france supplied Iraq with weapons, but it does seem to bring up the United states.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...2/IN123519.DTL

"According to the December declaration, treated with much derision from the Bush administration, U.S. and Western companies played a key role in building Hussein's war machine. The 1,200-page document contains a list of Western corporations and countries -- as well as individuals -- that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades.

Embarrassed, no doubt, by revelations of their own complicity in Mideast arms proliferation, the U.S.-led Security Council censored the entire dossier, deleting more than 100 names of companies and groups that profited from Iraq's crimes and aggression. The censorship came too late, however. The long list -- including names of large U.S. corporations -- Dupont, Hewlett-Packard, and Honeywell -- was leaked to a German daily, Die Tageszeitung. Despite the Security Council coverup, the truth came out. "

I believe my source is a bit more objective than yours.

We went to Iraq because the best available intelligence at the time indicated Saddam's regime was a reasonable threat to our national security. So the intelligence was flawed - that is the nature of the beast.

The UNSC, btw, is not led by the U.S. If it were, we would have had UNSC support for the war.

mrbuck: We do not need to be in the Sudan. We have no reason to go there, and the United States is not the world's police force. Iraq was our business due to previous involvements with it during the Iraq/Iran war, and Desert Storm/Shield -- it was our mess to clean up. Sudan, is not. Let someone else waste resources on it.

"So the intelligence was flawed - that is the nature of the beast. "

can you tell that to 850 families of dead soldiers???

mr b

The intelligence was flawed - but the flaws do not change the assessment that Saddam was a threat to our national security.

Iraq was not out business, it was the business of the UN and they were looking for WMD's, they couldn't find them, so we made up some info they had them, scared the shit out of the american public that they did and that they helped kill 3000 people on 9/11 told the un to get the fuck out of the way and then invaded. thats our business????

why???

mr b

explain:

"The intelligence was flawed - but the flaws do not change the assessment that Saddam was a threat to our national security"

How????

France, Germany, and Russia are subject to corruption and selfish motivations too you know, not just the US. They are not the liberal Utopia that some leftists dream of at night. :rolleyes: How about that?

First, I am deeply saddened that you dislike the Heritage Foundation and don't consider it a valuable source. Really. However, as I posted, each point has a footnote which leads to another source entirely -- Heritage merely compiled a list of facts from many different sources. Perhaps you would like to take a shot at attacking the facts instead of merely weaving your own "campaign of vacant bullshit that flowed to justiify" your point of view.

Secondly, I really appreciate your suggestion (and veiled insult) that I tried to hide the source simply because I didn't mention it in the body of my post. I always provide links and have no reason not to -- I'm right. The facts are there, why run around them and make blanket generalizations about the messenger unless you simply aren't prepared to deal with the truth?

If you're going to try to prove a point, use any source, at all. As "without merit" as you seem to find this, you had absolutely no response to it other than a personal attack on my character and Heritage's credibility which is meaningless since it was a compilation of information from other sources. Congratulations on lowering the standard for posts on this board.

If you would like to know why Iraq was our business, ease up on the question-mark key and read my post more slowly.

I won't ease up on the questioin mark key until you or someone can explain to me why, based on flawed information 850 troops have died?

mr b

All of the information was not flawed.

Saddam's regime was a threat to our national security. Now it no longer is.

well then read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....intelligence/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a highly critical report issued Friday, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA's prewar estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were overstated and unsupported by intelligence.

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, told reporters that intelligence used to support the invasion of Iraq was based on assessments that were "unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."


why did that come oout??

this is going off topic by the way!!

Yes. The very nature of intelligence is that there is always some flaw or another. This is why we look at various sources and then conduct a rational analysis to determine if there is a reasonable risk.

Can you tell that to the families of 850 troops for me, cuz i think mr bush is to busy!

mr b

I often wonder why Clinton, when he lied about getting blown in the white house, why he didn;t say the information was flawed.....

wow...way off topic!

mrbuck, please stop using your trite argument "Can you tell that to the families of 850 troops for me, cuz i think mr bush is to busy!"

I'd have no problem telling any of those families that the United States had bad intelligence. It hasn't been the first time, it won't be the last, and it sure as hell won't be the last time people are going to die because of it. Quite frankly I find the statement a great disrespect to those soldiers who gave their lives.

The overly simplistic argument that you present is made even more laughable by the multiple simple spelling errors.

War is bad. People die. The fact that people die in war is not, however, a reason to justify not going to war. There are always casualties, and there are always civilians that get caught in the cross-fire. The military men and women who died liberating Iraq knowingly gave their lives for their country and for the "New Iraq." Having Iraq as a Democratic ally in the Middle East will be very valuable to the US -- so much so that our fallen troops will not have died in vain.

you forgot to add that war is money, just ask halliburton and mr cheney!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...912515,00.html



mr b

Replying to you is like repeatedly bashing ones head into a brick wall, just ask Seretogis!!!!!!

http://www.despair.com/fut24x30prin.html

thread closed. pointed attacks and jingoistic one-liners will shut a thread down. that is all.