Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-15-2003, 03:46 AM   #51
Williamross77
 
Williamross77's Avatar
Dojo: aikido of shreveport
Location: Shreveport, Lousiana
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 146
United_States
Offline
NEIL I MENT HUSSEN WAS THE USED CAR SALESMAN NOT YOU, YOU NKOW WITH THE WE DON'T HAVE IT BIT, SORT LIKE EVERYONE IN JAIL IS INNOCENT.

SORRY FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING.

in Aiki
Agatsu!!
 
Old 02-15-2003, 04:05 AM   #52
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
No problem
 
Old 02-15-2003, 04:32 PM   #53
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Or, do you think that going around the world with our uber-army, loaded for bear (and wolf, and Arab...), motivated by fear and misinformation, is a good way to conduct diplomacy and spread democracy?
This is an interesting statement. Most of the misinformation is coming from the anti-war crowd. Really, it by a tremendously wide-margin.

Fear? More interesting. That's precisely what Saddam is best at. Well, that and killing thousands of his own people. Ok, maybe that's not it. It's killing them in creative ways that he's best at. Or, maybe it's duping weapons inspectors.

By the way, since the UN inspectors were pretty much totally duped in the mid 90's, why does anyone think they'll do better this time around?
 
Old 02-15-2003, 06:01 PM   #54
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
Most of the misinformation is coming from the anti-war crowd. Really, it by a tremendously wide-margin.

Fear? More interesting. That's precisely what Saddam is best at.

Or, maybe it's duping weapons inspectors.

By the way, since the UN inspectors were pretty much totally duped in the mid 90's, why does anyone think they'll do better this time around?
Misinformation?? Sorry Eric: referring to a duck as a bear still, IMO, means it quacks and flies. And so, for you (as with Brian, Michael Neal, et al), I loudly cry...

WHERE'S THE BEEF???! Where's the proof of this allegation of misinformation, Eric? From Powell down to Bush, right down to you, the Republican's who nay-say the inspection process simply have no proof.

Would you like to go down the list of Powell's allegations, Eric? I assure you, they don't hold up well, to the light of objective investigation.

But, I fear that neither you, Opher or the rest of you will be convinced, because they don't "feel" right, or the State Dept, or the NY Times, hasn't said it's necessarily so.

To wit I reply, as I did earlier: I'll keep your skepticism under consideration, but since NOTHING I say will convince you, I won't hold my breath...
 
Old 02-15-2003, 07:37 PM   #55
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Snipped!
Neil, take a deep breath and count to 10? Are we there?

Inpections have largely failed. Or, am I missing something in wondering why the inspections ended in 1998? Oh, I forgot, in your world their ending in 1998 was part of a US master plan and had nothing to do with Iraq's intransienge.

Interestingly, in 1995 the UN inspectors thought things were progressing quite nicely. Yes, indeed, inspections were working nicely. Then along come Hussein Kammel's defection and oops, seems they were not doing quite as good a job as they'd thought.

Or, could part of the reason the inspections will fail is that France, Russia and China all have gained, and are continuing to gain, by dealing with Iraq? The missle gyroscopes Iraq illegally acquired in 1995 came from the USSR. Chinese firms have sold to Iraq. France is one of Iraq's largest trading partners and has been either the largest or second largest recipient of the oil-for-food program. Yup, sounds like folks that will put real teeth into an inspection program.

It's the funniest damn thing. Everyone rants about US involvement in the early years but no ever talks about how France, Russia and, to a lesser degree, China have been bought. All we hear is about how it's about Bush and oil when it's probably the exact opposite.

The one reason we are even talking about inspections is because President Bush sent the military over there. Inspectors are in Iraq because, and only because of the military threat.

Some history on inspections:

April 18, 1991: Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.

followed by

August 2, 1991

Iraq declares to the first biological inspection team that it had conducted "biological research activities for defensive military purposes".


then...

September 6, 1991

The first UNSCOM inspection team which intended to use helicopters is blocked by Iraq.


then...

September 21-30, 1991

IAEA inspectors find large amounts of documentation relating to Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day stand-off during which the team remained in the parking lot of the site ensues. Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents following a statement by the President of the Security Council, threatening enforcement action by members of the Council.


then....

March 19, 1992

Iraq declares the existence of previously undeclared ballistic missiles (89), chemical weapons and associated material. Iraq reveals that most of these undeclared items were unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991, in violation of resolution 687 (1991).


June 1992

Iraq provides its first full, final and complete disclosure for its prohibited chemical weapons programme.


then....

March 1995

Iraq provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programmes.


oops, we did have an offensive program...

July 1, 1995

As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme but denies weaponization.


then...

August 1995

Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme.


followed by....

August 8, 1995

General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialisation Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its co-operation is withdrawn.


March 1996

UNSCOM teams are denied immediate access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.


and....

June 1996

Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.


more...

April 8, 1998

The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council. As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq's declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.


finally....

December 16, 1998

The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq.


and about 100 other incidents along the way...

inspections aren't going to work.....

The full text of the above can be found here....

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...1300180003.htm

Last edited by Erik : 02-15-2003 at 07:46 PM.
 
Old 02-15-2003, 08:46 PM   #56
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
Neil, take a deep breath and count to 10? Are we there?
yep. we sure are.
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
Inpections have largely failed. Or, am I missing something in wondering why the inspections ended in 1998? In your world their ending in 1998 was part of a US master plan and had nothing to do with Iraq's intransienge.

Interestingly, in 1995 the UN inspectors thought things were progressing quite nicely. Hussein Kammel's defection and they were not doing quite as good a job as they'd thought.
In quoting you I cut out the most annoying and sarcastic remarks. Whatsa matter, Eric, still smarting over the bit about the Sanctions?

"My world" happens to be your world, too. It's a shame that you imply that there's a difference.

I did a word search for Kamal Hussein. You want to know the first thing I find? An interview with Scott Ritter, former head of UN inspections team, '94-'98. He talks about Kamal Hussein and the US reaction:

"Hussein Kamel's defection added a definite sense of urgency.... Suddenly, Hussein Kamel defects, and it's out there, laid before the world: Iraq is cheating, Iraq is lying, Iraq has not complied, and not complied in a big way. What are you going to do about it?

Now, all the breaks are off. Ekeus said, 'Go,' and we started running, and almost immediately we ran into a brick wall called the United States Government, because the U.S. Government went, You want to do what? When? How?

And what we were talking about was UNSCOM moving out of the realm of just being an assessor of intelligence, to UNSCOM getting actively involved in the collection of intelligence, and using techniques and methodologies that it normally only associated with national governments, not with international organizations, not with a bunch of guys with blue hats and funny sounding names"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...defectors.html

Now, Scott Ritter has a very different take on the ousting of weapons inspectors in 1998. Brace yourself, Eric: this might be hard to take. You sitting down? Good.

Here it is:

HUSSEIN DID NOT OUST THE INSPECTORS. THEY WERE RECALLED ON US INSTRUCTIONS

I found it quoted by Scott Ritter, and also over here:

"Before UNSCOM was withdrawn on US instructions (see R. Butler, Saddam Defiant, p. 224..."

http://www.viwuk.freeserve.co.uk/lib....html#coercive
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
Or, could part of the reason the inspections will fail is that France, Russia and China all have gained, and are continuing to gain, by dealing with Iraq? The missle gyroscopes Iraq illegally acquired in 1995 came from the USSR. Chinese firms have sold to Iraq. France is one of Iraq's largest trading partners and has been either the largest or second largest recipient of the oil-for-food program. Yup, sounds like folks that will put real teeth into an inspection program.
Gimme a break, OK? Brown & Root, parent company of Haliburton, are going to make a KILLING off this war. Talk about Cheney being motivated! And you sit there, and tick off a series of weapons deals that other countres have done, in the past, as if this some damning retort?

Look up your, history, Eric: where did Saddam get all those nice toys, in '88? Who kicked off his nuclear program, blamed his gassing of the Kurds, as well as a shooting of an American vessel, on Iraq...?

Give you a hint...begins with a "U"...ends with an "S"...
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
It's the funniest damn thing. Everyone rants about US involvement in the early years but no ever talks about how France, Russia and, to a lesser degree, China have been bought.
"Bought??" ...by IRAQ??

Now who's in "another world??" Sure, I guess China, France and Russia were "bought" by the lure of eevil lucre, at the risk of pissing off the only superpower in the world.

Right. That must be the reason why they're all lining up against the US. They were bought.

Bought, by a starving nation with (*halleliuh chorus behind*) NO WoMD! , barely able to feed itself, a nation subjected to no-fly zones and stuck with getting by on white and black markets.

Yeah. That makes sense. Much more sense, than inspections working, the US being waay off base on this one and currently breaking up long-standing alliances in its singlemindedness. Better to find something to hang on those bad, evil "old" Europeans, right?

And: better check on that history you posted...sometimes reality is much more complicated than mainstream headlines. It's missing a few of the finer points.
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
The one reason we are even talking about inspections is because President Bush sent the military over there. Inspectors are in Iraq because, and only because of the military threat.
yeah, and your point...? Oh, I see, you still labor under this "world is flat" idea that the inspections "don't" work.

Well, let's look at only one aspect of it, logically.

The inspectors found weapons in the 90's, right? They got Hussein to admit to these violations and to dismantle the weapons.

Now, by all accounts this eliminated at least some (I say "at least some" because this is where we disagree) of the threat.

Gulf War did not eliminate the threat, because he still had the weapons afterward

(another side point: suppose he DOES have WoMD and we invade? Suppose that some of these get smuggled out in the chaos? Where's your big "war will make us safe" idea NOW?).

And so, I have to conclude that, in terms of results: weapons inspections work over war.

If you want to prove otherwise, you have a long way to go.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-15-2003 at 08:56 PM.
 
Old 02-15-2003, 09:10 PM   #57
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
sorry. The shooting of an American vessel was done by Iraq, and blamed by the US on Iran, in the media.
 
Old 02-15-2003, 09:49 PM   #58
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Bill Ross (Williamross77) wrote:
I MENT HUSSEN WAS THE USED CAR SALESMAN NOT YOU, YOU NKOW WITH THE WE DON'T HAVE IT BIT, SORT LIKE EVERYONE IN JAIL IS INNOCENT.
Maybe, Bill, but what if he doesn't have weapons of WoMD, and he is telling the truth (for once in his life)?

It means that we're going to kill a lot of ppl (and be killed) for someone else's gain.

Does this sound familiar?

But, I'm sure Hussein is just looking out for #1, as always. I'm guessing that he's hoping to ride this one through, and do some sneaky "under-the-table" deal with some 1st world nation (maybe the US, later).

He definitely bears watching, and, IMO, the inspections (tougher than they are now) is the way to stop him.
 
Old 02-16-2003, 01:27 AM   #59
Williamross77
 
Williamross77's Avatar
Dojo: aikido of shreveport
Location: Shreveport, Lousiana
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 146
United_States
Offline
OK ALL WARS KILL PEOPLE,?!

BUT BACK TO AIKIDO, IS SHOUDO O' SEISO THE RELVANT POINT OR DO WE EMBATLE AFTER HUSSEN HAS LAIN AN ATOMIC WEAPON IN TO THE HANDS OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLAMS? I WOULD NOT RISK MY CHILDREN TO SPECULATION...

in Aiki
Agatsu!!
 
