The Iraq thread 4

[miles teg 1]

What I don't like is how alot of right wing conservatives love to take extremely rare instances like this assault and use that to characterize the anti-war movement.  I have never seen any violence of this sort at anti-war protests although I have experienced incredible hostility from some Republicans during debates in which they resorted to screaming at me because they couldn't answer my questions.  

However I agree that you will always have idiots on both sides.  There are left wing extremists who love confrontation and creating conflict in their own righteous ferver....to me they are not much different from the Bush fanatics who scream and yell about how righteous the war in Iraq is.  Both extreme sides make me want to puke.  

The fact of the matter is that Saddam was a horrific tyrant, but according to all the facts that are now coming out, he was not a imminent threat to the United States.  The Bush administration claims that they were misled by faulty intelligence, but if you look at the intelligence they were basing their decisions on, it was for the most part intelligence from Chalabi and his defectors...which any junior intelligence analyst should have found highly suspect.  

There were many reports from the CIA before the invasion that stated that this war would increase terrorism against the US and that warned of the resulting long-term guerilla war we would face in the region.  

These reports were entirely ignored with the emphasis placed on Chalabi's intelligence and highly questionable photographic intelligence from surveillance flights and spy sattellites.

Many former intelligence officials have come out and spoken out against the Bush administration on this matter and claimed that they submitted reports questioning the pictures but that these reports were routinely ignored.    In addition UN weapons inspectors had been to many of the suspected WMD sites in the recon photos and had notified the CIA what the objects in the pictures were and that they had been to and searched these sites thoroughly.

The lack of any WMD's found shows that indeed these arms inspectors were doing an excellent job.  The Bush administration simply skewed and interpreted the data to fit their own agenda and views.

I stand by my belief that Bush flat out lied to the American public and led America to war mainly to control the oil wealth of Iraq.  

Ask yourself why information on Iraqi oil revenue is not being made public.

Why is it that the Bush administration threw out Saudi Arabia's plan of replacing US forces with an Islamic peace keeping force made up of Islamic countries that do not border Iraq.  

My friends in my old Army Reserve unit are now going through hell in Iraq because of these lies.

I only pray that my friends come home in one piece and sound in body and mind.  But I fear that many of them will never be the same.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Balschoiw 0]

What exactly are we talking about here ?

A guy who got his nose broken because of of his patriotic T-Shirt or ten´s of thousands killed for well let´s say little to no reason ?

Knock, knock...

Anybody home ?

Oh well I see he´s on of the good guys...

I´d be happy if every kid or man or woman or elderly would get a single article for their mistreatment, torturing, injury and killing.

Great stuff....really.

Edit:

I also do have a lot of mission T-Shirts from various missions but I´m not running around with them at concerts. Some may call it unpatriotic, I call it smart....

I don´t need a T-Shirt to be a patriot or good person.

In fact if this guy had a little more brains he would conserve the T-Shirt and keep it as something special that reminds him of his service.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I also do have a lot of mission T-Shirts from various missions but I´m not running around with them at concerts. Some may call it unpatriotic, I call it smart....

I don´t need a T-Shirt to be a patriot or good person.

In fact if this guy had a little more brains he would conserve the T-Shirt and keep it as something special that reminds him of his service.

Toby Keith is that country singer who is very pro-american.

Quote[/b] ]I bet he was cryin' his head off too that he couldn't go back to Iraq

Quote[/b] ]He said wants to go back as soon as possible because his unit was just attacked.

jeez...that guy is a true american...

[miles teg 1]

... Then please tell me... is a returning American soldier from Iraq who served valiently, and who opposes the war and the Bush administration, NOT a true American???

I ask this because many veterans of this war and of past wars are against what we're doing in Iraq.

I will be taking part in a "Veterans against the War" public forum in a couple of weeks actually.

I served my my country for  8 years in the US Army Reserve and I oppose this war. Am I unpatriotic?  Am I un-American for opposing the Bush adminstration and this war?  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Posted on Oct. 08 2004,02:52

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... Then please tell me... is a returning American soldier from Iraq who served valiently, and who opposes the war and the Bush administration, NOT a true American???

