Iraq, the safest war we ever fought?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
A good strategy (pr) for the US is to insist that the violence against troops and others is based on a Civil War. If the US admitted that the violence was based on our occupation, that would hurt the poles, and the US might have to account.

Unfortunately the US doesnt like to admit attrocities for which profit the US by its existance. Just look at Rwanda, how long did it take the US to admit that there was something going on that it might ought try to stop. France - the former collonial interest made some fuss about it, but the US, the US only got it's man (Kigame) installed (trained at Ft. Levenworth)... Guess it worked out for us. Not the Tutsis' (via the Hutus, that were then )and then the Hutus that were chased out by the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front (Tutsis' revenge) ) .

[edit on 18-4-2006 by pcxmac]




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
A couple of other things.

The Major is happy to brush off the effects of Depleted Uranium. I guess as he seems to be sitting at a desk a safe distance away from it, he can do that, but for those of his comrades-in-arms with Gulf War Syndrome, it's harder to brush off. And recent reports from Baghdad indicate an alarming rise in birth defects there.

Here's a link on this.

And if you don't like the source, then try this one.

But the breathtakingly smug attitude about Iraqi casualties exemplifies what other countries find so repugnant about the US attitude to the war, and shows why even a member of the SAS (the UK's elite fighting force) has actually REFUSED TO SERVE AGAIN in Iraq, saying that the US treat the Iraqis as 'untermenschen'. (That's another all-too-apposite reference to the parallels between the current state of the US and Nazi Germany).

It would be a really good idea for the Major to justify the reasons for going into the war in the first place. Not to do so would be a tacit admission that he's a war criminal.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   
** Dr. Helen Caldicott www.helencaldicott.com... speaks about DU alot, its her thing (suppliment)

** Its easier to "slaughter" a human being if they are not as good as you - hence the need for racism as a mechanism, to make possible gross atrocity.

It would be nice if Bush said you know what, I didnt know what I was talking about, Im an ass, Im responsable for sending all those nice americans to die, at the profit of some nice rich people, not to mention the "countless" Iraqis most if not all inncoent, the wrath of US arms makers. Its easy to blame, I have to live with my complicity for the rest of my life, knowing that I wasnt man enough to say this is wrong and get out. But that is another thread, a more personal one.

When ur in the military, you are a tool. Thats not an excuse, but understand I hold Mr. Bush, Commander In Cheif, responsable for all that has been imposed militarily over there. Everyone in the US is responsable for his actions, so if we are going to lay blame, it eventually lies at everyones feet.

Now mercinaries... those guys are WRONG. War profiteers and weapons dealers ---- WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. They are evil and wrong, deserved of absolutes (which is what they deal in).


[edit on 18-4-2006 by pcxmac]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   


But can the Major, from his Olympian height, reveal to us WHY the US is in
Iraq in the first place?


Yes, I can. Glad you asked. Here is the reason. Much of this has
been put up before and referenced various Stratfor reports and
and analysis by G. Friedman.

The absolute number one reason that the US went into Iraq
was nuclear weapons. If you think back real hard
you may remember that nuclear weapons and terrorists
made the news heavily for a few weeks and was a great
fear at the time. There was much talk in the news (TV,
magazines etc) about Al Qaeda having obtained suit case
bombs from Russia. In November 2001 it was even
reported in the Pakistan press that Al Qaeda had
nuclear weapons. After Tora Bora it was reported that
some Al Qaeda people showed up in Iran. These reports,
although mostly forgotten now were widespread and
had much information to back them up. This gave a
fear that Iran might possibly give Al Qaeda nuclear
weapons. Similarly, it was feared that Pakistan might
give Al Qaeda a nuclear bomb, since the Pakistani
military had many Taliban supporters and Al Qaeda
sympathizers. In late October of 2001 the CIA received
reports from a Russian source that Al Qaeda may have
obtained two 10 kiloton suitcase bombs. In this backdrop
the scene at the time was very concerned about nuclear
weapons. This actually was a major point in the war
and shaped the focus of the US to go beyond just Al Qaeda.
Nuclear weapons was becoming a very major concern.

