The War

[Disorder]

the_Danarchist said:

They also admitted that they didn't expect to find any Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's amazing that they can admit all thios, and there will still be 200 million people saying we went in there just to liberate the people or some stupid shit like that.

And that is what I can't understand. Why is no one rebelling? The scariest thing is that other countries don't seem to have the power or the balls to do something about it.

[IMJack]

We need to find this Wolfowitz guy and keep him alive. He needs to testify at Bush's trial.

[Disorder]

Okay, now I read something different. It seems that The Guardian misquoted mr. Wolfowitz on purpose.

North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore.

"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage."

"The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8179271&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

[Ubik]

At this point, I'm just watching the whole mess spiral further and further into absolute idiocy and absurdity. It's like a horrific carnival of irony that even Kurt Vonnegut wouldn't have thought of.

*gets popcorn and Mountain Dew and eagerly awaits what's next* :(

[sargebaldy]

Disorder said:

Okay, now I read something different. It seems that The Guardian misquoted mr. Wolfowitz on purpose.

heh, as i would have guessed from reading that article, The Guardian is a biased newspaper.

“The Guardian” has a slightly bigger circulation than “The Times”. It is a liberal newspaper, noted for its lively reporting and campaigning support for “worthy causes” such as education, medical reforms, the problems of aging people and retirees, protection of the environment, etc. It also claims to be politically independent, but it is left of centre and formally supports the Liberal Party of Britain. Some British people say that the reporting of “The Guardian” is biased and trendy, concentrating mostly on things like fashions, homosexuals, etc., but still it is enjoyed by its readers.

that same source describes two other papers as conservative and only that one as liberal so i think it is probably valid enough.

[fodders]

The Department of Justice subsequently released a transcript of the Q&A session which had Wolfowitz saying:

"Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq."

Some took the transcript to mean that Wolfowitz wasn't saying we attacked Iraq because of oil, but we attacked it because its oil made it too economically strong to leave us any other options for changing the regime. Putting aside for a moment that the reason put forth to remove Saddam in the first place, an imminent threat from WMDs, is looking more and more like a sham, how reasonable is it to think that Iraq was indeed too economically strong to leave no option but war?

The argument presupposes that Iraq's oil was what made it economically robust. Yet, we cannot forget that Iraq was under U.N. sanctions that, in fact, had devestating effects on Iraq's economy. Iraq's oil sales did not generate hard currency for the country. The hard currency from oil sales flowed to the UN then to foriegn companies that provided humanitarian supples under the "food for oil" program.

Where did Iraq's economy really stand before the war?

It was saddled with $140 billion in foreign debt (more than twice its annual GPD) and consumer inflation was 60%.

Its gross domestic product had shrunk by about 70% from 1989.
(source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1594.cfm)

In real terms, Iraq's estimated GDP for 2001 was $59 billion. (Compared to the U.S's $10 trillion.)

How much stronger was Iraq's economy than North Korea's? The GDP per capita of Iraq was, in 2001, $2,500. In North Korea, it was $1,000. (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/)

Is that the difference that makes Iraq economically strong while N. Korea is a candidate for self-destruction? Not hardly.

Yes, we went to war with Iraq because it is swimming on a sea of oil. But not because it was too economically strong to offer alternatives.


It all stems from The Project for the New American Century

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based
think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one
thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of
all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last
remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military
force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new
socio-economic Pax Americana...


The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper
produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the
group.

[Disorder]

I'm confused now. Wolfowitz's quotes can be easily interpreted the way you want to see them.

[GS-1719]

The exact word used by Wolfowitz is irrelevant - floats/swimming. Both should demonstrate to the their supporters the true aim of the war.

The Guardian biased and trendy? I have moved through a lot of newspapers over the previous months, and I can say that it is certainly neither of those things. The Times and The Sun however, are real examples of bias.

[pritch]

Disorder said:

Oh well, at least he admits it:Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

Dear Lord above, man, never EVER quote The Guardian as a source. They are the biggest pile of champagne socialist garbage we have in this country (the theatre reviews are OK though).

[Disorder]

pritch said:

Dear Lord above, man, never EVER quote The Guardian as a source. They are the biggest pile of champagne socialist garbage we have in this country (the theatre reviews are OK though).

GS-1719 said:

The Guardian biased and trendy? I have moved through a lot of newspapers over the previous months, and I can say that it is certainly neither of those things. The Times and The Sun however, are real examples of bias.

Heh.

[sargebaldy]

GS-1719 said:

The Guardian biased and trendy? I have moved through a lot of newspapers over the previous months, and I can say that it is certainly neither of those things. The Times and The Sun however, are real examples of bias.

why do i have the feeling you're biased yourself? when someone thinks all papers leaning one way are biased and not leading the other way aren't, it seems pretty suspect to me.

[Disorder]

Correction

Paul Wolfowitz

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/0,2759,423009,00.html

[doomedout]

sargebaldy said:

why do i have the feeling you're biased yourself? when someone thinks all papers leaning one way are biased and not leading the other way aren't, it seems pretty suspect to me.

No.

[Lord FlatHead]

Thread closed. I hope.

[Disorder]

Lord FlatHead said:

Thread closed. I hope.

Why? If you don't like it, don't read it. There's still plenty of news coming out related to this war.

[fodders]

Bush visited Qatar today, at least Blair had the balls to actually set foot in Iraq!. :P

[Sharessa]

Biased people suck compared to neutral people, because neutral people are always right.

[m0l0t0v]

Actually it's not really an update since there hasn't been any new information for two months now. But that's the point I'm trying to make!

Where are the biological weapons, where are the chemical weapons and where are the nuclear weapons Iraq was supposed to have?

Isn't it a bit odd that none of these have actually been found after all this time? These aren't things you can easily hide you know (except for the biological weapons perhaps).

And why woundn't the American government allow U.N. inspectors back in Iraq. Don't they want the weapons to be found?

If it wasn't clear already it is clear now... Bush doesn't want to look for these things, because it can only lead to the conclusion that they do not excist and thousants of people where killed in a cowardly and unprovoked attack.

CNN said:
But nearly two months after the collapse of Saddam's government, all that has turned up are two trailers U.S. experts believe could have been used as mobile biological weapons laboratories. No such weapons were found in those facilities.

U.N. inspectors left Iraq the day before the invasion began in March, and the United States has expressed no interest in letting them return now that its troops control the country.

[BlueSonnet]

I don't really know many of the picky type of details about the war but seems that so far no W.M.D have been found according to the papers. Looks like blair and bush are gonna turn out to be bloody liars.

[Disorder]

The trailers that have been found are most likely no biological or chemical weapons laboratories, some experts say. Why? The sides of the trailers were open, which would be unlogical if they were used for making such weapons.

[zark]

BlueSonnet said:

I don't really know many of the picky type of details about the war but seems that so far no nukes have been found according to the papers. Looks like blair and bush are gonna turn out to be bloody liars.

Heh, we're not talking nukes here, we're talking bio and chem weapons. Still damn scary though.

[Scientist]

When asked why no weapons have been found, some US spokesman said that it would take some time before they would be found. In a few months they will surely have been found.
I say we give the Bush and Blair an ultimatum! If they can't tell us where the Iraqi weapons of mass-destruction are within a few month, we will be forced to take over their countries and "liberate" its people. :P

[Lord FlatHead]

BlueSonnet said:

Looks like blair and bush are gonna turn out to be bloody liars.

OMG THE SHOCKING TRUTH REVEALED

[Zoost]

Scientist said:

When asked why no weapons have been found, some US spokesman said that it would take some time before they would be found. In a few months they will surely have been found.
I say we give the Bush and Blair an ultimatum! If they can't tell us where the Iraqi weapons of mass-destruction are within a few month, we will be forced to take over their countries and "liberate" its people. :P

HaHa :-) (LOL/ROFL)

[toxicfluff]

They'll find the bio and chem weapons. Just give them a couple of months to ship them over there.

[BlueSonnet]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

They'll find the bio and chem weapons. Just give them a couple of months to ship them over there.

With their jobs at stake that's what blair and bush might do :-P.

ZarcyB said:

Heh, we're not talking nukes here, we're talking bio and chem weapons. Still damn scary though.

My bad.

[fodders]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the Bush administration was pushing last fall for a war against Iraq because of alleged weapons of mass destruction, a defense department report said it did not have enough "reliable information" Iraq was amassing these weapons, a defense official said on Friday.

News of the classified September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency has added to claims the White House and Pentagon slanted U.S. intelligence on Baghdad's alleged weapons program to justify the war against Iraq...

On a more scary note

For decades, South Korea has regarded U.S. troops guarding the border with North Korea as a "tripwire" -- a guarantee that the United States would intervene immediately if the communist North attacked, because American troops would be the first in the line of fire.

Now the Americans say they are pulling back, and the withdrawal threatens to change the dynamic along the border.

The redeployment can also be a direct message to North Korea that the United States is now readier than ever to launch a pre-emptive strike.

[Disorder]

Disorder said:

The trailers that have been found are most likely no biological or chemical weapons laboratories, some experts say. Why? The sides of the trailers were open, which would be unlogical if they were used for making such weapons.

Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs'
Saddam's trucks were for balloons, not germs

Tony Blair faces a fresh crisis over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, as evidence emerges that two vehicles that he has repeatedly claimed to be Iraqi mobile biological warfare production units are nothing of the sort.
Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.

Source: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,973012,00.html
It keeps getting worse and worse for Bush and Blair.

[Sharessa]

Hopefully they'll both be laughed out of office. Still over another year until we get to elect a new pres...

[fodders]

Impeach the bugger :P
On another note...Deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had written a new novel but the US-led invasion of Iraq prevented its publication.

A copy of the manuscript called "The Great Awakening" has been obtained by the Iraq Press.

In it, Saddam seems to be alluding to his humiliating defeat at the hands of the US, and his disappearance to mount underground struggle to regain former glory. If printed, the novel would be the fifth book, thought to be written by Saddam.

Officials at the now dissolved Ministry of Information say, Saddam was quite keen to have his new book printed before the start of the war. But he was not so lucky.

The plot is based on waging a secret war from a neighbouring Arab state, following a decision by the novel's main character to step down as the President.

Turning into a fugitive, the hero, Bahloul, tries to recruit supporters and partisans in a bid to bounce back to limelight.