This first story from Canada tells about the two pronged assault terrorists had planned. But the really good news comes all the way at the end of the second three page story linked below. And that is the statement by Liberal Leader Bill Graham: Canada must continue its military role in Afghanistan or risk more terrorist threats at home.
At first I was afraid it was a typo. It isn't. And the acknowledgement that success in Afghanistan is critical for domestic security is key to understanding the GWOT. While people may differ on Iraq, the principle is the very same. And in the US, Al Gore recently mentioned the need to see things through to stability in Iraq.
Bombings, an armed assault on Parliament and even the beheading of Prime Minister Stephen Harper were among a chilling miscellany of possible terrorist attacks that emerged Tuesday when the alleged architects of a massive terrorist plot made their second appearance in court.
While the Canadian arrests may not have been the turning point, my first reaction which I posted a day or two ago was that the Canadian situation would bolster support across the board for America's war effort. Excepting in some far Left corners of the pundit community, in which I include the NYTimes, hopefully we're going to be able to weather the onslaught of Haditha.
In a 15-minute telephone conversation Monday, U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his appreciation for Canada's efforts to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Liberal Leader Bill Graham, meanwhile, said Canada must continue its military role in Afghanistan or risk more terrorist threats at home.
Canada's troops are in Afghanistan precisely to bring peace to that country, he said, and ''we hope well succeed in that engagement, which is so important for Canada and the international community.''
''I'm afraid that if we don't succeed, the threats will get bigger. The success of our forces in Afghanistan are more and more important, as shown by what we happened this weekend.''
The London Times had a great editorial, as well.
By the way, Bill and Mr Gillnitz, for a spectacular primer on how one terrorist group is not reasonably separable from another terrorist group, thus invalidating all the claims that "Iraq had no 'collaborative relationship' with al Qaida, therefore there's no connection at all" [et al], please avail yourselves of the AP reports currently circulating in the aftermath of al Zarqawi's death.
Interesting little timeline there, with a sinister mixture of anti-Jordanian terrorism [for which Jordan's courts sentenced him to death in abstentia]; anti-Israeli terrorism, anti-American terrorism predating the war in Iraq; anti-American/coalition terrorism after... et cetera.
As Mr Gillnitz acknowledges: these people don't have membership cards. Allegiance is fluid, and so are the assets. When money falls into the hands of Hamas -- as tens of millions of Hussein's dollars did [before Oil4Food and after] -- it pops up in every terrorist organization associated.
As do the individual terrorists.
Posted by: rwilymz | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 04:37 PM
one terrorist group is not reasonably separable from another terrorist
Posted by: rwilymz | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 04:37 PM
What a contorted argument. So the right wing nut bars who blew up the building in Oklahoma are exactly the same as those who pulled off 9/11? That must be some good shit you are smoking, rwilymz. By that argument the US is a terrorist organization as well since we DID support al Quada back when they were fighting the Soviets and Saddam when he was fighting Iran. Its all the same, right?
Terrorist organizations have very different goals, methods, and funding sources. al Zarqawi's death is a perfect example of that. al Zarqawi was killing Shittes and bombing hotels in Jordon against the wishs of bin Laudin. So they narced on him and we blew him up.
Posted by: John Gillnitz | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 05:43 PM
Ahem, to those arguing that people should not be afraid to allow the war to come here...
In military matters, there is NO SUCH THING as home field advantage. I will trust the military leadership who especially espouse this philosophy. Societies create, equip, sustain and honour their military forces so that these forces can "do the dirty work" that protects the society as a whole. Sending the fight as far as possible away from home is a highly valuable best-defense-is-a-good-offense strategy.
One can argue, persuasively, in favor of the "flypaper" strategy of inviting Islamist scumbags from all over to pick a fight with the militaries of civilized societies in Iraq and Afghanistan; so many scumbags were already there, and a very large number (read the newswires) from elsewhere came to meet their promised harem of virgins, courtesy of the US military and allied forces. Bring it on, indeed, but bring it on over there.
One can also argue that the "flypaper" strategy does not prevent some Islamist scumbags from trying to bring terror directly to the infidel societies. Fine, that is where vigilance on the part of civilized societies' espionage and law enforcement teams are crucial. Kudos to the Canadians on what appears to be a recent victory, and on other known (and likely unknown) successes. It's a shame that there have been other failures in the past (US Embassy attack in Tehran, Lockerbie/Pan Am, US Marine massacre in Beirut, German nightclub bombing, TWA hijacking, Achile Lauro (sp?) shipjacking, USS Cole, WTC bombing, US Embassy bombings in Africa, Kobar (sp?) Towers, 9/11, Bali, that shoe-bomber moron, Madrid trains, London public transit, and probably a few others that my memory-dump failed to list in just a few minutes of thought, and that did not include the omnipresent threat to any location in Israel).
