Why are we fighting in Iraq?

[CCGirl]

The occupation government of Paul Bremner also quickly privatized most of Iraq's resources. The oil companies are very happy!

 

[arnegrim]

What? What have my as yet non existant children got to do with this? It is quite simple. Suspicion does not amount to proof, and suspicion does not make all things legal.

If there were no past proof of WMDs you might have a point...

That doesn't make any difference. Israel has ignored plenty of UN resolutions. Do you think the US would allow another county to invade and attempt to enforce those resolutions in Israel? I doubt it very much. One rule for our friends and another for our enemies.

The resolutions that Israel has ignored are not threatening to the world.

Not watching very closely then, as noone had any idea where these WMD might be, and 3 years of occupation have failed to turn up any of these WMDs. Once again, a suspicion is really not good enough, and does not give a legal basis for viglante actions.

You're right... which is what the UN inspectors were supposedly for. Worked real well didn't it...

Yes I know. Past possession and even past use do not form any kind of proof of current possession or intent to use.

Past possession and use coupled with current refusal to allow inspections implies current possession.

How many years of productive searches? None. The inspectors were frustrated by Saddams lack of cooperation and were eventually thrown out. It was not until Saddam realised that we were serious about taking action that he started to cooperate, so the US interrupted the only productive search.

How do you know it was a productive search?!? How many times did Saddam say 'Ok... I'll cooperate now... come on in!' only to turn around and give the UN the bird?

The problem was that for 12 years we sat and allowed him to defy the UN, and then all of a sudden changed our minds.

Would that be Bill Clinton? He was a bit 'distracted'.

I thought the UN was seperate from the US?

That is nonsense. They didn't expect Iraq to go downhill, they didn't expect internecine conflict or an insurgency. They expected to get into Iraq , fight a quick war, and then get on with reconstruction, and aim to have an Iraqi government up and running, and a reduction in troops - basically a success story in time for the election.

It would strike me as being far less intelligent to invade Iraq at all if they were expecting the situation to worsen over the 17 months as opposed to improving.

Prove it.

No, it is for you to prove that France or any other country removed military action from the table given that this is what you originally stated.

Was it? Prove it.

All the reporting I remember was related to US and UK proposal to invade and rejected that military action. I don't remember any unilateral rejection of force, or moves by either France or Germany to dismantle their armed forces.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-france-iraq_x.htm

According to The New York Times France has said that it will not at this point support a U.N. Security Council decision to allow military force to be used against Iraq.

http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=13409

Of course they do - they were given a government monopoly - no other companies were allowed to bid for the main contract in Iraq. They have made billions from it.

They were given a no-bid for the invasion... because there wasn't enough time to have a 'bidding' process done. No-bids have been used in the past... and will be used in the future. They make sense in certain situations.

How many companies are currently in Iraq working on a 'contract'?

 

[ScottishJohn]

If there were no past proof of WMDs you might have a point...

That is the whole point - past proof does not equal current proof. If it did then we would automatically lock up everyone with previous convictions. Not doing that kind of thing is what makes America supposedly the 'Land of the Free'.

The resolutions that Israel has ignored are not threatening to the world.

Oh really!?

1. A lot of Islamic terrorism throughout the world is a direct result of Israel's abuse of the Palestinian people.

2. It makes no difference whether resolutions threaten the world or not. If any resolution is to mean anything - including the ones on which the US based its case for war - then all of them have to be enforced.

3.As Saddam did not have WMD he was no threat to the world.

You're right... which is what the UN inspectors were supposedly for. Worked real well didn't it...

We don't know - they never got a chance to finish because somebody blundered into Iraq half cocked and got at least 35,000 Iraqis killed, around 2500 US soldiers killed and over 100 UK soldiers killed.

Suspicion does not equal a right to invade. Are you going to address this?

Past possession and use coupled with current refusal to allow inspections implies current possession.

No it does not. Past possession implies past possession and that is all.

Current refusal could imply any number of things - the most likely of which is the same stubborn pride which is represented by the US refusal to allow investigators access to Guantanamo detainees - unless you count that as proof of wrongdoing?

How do you know it was a productive search?!? How many times did Saddam say 'Ok... I'll cooperate now... come on in!' only to turn around and give the UN the bird?

Blix said:

" In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure."

"What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. "

"The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.



It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Would that be Bill Clinton? He was a bit 'distracted'.


I thought the UN was seperate from the US?

Did I say Bill Clinton? Did I even say the US? No! Stop with the straw men! I said we, and that is what I meant. The UN is only the sum of its parts and we sat on our hands for 12 years. Whether Bush agreed with this policy or not he has to live in the reality created by his predecessors and the other heads of state around the world.

Prove it.

Bush ignored the likely internecine conflict.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html

Bush was setting the timetable according to elections.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-france-iraq_x.htm

Not rejecting miliary force outright just rejecting the US timetable.

According to The New York Times France has said that it will not at this point support a U.N. Security Council decision to allow military force to be used against Iraq.

http://www.borrull.org/e/noticia.php?id=13409

Not rejecting miliary force outright just rejecting the US timetable.

You just proved my point.

They were given a no-bid for the invasion... because there wasn't enough time to have a 'bidding' process done. No-bids have been used in the past... and will be used in the future. They make sense in certain situations.

That may be - that does not change the fact that it is an effective monopoly.

How many companies are currently in Iraq working on a 'contract'?

None. There may be a few trying to work on a subcontract in the midst of the chaos left by the US and UK botched invasion, but any work undertaken under the rebuilding programme goes through Haliburton.

 

[arnegrim]

That is the whole point - past proof does not equal current proof. If it did then we would automatically lock up everyone with previous convictions. Not doing that kind of thing is what makes America supposedly the 'Land of the Free'.

You think those convicted of crimes aren't watched closely? You think those convicted of crimes aren't kept away from certain areas/things/people?

Oh really!?

1. A lot of Islamic terrorism throughout the world is a direct result of Israel's abuse of the Palestinian people.

2. It makes no difference whether resolutions threaten the world or not. If any resolution is to mean anything - including the ones on which the US based its case for war - then all of them have to be enforced.

3.As Saddam did not have WMD he was no threat to the world.

1. A lot of Islamic terrorism throughout the world is a direct result of a allowing a country called Israel to exist.

2. Yes... but enforcement calls for different things... you don't shoot a litterer... and you don't fine a murderer.

3. As the world thought he did have WMDs before the war... he was a threat.

We don't know - they never got a chance to finish because somebody blundered into Iraq half cocked and got at least 35,000 Iraqis killed, around 2500 US soldiers killed and over 100 UK soldiers killed.

We won't ever know... but his habits and history point to it being another ruse.

Suspicion does not equal a right to invade. Are you going to address this?

Really? Have you contacted any law enforcement departments about this?

