Was Bush Right? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ace_O_Spades · 02-01-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Swiped from Daily Kos...

I don't think a single day tells us one way or the other. The general trends of the insurgency lead me to be pessimistic.

I think your post is the most significantly overlooked one in this entire thread.

It had me laughing out loud... From my safe vantage point at a University western Canada.

stevo · 02-01-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

This story is being linked on Drudge and I thought it fitting to be added here

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

I'm not really saying either way, but I thought it at least contributed to the discussion.

I read that article earlier. I thought it was good and that some should take a lesson from it

Seaver · 02-01-2005, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Oh boy. The same was said of China after WWII, but they are now the ones loaning America money. I say absolutely not to the starving theory. I'll bet that a lot less people would have died, they would have gone through the movements (same as China), and came out the other end as a unified country under the rule of a semi-communist government.

Might want to look into the history of China after Mao won. It's not as pretty as you painted it to be.

About Kuwait, I know the history of the tribal usage by the British to break apart the Ottoman Empire. I do study Middle Eastern History.

And about your history of Iraq, you forgot to mension all the horrible things he did. Reminded me of Moore's picture of a peaceful and happy Iraq before we invaded and pissed everyone off. By this point we ALL know about how the US not only turned a blind eye to him, but gave him weapons. But that has to be looked at in the larger picture (USSR and Iran).

Willravel · 02-01-2005, 10:08 PM

It is common knowledge that he was a terrible human being. It's not common knowledge that he has direct CIA ties. It was necessary to point that out in my explaination.

host · 02-02-2005, 01:09 AM

"WAS BUSH RIGHT?"

The "tell" for me, is the reaction of the 200,000 or so, able bodied Iraqi
ex-patriate males who reside in the U.S. In the year or more since Bush,
after finally settling on the face saving explanation that the purpose of the
U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was to bring "freedom and democracy"
to the Iraqi people, in a "war of liberation", how many of the above described
Iraqis have joined the U.S. military, or gone home to Iraq to serve in it's
reconstituted security forces? What percentage of Iraqi ex-patriates voted
in the "election" last weekend? In the U.S., the expatriates had the opportunity to vote over a three day period.

I believe that Iraqi ex-patriates, having the recent first hand experience of
living in countries that hold free and democratic elections, clearly see Bush
and his motives for what they are. Neither they, nor I, believe that Bush is
spending $200 billion (counting the new $75 billion fund request) and
ten thousand U.S. casualties, in a selfless effort to bring democracy to Iraq.
The following is a much more likely description of Bushco's intention than
the propaganda Bush & Co. serve up.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7070">http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7070</a>
.............The Arab Facade

The unity in deceit of our 'free press' is of course reflected in our 'democratic' political system. Political editor Michael White notes in the
Guardian:

"The elections are one issue which unites most MPs, and the anti-war Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, also stressed how 'essential' it was that they are held.

"'Failure to hold elections on January 30 would be seen as a major triumph for the insurgence,' he said. 'But if these elections are to be credible they must cover the whole country and the whole population. No one should minimise the difficulty of carrying this through.'" ('Beleaguered Blair gives warm welcome to announcement - US and Britain hope exit strategy can be hastened,' Michael White, political editor, The Guardian, November 22,
2004)

Sir Menzies, a hero of "feigned dissent", is famous for teaching the world the term "false prospectus" - a barely comprehensible reference to the fact that Blair used lies and deception to persuade the public to back an illegal war of aggression that has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives and devastated an entire country.

At the far limit of mainstream dissent, Sir 'Ming' suggests the elections can be credible. Anyone wondering why he is embraced by the media while others are blanked need look no further than this comment on the BBC's Question Time programme:

"Andrew Gilligan got it wrong. But just ask yourself: how many hundreds of [BBC] programmes, how many thousands of hours of broadcasting, and of news broadcasting, have gone out, none of which have been able to be criticised?"
(Campbell, Question Time, January 29, 2004)

The answer is close to none - an unthinkable thought to Campbell and the rest of the mainstream.

White notes: "If even moderately successful in legitimising the provisional central government of Ayad Allawi, the election will hasten the exit strategy whereby US, British and other forces will gradually withdraw from Iraq as the country stabilises."

This is straight forward propaganda - no serious commentator has any illusions about the fact that the US is building a chain of large, permanent military bases around the country and his no intention whatever of withdrawing. The casual implication that all forces will leave when Iraq "stabilises" helps legitimise ongoing crimes by presenting the US as disinterested humanitarians who will of course stay only so long as they are needed to keep the peace.

Ultimately it is an irrelevance who actually wins the elections. Iraq is to be what British officials called an "Arab facade" when Britain ran the region. Now, as then, Western military power stands ready in the background if a country seeks too much independence.

The following was written on Jan. 21, 2005 by Frank Brodhead.
Frank Brodhead is the co-author, with Edward S. Herman, of Demonstration Elections: US-Staged Elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador (South End Press, 1984).

Quote:

<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7079">http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7079</a>
..........Many details about the election mechanics also appear problematic. And some critics argue that the election itself may spark a civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, as it will inevitably lead to a Shi'ite-dominated assembly and national administration.

These criticisms are important and true. But they are built on two unstated assumptions that make them largely beside the point.

The first assumption is that a free election can be organized by an occupying power. The illegitimacy of conducting an election by an occupying power is at the core of the critique of the election by the antiwar movement and, indeed, by much of the world. Though this principle is fundamental to elementary principles of democracy, it is off the agenda for mainstream critics of the election.

The second assumption is that the Iraqi election is part of a plan to disengage the United States from Iraq. In this the mainstream critics mimic the limited dissent towards the Iraq war voiced by the Kerry campaign: a criticism of methods but not of ultimate goals. Yet there is no reason to think that the United States intends to end its occupation of Iraq short of the establishment of a regime prepared to accommodate the demands of the Bush administration. Within the context of a strategy to subjugate Iraq to the long-term needs of the United States, the Iraq election will serve an essential purpose, but one quite different from that assumed within the mainstream media and political debate.

