Announcement

**chequita guevara** · February 12, 2004, 16:39

After everything had been taken. Dude, it's all gone.

**GePap** · February 12, 2004, 16:44

Originally posted by Patroklos
Actually they did lift many fingers, with triggers behind them, to stop the looting of Palaces and Museums so that the heritage of the country would not disappear into the black market.

Try again.

You failed to get the point- the US not only left palaces, but alsio weapons depots, research facilities and many government offices (save the oil ministry) unguarded and open to looting.

Heck, even the Kay report states that 'evidence might have been lost due to looting'....

**Gibsie** · February 12, 2004, 16:59

Originally posted by Patroklos
Actually they did lift many fingers, with triggers behind them, to stop the looting of Palaces and Museums so that the heritage of the country would not disappear into the black market.

Try again.

Wow. I've written three responses to this, but none can quite top what's already been written (Even though they're very simple posts), so I'll just sit back and quietly chuckle at you. Teehehhehehehehe.

**Whaleboy** · February 12, 2004, 17:13

Originally posted by Agathon
But what about all those millions of people who said this before the war and marched around in the freezing cold so people would notice?

We were utterly and completely right, weren't we?

**DinoDoc** · February 12, 2004, 17:16

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kay is lying.

So they did have weapons?

**debeest** · February 12, 2004, 17:19

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Most of you would have gone home had Bush waited 6 weeks or so for the go ahead from the UN.

I wouldn't have. And I'm not an out-of-work actor but a responsible adult working to support a family.

But more importantly, consider the possibility that the unprecedented domestic and world-wide turnout in opposition to the invasion may have convinced the UN not to approve an invasion which, as we predicted, was thoroughly unjustified (even though Hussein is a vicious bastard who did kill lots of his own people).

**DinoDoc** · February 12, 2004, 17:22

Originally posted by debeest
... may have convinced the UN not to approve an invasion ...

I like you. You're silly.

**chequita guevara** · February 12, 2004, 17:24

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So they did have weapons?

No, he's lying about the CIA.

**DinoDoc** · February 12, 2004, 17:26

If he's lying about anything his credibility in total is called into question and I fail to see how you can only rely on part of the report in that case.

**Agathon** · February 12, 2004, 17:59

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

OTOH, Agathon. I tend to agree with your positions on most things. I'm sure you pulled some hair out over the months debating Iraq with people. But its infinietely easier to say "I told you so", than it is to admit error. I thinkg Gatekeeper deserves some respect for that.

Gatekeeper has always had my respect and continues to do so.

**debeest** · February 12, 2004, 18:14

Kudos to Gatekeeper, who shows a US flag and a stealth fighter with every post, for acknowledging that our government lied to us and the invasion was wrong.

Those of us who feel as if that was obvious long before the invasion still need to salute anyone who will admit he was wrong. There are darned few who will.

**Agathon** · February 12, 2004, 18:15

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Not really. Most of you would have gone home had Bush waited 6 weeks or so for the go ahead from the UN.

And they would have been right to do so. The UN is not perfect, but it is the best alternative we have to international anarchy. That's what was ultimately at stake. The fate of Iraq is important, but not as important as the consequences of a superpower accruing to itself the right to make aggressive war upon whomever it wants for whatever reason.

The point is moot. Most of the UN members were clearly correct. That's why De Villepin received unprecedented applause from the audience at the SC. Most countries are quite willing to help the US out when it shows proper respect for due process and international institutions. Look at Gulf War I - I had my suspicions about that war, and there was clearly not as much done to find a peaceful solution as could have been, but Bush pere showed himself to be a superb diplomat and the US came out of that war in a very strong diplomatic position. Bush fils has thrown all that away.

It's so sad to see a country that historically has had no peer at creating and sustaining international institutions (you guys created the UN) throwing them away for narrow and mean-spirited concerns.

Read my lips - you guys elect Kerry and come back to the table admitting your mistakes, and everyone else will fall all over themselves to help with Iraq. I guarantee that. This means no more bent contracts and accepting that the international will largely takes precedence over US interests, but the US will be so much better off doing so and the world will be a safer place for it.

On the other hand, continue to hypocritically insist that everyone else do stuff when you aren't willing to, and everyone else will find ways to work against US interests.

**debeest** · February 12, 2004, 18:19

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I like you. You're silly.

Awww...

Thanks.

You really think so?

**DinoDoc** · February 12, 2004, 19:12

Originally posted by Agathon
The fate of Iraq is important, but not as important as the consequences of a superpower accruing to itself the right to make aggressive war upon whomever it wants for whatever reason.

You say that as if it didn't have that right already and hasn't exercised it in the past. Serbia?

**Ned** · February 12, 2004, 19:41

Gatekeeper, what do you make of this:

"Dr. Kay, the former chief C.I.A. weapons inspector, has said that his team learned that no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons — but that all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had them. He said it appeared that the Iraqi officers were the victims of a disinformation campaign by Mr. Hussein. "

Regime Thought War Unlikely, Iraqis Tell U.S. (Published 2004)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/politics/12SADD.html?pagewanted=2&th

Captured Iraqi leaders and former officers say under questioning that Saddam Hussein dismissed threat of war with United States, believing that 'casualty adverse' White House would order only bombing campaign that Iraq could withstand; say he was so convinced that war would be averted that he deployed Iraqi military to crush domestic uprisings rather than defend against ground invasion; say Iraqi Defense Ministry, in another grand miscalculation, believed that any ground offensive would come across Jordanian border despite broad news media coverage of American and British buildup in Kuwait; interrogations yield portrait of government disconnected from reality in peace and in war, where Hussein's inner circle routinely lied to him and each other about Iraqi military capacities; interrogations also reveal flaws in Pentagon's prewar operations, particularly information campaign to demoralize and sway Iraqis from commanders down to foot soldiers; even so, campaigns scored unexpected successes; American military officers say interrogations validate decisions to send ground forces from south and to use small number of Special Operations forces in western Iraq instead of large infantry forces in that section of nation (M)

Announcement

Iraq: Well, Hindsight is Always 20/20 ...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment