Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Taepodong-2: Anti-missile defense drone?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, June 20, 2006

As North Korea defiantly asserts their right to test their newest version of their long range missile, it appears the US is quietly asserting its right to test its missile defense in response:
The United States has activated its ground-based interceptor missile-defense system amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed a Washington Times report that the Pentagon has switched the multibillion-dollar system from test mode to operational, after being in the developmental stage for years.

"It's good to be ready," the official said.

Asked whether the United States would try to shoot down a North Korean missile, Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff declined to answer directly.

"We have a limited missile defense system," Ruff said. "We don't discuss the alert status or the specific capabilities."

U.S. Northern Command spokesman Michael Kucharek declined to comment on the alert status of the ground-based interceptors, but said, "As the command tasked with homeland defense, U.S. Northern Command is prepared to do what is necessary to defend this nation," on land, sea, air and in space.
I can't imagine a more fitting response to the impending North Korean missile test than success in shooting the missile down (assuming our system works as advertised).

They test their missile, we test our missile interceptor. Let's face it, we only have the word of a notoriously unreliable regime that it's a test. Once the missile clears North Korean air space, it becomes fair game.

North Korea hasn't tested this missile in 8 years, so this is it's latest and greatest. There is some disagreement as to whether the missile is fully fueled (it is a liquid fuel rockets so it takes some time to fuel. Rocket fuel is highly corrosive so rockets must be fueled prior to launch as opposed to being kept fueled at all times as is possible with solid fuel rockets). If fully fueled, the North Koreans have about a 10 day window in which to launch before the corrosive effect of the fuel makes a launch too dangerous. As some defense officials have said, they believe the launch will go since defueling is also a dangerous operation.

So why are we contemplating taking our anti-missile defense from "test" to "go"?
U.S. officials have said the missile, believed to be a Taepodong-2, has a firing range of 9,300 miles and could reach as far as the U.S. West Coast. Most analysts, however, say North Korea is still a long way from perfecting technology that would make the missile accurate and capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
But why take chances, eh?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I dunno why, but the inner geek in me giggles at the thought of some Private First Class literally pressing a toggle type switch marked with ’Test’ and ’Operational’.

Would you like to play a game?
 
Written By: Robb Allen (Sharp as a Marble)
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
Would you like to play a game?

Yes, unless it’s Global Thermo-nuclear War. I see the scene from The Bedford Incident, myself. I just hope Dan-O isn’t the one with his finger on the launch button....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I await the ever-in-denial Madeleine Albright saying that we are provoking North Korea by activating a missile-defense system.
Albright: Iraq War Caused North Korean Nukes
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
"I can’t imagine a more fitting response to the impending North Korean missile test than success in shooting the missile down (assuming our system works as advertised)."

Yeah, but can you imagine a worse PR disaster than trying to shoot it down and failing miserably? This is definitely one situation where if they do test, I can handle them being secretive about it.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
I can’t imagine a more fitting response to the impending North Korean missile test than success in shooting the missile down (assuming our system works as advertised).
Of course, if we miss, that’s gonna be pretty darned embarrassing. I’m not sure it’s worth the risk. If we hit it, we get an ego boost....at the expense of a small, desprerately poor, technology backward little 4th world country. If we miss, the tinpot dictator gains prestige and we look like inept fools.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ah yes, Madeleine and Kim Jong-il.

 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
Yeah, but can you imagine a worse PR disaster than trying to shoot it down and failing miserably?
We’re testing the system for heaven sake. Live is always better than Memorex.
This is definitely one situation where if they do test, I can handle them being secretive about it.
Heh ... and that may be exactly how it happens, Tito ... we’ll only hear about it if we succeed.

Otherwise I’m sure we’ll be talking about how our most recent test, which was completely successful, only happened to coincide with the NoKo missile lauch by happenstance ... that in fact "we’ve had this test scheduled for months".

You know, like naval maneuvers off the coast of Cuba that just happen at the same time there’s a crisis of some type (or an impending one).

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Actually alerting the "interceptors" may or may not mean that much... what is the RANGE of interception? The Navy’s SM-3 has a range of 500 kilometres. IF the land-based system is "on-line" and has a similar range, then an alert status simply means that IF the DPRK fires a missile that enters into the range the US will fire...Just as the Soviets would have used the "Galosh" system if we had fired a missile that headed towards Moscow. As our weapons tests impacted in the Pacific, FAR from Moscow they never had to.

UNLESS, the US has stationed an Aegis/SM-3 system off the coast of the DPRK or that the Japanese have stationed such a vessel off the coast.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
UNLESS, the US has stationed an Aegis/SM-3 system off the coast of the DPRK or that the Japanese have stationed such a vessel off the coast
Like the USS Chancellorsville or USS Cowpens, homeported in Yokosuka, Japan.

The SM-3 is still in test, but an SM-2(IV)ER could do it. The problem maybe the intercept angle for it to win a tail-chase. Hitting an outbound is pretty hard, the realitive speed could present a wide window, but you’ve got to catch it. The inbound has a smaller target window, but it seems the intercept geometry would be simpler.

Personally, we could take a couple of shots with the ABL. If it works the NK’s can think their missile doesn’t work. If it doesn’t no one needs to know.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
And all the while, the People’s Republic of China will be watching and monitoring BOTH tests...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Jon H:

You are aware, I trust, that a "small, desprerately poor, technology backward little 4th world country" nonetheless has the ability to wreak massive havoc, yes?

Indeed, what does it say of "a small, desprerately poor" country that, having lost an estimated 10% of its population to a self-induced famine, that it is still sinking massive amounts of money into building and testing ballistic missiles?

Or that it continues to hold at risk the capital of a state that is now actively trying to bail it out, including the provision of aid?

Oh, I suppose a successful TMD test could be dismissed as simply "If we hit it, we get an ego boost," at the "expense" of poor Kim Jong-il. But then, successfully defending South Korea 50 years ago was probably simply an "ego boost" at the expense of Great Leader Kim Il-sung, nu?
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
You are aware, I trust, that a "small, desprerately poor, technology backward little 4th world country" nonetheless has the ability to wreak massive havoc, yes?
I’m not sure what you think I meant, but I’m quite sure whatever you thought was wrong. Yes, I’m aware that NoKo can do a great deal of damage. Nevertheless, the price of an embarrassing failure would be significant loss of face on the international stage for us.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Oh, C’mon !

