Rumsfeld: There were no WMD's, There is no Al Qaeda/Iraq connection

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>How long do you think it would take until the sanctions were lifted
>entirely?

Until Hussein was either our ally again or out of power.

I doubt it considering our "allies" were violating the sanctions anyway.


>Do you think SH would force the Weapons Inspectors to leave once
>it was deemed he was in compliance with all UN Resolution?

Quote

He would surely try. But as he failed to keep them out when we became determined, he would fail likewise at getting them to leave (unless we stopped caring, that is.)

I doubt it because all he had to do was tell them to leave like he did before and since Hans Blix would have announced he no longer had WMD's I doubt there would be much of a stir. I can't see anymore need for inspectors at that point. I think if you read the Duefler Report about SH's long term goal, you will agree.

• Quote

[AdD 1]

The United States does not have the right to step in and govern people simply because it believes they are not capable of governing themselves. This is a classic arguement used to justify colonization and imperialism, and may I add it is a complete contradiction of everything the US is supposed to stand for. Now that the administration's justifications for a pre-emptive attack have been proven baseless, I am deeply troubled that there is no channel through which the US can be held accountable for what is obviously a violation of international law, and that hardly anyone even seems concerned about this. With at least 10,000 innocent civilians killed already, I am ashamed to have initially supported the invasion. The US has no more right to violate international law than Saddam had to invade Kuwait. You ask what would conditions in Iraq be like if Saddam had been left in power? I ask what they would have been like if the US hadn't intentionally wiped out virtually the entire infrastructure of what was once one of the most progressive (I mean this in the sense of modernization, not politically) countries in the Middle East, and then systematically denied BILLIONS of dollars of reconstructive aid using its UN veto, effectively plunging the country into the stone age and effectively killing 300,000 children under the age of 5. (See my post on Brian's Peace thread). With new estimates from American researchers putting the death toll resulting from the war between 30,000 and 100,000 civilians, I feel that there is adequate justification to ask if a crime against humanity has been committed in Iraq. I honestly hope that from these horrors we will see a peaceful prosperous and independent democracy emerge in Iraq, but lets face it, the real US track record has shown that it only supports democracy as long as its own interests are not comprimised.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The United States does not have the right to step in and govern people simply because it believes they are not capable of governing themselves.

Quote

Where has anybody suggested this was a reason? Certainly not me.

This is a classic arguement used to justify colonization and imperialism, and may I add it is a complete contradiction of everything the US is supposed to stand for.

Quote

Yep, it is. But, nobody is making that arguement except you.

Now that the administration's justifications for a pre-emptive attack have been proven baseless, I am deeply troubled that there is no channel through which the US can be held accountable for what is obviously a violation of international law, and that hardly anyone even seems concerned about this.

Quote

Perhaps it will be tried in the same court as France, Germany, Russia etc when they are brought to trial for violating the U.N. Oil for Food Program.

Quote

With at least 10,000 innocent civilians killed already, I am ashamed to have initially supported the invasion.

Do you have a source that proves it was 10,000 and that they were all killed by U.S. Troops and that they were all innocent?

Quote

The US has no more right to violate international law than Saddam had to invade Kuwait.

So you are saying Saddam had 17 UN Resolutions like the US did? Got a source for that one too?

Quote

You ask what would conditions in Iraq be like if Saddam had been left in power? I ask what they would have been like if the US hadn't intentionally wiped out virtually the entire infrastructure of what was once one of the most progressive (I mean this in the sense of modernization, not politically) countries in the Middle East, and then systematically denied BILLIONS of dollars of reconstructive aid using its UN veto, effectively plunging the country into the stone age

Or continueing his quest for WMDs like the Dueffler Report found.

Quote

and effectively killing 300,000 children under the age of 5. (See my post on Brian's Peace thread).

I thought you just said above it was 10,000. Now it's 300,000?

Quote

With new estimates from American researchers putting the death toll resulting from the war between 30,000 and 100,000 civilians, I feel that there is adequate justification to ask if a crime against humanity has been committed in Iraq.

First you said 10,000 then you said 300,000, now it's 10,000 to 100,000. I think you just lost all credibility, at least with me.

Quote

I honestly hope that from these horrors we will see a peaceful prosperous and independent democracy emerge in Iraq, but lets face it, the real US track record has shown that it only supports democracy as long as its own interests are not comprimised.

I guess you are forgeting about all the billions the US provides every year in aid to countries around the world.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[billvon 2,425]

>I doubt it considering our "allies" were violating the sanctions
>anyway.

Like I said - so was Halliburton. We invaded anyway. The idea that if you profit from illegal activities, you will not move to end them, is therefore not a valid one.

