In the past week we have heard estimates ranging from 16 days.

Overlooking the fact that they first need to build 5,000 centrifuges. If that happened I’m sure the IAEA would know about it.

Just to recap, there’s no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons, but if they had one they couldn’t attack Israel which already has 200 and refuses IAEA inspections, it would be suicide and not only that would kill more Arabs than Jews.

Epicurus: just how small do you think our "wad" is?

Aw, Michael, don’t go away mad…especially not with your ideology hanging out like that. Far be it from me to ruin a good emotional diatribe–and hey, I understand it’s an emotional thing when one’s world view doesn’t hold up to established facts and simple logic–but consider a few things:

I sent you a link to an extensively researched article which is sourced with further links to reputable sources, all so you could educate yourself to the very real and very extensive connections Saddam Hussein’s regime had to terrorism. You didn’t dispute even one single cite, let alone the bulk of the cites. From this we can conclude one of two things: either you chose not to follow the link, or you rejected the information out of hand based on a deeply held ideological bias and a need to protect your ego after having been called out as being flat wrong.

As far as genocide, that’s a rather particular term that implies intent towards a particular result (ie: the elimination of a class of people). While without question the sanctions were leathal, they were not targeted at a particular identifiable class outside of "the Iraqi regime". You no doubt are quite aware that "Iraqi" denotes a rather arbitrary patchwork of ethnic and religious groups–and therefore sanctions targeted at the government of such a diverse group is, by definition, not genocide because A) it lacks intent to eliminate the people, merely the government and B) it’s not targeted at a particular identifiable group, a regime not being considered a group for purposes of defining genocide. Is this all just semantics? Yes, but words matter. By your standards, there are few countries that aren’t guilty of genocide.

As for your claim about 1.3 million killed by the sanctions, using a grossly inflated number like that may make good propaganda in some quarters, but most people can small horse manure when it’s around. Using that bit of propaganda does disservice to the hundreds of thousands that DID actually die–it’s a disservice because when you hide the terrible truth with a more terrible lie, people reject the lie and lose the truth. Understand?

Perhaps it’ll interest you to know that I supported the war as a way to end the sanctions and draw down our military presence in the Middle East. It wasn’t going to happen any other way.

 

The Pakistanis, Russians ,Chinese ,Indians and  Isrealis  all have bombs. Somehow we have all survived.

Only one country is threatening the use of nuclear weapons in the region. Care to guess who? 

The Iranians could have a bomb in 4 hours  if they would contact their old arms dealer Oliver North .

In order for diplomacy to work, you have to try some. These guys you support should crack open a history book or two. By the way, at what point did Iran become our sworn enemy? They’re a bunch of homicidal kooks for sure, but if you’re going to go on about sworn enemies you may want to talk about the people who killed 3,000 Americans. It wasn’t Iran.

"The bombing begins in 5 minutes."

Err re-read my post, my boy. I said, and I quote, "The state of disrepair of Iraq’s oil infrastructure is regularly cited by the left to demonstrate how we are not interested in regenerating their country."Where did I mention lack of maintenance? Where did I make a differentiation between lack of maintenance and damage from insurgent atacks?….

Well then we agree that Iraq’s lack of oil production, lower now than before the illegal invasion started , is almost totally due to the resistance. Why didn’t you say before? All you need now is proof that the "left" claims it’s all due lack of interest in regenerating Iraq’s oil production.

 I do agree of course that there is a lack of interest in regenerating Iraq’s infrastructure but not in regards to oil.

Note that that’s a fairly heavily qualified statement:

…may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges at its Natanz plant…

They may be capable of building a bomb (then again, maybe not), but only if they install the centrifuges…which they haven’t (yet).

That said, it’s somewhat naieve to claim that Iran has been anything but a self-declared enemy of the United States since at least 1979. It’s equally Pollyannaish to refuse to recognize their apparent thirst for nuclear weapons. Based on recent behavior and statements, to believe that the present regime in Iran is a rational actor and would be trustworthy with a nuclear strike capability is a rather big leap of faith.

Get your kids ready for the Draft, cuz it’s a comin’!

 

<script language="javascript" xsrc="http://www.conservativepunk.com/bunkvoter.js"></script>

I forgot that we had lost 2,300 lives in Kosovo. Oh wait, we didn’t. We didn’t lose anyone.

Mi,

Didn’t mean to get you all hostile and beligerent.  Really!  I just find it odd that those that rag on about an "exit strategy" apparently seem to believe its important only when a Republican administration sends US troops into harms way.

The US forces in Kosovo have been deployed ten years beyond when we were told that they’d be home.  So what’s so important about an exit strategy now?  Hmmm? 

dave…nothing wrong with being prepared but put yourself in the place of someone who doesn’t automatically believe the claims of the Administration. Hyperbolic statements such as this do nothing to increase my confidence in the reliability of American pronouncements.

By the way, can anyone tell me just what our "exit strategy" was supposed to be in Kosovo? 

Yeah, let’s talk about Clinton again!  That’s much easier than dealing with reality!

So that did’t work, jsut go here: 

http://www.conservativepunk.com/bunkvoter.js

 

I hope he stays away! What a eunuch…

I guess we can make believe that the Nuclear non-ProliferationTreaty was never signed and ratified, How dare Iran   yea they dont deserve the right or benefits of neclear capabilities that this treaty granted them.