The United States will NEVER use the "Missle Defense capability"...Why ? Imagine the blow to national prestige and the loss of face to George Bush PERSONALLY if the interceptors fail to hit thier target !

It HAS failed before ! And in no WAY does the Bush administration want to become the world’s jester !

George Bush will use bluster, and little else.
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Jon -


"You are aware, I trust, that a "small, desprerately poor, technology backward little 4th world country" nonetheless has the ability to wreak massive havoc, yes? "

What, like unilaterally invade a country, under false pretext, and in the face of international opposition ?

Kinda like that ?

Darn....where are those WMD’s when you need them !

 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
We’re jockeying a system in place just in case it will do some good. I’d expect the system isn’t fully ready. I’d suspect the chance of failure from some last minute improvision is probably quite high.

But guess what? Its better than doing nothing and letting our own people die.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
What, like unilaterally invade a country, under false pretext, and in the face of international opposition ?
So, Kim Jong Il should be allowed to sling missiles around because you’re still pissed about Iraq?
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Darn....where are those WMD’s when you need them !
Why, North Korea has them! But wait, they’re under your protection.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
The true winner of this at the end is going to be the Chinese. They have already asked NKO not to launch even though China has stated that they know of no legal reason why NKO cannot go through with it. Kim wants to shame the US, he’ll make the Chinese the saviors.
 
Written By: Thorny
URL: http://
So, Kim Jong Il should be allowed to sling missiles around because you’re still pissed about Iraq?


They have the same right, as a soveriegn nation, to test missiles as the United States does. They have the same right to possess nuclear weapons as the state of Israel does. As does Iran !

I do not consider the state of Israel any less "terroristic" than Iran, Syria, or North Korea. Because political, legal, and the medical professions here in the United States (the MONEY professions) are dominated by the Jewish people, FAR out of proportion to thier relative population percentage in the United States, Does not give them free rein !

Tell me.....How many nations have Iran invaded in the past 100 years ?

Hmmm....ZERO sound about right ?

North Korea ? Once ? To regain territory that was divided by colonial powers ?

Now.....Let’s get down to brass tacks....

How Many nations has Israel invaded ?

6 ? 7 ? 8 ? 10 ?

How many Nations has the UNITED STATES invaded in the past 60 years ?

let’s see, shall we ?

Korea ...that’s one .
Vietnam....That’s two.
Cambodia....That’s three.
Granada .... that’s four.
Nicaragua....that’s five.
Panama.......that’s six.
Somolia......that’s seven.
The former Yugoslavia....That’s eight.
Afganistan.....That’s nine.
Iraq (twice)....That’s ten & eleven.

AND THAT IS ONLY IN THE PAST 60 YEARS ! No other nation on EARTH has that kind of record ! Not China, Not Russia, Not Cuba, Not Iran, Iraq, N.Korea ! NOT ALL OF THEM PUT TOGETHER !

Now, who is the REAL "Terrorist" nation !

Enlighten me !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
How Many nations has Israel invaded ?
Yup, they always bring the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS into it
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Yup, they always bring the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS into it
Absolutely ! Cuz Israel is like a dysfunctional 51st state ! (Sure cost the TAXPAYER like a state! )
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Kruane,

Once again I am reminded of the ignorance that fuels these power hungry regimes. You sound like an add campaign for Communist dictatorship. I’m betting the civilians of every country you listed the USA "invading" were being oppressed by they’re government. Did we CONQUER anything? NO. We came there to try to better a worldy situation by eliminating the threatening powers that be. You are but another ignorant pawn in the resistance against peace. It is because of people like YOU that the world will never be friendly. These 3rd world terrorists have brainwashed you to believe the USA is the enemy whereas it is exactly the opposite!
 
Written By: Fresh
URL: http://
I’m betting the civilians of every country you listed the USA "invading" were being oppressed by they’re government. Did we CONQUER anything? NO. We came there to try to better a worldy situation by eliminating the threatening powers that be.
Oh, give me a BREAK ! That was the same CON the NAZI’S tried in WWII ! The Nazis "liberated" European nations from "Jewish oppresion". Why should I believe the CON you are trying to put across anymore than I would Adolf Hitler’s ?

Fact is, every single one of those nations invaded by the United states had been installed puppet regiemes OF the United States...That happened in the Phillipines (Marcos), Iran (the Shah), Cuba (Castro)......EVERY SINGLE ONE !( Unless US forces are defeated as they were in N. Korea & Vietnam)

And when the occasional "puppet" decides to cut the puppet strings (as Castro did, as the people of Iran did) the United States ostracises that nation !


Tell me....how was it "better" for the peoples of the nations of Iran & the Phillipines to have US-Backed DICTATORS installed as a system of goverment ? The Shah of Iran oppressed his people for DECADES ! Ferdinand Marcos oppressed and stole from his people for DECADES....And BOTH the dictators were installed by the USA !

Peddle your CON somewhere ELSE, if you please !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
man! the lefties can still parrot the LW indoctrination they got in school word-for-word!

and here i thought kids today were stupid. guess i was wrong wrong wrong about that! oh, they’re still plenty gutless, mind you. not a one of them seems to have the gonads to confront the profs spoonfeeding them the LW dogma....

but - as seen above - they do learn it well, don’t they?
 
Written By: ed
URL: http://
If we miss, the tinpot dictator gains prestige and we look like inept fools.
You mean like when Albright/Carter set up the Agreed framework, the USA gave them food and oil and North Korean continued research and built a nuclear weapon anyway?
 
Written By: Paul L
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
To some extent, yes.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
" If we miss, the tinpot dictator gains prestige and we look like inept fools."

Only to dolts, and they never count. At the beginning of the space-flight program, we blew up rockets on the pad right out-loud in front of the whole world, while the Soviets were actually killing cosmonauts and hiding the facts. We survived the so-called "disaters" of failed tests, for all the right reasons, and this is exactly the same situation.

This is an opportunity not to be passed. Sensible people — where they exist anymore — will understand, and they’re the only ones worth playing to.

Fire away.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
How many Nations has the UNITED STATES invaded in the past 60 years ?

let’s see, shall we ?
Korea ...that’s one .
Funny I thought the original direction of traffic flowq was from NORTH TO SOUTH! Who knew that defending So. Korea would count as an invasion?
Vietnam....That’s two.
And to think that NORTH TO SOUTH pattern STILL doesn’t count, so showing up in a sovereign nation at the invitation of the HOST nation now is an INVASION? Wow, learn something every day!
Cambodia....That’s three.
Granada .... that’s four.
Nicaragua....that’s five.
Panama.......that’s six.
Policy debates... one may agree or DISAGREE withthese actions, but I will grant that the US violated their territory. Although that may be an "invasion" you conflate "invasion" with "ILLEGAL" and the two are not homonyms. The US also invaded GERMANY in 1944, but it wasn’t illegal. So whilst I’ll grant that the above count as invasions I would dispute their illegality or immorality.
Somolia......that’s seven
.
Again what we learn... the UN authorizes a mission and it’s an"Invasion!"
The former Yugoslavia....That’s eight.
I’ll put this in with No.’s 3-6, it MAY be an invasion but it wasn’t illegal or immoral.
Afganistan.....That’s nine.
Ditto
Iraq (twice)....That’s ten & eleven.
Dag-gone that PESKY UN, it continually provides cover for the US invasions, doesn’t it? After all the Second and Third Gulf Wars all stem from UN Resolutions, Oh and the INVASION OF KUWAYT BY IRAQ!
Now, who is the REAL "Terrorist" nation !

Enlighten me !
Well I’ve tried, but more than likely:
1) You’ve moved on; and
2)As a member of ANSWER or ISM you’re not really likely to be open to "Enlightenment."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -

Well, Nice try !


"I’ll put this in with No.’s 3-6, it MAY be an invasion but it wasn’t illegal or immoral."
Afganistan.....That’s nine.
"Ditto"
Iraq (twice)....That’s ten & eleven.
"Dag-gone that PESKY UN, it continually provides cover for the US invasions, doesn’t it? After all the Second and Third Gulf Wars all stem from UN Resolutions, Oh and the INVASION OF KUWAYT BY IRAQ!"

Well, let’s go back here and provide you with a first-class edumacation, shall we ?

Due to time constraints...let’s just cover the last three to begin with, shall we ? (But if REALLY pressed, I’m sure I can edumacate you on the OTHER invasions as well)

First.....WHO determined the invasion of Afganastan was not "illegal or immoral ? That "pesky UN" you are so fond of quoting ? I think NOT ! Even NOW...TODAY.......there are not those "pesky UN" troops occupying Afganastan....strictly US-Led NATO troops ( a cold-war, post-WWII puppet organization installed & set up by the United States)- HARDLY an international quorum !. But, I digress..... WHO determines that the invasion of Afganastan was not "illegal or immoral" ? If a unilateral decision BY an invading country is enough to determine the "rightess & morality" of an invasion, then not one single invasion of a country by another can be considered "immoral" !

ON TO IRAQ !

GULF WAR I

Yes, after a hard-fought protracted battle ( as is going on now as it pertains to Iran & N. Korea ) the USA managed to browbeat & bully (or perhaps bribe) member states of the UN security council to support a resolution to condemn & threaten Iraq. However, the vast majority of UN member states (unfortunately, not members of the security council ) REFUSED to support the invasion or Iraq. Again....5 member states that control the UN security council is HARDLY an international quorum !

GULF WAR II

Now we get to the GOOD stuff ! Even AFTER the USA presented fabricated evidence of WMD’s to the world community, the UN EXPLICITLY refused to endorse military action in Iraq ! Only AFTER the USA unilaterally invaded and deposed Saddam did the UN step in (once again, SOLELY due to the carrot of big-money reconstruction contracts awarded to supporting UN nations ). DARN that "pesky UN" !

"Oh and the INVASION OF KUWAYT BY IRAQ!"

Well, let’s explore THAT one a little bit, shall we ?

Prior to the "invasion" of Kuwait by Iraq.....Iraq DID petition the UN for resolution of the "slanted drilling techniques" used by Kuwait to obtain Iraqi oil on the IRAQ side of the border... After waiting a reasonable amount of time hoping for some resolution by the UN, Iraq felt they had no other alternative but to protect Iraqi soveriegnty (and oil) by invading Kuwait.....But it DID ask for help by that darn "pesky UN" LONG prior to this invasion !

Tell me....imagine for a moment there was a large diamond deposit worth trillions on the US-Canadian border...(but located SOLELY US soil....What would be the result if Canada had burrowed under the border to harvest this national treasure ? How long would the United States sit idly by while it’s national resources were harvested by a foriegn power ?

Well, all one has to do is look back some time at the Mexican-American war for THAT answer !

There.....FEEL PROPERLY EDUMACATED NOW ?




 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Well kruane I’m afraid that I am a BIT MORE educated than you might care for...
Just on one point. Second Gulf War...
The dispute between Kuwayt and Iraq was a "real" and one PERFECTLY AMENABLE TO SOLUTION BY INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. The ICJ isn’t much good at solving questions of "High Politcs" but it IS H($$ on Wheels at settling border/natural resource disputes, in fact, that IS the bulk of the ICJ’s successful court ruling. So, rather than INVADE Kuwayt, Iraq coud have/SHOULD have referred the question to the competent international body. After all there was a LOCAL RECEDENT TO HAND, the "Kuwayt-Saudi Neutral Zone" which emerged from a dispute about borders and resource control between Kuwayt and Iraq. Iraq did not need to resort to force...*SIGH* Compounding this error was the fact that iraq violated the twin principles underlying the UN, statehood and self-determination. Kuwayt had had 30 years to make known its desire to be a part of Iraq and it had turned down every opportunity offered. Kuwayt did not desire annexation.
Bottom-lIne: Second Gulf War was a violation of international norms and law, by Iraq and was dealt with legally and morally.

So if this is the extent of your Edja’makayshun of me.. you’ve failed, miserably. You know if you moved on from the ANSWER/ISM/Noam Chomsky Talking Points you’d do better. Because right now, you use bad, bad history to back up a bad set of decisions and in support of some rather nasty folk, nasty folk that for some reason certain Progressives simply MUST support. I’d assume that’s under the theory that if the US, the Great Neo-Fascist, Capitalist Satan of the Oppressive Capitalist World-System Exploiting Gays, Lesbians, the Transgendered, Women, the Poor and People of Colour, is AGIN’ someone then we must be FUR’EM, ’cuz he must be good or at least better. Any way, no sorry you’re going to have to do a WHOLE lot better than this to make much headway.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Wow, this guy’s nuts. No tinpot dictator shall go undefended!
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Joe -

Once again....Thou speakest from thine buttocks !
So, rather than INVADE Kuwayt, Iraq coud have/SHOULD have referred the question to the competent international body.
It DID ! Or is not the UN a "competent international body " ? It certainly was in YOUR example !

