On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:30:56 -0400, "Harvey"
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:

"cui bono" <whose@war.com> wrote in message
news:1hb161p4i0i2c1o9t1d4ve6lfproa6q3en@4ax.com...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:44:01 -0400, "Harvey"
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:

"cui bono" <whose@war.com> wrote in message
news:vuam51dpibtgk4cpuc3b8140cu07k74gpj@4ax.com...

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:48:43 -0400, "Harvey"
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:

(snip old stuff for brevity)

1st of all,
My apologies for the belated reply. Weathers good, house
needs painting and I'm gonna have to give this up for awhile
after this week.

Cite for the inspectors reporting full compliance to the UN in 1996?
Got
one?

It's up to you to have proven a nuclear, bio or even VX
program since they got caught in some clandestine
stuff in the early '90s. That's what you do before you
send people to war. You don't go to war based on
hunches and innuendo. You follow Constitutional
procedure.

You're turning what was agreed on by Hussein after the Gulf War on
it's
head, if that's what you think. He agreed to something and he didn't
follow through. "A dog ate my homework, teach."

But it's not quite that simple since the CIA had planted moles
into the inspection process in order to locate Hussein. That,
imo, is what really pissed Ritter off since the inspectors had
actually disarmed Hussein and the politically popular goal
of regime change was beginning to cause the inspection
process to be subverted under their noses. All Ritter and
the inspectors wanted was for the UN and US to back them
up and now they were just being used in such a way as to
make them look like part of a deceit meant to take Hussein
out. When we did bomb: we did so with intel picked up by
the moles in the inspection process. At one time, you'll
recall that Ritter had been accused of being a CIA spy
by the Iraqis. Hell they had already disarmed and we were
still trying to kill Saddam or locate him for assasination by
way of aerial bombing.

I'll have to research the UNISCOM stuff tomorrow
but Scott Ritter says inspections had disarmed a
known 95% of the nuclear and VX programs by
the time that we pulled inspectors in '98.

We could have continued to keep him disarmed
if Regime Change had not become the stated
policy of the Clinton administration in '98. That
was a political decision, on his part, and not
a strategic one, imho.

I don't know, he's a sharp guy. If he was trying to get us all to look
at the bright shiny trinket rather than something else, at least he's
more likely to make it something that's plausibly useful than just
something stupid. I don't think he had it *anywhere* in his mind to
shake the box the way this one has, though, I'll grant you that.

I've never seen him as smart so much as politically shrewd
in his environment. He certainly wasn't worldly when he went
into Kuwait. His lack of worldly-ness was what embarressed
the US pols who took a chance on relations with him. At least
Pinochet tried to keep somewhat of a low profile every chance
he got - but never Saddam. I think he was learning his limits but
what point would there be in kissing our asses if we were going
to take him out anyway?

He did let inspectors in in '02 and they were finding nothing
before we pulled them out again. There was no doubt that
we were going in at that point. Then the dumb *****
started funding Hamas bombers to be vindictive about it.
Now how smart was that? How smart were the vindictive
SCUD attacks against Israel in the first war with him? The
guy's just the kind of thug who seizes power in these places
and it's bound to happen again someday.

Clinton continued the sanctions against Saddam in
'98 in order to affect a regime change. (not legal in
the UN Charter without the proof of WMD programs)
The Oil for food scandle has nothing to do with
disarming Saddam. It also is a fraction of what the US

Nothing to do with disarming him, correct.

It was meant for relief for the populous and admittedly
was a dumb idea compared to the idea of: scrapping the
"Regime Change" end game, continuing honest UNISCOM
inspections and just buying Saddam's oil. Hell, I'd like to
think that's what Reagan would have finally done.

Interesting.

sponsored CPA ripped off from Iraq in just a few months.
(8.8 billion) Money is still being ripped off by US
contractors in Iraq. So it ain't a perfect world.

Even giving you this, you're saying because corruption exists in
third
world countries on our watch, we must do nothing about third world
dictators... have I got that right? (If you can manage something
besides
pointing out other third world dictators we've supported/not done
anything about, that would be refreshing.)

Hell corruption exists here! We have our own well-bred and fed
assholes who are going to turn out to be as big as anyone
else in all of this - I trust you've seen the news on this since
posting.

Actually, no, don't know what you're referring to. Looking at cnn.com
just now I see a surfer fended off a shark attack... must have bumped
what you're talking about... enlighten me.

Looks like some Texas oil guy was in on the oil-for-food
scandal and several other oil companies including Exxon
are being investigated. It ran on CNN Thursday morning
and had disappeared by Friday.

Also the original CPA that ran Iraq for awhile, after the invasion,
stiffed the usual generous donor for 8.8 billion during their tenure
and the fraud is still going on since we don't really have good
systems in place to account for the money we spend.

The problem with the news in this country is that it's tabloid
and not much else - supply and demand.

I'm sure some UN ambassadors are bribable but It's much
harder to screw up the weapons program inspection
process. Not like buying a vote.

Given.

All I want to know is if the Regime Change is worth the
trouble and so-far it ain't insofar as the US is concerned
considering the lack of any future nuclear or bio threat from
Saddam while he was effectively under our thumb.

That's probably true if you believe keeping the status quo... or what
you think may be the status quo... in the ME is peachy, or was peachy
before the decision to invade. If you didn't think the status quo was
peachy... and especially if you thought Saddam himself was very
vulnerable, and despite his precautions a well-placed bomb or plot
could
make the whole country go any ***** direction, probably a very wrong
one from our perspective... then you weren't so happy.

I think it broke down to a series of conditionals:

1) whether or not you believe that fundamentalist Islamic fascism (and
if you object to that term, call it "fred", I don't care... I suspect
you know what I mean) is a major threat or not. I think it is... I
think
it still is, though some progress has been made since we woke up to
it...

I've been expecting something like 9-11 for awhile (but not that
effective) and feared how it might be used to more-deeply solidify
our relationship with Israel before a deal was struck bettween them
and the Palestinians. I've always seen diffusing that feud as
essential to our interests in the region and it seems I was
increasingly at odds with much of the Republican Party with that
outlook and that's why I quit them in the '90s. The Israeli occupation
furnishes the lingo that recruits suicide bombers and they aren't
running short of those yet.

Fixing up the Mideast before intransigent Likud pols are ready to
cut loose of sacred real estate is like fighting for a girl that you
haven't even slept with yet!

2) whether when you were a kid, you'd ever asked your mom or dad the
question "If you could have killed Hitler before WWII started, would
you
have done it?"

Well sure. Not that my dad's family was hot on that war either
but wound up fighting and dying in it..
Hitler beat us to the declaration of war (I think he knew he was
going to lose the war at this point) It would have saved millions
as well as an assasination of Stalin. A real cynic would have let
the Soviets overun Western Europe and would have supplied
them with the B17s etc. That would not have saved the lives
lost in Hitlers death camps nor the long ignored lives lost in
Stalin's death camps though.

3) whether you think there are good and valid reasons to go to war. To
me, the issues surrounding Hussein... control of a critical resource,
chosing a battleground off our shores (if you already presume war with
islamofascists,

Nope. I don't presume that war in Iraq. I was all for Afghanistan
and ain't complaining about any of our strategy in that one but
I think that the set-battle scenario as an excuse for invading
Iraq doesn't hold water. I see it as a neocon-think excuse to
put us more at odds with individuals who remain enemies of Israel,
solidify support for Israel and spoil them even more than they are
now. That does nothing to diffuse that conflict nor lessen chances
of terrorist attacks in the US despite the cost in blood and money.

taking Iraq was a null tactical move but a great
strategic one), lack of compliance with the former cease-fire, mass
murder and torture, and simply removing that carbuncle from the face
of
the world... all of that combined for a remarkable collection of
reasons
to go to war whose cumulative weight hasn't been seen since the
1940's.

Now if you go through all that, it either rings your bell or it
doesn't.
Clearly it didn't for a lot of people. And they may be right... very
difficult to set up a control group in these situations and run the
experiment scientifically.

Time will tell. If we don't have to go back in every five or ten
years and get a handle on the latest troubles like France does
in it's former African colonies and a deal is finally struck in the
West Bank and Gaza making the place look like a viable state: I
might have to eat my words - but not until then.

The UN was not going to give a mandate for invasion
of Iraq based on the fabrications that we offered and
turned out to be right in that decision. Their is nothing
in the UN charter that allows us to invade a country
without a valid self defence threat and pre-emptive
attacks have no basis in international law.

Where did you hear "pre-emptive attacks have no basis in
international
law"? More to the point, what does that statement even mean?

Where do you find it in any international treaties that
we've signed on to? There is certainly no allowance
for a preemptive strike in the UN charter. The UN was
formed to make war the last resort and allows no such
thing based on the "evidence" presented. How could
they possibly be expected to vote for a Mandate based
on a premise of preemptive strike for weapons that
UNISCOM inspectors said weren't there in 2002.

I'm no lawyer (thank god) but I play one on TV and I've seen them
argue
in these alt.politics.usa pages about this. I think it's generally
understood that there are situations where a pre-emptive strike is
"legal" under international law.

Not without the UN mandate though. I've been forced to delve
into Geneva Conventions, The UN Charter and other treaties so
often that I confuse them sometimes but Powell failed to talk them
into the mandate which puts us into their "aggressor nation" catagory
and that example gives anybody else the excuse to do the same.

I'm assuming the evidence needs to be more solid for the purposes
of legality.

As for how the UN can be expected to do something... frankly I don't
think you can expect it to do *anything* much that makes sense. It
does
a couple of things dealing with data collection and the WHO that is
useful. Otherwise it is a really badly run zoo.

Look how Herbert Walker Bush used it to our advantage. It's
what we make of it. I think neocons take advantage of innate
American suspicions of the UN for all the aforementioned
reasons but consider that the only other options to IAEA
inspections is war and that policy might actually expedite
Rouge State nuclear ambitions.

Inspections are much more effective at finding WMD
evidence than many people realize - once they are
allowed access.

We can veto anything we don't like there and we use the
veto now and then.

There comes a time in the lifespan of poorly constructed buildings
where
the cost/benefit analysis of repairing and renovating it one last time
vs. tearing it down and starting over begins to tilt towards
demolition.
We're long past that now with the UN.

Lets make the goal a renovation instead of mercy killing.
We might need a coalition that's seen as valid, by the
world, someday. I'm afraid we've done ourselves much
damage in the credibility dept with out unilateral policies.

Correct me if I'm wrong (relying on memory here) but I believe that
Hitler, in part, used the premise for an invasion of Poland in '39.

Sure, that's right. He also had dark hair... another correlation.

Since our international treaties are to be honored by
virtue of Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
King George and his neocon-compliant Republicrat
Congress are not only duplicitous political taskboys
for the security of Israel, they are in violation of our own
Constitution on account of their violation of those treaties
and by virtue of overpaid Congressional cowards ceding
their Constitutionally granted War Making duties dutifully
to King George.

Oh, please. I certainly agree in principle but it's such a hackneyed
and
ancient point it's nearly useless. He got the modern equivalent of a
congressional declaration... pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

It's considered ancient and hackneyed by apathetic
Americans, Chickenshit overpaid Congressmen who
don't really have the guts for the responsibility or Politically
ambitious frauds who want to runaround the rules to pull
off political tasks.

The '73 War Powers Act meant to limit the President's
powers but Congressional pussies ceded it all back to
him certainly knowing, as I did, that at least some of the
Intel was either filtered or fraudulent. It's not like they
don't know that AIPAC and other pro Israel organizations
were all for going into Iraq so they were obligated to make
the final call if only for accountability. As it is, the President
was given the final decision and nobody is really held
accountable. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee
says they were duped. Congress dunno much 'bout
no WMD's and everybody seems to be in the same
no-fault boat. Is that the way the founders wanted it
to work? Hell no !! They wanted CONGRESS to
make the final call and be held accountable so that
war was NOT decided by one man subject to political
pressures.

You're preaching to the choir on all this. Keep in mind that I didn't
design the damn thing. You just still think it's useful to complain
about it, and I'm tired of doing that. It's like arguing about racial
issues. I decided long ago that all matters of race outside of the
medical ones have a basic issue of stupidity at their core, and I'm no
longer interested in the stupid discussion. Caught me about 20 years
too
late for that.

I think it's still important and if we don't complain: we will
continue to slip away from the ingenious separation of
powers that keep the politics out of wars somewhat.

It's not just convenient lingo on my part. They have
rigged the game so there is no accountability other
than the Presidential election and the war issue is
more likely to be buried there. That's why, imo, the
founders wanted Congress to make the final call
on wars.

It's up to us to make them stick to the rules if
we're up to it.

Hell, Public Law 107-243 speaks for itself. It's
nothing but a ***** fraud based on flat-out
deception and innuendo insofar as WMD programs
and ties to al-Qaida are concerned. It's an
embarrassment to the Republic!

I don't buy the deception on WMD bit. The rest is fair game. That
there
was an agenda, I'm not going to argue. I just happened to agree with
it.
Still do.

I've been watching for deceptions, on this, from the first
and was quick to take note of the intel filtering purportedly
going on in Douglas Feith's usually ignored and now defunct
Pentagon "Office of Special Plans". Doug was the one
that was scapegoated for the bad intel but they might have
expected it of him since he's known to be pro Iraq-war
and hard line Likud to a degree that is seen as extreme
even by his colleagues. After all, I was suspicious of him.

Just consider some things here. Cheney was still passing
off disproved intel, during his campaign, right up to the
election and being contradicted by Powell while doing so.

Ritter was interviewed by the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee when he was hot to hold Saddam to the terms
of the inspections in the '90s but they seemed to want to hear
nothing that contradicted the Administrations intel in '02.

When Powell held up the vial of look-like anthrax at his UN
speech, I was aware that Saddam never managed to make
functional anthrax. It never did work. The anthrax that was
spread after 9-11 was identified as a stolen product of a
US Defense Department lab. So I saw that as a deception
even as I watched Powell's speech.

Unless you have have found a valid self defense reason
to have invaded Iraq - yet.

That's "So What".

It's not much. There was no serious threat behind UN posturing and
Saddam knew it damn well.

He had already disarmed in fear of us. We were the enforcer of
UNISCOM inspections. It doesn't work for ***** though if Regime
Change is the goal as Clinton made it in '98. Why would any
nation submit to inspections when the process is full of CIA moles
looking to knock off el-Presidente?

You *seriously* believe that? I've no doubt he might have, but I'm
surprised you do.

I have to go with pesky UNISCOM inspector Scott Ritter on this
one. They were catching stuff early on and foiling Saddam's plans
to fool the inspectors. Iraq had to disarm and would have to stay
that way so long as honest inspections had access to the country.

Of course the US would be the enforcers. You have to have the
threat of regime change before inspections would work.

Look, that bit really doesn't make sense at all. Why would we even be
interested in considering that? There would be no control over what
happened next.

What else could he do if the inspections are for disarmament
only? As long as the US has a stated policy of regime change
he would certainly not want to submit to inspections for the reason
that you just reasoned. Nor would any other states ever submit to
inspections with that kind of policy.

It's the pro-Iraq crowd who has to prove any valid threat to the
US yet from Iraq. The last time that any doubters asked for proof:
Americans got lies and haven't seen the "self defense" validation
for the war yet!

No, obviously we don't *have* to do that. We're here.

But we didn't provide proof for the stated self defence reason that
we went in.

the war to be more of a political task absent of any WMD programs.
We had to redefine the mission so the dads will have a reason
to tell their kids. Dads better make it believable if the kids are
gonna serve in the military someday.

Further, you're pretending that all valid issues on whether or not to
go
to war hinge on some "proof" of a valid threat from that country, in a
vacuum... no other considerations allowed. I don't buy that... don't
think you really do, either, but I could be wrong.

I'm very stingy with our servicemen though I've never served myself.
It comes from running downtown hotels in my younger, hungrier days
and seeing the forgotten results of wars of choice. Americans need
to learn to scrutinize these issues and demand proof of threats before
committing the troops to war. That's what I want - better, more
informed and more involved citizens!