Iraq : A summary of the Bush Gov Lies

[davidmc]

I highlighted the issue of how BinLaden and the Mujahadeen were once called
freedom fighters. (Reagan, in fact, dedicated the launch of the Spaceshuttle Columbia to "the freedom fighters and Mujahadeen of Afghanistan" in 1982).

My enemy's enemy - is my friend : that was what the CIA were up to in Afgahnistan.
They supported a proxy army - the Mujahadeen - in their (USA's) struggle with the Soviet Union.

As regards the fossil fuel discussion - the USA is the biggest consumer of oil
on the planet, I agree.
But in order to secure supply and to enrich his cronies, Bush deliberately invaded Iraq to gain access to it's oil.
Therefore, people need to look at the issue of Iraq with clarity.
Is it right to invade a sovereign nation - who posed not threat to the USA ?
Is it right to invade a sovereign nation because the USA wants to secure the
oil in that country ?

If the answer is no - to either of these questions, then Bush stands guilty.

The only problem w/ that is the guy had been defying the world for 12 yrs. & the west was "footing the bill" to contain him-which was'nt cheap, by the way. My issue is trying to link him to terrorists when his was a secular gov't. Granted, he supplementally financed terrorist acts in israel but that was a regional issue. The admin. was trolling for evidence against iraq. Bush did'nt want to hear about any other country. Gen. Clark has said as much-that bush basically said "find something on iraq !!!" He was "hellbent" on invading (him & rummy & wolfowitz) iraq before he even took office. 9-11 merely gave him the pretext & his lackey's- the impetus to manufacture info. With neocon's, it's-determine your desired outcome then find obscure item's which can vaguely, if at all, justify your actions.In some circle's, it's referred to as "cheating". Invade iraq, fine. Just don't lie to the public as to you're reasons. There's an old saying in tennessee, or is it texas "Don't pee down my leg & tell me it's raining." eh szbert?

 

[darkboong]

The only problem w/ that is the guy had been defying the world for 12 yrs. & the west was "footing the bill" to contain him-which was'nt cheap, by the way.

Firstly : In what sense was Saddam defying the world for 12 years ? Surely you can't mean disarmament, because it's been shown that he complied with the disarmament requirements imposed upon him.

It was pretty cheap when you consider the military alternatives. Diplomatic alternatives were not explored because the US systematically shot down any attempts to change the situation via negotiation.

The only exception to that was the Oil for Food programme, but there is little evidence that it was anything more than a way to get oil at heavy discount in return for crappy wheat.

 

[davidmc]

Firstly : In what sense was Saddam defying the world for 12 years ? Surely you can't mean disarmament, because it's been shown that he complied with the disarmament requirements imposed upon him.

It was pretty cheap when you consider the military alternatives. Diplomatic alternatives were not explored because the US systematically shot down any attempts to change the situation via negotiation.

The only exception to that was the Oil for Food programme, but there is little evidence that it was anything more than a way to get oil at heavy discount in return for crappy wheat.

His pilots were continually violating the no-fly zones, not to mention shooting at the U.s. & british aircraft. You are aware of this, right. I am against the admin. for not being straight w/ the people & looking in vain for info that did'nt exist. I beleive bush had planned, before he was even inaugurated, to invade iraq. He only needed to make a pretense. Did you see my signature, at the bottom of my post's. It does'nt paint bush in a good light. All i'm saying is that hussein was breaking int'l law & europe did'nt seem too concerned about it (w/ the exception of britain/spain[?]), except for the inspections of course, & rightly so because they were still trading w/ him ( as were our companies, which has come out as of late, which is despicable) & he was offering rewards to suicide, palestinian bombers. Granted, it was confined to his region but, nevertheless it was/is illegal & us & every other euro country that traded in the area could not turn a blind eye indefinitely, no ?

 

[darkboong]

His pilots were continually violating the no-fly zones, not to mention shooting at the U.s. & british aircraft. You are aware of this, right. I am

Iraq's airforce remained grounded throughout the decade. The "shooting at" consisted of Radar lock-ons, which is what led to the strikes on Iraqi AA installations. There were several Friendly Fire incidents. The incident that posed the most threat of the ones that I know about was a SAM target illuminator lock-on, but there was no launch, an F-16C launched a HARM missile in response.

bottom of my post's. It does'nt paint bush in a good light. All i'm saying is that hussein was breaking int'l law & europe did'nt seem too concerned about it (w/ the exception of britain/spain[?]), except for the inspections of course, & rightly so because they were still trading w/ him ( as were our companies, which has come out as of late, which is despicable)

His proven infractions of international law were minimal to zero, in fact I'll wager that on a technical level he was more law-abiding than the UK for example. His alleged violations of the post-war agreements did not constitute violations of international law as I understand it. Witholding medicinal supplies to a civillian population (as the sanctions did) might *is* a violation of international law though.

Europeans are more pragmatic in their foreign policy, preferring to work with what they have, rather than tearing everything up and starting again. America hasn't had the benefit of really good beating on it's home soil yet, so as a nation there appears to be a fantasy that America is somehow invulnerable (despite 9/11) and unstoppable, therefore America can act with impunity.

From the point of view of the rest of the world, Europe in particular, this brings up very nasty memories of ******'s Germany. Let's face it : ****** attacked the Czechs on the pretext that they posed an imminent threat to Germany. To be fair the guy had more of a point than America did w.r.t. Iraq.

& he was offering rewards to suicide, palestinian bombers. Granted, it was confined to his region but, nevertheless it was/is illegal & us & every other euro country that traded in the area could not turn a blind eye indefinitely, no ?

... And Israel was funding militants in Iraq, what's your point ? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander... Besides Europe never did turn a blind eye to that stuff, just as they don't turn a blind eye to Israel's racist internal policies at the moment.

The US does turn a blind eye to Israel's racist policies. The underlying reasoning behind the US denial appears to be that sniping children as they sit in classrooms is a legitimate response to a terrorist attack.

 

[iknowtest]

The Swift Boat Veterans have done it again.

Here's the documentary showing the treasonous behavior of John Kerry.




Rembember - voter registration is at an all time high. To alleviate crowds and waiting at the polls Republicans are to vote Tuesday, November 2. Democrats and Independents are to vote Wednesday November 3.


God Bless the Swift Boat Veterans
and
God Bless America

 

[Bikerman2004]

From the point of view of the rest of the world, Europe in particular, this brings up very nasty memories of ******'s Germany. Let's face it : ****** attacked the Czechs on the pretext that they posed an imminent threat to Germany. To be fair the guy had more of a point than America did w.r.t. Iraq.

Please do enlighten us! Exactly what threat did the Czechs pose?

 

[limerickman]

Please do enlighten us! Exactly what threat did the Czechs pose?

I have to say, I was a bit perplexed myself about that the Czech comment as well.

****** spoke a lot of truths and diagnosed a lot of problems 100% correctly.
His solutions to those problems though, were a bit over the top.

The Czechs posed no threat to Germany as far as I recall.

 

[darkboong]

Please do enlighten us! Exactly what threat did the Czechs pose?

Well equipped army. Top notch military R&D resulting in kit like their LMGs, and even turbo-props. Also they were land-locked. In principle they could have simply marched down the road to Berlin with their BRENs.

People tend to forget that the Czechs were (and remained) excellent and innovative engineers. By contrast Iraq had about a few thousand miles of hostile airspace and sea to get to the US, no functional air-force, no functional navy, no ICBMs, in fact no weapons and delivery systems that would function with any efficacy whatsoever at that range...

 

[Bikerman2004]

Well equipped army. Top notch military R&D resulting in kit like their LMGs, and even turbo-props. Also they were land-locked. In principle they could have simply marched down the road to Berlin with their BRENs.

People tend to forget that the Czechs were (and remained) excellent and innovative engineers. By contrast Iraq had about a few thousand miles of hostile airspace and sea to get to the US, no functional air-force, no functional navy, no ICBMs, in fact no weapons and delivery systems that would function with any efficacy whatsoever at that range...

You're reaching here. That top notch army? The one that tried to stop ****** when he marched into the rest of Czechoslovakia. Wow they had turbo props in 1939?

 

[darkboong]

You're reaching here. That top notch army? The one that tried to stop ****** when he marched into the rest of Czechoslovakia. Wow they had turbo props in 1939?

A Czech engineer demonstrated his Turboprop pre-war. Not a production engine, sure, but a working demonstrator.

Well respected & deployed firearms combined with cutting edge aerospace research constitutes more of a threat than Saddam's alleged "intent" to develop "WMD"...

 

[limerickman]

A Czech engineer demonstrated his Turboprop pre-war. Not a production engine, sure, but a working demonstrator.

Well respected & deployed firearms combined with cutting edge aerospace research constitutes more of a threat than Saddam's alleged "intent" to develop "WMD"...

Czech engineers are superb.
Worked for a well known company at one time and we actively recruited Czech
engineers because their education and their experience - in the engineering field
- is second to none.

But how does this justify Hitlers invasion ?

 

[Bikerman2004]

A Czech engineer demonstrated his Turboprop pre-war. Not a production engine, sure, but a working demonstrator.

Well respected & deployed firearms combined with cutting edge aerospace research constitutes more of a threat than Saddam's alleged "intent" to develop "WMD"...

The name of this engineer? Yes I could see the threat, since the Germans already had flown their jet. I'm sure the Czechs were more cutting edge on their aircraft design.

 

[darkboong]

The name of this engineer? Yes I could see the threat, since the Germans already had flown their jet. I'm sure the Czechs were more cutting edge on their aircraft design.

Eeek. It was a Hungarian apparently. Gyorgy Jendrassik... That doesn't sound familiar to me, it's been a while, I'll need to dig out my copy of "Aero Engines" by Bill Gunstan and check up.

Still, the point remains despite that. The Czechs posed more threat to Nazi Germany in 1938 than Iraq posed to America in 2002.

 

[darkboong]

Czech engineers are superb.
Worked for a well known company at one time and we actively recruited Czech
engineers because their education and their experience - in the engineering field
- is second to none.

But how does this justify Hitlers invasion ?

It doesn't.

I chose it to illustrate the absurdity of Bush & Blair claiming that Iraq posed an imminent threat...

 

[davidmc]

His proven infractions of international law were minimal to zero,

You are correct there but, what does violating UN mandates constitute (c article below) ?

Europeans are more pragmatic in their foreign policy, preferring to work with what they have, rather than tearing everything up and starting again.

14 yrs. of pragmatism, riiiiight, over here that's referred to as "dragging one's feet."

Iraq's airforce remained grounded throughout the decade. The "shooting at" consisted of Radar lock-ons, which is what led to the strikes on Iraqi AA installations. There were several Friendly Fire incidents. The incident that posed the most threat of the ones that I know about was a SAM target illuminator lock-on, but there was no launch, an F-16C launched a HARM missile in response.

air space violations:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021115-064942-9002r
All i'm saying is it could be termed immoral to trade w/ & supply free air space coverage (coutesy of the U.S. & W. Europe), which is not cheap, to a UN-noncompliant, brutal, martyr inducing (rewards for suicidal palestinians), dictator for life? As an aside, I hav'nt heard of the brits trading w/ him. I think bush #41 might have started the whole affair, w/ the amer. ambassador visit to hussein when she allegedly said america does'nt have any authority over iraq's sphere of influence [that's tantamount to engraved invitations-kuwait] but the facts can't be proven/disproven. They claim it was a language barrier misinterpretation.

 

[darkboong]

You are correct there but, what does violating UN mandates constitute (c article below) ?

14 yrs. of pragmatism, riiiiight, over here that's referred to as "dragging one's feet."

Dragging one's feet implies doing nothing, which is certainly not the case as far as Europe goes. The foot dragging was coming from the US shooting down any plans to move the situation on beyond sanctions and air traffic control.

air space violations:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021115-064942-9002r

The context of that report is significant. America was looking for any excuse to attack Iraq, and it was fabricating them by the dozen when that report was written in 2002. It is also worth noting that the Iraqis switching on a radar or a target illuminator without firing a single shot was also classed as an attack.

