Post-War Iraq

[Yerdaddy]

Nobody doubted that the US would easily win the military campaign in Iraq. The question of success or failure then will be determined by how much the administration follows through on the promises of rebuilding Iraq society and building a democracy. There are many aspects to this: whether, in the end, Americans are seen as liberators or occupiers by the Iraqis themselves and the world as a whole, how well they can maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, how well they can rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq (restore power, water, sewage, water treatment, hospitals, schools, courts, etc.), provide security, prevent sectarian violence and revenge killings, bringing members of the Baathist regime to justice and vetting the low-level members to restore them to the buearocracy restore the economy of Iraq to one that allows its resources to benefit all the Iraqi people and not just a small elite or foreign buisinesses, creating a government that both represents the interests of all the different regions, tribes, religious and ethnic groups, and is able to survive on its own after the US leaves.

There are also things that the US cannot do. It can't install a government in Iraq and say the Iraqis chose it. It can't privatize the Iraqi oil industry without a stable system for the future Iraqi government to collect and dispence the revenues from oil fairly among the Iraqi people. It can't complain about the cost of reconstruction and bail out too early. It can't carry out reconstrucion in secret, which would leave the new government with no credibilty and prompt foreign and internal opposition groups a mechanism for undermining its authority. It can't deny the international community a role in the rebuilding and relationships with Iraq in the future - it would undermine the new government's credibility, deny the Iraqis the services that the international community can provide, and cannot be claimed to be the will of the Iraqi people.

There is so much more that has to be done, (and many more things that can go wrong), but this is how this war will be judged in the future, and what will determine the effects the war will have on US security and goals in the long run.

This is also the part of this adventure that will be difficult to keep track of and predict the future of. While I could look at the TV see graphs of what was happening in the military campaign, (if a day or so behind actual events), knowing what is going on in the rebuilding is more like looking for a book in one Baghdad's looted libraries.

So I'm going to use this thread to post links and resources and to babble on about what I see and think about what is happening. I'm sure it will become another Jerry Springer political bitch fight, and I'm sure I'll get the usual attacks on my politics, my patriotism, my loyalties, and what I like to do with animals in the privacy of my own home, but that's probably the funniest shit on this board. I will ignore most of the dumb stuff anyway. (As a preemptive attack I will say this: If you don't like what I say, you're stupid and your momma dresses you funny.)

Also, I'm talking about what I want to do here, but I'm hoping that other people here who are genuinely interested in what's going on In Iraq will use this thread to share information in the same way. I also hope that the moderators will help keep this thread from degrading into petty personal fueds and personal attacks, (except mine), unless they're really funny.


I'm starting with the basics: some general resources on what is at stake, what experts expect to be the challenges, and who is who in Iraq today.

[PDF]<a href="http://www.csis.org/isp/wiserpeace.pdf" target="_blank">A Wiser Peace: An Action Strategy for a Post-Conflict Iraq </a> This is a report put out by CSIS before the war with suggestions on the steps that should have taken prior to the war to ensure success in the post-war phase. SCIS is a prestigious international relations think tank in Washington that, in my opinion, doesn't have a particular ideological slant, has some very expe

[furie]

you lost me. What was that second one again?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[Recyclerz]

Look who's back, all tanned rested & ready.

Welcome back Yerdaddy! (even if this means I have to think up a new slogan)

More resources:

James Fallow's article in last Nov. Atlantic Monthly
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm

A little dated since the active war part went pretty damn smoothly but a good analysis of what comes next (even if it looks like he's underestimated the Shi'ite ability to mobilize by a bit).

Tom Friedman's columns are also essential reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html

(You have to register at NYTimes.com but its still free)




[b]Free Yerdaddy![b]

[DarkHippie]

welcome back!!!!

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[TheGameHHH]

I don't really care about your thread, I just wanna know when they let you out of "extended vacation prison"?

<img src= http://wwfallon.homestead.com/files/RFnetTheGameHHH2.jpg>

[Yerdaddy]

I released myself on my own recognizance.

FREE ASS!

[Arienette]

i read the whole thread and i have nothing to say in response. as usual, it was informative and well written. i'm posting for another reason entirely...

FREE ASS!i'm in.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/arisubway.gif" height=100 width=300</img>

we hope your rules and wisdom choke you</center>

[cheezeemee]

prevent secratarian violence and revenge killings


I didn't know secrateries were violent. Welcome back Son Of Sarandon
:)

<HTML>
<style="color:red">
<CENTER>
<IMG src="http://czm.racknine.net/images/superposter.jpg" border="">
</A>
<MARQUEE>I promised my wife no drinking tonight...........OK, just one............We're going streaking!</MARQUEE>
</CENTER></HTML>

[NewYorkDragons80]

Who do you think should lead Iraq? Among the names we have heard, Sharif Ali bin AlHussein strikes me as the best candidate. He is an exile, but at least people know who he is. He also was a member of the INC, which means he will be willing to work with all factions. Chalabi seems like an honorable man, but I don't see an outsider like him having a credible government. He would make an excellent Foreign Minister, in my opinion. This analogy differs in MANY ways and this is a very simplified view, but we do not want another Diem.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[GaryWyze]

<font color=purple>Your first paragraph seems to contradict the one that follows it. How are we to "create a government" while not "installing one?"

And isn't it be gonna be kinda hard to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, secure her borders, keep the peace between all her varying (and often times warring) fractions, set up their economy, get all the utilities up & running, and yet not be seen as imposing our way of life upon the Iraqi people? You can't run the show, without running the show.

As for the International Community's right to help in the efforts to rebuild, I might have to disagree with you there. It only seems fair that the countries who are actually responsible for freeing Iraq, incurring all the cost and suffering the lost of life within its armed forces, should have 1st crack at whatever rebuilding contracts lay ahead.

We shouldn't be there forever. And certainly all present & future oil profits belong to the Iraqi people. But for the foreseeable future, we need to be calling the shots. As we learned from all the looting, it's way too early to be so hands-off.

Truth be told, I'm not very optimistic about the long term future. And while I hope we play a pivotal part in restructuring Iraq, I don't think we owe it to them to do so.

I only had a chance to glance at your links, I'll give them a better read tomorrow.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<



This message was edited by GaryWyze on 4-24-03 @ 2:25 AM

[A.J.]

and what I like to do with animals in the privacy of my own home,


It don't make you a bad person.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[Yerdaddy]

i'm in.
ow!

Your first paragraph seems to contradict the one that follows it. How are we to "create a government" while not "installing one?"
Who do you think should lead Iraq?

I think it's more important to think in terms of bringing the the myriad leaders together as Founding Fathers of Iraq, because if you look at what was most important to what America has become, it is not George Washington, but the Constitution. (Not that Washington wasn't one of the greatest leaders in history, and I would probably favor a guy to lead Iraq if he didn't want the job). So I think that picking a leader should be postponed as long as possible, (which isn't very long), while the leaders diaspora can be brought together to set up a constitution that all the groups can have a stake in. We know there are going to be spoilers, some groups are not going to have their ambitions satisfied by the new system and the first president will need almost as much security as Saddam did to prevent assassination.

Chalabi's got too many problems. 1) He's got that conviction in Jordan for embezzling $300 million and tanking the bank he set up there. I don't trust the conviction as much as I would if it was an American court that convicted him, but it still matters. His explaination was that he was framed by Saddam's agents, but Saddam's agents have never been anything but inept in pulling off overseas actions. 2) I don't see much from him except personal ambition. I don't see from him an understanding and dedication to democratic institutions in Iraq. That's not to say he doesn't want what's best for the Iraqi people, but I haven't seen how he's qualified for national leadership. 3) He couldn't hold together the INC coalition with the Kurds and other exile groups. The PUK and KDP pulled out because they saw it as a personal platform for Chalabi, and only met with it again when they thought there was US funding to be funnelled through it. 4) No internal base of support in Iraq. 5) Most importantly, he's way to close to the Pentagon and the administration hawks. Even if he's the perfect candidate for the job, he won't ever shed the label of "puppet" if he gains a top leadership position. I think he could only be seen by the outside world as a Diem, or better yet a Shaw of Iran. So the backing of the US has got him where he is today, (literally, by airlifting him into Iraq), it is the kiss of death if his ambition is to be President.

The monarchy might not be a bad idea, as long as we hear the term "constitutional monarchy" from al-Hussein. He would be the royal guy to go to. The monarchists would appeal to Iraqi nationalism, which would help to counter the religious and ethnic rivalries.

I guess if I had to pick a guy I guess it would be Adnan Pachachi. He's a technocrat who has a good reputation with the (relatively) progressive Arab countries. He's a secularist. But most of all, he's talked about the things that I want to hear from an Iraqi leadership, which is the process of setting up a constitution through consultation with the entire adult Iraqi population.

I'll post his entire OP-ED because the only versions I found on the web were messy reposts of the original.

[quote]COMMENT & ANALYSIS: Iraq's route to a democratic future
By Adnan Pachachi
Financial Times; Mar 03, 2003

Post-conflict Iraq, rather than the conflict itself, has become the focus of global attention. Two options dominate current thinking: US military rule, or a government in exile. Both are flawed and counter-productive. The former is oblivious to a vibrant Iraqi nationalism; the latter ignores the aspirations of massive anti-Ba'athist forces inside the country.

This is the reason I have rejected offers to take a leading part in the arrangements for the post-Saddam era. Last week, Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, invited me to join the leadership of the Iraqi opposition. I declined for three reasons. First, I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of such a group or its representat

[Yerdaddy]

And isn't it be gonna be kinda hard to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, secure her borders, keep the peace between all her varying (and often times warring) fractions, set up their economy, get all the utilities up & running, and yet not be seen as imposing our way of life upon the Iraqi people? You can't run the show, without running the show.

As for "warring factions," if you look at Iraq's history, most of what would be considered warring has been limited to warring against the regime in power, and mostly Saddam's regime. In the Iran/Iraq war, the Shiia chose not to support the Iranians against Iraq, and the Kurds have fought the central goverment in furtherance of general Kurdish aspirations for an independent Kurdistan. But the ethnic and religious groups of Iraq don't have a history of warring against each other. That's not to say that internal violence is not a risk, should the attempt to restore a broad-based central government go badly, especially between the 60% majority Shiia, who have long been repressed by the ruling 20% Sunni. But Iraqi nationalism, and an honest attempt to create a representative central governmental system, (probably federal), should be strong enough to keep this violence to a minimum.

As for the rest of your question and the one about us not having the responsibility to rebuild Iraq, it's an interesting point about how much this current situation is similar to colonial powers of the past, and the way they transitioned their colonies to independence. Britain handled this transition the best, (Israel/Palestine notwithstanding). But India and the United States are good examples of how British colonies got off to a good start by being British colonies rather than French, Belgian or Dutch colonies. India has a thriving democracy, and the US was the template for the emergence of democracy, because the British were not afraid to involve its subjects in running of the colonies' affairs, and applying its humanist values to its coloial subjects. In the case of India and the colonies that it voluntairly gave up, it did so with the hopes that the colony would be a successful independent state.

Contrast this with the Belgian colony of the Congo, which was marked not just by the brutality of the colonial period, but by the apathy and neglect of the future of the colony after decolonization. The Belgians refused to involve Congolese in the administration of the territory, all the way up to the end of Belgian rule. The result was competition for power, made worse by a lack of bureaucratic skills necessary for running a country.

Somewhere inbetween was the Dutch rule of Indonesia, which gave locals a low-level role in running its affairs, and gave up its colonies after WWII only reluctantly and while still trying to retain control over the vast business interests of the Dutch East India Company. Today Indonesia is only now evolving a democracy after 32 years of military dictatorship, and is still considered one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

This is an oversimplification of colonial history, but the point about how to transition rule of a country to its independence is critical for what kind of country you have to deal with in the future. So we can only abdicate our responsibilty to rebuild Iraq if we don't care if Saddam is replaced by another dictatorship, or a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist-sponsoring regime. Given, also that Iraq holds the second largest known oil reserves, and that President Bush, in selling this war to the US and the world has promised to rebuild Iraq, we do have the responsibility to rebuild Iraq, for both moral and practical reasons.

As for running the show without running the show, it is the case that we are both occupiers and liberators of Iraq. But by following the reccommendations of the resources I've posted above, by involving legitimate Iraqi leaders and consulting, through referendums, the broadest possible section of the population as possible to set up the institutions of government and civil society, (much of which al

[Gvac]

Nobody doubted that the US would easily win the military campaign in Iraq.
Really? I seem to recall more than a few politicians and so-called "pundits" fearing a "quagmire" and "another Vietnam."

