It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally quoted by semperfortis

The Environmental news source is famous for inventing sources and bits of news to further their goals of us all eating grass and never running our AC. Sorry no dice there. The "Jurist" you quoted ceci, is INCREDIBLY inflammatory against President Bush!!! Can not hardly give much credence to it after reading your link. Sorry.


Fair enough. There are plenty other of sources that talk about the Afghanistan pipeline.

1)There is a report by Larry Chin about the history of Unocal and the Afghanistan pipeline.

2)Ron Calliari's piece on the The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?

3)BBC's piece on the Central Asia pipeline deal signed by Ian McWilliam.

4)Wikipedia's piece on the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.

5)BBC has another piece on the pipeline: Afghan pipeline given go-ahead




That is only indicative of a "global" disdain for an American ideal of liberating oppressed peoples.


And the people of Iraq aren't oppressed? Have you read any colonial history? There's no "global" disdain about it. There are colonizers and there are the colonized. What's different with the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Same story. Different time period.



I fear the dictator that was systematically destroying tens of thousands of his own people with the WMD's that you still assert he never had, was messing up Iraq quite a bit more than we are. We have given them the first TRUE vote they have had in decades. A voice, a chance to stand on their own feet.

Still, no matter what is found, there are those that will be against this for any reason they can find, and further doubt anyone that produces any shred of evidence. This is the American way, that people should disagree. It is only frustrating to me to see the very positive effect we are having over there and still see the negativity on here.


The positive effects in Iraq are very little. Humanitarian efforts might have happened over there, but it doesn't erase Abu Ghraib, the lies about oil, the killings of Iraqi civilians by our military and the disregard (until Congress passed a resolution recently) for the Geneva Convention. If they did want to do something positive, they should have left the artifacts from the museums alone and not cluster bombed Baghdad on the first few days.

If they wanted to do something positive, they should have tried diplomacy.

If they wanted to do something positive, they should have proved the WMD's in the first place instead of sending General Powell to lie about it in front of the UN.

If they truly wanted to do something good, they should have thought of another solution than the path they took dragging us into this conflict.



It is also frustrating to read posts where it is QUOTED that WMD's were the reason we went into Iraq. That simply is not true. Neither is it true that we went in for oil. These are talking points propagated by a political faction that is against anything this administration does. We know that, we see it all the time, yet it remains frustrating.


Then what did we go over there for? It wasn't for humanitarian reasons. I'd believe that if Mr. Bush concentrated his powers on trying to help other oppressed countries in the world that don't possess rich deposits of oil. Besides, Mr. Bush said over and over that WMD's were the reason we went over there. He had said it in many speeches. Now, he is trying to clean up his own mess.

I'd believe it if Mr. Bush didn't put his "handpicked" people in positions of power (Mr. Karzai, Mr. Chalabi,etc.).

It's not a political faction who is saying this. A lot of the reports I have found come from overseas.



Originally quoted by zappafan1
I see nothing wrong with those statements.


That is also fair. I also went to PNAC's website and pulled some other things that I find questionable from their report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which is the PNAC document in question.

PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses


Page v:

DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.


This talks mainly about U.S. supremacy around the world. Is this what it means to spread democracy?



Page 2:

Strategic goal: Preserve "pax Americana" in the 21st century.


A pax Americana? Just like Pax Romana?


Page 6:

HOMELAND DEFENSE. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War,
nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.


Homeland? Multiple and simultaneous large-scale wars?



Page 28:

American landpower is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence.


Perhaps so, but it sounds like world conquest. It even sounds a little Hitleresque if you read between the lines.







[edit on 13-7-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: SARIN does not decompose or lose potency.

Sarin and cyclosarin do, unless as binary ammunition, of which so far only one shell had been found.



Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: You really don't do any research, do you? By the way, no, I don't listen to Rush; maybe ten times a year, if that. Although I've heard some of what he says from other sources (and most of which cad be vetted), I prefer to do my own research, such as:

The Jordanian bomb plot had various chemicals that were common industrial chemicals to cause a conventional explosion and hence did not qualify the definition of "chemical weapon" any more than TNT is a chemical weapon because nitroglycerin is a chemical substance.
David Kay has further not presented any evidence for his assertions and they are partly misleading. Increased traffic between Iraq and Syria of tankers and trucks doesn't mean anything, increased traffic of trucks also happened between Iraq and Turkey. Do a search on what the "moving pipeline" between Iraq and Turkey was. Similar ones existed between Iraq and Syria and Iraq and Jordan. Tanker trucks full of fuel do have a tendency to get out of the way when war is coming. It's not good to be sitting upon a few tons of fuel in a warzone. And your last assertion about the Bekaa Valley doesn't have a credible source either. Nevermind that Syria has left the Bekaa Valley in particular and even Lebanon as whole. I see noone cares addressing the points I brought up but likes to remain in their ignorance.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Were there WMD's and why were they not used?

