Cigar Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
-
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
I think the most important item in that article is Russia's involvment in providing arms to Iraq and the Oil for Food program being illegally used (which the French and Germans were profiting from).

The 3 amegos that vetoed the war in the first place and the reason Kerry keeps saying we didn't have a real coalition (if you ask me France Germany and Russia can go f*** themselves, I'm sick of our country helping them)
 

·
An ass, not a fish
Joined
·
4,476 Posts
summerkc said:
The 3 amegos that vetoed the war in the first place and the reason Kerry keeps saying we didn't have a real coalition (if you ask me France Germany and Russia can go f*** themselves, I'm sick of our country helping them)
I'm going to disagree with you.

You will find they didn't veto the war, they thought that the UN weapons inspectors were doing their jobs properly and were effective, and refused to follow the bellicose line Bush took. Bush decided not to bring forth a UN resolution that would be vetoed, he went ahead himself, so in the end they vetoed nothing.

In hindsight they were right as there were no WMDs. All Canada wanted to join the war in Iraq (as they were already helping in Afghanistan) was proof of an Al Queda link or WMD. We know now there were no such things, and Canada was quite right in refusing to send their soldiers into combat for such a farcical and fanciful rational.

Calling the raggedy bunch that went along with arm twisting and bribery a "coalition" is a joke.

The Institute for Policy Studies published a report [1] analyzing what it calls the "arm-twisting offensive" by the United States government to get nations to support it. Although President Bush described nations supporting him as the "coalition of the willing", the report concludes that it is more accurately described as a "coalition of the coerced." According to the report, most nations supporting Bush "were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery." The techniques used to pressure nations to support the United States include a variety of carrots and sticks including:

Promises of aid and loan guarantees to nations who support the U.S.

Promises of military assistance to nations who support the U.S.

Threats to veto NATO membership applications for countries who don't do what the U.S. asks

Leveraging the size of the U.S. export market and the U.S. influence over financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Deciding which countries receive trade benefits under such laws as the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which, as one of its conditions for eligibility for such benefits, requires that country does "not engage in activities that undermine United States national security interests".

Deciding what countries it should buy oil from in stocking its strategic reserves. The U.S. has exerted such pressure on several oil-exporting nations, such as Mexico.

http://www.fact-index.com/t/th/the_un_security_council_and_the_iraq_war.html
 

·
-
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
and how is that any different from how anything else is done? you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.

so, you're saying that they weren't trying make WMD? or that they didn't have the capabilities to make them already on hand, they just weren't made yet (or they were dismantled and then moved)?
 

·
-
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
oh, i agree with summerkc, france and germany go fluck themselves in regards to this matter.
 

·
-
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
"At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Oct. 6, Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria..."
(IHT - say that over again?)

""A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say." (IHT - i wonder WHY he can't say? maybe cuz it's classified??!!)

"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end
sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when
sanctions were lifted.
"
(IHT - did i see the letters W-M-D in there?)

"ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000
km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and
only one reportedly passed the design phase. ISG assesses that these plans demonstrate Saddam's continuing
desire-up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)-for a long-range delivery capability.

Procurements supporting delivery system programs expanded after the 1998 departure of the UN inspectors.
Iraq also hired outside expertise to assist its development programs.
• ISG uncovered evidence that technicians and engineers from Russia reviewed the designs and assisted development
of the Al Samud II during its rapid evolution. ISG also found that Iraq had entered into negotiations
with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems.
• According to contract information exploited by ISG, Iraq imported at least 380 SA-2/Volga liquid-propellant
engines from Poland and possibly Russia or Belarus. While Iraq claims these engines were for the Al Samud
II program, the numbers involved appear in excess of immediate requirements, suggesting they could have
supported the longer range missiles using clusters of SA-2 engines. Iraq also imported missile guidance and
control systems from entities in countries like Belarus, Russia and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).
(Note: FRY is currently known as Serbia and Montenegro but is referred to as FRY in this section.)"

"In late 2002 Iraq was under increasing pressure from the international community to allow UN inspectors
to return. Iraq in November accepted UNSCR 1441 and invited inspectors back into the country. In December
Iraq presented to the UN its Currently Accurate, Full, and Complete Declaration (CAFCD) in response to
UNSCR 1441.
• While the CAFCD was judged to be incomplete and a rehash of old information, it did provide details on the
Al Samud II, Al Fat'h, new missile-related facilities, and new small UAV designs.
• In February 2003 the UN convened an expert panel to discuss the Al Samud II and Al Fat'h programs, which
resulted in the UN's decision to prohibit the Al Samud II and order its destruction. Missile destruction began
in early March but was incomplete when the inspectors were withdrawn later that month.
The CAFCD and United Nations Monitoring, Verifi cation, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspections
provided a brief glimpse into what Iraq had accomplished in four years without an international presence
on the ground.

Given Iraq's investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network,
skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam
clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD.
"

"Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq's BW program.
Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program
and destroy or surrender components of the program.
In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve
what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientifi c community."

"ISG, for example, uncovered two specifi c instances in which scientists involved in uranium enrichment kept
documents and technology. Although apparently acting on their own, they did so with the belief and anticipation
of resuming uranium enrichment efforts in the future."

"As with other WMD areas, Saddam's ambitions in the nuclear area were secondary to his prime objective
of ending UN sanctions.

ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the
nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted."

"There are no credible indications
that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire
to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered
."

"The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base
needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from
the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction
and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production
of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CWrelated
efforts."
(IHT - they keep repeating his desire for sanctions to be lifted so he can return to making chemical weapons. his ultimate goal was to keep the knowledge they had {hidden, of course} and once the sanctions were lifted, they'd get back to business.)

"ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefi ngs, that Iraq at OIF probably
had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months."


"Iraq's historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the
capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Because of the risk of discovery and consequences
for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have signifi cantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or
no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization
activities.
• ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental
CW rounds. The available evidence is insuffi cient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe
of activities."

"Uday-head of the Fedayeen Saddam-attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according
to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons."

"ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003
a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for
intelligence operations."

"ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents
in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents
including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.
"

"• Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research
or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF.

• The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.

• The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes."

"ISG judges that Iraq's actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its
BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the
opportunity arose."

"With an eye to the future and aiming to preserve some measure of its
BW capability, Baghdad in the years immediately after Desert Storm sought to save what it could of its BW
infrastructure and covertly continue BW research, hide evidence of that and earlier efforts, and dispose of its
existing weapons stocks."

ugh, i'm tired from this copy/pasting...
later.
 

·
HOT for HILLARY!!
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
WMD are a great excuse, but why do they matter?

We needed an Arab foothold in the Middle East to fight terrorism and actually do something about Arab/Isralei relations. Shaking hands with members of the PLO and Israel does nothing, as the 8 years previous to Mr Bush have taught us.

We cannot commit ourselves to policing the entire Middle East, we dont have the resources and it will always end in failure. What we have learned from history, is that removing an dictator, and installing a new government does work. Granted, there are a lot of things I despise about the way we ended WWII, but removing Hitler and remaining in the area to rebuild the country worked pretty well didnt it? Germany has since been a peaceful nation. You may argue that we are not dealing with a political party here, but rather a religious belief (not all of Islam, so don't play that card), which is harder to destroy...but so was Nazism. Hitler took many different religious icons and ideas and instilled them into the SS (as well as future generations through the Hitler Youth programs). The SS carried out terrorist plots well after the war, but ultimately, because we secured the area, piece by piece and installed a new government, it was able to police itself. This is the plan it seems to me that the current administration is following. I am not sure if this is their reasoning, but if it is I wish that Bush would explain it. I feel that the administration is afraid that if he were to explain this, they would lose support for the war because people are, in general, not too bright (or atleast about 50% of the voting population as shown in polls) and are very anti-war since Vietnam.

This is another problem with the war that IHT has been doing a great job of updating us with. In WWII, the media covered our victories, and kept the US reminded of our goal...victory and peace. Now, we focus on each and every death, and nothing on the good we do. This is not to put down each and every death, because those men and women over there are the finest we have...period. But I think because of this "media bias" or rather the media's attempt to bring on thrills and sell to the audience, that our country has lost that "love for the sting of battle."

War sucks, it always has, always will, and will always be a part of the human race. It is our duty to end this war, not by giving up and passing the problem on to another administration or generation, but by winning. Its been 60 years without an invasion of Germany, what would resolutions and police actions have done?
 

·
An ass, not a fish
Joined
·
4,476 Posts
AAlmeter said:
WMD are a great excuse, but why do they matter?

