Well, I spent the better part of an hour reading everyones comments regarding our involvement, engagement, battle or whatever you want to call with IRAQ. I think it is interesting to note that everyone has an opinion and I am not seeing anyone discussing what truth we have to date about how we got ourselves into this situation. Lets start with the basics, like did you know, we are not truly at war with the IRAQ nation? Really, if you understand "constitutaional law" the President has certain obligations that are manditory of his office, which requires him to gain majority approvals through the various bodies (houses) of our government. The President did not make a legal "declaration of war" on IRAQ which is also manditory under U.S. constitutional law, therefore by factual definition, the U.S. is not at war with IRAQ. By not making such a declaration or seeking approval to invoke war against IRAQ, President Bush was able to move forces into the Gulf area without congressional or senate approvals, it's pretty sneaking, but many of a U.S. President has used this loophole to their benefit. The news media and even the President has used the words "we are "at" war with IRAQ, but at no time has the President invoked the "declaration" of war as defined under U.S. constitutional law. So what? well, everyone should understand, that a real War ( and I don't mean Vietnam, Korean or any of those poorer excuses for conflict with nations), I mean a war such as WWI or WWII or the Spanish-American or the British-American.....or heck, even The Civil War. A real War has different consequences, different actions can be taken, there is more substance to such a confict where we all know the why's, the wherefores, the who dunnits, whose to blame and so forth.

So what do we have? Well under military definition, what we have is a "conflict", of which "we" or the U.S. started.

That brings us to lesson number two, which no one in this forum ever brought up......why we are really engaging in conflict with the regime of Saddam (damn I got it right eh? re-read the words; "engaging in a conflict with the regime of Saddam, not a war declared against the country of IRAQ.....otherwise we could legally start shooting soliders dressed as civilians, cause in a real war collateral damage rules, under military engagement if someone smells like an enemy, looks like an enemy, tastes like an enemy....you shoot them first and then determine if they in fact "are the enemy". And simply we haven't been doing that cause our boys have been getting killed playing non-war engagement rules...period!

Back to the why, come on, use your noggins, why why why are we screwing around over there? Because Bush (or as I affectionately call him "Shrub") is liberating a dicator, a murder, a rapist???? BS and wake the heck up all of you, if that were the case, why haven't we done a dang thing about China who we know genocides their own, kills infants of the wrong sex and blaintly brutalizes women into submission so they won't get pregnant or forces them to kill their own children, or what about Cuba (I won't go there right now), or how about Terran, Pakistan, Turkey, yea that's right, they have been brutalizing their own for decades.....and while we're on the subject, what about N. Korea? Lets face those boys are going to nuke sooner or later, why not blast the heck out of them, they're certainly more of a threat then Saddam?

Why??? well, are we all too young to remember Desert Storm? Who was the President then? Hmmmmm, let me see, ah, I've got it....George Bush....Shrub's daddy, dang, what was that all about? Forgot already did you??? Makes no difference what it was about, what you should know is we were at the doors of Saddam, we knocked, but didn't go in? We left him power, when we had him cornered, we stopped short and let hundreds of thousands of innocents die because we fail the mission of ousting that fool when we had the chance the first time? Who made that stupid decision, well a certain popular General at the time told George Bush, we had beaten them enough and that we should pull back and just mouth them into submission. Don't believe me.....PBS just ran one heck of a documentary on the whole process.....very well done and accurate. So what does that have to do now??? George Bush Sr. failed, and let tons of Kurds die, hundreds of thousands died, millions suffered when we pulled out of there....and the U.N. (which is just the biggest pile of cow pie in the world) stood by and did almost nothing to curtail Saddams punishment of his people that rose up against him during Desert Storm. Sooooo, here comes George W. Bush, Jr. and where is the second place that boy heads? Right to IRAQ to clean up his daddy's mess, to clean up history, to make ammends for the stupidity of his Father's lack of foresight and action to assist the Kurds and the IRAQ nation as a whole by ridding the country of Saddam.