Tell me, oh thou greatest of blowhards :

Did the United States petition this "International Tribunal", the ICJ , when it moved to sanction and invade Iraq ? It most certainly did NOT ! It went to the UN, PRECISELY as Iraq did to resolve the issues it had with Kuwait prior to it’s invasion !

Ahhhhh, I see where you are coming from ! Different rules apply to different nations !

Stuff THAT one in your *ss !

 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
For what it’s worth, Saddam had committed to resolving the dispute with Kuwait through the Arab League. They were working on negotiations to that end when he ditched it and invaded.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jon -
"For what it’s worth, Saddam had committed to resolving the dispute with Kuwait through the Arab League. They were working on negotiations to that end when he ditched it and invaded. "
Is THAT a fact ? Hmmmm..... You will have to post a link....cuz I just spent 20 minutes googling for references to this "fact"......

Sorry....came up empty !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
kruane I am being buffeted by your powerful and potent wit, still the ICJ WOULD have been the perfect solution, IF the dispute was something more than an excuse for the invasion. Jon points out that Iraq also committed to solving the dispute thru the Arab League. There is NO perfect solution or body here... there were MULTIPLE CHOICES AVAILABLE TO IRAQ IN 1990. The fact is Iraq chose to IGNORE them and invade Kuwayt.

Because the dispute whilst valid, was only an excuse...Iraq was deeply in debt to its neighbors and figured that rather than repay the debt, totaling it’s GDP, at least, it was better to invade the "bankers" and cancel the debt, or have the debt rescheduled to infinity by it’s Arab neighbors who would ahve "taken the hint" from what became fo the Al-Sabah’s and the newest province of Iraq.

You can keep on this path, but I think that whilst I will never convince YOU, I do believe that you will convince OTHERS that your side is the worse. Because, and I repeat here, you use bad history to support bad decisions in order to support nasty folks, like Hussein, Milosovic, the Taliban, Noriega, and the warlords in Somalia.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"still the ICJ WOULD have been the perfect solution, "
Ya THINKS ?

Well, pray tell, Genious......

Why did not the USA avail themselves of this ....ahem......"Golden Opportunity" in ANY of it’s invasion attempts ?

DO....PRAY TELL !

 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
In his conversation with US Ambassador April Glaspie, Hussein insisted upon "the borderline endorsed by the Arab League" and said that the "solution must be found within an Arab framework and through direct bilateral relations."

Presumably, he considered the Arab League’s demarcation official and was pushing for negotiations to clarify that point. That seems to have been his argument. Direct negotiations with Kuwait focused on the existing Arab League protocols.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Arab mediators convinced Iraq and Kuwait to negotiate their differences in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, on August 1, 1990, but that session resulted only in charges and countercharges. (emph. added) A second session was scheduled to take place in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, but Iraq invaded Kuwait the next day.
http://arabic-media.com/saddam.htm
As Iraq continued to escalate tension with its wild accusations and unjustified claims, it was agreed to hold a meeting between Kuwait and Iraq in Jeddah on July 31, 1990. It immediately became apparent that, far from negotiating an end to the crisis, Iraq was bent on dictating terms to Kuwait. The negotiations collapsed. And a day later, Iraq ordered its troops to enter Kuwait.

http://www.kuwait-info.com/sidepages/gulfwar_invasion.asp (An official Kuwaiti website, but it’ll have to do.)



 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"and the warlords in Somalia. "
OOOOOOOOOOO....very bad men......those BASTARDS killed 18 American soldiers......(not to MENTION being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of thier own countrymen )

Tell me, Einstien......

How do you equate the deaths of these "brave men" with the millions of dollars funneled to them over the past 15 years by the US goverment in order to install them as the goverment....Does this not DESECRATE the meaning of the deaths of these American Soldiers ?

Is THIS your idea of "democracy" ? Is THIS your idea of American "liberation" from "opression" ?

Give me a break, you clown....Even your ARGUEMENTS do not make sense !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Because and I quote from my previous post,
The ICJ isn’t much good at solving questions of "High Politcs" but it IS H($$ on Wheels at settling border/natural resource disputes, in fact, that IS the bulk of the ICJ’s successful court ruling.

The ICJ wouldn’t have had much effect in the discussion of the "invasion", being a case of "High Politics", but it would have been perfect for the dispute over the oil field, and the distribution of profits from the disputed oil field, because that had been the BULK of it’s successful case work, cases decided and settled to BOTH SIDES mutual satisfaction. This i not Rocket Science, here. The ICJ does best with questions of BOUNDARIES and established law concerning boundaries and resources.

Add this to the fact that the Saudi’s and the Kuwayti’s had resolved a similar dispute in the 1960’s and one sees that there was little or no need for force on the part of Iraq.

Iraq’s goal was not recovery of lost oil revenues, but the cancellation of its extensive debt owed to its Gulf neighbors.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -


Oh, GIVE ME A BREAK !

"As Iraq continued to escalate tension with its wild accusations and unjustified claims, it was agreed to hold a meeting between Kuwait and Iraq in Jeddah on July 31, 1990. It immediately became apparent that, far from negotiating an end to the crisis, Iraq was bent on dictating terms to Kuwait. The negotiations collapsed. And a day later, Iraq ordered its troops to enter Kuwait."

The Arab league FINALLY calls a "conference"....on the day BEFORE an ivasion....calls it a COMMITMENT when Iraqi troops are ALREADY fully massed on the border......

And you call this "commitment" ?

What are you, like a "political science professor"...IN UGANDA ?

PLEASE !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Joe -
"The ICJ wouldn’t have had much effect in the discussion of the "invasion", being a case of "High Politics",
Exactly ! And THATS why it would not apply to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait !

See ? I can twist them there words, too !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
I was a little shocked to see that we funneled money to them too, to tell the truth kruane. I guess better the Devil that was there... the US had given up on solving the problem so I guess it settled for "managing" the problem.

Of course the goal was ALWAYS the establishment of a Somali government, that never precluded the warlords, either.

But it really doesn’t go to prove or disprove your point about an "invasion" of Somalia, either... as an organization you seem to revere or posit as an organization for action, the UN authorized the action. You seem to want to characterize it as an invasion...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Exactly ! And THATS why it would not apply to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait !
then you are being OBTUSE or just missing my point...
HAD IRAQ AVAILED ITSELF OF THE ICJ PRIOR TO THE INVASION, THERE NEED NOT HAVE BEEN AN INVASION. I’ll grant that you just missed my point.

Actually the negotiations involving Kuwayt and Iraq had been on-going. I would take it to show that the Iraqi’s WEREN’T seriously negotiating, as the DAY AFTER THE FIRST MEETING THEY INVADED. Generally if one believes in the negotiations, one doesn’t meet exchange positions and then invade the next day.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
JOE -
"HAD IRAQ AVAILED ITSELF OF THE ICJ PRIOR TO THE INVASION, THERE NEED NOT HAVE BEEN AN INVASION "
You are absolutely correct ! And I reiterate.....WHY DID NOT THE USA AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THIS SAME "GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY" IN ANY OF THEIR INVASIONS!

PERHAPS, AS WELL....NONE OF THOSE INVASIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN NEEDED EITHER !

See ? I too, can capitalize !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Well as I continually point out the ICJ doesn’t work well for High Politics...You may not like that answer, but it IS an answer. Iraq didn’t want a solution to the "dispute" with Kuwayt, it simply wanted a pretext for invasion.

The problem with the ICJ is that it’s rulings have no effect UNLESS BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO ACCEPT THEM, hence in disputes on National Security and the like nations don’t use the ICJ, because generally one side or the other isn’t going to accept the ruling. In this case, the ICJ would have been perfect, this was the very sort of case the ICJ handled best. Settled law with a technical discussion of the facts as it related to that law...Yes it would have taken YEARS, but it would have worked.

Iraq desperately needed to cancel or reduce its debt load, not solve a dispute over oil fields.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"Generally if one believes in the negotiations, one doesn’t meet exchange positions and then invade the next day."
They DON’T ? Well, Einstien.....Explain the US meeting with the UN in the days leading up to Iraq invasion #2 to "exchange positions"...and then invading ANYWAYS ! ! !

OOOOOO....Kinda like "Deja vu" of the Iraqi-Kuwait conflict, don’t you think ? SCARY !

After all, doesn’t the Bush Administration....ahem....."believe in negotiations" ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Darn good thing he only went back 60 years...otherwise he’d have had to count
all that aggression we committed between 1941 and 1945 too!

So, tell me, did the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait for illegally drilling entitle Iraq to strip Kuwait City of it’s televisions and toilets and personal property type things? And were they entitled to systematically destroy as much of Kuwaits oil producing capacity as possible before they were forced out?
Just checking.....

Also, just checking, but did it permit them to fire Scud missiles at the JOOOOOOOOS, who to the best of my knowledge stayed OUT of the war completely (other than their evil plot to continue to live)

But you can’t find any references to the Arab League? Or the fact that Saddam was claiming that Kuwait and UAE were conspiring in 1990 to keep oil prices down (thus hurting his ability to sell Iraqi oil to pay Iraqi war debts?)

Wellllll let me help a little....
http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/KUWAIT.HTM
target="new">http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0107694.html
http://www.jubileeiraq.org/background.htm



Try searches like -
Saddam & Kuwait
Or
Saddam & Kuwait & Iraqi claims

You’ll find plenty to parse through.
Including this very entertaining and interesting observation by Saddam to Ambassador Glaspie before the invasion of Kuwait (by Iraq, not by the US...)
If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.
Hmmmmm, I wonder whatever he could have been talking about in that paragraph.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Joe -
"You may not like that answer, but it IS an answer."
Well, yea....YOUR & George Bush’s answer !
Iraq didn’t want a solution to the "dispute" with Kuwayt, it simply wanted a pretext for invasion.
Kinda like George Bush II’s confrontation with Iraq, hey ? And when Saddam didn’t graciously PROVIDE the USA with a "pretext" for invasion, George FABRICATED some !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
They DON’T ? Well, Einstien.....Explain the US meeting with the UN in the days leading up to Iraq invasion #2 to "exchange positions"...and then invading ANYWAYS ! ! !
And this would have been in the aftermath of 13 months of negotiations,at the afore-mentioned UN?

Bad history, in support of bad decisions, in support of nasty folks, kruane. I can think of a host of actions that would support your contentions better, but if you want to keep arguing FOR Saddam Hussine, be my guest.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"And this would have been in the aftermath of 13 months of negotiations,at the afore-mentioned UN?
Correct.....as Iraq’s invasion was in the "aftermath" of over 3 YEARS of complaints to the UN of Kuwaits soveriegnty violations....

What’s your POINT ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Just as Clinton, Kerry and Congress fabricated them in 1998...Fabricated them into the Iraq Liberation Act and military action(s). Being wrong is NOT lying kruane, it’s being wrong.

And I think being in "Substantial violation" of the UN Resolutions regarding the Ceasefire and Armistice provided a good legal justification. Walzer provides an nice moral one, too in "Humanitarian Interventions" in Just and Unjust Wars.

Again for what it’s worth this is one you’re not going to win, kruane, this ground has been plowed and re-plowed here and many places on the Internet.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Whatever happened to that Korean missile anyway?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Actaully kruane you’re going to ahve to back that claim up. The first I heard of the complaint, in any meaningful form, was in 1990, the summer of. That was when the Iraqi’s began to ACT on their complaints. I note that they had no problem taking Kuwayt’s money in the previous period though...

Oh and as a continual side-bar, they had three years to go to the ICJ or Arab League to SOLVE the dispute, via negotiations. Had the dispute over the Ramllah Field been anything more than a pretext for cancelling debts and vaulting Iraq to leadership in the Gulf, Iraq could have resolved this issue.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"Just as Clinton, Kerry and Congress fabricated them in 1998"
Them.....what is THEM ? Do explain ! Does "them" refer to the Sled-dogs in Alaska ? Please be more specific as to what this vaporous "them" is ?
"And I think being in "Substantial violation" of the UN Resolutions regarding the Ceasefire and Armistice provided a good legal justification. "
It does ? Not according to your fabled "Pesky UN". Perhaps YOU might read up on your "bad history" and see that the UN security council expressly PROHIBITED any unilateral invasion by the USA in the Second invasion of Iraq !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
And given that his people cheered when his statue fell (yeah, I know they were all hired by George Bush) and that he’s on trial for his life by an Iraqi court (yeah, I know, they have no choice, the US is making them do that), and that one of his lawyers was only just yesterday kidnapped and killed (yeah, I know, Americans did that), and that there are mass graves all over Iraq (yeah, I know, Americans put them there)...
I’d say that the Iraqi’s themselves seem to be a lot less in love with Saddam than you are (Yeah, well, this isn’t about loving Saddam, it’s about launching a verbal assault on the US that started because Korea is launching a missile to prove how baaaaaaaaad it is instead of feeding it’s people to prove how good it is...).

