Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
We will establish permanent bases in both Iraq and Afganistan. We will institute democratic elections and build these nations in our on image.

Keep dreaming. Bush declared last year that we are not in the nation-building business. We have already (and very stupidly) washed our hands of Afganistan. There's no reason to believe we wouldn't do the same in Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Ok, you folks have worried me to death about this so I am going to tell you the real reason that the US is going to invade Iraq.

We want to have significant military presence in the Gulf. We will establish permanent bases in both Iraq and Afganistan. We will institute democratic elections and build these nations in our on image. We will use our heightened presence to leverage a settlement of the Israeli-Palestian issue. We will greatly increase our intelligence network in the Middle East and ruthlessly exterminate Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations. We will profit on oil and regional stability. We will neutralize Iran and stand as a counter to prevent India from invading Pakistan.

Bagdad will again be rich and a cultural center. McDonalds will do well there.

What no smilely faces?

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
An October Surprise wouldn't be for the purpose of defeating Hussein that much quicker, but for raising Republican prospects in the mid-season elections. If the invasion is held back, that means that there will more likely be a public debate on the ifs and whats of an attack.

How the heck can it be a suprise if everyone knows you're going to do it?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Keep dreaming. Bush declared last year that we are not in the nation-building business. We have already (and very stupidly) washed our hands of Afganistan. There's no reason to believe we wouldn't do the same in Iraq.

If Bush goes to the trouble of taking Saddam down and doesn't establish permanent bases then he and his crew are surely as stupid as people here paint them.

I think they are smarter than that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It'll never happen. Turkey won't allow the Kurds to be armed and the US won't arm the Shiites in the South. The Iraqi National Congress is too weak and fractured to be of any use, even with weapons and training and air support.

I would be overjoyed to see Hussein toppled and executed by his own people. I don't think the US wants to see that, however. Heck, I'm not completely sure the US wants to see Hussein go. His continued existence justifies America's ungoing presence in the Gulf and he provdes a convenient whipping boy at home. And even in his weakened state, he serves, somewhat, as a counter to the regional power of Iran. This is why we didn't take him down in 1991.

Yeah, I agree that simply arming the resistance leads to long term regional instability. Doing this in Afghanistan certain got the Russians out, but lead directly to 9/11.

The best scenario is that we get a strong resolution from the UN and that Saddam complies.

But if he doesn't, the UN must declare war.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

Hey it is US Senate that these reports were made for. So no need to make excuses for previous US acts.

Taking misquotes out of context from morons who have trouble tying their own shoes and repeating them ad nauseum seems to be the best you can do on this issue. Just in case there is anyone else who might read and misunderstand your drivel....

I could not find the text of the senate hearings but here is a quote from a website that appears to have the same agenda as you.

The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.

Taken from http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

As I said before ATCC is a biological supplier of bacteria and cells to biological researchers around the world. It is not a government agency and it does not supply biochem weapons. As I said before all of those organisms except for H. capsulatum are common "garden variety" bugs that could be found in any hospital in Iraq (or virtually anywhere).

Your continual parrot-like mouthings of that which you know nothing of merely serves to show your ignorance of this (and other) issues.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
How the heck can it be a suprise if everyone knows you're going to do it?

Are you an American?

An October Surprise refers to something the Administration does just before elections to give his party a boost in populatrity without time for emotions to cool off. Johnson tried to give the US an October Surprise in 1968 by getting a peace treaty only to have the South Koreans back out (at Nixon's behest) just before the elections. The Surprise was revsered and it carried Nixon to the White House.

There are allegations still unrpoven, but not totally disproven, that Reagan's people acted to prevent Carter from giving an October Surpise with the release of the hostages. It is claimed that Reagan's people told the Iranians they'd get a better deal with Reagan.

So in this case, the October Surprise I and many others fear is that the President launches a war in the waning days of October, and war fevor carries the Republicans to a massive victory in the House and Senate, which would result in untramlled Bush rule for the next two years. And while this would likely result in the Republicans being destroyed as a party forever (note: hyperbole), the damage they could do in two years is considerable.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And focus on the fact that noone mentiones is there another way of destorying their WOMD's apart from an outright invasion?

