OT - War rant

Page 1 of 2  
This is a copy of a message I left for a e-business person selling, um, Anti-Republican buttons and stickers. The name of the site, BTW, is pink0buttons.com and the owner, I think, is named Mo Cahill. Here goes:
Would you rather another WTC fly-by or perhaps a suicide bomber at the Superbowl? I don't think this war is good, but it's better than the alternative, which is America sitting on its hands and waiting for another terrorist attack, shivering with fear in the corner. It's a dirty job, but who's gonna do it? France? These 'peace-loving Muslims' would just as soon bomb the youth center in your town as look at you, whether you support the war or not. George Bush and the United States of America have a duty to protect themselves. You can vote, and attend peace marches, and sell your buttons (BTW, that seems a bit like what we call carpetbagging where I come from) by the millions, and if you're successful some other servant of Allah will blast your loved ones to smithereens.
Good luck with that.
-Phil Crow
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10 Jan 2004 12:50:36 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Phil Crow) wrote:

Short on logic, long on inappropriate venue.
Plonk.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This sentiment could hold some water if Iraq had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks.
It is our governments and our duty to protect us and our own, but killing the innocent and exposing our brave soldiers to unnecesary danger is not the way to do it.
I don't know the answer, but I wish these idiots in the White House and the Congress could engage in constructive debate to arrive at a productive agenda, not one based on fear and revenge.
Richard

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like Captain Kirk used to say. . ."Got a better idea?. . .now's the time!"
-- SwampBug - - - - - - - - - - - -

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Watch "60 Minutes" tonight and you will hear Paul O'Neil, Dubya's fired Fed Chief, tell how the White House was planning the invasion of Iraq weeks after the Supreme Court put him in office. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the so called "War On Terror". While we spend billions of tax payer dollars lining the pockets of US corporations to rebuild Iraq places like Afghanistan slip back into chaos. It is absurd. George W. Bush is the worst President this country has ever had.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@windsweptsoftware.com says...

"The supreme court put him in office" --- OK, we know your mindset and bias.
Of course they were planning war with Iraq shortly after taking office. WE HAD BEEN PATROLLING THE NO FLY ZONE FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS! Iraq was an issue that was going to have to be dealt with, even Clinton acknowledged that, he just didn't have the brazos to do anything more than uselessly expend a few cruise missiles from time to time.

So we have completely abandoned Afghanistan and are not helping it rebuild? It just isn't making news the way Iraq is.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Juanita wrote:

Actually I saw a piece on the news just in the last day or three. It was about the US funds for re-building that had dried up and the Marshall Plan that never materialized.
UA100
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What issue? Surely you're not referring to the imaginary WMD's, the alleged and unsubstantiated link to the Bin Ladens, business partners of the Bush family, or the balsa wood and gaffer tape weed-whacker motored UAV's that "threatened" to destroy the US eastern seaboard?
Maybe you're referring to the aluminum tubes that could not be used to enrich the uranium that Iraq didn't have and didn't attempt to buy from Niger.
No, wait. You must be referring to the truck-mounted mobile labs. The ones that Bush/Blair said were used to brew anthrax from American anthrax seed stock the Reagan administration approved for export to Iraq.
No, that can't be either, as Blair later said "oops, sorry". Those trucks were carrying British manufactured and supplied helium generators used to inflate balloons.
Aha! I now know what was going on. Iraq was secretly developing Balloons of Mass Destruction (BMD's) which, according to Bush, threatened not only the security of the US, but the entire US balloon industry.
I knew it. The invasion was never about oil or oil politics (and the control of world oil resources). It wasn't about non-existent WMD's or any of the other Bush/Blair falsified evidence or Israeli mis-information. It was all about balloons, balloon politics, and boosting domestic sales of gaffers tape.
I'm glad we got that all sorted out now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, I know this is hopeless, but I'm going to try again, real slow this time.
1. When hostilities with Iraq ended in 1991 (remember when IRAQ invaded Kuwait?). Iraq agreed to a number of terms as a condition of the cease- fire. (i.e. "please stop pounding our army and we will abide by these conditions). 2. Among those agreements were: a) complete abandonment of WMD programs, including nuclear, biological and chemical weapon development, b) Destruction of all existing stores and means of making those weapons, c) free and unfettered access of inspectors to verigy (b), d) agreement not to fly fixed wing aircraft (Schwartzkopf later admitted he got snookered when he agreed to allow rotary wing flights) in certain areas to the north and south of the country -- the so-called "no fly zones", and d) allowing the coalition to patrol those no-fly zones, no surface to air missile sites or other actions hostile to the coalition aircraft were to occur in those zones.
Note before continuing -- none of the above items reference terrorism, Al Queada or 9/11 -- these were the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire, terms to which Hussein agreed.
3. During the 1990's and beyond, a) Hussein harrassed, kicked out, and was generally uncooperative with the weapons inspectors to the extent that even your hero Bill Clinton as late as 2000 was indicating that Iraq was building and deploying WMD's. i.e, the lack of cooperation by the Iraqi government in confirming its agreement led intelligence analysts to conclude that very likely Iraq was continuing its WMD program as a covert program. Hussein's actions did nothing to dispel, and b) Iraq deployed and re-enforced Surface to Air Missile sites in the southern and norther no-fly zones, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CEASE-FIRE TERMS!. Coalition aircraft were patrolling and dropping weapons on almost a daily basis throughout that period of time to continue to neutralize the SA sites being re-built and re-netted. It was only a matter of time before the Iraqis were going to get lucky and shoot down an aircraft.
4. SH was supporting middle-east terrorists openly by paying stipends to the families of homicide bombers. There is no reason to believe he would not support other terrorist organizations.
5. The continued violation of the terms of cease-fire were an issue that were going to need to be dealt with, regardless of the subsequent actions of other terrorist groups. The continued expenditure of personnel and material in patrolling the no-fly zones was not a condition that could continue in perpetuity -- eventually something was going to have to be done to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.
Therefore, it made perfect sense for the administration to have its planners review various plans for an invasion of Iraq at the beginning of its term. Lobbing a few cruise missiles every few months a-la Clinton was not going to resolve the stalemate. Even if the execution of such an invasion never occurred, it would be irresponsible for any administration not to identify global hotspots and make contingency plans for military action for those hotspots.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There were several issues involving the Iraq and Kuwaiti conflict. One of them being Kuwait openly angle drilling into Iraq's southern Rumalia oilfields. Another being that Kuwait, at that time (1990) was overproducing at a time when oil prices were low.
Saddam met with April Glaspie on April 25th, 1990. The folllowing clips are from a transcript of their meeting.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause)"
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
In other words, the US suckered Saddam by telling him to go ahead, deal with Kuwait. We don't care. Next thing you know the US is leading the rush to war.

There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything of significance, neither then nor now and not even a dust speck of the millions pounds of chemical and biolgical agents Bush spoke about in his state-of-the-nation address. How do you hide a million pounds of biological agent?
Not much of anything was left after the first round of inspectors did their job. Most of the inspectors work involved dismantling the few remaining scud missiles.

The no-fly zones were not authorized by the UN nor were they sanctioned by the Security Council. The no-fly zones were not part of any cease-fire agreement with Iraq, and were implemented after the war ended. Seems to me the Iraqi's were within their rights to shoot at enemy aircraft flying in their airspace.

Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors. Clinton (who is not my hero BTW, nor am I a democrat) told Butler to pull his team out lest they get smoked in the latest volley of US bombs. Butler had no choice but to immediately pull his team out. This was Clinton's doing, not Saddams.

Those were not part of the cease fire terms.

Your use of the term coalition is a bit misleading. The no-fly zones were patrolled only by the US, the Brits, and France. France pulled out after the US arbritarily extended the no-fly zone north to the 33rd parallel, very close to Bagdhad. The daily bombing throughout that period is considering by many to be in violation of international law.

It has been reported (but not proven) that he gave money to the families of the bombers, not the bombers themselves nor any terror organizations. Any suggestions that the did otherwise are only that, suggestions. Innuendos and rumours don't justify a war.

The Bush administration has no authority to enforce any UN resolutions. Any enforcement must be sanctioned by the Secury Council.

Trouble is, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are global hotspots. Both countries are poor, destitute, and defenceless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can you cite any source _other_than_ Saddam Hussein for that claim?

Ever hear of the free market? It's their oil. They can sell it at any price they damn please.

Pretty hard to construe that as having given him permission to invade another nation.

THEY ADMITTED IT. What more evidence do you need?