Old 02-16-2003, 01:46 AM   #60
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Bill Ross (Williamross77) wrote:
OK ALL WARS KILL PEOPLE,?!
Well, yeah, but some wars are preventable. Why kill ppl unnecessarily?
Quote:
Bill Ross (Williamross77) wrote:
BUT BACK TO AIKIDO, IS SHOUDO O' SEISO THE RELVANT POINT OR DO WE EMBATLE AFTER HUSSEN HAS LAIN AN ATOMIC WEAPON IN TO THE HANDS OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLAMS? I WOULD NOT RISK MY CHILDREN TO SPECULATION...
I don't quite understand your post. In terms of the "aiki" thing to do, I wrote a long post, above, about my ideas in aikido and war.

But, Bill: here's the thing...this idea that Hussein is going to put an atomic weapon into the heands of "an Islamic fundamentalist" is a fear. Maybe justified (more likely not), but still a fear.

Now let me put this in another context: when you wake up in the morning, do you worry about your kids crossing the street every second, till they do it? No, might walk them up to the street (depending upon their ages), or tell them to be careful.

You certainly wouldn't advocate shooting someone, even a dangerous driver...? No, you watch for danger, but you don't use violence to "make the danger go away."

So, yeah, Saddam is a threat, but on the scale of threats, he's pretty small at the moment. Pakistan, or ex-USSR weapons being sold on the black market is a much bigger threat, in terms of WoMD.

And, you can't go about the world working from fear. For Hussein, you need a policy of "watchful guidance" that works.

But still, you're right: we can't let him just go unchecked. That's why we need a really strong inspections program. To go against the UN is to become outlaws, ourselves: no worse than any other breaker of international laws.

And if we start a war for no good reason, killing for no reason, aren't we as guilty of murder, as Saddam is of gassing the Kurds?

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-16-2003 at 01:51 AM.
 
Old 02-16-2003, 06:25 AM   #61
DaveO
Dojo: Great Wave Aikido
Location: Alberta, Canada
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 543
Canada
Offline
Hello, Neil; one sec....

BILL, TURN YOUR CAPS LOCK OFF!!!!

Thank you.

Anyway, back to Neil. Hello! I agree with all your points except the last - the Kurds were to my knowledge utterly helpless. As horrible as this coming war wil be, it will be war, not mass slaughter of the helpless. Otherwise, I agree completely, Neil.

A few other points I'd like to add to all - this campaign has been driven by weak comparisons, old cliches and emotional histrionics on both sides - rationality is a small voice largely ignored. Bush takes every opportunity to use the words 'murderous tyrant', 'axis of Evil', and other tired cliches - certainly Hussein is a tyrant and evil, but such repetition is for one reason only: to reinforce the emotional message against Iraq, diverting attention from the facts.

Hussein and Iraq has been compared, time and again, to Hitler's Germany. What a farce! And, if I may say, a serious insult to Germany. The Nazi party was evil, and Germany must - and has - taken responsibility for the horrors of WWII, but one must remember: Germany's military - the Wermacht, the Luftwaffe, and the Kriegsmairne - (sorry if I misspelled) was a huge, superb fighting force; filled with dedicated, skilled and courageous men. That they were The Enemy does not detract from their quality.

Iraq, on the other hand, is contained. It is poor, and getting poorer. It has no friends, it is for all intents and purposes the pariah of the world; and justifiably so; with apologies to the innocent Iraqis trapped in a terrible situation. It has no effective army, no air force, no navy. Almost no infrastructure. Iraq couldn't invade a broom closet much less a country. Question: Why are we going to war? Answer: to protect the world against Iraq. Hmmm - see above; just what threat does Iraq represent?

WoMD? Hah - right. If the US is interested in ridding the world of WoMD, why have they not made war upon those countries that not only have been proven to have such weapons but are fully prepared to use them? I could make a list, but for the moment, let's look at another hotspot - North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. They have demonstrated their intent to use any means necessary to invade the south. They are listed among Bush's 'Axis of Evil'. They are, unlike Iraq, a very real, very dangerous threat. Why is the US not invading them?

There is only one possible answer,given the information provided - Bush wants to invade Iraq. That's all; no other reason - he wants to invade. Millions around the world have protested against it, in the largest demonstrations the world has seen since Viet Nam, and maybe larger. (The response from Mr. Blair was, I thought, quite humorous.) Dr. Blix delivered the report the US didn't want - I'm waiting breathlessly for Bush's response.

To say the US is acting in the world's interest is ludicrous; stopping terror and/or getting Hussein are exactly the last things that would happen.

Gen. Schwatzkopf (sp?) is scared of the outcome - this is telling. A General that decorated, that experienced, with that much of a fighting nature says he's terrified of what will happen, why is no-one in his government listening? The reason can only be that rationality - that ever-diminishing commodity - is being pushed aside in favour of imagined righteousness.

Answers are only easy when they're incomplete.
 
Old 02-16-2003, 06:39 AM   #62
opherdonchin
Dojo: Baltimore Aikido
Location: Baltimore
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 586
Offline
Quote:
But still, you're right: we can't let him just go unchecked. That's why we need a really strong inspections program.
Well, one of the few things I am sure about regarding this ongoing conflict is that the American policy towards Iraq has been the chief reason behind a return to a real inspections program. Further, I can see no other way the UN or Iraq would have returned to these inspections, short of the threat of imminent war.
Quote:
And so, I transfer this idea to maintaining integrity, respecting the opponent (when he plays fair),
I think that this is one of the main places where you and I disagree, Neil. I believe that my respect for my partner needs to be there whether or not my partner 'plays fair.' I need to maintain appropriate posture regardless of whether my uke is being a good uke.
Quote:
I also consider the integrity of my opponent (in this case, the Powers that Be, or the mainstram media). Are they acting honestly? Or, are they being deceptive, and why?
Here, also, I see things differently. My job is not to judge my partners AiKiDo. Rather, I try to recognize those places where my partner IS doing AiKiDo -- to see the integrity they do have and the flexibility and the responsiveness that is in their movement -- and to find a way to connect to this. Ultimately, AiKiDo is about accepting a situation which is not ideal and finding a way to make progress by thinking creatively within the constraints of that situation.
Quote:
But, I fear that neither you, Opher or the rest of you will be convinced, because they don't "feel" right, or the State Dept, or the NY Times, hasn't said it's necessarily so.
I don't like it when you impugn ideas and thoughts to me, Neil. There's nothing wrong with it in general, but you seem to rarely 'get me.' My feeling is that you don't really know where I'm coming from on these issues.