Plans for a Long-term Occupation

The United States intends to make Iraq a client state. Control of Iraq's oil is a strategic and economic prize that would be impossible for the oil-dominated Bush administration to walk away from. We know now that the war on Iraq was initiated on the basis of overall strategic goals that pre-dated 9/11 and had nothing to do with terrorism or WMD. The prospect of a network of US military bases in Iraq -- perhaps as many as 14 bases -- would increase many fold the ability of the United States to dominate the Middle East.The privatization of Iraq's economy, the opening of Iraq to foreign (US) investment, and the political importance of the company's benefiting from the US reconstruction program in Iraq have already created a strong vested interest in continued US domination. This long-term commitment has been further clarified by the reconfiguration of the Bush team preparatory to its second term, as dissenters from the Bush policies in Iraq have been removed. In the past week President Bush claimed on several occasions that the outcome of the November election amounted to a mandate for his Iraq policies; and Seymour Hersh's article in the current New Yorker provides confirmation from Washington insiders that the Bush team will push a very hard line in Iraq.

(inserted here by host:"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism</a>
Besides totalitarianism, a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a rightist mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. This strategy is variously called Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State [2] (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0813636.html), all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders, often in ways chosen to minimize the power of labor unions."

Moreover, President Bush and other administration officials have consistently stated that a US exit from Iraq must await the establishment of political democracy and the creation of an Iraqi military force adequate to maintain order. Free markets and an open door to US investments as core constituents of what "democracy" means for the Bush people, and their job will not be done until these goals are secured as well. Also, by definition, a democratic regime is run by "moderates," understood by the entire spectrum of the US elite to mean political leaders who cooperate with US interests. Moreover, a strong Iraqi security force, agreed by all to be a prerequisite for US withdrawal, will be trained and equipped by the United States, historically a certain recipe for continued close links to the Pentagon and the CIA.

Thus, when President Bush refuses to discuss a timetable for US withdrawal, or links US withdrawal to political and security benchmarks rather than to the calendar, or when US general Tommie Franks states that US troops will be in Iraq for at least 10 years, we should discard any assumptions that the United States will leave Iraq voluntarily unless and until its economic and military goals are secure. US control of Iraq would be a stupendous achievement for the Bush administration and will not be lightly abandoned.

The Role of the January 30th Election for a Long-term Occupation

From this different perspective -- that the United States occupation of Iraq is indefinite rather than limited -- the Iraq election at the end of January assumes a different role and needs to be understood differently than the criticisms coming from mainstream or elite opinion.

Granting that the Bush administration would like to be in a much stronger position in Iraq than it is now, we can see that even an illegitimate and severely flawed election with a problematic outcome will meet important needs and serve many US interests. For example:

· Even critics of the election concede that postponing them beyond January 30th risks alienating the support or acquiescence of Ayatollah al-Sistani for the US-brokered political process.

· The election is mandated by the UN resolution recognizing the United States as an occupying power in Iraq; going forward with the election will further integrate the UN into the US occupation, while postponing it would risk bringing the Iraq issue back before the UN at a time of greatly diminished support for the occupation worldwide.

· Going ahead with the January 30th election will diminish the effectiveness of opposition to Bush policies by those who support a limited US occupation pending the establishment of a democratic Iraq government. In the area of nation-building, their criticism will amount to the ridiculous claim that the Bush people are proceeding too fast with democratization, and/or the self-defeating argument that more troops are needed in order to hasten the day when the United States can withdraw.

· Finally, it is widely reported that holding a "free election" in Iraq is a necessary condition for Britain's Tony Blair to be able to continue supporting the US in Iraq without further damage to the Labour Party and his government.

There are additional gains that are likely to flow from the January 30th election that also deserve our attention. From the perspective that the United States intends to stay in Iraq indefinitely, the undemocratic nature of the election, the likelihood of widespread violence on election day, the failure to include the Sunni minority within the political process and its outcome, the likelihood of a government dominated absolutely by Shi'ite politicians -- and even the prospects of civil war -- are not necessarily opposed to long-term US interests.

As in Vietnam and indeed any foreign occupation, the occupying power desires a government strong enough to maintain internal order and the conditions for doing business. At the same time, the client government cannot be strong enough to demand that the occupier leave, nor strong enough to dispense with the protection of the occupier's military forces against internal or foreign enemies. That a Shi'ite-dominated government might ask the United States to leave immediately is indeed a danger; but a united, nationalistic Sunni-Shi'ite government would certainly demand an end to the occupation. A sharply divided Iraq will be more likely to accept US control of Iraq's military-in-training, rather than allow it to fall into the hands of one faction or the other, or to develop political aspirations of its own. Finally, a weak government, one needing a US military presence to provide a semblance of security and a US military shield against real or imaginary threats from Iran or Israel, will also serve the interests of long-term US occupation.

Moreover, any Iraqi governing body will have to come to grips with the physical destruction of their country. US political and military support for the existing pipeline of aid and reconstruction money is premised on Iraq's cooperation with the United States, and "cooperation" is clearly understood to mean cooperation with existing US interests. Conversely, the expulsion of the United States would make it almost impossible for Iraq to raise the vast sums necessary for reconstruction.

Finally, the prospects of civil war -- perhaps the main danger raised by critics of Bush's decision to go ahead with the January 30th elections -- also take on a different meaning from the perspective of a long-term US occupation. For people in the United States, "civil war" calls up images of Antietam and Gettysburg. More likely would be a scenario like Northern Ireland, amplified by heavier military equipment. A civil war scenario in which Iraqis were the main victims would produce little additional pressure on the Bush administration to withdraw US forces, and could conceivably gain the occupation additional support, as the consequences of US withdrawal would threaten an escalation of the civil war.

A Scenario for January 30th

To understand the way in which the January 30th election will serve the interests of the Bush administration, we can try to anticipate the immediate impact that it will have on the US population. The Iraqi election is a variant of a "demonstration election." Classic examples of a demonstration election are the US-sponsored elections in Vietnam in the 1960s, or in El Salvador in 1982. The purpose of these elections -- organized, financed, and choreographed by the United States -- was to persuade US citizens and especially Congress that we were invading these countries and supporting a savage war against government opponents at the invitation of a legitimate, freely elected government. The main purpose of a demonstration election is to legitimize an invasion and occupation, not to choose a new government.

A demonstration election depends largely on the cooperation of the mainstream media. The patriotic media's role is to include in its reporting certain information or visuals while excluding others. For example, off the media agenda are discussions of the right of government opponents to campaign (without being killed); the absence of large-scale financing of favored candidates by foreign governments or patrons; the presence of meaningful freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly; the ability of voters to cast their ballots freely and safely without intimidation by domestic or foreign military forces or "death squads"; the existence of a truly secret ballot; an honest counting of the ballots; and the assurance that the person who gets the most votes will win the election. On the agenda for a patriotic mass media are primarily election-day items: a large turnout (indicating voter support for the election itself and thus identifying the election with "democracy"); statements by political leaders and "ordinary people" that they are voting because they want freedom; and ineffective opposition to the election, perhaps even military attacks, by opponents of the government. (In an election that the United States opposes, such as the Nicaragua election in 1984, the media's priorities are reversed: on the agenda is the question of the pre-requisites of democracy; meaningless and thus off the agenda are the election-day events, the long lines of voters, etc.)

