Future of Russian Government

[Simoni]

Wow- not even We the Sheeple are as dumb as some of the statements in this thread. But then- we the sheeple have been getting a rude awaking over the last couple of years.

Lets have another round of "Saddam was involved in 9/11" or "Saddam supported al quaida" or "we gotta fight em there so we dont fight them here"

Right.  But the bushies seem to have forgotten that their reason for war was all wrong. 

Not even finding senile old Saddam writing poetry and humming quieted them.  And they are still yapping five years later.  Never mind the facts...they just make up their own.

[BC]

Right.  But the bushies seem to have forgotten that their reason for war was all wrong. 

Not even finding senile old Saddam writing poetry and humming quieted them.  And they are still yapping five years later.  Never mind the facts...they just make up their own.

And for the last year absolutely nothing over the search for Bin Laden who will become a trillion dollar man, worth more alive and free than dead or God forbid jailed and within the US legal system. After all, if captured or killed what's the point of continuing?

One man riding around the mountains on a donkey and the greatest military might on earth with super duper spy technology  can't find him. - That reeks.

[William3rd]

Bush isnt interested in finding his pet bogeyman. He just wants to trot him out on special occasions. . . . . .

[BillyB]

But the Kurds are not dealing with the internal violence prevalent in in other parts of the country.

deccie, did you not understand the part where the Kurd told me "the only problems are Saddam's leftovers running around and the religious fanatic Shiites who Iran is funding and encouraging them to tear the country apart."? The Kurd understands what part of Iraq has the problems and so do most of us to the point I shouldn't need to supply a map. deccie, I'm finding it increasing difficult to debate you. I shouldn't have to repeat things twice.


 

And they are still yapping five years later.

simoni, this is exactly the type of bias I was referring to. It is not only bias, it's blindness to what is happening in reality. Reread this thread and notice who did the most yapping about Bush. Start at page 5 and read the bashing. Look at any off track thread that turns political and it's ALWAYS someone who has something bad to say about America or Bush. Then some anti Bush/American posters spit out insults towards those that disagree. If they have a strong argument, they they should state it and not waste time typing an insult. Look at the news media the past years starting with Bush's term and what do they yap about? Look at the people who believe in the media and they still believe WMD's were not found when in fact they actually were and those people continue to yap the loudest. Bush lied! and I guess they never told a lie themselves. Did you know when WMDs were found, ABC, NBC, and CBS did not even report the story when it was announced by US Senators?

simoni, I know I struck a nerve with some people with my last post. Most people don't want to hear anything good about Bush. But I'm getting tired of listening to all the Bush bashing and all the wrong happening in America. You'd think based on what some people say about what's happening in America and the way this country is run, it's a sh!hole to live in.

Do any of you guys have anything positive to say or does negativity fill your life? In your opinion, is there anything done right in America? Can you recognize what Bush does right or is he just so bad he's the Antichrist?

Not talking about anyone in particular but if any of you find yourself having the need to always criticize liberals or conservatives or individuals in politics and have difficulty talking about what they do right or generally have little positive to talk about when referring to individuals, policies, and nations, for the sake of your relationship and other people in your life, stop and quit being a burden to those people.

Remember guys, Bush was supposed to capture Bin Laden right before his second term to secure his re-election. What's his motivation now to keeping him hidden which spits in the face of all those who are waiting for Osama to face justice?

[Gator]

Many of the anti-war people seem most upset about the fact that Bush put us in Iraq.  I agree that it was a bad mistake.  However, let us pretend that we can not turn the clock back.  Now what would you suggest we do for long-term national security?

BC,

One man riding around the mountains on a donkey and the greatest military might on earth with super duper spy technology  can't find him. - That reeks.

Obviously you have never been to Afghanistan.  I have.  The tribal area of Pakistan seems just as forbidding, although I have not been there.

BTW, your man Clinton had Osama on camera and did not pull the trigger (a timely cruise missile or two would have done it).

BTW, were you a veteran of service in a war zone?  And what is a Blue Chain?  Is this a Rush Limbaugh - 9/11 thing?  Already this week I have learned about Bape shoes, so maybe my feeble mind can learn something else.

[SANDRO43]

Look at the people who believe in the media and they still believe WMD's were not found when in fact they actually were and those people continue to yap the loudest. Bush lied! and I guess they never told a lie themselves. Did you know when WMDs were found, ABC, NBC, and CBS did not even report the story when it was announced by US Senators?

BillyB, since this rather important piece of news was not reported by the Italian media, either, I had a look around and found:

Munitions Found in Iraq Renew Debate
Panel Is Divided Over Whether Troops Uncovered Weapons of Mass Destruction
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Do the 20-year-old Iraqi chemical munitions found by U.S. and coalition forces support the prewar contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and justify the invasion of Iraq?

