Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD. None found. So why
are U.S. forces still occupying that country? Isn't the job done? Shouldn't
we have ended this cosmic tragi-comedy years ago something like this:

"And so the Great Powers and the people of Shanklin, Isle of Wight, drew
their net in ever-tightening circles around the most dangerous threat to
peace the world has ever faced. They bombed Cairo, Bangkok, Cape Town,
Buenos Aires, Harrow, Hammersmith, Stepney, Wandsworth and Enfield... But
always it was the wrong place.

Cut to an area of smoking rubble. A van with the words 'US Air Force' on
the side trundles through the rubble. It has a loudspeaker on the top of
it.

Loudspeaker: Sorry Enfield!... We apologize for any inconvenience caused by
our bombing... sorry..."




....but always it was the wrong place....

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

None found.

Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.

Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly. Iraq
certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
Repeatedly.

Heck, Saddam's generals pretty much all believed that he had them; and
the division next to them had the weapons. They were wrong on that, but
he had his own military going there.

This is all open-source information.

So why are U.S. forces still occupying that country?

See below.

Isn't the job done?

Nope.

Wouldn't make much sense to drop things and let some Saddam wannabe
start the whole thing over again.

The last few months, if you talk to those serving on the the ground,
things have been turning around a bit; enough in some used-to-be very
bad areas that the politicians have a chance to get a grip. If progress
continues in this vein, maybe some other of the politicians and
bureaucrats might be able to get their collective thumbs out and get
something done right.

On Sep 10, 8:43 am, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

In that case they should have invaded England first.



Bertie

On Sep 10, 6:43 am, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list.

How about if you refer us to that specific list? That way
we can check on how many of those 16 items have been
addressed.

Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place,

"All over the place?" Where, besides Israel?


having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

Two, I think, see below.


None found.

Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.

Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly.

What they said, and what they thought, are not necessarily the
same. Deception is an essential component of intelligence
activities.

Iraq
certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
Repeatedly.


It is important to note that hte last use of Iraqi WMD was in 1989,
thirteen years prior to the invasion. While he might have been
able to 'gin them up quickly' we were also capable of bombing
the crap out of him, even quicker.

By 2003, Iraq lad lost the capacity to threaten military action
against neighboring states. Saddam Hussein didn't even
control the Northern third of his own country, and couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a military radar in two
thirds of his country without having it shot down or blown
up.

--

FF