These are not fairy tales, even news accounts surfaced
in foreign sources, like for example, in December of 2001
General Hameed Gul of the Pakistani ISI (military
intelligence) gave in a newspaper interview the
following quote, "No one can tell us how to run our
nuclear facilities and nuclear programs. The Taliban
will always remain in Afghanistan, and Pakistan
will always support them." If you read this and
extract the full meaning, Pakistan was saying that
they were going to give nuclear weapons to the Taliban,
Al Qaeda's model government of Afghanistan. This had
to be taken seriously because Pakistan actually had
the bomb. One of the greatest fears in nuclear weapons
is that of someone giving terrorists a weapon. It
is widely accepted that most governments will not
start a nuclear war with the US, but it is widely
known that governments have given aid to terrorists
when it was thought that they could conceal this
from the US.

When it was reported in November 2001 in
the Pakistan press that Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons,
was this a set up for the story so that blame could
be avoided for giving them nukes? Were they just
preparing for when Al Qaeda floated a boat into New
York harbor with a nuke aboard. Were they just preparing
a cover something like, "We told you back in Nov 2001
that Al Qaeda was saying that they had nukes".
There is no limit to the scenarios one can come up
with here, but when the top general of Pakistan has
stated publically that they might give nukes to
Al Qaeda, the US intel community took note of the
fact and took it seriously.

This put a whole new complexion on the war against
Al Qaeda. This situation suddenly made priority
number one for the US to lock down nuclear weapons.
Remember, at this time, the US had done no more
than go after Al Qaeda for their attack on the US.
The US had used quite a bit of restraint. They had
only put a handful of military military personnel into
Afghanistan and had relied on the Nothern Alliance
for the most part in order to get these Al Qaeda people
who were attacking us. Even in this subdued response
Al Qaeda and its supporters (Pakistan) were talking of
nuclear attacks on the US.

So much for using restraint, if they wanted to play
hard ball they had picked on the wrong country. A high
US official was dispatched to Pakistan in December to
confront Musharraf with evidence that Gul and nuclear
scientists were collaborating with Al Qaeda. This
official gave Musharraf a list of scientists that CIA wanted
questioned concerning technology sharing with al
Qaeda. Two of them were out of the country. It was
demanded that they return and that Musharraf get control
of his nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis upon interview
convinced the US that they were not cooperating with Al
Qaeda, but they said that Al Qaeda was believed to have
Russian suit case bombs and even provided the serial
numbers of them and the date of manufacture, October
1988. The serial numbers did not check out with
Russian sources, and also no good story was given
as to why the Pakistanis had not confiscated the weapons
if in fact they had access close enough to get the
information. The story was probably born out of an
effort to give cause to the Americans to hesitate or
hold back on its anti Al Qaeda efforts. This intensifying
nightmare was being born at about the same time that
Tora Bora fighting ended. A number of advanced radiation
detectors were deployed around key spots in the US. These
are much more advanced than just Geiger counters. On Dec
20, 2001 Bush made the following comments at a press
conference.

"Today I'm announcing two more strikes against
the financing of terror. We know that Al Qaeda would like
to obtain nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and
we know that often times they do not act alone. Al Qaeda
has international supporters,..............Last year
a former official of the Pakistani atomic energy commission
set up an organization known as UTN. UTN claims to serve
the hungry and needy of Afghanistan, but it was UTN that
provided information about nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda."

Bush went directly after Gul and the nuclear scientists
allied with him. Also during this time a crisis had surfaced
between India and Pakistan. Some Pakistanis had made an
attack on Indian Parliament. India was threatening invasion
and nuclear war. Now Musharraf was being squeezed on two
sides. The US was ready to eat his lunch and so was India.
The US told Musharraf that they could call off the Indians
but the price would be the arrest of the terrorists that
bombed Indian parliament and to go after ISI's Islamist faction.
Musharraf being between a rock and a hard place followed the
advice. As time went on documents were obtained in a raid on
Mullah Omar's compound in Kandahar and carefully analyzed.
They showed links and hints of nuclear collaboration
between Al Qaeda and ISI. In December in an address to the
Citadel Bush said, "The authors of mass murder must be defeated
and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass destruction"
Still the situation in Pakistan was not locked down. In
January the Bush team decided to deal with the danger of nuclear
weapons, as well as Al Qaeda. Things were not going well. You
had the Pakistani situation. Reports of Al Qaeda visiting Iran
after Tora Bora, gave concern that Iran may be switching positions.
Iran had sided with the US in Afghanistan, by lending it the
Shiite Army in western Afghanistan which helped along with the
Northern Alliance Army from the north. On top of this, many of
the core of Al Qaeda had slipped away, and this core of
less than 200 is the real danger. They are very secretive and
don't even let many followers in on their strategies.