This is a personal agenda item for "Shrub", and all of you should be damn angry that our men and women are dying along with IRAQ innocents......if this were the first time we had been over there, I would feel different, this isn't and we're not done yet..remember I said something about N. Korea?? Well seems "Shrub" wants to extend his axis of evil out a bit further when IRAQ has been dealt with.

One last piece of poop, I am an American, I think everyone in this world should be free to make their own decisions. I am not sure that all of our intentions in this country are really that honorable and we need to be watch towers over our government officials.....politics can kill...we have centuries of proof of that.

While we are praying for our troops and the IRAQ civilians, eveyone in the U.S. needs to say a quiet one for this country......all of us should be extemely aware of our failing economic condition, since Bush took office our national debt has climbed to its highest in decades, unemployment is soaring, medical health care for the elderly has been reduced, there have been more filings for business related bnakruptcies in the last two years then was filed during the past five years combined. All major Airlines in the U.S. have projected they will be in bankruptcy before the end of this year. The tech sector has gone in the toilet. Our so called war on terrorists is costing us a billion dollars a day! Currently we are supporting with financial aid over 31 countries throughout the world to the tune of 100 Billion a year.....my friends, simply put, we are in deep poop!

>I won't feel bad at all

I didn't think you would. That attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country and it is that attitude that is threatening world peace, not the "peaceniks who are left of center" or Saddam. The "peaceniks" aren't a threat to anybody and Saddam hasn't been a threat to anyone since 1991.

This comment was edited on Mar 28, 15:52.

<How will you feel if you're wrong and we've killed innocent civilians based on bad intelligence reports and gut feelings?

-I won't feel bad at all, because it's your leaders fault..Saddam. He could have prevented all this. He could have been for peace. He could have fed his people instead of building big effigies of himself and large temples.

Movie stars that are similar to Saddam they also like large effigies of themselves. They also think they're so important and above normal people. No wonder they love Saddam so much! When speaking out against the war, They think they can say what ever they want(IE the dixie chicks) but alas they are learning the cold hard truth.... we won't put up with it! Someone's going to get a busted lip!(financial or otherwise)

Liberals everywhere are now learning the truth, you can have opinion, but your going to pay a price baby! (IE Politically Incorrect host bill Maurer?) When they cancelled his show I was just giddie the whole week long, just a long deep chuckle that lasted all week, crash and burn baby! whoo hoo!

-and babar, we are going into Iraq because of 17 failed UN resolutions after Saddam invaded a friendly neighboring country in 91' -remember that one, you dipshit? Saddam signed an agreement to disarm - not just WOMD. He has failed to do that, but man he loves having you in his army.

-Stop posting links to loony web sites. That's just great all the stupid references are from photos and such. I don't know dude, did you read all the references....you ID10T.

Peaceniks are to the left of center(<20%) and will try and fight for the middles attention - that's right, middle America(I am an independent), but for now, nobody is listening and your an embarrassment to us. So you guys can now go back to your regularly scheduled programs(IE X-Files, MTV Real Life...ETC) I will just sit back and watch the car wrecks occur(IE foot in mouth syndrome, IE your life).

-Spanker has Spankend

Would you be supporting this war if liberation was the only reason?

There are plenty of cases where I'd support military action, including this one, if liberation were the only reason. I'd like to liberate Cuba and North Korea as well. Most politicians, however, tend to think of National Interest as the overriding priority rather than anything else. If I were President, then everyone would really be pissed at me for the actions I'd take militarily. That's not to say that I enjoy war, or that I'd be correct in doing so. It's a double-edged sword and while liberation or any kind of meddling in another country's affairs can do good, it can also create harm.

It's a very politically risky thing that Bush is doing in a lot of ways, but I'm in complete agreement with his reasons. Even if there are no WOMD, I feel we're justified since Saddam has been lying to the world about his compliance in many ways already. So much so, in fact, that it's made us suspicious enough to invade just to see if he's lying or not.

Well, without going into a lot of tedious detail: A lot of the 'references' are simply credits to the source of the various photographs included with the article. Others refer to books about particular pieces of military hardware that the author mentions in his story. It's likely he simply consulted them to retrieve the little factoids that he's included in the piece to make it sound more legitimate. (Such as the specificatons of various pieces of military hardware)

Have a closer look at the references and see what they 'refer' to.

I'll most likely write a more thoughtful reply to this later (don't have time at the moment), but just out of curiosity which one of Mill's works is that quote from? I just recently read Utilitarianism and On Liberty, and I don't remember it from either.



PZ

My concern with this though is that many of the references (particularly those from CNN) are from live broadcasts, so there's no way I, as an interested reader, can verify them. Also note that many of the factual claims he's making are not footnoted, so I have no idea how to verify many of the claims without tracking down each individual source, and reading/viewing them to see if the information is valid/not out of context.

So while I am sympathetic to some of what the author says, I would be extremely skeptical as to the accuracy of the claims being made. That's not to say it should be dismissed, but rather it shouldn't be taken at face value.


PZ

>I've read it, and it's bunk.

Thanks for your input, crispy. Anything in particular jumps out at you as bunk? What parts are highly questionable? I honestly don't know if any of that info is true or not, I'm just want to hear more than "it's bunk".

I also find it interesting that people are quick to pass this info off as a conspiracy theory (it may very well be), but they believe without question the conspiracy theory put forth by the US and Britian that Saddam has WOMD and is a threat to peace without any proof what-so-ever.

I've read it, and it's bunk.

Sure there are lots of important-looking references, however the way in which these references have been used is highly questionable.

I'm sorry, Babar, but I have to go with KaRRiLLioN on this: "it still seems to me that it's more of a conspiracy theorist's wet dream rather than what really happened".

>WOMD was just one of many.

It was the main reason we are invading their country. There may be others but they are all secondary to him having WOMD. Think about it, we didn't send UN Liberation teams in to Iraq, did we? The entire reasoning by the US and Britian has always been he has WOMD and based on that they want to liberate the Iraqi people by doing a regime change.

If he doesn't have WOMD, there is no reason for a regime change and liberating the Iraqi people is not a good enough reason to invade their country. Especially since we are killing civilians....the people we are supposed to be liberating.

Would you be supporting this war if liberation was the only reason?

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 21:32.

If no WOMD are found, it probably means that he's done a very good job of hiding them.

I also seem to remember Regime change and liberating the Iraqi people as being goals of this campaign. WOMD was just one of many.

I read that article, and while it's quite long and thought-provoking, it still seems to me that it's more of a conspiracy theorist's wet dream rather than what really happened. Joe Vialls seems to be one of those people who can find a conspiracy in anything. I ran a google search on him and found tons of such articles.

Maybe's he's right and we're all the proverbial sheep, but I doubt it. The government is made up of a lot of people and is seldom the monolithic entity that it's made out to be. If such conspiracies existed like that, then I think the news would be much more wide spread on it because someone who had been part of it would've spilled the beans.

War is Peace. Big Brother is very proud of you!

Again, that's not the reason we are invading his country. We are doing it because he supposedly has WOMD. If it was because of the way he treats his people there are a lot of countries we should be invading but aren't.

You also didn't answer my question:

How will you feel if you're wrong and we've killed innocent civilians based on bad intellegence reports and gut feelings?

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 21:07.

>Yes your info is very biased and isn't from a reliable source.

Here are the refrences to that article. Are you claiming that CNN, the CIA, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the US Government, the US Air Force, etc aren't reliable sources?

REFERENCES

Al Sabah, Kuwait, CNN, live coverage 1991.
CIA disinformation, War Crimes, Ramsey Clark, Maisonneuve Press, New York 1992
CIA knowledge of pending invasion. The Commanders, Bob Woodward, London 1991.
CIA Psywar Department. CIA Diary, Philip Agee, 1975.
de Marenches, Count. The Evil Empire, Marenches, D, & Ockrent, C, 1988
Dead Iraqi women and children. Washington Post, Dupont, B.O., also The West Australian, p.16, 07/03/92.
Depleted Uranium, GAU-8A gun, US Air Force Documentation, 81st Tactical Fighter Wing, USAF. Also "The Last Frontier", Foster P.R., USAF (magazine) article.
Desert camouflage. CNN, live coverage 1990.
Doctors/Population. PC - Globe, Demographic world computer database.
F117A Stealth Bomber. Stealth Technology Vindicated, Archer, B, USAF Yearbook 1993.
Falklands, Seismic. BPPDV Briefing, October 1981
Falklands, Exploration. Radio Australia, Heather, S, Buenos Aires, 8/12/91
Halabja, Gas Attack. Iraqi Power & US Security in the Middle East, US Army War College, February 1990. New York Times, Wines, M, 28 April 1991, p.13.
Marchetti, Victor. The CIA and the Cult of intelligence, Marchetti V. & Marks J, London
McMahone, John. The Man Who Kept The Secrets, Powers, T, 1979.
Napalm, AV8B Harrier. CNN, live coverage 1991.
Oil outputs & prices. World Oil, 1990. Arab nations 1990-93. Oil Industry Sources, Vialls.
Oil price predictions during 1981. America's Thirst For Imported Oil, Weaver K.F, in Special supplement, National Geographic, February 1981.
Pickering, Thomas Reeve. Who's Who in CIA, Mader J, 1968 Washington's War On Nicaragua, Sklar, H. 1988

Did you even read the article?

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 21:00.

Ok, so they found 3,000 chemical suits. Too bad they didn't find any chemical weapons, or you might actually be right.

Is the tank considered a WOMD and one that they aren't supposed to have?

We have no proof that Saddam fell short of disarming, we only have claims by the US that he fell short. That's a pretty big difference, don't you think?

Iraqi exiles, now U.S. citizens, talk to their families in Iraq by phone. Their relatives tell horrific stories of the situation in Basra, saying their loved ones want an uprising but they remain afraid of Saddam's regime.

Inhabitants of the mostly Shiite Muslim city on Tuesday started attacking members of Saddam's Baath Party and other Iraqi fighters, who responded by firing mortars at their own people, the British military said. The British, in turn, shelled the mortar positions and bombed Baath headquarters. Coalition aircraft later helped the effort.
Two leaders of the Iraqi exile community here in the Unites States say Saddam deliberately placed the Fedayeen Saddam-- a group of Saddam's loyal thugs -- in the cities of Karbala and Basra to maintain his brutal grip on power.

"Fedayeen Saddam have full authority," said Sheik Sadiq Khadem Mohammed, an Iraqi Shiite exile. "Since they start this organization to challenge Shia movement, they have full authority on the streets. They arrest. They torture. They kill in the streets and everyone knows about that."

Mohammed said a curfew had been imposed in many cities -- including Basra -- and under these restrictions, Iraqis must get permission to go outside their own homes, to go to the market, or simply to meet in groups. This is designed to prevent gatherings, which could ultimately lead to a serious uprising against Saddam.

Saddam rules not only civilians by fear, Mohammed said, but also his military forces, including the Fedayeen.

After the last Gulf War in 1991, the Shiite community said it was encouraged by the United States to topple Saddam but didn't get the necessary backup. Saddam eventually slaughtered thousands of Shiites in the south.

Right now, Shiite leaders in exile say they are afraid this could happen again.

"We welcome the war because Saddam is a dictator," Mohammed said. "You cannot take him out of the power but by force that is for sure. We hope the war will be the process for peace in Iraq."

Yes your info is very biased and isn't from a reliable source. BEWARE of what you read on the internet.

Forces' Finding
When American forces went into a hospital in the Southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya, after some intense fighting, they found 3,000 chemical suits, 200 weapons, stockpiles of ammunition and one tank inside the building. One hundred seventy Iraqi paramilitary soldiers from inside the hospital were taken into custody. Navy Captain Frank Thorp said the Marines who took control of the complex used loudspeakers to encourage any patients and doctors to come out before they went in. The hospital was being used as a staging ground for Iraqi forces in Nasiriya, which fell to about 4,000 Marines after a two-day battle. Marines found themselves at times up against apparent civilians who turned out to have weapons hidden under their robes.

Wow brave peace warriors hiding in a hospital.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82237,00.html

Blix never gave Saddam a clean bill of health, infact he said they were lacking in proof, but like I said it's not Blix's job to make them disarm, it is Saddam's resposibility, and he has fallen short of this.

Has anybody read this article yet?

The Falklands Alternative
America’s motive for invading Iraq
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/subliminalsuggestion/falklands.html

I'd be interested to hear what some of you have to say about the info in that article.

>Remember that the UN Inspectors jobs are to confirm the non-exsistance with a complying government. It was not their job to search for these weapons, it was Iraqs responsibilty to prove it. When South Africa disarmed they brought the UN inspectors in and proved to them they didn't have any and showed all the proof and had everything well documented. South Africa wasn't trying to play a cat and mouse game with the UN.

According to Hans Blix, the Iraqi's were very cooperative, and they even destroyed missles that the UN inspectors found that flew 15 miles too far. Blix still states that Iraq doesn't have WOMD and so do a few other UN inspectors. They even claimed that the US was sending them on wild goose chases. Only the US administration claims that Iraq still has them and they have offered absolutely no proof to back up those claims.

>Now that we have found a chemical facility camaflaged in the desert that was hidden and not even on the UN list and a T55 tank w\ 3000 chem suits and weapons in a hospital.... your argument is totaly out of reach.

They didn't find any chemical weapons at the chemical facility and they found no proof that chemical weapons have been made there in the last few years. Also, the US knew about that chemical plant about 12 years ago so why didn't they send the UN inspectors there?

From a March 23rd CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.iraqi.plant/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pentagon officials on Sunday said the U.S. military has secured a facility in southern Iraq that may have been used to produce chemical weapons.

The officials cautioned that it was not clear what suspect materials may still be at the plant, which is located in Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad."

From GulfLINK, "Suspect BW Sites in Iraq," DIA, October 1991, File: 961031_950719_60210003_92d.txt.

...Summary: [deleted] Several sites in Iraq with the capability to produce and store BW weapons. Although the capability exists, no evidence of current production or storage was found. Enclosures. Text 1. Background [deleted] suspected biological warfare sites. Among the sites were the Al-Kindi company, An-Najaf, Taji, the Serum and Vaccine institute, the
Agriculture Research and Water Resources Center, and the Ibn Haithan institute....

I haven't heard anything about the tank. Got a link? And remember, it was also reported that Iraq was using Scuds and that was later retracted.

And it's not against the law to own 3000+ chem suits. How do you know they weren't keeping them in case they were attacked with chemical weapons? Especially since the country that produces the largest amount of chemical weapons is currently invading their country and their neighboring country Iran has attacked them with chemical weapons before.

>You are 100% incorrect and need to eat crow.

Nope, not even close. When Iraq uses WOMD or we find stockpiles of WOMD that weren't planted by the US because they couldn't find any, then I'll gladly eat crow because I have no problem with being wrong about my beliefs that we should have avoided war until we had absolute proof.

How will you feel if you're wrong and we've killed innocent civilians based on bad intellegence reports and gut feelings?

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 19:45.

Remember that the UN Inspectors jobs are to confirm the non-exsistance with a complying government. It was not their job to search for these weapons, it was Iraqs responsibilty to prove it. When South Africa disarmed they brought the UN inspectors in and proved to them they didn't have any and showed all the proof and had everything well documented. South Africa wasn't trying to play a cat and mouse game with the UN. Now that we have found a chemical facility camaflaged in the desert that was hidden and not even on the UN list and a T55 tank w\ 3000 chem suits and weapons in a hospital.... your argument is totaly out of reach. You are 100% incorrect and need to eat crow.