  

 

Again, git yer kidz ready for the draft!  They are ginning up the need for an attack, first it was 5-10 years, now it’s 16 days, within the next couple of days it will be 45 minutes, Coondi will go to the UN and ask for a resolution, Bush will make a plea to the country, 9-11 will be invoked, here we go again. 

 

All I have is the double talk of the Iranians and the admittance of their hoodwinking of gullible Europeans.

So you don’t actually have any link, although you claimed that you did. There is , as I’ve said, no indication that Iran actually want nuclear weapons. Also we don’t actually have any proof that they "hoodwinked" Europeans, we just have an American allegation of that. Hardly a reliable or credible source.

Yeah. And we compare disfavorably to the Iranian mullahs and are infinitely more evil. Good point to bring up.  

Well you undoubtedly kill more people, can that be considered a measure of good or evil?

The excuses made, fabricated evidence and real motives were exactly those Hitler used before the invasion of Poland

There you go making up reality again.

Not really, Hitler claimed that Poland was planning an attack, he claimed the purpose of the invasion was to liberate a part of the Polish population, he actually invaded to steal Poland coal reserves.

Be honest, it’s not exactly what you wanted to read. But it proves conclusively that Bush lied.

Don’t be an asshole. I was being honest. Your rhetoric turns me off. And no, it didn’t prove conclusively that Bush lied.

There you go again, clearly Bush deliberately misquoted this Iraqi dissident, you cannot draw any other conclusion from it. Of course that would require you to be honest.

Why would I need to? Saddam imprisoned and tortured those who disagreed with him, his sons went to local high schools to pick out girls they wanted to rape,

According to who? The same people that said he used human shredders, WMD, link with terrorism? You have full confidence in what originates either from the White House or from the Iraqi National Congress?

 and Saddam paid suicide bomber families among many other things. So even if the plastic shredders stories turn out to be not true, big whoop. There is plenty of other evidence to counter your claim that Saddam was "NO threat and had no links with terrorism".

There’s no evidence at all that Saddam was a threat or that he had links with terrorism.

More personal abuse, always the same story when moonbat left are faced with the truth or dissenting opinions. (How do you like that? It’s your material.)

You wouldn’t know what the truth was if it bit you on the ass. You’ve made up your mind to accept myths, fantasies and downright lies and the only alternative left is for you to accept your own stupidity. 

Neither have a said that Saddam was a good guy, but when it comes down to killing Iraqis, the USA has killed far more than Saddam ever did.

Really? Source?

The source is common knowledge for those that are interested. 1.3 million due to the sanctions, 100,000 during Powell’s "turkey shoot" and at least 130,000 with the current illegal invasion.

Because we entered into the Oil Ministry building? Why wouldn’t we enter into that building?

No reason, but to make that the first priority certainly suggests a reason.

So even though they are "practically impossible to protect", this is an indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly. Nice bit of facetious logic.

I think the USA thought it would be a "cakewalk" that there wouldn’t be any resistance, that jerk of a President practically announced the war was over within a few weeks. It wasn’t thought out properly that must be obvious even to you, do you seriously believe that in march 2003 anyone foresaw what state Iraq would be in 2006

 

The US forces in Kosovo have been deployed ten years beyond when we were told that they’d be home.

Well, that’s the whole fallacy of the "we’ll stand down when they stand up" facade, in’it?  We’re staying in Iraq.  We used to have bases in Saudi Arabia.  We knew we needed a new home for those forces, so we went into Iraq.  Permanent bases have been under construction in Iraq since the mission was accomplished. 

Michael said, Well below is my source Likwidshoe, where’s yours for the claim they want to produce nuclear weapons.

Here, try this one.

There was no UN Resoltion authorising an invasion of Iraq therefore it was illegal.

I don’t bow down to the UN elites and the U.S. doesn’t either. We don’t have to ask for permission to go after a terrorist dictator. The war is legal in my country.

As I wrote, the intelligence about Iraq wasn’t wrong, Bush just chose to lie about it.

Where is the "lie"? You need to work on that part.

Despite the fact that Saddam was NO threat and had no links with terrorism.

Right. Saddam was just a peachy guy who liked to feed people into plastic chippers feet first. He was "NO threat" who attempted an assassination on one of the U.S.’ former Presidents.

Neither was the intelligence false, he had made up his mind to invade Iraq for the oil and chose the intelligence to suit his purposes.

There you go again making claims.

Bush often claimed that the information provided by Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, (in an interview with Western security services in 1995) on the extent of Iraq’s attempts to develop weapons proved that Iraq still had WMD.This was a straight lie, there’s absolutely NO way that the US Intelligence Services believed otherwise.

Lie lie lie lie lie.

The reality of course is that it’s the USA who might be embarking on a major war, not Iran. As for a requirement to think logically, that’s not a requirement necessary to be the President of the USA. Bush is simply a liar, the biggest danger to world peace since the German guy with the funny moustache.

Great argument. "You’re an idiot, you’re a liar, you’re an idiot, you’re a liar."

Goodness. Just shut up already.

Nice Hitler reference by the way.

Lol. Nice try. Again, I did not say that was MY opinion. I said that was the left’s ofton quoted argument. Please don’t try putting words into my mouth to back your own lacklustre arguments. And again, please don’t keep asking for quotes from other websiites.running off to find quotes from other websites isn’t a discussion. it’s a competition on who can most effectively use Google. Honestly, arguing with a lefty is like arguing with a brick.I’ll repeat myself once more just to make myself absolutly clear. You have stated your insistence that our overwhelming reason for going to Iraq was for it’s oil.Let’s just supose for one second that this ludicrous claim is correct. It would be logical therefore that we would stop at nothing to secure those facilities so that we could pump Iraq dry. BUT by your own admition, these facilities are regularly sabotaged. Now please don’t sit there and tell me that if the oil was our "real" motivation, that we couldn’t protect them if they were that important. Otherwise there would have been no point going in in the first place.No, the reason we are not protecting them sufficiently is because with the sources at our disposal we have to prioritise and the protection of the oil facilities is NOT our priority. I can’t make it any simpler than that.

Get your kids ready for the Draft, cuz it’s a comin’!

And that matters why? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man who believes that major war will harken the return of the 12th Imam. You are assuming that he is thinking logically.  

The reality of course is that it’s the USA who might be embarking on a major war, not Iran. As for a requirement to think logically, that’s not a requirement necessary to be the President of the USA. Bush is simply a liar, the biggest danger to world peace since the German guy with the funny moustache.

Err re-read my post, my boy. I said, and I quote, "The state of disrepair of Iraq’s oil infrastructure is regularly cited by the left to demonstrate how we are not interested in regenerating their country."Where did I mention lack of maintenance? Where did I make a differentiation between lack of maintenance and damage from insurgent atacks?…. I did not.

And the fact that the military isn’t all over those oil facilities like a bad rash in order to protect them at all costs doesn’t tell you anything?

They are of course, but these pipelines stretch for hundreds of miles, they are practically impossible to protect. Clearly another indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly before it was undertaken.

But if you can provide just one news source which confirms your wild theory that it’s down to a lack of maintenance I would surely be interested in seeing it, but I’m certainly not going to hold my breath.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=910752003

US steps up protection of oil pipelinesFOREIGN STAFF

THE US administration in Iraq is to double the number of guards protecting oil installations in a bid to halt sabotage attacks that are seriously damaging attempts to export crude oil.

An international security company has been awarded a contract for 6,500 guards to ensure no further damage is done to the main oil pipeline to Turkey. The new recruits will be in addition to the 5,000 Iraqis already protecting the 600-mile structure.

Michael asserts, Presuming now that you are not claiming that there’s an internet link confirming your claim it must mean that you are fluent in Persian and have been listening to Iranian news broadcasts.

"Presuming"? I never had a link. Never said I did. And no, I’m not fluent in Persian or listening to Iranian news broadcasts. Good grief.

Otherwise I will have no alternative but to presume that you simply made it up and that you are unwilling to admit your error.

You mean assume. And I’ll say it again: All I have is the double talk of the Iranians and the admittance of their hoodwinking of gullible Europeans. You happy? The Iranians convinced the all important self annointed elites such as yourself and the UN that they had no nuclear program. You bought it and defended them. Now we see how you were duped. They’re rubbing it in your face. And you continue to defend them and are willing to continue to trust them. They want you dead, but you think that people like me are your bigger enemy. I don’t get it, but I guess it doesn’t matter. You’re shrill, insulting, and people don’t trust you and your kind to make decisions in my country.

So in your view it’s not evil to illegally invade another country on false pretences and kill at least 130,000 people over half of which are women and children?

Not in and of itself. There are certainly situations where it wouldn’t be evil. Namely, where one was fighting a greater evil.

In any regard, that isn’t the situation here.

I know it’s difficult to accept, many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was, in fact some still do.

Why would that be difficult to accept? You’re so damn condescending.

But I’m not the only one making the comparison.

So what? Many Germans fail to see just how evil Hitler was. Is that a point in their favor? No? So why would it be a point in your favor that you have company in what you believe?

Until you start being honest.

There you go being a condescending ass again. You’re a real piece of work.

He supported the Palestinian resistance, I wouldn’t call that terrorism with or without suicide bombers.

The "Palestinian resistance" is all about terrorism. That area produces nothing but terrorism and rocks. Compare that to Israel. Think about that as you type out a moral equivalence response using computer technology designed in part by the Israelis.

But Saddam wasn’t the main financier of Palestinian Resistance, that came and comes from Saudi. It was certainly a rather pathetic excuse to invade Iraq.

What?

So words like "moonbat left" is not personal abuse?

Aww. I just removed the "extreme right" from your comment and substituted "moonbat left". I was playing your game bud.

They were of course UN Sanctions, but it was the USA that threatened to veto any attempt to relinquish them when the huge death toll was realised.

So why don’t you blame the UN? You want to give them all of the authority and then when they do something that you don’t agree with, blame America. In any regard, why don’t you blame Saddam or the UN for not agreeing to an invasion? No Saddam – no sanctions.

I blame you! How about that? You believe that taking out Saddam is "illegal" for whatever reason and we were certainly not going to enrich him any more than the European elites were with the scandalous "Oil for Food" program. You’re like Hitler! 1,300,000 people died because people like YOU wouldn’t allow the removal of Saddam! How about that? Do you like this kind of rhetoric? It’s yours. You evil Hitler incarnate.

And Michael, I know it’s difficult to accept, but many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was. In fact, some still do. So you might not be able to recognize just how evil you are for allowing 1.3 million Iraqis to die under the sanctions. If you could have just agreed to let us finish the job in 1991, they wouldn’t have died. But they did die. And instead of blaming Saddam or his government like a rational person would do, I’m going to blame you.

