Nuclear chief: No "smoking gun" in Iraq

[hagbard]

Okay etech, I came across these two articles last night that pretty much support what I've been saying here for the past two months. The first analysis does a pretty good job of laying out why the US is focusing so hard on Iraq. The second provides background into the First Gulf War and how Saddam did believe he had the okay to go head with his 'invasion' of Kuwait. Not that you'll read either one:



A Deliberate No-Exit Strategy


The Lies We Are Told About Iraq

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let me try for a response . . trite liberal rant . . and Colin Powell has emphatically stated the oil resources of Iraq belong to the people of Iraq and will be administered however they see fit. Admittedly, Rumsfeld seemed a little sketchy when asked about Iraqi oil (post-Saddam).

2nd link . . . let's see it is either "more liberal lies and revisionist history" or "the past doesn't matter Saddam is linked to terrorists and he possesses WMD so he must be disarmed!"

I'm sure Rumsfeld grits his teeth everytime he sees the video of him shaking Saddam's hand in Baghdad.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Here's the rub, tcsenter. If you listen to American commentators the common folk are being led to believe that American troops are all that retards a NK invasion. There's no question the 38K American troops are an additional deterrent to crossing the DMZ but I would say it is teritary to a heavily mined DMZ and the South Korean military.

Regardless, as long as US troops are stationed on the peninsula we have a responsibility to take part in negotiations. It should be an active role . . . not the Dr. No routine that seems borrowed from the Jesse Helms book of diplomacy for the yellow people.

U.S. Offers Talks to North Korea

I haven't heard the same news reports that you are listening to BBD, but then I don't listen to the mass media that much. Do you have a link that shows where Americans are being led to believe that American troops are all that retards a NK invasion?

Hey guess what, we are going to talk to the N. Koreans. The US took a hard line approach at first. I think that is standard protocal dealing with blackmailers.

It should be an active role . . . not the Dr. No routine that seems borrowed from the Jesse Helms book of diplomacy for the yellow people.

I'd say what I think about that statement but you got upset last time.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

No way . . . not me . . . if I was upset it was definitely the fiance complaining about my computer time.

I haven't heard the same news reports that you are listening to BBD, but then I don't listen to the mass media that much. Do you have a link that shows where Americans are being led to believe that American troops are all that retards a NK invasion?

I try to avoid the stuff, too but occasionally I venture over to FoxNews . . . they've got the best BS and . . . well some of their talking heads are kinda hot . . . dumb as rocks . . . but easy on the eyes. Admittedly, FoxNews is the most common offender. It's their regular analysts and guest that most often imply the US is SK current savior.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hey guess what, we are going to talk to the N. Koreans. The US took a hard line approach at first. I think that is standard protocal dealing with blackmailers.

No, I think Bush's advisors really thought they were going to shame or starve NK into submission without substantitive dialogue. As for standard protocol, our leaders don't have one. Every situation is different and will be addressed by the appropriate means. The more interesting question "think Matrix" would the NK have made as much noise if the US hadn't said anything in October?

I'm willing to wager I know Jesse better than anyone at ATOT. He hates Cuba, China, NK, and Vietnam (granted he's waffled a little on 'Nam since they started buying NC tobacco). He's the epitome of Cold Warrior which means isolation for our enemies and no to dialogue until they come begging . . . if not let them writhe in agony until they die.

 

[MinorityReport]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The time will soon be upon us, it seems, when Bush will have to put up or shut up. Unfortunetly, I don't expect him to do either, he's dug himself into too big a rhetorical hole to not invade Iraq now.

2004 and Bush will be hiding in his bush like his dad was after his term.

What has G W bush's term given US so far ?

