Iraq and related conspiracy theories <-- here

Jun 26 23:22 UTC 2003

So, who goes first??

response 2 of 119:

Jun 27 01:31 UTC 2003

a conspiracy about what? you need more details first to create a good
conspiracy theory.

response 4 of 119:

Jun 27 04:47 UTC 2003

        Let's consider the facts in this case.

        Iraq only violated one term of the cease-fire agreement, with the Al
Samoud missiles, which exeeded the permitted range of 150 miles by about ten
percent or so in 13 out of 40 United Nations-supervised test firings.  Iraq,
though it's had a dodgy past in terms of cooperation with UN inspectors, did
comply with the UN and dismantled both the missiles themselves and the means
to manufacture those missiles.  Victor Mizin, one of the former weapons
inspectors, commented that the Al Samoud missiles' capabilities "isn't
particularly worrisome ... isn't dramatic," and that Blix's decision to
request they be destroyed was a political move.

        No NBCs have been found in Iraq.  Despite allegations of Iraq's
attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, none have been found.  Despite
allegations of a large-scale biological weapons program, no hard evidence of
biological weapons have been found.  There have been allegations and
suspicions aplenty, and accusations about the posession of items that could
have a use in the creation or use of NBCs, but no actual weapons.

        Evidence from coalition members was found to be faked.  Tony Blair's
intelligence dossier to the public was found to have been plagarised from
three outdated academic articles, and inaccurate.  Bush's allegations that
Iraq tried to acquire weapons-grade fissionables from Nigeria remain
unproven.  Hans Blix referred to the US and UK's released intelligence as
"shaky intelligence".

        The body who wrote the treaty, the UN, did not favour military
intervention, nor did most of the world.  

        At the same time, North Korea openly admitted to being in severe
breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and CBT, and only a few years
earlier, Pakistan and India, who refused to sign the NBT, openly displayed
just why they refused to sign the NBT by detonating nuclear weapons.  Not
only did we ignore all three cases where there clearly were posession of
NBCs, we actually allied with Pakistan in our recent struggle in Iraq and
are currently providing them with substantial aid.

        I mean, c'mon here, what more do you need to admit that there is
substantial ground for suspecting that the US action in Iraq was not quite
what it was billed to be?

response 6 of 119:

Jun 27 05:07 UTC 2003

What I don't get is how Clinton got Sadaam to go along with the whole
conspiracy.  I mean clearly Sadaam didn't in fact have WMD, right? 
Isn't that the whole point?  Yet somehow Clinton got Sadaam to go along
with this conspiracy including having Clinton bomb Iraq over weapons
what Sadaam didn't have.  And Sadaam played the conspirator by
preventing the UN inspectors from finding out that Sadaam didn't have
anything and acting like he did, right?  And Sadaam played the world
press who are now saying Sadaam didn't have WMD by pretending he did,
right?  Sadaam is a crazyman so there is no rational to his actions so
of course he risked destruction of his regime over something he didn't
have, right?  

And when the evidence gradually trickles out, as it has started to
already, it will be part of the conspiracy that all the evidence was
planted by the US and the Brits who were not only clever enough not to
find it right away but have a dedicated cadre of both Clinton, Bush-I,
Thatcher, and Labor party operatives all of whom kept the secret of the
conspiracy without any one of them playing the heroic whistleblower who
was set for life financially.

Oh, its a grand conspiracy, the best one yet.

response 8 of 119:

Jun 27 05:53 UTC 2003

Did you know that Churchill who was secretary of the Royal Navy at
the time, and J.P. Morgan who was the owner of the White Star Line
of ships set-up the Lusitania (owned by the Canard Co.) to be the
sacrifical pawn to get the Americans to join the Allies.

yup, apparently the Germans tried to put an ad in the major east 
coast news papers warning that the Lusitania was a lawful target 
because it was secretly shipping munitions between the U.S. and 
Britain, but the State Dept prevented the ad from showing up in
all but one paper.

Back in that time period, it was customery to let all the civilian
passengers off a ship before it was sunk, however the british gov't
ordered all ships to attempt to ram any U-boats. making it impossible
for the germans to accept any prisoners or let anyone off before it 
was torpedoed. There was a second much larger explosion that was 
caused by the munitions in the cargo hold, but officials tried to 
pass that off as a coal dust explosion.

response 10 of 119:

Jun 27 12:16 UTC 2003

From the sound of that response, you should probably be a little
more diligent about taking your meds as well.  :)

response 12 of 119:

Jun 27 13:49 UTC 2003

Re #3:  Jawohl, mein Hauptsturmfuhrer!

response 14 of 119:

Jun 27 15:08 UTC 2003

RE:#13
"He's not uniquely despotic,
 though, when compared to some of the governments in the area"
What? If that's the case perhaps we should extend our occupation to those
areas as well. I don't have a problem with dusting off any goverment that
opresses it poeple and exixts for the sole purpose of self-gratification.
As for my agruemnet being 'straw-man" let me address that for a minute.
After 9-11 we developed a policy of weeding out ALL state sponsired terrorism.
Saddam gave  finacial compensation to the families of suicide bombers.That
fact alone justifies our actions against him. Granted there is PR work in the
act of selling any war.We suspected that there were WMDs and Saddam was not
forthcoming with the required information.He has placed cat&mouse for the last
decade and we decided to push it all the way this time. I think the point of
this debate shouldn't be about what's been done. We can agree to disagree.You
feel it's not justified...I feel it is. The point should be about what we are
doing NOW.The regime has been changed...we should turn it over to the UN and
get out.Maybe we should move on to those despots that surround him and as you
say are just as bad.I'm really sick f liberals whining about the injustice
Aren't you the same ones who praised Clinton for his policy in Bosnia?
Yet when it's a republican making a similar decision you whine like a bunch
of two-year olds.Come admit it. We did the world a favor when we dusted that
bastard.As for Tiennanmen Square we didn't ignore it. We handle the matter
with sanctions and diplomacy...the same tactics that FAILED with Saddam. The
Vietnamese opium guerillas haven't heard the last of us either. First things
first.That is if you liberals don't whine about that too. I bet if we did take
action you'd be here screaming bloody murder about how unjust it was.What do
you say bomb China for Tiennanmen Square? No? Then quit usuing it as a
smokescreen to hide the invalidity of your agrument.

response 16 of 119:

Jun 27 16:15 UTC 2003

        The Dialectic method is great for expounding on your philosophy in
literature, but it's not so great for debating with someone who can respond.
I'm not "you liberals", nor could or would I say some of the things you're
ascribing to me.  Please don't do that in the future.

        Now what I was referring to as a straw-man argument is the (common)
practice of assuming that anyone who opposes recent American conduct is
pro-Hussein.  Very few people that I've talked to actually supported leaving
Hussein's government in place, and most of those did so because they feared
that what replaced it would be worse.  Essentially, no one's arguing that
Hussein should be running Iraq, so attacking Hussein's character is a
distraction.  We all agree he's a Bad Boy.

        The problem with "dusting off" any government that uses terrorist
tactics is that *we* use terrorist tactics.  Our trading partners and allies
use terrorist tactics.  Many of the nations and parties we're considering
war with now were trained in terrorist tactics at the School of the
Americas.  The Vietnamese guerillas were originally trained as a part of Air
America.  Hell, even Hussein was supplied with toxic agents when he was
opposing Iraq, whom we considered to be a more present threat.  We're
playing the same game, and so is everyone else, and we're deliberately
ignoring some players and targeting others, with no apparent regard for the
severity of their evildoing.

        And, for the record, I supported our action in Bosnia and in Somalia
both (though I disagree at some points with our tactics) ... because they
were sanctioned by the UN, and carried out as a true coalition with fairly
universal support.  I supported the Iraqi inspections for the same reason.
I decried the Iraqi war because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, cost us
considerable support in the world community - that is to say, we're not the
"Good Guys" anymore in a lot of eyes - and was flimsily excused by a number
of fairly transparent pieces of faked or exaggerated evidence.

        I don't like being lied to, what can I say?

response 18 of 119:

Jun 27 20:06 UTC 2003

RE#16
 "*we* use terrorist tactics.  Our trading partners and allies
  use terrorist tactics."
 Say what? Can you be a bit more specific? Like place and time?
 Perhaps in our infantile state..when the world abounded in colonialism
 questionable things were done.When in recent history have we every commited
 an act of terror? Have we blown up buses on purpose to cause terror? have
we
 unleasehed suicide bombers on innocent civilians? Have we hijacked airliners
 and crashed them into buildings full of poeple?Has our goverment ever
 sponsered training to teach how to do these things best?We have waged war
in
 a legal manner with honor and courage.Yes we have hurt civilians in doing
 do..but not on purpose. Not any more than killing some of our own soldiers
 was on purpose.You need to look up terrorism in the dictionary.As for this
 war not being sanctioned by the UN. Well..the only reason it wasn't was that
 the French and Germans opposed it.The had a vested interest in doing so.The
 Germans built Saddam's underground bunkers. The French have been in bed with
 ass for years....and I mean post-gulf was.AFTER it was known what his agenda
 was.The french had alot to lose if we attacked.Hence thier position.America's
 interest do not always follow those of the UN.We retain the right to act
 independent of them. We are the world's greatest power. The UN exists because
 of us and not vice-versa.As for us providing support for Saddam it was an
 issue of maintaining a balance to Iranian power in the region."The Vietnamese
 guerillas were originally trained as a part of Air
  America. " They weren't guerillas until the goverment in the south fell.
They
 were legit soldiers and became what they are in being opposed to communisim.
 They ARE being dealt with..as far as drug trafficking in concerned .
 "I don't like being lied to, what can I say?" What can I say I don't either
 and I don't think I have. Iraq is a large nation. It make take a long time
 to find those weapons. I am sure we will. It is true I misread your position
 somewhat..and for that I apoligise. You are however errant in the salient
 parts of your argument.

response 20 of 119:

Jun 27 21:38 UTC 2003

        [warning:  long post]

        




        You were warned ...

 RE#16
  Say what? Can you be a bit more specific? Like place and time?
  Perhaps in our infantile state..when the world abounded in colonialism
  questionable things were done.When in recent history have we every commited
  an act of terror? 

        The most recent example that comes to mind is the Iraqi invasion's
bombing phase, which was referred to as "shock and awe".  Merriam-Webster's
online dictionary defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror
especially as a means of coercion", specifically referring to definition 4
of terror, "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate
a population or government into granting their demands".  That's exactly what
we did.  Used violence in an attempt to intimidate.

        Have we blown up buses on purpose to cause terror? have we
  unleasehed suicide bombers on innocent civilians? Have we hijacked airliners
  and crashed them into buildings full of poeple?

        None of those tactics is particularly effective for a first-world
nation with the largest and best-armed military on the globe.  If we wanted
to destroy a target, it's much easier to send a cruise missile or a
carrier-launched fighter-bomber to do so, and considerably easier to talk the
pilot into a mission he'll likely come back from.  Blowing up random Iraqi
targets would have accomplished absolutely nothing.  Moreover, Iraq has had
no proven connection to 9/11, so the implied allegation is false.

                                                   Has our goverment ever
  sponsered training to teach how to do these things best?  

        Absolutely.  We run a cadre training operation out of Fort Benning
called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.  It's better
known as the School of the Americas.  Even though it's not effective for us
to use cheap and suicidal tactics, it is for some of our allies, and we have
a long history of training them well.  We trained the Thai guerillas as a part
of Air America.  We trained the Vietnamese.  Remember the Contra-Sandanista
war?

                                                            We have waged war
 in
  a legal manner with honor and courage.  Yes we have hurt civilians in doing
  do..but not on purpose. 

        We did fairly recently, until it was found out that a first world
nation doing massive civillian bombing doesn't work particularly well in terms
of demoralizing the enemy.  We did massive civillian bombings in the first
and second World Wars, however.  The real difference here is that it's much
easier to demoralize a colonial power into lifting an expensive and difficult
occupation than it is to demoralize an equal or lesser power with the same
tactics of fear and intimidation.  But when we're backing someone else who
is a smaller power, or the underdog, we definitely use those tactics through
them.

                           Not any more than killing some of our own soldiers
  was on purpose.You need to look up terrorism in the dictionary.As for this
  war not being sanctioned by the UN. Well..the only reason it wasn't was that
  the French and Germans opposed it.

        I think you're missing the whole concept of the UNeSCo here.  It's a
committee.  Committees disagree.  It's already a pretty big rubber stamp for
Western interests - look at who holds permanent veto status and who's on the
token rotating committee.  It's kind of ludicrous to assume that every nation
on this earth that opposes the US does so because of some shadow conspiracy,
yet the US is incapable of shadow conspiracies itself.  Either way, the UN,
as a body, said "no", and the world concurred.  The Iraqi war was protested
by more people than any other event in world history.

                                      The had a vested interest in doing
so.The
  Germans built Saddam's underground bunkers. The French have been in bed with
  ass for years....and I mean post-gulf was.AFTER it was known what his agenda
  was.The french had alot to lose if we attacked.  

        I would expect no less of a first world power than to consider their
own interests.  However, if you look at the French and German voting public,
you'll also find another interest - their people, by and large, didn't want
the war, and they have little or no interest in the business dealings of a
few arch-capitalists.  Occam's razor.

                                                   Hence thier
position.America's
  interest do not always follow those of the UN.We retain the right to act
  independent of them. We are the world's greatest power. The UN exists
because
  of us and not vice-versa.As for us providing support for Saddam it was an
  issue of maintaining a balance to Iranian power in the region."The
Vietnamese
  guerillas were originally trained as a part of Air
   America. " They weren't guerillas until the goverment in the south fell.
 They
  were legit soldiers and became what they are in being opposed to communisim.

        Wait.  I just thought you said we didn't train terrorists.  We trained
these terrorists.  We're not sponsoring the drug trade ... right now ... but
we did before, and when we stopped doing so, did we assume that everyone would
quietly go back to their homes as if nothing had happened?

  They ARE being dealt with..as far as drug trafficking in concerned .
  "I don't like being lied to, what can I say?" What can I say I don't either
  and I don't think I have. Iraq is a large nation. It make take a long time
  to find those weapons. I am sure we will. It is true I misread your position
  somewhat..and for that I apoligise. You are however errant in the salient
  parts of your argument.

        Well, we were swearing up and down that we knew what they had and
where.  Now we can't find anything at all.  We certainly didn't give them much
time to do so.  It, especially in light of prior faked evidence, is not a very
convincing situation.

response 22 of 119:

Jun 28 07:29 UTC 2003

People who respond in such a haphazard, emotional fashion are rarely
attempting to shout party line to intimidate.  Typically they are insecure
and become upset when they hear strong opposing arguments (I probably dont'
agree with a lot of them, but they are well-composed and certainly have
discussional merit), and respond by lashing out and vehemently opposing
everything they manage to perceive as wrong.  The result?  Poorly organized,
limited arguments that are easily dismantled.  I don't think sabre was/is as
composed as implied. :)

John had an easy time of it.  I'd think sabre *was* a straw man if I didn't
read the actual posts--perhaps it's a troll.

response 24 of 119:

Jun 28 11:59 UTC 2003

I don't respond to ad hominem points in a post so I won't comment any further
on them except to say this. I AM NOW FULLY MEDICATED..lol
I did rant on with some emotion earlier but I'm not a troll.
I actually like Jazz's post also. His form is excellent..I just think his
assumptions are wrong.I think there are some things I still need to learn but
don't throw way the mail because the postman's shoes are dirty.
so senna I stand corrected for my method..I don't apologise for my position.