Don’t complain. This is the kind of argument you bring. Now it will be applied to you. And I am now officially questioning your honesty.

The Lancet study, plus another study conducted after Falluja from Iraq itself which came up with 130,000.

This makes me wonder about your reasoning capabilities. From the link:

That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I’ll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn’t an estimate. It’s a dart board.

I emboldened the important part for you. You’re welcome.

So you now have changed your mind and you agree that the war was not thought out properly before it was undertaken?

No. Did I say that? I’m merely saying that the war hasn’t been perfect.

And to answer your question Michael – no I didn’t forsee what state Iraq would be in in 2006. I would have never guessed that there would have been three wildly successful elections. I would have never guessed that casualties would have been so low. I would have never guessed that some people would have come forth (such as yourself) so quickly to defend the enemy. I guess you would say that I didn’t think it out "properly" because I didn’t accurately predict the future.

Well then we agree that Iraq’s lack of oil production, lower now than before the illegal invasion started…

Once again and real simple: the war isn’t "illegal".

Nice try. Again, I did not say that was MY opinion. I said that was the left’s ofton quoted argument.

Yes i understand what you meant. I was simply pointing out that I’ve never seen the left voice that opinion and I of course represent that view. Seems like you are inventing straw arguments. 

Please don’t try putting words into my mouth to back your own lacklustre arguments.

That’s exactly what you did, not me, when you made the ridculous claim concerning the left.

And again, please don’t keep asking for quotes from other websiites.running off to find quotes from other websites isn’t a discussion. it’s a competition on who can most effectively use Google. Honestly, arguing with a lefty is like arguing with a brick.

I understand your dislike of factual evidence, it doesn’t help your case, but clearly when you have two people with totally conflicting views you are unable to get agreement. You make, as we have seen, totally off the wall remarks concerning opinions held by the left without the slightest bit of evidence and I’m supposed to take it seriously.

 

I’ll repeat myself once more just to make myself absolutly clear. You have stated your insistence that our overwhelming reason for going to Iraq was for it’s oil.Let’s just supose for one second that this ludicrous claim is correct. It would be logical therefore that we would stop at nothing to secure those facilities so that we could pump Iraq dry. BUT by your own admition, these facilities are regularly sabotaged. Now please don’t sit there and tell me that if the oil was our "real" motivation, that we couldn’t protect them if they were that important.

All possible resources are being thrown at protecting oil facilities/pipelines, the problem is the resistance is doing the same thing. I’m surprised to be honest that there are still people walking this earth who imagine that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than oil. What’s your theory then, the Americans love Iraqis so much they wanted to free them from the naughty Saddam by killing hundreds of thousands of them, destroying whole towns and the infrastructure?

 Otherwise there would have been no point going in in the first place.No, the reason we are not protecting them sufficiently is because with the sources at our disposal we have to prioritise and the protection of the oil facilities is NOT our priority. I can’t make it any simpler than that.

You can’t be any more simple than that. The priority is protecting the oil, but sometimes you can throw as many resources as you have against a problem but it doesn’t get solved. The Americans were counting on the oil revenue to finance the illegal invasion, clearly is hasn’t worked.

Puzzlefeet, you’ll have to forgive me because sometimes I’m slower than the other kids…but what in the hell is a HSA, and how am I pushing it?

I have to say that arguing over Iraq is a rather pointless affair.  For those oppposed to the war, the die has been cast, we’ve crossed the Rubicon, etc., so arguing over its merits is rather futile.  For those in favor of it, well, we’re likely going to leave the country pretty soon and it won’t be the hopeful place many hawks expected it to be. 

Ultimately we’ve been chastened about our ability to recast entire societies via fiat.  That’s about as good an outcome as we could expect.  Indeedn, if they are going to change its going to be in interaction with Western culture and commerce and not so much at the barrel of a gun.

I prefer links to back up my views Nemesis simply because I prefer facts to fantasies. Have you found any link yet to confirm your theory that Iraqi oil production is being limited due to lack of maintenance. Like I said , no hurry, I’m not holding my breath. I have to say though it’s probably one of the most ludicrous suggestions I’ve heard for some time.

You write that anyone can find a link to back up their story, well go right ahead let’s see if you can.

Yes of course resources are being thrown at oil installations, pipelines. They are certainly not being thrown into keeping law and order

Doc,

You make a good point.  If the US government has contingency plans for Iran, good!  They should.  That is part of their job.

Another point worth considering is this:  In the past week we have heard estimates ranging from 16 days (above) to ten years.  This should tell us that it is what we DON’T know that should scare us.

Incidentally, the best assessment I have seen to date of Iran’s capabilities and a resaonable timeline is at the site Arms Control Wonk (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/)… which also notes that contrary to the wishful thinking of the self-righteous lunatic left, Iran’s stated initial goal of 3,000 centrifuges is way more than would be needed to produce fuel for nuclear power generation, as claimed by the Iranians.  Never mind their ultimate goal of 50,000 such cascaded centrifuges. 

"Presuming"? I never had a link. Never said I did. And no, I’m not fluent in Persian or listening to Iranian news broadcasts. Good grief.  

So when I wrote "There’s no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons" and you wrote in response "If you don’t count what they say". You agree that they didn’t actually say that, was it was voices in your head?

Otherwise I will have no alternative but to presume that you simply made it up and that you are unwilling to admit your error.

You mean assume.

No I mean presume.

