[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Hmm.....it would seem that everything I've otherwise read would conflict with that statement. Uranium Oxide most certainly has its uses, and while I swore it could be used for weaponry, I know that it can be used as energy for nuclear reactors (Just ask Rossing Uranium Limited. They LOVE the shit).

Yeah... as I said in that other post, I wish the press were up to explaining this mess in a way that promotes understanding. Newsmax actually initially reported the long planned removal of Iraq's known uranium stores as proof of WsMD. Most of what they had was nuclear reactor fuel, as far as I know unsuited for weaponry, and the yellowcake they were "soughting" is what you'd need to stick in one of those centrifuge thingys to make a nuke...

Maybe Sethomas, resident genius, will enlighten me on this matter.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Not necessarily. If they violated UN sanctions, then yes, they certainly committed a boo-boo. But do you personally want to go to war with a country, and send thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens into battle b/c Iraq (like many other nations, including Israel) weren't in compliance with the UN?

Furthermore, the E! True Hollywood Story of Joe Wilson, otherwise known as the Senate Intelligence Committee's conclusions on intelligence gathering, actually found OTHER interesting things (aside, of course, from the semantics used by Joe Wilson). They accurately noted what many had been noting about the sanctions for years-- that they didn't hurt Saddam, they only hurt the Iraqi people, and they denied people access to needed materials (hence the manipulation of the Oil-for-food program). In the committee's words:

"Analysts believed that the fact that Iraq often attempted to obtain dual-use materials surreptitiously, through front companies and other illicit means in violation of UN sanctions, indicated that Iraq intended to use those materials for WMD. Analysts argued that Iraq would have no reason to hide itself as the end user of these materials if they were intended for legitimate purposes. However, analysts ignored the fact that Iraq typically used front companies and evaded UN sanctions for imports of purely legitimate goods. Analysts who monitored Iraq's compliance with the Oil for Food Program noted several reasons that Iraq wanted to avoid legitimate channels for imports including 1) the UN often denied materials needed for legitimate purposes because the materials had WMD applications, 2) using the UN's bureaucratic process was more cumbersome and tune consuming than using illicit channels, and 3) transactions using front companies were less transparent, making corruption and profit taking easier for Iraqi managers and officials."

Harry Browne, the old crackpot, has had some interesting things to say form a historical perspective regarding the Iraqi sanctions. From his point of view, the sanctions caused Iraq to remain hostile, just like similar sanctions against Germany post WWI allowed Hitler to gain power and caused WWII. Harry actually said this before 9/11, too, which is neat. He basically predicted this whole thing, though his prediction for where we are now was much bleaker than present realities.

And, no, I don't favor our enforcing whatever the UN mandates, mostly because that organization is too heavily weighted in favor of dictators and despots. If a UN mandate favors Democracy in general terms, I can see using it as a veil of approval for doing the right thing when it needs to be done (again, not that I'm implying anything about Iraq in particular) but that's all UN mandates are anymore: sham constructs that one can hold up and call world opinion if it serves one's purpose.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Nodongs being sought? I'll tell ya, there is a LOT of SOUGHTING going on here, and not enough PURCHASING! You know what they say paves the road to hell!!!

You'll have to enlighten me on this other tidbit that only the Right seems privy to these days.

I'M NOT THE RIGHT, DAMMIT!!! :D

Here's some information regarding N. Korean missile deals with Iraq and other MidEast countries. Honestly, I suspect that this is not so much "far right" knowledge as your sources are just a littel too left to find this stuff there. I look at what everyone has to say, and I generally find the truth somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. Uranium certainly does have legitimate purposes, and again, your point about buying from Niger makes little sense. The French control the most prolific and producctive mines in Niger. So once again, would it seem like a completely CrAzY idea that Iraq may have "approached" Niger about the uranium in her "abandoned" mines in an attempt to get around the UN sanctions.....? And once again, from what I've read, uranium oxide is merely a production of the ore itself, meaning that Iraq had access already to the material. If they wanted these stockpiles, they could've already been well on their way without the help of questionable "abandoned" mines in Niger.

Again, I don't think nuclear fuel can be enriched for weapons use, but I could easily be wrong. I'll wait on Seththomas to clear this up for us... Either way, what Iraq had was locked down and monitored and the enrichment equipment destroyed... so Iraq proved it's desire to continue development of nukes by hiding some equipment (known to be true) and seeking yellowcake (also known to be factual.)

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Oh, now COME ON! I made this point in one of the other threads, but here it is. The Senate Intelligence Committee made it clear that there was MUCH left to be desired in the attempt to find WMD in Iraq. Mobile labs, nuclear tubing from Pakistan, the mustard gassing that wasn't mustard gas, just to name a few. As I have already stated, Joe Wilson wasn't some rebel critic who changed the course of perception on the war. This administration did a hell of a lot to earn that scrutiny.

Yes, this thread has quickly blended into the other one. It is important to note, however, that no war-time administration is upfront about it's current war strategies or intelligence while the war is still going on. We can scrutinize all we want, but a lack of full disclosure by the government is not necessarily damning proof that George W Bush is actually Satan himself.

In the end, we can only guess what's truly going on until well after all the shooting has stopped. Most Cold War documentation is still classified, and will remain so for a very long time, most likely. Yes, this is mostly to protect the guilty, but that's just how this stuff works. We are only told the minimum amount of half-truths required to get us to let them defend us however they feel is best.