That question divided Republicans and Democrats again this week, this time at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on the estimated 500 rockets and artillery shells containing degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent.
...
The classified overview of chemical munitions says that U.S. forces have found about 500 shells, canisters or other munitions containing the chemical weapons. Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the committee the shells were produced in the 1980s for the Iran-Iraq war but were not used.
...
In his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush said that U.S. intelligence indicated "Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html)

A 30,000/29,984 estimate (or rather certainty, since it was heralded as a/the major reason for the invasion) vs. a 500 reality seems slightly disproportionate . I could not find much detail on that important discovery, but would not be surprised if it came from some forgotten ammo dump in an area near the old Iran-Iraq frontline . 

But since you might object that the Washington Post is not objective in its reporting of the Bush administration, I looked further and also found this:

ASSOCIATED PRESS
updated 9:24 p.m. ET April 25, 2005
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/)

Granted that the CIA apparently has not enjoyed a particularly brilliant track record in intelligence-gathering in the recent past (Osama, where are you ?), but they were probably sufficiently "motivated" to come up with some hard evidence in this case, and did not. 

Now, who are we supposed to believe on Saddam's WMDs, you or the CIA ?

[Mir]

Bush went to war for personal profit?  Really?  What whack job source did you gleam this information from?

I never made that statement, perhaps it is you who feels that way and is afraid to admit it?(just kidding
I only observed that the Bush family business does benefit as long as oil business flourishes and oil prices are high.
To me all politicians are humans and human greed can influence their decisions. That does not mean everything they do is a lie and in bad faith, just that some of their acts are not what they seem and putting blind faith in them is a mistake.
The only person who has blind faith is the one who believes every word of a politician as the absolute truth, that is not me, it is you(by your own admission).
It is true that the relationship between crude oil price and pump price is not linear and other factors play a part but one does not need blind faith to know that when oil prices are high the oil companies make more profits.

[Mir]

How many of you guys read from the media about the time Bush went to the UN to tell them they have corruption within the oil for food program? The UN did nothing until they were finally exposed.

Can you please tell me the date when Bush went to UN to tell them about this corruption?

The CIA's Duelfer report may have confirmed the gross falsity of the WMD claims invoked by the Bush Administration to justify its war against Iraq, but it has also triggered a feeding frenzy in the growing attacks against the United Nations. In January the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada published a list of people and organizations, including UN personnel, who supposedly received vouchers from the Iraqi government to purchase oil. In April the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office) published a report claiming that the Oil for Food (OFF) program had been rife with corruption and that through smuggling and kickbacks, Saddam Hussein had managed to acquire more than $10 billion in illicit funds. A series of Congressional investigations followed, featuring conservative witnesses who pilloried the UN for incompetence, corruption and general unfitness. In the latest hearings chaired by Republican Norm Coleman, the committee staff claimed that Saddam's access to illicit funds totalled over $21 billion--twice the sum claimed by the CIA--and that the money went to terrorists around the world, not to mention (rather astonishingly) the post-Saddam insurgency.

If it is true that Benon Sevan, former head of the OFF program, accepted illicit oil vouchers, then that may well constitute fraud (although the evidence cited against him so far has been tenuous). But it would also have been in direct violation of clear UN policies--hardly an indicator of institutional corruption.

Rarely mentioned, either at the hearings or in the press coverage, was the fundamental distinction between the policies established by the Secretariat and the UN agencies and those that result from decisions of particular member states within the highly politicized Security Council. For example, the CIA report says that the bulk of the illicit transactions were "government to government agreements" between Iraq and a few other countries, for trade outside the OFF program. According to the report, they resulted in income to Iraq of $7.5 billion.
The largest of these arrangements was with Jordan--revenue from which totaled about $4.5 billion. This trade arrangement was the single largest source of Iraqi income outside the OFF program. From 1990 until the OFF program began in late 1996, "Jordan was the key to Iraq's financial survival," according to the report. Why didn't "the UN" do something about it? Because the Security Council--where the United States was by far the single most influential member--decided in May 1991 that no action would be taken to interfere in Iraq's trade with Jordan, America's closest ally in the Arab world.

Likewise, the maritime smuggling that took place under the nose of "the UN" in fact took place under the nose of something called the Multinational Interception Force, a group of member nations that responded to the general invitation of the Security Council for nations to interdict Iraqi smuggling. The "UN" Multinational Interception Force turns out to have consisted almost entirely of the US Navy. The commander of the MIF was at every point, from 1991 to 2003, a rear admiral or vice admiral from the US Fifth Fleet. The United States contributed the overwhelming majority of ships--hundreds in fact. Britain provided the deputy commander and some naval forces and other countries contributed a few ships. The UN itself provided no forces or commanders. "The UN" failure to interdict Saddam's tankers of illicit oil turns out, in nearly every regard, to have been a US naval operation.

The much-vaunted kickbacks on import contracts also turn out to be not quite as advertised. Saddam, the claim goes, inflated the price of import contracts by 5 to 10 percent, then received the difference in cash from the contractors. Thousands of contracts, stretching over years, were involved; how could the UN have been so incompetent as not to notice? In fact, prices inflated by only 5 or 10 percent were difficult to detect precisely because the amounts were so small and often within the normal range of market prices. But when pricing irregularities were large enough that they might have indicated kickbacks, the UN staff did notice. On more than seventy occasions, the staff brought these to the attention of the 661 Committee, the Security Council body charged with implementing the sanctions. On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring. Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts--$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002--it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented.

Far from giving Saddam a free hand, the OFF program involved extensive monitoring and oversight. The government of Iraq first had to submit a list of every single item it hoped to purchase in the coming six months, and the UN staff had to approve the list. Once Iraq had signed a contract with a vendor, the contract was circulated to UNSCOM (later UNMOVIC), to see if there was anything that could be used for military purposes. Every member of the Security Council had the opportunity to review every contract, and each member could block or delay any contract for imports. Every member of the Security Council also had to approve every contract for the sale of oil. If there was cash paid under the table, it did not happen for lack of oversight. It happened despite the most elaborate monitoring system imaginable. And if the members of the Security Council--including the United States--failed to do their job, that is not the fault of Kofi Annan.

The Duelfer report, along with eight sets of Congressional hearings, vitriolic press coverage and considerable ranting by the right, suggest an antipathy toward the UN that goes well beyond election-season maneuvering. The consequences of this scandal will be considerable. We witnessed the ill-fated decision to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization; we might recall that the Security Council would not grant the American demand to authorize an invasion, precisely because the United States was unable to provide any compelling evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If the world's most respected institution of international governance is rendered impotent by accusations as distorted and exaggerated as these, we should all fear the consequences.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/gordon

[William3rd]

Looks like a couple of the few remaining Bushistas have taken refuge here since they couldnt reach EIB headquarters. . .

[deccie]

deccie, did you not understand the part where the Kurd told me "the only problems are Saddam's leftovers running around and the religious fanatic Shiites who Iran is funding and encouraging them to tear the country apart."? The Kurd understands what part of Iraq has the problems and so do most of us to the point I shouldn't need to supply a map. deccie, I'm finding it increasing difficult to debate you. I shouldn't have to repeat things twice.

Well,  I find where he lives integral to his assesment of the situation. If, for example he was dealing with situations of his local market being bombed by suicide bombers daily OR dealing with the trigger happy personal security firms perhaps his assessment of the situation  would be different!   Also, it is very difficult for you to repeat things twice when you quite often don't say them at all!

. Then some anti Bush/American posters spit out insults towards those that disagree. If they have a strong argument, they they should state it and not waste time typing an insult. Look at the news media the past years starting with Bush's term and what do they yap about?

And you don't think the swift boat episode was not the same type of politics?!?! People who engage in negative politics should not unexpectedly find themselves on the receiving end of the same thing! That has been the standard mode of operation for both the GOP and the Democrats for years! Or are you going to tell me the likes of Rush Limbah and co are actually warm and fuzzy people  who do nothing but talk about the positives in people they oppose?!

Look at the people who believe in the media and they still believe WMD's were not found when in fact they actually were and those people continue to yap the loudest. Bush lied! and I guess they never told a lie themselves. Did you know when WMDs were found, ABC, NBC, and CBS did not even report the story when it was announced by US Senators?

Because Billy, as has been pointed out to you, they were OLD weapons. You never did answer my question about whether it is even possible to completely destroy a WMD. Not deactivate it. Not render it useless. But completely destroy it. As I said, I fully remember those UN inspectors on TV dumping WMD's or components of WMD's in pits and then burying them. It seems your logic is that if these are then dug up again "Look! Iraq had WMD's!" Really, You can do better than that.

 

Not talking about anyone in particular but if any of you find yourself having the need to always criticize liberals or conservatives or individuals in politics and have difficulty talking about what they do right or generally have little positive to talk about when referring to individuals, policies, and nations, for the sake of your relationship and other people in your life, stop and quit being a burden to those people.

On of the basic tenets of a democracy is the ability to criticise those in authority and in power and finally, the ability to vote to change that government if you so decide. If you are uncomfortable with such criticism perhaps it is you who should change countries to a more totalitarian structure where such criticism is not so well tolerated. You can then praise the "glorious leader" as much as your heart desires. It seems Rove has failed in his bid to entrench power in a particular group of people. Thank God for that.

That is not to say Bush's critics have all the answers too. They do NOT.

[BC]

Many of the anti-war people seem most upset about the fact that Bush put us in Iraq.  I agree that it was a bad mistake.  However, let us pretend that we can not turn the clock back.  Now what would you suggest we do for long-term national security?

