Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war

Right on George, very nice challenge for Vince to get smart.
Sounds and reads like he is writing from emotion. Maybe he actually
lost a friend, family member etc in the war? I could understand from
frustration maybe why his idoligical, even political ranting would
prevail in his mind. Bottom line Vince, ask any second or third term
professional military what their opinion is on this subject. I
wouldn't think a first term enlisted would give you an accurate
portrayal, either way. A professional military individual such as
myself, has adequate resources (not just CNN and the anti-Bush media)
to make our own opinion. You are wrong, but entitled to your own
opinion, please base it on fact and not what you have overheard. Try
stepping even for a few minutes in a sailors or soldiers shoes. Look
Vince, I was there, seriously, for real, in OSW, did that 4 times over
the last 9 years, for six months at a whack on 3 different carriers.
Was it all pretend that Saddam was continually violating the no fly
zones, both north and south? We were being targeted and shot at
routinely. Glad we finally put a stop to that! Aren't you? ONW and OSW
was costing the US billions alone in Battle Group and CAG support.
Enough for now,,, I can't even believe I lowered myself to respond to
your trash in the first place. Post again and I (along with others in
here), will respect what you say but will continue to prove you are
seriously demented.

On 10 Nov 2003 18:32:08 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:
[....]
Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
And at least largely wrong, as we now know.

ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
lost were not his campaign supporters.

You are failing to move beyond your own political prejudices.

It's perfectly reasonable to debate the point whether the
state of knowledge when the US went from vague threats to
escalating ultimatums justified a prompt war. That debate
was valid and quite fruitful, then and now.

It's not reasonable, at all, to debate whether the preponderance
of information available to the west indicated at least some
concealed program and at least some concealed information in
Iraq at that time. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at
that question, regardless of their opinions on the first
question, has ever come away with a coherent case to the
contrary of that conclusion.

You are conflating the two questions. Because you are
ideologically biased against the outcome of the first question.

I know you know you're doing it; unlike questions of law or
engineering where you clearly know that you're qualified to
answer (even if some judgement / opinion calls may be disagreed
with by other professionals), on this issue you have rarely
posted more than a one or two sentence ideological snap.

The question is whether you can rise above your preconception
on this question to study enough about it to be able to
speak with authority, as opposed to just blind raging
opinion as you do now.

Fortunately, education on this point is rather easy,
if somewhat tedious: The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are all
online thanks to the UN. A few websites, a few books from
the library (Hamza's, Butler's... that's an acceptable
start at least) plus actually reading the whole UNSCOM/
UNMOVIC report history at least once usually is an adequate
first pass. Unfortunately typically over a week's work:
UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are voluminous, and they
reported at least once a quarter since 1991...

Also:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/index.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqRefs.html
http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/index.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm


-george william herbert

George William Herbert wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:

George William Herbert wrote:

Vince Brannigan wrote:

[....]

Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
And at least largely wrong, as we now know.

ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
lost were not his campaign supporters.


You are failing to move beyond your own political prejudices.

It's perfectly reasonable to debate the point whether the
state of knowledge when the US went from vague threats to
escalating ultimatums justified a prompt war. That debate
was valid and quite fruitful, then and now.

Fair enough, see below

It's not reasonable, at all, to debate whether the preponderance
of information available to the west indicated at least some
concealed program and at least some concealed information in
Iraq at that time. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at
that question, regardless of their opinions on the first
question, has ever come away with a coherent case to the
contrary of that conclusion.


????

You are conflating the two questions. Because you are
ideologically biased against the outcome of the first question.

I know you know you're doing it; unlike questions of law or
engineering where you clearly know that you're qualified to
answer (even if some judgement / opinion calls may be disagreed
with by other professionals), on this issue you have rarely
posted more than a one or two sentence ideological snap.

The question is whether you can rise above your preconception
on this question to study enough about it to be able to
speak with authority, as opposed to just blind raging
opinion as you do now.

