1. Don't pass resolutions you are not prepared to enforce.

2. Don't pass resolutions on resolutions which you are not prepared to enforce.

3. If you just happen to come across a mobile trailer, and that mobile trailer has continuous mixing pipes (i.e. pipes filled with static mixers) leading out of it, find out what the chemicals make when they are mixed.

4. If they make blistering agents or caustic agents, please turn off the valves. They may have some other use and you don't want to waste the chemicals.

5. If the pipes lead to hollow artillery shells, please do not "take the next step" of actually filling one of the shells and firing it into the nearest town.

6. Area denial weapons. When used on civilian populations without CBR protective equipment, they become mass-murder weapons. Weapons causing the death of multiple non-combatants by exposure. They do not destroy concrete buildings, steel bridges, storage tanks, silicon breast implants, or the Thanksgiving turkey.

7. Weapon causing mass destruction of infrastructure, such as concrete buildings, steel bridges, telephone poles, water storage tanks, Thanksgiving turkey, and fake boobs.



8. If your international country-club passes a resolution they are not prepared to enforce, there may be a disruption in the cheese supply. Find some snails or something else to eat. Freedom fries. Whatever.

9. Atropine, 2-pam chloride. Atropine, 2-pam chloride. Atropine.
In that order.

Never test the man upstairs either since he does not like to be tested.

-S

May I ask you opinion on the real reasons behind the Irak campaign?

That might be an interesting thing to know - so yes, please do!

LOL:up:

AGAIN...??? :huh:

Search button, roughly 3-4 years back. Neocon strategy and Wolfowitz doctrine as being put on paper years before Bush even was elected has been discussed and debated on this board ad nauseum, and things were pretty much... hm, let's say the discussions were very much alive... I'm not going to repeat myself for probably dozens of pages again.

Okay, I'll give it a try ... Just for a moment consider yourself as the most powerful nation on the planet earth, measured by your armed forces of course. :yep:

Now consider this ... that a sub serveant little country that has a self elected president with a big ego problem is defeated in it's take over atempt of another neighboring country.

This defeated dictator has not only made threats against the father of said president of the most powerful country on earth, but has also tried to carry out those threats by giving money to foreign agents to carry out said threats. :yep:

Several years go by and the son of the man that almost got his lights punched out becomes the president of the most powerful country on planet earth.

The son loves his father and the father loves his son, they go on a fishing trip together and the father mentions to his son about his displeasure of having become a target by said defeated dictator general, resulting in son saying, "Don't worry about a thing dad" "I'll take care of this problem for you and finish the job that you started"

Said father says, "Make it look like an accident son" Son says, "I'll try my best dad"

End of story: Problem has been taken care of, but making it look like an accident didn't work ... :know:

Not exactly. In fact most of Bush 41's people seem to have been both quietly and outspokenly against this war. There were editorials trying to warn George W. off of it by people still close to his dad and most suspect this was his way of trying to get the whole thing called off. In the more recent Iraq Study Group as well you see folks like James Baker and others who are associated with 41, political realists as they call themselves as opposed to the neoconservatives, who came out with a report that cut the legs out from under the White House's spin. After essentially ignoring the ISG Report you see them backing reluctantly into elements of it these days.

What happened, in reality, was a perfect storm of diverse and potent influences coalescing in the aftermath of 9/11 combined with a uniquely incurious and isolated President. Was an element of what drove us to war Bush's desire to avenge the attempt on his father? Possibly. No way any of us can know that for sure though he did make off-handed comments along those lines once before. Or did a more Oedipal rivalry cause him to want to "one up" the old man? You've got observers who see that too. I don't think we can know yet.

What I see are three major elements at play. The big one was a legitimate national security argument which said we have to hit the Arab world hard in such a way they'll know we mean business. It's similiar to the Israeli attitude where the belief is that if you hit your enemies hard enough they won't even want to start a fight. Now if you think this is pretty naive and is likely to blow right up in our faces, well, I'm with ya. And we've seen plenty of studies since that show this was a seriously flawed idea.

The second was the neoconservative's influence in the DoD and through Rumsfeld and Cheney. This served to amplify the thinking of folks interested in the first element and has an easily researched doctrinal past and geopolitical biases which General Zinni described as one of the worst kept secrets in Washington. Look up Team B, OSP and PNAC for more.

The third element was political. Bush's numbers had been sinking steadily until 9/11 and in order to keep him in the catbird's seat and keep the flagwaving going for the 2002 mid-term elections a war was ideal. It'd even been described by Rove as a tool to attack the Democrats on at the time. Another member of the White House when asked why the vote hadn't happened yet was told that you don't roll out a new product before the fall. Product. Hmm.

Of course, as it turned out, the Democrats were a bit too cowed by events and fears for their own political mortality to examine very closely what they were authorizing the President to do. Maybe they thought if it went poorly they could just blame Bush. It's cynical but no more so than Bush now evidently trying to extend the war until the next President is elected just so he can say he wasn't the one to lose the war. His other plan, bringing on a "war czar" to put in charge of Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be going nowhere. His mouth says "war czar" but his eyes say "scapegoat." Last count I think four generals told him no.

And there were other factors besides. If you look at why we did so badly with the occupation you also have to look at cronyism and profiteering. Incompetant party loyalists were flown into The Green Zone to carve up the pie and had no idea where they were or what they were doing. The investigations into civilian contractors haven't even started scratching the surface yet. And we still don't know who military contractors/mercenaries are accountable to for sure if anyone, how many have died or how many they've killed.

It was just a perfect storm.

What about Pakistan which is a smoking tinder pot? Things are not well there between the government and the Muller's. And as we all know Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

While I am on this subject next week on UK TV Channel 4 (I think, maybe CH5) there is a programme on about what's going on in Pakistan.

As for the WMD's in Iraq I am not convince about nuclear weapons but I do except they had chemical weapons which were most likely crude. As for biological well possible. I think Iraq's WMD's programme was second rate and the whole truth will never come out. This is now a academical issue as times have moved on, unless any new hard evidence sees the cold light of day.

omg pple are still talking about this?? its been YEARS and nada... and hes dead.. who cares!!!:shifty:

I was not active in the general topics forum by then, so I do not remember that. And it is now in the archives, much more difficult to find.

I was obviously expecting a shorter reply. My main strength is in extracting and condensing concepts in as few words as possible, so I have the -probably bad- habit of expecting people to be able to do the same. In fact, to express the reasons behind the Irak campaign according to many people I have read so far, just one word could be enough. F.e. "Oil".

I forgot that you don't seem to be satisfied with an explanation unless it is some 50+ pages long, a habit sadly also common in lawyers :roll:. Accept my apologizes for pretending that you would narrow your POW as much as to make a long story....short :dead:

Cheers

:nope: Sonst noch was?

You really believe your own BS don't you.You always AMAZE me.You really think America was the Sole source of information and act like they were the only ones doing the math..you insult all other intelligence sources by doing this. Like Europe,Israel ,Australia or whoever else ,does not have any intell of they're own and wait on Emails sent directly from CIA/FBI/NSA to tell them what is going on in the world.Nothing is sercet..it is no secret the evils that men do....wake up and smell the burning flesh and see the worms.

Please refrain from such narrow perspectives and realize it is a BIG Flipping planet with thousands of plots within plots within plots and realize no one is piloting this ship though many try.To "Blame" America is such an easy way out is'nt it Skybird.

Hey Germany...take some responsability....hey world take some ownership...good grief.

This is appropriate huh..us Americans are such war mongers...
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/MyWebF...seKilgore1.jpg

Steady on iceman.

I think i've seen skybird post elsewhere he is fully aware that there was more than 1 intelligence source regarding the war. Hemay be speaking in general terms - i know an extremely large number of people here DO think precisely the way skybird mentions - that its all the US's fault, they're the real root of world evil, blah blah.

Unfortunately too many people have been brainwashed and are ignorant. When the muslim caliphate comes knockin and head loppin, im sure it'll still be americas fault to most people. But i digress OT.

The official premise for the war was the removal of WMDs from Iraq. This is a very interesting piece that AL posted because most opposition parties in various govt's have come out and said that there were never any there. This information proves our governments were, to an as yet undetermined extent, right!





please dont shoot me for statin a fact!

Yeah, things are tough all over. America does it too :-?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

proper reponse to the topic when I'm not sleep-deprived