The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

Indeed. One is amazed to the lenghts they were willing to go to believe just about any "evidence" of the WMD program, regardless how unreliable and improbable it was. Now the relevant question is how come they didn't care about the quality of sources. Either it was a mass-psychosis within the US and UK governments that everybody was so convinced that Saddam had WMD that they did not need any evidence. Or they knew perfectly well what they were doing. It does not require much analytical skill to know that information based on a single anonymous uncorroborated source quoting another single anonymous uncorroborated source is worthless.

So the choice remains: unprecedented incompetence and self-deception or malicious intent? Either way it's not acceptable.

Iraq news of the day: Oil pipe line to Turkey severely damaged, New US casualties. Shi'as rebel; US troops move out of Shi'a dominated part of Baghdad after several incidents

[Bernadotte 0]

Questions:

If the "45-min" claim was bogus, the nuclear materials docs were forged, the Al Qaida/Baghdad connection was unsubstantiated and the Iraqi countryside was crawling with inspectors indefinitely, who was Iraq threatening?

If it's actually all about oil, then why is oil-poor Syria also on the NeoCons' hitlist?

If it's actually about human suffering and changing a brutal regime then why aren't N. Korea and Burma (to name only 2) on the NeoCon hitlist?

Whose interests will be protected the most by the deaths of over 1000 US servicemen and women?  (earlier Pentagon prediction)

[FSPilot 0]

If the 45 minute claim was true and if it was about human suffering and not about oil, why didn't some people want to invade? Whose interests were protected by keeping an oil rich murderous dictator in charge?

[denoir 0]

Questions:

If the "45-min" claim was bogus, the nuclear materials docs were forged, the Al Qaida/Baghdad connection was unsubstantiated and the Iraqi countryside was crawling with inspectors indefinitely, who was Iraq threatening?

If it's actually all about oil, then why is oil-poor Syria also on the NeoCons' hitlist?

If it's actually about human suffering and changing a brutal regime then why aren't N. Korea and Burma (to name only 2) on the NeoCon hitlist?

Whose interests will be protected the most by the deaths of over 1000 US servicemen and women? (earlier Pentagon prediction)

First of all, what makes you think that there has to be a rational reason?  

If you want the answer that the ideological gurus of the Bush administration were giving, there is a good article that one should read. It was  written for the New American Century project - the number one source of neocon dogma (core members include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush).

A Necessary War: Unless Saddam Hussein is Removed, the War on Terrorism Will Fail

Generally, if you look at the

Iraq articles published by the New American Century project, you'll see that they have been obsessed with occupying Iraq since as early as 1997.

One article worth reading is Wolfowitz Statement on U.S. Policy Toward Iraq dating back to 1998. He basically outlines the Iraq war that was to come in 2003.

[denoir 0]

If the 45 minute claim was true and if it was about human suffering and not about oil, why didn't some people want to invade?  

But the 45 minute claim was bogus, and it was not about human suffering. The first was obviously evident because 45 minutes after the war started, there were no WMD dropping down on US troops. The part about human suffering was according to deputy secretary of defence Wolfowitz, not the reason for war.

It was obvious from the beginning that the whole case for war based on lies - that's why an overwhelming majority of world were against an invasion.

[FSPilot 0]

But the 45 minute claim was bogus, and it was not about human suffering. The first was obviously evident because 45 minutes after the war started, there were no WMD dropping down on US troops. The part about human suffering was according to deputy secretary of defence Wolfowitz, not the reason for war.

It was obvious from the beginning that the whole case for war based on lies - that's why an overwhelming majority of world were against an invasion.

There's no more proof that the 45 minute claim was bogus than there is that it wasn't.  The US could drop a few nuclear warheads on Baghdad in a matter of minutes, but we didn't.  Does that mean that we couldn't?  The reason they didn't use WMDs on our troops was because they were too busy hiding them.

And yes, the war did alleviate human suffering.  It wasn't the only goal of the war though.  A drunk driver gets put in jail for driving drunk, but now he can't deal drugs.  So it's win-win.

edit - oh, and believe it or not, Bill Clinton supported the war

Quote[/b] ]"Over the long-term the best way to end the threat that Saddam poses to his own people in the region is for Iraq to have a different government.

...

We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again.

Saddam must not be prepared to defy the will -- be permitted -- excuse me -- to defy the will of the international community. Without a firm response he would have been emboldened to do that again and again." -- President Bill Clinton (1998)

[denoir 0]

If you would tour US military facilities, you would soon discover ICBMs and other nasty stuff that could be launched immideately. Nothing of the sort has been found in Iraq which makes it very improbable that it was there in the first place. It's nothing that you could hide within days or weeks. Combine that with the fact that the information was from a single dodgy source that quoted another single dodgy source, then you can say beyond all reasonable doubt that Iraq did not have WMD ready that could be firied within 45 minutes.

The fact is that Saddam, even when he was loosing power - when US troops entered Baghdad - when he and his family could have been killed any second - did not use any WMD. That eliminates the assumption that Saddam was a clear and present danger because of his alledged WMD. At the most extreme point, he did not use them (if he had them) !

And no, the war did not alleviate human suffering. It can perhaps in the long run, if the occupational powers get their shit together. Right now the average Iraqi is far worse off than they were under Saddam. They don't have power, electricity, proper hostpitals and jobs.

[FSPilot 0]

If you would tour US military facilities, you would soon discover ICBMs and other nasty stuff that could be launched immideately. Nothing of the sort has been found in Iraq which makes it very improbable that it was there in the first place. It's nothing that you could hide within days or weeks. Combine that with the fact that the information was from a single dodgy source that quoted another single dodgy source, then you can say beyond all reasonable doubt that Iraq did not have WMD ready that could be firied within 45 minutes.

And no, the war did not alleviate human suffering. It can perhaps in the long run, if the occupational powers get their shit together. Right now the average Iraqi is far worse off than they were under Saddam. They don't have power, electricity, proper hostpitals and jobs.

Just becaues you don't see the weapons doesn't mean they dont have them. They could very easilly of simply buried them, the mobile labs, the canisters. Have you seen the giant fields of abandoned Iraqi equipment? What makes you think there's not a mobile lab in there.

And yes, the US invasion did alleviate their suffering. They don't have to worry about being slaughtered by Hussein and his family anymore.

[Crazysheep 1]

And yes, the US invasion did alleviate their suffering.  They don't have to worry about being slaughtered by Hussein and his family anymore.

One could argue that they didn't have to before that; then it was (mostly..) dissidents who were slaughtered so the average Iraqi didn't have to worry. Now, however, they suffer even if they keep their head down.

[FSPilot 0]

Sure. Only 1.5 million people were slaughtered by hussein. It's not like they ALL had to worry about it, just certain races. And they don't matter, right?

[Crazysheep 1]

Sure.  Only 1.5 million people were slaughtered by hussein.  It's not like they ALL had to worry about it, just certain races.  And they don't matter, right?

Of course they matter.....but that was over the course of 3 decades, and it'll all wind up the same again-the highway to hell incident in the first gulf war was more destructive than anything Saddam did, including the Kurd gassing.

[FSPilot 0]

Are you serious?

[denoir 0]

Just becaues you don't see the weapons doesn't mean they dont have them.  

Because 9 months of UN + US inspections have not turned up anything. Nothing, nada. Not even one gram of his supposed tons of anthrax. No trace of his 35,000 shells with chemical warfare. No trace of his huge nuclear refinement facility. Nothing.

Quote[/b] ]

They could very easilly of simply buried them, the mobile labs, the canisters. Have you seen the giant fields of abandoned Iraqi equipment? What makes you think there's not a mobile lab in there.

This is what a nuclear materials processing plant looks like:

You can't just grab some shovels and bury it. Furthermore with the deep underground scans that modern day satellites are capable of it's an impossibility to quickly hide anything underground.

This is what would in a court of law be siad: "beyond any reasonable doubt Saddam did not have capabilities to launch WMD within 45 minutes. The notion of "mobile labs" is really bullshit. You could perhaps develop some very small quantities of bacteria, but chemical and especially nuclear weapons are out of the question as they require an extensive industrial infrastructure exclusivly dedicated to the development of those weapons. You can't hide that underground.

Quote[/b] ]And yes, the US invasion did alleviate their suffering. They don't have to worry about being slaughtered by Hussein and his family anymore.

The average Iraq who had no political interest had nothing to fear from Saddam. The worst thing that had happend to them were the sanctions, but aside from that they could live a perfectly normal life. During his 24 years in power between 20,000-100,000 Iraqis were killed by his regime. Iraq has a population of 24,000,000 so it's a small percentage that were killed. On the other hand he modernized Iraq and the quality of life for the Iraqis was better than the lives of the citizens in other Arab countries.

More people died in traffic accidents in Iraq per year than those killed by Saddam. So, FSPilot, if you like an offer of getting a 100% guranatee that you won't be killed in a traffic accident in exchange for no water, no electricity and no job?

[Crazysheep 1]

Are you serious?

No.......I mentioned in my post that was over the course of 3 decades. The USA has had 2 wars in Iraq; in the first one, one incident had a higher death count that any individual incident that Saddam did. Do you understand what I mean?

[denoir 0]

Are you serious?

This graph is not fair, 80% of those are Iranians that were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore you are including the approx. 300,000 Iraqi soldiers that were killed in GW1 and who knows how many in GW2.

So that graph does not portray anything real.

[Crazysheep 1]

Are you serious?

This graph is not fair, 80% of those are Iranians that were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore you are including the approx. 300,000 Iraqi soldiers that were killed in GW1 and who knows how many in GW2.

So that graph does not portray anything real.

I love you Denoir.

And, FSPilot.....it was a lot more than 2,000 or so civvies killed in Iraq......where did you get that information from? It smells like heavy revisionism.

[Bernadotte 0]

Generally, if you look at the

Iraq articles published by the New American Century project, you'll see that they have been obsessed with occupying Iraq since as early as 1997.

One article worth reading is Wolfowitz Statement on U.S. Policy Toward Iraq dating back to 1998. He basically outlines the Iraq war that was to come in 2003.

Wolfowitz and crew have been spouting their NeoCon dogma for decades - long before the impact of terrorism and even while Iraq was still an ally. Their arguments constantly change flavour to appeal to an unsophisticated public.

I never said that their reasons are rational. In fact, their reasoning doesn't matter at all to most people who could throw them out of power. However, their goals remain the same, whatever they are. And yes, I do believe they have consistent goals.

[denoir 0]

Are you serious?

This graph is not fair, 80% of those are Iranians that were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore you are including the approx. 300,000 Iraqi soldiers that were killed in GW1 and who knows how many in GW2.

So that graph does not portray anything real.

To illustrate with a similar pointless graph:

About 200 US soldiers were killed during GW1 (inflated number it is too). Compare that to how many people USA has killed the last 50 years!

See my point, such a comparison is entirely pointless since these are not comparable things.

[Crazysheep 1]

By the way, www.iraqbodycount.com (which is respected enough to be quoted on by the BBC, so it's not a leftist propaganda site) says the lowest possible amount of civilian deaths is 6096, and the maximum amount of civvie deaths is 7807......

[FSPilot 0]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Because 9 months of UN + US inspections have not turned up anything. Nothing, nada. Not even one gram of his supposed tons of anthrax. No trace of his 35,000 shells with chemical warfare. No trace of his huge nuclear refinement facility. Nothing.

Maybe because the UN team called ahead to the places they were "surprise" inspecting? The UN probably didn't fing the MiGs they buried either.

Quote[/b] ]This is what a nuclear materials processing plant looks like:

You can't just grab some shovels and bury it. Furthermore with the deep underground scans that modern day satellites are capable of it's an impossibility to quickly hide anything underground.

Which is why we didn't see those MiGs with our fancy satellites, right?

Quote[/b] ]This is what would in a court of law be siad: "beyond any reasonable doubt Saddam did not have capabilities to launch WMD within 45 minutes. The notion of "mobile labs" is really bullshit. You could perhaps develop some very small quantities of bacteria, but chemical and especially nuclear weapons are out of the question as they require an extensive industrial infrastructure exclusivly dedicated to the development of those weapons. You can't hide that underground.

No, a judge would of said "Saddam Hussein I find you guilty on 1,500,000 counts of murder."

Quote[/b] ]The average Iraq who had no political interest had nothing to fear from Saddam. The worst thing that had happend to them were the sanctions, but aside from that they could live a perfectly normal life. During his 24 years in power between 20,000-100,000 Iraqis were killed by his regime. Iraq has a population of 24,000,000 so it's a small percentage that were killed. On the other hand he modernized Iraq and the quality of life for the Iraqis was better than the lives of the citizens in other Arab countries.

Unless your daughter was pretty, then you had to worry about her being raped by one of Saddam's sons. Or unless you accidentally piss off one of Saddam's sons. You seem to be under the impression that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. He wasn't. He terrorized the Iraqi people and they're obviously glad to have him gone.

Quote[/b] ]More people died in traffic accidents in Iraq per year than those killed by Saddam. So, FSPilot, if you like an offer of getting a 100% guranatee that you won't be killed in a traffic accident in exchange for no water, no electricity and no job?

So we should of waited until he killed 3 million people? 5? Wheres your line in the sand denoir?

Quote[/b] ]This graph is not fair, 80% of those are Iranians that were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore you are including the approx. 300,000 Iraqi soldiers that were killed in GW1 and who knows how many in GW2.

So that graph does not portray anything real.

Not according to my numbers.

Crazysheep

Quote[/b] ]No.......I mentioned in my post that was over the course of 3 decades. The USA has had 2 wars in Iraq; in the first one, one incident had a higher death count that any individual incident that Saddam did. Do you understand what I mean?

So he only killed 5 or 6 people at a time, here or there over the span of 30 years. And you think that's excusable?

Quote[/b] ]I love you Denoir.

And, FSPilot.....it was a lot more than 2,000 or so civvies killed in Iraq......where did you get that information from? It smells like heavy revisionism.

The Iraqi Information Ministry, so they're probably inflated.

[FSPilot 0]

By the way, www.iraqbodycount.com (which is respected enough to be quoted on by the BBC, so it's not a leftist propaganda site) says the lowest possible amount of civilian deaths is 6096, and the maximum amount of civvie deaths is 7807......

If you think the BBC is respectable then I've got a bridge to sell you. a recent poll shows that most britans don't think the BBC is reliable

www.iraqbodycount.net is unreliable.  They counted an iraqi youth picking up a rifle as a civilian.  The team consists of someone who used to work for greenpeace, a delegate of the "stop the war coalition", and their webmaster also works for www.humanshields.org

do you really trust those people?

[Crazysheep 1]

The Iraqi Information Ministry, so they're probably inflated.

Was that not very early on in the war? Either that, or he was trying to make it seem like they were winning......

[FSPilot 0]

The statistic is Iraqi civilian casualties from the first gulf war, not the second. I made the graph before the second war started.

[denoir 0]

Maybe because the UN team called ahead to the places they were "surprise" inspecting?  The UN probably didn't fing the MiGs they buried either.

No, they didn't. It's another pre-war propaganda lie spread by right-wing media. But regardless, there are no Iraqis obstructing the US inspectors now, and nothing has been found. If Saddam indeed was burying WMD then he did it a long time before the war started hence the 45 minutes claim is BS. You can't have it both ways. Either he dug them down or he didn't. You can't say that they were buried and that the 45 minutes claim was correct.

The UN was not looking for migs.

Mig: small aircraft

Nuclear materials processing plant: huge complex

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]This is what would in a court of law be siad: "beyond any reasonable doubt Saddam did not have capabilities to launch WMD within 45 minutes. The notion of "mobile labs" is really bullshit. You could perhaps develop some very small quantities of bacteria, but chemical and especially nuclear weapons are out of the question as they require an extensive industrial infrastructure exclusivly dedicated to the development of those weapons. You can't hide that underground.

No, a judge would of said "Saddam Hussein I find you guilty on 1,500,000 counts of murder."

HA! Classic FSPilot! How many people Saddam killed does not have anything to do with the 45 minutes question. Try again.

Quote[/b] ]Unless your daughter was pretty, then you had to worry about her being raped by one of Saddam's sons.  Or unless you accidentally piss off one of Saddam's sons.

Yeah, and how many were in position to do that? Really, Saddam's sons visited just about every Iraqi home to look for future rape and torture victims. Oh, yes, they worked 24/7 so that they could terrorize every civilian in Iraq.  

Quote[/b] ]You seem to be under the impression that Saddam Hussein was a good guy.  He wasn't.  He terrorized the Iraqi people and they're obviously glad to have him gone.

When did I say that he was a good guy?   And yes, the Iraqi people  are glad to have him gone but they are not happy what you have done with the country. They've gone from bad to worse. That doesn't mean that the initial "bad" was good.

Quote[/b] ]So we should of waited until he killed 3 million people?  5?  Wheres your line in the sand denoir?

The question is hypothetical since the reason for the invasion was never about the Iraqi people. I have a very nice Wolfowitz quote on that, if you wish.

Quote[/b] ]Not according to my numbers.

Give me those numbers. I'm guessing that when you say "my" numbers you really mean it - i.e that you made it up. The most extreme right-wing sources put the number of Iraqis Saddam killed to 100,000-200,000. And I can guarantee that they're bullshit.

[Crazysheep 1]

The statistic is Iraqi civilian casualties from the first gulf war, not the second.  I made the graph before the second war started.

Well, according to this 1991 edition of Punch magazine all the Iraqis were told that they'd won then as well....so my point still stands.