Fortunately, education on this point is rather easy,
if somewhat tedious: The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are all
online thanks to the UN. A few websites, a few books from
the library (Hamza's, Butler's... that's an acceptable
start at least) plus actually reading the whole UNSCOM/
UNMOVIC report history at least once usually is an adequate
first pass. Unfortunately typically over a week's work:
UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are voluminous, and they
reported at least once a quarter since 1991...


I am not conflating the two questions.

Bush did.

He whipped up hysteria for the war by making clear cut statmetns, not of
the possiblity subject to verification that Iraq maight have the arms
but that in fact they did.

Without that claim he does not get the war.


I raised this issue in March

Cecil Turner wrote:



The US is not attacking Iraq because it wants to "be the arbiter of
good and
evil," but because its WMD programs represent an unacceptable
security risk to the
US. And I'd suggest the US not only has a "right to be heard"
(thanks for that,
BTW), but a right not to have biological agents dispersed on its streets.



And if they dont have WMD Bush and cheny resign in disgrace ?

Vince
(psosted on march 31)

Bush wants to ahve it both ways. My answer is no. we pay for results.

this resutl indicates failure

Im not saying he is evil, just that he failed to produce proof of the
Casus Belli he promised.

Vinve

We know he used to have a WME program; ask an Iranian veteran, ask a
Kurd. We know a lot of it was captured or destroyed post-1991 and more
destroyed in 1998. What we don't know with certainty is (a) how much he
actually had, (b) how much was lost or destroyed, (c) how much the
Iraqis disposed of themselves.


....".. what we don't know.." (above) This is exactly why we had to go in;
we didn't know, he wasn't telling (in fact he was being evasive as hell),
and contrary to your statement, Blix did NOT say Iraq did not have any, he
actually wrote the finding that they were continuing to be evasive in direct
violation of the UN (that is United Nations).

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ...


Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
- What about the mobile chem labs?
- What about the Rycin?
- What about the Botulinum?
- What about the anthrax cultures?
- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Steve Swartz


You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.


Those missiles?

not WMDS



You overly sanctimonious son of a bitch. You are without a doubt the
last individual in this country who should look any veteran "in the
eye" on *any* day of the year, with your self-serving 'I didn't serve
because it was inconvenient, and I don't like to take orders'
bull****. You have done nothing but scorn the efforts and sacrifices
of those who did serve, and those who died, from before the time this
operation even started. I rarely descend to the level of actually
cussing out a slimy, yellow bellied little cretin such as yourself,
but you are singularly deserving of every bit of contempt I can
scrounge up. Feel free to (again) invite me up for a personal review
of these comments--the last time you did that you quickly
backscrabbled into the "but if you do show up, I'll file suit" crap
when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, so I have no doubt
any renewed sense of backbone you might dredge up will once again
prove to be a merely transient gesture on your part. What a sad little
excuse for a man you are.

Im sure you are sorry that your boy couldn't find the WMDs he promised.
But the American soldiers are just as dead. Im sure your suggestion
of violence can find an outlet but i'm not your punching bag.
you are welcome to show up and debate
but a real man who makes threats stands up and takes the consequences.
So are you making a threat of personal injury or not?

lets jsut be very clear

Vince

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Oh, breaking treaties is a reason to go to war? Like the Kyoto Accords,
or the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, both of which we pulled out of
unilaterally.

Since we never ratified the Kyoto Accords as a treaty it was impossible
to break it.
We dropped the constraints of the ABM treaty by exercising the option
in the treaty to do so; the ABM treaty was not "broken".

How inconvenient...

Jarg

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"oO" wrote

We were told by the weapons inspectors he didnt have them anymore.
Nobody
believed he had them outside of the US, but the only people who could
really
know - the weapons experts who were actually there inspecting in Iraq
(including Mr.Blix) said there were NONE.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents
with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the
past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Pete

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state.

The ones that were declared as being at 45 minutes from hitting Britain?

These WMEs were meant to exist, in large numbers, such as to pose a
clear and obvious danger to the US and UK. There's significant open
water between that level of threat, and "well, we suspected he might
have some hidden somewhere, but it turns out he didn't".

Now, the pre-war claims of large, lethal, long-range and ready-use
weapons have been hastily backpedalled. In fact, the war apparently
wasn't about WMEs at all (nobody seems willing to go firm on what it
_was_ about).