And I’ll say it again: All I have is the double talk of the Iranians and the admittance of their hoodwinking of gullible Europeans. You happy? The Iranians convinced the all important self annointed elites such as yourself and the UN that they had no nuclear program. You bought it and defended them.

But you are overlooking the fact that they are entitled to have a nuclear program  for the purposes of nuclear power. It’s not the USA who gets to decide India and Israel have them and Iran shouldn’t. I don’t think the Iranians have tried to hide that fact at all, they are members of the IAEA and it’s permitted..

 Now we see how you were duped. They’re rubbing it in your face. And you continue to defend them and are willing to continue to trust them. They want you dead, but you think that people like me are your bigger enemy.

Typical American paranoia, it’s not Iran that’s going round massacring innocent people and illegally invading other countries. It’s Bush the madman and frankly i would love to see him dead.

I don’t get it, but I guess it doesn’t matter. You’re shrill, insulting, and people don’t trust you and your kind to make decisions in my country.

No you trust a proven liar like Bush instead.

Not in and of itself. There are certainly situations where it wouldn’t be evil. Namely, where one was fighting a greater evil.

But in the world right now there’s no bigger evil than Bush and his cronies.

I know it’s difficult to accept, many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was, in fact some still do.

Why would that be difficult to accept? You’re so damn condescending.

I don’t think many Germans at the time of WW11 or even a majority of Americans today that are willing to accept their Goverment or their leaders were/are evil. In the case of the Germans they were forcibly shown round the concentation camps and made to look for themselves. That I believe will be necessary for Americans too once Bush is got rid of..

So what? Many Germans fail to see just how evil Hitler was. Is that a point in their favor? No? So why would it be a point in your favor that you have company in what you believe?

Just as many American today fail to see the evil of the Bush junta, the false pretenses he used to invade Iraq. If they did of course he wouldn’t be trying to pull the same trick against Iran.

There you go being a condescending ass again. You’re a real piece of work.

No need to be personal.

The "Palestinian resistance" is all about terrorism. That area produces nothing but terrorism and rocks. Compare that to Israel. Think about that as you type out a moral equivalence response using computer technology designed in part by the Israelis.

I avoid all produce by Israelis and the USA of course. The Israelis continue to kill Palestinians with or without suicide bombers. In 2004 there was a gap of 8 months between the usual bi-annual suicide bomber and in that time the Israeli terrorists killed over 400 palestinians, more than half of those were children. Do you seriously expect the Palestinian not to retaliate? 

Aww. I just removed the "extreme right" from your comment and substituted "moonbat left". I was playing your game bud.

You initiated it.

So why don’t you blame the UN? You want to give them all of the authority and then when they do something that you don’t agree with, blame America.

The Sanctions were originally agreed by the Security Council but it became apparent that they were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. The USA insisted the sanctions continue regardless. You must remember Mad. Albright saying it was "worth it"?

n any regard, why don’t you blame Saddam or the UN for not agreeing to an invasion? No Saddam – no sanctions.

The UN didn’t authorise regime change, it’s against International Law and the Hague Convention. Mind you I would make an exception in Bush’s case.

I blame you! How about that? You believe that taking out Saddam is "illegal" for whatever reason and we were certainly not going to enrich him any more than the European elites were with the scandalous "Oil for Food" program.

Most of the illegal oil for food transactions were actually handled by American individuals , american companies or overseas subsidaries of American companies. I fully understand Saddam’s wish to do other transactions outside the UN Sanctions Committee headed by the USA, who kept Iraq short of medical supplies and food. There’s no evidence of course to suggest Saddam actually kept any money personally, unless of course you have some evidence in that regard?

You’re like Hitler! 1,300,000 people died because people like YOU wouldn’t allow the removal of Saddam!

It’s no good trying to pass your guilt on to other people. There was of course no attempt to get rid of Saddam at that time, but it didn’t stop the mass murderers of Washington killing 500,000 Iraqi children.

How about that? Do you like this kind of rhetoric? It’s yours. You evil Hitler incarnate.

More personal abuse, but a ploy often used by neo-nazis

And Michael, I know it’s difficult to accept, but many Germans failed to believe just how evil Hitler was. In fact, some still do. So you might not be able to recognize just how evil you are for allowing 1.3 million Iraqis to die under the sanctions. If you could have just agreed to let us finish the job in 1991, they wouldn’t have died.

I know you are anxious for the USA to commit genocide, but there was no UN approval to get rid of Saddam in 1991 just like there wasn’t in 2003. The USA is guilty of genocide, not of acourse for the first time in history, ask the Vietnanese. Clearly the USA is the biggest danger to world peace since 1939, Bush like Hitler, must be stopped.

But they did die. And instead of blaming Saddam or his government like a rational person would do, I’m going to blame you. Don’t complain. This is the kind of argument you bring. Now it will be applied to you. And I am now officially questioning your honesty.

I’m always honest whilst people like you can simply make it up as you go along, like "hearing the Iranians say they want Nuclear weapons"  

The Lancet study, plus another study conducted after Falluja from Iraq itself which came up with 130,000.

Yes I noticed you copied this from some right wing site, right up to the dartboard quote. But as I said the results of the Lancet study has been found to be in rough complaince with following estimates. For the Americans to quibble in this way over the number of casualties that have to be far higher than their ridiculous misundeestimates can only be described as obscene.

So you now have changed your mind and you agree that the war was not thought out properly before it was undertaken?

No. Did I say that? I’m merely saying that the war hasn’t been perfect.

