Who Is Really Responsible For Sadaam"s Wmd's

[bluman]

We gave him the WMD"s in the first place http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547_comment.php

Here's more proof http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0213-05.htm

We need to apologize to Iran, and the American People it was the Reagan, rumsfield,and Bush SR. people that did this.

I'm ashamed of what we did http://www.iht.com/articles/86720.html

[KrustyKidd]

We gave him the WMD"s in the first place We need to apologize to Iran, and the American People it was the Reagan, rumsfield,and Bush SR. people that did this.

I'm ashamed of what we did 

You are about ten year behind the times friend. What is new though is the fact that over 95% of the stuff Saddam used to kill fellow Midle Easterners with was from France and Germany. In defence of the Euros though, I submit that to legally sell a product does not mean that you endorse the purpose for which it may be used.

As for apologies, I imagine the US is still waiting for one from Iran for the hostage taking of their embassy.

[d4dev]

KK, what an excellent case of double standards and shifting blame!

In defence of the Euros though, I submit that to legally sell a product does not mean that you endorse the purpose for which it may be used.

Even if that product is sold to rogue states like Saddam's Iraq? Is that in defence of the Euros or the US?

[KrustyKidd]

It is not shifting blame. I make no excuses for previous government's alliances. Saddam was a friend at one time to many. Heck, probably even got along with the Iranians at one point. If a man in your company suddenly goes phsyco and becomes a burden, do you keep him on or fire him? Are you then responsible for all his actions? Heck no. Furthermore, is Ford Motor responsible for you being a drunk driver? Is Seagrams? Is Remmington responsible for you holding up a liquor store?

[SirRiff]

If a man in your company suddenly goes phsyco and becomes a burden, do you keep him on or fire him?

suddenly???

why do you think the US sent weapons to afganistan? because they knew osama and his crew were ruthless and would fight till the death against the russians. they were also so evil they destroyed thier own family.

why do you think the US sent weapons to saddam? because they knew he was evil enough to put them to good use against the iranians. unfortunately it was obvious he would kill anybody he didnt like, not just iranians

why do you think the US suppported the "contras" in iran? same reasons.

lets not dumb down the truth and pretend saddam "suddenly" went ruthless. every day of his biography is filled with violent evil ruthless behavior.

the US knew EXACTLY what it was getting. which is why they also helped the afgan terrrorists/rebels and iranian terrorist/rebels when they needed it. and it is why they do it in secret, its not polite to assist murderers in public. then they wash thier hands of them till decades later, afganistan, iran, and iraq become global deathtraps and americans need to be able to pretend to be disgusted by the violence.

no, saddam was known by all to be evil. at least france and germany dont insult out intelligence by pretending not to have known they were supporting dictators and are now motivated only by moral virtue.

[KrustyKidd]

SirRiff,Feb 14 2004, 09:15 PM

suddenly???

why do you think the US sent weapons to afganistan? because they knew osama and his crew were ruthless and would fight till the death against the russians. they were also so evil they destroyed thier own family.

why do you think the US sent weapons to saddam? because they knew he was evil enough to put them to good use against the iranians. unfortunately it was obvious he would kill anybody he didnt like, not just iranians

why do you think the US suppported the "contras" in iran? same reasons.

lets not dumb down the truth and pretend saddam "suddenly" went ruthless. every day of his biography is filled with violent evil ruthless behavior.

the US knew EXACTLY what it was getting. which is why they also helped the afgan terrrorists/rebels and iranian terrorist/rebels when they needed it. and it is why they do it in secret, its not polite to assist murderers in public. then they wash thier hands of them till decades later, afganistan, iran, and iraq become global deathtraps and americans need to be able to pretend to be disgusted by the violence.

Yes Riff. Suddenly. As you have observed, the US, like every other country on the planet allies itself with goveernments, individuals and organisations that will help them. Saddam SUDDENLY' became a liability.

no, saddam was known by all to be evil. at least france and germany dont insult out intelligence by pretending not to have known they were supporting dictators and are now motivated only by moral virtue.

Always good for a laugh Riff. Morale virtue from France and Germany? The guys who supplied Saddam with most of his arsenal and then spoke of how we should go with the UN and sanctions etc? The ones that were standing to lose billions from broken contracts? The French President who was getting bribes from Saddam?

Yes, always good for a laugh Riff.

[SirRiff]

Morale virtue from France and Germany? The guys who supplied Saddam with most of his arsenal and then spoke of how we should go with the UN and sanctions etc? The ones that were standing to lose billions from broken contracts? The French President who was getting bribes from Saddam?

as opposed to lying to teh world about WMD and rushing to war under the guise of morality?

yes, i will take the france/germany UN stance over the US WMD/morality ploy anyday.

they may both share guilt for creating saddam, but its obscene for america to pretend to be undertaking some great cause.

[KrustyKidd]

its obscene for america to pretend to be undertaking some great cause.

Ho hum. Here we go again Riff. What do you think the real reason is that made the US recontinue the Gulf War after Iraq broke the ceasefire agreement, as laid out in UN resolution 687,686 and 678?

Here, I'll save you the searching;

686

4. Recognizes that during the period required for Iraq to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) remain valid;

686

2. Demands that Iraq implement its acceptance of all twelve resolutions noted above

678

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

On 27 Jan, Blix reported all sorts of stuff still being discovered in Iraq. They were cooperating he said, 'an encouraging sign' but nowhere near the spirit of the orders they had signed the ceasefire with. For a country that was supposed to be free of 'WMD and all quipment, related material and resources' (including dual purpose stuff) thery sure had a lot that was 'discovered' rather than 'turned in.'

687

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; ( All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Seems that this all adds up to a cease fire that was broken by Iraq. Or should I say, never fullly complied with. Therefore, member states (USA, France, Britain and whoever else including Syria, SA and all) cooperating with the government of Kuwait, acting under res 678 para2 "all subsequent resolutions" can simply resume military action.

What happened Riff?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Indeed, what happened? Why, after over a decade, does the US choose to uphold a old resolution from an organization it does not believe in, pay for, or listen to? Of all the resolutions outstanding, shall the US now attack Israel? Or themselves?

[KrustyKidd]

Guess they liked this one for reasons we have already gone over and over and over and ..... The UN can go carry out the others you speak of, America is busy right now.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Indeed, when no proof is required, and you carry the biggest stick, you can do what you like.

[KrustyKidd]

Proof that Saddam was violating the ceasefire resolution(s)? You been in a hole for the last year or so? Read Blix's reports.

As for proof. Yes, it would be good if you could provide some, but of course, you won't. Because just like many of Bush's detractors, you don't have it. One of his most powerful adversarys is Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Rockerfeller. He stated in inter office memo that his intention was to gather goods to put Bush down. Has he found anything? Nope. And he is privy to everything the President is so where are you getting this, LOL, info from?.

[udawg]

Indeed, when no proof is required, and you carry the biggest stick, you can do what you like.

If you don't like this statement, KK, revise it to read: When you carry the biggest stick, you can do what you like.

The US only follows UN resolutions when it is to their advantage. Sorta makes the whole idea of the organization kinda pointless, don't it?

What the US should do is simply pull out of the UN completely, allow it to collapse, and we can start all over again. Rather than have this charade of the US complying with UN resolutions as an excuse to invade countries as it wishes, and ignore UN resolutions when they don't allow said invasions.

Of course, if it were ... say, Iraq that was invading other countries, say... Iran, under the guise of UN approval because of something Iran did, and at the same time, ignoring the resolutions concerning Iraq itself, we can be sure that the mighty US would have something to say about that.

Unfortunately, there is no watchdog with a big enough stick to counter the USA. So instead we smile weakly and nod when the US decides to momentarily pay attention to certain UN wishes, and in the same breath, ignores others.

[KrustyKidd]

The US only follows UN resolutions when it is to their advantage.

Well then, they are far ahead of Saddam Hussein who didn't follow them at all.

Unfortunately, there is no watchdog with a big enough stick to counter the USA. So instead we smile weakly and nod when the US decides to momentarily pay attention to certain UN wishes, and in the same breath, ignores others.

Yes, being Liberal ensures that we will forever remain powerless to change the world in a way that reflects our ideals. If you don't like something then you must have the power to change it or ... accept it.

[udawg]

Yes, being Liberal ensures that we will forever remain powerless to change the world in a way that reflects our ideals.  If you don't like something then you must have the power to change it or ...  accept it.