Yours in Aiki
Opher
 
Old 02-16-2003, 09:06 AM   #63
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Neil, you should have mentioned the second, third and fourth articles. Here's the second one from your link at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...defectors.html

Iraq had a big problem on its hands, because it needed a new explanation for [Kamel's revelations]. And the explanation they hit upon was, "We are shocked, shocked, to discover that under our very noses, Kamel all this time has been hiding all kinds of weapons and documentation. We've discovered it on his chicken farm, and here it is. You may have it all."

And they deliver to UNSCOM one million pages of newly-declared documents, which show a lot of biological weapons programs, which show a lot more chemical weapons programs, which show material shortfalls, which show missile stuff, which show nuclear stuff. But -- and it took a long time to do this -- as UNSCOM went through these million pages of documents, and hundreds of crates, they found that there were interesting gaps.

For example, all the biological stuff was described as research. There was nothing on weaponization, that is to say, nothing on taking what you know to be a toxic bug -- anthrax say -- and putting it into a warhead that can be used as a military weapon. That's a big part of the problem. ... So in each case, Iraq kept back something important. Usually the most important thing.

Hussein Kamel's defection tells UNSCOM that not only have they been missing something, but they've been missing a huge, huge amount of what they were supposed to be finding. Way more than they had ever suspected. Their worst nightmare scenario was eclipsed by the documents on this chicken farm, and it meant the beginning of a major new phase of biological, missile, chemical, and nuclear investigations.


Without Kamel, none of this.
Quote:
HUSSEIN DID NOT OUST THE INSPECTORS.
Conceded, in the abstract. More in a second.
Quote:
THEY WERE RECALLED ON US INSTRUCTIONS
Here you are pushing it. I was unaware that the UN inspectors acted solely on US authority?

Try my link,

http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/exit_...ctors_1998.htm
Quote:
Gimme a break, OK? Brown & Root, parent company of Haliburton, are going to make a KILLING off this war. Talk about Cheney being motivated! And you sit there, and tick off a series of weapons deals that other countres have done, in the past, as if this some damning retort?

Look up your, history, Eric: where did Saddam get all those nice toys, in '88? Who kicked off his nuclear program, blamed his gassing of the Kurds, as well as a shooting of an American vessel, on Iraq...?

Give you a hint...begins with a "U"...ends with an "S"... .
From France....

http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide...aq/iraq95.html

From the USSR / Russia...

http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide...aq/iraq94.html

From the rest of the world...

http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide...aq/iraq93.html

Looks like a lot of folks joined that party.
Quote:
Better to find something to hang on those bad, evil "old" Europeans, right?
Nope, just wanted to make sure that certain facts got mentioned. These countries have a history with Iraq. If you and others feel it's fair to mention our history, then their history needs mentioning. I'll have to look for some numbers on the oil-for-food program. I bet the results would be interesting.
Quote:
And: better check on that history you posted...sometimes reality is much more complicated than mainstream headlines. It's missing a few of the finer points.
The point is easy. History repeats itself. Many times when looking at that sever year period.
Quote:
The inspectors found weapons in the 90's, right? They got Hussein to admit to these violations and to dismantle the weapons.

Now, by all accounts this eliminated at least some (I say "at least some" because this is where we disagree) of the threat.

Gulf War did not eliminate the threat, because he still had the weapons afterward
The Gulf war never intended to eliminate the weapons because no one really knew how much he had. More accurately, it wasn't the inspectors that did it. It was the big stick of the US and Great Britain that did it. I said it before; there would be no inspectors in Iraq today without 150,000 US troops in the region. When they leave, you will see a repeat of 1991 through 1998 all over again.
Quote:
Where's your big "war will make us safe" idea NOW?).
I wouldn't argue for a war on that basis. This is where I think Bush has erred. Saddam is really not a direct threat to the US today. It's the man's actions; his threat to the region, and the inevitable and far higher price you will pay to do it later. Those things are what matter. He has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people directly in forms too numerous to mention, and indirectly through his determination to maintain WOMD which have kept the sanctions in place. It's easy to portray Bush as the evil oilman but it doesn't fly. The history is plainly writ and this debate has gone on since 1991 through 3 US presidents.

It may also be that we will be safer because of it. Imagine a US military response that quickly removes Saddam from power. The US steps in and rebuilds the country. Everyone knows what Saddam is. His neighbors know what he is. His removal would be well received. In rebuilding the country we do it right. We provide the money, rebuild the infrastructure and provide Iraq with a democracy. That could conceivably go a long way towards improving our position in the Arab world and it could well make the US a safer place.

The simple truth is that without a change, we will almost certainly wake up in 5 to 10 years with a nuclear-armed Iraq. Ask yourself why he never came clean with the WOMD? Five times he changed his declarations. First he had no biological weapons. Then he only had defensive weapons. Then he had not weaponized his offensive weapons. Over and over and over it goes. The only reason he even admitted most of this is because of Kamel. It's very likely that without Kamel the UN inspectors would have left in 1996 unaware of what they should have even been looking for. Why are the weapons so important to him? Why does he fight so hard on an issue that when resolved would have ended sanctions? Why are we even talking about inspectors today? What happens in a year if the US military has to stand-down if we drag this out? Where will the inspectors be in a year? He's shown a full and complete willingness to use chemical weapons. He did it regularly against Iran and the Kurds. Surely he'd use a nuke if threatened.

The anwser to those questions are why you go to war. You go to war today for the same reason that France and Great Britain should have gone to war in 1938. You do it because the price you pay today, though painful, is a 100 times less painful than the price you will pay in a few years. You do it because if you don't many more people will die in Iraq and whichever country he chooses to go to war with next.
 
Old 02-16-2003, 01:59 PM   #64
Williamross77
 
Williamross77's Avatar
Dojo: aikido of shreveport
Location: Shreveport, Lousiana
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 146
United_States
Offline
IMHO, hussen is hoping to gas and nuke Isreal in an attempt to draw them into a conflict in which Iraq leads the Arab world in a fight with Isreal in the hopes that all the combined Arab states could do what the seven could not in the 7 day war. we know that Isreal would still win until Pakistan might agree to assist its Muslim neighbors with its nuclear arsenal, then... well , it is more than a grudge : Bush and Hussen fueds.

in Aiki
Agatsu!!
 
Old 02-17-2003, 11:32 AM   #65
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
My feeling is that you don't really know where I'm coming from on these issues.
I'll be the first to agree with you here, Opher. My apologies for lumping your opinions in, with others. But, you have questioned my sources based upon their "feel," rather than their possible basis in fact. So, there you are.

OTOH, I'd like to think that I'm familiar with your stance on certain issues (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), but your general philosophy still is a mystery, to me.


Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
I need to maintain appropriate posture regardless of whether my uke is being a good uke. My job is not to judge my partners AiKiDo.
Unquestionably, we are in agreement here. However, I was referring to the case when uke might not be an Aikidoist, or uses "dirty tactics" in a conflict.

Also, I was attempting to use a metaphorical model of using Aikido to address a political issue (i.e., war), and I'd welcome any further thoughts you might have, in this vein.
Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
Well, one of the few things I am sure about regarding this ongoing conflict is that the American policy towards Iraq has been the chief reason behind a return to a real inspections program.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree, here. My opinion is: maybe inspections could have worked without US threats to war, maybe not.

But, certainly the course of inspections do not need unilateral threats to go to war, massive build-up's of US troops in the area, an erasing of the distinctions between nuclear and conventional war, no-fly zones not sanctioned by the UN, or baseless chages of WoMD, do they?

How about a little moderation, such as a FEW more troops, a little sabre rattling, instead of cowboy diplomacy overkill?
 
Old 02-17-2003, 02:29 PM   #66
opherdonchin
Dojo: Baltimore Aikido
Location: Baltimore
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 586
Offline
Quote:
OTOH, I'd like to think that I'm familiar with your stance on certain issues (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), but your general philosophy still is a mystery, to me.
I'd be very surprised if you know what I think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I certainly don't remember ever saying what that is here on this site. My general philosophy, on the other hand, is fairly straightforward: I believe that questions teach us more than answers and that when two people disagree it is rare that they are not both right.
Quote:
Unquestionably, we are in agreement here. However, I was referring to the case when uke might not be an Aikidoist, or uses "dirty tactics" in a conflict.
Ah, but that's my point: the world is not an Aikidoist and it does fight dirty. If AiKiDo is to be effective (and I'm speaking metaphorically here, since I have no experience of 'real fights') we need to be able to apply it without first judging whether our partner is 'worthy' or a 'good aikidoka.'

When working with a beginner, it is my job to find the AiKiDo that they ARE doing and work with that. Similarly, when working out in the real world, I have to find the way to connect to my partner's intention and to find their good will. This is what creates the harmony that allows progress.
Quote:
How about a little moderation, such as a FEW more troops, a little sabre rattling, instead of cowboy diplomacy overkill?
I have some sympathy with this perspective, however it turns the question into a tactical rather than a strategic one. Some people would argue that Clinton tried this, with relatively little success. I'm not sure if that's right, but what I certainly notice is that what Bush did DID in fact succeed in the limited goal of reinstalling inspectors and encouraging Iraqi cooperation. Judging from the Iraqi brinksmanship, it is possible that the same could have been achieved with less, but it would have been tricky.

Of course, you could argue that the European good-cop has been just as important as the American bad-cop. Or you could argue that inspections in Iraq are not a very important goal. There are also lots of other legitimate reasons to criticize the Bush administration's approach. None of this takes away from the importance of noticing the success.

Yours in Aiki
Opher
 
Old 02-17-2003, 02:40 PM   #67
DaveO
Dojo: Great Wave Aikido
Location: Alberta, Canada
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 543
Canada
Offline
Side issue; having nothing to do with the conversation. Well; not much anyway. One of the things that's got me puzzled - really puzzled - is the demand for Iraq to allow US U2 reconnaissance aircraft to overfly the country. Not that I disagree with spy planes - they're necessary. But - why did the US ask? They've never asked before, and they've overflown plenty of places with much better SAM capability than Iraq. It doesn't make sense.

The only answer I can see, and I stress that I'm NOT using this to further my own argument, because I state outright that I don't know the answer, is that the US is using it as a negotiating tool - force Hussein to allow something he can't stop and has been going on anyway, thus creating an opening for the allowance of further demands. It also forces Hussein into a humiliating situation - the allowance of spy planes would be a truly bitter pill. From a strictly diplomatic point of view, that's a pretty agressive (and clever) move - essentially giving Hussein another cause to rebel against, thus provoking war.

Answers are only easy when they're incomplete.
 
Old 02-17-2003, 07:27 PM   #68
opherdonchin
Dojo: Baltimore Aikido
Location: Baltimore
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 586
Offline
I thought Iraq had shot down two of those spy planes over the last month.

Yours in Aiki
Opher
 
Old 02-17-2003, 09:08 PM   #69
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
I'd be very surprised if you know what I think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Jeez, Opher, what happened? You get up on the wrong side of the bed today?