And to answer your question Michael – no I didn’t forsee what state Iraq would be in in 2006. I would have never guessed that there would have been three wildly successful elections. I would have never guessed that casualties would have been so low. I would have never guessed that some people would have come forth (such as yourself) so quickly to defend the enemy. I guess you would say that I didn’t think it out "properly" because I didn’t accurately predict the future.

WelI don’t think much of your guesses, hopefully you are not a betting man. Clearly Iraq is much worse shape now that before the illegal invasion, clearly many people have died as a result. Yet I see no remorse in your tone.

Once again and real simple: the war isn’t "illegal".

Unless there’s was a UN Resolution authorising the invasion it was illegal. Seen through your ignorant perspective, you are in affect saying that it’s legal for any country to decide to invade another.

 

If your memory stretches back far enough you would remember the first thing the US did on occupying Iraq was to enter the oil Ministry building.

And that proves what Michael?

It clearly proves that the USA had oil on their mind.

"They are of course, but these pipelines stretch for hundreds of miles, they are practically impossible to protect. Clearly another indication that the invasion wasn’t thought out properly before it was undertaken."*shakes head* They are "practically impossible to protect" with the resources currently being thrown at them BECAUSE there are other priorities right now. IF oil was our main motive for going to Iraq you can be sure that our troops would be highly concentrated on providing that protection.And this obsession with links you have. Anyone can find a link to another site where someone will back up your story. that doesn’t make THAT web site true. it just means you choose to believe it because it fits your belief. We can sit here all day throwing links at each other.

Michael,

I’d say nuclear weapons fits well within the "Persian" nationalist mindset.  One of the biggest differences between Iran and Iraq is that Iran actually has a sense of historical nationalism and empire building that Iraq lacks.  This is why national power is a constant thread running through the foreign policy programs of both the regime of the Shah and now the mullahs.

Hey, Seth there are those great HSAs out there that you all are pushing.

" If that happened I’m sure the IAEA would know about it."

No doubt just like they did with North Korea… or maybe Libya?

"Just to recap, there’s no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons.."

So, in your precious world there is no reason to worry about an Iranian nuclear weapons program because they haven’t announced their intention to build such weapons?  Is that like the North Koreans announced their intentions, Kid?  If I recall correctly, the Koreans publicly foreswore their nuclear weapons program in 1994, thanks to the twin twits, Albright and Carter, and then went right ahead and built them anyway… right under the noses of el-Baradei’s UN/IAEA inspectors.  Then when they had the weapons, then they announced their accomplishment to the world and kicked out the inspectors.

Now, it may well be that you are sufficiently judgementally impaired to think that there is nothing to fear because the Iranians haven’t announced their intention to build nuclear weapons.   But I doubt that the accomplishments in this area of the North Koreans, and the manner in which they succeeded, has been lost on the Mullahs of Tehran.  And I doubt that those who live in Tel Aviv or Haifa or Jerusalem are as blithely sanguine about an Iranian nuclear weapons program as you are.

 

Michael also states:

The source [of Michael's claim] is common knowledge for those that are interested. 1.3 million [Iraqis killed by America] due to the sanctions…

First, I’m afraid that "common knowledge" isn’t an a reputable source for this sort of thing, and I think that number is disputable. A more conservative estimate would be 350,000 iraqis killed by sanctions (and even that’s disputable):

http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/11/21/morality_and_the_iraq_war/ 

Second, it’s intertesting to me that you put all of the onus for Iraqis killed by sanctions on the US. Tell me, what moral calculus did you employ to come to the conclusion that all the blame rests on the US (and, perhaps apropos of nothing, largely on a Democratic administration). Why do you choose not to share the blame between the rest of UN’s security council which, via its resolutions, gave the stamp of legality to the deadly sanctions–in fact, actually created them? Why do you also choose not to share the blame with Saddam who intentionally manipulated the sanctions to be leathal for political capital at home and abroad? These are all questions that deserve answers.

You really ought to read the article "The Politics of Dead Children" for a more rational introduction to sanctions deaths and culpability:

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

Ok I did not say screw them per se I said let them fight there own battles there being threatened is not us being threatened. And as far as their being a strong ally. This is the sameIsreal that was caught spying on us about ten fifteen years ago right. So our strong allies spy on us Great. Isreal’s only allegiance to us is the fact that we keep the Arabs at bay if we didn’t the wouldn’t give a rats ass about us, I am not really sure they give a rats ass now.

That’s it, I’m taking this right to the UN?

Michael, let me add that even The Nation (no neocon outpost, that) agrees with me that your number and assignation of blame are out of whack with reality:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

Time for you to re-evaluate "common knowledge".

Take a break from trying to minimise American genocide in Iraq and watch this cute video. Soon perhaps you can be doing this in Iran as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=&v=RZlvLmBvOx8

As for his assertion that the mid-east is a vast waste land because of oil production is about the funniest thing I have seen in years. What a moron.

Not a prob, Troop. See you on the other side.

Uh oh! Troll alert.

No you didn’t at all, mate. I was just making sure as I know that Brit and American humour can sometimes be mutually misunderstood.—————————-As for the breath of fresh air, I thank you but I have to say this whole website is one for me. I came across it after doing a google for "conservative blogs" as I was sick to death of finding nothing but whining liberal sites everywhere. They’re like a plague. I guess those with least to shout about have to shout the loudest.

