Blix Says Iraq Probably Destroyed WMDs

In article , Anders wrote:

TRUE! BUT you must not forget that the US and UK sanctions and war
during the sanctions killed ONE MILLION CHILDREN, 1.000.000 during that
US and UK led sanctions.

Absolutely. Death or no death is no issue for those guys. It's all a
cover for what they really want.

1. Strategic US military foothold in the Middle East.
2. Oil
3. Personal vandetta against Saddam.

QED.

Dubya with his IQ of 98 just can't think outside of the box.

Miguel Cruz writes
Anders wrote:
TRUE! BUT you must not forget that the US and UK sanctions and war
during the sanctions killed ONE MILLION CHILDREN, 1.000.000 during that
US and UK led sanctions.

Saddam killed the children. The sanctions were an excuse.

Who would you hold responsible for the deaths of the hostages at the
House of Culture for the State Ball-Bearing Plant Number 1? The Spetznaz
who stormed the theatre or the Chechen terrorists?

--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Whytoi wrote:
It's all a cover for what they really want.

1. Strategic US military foothold in the Middle East.

Increasingly difficult to maintain.

Look. Arab countries are increasingly becoming internally unstable
due to their populations spiraling out of control and their
upside-down demographics, the huge number of young unemployed, the
backwards metantality towards education and the treatment of women
(heavy emphasis towards Islamic education leaves little resources or
motivation for engineering, medicine, social education, etc). This
lob-sided importance of Islam in their lives means places like Meca
and Medina have a rediculously large importance to them. Plus the
fact that their attention is directed (by their leaders) towards the
Isreal-Palestinian conflict as a diversion. Thus both Isreal and the
US is an evil enemy (the US for both aiding Isreal and for occupying
the holy lands of Saudi Arabia - the infidel in the holy land).

The current administration must realize by now that the presence of US
military in Saudi Arabia has gone beyond the breaking point and the
continued presence will lead to the destabilization of that country.
It is debatable if 9-11 would have ever happened had the US pulled out
of Saudia Arabia after the end of the first gulf war.

That leaves very few - or no places - where the US could maintain a
substantial military presence in the region. The bigger reason is why
they want to. Hint: It's not because of oil. It's to protect
Isreal.

2. Oil

No.

Venezuela went through massive turmoil recently, putting a major kink
in world oil supply, and the US didn't budge on that.

3. Personal vandetta against Saddam.

Yes, partly. He is a former puppet of the US, and he turned away from
them. Other current and future US puppets must be taught a lesson as
to what happens when you turn away from your puppet master. Trouble
is, the lesson backfired. Had Iraq reacted to the invasion as
predicted (ie with open arms towards the US infantry) then the US
would be well on it's way to mobilizing and moving it's military
presence from Saudia Arabia and setting up shop in Iraq. There was
even a hint that was going to happen. No sign of that happening now.

The US badly over-estimated the degree to which the Iraqi population
would welcome them. The US apparently didn't factor in how 12 years
of sanctions would instill the Iraqi's to hate and despise them - when
their children die because of a lack of basic medical supplies and
equipment.

Dubya with his IQ of 98 just can't think outside of the box.

Reason #4: The influence of the Evangelical Christian Right-wing, and
their belief in the prophesy of armegedon and the second coming. If
you think Bush and his administration isn't influenced (or co-opted)
by evangelical christian thinking then you are either blind or simply
won't admit it in public. The central problem with the current US
administration is that they are driven by religious beliefs after
years of Clinton liberalism and nothing else (like the economy) is
important.

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

Simon Elliott wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes
Anders wrote:
TRUE! BUT you must not forget that the US and UK sanctions and war
during the sanctions killed ONE MILLION CHILDREN, 1.000.000 during that
US and UK led sanctions.

Saddam killed the children. The sanctions were an excuse.

Who would you hold responsible for the deaths of the hostages at the
House of Culture for the State Ball-Bearing Plant Number 1? The Spetznaz
who stormed the theatre or the Chechen terrorists?

The situations aren't really parallel. The Chechens created a situation in
which the hostages were endangered, and then the Russians cemented the deal.
They're both responsible.

In Iraq, the sanctions reduced the amount of funding available and Saddam
chose to spend the money on the military at the expense of his citizens. He
would have done the same if the army accountants had accidentally lost all
the money in the military budget in the stock market.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Traveler wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Anders wrote:
TRUE! BUT you must not forget that the US and UK sanctions and war
during the sanctions killed ONE MILLION CHILDREN, 1.000.000 during that
US and UK led sanctions.

Saddam killed the children. The sanctions were an excuse.

Ay, Miguel, como eres tonto!

The children died for lack of nutritrion, medicine, and clean water.

Why didn't the US and its "partners" that were supposedly so busy
keeping their nose in Saddam's business, ensure that the proceeds
from oil sales were used for the people's good?

Answer: they didn't give a **** for the good of the people under their
control.

I don't really believe that. It was not a very easy thing to do. And it was
shocking to all involved that Saddam would choose to rob the babies to pay
for weapons. It was assumed that he wouldn't do it because it would erode
domestic stability.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Miguel Cruz writes
I don't really believe that. It was not a very easy thing to do. And it was
shocking to all involved that Saddam would choose to rob the babies to pay
for weapons. It was assumed that he wouldn't do it because it would erode
domestic stability.

Miguel Cruz writes
Who would you hold responsible for the deaths of the hostages at the
House of Culture for the State Ball-Bearing Plant Number 1? The Spetznaz
who stormed the theatre or the Chechen terrorists?

The situations aren't really parallel. The Chechens created a situation in
which the hostages were endangered, and then the Russians cemented the deal.
They're both responsible.

In Iraq, the sanctions reduced the amount of funding available and Saddam
chose to spend the money on the military at the expense of his citizens. He
would have done the same if the army accountants had accidentally lost all
the money in the military budget in the stock market.

It's a while since any of my colleagues worked in Iraq, and my Iraqi
émigré friends have been in the UK for so long that I'm sure they have
lost touch. So what follows is necessarily an impression rather than
hard information.

Saddam chose to "rob the babies" as a response to sanctions partly
because he knew it would put pressure on those advocating the sanctions.
In this, he was little different from a hijacker who starts killing his
hostages because his demands are not being met.

This didn't cause domestic instability because it would have operated as
a three tier system. Saddam and his close supporters from Tikrit and
elsewhere would have been in first class. The sunnis in Baghdad and the
surrounding area were in business class. Everyone else was in a very
spartan economy class. But these last would largely be Kurds and Shiites
who didn't much like Saddam anyway and were only kept in line by threats
and violence. Keeping them dependent on a tickle of food aid
administered and distributed by the Baath party would help a lot.

The electricity mains seemed to work on the same basis. Baghdad got
power 24/7, while the rest of the country was rationed.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:09:22 GMT, (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Traveler wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Anders wrote:
TRUE! BUT you must not forget that the US and UK sanctions and war
during the sanctions killed ONE MILLION CHILDREN, 1.000.000 during that
US and UK led sanctions.

Saddam killed the children. The sanctions were an excuse.

Ay, Miguel, como eres tonto!

The children died for lack of nutritrion, medicine, and clean water.

Why didn't the US and its "partners" that were supposedly so busy
keeping their nose in Saddam's business, ensure that the proceeds
from oil sales were used for the people's good?

Answer: they didn't give a **** for the good of the people under their
control.

I don't really believe that. It was not a very easy thing to do.

Why not? They had inspectors crawling up Saddam's *** until they
caved and pulled them out, while that monster chuckled.

Do you really think any U.S. administration (including the previous
one) gives a **** about anything but our "perceived" -- wonderful
catch-all term -- national interest? If we had, would
Clinton/Albright/Annan have allowed 800,000 Tutsis to be hacked to
death by the Hutus in Rwanda? One of the easiest-to-stop genocides in
our compassionate --= NOT -- modern age.

And it was
shocking to all involved that Saddam would choose to rob the babies to pay
for weapons. It was assumed that he wouldn't do it because it would erode
domestic stability.

That's the key word: "assumed".

The hegemonic morons in charge of Bushes I and II -- Wolfowitz,
Cheney, Perle, and particularly our dear totally-crazy Rummy --
"assumed" a lot of things out of the depths of their ignorance, as
you'll note from the current quagmire. Bush II didn't even known that
Iraq was torn between Sunnis and Shi'ites, who have been have been
killing each other since the death of their prophet, some 1400 years
ago. And are now picking off our soldiers daily.

Heaven help us, the same "assumptions" are being trotted out
vis-a-vis North Korea!

--

Wesley Clark for President
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:07:59 GMT, (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Simon Elliott wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes
Anders wrote:
TRUE! BUT you must not forget that the US and UK sanctions and war
during the sanctions killed ONE MILLION CHILDREN, 1.000.000 during that
US and UK led sanctions.

Saddam killed the children. The sanctions were an excuse.

Who would you hold responsible for the deaths of the hostages at the
House of Culture for the State Ball-Bearing Plant Number 1? The Spetznaz
who stormed the theatre or the Chechen terrorists?

The situations aren't really parallel. The Chechens created a situation in
which the hostages were endangered, and then the Russians cemented the deal.
They're both responsible.

In Iraq, the sanctions reduced the amount of funding available and Saddam
chose to spend the money on the military at the expense of his citizens. He
would have done the same if the army accountants had accidentally lost all
the money in the military budget in the stock market.

Aw, c'mon! He was making a fortune selling his oil on the black
market at inflated prices, while low-balling the UN permitted oil
sales. Now that money is sitting in some Swiss bank account (or
accounts; too bad the monster sons will never get to count theirs).

Why didn't our "intelligence" (oxymoron) or the UN's "intelligence"
keep an eye on those transactions?

Saddam had money out the kazoo. And like the U.S., he didn't give
a **** about the Iraquis, outside of his particular Sunni clansfolk
and adherents, plus the well-paid Republic Guard. (Much good
the latter did him, push come to shove.)

--

Wesley Clark for President
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:33:47 GMT, Whytoi wrote:

In article , Anders wrote:

TRUE! BUT you must not forget that the US and UK sanctions and war
during the sanctions killed ONE MILLION CHILDREN, 1.000.000 during that
US and UK led sanctions.

Absolutely. Death or no death is no issue for those guys. It's all a
cover for what they really want.

1. Strategic US military foothold in the Middle East.
2. Oil
3. Personal vandetta against Saddam.

QED.

Dubya with his IQ of 98 just can't think outside of the box.

Who asks him to think? He just takes orders from his handlers; reads
(haltingly) the stuff his speechwriters prepare; and does photo-ops,
including $800,000 carrier landings.

--

Wesley Clark for President
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:31:20 GMT, wrote:


Aw, c'mon! He was making a fortune selling his oil on the black
market at inflated prices,

Who would buy black-market oil at inflated prices, you have to be a
bit of an idiot buying dodgy stuff at more than you can buy the
regular legit stuff.

Jim.