More Time Needed in Iraq

[MichaelFJF]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=305 border=0 valign="top">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=305 border=0 valign="top">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top><SPAN class=headline>See men shredded, then say you don't back war</SPAN>
<SPAN class=byline>By Ann Clwyd</SPAN>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=5><IMG height=5 alt="" src="http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif" width=1 border=0></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=305 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top><SPAN class=textcopy><I>“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.” </I>This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict — the organisation I chair — to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks. Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.” </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

&nbsp;

Yeah, let's wait a little longer and try diplomacy for a few more years. He's bound to come around eventually.....say, maybe when the population is down to a manageable number. M

 

[datan]

You know something: if Bush had been honest right from the start and said that he was going to get rid of Saddam because he was an evil oppressor, I would have supported him.

But no...he had to lie about everything:
That Iraq might have something to do with Sept 11.
That Iraq's WMD might fall into the hands of terrorists and use it on America.
That Bush was actually interested in UN inspections running their course when all he wanted was a rubber stamp.
That Iraq has an active nuclear programme (aluminium tubes anyone?)

I hate liars. Lies upon lies upon lies. Isn't it wonderful how American politicans are using 9-11 as an excuse to push ahead with whatever they want to push through?
Now half of Americans think that Saddam was personally involved in Sept-11, when there is not a single shred of evidence. I can't believe how gullible Americans are when it comes to listening to government propaganda.

 

[eldermike]

That Iraq might have something to do with Sept 11.

You can prove otherwise?

That Iraq's WMD might fall into the hands of terrorists and use it on America.

You can prove otherwise?

That Bush was actually interested in UN inspections running their course when all he wanted was a rubber stamp.

You can prove otherwise?


Amazing, you made this up as a method of proving what? You people are just typing.

 

[datan]

gee...since when was the burden of proof ever on the accused? Even your own courts recognise the need to present evidence.

As for Bush not being interested in UN inspections:
- he started the buildup right after Christmas, when UN inspections had berely started
- he started talking about regime change in Iraq about a year ago--6 months before UN inspections were ever an issue.
- he has never been interested in what Blix reports to the UNSC. Listen to what the US ambassador says after each report. It's always "Iraq isn't co-operating full stop"
- Blix wants more time. Bush won't give him more time. 1441 explicitly says that it it Blix's responsibility to determine if Iraq is in material breach. Blix--not Bush.

 

[nephilimiyr]

datan

You know something: if Bush had been honest right from the start and said that he was going to get rid of Saddam because he was an evil oppressor, I would have supported him.

But no...he had to lie about everything:
That Iraq might have something to do with Sept 11.
That Iraq's WMD might fall into the hands of terrorists and use it on America.
That Bush was actually interested in UN inspections running their course when all he wanted was a rubber stamp.
That Iraq has an active nuclear programme (aluminium tubes anyone?)

I hate liars. Lies upon lies upon lies. Isn't it wonderful how American politicans are using 9-11 as an excuse to push ahead with whatever they want to push through?
Now half of Americans think that Saddam was personally involved in Sept-11, when there is not a single shred of evidence. I can't believe how gullible Americans are when it comes to listening to government propaganda.

Bush has said from the start that Saddam is an evil oppresser, he did not lie, you just chose to not listen to him. And don't lie yourself, be honest with yourself, You know you would have never, NEVER supported Bush even if he did make this into a war against an evil opresser. You are so disingenuous!

The possibilities were always there that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The reason why I have been against this war from the start has been for the lack of prof the way I see it.

12 years, 12 YEARS Saddam had to show he disarmed. The fact that President Bush worked with the UN for the last 4 months shows he was interested in UN inspections.

After the Gulf War in 1991 Saddam signed a cease fire. This cease fire was ONLY under the condition he would disarm. He has shown NO evidence toward this goal. NONE, NO evidence!

datan, prepare to see the might of the US resolve!

 

[MichaelFJF]

Blix and his boys have been led by the nose and duped for months. He's embarassed to admit he's accomplished nothing. Inspectors won't work in Iraq. Period. If you actually listen to his speeches at the UN, he admits that Iraq is NOT being cooperative and he's NOT being shown everything. Of course he wants more time - look at how much press he's getting. Only a dimwit can't see that this could go on forever. The UN is a social club and nothing more. Gullible has nothing to do with anything. Bush and his administration have cut through the garbage and are focused on the solution, and the professional politicians of the world can't stand that a 'dummy from Texas' has the guts to tell the emperor he has no clothes. Sheeesh. Who's gullible? M

 

[datan]

Today at 06:31 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post


Bush has said from the start that Saddam is an evil oppresser, he did not lie, you just chose to not listen to him.

First off--Bush said this. That he went on to say the rest. That's when I stopped trusting him.

The possibilities were always there that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The reason why I have been against this war from the start has been for the lack of prof the way I see it.

Yes--but you still can't dig up any dirt after digging for a year and the half. I'd say the simplest explanation is that none exists.

12 years, 12 YEARS Saddam had to show he disarmed. The fact that President Bush worked with the UN for the last 4 months shows he was interested in UN inspections.

well, that's debatable. I've argued that:
- Bush started his troop buildup as inspections had berely started
- Bush has been talking about regime change in Iraq for more than year--before weapons inspections were even an issue
- US ambassador to UN never listens to what Blix says and always snorts "Iraq isn't disarming"
- Blix wants more time. Bush says "shut up". 1441 says Blix is the one to decide whether Iraq is in material breach. Not Bush.

After the Gulf War in 1991 Saddam signed a cease fire. This cease fire was ONLY under the condition he would disarm. He has shown NO evidence toward this goal. NONE, NO evidence!

Who did he sign the cease fire with? Therefore who should decide that he has not fulfilled the terms of the ceasefire?

datan, prepare to see the might of the US resolve!

funny, I would have phrased it differently. What resolve is there when you pick a pushover to fight?

When are you going to invade China--which has many documented human rights abuses, including Christians? Or N Korea? Or Paikistan?

When you've invaded all these countries then come and talk about 'resolve'.

 

[eldermike]

The burden in on the one making the claims, always has been.

where is your proof that Sadam had nothing to do with 911?

Where is your proof that Sadam has not worked with terriost scum?

Where is your proof that Bush did not want the inspections to work, or the UNSC to step up to the plate and do their job?

Did you make this stuff up?

 

[datan]

hm...is this the way the courts work in your country? Does the prosecuting attorney start by questioning the accused:

"where is your proof that you did not murder her?"
"where is your proof that you did not conspire to rob the bank?"
"where is your proof that you did not sexually abuse your 6 year old daughter?"

gee...if this is how Americans understand justice, presumption of innocece, burden of proof, and due process, I sure hope that I never get arrested in America.

 

[eldermike]

No, no, no,. The claim is that the accused did the crime. The burden in on the one making the claim. That would be you in this case.

 

[datan]

no, no, no, no, no ...

I'm claiming that Iraq did not do the crime.
Bush is claiming that somehow Iraq was involved in the crime/s.

 

[nephilimiyr]

datan

Yes--but you still can't dig up any dirt after digging for a year and the half. I'd say the simplest explanation is that none exists.

That none exists is your opinion I believe. Remember one thing it hasn't been for a year and a half.

well, that's debatable. I've argued that:
- Bush started his troop buildup as inspections had berely started
- Bush has been talking about regime change in Iraq for more than year--before weapons inspections were even an issue
- US ambassador to UN never listens to what Blix says and always snorts "Iraq isn't disarming"
- Blix wants more time. Bush says "shut up". 1441 says Blix is the one to decide whether Iraq is in material breach. Not Bush.

Your debate when if saying that this president didn't give it much time would be correct but viewed from the stand point that before this a whole decade passed with inspections, minus the years after Saddam kicked the inspectors out after comeing too close to finding what they were looking for, I don't see how you can say inspections work.

Blix and his country isn't the ones who got attacked first. President Bush is right in saying he has the sovereign authority to make the decision he has.

Who did he sign the cease fire with? Therefore who should decide that he has not fulfilled the terms of the ceasefire?

You are correct in saying that the UN should be the ones to decide weather the terms of cease fire are being complied with but the UN has should utter incompetence in makeing this decision.

funny, I would have phrased it differently. What resolve is there when you pick a pushover to fight?

When are you going to invade China--which has many documented human rights abuses, including Christians? Or N Korea? Or Paikistan?

When you've invaded all these countries then come and talk about 'resolve'.

Are resolve is to portect ourselves. As of this moment China holds no threat to us and neither does N. Korea.

N. Korea, if it should so chose, would want to start pokeing the stick at us I'm more than sure we will respond in kind.

&nbsp;

 

[eldermike]

You claimed that Bush lied, and gave examples. Can you prove your claims?
Is this clear?

 

[datan]

Today at 07:12 PM eldermike said this in Post #13

You claimed that Bush lied, and gave examples. Can you prove your claims?
Is this clear?

Bush clings to dubious accusations
Some U.S. claims about Saddam’s arsenal are hotly disputed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON, March 18 — As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged — and in some cases disproved — by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.