One can also argue that Afghanistan/Iraq is the cause of the problem, and I have heard some message like "For every Allah-loving jihadist you kill, (insert spectacular number here) new jihadists are created" coming from the creeps who send audio and video tapes to Al Jazeera. To this I say: look back at the above paragraph, and reflect on the timing of so many of those incidents with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq. Wake up folks, there has been a (declared? undeclared?) war on civilzed society for a long time; the sleeping giant of USA and democratic rule-of-law civilized allies took a very long time to wake up.
"The best way to defeat your enemy is to turn him into a friend." Sorry, the terms under which friendship with this enemy is possible are unacceptable. The best, the ONLY, way to defeat this enemy is to kill him wherever he rears his despicable head.
So, three cheers to the military for going away over there to protect us here, and three cheers to those people given the stressful task of protecting us here.
Bob.
Posted by: Bob | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 06:15 PM
Ross claims:
> Iraq lost the ability to CREATE chemical weapons. They didn't lose the chemical weapons they already had.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
And your reference supporting this belief is .... ? What exactly?
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Ross again sugggests:
> thus invalidating all the claims that "Iraq had no 'collaborative relationship' with al Qaida ...
Links supporting your argument? You're pretty big on bluster, and pretty small on evidence.
I've posted my link to the 9/11 Commission -- and they disagree with you, Ross.
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 06:27 PM
Ross,
Newsflash! I've just done a quick google, and the Senate select committee on Intelligence (unaccountably) has a different conclusion to you! The Senate report (read it here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/ ) concludes:
"Conclusion 61. The Intelligence Community's assessment that "Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of chemical weapons agents — much of it added in the last year," was an analytical judgment and not based on intelligence reporting.
Conclusion 63. The National Intelligence Estimate assessment that "Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited chemical weapons production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry" was not substantiated by the intelligence provided to the Committee."
Quick Ross, lets get your vast amount of evidence in front of the Senate, and get them to correct their mistakes!
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 06:40 PM
Bob,
How would you feel if a foreign army invaded the US, locked up President Bush, put him on trial, and imposed some other government and constitution?
You'd probably be pretty ticked, right? If you're a red meat eater, like me, you might even feel angry enough to pick up a rifle and try to make it hard on the occupiers. Maybe plant a few IEDs every week? Maybe even get made enough to punish collaborators.
Now wrap your mind around this: a lot of people in Iraq are in that very situation today. Our army is not seen as a group of friendly liberators. Our soldiers are seen as violent oppressors. Every Abu Ghraib, every Fallujah, every Haditha, every woman killed at a road block, every wedding party bombed just fixes that image more firmly in Iraqi minds.
Would you fight to the end if America was overrun? I like to think I would. I think the Iraqis will too. There is nothing more that our army of occupation can do in Iraq except try feebly to keep the armed militas apart and try to postpone the civil war. Our soldiers are targets. What more do you want them to do.
And to the person who thought it was a good idea to grind up our soldiers in Iraq "so we don't have to fight them here", I suggest you enlist and find out first hand how good that notion is.
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 06:49 PM
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb thought to contain deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war.
Two members of a military bomb squad were treated for “minor exposure,” but no serious injuries were reported.
The chemicals were inside an artillery shell dating to the Saddam Hussein era that had been rigged as a bomb in Baghdad, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq" MSNBC
Posted by: Rick | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 06:56 PM
Bill, I'm on my way away from the web for a bit, but here is a first attempt at a reply to your tables-turned analogy.
The Iraqi people did not choose their leader. The Afghan people, as far as I am aware, had little or likely no say in their leadership. I think the defense of the USA's democratically-elected leader by Americans would be far more robust, and legitimate, than Islamist thugs creepy-crawling their way from anywhere in the world to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do you suppose the flypaper is attracting so much vermin from elsewhere? Maybe the people actually living under Saddam and the Taliban weren't all that sorry to see them gone...
Posted by: Bob | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:03 PM
Bill you got anything more recent than two years ago?
It has been established and conceded that there are still chemical weapons being found in "dumps" in Iraq. But it is a boringly moot point as we now know that remaining stockpiles were of little threat. There were NEVER any weapons which were a threat outside of the region, never any SS-22s pointed at your trailer. Thing is damned near EVERY intelligence agency in the world thought there were and the president had that misinformation to act on. And yes it was the wrong move. We cannot and will not ever "win" with those people. Americans do not have what it takes to suppress people like that and we cannot possibly kill enough of them to win. The only solution in thier blood thirsty 12th century minds is totally unacceptable. You cats are sooooo far out of your Air-America league arguing with rwilymz. Dude's got secrets and access to stuff you fellas can only imagine. So do please quit while you're ahead. I'm sure you've been told before not to get up when your butt is kicked.