IMHO Simoni hit the nail right on the head with his statement one page back:

But truly, our war should have been in Afghanistan.

And on becoming energy independent of that region.  For you see, as evil as Iraq was and is, their neighbors are the same, or worse.  I'd have loved to use that 500 billion dollars for research and development in becoming energy independent and to stop pouring our money into that region to buy oil.  The only way to win that war is to pull our money out.

I watched a very interesting documentary on History channel last night via a nifty little device called 'Slingbox'.. that beams me cable tv direct from the US.. Mega Disasters: Oil Apocalypse
Maybe a bit extreme, but even considering the truth lies somewhere in-between, quite scary.  The same fervor in more constructive lines Simoni mentioned will kill two birds with one stone.

The other is that the US should return to the ideal that freedom and individual liberties are the values that need to be protected and not degraded as they have.  Many folks around the world admired the US for many years.  I've lived in many countries and was quite proud to state that the freedoms enjoyed in the US were greater.  Example Germany and many European countries with the need to register where you live, a concept that was tough to bite considering my American schooling.  In the end though considering the changes in the last few years the US government can and does know every move I make and can locate me at any ATM or checkout counter worldwide, not to mention they listen when I call my parents.  In this aspect the US has stooped to levels nearing the good ol USSR.

The US should go back to setting an example, if it is not already too late.  The protectionism exhibited only serves to isolate.  The land of the free is no more, a guilded cage comes to mind.  The home of the brave has evolved to the home of the scared.

BC,
Obviously you have never been to Afghanistan.  I have.  The tribal area of Pakistan seems just as forbidding, although I have not been there.

I have not, but I do know that mountains do not shoot.  I really believe a bill in Congress that would directly fund the search for Bin Laden, it would pass with a breeze, regardless of the amount requested.  He is obviously not in Iraq.

BTW, your man Clinton had Osama on camera and did not pull the trigger (a timely cruise missile or two would have done it).

I have never had a 'man' along party lines.  In fact I believe the party system should be abolished forthwith.  Many mistakes have been made by all presidents from Kennedy onward in my lifetime, thinking only for the day and not their children.  They have all failed when trying to push specific forms of democracy in foreign lands by supporting, training, arming and bankrolling folks like Bin Laden and Saddam.

BTW, were you a veteran of service in a war zone?  And what is a Blue Chain?  Is this a Rush Limbaugh - 9/11 thing?  Already this week I have learned about Bape shoes, so maybe my feeble mind can learn something else.

Only the cold war zone where also many lives were lost.  Still, I was asked to do things that were both dangerous and as gruesome as what happens in Iraq.

The blue chain I mentioned refers to the 'pull' of patriotism I feel.  Here on this board I sense a lot of patriotism but feel much is misguided.  At one time in my life I also shared that feeling of patriotism.. It was nice and I truly believed in it.  The chains of patriotism binds my head, but the surface of facts and history I stand on are shifting in the opposite direction. Something is bound to break.  No, I did not watch the movie.

I hope the above answers your questions.

I do keep an open mind though, so input certainly encouraged.

A query on my part:
Considering democracy, US vs RU, what is really different when looking at individual liberties guaranteed by their respective constitutions?

gotta run for now.. so apologize for any spelling or unclear thoughts above..
Cheers!

[timothe]

Many of the anti-war people seem most upset about the fact that Bush put us in Iraq.  I agree that it was a bad mistake.  However, let us pretend that we can not turn the clock back.  Now what would you suggest we do for long-term national security?

I agree that it was a Bush mistake, too, to invade Iraq with thin intelligence.  Just recently, I read on another board about how Bush forced the war resolution before the 2002 elections.  The poster was claiming that Bush pushed for the war authorization for political reasons. 

So I went back and pulled out some news stories from October 2002 and discovered there were some concerns about the validity of the intelligence before the war resolution was voted on.

But no one "lied" about the intelligence.  The information available was presented to Congress by the Bush administration.  Both houses voted on and passed the war resolution by significant margins. 

So it was Bush's war in that Bush sold the resolution to invade.  It was Bush's war in that the US military under Bush vastly underestimated the reaction of Al-Queda, Iran, Syria, and the Iraqi people themselves had after Saddam was removed from power.  But he didn't go into this war alone.  He had the authorization from the other branches of the US government. 

All of these accusations by individual members of Congress stating that someone "lied" about the intelligence is BS.  Congress knew, just as the Bush administration knew, that the intelligence was thin.  (although there was significant history behind Saddam using WMDs on his own people, especially the Kurds.)  Many senators and representatives voted for the war resolution for political reasons...they weren't sure they agreed with the resolution, but they voted for it anyway because they didn't want to be on the wrong side politically.  In my opinion, it is these Congressmen that should be hung by their shoes.  They were the ones that acted selfishly, to preserve their power. 