The situation in Iraq differs in significant ways from the classic demonstration elections in Vietnam and El Salvador. The most important differences are that there is no incumbent government, that the anticipated winners are not clients of the United States, and that the policies to be pursued by the expected winners of the election are far from certain. While the tools of election manipulation available to the occupying power are still considerable -- financing campaigns, training candidates, assisting with publicity, etc. -- Iraq's election and election outcome will be far more problematic for US interests that the slam dunks in Vietnam and El Salvador.

These complexities, as well as the disasters of the occupation itself, have forced the Bush people to make significant adaptations to the US-sponsored election script. As framed by the Bush administration, rather than being an election in support of a particular candidate or policy, the purpose of the January 30th election is to show Americans and the rest of the world that the Iraqi people support the theory and practice of democracy itself, and that they are willing to identify "democracy" with the political process created by the United States. As this political process is, according to the Bush administration, the whole point of the occupation, the January 30th election is a drama to demonstrate Iraqi support for the occupation itself.

Under these circumstances, the dramatic tension of the January 30th election will focus on voter turnout. The US mass media has already established this framing of the issue, and the election-day spectacle will pit the desire of the Iraqi people to vote vs. the violence of rebels opposed to democracy. Few of the long-term or background elements of a truly free election will receive any media play, and the idea that a free election is incompatible with US military occupation will be completely off the agenda. That violence keeps many people from the polls, that many polling places will not be functioning, and that election officials, candidates, and even voters will be attacked by opponents of the US occupation will be important preoccupations of the US media on election day. (Anticipating these obvious problems, the United States has been taking steps to increase voter turnout -- same-day registration, allowing voting at any polling place, allowing voting by Iraqis abroad, etc. -- while at the same time trying to low-ball expectations of a strong voter turnout.)

Despite the problematic nature of the key election success indicator -- voter turnout -- it is predictable that the US media will present its election coverage so as to be largely favourable to Bush, and without questioning the strategy of "occupation until democracy." For the greatest number of US citizens, the most important news about the election will come from television, and the most important pieces of information will be in the form of visuals, rather than voice-over. Election-day visuals are certain to feature lines -- perhaps long lines -- of people waiting to vote, interviews with Iraqi election officials and political candidates, affirmations by rank-and-file voters that they have hope for the democratic process and that they are proud to be voting in a free election for the first time, and cautionary notes by US spokespeople that the road to democracy is long and does not always run smoothly. Voiceovers will give the number of polling places attacked, polling places that could not open, towns or cities in Sunni areas where the election did not even take place, and voters and election workers killed. Depending on the geography of killing, there may even be visuals of dead voters or the aftermath of bombed polling places.

But the net effect of mass media coverage will be to frame the January 30th election to Bush's advantage, and to the advantage of continued US military occupation. However flawed the election-day events, the media will accept the Bush administration's claim that its intention is to bring democracy to Iraqi, and that rebel violence shows that it is democracy itself that opponents of the US occupation most fear.

Conclusion

The United States is in a military and political quandary in Iraq. It is apparent that it cannot "win" the war in any meaningful sense. The war is draining much of its economic strength and alienating traditional allies, and the Pentagon now finds itself constrained by a lack of resources from undertaking new military initiatives. The number of Americans, and even congresspeople, supporting an early exit from Iraq has risen significantly. The Bush Iraq policy faces a crisis of legitimacy. Yet the Bush administration has never been deterred by handwriting on the wall. To regain some of the legitimacy it has lost it will go ahead with the January 30th election despite the obvious risks and uncertain outcome. The hazardous position in which it finds itself is the result of many factors, not least the worldwide opposition to the war. Our opposition to the war will be strengthened by a clearer understanding of US long-term goals in Iraq, and by the role played by dramas such as the January 30th election in pursuing these goals.

Willravel · 02-02-2005, 09:25 AM

Excelent post, host. That sums it up quite nicely.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-02-2005, 11:13 AM

That is a crock Host. Your ex-patriates aren't fighting for some noble principle, or because they know all the dubious things Bush has planned for Iraq. The Majority of them are fighting because they are scared as hell that the Shiites are going to do to them exactly what they did to the shiites. Some are fighting because they don't like an occupying force. Many aren't even Iraqi and are fighting to instill a theocracy and to battle the great satan and the zionists.

Hardknock · 02-02-2005, 11:49 AM

Sounds right on to me.

Willravel · 02-02-2005, 11:50 AM

Sorry, mojo, you're absolutely wrong. I suggest you talk to some people from the war torn areas of the Middle East before speaking for them with such confidence. Until you get an alternate infomation source from American media, your views on this will be tainted and baseless.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-02-2005, 12:24 PM

I think the problem is I misread what Host wrote. My apologies. I equated Expatriates to insurgency, my mistake.

Charlatan · 02-02-2005, 12:38 PM

Bush went into Iraq claiming there were WMDs that treatened America and the rest of the "free world"... They didn't find any.

Bush was wrong.

The fact that a democracy *may* rise out of the ashes is a silver lining to a bad situation. It doesn't change the fact that Bush was wrong.

ObieX · 02-02-2005, 01:20 PM

I'm startin to get the impression that it was coming close to the time when the sanctions on Iraq were to be lifted and the US simply did not want Saddam in power when those sanctions were lifted.

ObieX · 02-02-2005, 01:34 PM

Oh, and to answer the main question of the thread (my bad lol)

Bush was wrong for the invasion. When things eventually settle down in Iraq and get back to normal it will have little to nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the Iraqi people going back to life as usual. There will always be a terrorism problem there now, however. That won't change for a very very very long time, if ever.

boatin · 02-02-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

All the libs can say is "no matter what the outcome it is still wrong wrong wrong. bush lied." Get over it. He didn't lie, he was misinformed on a few issues. WMD's were not the sole reason we went war anyway, there were many more reasons, and all you can do is cling on to the one thing that was not entirely accurate.

Would you, or not, agree that WMD was the issue that Powell tried to sell the UN?

