What?

Post #79,876 by screamer 2/6/03 12:54:54 PM Reply	What? You write: "What is being presented now is from an administration that has had the goal of controlling Iraqi oil since before they were installed. And using the same intelligence community that has already demonstrated it's failures." You aren't making any assumptions there, are you? What do you mean by "goal of controlling Iraqi oil since before they were installed" ? What intelligence source gave you that information? It appears to me that you are presuming quite a lot. And following your logic, are you implying that because Bush is an "oil man", that controlling Iraq's oil supply will help him by keeping the price up to encourage domestic drilling? Or that he won't have to drill in Alaska? Enquiring minds want to know... The same intelligence community that failed on 9/11 failed because they didn't provide enough specific intelligence. This was most clearly NOT the case with Powell's presentation. He provided detailed information that clearly demonstrates intent. Beyond your non-sequitor response, can't you see that you are putting Bush in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position? If they give too little info, they are covering up, if they give you too much, they are not to be trusted? A question back for you. Do you see the difference between an uncorraborated single piece of information overhead on a tapped line versus a series of satellite photo's? What's there to trust? Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #79,881 by Brandioch 2/6/03 1:19:21 PM Reply	The part you don't understand. He provided detailed information that clearly demonstrates intent. Break that down. He provided detailed information..... Yes. There were a lot of details in his presentation. ....that clearly demonstrates intent. No. He did not clearly demonstrate intent. He had photos that he CLAIMED showed certain things. Which is a good START. Now, why hasn't that information been provided to the UN inspectors so they can FIND the physical evidence to CONFIRM that what is CLAIMED to be shown is what is ACTUALLY shown? We have satelites and drones and spies. But we can't tell the inspectors where to look to actually FIND what we CLAIM is there. Why?
Post #79,894 by screamer 2/6/03 2:57:27 PM Reply	Why... because we cannot put these people (UN inspectors) in that position. If we point them to an "unclean" munitions area, they are automatically "hostages". Given that we will be invading them in the next couple of weeks, it is not wise to recklessly endanger their lives. Slightly different perspective than what you are approaching this situation from, I'm sure, but also most probably accurate. The US has had this intelligence for quite some time and has already declared that they will respond. They gave the Iraqi government the noose to hang itself with in their WOMD declaration. The US anticipated that Iraq would not cooperate as they haven't for over 11 years (not a bad anticipation). They also realized that the world was content to "contain" Hussein until he screws up again. We forced the UN to act, they drew up UN resolution 1441, and now are shown not to have the stomach to enforce it. If you will read this article from 20 December, you will see the US has not deviated one inch from it's strategy... [link\|http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73428,00.html\|http://www.foxnews.c...933,73428,00.html] We are at the end of the stated timeframe, Iraq is still not willing to cooperate. ANY SANE INDIVIDUAL would realize that after 11 years of failure to comply, and failure to comply now (as Powell demonstrated in his briefing as late as last week after 1441), all Hussein is doing is stalling for time. No, we aren't going to let hostages even be a consideration. Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #79,902 by Brandioch 2/6/03 3:48:23 PM Reply	Your Reality Check came back NSF. because we cannot put these people (UN inspectors) in that position. That is what they are there for. That is their SPECIFIC mission. If we point them to an "unclean" munitions area, they are automatically "hostages". And we invade. It's called "war". People "die" in "war". They knew the risks when they went in. They accepted them. They are TRYING to find the munitions that you "KNOW" exist. Given that we will be invading them in the next couple of weeks, it is not wise to recklessly endanger their lives. We're going to be killing innocent Iraqi children when we invade. Rather than risk NOT killing them, we'll NOT risk the lives of the UN inspectors. Besides, the UN is irrelevant anyway. They can't find the chemicals that we aren't telling them about. Slightly different perspective than what you are approaching this situation from, I'm sure, but also most probably accurate. Accurate in the events that will transpire. The inspectors will not find chemicals. We will invade. Beyond that..... no. The US has had this intelligence for quite some time and has already declared that they will respond. But they will not share it with the inspectors so that the inspectors can find the chemicals and tell the world and the US can go in with