posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 06:37 PM
My pleasure Audio as I prefer an exchange of ideas also, you raise a number of issues and I have a long response so I will omit quoting you while
addressing your points.
I understand you position. I view with scepticism, the accusations thrown out by either side and instead try to find answers based on the information
that is available. It is all too easy to use as a tool against the French and Russians the contracts they had with Iraq while disregarding the fact
that the oil contracts rest solely with Halliburton a Cheney connection, and a company given carte blanch contracts before the bids even started. The
masses are swayed using the argument that the U.S did the liberating so they should get the spoils. But so did the British and for their efforts,
found themselves locked out of the bidding for lead contracts.
I contend that The U.S could have garnered assistance from France had they been willing to honour some part of that contract, but instead France was
vilified and demonised to the extent of employing childish games such as dropping "French" from a food, and effectively wiping from the collective
memory, France's complete backing after 9/11 and for the Afghanistan war. It is not well known, but shortly after Baker visited with Putin, Russian
petroleum firms were on the ground in Iraq, I suspect that Russia is no longer being lambasted by the U.S administration because of some deal struck.
But then again France is no military power, nor do they have an oil reserve.
I see the Hussein issue differently. Blix himself claims that the U.N has no intelligence of its own, that it has relied on the parsed intel provided
on Iraq which came mostly from the U.S. And yes, the dissenting countries did have intel of their own, but they did not believe Hussein a threat and
they did believe the inspections to be working. So did I since I had read the resolutions and all of Blix's reports. Hussein was asked to prove that
he did not have wmd, and no matter what he offered up, it was shot down as proof. As far as I could see, only one answer was acceptable and that was
for him to acqueisce. He played games with them, but then again he was the leader of a country that he desperately wanted to rule and keep the hounds
outside its borders.
Blix proclaimed that Hussein was co-operating, and asked for a few more months to complete the inspections. It was at that time that Bush decided to
ramp up to war, which made me suspicious of his motives, because in one of Blix's reports, it was proven that Hussein's claim that he had dumped WMD
in some pit, was in fact true. Blix stated that a team of analysts visited the site and found much evidence in the soil but that there was no
technology currently available to discern the quantity. Further, Blix found no hard evidence anywhere of WMD after he said he was given free,
unqualified and unannounced access to the sites listed by intelligence sources. The issue with Hussein was blown out of proportion because he claimed
to have made X amount of WMD and had X number of disallowed missiles, yet, he also claimed that the 1991 war literally destroyed much of it, and that
he gave the order to destroy the remaining missiles. This two was proven true in part by Blix save for a couple that were found by the inspectors. Add
to this Clinton’s 1998 bombardment of suspected facilities and the claim that it was relatively successful, which I took into consideration. Blix also
made mention that his team discovered no facilites currently capable of producing the agents. As far as I am concerned the benefit of the doubt should
have been given to Blix and Hussein, and a few more months should have been allowed at which time the entire world would have been provided with a U.N
We must remember all of the hoopla and false cries of “WMD found!” after the invasion, and understand that the Bush administration, along with Blair,
steadfastly held to the premise that they knew Hussein had WMD. Powell gave a rather comprehensive presentation to the U.N that included
renderings of drones, and satellite photos of facilities and trucks moving this WMD, as well as biological trailers. But Powell did not say and no one
asked why it is that satellite images could capture the loading of these trucks and the movement of these trailers, but not know where these trucks
eventually ended up. I wanted to know, and I wanted to know why, given the bombing of military complexes in the no-fly campaign, they found it
unnecessary to bomb these facilities and trucks they were so sure about, rather than press a case for an all out invasion risking the release of the
weapons on the troops.
I had come across a transcript of a senate hearing into Iraq’s wmd (Sept. 2002 thereabouts) whereby the defence department paraded a plethora of Iraqi
exiles to proclaim Hussein’s guilt on a host of atrocities and his stockpiling of weapons. The latter caused me to do some research where I found that
these individuals had been ex-pats for far too long to know what he had, further, they were all attached to Chalabi’s organization. I also noted that
many witnesses were U.S military officials, scientists and diplomats who gave an opposing argument to Hussein as a danger, and therefore I came away
concluding that a case against him had not been made, and so I was confounded by the later resolution for Bush, but acknowledeged to myself that they
should have far more insight than Joe public.
When Bush first started mentioning Iraq I did some searches and came across the PNAC document along with a transcript of another senate investigation
into the U.S providing the precursor agents. Rumsfeld was the star witness, and he claimed to not know anything about this, but a video of his meeting
with Hussein was about to expose him as being deceitful. Included in that transcript were records from the Commerce department (I believe) that indeed
showed that as early as 1984 Hussein was being supplied with dual use agents. The PNAC document I paid no attention to at the time, but I smelled a
rat with the latter. It was late in 2002 that I began to have some suspicion about the PNAC document being connected to the ever present rhetoric
about the axis of evil and a war that certainly looked to me like it was not going to be stopped.
I believe my commentary on seducing voters by double speak is very likely. We must not forget that Hitler was very good at it. Plus, Hitler made his
meteoric rise at a time when Germans were tired of the decades of unrest, changing of hands, breaking up of the country, religious dogma, communism,
civil unrest, unemployment and poverty. Hitler rallied them behind him, but to your other point, yes, if he had been stopped earlier on, the extensive
damage would not have been done, however, Hitler came to power as a champion for the underdog, wooing the hearts and minds of the people with charisma
and great oratory. He had no record of belligerence save for his vitriol levied at the Semites and his initial plan to expel same. His rise in stature
and renown was marked by providing for his country not for his aggressiveness against other nations, and given the recent history at the time, his
persecution of a people was not an unfamiliar or unknown occurrence around the globe. It was not until after he launched his military offensives that
his genocidal plan was enacted.
There are similarities between dictators past and present, Hitler just thought a little harder about how to execute his plan, and were another as
heinous to come power, I am sure a little tweaking here and there from Hitler’s philosophy and concepts is what would give rise to a man more deadly
man than he.
I am pleased to read that O’Reilly made good on his promise, I have seen his television appearances only twice, which is all Iever will, but was
recalling from memory what I had read.