That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US.

I'm an old-fashioned sort of guy: I like to see people (even
politicians) pick a story and stick to it; or accept that intel is not
perfect.

Trouble is, at least over here, it appears that the answer was decided
before the intelligence was studied: we _were_ going to war with Iraq,
and the analysts were going to produce the answers to suit.

And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

Not WMEs, and who cares about the UN anyway? It's either relevant or it
isn't - pick one.



This war has got the US and UK militaries tied up for the foreseeable
future.

What have we gained to offset that cost?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message fs_rb.768$6p6.751@okepread03, wrann writes
We know he used to have a WME program; ask an Iranian veteran, ask a
Kurd. We know a lot of it was captured or destroyed post-1991 and more
destroyed in 1998. What we don't know with certainty is (a) how much he
actually had, (b) how much was lost or destroyed, (c) how much the
Iraqis disposed of themselves.


...".. what we don't know.." (above) This is exactly why we had to go in;
we didn't know, he wasn't telling (in fact he was being evasive as hell),
and contrary to your statement, Blix did NOT say Iraq did not have any,

Never claimed he said any such thing. What Blix _did_ say was that there
were large uncertainties, lots of evasion... and no actual evidence.

he
actually wrote the finding that they were continuing to be evasive in direct
violation of the UN (that is United Nations).

The UN is irrelevant, didn't you get the memo?




--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Vince Brannigan wrote:
:
: :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
:
: Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
: frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
: only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
: enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
:
: :lest we forget....
:
: Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
: the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
: it's suddenly all Bush's fault.
:
: Get a clue....
:
:
: People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.
:
: Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional
:
:Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
:accusations that anyone is "delusional".

Especially since Vince's delusions seem to be rewriting history. I'm
not sure just how he thinks "el Busho" managed to make the
intelligence services of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the US
all believe that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to deploy (to the
point where the French were even initially offering to come in if we
were actually subject to a chemical attack, presumably to prevent
Saddam from doing something quite stupid and proving the French to be
liars).

I'd be REAL interested how he convinced Saddam and various Iraqi
military commanders of it. Remember, there are lots of reports from
field commanders that, while THEY didn't have chemical weapons, the
unit next door did. Obviously, SOMEBODY was spreading that rumour in
the Iraqi forces. I can just see Bush running from tent to tent
before the invasion.

Quite clever, these Evil Republicans, hey Vince?

Sheesh!

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
:accusations that anyone is "delusional".

Especially since Vince's delusions seem to be rewriting history. I'm
not sure just how he thinks "el Busho" managed to make the
intelligence services of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the US
all believe that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to deploy

nonsense From 29 jan


Russia's UN ambassador said that any fresh US evidence against Iraq will
have to contain "undeniable proof" that Baghdad has retained banned
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. While welcoming plans for US
Secretary of State Colin Powell to reveal new information to the UN
Security Council next week, Ambassador Sergey Lavrov made it clear
Moscow would require convincing. "If countries have persuasive proof
that Iraq continues its (weapons of mass destruction) programme than
this proof should be presented," Lavrov said.

"We would like to see undeniable proof."

Responding to US President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech
yesterday, Lavrov said Russia's stance remains unchanged that weapons
inspections in Iraq should be allowed to continue.

"We have not seen any reason so far to undercut the inspection process,"
he said.

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/01/29/15996-1.html



(to the
point where the French were even initially offering to come in if we
were actually subject to a chemical attack, presumably to prevent
Saddam from doing something quite stupid and proving the French to be
liars).