Also, you had the event in the Sudan when Osama bin Ladin had
paid a million and a half to obtain the enriched uranium to
build a nuclear bomb. Luckily, Osama had been scammed and the
uranium was not weapons grade, but it was accepted in the intel
community that Al Qaeda was actively seeking nukes.

In this setting the Bush doctrine could be summed up this way. Al
Qaeda is a global, conspiratorial movement found in many countries.
It will be attacked in whatever state it is found. Preferably
the attack will be aided by the concerned state, but if for
any reason the concerned state is hostile or prevents attack
then the US will also attack that state.

This doctrine when connected to the nuclear weapon situation
created a parallel and not talked about strategy. The US will
not tolerate existence of nuclear weapons unless those weapons
are under verifiable control of a government in which the US has
confidence. There was one group of countries that fell into the
classification of having or getting nuclear weapons that might
possibly give them to Al Qaeda. The nations were Iran, North
Korea, and Iraq. This was the so called axis of evil. Plans
were also developed for locating and attacking any nuclear
locations that were determined to be in the category of being
under a nation that the US has no confidence in. The US was
most concerned about the 3 nations in the axis of evil. Beyond
that they also had concerns about Syria, Libya, and Pakistan.
Russia was different. They weren't likely to give weapons to
anyone, but might have lost control of some when the USSR
broke up and no one was keeping track of the weapons. The US
wanted the following from every nuclear state in the world.
Verifiable evidence that existing weapons were secured or
if this were lacking then specific plan for dealing with the
problem. Some countries like Iraq and Iran denied they had
nuclear facilities while other countries were prepared to
give the guarantees. By the time Bush made his axis of evil
speech the Bush team had made the decision to do everything
necessary to insure that no nuclear weapons would fall into
the hands of Al Qaeda, even if that meant destroying nuclear
facilities in other countries. At this point the Bush team
made public that in an extreme case the US was prepared to
make preemptive nuclear strike on any unsecured nuclear site
if that was the only way to destroy it and if it was determined
to be a threat to the US. Most countries of concern granted
access to US agents and troops to search for and secure
nuclear facilities. Some did not. The US started plans for
destroying sites in these countries, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and
Pakistan. Pakistan was thought to be a key country because
it was believed to have the most advanced capability and also
close ties to Al Qaeda. It was believed the Iranians would be
too cautious to furnish weapons. Iraqis were thought to be
more likely if they had them. North Korea was thought to be
too concerned with their own survival and they were being
watched closely. One concern that surfaced was what weapon
would be required to take out a hardened nuclear site. Many
nuclear sites are built very strong in order to take accidental
explosions of the high explosives used in conjunction with
the nuclear core. These sites are very tough and it was
believed that nuclear bomb surface attack might not destroy
the weapons within the site. No US nuclear bombs were available
that could drive deep into the earth before detonation, so
it was determined to develop some. The purpose of this new
doctrine was to warn countries like Iran and Pakistan, not
to trigger nuclear war. These countries had to be made aware
of these policies without making it public knowledge within
the countries that their governments were submitting to US
blackmail. The Russians had to be reassured that the US did
not plan nuclear war and the US had to ask Russia to work
with them in convincing former USSR countries the intentions
of the US. The US planning was done by mid December and a
declassified version was released January 10 which contained
no mention of the new first-use doctrine, but it did contain
a request for funding in preparation for "future underground
nuclear bomb tests" if needed. The development of a new
underground detonating nuke was not an especially big deal.
The big deal was that the US was telling countries like
Pakistan as early as December 2001 that it would not tolerate
any existence of a nuclear facility that was not under
clear control. So in late December 2001 when US officials
went to mediate the conflict between Pakistan and India.
Pakistan was looking at the possibility of nuclear
attack from 2 directions, India and the US, unless the US
was given access to Pakistani facilities in order to guarantee
that no nuclear materials were being taken out by nuclear
scientists. What the US was insisting on was placing US
observers on site to carry out constant inventory of nukes
and any nuclear matieral present. The US wanted constant
information of Pakistan's nuclear capability and it was not
bluffing. The US insisted on sufficient personnel on the ground
in Pakistan to insure the control of access to
the materials. It is not sure how the details were handled
but in March US forces (not in uniform) along with scientists
from NEST (nuclear types) deployed simultaneously to
Pakistan's nuclear reactors.