What many people choose to forget about this "war" is that at one point, Al Queda leadership imported extremeists from all over the globe to form Al Queda Iraq and to swell the insurgency.  Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri (sp) both encouraged their forces to just hold out; that American will was weak; that the war could be won by attrition; that Iraq was now the central theatre in the war against the Zionists.  Bin Laden knew that the American people, specifically the American media, would not tolerate the loss of American lives for long.  (Beirut, Mogadishu, Vietnam)

Congress knew that, too.  Yet they attempted to handcuff the execution of the war and the president not once, not twice, but 43 times.  These were the same people that voted for the war resolution in 2002. 

BC, you implied in a reply to one of my posts that you didn't believe that the system of checks and balances did not work in relation to the Congressional investigation of the tapes that weren't waterboarding.  If you really wanted to point to checks and balances not working, point to the Congressmen and women that voted for the war resolution for political gain.  (I guess it's good that you don't live in the USA anymore since you don't believe in the basic principles of the US government.)

I think Gator's point is right on the money.  Was it right to invade a country with thin intelligence? no    But there was a point, shortly after the insurgency began, that the extremeists chose to fight us there.  At that point, we had to stay until Al Queda was removed and a new government was put in place.  Yet, these politically motivated Congressmen, enpowered by the anti-war media, has been undermining the effort for four years and continues to do so to this day.  That's the part that sickens me to the core of my being.  What Congress did to a 4 star general in September sickens me.  What Hollywood has done to make the US troops look the real enemy sickens me.  What the mainstream media has done to undermine the war efforts through reporting by omission, overstating both the threat and conditions, and various op-eds that have equated Bush to Hitler sickens me the most.

I thought we were the United States of America. 

[William3rd]

Ein volk,
Ein Reich,
Ein Bushler. . . . . . . Saw the poster, it was pretty funny. Had blond hair blue eyed "Heidi" types with a Texas flag.

As far as the war resolutions go, there was a decent write up in the St. Petersburg Times back in 03 about Blair presenting the US WMD evidence to Putin and getting laughed out of town. . .

Where do you see UNITED anywhere in this mess? This president has made very clear that his idea of United is "my way or the highway."

Which is why I expect to see his party punished severely in the upcoming elections. . . . .

[BC]

BC, you implied in a reply to one of my posts that you didn't believe that the system of checks and balances did not work in relation to the Congressional investigation of the tapes that weren't waterboarding.  If you really wanted to point to checks and balances not working, point to the Congressmen and women that voted for the war resolution for political gain.  (I guess it's good that you don't live in the USA anymore since you don't believe in the basic principles of the US government.)

If one takes the time to read my post rather than skim I believe just the opposite was said:

My objection is that there are no checks and balances at all for the moment.  Along with other constitutional rights they have been perverted or thrown out the Oval Office window.

and

Unfortunately when there is a will, ways are found to circumvent these checks and balances.

If you have ever watched congressional hearings, you will note how many witnesses who are 'in the know' are somehow barred from saying anything.

With the branches of government fighting each other no good will come and the checks and balances rendered useless.

Believing a process is not working is a far cry from proclaiming that the principles are not sound. IMHO the checks and balances were meant more to deter and prevent, not to clean up the mess.

Your fervor is clouding your ability to read and reason.  The fact that I enjoy living overseas is exercise of my freedom.. I ran from nothing.  My experiences viewing the world from several angles should be cherished (well at least listened to) and not chastised.  You want to take even that away? Maybe declare me something less than American, thus not a valid voice in this discussion?

Why do you feel it's good that I don't live in the US anymore?

[Phil dAmore]

Bush family business does benefit as long as oil business flourishes and oil prices are high.

It is well documented that the Bush family are war profiteers going back at least to Prescott Bush:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/

http://clamormagazine.org/issues/14/feature3.php

I forget who it was that said war is good for two things:  Economies and surplus population reduction.

[Gator]

BC, 

I agree that Simoni's critique is what we should have done.  However, such statements are Monday morning quarterbacking.  Easy to see now that we should not have run the play that resulted in a fumble and got a key player injured.  Yeah, the scouting reports were wrong.

Yet, it is not Monday morning.  The game is still on.  What if you were the quarterback?  Forfeit and be sent down to a league with less competition?  Change the rules (it is that type of game without referees)?  Kick ass but be hurt in the process?

Personally, I do not know the answer. 

[BC]

Gator,

I watched Europeans (irrespective of government) support kicking @ss and taking names for 9/11. I did not hear one negative comment.

Iraq was totally different, even during the build up period..  If folks in this itty bitty town in the middle of nowhere somehow knew it was not correct I wonder how those pushing buttons could really justify their actions. - this is not Monday quarterbacking.

But yes, what to make of it all now.. - without someone loosing face impossible. Question is what in the end will be deemed more valuable.. the legacy of a nation or dubious legacy of one man.  As it stands now it will be left up to a new government, and in the end the blame for whatever happens will be placed on it.  In two years, he will show up on CNN, smile, and say 'See!.. I told you so..'.

[William3rd]

At least in the NFL- the league will assess fines and suspensions. In our league, they walk away clean (although some of the boys may have to stay in the US and not travel to certain places for the rest of their days)

[Shadow]

The plan to remove Saddam  was thought out and executed well, regardless on if you agree with the way in which it was done.
What has been miscalculated is the way in which the local population would react. Instead of them uniting in a democratic fashion (as an orderly Western country) the different population groups are fighting each other for power, and diplomatics have little effect.

This means that unless someone can install a new Saddam, chance of a united country depends on taking out the warlords and giving power to the moderate representatives of the population.

[William3rd]

Which is one of the several reasons why Bush the 1st did not remove saddam.

And who selects the new saddam-the United States?!?!?!?!?

[BillyB]

Because Billy, as has been pointed out to you, they were OLD weapons. You never did answer my question about whether it is even possible to completely destroy a WMD. Not deactivate it. Not render it useless. But completely destroy it. As I said, I fully remember those UN inspectors on TV dumping WMD's or components of WMD's in pits and then burying them. It seems your logic is that if these are then dug up again "Look! Iraq had WMD's!" Really, You can do better than that.

deccie, this is the last time in this thread I'm going to debate you. You have short term memory or you have a habit of simply listening to only what you want to hear. You can do a search of this quote written directly for you by me. If you don't know what any of the words mean, look up a dictionary. "Maybe they incinerate  the stuff, maybe they add certain chemicals to neutralize the biological and chemical weapons, maybe the US buries it on our land as we do with Russian nuclear material that we buy from them so they don't sell it to the terrorists."

Neutralize can also be considered a way of destroying a WMD if it by definition makes the weapon not a WMD. Each chemical and biological weapon is dealt with in different ways. Heat and fire may destroy one type of chemical but it may activate another so incineration may be a solution for one chemical weapon but not another. I'm not a chemist but I have a general understanding of how chemicals react under different circumstances and environments.

Sandro, Mir, deccie and company, I've read all the anti Bush sites years ago that tried to downplay the fact WMDs that were found. Your arguments are weak compared to what they dug up. Yes the weapons are old, yes they are less potent but by definition, they are WMDs that were known to exist and should have been turned over to the UN whether they were simply in storage hidden, buried in the ground in attempt to be discarded, or hidden in Syria. There are many WMDs unaccounted for. Based on the markings on the shell cases, they are Iraq's WMDs and they are against UN resolutions.

Some of you think we should cut Saddam slack because there were few WMD's and they were old. If you are on an airplane or airport and someone claimed they had a bomb under their clothes even if they didn't, would you want the authorities to cut that person slack? Saddam was cut slack in the past and it may upset you but enough is enough.

After the first gulf war, Saddam executed many of his people and buried them in mass graves, attempted to assassinate Bush Sr.(which would please many of you), attempted to invade and attack Israel(which would be against UN resolutions), invaded and attacked Jordan(which would be against UN resolutions), signaling to the World intelligence community he is pursuing WMDs, and bribed officials of the UN and other nations by dealing under the table, shipping oil against UN resolutions but still getting support of those who even help designed UN resolutions for Iraq. Enough is Enough but apparently not enough for some of you to continue to let Saddam run Iraq and make a mockery of the UN and collective nations of the World that try to keep it a stable place. Do you cheer on the people who make a mockery of your own police force too?

Many Arab nations had enough of his antics and since Saddam is proven to be a loose canon that will never change ways, they let us use their land as a launching pad to finish the job. They, along with Bush, thought another war was wise to your dismay.

It's interesting to see the reactions of people who held the term "Bush Lied!!!" so dear and refuse to let it go. Instead of being upset with major media who kept them in the dark for years and they have to google to read about WMDs and the attempts to downplay the WMD's, they continue to insinuate Bush lied. Is it too hard for you to admit the truth that those weapons did meet the definition of WMDs no matter how old or how much it's potency is reduced? Those were clearly some of the weapons we were looking for. We knew those weapons existed because we know they were manufactured and we know Saddam did not use them all on his people. There was no exclusions for old and less potent WMD's. We wanted accountability. In the end, it was simply a question of where they're located at. It's a shame they're not all found, most likely they're in storage in Syria or still buried in Iraq. If Saddam can successfully ship oil to Syria, he certainly could deliver a few weapons to his fellow party members in Syria.

Guys, I don't have a habit going around like the "Bush Lied" crowd to tell people their truth to rub it in. I don't have time for that. Most of the time when I see people with their bumper stickers that say "Bush Lied" and "Say NO to Bush's illegal war", I make no attempt to correct them. It's best they live in their own world and let them be happy believing in what they want based on what the media tells them.... or what the media doesn't tell them.