OK they want to topple Saddam, - the first question is why?

He doesn't suit them anymore. Again why?

Than it becomes more interesting,

They say he is a evil dictator with WOMD - "evil dictator" well that really means nothing to them, and if WOMD can be destroyed in another way - like inspectors, espionage , air strikes... or a combinatin of these, why topple Saddam, and such sudden pressure, almost out of the blue comparing to pre 9-11 situation?

Terrorism would sound more plausible after 9-11, but there is not enough evidence for a "anti-terrorism hike". So WOMD is the deal of the year...

What about all the terrorists and further polarization between Arab and western world following totally illegal invasion of an Arab county. Thinking about the numer of new terror recruits this will create, not to mention rolling over Iran, who could be next, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia maybe? Do you think that pro -western people there will be pro-western afterwards?

The question is WHY?

Aren't you guys at least a little concerned about the consequences of this act. This is no 1991 Gulf War, when the whole world was behing US even the Arabs, and if everyone thinks that Iraq is really no threat to US, - I think the same, and that is why current US administration treats them as whipping boys, however. This will most likely have true reprecussions in terrorist activity. If palestinians can do it, surely Iraqis can do it as well.

That is why I do not like it, if you exclude totally immoral behaviour of our governments that we should already get used to.

Terrorism is a threat, and what happens one day if one suitcasenuke explodes in your city? You will not be able to prove this is because of the latest Iraq invasion, but could well be.

The whole arguement is that the invasion of Iraq does not solve the problems US/ the world has with terrorism/ uncertain living, it increases them - a lot in my opinion.

[uh Clem]

So the US is going to overthrow the government in a country that just happens to have the world's second largest reserves of petroleum, and then will just walk away?

Ummm...right....

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Are you an American?

An October Surprise refers to something the Administration does just before elections to give his party a boost in populatrity without time for emotions to cool off. Johnson tried to give the US an October Surprise in 1968 by getting a peace treaty only to have the South Koreans back out (at Nixon's behest) just before the elections. The Surprise was revsered and it carried Nixon to the White House.

There are allegations still unrpoven, but not totally disproven, that Reagan's people acted to prevent Carter from giving an October Surpise with the release of the hostages. It is claimed that Reagan's people told the Iranians they'd get a better deal with Reagan.

So in this case, the October Surprise I and many others fear is that the President launches a war in the waning days of October, and war fevor carries the Republicans to a massive victory in the House and Senate, which would result in untramlled Bush rule for the next two years. And while this would likely result in the Republicans being destroyed as a party forever (note: hyperbole), the damage they could do in two years is considerable.

All your examples are of people deceiving the contry on a course of action. Where is the deception here? Where has anyone in the administration said anything that would not indicate that this is our prefered actions and if given their druthers they go right now, never mind October? The only people barely holding their fudge on this are the Democrats and purely FOR political reasons. They damn well know that if we did go ahead they would be trounced in the elections because they have been opposing action since the beginning. They would love this all to blow over until after the elections rather than having to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Taking misquotes out of context from morons who have trouble tying their own shoes and repeating them ad nauseum seems to be the best you can do on this issue. Just in case there is anyone else who might read and misunderstand your drivel....

If you think that of your senators - that are I hope better informed than you. (and you should hope the same )

Well no comment neccessary.

[Bereta_Eder]

Greece to study British evidence against Iraq
Tue Sep 24, 1:38 PM ET

ATHENS, Greece - Greece will study a copy of an intelligence dossier compiled by Britain outlining evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the foreign ministry said Tuesday.
A copy of the dossier was given to Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou after it was presented to a special session of the British Parliament by Prime Minister Tony Blair ( news - web sites). It was accompanied by a letter from British Foreign Minister Jack Straw.
The dossier included a map which showed that Iraqi weapons now being developed could reach Israel, all the Middle East, Greece and Turkey.


Greece chairs European Union ( news - web sites) military discussions because Denmark — which now holds the EU's rotating presidency — has opted out of EU military operations. Athens will take over the full EU presidency on Jan. 1.

"Mr. Papandreou reconfirmed the position of the Greek government for the need to respect the decisions of the United Nations ( news - web sites) and the exhaustion of all possibilities for seeking a diplomatic solution," said foreign ministry spokesman Panos Beglitis.
He added that the dossier was "being studied by the responsible ministries."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
All your examples are of people deceiving the contry on a course of action. Where is the deception here? Where has anyone in the administration said anything that would not indicate that this is our prefered actions and if given their druthers they go right now, never mind October? The only people barely holding their fudge on this are the Democrats and purely FOR political reasons. They damn well know that if we did go ahead they would be trounced in the elections because they have been opposing action since the beginning. They would love this all to blow over until after the elections rather than having to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

You really don't understand our political system and history and terminology, do you? Carter's October Surprise was not based on deception. Everyone knew Carter was trying to get the hostages out of Iran. Had he done so in Octoboer, he would very likely have won the Presidency for a second term.

As for Bush, where is the deception? Well, if you're a supporter of Bush, I gues there's no deception at all, because Republican President's never lie. Let's see, where the War on Terrorism? Where's the discussion on the Administration's ties to all those scamming CEO's? Where's the discussion about the terrible shape the economy is in? Nowhere, because the only topic is the War on Iraq. Yeah, nothing fraudulent going on here.

BTW, the Democrats are not opposed to a war against Iraq. They are opposed to unilateral war against Iraq which alienates the world from the US. They are opposed to giving Bush unlimted authority to attack Iraq for any reason. I have to say that they are not unreasonable.

[walruskkkch]

First off I am well aware of US history my friend. Carter lost the election for tons of other reasons than an alleged "October Surprise".

Your attempt to distract on this current need for action with more supposed conspiracies of the current president are rather lame. Why can't you accpet that Bush is telling the truth that action will occur with Iraq? It's sitting right there out in the open, no suprise at all. And it's not like the other issues aren't also being debated, it's just that some people do believe that the action against Iraq IS the most important thing to be discussed.

No, the Democrats are carefully trying toavoid having to make a black and white choice on doing something with Iraq, at least most of them. They desparetly don't want to have to vote yea or nay on action because then they would have to either show themselves as only rhetorically supporting a war on terrorism or support a President they wish only ill for.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
First off I am well aware of US history my friend. Carter lost the election for tons of other reasons than an alleged "October Surprise".

You really do have a problem understanding the concept. If Carter had pulled off an October Surprise, he very likely would have won the election. The elation over the hostages coming home would likely have caused people to vote with their hearts and not their wallets. Obviously, Carter lost for many reasons. The whole point of an October Surprise is TO DISTRACT PEOPLE FROM THOSE OTHER REASONS!

Why can't you accpet that Bush is telling the truth that action will occur with Iraq?

He hasn't given me any reason to accept it. All I've heard is assertions with no evidence. If Blair's dossier is anything to go by, there's nothing new under the sun. So why now? Why not last year? Why not next year? Why harp on it right before the elections.

And why are you so hung up on the word surprise. An October Surprise is a reversal of poltical fortunes based upon a major political event occuring just before the elections. The Johnson Peace Plan was also known about, and everyone was aware that he was trying to conclude the talks before the elecction. Obviously there was no surprise there, and yet it's still termed an October Surprise. Stop getting hung up on the specific meanings of words that have different meanings used in different contexts.

No, the Democrats are carefully trying toavoid having to make a black and white choice on doing something with Iraq, at least most of them.

And you base this on . . . ? Your dislike of the Democrats? I'm sorry, but given that the Democrats have already openly stated their support for the President, it's hard to accept your assertion that they don't support the President. The difference is, they aren't going to let him do whatever he wants but only act within specifically definaed perimeters, which, after all, is Congress's job.