Would you, or not, agree that WMD was the issue that drove Bush's speech to the nation as reason to invade?

You say that WMDs were not the sole reason. And yet, at the time it happened, that's all I remember hearing about. Can you please educate me what other issues there were - AT THAT TIME?

You suggest that one thing (WMD) "was not entirely accurate". What fascinating spin. I would have said "entirely not accurate". Funny what word order can do.

Whether you want to blame faulty intelligence, or outright lies, would you, or not, agree that we have found exactly ZERO WMD?

Dostoevsky · 02-02-2005, 03:04 PM

I support Bush on his international stances, that being said, obviously I'm happy with the way Iraq is looking right now. I just hope that if things work out for the best in the long term that the naysayers will have the integrity to eat crow and give Bush the credit he deserves. If things don't work out, I will.

Willravel · 02-02-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dostoevsky

I support Bush on his international stances, that being said, obviously I'm happy with the way Iraq is looking right now. I just hope that if things work out for the best in the long term that the naysayers will have the integrity to eat crow and give Bush the credit he deserves. If things don't work out, I will.

I hate to put you on the spot, but what in particular makes you happy about the way Iraq looks? As far as I know, tens-of-thousands are dead (both Iraqi and allied), Iraqi people are openly against the American occupation to the point of fighting back, and many of our allies are still very angry at us for going to a preemptive war on flase information. I'm honestly curious what makes you happy.

drakers · 02-02-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rippley

Ok, I saw this discussion on another board. Well, a mailing list I'm on. And I thought I'd throw it to the intellectual sharks of the TFP:

So, against all predictions, the Iraqi elections had
very high turn-out with little violence and no
accusations of foul play. US troops kept themselves
out of sight, Arab news channels gave positive and
optimistic coverage and in general everyone seems
pleasently surprised at how well the whole thing
went.

Bush claimed that democracy in Iraq would make the
invasion worthwhile. Does this prove him right? Is
there merit to his "domino theory" of democracy in
the Middle East? Was this worth 15,000 lives? (not a
rhetorical question).

Was the anti-war movement wrong?

I'll kick off the discussion with another question: DOes it really matter? Is the point of the exercise to have a side in the global debate that's right, or to supprt that Iraqi people in their choice? This guy Says it far better than I. Hope you have BugMeNot or an NYTimes subscription...

No it does not prove him right by a long shot. First of all, Bush had us go to Iraq because he "thought" (due to the intelligence he received) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So no on that issue, the end doesn't justify the means.

Second, a big no. The middle east is not going to say, "Oh, Iraq held elections and it looked pretty good. Let's go democratic.". We don't even know if Iraq will stay democratic (hopefully it will work and no coup occurs). The middle east is not a democratic culture, they have their governments built upon their faith (though Iraq is but the U.S. intervened).

Third, big no. Again the ends don't justify the means. Our young soilders should not have been over because their was no real threat to us. No WMDs.

Fourth, big ass NO!! We have a democratic society (exactly what were trying to build in Iraq) and we should be able to express ourselves. Especially for a war that was without merit. I don't want anyone to think I am against our soilders achieving the objective, because I feel they are to be praised greatly for sacrificing their lives for us. But it was the wrong war for them to have to do this.

Fifth, we should be on the side of the Iraqi people to achieve a democratic government. We don't need another Saddam in that region. But we need to make sure they are ready to do it on their own by the end of the year. If we stay to long resentment may grow.

Overall, yes I'm against the war and the way Bush has handled it. But I do want it to be a success just for the simple fact that the middle east may have some stabilty in the region.

Tophat665 · 02-02-2005, 05:37 PM

Don't be ridiculous.

drakers · 02-02-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm just wondering, were you referring to my comment to the thread or the person who started the thread.

Tophat665 · 02-02-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakers

I'm just wondering, were you referring to my comment to the thread or the person who started the thread.

Sorry about the ambiguity. Replying to the thread title. Round about the fifth time I've seen it and temptation finally got the better of me.

As a friend of mine postd to another board I belong to,

Quote:

There is no definitive assessment as to the voter turnout, since, well, the US CPA and US puppet interim government registered all voters and managed the incoming voter rolls on election day. I have no confidence in the honesty of the US and US puppet interim government with regard to reporting on benchmarks on the path to an Iraqi democracy. Good news is so badly wanted by the administration in this regard that were the news not so great, they might be tempted to fabricate it as so.

It seems odd to me that 5 minutes after the election, we know (an alleged) 78% of eligible voters turned out to this election, but that for some reason we cannot assess, or even estimate, how many Iraqis we've killed in the past two years.

I am not quite that hardcore about it, but I think if we succeed in Iraq, it won't be for lack of trying.

Support the troops, not the mission.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 08:13 AM

Wow. It nevery ceases to amaze me.

So if the US is so obsessed with iraqi oil, then why did we stop short of taking over Iraq in 1991? were we not so 'dependent' on oil then?

Yeah, and if you want to go on believing that the whole reason we are in iraq is to establish permanent military bases you are going to be proved wrong when its over. Do you actually think that the bush administration believes that the way to solve the terrorism problem is to build more military bases in the Arab world? Come on. You obviously don't have a mind big enough to understand that by giving people the opportunity to govern themselves and spread freedom, we can overcome terrorism. You probably make me laugh more than I make you laugh.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_wall

I feel like the lives lost in this war already make it a complete disaster. Though many claim we saved more lives by removing sadam, we sacrificed over 1000 of our guys to do so, which I don't agree with.

This is part of the attitude that gets us in trouble in the first place. Why don't you think of something greater than yourself for a change. The soldiers that have sacrificed their lives sure have.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So if the US is so obsessed with iraqi oil, then why did we stop short of taking over Iraq in 1991? were we not so 'dependent' on oil then?

No one thought they were a threat to America. They didn't have the ability to attack America in 1991, so if we overturned their government, we would have gotten in serious trouble. It was necessary to fabricate a threat (al Qaeda ties, WMDs) in order for people to allow us to invade and overthrow their government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Yeah, and if you want to go on believing that the whole reason we are in iraq is to establish permanent military bases you are going to be proved wrong when its over. Do you actually think that the bush administration believes that the way to solve the terrorism problem is to build more military bases in the Arab world? Come on. You obviously don't have a mind big enough to understand that by giving people the opportunity to govern themselves and spread freedom, we can overcome terrorism. You probably make me laugh more than I make you laugh.

Mind sizes aside, there will be at least two American military instalations in Iraq after our troops officially pull out. We are in Iraq in order to strike fear. Remember "shock and awe"? It's pretty obvious. When we go after another "terrorist state" (based on lies), you will still be saying that we are there for legitimate reasons. Is there any line that America will cross that makes you question their motives?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-03-2005, 09:08 AM

Nobody fabricated anything Will. As far as Al Qaeda ties go, do you think it is coincidence that Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, just happened to be given refuge in Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan? Is it coincidence that he got treated in a state hospital ran by Uday? Is it coincidence that he stayed there after he got healty and an impending military strike was coming? Also you have the evidence of Iraq/Al Qaeda operating in Somalia which I won't rehash, but it's established. Sure Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11 or any current active plots with Al Qaeda, doesn't mean there weren't connections.

Secondly as far as the WMD's, I don't believe those were fabricated either. It was largely the same intelligence used in 98' with operation desert fox after we happened to find some of the Anthrax that Saddam didn't have. But yeah, the intelligence 5 years later was wrong... in so far as a smoking gun. We still found Saddam with a bunch of shit he wasn't supposed to have.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

No one thought they were a threat to America. They didn't have the ability to attack America in 1991, so if we overturned their government, we would have gotten in serious trouble. It was necessary to fabricate a threat (al Qaeda ties, WMDs) in order for people to allow us to invade and overthrow their government.

Mind sizes aside, there will be at least two American military instalations in Iraq after our troops officially pull out. We are in Iraq in order to strike fear. Remember "shock and awe"? It's pretty obvious. When we go after another "terrorist state" (based on lies), you will still be saying that we are there for legitimate reasons. Is there any line that America will cross that makes you question their motives?

We would have gotten in serious trouble, really? by who? the UN coalition that was actually working with us? If we overthrew saddam in '91 we wouldn't have been in trouble by anyone, in fact, we probably would have had more help during the occupation.

How do you know there will be at least 2 military installations. Are you privy to such info?

As long as it is a tyrannical state, with the potential to work with terrorists then there is no line crossed. Of course there is a line that could cause me to question the govt's motives, but we have not come to it, and I don't expect us to.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 10:51 AM

Imagine a country, independant from a multilateral organization of some kind, went into another country and overthrew the government, despite the fact that there was no danger to said country. Besides, the UN coalition was trying to stop the deaths of the Kurds, not trying to take over Iraq. You know that.

We currently have 2 formal bases set up in Iraq. Don't you watch the news?

Hypothetically, what line crossed might cause you to question the governments motives? I'm honestly curious.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 11:00 AM

Just because the bases are there now, doesn't mean they are permanant...

I don't know. offer me some hypotheticals...

I'm pretty much against invading canada.

host · 02-03-2005, 12:33 PM

willravel, Mojo and stevo simply regurgitate the talking points that the Bushco
neocons and the Fox-Goebbels spin machine have fed them, They are incapable
of independent thought or research. Blind adherence evinces from Mojo the
curious phenomena of denial of the newer reality confirmed from Bush's own
lips.......Saddam did not co-operate with Al-Queda, and no WMD's were found
in an exhaustive and expensive post invasion search of Iraq that would
vindicate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell pre-invasion rhetoric/bluster/propaganda/justification for invasion.

The brainwashed/in denial, "Bush can do no wrong" mindset cannot cope with
facts like the miniscule numbers of foreign fighters killed or captured in Iraq,
or that Al-Zarqawi is a Bushco hyped excuse to justify the needless, senseless,
and unjustified 10000 plus U.S. military casualties we have suffered as a
result of the criminal, incompetent, Bush regime's illegal, deadend, sideshow
invasion of Iraq. Bush put on a desperate show last night in a pathetic attempt to convince the citizenry that the young marine(s) who died for
nothing in Iraq, actually accomplished something noteworthy for American
security by the destruction of Fallujah, using his emotionally devastated parents as a propaganda stage prop. If Bush was motivated by anything other than his pre-election polling, why did he call a halt to the well advanced
drive against Fallujah, last april, pulling back then to allow the Iraqi insurgency to strenghthen itself and provide even more dealy resistance once
Bush could carry out the planned military agenda, with the accountability of
the Noember election behind him?

Quote:

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=144396&page=2">http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=144396&page=2</a>
................"This is a murky story," said Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser. "I'm sure we'll find out more but what we do know about Zarqawi is that he knew Iraq well."

Since then, the president has subtly altered his language when discussing Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad before the war. Bush no longer maintains Zarqawi was harbored by Saddam, just that he was there.

In campaign stops on Oct. 1 and 2, Bush said, "Zarqawi was in and out of Baghdad."

Now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says he knows of no intelligence linking Saddam and al Qaeda. ................

Now......ten months after the following MSNBC report was published, (back
then, bogeyman Zarqawi was credited with 700 deaths !!!!!....... he is
supposedly still alive and fomenting resistance.)

Quote:

<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/">http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/</a>
Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’

— Roger Cressey
Terrorism expert
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today

Or....is Zarqawi simply an elaborate U.S. propaganda, domestic "psy-ops"
creation of the Bushco. itself ?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4466324/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4466324/</a>
By Rod Nordland
Newsweek
Updated: 3:01 a.m. ET March 7, 2004

March 6 - The stark fact is that we don’t even know for sure how many legs Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi has, let alone whether the Jordanian terrorist, purportedly tied to al Qaeda, is really behind the latest outrages in Iraq.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405B.html">Who is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi?</a>
.................Al Zarqawi's Links to Al Qaeda

Al Zarqawi is often described as an "Osama associate", the bogyman, allegedly responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in several countries. In other reports, often emanating from the same sources, it is stated that he has no links to Al Qaeda and operates quite independently. He is often presented as an individual who is challenging the leadership of bin Laden.

His name crops up on numerous occasions in press reports and official statements. Since early 2004, he is in the news almost on a daily basis.

Osama belongs to the powerful bin Laden family, which historically had business ties to the Bushes and prominent members of the Texas oil establishment. Bin Laden was recruited by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war and fought as a Mujahideen. In other words, there is a longstanding documented history of bin Laden-CIA and bin Laden-Bush family links, which are an obvious source of embarrassment to the US government.

In contrast to bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi has no family history. He comes from an impoverished Palestinian family in Jordan. His parents are dead. He emerges out of the blue.

He is described by CNN as "a lone wolf" who is said to act quite independently of the Al Qaeda network. Yet surprisingly, this lone wolf is present in several countries, in Iraq, which is now his base, but also in Western Europe. He is also suspected of preparing a terrorist attack on American soil.

He seems to be in several places at the same time. He is described as "the chief U.S. enemy", "a master of disguise and bogus identification papers". We are led to believe that this "lone wolf" manages to outwit the most astute US intelligence operatives.

According to The Weekly Standard --which is known to have a close relationship to the Neocons in the Bush administration:

"Abu Musab al Zarqawi is hot right now. He masterminded not only Berg's murder but also the Madrid carnage on March 11, the bombardment of Shia worshippers in Iraq the same month, and the April 24 suicide attack on the port of Basra. But he is far from a newcomer to slaughter. Well before 9/11, he had already concocted a plot to kill Israeli and American tourists in Jordan. His label is on terrorist groups and attacks on four continents." (Weekly Standard, 24 May 2004)

Al-Zarqawi's profile "is mounting a challenge to bin Laden's leadership of the global jihad."

In Iraq, he is said to be determined to "ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites". But is that not precisely what US intelligence is aiming at ( "divide and rule") as confirmed by several analysts of the US led war? Pitting one group against the other with a view to weakening the resistance movement. .......................

willravel...... I read their parroted Bushco propaganda with amusement and
with frustrated fascination. They blindly follow an incompetent idiot president,
vehemently defending his record of total failure and contradiction:
1.)Bushco failed to respond to early August 2001 warning of possible
infrastructure attacks via hijacked airliners. Indeed, Bushco presided
over a stand down of U.S. air defenses on 9/11.

2.)Bush vowed to capture Bin Laden, and months later, with no results,
declared to the press that Bin Laden was irrelevant and "he hardly thought
about him !".

3.)Entire administration proved wrong on reasons to invade Iraq. No WMD
threat found, no Al-Qaeda ties to Saddam. Bushco simply blamed failure
and incompetence on shoddy intelligence.

4.)Bush recently awarded the nation's highest civilian medals to failed
intelligence chief Tenent, and to failed post Iraq invasion CPA authority
Bremer, the man who dissolved all existing Iraqi military and police,
botched the infrastructure rebuilding goals, and now apparently lost track
of $9 billion in oil revenues that belonged to the Iraqi people.

Through it all, these deluded Bushco supporters are steadfast in their
ignorance; their misplaced confidence still firmly committed to an idiot
war criminal and his still evolving fascist corporate/government alliance.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 12:57 PM

The problem is that the Bushco supporters make up 51% of these United States. Mojo and stevo are not by any means alone. Realty? Of course Bush was wrong. He is either one of the most incompetant people in history, or he is doing this on purpous. The problem is that the Bushco propoganda machine seemingly has seized control of the American minds. My own father, a genius by any standards, is a Bush supporter. When I ask him about why he would support such a man, he simply relpies, "I know he's screwed up, but he's the best thing we've got." WHAT? So I guess it was impossible for us to vote Democrat, or Green, or Libertarian, or Independant?! Bush wasn't even the lesser of two evils. We are under the worst administration in the history of this country, and complacency seems to be working as a blindfold hiding the firing squad of Bushco. The complacency in some combines with stubernness, and that is where the danger comes in. When someone forms opinions out of complacency, and chooses to stubornly stand by the decisions as if they were made after careful consideration, they fight for the side of "eh..whatever" with their lives. It's illogical at best. I say it's a shame, because mojo is a very intelligent person.

Of course, stevo might work for Haliburton. Heh.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-03-2005, 01:33 PM

Man Host, your tone of self-righteousness just really puts me off to anything you have to say, needless to say none of your articles there refute the fact that the man is actively operating in Iraq. Are you trying to assert that he is a fabrication of the US government? We sure are going through a lot of trouble to keep this lie afloat, I mean hurling grenades at voters and beheading people is tiring work.

You hit on the Zarqawi thing, but you failed to address the historical relevance of Saddam giving aid and support to Aiyam Al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda in their operations in Somalia after the soviet defeat in Afghanistan. You know about that right host? You know right after Osama got expelled from Saudi Arabia and he took refuge in Khartorum were countries such as Iran and Iraq were training logistically and tactically and aiding finacially the beginnings of Al Qaeda in response to America's presence in the horn of Africa. Or is that all a "Bushco" fabrication too? I mean I didn't know that Bush has a time machine at his disposal where he gets the DOJ and PBS frontline to put out documents and evidence attesting to such. Hell Osama himself attests to it, but he is a figment of Bushco's imagination right?

Your blind hatred makes you willingly ignorant to reality.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The problem is that the Bushco supporters make up 51% of these United States. Mojo and stevo are not by any means alone. Realty? Of course Bush was wrong. He is either one of the most incompetant people in history, or he is doing this on purpous. The problem is that the Bushco propoganda machine seemingly has seized control of the American minds. My own father, a genius by any standards, is a Bush supporter. When I ask him about why he would support such a man, he simply relpies, "I know he's screwed up, but he's the best thing we've got." WHAT? So I guess it was impossible for us to vote Democrat, or Green, or Libertarian, or Independant?! Bush wasn't even the lesser of two evils. We are under the worst administration in the history of this country, and complacency seems to be working as a blindfold hiding the firing squad of Bushco. The complacency in some combines with stubernness, and that is where the danger comes in. When someone forms opinions out of complacency, and chooses to stubornly stand by the decisions as if they were made after careful consideration, they fight for the side of "eh..whatever" with their lives. It's illogical at best. I say it's a shame, because mojo is a very intelligent person.

Of course, stevo might work for Haliburton. Heh.

that was great. haven't laughed like that yet today. I'd better keep it down or dick is going to come down the hall and smack me. better get back to work scarring the iraqi country side and embezzling millions from US tax payers.

Really, I was laughing halfway through your first paragraph. Thats a good one, not even the lesser of two evils, made me laugh.

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 01:42 PM

stevo - Well, I suppose I'm glad to entertain - thought that obviosuly wasn't my intention.

Do you think there were actual links from Saddam to the al Qaeda?

Do you think we found WMDs in Iraq? Do you think we were in danger from weapons that may or may not have been in Iraq at the time America attacked Iraq?

Do you think preemptive war saved us from being attacked by Saddam (specifically Saddam and the Iraqi government)?

Do you think Condelezza Rice has been 100% honest?

fibber · 02-03-2005, 02:34 PM

fibber gives the "what's up?? sign to all those chiding a dishonest gub'ment.............................................................
.........................................................................
.....damn, I wasted my lunch hour trying to think of an honest administration.