Facts is: We are there and we cannot cut and run or we will be fighting in our streets. They already think we're weak for all the whining about "torture" and killing a few civilians. So shut up and wait until your rich white guys are in power and we'll pull out....or expand. The latter being what the dems usually do.
Posted by: Rick | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:12 PM
Thanks for digging up that story, Rick.
That's 100% more legwork than Ross has been able to do.
I suppose he is busy advising the Pentagon, or maybe he is booking a flight to the Senate right now.
About that story... it was a story by Christopher Torchia of The Associated Press (it ran in Stars and Stripes’ Europe and Mideast editions on May 18, 2004, among other newspapers).
The story went on to say "“Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and more analysis needed to be done. … Rumsfeld said it may take some time to determine precisely what the chemical was."
But wait, there's more!
"U.S. troops have announced the discovery of other chemical weapons before, only to see them disproved by later tests. Deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said "the jury is still out" on whether chemical or other weapons of mass destruction remained in Iraq."
So my question to you, Rick, is - can you find that follow-up? The follow-up that definitively confirmed the presence of sarin? Because I kind of think (and this is just me), that President Bush had a major stake in finding WMDs in Iraq. I mean, from about March 2003 on, he was really interested in flushing them out. He was looking! And I haven't heard him refer to this story as evidence for his beliefs.
Now maybe the boys at the lab have been busy with other stuff. Maybe test requests from the White House go missing occasionally. Maybe no one follows up on them, and they kind of "fall through the cracks". But I think, if they had found sarin? It would probably have made the newspaper, somewhere, huh?
You'd think, wouldn't ya? Anyway, get back to me if you find that definitive analysis. Till then, I'm going with Rummie's assessment that "more analysis needed to be done." Until then, we got nothing.
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:22 PM
No Bill, I'm not your personal researcher.
Posted by: Rick | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:26 PM
Rick mentions:
> Thing is damned near EVERY intelligence agency in the world thought there were [WMDs in Iraq].
Yes, that is often stated. But the thing is, it's not really true.
The intelligence services of the United States were producing what the President and his advisers demanded: large quantities of information and disinformation that implicated Iraq in any possible way, based on any source, no matter how suspect (papers crudely forged by the Italian Intelligence Service, for goodness sake!).
The intelligence services of every other country were NOT proclaiming Iraq to be in possession of WMD.
Rather, the intelligence services of France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Israel were noting that Iraq had failed to properly account for the totality of its past weapons programs, and in doing so left open the possibility that Iraq might retain an undetermined amount of WMD.
To quote someone else "there is a huge difference in substance and nuance between such assessments and the hyped-up assertions by the Bush administration concerning WMD and the existence of massive stockpiles of forbidden weaponry."
Rick - I appreciate your willingness to discuss this calmly and without using belittling terms the way Ross (rwilymz) does. He hasn't yet been in enough adult company to understand how that detracts from his credibility.
Let me ask this: what do we have to change in Iraq to "put the fire out"? Because, by every indication, the situation there is getting worse, not better. I don't think we can ask our soldiers to do any more, and it is certainly disgraceful to make their mission be "provide targets for insurgents so they won't come and attack the US".
We've lost in Iraq - our army is only inflaming a polarized situation. We need to order our troops home before more of them are needlessly killed.
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Rick declines:
> No Bill, I'm not your personal researcher.
It was a rhetorical question, Rick.
I don't *really* expect you to find the follow-up story.
There wasn't a follow-up story, because the original story turned out to be false. There weren't any sarin precursors in the IED.
Posted by: bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:39 PM
I asked why anyone thinks our army of occupation *isn't* fuelling the insurgency in Iraq?
Bob replies:
> The Iraqi people did not choose their leader.
> The Afghan people, as far as I am aware, had little or likely no say in their leadership.
> I think the defense of the USA's democratically-elected leader by Americans would be far more robust,
> and legitimate, than Islamist thugs creepy-crawling their way from anywhere in the world to fight in
> Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is a good point, Bob. It is a significant difference between the US and the countries we have invaded and occupied.
However, your next point, that the Iraq insurgency is conducted by large numbers of non-Iraqis who have infilitrated Iraq from other countries is just plain wrong. It is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the insurgency.
But don't take my word on it. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi. The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi.
Check it out:
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/05/06/09/168406.html
In other words, we are not being attacked by a rag tag army of "Islamist thugs creepy-crawling their way from anywhere in the world". We are being attacked by Iraqis who object to our occupation of their country.
The policies of President Bush have foolishly embroiled us in an expensive deadly war in which all sides will be losers, particularly the US. The sooner we get out of that situation, the better
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:50 PM
It's simply a moot point. Nearly every war we ever had was entered into on a ruse. We're there, it's too late to worry about why. It is time to hand over control to the locals.....who will fold almost as quickly as the South Vietnamese.
Posted by: Rick | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 07:50 PM
> It is time to hand over control to the locals.....who will fold almost as quickly as the South Vietnamese.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Rick. About both parts - it's time to go now, and things will get messy whenever we go, so why delay.
Posted by: Bill | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 08:21 PM
Well, The other guy was saying the same thing I did. Only more eloquently.
Posted by: Rick | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 08:38 PM
"What a contorted argument."
...said the king if disingenuity.
"So the right wing nut bars who blew up the building in Oklahoma are exactly the same as those who pulled off 9/11?"
Are you *deliberately* trying to miss the point? Or are you deliberately selecting out the parts you wish to select out so that you can advertise yourself as an idiot?
We are talking about pan-islamism, son. Please read for comprehension.
"By that argument the US is a terrorist organization as well since we DID support al Quada back when they were fighting the Soviets"
Al Qaida did not exist when anyone was fighting the Soviets, so you're wrong from the git-go.
"and Saddam when he was fighting Iran. Its all the same, right?"
No, it's not.
1] Hussein [it is HUSSEIN, and not Saddam] is not a terrorist, he was a terrorist financier
2] neither you nor I have a time machine.
You do not get to whiz around your "argument" imposing the conclusions available from one point in time upon a prior or successive point in time. Doesn't work that way.
This is twice now you've done that.
1] al Qaida started in 1992; the afghan war against the Soviets ended in 1989, ergo al Qaida did not and could not fight the Soviets. The Soviet Union itself collapsed before al Qaida started.
2] What we did or didn't do with Hussein between 1982 and 1988 has no bearing on what Hussein did in 1990, or between 1991 and 2002.
You are talking about two different points or periods in time, and you cannot freely mingle them.
"Terrorist organizations have very different goals, methods, and funding sources."
Not really. And what differences do exist are not as important as you obviously think. Again, people who are not in the business should not explain to those who are what the business is.
The "methods" of terrorism are entirely dependent upon how much money they've got. If they had the money to buy an F-16 they'd use it, but they don't, so they use C4 and Kalishnikovs. The "goals" of all the pan-islamist terrorists are virtually identical. Read what they write, listen to their tapes.
The mission statements are virtually identical: punish and eliminate the zionist imperialist Crusader. See, ***they*** can't figure out the calendar either, so you're not alone there. They still think the Crusades are going on ... the Crusades that they started, by the way.
...have you read your history yet? Or do you think it's all current events?
Not only do they not know how to work a calendar, but they have a hard time differentiating between the US and Israel. They effectively think that Israel is the 51st state of the US. ...when they aren't thinking that Israel runs the US. ... when they aren't thinking that the US runs the UN. ...when they aren't thinking that US is the mouthpiece for every nation of Europe.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 08:30 AM
"I've posted my link to the 9/11 Commission -- and they disagree with you, Ross"
Here's the thing, Bill: no it doesn't.
You haven't read it, obviously. You've panned it; you've taken the soundbites that conform to your position from it; and then you've discarded the rest.
The position that the idiots on one side claimed was that there was a direct relationship; the position from the idiots on the other side is that was no relationship whatsoever. The reality is: it was in between.
The 9-11 commission report you claim supports you only says there was no DIRECT relationship. That's what "collaborative" means, brainchild. It cites the indirect relationships I've been talking about, and then some.
"Newsflash! I've just done a quick google..."
...And you've wasted your time trying to create another straw man to torch. I have never claimed that Iraq made new chemical weapons after the UN started poking into their broom closets. Never. You're arguing against someone else and not me. And that is one of the reasons you're so very very very bad at this. You are trite and cliche, using your off-the-shelf arguments that worked so well at all those drunken Happy Hours two years ago.
"It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war."
R E A L I T Y here for you Bill: Iraq had chemical weapons.
The UN found boatlads between '92 and '98, destroyed some of them and warehoused the rest. When the UN went back in '02 they were in the process of shecking on thewarehouses where they'd left the chems when Blix [remember Blix?] reported that the Iraqis were not cooperating. ...which constitutes a violation of the Cease Fire ... which is an act of war ... yadda yadda
"That's 100% more legwork than Ross has been able to do."
Grow up, wujja please? I'm not doing your homework for you.
"So my question to you, Rick, is - can you find that follow-up?"
There was no "follow-up", none that you'd be interested in. It was played out in the papers long ago, and if you didn't pay attention then, then you are to blame for only deigning to inform yourself of [no! can it be?] only those things which conform to your prejudicial biases.
"The intelligence services of every other country were NOT proclaiming Iraq to be in possession of WMD."
Uh ... yes they were. And they presented their information to the UN in the aftermath of the Gulf War, and the UN -- the compendium of the US, France, Britain, Russia and China [with the ten temps] -- issued a report in 1991 detailing what it was believed Iraq had in the way of chems, nukes, bios, nacent parts of all, and other contraband, mostly delivery vehicles.
It was that UN-master-list that the UN was using for purposes of the Cease Fire-demanded "disclosure" [that Iraq never filed, even with two chances], and that the UN's weapons inspectors used to cross-check what they found during their inspection regimes -- mostly '92-'98.
That was The List.
You are again strawmanning. Because Bush played politics [gosh! what a vile thing to do for a politician!] and asked the CIA to estimate what Iraq **could have** made in the 4-year interegnum between UN inspections it somehow invalidates that the UN itself had a master list of what they believed [hence, the intelligence services of the nations comprising the UNSC] Iraq had.
The best information the world had is that Iraq had bunches of contraband left that the UN hadn't found between '92 and '98.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:00 AM
Once again, Ross scores an own goal!
Where are the sources to non-crackpot websites, supporting all these blank assertions you make, Ross?
I have produced the sources supporting my claims (including a Senate report, and the 9/11 Commission report). Your response is to say "No it's not, No it's not", spew some unconnected nonsense, throw in a childish remark and think you're done.
You're being spanked, Ross. Produce the evidence to support the smallest of your claims, or accept your master.
Posted by: bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:06 AM
Read you're own "sources", buddyboy.
From even the idiotic things you've claimed it's clear you haven't.
You claimed Iraq had no chemical weapons, yet your "source" says only that they had no ability after 1991 to MAKE chemcial weapons. That doesn't support your assertion.
And you yet have the balls to suggest that you have more credibility than me. Your own sources disagree with you. Read Duelfer. Read the 9-11 Commission. The only ... O N L Y ... thing they absolutely shoot down is the concept that Iraq was MAKING chemical weapons and directly funding al Qaida.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:24 AM
When will people learn to stop raising impertinent wet diapers up the flag pole and demanding that everyone salute is??
Bill, you absolute fuck:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
Or is the UN a "crackpot website"?
“Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and ********proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security********..."
And what did I say? That the UN had defined Iraq as a regional threat? That Iraq had those "WMD" you said they didn't?
Yet ... here ... the UN says exactly what I said, and which have been [oh, boohoohoohoo] saying they didn't.
Here this, hear it well, and hear it for a very very very very long time:
I.
will.
not.
do.
your.
homework.
for.
you.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:35 AM
Do you get it yet, BILL?
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:36 AM
You're WRONG, Bill.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:36 AM
You have been arguing the WRONG THINGS, with the WRONG PERSON, Bill.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:37 AM
Ross,
OK, you are making progress. Now try to link the two parts together.
Like this:
1. I think "... some thought ...."
2. Here is the evidence supporting that "... a URL to a document supporting point 1 "
Keep up the good work, and I will stop the spanking for you.
Posted by: bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:54 AM
Here's an easy one for you Ross.
You said:
> ... thus invalidating all the claims that "Iraq had no 'collaborative relationship' with al Qaida ...
Prove it.
Prove that Iraq HAD a 'collaborative relationship' with al Qaida.
Show the URLs to non-crackpot sites that support your extrordinary claim.
You won't of course. You won't be able to, because your claim is not true.
Let the bare-cheeks spanking of Ross continue.
Posted by: bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 09:59 AM
So I take it from your silence, bud, that you're done advertising yourself to be a partisan shithole? only interested in spreading your distorted and reality-optional worldview?
Or are you going to come back and say, "Oh, well, that's better; you've finally supplied a source -- now I can better accept your credibility..." -- or some other weasel cop-out like that?
Here's the way it works, buttwad: the UN is a deliberative body composed of the nations of the world; the UNSC is composed of the [post-war] "important" nations of the world. If the UNSC says something, that pretty much means that those nations believe it.
The UNSC said that Iraq had chemical weapons.
Which means that those nations thought Iraq had chemical weapons.
The fact that some were found kinda, like, y'know, supports that.
Trivializing it, saying "oh, well, they didn't have **as much** as the UN thought" doesn't mean Iraq had *none*. Iraq still had *some*. But the deal is: they weren't allowed to have ANY.
