No weapons of mass destruction - almost official [Archive]

Jolyon

09-24-2003, 12:17 PM

No WMD in Iraq, source claims
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.
This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil.

Downing Street branded the story "speculation about an unfinished draft of an interim report".

Mr Neil said the draft report - which the source said is due to be published next month - concludes it is highly unlikely that weapons of mass destruction were shipped out of the country to places like Syria before the US-led war on Iraq.

The bottom line is that the team has found no weapons of mass destruction
Andrew Neil
Daily Politics

It will also claim Saddam Hussein mounted a huge programme to deceive and hinder the work of UN weapons inspectors, he said.

Mr Neil said, according to the source, the report will say its inspectors have not even unearthed "minute amounts of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons material".

They have also not uncovered any laboratories involved in deploying weapons of mass destruction and no delivery systems for the weapons.

But, Mr Neil added, the report would publish computer programmes, files, pictures and paperwork which it says shows that Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to develop a weapons of mass destruction programme.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told the Reuters news agency he expected the report would "reach no firm conclusions, nor will it rule anything in or out".

Reuters also reported a senior US official saying the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was expected to report finding "dcoumentary evidence" that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons programmes.

"Whether they will find or disclose anything on the weapons themselves, I doubt," said the official.

'Savage blow'

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "This is speculation on an as yet unpublished report.

"I await the report eagerly from Mr Kay (head of the survey group), as does the international community."

Mr Straw argued the whole international community had agreed Iraq's weapons programmes had posed - the issue had been what to do about it.

People did not need the ISG report for evidence of that threat, he said. It was already shown in volumes of reports from UN inspectors.
A Number 10 spokesman said "we don't have this text", but asked if the prime minister had seem the report, remarked: "We are not going into details of process."

Mr Neil, a former editor of the Sunday Times, stressed the Daily Politics had not seen the draft report, and was reporting what a single source had said its findings were likely to be.

He said the report was still to be finalised and could undergo some changes, but the source had been told the content of some key passages which are not expected to be substantively altered.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Michael Portillo said if these details of the report were true, it would be a "savage blow" to the prime minister.

'Fake facilities'

The inspectors have uncovered no evidence that any weapons were actually built in the immediate years before the war, the leak of the report suggests.

It is alleged that Saddam's programme of deception involved fake facilities and infrastructure to deceive and hinder the work of UN weapons inspectors.

The group may well conclude that Iraq had an elaborate and secret effort to maintain elements of its weapons programmes - in 'suspended animation' if you like
Jonathan Marcus
BBC defence correspondent

Documents have been uncovered showing weapons facilities were concealed as commercial buildings, the report is likely to say.

The Iraq Survey Group took over the job of finding WMD from the US military in June.

The survey group, led by David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector and now a special adviser to the CIA, is a largely US operation, although it includes some British and Australian staff.

Its 1,400 personnel are made up of scientists, military and intelligence experts and its work is shrouded in secrecy.

Its focus is intelligence, using documents and interviews with Iraqi scientists to build up a picture of the secret world of Iraq's weapons programmes.

The survey group has been under a good deal of pressure to prove the Bush administration's case that Iraq's weapons posed a significant threat.

Gary Samor, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, recently told the BBC that UN inspection teams should have been sent back into Iraq as there would be much scepticism about the ISG's findings.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm

Published: 2003/09/24 17:30:09 GMT

© BBC MMIII

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 12:31 PM

This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL.

lyot

09-24-2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL. way too simplistic imho. Oil is important, but not the main reason this war was waged.. It's the terrorism problem that made them go to war. They think that through military means (and building democracy in a second stage ) they can instill fear and break the hope of the extremist islam community . That, basically , is why the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

main architect of all this is Paul Wolfowitz.. Of course there are hundreds of other interest that come into play (the basic reason why the Middle East is so important is oil of course, but that's not the one exclusive reason ) ..

greetings

DLow

09-24-2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL. True. The scary thing is he will probably STILL have a sh*t load of supporters with their eyes closed.

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by clos7:
This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL. way too simplistic imho. Oil is important, but not the main reason this war was waged.. It's the terrorism problem that made them go to war. They think that through military means (and building democracy in a second stage ) they can instill fear and break the hope of the extremist islam community . That, basically , is why the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

main architect of all this is Paul Wolfowitz.. Of course there are hundreds of other interest that come into play (the basic reason why the Middle East is so important is oil of course, but that's not the one exclusive reason ) ..

greetings [/QUOTE]"Terrorists," "extremeist Islam"
Brother you've been brainwashed by your friends and CNN. Looking at the words you choose, I can tell.

lyot

09-24-2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by clos7:
This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL. way too simplistic imho. Oil is important, but not the main reason this war was waged.. It's the terrorism problem that made them go to war. They think that through military means (and building democracy in a second stage ) they can instill fear and break the hope of the extremist islam community . That, basically , is why the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

main architect of all this is Paul Wolfowitz.. Of course there are hundreds of other interest that come into play (the basic reason why the Middle East is so important is oil of course, but that's not the one exclusive reason ) ..

greetings [/QUOTE]"Terrorists," "extremeist Islam"
Brother you've been brainwashed by your friends and CNN. Looking at the words you choose, I can tell. [/QUOTE]ok..

Brut by Faberge

09-24-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL. you said it...and don't forget about all the "special interests" of the military industry cats...if you don't know about Bush Sr and the carlyle group connection, do read up!

peace

Digiman

09-24-2003, 01:00 PM

I don't think its all about oil, that's just too simplistic an interpretation. Saddam's presence phucked up that entire region for a lot of major countries. He was too unpredictable and too much of a loose cannon to be allowed to stay in the position he was in.

The problem the U.S administration and (more so) the UK Government have is that they narrowed their remit to only cover the WMD aspect of it all. I think the reason they did this was because its easier to explain to the public. If they had described the intricate geo-politics of it all, I'd imagine it would have gone over a lot of people's heads. However, the Iraqi WMD threat is looking less and less like a major threat with each passing day. This seriously hampers Blair/Bush as that was their major reason for the war in the first place.

If you are looking for the reasoning behind the neo-con guys thirst for a war with Iraq, you'd do well to look here

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

Note it was written in 1998

Digiman

09-24-2003, 01:02 PM

lyot

09-24-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
I don't think its all about oil, that's just too simplistic an interpretation. Saddam's presence phucked up that entire region for a lot of major countries. He was too unpredictable and too much of a loose cannon to be allowed to stay in the position he was in.

The problem the U.S administration and (more so) the UK Government have is that they narrowed their remit to only cover the WMD aspect of it all. I think the reason they did this was because its easier to explain to the public. If they had described the intricate geo-politics of it all, I'd imagine it would have gone over a lot of people's heads. However, the Iraqi WMD threat is looking less and less like a major threat with each passing day. This seriously hampers Blair/Bush as that was their major reason for the war in the first place.

If you are looking for the reasoning behind the neo-con guys thirst for a war with Iraq, you'd do well to look here

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

Note it was written in 1998 W to the O to the R to the D ... ! graemlins/OLA.gif

Saddam was not so important himself, but he needed to be removed to alter the geopolitical constellation of the region..That was more or less the strategic thinking that undercut the US policy.. Iraq was (is) the tactical pivot, S.Arabia the strategical pivot and Egypt the prize.. Think about that !

Digiman

09-24-2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
I don't think its all about oil, that's just too simplistic an interpretation. Saddam's presence phucked up that entire region for a lot of major countries. He was too unpredictable and too much of a loose cannon to be allowed to stay in the position he was in.

The problem the U.S administration and (more so) the UK Government have is that they narrowed their remit to only cover the WMD aspect of it all. I think the reason they did this was because its easier to explain to the public. If they had described the intricate geo-politics of it all, I'd imagine it would have gone over a lot of people's heads. However, the Iraqi WMD threat is looking less and less like a major threat with each passing day. This seriously hampers Blair/Bush as that was their major reason for the war in the first place.

If you are looking for the reasoning behind the neo-con guys thirst for a war with Iraq, you'd do well to look here

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

Note it was written in 1998 W to the O to the R to the D ... ! graemlins/OLA.gif

Saddam was not so important himself, but he needed to be removed to alter the geopolitical constellation of the region..That was more or less the strategic thinking that undercut the US policy.. Iraq was (is) the tactical pivot, S.Arabia the strategical pivot and Egypt the prize.. Think about that ! [/QUOTE]True lyot. One thing America is not afraid to do is to use its massive military power to maintain or alter the geopolitical nature of any region in the world to suit its own interests. Its happened time and again throughout history. Britain did the same thing as a colonial power in the 19th century. Its just what happens. You could as far as to say its human nature. If New Zealand was the world's superpower you could bet they would be doing the same thing. Its not pretty but it works (for the powerful country, not for everyone else!)

Brut by Faberge

09-24-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
I don't think its all about oil, that's just too simplistic an interpretation. Saddam's presence phucked up that entire region for a lot of major countries. He was too unpredictable and too much of a loose cannon to be allowed to stay in the position he was in.

The problem the U.S administration and (more so) the UK Government have is that they narrowed their remit to only cover the WMD aspect of it all. I think the reason they did this was because its easier to explain to the public. If they had described the intricate geo-politics of it all, I'd imagine it would have gone over a lot of people's heads. However, the Iraqi WMD threat is looking less and less like a major threat with each passing day. This seriously hampers Blair/Bush as that was their major reason for the war in the first place.

If you are looking for the reasoning behind the neo-con guys thirst for a war with Iraq, you'd do well to look here

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

Note it was written in 1998 W to the O to the R to the D ... ! graemlins/OLA.gif

Saddam was not so important himself, but he needed to be removed to alter the geopolitical constellation of the region..That was more or less the strategic thinking that undercut the US policy.. Iraq was (is) the tactical pivot, S.Arabia the strategical pivot and Egypt the prize.. Think about that ! [/QUOTE]True lyot. One thing America is not afraid to do is to use its massive military power to maintain or alter the geopolitical nature of any region in the world to suit its own interests. Its happened time and again throughout history. Britain did the same thing as a colonial power in the 19th century. Its just what happens. You could as far as to say its human nature. If New Zealand was the world's superpower you could bet they would be doing the same thing. Its not pretty but it works (for the powerful country, not for everyone else!) [/QUOTE]all that makes sense, shitty as it is, but what about that would go over people's heads? i don't think americans are that stupid...apathetic maybe, but not dumb.

lyot

09-24-2003, 01:20 PM

yes Alfie Moon, it's indeed the nature of the bigger power (billiard bal) in the game ..But i'm not sure if it works ..I do not believe in solving this issue through military means.. Like I already mentioned here, destructive power alone will never be sufficient to solve the terrorism issue..You need integrative power for that, or it won't work. (the British also got kicked out of Iraq in the early decades of this century, if i'm not mistaken)..

greetings

by the way : i don't own a tv set, and never watch CNN.. My main sources are Stratfor.com / Debka.com / foreignaffairs.org / foreignpolitics.com

lyot

09-24-2003, 01:24 PM

hello THX-1138

I think they choose the WMD issue because they did not only have to convince the US population, but they also needed something everyone could agree on on the international level ( UN) .. They used WMD as a trumpet card, but I do not think they imagined at first that it would be so much used against them (by France, Germany & Russia) ..

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war.

Digiman

09-24-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138:

all that makes sense, shitty as it is, but what about that would go over people's heads? i don't think americans are that stupid...apathetic maybe, but not dumb. Hi, I don't think that either but I'd imagine the people advising the president etc. would rather he pushed the whole 'can you imagine a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists' angle rather than the 'Saddams continued presence in that region makes it difficult for us to plan our foreign policy initiatives and destabalises the regional power share to such an extent as to make us nervous'. Politically, its an easier sell for Bush to make.

I think the Iraq war would have been an easier sell period, had Bush not been the President. Any other President would have probably got more worldwide and UN support for the war. People just don't trust Bush's motives (with good reason IMO)

[ September 24, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Alfie Moon ]

domodisco

09-24-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. Do you think this a good thing? Were you in support of the war? I also agree it is simplistic to think this was all about oil. It was about a lot of things, but 'liberating the Iraqi people', WMDs & tackling terrorism were not among them. Trying to insure the dominion of the US for the foreseeable future, trying to find a way around the Saudis, & appeasing Israeli regional security demands were among the real reasons for going to war.

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 01:33 PM

[/qb][/QUOTE]"Terrorists," "extremeist Islam"
Brother you've been brainwashed by your friends and CNN. Looking at the words you choose, I can tell. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't see how using the word terrorist implies that someone has been brainwashed by CNN. [/QB][/QUOTE]
So define terrorism?
Is terrorsism the palestinians strapping themselves with bomb and blowing themselves up in Israeli territory?
And I suppose you think that when the Israeli's fight back with their tanks, copters and bombs you're like..."uh, oh, well theyre defending themselves." CNN used the word "terrorism" "weapons of mass destruction" so many times that now it's a common word whenever we talk about Iraq. And now you've been conditioned to say "extremists." The KKK are terrorsits...they are "extremists" so why can they parade up and down the streets with their beliefs so why not nuke them? You know why, because there isn't any interest there.
I can go on and on but i think i might stop here.
Go beyond the everyday news and look at the view from other parts of the world...not the western perspective.

Digiman

09-24-2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by clos7:

So define terrorism?
Is terrorsism the palestinians strapping themselves with bomb and blowing themselves up in Israeli territory?
And I suppose you think that when the Israeli's fight back with their tanks, copters and bombs you're like..."uh, oh, well theyre defending themselves." CNN used the word "terrorism" "weapons of mass destruction" so many times that now it's a common word whenever we talk about Iraq. And now you've been conditioned to say "extremists." The KKK are terrorsits...they are "extremists" so why can they parade up and down the streets with their beliefs so why not nuke them? You know why, because there isn't any interest there.
I can go on and on but i think i might stop here.
Go beyond the everyday news and look at the view from other parts of the world...not the western perspective. I would say the Israeli responses are state-sponsored atrocities half the time. There are reports of some Israeli pilots refusing to carry out the missions. I think you've read me all wrong here. I don't look at things from a western perspective. In fact, I go out of my way to read about a news event from a variety of news sources on the web from all corners of the globe.

[ September 24, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Alfie Moon ]

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 01:39 PM

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 01:46 PM

[ September 24, 2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: clos7 ]

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by clos7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by clos7:
This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL. way too simplistic imho. Oil is important, but not the main reason this war was waged.. It's the terrorism problem that made them go to war. They think that through military means (and building democracy in a second stage ) they can instill fear and break the hope of the extremist islam community . That, basically , is why the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

main architect of all this is Paul Wolfowitz.. Of course there are hundreds of other interest that come into play (the basic reason why the Middle East is so important is oil of course, but that's not the one exclusive reason ) ..

greetings [/QUOTE]"Terrorists," "extremeist Islam"
Brother you've been brainwashed by your friends and CNN. Looking at the words you choose, I can tell. [/QUOTE]I don't see how using the word terrorist implies that someone has been brainwashed by CNN. [/QUOTE]Terrorism is a word the media, and military use to convince the people that there are"crazy people over there that can harm anyone and everyone." I'm going to use those quotes so I can explain myself. SO everytime you have a conversation and they (others) start saying words as "terrorist." What does that mean to them, to you and to me? So what terrorist or terroristic finds did we find in Iraq? NONE. SO don't use the word terrorsim when talking about Iraq...why even go there? Is there really a "terroristic problem" as mentioned? [/QUOTE]

Digiman

09-24-2003, 01:52 PM

clos, terrorist is not only a word in the media, its just a word. I took issue with you implying that lyot had been brainwashed by CNN because he used the word terrorist which I thought was not the correct thing to say. On all the other stuff, we are singing from the same hymn sheet!

[ September 24, 2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Alfie Moon ]

lyot

09-24-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. Do you think this a good thing? Were you in support of the war? I also agree it is simplistic to think this was all about oil. It was about a lot of things, but 'liberating the Iraqi people', WMDs & tackling terrorism were not among them. Trying to insure the dominion of the US for the foreseeable future, trying to find a way around the Saudis, & appeasing Israeli regional security demands were among the real reasons for going to war. [/QUOTE]no, it's not a good thing when things get concealed.. But it's the way the system works.. The good things is that if you do reasonable effort, you can see the real reasons lying behind the facades.. But you need to be willing to inform yourself (most of the public isn't of course)..

I was against this war and marched several time in demonstrations in Brussels, Belgium..

What you describe as the real reasons of this war are all valid but in fact, it's also linked with what i call terrorism. Al Qaeda & Co. (let's call them the terrorists) are threatening the balance in the Middle East and thus the dominion of the US in the region, the position of Israel on the longer term and also, the House of Saud.. There you go.. smile.gif We are, I think, saying more or less the same things, but in other words

Brut by Faberge

09-24-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I think they choose the WMD issue because they did not only have to convince the US population, but they also needed something everyone could agree on on the international level ( UN) .. They used WMD as a trumpet card, but I do not think they imagined at first that it would be so much used against them (by France, Germany & Russia) ..

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. i see what you're saying. so *scare the shit out of them* is the american way eh? i hear you and i agree, because "sadam just gives me the willies" would probably not have flown with people. i know tghat's toning down your point alot, but i definitely think the power of his argument would have been deflated to just that in the minds of many. great point.

housedeep

09-24-2003, 01:58 PM

i am glad to finally see some folks use their brain on this discussion. The "all about oil" excuse is as embarrasingly lame as the "WMDs". Talk about being programmed!
Lyot, Alfie moon, and others-thanks for the great points.

housedeep

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
clos, terrorist is not only a word in the media, its just a word. I took issue with you implying that lyot had been brainwashed by CNN because he used the word terrorist which I thought was not the correct thing to say. On all the other stuff, we are singing from the same hymn sheet! It's all good but Lyot earlier was mentioning about us going over there about "terrorist problems." I usually comment about whenever someone uses the excuse of us going to war over "terrorism." That is an excuse and i feel that way but it's all good. I challenge people so they can hit me with a good shot and teach me things. I don't know it all but i search for the truth.

graemlins/beerchug.gif

lyot

09-24-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
"Terrorists," "extremeist Islam"
Brother you've been brainwashed by your friends and CNN. Looking at the words you choose, I can tell. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't see how using the word terrorist implies that someone has been brainwashed by CNN. [/QB][/QUOTE]
So define terrorism?
Is terrorsism the palestinians strapping themselves with bomb and blowing themselves up in Israeli territory?
And I suppose you think that when the Israeli's fight back with their tanks, copters and bombs you're like..."uh, oh, well theyre defending themselves." CNN used the word "terrorism" "weapons of mass destruction" so many times that now it's a common word whenever we talk about Iraq. And now you've been conditioned to say "extremists." The KKK are terrorsits...they are "extremists" so why can they parade up and down the streets with their beliefs so why not nuke them? You know why, because there isn't any interest there.
I can go on and on but i think i might stop here.
Go beyond the everyday news and look at the view from other parts of the world...not the western perspective. [/QB][/QUOTE]

i just want to briefly add that I think that both the US governement, the Israeli government and the different Palestinian groups have been guilty of committing terrorist actions in the last half year.. It is very clear that from the Western media point of view, these different 'actions' are not assessed in the same way ..There's no objectivity in these conflicts really..

lyot

09-24-2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by clos7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by clos7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by clos7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by clos7:
This doesn't suprise me.
All Bush wants is war. I didn't forget Sept. 11 but that didn't have a tie to Iraq. It's all about the OIL. way too simplistic imho. Oil is important, but not the main reason this war was waged.. It's the terrorism problem that made them go to war. They think that through military means (and building democracy in a second stage ) they can instill fear and break the hope of the extremist islam community . That, basically , is why the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were started.

main architect of all this is Paul Wolfowitz.. Of course there are hundreds of other interest that come into play (the basic reason why the Middle East is so important is oil of course, but that's not the one exclusive reason ) ..

greetings [/QUOTE]"Terrorists," "extremeist Islam"
Brother you've been brainwashed by your friends and CNN. Looking at the words you choose, I can tell. [/QUOTE]I don't see how using the word terrorist implies that someone has been brainwashed by CNN. [/QUOTE]Terrorism is a word the media, and military use to convince the people that there are"crazy people over there that can harm anyone and everyone." I'm going to use those quotes so I can explain myself. SO everytime you have a conversation and they (others) start saying words as "terrorist." What does that mean to them, to you and to me? So what terrorist or terroristic finds did we find in Iraq? NONE. SO don't use the word terrorsim when talking about Iraq...why even go there? Is there really a "terroristic problem" as mentioned? [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]hey Clos,
you have a very valid point there.. we should be wary to use the term terrorism , because it's often no more then a tool to 'de-humanize' the 'other' as a kind of barbarian.. You know, for a lot of people, it's good to kill or wipe out the barbarians, because they instill fear in the minds of people.. playing on fear is an important component of the US policy of the last couple of years..

So, i should have been more clear when I used the word terrorism.. Yet, I still think that it can be said that the war in Iraq was waged because of the larger 'terrorism' issue (OBL & Al Qaeda) ..

greetings ! graemlins/beerchug.gif

Brut by Faberge

09-24-2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by THX-1138:

all that makes sense, shitty as it is, but what about that would go over people's heads? i don't think americans are that stupid...apathetic maybe, but not dumb. Hi, I don't think that either but I'd imagine the people advising the president etc. would rather he pushed the whole 'can you imagine a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists' angle rather than the 'Saddams continued presence in that region makes it difficult for us to plan our foreign policy initiatives and destabalises the regional power share to such an extent as to make us nervous'. Politically, its an easier sell for Bush to make.

I think the Iraq war would have been an easier sell period, had Bush not been the President. Any other President would have probably got more worldwide and UN support for the war. People just don't trust Bush's motives (with good reason IMO) [/QUOTE]more good ideas, and i agree with that. but i wonder if this would not have also been a good opportunity to fulfil a shitload of defense industry contracts as well. is this, along with oil, another overly simplistic reason for war?

another thought: what if bush say...extended an olive branch (with UN in the passenger seat of course) and proposed a renegotiation of sanctions against iraq on the condition that sadam would explore a new, more democratic restructuring of his policies...

peace

Digiman

09-24-2003, 02:07 PM

If anyone is interested in how the media reports on various situations, they sould check out this university group

http://www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/Sociology/media.html

lyot

09-24-2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I think they choose the WMD issue because they did not only have to convince the US population, but they also needed something everyone could agree on on the international level ( UN) .. They used WMD as a trumpet card, but I do not think they imagined at first that it would be so much used against them (by France, Germany & Russia) ..

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. i see what you're saying. so *scare the shit out of them* is the american way eh? i hear you and i agree, because "sadam just gives me the willies" would probably not have flown with people. i know tghat's toning down your point alot, but i definitely think the power of his argument would have been deflated to just that in the minds of many. great point. [/QUOTE]hello,

I also think it was a big mistake, at hindsight, to use the WMD card.. They are waging a war against terrorism and not just against Iraq. This means that the war still isn't over for some time to come..But what they have done is undercut the thrust the US citizens have in the US governement now that it gets clear that there isn't any WMD. After all, this is an intelligence war to a great extent. And if they intelligence community has totally presented things in an erroneous way (again in fact, since 9/11 was also a disaster that happened because of failing intelligence services) then you have a problem towards the future..

greetings

sorry if I miss some points.. This discussion is going soooo fast.. smile.gif

Digiman

09-24-2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138:
more good ideas, and i agree with that. but i wonder if this would not have also been a good opportunity to fulfil a shitload of defense industry contracts as well. is this, along with oil, another overly simplistic reason for war?

peace Hi THX, I would say the whole defence contract thing definitely plays a part (as does oil) but not the whole part. I've never been able to get my head round the massive amounts of military spending the US gets through. It really defies me sometimes. Iraq reconstruction is currently $1 Billion dollars a week! Not to mention the amount spent on the military anyway.

lyot

09-24-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by THX-1138:

all that makes sense, shitty as it is, but what about that would go over people's heads? i don't think americans are that stupid...apathetic maybe, but not dumb. Hi, I don't think that either but I'd imagine the people advising the president etc. would rather he pushed the whole 'can you imagine a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists' angle rather than the 'Saddams continued presence in that region makes it difficult for us to plan our foreign policy initiatives and destabalises the regional power share to such an extent as to make us nervous'. Politically, its an easier sell for Bush to make.

I think the Iraq war would have been an easier sell period, had Bush not been the President. Any other President would have probably got more worldwide and UN support for the war. People just don't trust Bush's motives (with good reason IMO) [/QUOTE]more good ideas, and i agree with that. but i wonder if this would not have also been a good opportunity to fulfil a shitload of defense industry contracts as well. is this, along with oil, another overly simplistic reason for war?

another thought: what if bush say...extended an olive branch (with UN in the passenger seat of course) and proposed a renegotiation of sanctions against iraq on the condition that sadam would explore a new, more democratic restructuring of his policies...

peace [/QUOTE]I think you can easily state that there are several secondary reasons for this war.. Or they way it was waged..THe interest of the military complex are probably not to be underestimated. There are several 'push' factors like that, but in the end, I do believe that there's an overarching strategy that is the real driving force behind this war .

I do not really think i understand the second part of your answer.. If you want, can you elaborate ? (the olive branch) ..On this moment, there are no sanctions against Iraq anymore, right,

domodisco

09-24-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. Do you think this a good thing? Were you in support of the war? I also agree it is simplistic to think this was all about oil. It was about a lot of things, but 'liberating the Iraqi people', WMDs & tackling terrorism were not among them. Trying to insure the dominion of the US for the foreseeable future, trying to find a way around the Saudis, & appeasing Israeli regional security demands were among the real reasons for going to war. [/QUOTE]no, it's not a good thing when things get concealed.. But it's the way the system works.. The good things is that if you do reasonable effort, you can see the real reasons lying behind the facades.. But you need to be willing to inform yourself (most of the public isn't of course)..

I was against this war and marched several time in demonstrations in Brussels, Belgium..

What you describe as the real reasons of this war are all valid but in fact, it's also linked with what i call terrorism. Al Qaeda & Co. (let's call them the terrorists) are threatening the balance in the Middle East and thus the dominion of the US in the region, the position of Israel on the longer term and also, the House of Saud.. There you go.. smile.gif We are, I think, saying more or less the same things, but in other words [/QUOTE]True, True. I do believe that there is an argument to be made that al Qaeda is a valid threat, but in this country people seem to believe that they exist in a vacuum, that the organization came into being in the 90s. In reality, though, ad you probably know, a lot of al Qaeda's leadership and followers were trained and armed by the US and the West in the 70s and 80s, then abandoned when they weren't useful anymore. That, coupled with our support for Israel, our (until recently) military presence in Saudi Arabia, our involvement in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. We could also talk about the ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens & the House of Saud, but maybe for another discussion.

Peace, domo

lyot

09-24-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by THX-1138:
more good ideas, and i agree with that. but i wonder if this would not have also been a good opportunity to fulfil a shitload of defense industry contracts as well. is this, along with oil, another overly simplistic reason for war?

peace Hi THX, I would say the whole defence contract thing definitely plays a part (as does oil) but not the whole part. I've never been able to get my head round the massive amounts of military spending the US gets through. It really defies me sometimes. Iraq reconstruction is currently $1 Billion dollars a week! Not to mention the amount spent on the military anyway. [/QUOTE]Alfie, that would also be 1 billion $ for the military per week.. I read that last week.. It's a huge amount, and it probably explains why they are so desperate in searching the involvement (and money) of the UN ..

ON the other hand: I do think that the US has to pay that money (the 80 billion $ reconstruction money) and that it can not leave in the first couple of years.. As much as I was against this war, leaving right now would mean a real disaster.. The US has the responsability to secure the region again..

Digiman

09-24-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by THX-1138:
another thought: what if bush say...extended an olive branch (with UN in the passenger seat of course) and proposed a renegotiation of sanctions against iraq on the condition that sadam would explore a new, more democratic restructuring of his policies...
I don't think Saddam would be intelligent enough to accept. Saddam was a pretty stupid guy, he was very ruthless however which enabled him to get where he got. Political analysts mostly agree that Saddam only made one good political move in his entire tenure and that was the proposition of 'linkage' in the first Gulf war. He basically proposed he would withdraw his troops from Kuwait if Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip and the West Bank.

lyot

09-24-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. Do you think this a good thing? Were you in support of the war? I also agree it is simplistic to think this was all about oil. It was about a lot of things, but 'liberating the Iraqi people', WMDs & tackling terrorism were not among them. Trying to insure the dominion of the US for the foreseeable future, trying to find a way around the Saudis, & appeasing Israeli regional security demands were among the real reasons for going to war. [/QUOTE]no, it's not a good thing when things get concealed.. But it's the way the system works.. The good things is that if you do reasonable effort, you can see the real reasons lying behind the facades.. But you need to be willing to inform yourself (most of the public isn't of course)..

I was against this war and marched several time in demonstrations in Brussels, Belgium..

What you describe as the real reasons of this war are all valid but in fact, it's also linked with what i call terrorism. Al Qaeda & Co. (let's call them the terrorists) are threatening the balance in the Middle East and thus the dominion of the US in the region, the position of Israel on the longer term and also, the House of Saud.. There you go.. smile.gif We are, I think, saying more or less the same things, but in other words [/QUOTE]True, True. I do believe that there is an argument to be made that al Qaeda is a valid threat, but in this country people seem to believe that they exist in a vacuum, that the organization came into being in the 90s. In reality, though, ad you probably know, a lot of al Qaeda's leadership and followers were trained and armed by the US and the West in the 70s and 80s, then abandoned when they weren't useful anymore. That, coupled with our support for Israel, our (until recently) military presence in Saudi Arabia, our involvement in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. We could also talk about the ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens & the House of Saud, but maybe for another discussion.

Peace, domo [/QUOTE]I think that the following is very much unspoken in this whole issue : Al Qaeda is a threat to the US home soil, but that threat is only a tiny fraction of the threat it really is for US interests in the Middle East.. The US governement often depicts the war against Al Qaeda as a battle for the safety of US citizens at home, but it is so much more a battle for US economic interest abroad (which of course influence the welfare of US citizens in the United States itself)..

dj c-los

09-24-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. Do you think this a good thing? Were you in support of the war? I also agree it is simplistic to think this was all about oil. It was about a lot of things, but 'liberating the Iraqi people', WMDs & tackling terrorism were not among them. Trying to insure the dominion of the US for the foreseeable future, trying to find a way around the Saudis, & appeasing Israeli regional security demands were among the real reasons for going to war. [/QUOTE]no, it's not a good thing when things get concealed.. But it's the way the system works.. The good things is that if you do reasonable effort, you can see the real reasons lying behind the facades.. But you need to be willing to inform yourself (most of the public isn't of course)..

I was against this war and marched several time in demonstrations in Brussels, Belgium..

What you describe as the real reasons of this war are all valid but in fact, it's also linked with what i call terrorism. Al Qaeda & Co. (let's call them the terrorists) are threatening the balance in the Middle East and thus the dominion of the US in the region, the position of Israel on the longer term and also, the House of Saud.. There you go.. smile.gif We are, I think, saying more or less the same things, but in other words [/QUOTE]True, True. I do believe that there is an argument to be made that al Qaeda is a valid threat, but in this country people seem to believe that they exist in a vacuum, that the organization came into being in the 90s. In reality, though, ad you probably know, a lot of al Qaeda's leadership and followers were trained and armed by the US and the West in the 70s and 80s, then abandoned when they weren't useful anymore. That, coupled with our support for Israel, our (until recently) military presence in Saudi Arabia, our involvement in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. We could also talk about the ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens & the House of Saud, but maybe for another discussion.

Peace, domo [/QUOTE]Yo! We're on the same level but that discussion is long, debatable and insulting to some peeps. But you laid down some info.

graemlins/beerchug.gif

Digiman

09-24-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Alfie Moon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by THX-1138:
more good ideas, and i agree with that. but i wonder if this would not have also been a good opportunity to fulfil a shitload of defense industry contracts as well. is this, along with oil, another overly simplistic reason for war?

peace Hi THX, I would say the whole defence contract thing definitely plays a part (as does oil) but not the whole part. I've never been able to get my head round the massive amounts of military spending the US gets through. It really defies me sometimes. Iraq reconstruction is currently $1 Billion dollars a week! Not to mention the amount spent on the military anyway. [/QUOTE]Alfie, that would also be 1 billion $ for the military per week.. I read that last week.. It's a huge amount, and it probably explains why they are so desperate in searching the involvement (and money) of the UN ..

ON the other hand: I do think that the US has to pay that money (the 80 billion $ reconstruction money) and that it can not leave in the first couple of years.. As much as I was against this war, leaving right now would mean a real disaster.. The US has the responsability to secure the region again.. [/QUOTE]Hi Lyot, I agree. If the US were to withdraw now, that would be an utter disaster. However, at the UN there is certainly an attitude of 'you broke it - now you fix it' towards the "coalition" (basically US and UK).
I imagine that France and Germany will be wanting some hefty payback if they allow a resolution through that demands the UN has a more involved role in Iraq.

Jolyon

09-24-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by domodisco:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lyot:
hello THX-1138

I really believe that if you do not break international politics down to simple 'ideas' people will not follow .. People need to be deceived.. If they had explained their real plans from start on, i do not think that as many US citizens would have agreed with going to war. Do you think this a good thing? Were you in support of the war? I also agree it is simplistic to think this was all about oil. It was about a lot of things, but 'liberating the Iraqi people', WMDs & tackling terrorism were not among them. Trying to insure the dominion of the US for the foreseeable future, trying to find a way around the Saudis, & appeasing Israeli regional security demands were among the real reasons for going to war. [/QUOTE]no, it's not a good thing when things get concealed.. But it's the way the system works.. The good things is that if you do reasonable effort, you can see the real reasons lying behind the facades.. But you need to be willing to inform yourself (most of the public isn't of course)..

I was against this war and marched several time in demonstrations in Brussels, Belgium..

What you describe as the real reasons of this war are all valid but in fact, it's also linked with what i call terrorism. Al Qaeda & Co. (let's call them the terrorists) are threatening the balance in the Middle East and thus the dominion of the US in the region, the position of Israel on the longer term and also, the House of Saud.. There you go.. smile.gif We are, I think, saying more or less the same things, but in other words [/QUOTE]True, True. I do believe that there is an argument to be made that al Qaeda is a valid threat, but in this country people seem to believe that they exist in a vacuum, that the organization came into being in the 90s. In reality, though, ad you probably know, a lot of al Qaeda's leadership and followers were trained and armed by the US and the West in the 70s and 80s, then abandoned when they weren't useful anymore. That, coupled with our support for Israel, our (until recently) military presence in Saudi Arabia, our involvement in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. We could also talk about the ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens & the House of Saud, but maybe for another discussion.

Peace, domo [/QUOTE]How are things my friend?

Of course, it's said that the bin Laden's that were in the US at the time of 9/11 were spirited out by the Government...even the FBI didn't bother speaking to them until weeks afterwards.