300,000 Iraqis may be in Mass Graves

you're deliberatly misrepresenting the UN resolutions. the resolutions require Saddam to disarm, or present evidence that he had done so. and you call the "imminent threat" language in SOTU "weird spin?" it's the essence of the Bush Doctrine, and the whole reason we attacked when we did- to prevent the threat from becoming imminent.

 

A) How am I misrepresenting them? I am citing them almost word for word. Nowhere in the treaty does it give the right for any individual nation to determine whether Saddam's actions, or the UNSC's response to same are sufficient, let alone reintroduce hostilities if and when it did so. Seriously, how am I misrepresenting anything about the UN resolutions?

B) No, we attacked to prevent the imminent threat from becoming realized. Imminent and realized are not the same thing, and it is the latter which Bush says he is attacking to avoid. Bush states that with this threat there were only two alternatives, what is the now, and what is the after...as such there are no gradients of threat between the now and the the after, as such the now is a circumstance of imminent threat, in that the only next step is aftermath. Imminent, in case you are unaware, means ' about to happen'. Bush never said he was trying to prevent them from being 'about to happen', but to prevent them from happening. And he said there would be no inbetween stage. Linear logic.

ut at least we have another war supporter admitting that WMDs were the cause, not tyranny.

Please help educate those who refuse to acknwoledge even this much.

 

Bush lied. His adminstration lied. There is no two ways around that.

Bush claimed that Iraq was six months from a nuke based on IAEA report. The IAEA said that no such report existed. Bush then claimed it was a different Report that they were referring to. The report that he claimed he was referring to hadn't even been released at the time Bush made the claim about the Iraq being closed to having nukes. Not only did Bush lie, his administration tried to cover up his lies with more lies.

Nobody can defend that, because it's true it happened, and it was a LIE.

Condi Rice claimed that the tubes purchased by Iraq were really only suitable for one thing, and that was in producing Nuclear weapons. It turns out that it was a lie. The tubes actually weren't suitable for producing nuclear weapons, and were suitable for conventional arms which was the Iraqi claim all along.

In Poland George W. Bush claimed that the U.S. had already found WMD in Iraq. That was a lie! He lied.

The most bizzare of his lies was in a press conference here where he claimed that the U.S. tried to get Iraq to let weapons inspectors in, and that Saddam didn't let them in, so there was the invasion.

I don't know where the hell that line came from, because obviously the weapons inspectors had been let back in and that had nothing to do with the reasons for war, and was the only time that Bush used it as a reason. Bush wasn't even on the same plane of reality with that comment. Everybody knew that the weapons inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq.

Anyway he lied, and his administration lied, and not one bit of the lies I've mentioned had to do with SOTU speech.

But if we are talking about the SOTU speech howcome people are willing to say that was only 16 words in one speech?

First of all as this post and others point out there were more lies than that one, but who cares if that was the only one. If those 16 words go toward leading men to their deaths in war then that one incident is worth looking at.

MacBeth and others have tried to point time and time again that Bush used one reason and one reason alone as the way to avoid war. Bush never once said that if Iraqis are allowed to live in freedom that war would be averted. Bush never once claimed that if Iraq stopped supporting terrorists that war would be averted. Bush did repeat on multiple occasions that if Saddam would disarm his WMD's war would be averted. The other causes were mentioned as reasons about why Saddam was a bad guy, and in hopes of building support for the war. But Bush never said any of those things could avert war, only WMD. Therefore WMD was the main reason for the war.

 

It this is true it may even make Bush look worse. Is it ok to invade another nation who hasn't attacked you, when they aren't even an imminent threat to you?

 

Saying it's ok because the threat could be much worse could then apply to any country on the globe. Any country, could, in the future find a way to become an a threat, but aren't now.

Why was the present means of deterrence not working? What new WMD's did Saddam have? Inspectors were in there and Saddam was hemmed in tight. There is no proof at all that he was gathering more WMD's despite those efforts. And since the invasion it's certainly reasonable to guess that he wasn't.

As for starting a change in the region, how will invading a sovereign nation that wasn't a threat to the U.S. help win people over to our way of doing things?

I will agree with you that our alliance with Saudi Arabia was doing nothing to help.

 

So, the WMD info has turned up false, the ties to terrorist organizations turned up false, and since Iraq was allowing the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, what information needed to be reevaluated?

A reevaluation WAS necessary, but a reevaluation with the intelligence we now know that the administration had would not have supported a war against Iraq. If they had given us the ACCURATE intelligence that we now know they had, the public would never have supported the war. Thus the motive to skew the intelligence.

BTW, if Bush gave us faulty information, he lied. Look at the definition that MacBeth gave you. The liar does not even need to know that they are lying. If they give faulty information, it is a lie. Revisionist history my a$$.

Dude, if you would read the information and take off your Bush colored glasses, you would find that the WMDs we KNEW that he had (back in the 90s) would have degraded into uselessness by now. He would have had to continue to produce the chem/bio weapons if he were to have any. Seeing as how we haven't found ANY facilities that had been used for that purpose, it is pretty logical to assume that they have been disposed of.

The worst thing we can say about Saddam and his WMD programs since 2000 is that he did not complete the necessary paperwork when he disposed of the material. I don't know about you, but to me a war over paperwork is a travesty.

But not important enough to start a war over.

Except that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was ongooing at the time we went in and the 300,000 dead in Iraq happened when Saddam was on OUR SIDE. We were SUPPORTING him when he murdered those people.

 

But there is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the terrorists we should fear, and there is a lot of evidence to show that other nations did. How does that explain this war?


But, secondarily...what you are saying is that, if we [ I]feel[/I] that another nation will become a threat...not have proof of, not an imminent threat, merely that said nation could become a threat in the future, that that is sufficient cause to defy international law, treaties we have signed, the authority we have till now forced others to recognize in matter like these, etc. and invade said nation. Am I right? I don't think that this is an inaccurate recount of what you have said...


Allow me to simplify it; if we feel that a nation could realisically become a threat to us in the future, irrespective of proof of same, we have the right to invade said nation no matter what the world think..right?

Question 1; What happens to the world if every other nations gives itself the same right we have given ourselves?

Question 2: Aside from the facvt that we like oursleves, agree with ourselves, andgenerally think ourselves quite dandy and beyond corruption, what makes this pre-emptive invasion any different from any of those in history, all of which have been condemed as naked aggression couched as self-defense? All of those nations had a population who believed themselves too.

 

But that is the domino theory in reverse. Supposedly if Communism got a foothold in SE. Asia(Vietnam) the rest of the countries in the region were all going to fall like dominoed to communism.

It was bogus then, and it's bogus to think that if a democratic govt. is set up by the U.S. that all the other countries will suddenly demand and get changes to their govt. isn't realistic, and definitely isn't a certain enough gamble to risk on war.

 

Another sobering point to reflect on re: pre-emptive warfare.


Pre-emptive warfare; the practice of aggressively eliminating potential threats before they have the power to become realized threats.

Couple that with the fact that this administration has said that they intend to remain the most powerful military and economic power on earth, and will perceive any other nation seeking to beomce our equals in either regard as a threat to the United States.

 

We aren't talking about al-Qaeda, we are talking about Iraq. The Iraq-al Qaeda link was debunked months ago and yet y'all (war supporters) continue to bring it up.

I supported the effort to get al Qaeda wholeheartedly and without reservation. We were in the middle of accomplishing that goal when this administration took the bulk of our armed forces OUT of Afghanistan (where al Qaeda forces were located) and sent them to Iraq (where al Qaeda has never operated).

This was not about al Qaeda, it was not about terrorism, and it was not about 9/11.

 

wrong, wrongER, adn WRONGEST! absent 9/11 this war never happens. it had everything to do with terrorism. if saddan didn't have ties to terrorist, if 9/11 had never happened, we'd all be debating education vouchers, or the lack thereof, and Saddam would be dodging Allied plans in the no-fly zone while plotting the extermination of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs while Uday and Qusay masturbated to britney spears videos.

 

Wow. We actually agree...It is very doubtful if Bush, Cheney et al are able to sell a war on Iraq without the 9-11 engenddered fear to exploit.

 

You got that one right.

That is where you fail to remember that there has been NO CREDIBLE LINK between 9/11 and Iraq. Every such claim has been debunked. You are right that if 9/11 hadn't happened, Bush never would have been able to pull off half of the crap that he has. But Iraq had nothing to do with that tragedy.

He had no connection to the 9/11 terrorists that anyone has been able to prove.

How was he going to exterminate the Kurds without the WMDs? Saddam was a tyrant, yes. He was a very unpleasant person who was brutal and violent. However, our country has just made up a reason to go to war under the guise of "intelligence reports." We went against the world and invaded a country and have killed between seven and ten thousand CIVILIANS in adition to the countless Iraqi forces. We have occupied their country and are "rebuilding" it, meaning that American companies are coming in to rebuild the power stations, bridges, communications networks, and other infrastructure that we blew up when we invaded.

Oh, and BTW, those American companies are going to get the bulk of the $20 billion or so that we, the taxpayers are footing the bill for. In addition, there will be an additional $60-70 billion that will go to the military and military contractors.

It wasn't good enough to bleed the treasury with dividends to the rich, they had to go ahead and pay the defense industry in advance for their support in '04.

 

Associated Propaganda strikes again.

And journalists being lazy, they'll just pick up on the story in other news outlets, but will any of them ask, Why do they assume that because one grave holds XYZ number of bodies, all potential mass graves must hold the same number?

Bush needs a PR makeover for his Iraq venture (no WMD, natch), and now this story. Don't get me wrong, Saddam was quite the scuzbag. But if the U.S. wants to play cop against mass genocide, where were we during the Rwanda tragedy, when we could probably verify at least 400,000 deaths (I've seen numbers ranging from this up to one million)?

Some might say, Well, Clinton was President, he didn't have the guts.

Funny how Bush the Elder and his buddies in Reagan's administration armed Saddam and let him be a murderous thug but then proclaim surprise when he turns out to be what we paid him to be....and yet never used that as a pretext for our invasion.

 

Source-CNN

CIA: Iraq security to get worse
Bremer meets with White House advisers to discuss situation

WASHINGTON (CNN) --A recent CIA assessment of Iraq warns the security situation will worsen across the country, not just in Baghdad but in the north and south as well, a senior administration source told CNN Tuesday.

The report is a much more dire and ominous assessment of the situation than has previously been forwarded through official channels, this source said. It was sent to Washington Monday by the CIA station chief in Iraq.

It was not immediately clear if the assessment was what prompted the hastily arranged trip to Washington by Iraq civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer, who met Tuesday at the White House with President Bush and senior national security officials.

The report was discussed during the high-level meetings, sources said.

The senior administration source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Bremer agreed with the CIA assessment and added his personal comments to the station chief's memo.

In his Veterans Day speech Tuesday, Bush referred to "recent reporting" of cooperation between Saddam loyalists and terrorist elements from outside Iraq.

"Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists may have different long-term goals, but they share a near-term strategy: to terrorize Iraqis and to intimidate America and our allies," Bush told the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"In the last few months, the adversary has changed its composition and method, and our coalition is adapting accordingly."

Another senior administration official said those points in the speech were based on a U.S. intelligence report about the security situation.

A third U.S. official said the intelligence report was from the CIA and that it highlights what the official conceded are several "major ongoing security issues."

That official refused to characterize the report in further detail. But the senior administration source who did discuss the report said it essentially says things are "gonna get worse" across Iraq.

The source said the memo notes that:

• More Iraqis are "flooding to the ranks of the guerrillas." Many of these Iraqis are Sunnis who had previously been "on the sidelines" but now believe they can "inflict bodily harm" on the Americans.

• Ammunition is "readily available," making it much easier to mount attacks.

The assessment also notes that organization and coordination are getting "tighter" among foreign insurgents -- extremists including but not limited to al Qaeda and Hezbollah -- and those "displaced people" who lost power. (Full story)

On a related matter, this source said Bremer sent out his own separate two-page memo Monday in which he provided alternatives to the current seven-step U.S. plan for the transition of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi people.

U.S. officials in Washington and military commanders in Iraq have voiced concern about the recent increase of attacks against coalition and other targets in Iraq. Bush has urged his national security team to accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi security forces.

A large explosion Wednesday apparently shattered the Italian police headquarters in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. Initial reports indicated that six people were killed. (Full story)

Thirty-eight U.S. troops have died this month, bringing the number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war to 398. Since President Bush declared an end to major combat May 1, 259 U.S. servicemen and women have been killed.

There is no reliable source for Iraqi civilian or combatant casualty figures, either during the period of major combat or after May 1.

The Associated Press reported an estimated 3,240 civilian Iraqi deaths between March 20 and April 20, but the AP said that the figure was based on records of only half of Iraq's hospitals, and the actual number was thought to be significantly higher.

CNN's Andrea Koppel and Dana Bash contributed to this report.

 

Returning to the topic of 300,000 in mass graves.

Hopefully those who are upset by this also are upset about US activities.

The US policies in the last 20 years have added more that many to Iraqi graves. -- 12 years of bombing and sanctions. Two wars, encouraging the Kurds and Shiites to rebel and be slaughtered as we stood by etc.