Back to WMD:s

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:24 am

Here is a nice article where Bush admin. member says WMD:s were just a smokescreen and war was started to 'send a message'. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightlin ... 30425.html

<i>Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."</i>

Basicly this is 'ends justify the means' and critics can be silenced with magic words: how dare you argue the intentions and justifications of the administration, when the result is the removal of a ruthless dictator.

Administration leaders will not soon forgive Blix or Mohamed ElBaradei, for exposing to ridicule the two main pieces of “evidence” adduced by Washington late last year to support its cause: First was the forged documents showing that Iraq wanted uranium from Niger and second were the aluminum rods that were to be used in nuclear application.

Even the recent foundings turned out to be rocket fuel and not nerve gas. So, will WMD:s be planted? US has a long tradition of planting evidence so in the end they will be found (as it was said in article, something will be found). Examples are so called 'white paper' and testimony of 'Nariyah' before first gulf war.

Other things to consider about the war. WMD:s were not used*, there was no terrorist backlash (which shows terrorists do not like secular leaders like Saddam was) and war was over pretty soon (when RG commander decided it's no point to turn Baghdad to a warzone). So, was Saddam a threat to US or neighbours. Of course not, but it was a nice smokescreen.

So, which country is next?

*expect depleted dranium by US forces to create few cancer hotspots.

Hoeya · Post by **Hoeya** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:40 am

So, which country is next?

Syria possibly, or North Korea. I doubt N. Korea for a few reasons.

1.) They have claimed numerous times that they have Weapons of mass destruction. That makes them a more difficult country to invade because of the threat posed by nucular arms. Not only would this dissuade the US from entering a conflict because of the threat posed by WMDs, it would make america look bad, because the war would probably last longer than a few months.

2.) The S doesnt really believe that N. Korea possesses WMDs just on the basis that N. Korea says so. The Bush administration believes that N. Korea is "saber-rattling" in order to get some attention.

3.) Bush doesnt really care. If it doesnt involve oil, his father, or unkempt beards, its not worth his time.

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:45 am

Hoeya wrote:
So, which country is next?
Syria possibly, or North Korea. I doubt N. Korea for a few reasons.

1.) They have claimed numerous times that they have Weapons of mass destruction. That makes them a more difficult country to invade because of the threat posed by nucular arms. Not only would this dissuade the US from entering a conflict because of the threat posed by WMDs, it would make america look bad, because the war would probably last longer than a few months.

Actually N. Korea is one of the nations that can engage in total war with US, with a good change of winning: http://www.kimsoft.com/2003/nk-war-han.htm

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:56 am

Simpi wrote:Actually N. Korea is one of the nations that can engage in total war with US, with a good change of winning: http://www.kimsoft.com/2003/nk-war-han.htm

Unless you just mean keeping the US out of NK I hope you are joking (for your sake)

Stoic · Post by **Stoic** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:23 pm

The problem with N.Korea is the harsh jungle like terrian, the brush makes it very hard for spy planes and Satilites to get clear visiuals of what is going on (can you say Vietnam?).

But as far as Tatics and strategy, if it were to be a convential war that followed the Rules of the Geneva Conference... America would probably be able to win, but when you fight a war on another mans soil they can do serious damage. Because after a while the invaders (us) loose sight of what we are fighting for. (can you say Vietnam?)

But I love this quote from that web site:

In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers.

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Thu May 01, 2003 12:34 am

Let's not get too sidetracked here. I posted N. Korea because if Bush wants himself a clear victory in next 're-election', he must stay on easier pickings than Kim Jong-il.

My main point was that one of the reasons Bush attacked Iraq, was that 'wmd':s threathened america. Also, now they want to lift sanctions, which were to be held as long as Iraq had WMDs (after Gulf War I), then Bush asked for permission to wage war because those WMD form an imminent threat to the US, and right after the war, he asks for removal of the embargo while still looking for WMDs (and not allowing UN inspectors to look with them).

Isn't this just one of the examples how Bush has lied to people and served the interests of his corporate buddies? Fortunately it looks like Iraq citizens are not bending over to occupation and recent civilian killings will keep the fire burning.

Hoeya · Post by **Hoeya** » Thu May 01, 2003 12:44 am

Doesnt matter what the citizens of Iraq do, they just lost their country. What will follow is a puppet state which the US has direct control of under the guise of a democratic government.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Thu May 01, 2003 1:05 am

If it's benevolent control (schools, human rights, and economic development, among other things) then I don't see a problem with it. This, however, isn't very likely in my opinion....

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Thu May 01, 2003 1:19 am

Hoeya wrote:Doesnt matter what the citizens of Iraq do, they just lost their country. What will follow is a puppet state which the US has direct control of under the guise of a democratic government.

Hauntingly familiar to the "Divide and Conquer" tactics that other fascist rulers like Hitler employed, isn't it....

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Fri May 02, 2003 2:05 am

Here's another nice article:

<i>"As for nuclear weapons, Al-Tawitha,the main area that we will be talking about, is free of weapons of mass destruction and as far as I know, nothing was done there in this respect…"</i>

According to Iraqi Nuclear Scientist's: Iraq did not have nuclear weapons but they did produce vast quatities of Cancer Treatment (Chemotherapy) Radioactive Material. Those barrels were then stealed by citizens and used for storing water! Radioactive material was then dumped to ground, rivers, etc.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD49703

One another thing. The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.

But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.

Here is when oil comes to picture. If OPEC would start to price oil in dollars, what was described above would no longer be possible = american economy would be screwed, so what to do? When/if american starts pumping oil from Iraq, they can go over OPEC quotas which will drive pirices down. This has a major effect on Saudi Arabia, whose corrup government already takes the majority of oil revenues.

If they drop, Saudi government is in serious trouble and it's quite possible that internal strife will erupt. With largest country oil country of the world, OPEC might well collapse and US hegemony would be secure. One interesting thing. Only OPEC country accepted payments in Euro was Iraq and one other which has said they might do it, is Iran, second member of so-called 'axis of evil'.

There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq's conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth $1.08.

Third one country which also considered Euros, was Venezuela. Let's see what happened: http://www.observer.co.uk/international ... 71,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1925330.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1229348.stm

Quite revealing isn't it......