And the result:

Wonder who has a family with interests in OIL???

O boy...

Who moderates the moderators?

Would you believe: Admin

Who moderates the moderators?

Remember, the rules here are: There are no rules.

Let’s continue this theme with the latest thoughtful column by Victor Davis Hanson, looking at the situation in Iraq:

Sizing Up Iraq.

First, is the United States winning its engagements on the ground?

The answer is an overwhelming yes — whether we look, most recently, at Samarra or at the thrashing of the Mahdists in Najaf. The combination of armor incursions, constant sniper attack, and GPS bombing in each case has led to decisive tactical defeat of the insurgents. Our only setback — the unfortunate pullback from Fallujah — was entirely attributable to our wrongheaded constraint, as if we somehow felt that releasing the terrorists from our death grip would either placate the opposition, empower the Iraqi government, or win accolades from the international community.

See http://nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404080815.asp

And, see here: http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060204.html

Meanwhile, Senator Kerry offers neither a plan to stay nor one to leave Iraq, only something “secret.” He thinks a country that defeated Japan, Italy, and Germany at the same time as a warm-up to keeping at bay a nuclear Soviet Union and China must fail if she takes on Afghanistan and Iraq at once. His trial balloons so far — beg the Germans and French to come in and give the Iranians clean uranium — have met with polite chuckles. We already know the effect that such warmed-over Carterism will have in Iraq

Let’s continue this theme with the latest thoughtful column by Victor Davis Hanson, looking at the situation in Iraq:

Sizing Up Iraq.

First, is the United States winning its engagements on the ground?

The answer is an overwhelming yes — whether we look, most recently, at Samarra or at the thrashing of the Mahdists in Najaf. The combination of armor incursions, constant sniper attack, and GPS bombing in each case has led to decisive tactical defeat of the insurgents. Our only setback — the unfortunate pullback from Fallujah — was entirely attributable to our wrongheaded constraint, as if we somehow felt that releasing the terrorists from our death grip would either placate the opposition, empower the Iraqi government, or win accolades from the international community.

See http://nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404080815.asp

And, see here: http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060204.html

Meanwhile, Senator Kerry offers neither a plan to stay nor one to leave Iraq, only something “secret.” He thinks a country that defeated Japan, Italy, and Germany at the same time as a warm-up to keeping at bay a nuclear Soviet Union and China must fail if she takes on Afghanistan and Iraq at once. His trial balloons so far — beg the Germans and French to come in and give the Iranians clean uranium — have met with polite chuckles. We already know the effect that such warmed-over Carterism will have in Iraq

Boon

Thanks for your most insightful post although it has absolutely nothing about the subject of this post: The REAL REASON for the war in Iraq. Any occurrence after the first plane took off or missile was fired is not relevant to the subject at hand..

(We ask for an apple, & he gives us cheese.)

1. Vested ecoonomic interests (oil and water).

2. A base in the Middle East (Middle Earth, could J.R.R. Tolkien have been on to something?) to work from and establish further control in the region.

3. Control of an extremely important region of historical significance (the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers are the cradle of civilisation).

4. An area that contains a high concentration of magnetic grid lines (no, I am

not crazy, this stuff is real).

5. We're all stupid f###s so it doesn't matter anyway.

4. An area that contains a high concentration of magnetic grid lines (no, I am

not crazy, this stuff is real).

Please elaborate...

1. Vested ecoonomic interests (oil and water).

2. A base in the Middle East (Middle Earth, could J.R.R. Tolkien have been on to something?) to work from and establish further control in the region.

3. Control of an extremely important region of historical significance (the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers are the cradle of civilisation).

4. An area that contains a high concentration of magnetic grid lines (no, I am

not crazy, this stuff is real).                

5. We're all stupid f###s so it doesn't matter anyway.

don't forget sumerian secrets for the extraction and use of white gold (monotomic gold), while in the realm of fantasy ...

the rabbit hole

Did this thread "disappear" for a few days? I'm sure I couldn't access it 2 days ago and now it's back! What's going on?

4. An area that contains a high concentration of magnetic grid lines (no, I am not crazy, this stuff is real).

Please, I'm all ears tell me about it, I promise not to laugh too much!

It wouldn't happen to be Yuri Geller nonsense would it?

Did this thread "disappear" for a few days? I'm sure I couldn't access it 2 days ago and now it's back! What's going on?

It seems an, "unknown" Neo-Con moderator decided to moderate the unmoderated forum. The topic was removed, then I moved it back again.

Nobody has yet admitted to moving the topic.

Did this thread "disappear" for a few days? I'm sure I couldn't access it 2 days ago and now it's back! What's going on?

It seems an, "unknown" Neo-Con moderator decided to moderate the unmoderated forum. The topic was removed, then I moved it back again.

Nobody has yet admitted to moving the topic.

Aah, that explains it. Because I was going to explain that I didn't realise this thread was in the VIP room when I posted my "Who moderates the moderators?" post. So, as it is in here, we should be able to say what we like! But...er....can't think of anything now

1. Vested ecoonomic interests (oil and water).

2. A base in the Middle East (Middle Earth, could J.R.R. Tolkien have been on to something?) to work from and establish further control in the region.

3. Control of an extremely important region of historical significance (the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers are the cradle of civilisation).

4. An area that contains a high concentration of magnetic grid lines (no, I am

not crazy, this stuff is real).                

5. We're all stupid f###s so it doesn't matter anyway.

don't forget sumerian secrets for the extraction and use of white gold (monotomic gold), while in the realm of fantasy ...

the rabbit hole

Dang it! I forgot #6. Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Distraction !

Oh Boon. I really admire your perseverance. (Love the cheese!)

Nobody in his right mind could argue that Saddam was not evil or that regime change was wrong for Iraq. It is a great pity, but regime change is an illegal reason to start a war and anybody who might start a war for that reason is, by very definition, a war criminal. But that was not the point and is totally irrelevant to this thread which concerns the "Real Reason for the Iraq War".

I greatly look forward to your thoughts on this.

Pip~

It all comes down to the issue of WMD’s and in the words of Peter Hain, the leader of the House of Commons in London who said: "I saw evidence that was categorical on Saddam possessing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction." And it was shown to in the Hutton Report, that Tony Blair's claim that Saddam could be prepared to launch WMD attacks against Coalition forces "within 45 minutes," had come directly from MI6. Were the Brits fooled too? Hain insists they were not and Tony Blair sticks to his “guns” to this day.

Again, why did we go to War? The probability of Saddam's weapons falling into al Qaeda's hands is one reason. Another is the war we fought and won in February, 1991. At that time, the war was interrupted in order to negotiate the terms of surrender with the aggressor, Saddam Hussein. At the peace table, the United Nations insisted that, as a condition of his continuation in the presidency of Iraq, Saddam Hussein must [a] disarm and provide proof to the U.N. that he had disarmed, accounting with transparency for all his known weapons systems and arsenals. In particular, Saddam Hussein was ordered to destroy his stocks of mustard gas, sarin, botulin, anthrax, and other chemical and biological agents. He was also to provide proof that he had destroyed all his prior work toward the development of nuclear weapons.

During the next twelve years, despite constant warnings, Saddam Hussein brazenly flouted all these obligations. In late 2002, the Security Council again solemnly put Saddam Hussein under edict to prove that he had carried out these obligations, on which his very right under international law to remain in power depended. Again, he provided no such proof. Meanwhile, in a sudden and violent fashion, another war was launched against the United States — and, against international civilized order — on September 11, 2001.

So, it was not the burden of the international community to prove Iraq's noncompliance. That fact was publicly and internationally well established years ago. It was Hussein's obligation, as a condition for continuing in his presidency, to present evidence that he had disarmed. He didn’t and now he’s eating his meals off a metal plate.

The war was entirely legal...

p.s. love your new avatar!

I see your crack habit is still a problem.

I see your crack habit is still a problem.

Well Gent, we all see that your propensity for dropping retarded one-liners has not diminished.

You have a constructive comment to add or just out of words?!

I see your crack habit is still a problem. 

Well Gent, we all see that your propensity for dropping retarded one-liners has not diminished.

You have a constructive comment to add or just out of words?!

Replying to The Real Reason For The Iraq War Part Ii

OIL!

Tornado, you know it's more than just oil. It's a foothold in the center of the Middle East to gain world dominance. It will not happen. The 'war' will not be won by America, Britain or anyone else who is foolish enough to take them on.

Tornado, you know it's more than just oil. It's a foothold in the center of the Middle East to gain world dominance. It will not happen. The 'war' will not be won by America, Britain or anyone else who is foolish enough to take them on.

Yes I realise this mate. Old Boon knows exactly how I feel about the invasion of a sovereign country. I just get tired of trying to educate him and have resorted to very basic posts in reply - otherwise he cant understand them, if they are too long.

I also try and not use any words larger than wheelbarrow, so he can grasp the sentence.

I also try and not use any words larger than wheelbarrow, so he can grasp the sentence.

Wheelbarrow needs to be hyphenated: wheel-barrow!

Boon. (Sorry about the above!) Thank you for a most interesting post. I greatly appreciate a discussion rather than being the recipient of blinkered political pontification.

In April of 1993, George Bush senior was visiting Kuwait when the officials there disrupted a car bomb plot, which aimed to kill the Emir of Kuwait, possibly also targeting ex-president Bush. This bomb was believed to have been ordered by Saddam Hussein.

Since and as a result of that occurrence, George (W) Bush Junior vowed to deal with Saddam. Indeed, in a Houston, Texas fundraising dinner on 26th September, 2002, President George W Bush was quoted as saying "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," and he went on to talk about disarming and ousting Saddam Hussein, "If the United Nations won't act, if he doesn't disarm, the United States will lead a coalition to make sure he does," the president said. "It's an American issue, a uniquely American issue."

When Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, left the administration and started talking on the record about happenings in the White House, (pre 9/11 and the War on Terror,) one of his revelations concerned the fact that Bush was trying to find excuses and reasons to effect regime change in Iraq from the very time of his inauguration. Bush himself admitted on January 12th 2004 that he had issued orders to “Find me a way” to invade Iraq on his first day in office.

On 10 February, five weeks before the war started, the British Government's Joint Intelligence Committee gave its assessment that there was no evidence that Iraq had provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, though in the event of an imminent regime collapse 'there would be a risk of transfer of such material'; in other words an attack on Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism. Tony Blair did not disclose this briefing before the war, and it only became known when the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee released it on 11 September.

It is quite clear that throughout 2002 both Washington and London were actively seeking, contrary to intelligence assessments, evidence to justify the case for war. Four key items were deployed for this purpose. One was almost immediately exposed as plagiarised from a student thesis more than 10 years old. The other three were documents purporting to show that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium for nuclear bombs from Niger, the claim that Iraq was able to deploy WMDs within 45 minutes, and 'evidence' from a top-level Iraqi defector that Iraq had produced several tons of the deadly nerve agent VX.

Each of these raise worrying questions of credibility which require systematic investigation by an independent inquiry. However, enough of the facts are now known to draw some important conclusions.

After months of failed requests, the International Atomic Energy Agency obtained the Niger documents from the US Government, and within a matter of hours established they were obviously forged and announced this on 7 March 2003, 10 days before the start of the war. CIA sources confirmed on 11 July that they had advised Britain to omit the Niger allegations in its September 2002 dossier. So on what justification was it included in this dossier?

Similar concerns surround the 45-minute claim. At the Hutton inquiry Dr Brian Jones from the Ministry of Defence, who described himself as 'probably the most experienced intelligence official working on WMD', said his leading chemical weapons expert was concerned he could not point to any solid evidence of production. Yet the Prime Minister's foreword in the dossier stated unequivocally that 'what I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons'. So why was the 45-minute claim included, at the request of the Prime Minister according to Alastair Campbell?

The fourth piece of evidence was used on 25 February 2003 when Tony Blair told the House of Commons that 'it was only four years later, after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered'. However, a week later Newsweek obtained details of Kamel's actual IAEA and Unscom debriefing. That reveals he said exactly the opposite. Does this mean that Kamel's testimony was twisted to make the case for war when its public disclosure was not anticipated?

KAMEL WAS SADDAM Hussein’s son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. Kamel told his Western interrogators that he hoped his revelations would trigger Saddam’s overthrow. But after six months in exile in Jordan, Kamel realized the United States would not support his dream of becoming Iraq’s ruler after Saddam’s demise. He chose to return to Iraq—where he was promptly tortured and murdered.

Kamel’s revelations about the destruction of Iraq’s WMD stocks were hushed up by the U.N. inspectors, sources say, for two reasons. Saddam did not know how much Kamel had revealed, and the inspectors hoped to bluff Saddam into disclosing still more. And Iraq never showed the documentation to support Kamel’s story. Still, the defector’s tale raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist.

Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds. “People who work in MIC [iraq’s Military Industrial Commission, which oversaw the country’s WMD programs] were asked to take documents to their houses,” he said. Why preserve this technical material? Said Kamel: “It is the first step to return to production” after U.N. inspections wind down.

Kamel was interrogated in separate sessions by the CIA, Britain’s M.I.6 and a trio from the United Nations, led by the inspection team’s head, Rolf Ekeus.

The notes of the U.N. interrogation—a three-hour stretch one August evening in 1995— show that Kamel was a gold mine of information. He had a good memory and, piece by piece, he laid out the main personnel, sites and progress of each WMD program. Kamel was a manager—not a scientist or engineer—and, sources say, some of his technical assertions were later found to be faulty. (A military aide who defected with Kamel was apparently a more reliable source of technical data. This aide backed Kamel’s assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks.) But, overall, Kamel’s information was “almost embarrassing, it was so extensive,” Ekeus recalled—including the fact that Ekeus’s own Arabic translator, a Syrian, was, according to Kamel, an Iraqi agent who had been reporting to Kamel himself all along.

The Bush and Blair administrations have been conclusively shown to have been planning the overthrow of the Saddam regime from the start of the Bush administration. Furthermore, they both knew, from hushed up intelligence briefings, that Iraq had destroyed all its stocks of WMDs shortly after the first Iraq war, and they had never produced any more.

Saddam was well known to like to bluff. He sincerely believed that the threat of his supposed WMDs should stop any invasion. The Bush administration cynically took his bluff at face value, entirely for their own ends, and used this as a reason for the invasion, knowing all the time that there was no danger from WMD at all.

Indeed, if WMDs were truly believed to have been available in Iraq, it is unlikely that any invasion could have taken place. The danger would have been too great that they would have been surreptitiously deployed in places like Tel Aviv, New York, London and other major cities. They therefore had the best of every world, relative “safety” for their troops and citizenry and the ability to terrify society with their scare stories of the monster with WMDs. They believed they could not lose.

Problem is, they did not think matters out and certainly never planned for the aftermath of regime change. Iraq is not Afghanistan and the Iraqis were accepting of their leader whereas the Afghanis were decidedly unhappy under the extreme Taliban regime. A major difference when you are trying to rule the country after essentially destroying it.

I enclose a few links for your further edification:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0226-01.htm

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum...raqgate2003.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/...ain592330.shtml

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/...s&oneclick=true

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ll_says?mode=PF

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum...raqgate2003.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread6968/pg1

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/

There are many more where these came from.

Sorry, the above was a bit long. I shall post a short version for those short of reading skills.

George W Bush hated Saddam.

He thought Saddam tried to kill his daddy!

GWB tried to find a reason to attack Saddam.

GWB chose WMD.

However Iraq had NO nasty bombs.

This was known before the war but hushed up.

Therefore the war was not legal.

Those who prosecuted it are war criminals.

It is a great pity, but regime change is an illegal reason to start a war and anybody who might start a war for that reason is, by very definition, a war criminal.

If you follow generally accepted international law, then what Bush would be guilty of -- if it could be shown that invading for regime change contravened international law (a point open to debate) -- then he would not be guilty of War Crime(s), as defined:

(b ) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

but rather Crime(s) Against Peace:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

I'm 100% against the war in Iraq myself, but think 'war crimes' might be ambitious terminology .... or at least if loosely applied, every nation that has ever gone to war is guilty of war crimes. Crimes against peace is a more likely tag.

Yale international law library

Tornado, you know it's more than just oil. It's a foothold in the center of the Middle East to gain world dominance. It will not happen. The 'war' will not be won by America, Britain or anyone else who is foolish enough to take them on.

Yes I realise this mate. Old Boon knows exactly how I feel about the invasion of a sovereign country. I just get tired of trying to educate him and have resorted to very basic posts in reply - otherwise he cant understand them, if they are too long.

I also try and not use any words larger than wheelbarrow, so he can grasp the sentence.

Eventually the wheelbarrow becomes so overloaded with manure that the wheel

puntures, the legs buckle and then the sh!t hits the fan .

mbkdu...whenever i see you on here, I think of one thing...

Mugatu.

If you follow generally accepted international law, then what Bush would be guilty of -- if it could be shown that invading for regime change contravened international law (a point open to debate) -- then he would not be guilty of War Crime(s), as defined:

I wonder how the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq who were tortured,

sexually abused, starved and killed would respond to your statement about war crimes vs. crimes against peace? Of course the dead ones couldn't respond, now could they?