| Author |
Message |
    
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 4:14 pm: |     |
Our Real Reasons for Going to War
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004
It may well be that weapons of mass destruction will never be found in Iraq. They may have been destroyed after the first Gulf War in 1991, or were buried in the desert or shipped out of the country.
David A. Kay, who was appointed by President Bush to search for these weapons, recently said, according to The New York Times, that "the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr. Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes."
If this is true, we were not the only ones duped by the Iraqis. The United Nations Security Council passed its Resolution 1441, which unanimously threatened Iraq with serious consequences if it did not account for its weapons of mass destruction, based on the assumption that Saddam Hussein failed to destroy those weapons after the first Gulf War.
Hussein's refusal to demonstrate to U.N. weapons inspectors in the weeks leading up to the second Gulf War that he had eliminated his prohibited weapons led to the assumption that he still was in possession of such weapons.
In my view, it was not necessary for President Bush to wait for absolute proof that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to take action against him. If the President believed, based on, at the time, credible intelligence provided by the CIA and the British, that Iraq had such weapons, and Saddam Hussein declined to prove he had destroyed them, that was enough to justify war.
As the President stated in his 2003 State of the Union address, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. ... If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions would come too late."
President Bush was not alone in reaching this conclusion. His predecessor, President Bill Clinton, took the same position, stating in August of 1998, "Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction ... threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of the rest of us."
In other words, the U.S. did not go into Iraq because we knew for certain that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction – a reasonable assumption under these circumstances. We went into Iraq because we believed he might have such weapons. And after 9/11, we could not take the chance that he might use these weapons or give them to terrorists.
It continues to puzzle me that so many Americans oppose the U.S. liberation of Iraq. The anti-war camp is comprised of at least three groups. The largest is made up of those who simply hate President Bush, as their counterparts in the 1980s hated President Ronald Reagan.
The second group is aligned philosophically with the "America First" isolationist movement of 1940, which was led by hero aviator – and anti-Semite – Charles Lindbergh. Isolationists were largely responsible for keeping America neutral while Hitler conquered Europe and committed genocide against Jews, gypsies, Communists, Socialists and other minorities.
The third group consists of pacifists who believe no war under any circumstances can be defended. During the Cold War, that group’s views were epitomized by the slogan "Better red than dead."
Fortunately, most Americans believe in New Hampshire’s slogan, "Live free or die." Today, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are demanding as part of their Jihad (holy war) that the U.S. and other Western countries abandon democratic ways, convert to Islam and abandon their friendships with Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.
These terrorists want to replace the pro-Western governments of our Muslim allies with fundamentalist regimes. Of course, they also want us to end our support of Israel.
When the Allies of yesteryear were led by FDR and Winston Churchill in World War II, they knew the choice was victory or defeat. The same is true today.
The Times article by James Risen, which quotes David A. Kay, provides the best assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. To summarize it would not do justice to his analysis, so I am setting forth a number of conclusions described in his own words.
What follows are excerpts from The New York Times of Jan. 26, 2004.
"'I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction,' Dr. Kay said. 'We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.
"'I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990s. Somewhere in the mid-1990s, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated.'
"Regarding biological weapons, he said there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development 'right up until the end' to improve their ability to produce ricin. 'They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization,' Dr. Kay said. 'They were maintaining an infrastructure, but they didn't have large-scale production under way.'
"He added that Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild, after being largely abandoned in the 1990s.
"While he urged that the hunt should continue in Iraq, he said he believed '85 percent of the significant things' have already been uncovered, and cautioned that severe looting in Iraq after Mr. Hussein was toppled in April had led to the loss of many crucial documents and other materials. That means it will be virtually impossible to ever get a complete picture of what Iraq was up to before the war, he added.
"But Dr. Kay said the C.I.A. missed the significance of the chaos in the leadership and had no idea how badly that chaos had corrupted Iraq's weapons capabilities or the threat it raised of loose scientific knowledge being handed over to terrorists. 'The system became so corrupt, and we missed that,' he said.
"In addition, Dr. Kay said, it is now clear that an American bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998 destroyed much of the remaining infrastructure in chemical weapons programs.
"The former Iraqi officers reported that no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons, he said. But all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons.
"'They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it,' Dr. Kay said. He said it appeared they were the victims of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by Mr. Hussein.
"As a result, virtually everyone in the United States intelligence community during both the Clinton and the current Bush administrations thought Iraq still had the illicit weapons, he said. And the government became a victim of its own certainty.
"Dr. Kay said he was convinced that the analysts were not pressed by the Bush administration to make certain their prewar intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq.
"'All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on W.M.D.,' he said. 'Everyone believed that they had W.M.D.'
"'The only comment I ever had from the president was to find the truth,'" Dr. Kay said. 'I never got any pressure to find a certain outcome.'
What all this means is that if Saddam Hussein had acted rationally, he could have avoided war. But he was not the rational leader of a nation. He was a sadistic despot who tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and invaded other countries.
He used poison gas against the Kurds and the Iranians. He set fire to more than 700 oil wells in Kuwait, creating an environmental catastrophe. The world is surely better off without him. Let's hope the effort to create a free and democratic state in Iraq is successful.
If the CIA failed in its intelligence-gathering responsibilities prior to the war, as is now charged by Dr. Kay, Bush's opponents should remember that the CIA director, George Tenet, is a holdover from the Clinton administration. A congressional inquiry is now under way and Tenet will testify. Let the chips fall where they may.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
The following statement is the usual attempt to change the subject. Nobody opposes liberating the Iraqis. OTOH, Bush didn't drag us into war to liberate the Iraqis.
It continues to puzzle me that so many Americans oppose the U.S. liberation of Iraq. The anti-war camp is comprised of at least three groups. The largest is made up of those who simply hate President Bush, as their counterparts in the 1980s hated President Ronald Reagan.
This next statement is actually embarassing. Hussein used poison gas on the Kurds back when he was our ally of sorts. To say this is now casus belli is excessively cynical.
He used poison gas against the Kurds and the Iranians. He set fire to more than 700 oil wells in Kuwait, creating an environmental catastrophe. The world is surely better off without him. Let's hope the effort to create a free and democratic state in Iraq is successful.
|
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
"Let's hope the effort to create a free and democratic state in Iraq is successful."
To say matter of factly that the we went in "to create a free and democratic state" is outright wrong. Rather, pulling out the "humanitarian" card is just an ex post facto explanation because the real reason hasn't proved justified.
If you are going to argue that the U.S.-led war was a humanitarian one, then how does one justify the "untold thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead -- uncountable because, as TomPaine.com reports, Paul Bremer told Iraqi authorities to stop tallying those casualties -- as well as the lives that will surely be lost as this drags on? |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Anybody remember when US intelligence kept insisting that it was the IRANIANS who had gassed the Kurds? I do. How times change. Or do they?
For the record, I opposed going to war to "liberate" Iraq and I would again tomorrow, because the Iraqis don't want us there. Never have and never will. And I've never hated either George Bushes or Ronald Reagan.
I never voted for Ed Koch, despite having been given multiple opportunties. Yes, there are certainly too many liberals who are all for "wars of liberation." Look where they landed us. |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Very accurate article.
Let's use his grouping to prove his point.
Bush Bashers or group one include Nohero, & Tom who refuse to look at issues fairly because they hate Bush. As a result, their views on the war can't always be taken seriously.
Group 2
America First" isolationist movement:
Tjohn comes to mind.. This his clearly his mindset. Very naive mindset.
Group 3: The third group consists of pacifists who believe no war under any circumstances can be defended.
Name that comes to mind: Duncan.
See, Mr Mayor is right.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6258
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
Here's a link to a story about the Iraq-Iran killing Kurds confusion:
http://forums.transnationale.org/viewtopic.php?t=1458
quote: This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2833
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
Straw wrote above: "Bush Bashers or group one include Nohero, & Tom who refuse to look at issues fairly because they hate Bush."
First off, it might help to read what people say, before you decide why they hold certain opinions.
And second, I win again!  |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
oh, Dave. Don't believe everything you read.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6259
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
The author was the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000.
Maybe he's wrong and you're right!  |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
"Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war."
Yeah, CIA officials are ALWAYS right...right, Dave?
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6261
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
Was there a particlar fact you're challenging in the account or are you just saying in general you like to ignore other points of view? |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Dave,
If you want to claim Hussein used chemical weapons in self defense, be my guest.
I would think you'd conclude through your own common sense that this was not the case. If you want to again somehow or another defend Hussein as some type of victim, once again be my guest.
Ten thousand excuses as to why Hussein derserves to still be in power from the liberal establishment and each and everyone of those excuses are just plain nonsense.
He was a killing machine just like Hitler was...But, he will never be one again.
THE END.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2156
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Nobody is making excuses for leaving Hussein in power. However, Hussein is not Hitler and does control the resources of the world's third largest economy as did Hitler. Removing Hussein is not without risks and some scenarios (e.g. civil war) are worse than having Hussein in power. There was never a proper national debate on these topics. Bush deliberately presented only the intelligence that supported his philosophical decision to go to war. Now we are stuck and God help the Iraqis and the Middle East if things don't work out. The day we crossed the border of Iraq is the day we assumed personal responsible for the well-being of all decent Iraqis. |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
and it was the right thing to do. When intelligence tells you there is a major threat that needs attending to, you attend to it.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6262
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Now the CIA is a good source of intel? Make up your mind, please. |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
Maybe YOU need to make up YOUR mind. 
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4491
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:17 am: | |
Look kiddies here is the story. We went to war in Iraq because we could and it was a wonderful opportunity to put the fear of Allah in Syria and Iran and we did. Libya was an, unexpected, bonus.
Cheney and Rumsfield are too bright and experienced to take the WMD intelligence at face value (note I didn’t include Bush in that group). Cheney went to the CIA to sanitize the data so the White House would have plausible deniability if there turned out to be no WMD. I have trouble seeing Cheney and Rumsfield really believing that the Iraqis would greet our troops as liberators and throw rose petals in front of the tanks as they rumbled into Baghdad, but this was the theory, which, obviously hasn’t happened. Remember the promises of being able to pull the troops home within a year? No way, we will have a significant occupation force there for at least ten years to keep the various religious and ethnic groups from civil war.
Unfortunately for Bush the story is unraveling very quickly. Time will tell if Cheney falls on his sword or not. One way or another Bush ends up looking stupid and gullible.
I have no trouble with a little power politics from time to time and in the wake of 911 I think we may have been justified in doing what we did. However, Bush and company lied and assumed that “you can’t go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people” as the old advertising line goes. Time, meaning between now and November, will tell if they were correct or not.
Take a look at Cheney, take a look at Rumsfield. Look at their eyes, look a Bushes eyes. Are these people who started a war for humanitarian reasons. Don't think so. That was window dressing.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2157
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Let's not overplay the fear of God argument. Libya was in the process of coming in from the cold for quite some time and, most likely, would have done so regardless of our invasion of Iraq. Syria behaves with restraint primarily because of the certainty of an Israeli response if they don't. Iran is a complex case where an internal political struggle is undoubtedly influenced by our actions in Iraq. However, the threat of brute force is as likely to strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners as it is to benefit the reformers. Finally, North Korea may have paused to consider our invasion but is now back to business as usual. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6263
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Haven't made my mind up about anything. Keeping it open is fun. If the article is correct it doesn't mean Iraq didn't use gas on the Kurds nor does it mean Iraq or Hussein is in any way a victim. It just adds some nuance to one of the common war cries we've heard from Bush. |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
"Libya was in the process of coming in from the cold for quite some time and, most likely, would have done so regardless of our invasion of Iraq."