-fibber

stevo · 02-03-2005, 02:35 PM

I think there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I don't think we found WMD's in Iraq because they were moved to Syria in weeks prior to the war.

I don't believe saddam would ever have attacked us personally, but I believe the possibility existed that he pass on WMD's to terrorists. He can't do that now, can he?

Do you think John Kerry has been 100% honest?

Willravel · 02-03-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Well this is a big opinion. It would be devestating to the so called liberals if there were ties between Saddam and the al Qaeda (specifically Ossama). I'm sure your opinion is based on some great information to back up what you think, cause you wouldn't just assume there is a tie without some proof. That'd be absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I don't think we found WMD's in Iraq because they were moved to Syria in weeks prior to the war.

Hmmm...I suppose that's a possibility. The problem? We were monitoring that border like nobody's buisness before the war. We knew longbefore the war that Syria was the most likely hiding place Saddam might use. Either we were negligent in following good intel, or it didn't happen. It is possible that it got through, but not likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I don't believe saddam would ever have attacked us personally, but I believe the possibility existed that he pass on WMD's to terrorists. He can't do that now, can he?

The same can be said of sooooo many countries, including France, Britan, Spain, and Russia. Most of the arms the al Qaeda and Taliban used were originally from America (I'm looking for the article, but host probably already has one). Should we have removed ourselves from power?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Do you think John Kerry has been 100% honest?

Oh God no. I can't stand Kerry, and I didn't vote for him. I have to point out that you dodged that question completly.

drakers · 02-03-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I don't think we found WMD's in Iraq because they were moved to Syria in weeks prior to the war.

I don't believe saddam would ever have attacked us personally, but I believe the possibility existed that he pass on WMD's to terrorists. He can't do that now, can he?

Do you think John Kerry has been 100% honest?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda? The "independent" council that investigated 9/11 said there were never and never has been any links between Saddam and al Qaeda. The WMD's comment is completely without merit, no evidence and none even close to show any truth to that comment (ends don't justify the means--no WMD's found--and that is the whole reason we went to war with Iraq). You avoided WILLRAVEL's question; John Kerry is not the president and is not on his council. How many people do you honestly think in Bush's cabinet have been 100% truthful (of course not Bush and Rice...also Rumsfeld--Abu G.)?

KMA-628 · 02-03-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakers

Do you have any evidence to the contrary of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda? The "independent" council that investigated 9/11 said there were never and never has been any links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Speaking of evidence, your second sentence is not factual......again. For someone questioning another person's facts, you seem to have some issues of your own.

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

Now, I am not saying that Iraq was behind 9/11. I am saying that your second sentence is completely bogus and made up.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 06:16 PM

Thanks KMA for yet again providing evidence of a link between saddam and al-qaeda. what is that, the 18th time you've posted that. I guess people only read what they want to.

As far as syria is concerned here's a link and some text from the site http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Quote:

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites

06 January, 2004

AFP

Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

-1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.

Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.

First Message from the Syrian source to Nizar Nayouf

"Dear Nizar.

We received confirmations that the Iraqi weapons, which were moved to Syria by the help of General Zoul-Himla Chalich are now hidden in three places inside Syria:

First place: a tunnel dug in the mountain close to the Al-Baïdah village, which is roughly two kilometers from Misyaf village. This place is under the 489 Safety cipher Documents' office control .

Second place: the factory of the Air Armed Forces in the village of Tal Sinan, between the town of Hama and Salamiyyah. This factory is under the Air Force control.

Third place: the location of Shinsar, 40 kilometers south of Homs, two kilometers east of the Homs - Damascus road. There are underground tunnels there, controlled by Brigade 661 of the armed air Forces. It is a Brigade of air Patrol. The tunnels are several tens of meters deep.

The weapons were transported in large wooden cases and barrels, under the supervision of the General Zoul-Himla Chalich and the son of his brother Assef, who works at Al-Bachaer company.

The company is owned by the Assad family and has offices in Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad.

This company also undertook the illegal Iraqi oil importation in Syria, and supplied weapons to Saddam. I will try to send you all the new information as i get .

Take care and be safe."

Second Message to Nizar Nayuf

"Dear Nizar.

I have sent you another chart of the positions which tells where the weapons which were sent from Iraq into Syria, are hidden. Because the preceding chart that I sent you earlier is not clear.

Until now, the authorities in Syria did not worry of what was being published by the Dutch television news about this subject.

New information: The weapons were evacuated by the means of ambulances. Mohammed Mansoura also took part in the operation.

There are other serious, detailed pieces of information concerning the money of Saddam being moved into Syria and into Lebanon and those who took part in moving it - Syrians and Lebanese.Also there are more details about the assassination of the General Moustapha Tajer which took place last summer.

Take care of yourself.

stevo · 02-03-2005, 06:18 PM

Oh, and as for Dr. Rice, I'm about 95% confident that she's 100% honest.

Manx · 02-03-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Oh, and as for Dr. Rice, I'm about 95% confident that she's 100% honest.

I'm 99.99% confident that you are wrong. The likelyhood that you are right is essentially nonexistent.

As to the thread question, the answer is no.

02-02-2005, 11:13 AM	#47 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	That is a crock Host. Your ex-patriates aren't fighting for some noble principle, or because they know all the dubious things Bush has planned for Iraq. The Majority of them are fighting because they are scared as hell that the Shiites are going to do to them exactly what they did to the shiites. Some are fighting because they don't like an occupying force. Many aren't even Iraqi and are fighting to instill a theocracy and to battle the great satan and the zionists. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-02-2005, 12:24 PM	#50 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I think the problem is I misread what Host wrote. My apologies. I equated Expatriates to insurgency, my mistake. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-02-2005 at 12:26 PM..

02-02-2005, 12:38 PM	#51 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Bush went into Iraq claiming there were WMDs that treatened America and the rest of the "free world"... They didn't find any. Bush was wrong. The fact that a democracy may rise out of the ashes is a silver lining to a bad situation. It doesn't change the fact that Bush was wrong. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-02-2005, 01:20 PM	#52 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I'm startin to get the impression that it was coming close to the time when the sanctions on Iraq were to be lifted and the US simply did not want Saddam in power when those sanctions were lifted. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-02-2005, 01:34 PM	#53 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Oh, and to answer the main question of the thread (my bad lol) Bush was wrong for the invasion. When things eventually settle down in Iraq and get back to normal it will have little to nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the Iraqi people going back to life as usual. There will always be a terrorism problem there now, however. That won't change for a very very very long time, if ever. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-01-2005, 10:08 PM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It is common knowledge that he was a terrible human being. It's not common knowledge that he has direct CIA ties. It was necessary to point that out in my explaination.