- 9/11

- 2,200,000 job losses and increasing every day

- Terror attacks increase ( not that it is in his power to stop them )

- Nukes from Nkorea

- Hatred and rhetoric that is so banal even Jerry Falwell would close his ear drums

- Un necessary war monegring

- Free ride to those who sponsor terror like Saudia Arabia, Pakistan

- Profits to my uncles in all big 10 defense contractors .. boy they love G W bush

- General feel of insecurity, eoconomic unstability and uneasiness ( please no flames on this one )


I am not saying it is Mr G W Bush who is responsible for all this. It is just that during his tenure, we see the gloom.... Also, I admire what he has done and his down to earth, rustic personality .. which touched 50% americans as per the votes proved

What I am just illustrating is that he is ONE UNLUCKY SOB president for USA.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Also, I admire what he has done and his down to earth, rustic personality .. which touched 50% americans as per the votes proved

50% of voting Americans . . . an academic distinction until people get off their lazy arses and participate in the democratic process.

 

[spaceman]

Originally posted by: MinorityReport

Originally posted by: sandorski
The time will soon be upon us, it seems, when Bush will have to put up or shut up. Unfortunetly, I don't expect him to do either, he's dug himself into too big a rhetorical hole to not invade Iraq now.

2004 and Bush will be hiding in his bush like his dad was after his term.

What has G W bush's term given US so far ?

- 9/11

- 2,200,000 job losses and increasing every day

- Terror attacks increase ( not that it is in his power to stop them )

- Nukes from Nkorea

- Hatred and rhetoric that is so banal even Jerry Falwell would close his ear drums

- Un necessary war monegring

- Free ride to those who sponsor terror like Saudia Arabia, Pakistan

- Profits to my uncles in all big 10 defense contractors .. boy they love G W bush

- General feel of insecurity, eoconomic unstability and uneasiness ( please no flames on this one )


I am not saying it is Mr G W Bush who is responsible for all this. It is just that during his tenure, we see the gloom.... Also, I admire what he has done and his down to earth, rustic personality .. which touched 50% americans as per the votes proved

What I am just illustrating is that he is ONE UNLUCKY SOB president for USA.

yes and we all know all the above can be attributed to one man.

please.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Hey guess what, we are going to talk to the N. Koreans. The US took a hard line approach at first. I think that is standard protocal dealing with blackmailers.

No, I think Bush's advisors really thought they were going to shame or starve NK into submission without substantitive dialogue. .

Of course you do.

As for standard protocol, our leaders don't have one.

A standard protocol or cookie cutter diplomancy would be a bad idea.

Every situation is different and will be addressed by the appropriate means.

That is what the administration is doing.

The more interesting question "think Matrix" would the NK have made as much noise if the US hadn't said anything in October?

The interesting question would be, when would they have announced their little nuclear program and how would they have announced it to the world.

I'm willing to wager I know Jesse better than anyone at ATOT. He hates Cuba, China, NK, and Vietnam (granted he's waffled a little on 'Nam since they started buying NC tobacco). He's the epitome of Cold Warrior which means isolation for our enemies and no to dialogue until they come begging . . . if not let them writhe in agony until they die.

NK is trying to blackmail the US into more food and aid to prop up their failed system. How long do you want that to go on and in your opinion what is the proper response to this blackmail?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

haha, you are amusing. NOW Iraq appears to be cooperating, after having how many years of suspended inspections and monitoring to bury goodness knows what under goodness knows how many schools and businesses and houses of Hussein's Lieutenants?

US Satellites wouldn't pick that up? They (the inspectors) have found buried equipment in the past, what makes you so sure that they can't find any this time? If US has some solid evidence regarding Iraq WMD-program, they should either give that info to UN and the Inspectors or shut the hell up.

"It is a fact that Iraq is developing WMD's!"
"really? Could you please show us where they are doing that?"
"ummmm.... No, we can't do that"
"Well, could you then give us any other evidence supporting you claim?"
"Nope, can't do that either"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Of course you do.

Is there a hint of sarcasm in your reply? Bush made it clear from the beginning that all Clinton era policies were up for review. He then went out of his way to demonize NK (Axis of Evil) and belittle SK efforts at dialogue. The lone dissenter appears to have been Powell but Bush policy to date had been minimal engagement.

Of course they don't think that they do.

Actually, I was being sarcastic on that point.

The interesting question would be, when would they have announced their little nuclear program and how would they have announced it to the world.

Yeah, it certainly would have been interesting if the provisional government of Iraq was announcing there was no substantitive nuclear program while Pyongyang was announcing, "the bombing begins in 5 minutes unless we get some food, fuel, and a couple of geishas."

NK is trying to blackmail the US into more food and aid to prop up their failed system. How long do you want that to go on and in your opinion what is the proper response to this blackmail?

I don't know if blackmail is the right terminology. If it is merely coercion by threatening means (which is a reasonable definition), US foreign policy on many fronts is blackmail. Indeed, NK has a dire need for more food and fuel to continue functioning not to mention some assistance in developing a susustainable state. My take is that China has probably told them on the DL that capitalism works and can be controlled by the state. Zemin and Co. still have a lifeline to NK but apparently they've given them notice that NK needs to get with the program. China has got hundreds of millions that need greater assistance and they are pissed that Korean refugees continue to sneak across the border b/c NK is such a failed, despotic state.

As for the US response, I would kill the rhetoric about two wars blah, blah, blah and save the Axis of Evil BS for GOP fundraising letters. China, S.Korea, Russia, Japan, and the US should form a working group to develop a holistic plan for dealing with the NK issue. Public pronouncements on NK should be limited to State or Bush or the UN ambassador. The US should redeploy at least half of the SK force . . . send them to Japan (granted they will probably say no), Guam, or bring them home. We're not going to fight a war on the Korean peninsula and the US force is essentially symbolic. If SK needs greater security against NK, then SK should pay for it by either breastfeeding the North or doubling its military budget.

 

[devicenull]

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Why do they keep making news about not finding something?

Why not just wait until they do find something or the inspections are over?

It's like that episode of the Simpsons.

Homer shouting above an alarm: This alarm will go off every 3 seconds when everything is ok

Why? Because we are going to war for a reason that's not there. Plus, its VERY hard to prove a negative, which Iraq has done so far (emphasis on so far).

correction.... it is IMPOSSIBLE to ABSOLUTELY prove a negative. this is like religion debates..... iraq says there isnt and leaves the one who claims there is to prove so.... since the US is sooooo sure of itself as to where the WMD are... why not tell the inspectors? also, North Korea has nukes and other WMD, there is a reason we are not attacking them.... because we know they have them. this is all just bushit to get oil

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

correction.... it is IMPOSSIBLE to ABSOLUTELY prove a negative. this is like religion debates..... iraq says there isnt and leaves the one who claims there is to prove so.... since the US is sooooo sure of itself as to where the WMD are... why not tell the inspectors? also, North Korea has nukes and other WMD, there is a reason we are not attacking them.... because we know they have them. this is all just bushit to get oil

Yes but logic and foreign policy often have nothing in common. Iraq is responsible for the situation b/c they had so much excess raw materials that could be used for WMD that they have not accounted for in the past or the most recent disclosure. The US has several reasonable reasons not to disclose exactly where we believe Saddam is hiding his stash but clearly our intel' is not perfect and much is supposition.

We aren't attacking NK b/c war on the peninsula will be costly in lives and material . . . it could very well trigger a regional if not global economic decline. I take Bush at his word . . . since so many others are convinced he doesn't lie . . . that Iraqi oil resources will be used only for Iraqi purposes and it will be controlled by the Iraqi people. Now I'm sure we might ask for a little compensation for their liberation . . . a reasonable sum. But we are not going to take their oil or encourage Iraq to leave OPEC. A pipeline deal might be in the works, though.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: earthman
You are wrong on several points...Congress has already given Bush the authority to deal with Iraq. Its true Congress has to declare war, but who says Bush will ask for a declaration? Did they declare war in Vietnam? I think its clear he wants Saddam out so the oil can flow, and doesn't need any other excuse.
Whether he will order an attack without UN approval and risk the huge negative fallout remains to be seen. If nothing of signifigance is found, I doubt the UN will authorize any attack.

Nah I doubt they will not authorize an attack. Man even our headidiot who shouted in summer: " We will not participate in any war in Iraq regardless of any UNO mandate" is now falling over and preparing to change his categoric No->Maybe->YES (regardless of public opinion) - well it was to be expected.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Michael
hagbard - I'm a Canadian living in the US. I doubt that you really have travelled all that much. I have. First, the places that "hate" Americans don't like Canadians also. They basically consider them one and the same. Most places I've been to like Americans, especially individuals, even if the people don't side with some of the US' political stances.

I was treated better in exactly one country - France. I attribute it to me being from Quebec and speaking French well. Everywhere else it was fairly neutral. I'm a "typical" Canadian, btw. For example, I'm far more polite than the average American I travel with and tend to know more about local history and culture. It doesn't make much different and the Americans I travel with are treated no better or no worse.

Michael

Thats exactly the point that many ppl dont understand. I like Americans (individuals) too. But if u dig up threads where recent (world)politics are discussed I will appear to u as an anti-American zealot.

And that is the point that ppl do not understand. How can these ppl that as induviduals are usually easy going, outspoken, easy to have fun with even when being strangers, eager to learn.... be such arseholes when acting as a group (US government)

 

[SlowSS]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Michael
hagbard - I'm a Canadian living in the US. I doubt that you really have travelled all that much. I have. First, the places that "hate" Americans don't like Canadians also. They basically consider them one and the same. Most places I've been to like Americans, especially individuals, even if the people don't side with some of the US' political stances.

I was treated better in exactly one country - France. I attribute it to me being from Quebec and speaking French well. Everywhere else it was fairly neutral. I'm a "typical" Canadian, btw. For example, I'm far more polite than the average American I travel with and tend to know more about local history and culture. It doesn't make much different and the Americans I travel with are treated no better or no worse.

Michael

And that is the point that ppl do not understand. How can these ppl that as induviduals are usually easy going, outspoken, easy to have fun with even when being strangers, eager to learn.... be such arseholes when acting as a group (US government)

And you could say feelings are mutual.

 

[tcsenter]

US Satellites wouldn't pick that up? They (the inspectors) have found buried equipment in the past, what makes you so sure that they can't find any this time?

Because they've had several years to move it around before burying it. Satellites cannot hover or see through clouds.

If US has some solid evidence regarding Iraq WMD-program, they should either give that info to UN and the Inspectors or shut the hell up.

What makes you think we haven't? Having evidence suggesting WMD activity or development and knowing precisely where to find it are two different things.

 

[tcsenter]

Here's the rub, tcsenter. If you listen to American commentators the common folk are being led to believe that American troops are all that retards a NK invasion. There's no question the 38K American troops are an additional deterrent to crossing the DMZ but I would say it is teritary to a heavily mined DMZ and the South Korean military.

That sentiment is not entirely unfounded. The US has value as a 'third party'. US troops patrol the DMZ because it was reasonably thought there would be such intense hostility between NK and SK troops, especially on the part of SK, that the shooting might start again quickly. Invading a people's community and raiding their homes has a tendency to promote a lot of ill will.

But you're right that 38K American troops are not preventing NK from invading; 600,000 well-equipped and trained (thanks to the United States) South Korean troops has something to do with it.

Regardless, as long as US troops are stationed on the peninsula we have a responsibility to take part in negotiations. It should be an active role . . . not the Dr. No routine that seems borrowed from the Jesse Helms book of diplomacy for the yellow people.

Well now there's a maxim.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

US Satellites wouldn't pick that up? They (the inspectors) have found buried equipment in the past, what makes you so sure that they can't find any this time?

Because they've had several years to move it around before burying it. Satellites cannot hover or see through clouds.

If US has some solid evidence regarding Iraq WMD-program, they should either give that info to UN and the Inspectors or shut the hell up.

What makes you think we haven't? Having evidence suggesting WMD activity or development and knowing precisely where to find it are two different things.

Mostly wrong and wrong.

Satellites don't hover, but there are satellites in geostationary orbit (always above the same point, but above the equator. Regardless, do you think the US has only 1 satellite passing over Iraq?

Clouds block the visible spectrum of light. Many other wavelengths aren't hindered by clouds, and there are many many other things to be monitored/ other observations.

Also... I'm not sure, but did the US *ever* present any real evidence of Bin Laden's involvement before we invaded Afghanistan? (and we didn't catch Bin Laden either, but we did get out the Taliban who wouldn't let us build are oil pipeline)

Now, what's Iraq going to do to the US with WMD? Give them to the Al Quaida?? Not in a million years. The one thing Saddam and Al Quaida have in common is a hate for the US. That doesn't make them team mates, as Al Quaida is opposed to what Saddam stands for. But, there are Al Quaida members in Iraq... There are Al Quaida members in Britain and the US also. That doesn't mean that they're in contact with Tony Blair or George Bush though.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I think a Yale educated man with access to the entirety of the United States' intelligence is in a better position to make a decision about Iraq and Saddam Hussein than a bunch of overweight JC dropouts who think hating Republicans will help them pick up on the hippy chicks at Starbucks.

LOL, very true.
There is something about hippy chicks. But I just can't get past the smell.
I guess these people would prefer if Gore had won.
I mean after all, the guy who invented the internet would surely be able to tell if Iraq was hiding weapons.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Piano Man
CNN Link

They don't have WMD, and they're not lying. Someone is lying however, and it isn't the Iraqis.

hint

LOL

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: B00ne
Thats exactly the point that many ppl dont understand. I like Americans (individuals) too. But if u dig up threads where recent (world)politics are discussed I will appear to u as an anti-American zealot.

And that is the point that ppl do not understand. How can these ppl that as induviduals are usually easy going, outspoken, easy to have fun with even when being strangers, eager to learn.... be such arseholes when acting as a group (US government)

I don't know B00ne. Maybe it's similar to how, when acting as a group (Nazi goverment), Germans are such inhuman tyrants as to systematically murder 6+million Jews not to mention the millions of other innocents in the 2 World Wars the Germans started. We have already seen how Germans act when they have power haven't we? This isn't ancient history we are talking about.... German Chancellor Schroeder is old enough to have had a father who was a Nazi. I am not saying he does. Just proving how recent it was that the Germans showed the world how they act with power.

Can you imagine if Germans would have had the overwhelming military power the US currently has? We'd all been screwed.
Good thing the German's were much less capable than thier inbuilt national sense of superiority would have had them believe.

So, yes, generally goverments with extreme power act unapologetically in thier own best interests.
Some use threats, projection of power, and limited military operations to impose thier will on others.
Some even try to take over a whole continent TWICE leaving millions dead and attempting genocide in the process.

Anyone care to name ONE national power in history that didn't act in thier own interests?
The Germans started two world wars, Britian had an empire the 'sun never set on' acquired mostly through brutal means, even the 'enlightened' French quite enjoyed the colonisation business up until the 1960s.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: MinorityReport

Originally posted by: sandorski
The time will soon be upon us, it seems, when Bush will have to put up or shut up. Unfortunetly, I don't expect him to do either, he's dug himself into too big a rhetorical hole to not invade Iraq now.

2004 and Bush will be hiding in his bush like his dad was after his term.

What has G W bush's term given US so far ?

- 9/11

- 2,200,000 job losses and increasing every day

- Terror attacks increase ( not that it is in his power to stop them )

- Nukes from Nkorea

- Hatred and rhetoric that is so banal even Jerry Falwell would close his ear drums

- Un necessary war monegring

- Free ride to those who sponsor terror like Saudia Arabia, Pakistan

- Profits to my uncles in all big 10 defense contractors .. boy they love G W bush

- General feel of insecurity, eoconomic unstability and uneasiness ( please no flames on this one )


I am not saying it is Mr G W Bush who is responsible for all this. It is just that during his tenure, we see the gloom.... Also, I admire what he has done and his down to earth, rustic personality .. which touched 50% americans as per the votes proved

What I am just illustrating is that he is ONE UNLUCKY SOB president for USA.

WTF?
You start your list making it sound exactly like you blame him for all of this. Then you say, oh, I'm not saying he's responsible.
A couple of points

- 9/11
This happened because Clinton never dealt with OBL before. How many times did we get hit by him? And nothing was ever done. Oh, except lob a couple of cruise missiles at his compound. Oops, we missed, I guess we'll try again next time he kills hundreds or thousands of Americans. And still we have idiots saying we shouldn't fight back. WTF do you want to wait for? A nuclear attack that kills millions. Then will you think we should do something about it? <sarcasm>Oh no, we should just work it out with them. We should find out why they dislike us enough to kill 5 million people. Violence is never solves anything.</sarcasm>
Violence solved Hitler. And if it wasn't for America, all you other countries would be living under German dictatorship.

- Job losses
The economy is cyclical. Economic policy changes have a delayed effect. If you are going to blame anyone for the poor economy, blame Clinton. The economy started going downhill well before 9/11.

- Terror attacks increase
Yeah, because the Clinton administration never responded to the earlier attacks so the terrorists figured they could get away with more.

- Nukes from NKorea
Gee, I didn't realize they didn't have a nuclear program until GW took office. That explains it.

- Hatred and rhetoric
Umm, it's called a response to being attacked.

- Unneccessary warmongering
Where? Afghanistan? I think this was pretty clearly justified. Iraq? Well, 9/11 just illustrated the terrorism problem. And taking out Iraq is one of the ways we can keep terrorists from getting Nuclear and Biological weapons. Did you also notice that the report talked about the fact that Iraq has failed to provide any evidence of how or if they got rid of the Anthrax and nuclear programs that they admitted they used to have.

- Free ride to those who sponsor terror like Saudia Arabia, Pakistan
These are important allies who although they may have involvement in terrorism, have officially supported the U.S. Saudi Arabia is our most important Arab ally and alienating them would cause way more harm than good. They will be very valuable to us in dealing with other nations in the middle east.

- Profits to my uncles in all big 10 defense contractors .. boy they love G W bush
Bush is a strong supporter of defense and national security. I don't see anything wrong with that. After Clinton, our military was very much in need of some rebuilding.

- General feel of insecurity, eoconomic unstability and uneasiness ( please no flames on this one )
The insecurity was caused by 9/11 which Bush was obviously not responsible for.
I already pointed out that the economy is cyclical and Clinton's policies can be partially blamed for the recession.
Uneasiness is due to the other 2.

And I'm no life-long republican who refuses to be open-minded. Hell, I voted for Clinton both times. But I have seen the light and the stupidity of buying into the liberal, anti-american bullshit propaganda.

Bush is the best thing that could have happened to us. Finally we have a strong president who is not afraid to stand up and protect those nations and people too weak and scared to do it themselves.

Imagine the response to 9/11 if Gore was president.
Umm, we are really sorry. What can we do to make you happy so you won't attack us anymore. You can take over our country if you want.
Oh wait, that would be the French.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

US Satellites wouldn't pick that up? They (the inspectors) have found buried equipment in the past, what makes you so sure that they can't find any this time?

Because they've had several years to move it around before burying it. Satellites cannot hover or see through clouds.

OK, so I assume that US has no evidence regarding Iraq WMD-program. Yet they insist that Iraq is developing WMD's. Either they provide the evidence or shut up. If they have no evidence, then they need to shut up.

If US has some solid evidence regarding Iraq WMD-program, they should either give that info to UN and the Inspectors or shut the hell up.

What makes you think we haven't? Having evidence suggesting WMD activity or development and knowing precisely where to find it are two different things.[/quote]

Well, Hans Blix has requested intelligence information from US. If they have been giving him info from the start, he wouldn't have had to ask US to give that info.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
I don't know B00ne. Maybe it's similar to how, when acting as a group (Nazi goverment), Germans are such inhuman tyrants as to systematically murder 6+million Jews not to mention the millions of other innocents in the 2 World Wars the Germans started.

To my knowledge, Germany didn't start WW1. It was started by Serbia and Austria-Hungary. And the reasons for WW2 are in WW1. Had the winners of WW1 had more foresight, WW2 would not have happened. What they did was to cripple Germany, and that was the direct reason why Nazis became so popular.

We have already seen how Germans act when they have power haven't we?

We have seen how Nazis act when they have power.

Can you imagine if Germans would have had the overwhelming military power the US currently has? We'd all been screwed.
Good thing the German's were much less capable than thier inbuilt national sense of superiority would have had them believe.

It took combined forces of USSR, USA, Great Britain, France and Canada to defeat Germany. Yeah, they sure were "less capable"

The Germans started two world wars

Nope. See my reply above.