Tjohn, Now you're just making things up.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6264
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
Making what up?
quote:
UMA Secretary General Calls for End to Anti-Libya Embargo
Maghreb-Libya, Politics, 2/6/2001
Secretary general of the Arab Maghreb Union (UMA), Mohamed Amamou, joined his colleagues from the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference in an appeal to the UN security council to immediately lift the anti-Libya embargo.
After a Scottish court delivered its verdict in the Lockerbie case, sentencing one Libyan official to life-imprisonment and acquitting the other suspect, the UMA secretary general said in a press statement the union, which groups Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia, praised the cooperation shown by Libya in the case to reach a fair solution.
He also recalled efforts by the UMA member countries leaders to contribute to settling the issue, renewing the Union's continuous support to the brother Libyan people. He said the immediate and definitive lifting of the embargo and the compensation of Libya for damages incurred have now become urgent and compulsory.
Amamou expressed confidence that Libya will now mobilize all its efforts to foster development, contribute efficiently in the UMA construction process and take its role for peace and understanding in the Mediterranean, Africa and worldwide.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2160
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
Perhaps so, Straw. Let's put it differently. If the goal was to intimidate Libya into coming to the bargaining table, it could have been accomplished without invading Iraq.
The "fear of God" argument cannot be a significant justification for invading Iraq. As a fringe benefit, it is fine, but as a primary justification it is not. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6265
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
Maybe not "quite some time", but definitely prior to the pre-emptive war. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 819
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Now he's not. That's the same line that was used for the Soviet Union, Straw. It wasn't Reagan burying them, it was Gorby allowing the inevitable to happen (what a hero he was, they just didn't appreciate him at the time over there). When North Korea folds, it won't be because someone stood up to them. Same with Iran....it's pure coincidence that we happen to be camped on their borders (Iraq and Afghanistan). |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2161
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
As George Kennan noted in 1948, it was necessary to contain the Soviet Union. He also noted that eventually, the Communist system would collapse under its own weight. To give Reagan sole credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is to ignore forty years of bipartisan agreement on containment. My view of Gorbachev is that he knew that the Soviet Union needed to unlock the potential of its people in order to compete with America. However, he wasn't able to pull this off without triggering a general collapse. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 821
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
....and any minute now, our containment of Castro will spell the end of him! The only thing keeping that place going is the oft-noted free healthcare and literacy that he's using to dupe his people. That, and killing opponents. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6266
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
I agree. The way to end Castro is to open trade with Cuba and let free markets do the rest. Wonder what Ed thinks about that. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 822
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Is it true that the US is about the only country participating in the Cuban embargo? If so, Cuba has been able to trade for some time with the rest of the world, but they're still poor. I don't see where us ending the embargo will force Castro from power.
I'm not saying the embargo is a good idea, by the way. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4493
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 2:19 pm: | |
Their will be a significant sea change in Cuba when Castro passes on to the big commune in the sky, much like what happened with Tito in Yugoslavia, but hopefully without the violence.
You may not believe it, but according to non-American friends who have been there, Castro is viewed as a national hero by most. The memories of Batista and Myer Lansky have been kept alive. Under Batista 1% were rich and the rest starved. Now 1% are well off and everyone eats regularly and gets an education  |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
dave,
It is beyond all shadow of a doubt that Saddam deliberately gassed the Kurds at Halabja, possibly with chemical weapons supplied to him by the US. Saddam's culpability was thoroughly established by research done by Human Rights Watch after the 1991 Gulf War, when it was able to gain access to Kurdish enclaves in Northern Iraq.
At the actual time of the gassing, however, the US was a backer of Saddam and floated the story that the gassing had been done by the Iranians.