full UN support. They gave the Iraqi government the noose to hang itself with in their WOMD declaration. Which the US then "sanitized" so the world would not know our involvement. They also realized that the world was content to "contain" Hussein until he screws up again. Containment costs fewer lives than war. Containment costs less money than war. What is wrong with containment? We forced the UN to act, they drew up UN resolution 1441, and now are shown not to have the stomach to enforce it. You need to read that resolution. No where does it require military action. If you will read this article from 20 December, you will see the US has not deviated one inch from it's strategy... Again, you are confusing the US's drive for war and "evidence". Germany did not deviate one inch from its strategy. Yet it was still a Fascist dictatorship with genocidal plans. The terrorists who attacked the WTC did not deviate one inch from their strategy. And so forth. ANY SANE INDIVIDUAL would realize that after 11 years of failure to comply, and failure to comply now (as Powell demonstrated in his briefing as late as last week after 1441), all Hussein is doing is stalling for time. Time to do what? Develop chemical weapons that we are still unable to find? It's called "physical evidence". Invade another country? Which country? The ones nearest to him do not seem too afraid of him. If he is stalling for time WHAT is he trying to accomplish? That's the difference between emotion and evidence. Again, there is no way to convince YOU that Saddam does not have chemical weapons. There is a very easy way to convince ME that he does. Physical evidence. Yet I'm the one with the problem with logic? Yeah. Right.
Post #79,897 by Silverlock 2/6/03 3:28:04 PM Reply	I notice the point you ignored I'll reserve comment on that for now. As far as my "making assumptions", you would be well served to be a bit more catholic in your news sources. If you were you might have known of the desire by the bush puppetmasters^H^H^H^H^H^H advisors to control Iraqi oil as a matter of policy for at least a decade. oct 18 98 [link\|http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/10/981019-in.htm\|Link] Aug 18 02 [link\|http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020818-iraq1.htm\|Link] Perle called for regime change for the last decade [link\|http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/\|Link] other sources [link\|http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html\|Link] [link\|http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin110702/chin110702.html\|Link] [link\|http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm\|Link] I'm not "presuming" a damned thing. Memory is like a watchacallit. -Steven Brust
Post #79,900 by boxley 2/6/03 3:34:00 PM Reply	actually goes back to 1917 and the brits. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #79,925 by screamer 2/6/03 5:44:00 PM Reply	The common thread I see in all of your links... other than a definate premeditation about "what to do about Iraq" since 1992, is that they all agreed that we had unfinished business after the Persian Gulf War. Which most everyone already agrees, even common schmoes like me. The fact that these men share common "solution" does not equate to "it's all about the oil", nor does it equate to a huge Illuminati plot (although I wouldn't mind discussing that). I fully believe that this is an advancement of Am erican emperialism (and Britain by proxie). I also agree that there is a globalization and Third Wave shock that will transpire in this century. I believe it is inevitable, as population continues to rise and resources decrease or at best remain constant. Cultures will be enhanced and cultures will be destroyed. These are presumptions that I make. I simply find that parroting "it's all about oil", "evil Bush", blah blah blah fails to take into account the military and geopolitical importance of the US presence in that region - remember Israel? If Iraq used it's WOMD on Israel, (which they most probably will), we can no longer enjoy the luxury of sitting on the fence anyway. We either help shape the world geopolitical future or take the sloppy seconds of the "great minds" of Europe and Asia... Another incongruity that I notice about the left is that they believe that Dubya (an idiot, simpleton, etc.) has the brains to assemble such a magnificient coup. :-) Which way is it? Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #79,969 by Silverlock 2/6/03 9:19:01 PM Reply	Pardon me? Let's focus on the central point, shall we? What point did I bring up? ...an administration that has had the goal of controlling Iraqi oil since before they were installed What did you say to this? You aren't making any assumptions there, are you? My response (paraphrased) -[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=79897\|No, I'm referencing fact] Your response- we had unfinished business after the Persian Gulf War. Nice fade. What was it we were discussing? This administration has had the goal of controlling Iraqi oil since before they were installed. Memory is like a watchacallit. -Steven Brust

Welcome to IWETHEY!