Yes, being Liberal means that we would rather come to an agreement without having to force ideals on others. No wonder the US is called the great western imperialist satan.

No argument here that force is sometimes necessary... say, when somebody is using force first, and there is no other way to counter it. But otherwise, there is no reason why military or other physical force is needed.

It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

- Alfred Adler

[KrustyKidd]

Yes, being Liberal means that we would rather come to an agreement without having to force ideals on others. No wonder the US is called the great western imperialist satan.

Liberal as in bombing the crap out of Kosevo and Iraq right? Lots of talk going on there. We are just as bad or good as they are except we follow, not lead.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

If you don't like something then you must have the power to change it or ... accept it.

Good advice. I shall pass it on to the next rape victim I come across.

As for proof. Yes, it would be good if you could provide some, but of course, you won't.

Not sure if this was directed at me or the Bush Administration, lol.

[KrustyKidd]

Good advice.  I shall pass it on to the next rape victim I come across.

With a belief system as you imply, I imagine that you hang out with a lot of victims. My SOP is to take appropriate action such as self defense, scream whatever. If after the fact, report to the police and prosecute. If you do nothing, like I said, learn to accept it.

Not sure if this was directed at me or the Bush Administration, lol.

No Lonius, it was not directed at the Bush administration. Although it would be nice if you would drop any one of those unpublished volumes of proof that you seem to be unable to find for your flacid arguments. You know, give them a sense of spine, get up and go. At the moment I don't think that even Kennedy's three or four assasins would give you any credibility.

Seriously though Lonius, get your act together. Shrimp fondu sounds good with a charbroiled filet. A little Gypsy Kings playing softly in the background while you get it ready. While you are doing it get Loniesss on the comp so that I can able to have a valid argument from somebody at your end. Have pity on us people with backable arguments.

[udawg]

Good advice.  I shall pass it on to the next rape victim I come across.

With a belief system as you imply, I imagine that you hang out with a lot of victims. My SOP is to take appropriate action such as self defense, scream whatever. If after the fact, report to the police and prosecute. If you do nothing, like I said, learn to accept it.

KK, you must agree that it would be better to simply stop the rapist before he commits the crime, than to deal with it after. To continue with this somewhat appropriate analogy, the victim of rape often has few powers at all to stop the attack, and is left with even less after the incident. If you honestly believe that we should leave the onus on the victim to stop rape, then you have bigger problems than being a proof-seeking right-wing conservative

[KrustyKidd]

UDawg

KK, you must agree that it would be better to simply stop the rapist before he commits the crime, than to deal with it after. To continue with this somewhat appropriate analogy, the victim of rape often has few powers at all to stop the attack, and is left with even less after the incident. If you honestly believe that we should leave the onus on the victim to stop rape, then you have bigger problems than being a proof-seeking right-wing conservative

Yes, it would be better to stop the rapist before he did the crime. Again in Iraqw's case. Long had Saddam had a history of brutal violence and invasion of nieghbors. Not complying with UN resolutions he was a danger to all. If he was the rapist in question, Saddam was a molesting pervert waiting to strike again.

as for victims of rape, the best defense is to either avoid rapists or have society put people with a history of it away, such as the US did Saddam.

UDawg

No argument here that force is sometimes necessary... say, when somebody is using force first, and there is no other way to counter it. But otherwise, there is no reason why military or other physical force is needed.

Or when they are not adhering to orders from a higher court or authority such as Iraq. Suppose that a criminal was surrounded and was told to come out and surrenderYes. If he does not comply, what do you do?

In Iraq's case I would ask that you show me how the above posted resolution excerpts were obeyed by Iraq.

[SirRiff]

i would also just like to propose that the only way for force to be seen as legitimate, is if it is sanctioned by a majority of those infoved (Death penalty in the states), if the argument for it is believed to be transparent and honest (unlike vietnam), if the proponant does not stand to gain substantially from the violence (Oil?), and if the actor does not have a questionable history of abusing these very same conditions (US secret wars). becaues the US fails all of these conditions, no matter how real the need for intervention could be, it can never be considered justified.

there is a reason that those in society (cops) that serve out justice via authority are so harshly scrutinized, this is why every accusation against the police is investigated these days. else we know that corruption if bred.

this moral and ethical and self-protectionist argument made by the US goes against all american actions taken in the last 50 years. unfortunately, this obscures the real threat from saddam, and will hamper further legitimate attempts to intervene in humanitarian crisis.

sirriff

[KrustyKidd]

i would also just like to propose that the only way for force to be seen as legitimate, is if it is sanctioned by a majority of those infoved.