I ask this because many veterans of this war and of past wars are against what we're doing in Iraq.

I will be taking part in a "Veterans against the War" public forum in a couple of weeks actually.

I served my my country for  8 years in the US Army Reserve and I oppose this war. Am I unpatriotic?  Am I un-American for opposing the Bush adminstration and this war?  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I called him a true american because he still wants to go back to Iraq ASAP and the was reason his unit was just attacked. He was injury and could stay in American little bit longer but wants to go back to serve with his unit. If you are willing to do that, you are a true american...

Edit: FECK

[miles teg 1]

Ok.  Cool.  I agree.  Although I don't intend to go back and serve with my old unit... I however plan on serving my country in other ways and hopefully will be able to get myself over to the Middle East to make positive changes in the way this country is conducting its war on terror so that we do it in a more effective manner and in a way that builds coalitions and destroys the perception that this is a religious war amongst Muslims.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

If you are willing to do that, you are a true american...

I think you are a true American if you hold an American citizenship, just like you are a true Russian if you hold a Russian citizenship.

What on earth does wanting go back to your unit have to do with being American? Perhaps if you had said a "true soldier".. but a true American?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think you are a true American if you hold an American citizenship, just like you are a true Russian if you hold a Russian citizenship.

What on earth does wanting go back to your unit have to do with being American? Perhaps if you had said a "true soldier".. but a true American?

If you are willing to serve your country, you are a true American. People in this country do take their citizenship for granted...

[denoir 0]

If you are willing to serve your country, you are a true American. People in this country do take their citizenship for granted...

So, for instance the Iraqi security forces that sign up although they get blown up on a daily basis are also true Americans?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So, for instance the Iraqi security forces that sign up although they get blown up on a daily basis are also true Americans?

They are true Iraqis because they know the danger and still willing to face it.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]So, for instance the Iraqi security forces that sign up although they get blown up on a daily basis are also true Americans?

They are true Iraqis because they know the danger and still willing to face it.

So logically one could very well say that an iraqi insurgent fighting for Iraq but against your armed forces could also be considered to be a true Iraqi?

Is commitment and risk the only guideline to true patriotism?

How about common sense, love for your country (never believed in that anyway) etc.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So logically one could very well say that an iraqi insurgent fighting for Iraq but against your armed forces could also be considered to be a true Iraqi?

How could they be fighting for Iraq and they are ones causing Iraq not to reach it full potiental...

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]So logically one could very well say that an iraqi insurgent fighting for Iraq but against your armed forces could also be considered to be a true Iraqi?

How could they be fighting for Iraq and they are ones causing Iraq not to reach it full potiental...

It depends on your perspective. You could also say they are the true patriots fighting a foreign occupation.

[miles teg 1]

True...and the militants idea of Iraq's "Full potential" is a utopic Islamic state with Taliban style interpretations of Islamic Shariat law. They see the United State's occupation of Iraq as block in the path to that "full potential" of Iraq being the leader of the Islamic world and a shield against the non-Muslim Western world for the Middle East.

Its a powerful ideology that so far the United States has not been keen on combatting... one reason being is because the US government lacks the expertise and knowledge on how to fight against a religious movement.

It is this problem that I hope to work on if I get employment with the US federal government.

It requires an entirely new way of thinking about this war so that rather then a counter-insurgency paradigm, it requires us to think like the enemy...and use their own religious symbolism and less radical interpretations of their religious texts (which I believe are clearly against terrorism) to flood the Middle East media with the message that Islam is against terrorism and that the US is not waging a religious war. There is more to it then that...but until I get something published I'll leave it at that.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Balschoiw 0]

France says report's bribe claims are bid to smear Chirac

Quote[/b] ]08 October 2004

Washington and London have been accused of a concerted effort to smear France in an attempt to distract from the main conclusions of America's official report on Iraq's non-existent weapons programmes.

A section of the 1,000-page report by the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq contains allegations about Baghdad's attempts to bribe and subvert French politicians in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq last year.

The war went ahead after France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, threatened to veto military action, saying that more time was needed for the UN inspection effort, and fearing that war would destabilise the region.

The report does not suggest that such bribes were ever actually offered or accepted, but rather that Iraqi intelligence had told Saddam Hussein they had "targeted" France for treatment of this kind.

Efforts appeared to be under way yesterday to draw public attention away from the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by suggesting that senior figures in France and Russia - which was also anti-war - may have been paid to support Saddam's regime. The ultra-nationalist Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, whose name is on the list, repeated his denial that he benefited from Saddam's bribes yesterday.

The report also partially repeats a list naming figures from all over the world - including a French oilman said to be close to the French President, Jacques Chirac - who received preferential treatment in the allocation of oil export licences.

However, unlike the first list published by the Iraqi newspaper al-Mada in January, which detailed the beneficiaries of a kickback scheme devised by Saddam, this one carries the official approval of the US authorities.

All the American names, and all but one of the UN names, have vanished. The names of US companies and individuals had been removed "because of US privacy laws".

The report - and intensive American and British official and unofficial spinning of the report - concentrated instead on the French and Russian figures on the list, including the former French interior minister Charles Pasqua and Patrick Maugein, head of the Soco International oil company, said to be a friend of President Chirac.

Saddam used a secret voucher system within the framework of the UN's oil-for-food programme to reward those "willing to co-operate with Iraq to subvert UN sanctions", the report notes.

The report says M. Maugein, who received vouchers for 13 million barrels of oil, was "considered a conduit to Chirac", although it adds that this was "not confirmed".

M. Pasqua, once a close associate of M. Chirac, has been a marginal figure in French politics, excluded from the President's inner councils for almost a decade. M. Maugein is an oil man who could legitimately have sought contracts under the oil-for-food programme with Iraq. Both men have previously denied taking any money from Iraqi oil export licences.

The report also says Iraqi intelligence identified "ministers and politicians, journalists, and business people" who could help Iraq in its prime goal of lifting the UN sanctions. The report also suggests that French businessmen were interested in sanctions-busting, saying that it had found evidence of procurement transactions that included "negotiations for possible WMD-related mobile laboratories".

The French government reacted angrily to the accusations in the Duelfer report yesterday. The allegations had already been denied by the individuals and companies concerned and the French government had no reason to believe that they were true, said the French foreign ministry spokesman Hervé Ladsous.

A senior official in the foreign ministry said that he thought that France was the victim of a clumsy smear campaign. "If there were French individuals who were involved in corrupt dealings with Iraq, they should be investigated," the official said. "But to suggest that there was a concerted bribing of French politicians is absurd. You only have to look at what is happening in Iraq every day of the week to see why there was no support for the war in France last year."

I wonder how the hell US government thinks that they will ever come to a normal level of interaction with foreign countries and allies again.

Not with this administration.

The report was about WMD´s right ? What does this nonsense have to do with it ? Or is it just to divert peoples interest on something different than the missing stockpiles of WMD´s north , south east and west of Bagdad that Rumsfeld and Bush had "bulletproof evidence" for ?

It´s very funny imo that there is no big uproar in the US about the number one war reason that has turned out as funny lie. Along with all the other lies by the way.

Waht are the US people thinking ? That they will get a prize oneday for their support of the most lying government in the history of the US ?

Yes, I´m sure they will get their prize, a ticket for their kids to a country with people who love US people so much that they love them to pieces.  

And this is what has really turned out from the report:

Definitive and deadly

Quote[/b] ]Over recent months George Bush has brushed away questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction with the words: "Wait till Charlie gets done." Now Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, has produced his report - and the verdict could not be starker. Its thousand and more pages, painstakingly researched by 1,200 staff, obliterate an entire arsenal of familiar phrases about gathering threats, clear and present dangers, and Condoleezza Rice's catchy but preposterous line about a smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud.

Saddam Hussein, the report concludes, did not have any chemical or biological weapons in 2003. Almost certainly he disposed of any stockpiles 12 years previously, when UN sanctions were imposed after the Gulf war. The last factory capable of producing unconventional weapons was destroyed by UN inspectors in 1996. Saddam's ability to produce nuclear weapons was receding, not increasing, on the eve of war in March 2003. Britain's notorious 45-minute warning looks more tawdry than ever.

Many of the findings were outlined in last year's interim ISG report and by bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency - but this final version is definitive and deadly. Tony Blair argued for months that, even if Iraq had no stockpiles of illicit weapons, there were programmes to develop them. Now there are no programmes either. The main justification for war, both in Washington and London, has been shown to be baseless - and by a body working directly for the US government. Critics of Messrs Bush and Blair have been vindicated.

The ISG report contains a significant qualification. This is that Saddam intended to reconstitute his weapons once sanctions were lifted. The basis for this claim - garnered from interviews with captured scientists and the former Iraqi leader himself - is as incomplete as it is tantalising. But it is founded on inference and supposition not on fact - though it has been emphasised by US and British officials desperately spinning the meaning of the report. The intention may have existed in Saddam's mind, though the ISG states that it discovered no strategy for implementing it. Such reasoning might provide justification for military action under the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emption. But it emphatically does not provide one under international law. As one Democratic senator put it: "We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction."

No WMD´s

No programs to develope some

No smoking gun

No chemical or biological weapons in 2003

Saddam's ability to produce nuclear weapons was receding, not increasing

No 45 minute danger for the Brits

Those are the facts, the rest is speculation.

[Balschoiw 0]

Another very precise strike in Iraq:

Quote[/b] ]Dispute as 11 die in Falluja raid

Eleven people died and 17 were wounded in a US air attack on the rebel-held city of Falluja in Iraq, said doctors.

The US military said what it called a "precision strike" targeted a hideout used by associates of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

But residents and a doctor said the raid had struck a house shortly after a wedding party. They said the groom died and his bride was injured in the raid.

Nine women and six children were also reported to be among the wounded.

Rubble

The attack happened shortly after 0100 local time (2200 GMT) in the house in north-west Falluja.

Reuters news agency reported rescuers clawing through the rubble with their bare hands, chanting "There is no God but God" as the body of a man was pulled out.

Doctors at the main city hospital said a father and his seven sons, as well as other wedding guests, were among the dead.

Thursday is traditionally the day for holding weddings in Iraq, says the BBC's Karen Allen in Baghdad.

However, in a statement the US military insisted: "Credible intelligence sources confirmed Zarqawi leaders were meeting at the safe-house at the time of the strike."

The statement said several senior Zarqawi associates have been killed in more than a dozen strikes over the past month.

It said those killed include key lieutenants Abu Anas al-Shami (described as Zarqawi's number two and his spiritual adviser) and Mohammed al-Lubnani.

It´s on almost every news page. I will not link because of disturbing images.

[theavonlady 2]

Report are now coming in that British hostage Kenneth Bigley has been killed.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wonder how the hell US government thinks that they will ever come to a normal level of interaction with foreign countries and allies again.

erm... "Charlie" and co. put that in the report not TBA. Also, the reports talks about how the oil-for-food program helped saved Saddam's butt and etc. Anyway, the UN is still looking in to the food-for-oil and so is congress.

Here is the key crap:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

Quote[/b] ]You only have to look at what is happening in Iraq every day of the week to see why there was no support for the war in France last year."

not in the mood to spin it...

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]erm... "Charlie" and co. put that in the report not TBA.

Charlie for sure is not exposed to pressure from Georgie, right ?

[denoir 0]

I found this interesting:

Light shed on Saddam motivations [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Rivalry with Iran was the main fuel of Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction, says a report from the Iraq Survey Group.

The group, which found no stockpiles of banned weapons in Iraq, concluded that the former leader ultimately wanted to recreate his weapons capability.

The report bases many of its findings on US "debriefing" sessions with Saddam Hussein and former regime officials. These also reveal new details about the former Iraqi leader's rule.

Saddam's threat

WMD were "an integral element in the range of tools Saddam drew upon to advance his ambitions", states the ISG report.

Weapons inspections had achieved their aim, it adds - Iraq had no WMD. But Saddam Hussein was keen to preserve at least the appearance of a threat primarily as a deterrent to "Iraq's abiding enemy", Iran - "especially as it became obvious that Iran was producing the very capabilities he was denied".

His rivalry with Iran, the report says, was bound up with his own narcissism - "a sense of the longstanding rivalry over the centuries and his own desire to be seen as an historic military leader".

He believed that during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, chemical weapon and ballistic missile attacks "had broken [Tehran's] political will".

He also believed his regime's chemical and biological weapons had prompted the US-led coalition to leave his regime in power during the 1991 Gulf War. The former Iraqi president also valued science and technology highly, and viewed nuclear programmes as a "symbol of a modern nation, indicative of technological progress".

This, the report says, explains Saddam Hussein's wish to preserve the intellectual capacity to recreate weapons programmes.

'No explicit strategy'

But the report also says there are few indications of a concrete programme to renew Iraq's WMD capabilities behind the threat it projected.

"While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or programme for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period," says the report.

His overriding ambition was to see sanctions dismantled, says the report. Saddam Hussein was arrested in December 2003 in Iraq, in a hole in the ground near his hometown of Tikrit.

The report again identifies his desire to secure a place in history and "shape his legacy" - and not an eagerness to appease - as his reason for talking to his captors.

In another example of Saddam Hussein's regard for history, the report says bricks used during the reconstruction of the ancient city of Babylon were moulded with his name, in an attempt to make sure he would be remembered down the centuries.

Now in context, tell me this: You have two enemies that hate each other guts'. What do you do? Do you let them slug it out or do you help one of them by taking the other out?

Given that Iraqn is the by far stronger faction, it makes no sense to take out Iraq from a long-term strategic perspective.

[billybob2002 0]

D'oh

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3w.htm

Quote[/b] ]

WASH POST CORRECTS SCREAM HEADER: U.S. 'ALMOST ALL WRONG' ON WEAPONS

Fri Oct 08 2004 10:16:06 ET

Yesterday's screaming banner Page One headline in the WASHINGTON POST was:

"U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons"

"Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims"

But this morning the POST issues a correction [in the very tiniest of print inside the A section:

Correction to This Article:

An Oct. 7 article and the lead Page One headline incorrectly attributed a quotation to Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. The statement, "We were almost all wrong," was made by Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Jan. 28.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Wednesday, October 6th, 2004

Our latest chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq has given us a definitive account of Iraq's WMD capabilities--1,000 pages summed up in two words: FICTITIOUS WAR!

New video of an American airstrike on Fallujah shows the killing of thirty people who may very well have been civilians--and the Pentagon can't explain why the pilot was told to target them.

Back at home, military families are breaking their silence and are going public over Iraq.

Bush's State Department wants to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy and so they choose an American group founded by a host of anti-feminist, conservative women... including Dick Cheney's wife, Whatshername.

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that Bush is dead wrong--but is Stiglitz simply jealous of George's accomplishments?

SHOCK: Republicans in Florida up to no good!!!

Attention all mothers: Begin planning now to take part in the nationwide Moms For Kerry Rally, October 30th, 2004.

Check out the CBC's unauthorized biography of Dick Cheney, in honor of his failure to advance the administration's case in the debate with John Edwards.

Michaelmoore (some good links in the article)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Michaelmoore (some good links in the article)

Why did you post crapmoore? Did you even read my post? No bias or nothin... just info that washington post made a error...

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]For every Drudge, ill post 1 Mike.

Whats the bias in mikes article? those are just facts

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Whats the bias in mikes article? those are just facts  

Quote[/b] ]SHOCK: Republicans in Florida up to no good!!!

SHOCK: Michael Moore is a bias idiot...

Quote[/b] ]

Attention all mothers: Begin planning now to take part in the nationwide Moms For Kerry Rally, October 30th, 2004.

So, all moms vote for Kerry...

Quote[/b] ]Our latest chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq has given us a definitive account of Iraq's WMD capabilities--1,000 pages summed up in two words: FICTITIOUS WAR!

That is what you believe...

Quote[/b] ]Bush's State Department wants to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy and so they choose an American group founded by a host of anti-feminist, conservative women... including Dick Cheney's wife, Whatshername.

Woooo.... they are conservative women... RACIST...