If you can't beat 'em...beat the cr@p out of them

['93HonoluluCat]

velochat wrote:
Most Bush supporters believed there were WMDs in Iraq, that Iraq helped Al Qaida, and that most world citizens supported Bush in Iraq.

velochat also wrote:
If you believe any of those three things, you would be deluded. The first two have not been supported by any evidence, and the third is laughable (that the world supported us).

My points below correspond to your claims in your first quote, above. Let's see...

Point 1. Chemical weapons have been found in Iraq. From a May 17, 2004 report: http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... v=EyB0NBHX

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP/FNC) — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered.

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

Perhaps you don't think KATC-TV is accurate. What about this? Or this one? Or this one?

The main arsenal of the former Hussein regime--mainly Scud missile derivatives--may have been moved (to Syria), but the fact remains that there are (and were) chemical weapons in Iraq. From http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/cw.htm:

In a briefing for journalists reported on October 29, 2003, the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency said satellite images showed a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasion in March 2003. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper Jr. said he believed "unquestionably" that illicit weapons material was transported into Syria and perhaps other countries. He said "I think people below the Saddam- Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse. ... I think probably in the few months running up to the onset of the conflict, I think there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private hands, to bury it, and to move it outside the country's borders."

In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph published on January 25, 2004, Dr. David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, said there was evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before the start of the war to overthrow Saddam. "[W]e know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

The latter paragraph is corroborated by reports from the commander of United States Central Command, US Army General John Abizaid, that state that overhead imagery showed movement of chemical weapons towards the Syrian border. Recently retired general Tommy Franks mentions the same in his book. They were in the region as the war drew near. Were you there and able to refute their claims?

Point 2. In June of 2003, we find this from http://tennessean.com/nation-world/arch ... =34908297:

[D]ocumentary evidence of the names and positions of the 600 closest people in Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as well as his ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden.

Here is another link for your enjoyment.

This point, too, is clear. There was a link between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime. It's easy for the nay-sayers to claim there was no link--because I'm sure most of the documents were shredded like a Fawn Hall fan club meeting as the war kicked off.

Point 3. I don't really care if anyone--foremostly the French, the Germans, or the Russians--supported our actions in Iraq. The sovreign states of this world have every right to defend themselves, and sometimes that defense is better proactive and on their ground rather than ours. We've tried fighting the terrorists on our ground on 9/11/01, and didn't fair so well.

The right thing isn't always popular, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Do we really need to ask the world's permission before we act in our best interests? I don't think so.

[Bleedinbluengold]

I'm glad someone finally brought this up, 5-Oh Cat.

The French government, and the partly private oil company Total, lost BILLIONS of Dollars in Iraqi business after the Hussein regime was ousted. At one time in the early '90's, the French Gov't actually had over a 30% stake in Total, and still has a smaller stake. No one should have been surprised, and I don't think the Bush Administration was, that the French wouldn't support the invasion. [If anyone needs me to explain why the German Gov't was not supportive either, just let me know].

So all the whining and crying and ranting over Haliburton should at least be shared with the loving and caring French company, Total.

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2004/10/04 ... ibes.shtml

This should make people, like velo and mslacat, go, 'hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.' But will it?

['93HonoluluCat]

Bleedinbluengold wrote:
This should make people, like velo and mslacat, go, 'hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.' But will it?

I doubt it--want to take bets?

['93HonoluluCat]

Lest anyone have contention with my links to chemicals being in Iraq, NPR is now reporting that Sarin gas has been found in Fallujah.

[SonomaCat]

If there are any weapons in all of Iraq that can be described as being of the "mass destruction" variety, wouldn't they have been used on us by now? It seems like the people who would have them are in a no-lose position and don't really have a lot scruples to begin with. I figured that any form of useful weapons that exist in the country are already being used to their full capacity on us.

[HelenaCat95]

93 Hawaii Cat,
Can you refind the link?....the link as posted does not report that sarin has been found.

['93HonoluluCat]

HelenaCat95 wrote:
93 Hawaii Cat,
Can you refind the link?....the link as posted does not report that sarin has been found.

The link does seem to have changed--the links I pointed to in my previous post should still be good. However, I still agree with the reporter's question as to why have a test kit if there's no Sarin/VX gas around?

BAC wrote:
If there are any weapons in all of Iraq that can be described as being of the "mass destruction" variety, wouldn't they have been used on us by now? It seems like the people who would have them are in a no-lose position and don't really have a lot scruples to begin with. I figured that any form of useful weapons that exist in the country are already being used to their full capacity on us.

Sorry, BAC, but this makes no sense as a valid arguement. The absence of their (the weapons') use cannot be taken as proof they don't exist.

This is especially true when the enemy in Fallujah makes questionable tactical decisions. An enemy that instead of firing on our troops with mortars, uses the mortars on bridges is probably not the most sound tactician and may not know when/how to deliver the weapons.

This poor tactician theory may be wrong, but the main point still stands: nonuse does not equal nonexistance.

[SonomaCat]

HelenaCat95 wrote:
93 Hawaii Cat,
Can you refind the link?....the link as posted does not report that sarin has been found.

The link does seem to have changed--the links I pointed to in my previous post should still be good. However, I still agree with the reporter's question as to why have a test kit if there's no Sarin/VX gas around?

BAC wrote:
If there are any weapons in all of Iraq that can be described as being of the "mass destruction" variety, wouldn't they have been used on us by now? It seems like the people who would have them are in a no-lose position and don't really have a lot scruples to begin with. I figured that any form of useful weapons that exist in the country are already being used to their full capacity on us.

Sorry, BAC, but this makes no sense as a valid arguement. The absence of their (the weapons') use cannot be taken as proof they don't exist.

This is especially true when the enemy in Fallujah makes questionable tactical decisions. An enemy that instead of firing on our troops with mortars, uses the mortars on bridges is probably not the most sound tactician and may not know when/how to deliver the weapons.

This poor tactician theory may be wrong, but the main point still stands: nonuse does not equal nonexistance.

I agree that it is not a 100% correlation, but you have to admit, there is some degree of logic that works in that theory. If they had really, really potent weapons available to them, they would probably use them on us. They might not be brilliant tacticians, but they are probably not stupid, either. Given that we are still trying to take the city this long after we declared mission accomplished, I am going to give them at least a little credit for not being completely incompetent in their fighting ability.

The only other theory for their nonuse, outside of stupidity, is that they have ethical/humanitarian issues about using them on us, but I am going to assume that they aren't simply taking the high road on us, as that doesn't seem to be a strong suit for them.

[BobCatFan]

For all you wacko’s who think Bush is a far right nut, I think you better look at his record. If Bush is anything is very centrist. Maybe from your near communist ideological thinking, Bush is the wrong man at the wrong time, but I disagree.

1) What options did Bush or our country have after 9/11?
A) That’s live, we can rebuild
B) We must have made them mad, we should talk to them
C) Go get the SOB's

2) Bush supports religion, so what is wrong with that.

A) Bush is trying to destory the Bills of Rights and remove the separation of church and state. Religion is the root of all evil and for those who believe, they are just stupid any way.

B) The founding fathers in their wisdom, created the separation of church and state. But they still wanted religion to be a daily part of the government and its citizens. The real reason behind the separation of church and state was to avoid a Church of England were the government controlled religion. Our founding fathers got it right; we should go back and learn from their decisions.

3) Bush through his mismanagement ran up huge deficits?

A) Clinton left with at balanced budget showing how the Democrat’s are a better manager of the economy.

B) Clinton left with a budding recession and a stock market crash. According to the liberal Keynesian economic theory (this is what the democrats have believed since the 1950’s), when times are bad, the government needs to spend more and cut taxes. The stimulus to the economy will spur economic activity and shorten the down turn. I think this is want Bush did.

4) Bush lied about WMD's!

A) The CIA, the UN, Russia, England, France and every other major organization thought that Sadamm had WMD's before the war. He could be wrong, but did he lie?

B) Bush lied about WMD's to attack Sadamm to get revenge and finish his Father's business.

C) Bush lied to support his oil buddies. We went to Iraq only to get oil.

Please post your answers.

[SonomaCat]

For all you wacko’s who think Bush is a far right nut, I think you better look at his record. If Bush is anything is very centrist. Maybe from your near communist ideological thinking, Bush is the wrong man at the wrong time, but I disagree.

1) What options did Bush or our country have after 9/11?
A) That’s live, we can rebuild
B) We must have made them mad, we should talk to them
C) Go get the SOB's

2) Bush supports religion, so what is wrong with that.

A) Bush is trying to destory the Bills of Rights and remove the separation of church and state. Religion is the root of all evil and for those who believe, they are just stupid any way.

B) The founding fathers in their wisdom, created the separation of church and state. But they still wanted religion to be a daily part of the government and its citizens. The real reason behind the separation of church and state was to avoid a Church of England were the government controlled religion. Our founding fathers got it right; we should go back and learn from their decisions.

3) Bush through his mismanagement ran up huge deficits?

A) Clinton left with at balanced budget showing how the Democrat’s are a better manager of the economy.

B) Clinton left with a budding recession and a stock market crash. According to the liberal Keynesian economic theory (this is what the democrats have believed since the 1950’s), when times are bad, the government needs to spend more and cut taxes. The stimulus to the economy will spur economic activity and shorten the down turn. I think this is want Bush did.

4) Bush lied about WMD's!

A) The CIA, the UN, Russia, England, France and every other major organization thought that Sadamm had WMD's before the war. He could be wrong, but did he lie?

B) Bush lied about WMD's to attack Sadamm to get revenge and finish his Father's business.

C) Bush lied to support his oil buddies. We went to Iraq only to get oil.

Please post your answers.

So after you use the term "wackos" and "communist" to describe anyone who doesn't lick Bush's balls, do you really expect anyone to try to have an intelligent conversation with you on the topic?

[SonomaCat]

As a truly moderate and strong pro-capitalist non-wacko, I'll answer the questions:

1. C.

Additional, but necessary information: C has nothing to do with Iraq. C was Afghanistan.

2. Nothing is wrong with Bush being religious in his personal life, as long as he honors the separation of church and state in doing his job. And yes, that does apply to more than just the Church of England -- it applies to keeping the state from sanctioning and promoting any religion. That's what we have churches for.

3. Clinton was a better Republican than Bush on fiscal matters. It's just that simple.

4. I don't think Bush lied about WMD. I just think he was wrong about them, and part of it probably had to do with the fact that they already knew what answer they wanted to hear before they got the pieces of evidence to support it. That tends to lead to skewed analyses. Firing the experts who disagree with you at every turn probably didn't help much, either.

This begs an interesting question -- is it worse to lie or to simply be incompetent? Is one inexcusable, and one gets you another four years? I honestly don't know which one is worse -- neither seems to be an ideal trait.

['93HonoluluCat]

BAC wrote:
I agree that it is not a 100% correlation, but you have to admit, there is some degree of logic that works in that theory. If they had really, really potent weapons available to them, they would probably use them on us. They might not be brilliant tacticians, but they are probably not stupid, either. Given that we are still trying to take the city this long after we declared mission accomplished, I am going to give them at least a little credit for not being completely incompetent in their fighting ability.

I will grant you that the opposition in Iraq adapts well--almost on a daily basis. However, let's look at the Hussein WMD program. It consisted of mainly artillery shells and derivatives of the Soviet-era Scud IRBM. Outside of those two main delivery methods, there would be smatterings here and there of chemicals, but no large stockpiles.

Given that, and given the Scuds that weren't destroyed in 2003 moved to Syria, all that would be left would be artillery shells and the miscellanea. I would venture a guess that most of the "arty" shells ended up in Syria as well. Not all of them--there have been shells found with chemical payloads, vis a vis my previous post.

All the above said, I would say the main reason they haven't used any weapons on us is there is nothing left to deliver the weapons (it would require and artillery gun). The only option remaining is to improvise IEDs out of them. That's already been tried, and had it been successful would have been ugly.

Most of the IEDs in Iraq have been "command detonations," meaning the saboteuer must be within radio and visual range of the IED to set it off appropriately. For conventional explosives, that's really not a big deal--just set yourself a couple hundred feet (preferably more) away and cook off the IED.

For a chemical payload, that is entirely different. One would need a suicide bomber in order to set off the IED--and the death would not be particularly glorious, including paralysis, loss of bladder function and drowning from buildup of lung fluid.

My take on our opposition in Fallujah is that they are not suicide fighters, and therefore not willing to "take one for the team."

[Bleedinbluengold]

BAC - I'll take this opportunity to remind you, and others, that it was the Interim Iraqi Gubmint and the Shiite Clerics that more or less forced the Coalition to retreat from Fallujah this past spring. In my opinion, therefore, the insurgents took control of Fallujah and maintained control by default, not because they had any degree of tactical smarts.

Additionally, the Coalition did learn one thing this past spring and that was the fact they were under-resourced in terms of soldiers and gear. They have not made that mistake this time around, and the results appear to be indicating that the Coalition adapts quicker and better in Iraq compared to the insurgents...at least in this situation. My friends in the military in Iraq and in Fallujah at that time told me this - I pass it along as an FYI, and anyone can choose to believe it, or not - I have no links to back me up.