And I answered my observations on your behalf, because it’s really going to be pretty predictable. Then again, at least I gave your honest responses....
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Kinda like George Bush II’s confrontation with Iraq, hey ? And when Saddam didn’t graciously PROVIDE the USA with a "pretext" for invasion, George FABRICATED some !

Just as Clinton, Kerry and Congress fabricated them in 1998...Fabricated them into the Iraq Liberation Act and military action(s). Being wrong is NOT lying kruane, it’s being wrong.
There it’s in context, now I apologize. IF Bush "lied" well so has EVERY Administration, because over and over Kerry, Gore and others have had their OWN words tossed back at them from the 1998 bombings, where they said Iraq bad, Iraq WMD’s, Iraq a threat...
You know someone asked a question about that Korean missile, the obstensible reason for these postings, and I don’t know. I heard there was bad weather over Korea today and the launch if there is or was to be one MAY have been scrubbed.
see that the UN security council expressly PROHIBITED any unilateral invasion by the USA in the Second invasion of Iraq !

I’d need a Res number on that one, kruane.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"Just as Clinton, Kerry and Congress fabricated them in 1998...Fabricated them into the Iraq Liberation Act and military action(s). Being wrong is NOT lying kruane, it’s being wrong."
WHAT may I ask...was fabricated ? I just finished reading it, and it proposed a regieme change....It did not fabricate "evidence" to support another invasion, or an assasination, etc etc.... So tell me einstien......What was the "fabrication" ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Joe -

Here....let me post it for you in it’s entirety...

Help me out here....Highlight the lies and fabrications, would you ?
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa—tory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Clearly they believed Iraq a threat and possessed a WMD program(s)...What Bush said in ’02 and ’03 re: Saddam had been "gospel" in D.C. long before 9/11 or Jan 2001 or Nov. 2000. Now that doesn’t show a lot of fabrication, on Dubya’s part, it MAY show a lot of fabrication, but on more parts than the current Administration. To include the French, German, and Jordanian regimes as well, in re: WMD’s.

Again this ground has been plowed extensively. You’re not going any place new here, kruane. In short, you’re not going "Wow" me here with some amazing set of arguments or facts that haven’t been hased and re-hashed on the Internet for going on 4 years. Or if you are you’re going to ahve to get on with it pretty smartly, because so far this is all ANSWER/ISM/Moveon.org/Kos boilerplate, just with personal invective thrown in.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Oh kruane that’s not the Act or the HR, it’s the President’s STATEMENT ON the Act... Check with Thomas or "google" h.r.4655 and 1998, for the text. There may be some "whereas" clauses you might find interesting...I don’t know I haven’t read the Act myself.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
(
9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.’.
Full text:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"Oh kruane that’s not the Act or the HR, it’s the President’s STATEMENT ON the Act... Check with Thomas or "google" h.r.4655 and 1998, for the text. There may be some "whereas" clauses you might find interesting...I don’t know I haven’t read the Act myself. "
You are quite correct...However...I STILL cannot find "lies & fabrications". Hey, YOU are the one that made that accusation.....Wouldn’t you agree that it’s up to YOU to post the relevant "lies & fabrications" ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Actually kruane, YOU used the phrase "fabrication" or "fabricate" in one of YOUR posting. Sorry I’m merely responding, to YOU...
Kinda like George Bush II’s confrontation with Iraq, hey ? And when Saddam didn’t graciously PROVIDE the USA with a "pretext" for invasion, George FABRICATED (my emph.) some !


I’m merely pointing out that IF facrication is a charge, you’re going to have to look a bit further back and further afield than George W. Bush and 2001 or 2003.

Again this isn’t Rocket Science... I can keep track of what YOU say, why can’t you?

You know this IS all about you still being p*ssed about Iraq, as a MUCH earlier, and non-Joe poster pointed out...really can’t YOU move on. I keep saying, you’re not in an area that hasn’t been THOROUGHLY debated by smarter folks than you or I for YEARS. I think that there are cases that support your contentions in regards to US invasions and/or illegalities MUCH better. But if you want to stay here, feel free.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"Kinda like George Bush II’s confrontation with Iraq, hey ? And when Saddam didn’t graciously PROVIDE the USA with a "pretext" for invasion, George FABRICATED (my emph.) some !"
And was I wrong ? Did, or did not George & advisors accuse Iraq of Stockpiling WMD’s ? Did, or Did NOT George Bush claim he had EVIDENCE ? Was, or was NOT WMD’s a FABRICATION ? And if NOT, SHOW ME SOME!

and then you responded :
"Just as Clinton, Kerry and Congress fabricated them in 1998...Fabricated them into the Iraq Liberation Act and military action(s). Being wrong is NOT lying kruane, it’s being wrong."
And again...I re-iterate....SHOW me those "lies & fabrications ! Bon’t B*llSh*t me....SHOW ME some of those "lies & fabrications from the "Iraq Liberation Act" ! Show me even ONE !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Get over it -
The WMD thing has been beaten into the ground. Many foreign intel services believed Saddam had them, even his own freaking generals believed he had them.
It was a scam he was running, and quite successfully too. No, he didn’t have nukes (that we can prove anyway) or Bio weapons (that we can find).

Now you may think that it had to be a magic nuke, or magic Bio bug or Nerve agents, but the plain fact is, despite that no one seems to count them, he had plenty of gas shells that produced plain old WWI class gases, which, if you don’t happen to have a place to hide that protects you, or gear to cover yourself with or help you breath, you’re pretty much screwed if you get caught in. Now, see, everyone has moved on by those because well, they’re just too unreliable, and just plain not destructive enough for some people. But ya know, I think villages gased out of existence constitutes mass destruction at least by my standards.
You must need a higher death toll and more carnage for you to count them as WMD’s.
And you must have missed where we continued to con our own troops during the beginning of the war, and made them wander around in NBC suits to counter the effects of the weapons that (as you say) we KNEW he didn’t have, and that we had invented to justify our (get ready, I’m gonna say it) LIBERATION of Iraq from a scum bag.

Pretty cool, you’ve gone from how many unjust and illegal wars the US has launched in the last 60 years, to ranting about Iraqi justifications for invading a neighboring country, and all so you can feel good about trashing the US, which is trying to keep a rogue power, run by a man who describes himself as a monsterish dwarf, who spends all kinds of money on his military (just like Saddam) and lets his people starve. Presumably this is okay because in your mind the US is an evil monster, run by an evil lying monster itself.

