KrustyKidd

And you say they should be french or something I suppose? Kidding right? No credible police force, no military and fellow Iraqis and ‘mysterious others’ blowing up kids, women, non combatents and themselves and you figure that we should pull out. What pillaging is taking places? We already determined it is not oil so it must be the age old sin of rebuilding. Yes, very bad stuff, take over a country and build it up better than before. Hienious bastards. AL QUEDA HELPING INSURGENTS AND THIS FROM THE OTHER DAY .... No, my view of the insurgency is predicated on how when the US is too fortified they turn to killing their own authorities and failing that, the helpless of their own. This shows the intent of causing instability rather than simply getting the US out. It also reinforces my view that they give not a hoot for their own but rather the propegation of their own power. "Muslims should realize that jihad in this country - to apply sharia (Islamic law) and expel occupying Crusaders - is a duty for all able ones," the statement said.” They know that if it is not the US will come in and flatten it. The US does not want to do that as it makes bad press but will. Everybody understands that. Gee wiz, almost three million of them. And the rest of the 300 million Arabs not living under the Israeli boot? No threat at all provided they don’t attack her. And is included in the reports the stats come from. . How long? Five years? Try generations. How many terrorists would have come and gone attaking people between then and now? How many people would Saddam have killed at the average rate of 2,500 a month (not counting wars) between then and now? At what point would the Royal Family have simply given up their authority? You have been in a hurry for the US to leave before they even got there. The US is going to be there for a few more years at least so better put some beer in the fridge.. Which is one reason why June 30th is an importent date. To show definate progression towards autonomy. Everybody does. If nobody did, who would feed three hundred million people? The place would look like Afganistan for crying out loud. You can’t trade with somebody who is not consistent hence the world has propped up people who kept the oil flowing. That has to change and the US is changing it. Thank goodness you finally see the light.

Doing a report and have tried google to get some info, no luck. I'm particularily interested in who voted for and against the MP's pay hike back in 2000 I think it was. Anybody know? Thanks.

Good one Kaper! So true. I have to laugh at all this as it is BS in a big way. The US steps on it's dick but then who wouldn't have? I dare to have some proof that France, Germany, Italy, Britain and so on and forth never used these tactics in a modern war. I also have to hear theories on what Saddam would have done if he was trying to extract information from anyone in his shere of influence. Hey, let's take it a bit further, how would Iran, Syria, Saudi do it? Any theories like 'skip the sandbags and cut off their heads instead and let the others watch and talk?' Now, back to perfection and HBO for prisoners (Anti US comments) The US must provide an example, they have. They have faltered and are dealing with it as they have gotten caught trying to take a shortcut. It is a shortcut of their own ideals, not the world's as the world's standards are far lower than theirs. They still occupy the moral high ground against any other military force.

Our Country was formed on principals of the era 1867, capitalism and Judeo Christian values. Want to come here and be an immigrant, go for it. Want to go to a country that has values more different, apply and go. I don't believe that we should cater to a newcommers expectations of what we should be for them but rather what we make it ourselves. That said, there is nothing to stop us (meaning immigrants who are now citizens and us Canadian born) from changing laws and such to reflect differing beliefs. Only that we should not in any way cater to immigrants as they are outsiders. Remember us, we are the people and they are the strangers. When most people want something, that's the way it shuld be. If Toronto wants to be a third world Citym go for it, does the rest of Canada want it?

So in the worst case scenario, Bush stole five hundred votes to win the election. Out of a three hundred million population, five hundred votes is hardly a large group. Even five hundred thousand is not an overwhelming number. Let's say that 501 who all would have voted for Gore got sick that day and stayed home, would you be happy about Bush then? How about if 501 people voted for Gore were counted the way you wanted, would you say that Gore is the chosen one? What I am saying is that there was and is no clear winner, it is in the worst case a evenly divided election for all intents and purposes. The two drawbacks are first, it gives loseres a forum to cry foul and second gives them another to say that Bush is illegitimate. If Gore had come out the winner (by what, one or a few hundred votes) the will of the people for candidate of their choice would have been virtually unchanged yet the administration would be changed dramaticly leaving virtually half of America disgruntled as they are now. It all comes down to legalese and who has and had the best lawyers etc, not the will of the people as in this case it is so difficult to read. However, hopefully this next election will either cement GW Bush in his position or his opponant. In either case, it will provide less of a target for detracters of America's actions. Like really, if Bush had won a clear election with a thousand votes, would you think he is a good president? Not a chance, you would whip him for something else. This is simply a good dig and nothing else. If on the other hand, one of the hundreds of Lawyers the Democrats had working 24/7 on this in the beggining had any real evidence don't you think they would have brought it forward? I do, I would have. Therefore it leads me to believe there is not any or if it does exist is so circumtancial that it is BS as one would have to conclude this argument is.

