Poll: Is this gonna hurt Bush or help him????
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Help
0%
0 0%
Hurt
0%
0 0%
No effect
0%
0 0%
Help
0%
0 0%
Hurt
0%
0 0%
No effect
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Bin Laden videotape - the October surprise at last
#41
You make perfect sense, I agree. In my opinion an international monitoring institution is required before any of its members make such grave decisions. I still advocate a reformed UN to take this role. Let's throw Chirac in jail and have the French vote again.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#42
stroll Wrote:You make perfect sense, I agree. In my opinion an international monitoring institution is required before any of its members make such grave decisions.

OK, here is your chance then.

What are you going to do about Iran now?

They ARE developing nukes, and present a dual threat to Europe: their missiles already can reach Southern Europe PLUS they can cut off the oil supplies. Additionally, it would be impossible to stop others (like the Saudis or Egypt) from developing their own nukes. Monitoring does not seem to work, and the negotiations do not even seem to slow Iran down.

What now?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#43
I don't understand the need for all the "If's." I think it is very clear that at the time of the decision to go into Iraq, the world's best espionage agencies all concurred that Saddam did have at least two different chemical WMD purchased from Russia and kept safe through their Sarindar agreement with Hussein. Ion Mihai Precepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer to defect from the former Soviet bloc reported:
Quote:Iraq, in my view, had its own "Sarindar" plan in effect direct from Moscow. It certainly had one in the past. Nicolae Ceausescu told me so, and he heard it from Leonid Brezhnev. KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, told me so too. In the late 1970s, Gen. Primakov ran Saddam's weapons programs. After that, as you may recall, he was promoted to head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service in 1990, to Russia's minister of foreign affairs in 1996, and in 1998, to prime minister. What you may not know is that Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. He was a personal friend of Saddam's and has repeatedly visited Baghdad after 1991, quietly helping

The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed them how to make them "disappear." Russia is still at it. Primakov was in Baghdad from December until a couple of days before the war, along with a team of Russian military experts led by two of Russia's topnotch "retired"generals,Vladislav Achalov, a former deputy defense minister, and Igor Maltsev, a former air defense chief of staff. They were all there receiving honorary medals from the Iraqi defense minister. They clearly were not there to give Saddam military advice for the upcomingwar—Saddam'sKatyusha launchers were of World War II vintage, and his T-72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes were all obviously useless against America. "I did not fly to Baghdad to drink coffee," was what Gen. Achalov told the media afterward. They were there orchestrating Iraq's "Sarindar" plan.

The U.S. military in fact, has already found the only thing that would have been allowed to survive under the classic Soviet "Sarindar" plan to liquidate weapons arsenals in the event of defeat in war — the technological documents showing how to reproduce weapons stocks in just a few weeks.

Such a plan has undoubtedly been in place since August 1995 — when Saddam's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who ran Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological programs for 10 years, defected to Jordan. That August, UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors searched a chicken farm owned by Kamel's family and found more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes containing documentation dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear. Caught red-handed, Iraq at last admitted to its "extensive biological warfare program, including weaponization," issued a "Full, Final and Complete Disclosure Report" and turned over documents about the nerve agent VX and nuclear weapons.

Saddam then lured Gen. Kamel back, pretending to pardon his defection. Three days later, Kamel and over 40 relatives, including women and children, were murdered, in what the official Iraqi press described as a "spontaneous administration of tribal justice." After sending that message to his cowed, miserable people, Saddam then made a show of cooperation with U.N. inspection, since Kamel had just compromised all his programs anyway. In November 1995, he issued a second "Full, Final and Complete Disclosure" as to his supposedly non-existent missile programs. That very same month, Jordan intercepted a large shipment of high-grade missile components destined for Iraq. UNSCOM soon fished similar missile components out of the Tigris River, again refuting Saddam's spluttering denials. In June 1996, Saddam slammed the door shut to UNSCOM's inspection of any "concealment mechanisms." On Aug. 5, 1998, halted cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA completely, and they withdrew on Dec. 16, 1998. Saddam had another four years to develop and hide his weapons of mass destruction without any annoying, prying eyes. U.N. Security Council resolutions 1115, (June 21, 1997), 1137 (Nov. 12, 1997), and 1194 (Sept. 9, 1998) were issued condemning Iraq—ineffectual words that had no effect. In 2002, under the pressure of a huge U.S. military buildup by a new U.S. administration, Saddam made yet another "Full, Final and Complete Disclosure," which was found to contain "false statements" and to constitute another "material breach" of U.N. and IAEA inspection and of paragraphs eight to 13 of resolution 687 (1991).

It was just a few days after this last "Disclosure," after a decade of intervening with the U.N. and the rest of the world on Iraq's behalf, that Gen. Primakov and his team of military experts landed in Baghdad — even though, with 200,000 U.S. troops at the border, war was imminent, and Moscow could no longer save Saddam Hussein. Gen. Primakov was undoubtedly cleaning up the loose ends of the "Sarindar" plan and assuring Saddam that Moscow would rebuild his weapons of mass destruction after the storm subsided for a good price.
What pacepa knew, so did MI6, the Mossad, and a dozen other covert Intelligence agencies worldwide.

CIA Director Tenet was not able to confirm or deny anything to do with WMD, because the U.S. had no HumInt in the mideast at all.

Isn't it obvious thet the reason for attacking Iraq was to create holding bases to safeguard against Iran?
Reply
#44
William, I have misplaced my link to that article. Could you provide it again so I can bookmark it?

John
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#45
Quote:Isn't it obvious thet the reason for attacking Iraq was to create holding bases to safeguard against Iran?
Not so obvious to the population who has been given different reasons before and after the invasion to justify it.
Quote:What are you going to do about Iran now?

They ARE developing nukes, and present a dual threat to Europe: their missiles already can reach Southern Europe PLUS they can cut off the oil supplies. Additionally, it would be impossible to stop others (like the Saudis or Egypt) from developing their own nukes. Monitoring does not seem to work, and the negotiations do not even seem to slow Iran down.

What now?
It is not a question of what I am going to do, but it appears you (the US) have made your mind up already what you are going to do and are preparing public opinion that it would be reasonable, perhaps even imperative, to 'help' a rebellion or emerging insurgents ( not terrorists this time, in contrast to insurgents in Iraq, they act in your interest on this occasion), free Iran from theocracy and stop/neutralize any WMD which might be found.

What I think should be done is something else.
What exactly will their position be after the elections in Iraq and a possible withdrawal of US presence? Will there be indications of changes in the attitude and will of those in power in Iran? How will they regard their role towards the 'new' neighbor and will they revise their position internationally? Will there be a shift of the power balance within Iran, resulting from different , new circumstances? Would they be willing to concede and abandon their programs for WMD? Who would be an acceptable partner for negotiations, Bush, Chirac (don't laugh), the UN, or someone else, or nobody at all?
After this we can start considering what could and should be done. Emphasis on WE, I suggest none of the players in world politics want WMD pointing their way.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#46
John L: Try Ex-spy fingers Russians on WMD By Ion Mihai Pacepa or Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms

If these don't help just go to Google's advanced search engine and type in" Ion Mihai Pacepa" in the "with the exact phrase" input bar, and "Sarindar" in the "with all the words" input bar. I usually call for 100 responses per page and get the results in nanoseconds.
Reply
#47
Quick counter point here for Stroll. Iraq is our way of attacking Saudi Arabia and it has worked. Too bad for Iraqis I reckon,those in power anyway.

I have no shame in ending that fascist state,even knowing we attacked them to intimidate their southern neighbor.

Works for me.

The only alternative was invade Mecca,that was a last option thankfully not necessary.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)