Nemesis…What a breath of fresh air you are after Michael. Thank you! I have never seen anything quite like him. Except for James Carvell, maybe? Thanks again! Sorry if I came off rude and ill mannered…

The substance is your continued pimping of socialized medical care.

Leave Michael alone! He hasn’t been any more impolite or arrogant than yourselves. And don’t slag him off when he’s gone, that’s lame        I can understand the guy’s impatience, to be honest. There is so much subject-changing and personal hostility, when all he’s trying to do is show you evidence that things may not as you believe. Maybe he’s right. So deal with it calmly! You do not acknowledge international law. How then, can any country be said to be acting illegally, when invading? If special rules apply to the US, UK etc., then what are those rules? Providence? Might is right? This was Michael’s question. Must we keep going on about "tired, leftist blah blah."? This is not a left/right issue, but an issue of ethics, politics, security and conscience.  Seth, on a specific point, people linked by nationhood can be victims of genocide on that basis (e.g. Iraqis.) Secondly, section C below might suggest that those aforementioned sanctions were genocidal.     Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

It does make clear that Saddam’s attempt to obliterate the Swamp Arab culture in the 1990′s was a form of genocide though, at least as defined by the posted criteria.

In Michael’s world, Saddam is not to be blamed for diverting oil for food money away from humanitarian needs.  It is apparently always the US’s fault when despotic genocidal rulers act poorly.  At least when you are a fucktard like Michael. 

I really would have thought that with the knowledge that the illegal invasion of Iraq was based on a pack of lies, not false intelligence but a deliberate mis-interpretation of intelligence, the USA wouldn’t be wanting to make the same mistake again.

It wasn’t "illegal". They weren’t "lies". There was no "deliberate mis-interpretation".

There’s no evidence at all that Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons…

If you don’t count what they say.

Killing as many Arabs as Jews and forgetting that Israel has enough nuclear weapons to turn Iran into glass.

And that matters why? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man who believes that major war will harken the return of the 12th Imam. You are assuming that he is thinking logically.

The reality is of course is that it’s Israel who are literally wiping the Palestinians from the face of the map.

The reality is, of course, that the "Palestinians" population has steadily increased.

A report today suggests that they are pumping 300 shells into Gaza each and every day.

Source? Does it "suggest" that or does it say that?

My advice is to relax and take some time to actually check the facts for yourselves before being taken for mugs again by Bush and hos cronies.

Yeah okay whatever there chief.

Michael, obviously having boned up on his latin since last time posits:

On no view of it could Hussein be said to have committed a novus actus; his failure to capitulate is not in law an act at all and is certainly not one which breaks the chain of causation.

 Yes he could be said to have done an intervening act: it’s well established that he deliberately manipulated the program, causing aid to not get to the needy. He did this for crass propaganda purposes, and it caused the deaths of thousands.

If this defence were available, a kidnapper who refuses food and water to his victim because his demands that the victim’s family pay debts owing to him are not met could claim novus actus on the grounds that he would not have had to starve his victim to death if the family had paid up.

Except in the above example the hostage would be the Iraqi people, the kidnapper would be Saddam Hussein, and the ransom would be and end to sanctions. The cupability rests with the criminal.

By the way, I’m still waiting to know what moral calculus you use to say that the onus lies solely on the US. Why is Saddam completely blameless? Why is the UN, who created and managed the sanction, blame free? Such a strange conclusion you come to, I’d love to know what the process is.

I also see you still are stuck on quoting discredited statistics for the number killed. As I said before even The Nation–about as leftist, anti-Bush a magazine as there is–acknowledges that the stat "1.3 million killed by sanctions" is a corrupt one. You’d know that if you read the links I gave you.

You don’t want to be informed, because you’ve already made up your mind and no amount of facts are going to change it for you.

I’m not singling out America over the sanctions issue. I’m just pointing out that shared nationhood is one of the possible criteria for genocide, something which Seth claimed was not the case. However, for whoever vetoed the ending of sanctions, after realising the impact they were having, then part C of the document might be relevant: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. 

calm said:

I’m just pointing out that shared nationhood is one of the possible criteria for genocide, something which Seth claimed was not the case.

Please show me in a blockquote where Seth said such a thing. Because I’m Seth, and I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that–and if I did, I must have been drunk, possessed, insane, or under threat of death. So, like I said, please jog my memory and show me where I said that.

Nothing like the satisfying smell of cordite and a big smokey crater

Well to be honest, for a good while I didn’t even realise he is a Brit but like I say, we have our share here, too. I try not to dislike anyone just because they have an opposing view to my own but that does tend to become more of a challenge once the name calling and condescencion starts. I just look on it as a sign they’re feeling defeated, though.—————————Just as a matter of interest, how many ppl are here from my side of the pond?

Not a bit! I have known several Royal Artillerymen and their sense of humor is notorious. As a Forward Observer I always worked at 1000 meters and under, pull the fire tight and it is easier to regulate. Besides, when you can smell their latrine trenches you can really put the steel to them.

I blame the USA 100% for the deaths caused by the sanctions. True they were originally agreed by the UN Security Council as a Resolution, but is was solely the USA that refused a release. 

The Sanctions delivered only US $74 of food per annum per head of population. According to UN sources, Iraq was importing 70% of its food requirements before, the inadequacy of this sum is self-evident.