We needed an Arab foothold in the Middle East to fight terrorism and actually do something about Arab/Isralei relations. Shaking hands with members of the PLO and Israel does nothing, as the 8 years previous to Mr Bush have taught us.
Yes, good points and ones that I agree with. Yet Mr. Bush has done nothing to help the conflict with the Israelis-Palestinians except give Sharon the green light to invade the attack the occupied terretories at will, and throw this supposed roadmap in the dust. The road to peace in the middie east doesn't go through Damascus, it goes through Jerusalem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
SeanGAR said:
I'm going to disagree with you.

You will find they didn't veto the war, they thought that the UN weapons inspectors were doing their jobs properly and were effective, and refused to follow the bellicose line Bush took. Bush decided not to bring forth a UN resolution that would be vetoed, he went ahead himself, so in the end they vetoed nothing.

In hindsight they were right as there were no WMDs. All Canada wanted to join the war in Iraq (as they were already helping in Afghanistan) was proof of an Al Queda link or WMD. We know now there were no such things, and Canada was quite right in refusing to send their soldiers into combat for such a farcical and fanciful rational.
I don't see how the weapons inspectors were doing their jobs when Saddam kept kicking them out of the country, denied access to many locations, and refused to let them interview scientists (or the scientists refused so they wouldn't be beheaded or family raped).

While there were no WMD found the new report out said that Saddam was using the Oil for Food program to erode the sanctions and manipulate the world to lift them and then he fully intended to start back up his weapons program.

There also was a definate link to Al Quida, as reported in the 9/11 commissions, though no direct like to 9/11. We know that many Al Quida members fled to Iraq after the war in Afganistan and set up training camps (remember the 727 used in hijack training that was found in the desert), and that Saddam also was funding the families of Hamas suicide bombers in Israel.
 

·
HOT for HILLARY!!
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
SeanGAR said:
Yes, good points and ones that I agree with. Yet Mr. Bush has done nothing to help the conflict with the Israelis-Palestinians except give Sharon the green light to invade the attack the occupied terretories at will, and throw this supposed roadmap in the dust. The road to peace in the middie east doesn't go through Damascus, it goes through Jerusalem.
Well, we picked our side long ago, and I believe that to be a mistake that has led us to many problems. I differ from most republicans in that I believe that our strong support of Israel and its creation over the years has been a mistake. But now we have to do the best we can do with those mistakes.

Forgive me, because I am no expert, but I really dont understand what Bush should do between Israel and the PLO. Theres nothing that can be done. Negotiations and handshaking ceremonies have been tried for years, and no one has stopped putting bombs where radiators belong. The only way to bring about Arab/Jew peace is to create a trustworthy Arab ally, such as a new Iraq.

This is, however, getting off of my main topic...that being that WMD simply dont matter. N Korea has them, who cares? They cant relieve their flatulence in the wrong direction without China, Russia, and South Korea getting ready to stomp them out. Great Britian has them, again no threat or reason to invade. WMD, much like a handgun, is a measure of security and self defense for the good guys, but any weapon in the hands of an evil man hell bent of killing those who are different is a threat. Add to that the strategic importance of Iraq, and you have one hell of a reason to liberate Iraq, whether they are armed to the teeth with nukes, or walking around the streets with baseball bats and switchblades.
 

·
-
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
AAlmeter said:
N Korea has them, who cares? They cant relieve their flatulence in the wrong direction without China, Russia, and South Korea getting ready to stomp them out. Great Britian has them, again no threat or reason to invade. WMD, much like a handgun, is a measure of security and self defense for the good guys, but any weapon in the hands of an evil man hell bent of killing those who are different is a threat. Add to that the strategic importance of Iraq, and you have one hell of a reason to liberate Iraq, whether they are armed to the teeth with nukes, or walking around the streets with baseball bats and switchblades.
excellent.

yes, there's a difference between n. korea having china, russia, and s. korea breathing down their necks to iraq and nobody in that part of the world doing a thing about it. just like kosovo... nobody else was doing anything about it, so WE had to, with our allies. of course, we're out of there in less than year now, thanks to GEORGE BUSH!! but nobody says anything about that (which is why a ton of my trips have been cancelled - their mission in the former yugo has been handed back over to the UN after Bush told them we weren't doing their job for them anymore).

if someone else was gonna smack iraq (saddam) in the nose for all the crap he's pulled, then they should have. yet other countries continued to have back door deals with these guys. they have proven their links to al quieda as well....
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top