The answer isn't going to change no matter how many times you wet your pants; no matter how many times you whimper and whine and throw yourself to the ground; no matter how many times you hoist yourself up onto some ersatz pedestal claiming some faux-rhetorical righteousness "oh, poor me, Ross is using insulting terminology, boohoohoo, so therefore I'm more credible than he is".
You get credibility by being both:
1] correct; and
2] pertinent.
Notice that "belittling terms" do not enter into it.
You are only sometimes, possibly accidentally, correct, and you are rarely pertinent.
Do the math on your credibility, twinky.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:06 AM
By the way, Ross.
You don't have to take my word for it that there was no collaborative relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
You don't have to take the 9/11 Commission's word for it.
See this news report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
But will you accept President Bush's word on it? On a White House website?
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
About halfway through that transcript, you'll see this question:
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
---
President Bush unambiguously admitted is that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda. You may recall that bin Laden and al Qaeda are officially blamed for hatching, plotting, and carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
President Bush said he cannot claim there is a link between Al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.
-----
Ross! Please rush your mountains of evidence saying there IS a link to the White House! I expect if you let them know how "credible" you are, they will send a helicopter for you! If the Pentagon can go for a day or two without your guidance...
Actually Ross, you are beyond credible, you are incredible.
That's right, hold still while I raise my belt for a few more "strokes of truthgiving" over your sorry butt.
Posted by: bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:06 AM
"Prove that Iraq HAD a 'collaborative relationship' with al Qaida."
Bill, are you ABSOLUTELY brain dead?
I have never ever ever ever ever ever said or implied that Iraq had a direct relationship with al Qaida.
DO YOU NOT GET THIS????
You are strawmanning.
You are arguing the wrong things with the wrong person.
If you want to engage this off-the-shelf bullshit to best somebody, go find someone who thinks that Husssein and bin Laden were drinking buddies. That would exclude me.
You are again advertising that you haven't got a clue
1] what you're talking about; or
2] how to construct a rational argument that, y'know, like, PERTAINS to what someone else is actually saying.
Did I perhaps fail to mention that you ARE NOT PERTINENT?
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Ross -- here's another one for you!
Iraq had no WMDs in 2003 when we attacked them. You say Iraq did have WMDs.
Prove it.
Prove that Iraq WMDs in 2003.
Show the URLs to non-crackpot sites that support your extrordinary claim.
You won't of course. You won't be able to, because your claim is not true.
I know you are kind of enjoying it, but I've broken two canes spanking your ass now, so it has to stop.
Posted by: bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Bill, you've haven't demonstrated anything yet except that you're an incredibly dishonest and childish fuck.
You've taken half of one of my selntences and called it the whole statement, challenging me to refute your strawman.
You're now effectively declaring the official UN website to be a crackpot outfit.
The term 'liar' is inadequate to describe the magic that is you.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Ross (posting under the name rwilymz) now says:
> I have never ever ever ever ever ever said or implied that
> Iraq had a direct relationship with al Qaida.
That's really funny, Ross. Then who was that who posted these words under your name at the top of this page?
> Posted by: rwilymz | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 04:37 PM
> for a spectacular primer on how one terrorist group is not reasonably separable from
> another terrorist group, thus
> invalidating all the claims that "Iraq had no 'collaborative relationship' with al Qaida,
> therefore there's no connection at all" [et al], please avail yourselves of the AP reports
> currently circulating in the aftermath of al Zarqawi's death.
Ross -- you are a superficial little twit who has now received a good solid spanking over several days. When you need another lesson come back. I have a good supply of canes ready for you.
Posted by: bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:22 AM
> Posted by: rwilymz | Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 04:37 PM
> for a spectacular primer on how one terrorist group is not reasonably separable from
> another terrorist group, thus
> invalidating all the claims that "Iraq had no 'collaborative relationship' with al Qaida,
> therefore there's no connection at all" [et al],
The claims that "IRAQ HAD NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH AL QAIDA THEREFORE THEY HAD NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL"
Are you done yet?
You have just admitted hashing statements to suit your dishonest purposes, and you're going to take credit for being right when you're wrong.
What an absolutely childish punk.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:29 AM
http://www.mideastnews.com/blix140203.html
Feb 14 2003
Hans Blix -- remember him?
"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site."
"The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed."
"I noted that the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah could very well represent prima facie cases of proscribed missile systems, as they had been tested to ranges exceeding the 93.8-mile (150-kilometre) limit set by the Security Council."
[For the record, prohibited missile systems are classified as WMD for these purposes...]
http://www.mideastnews.com/blix070303.html
Hans Blix [remember him?]
March 7 2003
"Lethal weapons are being destroyed. However, I must add that no destruction has happened today. I hope it's a temporary break."
"To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. ... It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced."
"Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."
And last and certainly not least:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2698857.stm"
Key points from Hans Blix's January 27 address to the UN:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Let me repeat that for those who have selective reading skills:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
And just to make certain that people with selective reading skills read it, here it is again:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
And now once for those who have comprehension difficulties:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
A-a-a-a-a-and now once for the liars:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
And now once for the disingenuous fucks who cannot accept reality:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
And now once for the hell of it:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once for the punks:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once for the strawmanners:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once for those with wet panties:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once for those who think that peevishly carrying on in an on-line bicker-bureau demanding cites before admitting the truth substitutes for discussion:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once for Bill's parents, who must be so proud of their little liar:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once for George Soros, who is apt to give Bill a medal for his steadfast adherance to dogma in the face of reality:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once, for the heck of it, to John Gillnitz, even though he wasn't using this tired and lame and thoroughly discredited line of dishonesty:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Once for folks I've left out:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
And Mahu:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
And ... last and CERTAINLY least, once for Bill:
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Are you done yet billyboy?
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 10:55 AM
So-o-o-o-o-o-o, I think I just read somewhere that "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Hmmm... I wonder if that came out of the ***UN*** perhaps.
If so ... I wonder if that means that IRAQ HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS...
What... a ... puzzler!!
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Oh! oh! oh! I know.
The "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs" ... they're just IMAGINARY chemical weapons.
Phwew!!! Bill! Man, that was close, but we've got it figured out so that you can still continue breaking those cones on my ass.
They're IMAGINARY.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:06 AM
But even if the CHEMICAL WEAPONS that IRAQ HAD are imaginary ... doggone it, Blix still inconveniently reports:
"Iraq said VX nerve gas it produced was never turned into weapons - Unmovic has information which conflicts with this account."
And also:
"Iraq has failed to account for supplies of anthrax it said it had produced and later destroyed. There are "strong indications" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it admitted and might still have some stocks."
And also:
"Iraq has imported banned items, including 300 rocket engines, as recently as December, 2002, which could be used in a missile programme."
It'd be hard to imagine that all of these were also imaginary.
:(
Poor Bill.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:09 AM
With all that's transpired ... I imagine that IRAQ HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS, and that the imaginary chemical weapons are all in Bill's fevered imagination.
Even if Iraq couldn't make more chemical weapons -- as the CIA later concluded -- it still remains that "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs".
poor, poor, poor bill...
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Bill?
Are you there?
I'm not done rubbing your face in your wrongness
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Golly Ross, what a lot of noise.
The final CIA report on Iraq and WMD was crystal clear:
"While a small number of old abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, Iraq Survey Group
judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991"
But don't take my word for it. Have someone read out loud to you the report on the CIA website:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
That is one of the key findings, Ross. Why are you having such a hard time understanding it?
Spank, spank, spank, Ross.
Posted by: bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:39 AM
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:43 AM
You don't have a time-machine either, simple simon.
The war started in 2003; in 2003 Blix said "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
The CIA didn't weigh in [with information that you're comfortable with] until 2004.
Therefore it is impertinent to the issue of the war, it proves you're a liar and now that you can't work a calendar.
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
"Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
The answer isn't going to change, skippy.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 11:51 AM
But, right, I imagine that for ideologues it's better to conform to the ideology than admit that Reality differs.
Continue thrusting 2004 information into 2003 decision-making sequences.
And while you're at it, go dig up William McKinley and lambaste him for capitulating to the popular rabble who used the excuse of the USS Maine to "illegally" start a war against Spain. It wasn't until a report in 1976 that the reason for the explosion came out.
If you can erase a year and a half and declare it nonexistent, what's stopping you from erasing 78 years?
It's all current events!
Sequence has no meaning; cause and effect are one. Right?
Knowledge we had in 2003 which was used to base a decision made in 2003 is completely surmountable simply by hoping in the Wayback Machine.
Right Sherman?
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Sherman?
Billy?
Are you on another of your time-defying jaunts through logical argument-development?
Maybe you can convince Cotton Mather that Tituba was just a showoff, or the British that Joan of Arc was dressed by her guards.
It's just a simple matter of adjusting the knobs on the ol' Wayback Machine...
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 12:24 PM
"The point is..."
I thought the point was that Iraq didn't have "WMD" -- when even the anti-war, anti-US Hans Blix said: "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
That point must be lost, because it's now changing.
"you don't attack a nation based on "certainties" that later turn out to be "uncertainties" or even "falsehoods"."
You say that as if that was the only issue going on. It wasn't.
"If you ignore this simple rule, you get the situation we have now: America is pouring away $9BN every month in a war we are currently losing."
1] there is no such "simple rule". International Law concedes that Iraq was in violation of the Cease Fire, which constitutes multiple acts of war, which the US, as signatory to said Cease Fire, was authorized to enforce "in severality";
2] check your math; the war is expensive, but not that expensive;
3] define "losing" such that historically trivial casualties during hostile occupation supports the assertion. Please cite Clauswitz or others -- the USMA at West Point is chock full of military theoreticians who have written books and everything on how to conduct occupations and what to expect during same, and everything.
"Even worse, we have lost thousands of servicemen."
That's war, son.
"And there is no prospect of "winning""
Define "winning" ditto.
"we are seen as invaders and aggressors by ordinary Iraqis."
Well duh!
If your "point" here is that maybe, just possibly, a full-scale invasion was an Nth-degree solution to a finite military-slash-diplomatic problem, then stand in line, because I've been making that argument -- and from a substantially more authoritative position than you -- for several years now.
"And the best you can do is throw up out of date, provably wrong reports about imaginary weapons?"
Did I or did I not predict that you'd claim they were "imaginary"?
"The point is..."
ANOTHer point? You're on a veritable roll!
"that President Bush didn't have to force war in 2003."
Duh! No one here said otherwise.
"The weapons inspectors were doing their job."
...so to speak... to within the constraints Iraq was willing to allow...
"They would soon have reached the same conclusion as the CIA: Iraq had nothing."
They did not have "nothing". Read the transcripts of Blix's presentations to the UNSC. Iraq had unweaponized chemical agents that the UN had found between '92 and '98 that the UN catalogued and warehoused in Iraq; they found some of them again in 2002 and started destroying them; but there were other UN-catalogued weapons and nacent parts that were not where the UN left them and, well, "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs."
The longer you keep saying there were "none" the longer you will be incorrect.
Iraq lost the [effective] ability to make more; that's about it.
In any event, that does not alter the fact -- spelled F A C T -- that Iraq was in violation of the Cease Fire, thus commiting acts of war left and right, to which any signatory nation could, at any time, have taken military action upon.
"But the President could not abide that: it would remove the justification for the war he wanted."
This "fact" is spelled O P I N I O N.
The justification for taking military action was provided by Iraq being in violation of the Gulf War Cease Fire.
But you're talking the bald politics of getting a democratic nation to go along with a policy decision. Policy and Public-Buy-In are not the same. Decisions are made based upon justifiable criteria; the masses are cajoled into going along with it using idiot politics.
If your point is that Bush played idiot politics to get imbeciles like you to sign on to his war, then criticize that. But don't go defining what "really" was going on because you're clueless.
"And we got what we have now: a huge Presidential misjudgment leading to a bloody disaster."
The "disaster" is political, not military, so long as you're aware. There's too much historical and military history to the contrary.
And with that one caveat, this is your opinion and it's perfectly fine staying the way it is.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 01:42 PM
Ross
> The justification for taking military action was provided by Iraq being in violation of the Gulf War Cease Fire.
Wrong. The Secretary General of the UN disagrees with you (a lot of people seem to find you disagreeable - but I just find you amusing). He called the war "illegal".
Thank you for dropping the childish insults.
The CIA really did make their final report in 2004, and it really did conclude that Iraq had nothing. No amount of earlier assessments about what could or could not be accounted for, is going to change that. Iraq did not have WMDs when President Bush attacked them in 2003, justifying it by claiming Iraq had WMDs.
Posted by: Bill | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 01:51 PM
"The Secretary General of the UN disagrees with you (a lot of people seem to find you disagreeable - but I just find you amusing). He called the war "illegal"."
Wow. Too bad he's not, like, the Sect'y Gen of the UN or something, where, if he ***really*** thought the was was "illegal" he could, like, maybe, bring it up before the General Assembly and nag the US for violating International Law, and have the US be made to defend its actions. It would have been trivially easy ... if he had the law on his side.
But, y'know, he didn't bring it up.
Because he didn't have any such law won his side.
And he knew it.
So he yammers and pontificates and speechifies and blusters and propounds and gets, OOOOOOOOOOO, ever so righteously indignant.
But he can't do anything other than that, because he's not right. But ignoramuses such as yourself who get what they know of International Law from reruns of Hogans Heroes complaining about the Geneva Conventions fall all over yourselves believing someone who will state, publically and loudly, exactly what you want to hear.
"President Bush attacked them in 2003, justifying it by claiming Iraq had WMDs."
Bush did not say "Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs." That was Blix.
I know, both names have 4 letters and start with B. Must be confusing.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 02:04 PM
Cool. That was the 100th post in this thread.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, June 09, 2006 at 02:08 PM