Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2007   #11
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 254
maybe i should leave this to marko or el flaco, but i can't help but point out the following:

weren't the inspectors in iraq? i was under the impression that the inspecters were indeed in iraq, doing their job (sweedish guy, right? blitz something...) - and the inspectors were forced to leave becasue shock and awe were coming.

isn't that right?

maybe a sublte point in this larger discussion.

Steve Kahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #12
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 855
Buffalo: I didn't miss your point. I just don't think that avoidance of this war was as simple as Saddam just saying, "uncle, uncle! okay, you win, here are the weapons." You can take this or leave it... it is just my brief take on this, and I could easily be wrong.

I think Bush was going to invade regardless of what Saddam said. This whole thing wasn't about an "imminent threat" to America's national security. It was about regime change. Saddam was not compliant to "US interests." He screwed the pooch with his dictatorship when he double-crossed the US when he invaded Kuwait. The Kuwait invasion directly stepped on the foot of "US interests" that feed and supplied him throughout his 1980's war with Iran. He was a moron for not just being complicit with "US interests." He probably would still be in power if he hadn't double-crossed "US interests." Why do you think the Saudis are still in control of their dictatorship? Is it because they give their citizens liberty and freedom? Nope, it's because they are complicit with "US interests."

Take a look at all of the other dictators America supports and supported in the past - Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Panama to name just a few. These dictators are allowed to suppress and rule their population, while still having enormous support from the US, because they our complicit with "US interests." As soon as Musharaff of Pakistan denounces or does something to piss off "US interests" he will be replaced either through a war or a coup. This is what US foreign policy is all about. Democracy only if it suits our "economic interests", and dictatorships are fine as long as you comply to "US interests." There is plenty of evidence to prove this... just read about Nicaragua, Indonesia, Guatemala, Brazil, Iran in 1953, and on and on.

Back to the simple idea that this war would have been avoided if Saddam just had cooperated with the US. Well, Iraq was cooperating. Steve: You were right. The UN inspectors and IAEA agents were reporting that Saddam was cooperating more in the last few weeks before the invasion. There were approximately 60 weapons inspectors in Iraq days before the US invasion. They were warned to leave, and some of them were even trying to delay the invasion saying they just needed more time. Bush didn't care because he was going to invade regardless of their inspections. He was going to invade regardless of what Saddam would have said.

Mohamed ElBaradei director of IAEA in USAToday article:
"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that inspectors still have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein has revived his nuclear program.

IAEA report dated March 7, 2003:
In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:

There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

Let me ask this question: How do you prove a negative? As we now know Saddam did not have WMD's. So, even if he told Bush, "Look, I don't have any nuclear weapons." Then Bush says, "Prove it." How does a person prove that he doesn't have anything if he really doesn't have anything?

Alright, I am done! I have wasted another 30 minutes of my life on the mountainbuzz "eddy."

Take care, and good bye.

marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #13
BastrdSonOfElvis's Avatar
Thought-criminal, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2000
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 989
Before I left CO to become an extremely unwilling participant in this mess I heard an interview on NPR with a weapons inspector, an American with the UN, who was in Iraq just before "shock and awe" (that phrase still makes me giggle at its rediculousness). He said the same thing and made the exact same point about proving a negative: Saddam was told to prove he didn't have WMDs...impossible. What was he supposed to turn his pockets inside out? This guy talked about how the inspection process was working, they were turning up nothing of consequence, and that information was more than available to "the decider" (more giggling). The decision to invade Iraq was made years before, in a paper co-authored by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy and another guy sometime in the 90s. They just had to sell it to the people. What better way than fear?

Saddam was the worst kind of guy, but he wasn't worth 3K American lives, 10K more limbs and how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis...or even the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent. Nauseating.
I hope in the future Americans are thought of as a warlike, vicious people, because I bet a lot of high schools would pick "Americans" as their mascot. -Jack Handy
BastrdSonOfElvis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #14
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
I heard that interview- it made me physically ill as well. All this information is out there- it's not rumor, heresay, or twisted meaning. That shit happened, and 90% on purpose. Given the outcome as it stands today, I really don't think it's up for debate. Saddam's problem was that he was either completely psychotic, or that he knew that brutal tactics were the only way to keep the sectarian underpinnings subdued. Probably both. If you don't think that this was as much about securing petrodollars for american companies like Halliburton and KBR as it was about 'regional security', you're kidding yourself.

BSOE- if you haven't already, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", I'd highly recommend it. It puts a lot of things into perspective.
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #15
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 246
You guys are worse than the right-wing conspiracy theorists during the Clinton Administration.
I’m reading marko bemoan the United States for advancing “U.S. Interests.” When we elect these clowns into office they better look after U.S. Interests! Whose interests would you prefer? French interests? I also realize that the quotations around U.S. Interests are intended to convey sarcasm such as “U.S. Interests—but really the interests of Halliburton, Blackwater, and other big businesses.” I really don’t think the hysterical Sean Penn accusation that Bush invaded Iraq to line Dick Cheney’s pockets is worthy of intelligent conversation. I know, I know, told you so.
Truthfully—and ironically what is far more embarrassing to the Bush administration than these conspiracy theory stories—the United States based its invasion on WMD. Saddam was NOT complying with weapon inspectors. Even toward the bitter end he wasn’t providing the access that was required by the U.N.
Saddam could have avoided the invasion with compliance. But he chose defiance. He didn’t even have to prove that he was WMDless. All he had to do was acquiesce to the U.N. Ironically, the U.S. government was certain—as was most of the world—that Saddam had WMD and oops, he didn’t. Claiming that the U.S. would have invaded anyway is disingenuous. Well it’s more like rewriting history and interjecting your NPR and Democracy Now! propaganda into the true story. What makes it even worse is that your left-wing theories depict Bush as being successful in Iraq. Let’s see. Secure mid-east oil…check. Get Dick and Halliburton rich…check. Depose a dictator who tried to kill Daddy…check. Give me a break. Why give the President that much credit? The truth is our intelligence failed, our security plan failed, and now we are stuck in a bloody awful mess with hundreds of billions of dollars being spent and thousands of our young men and women dead.

I’m done.
farp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #16
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 855
Saddam was NOT complying with weapon inspectors. Even toward the bitter end he wasn’t providing the access that was required by the U.N.
Huh? Did you just decide to skip the IAEA report that I included in my post? Do you have a selective perception problem?

I’m reading marko bemoan the United States for advancing “U.S. Interests.” When we elect these clowns into office they better look after U.S. Interests! Whose interests would you prefer? French interests?
This statement shows that you just don't get it.

Conspiracy? Is that your only response to some of things I posted? Notice how you easily label it a conspiracy and yet you don't even bother to look into the things I write. And, if you did. Please tell me your thoughts about what happened in Iran in 1953. Please tell me your thoughts about our support for Suharto of Indonesia. Please tell me your thoughts about our support for Saddam in the 1980's. Please tell your thoughts about our support for Saudia Arabia - the most un-democratic nation in the middle east. Is this just another - OOPS - Bad intel?

Seriously! Read about Indonesia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, Bolivia, Brazil. See who it was that orchestrated coup's. See who put dictators in to power to advance their economic interests and power interests. Don't take my word for it.... GO FIND IT OUT FOR YOURSELF!! This is real history. And, do yourself a favor: Stop labeling things a conspiracy until you can actually come back to disprove the things you claim to be a conspiracy.

And most importantly!!! Please understand that I am not "bemoaning" the people of America or others in the world. I am bemoaning the people in POWER. I am bemoaning the people in power who kill and destroy to advance their interests! I am bemoaning the people in power who are stealing the US treasury to profit off death machines. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #17
El Flaco's Avatar
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
Farp, I wish it was a simple as a mismanagement of intelligence and pre-war planning. If there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary, I would buy the fact that it was solely a war based on immediate fears of WMD use in the region. Saddam was defiant, and he lost a gamble to try to keep the UN out. We're not re-writing history when we say that Wolfowitz began the invasion planning in the early 1990's - that's what happened. We're not re-writing history when it’s been shown that there were ample predictions to the chaos that would happen if we invaded, and that those predictions were ignored. But I think the history we DO have shows that it's more than that...

There are far too many documents, prior and subsequent actions by Bush and others that demonstrate that this is a monumental failure in a long line of conquests to control global resources for our benefit. Marko's points are prime examples. For a very simple example, look at North Korea - no oil resources, no invasion. They're not conspiracy theories, they're facts. You can't argue that the rebuilding contracts were given as no-bids to US firms, or that the money has been mismanaged from the start. You can't argue that Rumsfeld wasn't once a guest in Saddam's house, or that we helped him kill thousands of Iranians in the 80's. What happened when he didn't want to play the game by our rules? They banked on framing him for WMD and lost. Was there bad intelligence? Yes, of course. Was bad intelligence hyped or skewed to quicken the pace to war? Seems that way to me; and to a lot of people, including many Pentagon folks. And when we did go to war, we go with unprecedented participation by contractors, most of whom are suspiciously well-connected. So what would you have us think?

Do I think the primary goal of this misadventure was enriching Halliburton, or revenge for Bush Sr., or for controlling Iraq's petrodollars? As cynical as I am, I don't think that was the #1 intent. I think men like Bush and Cheney truly (and naively) thought that democracy in that region was achievable through war. And they also knew that those ancillary benefits (revenge, resource control, etc) were a nice kicker to what they thought would be a cakewalk. I'm sure they think that it's not war profiteering if it's for the security of our country and for the 'freedom' of the Iraqis. Can we agree that an invasion was more for the energy implications versus the risk of mushroom clouds over DC -fair enough? (Again, think N. Korea) Is it fair for us to scrutinize those intentions now based on the blood & treasure cost? Hell yes.

This has been happening for 50 years; we try to gain economic control of countries by indebting them to US energy and construction companies; and if that doesn't work, then we control them politically through pressure or assassinations, and if that doesn't work; through military might. We 'won' the cold war that way, and the fight for the Middle East is viewed as the most critical fight yet. I'm not naive enough to disagree with the vision of exerting influence on that region; we have allowed our economy to be too dependent on the Persian Gulf. But I can disagree with the manner in which it's been prosecuted. And many Democrats (including Hillary & Kerry) are as complicit as the GOP congressional majority for allowing one branch of the government to take as down this path.

If we ever do see the full Phase II of the Senate Report on Pre-War Intelligence ( , promised 2 years ago), I think you might see some alarming actions by the Administration, even as "scrubbed" as that document may be. Farp- if you want some light reading, check out this report:

I'm afraid the "oops" excuse doesn't cut it, and the sooner we all realize that, the better this country will be.
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #18
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 855
Okay one more thing. Just because I am so annoyed about these people who still believe that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to America and the world. First, let me say that Saddam was a brutal horrible person. I do not condone his actions.

Let's think about this. Saddam was at war with Iran for nearly 8 years, and around a million Iraqis were killed. During this war he had support from AMerica, and other European countries. We gave him all kinds of loans for war machines and supplied him with weapons. With all of this support Saddam still could NOT beat Iran. So the Iran/Iraq war finally ends. Saddam is deeply in debt from all his war machine purchases. Then he decides to invade Kuwait. He believed Kuwait was a part of his country. Big mistake! THe US crushes him quickly. Destroying so much of his army and the country. Thousands and thousands more were killed. Next, there is 8 years of harsh economic sanctions. During these sanctions the UN and IAEA claims that they dismantled something like 98% of his WMD's. These sanctions also killed nearly a hundred thousand people -children included. Saddam at this point was a debilitated shell. The international community had him on one of the most devastating sanctions ever. He was the weakest country in the area. THen magically within a year he becomes the biggest threat to America and the world!

Alright let's recap this: he couldn't beat Iran with American and European support. He couldn't hold onto Kuwait. He was crushed by US in the Gulf War. He was crushed by 8 years of economic sanctions. NOW, I am supposed to believe that he is an "imminent threat" to America and the world after all of these events. Gimme a break!! The only way I could possibly believe that Saddam was an "imminent threat" is if I had no clue about any history. And there you have it! American amnesiacs... easy targets for manipulative fear mongering! And the small minority of people who know history... well we'll just call them conspiracy nuts.

marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #19
Livingston's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 679
I heard Keith Olbermann's take on Bush's State of the Union speach this morning on Jay Marvin's show (AM760). He looks into the 4 terrorist plots that Bush claims to have thwarted.

Livingston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2007   #20
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 67

Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut - Google Video
here is a little more gas for the fire

bill is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT: F you bush JCKeck1 The Eddy 131 11-20-2007 01:32 PM
Bush will invade Iran! marko The Eddy 2 10-20-2006 01:13 PM
Bush Administration Land Grab Larry Berger Whitewater Kayaking 0 03-04-2006 08:54 AM
Bush Rules! cemartin Whitewater Kayaking 16 11-22-2005 02:40 AM

» Classified Ads
Pyranha S6F

posted by CFriday

2008 Pyranha S6F. Stopped paddling in 2008, been stored in...

Klim Heavy Duty GoreTex...

posted by River Capt D

Pants are a couple of years old and used only twice! (Yah,...

Hala Atcha 86 w stompbox

posted by Rendezvous River Sports

hala atcha is a great whitewater sup

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.