Iraq and weapons inspectors

hi canyon, playing your unintelligent dissembling games again?

i thought you weren't quite for real.

you really are canyon...

exact same argument without content - really, claiming you still don't understand my position represents an unrivalled exhibition of thickheadedness and comprehension difficulties warranting professional help - and same smiley at the same place.

bye bye, canyon/TM_Direct

 

What's clear is that the biggest terrorist threat we face is that one or more big Muslim countries will be radicalized. And yet that's a threat hawks advising the administration don't seem to take seriously. The administration adviser Richard Perle, quoted by Josh Marshall in The Washington Monthly, brushes off concerns that an invasion of Iraq might undermine the stability of Middle Eastern regimes: "Mubarak is no great shakes. Surely we can do better. . . ."

Meanwhile, plans to invade Iraq proceed. The administration has offered many different explanations, some of them mutually contradictory, for its determination to occupy Baghdad. I think it's like the man who looks for his keys on the sidewalk, even though he dropped them in a nearby alley, because he can see better under the streetlight. These guys want to fight a conventional war; since Al Qaeda won't oblige, they'll attack someone else who will. And watching from the alley, the terrorists are pleased.
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/15/opinion/15KRUG.html


The Independent

The Bali bomb proves the need for a war on terror, not a war on Iraq

the US signally failed to capitalise on the vast wave of solidarity that surged towards it after 11 September. Its treatment of prisoners captured in Afghanistan, its seemingly cavalier attitude to civilian casualties, the enduring belligerence of its language and its high-handed attitude towards its allies resulted in a squandering of international goodwill. President Bush's warning after 11 September that "all who are not with us are against us" now rings all too true.

But nothing has undermined the collective war on terrorism more than the way in which the Bush administration has caused it to mutate, before our eyes, into preparations for an old-style US-led war on Iraq. The US may not yet have given up on an international effort to combat terrorism – it has forces deployed in anti-terrorism operations in places as far apart as the Philippines, Georgia and Kuwait – but the thrust of its military and propaganda effort is now Iraq. The deadly terrorist attack in Bali, once described as the most peaceful place in the world, shows the folly of that approach.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/l...sp?story=342672



The Guardian

Bali proves that America's war on terror isn't working

The US made the mistake of taking its eye off the main target
Like the rulers of Orwell's 1984, our leaders have urged us to switch our hatred overnight not from Eastasia to Eurasia but from al-Qaida to Baghdad. Now we are to believe Saddam is the urgent, number one priority.

Bali has proved why that is a woeful error. A war on Iraq will win yet more backing for jihadism in the Muslim world, apparently concerning all Bin Laden's most lurid predictions of a clash of west against Islam. A prolonged US occupation of Iraq will be the greatest provocation yet. But it will also be a distraction from the struggle we were all urged to join a year ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia...,812084,00.html

 

[excerpt]

Attempts to kick-start the inspections were complicated yesterday by what Iraqis, publicly, and UN officials, privately, say are attempts by the Bush administration to undermine the mission on the outset.

In Washington, the White House spokesman Scott McClennan claimed Baghdad was already in breach of the new resolution by firing on American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over the country. UN officials were perturbed by criticism of Mr Blix, a 74-year-old former Swedish foreign minister, by right-wingers in America. The focus on firing in the no-fly zones – a regular event since they were established after the Gulf War – was seized upon by the Iraqi government as an attempt by the Bush administration to scupper the UN mission.

An Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said: "This shows it is the Americans who are against the UN inspections, not us. They are trying to find pretexts to stop the mission and bomb us."


-cont-
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=353927

 

STOP FIRING!!!

THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FIRING ....STOP IT AND THE US HAS NO EXCUSE!

 

that is the real danger, that even the brits are aware of, tony was quoted somewhere yesterday as saying that these incidents should not be misconstrued as an excuse to wage full scale war against iraq...

even though it's a given that dubya will try his best to somehow weasel and deceive his little self into his cherished war, a war based on lies and little else, and highly counterproductive to what should be our foreign priority, fighting terrorism:



Eight Washington Lies About Iraq


ONE

IRAQ WAS INVOLVED IN THE 9/11 ATTACK ON AMERICA OR IS CLOSE TO OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

ANSWER: The War Party in Washington has mounted a vast campaign in conservative media to attack Iraq again. See Georgie Anne Geyer column on lobby in Anti-Arab Advocates Risk U.S. Interests. Saddam is an enemy of Islamic Fundamentalists. Iraqi women are among the most emancipated in the Moslem world. You never see Saddam wearing a robe and shouting about Holy War. Iraq has not been a supporter of "global terrorism," although it does support Palestinian terrorists against Israel's UN declared illegal settlements on the West Bank. There is no evidence of Iraqi nuclear ability, nor that it ever provided chemical weapons to other nations or terrorists.

TWO

IF WE DON'T BOMB IRAQ, SADDAM WILL USE HIS WMD AGAINST US OR HIS NEIGHBORS OR ISRAEL

ANSWER: Saddam is rational. He had these weapons during the First Gulf War and didn't use them because he feared our threats of worse consequences even when his nation was being decimated. Israel has some 200 atomic bombs and its own active biological and chemical weapons program. It can well defend itself. Meanwhile Washington arms all Iraq's neighbors (except Iran), and Turkey bombs and invades Iraq at will. Yet the pressure now in Congress to attack Iraq is based upon its unreal threat to Israel. Also, Iraq's neighbors oppose an American attack. If Iraq was such a threat, why do they not fear it?

THREE

IRAQ WOULDN'T LET THE UN--US MONITORS INSPECT POSSIBLE WMD PRODUCTION OR STORAGE SITES. THAT'S WHY AMERICA STARTED BOMBING.

ANSWER: Untrue – Iraq did allow them from 1991 until 1998, but Washington still wouldn’t take off the trade blockade, under which thousands of children were dying every week without clean water, electricity, etc. Scott Ritter, the former UNSCOM inspector, told CNN on 2/18/01 "In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996." Yet Madeleine Albright declared in 1997: “We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.” Clinton went one step further when he said, “sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Saddam] lasts." THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT REPUDIATED THESE STATEMENTS.

Then in 1998 Washington made new demands, access to all government personnel files, the basis of its power structure. UN weapons inspectors were still roaming Iraq and the country had been found "clean" for 7 years. Iraq saw that U.S. demands were just always escalated with no hope of sanctions being lifted. The Iraqis also complained that most of the UN inspectors were British and American intelligence agents, who were trying to overthrow their government (Scott Ritter on CNN 1/5/02 said he had been working with Israeli intelligence from 1995-98). Clinton then launched a new bombing campaign using information from the "spy UN inspectors" for bombing targets. Iraq now fears, justifiably, that this would happen again.

FOUR

IT'S SADDAM'S FAULT THAT HALF A MILLION CHILDREN DIED SINCE THE ECONOMIC BLOCKADE, SADDAM COULD FEED HIS PEOPLE IF HE CARED INSTEAD OF USING HIS MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS – " More than one million Iraqis have died – 500,000 of them children – as a direct consequence of economic sanctions... As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight." – UN FAO, December 1995. For details see Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children 1990-98.

ANSWER: Nearly all oil sales money has been controlled through United Nations officials, subject to over 35% reduction for reparations (Iraq is forbidden to contest any claim) and UN expenses, and subject to Washington's veto and foot dragging. Washington allowed food and medicine imports, but almost nothing else for economic reconstruction. For nearly ten years it blockaded chlorine to sanitize the water and any equipment to rebuild the electricity grid, sanitation and irrigation facilities. Even pencils for school children were prohibited. (A NY Times editorial 2/11/01 reports, "currently American diplomats are holding up billions of dollars of imports needed for civilian transportation, electric power generation...and even medical treatment"). Finally the Europeans rebelled at the cruelty and shamed Washington into allowing such imports, (NY Times 12/6/00). However, as of 12/2/01 about $1 billion of electric and other machinery has been held up for a year by Washington. Until oil prices increased in 2000, sales ran about $4 billion yearly minus about 35% withheld by UN left 2.6 billion divided by 20 million population = $130 per year per person = 36 cents per day per person for food, medicine.

Iraq is now also getting substantial monies through sales of smuggled oil, especially since the price of oil went up and the rest of the world tires of the American blockade. No doubt some of this goes for weapons purchases.

cont.

 

FIVE

IF IRAQ ALLOWED INSPECTIONS FOR WMD (WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION), WASHINGTON WOULD REMOVE THE BLOCKADE. IRAQ MUST PROVE THAT IT HAS NO WMD AND THAT IT WON'T MANUFACTURE ANY IN THE FUTURE.

ANSWER: There's No Connection Between Inspections and Sanctions on Iraq. Equally no Nation can "prove" a negative, that it's not doing something. Biological and chemical weapons can be made, "in a large closet which is all the space you need to mix deadly chemical weapons... Chemical and biological weapons are the great equalizers against our atomic weapons." (Time "Everyman a Superpower", 11/24/97).

Re inspections, Reuters reported, 12/13/99, "The (European) aim was to prevent the United States and Britain from imposing arms requirements that Iraq could not meet and thus keeping the sanctions in place for years to come." And Agence France Presse 12/13/99, "French diplomats retorted that by insisting on full cooperation, the council would give the United States an excuse to refuse to suspend sanctions on the flimsiest grounds.”

Scott Ritter, former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq, on the NBC Today Show, 12/17/98, explained, "Washington perverted the U.N. weapons process by using it as a tool to justify military actions... The U.S. was using the inspection process as a trigger for war." For details on how Iraq complied, e.g. 700 inspections by UN/US officials, and grew to realize that Washington would prevent the sanctions from ever being lifted see Le Monde-Diplomatique . Note also that Iraq did not expel the inspectors. The U.N. withdrew them in anticipation of the extensive American bombing attacks.

SIX

IT'S IRAQ'S FAULT THAT THE BLOCKADE CONTINUES. AMERICA HAS NOTHING AGAINST IRAQ'S PEOPLE, ONLY AGAINST ITS GOVERNMENT.

ANSWER: Britain and Washington have introduced a "peace plan"demanding that Iraq must allow inspections, but would still be under the trade blockade indefinitely.

Russia and France have introduced a plan (vetoed by Washington) allowing for immediate lifting of sanctions in return for continued, ongoing WMD inspections and blockade of military supplies. Washington's policy (also followed in Serbia) is to tell local dictators to get themselves killed or thrown out of power (and then tried for "war crimes") or otherwise have their citizenry starve while their country's devastated economy is kept in ruins. The policy was denounced by former Pres. Jimmy Carter . (For detailed discussion of UN resolutions see CASI from Cambridge and IAC detailed analysis of UN Resolution)

Most nations in the world want trade sanctions lifted for non-military goods. It is the U.S. veto that prevents lifting of sanctions (United Press, 11/1/00). Imposed in 1990 many nations argue that they were never intended to last for years and are one of the most brutal sanction regimes in modern history. The crippling trade embargo is incompatible with the UN charter as well as UN conventions on human rights and the rights of the child (BBC News Online, 9/30/00).

SEVEN

SADDAM GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE

ANSWER: Atrocities are often the key substance of propaganda to get Americans to go to war. Didn’t our government also do that at Waco? The C2 gas used by the FBI killed children who couldn’t fit into gas masks and then created an explosive mixture which triggered fire and immolation, (see super documentary, Waco, nominated for an Academy Award).

To see how good natured Americans are lied to by our own government see, How Hill and Knowlton Public Relations "sold" the Iraq War). For the First World War, it was stories that German soldiers ate Belgian babies. For the Iraq war it was lies about babies being thrown out of incubators, "testified" to a Congressional Committee, with massive media coverage, by a "mystery" witness who later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti sheik’s ruling family who is Ambassador in Washington. It was all lies. Then we were told there were aerial photographs of the Iraqi Army massed on Saudi Arabia’s border ready to attack. They were never released; they apparently were lies too. How do we know we weren't also lied to about the gassing? See Jude Wanniski Report on gassing for questions about it.

For more background and earlier answers about Iraq, please go to http://iraqwar.org/talking-points.htm and to http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm#one about the missing evidence that Iraq was planning to attack Saudi Arabia in 1990.

EIGHT

A WAR WOULD BE QUICK AND EASY TO WIN. IRAQIS WOULD WELCOME AMERICANS TO OVERTHROW THEIR CRUEL DICTATOR. AMERICA WOULD THEN SET UP A FRIENDLY REGIME, EASILY OCCUPY THE COUNTRY AND RID IT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

ANSWER: To assume that after massive new bombing (what we always do) and killing tens of thousands more Arabs, that America would be welcome is unreal. Also Washington is now considered in the Arab world as an instrument of Israeli policies. More likely would be continuing guerrilla warfare against occupying Americans, possible break up of the nation, economic chaos in Jordan and Turkey which trade with Iraq, and/or the rise of a new dictator. War, once started, has its own momentum. Arnaud de Borchgrave draws a possible scenario of a worldwide oil crisis, overthrow of pro-U.S. Moslem regimes, and chaos for American interests.

Also millions more Moslems would be seeking vengeance against America. There would be little support in Congress for a prolonged occupation and "Democracy building."

CONCLUSION

Look at the above and think how America is now hated. No wonder many Arabs engage in suicide missions. American soldiers are so unpopular in Saudi Arabia that the government hides our Airmen away in desert bases to keep them out of sight from its citizenry. How the world sees us was reported by the Wall Street Journal's European edition editor (2/24/98):

"What came up most were charges of American hypocrisy. The US wants to bomb Iraq over its violations of UN directives, but won’t take any action against the Israelis for theirs (e.g. occupation of and settlements in Palestine)."

Washington Times columnist Bruce Fein (10/9/01) put it another way, "Other nations and peoples are more resentful of our pious hypocrisy than of Realpolitik bluntness."

No doubt America can easily decimate Iraq again. But then what? More death, more hatred, more enemies wanting vengeance. Out of the billion plus Moslem world others would finally find new ways, perhaps biological, to hit us back. And meanwhile we would live in constant fear of that day.

If, instead, Washington showed justice and fairness in its policies, then it would not be creating sworn and desperate enemies who, in former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's words, "define themselves as being Enemies of America."

The best security for Americans is not to make so many enemies (see Joseph Sobran column, How Many Enemies Do We Want?)

 

IM WRONG...so is the President...Saddam is a nice guy...Iraq just wants top be soveirgn and non aggresive...The humanitarian efforts by Saddam are on par with the late mother Theresa...Iraq is not a world problem. It's the US that is the problem. We made up 9-11....Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with it...more american lies...Iraq should be left to it's own and we should just stay out of harm's way....Saddam is generally a good man who would never lie or deciet and who openly admitted inspetors into his country. he is not an aggressor...that thing with Kuwait, It was just a missunderstanding...You see, his army took a wrong turn at 18th avenue and next thing you know...he was already in Kuwait!!!....America spread the lies that it was an invasion...then, Saddam tried to get his troops out, but he didn't give good directions and lo and behold....500,000 troops lined the Saudia Arabian boarder...But America spread these vicious lies...then when those damn yankees invadeded in a malicious campaign against the poor Iraqi people, it was the American soldiers who set fire to thousands of oil wells and created an catastrophic environmental catastrophe...It's all america's fault...there is no threat from iraq or any other country...they are not firing at planes...they are not promoting or paying for terror organizations, because Saddam says so...and you can bet..he has no weapons nor intent to use them...In fact, i think it was American Propaganda tricks that showed those skuds hitting Israel in an unprevoked attempt to cuase mass harm...Saddam didn't do it...it was america launching skuds they captured in Iraq and launching them into Israel...I for one believe Iraq and it's trusted leader and I now feel comfortable sleeping at night knowing he is there. I don't want America being hated world wide so I think we shold just do what the people of Saudi Arabia and France want because afterall they should decide american foreign policies. I also think we should apologize to N.Korea for putting them in the AXIS of evil...Bush was wrong to name them...the nuclear program they admittted to in breach of their treaty was just more american lies. You convinced me..Im siding with iraq and france from now on.

 

exactly.

it took you awhile, but, better late than never


US backed coups
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html

The Independent
The Bali bomb proves the need for a war on terror, not a war on Iraq
http://argument.independent.co.uk/l...sp?story=342672

Said one former American ambassador to the Middle East: "Saddam does not pose a real threat to the U.S. Even if he did posses weapons of mass destruction, he does not have the delivery capability to target American cities."
http://www.emedicine.com/cgi-bin/fo...19-09434300-BC-IRAQ-PANDORA-ANALYSIS-TEXT.TXT

President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...,807286,00.html

For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A61903-2002Oct21&notFound=true

C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?U...02/10/09/international/middleeast/09IRAQ.html

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

 

Do you actually subscribe to those links? Where do you find them? and more importantly, do you believe them? and if so, what is your basis for belief in these?

 

jesus canyon, play your mind boggingly stupid games with somebody else. if you choose to check in your brains at the altar of governmental hype and lies so be it, but don't expect everybody else to be equally obsequious in the face of evident lunacy emanating from DC.


Losing Focus

The Bush administration is losing the war against terrorism. A year after the attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. forces have failed to eliminate Al Qaeda's capacity to conduct terrorist operations. While this may be alarming enough, what is truly disturbing is that our failure is not caused by the deviousness of Osama bin Laden, but by the skewed priorities of President George W. Bush.

A year ago, in his address to the nation, President Bush vowed, "I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent" in leading the war against terror. For about five months, it appeared that he intended to carry through on this solemn commitment--the war in Afghanistan was waged with vigor and dispatch, and Al Qaeda was severely damaged. But since January, the president has turned American attention and resources away from Al Qaeda to lead a crusade against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, pushing the anti-terrorism campaign to the sidelines.

The ominous consequences of this shift are fully evident:

The Taliban has lost control of Afghanistan, but American forces have failed to establish law and order in areas outside of Kabul. Well-armed bands of Taliban fighters have joined local warlords in challenging Hamid Karzai's U.S.-backed government. Afghanistan is once again a breeding ground for terrorism.
Significant elements of the Al Qaeda network have regrouped in Pakistan and elsewhere. Although pursued by America's covert warriors and other friendly forces, Al Qaeda remnants continue to attack U.S. facilities, like the American consulate in Karachi.
Al Qaeda and allied groups have reconstituted their international financial links. A recent UN report says the terrorists have circumvented U.S. controls on conventional bank transactions by relying on the underground trade in diamonds, gems, and precious metals.
These developments are partly due to the inherent difficulty of eradicating a well-established, multinational terrorist network. But they are also the product of inadequate White House leadership.

To prevail in the war against terrorism, U.S. leaders must devote their full attention to the day-to-day struggle against Al Qaeda, and continue to build international support in efforts to disable global terrorist links. President Bush stressed all this in his earliest statements a year ago.

But since January, Mr. Bush has focused his subordinates on a different campaign. For example, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command and the leader of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is spending most of his time devising plans for an invasion of Iraq. Meantime, Bush's crusade against Iraq has alienated foreign leaders whose help we need in the war against terrorism, allowing Al Qaeda breathing space and time to regroup.

To justify this policy shift, President Bush and his aides have argued that the campaign against Saddam is a natural continuation of the war against terrorism. But while the Iraqi leader has engaged in egregious behavior of all sorts and deserves international opprobrium and isolation, he had no part in the September 11 terror attacks and has no known ties to Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. Thus, going after Iraq is not a logical step in the war against terrorism--rather, it is a distraction.

As for Iraq, President Bush's recent UN speech won favor and support from our European and Middle Eastern allies for now, and they continue to believe the best way to deal with Iraq is through the return of UN arms inspectors.

Without question, Mr. Bush's threats did much to make that possible. But he has not foreclosed the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iraq. That would reverse global support for our policies, and more to the point, would greatly complicate our efforts to gain or maintain their cooperation in the more mundane but far more important task of tracking down Al Qaeda's hidden operatives.

President Bush must re-focus. He must reaffirm his commitment to the war against terror and put aside his obsession with Saddam. The victims of September 11, their families and loved ones--and the rest of us--deserve no less.

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2002/0210focus_body.html