That being said, I believe ex-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be an excellent candidate for President of Iraq.

http://gvac.50megs.com/images/militarysalute.jpg

[NewYorkDragons80]

After reading about his views, Adnan Pachachi seems like a viable candidate. If anyone has a chance, read Newsweek's Special Report on Iraq. I don't know the date of its release, but it has a picture of an Iraqi kissing a US soldier. "How to Wage the Peace" on page 38 is a very informative article.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/899469.asp" target="_blank">How to Wage the Peace</a>

I fucking hate MSNBC's web layout! I'll spend the next half-hour extracting the text so I can print it and read it later.

<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact2" target="_blank>THE ANGLOPHONE EMPIRE</a> - An interesting analogy to the British in India and Pakistan.

FREE YERBOOBIES!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 4-24-03 @ 7:54 PM

[TheMojoPin]

That being said, I believe ex-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be an excellent candidate for President of Iraq.

<img src=http://www.bipd.co.uk/images/photo.gif>

Outside of the man that killed him and Arafat, I can't think of one person who has done more to undermine everything Rabin accomplished in terms of Israel's chances for peace in the last 20 years. Ugh.

Seriously though, do you think the Iraqis would stand for a non-Iraqi as their leader? Seems a little bit much...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-25-03 @ 1:14 AM

[FiveB247]

http://www.cfr.org/background/afghanistan_building.php

Interesting comparisons and thoughts...

[Yerdaddy]

So much for the Iraqis choosing their own leaders. A month ago he was nobody in Iraq. Now the pentagon has flown Ahmed Chalabi into Iraq on a military transport, set him up in a private club in Baghdad, and they're doling out services to the locals through him. He will be the "nucleus" of the interim Iraqi administration, giving him the opportunity to build a base of power to establish himself as the guy to go to if you need something from the US. This is bullshit. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42734-2003Apr26.html" target="_blank">Exile Finds Ties To U.S. a Boon And a Barrier </a>

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42919-2003Apr26.html" target="_blank">U.S.-Saudi Alliance Appears Strong</a> - Role of Saudi Arabia in the war - but they can't tell their people.
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=10&u=/nm/20030425/pl_nm/iraq_usa_government_dc_3" target="_blank">Defense, State Differ on How to Handle Shi'ites</a>
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact2" target="_blank>THE ANGLOPHONE EMPIRE</a> - An interesting analogy to the British in India and Pakistan.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/28/international/worldspecial/28OIL.html" target="_blank">Iraqis Anxiously Await Decisions About the Oil Industry</a>
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20030428/ts_nm/iraq_dc&e=1" target="_blank">Garner to Convene 'Representative' Baghdad Meeting</a> Today

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[high fly]

YERDADDY-- good going with all the info and in reading much on the situation.
I can't see Iraq embracing democracy and a western style economic system as the sun emerges from the clouds, the strings swell, and the choir soars in glorious harmony.
With the various factions looking to settle scores and shamelessly grasp at power, plus the general lust for blood, I see nothing but bad times ahead.
Anyone think Syria, Iran, and others will not work covertly to see to it that another despotic bunch of bastards end up running Iraq? It's in their interest to see democracy and a free market fail, because should it succeed in Iraq, then their citizens will want the same thing.
Anyone going along with whatever we try over there will be seen as the arab equivalent of an "uncle tom".


" and they ask me why I drink"

[NewYorkDragons80]

I think selecting Calabi to head a government in Iraq is suicide at its finest hour. Like I already said in this thread, Chalabi is a good man, and his lingual and diplomatic abilities make him an obvious choice for foreign minister, but he must not lead this country.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

[high fly]

Is Calabi the guy that does the breast implants on the Stern show?
Dr. Calabi?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yermommy]

Why are you always talking politics! Come home now!

So I'm here! Fez is queer! I will not disappear! Thhhank you!

[Meatball]

Yerdaddy - isnt instigating political liberalism a violation of your parole???

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/meatball1.jpg">

[TheMojoPin]

I was always spooked out by the cabinet of Dr. Calabi...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

Freedom in Iraq means more whores on the streets!

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=200304291147000227679&dt=20030429114700&w=RTR&coview=

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[Yerdaddy]

Freedom in Iraq means more whores on the streets!
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2987585.stm" target="_blank">Rumsfeld flies to Baghdad</a> - Coincidence?

isnt instigating political liberalism a violation of your parole???
Here's what I was told:
You don't hafta lift shit. You don't really work there. But as far as the records are concerned, you do. I call up Matthews, the foreman, tell him he's got a new guy. You're on the schedule. You got a timecard, it's clocked in and out for you everyday, and you get a pay check at the end of the week. And ya know dock workers don't do too bad. So you can move into a halfway decent place without Koons thinkin "what the fuck." And if Koons ever wants to make a surprise visit, you're gone that day. That day we sent you to Tustin. We gotta bunch of shit you needed to unload there. You're at the Taft airstrip pickin up a bunch of shit and bringing it back. Part of your jab is goin different places - and we got places all over the place.

high fly - Your two concearns, (sectarian violence among Iraqi groups and interference by Iraq's neigbors), are legitimate, but aren't necessarily reason for pessimism. The different religious, ethnic and tribal groups don't have a history of voilence against each other in Iraq. The vast majority of sectarian violence in Iraq's history has between the ruling authority, (mainly Saddam's Baath party), and the various groups, not between each other. That does not mean it is not still a risk. The murder of the moderate, pro-American Shiite cleric, Abdel Majid al-Khoei, in Najaf on April 12, by rival, more militant Shiia was severe blow to the effort to promote more moderate Shiia leaders over the more extreme ones. However, widespread violence among the different Shiiite groups or between Shiia and Sunni groups. A positive message was sent on Monday, when the Shiiite group, SCIRI, which is supported by Iran but which also has had a working relationship with the US, sent a small delegation to the US-run leadership meeting in Baghdad. It seems that they, and other Shiite groups, are watching tentatively from the sidelines to see what the US does before they decide how to treat the US and the "interim authority". So far, the biggest complaint of the Shiite groups is that the leadership meetings held to date have been dominated by exile groups at the expense of groups that remained in Iraq. The US may think that the fact that Ahmed Chalabi is Shiite will allay their fears, but I think that would be a huge mistake.

Another source of tension right now is between the Kurds and the Sunnis, (and Turkomen), in the northern Iraq cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. In it's decades-long effort to subjugate the Kurds, and especiall as part of the Anfal campaign in which it gassed them in 87 and 88, Saddam's regime had implimented a policy of translocation of Sunnis onto Kurdish land and homes in and around these two cities. With such a small US military presence in the liberation of these cities, many Kurds returned to their prior homes and evicted the Sunnis from them. So far, this has only caused minor outbrakes of violence, and many of the Kurds have left the cities, but the issue of how to handle disputes over this land and property remains open and will have to be dealt with by the interrim authority. Complicating the issue is also 1) These areas, especially around Kirkuk sit on large oil reserves, and 2) the Turks have threatened to invade northern Iraq if the Kurds lay claim to them. Turkey's stated motive is to protect the Turkomen minority in the region, while its real motive is to prevent the Kurds from controlling the oil fields and using the revenue to fuel its goal of creating an independent Kurdish homeland.