Mad. Albright revealed that the programme only delivered $15 worth of medical supplies per annum per head of population, which is manifestly inadequate to deal with even the most urgent of medical needs. The report of the Secretary General dated 12 November 1999 (“the Secretary General’s report”) lists at paragraphs 45-47 a sample of the medical supplies which are in short supply, including antibiotics, syringes, anaesthetics, vaccines and drugs for chronic illnesses. It should be noted in this context that the US blocked a number of medical supply contracts in 1997 upon the grounds that the shipments might “illegally” include some free samples .

The Secretary General’s report notes in its annex one that approximately 18 billion dollars has so far been generated by the oil for food programme, of which 6 billion dollars has been deducted for compensation and administration.

From the inception of the blockade/sanctions regime, all goods intended for Iraq had without exception been required to win the approval of the UN sanctions committee established for that purpose by SCR 661.

Any single member of that committee could block an application or delay it indefinitely by asking for further details. Accordingly, de facto, every individual committee member had a veto and could place on hold any particular application for export to Iraq.

It was clear that that veto had been used extensively by the US representative in particular to cause long delays and cancellations of shipments. To give just two examples, on 7 September 1990 (before food was fully exempted), the US representative vetoed a request by Bulgaria for permission to ship baby food to Iraq on the grounds that the food might be consumed by adults . In 1997, the US representative blocked forty contracts for food and essential medical supplies required for humanitarian purposes, including twenty contracts from the World Health Organisation priority list.

The list of items for Iraq vetoed over the years by the UN Sanctions Committee includes many which could not possibly have sinister application, such as rice, agricultural pesticides, medical journals, catheters for babies, school books and paper.

The blockade/sanctions regime caused an almost total breakdown in the fabric of Iraqi civil society. Normal life was impossible for almost all Iraqis, whose existences were  reduced to a daily struggle for food and safe drinking water.

In December 1995, FAO reported that 567,000 Iraqi children had died as a direct consequence of economic sanctions

In March 1996, WHO reported that the economic sanctions had caused a six fold increase in the mortality rate of Iraqi children under five.

UNICEF reported in October 1996 that 4,500 Iraqi children under five were dying every month as a result of sanctions – induced starvation and disease.

“Health conditions have continued to deteriorated throughout the country because of shortages of essential drugs and medical supplies. The situation was further aggravated by the inadequate supply of potable water and poor sanitation facilities, as essential equipment and spare parts are lacking to rehabilitate the water, sewerage, and electricity supply systems ….. children were increasingly dying of ailments linked to malnutrition and lack of adequate medical care.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  relevantly provides a definition of Genocide

Article II

(a) “In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(b) killing members of the group

(c) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

(d) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ….”

One line of argument frequently advanced in defence of the legality of the blockade/ sanctions regime is that the true cause of the suffering and deaths of civilian Iraqis was the failure of Saddam Hussein’s regime to comply with weapons inspection requirements. The reasoning is apparently that the UN could stop starving civilians if only Hussein would give in, and therefore it is Saddam rather than the UN who is really responsible for the starvation. Both as a matter of law and of common sense, this reasoning is manifestly invalid. On no view of it could Hussein be said to have committed a novus actus; his failure to capitulate is not in law an act at all and is certainly not one which breaks the chain of causation. If this defence were available, a kidnapper who refuses food and water to his victim because his demands that the victim’s family pay debts owing to him are not met could claim novus actus on the grounds that he would not have had to starve his victim to death if the family had paid up.

Leaving to one side both the fact that the total revenue from the programme is admitted by the UN to be inadequate, the question of how it is supposed that Hussein could spend oil-for-food money on luxuries when it was not under his control (it was released from escrow by the UN only against approved humanitarian contracts), this is again an argument without foundation.

For those that are really interested in the truth , I hope this helps, but for the majority of you , obviously living the lie, there’s not much anyone can do to help you.

Hope I didn’t cause offense with the dropshort dig. That’s what we call our own artillery guys. Nothingmeant by it.

Spout some more Marxist crap. We never get tired of laughing at your stupid ass.

Richard, you say that Israel only cares about us because we keep the Arabs at bay…and that may be so. Allow me to advance the proposition, however, that we only care about them because they are in a strategic location in an otherwise generally hostile region. It would be fair to say that, at worst, it’s a mutually self-interested arrangement. My question for you is: aren’t most, if not all, alliances based on self-interest? And what is wrong with that?

Insofar as Israel spying on us, you have to ask yourself whether that relatively minor incident of perfidity on their part outweighs the strategic benefits of our relationship. Obviously, our strategic planners have come to the conclusion that it does not.

In order for diplomacy to work, you have to try some.

Diplomacy hasn’t been tried with Iran?  So what the hell has the UN and all those European nations been doing?

By the way, at what point did Iran become our sworn enemy?

When they threatened to wipe Israel off the map?  When they’ve supported terrorists in Iraq?  How far back do you want to go?  The hostage situation during Carter’s term?

These people are our enemies whether you want to admit it or not. 

if you’re going to go on about sworn enemies you may want to talk about the people who killed 3,000 Americans. It wasn’t Iran.

Just more indication of how people like you don’t get it on national security.  Al Qaeda isn’t the only threat this country faces.  Just because we haven’t caught Osama doesn’t mean we can’t take this threat from Iran seriously.

If your feelings on this subject make their way up to the mainstream Democrats you guys are going to lose election after election.  This threat is real, and you all look like a bunch of fools running around screeching "don’t look behind the curtain!" 

Again, git yer kidz ready for the draft!

Typical liberal liar.

You guys tried this during the election and it didn’t work.