You must live on an interesting planet.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker -
"Pretty cool, you’ve gone from how many unjust and illegal wars the US has launched in the last 60 years, to ranting about Iraqi justifications for invading a neighboring country, and all so you can feel good about trashing the US, which is trying to keep a rogue power, run by a man who describes himself as a monsterish dwarf, who spends all kinds of money on his military (just like Saddam) and lets his people starve. Presumably this is okay because in your mind the US is an evil monster, run by an evil lying monster itself.
I never made mention of "WARS"......I believe I was QUITE explicit in using the term "INVASION"......Do you ALSO require an "edumacation" in terminology ? Or an "edumacation" on the meanings behind these two words ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
I can’t resist..kruane I’m waiting for some evidence about the UN Res. that forbade unilateral action...
Bueller...Bueller...anyone...Bueller?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
I can’t resist..kruane I’m waiting for some evidence about the UN Res. that forbade unilateral action...
Bueller...Bueller...anyone...Bueller?
I will be MORE than happy to answer your question.... AFTER you answer TRUTHFULLY & HONESTLY (is that POSSIBLE for a republican ? ) the questions I posed BEFORE you posed YOUR’S !
"Kinda like George Bush II’s confrontation with Iraq, hey ? And when Saddam didn’t graciously PROVIDE the USA with a "pretext" for invasion, George FABRICATED (my emph.) some !"
And was I wrong ? Did, or did not George & advisors accuse Iraq of Stockpiling WMD’s ? Did, or Did NOT George Bush claim he had EVIDENCE ? Was, or was NOT WMD’s a FABRICATION ? And if NOT, SHOW ME SOME!

and then you responded :
"Just as Clinton, Kerry and Congress fabricated them in 1998...Fabricated them into the Iraq Liberation Act and military action(s). Being wrong is NOT lying kruane, it’s being wrong."

And again...I re-iterate....SHOW me those "lies & fabrications ! Bon’t B*llSh*t me....SHOW ME some of those "lies & fabrications from the "Iraq Liberation Act" ! Show me even ONE !



Einstein....Einstein....Hello...EINSTEIN ? ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
WMD programs and threats to neighbors kruane...it’s WHY we invaded Iraq in ’03. I keep pointing out that in 1998 Clinton, Kerry and Gore ALL said the same things. So IF Dubya "fabricated" so did the three above-mentioned and a host of others.

I suspect the reason we’re waiting on the UN Res is that it doesn’t exist. After all if it did or it was to hand, I suspect you’d deploy it in order to make the invasiona VIOLATION of the UN and hence illegal.

I believe your argument, like Iraq’s, are merely an EXCUSE, not an explanation. You don’t HAVE a Res to wave about, but are looking for a way ut of having to admit it.

the 2004 Electoral Cycle covered this ground pretty thoroughly, kruane and you just don’t want to accept this.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -
"WMD programs and threats to neighbors kruane...it’s WHY we invaded Iraq in ’03. I keep pointing out that in 1998 Clinton, Kerry and Gore ALL said the same things. So IF Dubya "fabricated" so did the three above-mentioned and a host of others. "
I don’t recall asking you ANY of that....quit trying to change the question into what YOU want it to be...... Answer the QUESTION !



"And was I wrong ? Did, or did not George & advisors accuse Iraq of Stockpiling WMD’s ? Did, or Did NOT George Bush claim he had EVIDENCE ? Was, or was NOT WMD’s a FABRICATION ? And if NOT, SHOW ME SOME!"


Is it THAT difficult to answer the question as posed ? Here...Let’s try this again in a Multiple Choice format....that might make it a bit easier for you...........( and less likely that you try and change & ...ahem..."spin" the questions )
Did, or did not George Bush & advisors accuse Iraq of Stockpiling WMD’s ? :

A: ) Yes
B: ) No

Did, or did NOT George Bush Claim he had EVIDENCE of this so-called stockpiling of WMD’s ? :

A: ) Yes
B: ) No

And given that there was no WMDs found, was, or was not this claim of "evidence" of WMD’s a blatent fabrication ? :

A: ) Yes
B: ) No
Go ahead and answer in a 1-A 2-B format....

That make it a bit "simpler" for you ? I’m sure a WHOLE lot less "palatable"....but a lot "simpler".....correct ?

Give it a shot !




 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Joe -
"I keep pointing out that in 1998 Clinton, Kerry and Gore ALL said the same things. "
And we’ll get to THAT in a very short time.....first things first, son !


"I suspect the reason we’re waiting on the UN Res is that it doesn’t exist. After all if it did or it was to hand, I suspect you’d deploy it in order to make the invasiona VIOLATION of the UN and hence illegal."
Again...we’ll handle that AFTER you TRUTHFULLY & HONESTLY answer the above questions.....

After all, if you are not willing to answer the above answer TRUTHFULLY & HONESTLY....why should I waste any time answering YOUR questions TRUTHFULLY & HONESTLY ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Well check the news today kruane about WMD’s... in fact check the top two new postings.

In response to your questions No, not finding WMD’s is NOT evidence of fabrication. It’s evidence of BEING WRONG. And my point was, that from Clinto on, others HAVE BEEN EQUALLY WRONG. Did they, too, "Fabricate."

and for your records...
"Saddam’s goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." — Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." — Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." — Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." — Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction." — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." — Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Just SOME quotes found on-line...

I believe that I have demonstrated that IF fabrications occurred they occurred through-out the 1990’s, but that it is more reasonable to assume that the US was WRONG in its assessment of the EXACT state of Iraq’s WMD programs. And that today’s findings demonstrate that Iraq was in violation of the 1991 Ceasefire Accords.

Thank you kruane.

You may want to move onto OTHER items on your list. Because, honestly, I really don’t see you getting around these pesky "facts" that demonstrate that your claims are specious, derived from a case of Bush Derangment Syndrome or a life-time membership in ANSWER or its like.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -


I didn’t ASK you for a long-winded evasion of the questions...........

Let’s try this again !
Did, or did not George Bush & advisors accuse Iraq of Stockpiling WMD’s ? :

A: ) Yes
B: ) No

Did, or did NOT George Bush Claim he had EVIDENCE of this so-called stockpiling of WMD’s ? :

A: ) Yes
B: ) No

And given that there was no WMDs found, was, or was not this claim of "evidence" of WMD’s a blatent fabrication ? :

A: ) Yes
B: ) No
PLEASE restrict your answers to a 1-A, 2-B format, if you do not mind.....Is that too much to ask ?