As fucked up as that sounds to say, it's not not entirely an evil thing in practice. "You can tell me what to do or how to do it, but not both" is a maxim for me in my own business, and I guess I have to let government have the same leeway. I wouldn't consider lying to be an acceptable part of my own business practices, but I don't think we're debating the proliferation of lying within government circles, are we?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

That's swell, but the reasons they never said that are obvious. A presumably free Iraq, a strategic point in the Middle East, an excuse to pull troops from Saudi Arabia, and a swinging tourist attraction known as Baghdad, are all well and good, but they don't justify invading a country on a false premise. The American people were led to believe that mushroom clouds and chemical baths were in their future if we didn't stop this mad man, who clearly, according to public opinion polls, had a coordinating role in 9/11. This administration played off the fears and sensitivities of a post-9/11 America in order to attain a "key tactical target". And as I've already noted, this design came prior to 9/11. The neo-cons were waiting for this, and 9/11 gave them an excuse to take it.

Congress voted to let the opaque shroud of deception be lowered on the world when they authorized the war. That is how wars are fought. Once we set out to fight a war, the objective on the homefront is to keep the rubes behind you, no matter if that takes a few fibs. Democrats have always done this just as Republicans have, for the same VERY OBVIOUS reasons.

When the President notified us his objective for the country was an all out War on Terror, this is what he meant. He might as well have said, "From now on, I will be publically lying to you and all of our Allies because I know our enemies will be listening. Any actual truths about this war will only be heard in the most secure conversations, and there is no way any of you will know anything for sure. This is the last time you'll likely hear me speak any truth about this war until it's over, and I can't tell you how long that'll take because I simply do not know."

And of course this was a pre-planned thing! What part of regime change in Iraq being official Clinton policy is so mysterious? Every bit of the assault on Iraq was only waiting on last minute adjustments to be implemented... most likely sitting on a shelf in the Pentagon since prior to the FIRST Gulf War. I personally feel kinda good about that, honestly. I'd like to think those in charge of keeping terrorists out of my local shopping mall are at least somewhat on the ball.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Agreed, and I am someone who opposed the war but supports the occupation. I think to pull out of Iraq now would create a vacuum effect, similar to that which hapened in Afghanistan after Soviet withdrawl. That's why I had previously been outraged by this war, b/c while operations were falling apart in Afghanistan, and the fucking FRENCH and Canadians were training a national guard in Afghanistan, we were trying to justify a war with an old thorn. I'm glad to see that public pressure forced the president to invest more heavily in Afghanistan, and the topic interests me so much that I have been looking into getting a job with an elections monitoring agency over there. One snag they are hitting in Afghanistan, which will certainly be problematic in Iraq, is a failur to understand the concepts of democracy. Afghanis think their voter reg. cards are currency and are trading them to party bosses for bread. The Taliban has restructured itself there, and our "allies" in Pakistan seem incapable of doing anything about it. To me, this was where the war was at, and rather than winning the hearts and minds in Afghanistan, rather than restructuring their nation, we were already on to the next conquest. Nation building isn't a popular position to take, which is why Bush moved away from Afghanistan in the first place. We Americans, we seem to loves our wars, but hate the clean-up required after it. But if we're going to truly win this war, which is a war on thought, not on terror, the most important stuff MUST begin after the bombs drop.

That's just my opinion. Sorry for the rant.

No problem. If you do decide to go over there, I'll personally respect the hell out of you and pray for your safety. I care greatly about the events that are unfolding, but not enough to risk my own life to play more of a part in it than talking to you about it. Maybe that makes me an ass or marginalizes me, but I'm not willing to admit to myself that I was born free to die for someone else's freedom. I'd like to think I'll someday serve my purpose in a less bloody capacity, though I shake the hand of every soldier I ever meet as I offer them my thanks for what they do.

While it's true our post-war actions leave much to be desired, I'll point to what we have done for Japan, Germany, Italy, England, Vietnam, Korea... etc... and ask you to compare that with what other vicotrs of wars have done in the past. I'd say we're upholding a somewhat higher standard than any other country ever has, and our military record so far could only be compared to ancient Rome... We have never enslaved those we defeated. All we ever asked for was space to bury our dead, and to what account would you like your billions of dollars deposited?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

You're right, but what's next? As I said, you'll never truly stop the tactic that is terrorism until you figh the intellectual fight. We are fighting an extremist branch of Islam, and to make it worse, it's like a hypothetical prisoner's dilemma. Everything we do that can be perceived as imperialistic or as anti-islamic will push people into their ranks. That's where the war in Iraq irks me a bit, as well. :/

I believe free Iraqis will fight that intellectual fight in a way we could never pull off. America can say whatever it wants to, but it all sounds like the same old lies to those in the Middle East. Once Iraq kicks us out, and they will, and Democracy allows them the freedom to outpace the economies of every other Arab nation combined (like Israel's has done) the theocracies will topple themselves... I hope, anyways...

We could only hope to start the fight. It's up to Arabs to finish it, as they are the only ones the other Arabs might trust.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Right, but the stakes are higher. They've been higher for the enemy for a good twenty years or so. Sanctions and jabs mean little to Bin Ladens, wouldn't you agree?

Bin Laden has to operate out a country, and he has to get money and guns from somewhere. While terrorists can be bred in a free society, I'd wager they're much more rare than in Palestine or Somalia.