Musharraf worked with the US on this and it was pretty well kept
under wraps. The ISI probably knew what happened but no
challenges were made. Also Musharraf was carrying out some
careful purges in the ISI of Islamist types that might be
loyal to the jihadists. The Pakistani nukes were locked down
as phase one of the Bush program to take out any rogue state
nuclear capabilities. Phase 2 would be Iraq and when Saddam
refused UN weapons inspector Hans Blix interview of his nuclear
scientists, Saddam found also that Bush was not bluffing.
Phase 3 will probably be Iran. Iran knows the US is not going
to allow it to have nuclear weapons but will do as much
posturing as they can in order to gain Shiite influence in
the Iraqi government. Phase 4 will be North Korea and this
in fact may have been taken care of already if the news
from about Oct 2,2005 that North Korea has given up its nuclear
program is true.

For some reason Bush chose not to make that big of a deal of
nukes to the public. Maybe he thought it would be too scary.
Of course he kept it under wraps that US personnel were
being deployed to keep inventory on nuclear materials
in Pakistan's nuclear sites. Telling the world that the
US was doing this would have given fuel to Al Qaeda's claim
that the Islamic governments they wanted to replace were
just puppets of the west. In any event Bush did not
emphasize to the public the danger we were under, in
so far as nuclear weapons were concerned and he did
not elaborate on the extent he was willing to go to
in order to deny nukes to untrusted Islamic states.
He did not even make that big a deal publicly about
Iraq's nuclear program, even though that was at the
heart of why Bush went into Iraq. If you think back to
that time, you will remember that Saddam's refusal
to let his nuclear weapon scientists be interviewed
by UN weapons inspectors was the key point where
UN inspections broke down with Iraq and this in turn
brought on the invasion of Iraq. If Saddam had not
denied UN inspectors unsupervised access to his
nuclear scientists, UN inspections would not have
broken down and he would still be there in power.
Bush read this refusal as proof that Iraq had a
secret nuclear program hidden away and Bush was
taking no excuses when it came to nukes, period.

Maybe Bush thought he would be embarrassed if inspections
proved Iraq no nuke program, but everyone accepted though,
at that time, that Iraq had gas weapons hidden away. So
the Bush team decided to keep low key on the nuclear issue
and just stress generally Weapons of mass destruction. In
retrospect this turned out to be a major public relations
problem for him.

As it turned out US fears of a hidden Iraqi nuclear program
proved to be absolutely true and I will go into that, if some one
asks about it.


[edit on 18-4-2006 by MajorCee]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by MajorCee]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
What a long and hot-air-filled post. And how utterly off-the-point.

It would be rather easier to read, btw, if you either stopped hitting the return key or reformatted your paragraphs. But style is not the issue here...



The absolute number one reason that the US went into Iraq was nuclear weapons.


This is just the beginning of a long post of the sheerest wind. You concentrate primarily on Al Qaeda and 'suitcase nukes' without demonstrating any link to Iraq. I have to say that when I heard all this stuff about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq my first thought was, hang on, they've had sanctions, bombing campaigns, their infrastructure is wrecked to the point that their capital has intermittent electricity and water supplies, and yet they're supposed to have a secret weapons programme? Horse???t, I thought, and there has been nothing since to prove me wrong. Since then we've had forged documents detailing non-existent yellowcake purchases, a 'dodgy dossier' compiled by taking 10-year-outdated internet sources, and God knows how much other BS and outright lies. Mind you, we were prepared for that after Colin Powell's song and dance at the UN.

NO NUKES were found. None. (Mind you, we were prepared for that too after seeing how the crappy caves of Tora Bora compared with Colin's Bond-villan-cave-complex fantasy.)



These are not fairy tales,


Oh yes they are. And your 'reading between the lines' to suggest that Pakistan was going to give nukes to the Taliban is more than stretching it. If that's all it takes, I'm sure I could find stuff in one of Dubya's speeches to suggest he's going to give nukes to Guatemala.

Plus we have lots of leaks of how the neocon cabal at the top stovepiped unchecked and very shaky intelligence to bolster their flabby case for making war. The whole damn thing was built on lies and you're not being retroactively convincing here, at all.

So. You haven't given a remotely credible answer to the question. Perhaps you'd like to move on to 'regime change' now?

[edit on 18-4-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Well now, lets just go back and look at the rhetoric. You
can go back and dig out the speeches. They are still available
on the internet. The US never said that Iraq had Nukes, never.
It was said that they were suspected of conducting a clandestine
nuclear program. You find this in speeches made by Bush and
you can find it in the one made by Colin Powell to the UN. It
was only stated that we suspected that Iraq had hid a program
to develop them. This went along perfectly with the fact that
Saddam refused the interview of his nuclear scientists.

It also goes along perfectly with today's news whereby Iran is
suspected of developing nukes. I suppose some dense individuals
will state the US is lying because Iran has no nukes, but yet
the charge the US is making is that Iran is developing them, and
this is also exactly what happened in Iraq. Go back and dig out
the speeches. You will see that is the case.

So the question is did Iraq hide a nuclear program or did they
not hide it? Did Bush somehow bribe Saddam Hussein so that he
would refuse day after day to not allow the nuclear scientists
to be interviewed or was there a hidden program?

As I pointed out in the last post the nuclear area
was an important point that actually did nothing less
than redefined our number one priority in the war. At
first the priority was Al Qaeda. As it was pointed
out, Pakistan with some arm twisting was persuaded
to let US inspectors monitor their facilities, thereby
insuring that nothing is missing and this is an ongoing
effort.

No weapons were suspected in Iraq, but the US believed
that Iraq had hid their program after the first gulf
war in violation of UN inspections and sanctions.
It was this very point that was the cause of the
break down of UN inspections the second time. There
can be no argument of that fact. This was witnessed
by millions on television as Saddam, day after day,
refused proper interrogation of Iraq's nuclear
scientists. This refusal was thought to be evidence
that they had hid a program. In fact, it had been
hid, buried in the head scientist's garden. They
did not have any weapons but they had effectively
figured out the key problem, that of enriching the
uranium. A really good book covers the hidden
program in great detail. The book referred to is
"The bomb in my Garden". It was written by Iraq's
top nuclear scientist who was in charge of their
development program.

It might be instructive to look at what Mahdi Obeidi
has said about that program that some have called
nonexistent. Mahdi was the top scientist on
developing the centrifuge that successfully enriched
uranium under their program and it was his yard
that had the program buried in it. This program
was unearthed in about Oct of 2004, when Mahdi
came into US custody, with the US invasion in
Iraq.

Among those things buried were:
(1) Over 200 booklets detailing every piece of the
centrifuges and how to assemble them.
(2) Four prototypes of the most highly advanced centrifuge
components needed for their assembly.

Concerning the detailed drawings, dimensions, blue prints
and instructions for making the centrifuges and the
prototypes buried in his garden Mahdi said this:


quote:
These drawings, documents, and prototypes represented the
accumulated knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear centrifuge
program. They were not actual weapons of mass destruction,
but they were probably the most valuable building blocks
for WMD that Iraq ever possessed. Saddam's son Qusay had
ordered me to keep them safe from inspectors in 1992,
and the Iraqi government concocted a story that they
had been destroyed by the security services.


Developing the centrifuge was a monumental job which his
team spent a good many years on and finally did develop it.
About the centrifuge, he said:


quote:
The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece
of nuclear technology. Because it is the most efficient
and easiest method to hide, the centrifuge will
continue to be the preferred method for illicitly producing
bomb-grade uranium. With advances in centrifuge technology,
it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program
inside a single warehouse.



Concerning how close Iraq came


quote:
one thing is clear. Although Saddam never had nuclear
weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came
to developing them should serve as red flag to the international
community.


The fact is that Iraq's top scientist on uranium enrichment,
the key to building a bomb, hid their program under orders
from the top. This program had effectively solved the
problem of uranium enrichment and had the detailed plans
and specs ready to be put back into manufacture if the
opportunity became present.

Iraq refused under threat of war to let UN inspectors
interview these scientists in a neutral setting where
they were un coerced where this above fact might have
been established.

For those of you who would like to read Mahdi Obeidi's
book on Iraq's nuclear program, it is available from
Amazon at the following link:

www.amazon.com...=1142276602/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-4894764-2293700?s=books&v=glance&n=283155



[edit on 18-4-2006 by MajorCee]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
my money is on the $$$
, business is good for Bush's base, why ask why.

rhet·o·ric (rµt“…r-¹k) n. Abbr. rhet. 1.a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Oh dear. Another windy, spin-sodden post.



Well now, lets just go back and look at the rhetoric. You
can go back and dig out the speeches. They are still available
on the internet. The US never said that Iraq had Nukes, never.
It was said that they were suspected of conducting a clandestine
nuclear program.


Ah, yes, this body swerve. You're quite the little Winston Smith, aren't you? And justifying war crimes with it. There was no immediate threat to the US. There WERE NO WMDs. Scott Ritter was RIGHT when he said Iraq was disarmed, as he did repeatedly in the run-up to the war. I was watching at the time and I remember the way the US kept moving the goalposts. Every time Saddam co-operated, which he began, grudgingly, to do, once he realised things were getting serious, the US changed its demands.

I remember Tony Blair switching to justifying the war on the basis of the nuclear [program] rather than actual weapons. Our marginally less supine media here did actually pick this one up and expose it for the spin it was.

You simply avoid dealing with the charges of mendacity in my last post, and I don't blame you. Sticking to the spun version of reality is SO much easier.

You must type pretty quickly, though, I'll give you that. Are you part of the Pentagon's avowed determination to 'fight the Net'?

link



It also goes along perfectly with today's news whereby Iran is
suspected of developing nukes. I suppose some dense individuals
will state the US is lying because Iran has no nukes, but yet
the charge the US is making is that Iran is developing them, and
this is also exactly what happened in Iraq. Go back and dig out
the speeches. You will see that is the case.


And you want to make sure you attack them before they develop nukes, don't you? Otherwise you could be in a situation where they're more trouble than they're worth, like North Korea... except they're sitting on top of all that oil. Ouch.

In any case, the CIA said Iran were years away from developing nukes. Their enrichment program is entirely consistent with developing nuclear fuel rather than the much higher levels needed to make weapons-grade uranium.

And you don't think for a minute, surely, that I'm going to waste my time combing back through old speeches? If you want to play the game of posting links and quotes, I might condescend to do that for a little while although I know you'd be doing it just to waste time.

All this is seriously off-topic. I'm going to start a new thread. Perhaps you'd care to join me.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Yes this is seriously off topic, my original topic being that the
war in Iraq is safe compared to our others. But it was you that
took it off topic with the question as to why the war was started.

I gave in complete detail why the war was pursued, the detail I
gave had many things that were witnessed by many. For example
the fears of Al Qaeda getting nuclear weapons have been given
wide coverage, on CNN, FoxNews, ABC, NBC, CBS, various magazines
such as Time and Newsweek. For you to characterize this coverage
as just a bunch of wind, does nothing more than to show you have
no counter arguement.

If my stuff was just "wind" then there would have been no coverage
of these nuclear fears. Also if it was just "wind" none of the following
would have happened.
(1) Saddam refused interview of his nuclear scientists.
(2) There was the General Gul interview in Pakistan press.
(3) Bush did actually refer to Saddam's nuclear development
in speeches.
(4) Powell did refer to Saddam's nuclear developement in the
UN speech.
(5) The US did decide to develop a new nuclear weapon that
could drive deep underground to take out hidden sights.

No, none of these above would be true if I was just blowing "wind"
But all these facts above did happen as can be demonstrated with
no problem. Lets take the last for right now. If I was just
blowing "wind" with my description of how the nuclear strategy
transpired then it never would have happened that the US did,in
fact, decide to develop a weapon that could drive deep into
the earth and deliver a nuclear yield, in order to take out
a hidden program. But, the US did proceed with this program.
Here is an account of Senate debate on the program that
transpired in June 30, 2005 in the US senate. They were debating
funding of a new nuclear bunker buster. This is apparently the
program I referred to in my previous write up concerning a new
nuclear weapon that could drive deep into the earth
and then produce its nuclear yield. Several senators were
opposed to funding and making the weapon. One was John Kerry,
and his logic went something like it was a waste of money,
and America would be increasing the arms race to make the weapon.
He said we would be better off not to make the weapon because this
would set a good example for the world, and that
therefore other nations would not build the nukes
having had this good example set. This debate centered on
a bill to withold funding for this new nuclear bunker buster.

I looked up this bill on www.senate.gov and got the story.
Voting on it was July 1, just after midnight as I mentioned
before. Actually Feinstein introduced the legislation in
question, which was Senate Amdt. 1085 to HR 2419. This
amendment was for the purpose of withholding funding for the
nuclear bunker buster. If you don't remember, this
nuclear bunker buster came about when we were undergoing
fears of Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapons. At that
time Bush determined that action would be taken
against any nuclear facility that could not guarantee
to the US that their weapons were under complete control
and thereby not being given to any terrorist organizations.
The purpose of Senate Amdt. 1085 was to prohibit funds
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (that's what the
weapon ended up being called).

Most democrats voted to withhold funds to make the weapon.
The only democrats voting to provide the funds for the
weapon were the following:

Bayh - IN
Nelson - FL
Nelson - NE

I wonder if the two Nelsons are related. Isn't it
interesting that only 3 democrats indorse the idea that
we should destroy nuclear sites that are thought to be in
process of providing nuclear weapons to terrorists like Al
Qaeda. One democrat of interest here is Bayh of Indiana.
He seems to be a democrat of the tougher variety like
FDR and Truman, not the more peaceful sort popular today.

Anyway the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is going to
be built, it appears.

Here is the link concerning the amendment if you are
interested.

www.senate.gov...

As you can see from this above link, the nuclear earth penetrator
is not just "wind".



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   


I gave in complete detail why the war was pursued, the detail I
gave had many things that were witnessed by many. For example
the fears of Al Qaeda getting nuclear weapons have been given
wide coverage, on CNN, FoxNews, ABC, NBC, CBS, various magazines
such as Time and Newsweek. For you to characterize this coverage
as just a bunch of wind, does nothing more than to show you have
no counter arguement.


Nonsense. You showed no connection to Iraq. There were no WMDs, remember? As for your argument referenced above, all it does is demonstrate that the US media, en masse, treats US military and press releases as gospel and never checks them against independent sources.

Which we knew already. It's just fearmongering propaganda with little or no relationship to fact. A bunch of documents buried in someone's garden does not a nuclear development programme make.

One truth stands out, though. You have developed nuclear bunker-busters, and there's every chance that, for the second time, the US will use nuclear weapons on another country. Another country with no weapons programme to speak of. It's just bullying, and it's all about the oil. I don't see the US moving against countries without oil, after all.

The rest of your post was utterly irrelevant but a predictable pop against Kerry and some other dems who didn't want to vote funds for your nice new toy. I couldn't care less. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, the US leads the world not in democracy but in corruption, and there are very very few politicians there that deserve any respect. Paul Wellstone seems to have been one and he seems to have died in mysterious circumstances, funny that.

But back to the original thread topic (I notice you haven't come to debate the ever-shifting reasons for the war on the thread I started - it's called "Let's do the time warp again: reasons for going into Iraq") and about how safe the war is.

Well, in your assertions about how safe this lovely little war is for you, you didn't mention non-fatal casualties. Rather remiss of me to notice that up until now, but I rather think that would change the tenor of the debate if they were included. You don't often get your legs blown off going to the mall after all.

However, there's quite an interesting article that suggests that the military is concealing the fact that Fallujah - which is supposed to have been pacified - is still a pretty dangerous place.


But the US military doesn't want people to see that American soldiers are dying there on nearly a daily basis as of late. Rather than calling it Fallujah when soldiers die there, they prefer a sort of Bermuda Triangle approach and use "Al-Anbar Province" for the location of these deaths.

Let's have a brief glance at some soldiers killed recently in "Al-Anbar Province":

* April 17, Department of Defense (DOD) announced (hyperlink 'announced' with www.defenselink.mil... ) the death of a Marine who "died April 14 from a non-hostile motor vehicle accident in Al-Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 16, CENTCOM announced: "Camp Fallujah, Iraq - A Marine ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 15."

* April 16, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - Multi-National Forces (MNF) Iraq announced: "Three Marines ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 15."

* April 15, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced: "Two Marines died and 22 were wounded due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 13 ... Ten wounded Marines ... were evacuated to a medical facility at Camp Fallujah."

* April 15, DOD announced: "four Marines died April 15 when their HMMWV struck an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 11, DOD announced: "Lance Cpl. Juana NavarroArellano, 24 ... died April 8 from wounds received while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced: "A soldier ... died from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 8."

* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced: "Two soldiers ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 9."

* April 8, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced: "A Marine ... died from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 7."

Note the clue that several of these are issued from "Camp Fallujah, Iraq."


The article also suggests that the US is working closely with death squads - what a surprise to those of us who have heard of WHISC, or as it used to be known, the School of The Americas, which is where death squads and their commanders, from Haiti to Tierra Del Fuego, were traditionally trained.

Iraq still seems like a pretty dangerous place even if you get your tame Quisling proxies to do most of your dirty work for you.

The article can be found here.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   


There were no WMDs, remember


Some people can't handle the truth.

I pointed out in first reply to your statement "there were no WMD"
this:


The US never said that Iraq had Nukes, never.
It was said that they were suspected of conducting a clandestine
nuclear program. You find this in speeches made by Bush and
you can find it in the one made by Colin Powell to the UN.


You have completey disregarded this above statement and have again
made the statement that there were no WMD in Iraq. You can
keep putting this up forever if you want to keep looking
ridiculous. I can keep showing you that it is wrong for as long
as you want to keep showing that you are completely misinformed
on this subject.

So to go one step further on my above statement and show
absolute proof of their veracity here is a typical statement
from a Bush speech showing that he said Iraq was hidding
a nuclear weapons program. Several speeches in my post also
quoted Bush statements made as a matter of public record. Bush
did not charge that Iraq had nuclear weapons. To the contrary
he stressed their program to develop them as said in many
speeches such as this one:
www.whitehouse.gov...
In this one here is his exact words:


Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear
weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf
War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away
from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors
learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would
likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors
discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several
different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.


As you can see, Bush did not say that Iraq had nuclear weapons as
you profess. This is just erroneous belief on your part or determined
effort to misinform.

Now lets look at Colin Powell's speech to the UN. Here is a link to
the speech.
www.whitehouse.gov...
In this speech he said:


We know that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited
weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes. We know that Iraqi
government officials, members of the ruling Baath Party and scientists have
hidden prohibited items in their homes. Other key files from military and
scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven
around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection.
Colin Powell slide 11


So as you can see above Colin was right on target. He said that
Iraq was hiding programs in scientists homes etc. As it turned
out this was verified by Iraq's top nuclear scientist who stated
stated just as Colin stated that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered these
actions. Here is what Mahdi Obeidi said:


Saddam's son Qusay had ordered me to keep them safe from
inspectors in 1992, and the Iraqi government concocted a
story that they had been destroyed by the security services.


As you can see, Colin was right on target. Far from lying, what the
US charged about Iraq hiding a nuclear program was confirmed by
none other than the man in charge of Saddam's program, himself.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I have no problem with truth. It's spin I can't abide.

Yes, yes, yes. I keep saying WMDs. You keep trying to restrict that to nukes. WMDs included chemical and biological weapons. This is from your own link to Dubya's speech:

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

I would remind you that

From the Wash Post:

The White House, for instance, has cited the case of nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi, who recently dug up plans and components for a gas centrifuge he said he buried in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf War. The White House has pointed to the discovery as a sign of Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions, but Obeidi told his interrogators that Iraq's nuclear program was dormant in the years before war began this March.

He'd buried the components in 1991. Hardly evidence for a continuing program. Dubya says we don't know how far along they are... so we're going to invade anyway. This is a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

NO WMDs were found. The Niger documents were forged. You going to keep trying to spin this?

And Obeidi keeps changing his story. First, before the war and according to your posts, there are nuclear programs, then, just after the US invasion and occupation,


Then Obeidi repeated to Albright what he had told me -- that the Iraqi nuclear program had been dead since the start of U.N. weapons inspections in 1991.

But at this point he's afraid for his safety so he's now saying that there are chemical and biological weapons on the loose.

I was pretty convinced that there were no WMDs before the war started. I wondered what would happen when they weren't found. I thought there might be quite a fuss about it. I was naive. Far better to keep the weapons floating around unsecured so you can play 'whack-a-mole' with them across the Middle East.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I guess you are right. Burying and hiding the program proves they
had no ambition to resurrect it. They just wanted to get rid of it
and thought that was the best way.

The war really was started so that Cheney and Halliburton could make
money on it.

OBL is actually a genius and his strategy that now has him fighting
against Pakistan, Saudi, USA, and now Iraq is smart, and the more
enemies he can make the more chance he will win.

The US can't possibly win against this bunch. Actually its the
most dangerous war we ever fought,

We can't wait to go to war with Iran so that Cheney and Bush can
make some more money.

Now that I am straightened out, I see the light and will not be
posting anymore of my drivel. Thanks for straighening me out
and goodbye.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   


Now that I am straightened out, I see the light and will not be posting anymore of my drivel. Thanks for straighening me out and goodbye.


Oww. Sarcasm. That hurts.

And it was kind of fun knocking down your drivel and straightening you out. Still not quite there on the reasons behind the war, though. There were lots of reasons - but it's all there in the PNAC documents if you want to have a look. Kind of like Mein Kampf - no-one could say we weren't warned.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join