FOR MONTHS, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney’s assertion that Iraq has “reconstituted nuclear weapons.” Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.
But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration’s evidence — such as Bush’s assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium — has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.
In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 “if they’d had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax.” He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders “have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years.”

But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping “terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
In his appearance Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the vice president argued that “we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was “only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.” Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that “there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.”
ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and “it was highly unlikely” that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.

CHENEY QUESTIONS IAEA’S CREDIBILITY
Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was “wrong” about Iraq’s nuclear program and questioned the IAEA’s credibility.
Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush’s State of the Union address.
In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq’s weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report’s evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.
Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq’s destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled “even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.” But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst.

QUESTIONING THE FUTURE
Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing “the power of freedom to transform that vital region” and said “a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.” But a classified State Department report put together by the department’s intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush’s speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it.
In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, last October, Bush said, “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.”
Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles — not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.

 

[eldermike]

This is not proof of lies concerning your specific examples. Do you have any proof of your claims?

 

[datan]

Today at 07:11 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #12

datan



That none exists is your opinion I believe. Remember one thing it hasn't been for a year and a half.

Well--show me the proof. Right now Bush is trying to draw a connection when he has absolutely no evidence that Iraq was involved. I believe that before you make an accusation you need proof?

sept 11 2001 + 1.5 years = Mar 11 2003
today is Mar 18 2003.

Your debate when if saying that this president didn't give it much time would be correct but viewed from the stand point that before this a whole decade passed with inspections, minus the years after Saddam kicked the inspectors out after comeing too close to finding what they were looking for, I don't see how you can say inspections work.

my point was that Bush was never interested in inspections, and tried to use it all as a charade to get the UNSC to rubberstamp his war. I'm not saying inspections work or not; I just don't like the way Bush manipulated the entire process to suit his will. IF he had just been forth-right and said that he wasn't going to bother with inspections because he didn't think they would work he should have said so, instead of going through the whole game.

Bottomline: I respect and trust an honest and frank person. Not someone who lies and manipulates.

Blix and his country isn't the ones who got attacked first. President Bush is right in saying he has the sovereign authority to make the decision he has.

just a small matter of international law and UN charter I guess that we are now sweeping under the carpet?

You are correct in saying that the UN should be the ones to decide weather the terms of cease fire are being complied with but the UN has should utter incompetence in makeing this decision.

so you decide to make the decision for them. That's like the DA saying, " the jury gave the wrong verdict. They are incompetent so I'm going to hang this person anyway".

Are resolve is to portect ourselves. As of this moment China holds no threat to us and neither does N. Korea.

And exactly what threat does Iraq pose to your country?
Oh right let me guess. Iraq was involved in Sept 11, and is going to sell WMD to terrorists so that they can have a huge party in the United States???

 

[datan]

Today at 07:19 PM eldermike said this in Post #15

This is not proof of lies concerning your specific examples. Do you have any proof of your claims?

this isn't going any where.

My reasoning is as follows:

Bush has showed himself not to be trustworthy [read article above].
Bush claims that Iraq was involved in 9-11 blah blah blah.
Bush has not offered any proof whatsoever.

So we have to trust Bush because ... ?

In some judicial systems in some countries, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Bush is accusing Iraq. Bush has not shown any proof.

 

[eldermike]

In fact, how could the writer of this article have any knowledge beyond the full capability of the US intelligence people. How stupid of them to assume that misspeak is the equivalent of lies when State Department people are trying to make a case without giving up people in harms way. How stupid of them. Surely you are not that easily led?

Have you any idea what it means to be in harms way? to be in the field gathering information while your state department is giving interviews with reporters? It would scare me, how about you?

Do you know how this all works?

Have you any evidence that Bush lied?

 

[MichaelFJF]

This is a nice, slanted opinion article. I see questions. I don't see proof of lies. Won't all the anti-war people look silly when he's proven right after this is over though. Nice signature, btw - trying to tell us something? M

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Today at 01:09 PM datan said this in Post #2

You know something: if Bush had been honest right from the start and said that he was going to get rid of Saddam because he was an evil oppressor, I would have supported him.

But no...he had to lie about everything:
That Iraq might have something to do with Sept 11.
That Iraq's WMD might fall into the hands of terrorists and use it on America.
That Bush was actually interested in UN inspections running their course when all he wanted was a rubber stamp.
That Iraq has an active nuclear programme (aluminium tubes anyone?)

I hate liars. Lies upon lies upon lies. Isn't it wonderful how American politicans are using 9-11 as an excuse to push ahead with whatever they want to push through?
Now half of Americans think that Saddam was personally involved in Sept-11, when there is not a single shred of evidence. I can't believe how gullible Americans are when it comes to listening to government propaganda.

I like your signature...

"...Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time..."