Yes, I agree. They should have had another resolution stating that the previous resolutions were actually resolutions in case anybody thought that the resolutions were not resolutions. Is that the kind of consensus you meant? Or did you mean that resolutions are only effective until some of the UN people disagree, in which case they are null and void without even comming to a new resolution? Help me out with that one Riff.

if the proponant does not stand to gain substantially from the violence (Oil?),

OK Riff, you must be vying for joke of the day. Tell us all how the US, footing a bill of 500 billion dollars is going to profit from Iraq's oil. There is what, 100 billion barrels? At $30 a barrel, if the stuff jumped out of the ground on it's own, flew to the tankers and stored itself, it would be worth thirty trillion. There are thrre problems that I will explain ONE LAST TIME TO YOU.

First the stuff comes out slow, three million barrels a day. That's $100 million gross a day comming out of the ground. At that rate it would take thirty years to get it out.

Second, you don't get $30 for the barrels. There is an oil infastructure to pay for and fix, tanker fees, pumping and drilling fees and Iraq must be rebuilt. At best, there might be a profit of $5 per barrel to be paid to the US. That would leave a profit of five trillion or ten times what the US expended over a thirty year period. However, at the rate the stuff is pumped the US would recover $15 million a day, that's a $500 million investment with a recovery time of 15,000 days or forty years without interest. Add interest and the debt/investment will never be recovered.

A lot can happen in forty years Riff. Can you get a mortgage for that?

Third and last (because I'm tired of this aspect of your forgetfullness) take a look at an item called 'The Hubbard Peak." Probably half of the stuff that is in the ground will unlikely be recovered. It gets harder and more expensive to pump as the pools get shallower. At a certain point, they simply don't bother. The probability is that Iraq actually has only half of what they have. Hence, not only is it a unrecoverable investment, but only 50% guaranteed.

and if the actor does not have a questionable history of abusing these very same conditions (US secret wars).

This is your only good point. I will debate on this one if you wish as it has valid merit. The rest is foolish.

[udawg]

Simply regarding the oil argument, the US might indeed undertake an expensive war to get oil that will never pay for itself.

If, for example, the movers and shakers in Washington had, say, some information that the rest of us don't, and say, for example, knew that US oil reserves were virtually empty, and a new oil crisis was looming, they might just spend alot of money to prevent this. Having oil that you had to pay hideously for, is after all, better than having no oil at all.

And what about simply paying Iraq to import oil? The US likes to have control of its own resources. The American economy, like most developed nations, is still reliant on fossil fuels. The price of your own economy being controlled at the whim of a fluctuating world oil market is fairly high, I would think. Perhaps more than a mere 500 billion dollars for a war?

It might not all be about money and running out of oil, either. How much is the US willing to spend to maintain its stranglehold on the world economy? Oil is an important commodity. Controlling oil, as well as most other products in the world, gives the US free reign over ... well, pretty much everyone.

[KrustyKidd]

Udawg you dog you, congratulations!

You have thrown in a new twist, better than most of the rhetoric chanting leftist puppets ever did. Probably wrong though, but, maybe together we can explore it. I will enhance the horseshoe you threw to see if it get's us any closer to your theories.

Hubbard Peak and al predicts that withing ten years the oil will start to price in an upward bell curve. Big things are going to happen in our chilren's time.

As you have atutely observed, the price of oil at this time no longer reflects the price at which it will be say, five years from now. Very smart UD. Question is, is it? Or is it not?

The other question is, is it possible to control it throughout the turmoil which will occur during the next thrity years or so?

Your next point about money was interesting as well. I just heard it from another right wing type. It has to do with the control aspect and flexing of global reach to stop the Euro from becomming the predominent currency. Michael Moore would love to go on about that but he is not smart enough to stop attacking his home team to figure out the implications world wide. Let's see what we can figure.

