On War

[Amelia]

[Bravus]

'Staying the course' is the fools way to kill more people.

Attacking other countries is the fools way to do the same.

Sorry, you know I love you, Amelia, but this is simply nonsense. In the present context, are you going to say that 'appeasement' of Saddam would have led to war? No way!

OK, I promise this is my last ever post on the Iraq war. no responses, no arguments, no rejoinders. It is illegal, immoral and stinks to Heaven... but people here will continue to defend it, and they'll have to do it without a counterpoint from me.

[Nicodema]

It [the Iraq war] is illegal, immoral and stinks to Heaven... but people here will continue to defend it.....

And that is the greatest shame and pity of all, save that they will do so in the name of God and thoroughly convinced the darkness before their eyes on the matter is the blazing sun of noonday and clear sight.

Makes me want to vomit.

Makes me really suspicious about the kind of "God" they really serve, if He is so powerless and out of touch with them that He cannot -- or is it will not? -- send forth His spirit to enlighten them.

Definitely does not increase either faith in or love toward said God.

Confusion and anger? -- yes, increase aplenty on this count.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't pretend to know all the answers but I do have questions. Didn't the pull out of Vietnaum result in the death of 3 million Cambodians? So staying the course in Vietnaum would have meant less death, not more.

And what would have been the correct thing to do with Iraq if we would have known before the war what we know now? We would have known that Saddam didn't have an active WMD program but was bribing UN Security Council members to get sanctions lifted so he could re-establish his WMD programs. I don't think we would have taken the same course of action but he certainly wouldn't have been ignored. Weapons inspectors were not the answer since the problem was his ability to bribe UN Security Council members.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

Weapons inspectors were not the answer since the problem was his ability to bribe UN Security Council members.

Your proof of this is ...?? And I mean real proof .... not garbage from some wingnut den of idiots cooking up pro-war propaganda.

[Dr. Shane]

The list of those recieving bribes from Saddam was not discovered until after the invasion. It was published in January 2004. The new Iraqi government has prosecuted Iraqis that were involved on the Iraqi side of the scandal. There are those that claim the list is fraudulent and it may be difficult to ever get at the truth because it is doubtful the nations accused of being on the recieving end of the bribes are ever going to be cooperative with investigations.

The UN Oil for Food Scandal (UNSCAM), Saddam, his many Global Friends, and other UN Scandals

Quote:

It is not just about which bureaucrat had his hand in the till. Nor is it just about which company slipped a dictator a few (or many) bucks.

It is about the UN and its legitimacy. During the run-up to the Iraq war, George Bush's opponents accused him of many misdeeds. Chief among them was "going to war without the UN." But if, the UN was, in fact, Saddam's enabler, if the UN Secretariat was effectively on Saddam's payroll, if important people in major antiwar countries were likewise beholden to the Iraqi regime, then that casts a wholly different light on "unilateralism."

[Nicodema]

The list of those recieving bribes from Saddam was not discovered until after the invasion. It was published in January 2004. The new Iraqi government has prosecuted Iraqis that were involved on the Iraqi side of the scandal. There are those that claim the list is fraudulent and it may be difficult to ever get at the truth because it is doubtful the nations accused of being on the recieving end of the bribes are ever going to be cooperative with investigations.

This reminds me of the kind of logic operating during the McCarthy lists of "communists" and "communist sympathizers" and the Salem witch hunts: if those falsely accused do not acquiesce to the false accusation, make a counter allegation that of course they are not going to cooperate or tell the truth, because they are guilty. It is argument from the presumption of guilt, which our justice system presumably is founded upon the OPPOSITE, to protect us from this kind of false logic used in witch-hunts, scares and pogroms.

Therefore, I call -- *ahem* -- you know what.

[Dr. Shane]

Not at all. Prior to the war we knew Saddam was playing the system. We knew he was smuggling out oil and demanding kickbacks. After the invation we gained access to all of Iraq's documents. Saddam had all the sales and kickbacks documented. So we then had hard evidence. Saddam would have no motive to cook up false evidence against these people and companies.

Those that want to refuse to believe it are the ones that seem to have made up their minds about what they want to believe. They dig in their heels and decide that no amount of evidence contrary to their pre-established belief is going to change their position. These are what are known as idealogues. They cling to a certain idealogy and defend it regardless of the evidence. Perhaps the two most famous are Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore.

Saddam was a threat. He was not an imminent threat. Yet if the world community would have done nothing, he would have gotten sanctions lifted and resumed his WMD programs. That is the no spin version.

[Nicodema]

Those that want to refuse to believe it are the ones that seem to have made up their minds about what they want to believe. They dig in their heels and decide that no amount of evidence contrary to their pre-established belief is going to change their position.

You have no proof of this allegation, as it goes to the motives and intents of others which you have no capacity to divine. I have already offered you substantial reasons why not to buy into allegations that are made on the basis of a presumption of guilt and the making of "lists" of the guilty without proof.

Show me the PROOF, and I will listen. A "list" is not proof. McCarthy made lists. The Salem witchhunters made lists. The Inquisitors of the middle ages made lists. And we all know what happened during those dark eras.

[Dr. Shane]

There is plenty of proof but the ostrich needs to pull his head out of the sand to see it.

For example, anti-war folks claimed that Bush cooked the intelligence books to make a favorable aurguement for the war to the American people. When evidence came forward that George Tennant actually withheld information from the President, the idealogues didn't not admit they were wrong but only repeated their own predetermined position.

Another example, anti-war folks claimed Bush went to war for oil, yet none of the oil revenue from Iraq has went into the American treasury. In fact, American has not only paid for the cost of the war but for a large part of the reconstrction. Yet the idealogues still do not admit they were wrong.

Another example, anti-war folks claim that President Bush knew that Saddam posed no threat to America. Yet Russian President Putin came forward and admitted he advised Bush that Saddam was planning to use terrorists to attack the US with WMDs on US soil. The idealogues simply respond by saying that doesn't matter because Bush wouldn't have believed Putin anyway.

I could go on and on. I could list many simular examples of where conservative idealogues have done the same thing. I am not an idealogue. When I get new information, I have no problem admitting that a prior position I held was wrong.

In the issue at hand we have a list of people and companies that recieved bribes from Saddam was discovered in Iraqi documents after Iraq was invaded. That is hard evidence. Now whether or not the ostrich pulls its head out of the sand to see the evidence or not is up to the ostrich.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

A "list" is not proof. McCarthy made lists.

McCarthy's lists were made by McCarthy (and many on his lists actually were communists). However the Oil-for-Food scandel list that was discovered was made by Saddam's government prior to the war. They also have numberous banking records to support the list.

[Neil D]

Quote:

There is plenty of proof but the ostrich needs to pull his head out of the sand to see it.

Um...I haven't seen this evidence, either...I mean, I know that there were countries that were shown to have dealings with Sadam...including the US...but I don't have any knowledge of who they were, nor have I heard of their prosecution of thier acts of involvement....

And I don't believe that any of the reporters have lists, at least, not what I have seen...

And even if there were lists of who did what, there is no guarentee that these companys from those accused and various nations had enough clout to sway thier goveremnt policies....

We have only the accusations, from mostly from conservatives, that these countries had dealings with Sadaam...My understanding was that there were companies from various countries that had those dealings...Subtal shift in wording and resulting conclusions...

So, while I have not seen the evidence of what our soldiers brought back from Iraq, I have to conclude that there is political spin on what was found.

The above is just my opinion...It is capable of being pursauaded to a new position.... Care to give me the evidence?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I haven't seen this evidence

This is why I have said over and over and over again. We need to get our news from more than one source.

Quote:

I don't have any knowledge of who they were

Why is that? Why are there Americans that don't know this? It isn't because the information isn't available.

Quote:

I don't believe that any of the reporters have lists

The site I linked to in an earlier post has a link to the list so now everyone that has internet access has access to the list found in the Iraqi documents.

Quote:

even if there were lists of who did what, there is no guarentee that these companys from those accused and various nations had enough clout to sway thier goveremnt policies....

Read the list. One was France's ambassador to the UN. Another was the Russian Communist Party.

If we don't get informed we cannot hold informed decisions. I cannot stress it enough. We need to get our news from multiple sources. Don't trust any one outlet of the media.

[Amelia]

I find it very interesting that by my posting that cartoon it's automatically assumed that I back the hostilities in Iraq. Yes, very interesting indeed.

[Neil D]

Quote:

It has also been alleged that the American and British governments were fully aware of the scandal, but opted to close their eyes to smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.

US Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) is quoted in an interview for the New York Times as saying, "There is no question that the bulk of the illicit oil revenues came from the open sale of Iraqi oil to Jordan and to Turkey, and that that was a way of going around the oil-for-food program [and that] We were fully aware of the bypass and looked the other way."

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that

"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

The report also found that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of these recipients, Houston-based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers, have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions.

The above quote is from Wikipedia, which I will admit, can give an overview of what is happening...

Quote:

This is why I have said over and over and over again. We need to get our news from more than one source.

I have not been able to see everything every day. There are days on end that I do not see the news. And, as I understand it, there are around 54 UN investigations over this matter, and only one is public...The rest are closed to public scrutiny...Why is that???? [retorical question]

And from what I understand, the US companys involvemnet of UNSCAM have NOT been prosecuted. WHY IS THAT???? [another retoritcal question.}

Quote:

Why is that? Why are there Americans that don't know this? It isn't because the information isn't available.

Maybe it's because they are working overtime so that they can make ends meet....They don't have time to cultivate a sit-down meal with the family like the rest of america [seems to me that this is a myth- the sitting down to eat, not the too busy part.].

Quote:

If we don't get informed we cannot hold informed decisions. I cannot stress it enough. We need to get our news from multiple sources. Don't trust any one outlet of the media.

I have never said that I use only one source... I use several reliable sources...but sometimes they don't just all print the same story.. on the same day...in the same way...

[Dr. Shane]

Here are a few on the list:

• Bulgarian Socialist party/ 12 million
• Chad foreign minister/ 3 million
• Jean-Bernard Merimee, French diplomat, their UN representative, and former president of UN Security Council/ 3 million
• Indian Congress party/ 4 million
• President Sukarnoputri / 2 million (Indonesia)
• Romanian Labour party/ 5.5 million
• ZarubezhNeft (Russian Foreign Economic Association, RFEA) / 174.5 million
• Rosneft Ambix - Azakov (Russian presidential office)/ 86.9 million (2 million of them to Russian ambassador in Baghdad)
• Russian Communist Party companies/ 137 million
• Raomin (son to former Russian ambassador in Iraq)/ 19.7 million
• Russian presidential office secretary/ 5 million
• Russian Orthodox Church/ 5 million
• Russian National Democratic party/ 2 million
• Slovakian Communist party/4 million

[Neil D]

How come the Deuffer report isn't listed here with the offending US companies?

Quote:

Duelfer investigation

The Duelfer report, released on 30 September 2004, described in a key finding the impact of the Oil-for-Food Programme on Saddam's regime:

• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.[vol. I, p.1]

The final official version of the report cites only France, Russia and Canada (countries who were also strongly anti-war) as violators who paid kickbacks while at the same time, by CIA order, specifically censoring out companies from the US originally included by Duelfer. [11] However, the full version of the report, before the U.S. names were removed, was sent to congressional committees and some of it made publicly available. The U.S. companies implicated include Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. and El Paso Corp. [12]

[Nicodema]

Quote:

A "list" is not proof. McCarthy made lists.

McCarthy's lists were made by McCarthy (and many on his lists actually were communists). However the Oil-for-Food scandel list that was discovered was made by Saddam's government prior to the war. They also have numberous banking records to support the list.

Are these things made public so others can examine these lists?

And why is this taken for truth, when 'everyone' is convinced that in all other matters, Saddam is a bald-faced liar??? With nefarious designs against the rest of the (free) world??? I mean this could just as easily be another device to cause havoc and breakdown in the structures of the world he supposedly 'hated' right?

[Nicodema]

Here are a few on the list:

• Bulgarian Socialist party/ 12 million
• Chad foreign minister/ 3 million
• Jean-Bernard Merimee, French diplomat, their UN representative, and former president of UN Security Council/ 3 million
• Indian Congress party/ 4 million
• President Sukarnoputri / 2 million (Indonesia)
• Romanian Labour party/ 5.5 million
• ZarubezhNeft (Russian Foreign Economic Association, RFEA) / 174.5 million
• Rosneft Ambix - Azakov (Russian presidential office)/ 86.9 million (2 million of them to Russian ambassador in Baghdad)
• Russian Communist Party companies/ 137 million
• Raomin (son to former Russian ambassador in Iraq)/ 19.7 million
• Russian presidential office secretary/ 5 million
• Russian Orthodox Church/ 5 million
• Russian National Democratic party/ 2 million
• Slovakian Communist party/4 million

How convenient ... that they are nearly all communist countries. And yes let's stick France in there, that is sure to rattle the US wingnutters chains. Oh yes, the plot thickens indeed.

[Bravus]

Not a comment on the war, but just a reply to Amelia. I might not have been clear enough in my post: I don't necessarily assume that you support the war. I wanted to state that the *cartoon* was arrant, dangerous nonsense, but you had posted it and I didn't want to offend you. Whatever your feelings toward the war or the cartoon, and whatever your reasons for posting it, I like and respect you, but I couldn't allow the cartoon to go by without strong comment.

[bevin]

Quote:

Didn't the pull out of Vietnaum result in the death of 3 million Cambodians?

No, it did not.

About 1m (not 3m) were killed by Pol Pot's regime, which had the support of the US Government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/78988.stm

The killing was stopped by an invasion by North Vietnam in 1979.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Saddam was a threat.

He was an enemy of Al Queda, but the US Senate's own intelligence report.

He was an enemy of Iran - and indeed had been supported by the USA in a long war against them.

He invaded Kuwait, but only after the US gave him the nod (thank you Madeliene Albright).

In short, the Bush family has totalled messed up in their playing of the politics of this region from a US interests point of view, and has sold you a complete bill of goods on topic.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

When evidence came forward that George Tennant actually withheld information from the President, the idealogues didn't not admit they were wrong but only repeated their own predetermined position.

Tennant showed Bush the evidence.

Bush himself, knowing how flimsy it was, said "is that all there is?"

Tennant replied "its a slam dunk" but did not provide any more evidence

Bush and Chenney, who had been planning attacking Iraq since well before 9/11, said "ok, lets invade them"

The Weapons Inspectors said "We can't find any weapons"

Bush and Chenney said "we know where they are"

The WI said "tell us"

B&C said "look here"

The WI looked there - and found NO WEAPONS

B&C said "we know where they are but we won't tell you"

The WI said "we have looked hard and there aren't any"

So B&C ordered an invasion, before their blatant lying was so thoroughly revealed that the world wouldn't let them

And then NO WMD WERE FOUND - apart from a few hundred archaic and corroded shells, left over from the hundreds of thousands used in the Iran/IRaq war

and now the US Intelligence agencies report that the invasion has actually made the world much less secure

So much for putting fools and looters in the White House = lets hope for a better choice from the next elections.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

How come the Deuffer report isn't listed here with the offending US companies?

This only shows the scandel was even bigger than originally reported. It is noteworthy that names were removed from the list but not added.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

How convenient ... that they are nearly all communist countries. And yes let's stick France in there

Just a reminder, US officials did not make the list. It was found among Iraqi documents.