Anyone who didn't see this coming hasn't been paying attention.

This is a major part of George Bush's legacy to the American People: A great big "Fuck You!"

So America's children continue dying in the the sands of Messopotamia in order for this lamebrain's fuckups to come across to locksteppers and the poorly informed as part of some "strategic design"?

Bush should have a hot poker shoved up his ass.

This is a major part of George Bush's legacy to the American People: A great big "Fuck You!"

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

And this is different from Germany...how?

And this is similar to Germany? How?

You know what amazes Me is the fact that had this been a Democrat Liberal and the situation was EXACT Copy as it is today the Right would be declaring (Rightfully so) that it was on us to fix since we made the mess. But since it is the Republican Party who Got into this shindig they want EVERYONE to suffer for it. I SAY FUCK THAT. We didn't make the mess We shouldn't be held accountable for it. When I fuck up I have to eat it myself. The same should go for ANYONE who supported this Calamity.

Larry Mohr

And this is different from Germany...how?

Posted by wisgod

-The Germans didnt' shoot at us all the time, wish death upon us, or try to spread Luthernism.
-They were western and regretted the actions of Hitler. We weren't involved while tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of Germans killed each other.
-There wasn't a massive migration of the best educated Germans to other countries leaving a void.
-The German cabinet and Parliament didn't walk out and refuse to reconcile.
-Germany was divied up by the conquering forces. Iraq was created with artificial boundaries with people who didn't like each other and had different ethnicities and religious beliefs they'd die for.
-Germany had industry and got it cranking back up within 2 years of the war's end.
-We didn't protect the factories as Gen Jay Garner pleaded for us to do and they were all looted creating massive unemployment for those tho picked up guns to shoot us.
=Germany was not surrounded by other countries we radicalized to the point they came into Germany to shoot at us.

I could go on for quite awhile. But, the comparison can't be made.

"And this is different from Germany how....?"

Ummmm. The Germans weren't into blowing us up?

Your dog won't hunt. In fact, I think I see it lying in the road, brains squeezed out by the truck that hit it.

But, if you really want more reasons why Iraq is not Germany, have on.

Oh, one more huge one

-We had the help and able assistance of all our allies in fullfilling the Marshall Plan tenets. We had a multinational force and shared the expense.

In Iraq we're on our own because we pissed off all our allies who did not want us to invade.

-We had a President who had common sense followed by another President who had common sense.

-We did not start a preemptive war with Germany as we did in Iraq

-Germany still had it's smartest and highly educated people in country and a desire to rebuild and never fight another preemptive war.

=We only deNazified the highest level Nazis and kept the managers who could help pull the effort off unlike Iraq.

-There weren't different ethnic and religious sects who didn't like each other

In Iraq we're on our own because we pissed off all our allies who did not want us to invade.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

How many of our allies, stayed in Germany with us?
You can try to re-write history, but the fact of the matter is that this will be no different.

How many of our allies stayed in Germany with us...."

Oh, the Brits and the French and come to think of it, the damned Russians.

One of us is trying to re-write history. Isn't me.

WIS

The German's WANTED us there once Hitler was gone. They recognized the horrors he brought on them and were as willing to 'stand up' as we were to want them to. They readily accepted every bit of help we offered. The Berlin airlift was one of the most massive humanitarian projects ever undertaken. We won hearts and minds right and left.

The Iraqi public DOESN'T want us there by a margin of 75% to 25%. That is, if you don't count the millions of Iraqi refugees in other countries or living in tents who were never asked. We didn't win hearts and minds.

Wis, AU and Zed-

While I understand the comparison and differences that you each point out, I think that South Korea is a more apt comparison.

I have been saying this for years, the US will have troops and bases in Iraq for longer then any of us will be alive.

I have been saying this for years, the US will have troops and bases in Iraq for longer then any of us will be alive.

Posted by Rightocenter

I'm sure you're right.

AU-

Good article, but I think that you ommited a couple of salient points therein:

Fourth, speed is of the essence in restoring full sovereignty to Iraq. At first glance, the prolonged occupation of West German until 1949 may seem to contradict this. After all, Germany was defeated militarily in 1945, and the Basic Law was not ratified until four years later. However, the London decisions to create a separate West German state came only in 1948 after a complete failure of four-power negotiations on the German question. Once that decision was taken, a West German state was up and running in a year and a half. If US military victory is to be seen as liberation and not an unwelcome occupation, the Iraqis need to be running their own affairs without US interference within one year following the end of the war. Speed is of the essence because there is no outside threat to keep the Iraqis quiescent in the same way that Soviet behavior in the East pushed West Germany into line with US policy.


Fifth, in the drafting of the German Basic Law, the allies, largely at the behest of Lucius Clay, the American Military Governor, delayed its promulgation by several months because Clay hoped that German federalism could be improved by modeling it on the American pattern of government. Clay was a good friend to Germany and an outstanding military governor. This was the only major mistake he made during his tenure as military governor. Luckily, the crisis it caused, which nearly sabotaged the writing of the Basic Law, only delayed its promulgation by two months. US officials need to allow the Iraqis to write their own constitution and forge their own institutions in ways that respond to their own visions of a democratic Iraq.

Sixth, the United States provided generous assistance for the economic reconstruction of the western zones of occupation and the Federal Republic through the Marshall Plan. While assistance also created jobs in America and helped to spur on the postwar US economic boom, American assistance provided much needed capital for the reconstruction of the German economy. President Truman and his advisors understood that the success of German democracy hinged on the success of the German economy. The Iraqi economy is in shambles due to the Iran-Iraq war, the first Gulf War, a prolonged period of sanctions, mismanagement and greed by Saddam and his cronies, and the most recent war. If Iraq is to become a democracy, its economy must be rebuilt and redirected to promote the welfare of its society. For this reason the needs of Iraqi people must not take a back seat to the interests of the organizations participating in the reconstruction of the country.

The United Nations' military victory in the European theater in World War II was preserved because US occupation of Germany resulted in the creation of a new democratic state that entered into a long-term and mutually beneficial alliance with the United States. The military occupation succeeded because US officials allowed the vanquished to shape and practice their own democracy in a relatively short time. Americans now face a similar challenge in the Middle East and the US occupation of Iraq must be as benign, empowering, cooperative, and farsighted as it was forty years ago in Germany. If Americans fail in this regard, Iraq will become a quagmire that will make a shambles out of US Middle East policy and will create grave doubts about American intentions and the efficacy of US power.

Like it or not, we have an enormous responsibility to make things right, and we can't shirk that responsibility.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I just love how You Righties want to share responsibility for YOUR Fuck Ups. Just gotta love the "Maturity" of that. Bwhahahahaha quite typical if You ask Me.

Larry Mohr

ROC

DIdn't have room to post it all. I don't know how to make the smaller type and didnt' want to post 3 in a row. Thanks for finishing it up. I did read the article at the website before I posted it.

By the way, how DO you make the type smaller? I've been wondering that for a long time..... If you could clue me in I'd appreciat it.

Thanks,

AU

< blockquote > words < / blockquote >

Larry Mohr

PS Make sure You place the grater than and Less than right next to the blockquote words or it won't work

Larry Mohr

ROC

Key thing in the suggestions laid out in the article:

"If US military victory is to be seen as liberation and not an unwelcome occupation, the Iraqis need to be running their own affairs without US interference within one year following the end of the war. Speed is of the essence because there is no outside threat to keep the Iraqis quiescent in the same way that Soviet behavior in the East pushed West Germany into line with US policy."

That sadly didn't happen and we are view as occupiers rather than liberators. going on 5 years they still don't have their act together.

LARRY

You write blockquote between the < and > ?

Larry-

We have had this conversation before, its not about deflecting "responsibility" for the Iraq war, but about fixing things that we have messed up. I will grant you that the US fucked up the aftermath of the war massively, and the responsibility for that rests squarely with Bush and his administration.

Now that this mess has been created, by the US, do you really think that we should just walk away from it?

Oh, the Brits and the French and come to think of it, the damned Russians.

One of us is trying to re-write history. Isn't me.

Posted by Zed

Huh, which German base? And I don't mean for 6 months during the cleanup...

Like

text

COOL !! Thanks One of life's mysteries has been solved!

:-)

LARRY

You write blockquote between the < and > ?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-11-26 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

YESSSSSSSS

Larry Mohr

Now that this mess has been created, by the US, do you really think that we should just walk away from it?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

See You wanty the blame shared by all when it wasn't supported by all of us. This is Dubya's war NOT ours why do You continually want the whole US to clean up HIS Shit. That isn't the way we was taught growing up. You make a mess You clean it up You don't rely on someone else to clean up Your shit.

Larry Mohr

Cursory research reveals 22,000 British troops in Germany.

AU-

I guess that depends on how you define "the end of the war." It certainly didn't end with the cessation of combat operations, and most people, left and right, whould say that it is still going on in some sort or another.

Most people in Iraq will tell you it is still going on, and only until the violence dies down does the clock start running under the scenario posited in the article you posted.

See You wanty the blame shared by all when it wasn't supported by all of us. This is Dubya's war NOT ours why do You continually want the whole US to clean up HIS Shit. That isn't the way we was taught growing up. You make a mess You clean it up You don't rely on someone else to clean up Your shit.

Larry, I am not talking about blame, but making things right. However, to play along, how do you propose that only those people in the US that supported the war in Iraq clean up in Iraq? And where do you draw the line? People who initially supported it, people who only supported it until the mosque blew up in Samarra, people who continue to support it now?

Those who supported it at ANY time should be the ones over there cleaning up their mess. It is THEIR Mess not ours. That is what happens when a person supports something they must take ownership of it and not pass it on to others who didn't.

Larry Mohr

Those who supported it at ANY time should be the ones over there cleaning up their mess. It is THEIR Mess not ours. That is what happens when a person supports something they must take ownership of it and not pass it on to others who didn't.

So, by that thinking, the 85% that supported it in 2002 should take ownership of it and support cleaning up the mess, but the other 15% get a free pass? How do you propose giving tax credits to that 15%?

How do you propose giving tax credits to that 15%?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 09:20 PM | Reply

Hell that's easy didn';t Dubya do that with regards to the wealthy Americans!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry Mohr

Larry-

Not that I am agreeing with your point, but the fact remains that the "wealthy americans" are easily identifiable by their tax returns. Seriously, How do you identify (other then yourself) the 15% that opposed the Iraq war in the first place?

Not that I am agreeing with your point, but the fact remains that the "wealthy americans" are easily identifiable by their tax returns. Seriously, How do you identify (other then yourself) the 15% that opposed the Iraq war in the first place?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 09:35 PM | Reply


Why hell this is real easy.

Ringadingding: Hello RightOCenter did You support the Iraq War in any way shape or form??

RightOCenter's answer would be??

Larry Mohr

Larry-

Yes I did. Do you propose to ask every single american, and expect an honest answer? What about all the people who said that they supported it until they felt that they had been lied to?

Realistically, how do you differentiate?

Larry's answer would be?

Yes I did. Do you propose to ask every single american, and expect an honest answer? What about all the people who said that they supported it until they felt that they had been lied to?

Realistically, how do you differentiate?

Larry's answer would be?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Doesn't matter they supported it therefore they should take their ownership of it and go clean up their mess that they created. That is what a Rational person would do. That is what a Mature person would do.

Larry Mohr

I guess that depends on how you define "the end of the war." It certainly didn't end with the cessation of combat operations, and most people, left and right, whould say that it is still going on in some sort or another.

ROC

Silly me,. I thought it ended with "Mission Accomplished". At least that's what they told us then

Amazing how they keep moving the bar all the time. When we entered Berlin the war was over and their leader no longer leading Germany. Different rules for this particular war, eh?

LARRY...the you and us comment just supports agruments that you are for a party and not for america

their is no your war or mine in america


to have people join the military and fight wars just because of party affiliation.....says that you apporved on the NAZI SS


so if you approve of military style parties then you must approve of mercenaries

AU isn't always some fucked up excuse to justify the unjustifiable with these folks. Funny how that works ehhhhhhhhhhhhh., bwhahahahahaha

Larry Mohr

Judas the Iraq War is Dubya's and His Oil buddies war it ain't Our War You capisce THAT???????

Larry Mohr

AU-

Let's see if you are better at answering questions then Larry...notwithstanding what they told you, do you think that the Iraq war is still going on?

Calls for a simple yes or no.

Larry-

I wlll ask again, how do you differentiate as to who has to pay for the clean up and who doesn't?

I wlll ask again, how do you differentiate as to who has to pay for the clean up and who doesn't?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 10:19 PM | Reply


I think I made it plain as day in this post right here ROC.

You know what amazes Me is the fact that had this been a Democrat Liberal and the situation was EXACT Copy as it is today the Right would be declaring (Rightfully so) that it was on us to fix since we made the mess. But since it is the Republican Party who Got into this shindig they want EVERYONE to suffer for it. I SAY FUCK THAT. We didn't make the mess We shouldn't be held accountable for it. When I fuck up I have to eat it myself. The same should go for ANYONE who supported this Calamity.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-11-26 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Let's see if you are better at answering questions then Larry...notwithstanding what they told you, do you think that the Iraq war is still going on?

Calls for a simple yes or no.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Of course it is. It's still going on today. People are being shot at and attacked daily aren't they??

Larry Mohr

It'll mean we're more on our own there than ever. British down to 3500, 2nd largest force.

And this is different from Germany...how?
Posted by wisgod

Let's see now...Hmmmmm....Oh, right, because it's Iraq.

Oh, and Bowa, you get a great big funny flag for this one: "our pro-active relationship."

****** US, Iraq Agree to Occupation ******

Caching!!..Caching !!..Caching !!..

(to the tune of I Hear Bells Ringing for Me & My Gal)

........I hear cash ringing..for Dick and his Hal (liburton)
........I hear cash ringing..for Dick and his Hal

......the USSR collapsed because they went broke financing the arms race......

........USA will now go broke...........to secure oil contracts for Halliburton so that a few oil execs can be better off........while the rest of the country declines......

........trace the crime......follow the money.....

Let's see if you are better at answering questions then Larry...notwithstanding what they told you, do you think that the Iraq war is still going on?

ROC

No.

The 'war' ended in 2003. We're fighting our 'friends' and 'allies' now. Our other 'friends', the government of Iraq said they can find 'other friends' if we push them too hard.

Thought this surge was supposed to get them to 'stand up'. They've fallen down of their own accord and falied at the task our surge was designed to give them breathing room to accomplish.

We've been an 'occupying force' since Jay Garner started the CPA. It's also honest to say the WH has done a horrible job as 'occupiers'. With 300,000 military and private personnel, we have as many as occupied Japan after WW2.

Germany and japan were not shooting at us while we were there. They had competent people left in their countries to run their governments once they were established. Iraq has suffered 'brain drain' where the educated middle class got the hell out of dodge at the earliest opportunity and are afraied to return.

Why the hell doesn't Bush's hand holding buddies the Saudis DO something to help? Perhaps they're just enjoying the 3X price raise in BBL's of oil they got because W upset the balance of power in the ME.

Doc Sarvis You gotta laugh at Lokisfur's Pro Active Relationship Balderdash don't You?? What a farse.

Larry Mohr

Easy solution to the concerns of the drudgeries. Relocate the bases from Germany/Europe to Iraq. That way we have a presence near our most vital foreign resource, oil.

Relocate the bases

Who's manning Hadrian's Wall?


PS: You're absolutely right, Larry.

Good idea SLICKSTER

One thing to consider though is Putin's power grab in Russia. He's slowly turning Russia back into the Soviet Union.

Also, the Balkans are about to erupt again after 7 years of neglect.

What right do We have taking their oil from them?? If You think it's OK then By God it should be AOKAY for a Robber to take what He wants at the end of a barrel of a Gun. SAME THING.

Larry Mohr

Herein lies the problem:

Q:notwithstanding what they told you, do you think that the Iraq war is still going on?

A:

Of course it is. It's still going on today. People are being shot at and attacked daily aren't they??

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-11-26 10:23 PM

vs.

No.

The 'war' ended in 2003. We're fighting our 'friends' and 'allies' now.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-11-27 09:29 AM

Try as you might, it is not as black and white as you all wish it was, as evidenced by a simple disagreement between the two of you, who are ostensibly on the same side of the argument.

If the war were clearly over, then setting up a functional government should be easier, but it is not.

Should the Bush Administration have foreseen these difficulties? Absolutely. Did the State Department "cut and run" from thier responsibilities in helping to stabilize Iraq? Absolutely.

Does the United States stand responsible for the mess that is Iraq? Absolutely.

The question is, what do we do to fix it (without Larry's help, of course, since he never supported the war in the first place).

On that note, good luck getting your "against the war" rebate check from the IRS, Larry.

The question is, what do we do to fix it

I suppose public executions are out of the question?

And your first clue was....

Its not the public executions of elected officials that I worry about, but the disposal of the bodies afterwards. I would expect a small group of die-hard neoconservatives would start hallowing the pointy granite stones overlooking the stinking ropeburned remains of some former wretch of humanity as martyr's monuments. It happens everywhere else in the world...

If the war were clearly over, then setting up a functional government should be easier, but it is not.

ROC

OUR war is over. Theirs is not. And we're stuck in the middle of it.

AU-

That may be true, but do you agree that we put them in that position in the first place?

AU-

I've seen those links more then a few times, I can get Youtube links of Hillary, et al. talking about what a real threat Saddam is to the US, if you want to play that game.

However, for the purpose of this discussion, let's focus on the present, for once.

Since you agree that we put them in that position, then do you agree that the US has an obligation (moral, political, ethical, humanist, etc.) to set things right?

Hillary got an intelligence summary prepared by the White House. I hardly give that the same latitude as what those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue knew. Shit Cheney said Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 on 9/13. What's up with that?

Sure need to help them. We've been trying to for almost 5 years. But, as an analogy, you can't help an alcoholic until they want help. So far the Iraqis won't put the plug in the jug so to speak. Wish they would. Maliki is standing in the way. What's HIS holdup I wonder? He hates the Sunni so bad he's willing to see the massive suffering of everyone in the country?

I meant a comma between Shit and Cheney like Shit, Cheney

Anybody on this board who thinks we are going to get out of Iraq has not been paying attention. The FAR left who supposedly voted in a Democratic congress with that in mind had best look to the other side of space if they believe we will ever get out of Iraq in their lifetime.

The Iraq was is till going on and the Iraq war will continue for many years. We will continue to send our troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan and our military troops will continue to be killed. And, illegal immigrants will continue to occupy the houses these dead troops would have and should have occupied.

Regardless of who is elected the next President or who is elected to congress, things will continue much the same.

"I meant a comma between Shit and Cheney like Shit, Cheney"

Good. Because if you post Shit Cheney, you're just being redundant.

I heard it on tv last night and it's just like I predicted many times on here -- our military will be in Iraq for the next 50 years.

Did anyone ever think for one minute that Bush was going to leave those Iraq oil reserves unguarded? Like I've said many times -- our troops ain't never coming home.

Sure need to help them. We've been trying to for almost 5 years. But, as an analogy, you can't help an alcoholic until they want help. So far the Iraqis won't put the plug in the jug so to speak. Wish they would. Maliki is standing in the way. What's HIS holdup I wonder? He hates the Sunni so bad he's willing to see the massive suffering of everyone in the country?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-11-27 04:27 PM

It took a long time to get there, but we agree on each point you make.

The question is, how do we help them? We certainly can't do it by immediately withdrawing all troops and support, but keeping 160K troops in harms way certainly isn't a good answer either.

Al-Makiki's problem is that he was actually the weakest compromise candidate that everyone could agree on, so that no side felt that he would wield too much power...kind of a Saddam backlash, as it were. This has obviously not worked, and unless he gets an injection of testicular fortitude in the coming months, I think we will see changes.

Will that help things? Hopefully, but in the interim, the Military is doing a tremendous job in keeping the lid on things until the Iraqis' either get going in Parliment or thier Troops can keep the peace.

I'm pretty sure that my initial guesstimate of 30K troops for 50 years is pretty accurate, but given the size of the embassy and just the airbase at Balad (20K troops and airmen alone) that number could easily be 50K.

We need the oil. We can't have it unless we kill, maim, torture and destroy. We gotsta stay no matter what.

This is a major part of George Bush's legacy to the American People: A great big "Fuck You!"

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

And this is different from Germany...how?

Posted by wisgod at 2007-11-26 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, I do remember Germany declared war on the US, but don't let those little details get in the way.

and we werent losing 30 to 100 men a month 5 years after VE day but who cares....

I have been saying this for years, the US will have troops and bases in Iraq for longer then any of us will be alive.

Posted by Rightocenter

I'm sure you're right.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at



iirc greece's downfall was preceeded by large military outposts

part of the roman empires fall was cause of the expenditures of defending the various parts of the empire

same with spain

GB finally went bankrupt defending its colonies..

etc

(america=etc.)

Larry, I am not talking about blame, but making things right.


ROC writes


THEY HATE US!!!!!

WE HAVE KILLED 1000's of them

THEY HATE US YOU STUPID FUCKING MORON>

there is NO making things right.

you think al sadr would piss on your head if it were on fire?

NO

christ you are dumb.

The question is, how do we help them?


why?

the question should be what is in America's best interest?

Perhaps I can find some help among poster here. Earlier this year I seem to recall the Iraqi legislature passing a law that made the approval of the Iraqi legislature necessary for any request to extend the UN mandate that gives legality to US occupation. This was done to prevent the US puppet from unilaterally requesting the mandate extension. In addition I recall the Iraqi legislature sent a delegation to the UN requesting that the mandate NOT be renewed. Am I imagining?
How can Bush enter into such a long term agreement without Congress's approval? Is this not a treaty?
I suppose my prior assessment of Iraq will prove correct regardless of all else.
The US will be in Iraq as long as OIL can be pumped at a profit.

"The question is, how do we help them?"

Yeah RofC that is what is on the minds of the administration as they wait for the Iraqi government to agree to PSAs assigning most of the profits from the oil to our oil companies.
Naive???? You????
You still haven't let yourself realize that this was/is/and will be a criminal enterprise which never, ever had any consideration for the welfare of the Iraqi or the American people.
Naivite on the scale you exhibit is fucking dangerous.

Danni they live in delusions of grandior. They can not face the truth when it is shoved in their faces so they deflect they deny it's all to quell that churning Gut feeling.

Larry Mohr

Gee, AU and I were having some intelligent discourse, and the loonies come out in force...Troofy, Nutcase, Dummi (don't feel left out Larry, you were here earlier).

and we werent losing 30 to 100 men a month 5 years after VE day but who cares....

Berlin was being defended by children, we had reduced their country to rubble, who was going to fight us at that point?

there is NO making things right.

you think al sadr would piss on your head if it were on fire?

NO

Al Sadr is a thug, as are his followers. He only stood down because he knew that Al Maliki wasn't going to protect him from the troop buildup (notice how I didn't say the word "surge", since I know that it makes you quiver). As AU correctly notes, all we can do is keep the lid on Iraq until the government gets its shit together. If you don't think that we are going to be there for the next 50 years, then your stupidity knows no bounds.


The question is, how do we help them?

why?

the question should be what is in America's best interest?

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-27 06:27 PM

C'mon troofy, I know that there is a brain in that strident little head of yours, use it. Danni and Brainyvib see that oil is one interest, another is having a counterpoint to Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria (allegences can shift in an instant in the ME) with a huge amount of troops and airplanes on four large bases, etc.

Or do you want to pull everything out after spending a trillion dollars and go home, wondering what is going to happen next.

Yeah RofC that is what is on the minds of the administration as they wait for the Iraqi government to agree to PSAs assigning most of the profits from the oil to our oil companies.
Naive???? You????
You still haven't let yourself realize that this was/is/and will be a criminal enterprise which never, ever had any consideration for the welfare of the Iraqi or the American people.
Naivite on the scale you exhibit is fucking dangerous.

Posted by danni at 2007-11-27 07:32 PM

You clearly have no idea how oil exploration works, do you. Do you think that the Saudi's are letting Aramco, BP and others steal the profits from them when they extract the oil? How about Kuwait, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, et al.?

Learn a little before you shrilly call someone naive, dear.

As for the Iraqi people, I would agree that the Bush Administration doesn't really give a shit, and by looking at comments by you, Troofy and Larry, neither do any of you.

They can not face the truth when it is shoved in their faces so they deflect they deny it's all to quell that churning Gut feeling.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-11-27 07:34 PM

Larry, where is the deflection? I said that the war is squarely the responsibility of the Bush Administration, that they fucked up the planning for the aftermath, that they don't care about the Iraqi people, that we put them in the position that they are in, etc.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to answer the simple question of how you realistically propose to put the war tab on the 85% who supported the war at any time, probably because you can't.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to answer the simple question of how you realistically propose to put the war tab on the 85% who supported the war at any time, probably because you can't.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-27 08:02 PM | Reply


You know the census folks go around each 10 Years to count the people. It can't be that hard to question the populace on who supported the war AT ANY TIME and those who didn't.

Larry Mohr

It can't be that hard to question the populace on who supported the war AT ANY TIME and those who didn't.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-11-27 08:05 PM

Thanks for the answer. From a practical standpoint, do you really think that would work? If people know that they are going to get a check back from the Government if they say they never supported it (or be imposed an excise tax in the converse situation), do you think that people who supported it initally but don't now are really going to answer truthfully?

I would like to believe the answer is yes, but human nature convinces me otherwise. I think if your proposed solution was implemented, you would find that less then 1/100% of the population would say that they ever supported the war at any time.

Just a hunch.

Larry, my point here is that while I understand your position, it isn't practical or realistic to say that "other people have to pay for it since I never supported it."

By taking that position, do I think that you have the high moral ground? Absolutely.

Is is ever going to happen?

No.

Now that this mess has been created, by the US, do you really think that we should just walk away from it?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-26 08:46 PM

Yes. It would be the merciful thing to do. If you hired the Three Stooges to fix your plumbing and they wound up flooding your house, would want them to stay and fix it?

Umm....since this has been a sticking point on this thread, I guess I should make my suggestion. As Larry suggests, the people who supported this war should make the reparations, not those who did not support it. Figuring out who those supporters are is simple...

Everyone who voted that insane Texan into a second term

I await the deluge that will follow...

I await the deluge that will follow...


Posted by tiredofitall at 2007-11-27 10:05 P

*****thunderous applause******

Sounds like a good idea you to me.

P.S. -- If you ever retire your blogger name, can I have it? *grin*

whoops -- should be "idea to me" not "idea you to me"

need a break time

As Larry suggests, the people who supported this war should make the reparations, not those who did not support it. Figuring out who those supporters are is simple...

Everyone who voted that insane Texan into a second term

Even though I doubt they voted Bush into a second term, should these people have to pay reparations?

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

And that is just the Senators who voted to Authorize the use of Military Force in Iraq. There are another 81 Democratic Members of Congress who voted the same way.

As for finding out who voted "the insane Texan" in for a second term, just how do you propose figuring that out?

And that is just the Senators who voted to Authorize the use of Military Force in Iraq. There are another 81 Democratic Members of Congress who voted the same way.


Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-27 11:00 PM | Reply

Why are You republicans all the same. You know specifically what they voted for yet try and deflect it. Can You be at least Intellectually Honest about the Vote and what it was for.

Larry Mohr

If you hired the Three Stooges to fix your plumbing and they wound up flooding your house, would want them to stay and fix it?

Posted by Ray at 2007-11-27 09:16 PM

A better analogy would be if you hired them to fix the plumbing in your house, then started taking shots at them and your neighbors, while your kids were breaking not only the plumbing that you hired them to fix, but the stuff that wasn't broken in the first place. Oh, and at the same time, the people back at the Three Stooges plumbing office were loudly debating if they should have been sent in the first place, and claiming that Moe was a murderer because he killed a large spider that was in the drain.

RightO-
Thank you for illustrating the very last refuge of a party hack: The other party is just as bad.

It's the political equivalent of a dog showing its belly, and is sweet tummy music to my ears.

Boydbadweekcooper-

You missed my point...tiredofitall and Larry are trying to figure out a way to pin reparations on those who supported the war, and I am merely trying to show them how unrealistic and impractical it is. After all, 1n 2002 85% of the US populace supported the war...how would you figure out who gets a rebate check?

ROC,

Thanks for that list. Now, among those, who voted to go in undermanned and underplanned? Who voted to guard the oil fields, but not the museums or ammo dumps? Who voted to send our bravest to battle with substandard armor? And who voted to destroy the societal infrastructure at the same time they were destroying the civil infrastructure?

NONE of them? That's what I thought.

Sure Larry, from the Clerks office at the House of Representatives:

Bill Title: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

The people who are not being "Intellectually Honest" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are the ones that are claiming that their vote didn't really mean that Bush could use the Armed Forces Against Iraq.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 455

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-27 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You know God damned Good and well what that vote was for but Yet You lack the intellectual Honesty to admit to that. It was provided that Dubya getting the Authorization from the UN and You know it. I give up on people like You. You know the truth yet lack the fucking guts to admit to it.

Larry Mohr

RightO-
Don't give a flying fuck at the moon about a rebate check, or whatever. But don't worry, those such as yourself who were horribly wrong will maintain their status, and be horribly wrong again with impunity to an even more dangerous degree.

Congrats.

You missed my point...tiredofitall and Larry are trying to figure out a way to pin reparations on those who supported the war, and I am merely trying to show them how unrealistic and impractical it is. After all, 1n 2002 85% of the US populace supported the war...how would you figure out who gets a rebate check?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-27 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You know it's funny we have Millions and Millions of cattle in this Country and each one can be tracked to the locatyion where they came from. You would think it would be just as easy to find out who supported the Iraq War by the same methods as the census uses. Amazing even THIS Dumb fuck Kansan can figure it out.

Larry Mohr

RightO-
re: As for finding out who voted "the insane Texan" in for a second term, just how do you propose figuring that out?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-27 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Water-boarding or sleep deprivation might make them (you) fess up.

Danforth-

Look at my 4:16 pm post to AU, then post something constructive.

If you want to talk about the past ad naseum, then there are plenty of other threads to do it on. However, to answer your questions this one time:

Now, among those, who voted to go in undermanned and underplanned?

All of them.

Who voted to guard the oil fields, but not the museums or ammo dumps?

None of them, that is a command decision, so the blame ultimately falls on the CinC.

Who voted to send our bravest to battle with substandard armor?

All of them, and anyone who cut spending from the military budget in the past 10 years or so.

who voted to destroy the societal infrastructure at the same time they were destroying the civil infrastructure?

Don't think that the vote was titled, Use of Armed Forces to Destroy Societal Infrastructure, so that is the fault of the CinC.

So you got half right. Good thing for you that this test is being graded on a curve.

It was provided that Dubya getting the Authorization from the UN and You know it.

Show me in the bill where it says that and I will concede the point.

If you can't, then STFU.

Larry-

Oh that's right, you can't.

Sorry to knot your Manties yet again.

Show me in the bill where it says that and I will concede the point.

If you can't, then STFU.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-27 11:23 PM | Reply

NO You shut the hell up You know god damned good and well what the authorization was for yet You lack the intellectual Honesty to admit it. Just like a Lawyer.

Larry Mohr

Iraq. It costs us $3 billion a week. There is no end in sight. Ever. Rubin had to go to the Emirates so a big US bank could keep the lights on. And the Neocons say to just push on. It's a splendid little war, really.

"undermanned and underplanned?"

All of them.

Sorry, that's also a command decision. The SECDEF could have planned it; he threatened to fire anyone not on the "flowers and chocolates" bandwagon. None of them is the correct answer.

"Who voted to send our bravest to battle with substandard armor?"

All of them

Wrong again. The timing of the invasion could have been before, or after we got armored up. Plus, the President has the powers to divert military monies as he sees fit. Blame, again, to the CiC.

That's 100%. Lucky you we're not grading the teacher.

Disgusting isn't it Danforth. How they want to deflect LIE and change the rules when their ship is sinking. Gotta love it. Had the reverse happened they would be rubbing Our noses in it. Typical

Larry Mohr

You know what is even MORE disgusting. This Coming Friday will mark the 15th anniversary that I was let out of the slammer after serving 6 months.. I fucked up at 18 and got into trouble. I blamed NO ONE but Myself. I did My Time and never belly ached because of it. Why can't these folks do the same thing with regards to their support of the Iraq War. It makes absolutely NO Sense whatsoever.

Larry Mohr

Larry,

It's the Lady MacBeth syndrome.

Yet, here's a spot...

Hey Thanks for the Edumacafun tonight Danforth. Never heard of the Lady MacBeth Syndrome. It is apt here for shnizzle.

Larry Mohr

Hey Danforth-

While your answers to the questions are technically correct, do you ever consider the fact that anyone who authorized a person as stupid as George Bush to use military force should have foreseen the blunders you're being asked about?

being asked about=asking about.

I'm surprised anyone is framing this as "staying until we put things right."

Did anyone ever think for one minute that Bush was going to leave those Iraq oil reserves unguarded? Like I've said many times -- our troops ain't never coming home. -- CalifChris

That's the real issue. We cut and run (pulled our bases) from Saudi Arabia in response to Bin Laden's demands and 9/11. Idiots figured a friendly gov't in Iraq would make a fine substitute.

Or did they all think at that time that an indefinite green light would be handled appropriately from beginning to end?

"do you ever consider the fact that anyone who authorized a person as stupid as George Bush to use military force should have foreseen the blunders you're being asked about?"

Undermanning and underplanning? No. Who'da thunk the next "Phase 4" planner would be threatened with termination?

Going in underarmored? No. When have we voluntarily done that before?

Guarding the oil fields but not the ammo dumps? Are you fucking kidding me?

De-Ba'athifying? What idiot thinks you can toss out the top 20% of the society, let them keep their guns, and expect everything to be fine the next day? That was a blunder I identified from day one.

So should we have denied Bush, knowing what a lifelong fuckup he was? Probably...although after 9/11, I can understand a lot of things. And Bush DID get the vote on the promise he'd get an up-or-down from the UN, which he skipped when he discovered it'd be a "down". But you're right...I wouldn't have voted for the Iraq invasion, and those who did were being politically expedient, the chickenshits. Finish Afghanistan first. I was one of many saying that, scum-sucking traitor that I am.

Like I said Danforth, they might not have known that these specific events would take place, and not too many people did. What I contend they should have known is that an indefinite green light for an absolute moron to use military force would result in some very poor decisions being made.

Joe,

When the SECDEF tells you "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months..."

Plus, we'd all lived through the first Gulf War. Remember that stunning success?

But, yeah, someone should have recognized the impending oedipal disaster. Too bad they were all looking at their next re-election campaign instead.

But, yeah, someone should have recognized the impending oedipal disaster. Too bad they were all looking at their next re-election campaign instead.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-11-28 12:31 AM | Reply

We've never had a pResident like Dubya ever. How could they know He was a Manchild deluxe??

Larry Mohr

the iraqis didnt hire the 3 stooges,

the three stooges thouight the iraqi plumbing was a threat to their lives 1000 miles away

the 3 stooges performed a home invasion to fix the plumbing

but who cares.

oh the resolution


the resolution that states confronting the ONGOING threat posed by iraq


the ONGOING threat that BUSH KNEW was NO THREAT in March 2003

therefore, invasion was illegal

Period

LOL-

"undermanned and underplanned"
"ONGOING THREAT"
"Up or Down Vote"

What, no more talking points from MoveOn? I thought I would get much more teeth gnashing and shirt rending then that.

You're slipping.

ya what? someone impeach this joker already.

yepper roc you pooh pooh what the vote was for.

yet you hold accountable all those who voted for the resolution,

even though the resolution supports diplomacy first (with none tried by bush)

despite the FACT that the resolution calls for Bush to evaluate the threat posed by SH.

(correction here on my part not ONGOING but CONTINUING THREAT, not threat, CONTINUING THREAT.

sure you call it a talking point, but please read the resolution..

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


defend national security... against the continuing threat.

well in January 03, Al Baradei said NO EVIDENCE that SH had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program. NO EVIDENCE.

1 week before invasion:

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported in regard to Iraq that, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found,"


NO EVIDENCE....

there was NO EVIDENCE that sh posed a threat to the US.

therefore war is illegal.

period.

His advice to congress is "To start drinking heavily."

Sorry gang...long days and nights from working two jobs to try and keep my head within ten feet of the surface...(trying to break that surface is pretty much impossible when you are not making the kind of money the uppermost 4% is making, but thats another debate)

ROC, you say how can we figure out who voted for Bush that second time? Dude, you must live in the boondocks. Ask them. It is true you won't get a valid answer from asking if they supported the war, but I have never seen a 'Bushie' have a problem crowing about who they voted for. Hell, they sometimes tell you even if you DIDN'T ask them.

Now, I grant you people may also decide to lie about their vote as well. And, of course, there is no way to actually prove it, since all votes are 'blind' votes. But, all those crowing neo-cons have no problem screaming from the mount that they love the man and voted for him.

I think thats a good place to start.

oooh oooh this is great.

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported in regard to Iraq that, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found,"


of course Hans Blix was the inspector looking at the Bio and Chem weapons which even worse case pose negigible threat to the US given their inherent attack matrices.

NO EVIDENCE.

now lets see what Al Baradei said about his area of expertise Nukes, which actually poses a threat to our security, you know the old mushroom cloud.

"We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s..."

NO EVIDENCE

From your Link from the ISG

ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

The activities of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission sustained some talent and limited research with potential relevance to a reconstituted nuclear program.

TH: (so some scientists kept there jobs, ATTACK!)

Specific projects, with significant development, such as the efforts to build a rail gun and a copper vapor laser could have been useful in a future effort to restart a nuclear weapons program, but ISG found no indications of such purpose. As funding for the MIC and the IAEC increased after the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program, there was some growth in programs that involved former nuclear weapons scientists and engineers.

TH: NO INDICATIONS....

The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

TH: again he kept some scientists employed, ATTACK!!!!!


NO EVIDENCE

NO EVIDENCE

NO INDICATIONS


NO CONTINUING THREAT and BUSH KNEW IT.

Okay, but what if they know that they are going to get hit with an excise tax if they say yes?

Don't think you'd get many positive responses, do you?

More from teh ISG

now all of this comes from info after march 2003 so it is really inapplicable, regardless of ROC' assertion but lets look at some more info.


Key Findings
Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:


TH: Intention is not a threat.

Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy's superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already--during the Iran-Iraq war--and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.

TH: INtention is not a threat.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

TH> NO CREDIBLE INDICATIONS. Man that has got to hurt. UNILATERALLY DESTROYED. He desired to see sanctions lifted, hmmmm was doing what the world wanted.
INTENTION IS NOT A THREAT

SNIP

Iraq's CW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base.

TH: chemical industry crippled.

Poor policies and management in the early 1990s left the Military Industrial Commission (MIC) financially unsound and in a state of almost complete disarray.

TH: DISARRAY

SNIP

Iraq's acceptance of the Oil-for-Food (OFF) program was the foundation of Iraq's economic recovery and sparked a flow of illicitly diverted funds that could be applied to projects for Iraq's chemical industry.

TH: Could be, intention is not a threat

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts.

TH: He kpt some scientists, attack.

Snip

Iraq began implementing a range of indigenous chemical production projects in 1995 and 1996. Many of these projects, while not weapons-related, were designed to improve Iraq's infrastructure, which would have enhanced Iraq's ability to produce CW agents if the scaled-up production processes were implemented.


TH:Intention is not a threat.

Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions. ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk; however documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals were acquired through this system.

TH: NO evidence.

i could go on.

Key Findings
The Biological Warfare (BW) program was born of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and this service retained its connections with the program either directly or indirectly throughout its existence.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq's BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn's Regime.

In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose.


TH: Intention is not a threat.

snip


ISG judges that Iraq's actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

ISG assesses that in 1991, Iraq clung to the objective of gaining war-winning weapons with the strategic intention of achieving the ability to project its power over much of the Middle East and beyond. Biological weapons were part of that plan. With an eye to the future and aiming to preserve some measure of its BW capability, Baghdad in the years immediately after Desert Storm sought to save what it could of its BW infrastructure and covertly continue BW research, hide evidence of that and earlier efforts, and dispose of its existing weapons stocks.

From 1992 to 1994, Iraq greatly expanded the capability of its Al Hakam facility. Indigenously produced 5 cubic meter fermentors were installed, electrical and water utilities were expanded, and massive new construction to house its desired 50 cubic meter fermentors were completed.

With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad's ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions.


TH: in 1995 IRAQ ABANDONED

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

TH: NO DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability--some declared--readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre.

TH: GREAT DIFFICULTIES


SNIP

ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

TH: destroyed ... BW weapons


SNIP




TH: follows is a series of no evidence found of BW research.

TRUTHHURTS

Truth hurts.

I love how ROC accused me on the 'Asshole' thread as someone who has all the answers. If reading readiily available information and quoting or referring to it as you did makes me an asshole, then I'm proud to be one.

:-)

Now Rove is suggesting that it was the Dems who 'rushed us to war'. GOD that's funny! Giving the president 'authorization' to go to war based on a long list of caveats by those who voted for it did not in any way suggest he should use it ASAP. Rove takes the cake as do many of the posters who continue to suggest Bush made a rational decision to invade at the earliest possibility despite a plethora of intel on the Al Qaeda-Saddam connections and statements from the U.N. inspectors that ran contraty to every contention for prosecuting the Iraq war at the time it was.

Wow, troofy, I didn't think you had it in you to actually read any of the DCI's report.

You even took the time to cherrypick the parts that fit your agenda...truly special. Let's see what you missed, shall we:

Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

AU-

I referred to myself as having all the answers as well, so that was meant as a compliment.

Here is what the DCI has to say about Saddam's prior use of WMDs:

Iraq's Use of CW in 1991 Against Internal Unrest The former Regime also saw chemical weapons as a tool to control domestic unrest, in addition to their war-fighting role. In March 1991, the former Regime used multiple helicopter sorties to drop CW-filled bombs on rebel groups as a part of its strategy to end the revolt in the South. That the Regime would consider this option with Coalition forces still operating within Iraq's boundaries demonstrates both the dire nature of the situation and the Regime's faith in "special weapons."

All but two of Iraq's provinces in 1991 were in open revolt and the Regime was worried. The fall of Karbala deeply affected key decision-makers. According to a former senior member of the CW program, the Regime was shaking and wanted something "very quick and effective" to put down the revolt.

In the early morning of 7 March 1991 an unidentified Iraqi requested permission to use "liquids" against rebels in and around An Najaf. Regime forces intended to use the "liquid" to defeat dug-in forces as part of a larger assault.

Husayn Kamil, then Director of MIC, ordered senior officials in the chemical weapons program to ready CW for use against the revolt. His initial instruction was to use VX. When informed that no VX was available he ordered mustard to be used. Because of its detectable persistence, however, mustard was ruled out and Sarin selected for use.

On or about 7 March 1991, R-400 aerial bombs located at the Tamuz Airbase were readied for use. Al Muthanna State Establishment (MSE) technicians mixed the two components of the Iraqi "binary" nerve agent system inside the R-400s. Explosive burster charges were loaded into the bombs and the weapons assembled near the runway.

Helicopters from nearby bases flew to Tamuz, were armed with the Sarin-laden R-400s and other conventional ordnance. Dozens of sorties were flown against Shi'a rebels in Karbala and the surrounding areas. A senior participant from the CW program estimates that 10 to 20 R-400s were used. Other reporting suggests as many as 32 R-400s may have been dropped. As of March 1991, about a dozen MI-8 helicopters were staged at Tamuz Airbase.

MI-8 helicopters were used during the Iran-Iraq war to drop chemical munitions, according to an Iraqi helicopter pilot.

Following the initial helicopter sorties, the senior chemical weapons program officer overseeing the operation received an angry call from Husayn Camel's office. The caller said the attacks had been unsuccessful and further measures were required. The R-400s were designed for high-speed delivery from higher altitude and most likely did not activate properly when dropped from a slow-moving helicopter.

As an alternative to the R-400s, the Al Muthanna State Establishment began filling CS (tear gas) into large aerial bombs. Over the next two weeks helicopters departed Tamuz Air Base loaded with CS-filled bombs. One participant estimated that more than 200 CS filled aerial bombs were used on rebel targets in and around Karbala and Najaf.

Trailers loaded with mustard-filled aerial bombs were also transported to the Tamuz Air Base. A participant in the operation stated that mustard gas was not used on the rebels because of the likelihood of discovery by the Coalition.

According to the source, the mustard filled bombs were never unloaded and were not used.

Reports of attacks in 1991 from refugees and Iraqi military deserters include descriptions of a range of CW and improvised poisons used in the areas around Karbala, Najaf, Nasiriyah, as well as Basrah.

Here is a nice little conversation that Saddam had in 1991:

Excerpts from a Closed-Door Meeting Between Saddam and Senior Personnel, January 1991

The Iraqi Regime routinely, almost obsessively, engaged in the recording of its high level meetings, not in the conventional documentary form of more ordinary bureaucracies, but by way of audio and videotapes. Despite the highly secret and sensitive nature of CBW, even discussions in this area are known to have been recorded in this manner. Below is an example of an audio recording recovered by ISG, probably made during the second week of January 1991.

Begin Transcript:

Speaker 2: Sir, the design of the suit is with a white shirt and a collar (neck line) like dishdasha.

Saddam: Then my design is right.

Husayn Kamil and Speaker 2: Absolutely right, sir . . .

Saddam: I want to make sure that--close the door please (door slams)--the germ and chemical warheads, as well as the chemical and germ bombs, are available to [those concerned], so that in case we ordered an attack, they can do it without missing any of their targets?

Husayn Kamil: Sir, if you'll allow me. Some of the chemicals now are distributed, this is according to the last report from the Minister of Defense, which was submitted to you sir. Chemical warheads are stored and are ready at Air Bases, and they know how and when to deal with, as well as arm these heads. Also, some other artillery machines and rockets (missiles) are available from the army. While some of the empty "stuff" is available for us, our position is very good, and we don't have any operational problems. Moreover, in the past, many substantial items and materials were imported; now, we were able to establish a local project, which was established to comply with daily production. Also, another bigger project will be finalized within a month, as well as a third project in the coming two to three months that will keep us on the safe side, in terms of supply. We, Sir, only deal in common materials like phosphorus, ethyl alcohol and methyl (interrupted) . . .

Saddam: what is it doing with you, I need these germs to be fixed on the missiles, and tell him to hit, because starting the 15th, everyone should be ready for the action to happen at anytime, and I consider Riyadh as a target . . .

Husayn Kamil: (door slams) Sir, we have three types of germ weapons, but we have to decide which one we should use, some types stay capable for many years (interrupted).

Saddam: we want the long term, the many years kind . . .

Husayn Kamil: . . . There has to be a decision about which method of attack we use; a missile, a fighter bomb or a fighter plane.

Saddam: With them all, all the methods . . . I want as soon as possible, if we are not transferring the weapons, to issue a clear order to [those concerned] that the weapon should be in their hands ASAP. I might even give them a "non-return access." (Translator Comment: to have access to the weapons; to take them with them and not to return them). I will give them an order stating that at "one moment," if I m not there and you don't hear my voice, you will hear somebody else's voice, so you can receive the order from him, and then you can go attack your targets. I want the weapons to be distributed to targets; I want Riyadh and Jeddah, which are the biggest Saudi cities with all the decision makers, and the Saudi rulers live there. This is for the germ and chemical weapons . . . Also, all the Israeli cities, all of them. Of course you should concentrate on Tel Aviv, since it is their center.

Husayn Kamil: Sir, the best way to transport this weapon and achieve the most harmful effects would come by using planes, like a crop plane; to scatter it. This is, Sir, a thousand times more harmful. This is according to the analyses of the technicians (interrupted) . . .

Saddam: May God help us do it . . . We will never lower our heads as long as we are alive, even if we have to destroy everybody.

ROC

That was all before 1991. Thanks for pointing that out.

Say, since you included me in the 'asshole' thread for 'having all the answers" how about including yourself?

I don't speak on any topic I haven't researched with publicly available, verified information.

Thanks for being snarky about that. What a guy!!

LOL

About reconstituting WMD:

Scientific Research and Intention to Reconstitute WMD Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. Those around him at the time do not believe that he made a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs.

Saddam encouraged Iraqi officials to preserve the nation's scientific brain trust essential for WMD. Saddam told his advisors as early as 1991 that he wanted to keep Iraq's nuclear scientists fully employed. This theme of preserving personnel resources persisted throughout the sanctions period.

Saddam's primary concern was retaining a cadre of skilled scientists to facilitate reconstitution of WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, according to former science advisor Ja'far Diya' Ja'far Hashim.

Cooperating With UNSCOM While Preserving WMD

Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction.

Iraqi behavior under sanctions reflects the interplay between Saddam's perceived requirements for WMD and his confidence in the Regime's ability to ride out inspections without full compliance, and the perceived costs and longevity of sanctions. The Iraqis never got the balance right.

According to Abd Hamid Mahmud, Saddam privately told him that Iraq would reacquire WMD post-sanctions and that he was concerned about Iraq's vulnerability to Israeli WMD and Iran's growing nuclear threat.

Looking Ahead to Resume WMD Programs

The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC's resolutions. Outward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities. Several senior officials also either inferred or heard Saddam say that he reserved the right to resume WMD research after sanctions.

Presidential secretary Abd Hamid Mahmud, while a detainee, wrote: "If the sanctions would have been lifted and there is no UN monitoring, then it was possible for Saddam to continue his WMD activities and in my estimation it would have been done in a total secrecy and [with] concealment because he gained from 1991 and UN decisions." But in another debrief, Huwaysh said it would take 6 months to reconstitute a mustard program.

AU-

Reading IS fundamental...

8. You think you have all the answers.


ROC, TonyRoma, Corky, Danforth, Goatman, Crasswar, JeffJ, LCL, AU, Zatoichi, RiR, Taxman, etc., etc.

I put myself first.

Thanks for being snaky about that, what a douche!

Saddam had said that after sanctions Iraq would resume production of WMD to "achieve international balance and protect the dignity of Iraq and Iraqis and the Arab nations," according to former presidential secretary Abd. Abd wrote while a detainee, "He [Saddam] would say if only Iraq possessed the nuclear weapon then no one would commit acts of aggression on it or any other Arab country, and the Palestinian issue would be solved peacefully because of Iraq."

Saddam would have restarted WMD programs, beginning with the nuclear program, after sanctions, according to Tariq Aziz. Saddam never formally stated this intention, according to Aziz, but he did not believe other countries in the region should be able to have WMD when Iraq could not. Aziz assessed that Iraq could have a WMD capability within two years of the end of sanctions.

Saddam's intent to maintain and compartment WMD capabilities was well known and often acknowledged by high level authorities, according to a senior Al Kindi State Company official. The Minister of Military Industrialization allegedly told the source that Saddam wanted a WMD program "on the shelf."

Huwaysh believed that Saddam would base his decision regarding future Iraqi WMD development on how the Security Council followed through on its promise in paragraph 14 to establish "in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery." If this promise was not fulfilled, Iraq should be free to act in its own interests. During an earlier debrief Huwaysh speculated that Iraq would have reconstituted many of its proscribed programs within five years if OIF had not occurred.

During a custodial interview, Saddam, when asked whether he would reconstitute WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, implied that Iraq would have done what was necessary.

Oh wait, that's not a threat in your world.

ROC, TonyRoma, Corky, Danforth, Goatman, Crasswar, JeffJ, LCL, AU, Zatoichi, RiR, Taxman, etc., etc.

I put myself first.

ROC

Right you are.... i said

Bwhahahahahhaha You gotta just love the fucking desperation of those who supported the Iraq War and the need to justify it bwhahahahahahhah God this is funnnnnnn. Pray Tell ROC why Colin Powell Condi Rice and even Dick Cheney declared Saddam Hussein a NONTHREAT before it became politically advantagous to state otherwise?? You guys are Bankrupt and now are desperate to hold onto anything so Your guts stop churning. bwhahahahah God this is just great.

Larry Mohr

AU-

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you are relatively new here and seem to be one of the more thoughtful lefties. However, an unwarranted attack, followed by a statement like this:

I don't speak on any topic I haven't researched with publicly available, verified information.

leads to the conclusion that you certainly will make an unfounded statement without comprehending what you read.

I have no answers; They generate more questions nonlinearly.
What's a quark? No one knows.
But I have some cool pictures; And a lot of new questions.
And The Goddess (in 1969, let's be realistic) made Heidi look Klumsy.
So there.
Party on.

Larry-

We have been over this, all of these quotes are from 2004, and if you don't think that Saddam would have gotten WMD's within months of sanctions lifting, then you are deluded.

The world isn't as simple as you, Troofy, Dboy and Danni wish to think it is. Alliances shift on a daily basis, and the only interests that any country will ever keep true to are its own.

We have been over this, all of these quotes are from 2004, and if you don't think that Saddam would have gotten WMD's within months of sanctions lifting, then you are deluded.

The world isn't as simple as you, Troofy, Dboy and Danni wish to think it is. Alliances shift on a daily basis, and the only interests that any country will ever keep true to are its own.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-28 07:50 PM | Reply


No SIr not by a long shot quit rewriti9ng History Yourself. Those quotes were from 2001 NOT 2004 Please try yet again ROC for the truth is not on Your side once again.

Larry Mohr

Larry, the sections that I am quoting are from the "DCI Special Advisor Report on Iraq's WMD" published in 2004, that I linked to in my 2:47pm post.

Please try to keep up.

Larry, the sections that I am quoting are from the "DCI Special Advisor Report on Iraq's WMD" published in 2004, that I linked to in my 2:47pm post.

Please try to keep up.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-28 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NO You don't You don't get to spin this one. We haven't been over the quotes You are espousing to. You are refering to the quotes of Colin Powell Dick Cheney and COndyi Rice because WE have NEVER had a discussion over the postings that You have made here today EVER. Please do keep up ROC.

Larry Mohr

AmericanUnity THAT is one of them that I was referencing with regards to DIck Cheney. These Bushites are trying desperately to justify the unjustifiable and I think it is a damned shame and quite funny. Amazing isn't it.

Larry Mohr

American Unity-
"several hundred thousand troops"

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers -- are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

Oh. And I included Wolfowitz's statement of "no history of ethnic strife in Iraq" just for kicks.

Larry,

How can anyone argue with Bush and Cheney's OWN words?

Crystal clear facts are so inconvenient for some.

9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq and the only thing it changed was the general public's willingness to support a war in the ME.

Everyone from 1991 to 2002 thought Saddam had WMD's and knew that he had used them on his own people. Saddam, to his eternal damnation, never did anything to disabuse the world of that notion, which ultimately resulted in the Security Council's unanimous decision on 8 November 2002 to adopt Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in "material breach of all its obligations under relevant resolutions."

AUMJ followed shortly thereafter.

The thing that most people forget about UNSCR 1441 is that it found Iraq to be in Material Breach, which was the basis ultimately for the UN declaring the US and UK as "rightful military occupiers", which is a de facto approval of the invasion by the Security Council.

The thing that most people forget about UNSCR 1441 is that it found Iraq to be in Material Breach, which was the basis ultimately for the UN declaring the US and UK as "rightful military occupiers", which is a de facto approval of the invasion by the Security Council.


Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-28 08:09 PM | Reply


Oh No You don't You don't get to justify an Unjustifiable act by declaring the Legit Occupiers somehow gives sanction to breaking the UN Resolution 1441. Because the United States and Great Brittan have veto power it would have been impossible for the UN Security Council to sanction the United States and Great Brittan for violating UN Resolution 1441. The reason for the legitimacy of occupation is trying to make the best out of a bad situation. It is intellectually dishonest to even suggest it was de facto approval of US and Great brittan for the flagrant violation of UN Resolution 1441. Nice try once again ROC.

Larry Mohr

How can anyone argue with Bush and Cheney's OWN words?

Crystal clear facts are so inconvenient for some.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-11-28 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Only an intellecually dishonest person would try that.

Larry Mohr

Larry, I am talking about the quotes from the DCI's report that I just blockquoted above, not the Youtube clips that AU likes to trot out from time to time.

Troofy was cherrypicking from the DCI report to "prove" that it said that Saddam was not a threat, I was merely posting whole sections that discuss how he was a continuing threat.

As for AU's Youtube segments, politicians will say anything to get elected or even get airtime: I have studied politics long enough to know that what they say when they are out of office or running for office is not worth the paper it is printed on, but what they do when they are in office is what counts. I'm pretty sure that most of the country would have preferred Bush the candidate to what we actually got as President.

ROC

Ever consider that Saddam didn't want his neighbors or the world to know he didn't have WMD capability? if they had, who knows? Maybe Iran would have just decided to pour across the border. Not like they weren't at war for years.

As afraid as he was of Al Qaeda threatening his power, he surely would have been scared of people knowing just how little a threat he posed to anyone.

ROC

Bush didn't say it once. He expressed multiple times his adamant views on the use of the U.S. military. If you don't think he meant it, then he's a liar who should be held to the fire.

Cheney wasn't running for anything in 1994, or when he made that statement to Tim Russert, or the other times he said Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and wasn't a threat - until he then starting pounding on the completely OPPOSITE set of arguments in favor of invading.

I have to head to the studio. Later.

Gee, and that is just from the first page...



Posted by Rightocenter at



INtention is not a threat.

Period.

"Everyone from 1991 to 2002 thought Saddam had WMD"



I don't think "wrong" quite encompasses the error inherent in that statement.

Actually Powell's little charade in front of the UN was the death of the last vestige of credibility of this administration. What followed was a magnificent validation of cognitive dissonance theory.

Looking Ahead to Resume WMD Programs




intention is not a threat.

Larry-

France, Russia and China also have veto power and could have blocked the military occupiers designation if it was illegal, but they didn't.

As for UNSCR 1441, the US and the UK didn't violate it, Iraq did with uneven compliance and ultimate refusal to "provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wished to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded and private accessto all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA chose to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates."

Saddam would have restarted WMD programs, beginning with the nuclear program, after sanctions, according to Tariq Aziz.




would have should have could have.

intention is not a threat.

after sanctions, ok keep sanctions,

war as last resort.

therefore, no threat

therefore war illegal.

thank you for proving my point.

Everyone from 1991 to 2002 thought Saddam had WMD's and knew that he had used them on his own people.




ahhhh wrong.

hans blix

NO EVIDENCE

Al Baradei

NO EVIDENCE

yellow cake proven falsehood

italian forged documents KNOWN to be in error.

sorry you are wrong and intentionally deceiving.

Troofy-

Capability is a threat.
Evidence of prior usage is a threat.
Refusal to comply with 13 UNSCR resolutions is a threat.
Discussing bombing Riyadh, Jeddah, Kuwait City, Tel Aviv and every other city in Israel with chemical agents is a threat.
Having a plan to immediately restart your nuclear weapons program with the goal of getting a nuke in two years is a threat.

If you find out that I can get a gun and when i get it "intend" to use it to shot you when your back is turned, am I a threat?

"Everyone from 1991 to 2002 thought Saddam had WMD"



I don't think "wrong" quite encompasses the error inherent in that statement.

Actually Powell's little charade in front of the UN was the death of the last vestige of credibility of this administration. What followed was a magnificent validation of cognitive dissonance theory.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-11-28 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag:


That's the understatement of the evening, but well said.

France, Russia and China also have veto power and could have blocked the military occupiers designation if it was illegal, but they didn't.

As for UNSCR 1441, the US and the UK didn't violate it, Iraq did with uneven compliance and ultimate refusal to "provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wished to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded and private accessto all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA chose to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates."

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-28 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


You are being so intellectually Dishonest it's not even funny anymore. First off The United States and Great Brittan having Veto Power would quash any attempt from France Russia and China for trying to stop the invasion. You are being 100% dishonest here. Number 2 Yes the United STtaes and Great Brittan violated UN Resolution 1441 because it never authorized the use of Military forces in Iraq. Please try and be honest for once. I know it's hard for a Lawyer to do but at least try. The end of the UN Resolution 1441 declares and I quote.

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Troofy, Zat, etc.

"thought" is the operative term here...do I really need to post quotes from all of the Dems in the Clinton Admninistration through to the day of the AUMF who "thought", through intelligence provided by George Tenet's CIA, that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat?

Didn't think so.

The world isn't as simple as you, Troofy, Dboy and Danni wish to think it is. Alliances shift on a daily basis, and the only interests that any country will ever keep true to are its own.

Posted by Rightocenter at



actually it is.

bush wanted a war with iraq and used whatever justifications to start one.

why is debatable.

what is not debatable is whether sh was a threat.

he was not

all the lists of potentialities nad intentions are not a threat.

RightOcenter will never concede that he was bullshitted into the war, and I don't really care.

You disgust Me with Your Intellectual Dishonesty ROC Laters

Larry Mohr

Larry-

The UN never relinquishes its authority, even after the initiation of peacekeeping missions or the start of Desert Storm.

However, and I am sure you remember our discussions regarding the Supremacy clause, that is not binding on the US, since the War Powers Act allows Congress to give the power to take military action to the President, regardless of what a treaty might say.

France, Russia and China also have veto power and could have blocked the military occupiers designation if it was illegal, but they didn't.


funny you bring them up, have you read their comments on 1441 ie no automatic trigger for invasion, a call for a second resolution

something the us agreed to, a resolution bush drafted and said no matter what he would call a vote on and yet he didnt call a vote on...

I was merely posting whole sections that discuss how he was a continuing threat.




and you posted nothing other than interpretations that he INTENDED on becoming a threat

he was not a threat.

RightOcenter will never concede that he was bullshitted into the war, and I don't really care.

Posted by Cooper at 2007-11-28 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You got that so correct Cooper. His Gust are churning yet He lashes out. It's quite funny if You ask Me.

Larry Mohr

dems schmems


You really don't get it.

In a nutshell: You're Mozart or you're fertilizer.

But then Mozart is fertilizer, too; But not his music.

Alas, I must retire to my pristine vinyl.

You disgust Me with Your Intellectual Dishonesty ROC Laters

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-11-28 08:37 PM

You forgot your other favorite word, "bloviating".

Boydbadweekazakcooper-

Great to have you in on the conversation, your additions have been poignant and insightful into how you think, as always.

However, and I am sure you remember our discussions regarding the Supremacy clause, that is not binding on the US, since the War Powers Act allows Congress to give the power to take military action to the President, regardless of what a treaty might say.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-28 08:38 PM | Reply


You Intellectually DIsgust Me. You know God Damned good and well that the UN Cghharter is Binding upon the United States it is even Binding upon the Military as well since it is a part of its UCMJ vcodes. Why do You continually deny this I don't know but You are so wrong it's not even funny ROC. But what can I expect from a supporter of an Illegal action.

Larry Mohr

Troofy-

bush wanted a war with iraq and used whatever justifications to start one.

I agree with you there, and the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussien gave him the reason that he used to invade.

Oh and BTW ROC the UN Only sanctioned the Military for the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait THAT is it no more. Nice try once again at being wrong ROC. It was kept under UN Resolution 686 BUT was formally ended in UN Resolution 687 articles 33 and 34 respectfuly. Try again ROC.

Larry Mohr

Capability is a threat.-

TH: He had no capability see the summaries on nuclear, Biologic and chemical weapons.

Evidence of prior usage is a threat.

TH: so we go to war in 2003 cause he used WMD 10 years earlier even though he had NO wmd?

Refusal to comply with 13 UNSCR resolutions is a threat.


TH: but in actuality he had complied as determied to the extent possible by blix and al baradei the experts on the UNSCR resolutions.

Discussing bombing Riyadh, Jeddah, Kuwait City,
Tel Aviv and every other city in Israel with chemical agents is a threat.

TH: when? 1991?

Having a plan to immediately restart your nuclear weapons program with the goal of getting a nuke in two years is a threat.

TH: intention/plan is not a threat, we have plans to invade Canada, that does not make us a threat to Canada.

Larry-

Reread the Supremacy Clause, it lists the order of preference: Constitution, Laws of the United States, then Treaties.

Under standard conflicts analysis, you start from the bottom, then move up: if a treaty conflicts with a provision of US Law, the US Law prevails, if the Law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.

I can find the US caselaw that supports this if you want me to, I have had to find it more then once when we have had this little discussion.

Laters I am gonna go break the bachelor law of ethics and do dishes back soon.

Larry Mohr

Troofy-

I don't own a gun, but can get one pretty quickly. You know that I am going to shoot you when I get one. Am I a threat?

not if you live far away from me under police supervision and I own many many many more guns and have lots of info on your gun acquisition capabilities or are you saying it would be ok if I went over and shot you before you obtained your gun?

going to spend some QT with the wife, peace out

Under standard conflicts analysis, you start from the bottom, then move up: if a treaty conflicts with a provision of US Law, the US Law prevails, if the Law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.

I can find the US caselaw that supports this if you want me to, I have had to find it more then once when we have had this little discussion.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-11-28 08:49 PM | Reply


That is incorrect it is in the order they came if a treaty comes after a US Law the treaty Prevails. If the US Law comes after the treaty then the Law prevails BUt in this instance it states the treaty in the law therefore the UN Chaqrter is NOT superceded by the US Law. Nice try once again ROC. Typical of You isn't it. IT WAS ILLEGAL no matter how You slice it.

Larry Mohr

going to spend some QT with the wife, peace out

Now Laterz

Larry Mohr

AU-

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you are relatively new here and seem to be one of the more thoughtful lefties. However, an unwarranted attack, followed by a statement like this:

ROC

The perfectly innocent reason I said something about you listing me on the other thread is I did not see the abbreviation of your name because it was first in your post and abbreviated as ROC, not RIGHTOFCENTER. The abbreviation didn't grab my eye. I usually copy and paste a quote and your name. Not used to really reading ROC at the end of yours. That's all there was to that. I did acknowledge my mistake already.

It doesn't bear on reading an article or being informed about a topic. Just a simple oversight in this case.

PS Did I say in this post yours wasn't on it? :-)

Truth hurts.

I love how ROC accused me on the 'Asshole' thread as someone who has all the answers. If reading readiily available information and quoting or referring to it as you did makes me an asshole, then I'm proud to be one.

Did I attack you? Nope. I'm proud to be called an asshole if it means I check my sources or am informed on a topic before posting and only opinionate on anything else if I happen to have one.

AU You have to understand folks like ROC are desperate to justify the unjustifiable that they will spew just about anything in that persuit to justify it in their minds because their guts are churning mightily because they supported something so dastardly it's hurting them mightily. I find it humourous. Typical too.

Larry Mohr

Larry

Ya. I was actually paying a compliment to RightOfCenter for including me.

I'm proud to post Cheney and Bush's videos. In fact, I agree with what BOTH of them said in their YouTube videos. What I disagree with is them doing the complete opposite when in power - with obvious and tragic results. Results that were predicted with 100% accuracy well before either of them moved into their offices in the WH.

Cheney's interview with Tim Russert was 5 days after 9/11. Seems he thought Saddam was 'boxed in' and not an immediate threat.

Wish they hadn't done a complete flip-flop. We'd be a lot better off.

Cheney does not have the final say in anything, and yes, American troops should have been pulled out of Germany and Japan years ago.

What Bush will almost surely be pushing for is permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, enshrined in a pact he can sign a few months before he leaves office. And here, as they used to say, is the beauty part: As far as Bush is concerned, he doesn't have to seek congressional ratification for such an enduring commitment of American force, treasure and lives.

"We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress," Lute said. The administration is looking to sign a status-of-forces agreement, which requires Senate ratification if it's classified as a treaty but not if it's classified as an executive agreement. One need not be able to solve the riddle of the Sphinx to guess which of those classifications the Bush White House will go for.
ad_icon

But if Bush tries to lock the next president into permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, he may also be locking in a Democrat as the next president. Ironically, just when events on the ground in Iraq aren't looking as disastrous as they did six months ago, Bush's efforts to make the U.S. presence permanent would drape the necks of the Republican presidential and congressional candidates with one large, squawking albatross.

Having to defend permanent U.S. bases in Iraq would be difficult enough for Republicans on the 2008 ballot. There are a few major differences, after all, between Iraq and states such as Germany, Japan and South Korea, where we've stationed forces for more than half a century. For starters, those countries are internally peaceable, and their governments are recognized as legitimate by their citizens. Nobody is setting roadside bombs or shooting at our troops or contesting the authority of their government to govern.

But imagine the political dilemma for Republican candidates if Bush argues that he can put such an agreement into effect without getting Congress's approval. A lame-duck president with a 30 percent approval rating would be claiming that he alone has the authority to keep our Iraqi occupation going for years to come, preempting the power of both Congress and the next president to chart a different course. What would nominee Romney or Giuliani or McCain have to say about that? What would the Republicans in Congress do? Thus far, they've all proven themselves utterly incapable of breaking with Bush on the war.

By negotiating such an accord, Bush would in fact ensure that the 2008 election becomes the last thing the Republicans can afford: a referendum on Bush and his war. If the dividing line between the two parties is that one backs Bush on Iraq and the other does not, the Republicans might as well give up the ghost and nominate Dick Cheney as their presidential standard-bearer. Bush's policy legacy, in short, poses a serious threat to what one presumes he wishes his political legacy to be -- a thriving Republican Party.

AU-

PS Did I say in this post yours wasn't on it?

Not that it matters, and the initial post didn't rise to the level of needing a retort, since while it was clear, within the context of the entire post that you were slightly miffed at your inclusion, your reaction was actually slightly amusing. Where you deserved the retort is when you said this on this later post:

Say, since you included me in the 'asshole' thread for 'having all the answers" how about including yourself?

I have been called ROC, Righto and far worse things in the 4+ years I have been posting here, but its cool. Besides, as I said earlier, we were having an intelligent conversation which was actually finding common ground until the loonies jumped in.

:^)

Larry-

That is incorrect it is in the order they came if a treaty comes after a US Law the treaty Prevails. If the US Law comes after the treaty then the Law prevails BUt in this instance it states the treaty in the law therefore the UN Chaqrter is NOT superceded by the US Law.

Not exactly correct. If a treaty is entered into that conflicts with a law interpreting, impacting or implementing powers innumerated in the Constitution, the Federal Law still prevails regardless of timing. The War Powers Act is a direct result of the Congress' need to implement a proceedure to claify Article I Section 8, and was enacted in 1973. Under those circumstances, your analysis fails twofold: The WPA was in 1973, the UN Charter was in 1945; and the WPA construes Art. I Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

As for the AUMF, all it says is that the President shall enforce all relevant UNSCR's, including 1441, which stated that Saddam was in material breach of prior resolutions. Merely mentioning enforcement of the resoltions does not incorporate the UN Charter into the AUMF, not by a longshot.

I will grant you that the Bush Administration could have waited longer, but the legal argument that the war was illegal under US law is a non-starter, and is pretty thin from an international law standpoint as well.

NG3-

Clearly, that post was far more cogent then anything that you could write yourself, please give us the link so that we can read it for ourselves.

ROC

Like I said, it was an honest mistake.

AU :-)

I will grant you that the Bush Administration could have waited longer, but the legal argument that the war was illegal under US law is a non-starter, and is pretty thin from an international law standpoint as well.

Posted by rightocenter at 2007-11-29 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Keep lying to Yourself ROC it will help You sleep at night but You are dead wrong and You know it too.

Larry Mohr

Actually, Larry, I did a lot of research on this issue a number of years back regarding the interplay of a UNESCO media initiative and its interplay with Federal Law and FCC regulations, and Righto's analysis as to the interplay of the UN Charter and the United States Code is pretty much spot on as it relates to US law.

I do take issue with his statement that the invasion of Iraq would pass muster under international law, since they truly view the US Constitution as a "piece of paper".

I will grant you that the Bush Administration could have waited longer, but the legal argument that the war was illegal under US law is a non-starter, and is pretty thin from an international law standpoint as well.

Posted by rightocenter at 2007-11-29 01:08 PM | Reply


actually it is a matter for the jury.

did Iraq pose a "..continuing threat..."?

and the answer is no.

bush broke the law