I think that I explained wilitary brainwashing awhile ago, I also think the thread had you included in it as well, or maybe it was Riff. You have to have this brainwashing otherwise soldiers will know that they are same as everybody else. That works well in Penn State Cafeterias but on a battlefield it can make the difference between death and life for you and many of your comerades. To have young soldiers in a hostile situation not thinking they are superior is a potential death sentence for them. The brainwashing is the reason why we don't simply use guys that are picked out of local gun clubs and slap a uniform on them and make them an army overnight I experienced this brainwashing in the Airborne and grew out of it in a few years. It is designed for the soldier who is entering his carreer and does not last past a certain point. That point is prior to when he reaches supervisor status as to be an effective supervisor you have to understand the human traits of your subordinates. If, in your theory, you are saying that this brainwashing may have had something to do with prisoner abuse, yes, I would agree. It is quite possible. It happened with the CAR in Somalia partly for this reason and one of the other crieria fell apart in the same way; inadiquate supervision and muffled (and possibly ambiquous orders to say the least) orders form higher. If you are saying that brainwashing of troops is wrong, picture a prizefighter going into the ring with an inkling of doubt as to the outcome in his mind. He might win a few but he will never be the best he can be. On the battlefield, we want the best, not nice guys that are passable in battle. Now before you go thinking these guys are ticking time bombs remember what I said about growing out of it, you do. Us Sergeants and up kept the bravado up for the troops but in our dealings with other arms and trades we realized we were all equals. When with uor men we were all one unit, second only to ourselves. We kept control with disipline, if a soldier couldn't handle the disipline he was booted out of the unit or the military as a whole. The two have to go together. BTW, long time friend. Where you been?

Six companies, six nations, one is American. Maybe you like this better: five out of six oil companies are non US. Better? That must be somewhere between 80 and 85 % non US right? Just did it in my head, about 84% non US. The quote: and this Iraqi Oil Sales Better Than Expected Guess the US lost that buying round. Must've done it on purpose to throw off the 'oil for blood' theory. Bastards. Here in your quote from another thread Black Dog, you identify the insurgents: These guys are trying to free Iraq for the Iraqis? Which group were you discussing this with? What are their goals once the US infidel is beaten? Free elections? When did they plan on holding these? Or let me guess, an Islamic State - ho hum. Chop off some chicks head, saw a few clits off with a bread knife and ban some things, no music and all. Just what the Iraqis have been hoping for! Nothing like a few stonings in the public square to make you miss Saddam. There is an interim government in Iraq. More people support them this than the insugents as they know not who and what the insurgents want other than the US out. They are not protecting Iraq Black Dog. You know that as well as I, they are trying to seize power for their own purposes. Nothing even resembling what the people want as nobody has had a vote yet. There is nothing honorable about what they are doing, to equate what they are doing by killing their own women and children to a freedom fighter is idiotic. Simply put, the US is not wanted there, the US does not want to be there, however, in order to stabilise the country so that control freaks do not run the place according to Taliban standards they must stay there until the job is done. Then, probably as part of the repayment for liberation and a security agreement they will work out a deal with the elected government to maintain bases. Back to the Revolution. The British did not occupy America, they owned it, they had colonized it. The Americans revolted against their own government to form America. It has no similarities with Iraq. In fact, Iraq was liberated and is now under transition. The insurgents are not protecting anything but rather fighting those who are freeing them so that they can hold power over the people in a similar fashion to other non elected dictatorships in the region. Ask the masters of the unsurgents, Al Queda, Ex Regime, Iranian, pissed off locals, I can assure you, none of them want a democratic vote by the people and that is what they are fighting against far more than the exit of the US. The US is only a step for them, a necessary hurdle to overcome in their quest for power over people. I understand that and said that. However, Israel is no threat to any Arab country that does not attack her. In case you were napping. OK Black Dog, you have alhiemers or something? Thought we agreed that Iraq was not the actual villan here but rather an opportunity. Krusty Kid explaining the same argument tt Black Dog for the umpteenth time in another thread recently And now international terrorist terrorist activity is at it's lowest levels in thirty years. It is ambitious isn't it? It would have taken decades to work in Saudi if ever. Results were needed sooner and Saddam and Iraq provided the opportunity, location, excuse and had the resources to implement it. I have always contended that I felt the WMD excuse was at best an ancillary reason but look at it this way, there is no way a war could be sold on one single issue such as freeing another nation, Saddam did have WMD or at least a secretive system of preserving that capability for use later in some way or form, the world's leaders were sure he had them and used the same intel that Bush used. Simply for humanitarian reasons, even America would not carry out an action such as this. In WWII, they didn't even enter until they themselves were attacked. Or it may be sucessful. Of course that never enters your theories though. I have to ask a simple question Black Dog, what does Osama, Jihad, Hezbollah, ANO, ASG, Armed Islamic Group, Asbat al-Ansar, Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Jemaah Islamiya, Al-Jihad, and Lashkar I Jhangvi have in common? Well, Al Queda's goal is to establish a worldwide pan-Islamic Caliphate and so do the rest except they are merely regional at the moment. The other thing they have in common is that they like to kill kids and women on purpose, the more and bloodier the better. These are but about 50% of the world's terrorist organisations. I suppose that we are going to have to play the percentage game again but I will wait till you get back to me. Anyhow, these groups are not going away Black Dog, rather they are growing in number as they pick up recruits from poor countries which is one good reason to spread democracy as it seems that poor countries are usually not democratic and richer ones are. Simply theory but statistically factual. They hate America, the west, Israel and all, they hate them to death. The action in Iraq doesn't make them hate us any more, you can only really hate a person or thing to death so much before it is not possible to do it more. The action in Iraq may make them act sooner than they would have but that is the way it is. Here, I'll put it on a plate to spoon feed you. Black Dog, you disappoint me, this IBC site is dripping and oozing with anti US rhetoric and you don't like their numbers? This should be your homepage for crying out loud! The General is quoted as part of an anti US satire. Really, you have to do a bit of research to stay current on this forum. Glossing over crucial facts is not fair to me or to the argument. As for yourself, you had no numbers to begin with and when I presented the most Leftist numbers in credible existence you don't even look at them even though prior you were working with nothing. It seriously makes me doubt your overall basis for you beliefs as you have obviously been argueing all this time with no facts in this argument anyways. Do you do that with most of them, some of them or all of them? Civilian deaths in “noble” Iraq mission pass 10,000 Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq There are many valid facts and reasons against this war Black Dog. You only skim the surface with your arguments. many of which are so rhetoricly based that they are defeated with easily produced facts that you obviously have not researched. The answer is not black and white and I do not hold the US as the only right rescuer as it is a multi dimensional problem. Mere anti US hatred is not the issue as they are reasonably reacting to a situation that is the making of America, Europe, Asia before today as well as the action and inaction of the entire world. Throw in oppotunistic and cultural actions of Middle Eastern Theocracies, Dictatorships, Monarchies and a Religious belief that allows itself to be used as a tool for the loudest voice. Timing is also another consideration as Militent Islam is a problem that only cropped up in the late seventies while the world was looking at Communism as the main threat. With WMD in the hands of some third world countries and the ability to purchase same from impovershed Ex Soviet Block countries it is rather importent that something be done sooner than later. If you think that this is overreadting by the US, what do you think they would do if a Chemical Weapon or a Nuke went off in a major city? Seed Democracy and negotiate? Check with the UN? What do you think the French would do if one went off in Paris? Russia in Moscow, Brotain in London and so on? Sit n their hands and wait for the next one or retaliate? There is a potential here for some real death that has to be dealt with. If you think that terrorists can be negotiated with or trusted to not seek and detonate such weapons then your world must be rosey indeed. Do we have the luxury of decades for slow reform in countries like Saudi to take place? Would they not fight against this change anyhow? It's not like the Royal Family is suddenly going to go "Democracy! Jolly god idea, never thought of that. We'll get right on it!" No Black Dog, they would fight it every step of the way and as soon as women start getting rights you want to know terrorist activity round the world will skyrocket. We all know that the US is not liked, we all know that Islam wants to spread. In the nuclear age we don't have decades to try to bring Dictatorships into the Democratic era, at least in all places on earth. When you mention Saudi Arabia as a country lacking human rights, what is the UN doing about it? What are they doing about the nuclear threat in North Korea? Are they solving the hot spots on earth? No, they are doing what they can, and that isn't enough. Just as you said the US missed an opportunity after 9 11 so did the UN. With luck, maybe the two can get together again.

I suspect it is more about him giving them crap int and the rest, anopportunity to make up for the prisoner stuff. He does make a good sacrificial lamb, just like Saddam did.

Israel has killed a million and a half Arabs? Wow, missed that story Bush Must Go. Israel has moved into Kuwait, Iran and poised for Saudi Arabia to control half of the worlds oil supplies? Missed that one too. Israel, who has never used WMD has resolutions againt them? You bet, and the West has absolutely nothing to fear from them. On the other hand, any Arab country that supports Hamas or acts against Israel I imagine has every right to be terrified of them.

Right on!! Like I said, the US is trying to do this right and they are rooting out the rats.

I don't expect to convince you. Your mind is unchangable and you have proved it by your unwavering commitment to changing the criteria of the argument in order to portray your overall position as correct. For example, we talked about legalities and I show you where the resolutions authorize action and you bring in opinion. I show you how even the French acknowlege that it is legal and yuo come back with opinion. The only mind I would ever expect to change is one who is not sure which way to go on this issue. I would change it with fact rather than feeling. Saddam was a menace, Saddam would have become a problem far greater than he ever was if he continued on his present curse. He was given ample opportunity to change and did not. Hence, the US, using the UN's own resolutions formed a coalition and took car of him. Ah yes. GW, the man who killed his own people in order to get them to think the British were not effective in keeping law and order. Did not GW have a popular vote to back him, you know, one from the people themselves? Show me where the majority of Iraqis wish the Insurgents to kill them a little more via suicide bombs in order to perpetuate the instability and fear that they all really want. Unless of course normal Iraqis do not want to live in fear and instability, then of course your argument is invalid.. OK, I couldn’t find it on the spur of the moment. I ask you to do some simple math and here, using the quote below find that the figure is actually more like 85%. Have the Iraqis begun to sell oil? No argument here. I think that your fatuousness shows through here though. Israel has not mobilized a million soldiers and invaded another country with the intent of taking it over, nor has it once again mobilized a million or so and done it again and then poised to invade yet another country with the intent of taking it over lock stock and barrel. Israel, while in violation of Resolutions is nowhere near the danger that Iraq ever posed to world peace. Israel posess a problem through ONE SOLITARY PROBLEM - Their conflict with the Palestinians. smacks of the "white man's burden" logic that drove British imperialism in the last two centuries. Well said but not even close. In the days of the British, England was highly unlikely to be in the remotest danger from hordes of spear throwing aborigionals from thousands of miles away. This is a different world today. A loose canister of chemicals from a terrorist (you have noticed that most terrorists who attack the west are from the Middle East havn't you?) can wreak havoc. It is an action of necessity to address this problem. Surely you agree with this? I assume that our onlky lines of diffeerence are the methods. As for the method here I suppose that you would have approved of the opposite destroying the regime and installing a US approved dictator? After all, this is what the left had assumed was going to happen from the start. Now you are against democracy or are you against the installation of a US friendly dictator? You have no way of knowing? No wonder your arguments are not based on fact. Iraqibodycount is a leftist anti war organization. They tell you exactly how they get their figures. I can help you with proof but you have to be able to know how to use it and how to verify it. It's the left's figures, not mine. If anything, they are inflated to back up your points. Anyhow, scince you don't have any proof (as usual) we have to take that leftist site's word on it. Here is proof of Saddam's killings 300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves OK, without gong any further, let's go back here when I asked for your view of what should happen here. You said to turn it over to the UN. Now you agree with me that the UN did not, does not and will not want to do anything with Irq other than administrate it. Sorry BD but admining isn't what Iraq needs right now, they have a council and they need security more than anything.

Got that off another thread. Your quote. I have facts, I would like to see some to support your arguments for a change. Is Israel a Dictatorship that starves it’s own people? Do they have mass graves? Do they threaten the west? Do they have aspirations of taking over the entire middle east? Are they undergoing UN inspections? Are they supporting terroist organisations? The people that I quoted all worked with the same intelligence that Bush and Co used to make the case for war. The only difference was that Bush acted and they, for many reasons (most having nothing to do with peace and goodwill such as the UN Oil for Food ripoff and Chirac’s bribes from Saddam) sat on their hands. Got you. Just as it is your right to kill, murder, rob and rape fellow Canadians during the runup to an election? Where do you get the logic that the insurgents are legitimate? Who has given them any form of mandate? Who is their leader? What are their objectives? How will they govern once the US has been ousted? Who elected them? Or is the Governing Council the interim voice of Iraq? Gee, the people that own it? Everybody else still gets paid the same to develop, refine, pump, transport and all. Are you unable to use a search engine? No wonder your arguments are continually flawed. http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_oil2.php “Have the Iraqis begun to sell oil? Yes. Since the end of the war, SOMO has drawn up contracts for the sale of approximately 34 million barrels of oil to some of the world’s largest oil companies, including British Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, ChevronTexaco, Petrobras of Brazil, China’s Sinochem International, and French concern TotalFinaElf. Most of this oil is coming from Iraq’s southern oil fields and being transported to tankers at Iraq’s Persian Gulf export terminal at Mina al-Bakr.” Cute. Emotional, baseless and fraught with ommission of facts. Typical leftist crap. You call them Savages and the US is trying to empower them. You would have them under Saddam and the US would free them. Major. No. If it included the war it would be over a million and a half. These are mass graves, not a baby dying of malnutrician and bvuried in a private funeral. As a side note, Saddam used UN ration cards as a form of control, held medical supplies and food for his troops and party members. There was more than enough stuff getting to Iraq to feed the people. As well, I guess you havn’t heard of the UN scandel? . I know you knew that. Try using a search engine to verify it please before you call it BS. As for judging killers by volume, LOL how else to you describe the Biblical proportions of death that Saddam inflicted on his people versus the relative miniscular amount that have died as a result of freeing them? So Far, if the US had not interveened, 25,000 Iraqis would be dead under his tenure. Net savings of fifteen thousand lives. Those who are alive will never know how their fate would have been different but the numberws tell us that there are fifteen thousand more alive today than there would have been, that number grows by 1,500 a m month. That is bad in your mind right? Hmmmm, you must be John Kerry. That’s his plan too. Tell me Black Dog, has the UN returned the call? So far they have declined all invitations. Unless of course you know something the rest of us do not. Seems they don’t like getting blown up and shot at, running away when it happens never to return.

It's not really a theory BushMG, it's a fact that in a places where there is archeic systems that have been virtually unchanged while the population increases to modern levels, only brutal people can lead or govern. That said, I take it that you are commenting that whatever the US tries to do is folly? Better to leave them all to degenerate into hell right? At what point do you think they will have had enough 'degeneration' and decide to take it upon themselves to come to the west and 'git some?' Would letting the pot simmer and boil for decades make it easier to deal with? Maybe if we resurecdted Chamberlain and had him go make a peace pact with Al Queda things would be ok. On second though, Spain has kinda done that and their reprieve has only a month left ticking before the attacks on her commence again.

Very thought provoking. And true in many cases. But many feel that Bush is doing a good job though, and are more afraid of a new leader and the unstability it brings whoever and whatever that new leader is. Take a look at the stocks of a major corporation when there is a leadership change, they plummet as strategic interests abhore change in any form. As well, Kerry is so undefined that it should raise alarm bells in even the most anti Bush radical. With no strategy made public he could be worse and contrary to what many believe, there is a lot worse than Bush out there. Want to take a real chance? Vote for Kerry and his 'mystery solutions' in a time where things are already tense. A solution might be for Kerry to get some real policies together as it wouldn't take a lot to sway fence sitters to his side and another might be for him to spend less time bashing Bush and more showing his concern for the ??? policies and people that those ??? policies will affect. All your country needs is a viable alternative to Bush and he would be out I think. So far, none have appeared. And yes, I agree. Bush out with a viable alternative would provide a leadership change that would provide the opportunity to attack this problem on maybe not a clean slate but with new policies that have a chance of being believed.

So scince Saddam was a paper Tiger only because the US foot the bill to keep him and his sons and their sucessors perpetually contained you now bitch about the price for keeping him that way. Bush has enough and calls on the UN to help and they turn him down. For this and many other reasons he takes action to end it. Just trying to figure you out here. I know you ddn't like Bush but then you don't have any solutions either. Got it. You're John Kerry!

Yes, they missed the boat. A rare opportunity to show the world that they meant something and their law meant something and they waffled. If they had done their job the world would be a unified one with all knowing that breaking international law meant something. Perhaps by enforcing it's own resolutions here would eventually force Israel to obey the ones against it. We'll never know though as every tinpot dictator knows, the UN is nothing, meaningless. At present, only two forces in the world have any power, the USA and ...... whoever it's enemies are. And make sure you go visit Pembroke Online as well. It's a cool site with lots to offer local people and tourists alike.

Yes indeed. Well noted Black Dog. I would suppose in order to minimize this problem the US would have to ensure that everything they do is on the up and up with their dealings from here on in. Full accountability for the prisoner thing and ensure that the transfer does go through as son as possible.

I have lots of thoughts. These people are for the most part same as everybody else in the world and placed in an extenuating circumstance. Lack of experience coupled with lack of supervision, throw in a purpose such as the 'soften them up for interogation' part and lots of stuff can happen. I had a thought a few years ago. You know how many of histories worst criminals were at one time normal citizens? Well, picture the bitch at the grocery store berating a young clerk to no end for making a mistake. Picture her with no accountability and having a bad day. The circumstances and the lack of supervision multiplied by an ambiguous mission - soften them up. Then while they are working on that formula, throw in some stress from dealing with thousands of alien sounding strange and potentially dangerous individuals. Finally, do it every day, in and out for months, over a year and suddenly stuff begins to make some sort of weird sense, you accept it, get used to it. Without serious reality checks from supervision and possibly rotation with other troops you grow into your own little world. It's supervision, inexperiences, too much stress, no enforced SOPs, and also, they should have made it less specialized so that a front line platoon could take a few weeks off at the rear guarding the prison on a rotating basis. However, that said, the interrogators should know what was going on. They were part of the supervisory chian. The real problem lies at the link between the interrogators and the guards. Who was that and why did they accept that behavior or why did they not know it was happening? That is where I think the answer lies. Somewher about the rank of Colonel and Major General. Now scince this is not exclusive to one prison, it is either a systematic problem, or .............. it is policy. Once we determine that, it will be a trial for Junior Generals or some really big fish.

No, it was not only reffered to but said that it was still in effect. 1441 does not stand on it's own. That is why it refers to and mentions that it upholds the rulings in the other resolutions and even spells out the resolutions in order to ensure that somebody doesn't think that they were forgotten or that they were no longer relevent and so that there is no ambiguity. Thus, they become part of that resolution. Told you, in order to usderstand these things you have to go back and forth in a big way. They are all conected. And the US under the afore mentions resolutions ensured that he did not become an 'imminent threat'. Would you have preffered to attack him ten years from now when he had a few nukes? Black Dog If. You can't make war on an if yet you can make peace on an if? Read the resolutions, read the finding of UNMOVIC, ISG and tell me that he obeyed the resolutions and then ikeep on giving us 'IFS' Fact is, the guy was dangerous to a lot of people in a lot of countries, no matter what, the world is better off without him. No "IF ANDS ABOUT IT." Well what you should do is get together with all the people that don't know how to read a UN resolution "all necessary action" and write one that says "autorized to make another resolution" "and another" "and another until the cows come home or a mushroom cloud errupts in a city somewhere." They would bring it to some emotionally yet reality challenged UN council somewhere in a corner of the fantasy world and things will work their way in their head. In the real world, it is this way, Saddam played the UN and the US called him and the UN. A lot of people don't like it but they had a lot of years to work out another way. They didn't and this is what they got and now we all have to live with it. Personally, I wish Saddam had come clean a lot earlier and had done his duty as a leader of a nation of people. Brought them into the modern era using the wealth that was available to use to enrich thier lives. Truly Iraq under a clever, yet benevolent Saddam would have been among the most powerful and richest nations of the earth in both wealth and people. Saddam was not all bad you know. He enacted many social programs ahead of his contemporaries but in the end, his ego and soulessness turned him. I think that you Black Dog understand that Saddam, even if presented with an extension of the stus quo would still have continued the action he had made a habit of. I understand the frustration of being boxed into a situation where the only way out is violence. What disturbs me the most about this attitude of many is that they accuse the US only. On reflection they as usual were reactionary. Reactionary to the real evil which was not Saddam himself who was only doing what he always did but rather the people who from the outside watched as he did it and did nothing. Made rules that they allowed him to break time after time. So here we are, thirteen years after the Gulf War has been over and the guy never complied with the ceasefire. Somebody failed in a big way here. Who? The whole world knew what he was doing and assumed worse yet did nothing. When blame for this invasion goes around it should include the US yet also Saddam. However, the bulk of the fault goes to the UN which allowed this to go on for so long that it came to this, A question. Wherre do you think we would be with respect to Saddam and WMD if 9 11 never happened? As for not authorizing regime change I should think that when a country is simply an extension of a dictator due to the severe control an egotistical leader exerts, regime change is the only way to enact change that is imbedded into the core of the society. So in order to stop him from continuing his WMD work you would have to effect a regime change. That though, is another argument completely,

It is not ONE FACTOR that made for this action Black Dog. You seem caught on this freedom thing and continually equate Iraq to Saudi or North Korea etc with the feel that we should do them. Heck, maybe the US will do them. I imagine that you woud approve too you warmonger. I'm sure LOL. . There were many reasons thata made Iraq the subject of this action. Freedom, legality, moral justification, ability for the country to succeed as a democracy using it's industrial base-oil revenuse, proximity to other countries to spread ideology and such. You seem to get caught up in either one or another as a single issue when it was not. Picture yourself on a lazy hot Saturday and lounging in the back yard you know that you have to go get a newspaper. No way, you think, not going to get dressed and into that damm hot car to drive two miles to the store for a paper. Black Dogess comes up to you and says "I need a loaf of French Bread for supper." You think and no way are you going to town for that. Suddenly, you remember you are out of propane and the BBQ isn't going to happen. Heck you think, just order a pizza and lean back in the chair. Black Dogess calls out from the kitchen "Only two beers left" Damm you think, not enough reason to go but then, reflecting on the other items, it makes enough justification to set the trip in motion and you get up and put a shirt on to start the trip into town. The UN with 678 and 686 687 and 1441 made that an exception. Tell me BD, if the UN said explicitly that 'Tthe USA can attack Iraq now' then it would be illeagal as the US was not acting in self defence. If Poland helped them under this approved UN mandate they too would be in violation. What I am saying is that this was an acception penned by the UN istself and we have taken up a good amount of thread space on the other thread. Possibly we can combine these two discussion here?

