Things going well in Iraq?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

actually pretty sure they didn't ... Hans Blik (sp?) final report stated he suspected that Iraq wasn't being honest with their inspectors and that he believed there was an issue.

Actualy, 100% sure they did. The Blix report states as much.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/spr...anscript.blix/

As to speaking to honesty and cooperation, Blix's report stated, "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access."

He continues, "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems."

He noted these problems, "While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.
Another air operation problem, which was so during our recent talks in Baghdad, concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours."

He closes his report by saying, "Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspections teams every day all over Iraq by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council."

and Bush agenda?

It is a published agenda.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://newamericancentury.org/Rebuil...asDefenses.pdf

you toss that out there like he's published a manifesto. He hasn't. You can believe this is all a master plan and an agenda if you want, I certainly can't "prove" there isn't or wasn't one any more than you can prove there was.

Seems pretty proveable as they were stupid enough to publish their goals and how they would execute them.

As much as anti-Bush people refuse to see it ... could be as simple as reported. Tenet and the CIA reported a pro invasion package that Bush and the house saw and decided to go ahead. It matched the Russian and British intelligence and it was good enough to go in. It was a bi-partisan agreement at the time, something that even Hillary Clinton has refused to back down from.

I know its something really hard for you Bushies to come to grips with, but the Bush admin fudged the evidence and showed what THEY wanted to, to congress. There has been more than enough people to step forward to say the intelligence was not what the CIA had and that what was presented was cobled together to fit the administration agenda.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20...err_report.pdf

conspiracy theories and agendas and Neo-Con world ruling plots are great for movies, but may not play out the real world.

Bad news Bingo, its not a theory anymore. It's fact and there is enough evidence to impeach Bush. It's sad to see some really intelligent people bury their heads in the sands and believe the administration is clean. But when these people are inundated by the crap that FauxNews (nee The White House) pumps out, and willingly swallow, I guess its expected.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

As much as anti-Bush people refuse to see it ... could be as simple as reported. Tenet and the CIA reported a pro invasion package that Bush and the house saw and decided to go ahead. It matched the Russian and British intelligence and it was good enough to go in.

It's easy to overstate the "Bush Lied" case. Two bipartisan commissions, IIRC have found no specific wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration in terms of how they presented intelligence to Congress, etc. How they "sold" the war to the American public is another story in my opinion. Comments like "the smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud" are examples of the kind of irresponsible fearmongering I'm talking about.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that they played fast and loose with the facts. And the picture of a Bush administration that made an honest mistake isn't supported by the facts any more. An interesting link:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/tr...W205_full.html

This is a transcript of a feature in which one of Colin Powell's staffers essentially admits that the marketing of the war by the Bush administration amounted to a "hoax." Furthermore, he confirms that there were in fact MANY people in the administration who believed that the war plan was too optimistic, and that in fact the intelligence on WMDs was vastly overblown. Not everybody was surprised at how it turned out.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Bingo

actually pretty sure they didn't ... Hans Blik (sp?) final report stated he suspected that Iraq wasn't being honest with their inspectors and that he believed there was an issue.

and Bush agenda?

you toss that out there like he's published a manifesto. He hasn't. You can believe this is all a master plan and an agenda if you want, I certainly can't "prove" there isn't or wasn't one any more than you can prove there was.

As much as anti-Bush people refuse to see it ... could be as simple as reported. Tenet and the CIA reported a pro invasion package that Bush and the house saw and decided to go ahead. It matched the Russian and British intelligence and it was good enough to go in. It was a bi-partisan agreement at the time, something that even Hillary Clinton has refused to back down from.

conspiracy theories and agendas and Neo-Con world ruling plots are great for movies, but may not play out the real world.

God I get tired of the "conspiracy" theory accusation cop out. Like there's no such thing as neo cons or hawks and doves in politics.
A lot of it is hind sight of course, but "was good enough to go in." may not have been good enough for any other administration that with the benefit of time didn't show it's self to be completely bumbling, incompetent, fools.
I for one agree I don't think that administration has the brains to form that sort of complex conspiracy.

[oldschoolcalgary]

I for one agree I don't think that administration has the brains to form that sort of complex conspiracy

you'd be surprised...bush is a figurehead...

rove, wolfowitz, pearle and fife(sp) are not incompetant boobs...

not sure if you'd call it a conspriracy anyways - they had a plan; they cherry picked facts to support the plan; they won over the american public (using 9/11 as the connection-a flat out lie)...then they started the invasion...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

^^^^ no kidding. Add in habitual and career liars, er politicians, like Cheney and Rumsfeld (both at the heart of the industrial military complex) and you have the makings of a very cunning group, capable of manipulating the system. Let's not forget that the Pentagon and CIA were essentially controlled by the civilians from the admnistration. Wolfowitz provided the intelligence, Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated the military, and Rove and Pearle made the politicos fall into line. Don't under-estimate the power of these psychos. I honestly feel that Pearle is the devil incarnate. I have never seen a man so full of hate, so full of ****, and so determined to see his ideology come to life. Rove is just plain mean and has no soul. Some of the crap he's pulled during his career is flatout immoral. When people say that it's not possible to pull stuff off like this, they forget that Germany was run by the Nazis and a conspiracy. It is very possible, and IMO very probable. All you have to do is look at the history of the individuals in question, and then see the things they have done in concert prior to working with Dumbya. I still say that in the near future you will see Jeb Bush (the real neo-con) run, and if he wins, you'll see the exact same players back in the administration. Most of these guys worked through three different administrations, so I don't see a fourth too hard to believe. Especially when Jeb is politically aligned with these crooks.

[Bingo]

Guys ... the media and internet world just simply doesn't work that way anymore.

Posting a few links proving some inocuous point is silly. I could do the same and you know it.

Almost all of this stuff isn't a fact, and that means both ways, there are reports, opinions, columns, research and all of it conflicts. Lets not get into a posting war that wastes a lot of time listing link after link.

It's up for debate. I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not, but 100 links each way isn't going to solve a damn thing.

And Lanny ... Blix was pro inspection and anti invasion, I won't debate that at all. But you took a snipit from his January report, his February report just before the war stated that he had great concerns with the Iraqis inability to provide any explanation or proof of the the disposal of their chemical stocks from the 91 inspection period. he went on to say they Samoud (sp?) missile was an appropriate delivery vehicle for the chemicals if they did exist and that it was a serious concern.

No sense in cherry picking UN reports. We could do that all day.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind on this. No point. I just showed up in the face of the insulting suggestion that everyone that felt it was a good idea has gone underground. Not the case at all.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Guys ... the media and internet world just simply doesn't work that way anymore.

Really? Please tell me how it works.

Posting a few links proving some inocuous point is silly. I could do the same and you know it.

Ah, so then we should stop, and you're right and we're wrong. We're willing to make the effort to prove where you are wrong, using the documents that you yourself discuss, and that's still not satisfactory. I guess that you're still waiting for Bush to come right out and say that he lied, that they went to Iraq to profiteer and develop a base of operations in the middle east? Is that what its going to take for you to see WTF is going on?

Almost all of this stuff isn't a fact, and that means both ways, there are reports, opinions, columns, research and all of it conflicts. Lets not get into a posting war that wastes a lot of time listing link after link.

You can thank your boy Dumbya for making it a battle between sides. The "great uniter" has become the most divisive agent in the world since Hitler. "Yer either with us, or with the terrorists". That was a brilliant speech and made the majority of the world with the terrorists (at least in the Bushies eyes). Fact of the matter is that WORLD press is reporting on the goings on and they see things in a pretty unified light. So really, there are no two sides to the story other than the Bushies, and everyone else.

And Lanny ... Blix was pro inspection and anti invasion, I won't debate that at all. But you took a snipit from his January report, his February report just before the war stated that he had great concerns with the Iraqis inability to provide any explanation or proof of the the disposal of their chemical stocks from the 91 inspection period. he went on to say they Samoud (sp?) missile was an appropriate delivery vehicle for the chemicals if they did exist and that it was a serious concern.

Good god, who gives a **** if they have a missile system CAPABLE of delivering an agent? They didn't have the agent to deliver! That would be like a cop arresting you on the way into a bar because you have the capability to drive drunk and kill someone, even though you don't own a car. If we allow countries to start making decisions based on bull**** evidence like that, why bother having countries at all? We can all be slaves to who ever is the stongest and kill us the quickest.

Oh, and here is the link to the UN release on his FINAL UN report.

http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030603/34057_story.asp

Blix said the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items."