[SirRiff]

KK, i am not sure where you are getting your perspective on oil, but its nothing that i have ever seen, and i have done alot of poking around and as soon as i read what you said it didnt make sense.

first from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2.../1216future.htm

But even those who don't buy the argument that oil is at the centre of U.S. President George W. Bush's interest in Iraq agree that the outcome of a war would have short- and long-term implications for the world's oil supply.

Among them is Joe Barnes, a research fellow specializing in international economics at Rice University in Houston.

"While I do not ascribe to the theory . . . that U.S. policy towards Iraq is driven exclusively by energy considerations, a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq would have an impact - perhaps dramatic - on international oil markets," Barnes said this week in a paper he presented to London's Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI).

When you look at where the world's supply of oil is located, it's clear why Iraq is such a wild card that could have an influence on the supply and cost of oil in the future.

Perched on oil reserves of 120 billion to 200 billion barrels of crude, Iraq's reserves are second in size only to Saudi Arabia's.

With 11 per cent of the world's proven reserves - Saudi Arabia has 25 per cent - Iraq could be a key source of oil for the U.S., the world's largest importer.

It's oil that's also easy to get at, with 30 to 40 per cent of Iraq's reserves lying just 600 metres beneath Earth's surface, Mohammad Al-Gailani, managing director of British-based GeoDesign Ltd., told this week's RUSI conference, called Gulf Oil, Global Politics: The Future of Energy Security in the Middle East.

There are 526 prospective drilling sites in Iraq, but just 125 of them have been drilled. Of those, 90 have proven potential as oil fields, but only 30 have been partially developed and just 12 are on stream.

"You can imagine the huge potential that lies there for the future," said Al-Gailani, an Iraqi geologist.

so we have a HUGE oil supply in iraq, just massive, and without the political hassle of dealing with the saudis.

now from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...il_4-24-03.html

Hamstrung for years by U.N. sanctions, pre-war Iraq supplied only 3 percent of the world's oil -- even though it boasts reserves of some 112 billion barrels, or 11 percent of the global oil supply.......

Low production costs have made Iraq an attractive investment for many oil companies. Since Iraqi oil lies so close to the surface, it costs less than $2 per barrel to produce, according to the Center for Strategic and International Security.

which notes its cheap accessible oil to produce

so on one hand the have the cost of war, which is about 100 billion i think since the appropriations bill passed to fund most of teh cost was 87 billion, plust add some unforseen costs- say 100 billion.

on the other hand, you have the risk of running out of oil of being blackmailed like during the OPEC sanctions of teh 1970s, when inflation skyrocketed and US GPD suffered horribly. clearly that is unacceptable as the entire US economy would crumble if OPEC decided to get nasty again.

so lets look at it, in the future, as the world gets more unstable and the population grows, oil is only likely to cost more money. it can easly hit 30$ right now, so its not unlikely to see a $40/barrel price sometime in the future.

even if we take a low end estimate, say 100 billion barrels in teh ground, with a 2$/barrel cost of extraction, at a future price of maybe 40$/barrel, you are looking at a worth of 38$/barrel times 100 billion barrels, or 3.8 Trillion $$.

now obviously that is the potential price you might be able to get on the world market. but in truth, nation debts are just numbers, oil is a commodity which runs nations, especially large industrial nations like the US.

OIL in a oil shortage is worth its weight in gold to the US. money is useless if industrial petrolium use if rationed or highly ineffecient because of shortages.

thus its obvious, that with iraqs vast oil reserves second only to saudi arabia, the ease of doing business with a goverment that you install and protect, the low cost of extraction, and predictable rising oil prices in the future caused by greater demand, iraqi oil MORE THEN PAYS FOR ITSELF in terms of actual $$ and the security it gives to the US industrial economy.

the US has participated in several secret wars which killed more then 1 million innocents to protect its oil supply. the 1953 coup of the iranian gov, sending weapons to afganistan in 1980s, supporting saddam against iran in the 1980s where he used WMDs, and so on. so its obvious the oil supply is far more important then just dollars. money wont start a car up in the morning.

so if you just look at the reserve data for iraq, the history of IS violence to maintain its oil supply, the continued increase for oil and regional instability, and teh absolute dependance of american wealth and power on a stable oil flow, it becames obvious getting iraqi oil is a fundamental prospect for invading iraq. we all know WMDs and humanitarian issues are just lies.

saying iraq isnt a planned oil victory for the US is just ignoring reality as i explained above.

sirriff