All i'm saying is it could be termed immoral to trade w/ & supply free air space coverage (coutesy of the U.S. & W. Europe), which is not cheap, to a

Not being able to fly *at all* in one's own country is hardly "cheap".
500,000 deaths as a result of sanctions is hardly "cheap".

UN-noncompliant, brutal, martyr inducing (rewards for suicidal palestinians),

Israel has a big pile of UN resolutions stacked up against it that it has ignored, let alone the ones the US kindly vetoed for them. The bodycounts racked up by the US and Israel in the region during the last 18 months more than qualify them for the "brutal" label.

dictator for life? As an aside, I hav'nt heard of the brits trading w/ him. I think

Ah, you obviously missed Matrix-Churchill. I used to go by that factory everyday on the bus when I studied at Warwick University. It was actually in Coventry. It turns out that UK government ministers directly approved the export of dual-use equipment to Iraq, and they even put it under the Export Credit Guarantee scheme.

bush #41 might have started the whole affair, w/ the amer. ambassador visit to hussein when she allegedly said america does'nt have any authority over iraq's sphere of influence [that's tantamount to engraved invitations-kuwait] but the facts can't be proven/disproven. They claim it was a language barrier misinterpretation.

Hmm. I doubt we'd get enough accurate info on that to make a call tbh. I'm not really feeling up to learning Arabic right now.

 

[limerickman]

Dragging one's feet implies doing nothing, which is certainly not the case as far as Europe goes. The foot dragging was coming from the US shooting down any plans to move the situation on beyond sanctions and air traffic control.




The context of that report is significant. America was looking for any excuse to attack Iraq, and it was fabricating them by the dozen when that report was written in 2002. It is also worth noting that the Iraqis switching on a radar or a target illuminator without firing a single shot was also classed as an attack.



Not being able to fly *at all* in one's own country is hardly "cheap".
500,000 deaths as a result of sanctions is hardly "cheap".



Israel has a big pile of UN resolutions stacked up against it that it has ignored, let alone the ones the US kindly vetoed for them. The bodycounts racked up by the US and Israel in the region during the last 18 months more than qualify them for the "brutal" label.



Ah, you obviously missed Matrix-Churchill. I used to go by that factory everyday on the bus when I studied at Warwick University. It was actually in Coventry. It turns out that UK government ministers directly approved the export of dual-use equipment to Iraq, and they even put it under the Export Credit Guarantee scheme.



Hmm. I doubt we'd get enough accurate info on that to make a call tbh. I'm not really feeling up to learning Arabic right now.

Matrix-Churchill - lest we forget ?
Company found to be making tubing - prosecuted by the British DPP and when the company started to produce evidence of the Conservative British Goverments acquiescience in the export scheme : the DPP suddenly began to
get very shy.

 

[davidmc]

It's so sweet when two 'middle of the road' **** smokers show some love.

Idon't know, you're new avatar looks a little, how should i say, homoerotic. It's alright, i'm sure you can't help it.

 

[davidmc]

He has an unerring ability to consistently prove a point !

He does'nt realize that he does our job for us. He invalidates himself. Thank iknowtest !!!

 

[davidmc]

Actually, much of the Bible includes advice for building warriors.

"It is better to cast your seed into the belly of a ***** than upon a rock." Essentially says that instead of wacking off, go bang a *****, maybe you'll knock her up and raise another Christian soldier. That's indelicate as hell, but pretty practical advice.

Besides, what fun would religion be if we didn't keep fighting over our God is better than your god. Or, you face the wrong way when you pray. If we had a perfectly homogeneous, monolithic society, things would be perfect. Just like the Borg. But, essentially, that's what the muslim terr's want, and zealots of other religions as well.

The problem is-the republicans fighting all of these wars of choice & future generations footing the bill. Bush is'nt a conservative, ripping through all of that money. In the future, meritocracy (earning one's right to power) is gradually going to outpace aristocracy (e.g.,being handed power-dubya)