Blix Says Iraq Probably Destroyed WMDs

In article , Simon Elliott
wrote:

It's excellent that Saddam has gone, but the US and UK deserve no kudos
for getting rid of him. Especially as we have tried to pass most of the
cost, both in cash and body count, to the Iraqis.

The number of innocent civilians killed is getting close to be a match
for what Saddam's regime supposedly killed.

Whytoi writes
It's excellent that Saddam has gone, but the US and UK deserve no kudos
for getting rid of him. Especially as we have tried to pass most of the
cost, both in cash and body count, to the Iraqis.

The number of innocent civilians killed is getting close to be a match
for what Saddam's regime supposedly killed.

In the initial stages, some credit needs to be given to the coalition
for at least having a go at trying to minimise civilian casualties.
Although there was some unnecessary bombing and some nasty misses, at
least there wasn't an atrocity like the attack on the Amariya shelter
this time around.

On the other hand, no credit at all for the use of BLU-97/B
submunitions, the only weapon system whose main effect is on children
under 5 years of age.

And no credit at all for the current shoot first, think later (if at
all) mentality of the coalition troops. I don't blame the individual
squaddie for this - no-one wants to go home in a box. But clearly this
attitude is tolerated if not actively encouraged by the senior
commanders. One US or UK life is evidently worth that of umpteen Iraqis.
Liberation? Hmmm...
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

wrote:

Don't you just love the idiots on the left? Notice how he
conveniently leaves out the fact that Saddam's killing machine
is no longer in operation and 26 million people are now free of
it.

The United States did not invade Iraq to alter the lives or bring
liberty to the Iraqi people. I'm sure it is against the constitution
of the US to roam the world looking for battles to fight, people to
free on false pretenses, etc. The US invaded Iraq with the attempt to
assassinate Hussien because they claimed that Iraq presented a clear
and present danger to the safety and security of the United States.
That reason has proved to be hollow, and anyone with half a brain
could see through that reason before the invasion started.

The republican-right have no moral compass, no plan, and operate with
no accountability.

They helped put Hussein in power. They helped him fight the
Iranians. They left the Kurds high and dry after the 1991 war.

Explain this you Bu****es:

In 1988, after Hussein used poison gas on the Kurds (which was used
only once on them, and perhaps only one time against Iranian troops
around the same time), the US congress approved a resolution condeming
Iraq for the gassing. Guess what the white house did? Guess what
your legendary republican hero Regan the Freedom-Fighter (tm) and his
side-kick Bush-1 did? They blocked the resolution. Please explain
why those two Icons of Republican ideology (and countless others, like
Rumsfeld) apparently did not feel that Saddam was such a fiend at the
time.

In article , Simon Elliott
wrote:

In the initial stages, some credit needs to be given to the coalition
for at least having a go at trying to minimise civilian casualties.
Although there was some unnecessary bombing and some nasty misses, at
least there wasn't an atrocity like the attack on the Amariya shelter
this time around.

That is just spin doctoring. Try telling that to any one of those
innocent civilian who died or their families. One death is too many
especially in an unjustified agression that's filled with lies and
deceits.

On the other hand, no credit at all for the use of BLU-97/B
submunitions, the only weapon system whose main effect is on children
under 5 years of age.

Enough said.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:48:15 +0000, Whytoi wrote:

In article , Simon Elliott
wrote:

Churchill, who was Colonial Secretary at the time, argued for a separate
Kurdistan so that the Kurds would be safe "from some future bully in
Iraq." He was overruled on cost grounds as it would be cheaper to
administer a single state. And as Britain would control Iraq forever,
its rulers would not be permitted to oppress the Kurds.

Maybe the best solution. But what you and I think should have no
relevance to what the Iraqis think. We don't have the necessary
cultural background of the country nor the right to judge.

Might have been. But go sell the notion to Turkey and Iran...

Lets keep the "smart and wise" foreigners out of it this time. Let the
UN get involved and let the Iraqi decide.

Whatever Paul Bremer and Bush & Co put together would just be
considered to be a puppet government.

Best solution always was Saddam. Of course, what process might reinvent
one is not terribly clear either.

The sad thing remains that this was always quite obvious. (Some of us had
been repeating this here ad nauseam *before this crazy war started.) How
far can stupidity go at the top remains amazing to me.

I suppose this is what they call "intelligence?"

wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:07:08 +0200, Anders wrote:


But ofcourse!

Everybody knew it, that's why US never got a go-ahead of the aggression
and attack on Iraq - but they went ahead anyway. Now look at the total
mess and chaos they created, similar to the total fiasco in Afghanistan,
neither Osama, nor Sadam could they catch, but the murdered tens of
thousands of people and destroyed two countries.

Don't you just love the idiots on the left? Notice how he
conveniently leaves out the fact that Saddam's killing machine is no
longer in operation and 26 million people are now free of it.

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.

THAt plus the a couple of hundred thousands killed by US and UK military
actions during the first and second war on Iraq in fact killed far more
people than Sadam ever managed.

So what is worse?

Notice how this guy leaves out the elephants and calculates on the
mosquitos............



Notice
how he leaves out the fact that the Taliban's killing machine is no
longer killing off its opposition and exporting its terrorism.

Notice how this guy leaves out that the Talibans are back - and the fact
that US led troups killed tens of thousands civilians during their
Afghan training campaign.

Probably in level with what the Talibans managed during their rule.

Don't forget that there was law and order in Taliban country, a hard
rule - but no road pirates were at hand and it was possible to travel
the country side.

That is all history by now, chaos and anarchy is ruling..............



The
reason, of course, that Osama and Saddam haven't been caught is
because, heroes that they are, they are running like the cowards they
are. If they can't slaughter women and children, they just hide and
leak out their messages once every 3 months or so. And how does one
destroy either of these countries, when Afghanistan did not have one
or an economy and Iraq was simply being raped by Saddam and his thugs.
But then, facts and thinking have never been the forte of these types,
has it. Just ranting and blather. And, of course, note Sweden's long
history of participating in wars--like WWII where they spent most of
it allowing Nazi troops to go through the country to Norway and fed
the Nazi war machine with iron ore. Such a proud history they have.

And bla, bla, bla


/Anders


--
Remove the obvious part before replying by mail please!

Meghan Powers writes
They helped put Hussein in power. They helped him fight the
Iranians. They left the Kurds high and dry after the 1991 war.

According to some estimates, the UK lost about a billion pounds sterling
through its support of Saddam Hussein's regime. More accurately, various
companies made a profit exporting stuff to Iraq, and the British
taxpayer was left to pick up the bill.

In the 1980s, the UK Export Credit Guarantee Department would not
normally guarantee exports to such dubious regimes as Saddam Hussein,
mostly because they were seen as a bad credit risk. However, the then
Prime Minister requested that an exception be made in the case of Iraq.
This allowed British companies to sell, among other things, anti-mortar
radar and secure radio systems to the Iraqi army.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait and the UK objected, Iraq froze all payments to
the UK companies who had been doing business in Iraq. The Export Credit
Guarantee Department has had to bale the affected companies out to the
tune of at least 660 million pounds sterling.

In a final twist to this story, the US has demanded that the UK hand
over all Iraqi monies frozen in UK bank accounts since the second Gulf
War. Thankfully, the UK has told them to **** off.

More details here. The Guardian is a reputable, if rather left of
centre, UK broadsheet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/...904684,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/econo...921153,00.html

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

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:25:04 +0100, Simon Elliott
wrote:

And no credit at all for the current shoot first, think later (if at
all) mentality of the coalition troops. I don't blame the individual
squaddie for this - no-one wants to go home in a box. But clearly this
attitude is tolerated if not actively encouraged by the senior
commanders. One US or UK life is evidently worth that of umpteen Iraqis.
Liberation? Hmmm...


And today's cultural sensitivity award goes to General Ricardo Sanchez
for using the word "crusade" while trying to apologize....


"Sanchez offered his personal apologies Wednesday for the killing of
eight Iraqi police in Fallujah last Friday. Members of the 82nd
Airborne Division, newly assigned to duty outside a hospital on the
outskirts of the city, opened fire on Iraqi police returning to the
city after an unsuccessful pursuit of suspected robbers.

Sanchez hailed the slain Iraq police as "partners in this crusade." "

Time to go home....

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.

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.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:48:34 GMT, (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.

Meantime, Saddam quoted the UN a low sales price for
sanctioned oil sales -- then peddled the stuff to the neighbors
for inflated prices, and pocketed the difference. Why was
the U.S. not watching the store?

Answer: they didn't give a **** if Iraqui children lived or died.

--

Traveler


(I noticed that some people are starting to append the following to
their .sigs; something I've never done, but the time is now!)

Wesley Clark for President
www.DraftWesleyClark.com