Depending on the seriousness of the threat or 'crime'... suspicion and cause do equal a right to invade.

No it does not. Past possession implies past possession and that is all.

Current refusal could imply any number of things - the most likely of which is the same stubborn pride which is represented by the US refusal to allow investigators access to Guantanamo detainees - unless you count that as proof of wrongdoing?

Have you heard the saying about a tiger changing its stripes? With zero accountability... past or present... Saddam had no reason to get rid of his WMDs.

Blix said:

" In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure."

"What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. "

"The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Wonderful... about 12 years to late... and yet...

these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.

Did I say Bill Clinton? Did I even say the US? No! Stop with the straw men! I said we, and that is what I meant.

You said we... I assumed you meant the US... because you said 'all of a sudden we changed our minds'. The UN didn't change its mind.

Not rejecting miliary force outright just rejecting the US timetable.

No timetable is referenced in the rejection. Reread your highlighted parts.

You just proved my point.

No... I proved mine. I said that France threatened to veto anything that included military action.

That may be - that does not change the fact that it is an effective monopoly.

I see... so it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not... as long as it was Halliburton its wrong?

None. There may be a few trying to work on a subcontract in the midst of the chaos left by the US and UK botched invasion, but any work undertaken under the rebuilding programme goes through Haliburton.

Wrong.

You can start here.
http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=95,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

 

[peepnklown]

I suggest you don't hold your breath.

If everyone’s life depended on our government providing evidence promised or telling its citizens the truth, we’d all be dead.

I answered this before.

Just because you gave a respond doesn’t mean you answered the questions.
The 911 commission was custom-built by the US government so, we should take it up with the US government. That isn’t the point, the point is that Iraq doesn’t have a connection to bin Laden in context to 911, period.

The US government has an obligation to its people and interests that outweigh any obligation to the UN.

What obligations to its people did the US government owe in invading Iraq?
What obligations to its interest (and which interest) did the US government owe in invading Iraq?
If Iraq violated UN rules, what does this have to do with the American people?
Who made the US the ruler of the world?

And I showed you where they had links to terrorism... and with their hatred for the US... to let them continue unabated would be stupid.

No, I wasn’t talking about links to terrorism in general, I was talking about links to bin Laden in context to 911. Provide them!
When did hatred for the US give us the right to invade?

 

[ScottishJohn]

You think those convicted of crimes aren't watched closely? You think those convicted of crimes aren't kept away from certain areas/things/people?

They are not. Once they have served their time and their parole period, (if they have actually been found guilty of a crime by the relevant people), they are released - if they were watched closely then perhaps so many of them wouldn't reoffend. Who knows.

1. A lot of Islamic terrorism throughout the world is a direct result of a allowing a country called Israel to exist.

If you look at an organisation like Hamas which has been involved in terrorism, they started as a charity offerring social services to the Palestinian people. It is through the continued brutality and the ability to ignore UN resolutions that Hamas and other like them have evolved into the organisation which vows to see the end of the Israeli state. These things do not appear overnight.

2. Yes... but enforcement calls for different things... you don't shoot a litterer... and you don't fine a murderer.

Saddam is accused of genocide and having WMD. Israel is guilty of both and a lot more - some of it the UN has managed to pass resolutions against, some of it has been vetoed by the US. There is a direct equivalence.

3. As the world thought he did have WMDs before the war... he was a threat.

Not the world - if the world had then the UN would have supported the war. The US and UK were fixing the intelligence facts around going to war. Other countries wanted the inspection to finish.

We won't ever know... but his habits and history point to it being another ruse.

That is not a decision which any one country is allowed to take. Nor is it a legal decision. Nor has it been a productive or helpful one.

Really? Have you contacted any law enforcement departments about this?

The US and UK are not a law enforcement department. The law in this case is passed by the UN and it is up to them to uphold it. There was a suspicion, so they were investigating for evidence - which is the normal course of action. The US and UK were viglantes who took it on themselves to bust into Iraq and made a real mess of doing so.

Depending on the seriousness of the threat or 'crime'... suspicion and cause do equal a right to invade.

Not by members of the general public, and not without a warrant, and not based on the kind of made up rot which is in the main what our suspicions were based on.

Have you heard the saying about a tiger changing its stripes? With zero accountability... past or present... Saddam had no reason to get rid of his WMDs.

Yet it appears he has done so!

Wonderful... about 12 years to late... and yet...

these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

The inspection was, as I said, productive, and was heading places. They had yet to hit an obstacle over which they could not agree. The US and UK decided before their excuse went up in smoke altogether (they were expecting Saddam to refuse any kind of inspection) they would invade.

You said we... I assumed you meant the US... because you said 'all of a sudden we changed our minds'. The UN didn't change its mind.

Actually the UN did change its mind, it spent more time on the Iraq situation than it had done in the previous 10 years, and the Inspectors went back in. They just didn't lose their minds and head down the lunatic path behind Bush and Blair.

No timetable is referenced in the rejection. Reread your highlighted parts.

You reread them - here they are:

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.

France's rejection of an ultimatum or automatic use of force is limited to the second resolution which was never passed. Contrary to what you are desparately trying to argue, it was not an act of removing force from the table once and for all, it was a rejection of the US timetable - a rejection of force at that time.

According to The New York Times France has said that it will not at this point support a U.N. Security Council decision to allow military force to be used against Iraq.

Again if you read the actual quote which you so helpfully provided you will see the four words not at this point. Again this is about a rejection of force at one particular point in time and hence a rejection of the US timetable for action.

No... I proved mine. I said that France threatened to veto anything that included military action.

You proved that France threatened to veto anything that included military action at that time which I believe was my point.

I see... so it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not... as long as it was Halliburton its wrong?

You said it wasn't a monopoly. You are now accepting that it is. So whether it is right or wrong doesn't really come into it. The fact remains that speed (which is the only excuse you have offered for this practise) has hardly been the defining characteristic of Halliburtons work in Iraq. As fast as they can build it there are plenty of people taking advantage of the US and UK inability to maintain law and order, and are blowing it to pieces.

Wrong.

You can start here.
http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=95,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[/QUOTE]

If you have a point to make then make it. I'm not doing your research for you.

 

[arnegrim]

They are not. Once they have served their time and their parole period, (if they have actually been found guilty of a crime by the relevant people), they are released - if they were watched closely then perhaps so many of them wouldn't reoffend. Who knows.

Go commit a felony and then try to get any white-collar job... lets see how much your 'served time' has erased the consequences.

If you look at an organisation like Hamas which has been involved in terrorism, they started as a charity offerring social services to the Palestinian people. It is through the continued brutality and the ability to ignore UN resolutions that Hamas and other like them have evolved into the organisation which vows to see the end of the Israeli state. These things do not appear overnight.

Proof?

Saddam is accused of genocide and having WMD. Israel is guilty of both and a lot more - some of it the UN has managed to pass resolutions against, some of it has been vetoed by the US. There is a direct equivalence.

Proof? (Genocide and WMD please)

Not the world - if the world had then the UN would have supported the war. The US and UK were fixing the intelligence facts around going to war. Other countries wanted the inspection to finish.

They all believed he had WMDs... that's why the resolutions were passed. They all did NOT agree on what to do about it. HUGE difference.

That is not a decision which any one country is allowed to take. Nor is it a legal decision. Nor has it been a productive or helpful one.

Really? So a persons history and/or behavior should have no bearing on the case? Ever try that in court?

The US and UK are not a law enforcement department. The law in this case is passed by the UN and it is up to them to uphold it. There was a suspicion, so they were investigating for evidence - which is the normal course of action. The US and UK were viglantes who took it on themselves to bust into Iraq and made a real mess of doing so.

The UN had no desire to solve the problem... and it had to be solved, one way or the other.

Not by members of the general public, and not without a warrant, and not based on the kind of made up rot which is in the main what our suspicions were based on.

The US government is not the 'general public'.

Yet it appears he has done so!

Wait... earlier you said that we'd never know... and now we do?

Actually the UN did change its mind, it spent more time on the Iraq situation than it had done in the previous 10 years, and the Inspectors went back in. They just didn't lose their minds and head down the lunatic path behind Bush and Blair.

They changed their minds? How? What did they propose to do differently then the previous 12 years?

You reread them - here they are:

Here you go... but you missed their reasoning... it's highlighted for you.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.

You said it wasn't a monopoly. You are now accepting that it is. So whether it is right or wrong doesn't really come into it. The fact remains that speed (which is the only excuse you have offered for this practise) has hardly been the defining characteristic of Halliburtons work in Iraq. As fast as they can build it there are plenty of people taking advantage of the US and UK inability to maintain law and order, and are blowing it to pieces.

It is not a monopoly. It was given a no-bid contract... in order to get the job done in quick order when a bidding process is not an option.

If you have a point to make then make it. I'm not doing your research for you.

You don't do your own research... there are many companies currently contracted to do work in Iraq that are not 'subcontracting' from Halliburton.

That is my point... the link provides proof.

 

[arnegrim]

Just because you gave a respond doesn’t mean you answered the questions.
The 911 commission was custom-built by the US government so, we should take it up with the US government. That isn’t the point, the point is that Iraq doesn’t have a connection to bin Laden in context to 911, period.

What obligations to its people did the US government owe in invading Iraq?
What obligations to its interest (and which interest) did the US government owe in invading Iraq?
If Iraq violated UN rules, what does this have to do with the American people?
Who made the US the ruler of the world?

No, I wasn’t talking about links to terrorism in general, I was talking about links to bin Laden in context to 911. Provide them!
When did hatred for the US give us the right to invade?

I never claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 911. I said they had ties to terrorism. This is a war on terror... not a war on Al Qaeda... not a war on plane hijackers... not a war on nasty bad men with crooked teeth... it is a war on terror.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Go commit a felony and then try to get any white-collar job... lets see how much your 'served time' has erased the consequences.

Everyone lives with the consequences of their actions. Doing so does not mean that one is 'watched closely' which was your orignal claim which has now apparently been abandoned.

Proof?

Of what? Of their charitable beginnings? Of their growing commitment to violence? Of the many Israeli acts which garner support for that violence? Seriously?

Proof? (Genocide and WMD please)

Need to send in inspectors for proof - or we can just invade on a suspicion?!

You can have Sharon at Sabra and Shatila for starters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1779713.stm

You can have the Israeli Nuclear programme which was outed by Mordechai Vanunu:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm

They all believed he had WMDs... that's why the resolutions were passed.

No. the resolutions were passed because they knew that he had previously had WMD and were not sure if he had them or was still persuing them. The inspections were taken to find out if he had WMD. The only people who believed anything were those who based their belief on not knowing anything.

Really? So a persons history and/or behavior should have no bearing on the case? Ever try that in court?

Once again the US and UK are not judge jury and executioner. Secondly, I don't know how the US justice system works, but in most cases in the UK previous crimes are not taken into account when someone is being tried. They may be at sentencing, but the jury make their decision based on the facts of the case at hand and not on a 'one a bad 'un always a bad 'un' basis.

The UN had no desire to solve the problem... and it had to be solved, one way or the other.

You have no basis to say that the UN ahd no desire to solve the problem. What has happened is that a 'problem' which did not really exist other than in the minds of some people, has been 'solved' because it never really existed, and a far greater one has been created at both great expense of life and of course money.

The US government is not the 'general public'.

Nor is it a legitimate world policeforce. It is part of the world comunity in the same way that you and I are part of our communities. It may be the richest and strongest guy in town, but that does not legitimise any action it may choose to take.

Wait... earlier you said that we'd never know... and now we do?

No. If you go back and read again you will see that I said we will never know how effective the inspectors may have been if they were allowed to finish the 2003 inspection, and whether the WMD issue may have been resolved peacefully. We know that there are currently no WMD in Iraq. We have full access to every area and they are just not there. Ground penetrating radar, 150,000 troops, and all sorts of surveillance and no WMD.

They changed their minds? How? What did they propose to do differently then the previous 12 years?

Persue the issue.

Here you go... but you missed their reasoning... it's highlighted for you.

It is quite simple. This is in relation to a second resolution which was being discussed at that time it is not in any sense a wholesale rejection of the ultimate use of force.

It is not a monopoly. It was given a no-bid contract... in order to get the job done in quick order when a bidding process is not an option.

You could have had a bid auction and let someone stand and spend money without achieving anything just as effectively as Haliburton are doing. A no bid contract amounts to the same thing as a monopoly.

there are many companies currently contracted to do work in Iraq that are not 'subcontracting' from Halliburton.

Where?

That is my point... the link provides proof.

Nope. The link takes me to a homepage of a government office linked with army engineers.

 

[arnegrim]

Everyone lives with the consequences of their actions. Doing so does not mean that one is 'watched closely' which was your orignal claim which has now apparently been abandoned.

And Saddam had to live with the consequences of his actions... which include 12 years of snubbing the UN.

Of what? Of their charitable beginnings? Of their growing commitment to violence? Of the many Israeli acts which garner support for that violence? Seriously?

The 'continued brutality and the ability to ignore UN resolutions'... that led to Hamas becoming a terrorist organization.

Need to send in inspectors for proof - or we can just invade on a suspicion?!

Only if you're Iran... but you wouldn't stop at an 'invasion'.

so... do you have proof?

No. the resolutions were passed because they knew that he had previously had WMD and were not sure if he had them or was still persuing them. The inspections were taken to find out if he had WMD. The only people who believed anything were those who based their belief on not knowing anything.

They were not sure... and Saddam was ensuring they didn't know... yet the intelligence communities believed the WMDs existed and development was continuing.

Once again the US and UK are not judge jury and executioner. Secondly, I don't know how the US justice system works, but in most cases in the UK previous crimes are not taken into account when someone is being tried. They may be at sentencing, but the jury make their decision based on the facts of the case at hand and not on a 'one a bad 'un always a bad 'un' basis.

If the previous crimes are of the same nature... they are used to show that the 'suspected' criminal is very capable of doing what he is suspected of.

You have no basis to say that the UN ahd no desire to solve the problem. What has happened is that a 'problem' which did not really exist other than in the minds of some people, has been 'solved' because it never really existed, and a far greater one has been created at both great expense of life and of course money.

No basis? 12 years of 'You need to do this or... or... we'll get really mad and pass another resolution' is a desire to solve the problem?

Nor is it a legitimate world policeforce. It is part of the world comunity in the same way that you and I are part of our communities. It may be the richest and strongest guy in town, but that does not legitimise any action it may choose to take.

And it does not just take any action it chooses. It (unfortunately IMHO) relies to heavily on the UN.

No. If you go back and read again you will see that I said we will never know how effective the inspectors may have been if they were allowed to finish the 2003 inspection, and whether the WMD issue may have been resolved peacefully. We know that there are currently no WMD in Iraq. We have full access to every area and they are just not there. Ground penetrating radar, 150,000 troops, and all sorts of surveillance and no WMD.

Wonderful... Hindsight. Of course... because they are not there now doesn't mean they weren't there before we invaded.

Persue the issue.

Let's see... they passed resolutions to try and force Saddam to allow inspections to ensure the disposal of his WMDs. 12 years later (and multiple resolutions) they want to pass a resolution to try and force Saddam to allow inspections to ensure the disposal of his WMDs.

Not much of a change...

It is quite simple. This is in relation to a second resolution which was being discussed at that time it is not in any sense a wholesale rejection of the ultimate use of force.

Of course... you can't add to the first resolution.

And yes... the reason they gave for rejecting it was if it includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force...

You could have had a bid auction and let someone stand and spend money without achieving anything just as effectively as Haliburton are doing. A no bid contract amounts to the same thing as a monopoly.

You're right... lets wait another 18 months for the bidding process... don't forget the appeals. Military actions work so much better when the opposition has a couple years to prepare.

If there were no other contractors in Iraq... I would agree it is a monopoly... but there are and its not.

Where?

Nope. The link takes me to a homepage of a government office linked with army engineers.

In Iraq.

The link provides any company with access to contracts and the bidding process through the DOD.

Here is one for contracts through USAid.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/activities.html

A few specific ones...

USAid awarded a contract to Bechtel.

The US State Dept. awarded a contract to DynCorp.

USAid awarded a contract to Stevedoring Services of America

 

[ScottishJohn]

And Saddam had to live with the consequences of his actions... which include 12 years of snubbing the UN.

A criminal has to live with the legal consequences of his actions. Burglary is not a legal consequence of being a criminal, and the invasion of Iraq was similarly illegal.

The 'continued brutality and the ability to ignore UN resolutions'... that led to Hamas becoming a terrorist organization.

You need proof of Israeli brutality?

This is not from one of the 138 Un resolutions against Israel since 1967 (Iraq the subject of only 69), it is from a report by the Special Committee To Investigate Israeli Practises Affecting The Human Rights Of The Palestinian People And Other Arabs Of The Occupied Territories.

9. Also strongly condemns, in particular, the following Israeli policies and practices:

(a) Implementation of an "iron-fist" policy against the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory;

(b) Escalation of Israeli brutality since the beginning of the uprising (intifadah) on 9 December 1987;

(c) Ill-treatment and torture of children and minors under detention and/or imprisonment;

(d) Closure of headquarters and offices of trade unions and social organizations and harassment of their leaders, including through expulsion, as well as attacks on hospitals and their personnel;

(e) Interference with the freedom of the press, including censorship, detention or expulsion of journalists, closure and suspension of newspapers and magazines, as well as denial of access to international media;

(f) Killing and wounding of defenceless demonstrators;

(g) Breaking of bones and limbs of thousands of civilians;

(h) House and/or town arrests;

(i) Use of toxic gas, which has resulted, inter alia, in the killing of many Palestinians;

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF/52...f28196144bb620af85256b42006679c7!OpenDocument

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/gaza-o21.shtml

You need proof that Israel is ignoring UN resoltions?

http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah&suleimaniajlouni1.html

Only if you're Iran... but you wouldn't stop at an 'invasion'.

so... do you have proof?

Only if you are Iran? The Us invaded Iraq on the basis of what has turned out to be a totally unfounded suspicion.

They were not sure...

Ahhhh, so they were not sure. I thought you said they all 'believed' he had WMD. Now you say they were not sure.

and Saddam was ensuring they didn't know... yet the intelligence communities believed the WMDs existed and development was continuing.

And they were wrong. Just as well we didn't listen to them. Except some of us did.

If the previous crimes are of the same nature... they are used to show that the 'suspected' criminal is very capable of doing what he is suspected of.

Every one of us is capable of crime. Whether we actually commit crimes or not is another matter.

No basis? 12 years of 'You need to do this or... or... we'll get really mad and pass another resolution' is a desire to solve the problem?

That is exactly why I was suggesting that their renewed interest in Iraq was a change of mind from the policy of the previous 12 years - which was basically hope it goes away. A policy the US continued with as did all the other members of the security council.

And it does not just take any action it chooses. It (unfortunately IMHO) relies to heavily on the UN.

Not enough (unfortunately IMHO). And in the case of the war in Iraq it did just take any action it chose - it chose war, and decided to prosecute that war with or without legal support for it.

Wonderful... Hindsight. Of course... because they are not there now doesn't mean they weren't there before we invaded.

Hindsight is nothing to do with it. You questioned the ability of the Inspectors to finish their job in 2003. I said we will never know because they didn't get the opportunity. Their not being there now, and their absence during the time they would have been most useful against the invading armies is a pretty strong suggestion that they were not there before you invaded.

Let's see... they passed resolutions to try and force Saddam to allow inspections to ensure the disposal of his WMDs. 12 years later (and multiple resolutions) they want to pass a resolution to try and force Saddam to allow inspections to ensure the disposal of his WMDs.

Not much of a change...

Your summary missed the bit where we all sat on our hands and did nothing. The middle phase. Moving from inaction to action was a change.

Of course... you can't add to the first resolution.

The second resolution was one specific resolution being discussed. It did not attempt to rule in or out any action or define policy in Iraq for eternity.

And yes... the reason they gave for rejecting it was if it includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force...

Yup. In the second resolution. Which was being pushed forward by the US and the UK to legitimise a war they were already planning (albeit badly) and this specific move was rejected by France. That does not constitute ruling out military action forever. Just at that moment in time.

You're right... lets wait another 18 months for the bidding process... don't forget the appeals. Military actions work so much better when the opposition has a couple years to prepare.

The point is that Haliburton has lost considerable amounts of money and failed to deliver. You could have invaded and left the country to rot while you had a bidding process and still have been at a similar position now. They managed to have a bidding process for the subcontracts.

If there were no other contractors in Iraq... I would agree it is a monopoly... but there are and its not.

Well if there are other contractors in Iraq I would agree that it is not an overall monopoly - I was not aware of any. However it was a monopoly on the contracts which haliburton were given, because noone else got to bid for them. Those were substantial contracts - I understood that they were all the rebuilding work.

The link provides any company with access to contracts and the bidding process through the DOD.

So the DOD have the monopoly?

 

[arnegrim]

A criminal has to live with the legal consequences of his actions. Burglary is not a legal consequence of being a criminal, and the invasion of Iraq was similarly illegal.

Genocide demands consequences.
Genocide involving WMDs demands consequences.

You need proof of Israeli brutality?

This is not from one of the 138 Un resolutions against Israel since 1967 (Iraq the subject of only 69), it is from a report by the Special Committee To Investigate Israeli Practises Affecting The Human Rights Of The Palestinian People And Other Arabs Of The Occupied Territories.

What is this based upon?

You need proof that Israel is ignoring UN resoltions?

No... I know they are.

Only if you are Iran? The Us invaded Iraq on the basis of what has turned out to be a totally unfounded suspicion.

Are you going to provide proof... or continue around the bush?

Ahhhh, so they were not sure. I thought you said they all 'believed' he had WMD. Now you say they were not sure.

They did believe... the inspectors were to ensure the proper disposal of them.

And they were wrong. Just as well we didn't listen to them. Except some of us did.

I see... so when all the experts say that a bridge is about to fall... you would have no problem standing on the bridge?

That is exactly why I was suggesting that their renewed interest in Iraq was a change of mind from the policy of the previous 12 years - which was basically hope it goes away. A policy the US continued with as did all the other members of the security council.

It was not a 'renewed' interest. There were resolutions passed EVERY YEAR. How is that a 'lack of interest'?

Hindsight is nothing to do with it. You questioned the ability of the Inspectors to finish their job in 2003. I said we will never know because they didn't get the opportunity. Their not being there now, and their absence during the time they would have been most useful against the invading armies is a pretty strong suggestion that they were not there before you invaded.

I see... and the 12 years they had when they stymied the UN isn't enough time to make deals to move them out of country?

Your summary missed the bit where we all sat on our hands and did nothing. The middle phase. Moving from inaction to action was a change.

Resolutions passed against Iraq EVERY YEAR.

The only 'nothing' was the UNs resolve to actually enforce them.

The second resolution was one specific resolution being discussed. It did not attempt to rule in or out any action or define policy in Iraq for eternity.

Yup. In the second resolution. Which was being pushed forward by the US and the UK to legitimise a war they were already planning (albeit badly) and this specific move was rejected by France. That does not constitute ruling out military action forever. Just at that moment in time.

France said they would not support any resolution that contains an ultimatum or resorts to any automatic use of force. How do you not understand that? They would accept a second resolution... as long as 'ultimatums' or 'use of force' was not in it.

The point is that Haliburton has lost considerable amounts of money and failed to deliver. You could have invaded and left the country to rot while you had a bidding process and still have been at a similar position now. They managed to have a bidding process for the subcontracts.

Governments waste money. I really hope that's not news to you.

As for subcontracts... what's wrong with that? Or do you prefer that Haliburton make all the money so you have more to complain about...

Well if there are other contractors in Iraq I would agree that it is not an overall monopoly - I was not aware of any. However it was a monopoly on the contracts which haliburton were given, because noone else got to bid for them. Those were substantial contracts - I understood that they were all the rebuilding work.

No... they were NOT all the rebuilding work... if you would take a small look at my links you would see that.

Again... the no-bid for Haliburton was for the initial invasion and for a time thereafter to ensure that things got done.

So the DOD have the monopoly?

You are allowed to read my entire posts... really.

Here is one for contracts through USAid.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/activities.html

A few specific ones...

USAid awarded a contract to Bechtel.

The US State Dept. awarded a contract to DynCorp.

USAid awarded a contract to Stevedoring Services of America

Some others that have been awarded contracts:
-UNICEF
-WHO
-Research Foundation of the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook
-Jackson State University
-Bearing Point Inc. II

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/activities.html

FYI... these contracts were awarded as early as '03...

Not much of a Haliburton monopoly is it.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Genocide demands consequences.

Not from the US. If the US are so keen on their being consequences then they should persue the proper channels. The genocide demanded a consequence when it was happening, you know back when we were best mates with Saddam? Growing an artificial conscience decades later just doesn't cut it.

Genocide involving WMDs demands consequences.

Not from the US.

What is this based upon?

If you read the link it tells you exactly what the report is based on.

No... I know they are.

Then don't waste my time asking for proof.

Are you going to provide proof... or continue around the bush?

I'll post those links for you again - I added them after you started to reply I think.

You can have Sharon at Sabra and Shatila for starters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1779713.stm

You can have the Israeli Nuclear programme which was outed by Mordechai Vanunu:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3340639.stm

They did believe... the inspectors were to ensure the proper disposal of them.

I question whether Rumsfeld and Bush even ebeleived there were WMD in Iraq. The inspectors had to try and find some before they could supervise the destruction. They didn't. As for the rest of the world - the only honest answer was that they did not know.

I see... so when all the experts say that a bridge is about to fall... you would have no problem standing on the bridge?

If these experts have consistently warned of the dangers of other bridges falling, which have failed to fall, and are getting their info from people who have a vested interest in seeing actions taken to prevent the bridge falling (like the Iraqi exiles who were the main sources of the faulty intelligence) then yes, I would have no problem ignoring the so called experts and standing on the bridge.

It was not a 'renewed' interest. There were resolutions passed EVERY YEAR. How is that a 'lack of interest'?

The renewed interest in the UN was driven by the US and UK desire to go to war. The idea that there actually may be some consequences to his continued lack of compliance pushed Saddam into cooperating.

I see... and the 12 years they had when they stymied the UN isn't enough time to make deals to move them out of country?

Why bother? If you are facing invasion surely you want them where you can use them to protect yourself? Or do you think it was part of Saddams plan to sacrifice himself, his 24 year reign and his massive ego just to make the US look silly? Who would take them? You have the full power of the US bearing down, who is going to accept a hot shipment of WMD? Makes no sense. They were not there.

Resolutions passed against Iraq EVERY YEAR.

Resolutions alone mean nothing unless there is political, diplomatic and the possibility of military pressure from all involved backing them up in cooperation with the UN.

The only 'nothing' was the UNs resolve to actually enforce them.

Well, the US and the UK have to bear part of the blame for that as well as the other members of the security coucil.

France said they would not support any resolution that contains an ultimatum or resorts to any automatic use of force. How do you not understand that?

No france said they would not support a SECOND resolution with an ultimatum or resorts to any automatic use of force. It is really quite easy to understand. It was a specific resolution within a specific time frame - ie while the inspectors were still making headway.

They would accept a second resolution... as long as 'ultimatums' or 'use of force' was not in it. [/QUOTE

Exactly.

Governments waste money. I really hope that's not news to you.

They are not unique in this matter.

As for subcontracts... what's wrong with that? Or do you prefer that Haliburton make all the money so you have more to complain about...

No, I prefer that the work is split into several contracts and there is an open bidding process for them rather than Haliburton taking a cut of all the work. You don't suppose they will just charge cost to the US govt for what the subcontractors will be charging them do you? There will be all sorts of admin fees.

No... they were NOT all the rebuilding work... if you would take a small look at my links you would see that.
Again... the no-bid for Haliburton was for the initial invasion and for a time thereafter to ensure that things got done.

Here is one for contracts through USAid.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/activities.html

A few specific ones...

USAid awarded a contract to Bechtel.

The US State Dept. awarded a contract to DynCorp.

USAid awarded a contract to Stevedoring Services of America

Some others that have been awarded contracts:
-UNICEF
-WHO
-Research Foundation of the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook
-Jackson State University
-Bearing Point Inc. II

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/activities.html

FYI... these contracts were awarded as early as '03...

Not much of a Haliburton monopoly is it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080903A.shtml

 

[arnegrim]

Not from the US. If the US are so keen on their being consequences then they should persue the proper channels. The genocide demanded a consequence when it was happening, you know back when we were best mates with Saddam? Growing an artificial conscience decades later just doesn't cut it.

They tried... France, Germany and Russia stymied them.

Not from the US.

Apparently not from anyone right...

If you read the link it tells you exactly what the report is based on.

Then don't waste my time asking for proof.

Why? I want proof of the accusations made in the report you cited.

Did you, by chance, look at the voting record in that report?

I'll post those links for you again - I added them after you started to reply I think.

You can have Sharon at Sabra and Shatila for starters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1779713.stm

You can have the Israeli Nuclear programme which was outed by Mordechai Vanunu:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3340639.stm

Page not found for both.

I question whether Rumsfeld and Bush even ebeleived there were WMD in Iraq. The inspectors had to try and find some before they could supervise the destruction. They didn't. As for the rest of the world - the only honest answer was that they did not know.

Really? Have you looked up any of their statements concerning Iraq and WMDs?

Have you looked at Clintons quotes... even the Congress quotes prior to the invasion?

Yeah... it was only Rummy and Bush who thought so...

If these experts have consistently warned of the dangers of other bridges falling, which have failed to fall, and are getting their info from people who have a vested interest in seeing actions taken to prevent the bridge falling (like the Iraqi exiles who were the main sources of the faulty intelligence) then yes, I would have no problem ignoring the so called experts and standing on the bridge.

What other 'bridges' have they warned about?

The renewed interest in the UN was driven by the US and UK desire to go to war. The idea that there actually may be some consequences to his continued lack of compliance pushed Saddam into cooperating.

No. The UN was not interested in consequences... I've pointed that out repeatedly. They were interested in the same old thing that had been going on for 12 years.

Why bother? If you are facing invasion surely you want them where you can use them to protect yourself? Or do you think it was part of Saddams plan to sacrifice himself, his 24 year reign and his massive ego just to make the US look silly? Who would take them? You have the full power of the US bearing down, who is going to accept a hot shipment of WMD? Makes no sense. They were not there.

I don't think Saddam actually believed the US would follow through to the point of ousting him. I don't think Saddam thought the world would allow the US to follow through to that point either. And that WOULD make the US look very silly.

Resolutions alone mean nothing unless there is political, diplomatic and the possibility of military pressure from all involved backing them up in cooperation with the UN.

Exactly... and members of the UN were not willing to back them up.

Well, the US and the UK have to bear part of the blame for that as well as the other members of the security coucil.

That it went on for 12 years... yes, you're right.
That the UN would not pass any resolution with teeth... no.

No france said they would not support a SECOND resolution with an ultimatum or resorts to any automatic use of force. It is really quite easy to understand. It was a specific resolution within a specific time frame - ie while the inspectors were still making headway.

This answer does not match with the next one.

Exactly.

Either they would support a second resolution or not. You agree that they would've supported one if it did not mention ultimatums or military actions... so the 'timing' had nothing to do with it.

No, I prefer that the work is split into several contracts and there is an open bidding process for them rather than Haliburton taking a cut of all the work. You don't suppose they will just charge cost to the US govt for what the subcontractors will be charging them do you? There will be all sorts of admin fees.

At the time they received the no-bid, there wasn't enough time to take bids... and having it all done by one company makes it much easier to deal with problems... especially when an invasion is occuring.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080903A.shtmlhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080903A.shtml

You really are allowed to read my entire posts... I insist.

WHO
UNICEF
Jackson State University
etc.

ALL received contracts... NOT subcontracts.

 

[ScottishJohn]

They tried... France, Germany and Russia stymied them.

No France Germany and Russia tried to prevent them from undertaking a totally ridiculous and counter productive course of action based on obviously flawed intelligence, unfortuneatly they went ahead anyway bypassing the proper channels like an impetuous child breaking the rules to get their own way.

Why? I want proof of the accusations made in the report you cited.

Thats why the inspectors have to be sent in. The US acted in Iraq with considerably less proof and considerably less intelligence. Yet Israel gets off scot free and continues to be a major aid recipient.

Did you, by chance, look at the voting record in that report?

Yes I did. Was it anything in particular about the voting record you wished to discuss? Perhaps the frequent abstentions from the US? The occassional vote against the drafts by the US? You and Israel on your own against the world? I wonder why?

Page not found for both.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1779713.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm

Piece of the links was missing - the 'dle_ea' of 'middle_east' had been replaced with '...' for some reason.

Really? Have you looked up any of their statements concerning Iraq and WMDs?

I'm not interested in what they say they are politicians after all. I find it hard to believe that they really swallowed their own line.

Have you looked at Clintons quotes... even the Congress quotes prior to the invasion?

As for Clinton he at least had the sense to refrain from acting on fundamentally flawed evidence.

Yeah... it was only Rummy and Bush who thought so...

I find it hard to believe that they did think so. In fact the Downing St memo plainly states that they were fixing intelligence around a policy of going to war with Iraq.

What other 'bridges' have they warned about?

How about the Niger Uranium nonsense? Or the 45 minute claim?

No. The UN was not interested in consequences... I've pointed that out repeatedly. They were interested in the same old thing that had been going on for 12 years.

You have pointed out that you consider a French rejection of a flawed US plan to constitute a rejection of any military actions whatsoever, despite the liberties that must be taken with comprehension of the English Language in order to arrive at that conclusion. The UN were not interested in the same thing as had taken place over the last 12 years. They were interested in persuing the inspections which were finally proceeding with minimal interference from the Iraqi administration which was blatantly not what had been taking place for the previous 12 years. The US on the other hand were interested in busting in with their trousers round their ankles and making a mess which will take generations to fix, which the UN were quite correctly not interested in.

I don't think Saddam actually believed the US would follow through to the point of ousting him. I don't think Saddam thought the world would allow the US to follow through to that point either. And that WOULD make the US look very silly.

Well, I disagree. I don't see any evidence of US restraint or respect for international law in the past to support Saddam Hussein arriving at such a conclusion. If he went on precedent he knew it was only a matter of time before he was fighting off an invasion. The US accelerated that time scale without waiting to see what they could get from him for nothing.

Exactly... and members of the UN were not willing to back them up.

Force is a last resort. The inspections were the first step. As I said the UN were not willing to follow the US up the garden path to a disaster. My government, unfortunately, were.

That it went on for 12 years... yes, you're right.
That the UN would not pass any resolution with teeth... no.

It is one thing backing up your words with force. The UN has proven over its history that it will reluctantly take this step when necessary. That does not mean that they have to jump at every half cocked notion of sending in the gunships - it was the half cocked notion which the UN rejected - not the use of force.

This answer does not match with the next one.

No, it is your comprehension which is at fault.

France said they would not support any resolution that contains an ultimatum or resorts to any automatic use of force. How do you not understand that?

(emphasis mine)

No france said they would not support a SECOND resolution with an ultimatum or resorts to any automatic use of force. It is really quite easy to understand. It was a specific resolution within a specific time frame - ie while the inspectors were still making headway.

You see - In this answer I corrected your misreading of the French position - they were rejecting a second resolution which contained ultatum or automatic use of force, not any resolution which did so.

Then you said

They would accept a second resolution... as long as 'ultimatums' or 'use of force' was not in it.

(emphasis mine)

To which I responded:

Exactly.

There is no confliction between either of my statements - they confirm each other.

Either they would support a second resolution or not.

That is an overly simplistic conclusion especially since you have over your last several posts stated that they would not on the one hand accept a resolution containing ultimatum or automatic use of force, but they would accept one which did not.

You agree that they would've supported one if it did not mention ultimatums or military actions... so the 'timing' had nothing to do with it.

That is rubbish. Timing is everything to do with it. The whole point of the argument over the SECOND RESOLUTION is that the US and UK were trying to rubber stamp their planned military action before they had reached an impasse on the diplomatic front. The French and others rejected this course of action because they did not consider that the time had come to resort to force. They did not rule out a subsequent resolution including ultimatum or automatic use of force.

At the time they received the no-bid, there wasn't enough time to take bids... and having it all done by one company makes it much easier to deal with problems... especially when an invasion is occuring.

Yup. I am sure. And yet they still found time to put the sub contracts out to tender, lose millions of US taxpayers money, and make generally very dissappointing progress. There was no time advantage by not opening the bidding - Halliburton spurred on by their secure position have underperformed spectacularly.

You really are allowed to read my entire posts... I insist.

Oh, I do. You on the other hand are entitled to read my links.

WHO
UNICEF
Jackson State University
etc.

ALL received contracts... NOT subcontracts.

Who did they recieve contracts from?

 

[arnegrim]

No France Germany and Russia tried to prevent them from undertaking a totally ridiculous and counter productive course of action based on obviously flawed intelligence, unfortuneatly they went ahead anyway bypassing the proper channels like an impetuous child breaking the rules to get their own way.

Funny thing when their intelligence agreed with the US's.

Thats why the inspectors have to be sent in. The US acted in Iraq with considerably less proof and considerably less intelligence. Yet Israel gets off scot free and continues to be a major aid recipient.

Has the UN demanded that inspectors be sent into Israel?

Yes I did. Was it anything in particular about the voting record you wished to discuss? Perhaps the frequent abstentions from the US? The occassional vote against the drafts by the US? You and Israel on your own against the world? I wonder why?

Abstentions do not equal a vote with or for Israel.

Did you notice the US also voted against Israel?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1779713.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3340639.stm

Piece of the links was missing - the 'dle_ea' of 'middle_east' had been replaced with '...' for some reason.

One article talking about Israel having nuclear weapons... (don't know anyone who doubts that) and the other talking about a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians...

As for Clinton he at least had the sense to refrain from acting on fundamentally flawed evidence.

Firing missiles at a camel is wonderful intelligence and restraint isn't it.

I find it hard to believe that they did think so. In fact the Downing St memo plainly states that they were fixing intelligence around a policy of going to war with Iraq.

The veracity of the memo is questionable... but even so it does not state they were fixing the intelligence to support the war.

How about the Niger Uranium nonsense? Or the 45 minute claim?

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

You have pointed out that you consider a French rejection of a flawed US plan to constitute a rejection of any military actions whatsoever, despite the liberties that must be taken with comprehension of the English Language in order to arrive at that conclusion. The UN were not interested in the same thing as had taken place over the last 12 years. They were interested in persuing the inspections which were finally proceeding with minimal interference from the Iraqi administration which was blatantly not what had been taking place for the previous 12 years. The US on the other hand were interested in busting in with their trousers round their ankles and making a mess which will take generations to fix, which the UN were quite correctly not interested in.

If the UN was FINALLY interested in inspections... what were they doing for the previous 12 years?!?

Well, I disagree. I don't see any evidence of US restraint or respect for international law in the past to support Saddam Hussein arriving at such a conclusion. If he went on precedent he knew it was only a matter of time before he was fighting off an invasion. The US accelerated that time scale without waiting to see what they could get from him for nothing.

You're right... 12 years is an accelerated time scale.

Force is a last resort. The inspections were the first step. As I said the UN were not willing to follow the US up the garden path to a disaster. My government, unfortunately, were.

Your first step took over 12 years... that's a LOOOOONG path. Not to mention fruitless.

It is one thing backing up your words with force. The UN has proven over its history that it will reluctantly take this step when necessary. That does not mean that they have to jump at every half cocked notion of sending in the gunships - it was the half cocked notion which the UN rejected - not the use of force.

When has the UN gone the way of force?

No, it is your comprehension which is at fault.

I say that France would not accept any resolution containing ultimatums or military force. You say they won't accept a SECOND resolution.

The fact remains... there was already a FIRST resolution... any subsequent resolutions would be a SECOND resolution. If the French are willing to sign a SECOND resolution that DOES NOT contain ultimatums or military actions... and refuses to accept a SECOND resolution which DOES contain ultimatums or military actions... the only thing they are against... is the ULTIMATUM or MILITARY ACTION.

Yup. I am sure. And yet they still found time to put the sub contracts out to tender, lose millions of US taxpayers money, and make generally very dissappointing progress. There was no time advantage by not opening the bidding - Halliburton spurred on by their secure position have underperformed spectacularly.

When did they put out subcontracts?
Where did they make very dissappointing progress?

Oh, I do. You on the other hand are entitled to read my links.

The broken ones...? I did.

Who did they recieve contracts from?

NOT Halliburton.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Funny thing when their intelligence agreed with the US's.

Not really seeing how much intelligence gathering around the world comes from the same source, the CIA I fail to see why this is remarkable.

Has the UN demanded that inspectors be sent into Israel?

Not successfully yet, someone vetoed this resolution calling for observers.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/draft7040.html

Does the efficiency of the UN in enforcing its resolutions change the fact that they have been broken?

Abstentions do not equal a vote with or for Israel.

Did you notice the US also voted against Israel?

OK so what is your point?

One article talking about Israel having nuclear weapons... (don't know anyone who doubts that) and the other talking about a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians...

Read closer. Sharon had a perimeter around the camp and let the Lebanese allies into the camp to do his dirty work.

Firing missiles at a camel is wonderful intelligence and restraint isn't it.

Well, I didn't vote for him if that helps at all. It is considerably more intelligent and restrained than embarking on an considerably more expensive and counter productive war based on what you want to be true.

The veracity of the memo is questionable... but even so it does not state they were fixing the intelligence to support the war.

It is acknowledged as accurate by Tony Blair.

This is what the memo says:

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html



http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

If the UN was FINALLY interested in inspections... what were they doing for the previous 12 years?!?

Allowing Iraq to throw inspectors out and refuse to cooperate.

You're right... 12 years is an accelerated time scale.

There was 12 years with no real attempt to enforce the many resolutions. Then the pressure was ramped up, Iraq accepted the inspectors, who were there for a total of three months before Bush lost patience. that is the accelerated timescale.

Your first step took over 12 years... that's a LOOOOONG path. Not to mention fruitless.

Not so long as it is going to take to fix the mess we have now created in Iraq (also looking pretty fruitless, unless you count chaos terrorism and instability as a fruit in which case - bumper crop). Fools rush in etc.

When has the UN gone the way of force?

Um the first gulf war?!

I say that France would not accept any resolution containing ultimatums or military force. You say they won't accept a SECOND resolution.

Because that is the only accurate way to view the situation. It was the second resolution they rejected. Not all future resolutions.

The fact remains... there was already a FIRST resolution... any subsequent resolutions would be a SECOND resolution.

The second resolution was the one being debated.

If the French are willing to sign a SECOND resolution that DOES NOT contain ultimatums or military actions... and refuses to accept a SECOND resolution which DOES contain ultimatums or military actions... the only thing they are against... is the ULTIMATUM or MILITARY ACTION.

In a second resolution. Not a third, fourth fifth or whatever other number of resolutions it took. They rejected it in the second one. It really is basic english comprehension.

When did they put out subcontracts?

You are questioning the existence of halliburton subcontracts?

Halliburton has the exclusive U.S. contract to import fuel into Iraq, but subcontracts the work to the Kuwaiti firm Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company, a company with no prior experience in oil transport, but which is believed to have hidden consultants or partners with ties to prominent Kuwaiti government officials.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/gas.html

Where did they make very dissappointing progress?

In rebuilding Iraq. They 'misplaced' over $18.6 million of US government property for one thing.

Here is a list containing some of their dissapointing progress.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/shareholder2004.html

 

[quantumspirit]

We could start a pullout now, make a checkoff sheet of all that needs to be repaired, fix it once, and if it breaks again and we didn't break it, they fix it. But then there would be less for Halliburton to overbill us for.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

We could start a pullout now, make a checkoff sheet of all that needs to be repaired, fix it once, and if it breaks again and we didn't break it, they fix it. But then there would be less for Halliburton to overbill us for.

 

[arnegrim]

Not really seeing how much intelligence gathering around the world comes from the same source, the CIA I fail to see why this is remarkable.

The WORLD gets its intelligence from the CIA?!?

Not successfully yet, someone vetoed this resolution calling for observers.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/draft7040.html

Does the efficiency of the UN in enforcing its resolutions change the fact that they have been broken?

Perhaps when they come up with a fair resolution the US will back it.

I never said Israel did not break any resolutions...

OK so what is your point?

That the US will go against Israel. They are not in lockstep.

Read closer. Sharon had a perimeter around the camp and let the Lebanese allies into the camp to do his dirty work.

Allies.

Australia is allies with the US. Is Australia accountable for Abu Ghraib?

Well, I didn't vote for him if that helps at all. It is considerably more intelligent and restrained than embarking on an considerably more expensive and counter productive war based on what you want to be true.

Yeah... it sure made his point.

It is acknowledged as accurate by Tony Blair.

This is what the memo says:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Talk about poor english.

Bush wanted to invade... BUT the facts were being fixed.

I wanted to go to Europe for the summer... BUT the bank account wouldn't allow it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

What does this have to do with the Downing memo?

Allowing Iraq to throw inspectors out and refuse to cooperate.

And without the US holding its ground what makes you think it would have been any different the last time?

There was 12 years with no real attempt to enforce the many resolutions. Then the pressure was ramped up, Iraq accepted the inspectors, who were there for a total of three months before Bush lost patience. that is the accelerated timescale.

The pressure was ramped up by the US... not the UN.

Not so long as it is going to take to fix the mess we have now created in Iraq (also looking pretty fruitless, unless you count chaos terrorism and instability as a fruit in which case - bumper crop). Fools rush in etc.

Besides some glitches... I think its going fairly well.

Um the first gulf war?!

You could make a case for it...
I could make a case that it was only because the US pushed it.

Any other examples?

Because that is the only accurate way to view the situation. It was the second resolution they rejected. Not all future resolutions.



The second resolution was the one being debated.



In a second resolution. Not a third, fourth fifth or whatever other number of resolutions it took. They rejected it in the second one. It really is basic english comprehension.

And it is basic english comprehension that if there had been a third, fourth, fifth... whatever... France still had a problem with ultimatums or military actions.

You are questioning the existence of halliburton subcontracts?

No.

I'm questioning your accusation that ALL contracts in Iraq are through Halliburton.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/gas.html

In rebuilding Iraq. They 'misplaced' over $18.6 million of US government property for one thing.

Here is a list containing some of their dissapointing progress.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/shareholder2004.html

I suppose it would be pointless to ask for a source that wasn't so blatantly biased...