Well President Bush was not the only one to think there were. Check the dates on some of the statements.
Also some reasons why they were not used.



What we learned firsthand is what the cia psychiatrists have said for years: Saddam is an egomaniacal sociopath whose penchant for high-risk gambles is exceeded only by a propensity for miscalculation. Those psychiatrists, who study the characters of world leaders, believe that he suffers from what is popularly called “malignant narcissism,” a sense of self-worth that drives him to act in ways that others would deem irrational, such as invading neighboring countries.

Fair enough but he was not stupid either...after all he has the experince of the first gulf war to go by.


A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).


I have to question anything that comes from a "private Intelligence summit." Who was sponsering it and what was their agenda?

Right after hostilities ceased Rumsfeld was asked what happened to WMD and he suggested that perhaps they were shipped out of country. His response and how he said it spoke volumes...he suggested...he did not say that they were or that the pentagon had any knowledge that they did. The claims that they were started appearing after that as a justification.


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998



"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998



"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002


No doubt that it was thought that Hussien was continuing to seek WMD but in all reality we had no legitimate assets on the ground so that it was a matter of summations. After all we have been wrong before.

And finally to answer your question why they were not used.


I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980's that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.

Interview with Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti
History :

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti was a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator. Units under his command dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He was known as the “Butcher of Basra” due to his campaigns and defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991. This interview aims to gain some insight into the current situation in Iraq.


That man left by your own account in 1991 and as a result has no crediblity when it comes to what happened in Iraq in the 12 years after. How could he? After all he left.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
As for the White House keeping (or not) the congress informed this is from a current thread on htis site:

"White House" withheld about major operations!
July, 9 @ 05:22 GMT
Elsenorpompom

original news source:

today.reuters.com
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on Fox News Sunday he had written a four-page to President George W. Bush in May warning him that the failure to disclose the intelligence activities to Congress may be a violation of the law.

In doing so, he confirmed a story that first ran in Sunday editions of the New York Times.

"I take it very, very seriously otherwise I would not have written the letter to the president," Hoekstra said.

"This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately and people within the intelligence community brought to my attention some programs that they believed we had not been briefed on. They were right," said Hoekstra, a close ally of Bush.

What more proof do you need Semper? If the Bush White House won't keep the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, known as a close ally of Bush, informed what makes you think that they were anymore forthcoming with the intelligence pro or con (especially con) with congress during the lead up to war?



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Ceci,

And the people of Iraq aren't oppressed? Have you read any colonial history? There's no "global" disdain about it. There are colonizers and there are the colonized. What's different with the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Same story. Different time period.

No they are not, not anymore. See here :
politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

Unless your stuck on spinning anything that we do overseas in a negative spin, then everything that we do is negative and that seems to be a prevailing attitude on here lately.


he positive effects in Iraq are very little. Humanitarian efforts might have happened over there, but it doesn't erase Abu Ghraib, the lies about oil, the killings of Iraqi civilians by our military and the disregard (until Congress passed a resolution recently) for the Geneva Convention. If they did want to do something positive, they should have left the artifacts from the museums alone and not cluster bombed Baghdad on the first few days.


VERY LITTLE???? Please read the above referenced post, also several postings about the millions and millions of dollars going into new hospitals, schools etc. sheeesh, what does it take?
"Lies about oil?" Unproven, unsubstantiated BS!!! We are building more pipelines in Alaska, does that mean we are oppressing them as well????
Killing of Iraqi civilians??? People die in war. With the rare exception (Being investigated by US and prosecution pending) it is funny that the only people complaining about our presence is the people safe over here from the road side bombs and IED's.
Abu Ghraib, was NOTHING!!! except a ridiculous exaggeration again, by those that are against the war and found a possible advertisement ploy to further their cause. I went to S.E.R.E. school and went through a LOT more than was ever done there. They are terrorist prisoners and enemies of America and all that is good and right in the world. I don't care what they do to them.
And finally, WRONG
It is a war, we did and should have bombed as much as we needed to. It's a WAR!!!


If they wanted to do something positive, they should have tried diplomacy.

12 years, Twelve Years!!! of diplomacy, talk, pleading, sanctions and the toothless gumming from the UN. Nuff said, plenty of diplomacy, was MORE than enough.


If they wanted to do something positive, they should have proved the WMD's in the first place instead of sending General Powell to lie about it in front of the UN.


They found the ones that were not moved. (Did you read my previous post? Even the STAUNCH democrats stated it, before they started LYing and disclaiming any knowledge. By the way, those are quotes from their own speeches. Regardless WMD's are not the REASON we went in the first place. "sigh"


Mr. Bush said over and over that WMD's were the reason we went over there. He had said it in many speeches. Now, he is trying to clean up his own mess.


What can I say except. NO HE DID NOT. Again and again, read the speeches. Muaddib is right on this one.

And for the rest of your post.

I did not read between the lines. I read the lines and see nothing wrong there. Maybe that is the problem!! Too many people "reading between the lines" and putting their own brand of logic on something written by someone else for an entirely different purpose. I could read the Declaration of Independence and with the "right" mind set, see it as a terrorist document.

I choose instead to read it the way the authors intended and not warp the meaning to fit my political agenda.

Semper



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Semper I remember the lead up to the war quite well (its what happened 5 minutes ago that gives me problems
:lol
and Bush may have said that there were other reasons for going to war, I don't know, I have not read all his speeches (and sending me to gitmo won't make me do it either
:lol
BUT THAT is not what the selling points for war were. Weapons of mass destruction was all that any of us heard via the media...radio, TV. print, online it was a WMD WMD WMD ad nausum.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Semper,

I'll answer your other questions later. But when you think about it, the Declaration of Independence was written by "Insurgents" against the British Crown. And when the "insurgents" tossed the tea in Boston Harbor, that was a "terrorist act".





[edit on 13-7-2006 by ceci2006]


df1

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortisI could read the Declaration of Independence and with the "right" mind set, see it as a terrorist document.

The government is already laying waste to our rights under the US Constitution in a big way as is evidenced by this FBI brochure. It will come as no surprise to me when the tories, disguised as patriots, next condemn the declaration while waving the flag.


Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.




[edit on 13-7-2006 by df1]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
ceci2006: You give "common dreams" as a source? It's a site who's owners/backers believe in being "progressive." In the late 50's, early 60's, that term was used to describe the Communist party in America. It fell from use because many people were learning it's true meaning. Now it's back in favor, but it's still a belief in Communism, and they hate America. They're somilar in content to Moveon, and I believe are both backed by international criminal George Soros.

The quote you give from the story: ".... Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot..." is old news and has been disproven time and again.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

I just can't believe your logic Muaddib, or that of the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine....


REPLY: Pre-emptive" war was first done by FDR against the germans, and with very good reason. We were not alone in the decision, either, as there are/were over 200 other countries with us.

Will it become commonplace? I doubt it. But to wait until we're hit before we act is folly.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
We on the left DO NOT HATE AMERICA. that is total bullhooey. Soros is not a criminal. international or otherwise.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
FDR declared war on the Germans after the Germans delcared war on us after we declared war on Japan for attacking us.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
posted by Muaddib
Then there is the known fact that Russian ex military, who still had connections with the Russian government and are now living and enjoying their hard work in Russia, were given medals by the regime of Saddam for their help up to the beginning of the war in Iraq...


That is no "known fact".


REPLY: This is reference to the trucks caught on satellite recon moving Iraqi "materials" to Syria, with the help of the Russians.


No scientist or military officer serving at around 2002 ever claimed the existence of WMD. Former general Georges Sada retired in 1986 and was arrested and dismissed on February 5, 1991. he was hence not in a position to know.


REPLY: You have this totally wrong; where did you get that from? Sada was asked by Saddam to become a member of the Baath Party in 1986, but refused. Nonetheless, Despite being a Christian and refusing to join the Baath Party, Sada was promoted to Saddam’s inner circle for his honest advice.

As for what he (Sada) disclosed about Saddams WMD's, it was corroborated by Tierney as being authentic:

Sada interview;


Interviewer: So he had them. (Weapons of mass Destruction)

SADA: Yes.

Interviewer: Where were they? And were they moved and where?

SADA: Well, up to the year 2002, 2002, in summer, they were in Iraq. And after that, when Saddam realized that the inspectors are coming on the first of November and the Americans are coming, so he took the advantage of a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was broken. So he - he announced to the world that he is going to make an air bridge...

Interviewer: You know for a fact he moved these weapons to Syria?

SADA: Yes.

Interviewer: How do you know that?

SADA: I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria.

Interviewer: How did he move them, general? How were they moved?

SADA: They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tierney;


Interviewer: Ok, so where did the WMDs go?

Tierney: While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002. From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002. One of the steps taken was to prepare the younger generation of the security services with English so they could infiltrate our ranks, another was either to destroy or move WMDs to other countries, principally Syria.


It's interesting to note here that this is the same time Jay Rockefeller went to Syria and disclosed Americas plans to send the inspectors (something which he has been under investigation for).


The crowds were not that big and the statue tearing staged. Regarding those voting, voting doesn't mean they like the US or even democracy itself. Many of them voted for political parties that have rather theocratic viewpoints.


REPLY: To this day the coalition forces are greeted with much fanfare and thanks, and the statue event was most certainly not "staged", and the square was FILLED with people. An event to be shown, yes, but not staged (saw it firsthand).

Also, The idea is to give them the ability to vote as to how they wish to be governed and live, democratically, which is something they did not have when Saddam was in power.


"... her (Cindy Sheehans) son, volenteer or not, died in Bushes splendid little war, at her grief and opinions in that matter deserve respect.

REPLY: Cindy is nothing new to the anti-war issue, as she had the same "ideals" in her late teens. Her son obviously was a volunteer, as there is no draft. He enlisted because of his beliefs and, probably, to get away from her. She's only been to his gravesite twice (for photo ops) and has never placed flowers there.... at least not yet. She deserves no respect because she's taking advantage of her son's sacrifice to further her agenda.


google Valerie Plame and you will find more than enough...PLUS there are quite a few threads on here including some of my own that deal with this.


REPLY: As it now turns out, as I've said all along (and in other threads) Plame was not covert; she was outed by her husband, herself, and Russia; there was no "crime." The CIA already knew the yellowcake was not purchased in Niger, but another region/country of Africa, which is where he purchased the 200+ tons from.


df1

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
The CIA already knew the yellowcake was not purchased in Niger, but another region/country of Africa, which is where he purchased the 200+ tons from.

And exactly where is this 200+ tons of yellowcake now?

I find it hard to believe that the location where the 200+ tons of yellowcake was stored in iraq can not be indentified. And even assuming that its location in iraq was identified, I find it hard to believe that 200+ tons of yellowcake were smuggled to from iraq to syria without being noticed by the billions of dollars of satellite technology. It is not like 200+ tons of yellowcake could be moved around over the weekend by saddam and couple friends in a pickup truck.

The belief that saddam could secretly move 200+ tons of anything is a belief in the impossible and the belief that he could secretly move 200+ tons of radioactive material is a belief in the absurd.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by df1]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

The positive effects in Iraq are very little.


REPLY:

Palkot also takes us to the Iraqi stock exchange, where state-owned enterprises that have been privatized are now traded vigorously on the frenetic market floor.

The Iraqi electrical grid had 4,400 megawatts of output when the Coalition began to repair it. In the last year, there have been more than 2000 megawatts added to the nationwide grid. By September, there will be an additional 700 mw available. Over the summer, Iraqis will have the electricity they need to keep their appliances running. Another 1,000 mw will be added by next summer.

Oil separators, refineries, pipelines and water injectors have been built or repaired using about one-third of the total $1.7 billion allocated for that purpose.

School projects are high on the list of priorities also. Children who currently sit with their toes in the mud will find themselves in classrooms made of brick and mortar soon if they haven't already. Of the 800 planned schools, 600 are completed.

The plants which support that electricity are subject to the availability of repair parts, trained Iraqi engineers and plant managers. Eighty Iraqis have recently returned from schools abroad and repair parts have been ordered for a ready, on-hand supply.

Many of the existing plants have suffered 35 years of neglect. It is still easier to repair these facilities for immediate use than to create new facilities from scratch, yet both are being done. There are six new electrical plants being built in Iraq.

he cost, scope and schedule comparisons for building contracts indicate that a 10-room school should be built with 10 rooms, function as a school and be built on the budget allotted for its construction. While we're never fully satisfied with less-than-perfect ratios, we're pleased with the willingness of the Iraqi builders to show up and work with an undiminished will, sometimes at the risk of their own lives. We're getting most of what we're asking for here.

There has been an estimate of $60 billion required to rebuild the infrastructure to pre-1991 levels. The U.S. has committed $18.4 billion to the rebuilding of Iraq , and $11 billion is ear-marked already. The balance will likely come from foreign investors. That interest is already coming from commercial interests in Madrid , Tokyo and Brussels.

This is a huge undertaking, and that is both for the food that goes into the food distribution system education sector, health sector, electricity and the other sectors. But let me just mention some of the accomplishments.

School just opened on the 4th of October. More than 1,600 schools have been reconstructed, refurbished. That means that the electrical wiring has been replaced, new fans have been put in, new electrical lights, windows have been repaired, the latrines -- the bathrooms -- have been repaired, the plumbing's been put back on. And there are more than 1,600 of these schools across the country.

We've printed, working with UNICEF and UNESCO-- two UN agencies-- 5.6 million textbooks in math and science, and 76 different textbooks, but it's in the math and science area. They have been purged of propaganda and they were done through the UN mechanisms that are used all over the world for producing textbooks for these areas, but of course, they're in Arabic and they are sensitive to the cultural context in which they're produced. They worked with the Ministry of Education career Iraqi staff.

We also produced a million and a half back-to-schoolbags for every high school student. There are a million and a half high school students going back to school and they have a canvas bag with a calculator in it and a compass and pencils and paper and rulers and that sort of thing.

We've trained over 50,000 teachers in a more Socratic method of questions and answers, of debates in class as opposed to rote learning, which is not the best kind of educational mechanisms to use in our view, particularly in a democratic society.


I have LOADS more........


Humanitarian efforts might have happened over there, but it doesn't erase Abu Ghraib


REPLY:Not AG again; yeah.... puitting womens panties on a guys head is SOOOO torturous. Most things that happened there were no worse than college hazing events.


the lies about oil


REPLY: Disproved, though I'd like links if you have proof.


the killings of Iraqi civilians by our military


REPLY: if you hide in houses where civilians are, willingly or (as is most of often the case) NOT willingly, and you get into a firefight or hit with a bomb, what happens?


".... and the disregard (until Congress passed a resolution recently) for the Geneva Convention.


REPLY: It was the Supreme Court and, they are not the end-all be-all of law, as much as they would like to be. As has been shown time and again, enemy combatants/terrorists do not fall under the protection of the GC. It has been linked to before, but I can post the exact wording if you wish.


If they did want to do something positive, they should have left the artifacts from the museums alone and not cluster bombed Baghdad on the first few days.


REPLY: Ummm, It's been three years now that we've known that 95%+ of the museums contents were moved to safety by the museum curators before the liberation began.


If they wanted to do something positive, they should have tried diplomacy.


REPLY: What? Ten years of negotiations and appeasement wasn't enough??? Please, anyone, show me a time in the past 200 years where negotiations, appeasement or other molly-coddling has worked when dealing with dictators, thugs and tyrants!
I've asked this on other threads and forums and, guess what? 'Ya can't do it because it's never happened.
We should have learned the lesson dealing with Yessir Yourafart, AKA Yasser Arafat. Treating him as a "statesman" for decades when he was nothing but a tyranical dictator.


If they wanted to do something positive, they should have proved the WMD's in the first place instead of sending General Powell to lie about it in front of the UN.


REPLY: Every single intelligence agency in the free world said they were there. What makes more sense: That the hundreds of thousands of hours, and tens of millions of dollars spent around the world, concluding that Saddam had WMD's (defined as Nuclear, Chemical, Biological), was wrong?, or that they were correct, and the main issue should be "where are they now"?


Besides, Mr. Bush said over and over that WMD's were the reason we went over there.


REPLY: As has been posted, his first speech gave multiple reasons, and WMD's were last on the list. True, in subsequent speeches he changed the order around, but WMD's were never the only focus.


I'd believe it if Mr. Bush didn't put his "handpicked" people in positions of power.


REPLY: Yeah.... most presidents select/handpick people that totally disagree with their views and goals. ?????


".... the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."


REPLY: Well.... it makes sense to me, since we've always been the ones to help other countries, IE: Europe, Kuwait, et-al.

NEWS FLASH..... Italy didn't win the soccer match; France surrendered!!!


The Jordanian bomb plot had various chemicals that were common industrial chemicals to cause a conventional explosion.


REPLY: A car belonging to the al-Qaida plotters, containing a chemical bomb and poisonous gas, was intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrain Border.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
We on the left DO NOT HATE AMERICA. that is total bullhooey. Soros is not a criminal. international or otherwise.


[link] www.aim.org... [/link]

REPLY: From the above link:

"Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests.' He is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. Other people suffer so he can get rich. Here, Soros signed a consent decree in United States District Court, in a Securities and Exchange Commission case involving stock manipulation, and was fined $75,000 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission...."

"In other unsavory connections, a Soros grant was given to Linda Evans, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton for her involvement in the Weather Underground terrorist group. The Weather Underground was involved in the 1981 Brinks robbery, in which three murders were committed, and a series of bombings, including the bombing of the U.S. Capitol in November 1983."



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

"I have to question anything that comes from a "private Intelligence summit." Who was sponsering it and what was their agenda?"


REPLY: Yeah... I want to hear what the CEO of Burger King says about the issue.


And exactly where is this 200+ tons of yellowcake now?


REPLY: Ummmm it was in the news last year. It's currently under UN lock and key in Iraq. I never said the yellowcake was moved.


FDR declared war on the Germans after the Germans delcared war on us after we declared war on Japan for attacking us.


REPLY: No... we declared (pre-emptive) war before they did, when they started using u-boats to sink our ships.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
YAWN!!!! No offense Semper but this thread has become tedious, predictable and boring. The only fun thing has been getting Muaddib to ignore me
! We could beat this horse until its not only dead but looks like road kill thats been out in the sun too long
and still not resolve anything and in all reality never will. People like you and Muaddib and Zappafan have your opinions and people like Ceci, Simon and me have ours and never the twain shall meet. Despite all your "researches" none of you can imphatically prove that there was an active WMD program in Iraq immediately before the war (and in all reality that is what the debate is all about, after all we all agree that they were there in the 80's) and despite all of our "researches" we cannot imphatically prove that there wasn't. The big difference, I think, is that at least I can admit that. Not unless Saddam takes us to them, I doubt we will never know the truth...that being said, no once has been able to adequately explain to me why a bunch of armchair WMD in America (and elsewhere) know what happened to them while the team our government sent in says that they couldn't find any. It just doesn't make any sense for the Bush administration to pretend that they can't find them with so much political hay riding on it... no more sense than Saddam Hussien sending his WMD to Syria or failing to use whatever methods he had at his disposal to ward off the American attack. Based solely on the logic proceeding from those two absurdities.... I cannot help to conclude that Hussien did not have an active program and that the U.S. inspectors told the truth. Nothing else makes sense...and applying Occam's razor to this, being the simplist solutions is the one most likely to be true, does not change my conclusions.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally quoted by zappafan1
ceci2006: You give "common dreams" as a source? It's a site who's owners/backers believe in being "progressive." In the late 50's, early 60's, that term was used to describe the Communist party in America. It fell from use because many people were learning it's true meaning. Now it's back in favor, but it's still a belief in Communism, and they hate America.


REPLY: Are you really going back to that Joseph McCarthy "red scare" rhetoric? I thought that was thrown out the window when Edward R. Murrow decimated him on television.

But, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the ghost of McCarthyism rears its ugly head during this day and age with the nationalistic rise after 9/11.

When all else, wave the flag. And while the "little people" are waving, turn your back and do your underhanded petty crimes so they won't see.

Especially when planting those WMD's.

Good night and good luck.




[edit on 13-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Grover,
All I can say is this :


On finds, the key word here is "find." UNSCOM could pursue a lead and approach an inspection target from various angles to cut off an escape route, but at some point, the Iraqis would hold up their guns and keep us out. . .knowing that as long as there were armed guards between us and the weapons, we would never be able to "find," as in "put our hands on," the weapons of mass destruction. The western press mindlessly took this up and became the Iraqis' tool.
John Tierney
Former Weapons Inspector


Nuff said

Semper




top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join