Got to ask this one; has any world body charged the US for violating international law? Has the world body made a resolution condeming the US action? I imagine if it was not legal then they would have. Just a theory I thought I would throw out. Not quite, it also said this "All necessary means" except the use of force? What would this mean Black Dog. All necessary means. The guy is under sanctions, has a hundred thousand foreign troops ready to pounce and the UN says that Member States Assisting the Government of Kuwait can "use all necessary means." I have got to hear how you interpret that. Cutting off his milk delivery? Suspending his Playboy subscription? What? And don't forget about the "All subsequent resolutions." part? ALL. 687 But they were a danger to nobody according to many. Guess the UN was wrong. Here is 1441 Gee, the UN thought Saddam was a threat. Apparently, they didn't get you fax saying he wasn't. The stuff is interesting if you get into it and cross reference it. The UN acknowleges that Iraq supports and promotes terrorism and awhole lot more.

12 years Black Dog and you also agree with me that Saddam had every intent on reviving his WMD program. At what point do you think that he might become a threat? When he has a lot, some, a few, not many what? HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY AT ALL! Not one vial, not one missile with capability of over 150 km and was bound to cooperate with the UN inspectors. If you wish, I can show you how he was in breach with the cooperation part and give you UN reports of his threats to the lives of the inspectors and so on. Heck, there is even an instance of a translator trying to take over the controls of a UNMOVIC helecopter that got orders to do a snap inspection of a second facility. All weree breaches of the resolutions. One or two is only one or two. A little only kills a few. Where is your threshold in WMD and material breaches of resolutions? One vial? One missile engine? A hundred? A thousand? I know what the UN's threshold was -- NONE. Placed properly and in the hands of another who hates America as much as he it would be deadly. And when, if not then would be an opportune time to take him out? When he has a lot? A few? How about now when the world thought he had a lot and when he clearly was trying to get more than what he had? Yes of course, and you have 14 resolutions to back that belief up? Heck, scince he was harmless, why make any resolutions at all? As for outside the mandate, it was all well withing the mandate. I showed you that one as well. HERE IT IS Heck, even the French knew it was legal.

Not sure Hugo but for sure it will always be a lot less than the numbers at IRAQIBODYCOUNT.COM

Black Dog, in order to understand what is going on you have to remember that Iraq had 12 years to get rid of this stuff and to ensure they were in compliance with 14 resolutions. Did they take them seriously? Did they adhere to the UN and cleanse themselves of WMD and related activity like they were bound to by the ceasefire agreement of 1991? If so, NOTHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. NOTHING. Not one experiment, not one dual purpose chemical, lag, equipment, scientist working on a related project, and the only dopcuments should have been rrecords of destruction of all this material. Instead, it’s record and prooof of ongoing activity, attemps to develop, buy, deceive and preserve the capability to reconstitute their program. Abything but compliance. Blix's Report After twelve years this stuff is still popping up. KAYS REPORT He didn’t say that he found the car keys Saddam lost, he found dozens of WMD related activities. There you go BD. WMD relaterd material again in a country that shouldn’t have anything. Take home work again. A deadly virus. Nothing sinister going on there? Gee, thought they had given up on development of WMD? But Saddam wasn’t trying to get nukes like the US said. Why would he be interested in this? A delivery system for what? Flowers? Candy? Why? They had no WMD or RELATED MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES, why would they not declare that to the UN? Oh, ‘don’t declare this to the UN It’s perfectly legal but whatever you do, don’t let the UN know.’ But I thought they wern’t allowed to have missiles capable to reach over 150 km? Why would they try to get stuff that the UN said they were not allowed to have and that nullify the ‘91 ceasefire? Black Dog, in order to make your argument this page should have been blank or Kay saying that he found nothing to indicate Iraq was working on any of this stuff. He didn’t. HERRE IS THE MORE UP TO DATE REPORT FROM DUEFLER He didn’t go into detail but I am fairly sure he has his reasons for making a statement like that. Gee, imagine that, Saddam trying to produce WMD and related material even after all the UN resolutions, ceasefire agreements and all. Here’s an idea Black Dog. You prove to me that none of this stuff is there and I will conceed that Saddam wan’t trying to revive his WMD program once sanctions were lifted and the Coalition left the area. In the meantime, this is in your face obvious what he was doing. It’s called non-compliance and underhanded deciet. OMG! Saddam in violation. What happened? Who put that stuff there? US again, trying to frame him. Oh, in violation. That word and that stuff keeps on bubbling to the surface. When we get this dealt with I will move on with the rest of your post. As for now, tell me that all this means that Saddam had peaceful intent and that none of this exists. You provide some proof please.