If there was nothing left, why did Saddam continue to refuse inspectors access to suspect sites? For TWELVE YEARS!

So what?

And the aircraft were within their rights in shooting back. Cease-fire means just that. And if the Iraqis keep shooting, they should expect return fire.

False. At least partly so.

One time, yes. Other times, they were ejected by Saddam.

Cite.
That's not a coalition?!

And Saddam's invasion of Kuwait wasn't??
If you're gonna start a war, you'd better be prepared to accept the consequenced if you lose.

Saddam made the offer publicly. Evidently, that doesn't constitute "proof" on whatever planet it is on which you live.

Such sanction was given. Or weren't you paying attention?
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

normal English, was that the U.S. didn't care about an "Arab-Arab conflict". IOW, "do what you want, we don't give a s**t".
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq at the time, was well aware of the issues.

Yeah, but Bush now thinks it's his oil. Regardless, oil prices are indeed set by the free market. OPEC member nations agree amongst themselves to production limit quotas in order to maintain oil prices at a certain level. With Kuwait overproducing oil, it affected world oil pricing, and Iraq's ability to recover after the war with Iran. I'm not offering an opinion either way on free market vs OPEC or whatever, but pointing out the Kuwaiti overproduction was one of the concerns Saddam expressed to the US Ambassador.

I don't think Saddam was asking for permission, as it's not for the US (or any other nation) to give it. He wanted to know how the US felt about the Iraq-Kuwait issues, and April Glaspie told him the US sympathizes with his "quest for higher oil prices", and "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait."

Iraq had some stuff in the 80's, thanks to help from the US, Britain, and Germany. Anything that they had after that was outdated and unusable, as documented by the first round of weapons inspectors. There is no evidence that Iraq had any of the one million pounds of WMD's nor any active WMD programs after the early 90's, regardless of what Bush or Fox News says.

Not entirely true. Saddam did eventually allow inspectors access, but did so only under pressure. It's hard to know exactly what went on, but it is known that Saddam objected to allowing CIA spies posing as inspectors access to his inner workings.

The trouble with your reasoning is that the cease-fire agreement did not include anything about the no-fly zone.

Which other times?

Giving money to the families is not proof that he supported terrorist organizations, nor is it proof that he was linked to Al-Queida.

No, you're wrong. We're talking about the recent conflict here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And she became aware of those "issues" exactly how? Other than the Iraqi government, I mean. I repeat: can you cite any source other than Saddam for that claim? Everyone knows that Iraq claimed Kuwait was angle-drilling. Kuwait denies it. *You* state it as though it were an established fact.
It's not.

Huh?

Hellooooooo.... that's NOT a free market. That's price fixing.

So? What business is it of Iraq, or anyone else, what price the Kuwaitis decide to ask for their own oil?

That in no way justifies an invasion of a sovereign nation. The Iran-Iraq war was not the fault of Kuwait.

Bullshit. Higher oil prices are not now, and never have been, in the national interest of the United States. To suggest that the government of the US would be sympathetic to a "quest for higher oil prices" is to dwell in a fantasy land.
[snip]

I repeat: they admitted it. In the 90s. What more evidence do you need?

On what planet is it, exactly, that United Nations inspectors are CIA spies? Nobody except you and Saddam believes that. It's evidently escaped your notice that the interests of the United Nations rarely coincide with those of the United States.

So what?

You've not been paying attention again, I see.

What more proof do you want, anyway?

I know perfectly well which conflict we're talking about. You obviously haven't read the UN resolutions of 2001 and 2002. Go look them up.
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's an established fact that the US was aware of the issues, exactly as I stated.

I'd agree with that.

I have no opinion on who prices what for how much. I was simply relaying the some issues of concern between Iraq and Kuwait.

Many people would say the same about the fake and falsified "evidence" of Iraq's ficticious WMD programs.

Now you're opening up a whole new can of worms. There's a very heavy US involvement with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and that's something I don't care to explore in the context of this discussion.

Oil politics are more complicated than you insinuate. The US needs to cooperate as much as possible with OPEC member nations, and low oil prices, while good for the consumer, mean lower profits for the US oil industry, who, by the way, are major campaign contributors to the Bush cartel.