He wanted more time to look at the last few sites on the list, but the US and British wanted to rush to war. Iraq WAS cooperating, it was the pressure of the US and UK that caused the problem. Blix was more than happy with the progress. There were no weapons of mass destruction. NONE. Blix said it. Ridder said it. The CIA was unsure and couldn't prove it one way or another. As things turned out, there have been no weapons found other than 500 shells from before the Gulf war, and they were useless for anything other than doorstops.

How hard is it to admit that you were wrong, that the guys you support are wrong, and that what is going on is immoral? The world is a much worse off place because of the actions of the Bush administration. Their little foray into Iraq has destablaized not only the region, but the whole world. From a moment of universality as humans to a polarization of people and feeling of utter contempt for the United States in four short years. That's gotta a be record. I guess that's something "your side" can hange their hat on.

[Calgaryborn]

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Yes, the great democracy of Kurdistan. I'm sure that is not an unbiased site. Just like if you went the the City of Edmonton website, it would tell you that it was a great utopia. It certainly wouldn't mention that it was the murder captial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4522296.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4374468.stm

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan/13-8-04-opinion-tataii-turkman-shouldbe-replaced-kurd.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121302119.html

While Kurdistan has managed to keep most of the war away, people still stand a good chance of being murdered for their political beliefs.

And lets not talk about Kirkuk, which is traditionally part of Kurdistan should be administered by the Kurds but has not been peaceful enough for the U.S. to hand over.

http://www.ckwstv.com/news/news.cfm?...e=w072933A&n=1

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Ah, so then we should stop, and you're right and we're wrong. We're willing to make the effort to prove where you are wrong, using the documents that you yourself discuss, and that's still not satisfactory. I guess that you're still waiting for Bush to come right out and say that he lied, that they went to Iraq to profiteer and develop a base of operations in the middle east? Is that what its going to take for you to see WTF is going on?

Read back ... never called anyone wrong. I think you're the guy calling yourself right and patting yourself on the back.

you can talk as much time as you want but that's not my point. You know we both can go out and find it. I've read things absoloutley cut and dried on both sides and that's disturbing.

So do your usual, ****y escalating attack all you like. I'm saying it's a waste of time, because ... well .. it is.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You can thank your boy Dumbya for making it a battle between sides. The "great uniter" has become the most divisive agent in the world since Hitler. "Yer either with us, or with the terrorists". That was a brilliant speech and made the majority of the world with the terrorists (at least in the Bushies eyes). Fact of the matter is that WORLD press is reporting on the goings on and they see things in a pretty unified light. So really, there are no two sides to the story other than the Bushies, and everyone else.

Because you say so?

Forgive me for not just agreeing with a statement as simple and uncooked as that.

Are you suggeting the world press is without anti-American bias across the board? That would be quite a statement.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Good god, who gives a **** if they have a missile system CAPABLE of delivering an agent? They didn't have the agent to deliver! That would be like a cop arresting you on the way into a bar because you have the capability to drive drunk and kill someone, even though you don't own a car. If we allow countries to start making decisions based on bull**** evidence like that, why bother having countries at all? We can all be slaves to who ever is the stongest and kill us the quickest.

Who gives a XXXX? Blix did or he wouldn't have pointed out the fact that Iraq had no means to explain where the chemical masses from 91 were, how they were disposed and at what time.

He was concercned and mentioned the missile system to deploy it.

Beyond that I've never suggested he was pro invasion, in fact I said, the opposite. I brought the man up when it was suggested that there were no concerns. There were.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

How hard is it to admit that you were wrong, that the guys you support are wrong, and that what is going on is immoral? The world is a much worse off place because of the actions of the Bush administration. Their little foray into Iraq has destablaized not only the region, but the whole world. From a moment of universality as humans to a polarization of people and feeling of utter contempt for the United States in four short years. That's gotta a be record. I guess that's something "your side" can hange their hat on.

That whole paragraph is an opinion Lanny. Period.

I did admit that the intelligence was wrong. I also suggested that Bush was wrong to not come out and say that, say that they went in on WMD, can't find them, but now they need to see things through in order to come to a resolution that makes the region a safer place.

I would have respected that. He didn't do it, and I think it's bad politics.

So I'd get off your admit your wrong bent, because I've said all that above, and I've never been one to run from any opinion and you know that.

Beyond that it's hyperbole. I don't know the world is worse off any more than you do. Maybe the opposite is true and an even bigger attack on US soil would have happened without the Iraq conflict. I don't know. Guess what ... either do you. I've said it before and I guess I'll have to say it again. I'm an action person. I've always respected politicians that have conviction and make mistakes from time to time more than those that wilt and look for public opinion and never get anything done.

Iraq hasn't gone well but they're in there and they need to stay until they iron it out. Turning tail would be devestating.

I felt it a good move back then, and once in they need to see it through.

Not sure how much I can really say.

[Calgaryborn]

[quote=FlamesAddiction]Yes, the great democracy of Kurdistan. I'm sure that is not an unbiased site. Just like if you went the the City of Edmonton website, it would tell you that it was a great utopia. It certainly wouldn't mention that it was the murder captial.

While Kurdistan has managed to keep most of the war away, people still stand a good chance of being murdered for their political beliefs.

And lets not talk about Kirkuk, which is traditionally part of Kurdistan should be administered by the Kurds but has not been peaceful enough for the U.S. to hand over.[endquote]



So you look at the relative peace and free elections that exist today and see no improvement over Saddam's rule? Are you blind? Can't you see that today they have a future; They have reason to hope.

People who have lived with constant bloodshed and under conditions where the value of a life was nothing aren't going to assimulate into orderly society without difficulty. Politics is a lot slower than a gun. The fact that they have achieved what they have is remarkable.

The big difference between today and yesterday is that any violence is being reported and amplified. People aren't being buried at night in unmarked graves. A reporter today can report what he sees and won't be afriad of a backlash from the government although they need to fear the terrorists.

You want it the way it was? Do you know of any way that could bring these terrorist to live a life of peace? When Saddam was in power there was more innocent people being killed. Today there is still a lot but at least the terrorist die with them.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So you look at the relative peace and free elections that exist today and see no improvement over Saddam's rule? Are you blind? Can't you see that today they have a future; They have reason to hope.

People who have lived with constant bloodshed and under conditions where the value of a life was nothing aren't going to assimulate into orderly society without difficulty. Politics is a lot slower than a gun. The fact that they have achieved what they have is remarkable.

The big difference between today and yesterday is that any violence is being reported and amplified. People aren't being buried at night in unmarked graves. A reporter today can report what he sees and won't be afriad of a backlash from the government although they need to fear the terrorists.

You want it the way it was? Do you know of any way that could bring these terrorist to live a life of peace? When Saddam was in power there was more innocent people being killed. Today there is still a lot but at least the terrorist die with them.

From your own source, it claims that Kurdistan has been a successful democracy for 10 years.

First of all, define the term "successful". It was widely reported that the Kurds were using fear tactics during the last election, as my links clearly pointed out. If that is how succes is defined, then Iraq is worse than even I thought.

Secondly, assuming their claim is correct, it should be pointed out that for 7 of the past 10 years, Saddam Hussein was still ruling Iraq and was not able to interfere much in Kurdistan. Therefore, what did the U.S. occupation for the past 3 years actually do to improve democracy in Kurdistan specifically?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

From your own source, it claims that Kurdistan has been a successful democracy for 10 years.

First of all, define the term "successful". It was widely reported that the Kurds were using fear tactics during the last election, as my links clearly pointed out. If that is how succes is defined, then Iraq is worse than even I thought.

Secondly, assuming their claim is correct, it should be pointed out that for 7 of the past 10 years, Saddam Hussein was still ruling Iraq and was not able to interfere much in Kurdistan. Therefore, what did the U.S. occupation for the past 3 years actually do to improve democracy in Kurdistan specifically?

Success I would define as a hope for the future that doesn't rest upon the killing of all your enimies. There is the beginnings of a political process within Kurdistan. The women may now vote and are. Of course the stronger of the warring tribes are reluctant to lose control to a political process, but it's happening.

Also, they now as a people have a political voice within Iraq. Saddam may not have exercised his political muscle in that region during the last few years of his reign but, that doesn't mean he was at peace with them. He simply had bigger fish to fry. I hope your not implying that they were content and prosperous under Saddam or even safe.

In the last three years the political control of Kurdistan has moved away from the unelected leaders of warring tribes and been given to elected leaders chosen by the people. The enemy of their people(Saddam) is in prison awaiting his sentencing and execution. This will follow with more trials and more justice. The Kurdish people have a voice within the country of Iraq. There is a constitution that says that the Kurds have the same rights as any others in Iraq. Think about it: Hope for the future that doesn't need to involve continual bloodshed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Saddam may not have exercised his political muscle in that region during the last few years of his reign but

The strange thing about that is that Saddam couldn't control the Kurds militarily or politically but he was a threat to the United States, Great Britain, Canada... ah hell, he was a threat to the whole damn world.

I don't know much about them Kurds but they must pack a hell of a wallop.

Does anyone know enough about them to explain why one of the world's largest militaries, headed by the most dangerous man in the world and backed by a staggering arsenal of WMDs couldn't control an area about 1/8th the size of Alberta?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The strange thing about that is that Saddam couldn't control the Kurds militarily or politically but he was a threat to the United States, Great Britain, Canada... ah hell, he was a threat to the whole damn world.

I don't know much about them Kurds but they must pack a hell of a wallop.

Does anyone know enough about them to explain why one of the world's largest militaries, headed by the most dangerous man in the world and backed by a staggering arsenal of WMDs couldn't control an area about 1/8th the size of Alberta?

I think it was a matter of expediency. The territory offered no strategic benefit to Saddam and would have been costly to control. There is a minority Kurd population in Turkey which probably helped provide weapons and recruits whenever needed.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think it was a matter of expediency. The territory offered no strategic benefit to Saddam and would have been costly to control. There is a minority Kurd population in Turkey which probably helped provide weapons and recruits whenever needed.

Wow, one of the lamest things I've read on this board for quite some time. Hussein, the "power mad dictator with designs on attacking the world" couldn't be bothered with a chunk of his own country, because it posed no strategic benefit? So the area that borders three other nations is not "strategic" and poses "no value"? On what planet? I know the apologists will try anything to defend the United States, but come on, that's the lamest thing I've heard yet, and I've heard a lot of excuses when it comes to Iraq.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think it was a matter of expediency. The territory offered no strategic benefit to Saddam and would have been costly to control. There is a minority Kurd population in Turkey which probably helped provide weapons and recruits whenever needed.

Good point, but Wales and Colorado didn't offer much of a strategic benefit to him either but he was directly threatening them.

I don't mean to compliment Saddam, but you gotta admit that it was a pretty deft political move to let the Kurds openly defy him. Clearly anyone who threatens the entire globe has the means to keep the people within his borders in line but he didn't bother. Bigger fish indeed. The whole world was his big fish, why bother with a minnow!!!

[Azure]

That is interesting. If you don't care about the mainstream media, where do you get your information from? Do you know of a secret, non-mainstream source that we should know about?

I've come across numerous blogs from people in Iraq, and I tend to read the for information sakes.

Certainly isn't from the MSM though.

Bad news does sell. There is a reason for that.

For example, I'll probably swim in a lake this weekend. If I happen to drown there might be a headline that reads something like this:

"Calgary man drowns in shallow water: autopsy pending".

That would be considered news.

If I don't drown when I go swimming the same paper could publish the following headline if the priority is "good news":

"Calgary man swims in shallow water: returns to land with wet hair, trunks".

Good analogy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Great thanks for the link...from that site, this gem:

Too bad it doesn't mention how the US voted against labelling Iraq a terrorist state after the attack...Blowback anyone?

What does that have to do with denying Saddam used WMD against his own people?

[oldschoolcalgary]

simple.

It erodes the idea that the US has any moral highground from which to criticize other nations. The idea that Saddam uses chemical weapons against the Kurds has never been in dispute - what is telling however is how the US never acted to condemn these acts at the time of their occurance.

what is telling is how the US removes Iraq from the list of terrorist states in 1982 so that they can begin supporting him in his war against Iran...also providing him with the means to the attack on the Kurds later on.

what is telling is how the US then falls back to this idea that Saddam was a terrible dictator (which he was) as a justification for the war, after the trumped up connections to 9/11 and having WMDs fail to materialize...though this was absolutely dismissed and ignored when Saddam was their ally.

Its hypocrisy at its worst...let's be clear here: the democrats didn't do a good job either under Clinton...this criticism is not simply partisianship - its a broader indictment of a government whose moral high ground shifts so often that it does not stand as this beacon freedom and justice that some think it is.