I never said it wasn’t a sell BD. As I have been contending for the last year, any idiot would know that as soon as the main issue shifted from WMD to Regime Change you knew they where the real concern was. I agree with that rationale as I never felt Saddam was an immediate threat to the free world but on the contrary, his dilapidated army and lack of ready to use long range missiles allowed me to sleep quite safe at night. However, his very large dilapidated third rate army could still kick the heck out of all the other dilapidated fourth and fifth rate armies in the region. It is not just the US economy that runs on oil but the whole industrialized world. Even if it owns the whole Middle Eat the US would still have to pay market price for the oil. France gets it at the same price as they do no matter who controls it. Not only is the ME a necessary region of the world for the world but it is also one screwed up place. A guy like Saddam seeking dominance with WMD would be a nightmare. He would be an (ok, here you go Black Dog, I’m going to say it) imminent threat to his neighbors and posess an unreasonable and dangerous influence on the region and subsequently the whole world. Make deals with any country he wanted to help hm with his quest for power. He would never stop. If you can’t understand that then I don’t know what to say. Scince Bull and the Supergun episode he has sought to have powerful tools to intimidate his nieghbors, I asked you to read Kays report and you shrugged it off saying there is nothing there. Possibly you missed the point, as I stated that I was an am sure that WMD were not the actual reason for this action, the future of the ME with Saddam having WMD was. Historiclly he has sought to aquire and keep his WMD capabillities and Kay, Blix and Duelfer all confirm that he continued to do so right to the end of his Regime. During the years under sanctions, Saddam used these sanctions as control over his people by hoarding food and medicine and using UN issued ration cards as a carrot and stick for obedience while after 14 resolutions against him pursued his goal of having Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons. Before you run off and start shouting semantics about how he was not that close and this and that remember, when sanctions were lifted and Saddam was under no obligation to admit to inspections he would be free to reconstitute any program he wanted free from prying eyes. He ensured that that percursor material was there, the basic equipment was there, the expertise was there. It does not take a lot to make WMD if you have the hard parts in place and only lack the opportunity to assemble it all in a safe place undisturbed. Read Kay’s report again. No massive stockpiles but a clear intention to process WMD in a country where there shouldn’t even be a document with the abbreviation ‘WMD’ written on it. They have missile plans, fuel enrichment programs, attempts to get outside aid in developing delivery systems, medium missiles with engines that cannot get beyond the 150 km limit yet all have the specific (yet more expensive and unecessary) framework to take the larger engine that Irag had and was using for something else. Only take a couple of mechs to change one around. He had precursor agents, empty clandestine laboratories declared illegal by the UN and undeclared. Now why would they have all that BD? Why would Saddam give orders to those running them not to say anything to the UN under threat of death? If they were begnein then he would be wanting them to shout that from the roof tops. They never said that it was an imminent threat. You threw out all this irrefutable evidence in quotes but none of them said that. None of them said there was an immediate threat. I am smart but no Eienstein and I never had any fear of Saddam beyond his simply because some people are too stupid to understand that Iraq was an issue that shouldn’t be ignored and should be dealt with ASAP does not make it imminent. No matter how you try to twist the bullshit, they never said that. So why don’t you get off the pot and lets move on and progress here. Now getting back to the real reason of the war - Democracy Seeding, they had to give the brain candy out to the idiots because here we are and even a smart guy like you can’t figure out that’s the intent much less get behind it to support you country to go to war. (If you were an American I mean) It is no surprise they used WMD as it also made it legal. Also, everybody figured he had them or correctly assumed he was still trying to make them or keep the capability counter to 14 ressolutions. Permission? At best it was a yellow light with a recommendation that he try to seek an ‘Arab Solution’ with his brothers in Egypt, Saudi and Syria. I wonder, when a half million armed-to-the-teeth coalition forces opposed him did he still figure he had permission or would that not have been a fairly clear signal that he didn’t? Boy, if you ever get put in charge of defense let me know ahead of time so I can build a bomb shelter. According to your rationale the US is going to rightfully declare war on Canada because we are shipping softwood lumber in secret. Tell me, if your neighbor’s kid breaks your window with a baseball and I say it's between yu and him do you go over and blow his head off with a shotgun or talk to the guy and work something out? Ah, now I get it. He was a poor victim. He only killed millions because he had a bad childhood and was misunderstood? Sure, he had money problems Black Dog but why? Because he was spending it all on weapons for crying out loud! Spending it all on keeping his power schemes together. If he had a few usable nukes and aimed them at Israel, Saudi and Kuwait and walked into Jordan with Chemical Weapons there wouldn’t be much action happening there. Who would you shoot without taking out your allies? Silly idea but he has done worse. Most of them are. Nobody waits until the time is right for the enemy to attack, that’s how Pearl Harbor happened. Everybody knew the Japanese were the enemy but nobody figured they would do anything. Should have been some “ifs” happening there. Another point, this wasn’t a war. Saddam was set up probably since 2000 sometime for this. We both agree that he was no imminent threat but I believe he was an opportunity to move into the ME and seed some democracy using legal means and what the US thought would be backing from the Arab world and complete cooperation from the people of Iraq.