For those that think I listen to Rush Limbaugh, I don't for the same reasons I don't like listening to your argument. You're bias and can't recognize, when it's right in front of your nose, the good or the fact that they're correct, of the people you criticize.

Unfortunate fact in life is you guys did not get to make a decision, Bush has that luxury and he exercised it the way he thought best. Although I think there are things he could've done different, I understand this is a complex situation of trying to get the 3 factions in Iraq to unite and co-exist. Personally after the war, I thought it be best to split the nation into three parts so there would be no infighting. Like you, I don't get to make the decisions.

Shadow made a good point the plan to remove Saddam was thought out and executed well, it was miscalculated on how the population would react. I think Bush knew it would be tough to get the population to unite. The problem is that the military isn't a police force, it's trained to kill, not to restore order.

Mir, that article you submitted saying that it was the USA's fault for not doing our job instead of Kofi/UN is ridiculous. The oil for food program is a UN program not USA. You expect the USA to run that program but I'm sure you'd be the first to say the USA sticks it's nose in everybody's business. The statement that the OFF program was the most monitored and had the most oversight is also ridiculous. So I guess every man in the UN representing every nation has right to review every contract? People at those levels don't have time to review every little document. But when it was caught of the corruption going on, it was brought to attention of Bush and Bush responded. You can google the date when Bush went to the UN to tell them they have problems in the oil for food program. Keep in mind, Bush may have not actually been there at the UN but a US representative on his behalf may have relayed his newfound knowledge of what's going on. Mir, when you google, see if you can find me an article where Kofi/UN says the oil for food scandal was America's fault, not theirs. Let them speak, not some agenda driven article.

[William3rd]

deccie, this is the last time in this thread I'm going to debate you.

Sandro, Mir, deccie and company, I've read all the anti Bush sites years ago that tried to downplay the fact WMDs that were found.

Your arguments are weak compared to what they dug up. Yes the weapons are old, yes they are less potent but by definition, they are WMDs that were known to exist and should have been turned over to the UN whether they were simply in storage hidden, buried in the ground in attempt to be discarded, or hidden in Syria. There are many WMDs unaccounted for. Based on the markings on the shell cases, they are Iraq's WMDs and they are against UN resolutions.

Some of you think we should cut Saddam slack because there were few WMD's and they were old. If you are on an airplane or airport and someone claimed they had a bomb under their clothes even if they didn't, would you want the authorities to cut that person slack? Saddam was cut slack in the past and it may upset you but enough is enough.

After the first gulf war, Saddam executed many of his people and buried them in mass graves, attempted to assassinate Bush Sr.(which would please many of you), attempted to invade and attack Israel(which would be against UN resolutions), invaded and attacked Jordan(which would be against UN resolutions), signaling to the World intelligence community he is pursuing WMDs, and bribed officials of the UN and other nations by dealing under the table, shipping oil against UN resolutions but still getting support of those who even help designed UN resolutions for Iraq. Enough is Enough but apparently not enough for some of you to continue to let Saddam run Iraq and make a mockery of the UN and collective nations of the World that try to keep it a stable place. Do you cheer on the people who make a mockery of your own police force too?

Many Arab nations had enough of his antics and since Saddam is proven to be a loose canon that will never change ways, they let us use their land as a launching pad to finish the job. They, along with Bush, thought another war was wise to your dismay.

It's interesting to see the reactions of people who held the term "Bush Lied!!!" so dear and refuse to let it go. Instead of being upset with major media who kept them in the dark for years and they have to google to read about WMDs and the attempts to downplay the WMD's, they continue to insinuate Bush lied. Is it too hard for you to admit the truth that those weapons did meet the definition of WMDs no matter how old or how much it's potency is reduced? Those were clearly some of the weapons we were looking for. We knew those weapons existed because we know they were manufactured and we know Saddam did not use them all on his people. There was no exclusions for old and less potent WMD's. We wanted accountability. In the end, it was simply a question of where they're located at. It's a shame they're not all found, most likely they're in storage in Syria or still buried in Iraq. If Saddam can successfully ship oil to Syria, he certainly could deliver a few weapons to his fellow party members in Syria.

Guys, I don't have a habit going around like the "Bush Lied" crowd to tell people their truth to rub it in. I don't have time for that. Most of the time when I see people with their bumper stickers that say "Bush Lied" and "Say NO to Bush's illegal war", I make no attempt to correct them. It's best they live in their own world and let them be happy believing in what they want based on what the media tells them.... or what the media doesn't tell them.

For those that think I listen to Rush Limbaugh, I don't for the same reasons I don't like listening to your argument. You're bias and can't recognize, when it's right in front of your nose, the good or the fact that they're correct, of the people you criticize.

Unfortunate fact in life is you guys did not get to make a decision, Bush has that luxury and he exercised it the way he thought best. Although I think there are things he could've done different, I understand this is a complex situation of trying to get the 3 factions in Iraq to unite and co-exist. Personally after the war, I thought it be best to split the nation into three parts so there would be no infighting. Like you, I don't get to make the decisions.

Shadow made a good point the plan to remove Saddam was thought out and executed well, it was miscalculated on how the population would react. I think Bush knew it would be tough to get the population to unite. The problem is that the military isn't a police force, it's trained to kill, not to restore order.

Mir, that article you submitted saying that it was the USA's fault for not doing our job instead of Kofi/UN is ridiculous. The oil for food program is a UN program not USA. You expect the USA to run that program but I'm sure you'd be the first to say the USA sticks it's nose in everybody's business. The statement that the OFF program was the most monitored and had the most oversight is also ridiculous. So I guess every man in the UN representing every nation has right to review every contract? People at those levels don't have time to review every little document. But when it was caught of the corruption going on, it was brought to attention of Bush and Bush responded. You can google the date when Bush went to the UN to tell them they have problems in the oil for food program. Keep in mind, Bush may have not actually been there at the UN but a US representative on his behalf may have relayed his newfound knowledge of what's going on. Mir, when you google, see if you can find me an article where Kofi/UN says the oil for food scandal was America's fault, not theirs. Let them speak, not some agenda driven article.

I am sorry, BillyB. I have tried to read through and understand your twisted logic. It is impossible. You must be from another dimension where the GOOD DUBYA holds court. How you came over to this dimension, I am not sure but this is where the EVIL DUBYA and Darth Cheney rule. A place where the bill of rights is something to be challenged and where preemptive strikes outside of the UN are the order of the day. . . . .

BTW- how many UN navy ships are on patrol right now? How many UN tanks in Iraq? UN fighters on patrol?

I can see how things come to bush's attention- about the same way I get my lab's attention- I smack him over the head or point his eyes in the right direction until he sees. . When the Iran uranium info was brought to this president's attention, he didnt read it for a year.  Or he lied about knowing about it for political gain. . take your pick. Either pick is scary.

[Mir]

Billy

OK when I have some spare time I will research the scandal.I think I have the final report of investigation committee somewhere.
But I am sure you know that UN does not have any permanent police or army and is dependent on member nations to provide such policing personal.
It is quite clear that people from all nations were involved in the corruption (including the USA)
And if Bush government did make noises about(and I am not sure when and where) it then they were driven by their agenda and not the good of the world/people of Iraq.

[BC]

Yet, it is not Monday morning.  The game is still on.  What if you were the quarterback?  Forfeit and be sent down to a league with less competition?  Change the rules (it is that type of game without referees)?  Kick ass but be hurt in the process?

Personally, I do not know the answer. 

There is only one answer. Give the new government an ultimatum and get out.  There may be riots, a lot of killing, maybe even civil war.  There is nothing wrong with saying 'hey.. we tried' or even 'hey.. we screwed up'.

The war and forward costs even if all are returned tomorrow will be in excess of 1T dollars, one tenth of the national debt.  Staying any longer will only increase this amount with no chance of any financial recovery.

What happens when the team fumbles? they get back into a huddle, discuss the best options and go out for the next play.  That's also why they have the 10 yard rule IIRC, to keep one team from keeping the ball while only moving ahead millimeters at a time before the game time is over.

Sinking another 1T (that will be saved continuing this ordeal) into reducing dependency on oil and overseas manufacturing capability is the only way. At the same time, open borders to the south for cheap factory labor.  The knowledge is available, the materials too.  Just do it.

The true 'might' lies in economics and not million dollar missiles that will either not be used or wasted turning sand into glass pebbles.  I believe RU is following this model.  China of course economically, has won huge battles if not the war.  They possess the power to destroy the US economy tomorrow.. If they so desire.

Lets say tomorrow the Iraquis get their act together - what will the US have gained aside from a bit more guaranteed oil and puffed breasts? A secure world? I think not.  Getting rid of those gas guzzling SUV's would have the same effect.

Worried about Iran?.. Bush stated Iran should not have the 'knowledge' needed to build a nuclear weapon.. guess he forgot that any good physics student can calculate critical mass and most of the knowledge necessary is in the public domain.  It's not rocket science anymore.  N. Korea tested up a mere 1KT nuke that was probably more fluke than nuke.  Iran will have to test and such tests are detected easily.  Let the world decide what to do then and if asked blow the sh!t out of 'em.  It won't cost a dime already not spent.  Until the middle east is a nuclear free zone (including Pakistan and Israel) the problem will always be present.

I could go on and on but I think the point is made that big problems require drastic solutions.  Tomorrow will not be as easy as today any way you look at it so might as well get going with the program.

[DKMM]

How did this turn into another Iraq thread?