The relative peace so far bodes well that there is an opportunity to prevent sectarian conflict, but the fact that the issues remain to be resolved means much depends on the decisions made by the US.

As for external interference in Iraq, see the relevent portions of the following

[zim]

This reminds me of the time i went to the old people's home and started protesting the orange juice containers and butters died.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/TheToddsterLSP/sigpics/zim.gif">
All hail Lost Sanity!

[A.J.]

Rumsfeld flies to Baghdad - Coincidence?

14th Street in DC isn't like it used to be back in the 80s.

BTW, cute sigpic. It reminded me of this pic. :)

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/1106/albright.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[TheMojoPin]

Hey, Roy Orbison doesn't look dead!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

That's Kim Jong-Wilbury!

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[Yerdaddy]

meeting with Broomhilda?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[TheMojoPin]

Bruce Li looks positively happy to be there and working again...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

"He look lika mahn!"

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Yerdaddy]

THE LOOTING:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/arts/27RICH.html?fta=y" target="_blank">And Now: 'Operation Iraqi Looting'</a> - Overview of how the administration had been warned of the risk to the museums, the precident of looting after the 1991 war, ( <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/international/worldspecial/01ARTI.html" target="_blank">Of 2,000 Treasures Stolen in Gulf War of 1991, Only 12 Have Been Recovered</a> ), it's response to public criticism of the looting, and some of the types of historical objects that may or may not have been stolen. I recently heard retired Marine Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.html" target="_blank">(who defeated the US military in a massive wargame as Saddam Hussein last year)</a>, call it "a disgrace" that the US had sufficient forces on the ground to win the war, but not to heed the warnings to provide for security after the fall of the regime, and that was part of the reason the original war plans called for 7 divisions instead of the 2, (or 3, I forget), that Rumsfeld stripped it down to.

Other problems created by the failure to provide security:
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_oil_city_2" target="_blank">Looting at Iraq Oil Fields Hurts Recovery </a>
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030501/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_oil&cid=540&ncid=1480" target="_blank">Iraqi Refinery Restarts; Looting Persists </a>
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=1&u=/afp/20030412/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_aid_030412151542" target="_blank">Aid trickles into Iraq amid scenes of chaos</a>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46027-2003Apr27.html" target="_blank">Looting Is a Double Loss for U.S. Forces</a> - Looted weapons are now on the streets.
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030421/hl_nm/iraq_hospital_dc_1" target="_blank">Iraqi Children's Hospital May Close After Looting</a>
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030415/pl_afp/iraq_war_museum_us_030415201810" target="_blank">Looting of Baghdad museum like post-game riot: Rumsfeld</a>
<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030415-secdef0107.html" target="_blank">DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers</a> - Search for "loot". Time note: Baghdad fell, (the toppling of the Saddam statue), on April 9th. Museum began to be looted April 12th, ( <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030501/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_chronology_2" target="_blank">A Timeline of the War in Iraq</a> ).
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030415/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_us_rights_030415162912" target="_blank">US failing to stop killings, looting in Kirkuk: rights monitor</a>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35498-2003Apr24.html" target="_blank">Site That Contained Uranium Was Looted After War </a>

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030417/lthumb.sge.bhl40.170403121648.photo00.default-384x287.jpg
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030417/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_sahhaf_offbeat_030417121652" target="_blank">Iraqi Minister of Crazy Talk says: Baghdad looting just a shopping festival</a>

<a href="http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com" target="_blank">www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/</a>

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[A.J.]

I haven't read this yet, but I just came across this transcript of the briefing by the U.S. team investigating antiquity loss in Iraq.

I post it only to inform those who might be interested.

http://dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030516-0202.html

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.



This message was edited by AJinDC on 5-21-03 @ 7:44 AM

[Heavy]

Who do you think should lead Iraq?

JEB Bush sounds good to me

Mad props to Fluff for the sig and C.O.soup for hosting!
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/jwaddsig.gif">
138%

Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

[TheMojoPin]

Thanks, AJ!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

I was too lazy to go searching to find the thread about the museum looting, so adding to this one. It turns out just about every piece of the missing artifacts has been found, and wouldn't you know it the Iraqis had hidden it from us. Here's the link http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20030607/ts_nm/iraq_treasure_dc
One interesting tidbit:
But many of the items feared lost have been discovered. Some were taken home by staff for safekeeping, and others were found hidden elsewhere, including the large haul in a secret vault. Staff initially refused to reveal the location of the vault until U.S. troops had left Iraq, but later relented.
It would have helped if museum officials hadn't hidden the stuff away and then blamed the US on failing to protect it. No wonder we can't get things working right over there.

[TheMojoPin]

It would have helped if museum officials hadn't hidden the stuff away and then blamed the US on failing to protect it.

What did they want, money? Political agenda? Or did someone just think they "lost" the key?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

It would have helped if museum officials hadn't hidden the stuff away and then blamed the US on failing to protect it. No wonder we can't get things working right over there.
The looting story was the result of looters looting the museum, not these people blaming the US. The administration did fail to protect it and important artifacts were lost, but thanks to the museum staff it wasn't as bad as first expected. In fact it's too bad there weren't curators to protect virtually every government building and facility in the country.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Bergalad]

What did they want, money? Political agenda? Or did someone just think they "lost" the key?
To keep it from the hands of the Infidels, I am sure. Allah forbid we try to help them, and that now outsiders can actually visit this fucking museum. Why bother.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, but who decided to put it in the vault? Must have been someone from the previous government...are they saying that someone came in and smashed up the museum and put them in the vault, or they were there all along? All I can remember is that museum offical crying her eyes out, so she must have thought someone took something...of course, it says the staff revealed the location of the vault, so maybe they're just REALLY good actors.

Unless she was bawling about THIS...

Despite the recovery of many of the museum's treasures in the last week, the U.S.-led administration said 47 items from the main exhibition -- the museum's most treasured pieces -- had not been found.

Whatever happened, this is one weird-ass country.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

To keep it from the hands of the Infidels, I am sure. Allah forbid we try to help them, and that now outsiders can actually visit this fucking museum. Why bother.
Maybe it's because we allowed the museums to be looted in the first place. If the only understanding you have of what the US is dealing with in the Iraqi people is a Muslim extremist stereotype, then maybe you're not ready for an adult discussion about this? It's just as likely that Iraqi nationalism prjudiced the staff against US involvement with the stash, or they thought the US wouldn't protect it, or that the US withdraw was a good indicator of safety. There's any number of possible reasons for the opinion.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Bergalad]

If the only understanding you have of what the US is dealing with in the Iraqi people is a Muslim extremist stereotype, then maybe you're not ready for an adult discussion about this?
What's with the shot? How is that called for from what I posted?

What this article calls into question is wheter anything was looted at all really. If the vast majority of artifacts were indeed secreted by the curators themselves and then hidden from the US, then that calls into question everything these particular Iraqis say. This isn't about extremism at all, it's about how the US was villified without cause. We have screwed up enough things over there, we don't need this extra crap that we didn't even do.

[Yerdaddy]

What's with the shot? How is that called for from what I posted?
I quoted the relevant part of your statement - that the reason for the staff's suspicion of US forces had to be religious.
What this article calls into question is wheter anything was looted at all really. If the vast majority of artifacts were indeed secreted by the curators themselves and then hidden from the US, then that calls into question everything these particular Iraqis say. This isn't about extremism at all, it's about how the US was villified without cause. We have screwed up enough things over there, we don't need this extra crap that we didn't even do.
Read Mojo's quote from the article. The museums were looted. They were filmed being looted. The national library was looted. There were important pieces on display at the time of the war, and are now missing. (Hopefully they were protected as well and will turn up, but if they were actually on display then they will be difficult or impossible to recover.) The US did not protect the museums. None of that is the opinions of the staff, they are facts that we've all seen on film.
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20030607/capt.sge.qyj84.070603210340.photo00.default-384x262.jpg
Caption: Entrance of the Archeological museum in Baghdad, after a mob of looters ransacked and looted the museum.(AFP/File/Patrick Baz)

So while it's good news that the museum staff protected most of the artifacts, it's not a case of the US being villified over imaginary looting. It wasn't made up by the museum staff.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Bergalad]

I quoted the relevant part of your statement - that the reason for the staff's suspicion of US forces had to be religious.

I didn't intend for it to come across as overtly religious. There are several reasons why the staff would hide the items, one of which is religious I am sure, but not the only reason.
The US did not protect the museums.

This is true. We should have factored this into the planning, but I also understand the primary mission of the military there was not to protect Iraqi culture, but to defeat Saddam's Baath Party. We should have tried to do more, that is certain.
None of that is the opinions of the staff, they are facts that we've all seen on film.

I haven't seen this footage, but if you have a link showing actual looting of the museum, I would be happy to view it.

My problem with this is this quote:
"They were never lost," acting Central Bank Governor Faleh Salman said. "We knew all along they were there. It just took a bit of time to get at them because of the flooding."

This proves the curators knew that the items had not been looted, yet persisted in saying that they had been. They lied to the media, and villified the US in the process. There's no getting around that. Yes some items are still missing, but in light of this admission by the museum staff, it's entirely possible that the items were secreted by other staff members. My point in posting this article is that after the news broke about the looting, most everyone screamed at the US that they were at fault. Now it appears, at least mostly, that the Iraqis themselves manipulated the news media to finger the US, and for no good reason.

[Yerdaddy]

I haven't seen this footage, but if you have a link showing actual looting of the museum, I would be happy to view it.
I can't tell if you're saying the museums were looted at all and it was all based on the claims of the museum staffs. The footage I've seen is television and I wouldn't know how to find or link to that. Yahoo Full Coverage photos from the time of the looting are apparently expired. But the story of the looting broke when TV cameras filmed the looting, and the looted buildings.

From an AP story on , <a href="http://www.redding.com/news/apafternoonupdate/past/20030412aptop070.shtml" target="_blank">April 12 </a>Also pillaged was the Iraq National Museum, the country's flagship archaeological showcase, which featured priceless artifacts dating back to 5,000 B.C. Reporters visiting it Saturday saw row after row of empty glass cases, many of them smashed, and bits of broken pottery and sculpture on the floors.

And reporters visited the sites for this story on <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=396997" target="_blank">April 14</a>.
Iraq's scavengers have thieved and destroyed what they have been allowed to loot and burn by the Americans - and a two-hour drive around Baghdad shows clearly what the US intends to protect. After days of arson and pillage, here's a short but revealing scorecard. US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq's history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

The curators and other staff weren't a part of the reporting until after the story broke, and as they came back to the museum in the following days they revealed to the press and the US authorities that things had been stored away. Apparently, some of the staff were'nt willing to reveal what they knew right away, but they weren't the source of the story.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Bergalad]

I can't tell if you're saying the museums were looted at all and it was all based on the claims of the museum staffs.

I don't doubt that there was some looting done, but by who is in question. It was portrayed to the public that regular Iraqi civilians were running rampant and stealing items, and now that is entirely in question. Some things were stolen, that is probably true. But now was it by Baath members, or museum staff? The initial reporting was substantiated by staff members who blamed in full the US for lack of security. My problem is that these are the same staff members who hid the items but said they were stolen.

[Yerdaddy]

The initial reporting was substantiated by staff members who blamed in full the US for lack of security. My problem is that these are the same staff members who hid the items but said they were stolen.
These two sentences are where you lose me. I've read the papers on Iraq every day and I haven't seen anything that susbstantiates these two specific claims about the staff.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Bergalad]

These two sentences are where you lose me. I've read the papers on Iraq every day and I haven't seen anything that susbstantiates these two specific claims about the staff.
My comments are based on this article http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20030607/ts_nm/iraq_treasure_dc.
Here are the selected passages:
Almost all of the priceless items feared stolen from the Baghdad Museum when it was ransacked by looters have been found safe in a secret vault
Safe in a vault. Who put them there?
Staff initially refused to reveal the location of the vault until U.S. troops had left Iraq, but later relented.
The Museum Staff knew about the items in the vault but refused initially to tell the US about it.
Why is this a big deal? Because:
The failure of U.S. forces to prevent Baghdad Museum being plundered sparked a storm of protest around the world in April.

But now we find out:
"They were never lost," acting Central Bank Governor Faleh Salman said. "We knew all along they were there. It just took a bit of time to get at them because of the flooding."