The latest Iraqi invasion was not about what Iraq had in the 80's or early 90's.
Out of all the claims about Iraq's WMD arsenal and WMD programs that Bush and Blair presented to the world, and even that which Colin Powell included in his address to the UN, how much of that "evidence" has proven to be true? How much? 100%? 50%? 25%? Unless you can prove otherwise, the answer is 0%.

You're forgetting about Scott Ritter, who headed the UN inspection team. He's in a much better position to know what really happened than you or I. He has publicly stated, many times, that the inspection team, Unscom, was a nest of US spies and that Iraq was disarmed long ago. In his book Endgame (published in 1999) he states that Unscom's mission had been compromised by Washington's use of inspections to spy on the Iraqis.

No, it's quite evident actually.

If you can't understand that then there's no need for me to elaborate any further.

Perhaps proof that he supported terrorist organizations or that he had links to Al-Queida.

I've already read them. They call for cooperation with weapons inspectors and disarmament only (both of which Saddam agreed to before the invasion). Any enforcement of UN Resolutions can only be sanctioned by the UN Security Council, and as you (hopefully) already know, this clearly did not happen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, that is not "exactly as you stated".
It's an established fact that the US was aware that Iraq *claimed* that Kuwait was angle drilling. You stated earlier as established fact that Kuwait actually was doing so; that is *not* an established fact, but rather an unsupported claim put forward by Saddam Hussein to justify his invasion of Kuwait.

IOW you disagree with yourself... LOL

Oh, garbage. You were presenting Saddam's case.

Helloooooo.... the Iraqi government ADMITTED to having WMD programs. Nothing fictitious about it. If there wasn't anything there, why did Saddam try so hard to conceal it?
BTW, in case you missed it, a shipment containing some of those Iraqi WMDs was intercepted in Kuwait last fall, thought to be destined for somewhere in Europe.

I'm not opening up a can of worms -- you're trying to change the subject. You attempted to justify Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on the basis of the debt Iraq incurred during its war with Iran. And now when I point out that such "justification" is nonsense, you shift to blaming the US for it.

It's a lot less complicated in the real world than in your conspiracy-driven fantasy world. High oil prices raise the cost of doing business for nearly every industry, and hence are damaging to the economy, and thus the national security, of the United States. You live in a fantasyland if you think that it would ever be in our interest to promote high oil prices.

No, it was about what Iraq *still* had in the *late* 90s and early 00s -- and about Iraq's persistent refusal to abide by over a dozen UN Security Council resolutions requiring the accounting for, and disposal of, same.

On my planet, "not [yet] proven true" does not mean the same thing as "proven not true". Apparently it does on yours.

Sorry. Nobody except you, Saddam, and Beam-me-up-Scotty Ritter believes that.

And yet you think that the UN inspection teams were cooperating with US intelligence services.

Ad hominem argument. Too bad you don't have anything better.

I guess a public offer of money in exchange for suicide bombings isn't proof on your planet.

Go back and read them again.
-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

Arab nation that doesn't (either openly or clandestinely)?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does that also apply to Haiti ??? mjh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@concord.com says...

But if you admit to murder, you will be arrested and tried. i.e. If you admit to a felony, don't be surprised if you wind up kissing pavement and having to prove your innocence in court. Iraq admitted to having WMD's, they made threats regarding use of WMD's. All this in violation of 17 UN resolutions and agreements to halt the initial Gulf action. Thus, after MORE THAN 10 YEARS! of this pussy-footing around, the action was taken to enforce those resolutions. BTW, all the "there were no WMD" screamers seem to forget that we did find evidence of development of missiles that exceeded the allowed range in the cease- fire agreement. Surely you would not see a problem with a police SWAT team invading the house of one of your neigbors that had barricaded himself in his home and told people he was armed and ready to "inflict the pain of death" upon anyone who came near his house or his property or "supported that awful [insert minority] guy down the street by visiting him" and refused to peacefully surrender. Even if it was later learned that the person in question really was completely unarmed, you would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the police because of the threats and apparent actions the offender had taken.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@concord.com says... ... snip

All analogies limp in some places, but then I think you know what my intent was here. The person in this analogy has publicly threatened people and described the means and circumstances of intended violence. ie. the person in this analogy is not a quiet, simple person, but someone actually making threats.

You have no idea how averse I am to police interference with private lives. That was not the intent of my analogy. But then, you knew that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.