I'd be REAL interested how he convinced Saddam and various Iraqi
military commanders of it. Remember, there are lots of reports from
field commanders that, while THEY didn't have chemical weapons, the
unit next door did. Obviously, SOMEBODY was spreading that rumour in
the Iraqi forces. I can just see Bush running from tent to tent
before the invasion.

no BUSH simply stated it as a fact In Nov 2002
http://www.intellnet.org/news/2002/11/20/13733-1.html
Top Stories - Reuters
Bush Warns Saddam Not to Deny Weapons Exist
21 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

PRAGUE (Reuters) - President Bush warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
on Wednesday that should he deny possessing weapons of mass
destruction, he will have entered his "final stage" as Iraq's leader.
"We're threatened by terrorism, bred within failed states. It's present
within our own cities," said Bush in a keynote speech ahead of a NATO
(news - web sites) summit. Bush said Iraq was an outlaw nation that
possessed weapons of mass destruction. He vowed Iraq would be held
accountable to the terms of a U.N. resolution that returned weapons
inspectors to Baghdad this week. "We now call an end to that game of
deception and deceit and denial. Saddam Hussein has been given a very
short time to declare completely and truthfully his arsenal of terror,"
said Bush.

"Should he again deny that this arsenal exists, he will have entered his
final stage with a lie, and deception this time will not be tolerated.
Delay and defiance will invite the severest consequences," he said.


end exerpt



Quite clever, these Evil Republicans, hey Vince?

Nonsense

Here is a March 19 AP report

U.S. Plans Hunt for Iraqi Bio-Weapons

By MARK FRITZ
Associated Press Writer

While the world awaits Saddam Hussein's fate, the main goal of the
U.S.-led military campaign is to embark on a scary scavenger hunt:
finding the elusive weapons that convinced the Bush administration to
wage war in the first place.The aim is to get to the toxic arsenals
before they can be deployed or moved, and perhaps show the world
evidence of a tangible threat that justified war.

As a March 3 Defense Department report noted, ``Though initial emphasis
was on the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the administration has more
recently pointed to weapons of mass destruction disarmament as its prime
objective.''Any attacks on the Iraqi leadership and its command centers
are expected to be carried out in concert with seizures of suspected
chemical and biological weapons sites, along with oil fields. Burning
oil would pose its own health hazard if Saddam sets Iraq's 1,685 wells
ablaze, as he did in occupied Kuwait during his 1991 retreat.

Finding the weapons that have eluded U.N. inspectors carries huge
practical and political ramifications for the Bush administration.
Failure to turn up significant evidence of biological, chemical or
nuclear arms research and production would raise questions about a
mission already condemned by much of the world. ``The difficulty is a
matter of intelligence,'' said Kelly Motz, an analyst at a nonpartisan
think tank called Iraq Watch. ``To find it rapidly and destroy it
rapidly, you pretty much need to know where it is.

``It's definitely the right idea and the right strategy, but in terms of
carrying it out, you're going to need better intelligence than what I've
seen so far.'' During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the U.S.-led coalition
was flummoxed by Iraq's mobile Scud missile launchers, which constantly
eluded detection. It failed to locate any of them during the war,
according to the Defense Department report to Congress.

Failing to find significant evidence of biological and chemical arms
would mean one of two things: that U.S. claims they exist were
exaggerated, or that Saddam was successful in moving them out of the
country. Iraq denies it has any such weapons. ``If we find little
evidence ... it's going to be an embarrassment,'' Motz said. ``They're
banking that they are going to prove themselves. Either it's not there,
or it's been shipped across borders, which would mean that the mission
increased proliferation.''

Disagreements over whether Iraq is indeed a threat that justifies war
has splintered alliances and left the United States without many of its
traditional allies as it enters a conflict. ``I'm among the people who
are most curious to know'' if an invasion will uncover hidden weapons,
Hans Blix, the most recent in a long line of U.N. weapons inspectors,
told CNN Wednesday.....

Washington believes Saddam has stockpiles of mustard gas, a grisly
blistering agent used during World War I, as well as nerve gases and
biological agents such as anthrax, botulism and ricin......


end exerpt.


Bush did not declare a conditonal probability. He did not say

" they might have them, and we can't risk that possibility" Bush said
that WMDs existed and they don't. He knew before he went into war that
that the failure to find WMDs would make the USA the laughingstock of
the world. The world was not convinced by the pre war evidence, and
the lack of finds show that Bush was simply wrong. The important
question of the USA is why we were so wrong.

We owe an explanation to the families of the men and woemn who died there.


Vince