This is a Reuters article, and it is telling us that the US was unfairly demonized for the Museum incident. There was looting, of that I don't doubt at all, and the US should have acted to prevent that sooner. What I am going on about is the US was blasted by the Museum Staff for the loss of what they said was 170,000 "priceless" items, when in fact it was significantly less than that and the Staff was hiding the majority of the artifacts away themselves. To me it's almost like they "stole" the items and then blamed us for not protecting them. Is this clearer?

[high fly]

It's one thing for the administration to have failed to plan for looting at some museum.
It seems kinda obvious though, that they should have had some plan to safeguard whatever nuke stuff they knew about in Iraq, yet now there are reports that tons of the stuff went unguarded for 2 weeks, even as the plant at Tuwaitha [sorry, I'm unsure of the spelling of the place] was being looted.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Recyclerz]

It is always the US' Fault (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3027747)

I suppose this is a Good News/Bad News thing:

The bad news is that if it is the US fault that Iraqis blow themselves up making bombs in a mosque, then we are a long, long way from winning their hearts and minds and turning Iraq into the shining example for the rest of the Arab/Muslim world that Wolfowitz and crew were promising.

The good news is that if they are that bad at bomb making, this may be a self-correcting problem.



There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon, he never lived 'round here.

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 7-3-03 @ 3:55 PM

[curtoid]

From STUDIO BRIEFING:

The BBC's world affairs editor, John Simpson, who was wounded in a friendly fire incident in
Iraq in which the BBC's Kurdish translator was killed, has asked the U.S. government to investigate to determine why more journalists were killed by American soldiers than by any other means during the war. Simpson described the deaths of seven journalists at the hands of U.S. forces during the 21 days of conflict as "the ultimate act of censorship," maintaining that unless reporters were embedded with U.S. troops, they became "potential targets."

*****

There were lots of warnings about this in the UK before the war - back in January. During the first Gulf War many of the British deaths were from "friendly fire."

[KOP]

[Heavy]

why more journalists were killed by American soldiers than by any other means during the war

Maybe because %99 of the people killing other people during the war were Americans.

Mad props to Fluff for the sig and C.O.soup for hosting!
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/jwaddsig.gif">

[high fly]

Has the administration given an excuse, any excuse as to why it sat idly by while a plant full of nuke material was looted for 2 weeks?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yerdaddy]

In the slow period on the WMD story, (when Congress is on break and Bush is on vacation), the Washington Post just put out the most thorough analysis of the story I've seen so far: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html" target="_blank">Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence</a>.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[high fly]

WAY TO GO YERDADDY!
Everyone, on both sides should read this article.
In the end, once one sifts through all the reasons given for going to war, the arguments for doing so are incredibly weak.
This article describes a thought process that is corrupt and intellectually dishonest.
The price for that dishonesty has been the lives of about 200 fine young military people, and many more wounded. I'm outraged by that, and I think anyone else who supports our troops should be as well.
They've wasted scores of billions of national treasure.
We've ended up with over half of our deployable Army in Western Asia, as threats emerge in Eastern Asia.
They've squandered loads of international good will that came our way after 9-11.
They've made it much more difficult to go after nations that pose a greater threat than Iraq did.


" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 8-11-03 @ 2:39 PM

[Se7en]

From STUDIO BRIEFING:

The BBC's world affairs editor, John Simpson, who was wounded in a friendly fire incident in
Iraq in which the BBC's Kurdish translator was killed, has asked the U.S. government to investigate to determine why more journalists were killed by American soldiers than by any other means during the war. Simpson described the deaths of seven journalists at the hands of U.S. forces during the 21 days of conflict as "the ultimate act of censorship," maintaining that unless reporters were embedded with U.S. troops, they became "potential targets."

*****

There were lots of warnings about this in the UK before the war - back in January. During the first Gulf War many of the British deaths were from "friendly fire."

[KOP]

You've discovered our military's nasty secret - secretly killing foreign journalists just cause we don't like what they print / say about us. Shhh! Don't tell anyone!

Please, this is just so much horseshit.

And the BBC is the last organization that should be crying about this. They've got some blood on THEIR hands.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[Yerdaddy]

And the BBC is the last organization that should be crying about this. They've got some blood on THEIR hands.

What does that even mean?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[HBox]

What does that even mean?

They got a real bad paper cut. Blood's all over the place, including their hands.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[high fly]

Fuck the BBC.

I wanna hear from the conservatives on the article linked by YERDADDY, "Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence".
And let's seeya take on the points I made in my last post.

Are you guys chicken, or what?



" and they ask me why I drink"

[Se7en]

And the BBC is the last organization that should be crying about this. They've got some blood on THEIR hands.

What does that even mean?


Well, David Kelly is one recent example.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not one to think that anyone is directly responsible for Kelly's suicide other than Kelly. But he was being manipulated by the British government and media. So if people wronged him and contributed to his death then the BBC is not alone in guilt for publicly naming him as the source of government criticism. The British government confirmed his identity to the BBC as the source of the statements, falsely downplayed his authority as an expert on Iraq, and were responsible for exaggerating the intelligence on Iraq in the first place. ( <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1016172,00.html" target="_blank">Careers on the line as hearings get under way</a> ) So I think the idea that the BBC has "blood on its hands" is just the type of inflamatory and irresponsible statement that you're accusing the BBC of.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[NewYorkDragons80]

Are you guys chicken, or what?
http://images.picsearch.com/is?666206452236
Nobody...



<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[Bergalad]

I read the article. I don't find it incredibly compelling or damning. It's pages and pages about tubes, and the writers have no more hard evidence that the tubes were for 81mm rockets than the CIA and DOE had that they were for uranium enrichment. The author's "points" are easily refutable. He actually admits that Hussein met with nuclear scientists for other than benign purposes, that Iraq was actively purchasing magnets and materials quite suitable for centrifuges, and had plans for working centifuges in-hand. Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, and if you doubt that then, well, you're just wrong.

Let's be clear about why the government was so paranoid about Iraq joining the big boys with nukes. The CIA failed MISERABLY, let me say that again, MISERABLY when they were caught off guard by the sudden arrival of nuclear India and Pakistan. This author alludes to that fact. We failed to see a non-hostile country's nuclear progression, so how were we to know what Iraq was doing in secret? The claim about the "smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud" was very true.

Add to the nuclear unknowns about Iraq the "failure" of the CIA to predict the impossible with 9-11. Combine the fear failure in detecting both types of events, and you have to see that the CIA and the entire government could not take any risks. Yes the evidence was shaky and remains so today, however so was the information leading up to 9-11, yet the Intel Community has been pilloried for not connecting those vague dots.

This article, at least to me, accomplishes the opposite of what was intended by the authors and those who giggle with glee over its words. The US government knew for certain that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, we had no way of verifying his current capabilities after the departure of inspectors in 1998, and since their departure Iraq had purchased materials very suitable for uranium enrichment. This is all supported in the article. So now what should the US have done in light of these facts, the suddenly nuclear Central Asia, and 9-11? What should they have done President High Fly? Sat around and cajoled and inspected them to death? Or would you have done what Bush rightly did: eliminate a known enemy, tyrant, and potential nuclear advisary?

This message was edited by Bergalad on 8-12-03 @ 11:37 PM

[Yerdaddy]

the writers have no more hard evidence that the tubes were for 81mm rockets than the CIA and DOE had that they were for uranium enrichment.
The State Dept and the DOE concluded that the tubes were for rockets.
But the government's centrifuge scientists -- at the Energy Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and its sister institutions -- unanimously regarded this possibility as implausible.

In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that "it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently."
He actually admits that Hussein met with nuclear scientists for other than benign purposes, that Iraq was actively purchasing magnets and materials quite suitable for centrifuges, and had plans for working centifuges in-hand.
Plans and scientists are worthless without massive amounts of equipment and the most important component - highly enriched uranium, which he was not even suspected of trying to acquire.
The CIA failed MISERABLY, let me say that again, MISERABLY when they were caught off guard by the sudden arrival of nuclear India and Pakistan.
The CIA was not paying attention to Pakistan and India because they are both allies and are in a relatively benign region of the world compared to Iraq, which has been virtually blanketed by the United States military for 12 years. The comparison is worthless, and only serves to scapegoat the CIA for the political protection of the administration. Like the president you seem to be willing to sacrafice the most important institution to the war on terrorism for political/ideological reasons. If you get your way it's going to be a long war.

Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, and if you doubt that then, well, you're just wrong.
See thread "Conservatism Defined?"

The rest of this post is hyperbole.


BTW I didn't post the article to challenge anyone. I think it is a valuable and well-researched summary and analysis of the facts so far. I'll debate what I think is wrong but I'm not looking to drag this crap out. It cuts into my porn time.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Se7en]

I'm not one to think that anyone is directly responsible for Kelly's suicide other than Kelly. But he was being manipulated by the British government and media. So if people wronged him and contributed to his death then the BBC is not alone in guilt for publicly naming him as the source of government criticism. The British government confirmed his identity to the BBC as the source of the statements, falsely downplayed his authority as an expert on Iraq, and were responsible for exaggerating the intelligence on Iraq in the first place. ( <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1016172,00.html" target="_blank">Careers on the line as hearings get under way</a> ) So I think the idea that the BBC has "blood on its hands" is just the type of inflamatory and irresponsible statement that you're accusing the BBC of.



With all due respect, I must respectfully disagree.

Which is a polite way of saying "Bullshit."

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[Se7en]

I'm not one to think that anyone is directly responsible for Kelly's suicide other than Kelly. But he was being manipulated by the British government and media. So if people wronged him and contributed to his death then the BBC is not alone in guilt for publicly naming him as the source of government criticism. The British government confirmed his identity to the BBC as the source of the statements, falsely downplayed his authority as an expert on Iraq, and were responsible for exaggerating the intelligence on Iraq in the first place. ( <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1016172,00.html" target="_blank">Careers on the line as hearings get under way</a> ) So I think the idea that the BBC has "blood on its hands" is just the type of inflamatory and irresponsible statement that you're accusing the BBC of.



With all due respect, I must respectfully disagree.

Which is a polite way of saying "Bullshit."

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[Yerdaddy]

Which is a polite way of saying "I'm not willing to look at the issue. I just reflexively blame the media." Twice.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Bergalad]

The CIA was not paying attention to Pakistan and India because they are both allies and are in a relatively benign region of the world compared to Iraq
I would love to get into this statement with you, but I do respect a man's porn time. Just please tell me you aren't thinking of Howard Dean while you rough up the hostage...

[high fly]

Pakistan and India allies?
Huh, wha?

Back to the article, it's pretty clear that the administration made up it's mind and then fit whatever bits of inteligence it could to that preconcieved notion.
Anything that pointed them toward another conclusion was thrown out.
As time goes on and the facts emerge, we are seeing the arguments for going to war crumble.
We are seeing that the citizenry was misled as well as the Congress and our allies.
This is not good.
I await someone saying why it is.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yerdaddy]

Pakistan and India allies?
Huh, wha?

of ours

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[high fly]

Oh, ok. That one threw me there, for minute.
I agree with your post.
I'm also wondering about Colin Powell and how he's taking it that he was fed a bunch of bullshit that made a fool out of him.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

I await someone saying why it is.
Because Hussein's Iraq is no more, and a potential threat to the United States has been eliminated. Do you think that's a good thing? Yes or No?

[Yerdaddy]

Fallacy: Begging the Question

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).

Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."


<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[TheMojoPin]

Because Hussein's Iraq is no more
Do you think that's a good thing? Yes or No?

Without a doubt, yes.

and a potential threat to the United States has been eliminated. Do you think that's a good thing? Yes or No?

No, because nothing indicates that that was the case.

Your questions sidestep my OWN continuing question...the "WHY NOW?"

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

No, because nothing indicates that that was the case.
You don't think Iraq was a potential threat? So not only was Bush wrong on thinking that, but so was Clinton? In defiance of YD's non-answer about circular thinking, Iraq was a potential threat to the United States. The Howard Dean approach to wanting a Saddam-led Iraq over a "democratic" Iraq is stupid.

Why now? I don't think there was an immediate threat to the United States, and therefore I don't think it was mandatory that the US attacked when we did. I support the war, I support the removal of Hussein, and I support the end of a potential nuclear threat to America. Attacking 2 years ago, today, or in a few years, who knows which would have been better, but I am convinced that Saddam was a danger to us. Without a doubt, I am for a strong America which is prepared and willing to use its economic and military power to both maintain its preeminence and security. Wanting anything less is to want a weakened United States. Why now? Because we could. It probably wasn't the correct time to do it, but eventually it was going to happen. I will say this: Iraq probably wasn't an imminent threat, just a potential one. We should have waited until they were an imminent threat, but the criteria that meet that standard are difficult to quantify. Based on this, if attacking Iraq was a mistake, then at least it was a positive mistake. Now let's deal from a position of strength and, in whatever means necessary, eliminate the remaining threats to the US. Stopping them before they become true imminent threats is imparative.

This message was edited by Bergalad on 8-14-03 @ 6:31 PM

[TheMojoPin]

You don't think Iraq was a potential threat? So not only was Bush wrong on thinking that, but so was Clinton?

Yes. Very much so.

Wow, this is pretty easy if you just stand by your convictions.

The rest of your argument is convincing, but only because it's technically impossible to argue against. If that's the criteria, there's probably dozens of other countries who we need to be lining up right after Iraq, because they all COULD be threats against us someday...we couldn't do this even if we wanted to. As much as people seem to think it doesn't matter, it DOES matter how the rest of the world reacts and responds and views our actions, and in that regard, we blew this one, and I think that will hurt us MUCH more down the line than Saddam and his broken little country ever could have. And how did we suddenly jump ahead in line as Saddam's #1 enemy past Israel and half of the Arab world? Again, it's all these things hinted at or suddenly assumed...Iraq is on the verge of or is an immediate threat...suddenly Saddam wants to destroy US...the terrorism implications...the constant unspoken 9/11 nudges...and we don't have a SHRED of evidence to prove ANY of this, not even that Saddam would have tried to attack America over the his other enemies that he actually HAS attacked and fought against in the past! Again, this makes him a stupid extremist who'd be willing to give up EVERYTHING just for one ultimately incosequential strike against America, and NOTHING in his past shows he'd be willing to do that.

I'm asking for proof. One tiny, teensy little shred of it. Don't violate national security, I don't need to know EVERYTHING...but when we've been told basically NOTHING, it gets more and more frustrating. It would be great if we could just walk in and take out Saddam because he's evil, which people seem to like using as justification now, but I'm sorry, the world doesn't work that way. It sets a ridiculous precendet and makes us hypocrites and all for WHAT?!? What has this done for US? How is this the one case where the "tough guys" can suddenly be bleeding hearts? FUCK THE IRAQI PEOPLE. How is this helping ME AND MY FAMILY be safe? And don't give me "woulda/coulda/maybe's". I want my government to tell me SOMETHING concrete that isn't a vague notion or an assumption or a guess. If he could have been a legitimate threat to us, he could have been a legitimate threat to the rest of Asia and Europe and basically the rest of the world...so why couldn't we sell this? Yes, there's plenty of anti-Americanism, but I doubt that would overcome a LEGITIMATE threat of getting a nuke shoved up your ass.

This war was NOT sold in ANY way that mattered and can actually help us down the line. It's wasted our time, resources, money and millitary. I guess if ANY good can come of it it would be that it "exposed" the sheer awfulness of our intelligence capabilities.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-14-03 @ 12:13 PM

[high fly]

Iran has been a bigger threat, is now a bigger threat, and will be a bigger threat in the future than Iraq has been or would have been.
Iran's sponsorship of terrorist attacks has killed far more Americans than Hussein's Iraq.
So has Libya.
So has Syria.
Thanks to Bush's dicking around, it will be more difficult to go after those bastards.
The Bush administration's faulty logic and reckless use of our military has gotten over 250 of them killed. When it comes to being supportive of the military, isn't that about as UNsupportive as one can get?
Sure, it's great that Saddam's regime is gone.
It would also be nice to liberate the people of Sudan, the Congo, Libya, Burma, Indonesia or Burkina fucking Faso, to name a few.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TheMojoPin]

What about most of central and South America? Isn't the "War on Drugs" a proven threat to America? And those countries are PACKED with tyrants and dictators and evil people. Hell, we're still tolerating Castro...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

Yeah, I mean YEAH!
One book I read on terrorism had the stats, and most of the terrorist attacks on Americans occurred in Central and South America.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TheMojoPin]

Jeepers, that isn't vague at all.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

It was the one by that dude...

" and they ask me why I drink"

[travis151]

High Fly you are a moron, the world is safer now that Saddam is out of power, thanks to a President who has BALLS... George W. Bush!!! The problems that continue in Iraq are from not only Iraqi but other countries Muslim fanatics!! Get you head out of your ass read the paper watch the news. Its does suck that Americans are still dying over in Iraq but its not from the majority of Iraqi's its from Fucking terroists who need to be killed!! Please people don't post unless you have facts. Don't make up shit or take quotes from anti- government websites. Yerdaddy Rome wasn't built in a day and rebuilding Iraq will be the same way.

Red Sox=More Better

[Yerdaddy]

A cliche! I stand corrected sir. I have learned the error of my ways. I thought I wanted to know that the administration has a clear and comprehensive plan for rebuilding a devistated country, and for it to share that plan with the Congress and the American public. But what I really needed was a tired old cliche to set my mind at ease! Thank you. I feel so much better. I should really listen to the president more; I might get more of these valuable nuggets of helpful information.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[travis151]

Yerdaddy do you want to know what America thinks? They don't give a fuck about Iraq, we as Americans really wouldn't give two shits if our president bombed the whole country. Know why? Because these countries breed hate to Americans it will always be that way unless we stop it.

Red Sox=More Better

[TheMojoPin]

The problems that continue in Iraq are from not only Iraqi but other countries Muslim fanatics!!

Its does suck that Americans are still dying over in Iraq but its not from the majority of Iraqi's its from Fucking terroists who need to be killed!!

we as Americans really wouldn't give two shits if our president bombed the whole country. Know why? Because these countries breed hate to Americans it will always be that way unless we stop it.

Make up your fucking mind.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

It's ok with TRAVIS that over 250 Americans have been killed and hundreds more wounded in a war that was not necessary.

The poor dear thinks that name calling is a substitute for facts.

Notice how he fails to refute even one point I have made.

If the poor dear objects to what I said above about more terrorist attacks against Americans occurring in this hemisphere, the book is "Terrorism, Asymetric Warfare, and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Defending the U.S.Homeland", by Anthony Cordesman.
TRAVIS, you'll find it very authoritative, but difficult, as it is an adult book with no pitchers.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 8-19-03 @ 7:52 PM

[Yerdaddy]

we as Americans really wouldn't give two shits if our president bombed the whole country.
Either show me a poll to back this up or change that to "we as scumbag retarded Americans..." because until we decide to become Nazi Germany part II, then America does not advocate genocide. So in the real world, our security in the Middle East is tied to the welfare of the Iraqi people. If we do right by them and keep our committments, then Islamic extremism will remain on the fringes of Islamic society. If we fuck this up, then it will become more mainstream. Why is that so fucking hard to figure out?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Bergalad]

with no pitchers
Is this a book about baseball? I like baseball.