02-02-2005, 09:25 AM	#46 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Excelent post, host. That sums it up quite nicely.

02-02-2005, 11:49 AM	#48 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Sounds right on to me.

02-02-2005, 11:50 AM	#49 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Sorry, mojo, you're absolutely wrong. I suggest you talk to some people from the war torn areas of the Middle East before speaking for them with such confidence. Until you get an alternate infomation source from American media, your views on this will be tainted and baseless.

02-02-2005, 03:04 PM	#55 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	I support Bush on his international stances, that being said, obviously I'm happy with the way Iraq is looking right now. I just hope that if things work out for the best in the long term that the naysayers will have the integrity to eat crow and give Bush the credit he deserves. If things don't work out, I will. __________________ Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

02-02-2005, 05:37 PM	#58 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Don't be ridiculous. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

02-03-2005, 08:13 AM	#61 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Wow. It nevery ceases to amaze me. So if the US is so obsessed with iraqi oil, then why did we stop short of taking over Iraq in 1991? were we not so 'dependent' on oil then? Yeah, and if you want to go on believing that the whole reason we are in iraq is to establish permanent military bases you are going to be proved wrong when its over. Do you actually think that the bush administration believes that the way to solve the terrorism problem is to build more military bases in the Arab world? Come on. You obviously don't have a mind big enough to understand that by giving people the opportunity to govern themselves and spread freedom, we can overcome terrorism. You probably make me laugh more than I make you laugh.

02-03-2005, 09:08 AM	#64 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Nobody fabricated anything Will. As far as Al Qaeda ties go, do you think it is coincidence that Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, just happened to be given refuge in Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan? Is it coincidence that he got treated in a state hospital ran by Uday? Is it coincidence that he stayed there after he got healty and an impending military strike was coming? Also you have the evidence of Iraq/Al Qaeda operating in Somalia which I won't rehash, but it's established. Sure Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11 or any current active plots with Al Qaeda, doesn't mean there weren't connections. Secondly as far as the WMD's, I don't believe those were fabricated either. It was largely the same intelligence used in 98' with operation desert fox after we happened to find some of the Anthrax that Saddam didn't have. But yeah, the intelligence 5 years later was wrong... in so far as a smoking gun. We still found Saddam with a bunch of shit he wasn't supposed to have. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-03-2005, 10:51 AM	#66 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Imagine a country, independant from a multilateral organization of some kind, went into another country and overthrew the government, despite the fact that there was no danger to said country. Besides, the UN coalition was trying to stop the deaths of the Kurds, not trying to take over Iraq. You know that. We currently have 2 formal bases set up in Iraq. Don't you watch the news? Hypothetically, what line crossed might cause you to question the governments motives? I'm honestly curious.

02-03-2005, 11:00 AM	#67 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Just because the bases are there now, doesn't mean they are permanant... I don't know. offer me some hypotheticals... I'm pretty much against invading canada.

02-03-2005, 12:57 PM	#69 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The problem is that the Bushco supporters make up 51% of these United States. Mojo and stevo are not by any means alone. Realty? Of course Bush was wrong. He is either one of the most incompetant people in history, or he is doing this on purpous. The problem is that the Bushco propoganda machine seemingly has seized control of the American minds. My own father, a genius by any standards, is a Bush supporter. When I ask him about why he would support such a man, he simply relpies, "I know he's screwed up, but he's the best thing we've got." WHAT? So I guess it was impossible for us to vote Democrat, or Green, or Libertarian, or Independant?! Bush wasn't even the lesser of two evils. We are under the worst administration in the history of this country, and complacency seems to be working as a blindfold hiding the firing squad of Bushco. The complacency in some combines with stubernness, and that is where the danger comes in. When someone forms opinions out of complacency, and chooses to stubornly stand by the decisions as if they were made after careful consideration, they fight for the side of "eh..whatever" with their lives. It's illogical at best. I say it's a shame, because mojo is a very intelligent person. Of course, stevo might work for Haliburton. Heh.

02-03-2005, 01:33 PM	#70 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Man Host, your tone of self-righteousness just really puts me off to anything you have to say, needless to say none of your articles there refute the fact that the man is actively operating in Iraq. Are you trying to assert that he is a fabrication of the US government? We sure are going through a lot of trouble to keep this lie afloat, I mean hurling grenades at voters and beheading people is tiring work. You hit on the Zarqawi thing, but you failed to address the historical relevance of Saddam giving aid and support to Aiyam Al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda in their operations in Somalia after the soviet defeat in Afghanistan. You know about that right host? You know right after Osama got expelled from Saudi Arabia and he took refuge in Khartorum were countries such as Iran and Iraq were training logistically and tactically and aiding finacially the beginnings of Al Qaeda in response to America's presence in the horn of Africa. Or is that all a "Bushco" fabrication too? I mean I didn't know that Bush has a time machine at his disposal where he gets the DOJ and PBS frontline to put out documents and evidence attesting to such. Hell Osama himself attests to it, but he is a figment of Bushco's imagination right? Your blind hatred makes you willingly ignorant to reality. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-03-2005 at 01:35 PM..

02-03-2005, 01:42 PM	#72 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	stevo - Well, I suppose I'm glad to entertain - thought that obviosuly wasn't my intention. Do you think there were actual links from Saddam to the al Qaeda? Do you think we found WMDs in Iraq? Do you think we were in danger from weapons that may or may not have been in Iraq at the time America attacked Iraq? Do you think preemptive war saved us from being attacked by Saddam (specifically Saddam and the Iraqi government)? Do you think Condelezza Rice has been 100% honest?

02-03-2005, 02:34 PM	#73 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	fibber gives the "what's up?? sign to all those chiding a dishonest gub'ment............................................................. ......................................................................... .....damn, I wasted my lunch hour trying to think of an honest administration. -fibber

02-03-2005, 02:35 PM	#74 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I think there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda. I don't think we found WMD's in Iraq because they were moved to Syria in weeks prior to the war. I don't believe saddam would ever have attacked us personally, but I believe the possibility existed that he pass on WMD's to terrorists. He can't do that now, can he? Do you think John Kerry has been 100% honest?

02-03-2005, 06:18 PM	#79 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Oh, and as for Dr. Rice, I'm about 95% confident that she's 100% honest.