>I doubt it because all he had to do was tell them to leave like he
>did before and since Hans Blix would have announced he no longer
>had WMD's I doubt there would be much of a stir.

Let me ask you this, then. We have shown he did not have a WMD program when we invaded. If we could leave inspectors in-country and verify that he did not restart one (say, by promising to lift sanctions if he allows regular inspections) would you have been satisfied with that?

[crozby 0]

Quote

First you said 10,000 then you said 300,000, now it's 10,000 to 100,000. I think you just lost all credibility, at least with me.

You tell us the figures then. We really want to know. I get the impression you'd rather not. Why is that?

[AdD 1]

The 300,000 children < age 5 died during the 91-98 period due to the sanctions. This is based on a comparison of child mortality rate studies prior to the first gulf war and a UNICEF study done in 1999, and a report to the UN Sub Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 2000. 10,000 is an estimate of civilian collateral damage post-2003 invasion, as for a source I guess Iraqbodycount.com would be one. I am not going to pretend that there are perfectly reliable body count statistics for the country, but why is that a surprise when it isn't even safe to leave the Green Zone. How could there possibly be a source which proves the exact # and that they were all innocent considering the situation?
I was not directing the first part of the post at you, sorry if that was misleading, I was actually replying to Sabredave's post about Iraqi's not being ready to govern themselves as a society, so no it's not just me.
I do believe that every country which commits crimes against international law should be held accountable, including France. The fact that other countries break these laws with impunity is not justification for such conduct to continue.
The US did not have 17 resolutions justifying unilateral action. Kofi Annan has publically stated that the invasion was a violation of UN law.
In response to the Dueffler report, let me quote marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter, the chief weapons inspector from '91 to '98 who resigned in protest that the US government had sabotaged his mission, placing nine American intelligence officers on the inspection team as far back as '92. This is from an interview on CNN in 2002.
"As of December 1998 we have accounted for 90 to 95% of Iraq's WMD capability. We have destroyed all the factories, all the means of production and we could not account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf life of three years. To have te weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998. "
Again however, we haven't found any WMD's or production facilities in Iraq yet.

Quote

First you said 10,000 then you said 300,000, now it's 10,000 to 100,000. I think you just lost all credibility, at least with me.

The study indicating up to 100,000 civilians killed SINCE THE INVASION is from the British medical journal the 'Lancet'. This is a study done by John's Hopkins, Columbia University and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. I am not saying that there is one specific # of deaths that is right, I'm just pointing out what is being reported. So to recap,

-300,000 children <5 dead because of the sanctions
(The 2000 report to the UN says that total deaths directly attributable to the sanctions ranges from 500,000 to 1,500,000 but this includes all ages)
-10,000-100,000 civilian casualties during the war so far

How many Americans civilians did Iraq kill? Hmm...

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

So to recap,

-300,000 children <5 dead because of the sanctions
(The 2000 report to the UN says that total deaths directly attributable to the sanctions ranges from 500,000 to 1,500,000 but this includes all ages)
-10,000-100,000 civilian casualties during the war so far

How many Americans civilians did Iraq kill? Hmm...

So just to put this in perspective, you are claiming that by refusing to business with Iraq and using the US veto to put pressure on a brutal dictator, it is the US's fault. No mention of any responsibility by Saddam Hussein? This is where it goes from a reasoned arguement to America bashing. By this same standard, we can now accuse the French and the UN for all the deaths in the last few years in Africa. The argument being a country somehow has guilt by it's refusal to do something. Classic Liberalism and partially the reason the Liberals in the US continue to lose power.

10,000 to 100,000 deaths due to the war so far is such a broad guesstimate that it hardly has any credibility. We have no way of knowing how many were Iraqi Army, Terrorists, nor how many were killed by Iraqi Army and Terrorists etc. So your numbers have no value and are again meant to bash the US, IMO. We have no clear definition of even what a civilian is. Is it simply someone without a military uniform?

Sorry, nice try but I don't think any reasonable person is going to accept these figures as they are to open for interpetation and too easily used to bash the US.

[Trent 0]

Quote

The idea that if you profit from illegal activities, you will not move to end them, is therefore not a valid one.

Yes, but if you don't run the chance of profiting from ending the activities... you DEFINITELY won't act to stop them. Your argument here is silly, you're trying to say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that's not the case. It is most certainly a valid idea that they would not want to see any intervention because of the profit motive... especially when there are governments selling things like jets, weapons and other items that the government itself profits on.

Quote

We have shown he did not have a WMD program when we invaded.

I thought "we" have shown that he did have a WMD program with intentions to re-start it, but was not currently active. Just wanted to clarify that.

Quote

If we could leave inspectors in-country and verify that he did not restart one (say, by promising to lift sanctions if he allows regular inspections) would you have been satisfied with that?

The WMD was not the ONLY reason to not want Saddam in power. It's a shame that either the administration made it seem like the only issue, or the opponents clung to it as if it was the only issue. In my opinion, Saddam-family regime would have had to be removed at some point or another. I think you'll probably see that too, if you think about it for a while.

Oh, hello again!

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

The idea that if you profit from illegal activities

Still can't find a date when Cheney goes on trial for all these illegal activities you speak of.

Quote

We have shown he did not have a WMD program when we invaded.

Once again...wrong. We proved we have not at this moment in time found large quantities of weapons of mass destruction.

Big difference. I'm speaking facts...you're speaking out of the DNC manual.

Forty-two

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I doubt it considering our "allies" were violating the sanctions
>anyway.

Quote

Like I said - so was Halliburton. We invaded anyway. The idea that if you profit from illegal activities, you will not move to end them, is therefore not a valid one.

Or perhaps it refutes the notion that Cheney has a bias towards Halliburton. It also suggest the US was not benefiting from the sanctions and our "allies" were.




>I doubt it because all he had to do was tell them to leave like he
>did before and since Hans Blix would have announced he no longer
>had WMD's I doubt there would be much of a stir.

Quote

Let me ask you this, then. We have shown he did not have a WMD program when we invaded. If we could leave inspectors in-country and verify that he did not restart one (say, by promising to lift sanctions if he allows regular inspections) would you have been satisfied with that?

This is a huge point of contention. According to the Dueffler Report, restarting nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs was on top of Saddams list of activities. The most important goal SH had was to get the sanctions lifted. Why? Because he wanted a good reason to toss the inspectors out. Think about it. No WMD's according to Blix and SH orders the Inspectors to leave. France Germany, Russia, China etc. looking to legitimize their illegal dealings with SH refuse to do anything about it. Do you really believe the UN would support re-imposing sanctions? I don't. We had enought of a problem getting the UN to support an invasion when the entire world thought he did have WMD's. What would the chances be of getting support after Blix had cleared SH?

At this point, we would be left with an Iraq, cleared of WMD's, no Inspectors in the country. Even if the UN demanded the Inspectors stay, SH would have been playing games like he did when he was under UN Sanctions. Don't you remember how many times he ignored the UN Sanctions and held out until it had become obvious there would be an invasion, and then he backed down? Remember Desert Fox?

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html

Would you really want SH still in power with no Inspectors to keep him in check and No UN Sanctions?

• Quote

[kallend 1,643]

Quote

Quote

The idea that if you profit from illegal activities

Still can't find a date when Cheney goes on trial for all these illegal activities you speak of.


l.

Hmmm - not long ago you were calling Kerry a criminal, but he hasn't been on trial either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,425]

>Still can't find a date when Cheney goes on trial for all these
>illegal activities you speak of.

CEO's generally do not go on trial for errors their companies make. Halliburton was investigated, found guilty and fined. But if you want to bring Cheney into it, by all means, do so.

>>We have shown he did not have a WMD program when we invaded.

>Once again...wrong. We proved we have not at this moment in time
>found large quantities of weapons of mass destruction. Big
>difference. I'm speaking facts...

And I'm quoting a CIA report almost verbatim.
-----------------------------------
Thursday, October 7, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
-----------------------------------

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Hmmm - not long ago you were calling Kerry a criminal, but he hasn't been on trial either.

Kerry admitted to war crimes. Cheney has never admitted guilt.

Forty-two

[AdD 1]

Quote

So just to put this in perspective, you are claiming that by refusing to business with Iraq and using the US veto to put pressure on a brutal dictator, it is the US's fault

No, not at all, it is perfectly legitimate for the US to choose not to do business with Iraq. I am talking about the US using its veto on a subcommission for the administration of aid to Iraq to block reconstructive efforts and humanitarian aid during the period of 1991-1998 . These contracts were not necessarily involving US based companies. There is a difference between refusing to do business with a country and blocking aid desperately required for humanitarian purposes. After the first gulf war, Iraq's infrastructure was decimated. The US blocked reconstructive contracts which would have supplied clean drinking water, medicine and vaccines. Is this not punishing the country's population excessively for the crime of its brutal dictator?

Quote

So your numbers have no value and are again meant to bash the US, IMO

When human life ceases to have value, I suppose the numbers do become meaningless. I am bashing the US I guess, but not because I hate it. Why do you think the world has turned against America? It's not because we're jealous, it's because we're afraid.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So just to put this in perspective, you are claiming that by refusing to business with Iraq and using the US veto to put pressure on a brutal dictator, it is the US's fault

Quote

No, not at all, it is perfectly legitimate for the US to choose not to do business with Iraq. I am talking about the US using its veto on a subcommission for the administration of aid to Iraq to block reconstructive efforts and humanitarian aid during the period of 1991-1998 . These contracts were not necessarily involving US based companies. There is a difference between refusing to do business with a country and blocking aid desperately required for humanitarian purposes. After the first gulf war, Iraq's infrastructure was decimated. The US blocked reconstructive contracts which would have supplied clean drinking water, medicine and vaccines. Is this not punishing the country's population excessively for the crime of its brutal dictator?

All SH had to do was comply with the UN Resolutions. Blaming the US is just more bashing. Sometime a country has to have a reason to rise up against a brutal dictator. Are you suggesting we should have taken SH out sooner? If so, I agree with you. Problem is that we didn't have a President in the 90's with the will to do so.

Quote

So your numbers have no value and are again meant to bash the US, IMO

Quote

When human life ceases to have value, I suppose the numbers do become meaningless. I am bashing the US I guess, but not because I hate it. Why do you think the world has turned against America? It's not because we're jealous, it's because we're afraid.

Nobody has said human life has no value. The problem is in your zeal to bash the US, you have apparently chosen to use fabricated numbers. I only say this because you are unable to back them up.

Suppose I started posting stats I made up, how much of what I said after that would you take seriously? Probably very little because you would never know if they were being made up to support my position. It's one thing to be wrong about something. It's quite another to willfully mislead.

I think you should be afraid of the US if your country supports terrorists, very afraid. The Canucks have nothing to worry about as far as I know.

• Quote

[AdD 1]

Quote

Nobody has said human life has no value. The problem is in your zeal to bash the US, you have apparently chosen to use fabricated numbers. I only say this because you are unable to back them up.

I thought I made the sources clear. Could you point out which one's you want cited?

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[AdD 1]

Quote

I think you should be afraid of the US if your country supports terrorists, very afraid

I find it hypocritical that a country which has financed terrorists during its proxy wars in the Third World can claim to fight a war on terror with out first addressing its own past. I'll give you one example to start things off. Do a little digging into US gov't support for Unita in Angola. This was undeniably a terrorist organization yet they received millions of dollars of US support. In 1991 after the Angolan settlement, post-apartheid South Africa stopped supporting Unita so the US increased its funding. Unita starved civilians in government held areas, planted landmines on paths used by peasants, kidnapped civilians and also conducted direct attacks against civilian targets. There is congressional testimony about the funding given to this group, look it up.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Nobody has said human life has no value. The problem is in your zeal to bash the US, you have apparently chosen to use fabricated numbers. I only say this because you are unable to back them up.

I thought I made the sources clear. Could you point out which one's you want cited?

From one source you cite, IBC commenting on another source you cite.

Quote

Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants.

So much for them all being civilian non-combatants.

[crozby 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So much for them all being civilian non-combatants.

You are very keen to discount others estimates for the number of civilians have been killed by US troops.

Is this because you have some alternative more credible figures, or are you just in denial?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You are very keen to discount others estimates for the number of civilians have been killed by US troops.

Is this because you have some alternative more credible figures, or are you just in denial?

No, it's because I think posting information from a bogus site distorts the truth. Did you know the "information" on IRB is collected from reading newspaper accounts? Hey, if thats good enough for you, whatever.....

[kallend 1,643]

Quote

Quote

You are very keen to discount others estimates for the number of civilians have been killed by US troops.

Is this because you have some alternative more credible figures, or are you just in denial?

No, it's because I think posting information from a bogus site distorts the truth. Did you know the "information" on IRB is collected from reading newspaper accounts? Hey, if thats good enough for you, whatever.....

I notice that the first thing taken by our troops in Fallujah is the hospital.

Is that because last time we assaulted Fallujah the hospital was the source of the civilian casualty count? This time the US is going to make sure it wins the information war by controlling the source.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Is that because last time we assaulted Fallujah the hospital was the source of the civilian casualty count? This time the US is going to make sure it wins the information war by controlling the source.

It could also be that the terrorists are using the hospital to heal their wounded and holding the doctors as hostages. I'd rather see our guys have the medical facilities available.

[crozby 0]

Quote

It could also be that the terrorists are using the hospital to heal their wounded and holding the doctors as hostages. I'd rather see our guys have the medical facilities available.

BBC news here just stated that the hospital was taken so that they could get accurate casualty figures. I suspect your reason also applies, plus they don't want the insurgents blowing the thing up - it's not good PR.