QUESTION FOR BUSH SUPPORTERS

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

theloniusfleabag

Can you prove to me Iraq did not possess WMD? Oh what -THEY didn't find any.

Actually, it is well nigh impossible to prove 'non-existence'. It (non-existence) is also infinite, and surrounds all of 'that which does be'. So, the only way to actually prove non-existence is to show all 'that which does be' and how it would leave no room for unknown things.

However, there is plenty of evidence pointing to the conclusion that there aren't /weren't any.

from... http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...ce/11901299.htm

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that almost all of the Iraqi defectors whose information helped make the Bush administration's case against Saddam Hussein exaggerated what they knew, fabricated tales or were "coached" by others on what to say.

As probes expand into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, questions are growing about the defectors' role in building the momentum toward last spring's invasion.

Most of the former Iraqi officials were made available to U.S. intelligence agencies by the Iraqi National Congress, a coalition of exile groups with close ties to the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The INC had lobbied for years for a U.S. military operation to oust Saddam.

The defectors claimed, among other things, that Saddam had built mobile biological weapons facilities, was rapidly rebuilding his nuclear weapons program and had trained Islamic warriors at a camp south of Baghdad.

None of those allegations has been borne out so far.

At least one defector provided by the INC - an Iraqi engineer named Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri - provided valuable information on Saddam's underground military facilities, U.S. officials said.

But most of the information provided by the INC's defectors "was shaky" at best, said a senior Bush administration official. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved.

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, which handled the INC-supplied defectors, has since concluded that they provided little worthwhile information on Saddam's weapons programs or alleged ties to Islamic terrorism, a defense official said.

The officials said some of the defectors showed signs of "coaching" because they used similar language. That raised suspicions that the INC had prepped them before their debriefings.

Much of the defectors' testimonies were discounted in the run-up to the war by analysts at the CIA and State Department, which soured on the INC and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, during the 1990s.

Also,from... http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

The interview with Hussein Kamel: the text of the transcript is here

Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq's weapons programme, defected to Jordan on the night of 7 August 1995, together with his brother Col. Saddam Kamel. Hussein Kamel took crates of documents revealing past weapons programmes, and provided these to UNSCOM. Iraq responded by revealing a major store of documents that showed that Iraq had begun an unsuccessful crash programme to develop a nuclear bomb (on 20 August 1995). Hussein and Saddam Kamel agreed to return to Iraq, where they were assassinated (23 February 1996).

The interview was conducted in Amman on 22 August 1995, 15 days after Kamel left Iraq. His interviewers were:

Rolf Ekeus, the former executive chairman of Unscom (from 1991 to 1997).

Professor Maurizio Zifferero, deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and head of the inspections team in Iraq.

Nikita Smidovich, a Russian diplomat who led UNSCOM's ballistic missile team and former Deputy Director for Operations of UNSCOM.

During the interview, Major Izz al-Din al-Majid (transliterated as Major Ezzeddin) joins the discussion (p.10). Izz al-Din is Saddam Hussein's cousin, and defected together with the Kamel brothers. He did not return with them to Iraq in 1996, moving instead to Jordan and now to an unknown European country.

In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"

(p. 13).

As you can see, the overwhelming indication is that the US knew of programs in the past, but suspected or were informed that Iraq had no functioning WMD programs for several years before the invasion. Even Colin Powell said something to the National Security Council (an advisor to the president) like "Saddam is being kept in his box. He is incapable of projecting power against his neighbors".

The only defence (or offence) the US and 'coalition' had to counter this was the accusation of "You're lying". However, they have yet to offer any verification of either their claims of WMDs or, that anyone who told them that they were destroyed, lied. (There is relevant question of this, as Iraq did not sufficiently document the destruction. Had they done so, they might have staved off/postponed the invasion).

So, as I stated at the beginning, that leaves us all with the as of yet impossible task of 'proving' every square inch of the desert is there, leaving no room for hidden WMDs.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

Your post concentrates on the Bush adminstration as being fiscally irresponsible while trying to attend to world problems as well as appease their own domestic fiscal reponsibilties while in fact they should be commended.

Of course their going to run up a deficit when supporting a $500-billion dollar war,

The US shouldn't be commended for deficit spending. Even a monkey could do it. from...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...1&dopt=Abstract

Department of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Inuyama, Aichi 484-8506, Japan. [email protected]

We recorded single neuronal activities in the anterior cingulate cortex of monkeys while they were performing discriminative pain-avoidance and reward tasks: a prediction cue was presented for 0.5-1.5 s, followed by a red or green discrimination cue (1:1, random) for 1.0 s; painful stimuli were presented if the monkey failed to respond during the red cue; a reward was given, subsequent to a cued 1 s delay, if the monkey responded after the green cue. Among 775 neurons recorded, 196 neurons showed significant activity during one or more observation periods; 36 during the prediction period; 77 during the discrimination period; 41 during the delay period; 85 during the response period; 40 during the pre-reward period; and 15 during the reward-ingestion period. Of 77 neurons activated during the discrimination period, 47 showed exclusive activity either during the red (34) or during the green (13) cue: of 85 neurons activated during the response period, 64 showed exclusive activity either for pain-avoidance (37) or obtaining a reward (27). Control experiments confirmed that the neuronal activity could not be attributed to simple visual or motor processes. The results suggest that some anterior cingulate neurons are involved with anticipation of, and response selection for, imminent events.

N.B. the last sentence here.

Also, here is an interesting read on 'stress experiments'... http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psy128c...with_stress.htm

I read an interesting (yet sickening) article on tests done with monkeys where the avoidance of pain was the name of the game, and the monkeys had to keep a 'joystick-controlled' platform upright for a long period of time. If the platform strayed from the horizontal plane, the monkey received a shock to it's brain. I think the record was 36 hrs or something.

My basic point about the monkeys is that deficit spending is about the avoidance of pain. One can avoid the pain of an angry electorate if a 'responsible budget' is seen as 'too tight-fisted', by deficit spending. Cutting of spending or the raising of taxes (which are the only ways to control defecits) are seen by the electorate as 'painful measures', and they will pass the pain on, if they can, to those that implemented them, through lobbys, public opinion polls, or ultimately, votes.

[crazymf]

BLAH, ,,,,BLAH,,,,BLAH.......

I still remember the Gulf war. When old Norman reined in his horse to appease the 'world community', when the mandated UN victory was complete. At that time I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall in the pentagon when then Sec of Def Dick Cheney proclaimed they'd be back in his best Arnie voice.

I'd love to be a fly on a horsecrap when old George exclaimed to young George over a bottle of JD at the campfire how the good old USA has to go back for some 'unfinished business' at it's earliest convenience to Saddams house.

All the reasons that America went back to Iraq are found in 1992, not 2002.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

All the reasons that America went back to Iraq are found in 1992, not 2002.

If you care to look back, all the reasons why invasion of Iraq was not 'internationally legal' are there too, or they would have rolled into Bagdhad when they had the world on their side. They knew it then, they just ignored it this time.

[crazymf]

Dear crazymf,

All the reasons that America went back to Iraq are found in 1992, not 2002.

If you care to look back, all the reasons why invasion of Iraq was not 'internationally legal' are there too, or they would have rolled into Bagdhad when they had the world on their side. They knew it then, they just ignored it this time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, agreed. But all the pandering about WMD etc is moot. I feel the decision was made 12 years ago in some back room that they were going back there later. After 911, it was a good time to clean up the neighborhood seeing as how they were there anyway.

Saddam was a pimple on the face of modern democracy and human rights and needed to be popped. I really don't care what the reason given was to go there. The end really does justify the means in this case....imo.

[Black Dog]

Can you prove to me Iraq did not possess WMD? Oh what -THEY didn't find any.

That's one hell of a big desert out there.

By all accounts, and that includes the UN inspectors and the Iraq Survey Group, Iraq not only had no WMD, but had no active WMD programs.

You don't have any proof either that the world would still be the same if the U.S. had not initiated an attack on Iraq. There are plenty of reports that Iraq was funding terrorist and training them in Iraq.

But no proof. Just tiny bits of ciorcumstansial evidence circulating through the fevered imaginations of far-right conspiacy nuts.

In fact simply by the intervention of other Arab countries fighting U.S. forces in Iraq it would seem good old Sadam had plenty of support despite being a murderous ruthless dictator.

By the U.S's own admission, foreigners fighting in Iraq make up as little as 10 per cent of theinsurgency. Most of those were drawn to the conflict as a result of the U.S. aggression.

I think the possibility of world disorder initiated by terrorist attacks would have been a very real possibilty if the U.S. had not intervened.

The possibility is far greater now. Iraq has become a training ground for the small numbe rof foreign fighters. Even native born Iraqis are starting to export terrorism to other countries. The U.S. has opened a pandora's box.

an you prove there is not a present existing conspiracy against Christian capitalist from terrorist organizations like the Jihad?

The term conspiracy denotes something well-organized. While anti-western sentiment, rooted in part in a radical interpretation of Islam, is widespread, I would hestitate to call it a conspiracy. What's more, the responses to 9-11, the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq have excrabated the problem.

Saddam was a pimple on the face of modern democracy and human rights and needed to be popped. I really don't care what the reason given was to go there. The end really does justify the means in this case....imo.

Just goes to show that the neocon apple never falls far from the Trotskyist tree.

[Leafless]

eureka

You wrote- " A hundred thousand or so Iraqi might not had have to die"

And Sadam signed the death warrant for these unfortunates to become the victims.

Sadam had the opportunity several times to SURRENDER and he refused and unfortunatey the rest is history.

Your claim that "Al Quaeda would not be operating in 60 different countries as independent cells" is meaningless in the sense you have no proof that the world at this time could be in complete disarray if in fact the U.S. did not beat down potential terroist activities.

The bottom line is any countries or groups that threaten the world or basic capitistic beliefs in creating havoc and disorder and death against the only proven political system that works for all or most countries are looking for major problems.

[Guest eureka]

Leafless!

Britain had the opportunity to surrender to Germany. So did the USSR. Aren't you glad they did not.

Why in Heaven's name should Saddam's Iraq surrender to an invader?

Al Quaeda has spread to operating in nearly half the world now. It has not the central organisation and base that it once had and is the more dangerous for that. Its membership, or those who adhere to its methods and philosophy have grow enotmously because of the American invasion of Iraq.

That aggression by the USA gave credibility to Al Quaeda in the eyes of much of the Moslem world. Previously, its influence in that world was quite limited.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

Sadam had the opportunity several times to SURRENDER and he refused and unfortunatey the rest is history.

Which times were those, and to whom? Surrender during the invasion you mean? He most likely would have been killed outright. If you mean before the invasion, I don't recall any offer to 'surrender' nor any refusal.

That aggression by the USA gave credibility to Al Quaeda in the eyes of much of the Moslem world

eureka is quite right with this. As has been mentioned recently, the US' bumbling actions have been a gift that Osama and 'al Qaeda' could have only dreamed of.

Iraq has become a beacon to, and a haven for, terrorists, only after, and because of, the actions of the US/UK.

[Leafless]

eureka

You wrote- " Why in heaven's name should Iraq surrender to an invader'

You know as well as I do Iraq's were fed a lot of false propaganda concerning Iraq's military strength and on that note went along with Saddams claim that American invaders would be defeated and many could not believe that in fact Saddam had been defeated and had lost the war.

It seems you have a lot of faith in terrorist and little faith in Western ideologies.

[Guest eureka]

I don't have much faith in the Western "ideology" you are espousing. Are you happy with what it has wrought? Do you want terrorism on a large scale to continue for generations to come?

That is the inevitable consequence of the American miscalculation. What was a rather limited threat is now world wide.

Do you really subscibe to the idea that any weak nation that is attacked by a stronger one should immediately surrender?

[Leafless]

eureka

You wrote- ' Do you subscribe to the idea tha any weak nation is attacked by a stronger one shoud immediately surrender."

I was simply addressing your concerns to Iraq casualties but in general yes it is a good idea to surrender if you have any concerns regarding preserving lives but this would never be understood by someone like Saddam who was only concerned with his own fate.

You wrote- " Do you want terrorism to continue for generations to come."

It should be remembered many terrorist acts were being committed world wide including 9-11 prior the war in Iraq. Al Quaeda is only one of of more than 30 Islamic terrorist organizations.

Terrorism will not be tolerated and Arab countries have responsibility to address their concerns in a civilized manner.

I can ask you a similar question-- Do you want terroist acts to escalate and possibly result to a full blown war against Arab countries?

[Guest eureka]

Are you ever going to be able to get your head out of your prejudass?

The vast majority of terrorist acts before the WTC had nothing to do with Islam or Arabs The great single ideal since that date, or rather, since the invasion of Iraq, is the Al Quaeda network.

That network is a creation of Bush and all the idiots who supported his vainglorious adventure.

As for your belief that the weak should always surrender to the mighty: what is there to say. Thank God that some of us do not relish the thought of totalitarianism.

If terrorism will not be tolerated (by whom I would ask), then a good place to start would be in the removal of Bush and all who have incited terror with him.

[crazymf]

Dear Leafless,

Sadam had the opportunity several times to SURRENDER and he refused and unfortunatey the rest is history.

Which times were those, and to whom? Surrender during the invasion you mean? He most likely would have been killed outright. If you mean before the invasion, I don't recall any offer to 'surrender' nor any refusal.

George told Saddam publicly he had 24 or 48 hours to leave the country(can't remember which) which may have stalled the invasion or cancelled it. Saddam ignored the warning like all others.

[Leafless]

crazymf

You wrote- " George told Saddam publicly he had 24-48 hrs to leave the country (can't remember which)."

Of course, you are right and that date was March 17/2003 when President Bush delivered the final ultimatum for Saddam to leave Iraq within 48-hrs.

[Leafless]

eureka

You wrote- " thank God some of us don't relish the thought of totalitarianism"

Ha-Ha Ha if you live in Canada many Canadians firmly believe were not far from that under Liberal rule.

You also wrote- " If terrorism will not be tolerated (by whom I would ask), then a good place to start would be in the removal of Bush and all who have incited terror with him."

Iam sure you are a decent person but I will no longer debate your immature anti-Western sentiments and views that are against Canadian and U.S. and free world democratic and capitalistic beliefs.

Have a nice day.

[Guest eureka]

I wondered hpw long it would take you to crawl away from the illumination of your weak case.

[Black Dog]

eureka

You wrote- " thank God some of us don't relish the thought of totalitarianism"

Ha-Ha Ha if you live in Canada many Canadians firmly believe were not far from that under Liberal rule.

I think such facile comparisons serve only to minimize the horror of totalitarian regimes. We Canadians enjoy the kind of rights and freedoms that millions of people the world over can only dream about. The mere fact that you are allowed to criticize the government without fear is proof of that. If you really think Canada is "not far" from totalitarian rule, you are terribly misinformed. But then, I expect little else from someone who is foolish enough to belive the invasion and occupation of Iraq has lessened the threat of terrorism.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

You wrote- " George told Saddam publicly he had 24-48 hrs to leave the country (can't remember which)."

Of course, you are right and that date was March 17/2003 when President Bush delivered the final ultimatum for Saddam to leave Iraq within 48-hrs.

Indeed that is correct. A bit more about it can be read in "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix, in which this ultimatum can be found on pg. 8.

Not really a 'call for surrender', really, though, more like the sherriff telling the bad guy to leave town before sundown. Do you haonestly think that the US would have let Saddam waltz away like that (had he chosen to leave)? Secondly, would that have really influenced the US not to invade? I am sure you'll agree, the answer would be 'No' to both questions.

I am not sure if anyone noticed this, perhaps it is my vanity, but Leafless did not deign to answer a single one of my questions. I thought they were reasonable...

[crazymf]

Fleabag,

Yes, it was kind of Texassy of JB to do that, however, the American public wanted to know that every avenue had been taken to avoid this war. That's the purchase part of what the White House was selling. Really, of course the USA was telling Saddam to come out or we're coming in to get you. He was getting got no matter what.

I believe JB also wanted the two other a**hole sons to come out too.

Would it have stopped the invasion? It may have stalled it for a while during a civil war, power struggle, whatever may have happened after Saddam left, but there was really no way Saddam was leaving any more than him dancing on the roof of his castle in a pink tutu. The man did not communicate the way we do and lived in his own little world literally in his own empire.

He got what was coming to him after 15 years of tyranny. I hope he gets the rest of it too. Maybe when he's executed the country will settle down.

[moderateamericain]

As an American theres two points that i would like to address.

1. we should have took out sadam in 1991 when we DID have the backing of the rest of the world.

2. If i had it my way we would have gone back to an isolationist country after world war 2. But then again who knows what the soviet union might have become had we done so. I think the US needs to take away the aid it gives to other countries and concentrate on our own country. Sure we can throw some money the UN's way, private groups can still collect if they want to, but american money should be used to improve america not iraq or mogidishu or any other country.

[tml12]

As an American theres two points that i would like to address.

1.  we should have took out sadam in 1991 when we DID have the backing of the rest of the world.

2. If i had it my way we would have gone back to an isolationist country after world war 2.  But then again who knows what the soviet union might have become had we done so.  I think the US needs to take away the aid it gives to other countries and concentrate on our own country.  Sure we can throw some money the UN's way, private groups can still collect if they want to, but american money should be used to improve america not iraq or mogidishu or any other country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

I believe all countries have a collective duty to help other countries out, however it seems the U.S. has too many pressing concerns at home now.

I believe it would be wise to just start worrying about home before the U.S. worries about abroad.

[PocketRocket]

As an American theres two points that i would like to address.

Okay, but as a Canadian, I may have to say something polite to you

1.  we should have took out sadam in 1991 when we DID have the backing of the rest of the world.

Oh-oh, I was right, I feel a burst of politeness coming on.......

I agree completely. That was the most sensible thing I've read here in ages.

Hmmm. That bit of politeness wasn't too bad, I guess

2. If i had it my way we would have gone back to an isolationist country after world war 2.  But then again who knows what the soviet union might have become had we done so.  I think the US needs to take away the aid it gives to other countries and concentrate on our own country.  Sure we can throw some money the UN's way, private groups can still collect if they want to, but american money should be used to improve america not iraq or mogidishu or any other country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's really hard to say what would have happened with the Soviet Union.

Would they have still aspired to unchecked growth via invasion, or was that simply a reaction to what they saw as growing power in the west???

Probably the former, but who knows for sure???

How far would they have gotten???

Without the USA to counter the Soviets, I'm sure Britain and Canada (still strong then) would have stepped up to plate, along with the rest of Nato.

In the absence of the USA, other countries would have positioned themselves in more of a war footing.

Kinda like WWII.

Most of the world was fighting that war. The USA was providing a lot of arms and ammo, but didn't actually join into the war itself until forced in by Japan, and that was quite late in the war.

The war in Europe had already been going on for over 4 (???) years at this point.

But this all just speculation, and could well lead to some strife right here on this board, so I'll go no further on that train of thought.

But I will say this; as long as the USSR was around, the USA served as a check to that threat, and vice-versa.

Two superpowers makes for an uncomfortable truce.

One superpower makes for a looming threat.

Yeah, I know, the USA are the "good guys".

So far.

But if "absolute power corrupts absolutely", then the citizens of the USA, and the world, must stay on guard.

Oh yes, we must also remain polite

[Riverwind]

It's really hard to say what would have happened with the Soviet Union. Would they have still aspired to unchecked growth via invasion, or was that simply a reaction to what they saw as growing power in the west???

The only thing that kept the Russians out of Europe was the threat of nuclear war. They maintained superiority in conventional weapons even with the US support. Without the US you would have seen Britain and France building the nukes to maintain the deterent - most likely with support from Canada (which would have likely gone nuclear).

[sharkman]

The only thing that kept the Russians out of Europe was the threat of nuclear war. They maintained superiority in conventional weapons even with the US support. Without the US you would have seen Britain and France building the nukes to maintain the deterent - most likely with support from Canada (which would have likely gone nuclear).

Yes, I have to agree with your nuclear point. This aspect had a profound affect on Russia and their decisions throughout the cold war.

I wonder if the U.S. will become isolationist after Bush is gone. Americans seem to see no other major threats anymore and success in Iraq has proved almost impossible. Baring any more terrorist attacks in the U.S., my only concern is China. It will soon be a super power and there needs to be a deterent there.

P.S. My history may be a little shaky, but I believe WWII started in Sept of 1939. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in Dec of 1941, so the U.S. stayed out of the war for 2 years or so.