This is a good resume of the history which directly refutes the link you posted:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo09202003.html
The subject of why Libya did what it did is a fascinating one, but it is factually true that Libya began making energetic efforts to normalize relations with the West in the mid-1990s, and the US made it conditional on an increasing set of concessions. Many of the negotiations were tied to payouts to the families of the Lockerbie victims, and it looks more likely than not that Khadafi was motivated by an interest in normalizing relations than his fear of any US military action against him. I don't know that Khadafi himself has ever addressed the issue of what role the second Iraq war played. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6270
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Thanks for that. It's all news to me. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 515
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
can I just say that the title of this thread is bugging me? Ed Koch is certainly not a "liberal," and on foreign affairs has always been a hawk.
|
ligeti
Citizen
Username: Ligeti
Post Number: 64
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
The major threat continues to be our own borders. The most basic principle of warfare -- secure your own perimeter FIRST -- has been basically ignored because Cowboy Bush wanted to get over to Iraq real quick and kick some butt. Thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans killed, and no end in sight. Billions spent, billions more to spend. Meanwhile, homeland security suffers because we don't have enough money to do the job properly. Checked baggage is still not x-rayed on all flights because the local jurisdictions cannot afford it. Our police and fire depts. are stuck with ancient communications systems. No national I.D. system, people flooding over the borders unchecked. Schools (and yes, I think education is a security issue) and infrastructure falling apart. |
United STRAWBERRY of America
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:09 pm: | |
education is a security issue??
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:48 am: | |
Eisenhower thought so after Sputnik. Seems to me that that's the generation of scientists who developed all those cool weapons we used in Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
Grateful Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
We don't need to spend more money on education to develop scientists, Tom. The bottom line is this, the cream always rises to the top. If a kid is a scientific genius at 14 he'll get everything he needs to become the top Scientist he was meant to be.
Now, the kid with no dough who wants to become a trial attorney. He may have a problem, but as Ted Knight says, the world also needs ditch diggers.
Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
True, but we don't just need geniuses. There's a lot of work that doesn't require flashes of inspiration, which needs to be done by competent data-crunchers. |
Grateful Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Tom,
I hate to say it, but that logo of yours keeps cracking me up.
Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 390
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Koch is being disingenuous. Many people opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq for a fourth reason.
Attacking another country:
(a) in violation of international law,
(b) without the support of key allies,
(c) without a plan for postwar reconstruction, and
(d) after lying continually to the electorate about the reasons for doing so,
would simply make America more divided, isolated and insecure. As of course it has.
|
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 653
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2004 - 8:54 pm: | |
Um... I think Iraq was
1) in violation of international law for many years
2) had the support of those "key allies" in the form of lucrative contracts for oil and weapons.
3) The plan is going to take a bit longer than yours.
4) GWB didn't lie. Get over it.
America is not isolated or insecure. Just ask Libya. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 827
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Koch is obviously just as corrupt as Bush. No doubt he's on corporate boards of Lockheed and Raytheon. He's always been into oil at the expense of the lungs of small children, and he's always arguing for tax cuts which take the hard earned money directly out of the pockets of those who don't have any money.
And the big, BIG story is that Bush is not on the list of those receiving oil kickbacks from Saddam. Wait until that one breaks open. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 393
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
This greater security would of course explain the increasing number of flight cancellations over disagreements with Britain and France about how to deal with potential terrorist threats.
And after David Kay, what responsible government would ever put any trust in U.S. intelligence, assuming they had any to begin with. The skepticism of the French and Germans, for example, now seems to be amply justified.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 7:37 pm: | |
This special investigation of "intelligence failures" is smoke and mirrors to distract us from the deliberate effort on the part of the Bush Administration to present only the truth as they wanted it to be. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there were plenty of contra-indications regarding illegal weapons. The U.N. simply was not finding any weapons, even when they looked in the places where we thought they might be stored. The Bush Administration deliberately chose to ignore these contra-indications, having already decided to go to war.
Is that lying? You decide. Suppose you bought my house and I neglected to tell you about the lead paint, the asbestos and the leaking oil tank? I suppose that isn't lying, although when I have to explain that to St. Peter, he might take a different point of view. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10677
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
Not lying.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 9:58 pm: | |
Lying.
Thank god you see it too, tjohn. It's positively weird, isn't it, to read the current crop of news reports as if last year never happened? Before the first shot was fired in the invasion of Iraq, it had already been demonstrated that the anodized tubes were not appropriate for nuclear weapons, that the pilotless drones were so primitive the elicted laughter when shown to reporters, and that the claim that Saddam had been trying to by yellowcake from Africa was faked. Were there not real people dead and missing limbs, it would almost be comic to listen to all this ostentatious head-slapping about "Golly gee Mary, how could we have ALL been so wrong?"
By the way, Josh Marshall has also been experiencing deja vu and came up with a bottomless source of real-time pre-war deception and self-deception (self-deception is also lying) in the archives of Jim Hoagland's columns for the Washington Post. Last year Hoagland was writing about how proud the Pentagon was that it had kicked the CIA's rear end into rethinking it's view that Iraq wasn't an immiment threat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53578-2002Oct19?language=printer
And leave it to Bill Maher to dig up the inconvenient truth that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice stated publicly in 2001 that sanctions were working so that Saddam was effectively disarmed and not a threat.
"Why did the CIA screw up?" is an awfully tendentious inquiry. The inquiry that needs an honest answer is:
Why are we in Iraq?
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10678
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
Not lying.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:04 pm: | |
Not much of a recommendation for a public offical that he can't tell when he's being lied to.
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10679
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
Yeah, whatever.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 396
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 11:27 pm: | |
At some point, even people who support Bush have to ask themselves if this man is worthy of their trust.
|
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 24
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
If you want to keep quoting David Kay's take that there were no stockpiles and " We were all wrong" then you must accept his other quotes, namely "What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." Also "Saddam was flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects and feverishly trying to do so in others. While there were supposedly no major WMD stockpiles, there were probably WMDs, some of which may have been removed to Syria in the weeks preceding our invasion. Saddam was trying to weaponize the deadly agent Ricin, and he was clearly developing missile systems in contravention of the resolutions." |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
OK, not lying, but rather, deluding themselves and carrying these delusions to the public as truth. That ain't good leadership, either. We need clearer heads than that.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6292
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
"supposedly", "probably", "may", "trying" |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 25
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
"dangerous" " Clearly" "flagrantly violating" |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6295
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
"made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially...."
The clearly developing missile systems were being dismantled under supervision of the UN team.
"flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects" is pretty vague, too. To be in violation would kind of require proof, like finding WMD.
--
Obvious disclaimer here: Yes, Saddam was a twisted, bad dictator. However, that alone isn't good enough to send young men and women to war for. |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
Burden of proof on Iraq. Resolution 1441 Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. Serious consequences means military action. Kay has confirmed this. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6296
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
The point of the UN resolution was containment and it appears to have been a wild success. And there are plenty of unenforced resolutions. We just wanted to selectively enforce this one. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2183
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
Of all of the justifications for invading Iraq, my favorite is that they are in violation of U.N. resolutions. How can this be a justification when the very same U.N. refused to pass a resolution in favor of our invasion. This is the logic of the insane. |
guycaruso
Citizen
Username: Guycaruso
Post Number: 27
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
When Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998 , he was no longer contained. The UN should have dealt with it then. They didn't . The only reason he let inspectors back in was 200 thousand troops. Clinton and Bush viewed him as a threat, Bush took care of it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 837
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
That they found Iraq in violation and then refused to back it up illustrates why the UN is a worthless international body. Amazing that Syria and Russia and France would have voted against a war. Why would that be? Couldn't have been oil, oil contracts, oil bribes could it? They would have been insane to vote for war.
Russia wouldn't go for a war in Kosovo, which is why that war was fought without a UN blessing. Maybe the UN just wanted to contain Slobodan as they did in Rwanda. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1975
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
cjc, did you follow what tjohn said? I get it that Bush thinks the UN is worthless. If that's the case, then why should he care that Iraq violated resolutions that the worthless organization passed?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 839
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
As Bush said when he addressed the UN, their voting on whether to do something about Saddam's violations would determine if they were a relevant body. The resolutions were strong and true. The UN response was not, but that didn't mean action wasn't necessary. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page