No, I suppose I DON'T know your every thought and view on the Palestinian conflict, but I can get a general picture. I also know that you and I have a different perspective on the issue, and that your perspective draws from personal experience, which is why I value your thoughts, even as they do not always complement mine.

I remember your first post I read of yours, in fact: you responded to how Palestinian and Jewish Aikidoists interact in Haifa. I was fascinated.

But, never fear, the great "mysterious" Opher is still, largely, a mystery, in the measure of yours truly
Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
I believe that questions teach us more than answers and that when two people disagree it is rare that they are not both right.
No disagreement, here.
Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
we need to be able to apply it without first judging whether our partner is 'worthy' or a 'good aikidoka.'
OK, we've gotten waay far afield of my original meaning of "evaluating" uke. You're reading too much into my words.

But, OTOH: I see where you got this idea. And, I am far from happy with my post on the "aiki" view of political thought.

To critique myself (which I have long wanted to do, lol), I neglected to point out there is a difference between political action, and appropriate political discussion.

But, I'm going to cede the point to you, because the more I think about it, the less I like the idea of judging uke to be "worthy."

It's not how I train, and it's not what I meant.

But, to turn the question around, let me ask you this: how do you deal with intolerance or abuse, from an aiki perspective?

What is the aiki way to deal with an abusive government, for example? Or, what if, as in your last post, the "beginner" is not expressing their aiki, sees you as the "enemy," and deals with you in a manner lacking etiquette, all the while pretending to act from a position of strength, or good aiki?

What is the aiki position of intolerance?
Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
I certainly notice is that what Bush did DID in fact succeed in the limited goal of reinstalling inspectors and encouraging Iraqi cooperation.
Right.

And, I noticed that my forum posts, in fact, succeeded in reinstalling inspectors, too.

As you mentioned, merely because the inspections are working, does not mean that it's a result of the US "bad cop" strategy. Might as well blame it on the good weather; picking out one phenomena going on at the time and holding it up as a "raison d'etre" for the inspections working is deterministic rationalization.

Also, I find it amusing how, 2 weeks ago, a lot of conservatives are saying: "Inspections are no good!! They won't work!!"

And, what do we hear now? "Oh: it's all because of W's tough-guy act, that they're working now."

Yeah, that must be it. And, if W actually DOES go to war unilaterally, I guess we'll hear next that he tried to play fair, but he had to go the "next step" to oust the bad guy who won't "play the game."

ANYTHING, to apologize for W flaunting international law, right?

********************************

So many response, so little time. It's great to see more interest in this thread; although I wish I could hear from a side central to the Iraqi conflict that is understandably silent: the view from an Iraqi, living in Iraq.

I type from a mac and my time is short. I'll respond to everyone who posted to me, tomorrow.
 
Old 02-17-2003, 09:14 PM   #70
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Quote:
Opher Donchin (opherdonchin) wrote:
I thought Iraq had shot down two of those spy planes over the last month.
Huh? Nope, no planes have been shot down that I'm aware of. Perhaps you've been reading the Iraqi press?
 
Old 02-17-2003, 09:40 PM   #71
Erik
Location: Bay Area
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,200
Offline
Quote:
So many response, so little time. It's great to see more interest in this thread; although I wish I could hear from a side central to the Iraqi conflict that is understandably silent: the view from an Iraqi, living in Iraq.
Since that is a death sentence I'm sure you'll understand their silence. Remember Kamel? He went back to Iraq. It was a bad choice.

By the way, one clarification on the inspectors. There are now UN inspectors in Iraq. They are there because of GW and the US military. That does not mean that the inspections are working. It simply means that there inspections happening. It's very important to differentiate that.
 
Old 02-17-2003, 10:04 PM   #72
Jim23
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 482
Offline
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
Neil, take a deep breath and count to 10? Are we there?

Inpections have largely failed. Or, am I missing something in wondering why the inspections ended in 1998? Oh, I forgot, in your world their ending in 1998 was part of a US master plan and had nothing to do with Iraq's intransienge.

Interestingly, in 1995 the UN inspectors thought things were progressing quite nicely. Yes, indeed, inspections were working nicely. Then along come Hussein Kammel's defection and oops, seems they were not doing quite as good a job as they'd thought.

Or, could part of the reason the inspections will fail is that France, Russia and China all have gained, and are continuing to gain, by dealing with Iraq? The missle gyroscopes Iraq illegally acquired in 1995 came from the USSR. Chinese firms have sold to Iraq. France is one of Iraq's largest trading partners and has been either the largest or second largest recipient of the oil-for-food program. Yup, sounds like folks that will put real teeth into an inspection program.

It's the funniest damn thing. Everyone rants about US involvement in the early years but no ever talks about how France, Russia and, to a lesser degree, China have been bought. All we hear is about how it's about Bush and oil when it's probably the exact opposite.

The one reason we are even talking about inspections is because President Bush sent the military over there. Inspectors are in Iraq because, and only because of the military threat.

Some history on inspections:

April 18, 1991: Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.

followed by

August 2, 1991

Iraq declares to the first biological inspection team that it had conducted "biological research activities for defensive military purposes".


then...

September 6, 1991

The first UNSCOM inspection team which intended to use helicopters is blocked by Iraq.


then...

September 21-30, 1991

IAEA inspectors find large amounts of documentation relating to Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The Iraqi officials confiscate some documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day stand-off during which the team remained in the parking lot of the site ensues. Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents following a statement by the President of the Security Council, threatening enforcement action by members of the Council.


then....

March 19, 1992

Iraq declares the existence of previously undeclared ballistic missiles (89), chemical weapons and associated material. Iraq reveals that most of these undeclared items were unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991, in violation of resolution 687 (1991).


June 1992

Iraq provides its first full, final and complete disclosure for its prohibited chemical weapons programme.


then....

March 1995

Iraq provides the second Full, Final and Complete Disclosures of its prohibited biological and chemical weapons programmes.


oops, we did have an offensive program...

July 1, 1995

As a result of UNSCOM's investigations and in the light of irrefutable evidence, Iraq admits for the first time the existence of an offensive biological weapons programme but denies weaponization.


then...

August 1995

Iraq provides the third Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme.


followed by....

August 8, 1995

General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialisation Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its co-operation is withdrawn.


March 1996

UNSCOM teams are denied immediate access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.


and....

June 1996

Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.


more...

April 8, 1998

The report of the biological weapons TEM is transmitted to the Council. As with the other TEMs, the experts unanimously conclude that Iraq's declaration on its biological weapons programme is incomplete and inadequate.


finally....

December 16, 1998

The Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq.


and about 100 other incidents along the way...

inspections aren't going to work.....

The full text of the above can be found here....

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...1300180003.htm
Erik's the man!

Remember though, in the end, this is all politics. Ultimately, who's going to win and who's going to lose. Maybe we should win this one.

Remember, all generalizations are false
 
Old 02-18-2003, 03:04 AM   #73
Williamross77
 
Williamross77's Avatar
Dojo: aikido of shreveport
Location: Shreveport, Lousiana
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 146
United_States
Offline
the Iraqis shot down one drone, not the U2.

in Aiki
Agatsu!!
 
Old 02-18-2003, 12:38 PM   #74
opherdonchin
Dojo: Baltimore Aikido
Location: Baltimore
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 586
Offline
Quote:
No, I suppose I DON'T know your every thought and view on the Palestinian conflict, but I can get a general picture.
Again, I'd be surprised, although I could be wrong.
Quote:
But, to turn the question around, let me ask you this: how do you deal with intolerance or abuse, from an aiki perspective? What is the aiki way to deal with an abusive government, for example? Or, what if, as in your last post, the "beginner" is not expressing their aiki, sees you as the "enemy," and deals with you in a manner lacking etiquette, all the while pretending to act from a position of strength, or good aiki?
These are excellent and hard questions. I don't have answers, but I have my attempts to deal with them, and I can share those with you.

My own answers begin in noticing that when I first started practicing AiKiDo, it didn't work. In fact, every new situation where I try to apply AiKiDo (two sword techniques and randori with shinai are two recent examples for me) it doesn't 'work' as well as it does in the situations I'm familiar with. When I look to carry my AiKiDo over to 'real world' situations, I guess I assume that it won't 'work' all that well either, until I've accumulated years of practice. Factor in that the real world is much more complicated and unpredictable than the dojo and that becames long decades of study before I feel like I have begun to be truly effective.

In the meantime, I will have to accept that I often allow my ego and my own desire to be powerful and right lead me into unnecessary struggles. Sometimes I am succesful in those struggles and other times I get beaten. More often than not, neither happens and I just get tired. Part of AiKiDo is learning to notice when I'm struggling. Even if I don't see alternatives, at least I train myself to be more aware of my own postures and habits. Perhaps with time, alternatives will become easier to see.

Of course, it is always possible to try carrying over the physical lessons of the dojoj directly to the metaphorical sphere. There are a couple that come immediately to mind:
[list=1]
[*]Don't try to move from where you have been grabbed. In the world of political discussions, this translates for me into: don't try to change the other persons point of view about things on which you disagree. Instead, we learn in the dojo, movement begins from the parts of your body that are free to move. By moving your body around, you affect the point of conflict automatically.
[*]Position yourself in a position of harmony. Move your body (your perspective, your presentation of your ideas, whatever) until you reach a point where you and uke are looking at the world from the same perspective. From there, it will be much easier to see what sort of movement uke is capable of.
[*]Whenever uke is not moving, return your focus to yourself. Its almost certain (in the dojo, anyway) that your posture or center have been compromised. If you return yourself to good, centered posture, you will almsot always find that uke has begun to move. I think this works in political discussions. Its almost always a good habit, when things get stuck, to stop worrying about what I want my partner to understand and refocus on my own motivations and my own sense of internal balance.
[/list=1]

I've avoided the 'love and harmony' types of ideas because those can be very hard if your partner's attitude towards calls up strong feelings of defensiveness. If you can manage them, of course, I think they're still amazingly effective.

Most of this has to do with talking to people and not with influencing the policies of a country. That's mostly because philosophically I'm much more interested in interactions between real people and because your only affect on the country is through your interactions with real people. I also remember my first teacher telling me that all the one-point and unbendable arm in the world wouldn't stop a speeding train.

Yours in Aiki
Opher
 
Old 02-18-2003, 04:47 PM   #75
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Yes, Eric, Jim's right! You da' man!

My congratulations for your last post; what can I say? Eqituette-wise, it is much improved...nary a single conspiracy-label or slur in sight. My hat's off to you!

Regarding your FACTS, however...
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
Neil, you should have mentioned the second, third and fourth articles.
There was a definite reason why I did not quote those articles. I wanted to use the PBS link as a starting-point for the views of Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector from 1994-1998.

But, PBS itself is hardly unbiased. In fact, it has shown an increasingly rightward slant since its funding has come under question by the conservative camp:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/pbs-factsheet.html

(In fact, Dr. Khidir Hamza, listed on the site as a "nuclear physicist, key to Hussein's nuclear weapons program, has come under attack for possibly overestimating his importance and casting wild and speculative assertions about Hussein's nuclear readiness).

But, let's get back to Mr. Ritter's perspective. Unlike you, me, and several of the viewpoints chosen on the PBS site, Mr. Ritter has had access to both Hussein Kamal's testimony, and the UNSCOMM process itself.

In fact, when you assert that "without Kamal, they would have never found the weapons" is a baseless leap in logic.

If, for example, we are going on a treasure hunt, and you get one of the judges to tell you where you can find 1/2 of the objects, it is ridiculous to claim that you wouldn't be able to find them, without this judge's help.

And Mr. Ritter seems to agree with me.

"Contrary to the myth propagated by Cheney, there were no "smoking gun" revelations made by Hussein Kamal regarding hidden Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a UN special commission, Hussein Kamal reiterated his main point--that nothing was left. "All chemical weapons were destroyed," he said. "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed. There is not a single missile left ... they [Iraq] had kept blueprints and molds for production, but all the missiles were destroyed."

Everything Hussein Kamal said about Iraq's undeclared weapons programs was confirmed, in parallel, through the ongoing analysis by UNSCOM experts of the chicken farm documentation alluded to by Cheney."

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0910-04.htm

Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
What can I say, Eric, but....thank you! It is rare that someone arguing against me provides a post that supports my position.

A chestnut from that same link, for example:

"I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission [...] Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.' I told him that I would act on his advice and remove my staff from Iraq."

Given that the chain of events is so well established, it is surprising that many commentators and politicians have claimed since 1999 that Iraq "expelled" the weapons inspectors in December 1998. This mistake has been made not only by hawks such as President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address ("the axis of evil" speech), Dick Cheney (before he became vice-president), Alexander Rose, the Canadian right-wing Washington correspondent of the National Post, and the editorial writers of the Sunday Times. It has also been repeated by those who have shown concern for the humanitarian situation in Iraq, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Liberal Democrats foreign affairs spokesperson Menzies Campbell, and the usually superb Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker. The BBC often makes this mistake, and usually acknowledges its error when it is pointed out to them.

It was hardly unpredictable that the Iraqi regime would refuse after December 1998 to re-admit the arms inspectors who had been withdrawn so that Iraq could be bombed."
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
just wanted to make sure that certain facts got mentioned. These countries have a history with Iraq. If you and others feel it's fair to mention our history, then their history needs mentioning.
Wow, Eric: you've got me, here. What can I say? OK, I'll come clean. Yes, I admit, other nations' hands are "dirty" in dealing with Iraq.

Whew, that felt better. Confession IS good for the soul.

What this has to do with the argument to wage war on Iraq, I have no idea. The fact that US companies in general, Brown & Root in particular, and the President-select in political, all have a stake in waging war on Iraq, IS, IMO, the point.

Also, attack helicopters and missiles from France and Russia, doth not chemicals, biological and nuclear material from the US make.

"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

'It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department.' "

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup

Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds, By Michael Dobbs

Washington Post Staff Writer, 12/30/02

Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
The Gulf war never intended to eliminate the weapons because no one really knew how much he had. More accurately, it wasn't the inspectors that did it. It was the big stick of the US and Great Britain that did it. I said it before; there would be no inspectors in Iraq today without 150,000 US troops in the region. When they leave, you will see a repeat of 1991 through 1998 all over again.
You may have said it before, Eric, but once again: a duck is still a duck, even if you try to dress it up as a bear.

It does not matter if Gulf War I wasn't intended to eliminate Hussein's WoMD. It is being cited as the main recourse for disarming Hussein, and as such it needs to be argued from that perspective. If you complain of a stomach ache and I suggest a hammer to your fingers, don't you think that pointing out hammering one's carpal's never works for gastrointestinal disorders, is a valid observation, hmm? (well, maybe not, sice you seem stuck on this mantra of "inspections don't work," in spite of the null-set of proof you've offered...)

And again: the inspectors, from David Kay to Richard Butler to Scott Ritter to Hans Blix, all say that inspections do work (they debate the total effectiveness of ridding Iraq of its threat, but none state that the program isn't effective, at all). Perhaps these "primary sources" know a bit more than you about the program...?

But, then again: I'm not surprised at your confusion. Even the media seems to possess an odd double-standard about historical events, even those of 4 years ago. It seems that Cheney is not the only person who likes to re-invent history:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
It may also be that we will be safer because of it. Imagine a US military response that quickly removes Saddam from power. The US steps in and rebuilds the country. Everyone knows what Saddam is. His neighbors know what he is. His removal would be well received. In rebuilding the country we do it right. We provide the money, rebuild the infrastructure and provide Iraq with a democracy. That could conceivably go a long way towards improving our position in the Arab world and it could well make the US a safer place.
Reading this passage reminds me of the Wahnsee Conference. Remember that little dark splotch on history, Eric? No? Well, let me re-cap:

The Nazi establishment needed to figure out a better method to make the Jewish "problem" "go away." Apparently, they were somewhat successful in in rounding up the Jewish civilians and killing them by forcing them into trucks with gas exhaust piped into the back, but it was inefficient and didn't do the job, as systematically as they liked.

And so, they came up with a total system of detention, or concentration, camps.

The similarities lie in your blanket use of making Saddam, almost as if he were a pimple on the face of Iraq. The nasty fact of DU dust, a nation on its knees in medical and agricultural infrastructure, and the horrid estimated cost of US and Iraqi lives never seems to enter into the picture.

Many (with good reason), view the Sanctions as genocidal. And now you suggest that we "remove" Hussein by bombing and "invading" Iraq to "replace" him, forgetting all the bodies we'd have to step over, to get to him.

Not to mention, of course, that many ppl, from sources in the Pentagon to the Academy of Arts & Sciences, fer pete's sake, say that an invasion will make us LESS safer, not more.

And, of COURSE, once this whole charade is over (assuming we invade), we'll clean up our mess, just like we did in Afghanistan, right?

Yeah, right.

Sorry, Eric: you did better, this time, but that bear's still quacking,,,

But, of course: if I could document every square inch of Iraq and show you that there's no WoMD, you'd still be unconvinced.
Quote:
Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote:
The simple truth is that without a change, we will almost certainly wake up in 5 to 10 years with a nuclear-armed Iraq.
I'm still waiting for the beef, Eric. "Almost certainly?" Since neither you, nor Powell, nor Cheney, has come up with the evidence, I'm guessing I'll be waiting a loong time...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-18-2003 at 04:52 PM.
 

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:34 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate