Pentagon:Iraq carnage soars

[Sir Evil]

Look....we "warned" Kim Jong Il to not test any missiles...we talked tough and we rattled our sabres...but ON THE FOURTH OF JULY FOR CRISSAKES, that little prick fired his missiles ...that was specifically designed to be a slap on the face of America and we did not have not and are not doing anything about it except let ourselves get slapped like some girlieman.... Kim Jong Il knows that Iraq has hobbled us in more ways than one... so does Iran... so does the rest of the world.

Unfortunately the only thing that has hobbled us is the same shit you type right here only it has been spoken outloud by your beloved party because they are still stewing over elections, and wanting to use the whole bush lied bullshit to their advatage!

Why did we go into irag during the first bush administration, why was billy putzing around in there?

So because you say it was just little arms being sold to iraq it therefore makes sanction working wonderfully?

iraq was a long overdue, now because you assume that their was absolutely no plan in place because you smarter then the miliatry generals, leaders and advisors on the situation that the world is unstable, iran is running wild, nk is slapping us in the face. Gee, who would of ever gave such considerations? it was something that any sane person could of called, the biggest mistake was expecting anything more than a fart out of the UN, and not forseeing the idiocy of the left in such instances of making a mountain out torture issues, but it's ok for the bad guys, calling our marines murderers, but seeking the benfit of the geneva convention for the bad guys, and the shit goes on and on...

 

[maineman]

we will have to agree to disagree.... Colin Powell must be nuts too.... I don't make that up. I didn't say it was just a little arms...I know of NO arms being sold, so the only ones that could've made it through the embargo were small arms. There were no countries selling Saddam major military hardware. period. He was not a threat to project power outside his own borders.... like I said, don't take my word for it, but if you don't believe me then tell the president that the four star general and former chair of the joint chiefs who he appointed as secretary of state isn't as clued in on what was going down in Iraq as you were.

 

[Sir Evil]

we will have to agree to disagree.... Colin Powell must be nuts too.... I don't make that up. I didn't say it was just a little arms...I know of NO arms being sold, so the only ones that could've made it through the embargo were small arms. There were no countries selling Saddam major military hardware. period. He was not a threat to project power outside his own borders.... like I said, don't take my word for it, but if you don't believe me then tell the president that the four star general and former chair of the joint chiefs who he appointed as secretary of state isn't as clued in on what was going down in Iraq as you were.

Agreed to disagree works for me but still you have'nt stated why we have been in iraq through two different administrations if they were within the own borders, and powerless.

Arms of what kind I have'nt read so I can't account for it accurately but if any whatsover slipped through it kind of throws the theory of sanctions working out the window. Russia in fact continued to supply right into the invasion with there jamming devices.

Onto Colin Powell, I don't know what that issue is about but I am not a politician, I am just going by my own opinion so I wont be tipping off the president anytime soon. If you are stating that powell suggested them powerless, and then turned and claimed they had wmds something seems off to me, I dunno, I am not familiar with what you speak of on that one.

 

[maineman]

http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/peace/archives/2001/february/me0224b.html

Secretary of State, Colin Powell
24 February 2001
Press COnference
Cairo Egypt

...from the link:


"QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?

SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people--protect Arabs--not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions--the fact that the sanctions exist-- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue. "

 

[Sir Evil]

Ok, I see what you are saying but this issue is a what, from the begining of the 1st. bush administration term? If I remember correctly the invasion of iraq started in 2003? Reading the article linked I don't see how this timeline coincides with the actual tim of invasion, given it was two years previous. I have to read it the entire article first but is this a suggestion that nothing could have changed during this period?

Ok, lemme catch up on the article and I will reply again to it.

 

[Care4all]

... but still you have'nt stated why we have been in iraq through two different administrations if they were within the own borders, and powerless.

The first Iraq war was to help the british protect their OIL interest in Kuwait....and to give us an excuse to occupy Mecca in SAudi Arabia with our bases....thus protecting our own oil industry Interests.

We are there now, because the Administration did not want saddam Hussein keeping control of his oil and making deals with other countries...

Not in any way because of a wmd threat or any physical threat to us.

97% of all of his arsenol and 80% of his army was wiped out during and after gulf war one...but he still controlled his oil, thru sanctions and all, so we found.

 

[Sir Evil]

... but still you have'nt stated why we have been in iraq through two different administrations if they were within the own borders, and powerless.

The first Iraq war was to help the british protect their OIL interest in Kuwait....and to give us an excuse to occupy Mecca in SAudi Arabia with our bases....thus protecting our own oil industry Interests.

We are there now, because the Administration did not want saddam Hussein keeping control of his oil and making deals with other countries...

Not in any way because of a wmd threat or any physical threat to us.

97% of all of his arsenol and 80% of his army was wiped out during and after gulf war one...but he still controlled his oil, thru sanctions and all, so we found.

Thats rediculous! the oil issue is getting played a little too much now. Can you layout the benefits we are enjoying of supposedly controlling iraqs oil industry? iraq was a ongoing issue dating back to damn near the fifties if we have to get technical but everyone is seeing it for the bush administrations period in time. If it came down to being simply about oil there would of been other countries as well that produce oil that could of simply been a target. Then you wanna claim "well iraq was the easiest to invade" but we forget that iraq was seen as the military might of the middle east at one time, far from the weakest link. Now you lay these figures out of iraq's arsenal as though it is written in stone. Look at the way weapons travel through the middle east, is iran the only capable country of these clandestine operations? Nonsense, the cupcakes in syria are doing it as well.

Like I have stated time and time again, there was more to the issue as far as I am concerned than that of wmd's but that is squarely what your entire argument is based around. Was the outline of mobile labs another manipulation, was the intercepted phone calls really some administration figures disguising their voices to help the cause, was the photos outlining the moving of vehicles a day prior to inspections a photoshop manipulation? I dunno to be honest, I don't have definitive proof either way, do you? The bottom line is that the weapons issue simply don't make or break the issue for me, iraq was a problem that was not getting resolved in any shape or form, had things been left alone the U.N would still be discussing past sanctions, and making new ones to simply benefit from it.

 

[Sir Evil]

97% of all of his arsenol and 80% of his army was wiped out during and after gulf war one...but he still controlled his oil, thru sanctions and all, so we found.[/B]

Another quickie on a more hypothetical base for ya Care, did you know that israel struck iraq back in 1981 or so? do you know what they targeted? ok, gotta run but keep that in mind for a later point of discussion.

 

[maineman]

Ok, I see what you are saying but this issue is a what, from the begining of the 1st. bush administration term? If I remember correctly the invasion of iraq started in 2003? Reading the article linked I don't see how this timeline coincides with the actual tim of invasion, given it was two years previous. I have to read it the entire article first but is this a suggestion that nothing could have changed during this period?

Ok, lemme catch up on the article and I will reply again to it.

So...are you saying that the no fly zones and the sanctions that worked so well to contain him up for over a decade until February of 2001, somehow failed miserably between that time and the time we invaded two years later?

If that is what you have to twist this thing into to make it work for you... that's fine. I can understand how you don't want to think for a minute that Bush sexed up the case against Saddam in order to convince well meaning kind hearted gullible folks like yourself...but he did. There was no connection to 9/11. There were no WMD's... he was not a threat to his neighbors and had not been one since we kicked his ass before. This war in Iraq did not need to be fought. It was not a logical step in the war on terror. It has not made us any safer

 

[maineman]

Another quickie on a more hypothetical base for ya Care, did you know that israel struck iraq back in 1981 or so? do you know what they targeted? ok, gotta run but keep that in mind for a later point of discussion.

They blew up a nuclear reactor. No one has ever suggested that it has been replaced or rebuilt in the intervening years. What is your point?

 

[Care4all]

precisely mainman...

btw, we should let iran spend all its money, and build a reacter... then do the same, wipe it out...end of story! no war needed, just intelligence/good satelites, few insiders, and precise missles etc...whalah!

 

[Care4all]

Thats rediculous! the oil issue is getting played a little too much now. Can you layout the benefits we are enjoying of supposedly controlling iraqs oil industry? iraq was a ongoing issue dating back to damn near the fifties if we have to get technical but everyone is seeing it for the bush administrations period in time. If it came down to being simply about oil there would of been other countries as well that produce oil that could of simply been a target. Then you wanna claim "well iraq was the easiest to invade" but we forget that iraq was seen as the military might of the middle east at one time, far from the weakest link. Now you lay these figures out of iraq's arsenal as though it is written in stone. Look at the way weapons travel through the middle east, is iran the only capable country of these clandestine operations? Nonsense, the cupcakes in syria are doing it as well.

Like I have stated time and time again, there was more to the issue as far as I am concerned than that of wmd's but that is squarely what your entire argument is based around. Was the outline of mobile labs another manipulation, was the intercepted phone calls really some administration figures disguising their voices to help the cause, was the photos outlining the moving of vehicles a day prior to inspections a photoshop manipulation? I dunno to be honest, I don't have definitive proof either way, do you? The bottom line is that the weapons issue simply don't make or break the issue for me, iraq was a problem that was not getting resolved in any shape or form, had things been left alone the U.N would still be discussing past sanctions, and making new ones to simply benefit from it.

america isn't enjoying the spoils, but the american oil industry and related fields ala kelogg, brown, n root, halliburton, cheney, bush family are reaping the spoils of the war.... any war MAKES OIL PRICES RISE, that is a KNOWN fact...., republicans in congress benefitted by the power the war yeilded...the admin too........mix that with those in our gvt like the necons that believe it is our RIGHT to control the world, and our JOB TO POLICE the world and protect israel, and that all mixed together you've got a trillion dollar to be quagmire in Iraq....on the tax payer's shoulder not counting the effects of the rising gas/oil costs on our every day budgets....with tax cuts passed on PRIMARILY to the wealthiest and you've got a pillaged middle class....in a reversed robinhood situation imo.

 

[Gaffer]

We weren't ignoring Iraq.... and it wasn't that we weren't doing anything about it...we were.... we were keeping his airforce on the ground...we had hobbled his government with sanctions.... and if he was ignoring the UN, it wasn't that big of a deal. If a mosquito is sitting on my shoulder, and I don't hack at it with a machete, that doesn't mean that I am ignoring it, it just means that a simple slap will do. Iraq was contained. Sanctions were working. He was not a threat to us or anybody else. Colin Powell said exactly that six months before 9/11. We have enemies on the loose that have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. We need to be focusing on fighting THAT war and not wasting our time our blood, our treasure, and our world credibility fucking up Iraq

He had no air force to keep on the ground. Sanctions? what sanctions? didn't you see the news. russia and france and germany were taking payoffs for providing him with military supplies and stalling things in the security council. His anti-aircraft systems opened up on our planes for 12 years, but he wasn't a threat to the US. Just any US pilots patroling the area. we have many enemies alright. but they have been there for a very long time, not just since we entered iraq. I look at iraq as a great experiment. If it works fine. if it doesn't we go to the next option, annihilate the fools.

 

[Gaffer]

we will have to agree to disagree.... Colin Powell must be nuts too.... I don't make that up. I didn't say it was just a little arms...I know of NO arms being sold, so the only ones that could've made it through the embargo were small arms. There were no countries selling Saddam major military hardware. period. He was not a threat to project power outside his own borders.... like I said, don't take my word for it, but if you don't believe me then tell the president that the four star general and former chair of the joint chiefs who he appointed as secretary of state isn't as clued in on what was going down in Iraq as you were.

russia was selling them all sorts of equipment. Jamming devices and anti air craft missiles. And russia is the one that took the wmds out before the invasion. That's documented too.

Powell was clued in and stated what he believed was the case with iraq as well. He didn't lie to anyone. He provided information based on intelligence reports from the US, Britain, France Russia and dozens of other countries all saying the same thing. If our intelligence was wrong does that mean a dozen countries all had the same wrong intell? Why?

 

[Care4all]

He had no air force to keep on the ground. Sanctions? what sanctions? didn't you see the news. russia and france and germany were taking payoffs for providing him with military supplies and stalling things in the security council. His anti-aircraft systems opened up on our planes for 12 years, but he wasn't a threat to the US. Just any US pilots patroling the area. we have many enemies alright. but they have been there for a very long time, not just since we entered iraq. I look at iraq as a great experiment. If it works fine. if it doesn't we go to the next option, annihilate the fools.

And WHAT benefit would come from doing what you recommended?

We don't send men and women to DIE for our country UNLESS we are in imminent danger...got it?

This pre-emptive war crap has got to stop! If YOU haven't learned a lesson by 50-100000 people DEAD and we are no better for it and 20,000 American children and parents DEAD OR WOUNDED for it...you would think that you would learn something from YOUR mistakes....but I guess your manhood can't deal with that now can it?

The Bush Doctrine is the WORST PIECE OF CRAP that ever existed as far as I am concerned and it has LEFT US UNSAFE....

HOW many DEAD will it take gaffer? How about your whole family killed, will that do it? noooo, you want to nuke Iraq...SO i ASK AGAIN, WHAT BENEFIT TO THE usa CITIZEN WILL come from this kind of talk of MEASURE?

please answer this...

care

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Gaff, you confessing to be a cheerleading warmonger?

No, no, no. Don't mix your metaphors. That would be either a cheerleading chickenhawk, or a blooldthirsty warmonger.

There's no excuse for sloppy sarcasm.

 

[Annie]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/01/iraq.main/index.html

You Iraq war cheerleaders should be so proud.

Look at what America has set into motion.

We invaded Iraq for no good reason... we've started a bloody civil war... we've removed the only effective regional foil against Iranian hegemony... we're fewer, poorer, less safe and more despised.

Thanks shitloads for fucking the middle east all up and flushing our good name down the toilet.

I know this might go against your posting, but I still would suggest you read and think about this:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

It doesn't have to show here, but would be good for you to be informed. You might wish to go back through his archives, lots to be learned.

 

[Cypress]

He had no air force to keep on the ground. Sanctions? what sanctions? didn't you see the news. russia and france and germany were taking payoffs for providing him with military supplies and stalling things in the security council. His anti-aircraft systems opened up on our planes for 12 years, but he wasn't a threat to the US. Just any US pilots patroling the area. we have many enemies alright. but they have been there for a very long time, not just since we entered iraq.

Not worth 22,000 dead and wounded americans and half a trillion taxpayer dollars

I look at iraq as a great experiment. If it works fine. if it doesn't we go to the next option, annihilate the fools.

This is the greatest koolaid-soaked rant I've heard in months.

WTF: now that all the other reasons you gave us for going to war have collapsed, this is the best you got?? It's some sort of "great experiment" dreamed up by neoconservatives sitting in their comfortable ivory towers? You sent americans to die for some sort of ideological "experiment"? WTF?

You know, I"m glad you finally admitted this. Because I was called a "traitor" for saying this by people like you, back in 2003 -- that the evidence for any kind of strategic threat against the united states from iraq was dubious, and the neocons just wanted to have thier little playground to experiment with their theories. An oil-rich arab country provided the perfect playground.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Not worth 22,000 dead and wounded americans and half a trillion taxpayer dollars

This is the greatest koolaid-soaked rant I've heard in months.

WTF: now that all the other reasons you gave us for going to war, this is the best you got?? It's some sort of "great experiment" dreamed up by neoconservatives sitting in their comfortable ivory towers? You sent americans to die for some sort of ideological "experiment"? WTF?

You know, I"m glad you finally admitted this. Because I was called a "traitor" for saying this by people like you, back in 2003 -- that the evidence for any kind of strategic threat against the united states from iraq was dubious, and the neocons just wanted to have thier little playground to experiment with their theories. An oil-rich arab country provided the perfect playground.

Well said.

You can tell a lot about people by what they think might be "worth" thousands of deaths. Especially when those deaths are on the other side of the world and don't threaten their own families and friends.

 

[Cypress]

Well said.

You can tell a lot about people by what they think might be "worth" thousands of deaths. Especially when those deaths are on the other side of the world and don't threaten their own families and friends.

I'm starting to question the sanity, and the loyalty of these kool aid drinkers.

No matter how many of their reasons for their war go up in smoke, and no matter how many of their predictions go wrong, they'll always invent a new spin to support their hero - bush.

Who the fuck ever heard of making up tales of "imminent threats", just so we could go into a country to enable some foolish neoconservative "experiment" dreamed up in some think tank?

Where are these people's loyalties? To america? Or to George W. Chimp?