C’mon, Einstien......I KNOW you can do it !

Here, let me help you with an a couple of examples :

1-a, 2-a, 3-a
or
1-b, 2-b, 3-b

See how SIMPLE that is ?

CAAHHHH MONNNNNN, give it a shot !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Joe -


For one...... I can’t see this conversation proceeding any further to me answering YOUR questions, if you are not willingto do me the curtesy of answering the questions I asked first.... AS POSED !

Can’t you not do that one little thing ?


 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Ok kruane, I’ve answered your questions...I’ve pointed out where Clinton, Kerry, Gore et. al. have used the SAME evidence to support policy.

You sir/madam are now simply being refusing to accept evidence and reasoning. Let me know if and when you decide you will accept them and we’ll talk further.

And if you’d care to, since YOU made the claim of fabrications, would YOU care to submit some EVIDENCE of fabrication?

I believe we have "teased" this thread about as far as it can go... but we’ll see. All I really expect is more of the same, evasion and name-calling, but Hope Springs Eternal.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -

" evasion "

You got THAT right ! You are FULL of those "Evasions" !

"Ok kruane, I’ve answered your questions "

No you haven’t....I asked you to respond in a 1-a, 2-b format....and you have yet to do that !


"I’ve pointed out where Clinton, Kerry, Gore et. al. have used the SAME evidence "

Now, don’t you think that’s rather childish ?
You remind me of my 4-year old daughter, when about to be faced with imminent punishment, crying : "Daddy, Daddy......I know I broke the lamp, but TIMMMY stole all the cookies"...and then running off in tears......


Childish, wouldn’t you agree ?

Grow up, son......When you act a bit more adult and are willing to face these questions AS an adult, we can continue this conversation.


 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
Or when kruane can find a forum where his opponets aren’t so capable of countering him/her...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe -


Want me to tuck you in ?
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
dude - bold, and caps, way cool.
that certainly strengthens your, um, whatever it is you’re having there.

Let me help you out since you seem to have spent most of your time in the last 24 hours using the bold tool and shouting the same things over and over at Joe instead of taking a moment to listen to the latest news.

They just reminded us they’ve found something in excess of 400 artillery shells, containing poison gas or nerve agents, considered WMD, that Saddam, at some point had stockpiled in good old Iraq. That’s actually old news, but hey, it’s almost like the Norns wove it into your tapestry yesterday & today just so someone could use it on you like a rug beater.

Now, on to your last question - since the other two are obviously YES....
And given that there was no WMDs found, was, or was not this claim of "evidence" of WMD’s a blatent fabrication ? :

A: ) Yes
B: ) No
So, question 3 - that would be NO - Saddam had them. Actually, given the way you phrased the question "there was no WMDs found" your question is wrong to start with.

Though I suppose you’ll tell us they were ’lost’ by his regime and so weren’t destroyed when he trashed the rest of his capacity. Hey whatever, your agenda, and mind set, are pretty clear anyway.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I find it highly interesting that immediately kruane started in with the insults to each person here who does not believe what HE says. I find it highly disturbing that some might think HE is a woman. I can guarantee he’s not, for no woman would want HIM in their midst anyway.

I’m not from this board and happened on it looking up information about Taepodong-2. Little did I know that I would be instantly fascinated with the remarks. Joe... you’ve done a great job trying educate little man kruane there, and I’m sorry your points went missed by him. They haven’t by the rest of us, though.

kruane... grow up. When you learn how to have a real debate without getting personal (i.e. ’Einstein’ and comments about Jews), then you can join the big dogs. Until then, go back to your little pre-school and learn to communicate. All you’ve done for your argument is show what an ignorant jerk you can be.
 
Written By: a woman
URL: http://
Looker -
They just reminded us they’ve found something in excess of 400 artillery shells,
Really ? Not from what I read !
Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
Comments are response to claims by GOP senators

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/


But nice try !

Here some MORE !
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4117


Worthless chemicals that used to be WMDs are interesting, to be sure, but they’re simply not a new or dispositive discovery.


Boy, you clowns will grasp at ANYTHING ! ! !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
A skank -
"comments about Jews),"
THAT’S your problem !

Yer an old jew skank who is "offended" that someone DARES question a jew.....

Too damn bad, too damn sad !
 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
hooker-
"So, question 3 - that would be NO - Saddam had them. Actually, given the way you phrased the question "there was no WMDs found" your question is wrong to start with."
Again....even the BUSH administration, and intelligence experts agree that these were not the WMD’s claimed by Bush in 2003.....

So, "obviously", the answer to question 3 would be a resounding YES !
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
wanna try some MORE happy horsesh*t ?

 
Written By: kruane
URL: http://
If I was the Bush administration I would field the Airborne Laser [ABL] and
ensure the Taepodong-2 missile launch fails.
 
Written By: Josey
URL: http://
Energy weapon destroyed Taepodong-2 launch 070406.

Billions of dollars invested for sixty years in directed energy reasearch and development has succeeded in delivering sufficient energy to destroy fast-moving target designated.

Accompanying investment in psy-op warfare has devolved the scenario from general public view.

The general public will never know if the missle was intercepted or not - technical verification may be extractable during the coming years.

Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that the Taupodong-2 missle launch was a successful orbital insertion, and not a faiure at all. What could be better than a satellite in orbit that most everyone thought WASN"T? None of the dark players like public knowledge of their actions - only the minimum required.

Under the meta-psychological conditions at the time of the Taepodong-2 launch and high-energy intercept, success or failure became "politically irrelevant" because each one of all four outcome elements produces severe loss of face, and because of the "occult" world in which the primary state and NGO players operate.

1 successful launch, no intercept attempt - look bad on intercepter!
"Don’t say you tried."
2 unsuccessful launch, no intercept attempt - look bad on launchers!
"Don’t say you tried."
3 successful intercept - look bad on launchers!
"Don’t say you tried."
4 unsuccessful intercept - look bad on intercepter!
"Don’t say you tried."


Politically irrelevant - disempowering the action’s public intent by deviating all mainstream actions and event control through occult mechanisms, such as spies, state agents, finacial crimes, computer infiltration, criminal military-intel, and plain-old threaten-your-relatives thuggery.


Rockets are fun, rockets have a place,
BUT HIGH-ENERGY WILL WIN THE RACE.



 
Written By: chuck
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider