http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Obama-vows-to-close-Guantanamo-Bay-830825001.html

US President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to regain America's moral stature in the world when he arrives at the White House.

And one of his first jobs will be to close down the controversial Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

He said: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.

"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture.

"Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."

In his first television interview since winning the election, Mr Obama and his wife Michelle answered questions ranging from the economic bail-out to the all important new family dog.

Mr Obama said he had made suggestions to Treasury Secretary Paulson about the banks bail-out.

He did not elaborate but said the rescue plan had not focused enough on property repossessions.

He promised to do whatever it took to avoid a deepening recession.

Mrs Obama said there was no decision concerning the choice of family dog her husband promised the First Couple's daughters on election night.

She said that as "responsible owners" they would make a choice once the family settles into the White House.

I hope he succeeds!

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Obama-vows-to-close-Guantanamo-Bay-830825001.html

US President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to regain America's moral stature in the world when he arrives at the White House.

And one of his first jobs will be to close down the controversial Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

He said: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.

"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture.

"Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."

In his first television interview since winning the election, Mr Obama and his wife Michelle answered questions ranging from the economic bail-out to the all important new family dog.

Mr Obama said he had made suggestions to Treasury Secretary Paulson about the banks bail-out.

He did not elaborate but said the rescue plan had not focused enough on property repossessions.

He promised to do whatever it took to avoid a deepening recession.

Mrs Obama said there was no decision concerning the choice of family dog her husband promised the First Couple's daughters on election night.

She said that as "responsible owners" they would make a choice once the family settles into the White House.

I hope he succeeds!




???


Never mind about any of that ... the Guantanamo Bay thing  ::)  .... the recession thing  ::)  ... America's 'moral stature'  ::) ....




Now,  what DO we know .... about






















http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Obama-vows-to-close-Guantanamo-Bay-830825001.html

the all important new family dog.





???    ???
















:D

From Day One I have said that Gitmo was a mistake on any number of levels.

The prisoners there should have had a bullet put through their heads when they were picked up in Afghanistan.

From Day One I have said that Gitmo was a mistake on any number of levels.

The prisoners there should have had a bullet put through their heads when they were picked up in Afghanistan.


Nice.

Nice.


Not nice, but a practical matter.  The guys picked up in Afghanistan were enemy combatants and should have been dispatched on the battlefield.  Similarly for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he shoulda been shot on sight whan they picked him up in Pakistan, after, of course, being roughed up.

I would certainly hope that every terrorist that our armed forces encounters is similarly disposed of.  No need for a politically messy warehouse like Gitmo.  Gitmo was pointless, I cannot figure out what exactly what somebody was thinking when they thought up that operation.  It was guaranteed to become what it is... a festering political sore.

From Day One I have said that Gitmo was a mistake on any number of levels.

The prisoners there should have had a bullet put through their heads when they were picked up in Afghanistan.


What do you do about the ones that are either U.S. or Canadian citizens?  Not all in gitmo are from Afghanistan.

The "Obama is pure evilists" are gonna have a field day, with this one...  ;D

I can just see Bill O'Reilly.....

"America.... I told you so!"  ;D

Not nice, but a practical matter.  The guys picked up in Afghanistan were enemy combatants and should have been dispatched on the battlefield.  Similarly for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he shoulda been shot on sight whan they picked him up in Pakistan, after, of course, being roughed up.



If you shoot on sight, couldn't you end up shooting someone who you thought was a terrorist leader but is actually someone else entirely? Maybe forced/brainwashed to act as a body double in case of an encounter with Americans?

We must be careful, my friends

The  seed of hatred is easy to spread and hard to erradicate  :-[.

Whenever you want you can start a fight, but it can take plenty of time to pull the rage away.

What do you do about the ones that are either U.S. or Canadian citizens?  Not all in gitmo are from Afghanistan.


Same thing.  When our soldiers found these bozos fighting for terrorism in Afghanistan, the only appropriate response was a bullet.  It is only because somebody considered these clowns "high value" that they got rendered to Gitmo.

I do not care what citizenship these guys have, had, or claim to have.  Catch them pointing their weapons on the wrong side of the battlefield and snuff 'em.  May sound cruel but that is what war is about.

Note my comments are about people found on the battlefield or caught absolutely red-handed in a bomb-making centre, etc.  People simply picked up on suspicion of associations are a different situation.

All that Gitmo has done is elevate the "stature" of these people in the Muslim world.  Gitmo is a festering sore that never should have been opened up, with no possible political upside.

I had a similar opinion of the ocasional bombings of Iraq during the Clinton Administration... all they did was serve to degrade the perception of the USA in the Arab world, with no real impact or effect on the Hussein regime.  Over an 8-year time period all those aerial bombings did was to deteriorate the perception of the USA by Iraqis bit by bit, with no visible end game.

If you are going to do something like Gitmo there needs to be an end game and a clear path to a positive political outcome.  This clearly was not going to be the case with Gitmo which by any measure is a legally vague undertaking.

From Day One I have said that Gitmo was a mistake on any number of levels.

The prisoners there should have had a bullet put through their heads when they were picked up in Afghanistan.


I agree with you there.

And here is something I have yet to see people talk about:

What are they going to do with all these prisoners released?

Well, we can send them back to where they were picked up.  No, wait.  Odds are they will get mock trials and a bullet in the head.

Well, how about sending them to their home countries?  Well, that is no good either.  A lot of them have already been tried there, and will face execution if they ever go home.

Wait, I know.  Let's send them all to France!

Oh, and for a lot of those bleeding in here about them, the vast majority were captured in war zones with weapons in their hands.  And the vast majority of those weapons were pointed at my brothers and sisters.

I wonder how many people in the 1940's worried about the rights of POWs from Germany and Japan.  Could you even imagine some politician or news reporter even daring to say "These people need trials".

And strange, how many of the excuses of the terrorists captured remind me of things heard at the Nurenberg trials.

Ironically, when I cam to work and checked today's "Early Bird", I found the following article inside:

http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20081121640793.html

Edited:

My bad, I did not realize this was not available to non-DOD personnel.  Here is the text of the article:

Washington Post
November 21, 2008
Pg. 23

Wrenching Choices On Guantanamo

By Benjamin Wittes

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came into office wanting to close the American detention operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nearly two years later, Guantanamo is still there. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said she wants to close it. Guantanamo will outlast her. Yet, to watch the post-election Democratic triumphalism, you'd think that Guantanamo is as good as shuttered. President-elect Barack Obama has reiterated his campaign promise to close it, and some self-described advisers talk as though he'll wave a magic wand on Jan. 20 and a problem that has bedeviled this country for seven years will evaporate.

Closing Guantanamo won't be easy, at least not if Obama means to change the substance of American detention policy rather than merely altering its geography. Obama could, to be sure, fulfill his promise simply by moving detainees to a different facility while continuing to hold them as "enemy combatants." The challenge of closing Guantanamo would then come down to a series of logistical and administrative questions.

Solving the Guantanamo problem means making important decisions about detention policy in combating terrorism more generally: When, if ever, should the United States engage in preventive detention of terrorism suspects? If and when it does, should it treat them as enemy combatants under the laws of war or under some other body of law, perhaps a new detention statute? What rights should they have? What should the government have to prove about them, to what standard of proof, and in what sort of forum?

Notwithstanding the idea projected by some members of his camp that closing Guantanamo is simply a matter of will, Obama cannot just wish these questions away. Indeed, they defy answers in the absence of a systematic and rigorous review of the detainee population itself, including the classified information about each prisoner. This process, carried out properly, will not take place instantly.

There are three major groups of detainees at Guantanamo, each presenting distinct policy problems. For starters, there are detainees who could face trial. Most people regard criminal prosecution as the best means of neutralizing terrorism suspects and justifying their long-term detention, and some people regard trial as the only legitimate means of locking up America's enemies. But how big is the group that might plausibly face charges? And to what extent does its size depend on which forum the government uses for prosecution? Is it a much smaller group if America tries these people in federal courts or courts-martial than if it continues using President Bush's much-derided military commissions? Without knowing the answer to these questions, one cannot accurately assess the costs and benefits of America's trial options.

Second, roughly 60 detainees have been cleared for release or transfer from Guantanamo but are stuck there because of fears of mistreatment at the hands of their own governments. Will Obama have an easier time than Bush in persuading third countries to accept these detainees, particularly if he accepts a few of them into the United States? That may well be the case, but without serious diplomatic engagement over the question, we simply can't know how intractable this problem will prove to be. The ruling yesterday by a federal judge in Washington that five of six detainees in one case were held unlawfully raises the additional question of how many detainees should simply be released.

Third and most troublesome are the detainees too dangerous to be released but who cannot face criminal charges. How many, if any, this group contains will ultimately shape Obama's policy. Detainees who pose a grave national security threat might be unprosecutable for a variety of reasons: because of deficiencies in the criminal law as it stood in 2001, because evidence against them would not stand up in court, because the government might not have enough evidence to convict or because it obtained key evidence under coercive conditions. If there are only a few such detainees, and the danger they pose seems manageable, those of us who have advocated a preventive detention system should reconsider our position. On the other hand, some human rights advocates acknowledge privately that they may reconsider their categorical opposition to preventive detention if the group proves substantial and the danger it poses too significant to ignore. Right now, we can only guess at this group's size.

It matters enormously, in short, who each detainee really is. Only a true ideologue -- and Obama shows no sign of being that -- would develop a policy concerning Guantanamo without studying the population carefully and thinking these questions through. It's reassuring simply to assert that these cases present no tension between America's needs and her values. But that judgment is at least premature and may well prove dead wrong. In the short term, it does an injustice to the outgoing administration, many current and former members of which have struggled with these questions over seven long years. It also disserves the incoming administration, which will soon inherit detainees who defy such sloganeering and whose handling will require wrenching choices with no easy answers.

Benjamin Wittes, a former editorial writer for The Post, is research director in public law at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror."

Same thing.  When our soldiers found these bozos fighting for terrorism in Afghanistan, the only appropriate response was a bullet.  It is only because somebody considered these clowns "high value" that they got rendered to Gitmo.

I do not care what citizenship these guys have, had, or claim to have.  Catch them pointing their weapons on the wrong side of the battlefield and snuff 'em.  May sound cruel but that is what war is about.

Note my comments are about people found on the battlefield or caught absolutely red-handed in a bomb-making centre, etc.  People simply picked up on suspicion of associations are a different situation.

All that Gitmo has done is elevate the "stature" of these people in the Muslim world.  Gitmo is a festering sore that never should have been opened up, with no possible political upside.

I had a similar opinion of the ocasional bombings of Iraq during the Clinton Administration... all they did was serve to degrade the perception of the USA in the Arab world, with no real impact or effect on the Hussein regime.  Over an 8-year time period all those aerial bombings did was to deteriorate the perception of the USA by Iraqis bit by bit, with no visible end game.

If you are going to do something like Gitmo there needs to be an end game and a clear path to a positive political outcome.  This clearly was not going to be the case with Gitmo which by any measure is a legally vague undertaking.


Try telling that to the Canadians who would like to try their citezen but the U.S. will not allow them?  What about the twelve year old kid that's in there because his Father "supposable gave money to a sheik".  If what you state is true and the U.S. collective conscience is clear then why suspend Habeas Corpus for those who are American citezens?

It ain't like it was Obama's idea to open that joint in the first place.  I mean, for chrissakes, I didn't hear Obama say closing the place will be quick or easy, but it's got to be done.  It reminds me of the way the FOX boys are trying to call our current malaise the "Obama recession."  Oh sure, you incompetent nutjobs make a total f**king mess out of all the country's affairs foreign and domestic AND THEN you blame it on the guys who have to come in and mop up the blood!  It's like Ted Bundy fingering the coroner's office!!!

And Lyricboy oughta write for Stephen Colbert!
::)

Captured Nazis were given a trial instead of being shot or held indefinitely in prison camps, so why shouldn't the same be true for captured al-Qaeda? I know that they wouldn't do the same for captured Americans, but why should the country that calls itself "leader of the free world" sink to the level of terrorists?

Captured Nazis were given a trial instead of being shot or held indefinitely in prison camps, so why shouldn't the same be true for captured al-Qaeda? I know that they wouldn't do the same for captured Americans, but why should the country that calls itself "leader of the free world" sink to the level of terrorists?


They should never have been captured.  They should have been shot on the battlefield.  That's what we do on the battefield... shoot the enemy.

Captured Nazis were given a trial instead of being shot or held indefinitely in prison camps, so why shouldn't the same be true for captured al-Qaeda? I know that they wouldn't do the same for captured Americans, but why should the country that calls itself "leader of the free world" sink to the level of terrorists?

B'cause we're America, God loves us best, and the sun shines out our rear ends, so there!
:P

They should never have been captured.  They should have been shot on the battlefield.  That's what we do on the battefield... shoot the enemy.


In that case perhaps we shouldn't bitch about how our troops are treated in the warzone.  We shoot and desecrate enemy corpses and they behead and shout "Praise Allah.  That sounds OK to me.

They should never have been captured.  They should have been shot on the battlefield.  That's what we do on the battefield... shoot the enemy.
out of curiosity, what would you do if some tried to surrender?

You see ... ^  ... this is the trouble with America today.  :( You people .. in SPITE of Max's opening post .. .. and my drawing attention ... to the MOST important issue to be discussed here ....






















???


Never mind about any of that ... the Guantanamo Bay thing  ::)  .... the recession thing  ::)  ... America's 'moral stature'   ::) ....




Now,  what DO we know .... about


















Quote from: MaxwellSmart on November 21, 2008, 09:27:49 AM
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Obama-vows-to-close-Guantanamo-Bay-830825001.html

the all important new family dog.




















???    ???
















:D












Well, sadly ... .not ONE of you has seen the true importance of this ... the most  VITAL of issues !  :-
BBC has newsgasm over Obama's dog
By Lester Haines
Posted in Bootnotes, 7th November 2008 12:00 GMT
 





Goldendoodle or pitbull? Hmmm...




Those of you who believe the BBC is inexorably drifting away from hard-hitting, insightful journalism in favour of lowest-common-denominator populist piffle will be relieved to know there's still one reporter out there willing to file essential analysis of today's key issues.

And today's key issue is, of course, just what kind of dog will be the White House's next canine incumbent, following Barack Obama's tear-jerking acceptance speech pledge to his two daughters that they would indeed get the puppy they were promised if he became prez of the US of A.

Cue an in-depth report, in which labradoodles, schnoodles and cockapoos are walked around the block as possible residents of the Washington doghouse, while hackette Laura Smith-Spark ponders the delicate issue of the wrong choice possibly mounting the legs of visiting VIPs.

To cut to the chase, the bookies' fave appears to be a rescue centre goldendoodle, and by co-incidence Tamar Geller*, "a California-based celebrity dog 'life coach' who trained Oprah Winfrey's puppies", has one hanging around her shelter programme, Another Chance For Love.

She reckons Obama's people have already touched base with her people over the "gorgeous" canine, and presumably the pooch is currently being vetted for possible al-Qaeda or Republican sympathies as Secret Service spooks provoke it with a life-size cardboard cut-out of Nic Sarko to see if it attempts to clamp its laughing gear round the French prez's 'nads.

Oh yes, and then there's the matter of the name. Apparently, "some internet First Pet-watchers are already bandying about such monikers as Lipstick or Palin", should the animal actually turn out to be a pitbull, or "McCain", in the event it's a Vietnamese Phu Quoc.

Other nominations include "Arnie" for a gay-tailed Österreichischer Pinscher, "Boomer" for an Afghan hound, "Carla" for a French poodle and, finally, "Guantanamo", if the beast proves so dangerous it has to be kept permanantly caged. ®




Bootnote

*Ms Geller quite brilliantly describes the perfect White House mutt thus: "We need to make sure that the dog is not afraid of loud noises because he may hear loud arguments in the Oval Office, and he mustn't be afraid of people with beards and turbans and so on because he is going to meet a lot of foreign dignitaries."

out of curiosity, what would you do if some tried to surrender?


Hypothetical question, of course.  But I'd probably put a bullet through their head before they could set off their explosive belt during the feigned surrender.  You know, the same thing they were planning to do to me.  This is war, not a table game.

Hypothetical question, of course.  But I'd probably put a bullet through their head before they could set off their explosive belt during the feigned surrender.  You know, the same thing they were planning to do to me.  This is war, not a table game.


Most Taliban fighters don't wear an explosive belt in combat.  It's too unpredictable.  They save those for suicide bombing, not battle.

How many people in gitmo  were captured on a actual battlefield? Or is the whole world a battlefield in the war on terror so all suspected terrorists should be shot in their homes?

How many people in gitmo  were captured on a actual battlefield? Or is the whole world a battlefield in the war on terror so all suspected terrorists should be shot in their homes?


Well from the earlier posts that I have made (can't speak for the others), my comments regarded the ones who were found on the battlefield.  I also would summarily dispatch anybody caught red-handed... Example, our soldiers come across a guy planting an IED, that sort of thing.  Because in that case he was, in fact, on a battlefield.  No remorse about snuffing an IED-planter caught in the act, right then and there.

The Gitmo prisoners who were simply whisked off the streets and sent to Gitmo are a whole different story.  The CIA knew how to deal with them way before Gitmo and, again, the whole Gitmo thing was a really bad idea, doomed to what it has become, a pointless program.

You see ... ^  ... this is the trouble with America today.  :( You people .. in SPITE of Max's opening post .. .. and my drawing attention ... to the MOST important issue to be discussed here ....




Maybe he'll get an Afghan hound?

Ah, the CIA "dealing" with people deemed undesirable...nothing remotely controversial or immoral ever happened with that, right?

Ah, the CIA "dealing" with people deemed undesirable...nothing remotely controversial or immoral ever happened with that, right?



Right!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif

Ah, the CIA "dealing" with people deemed undesirable...nothing remotely controversial or immoral ever happened with that, right?




Didn't say that.  All I said is that the whole  Gitmo thing was a bad idea both for battlefield miscreants as well as CIA-tagged enemies.  CIa did not need Gitmo to do its business before, and the introduction of the Gitmo process only reduced the effectiveness of what they were doing before.

And no, we're not playing to the Marquess of Queensbury Rules out there, this is war.  But there is also a political element to war and as such Gitmo was a very unproductive tactic.

While we are on the subject of morality, both sides plant or drop bombs that cause "collateral damage", one could question the morality of Usa bombs or missiles that target Taleban miscreants.  But if you wait to be 100% sure there is no civilian at the target site, you would never launch the missile (or commando raid) and the enemy would flourish.  In war, the concept of absolute morality is quite a relative concept subject to interpretation.  in this light, I have absolutely no problem dispatching a terrorist on the battlerfield or caught red-handed because it will indeed save civilian lives on both sides.

War is like street fighting.  If you find yourself in a street fight, and you fight by the Marquess of Queensbury Rules of your own volition, do not be surprised when your opponent kicks you in the nards and then pulls his knife and finishes you off.

I'm not even sure you can call War on Terror a real War. I wonder 100 years from now how will this chapter of history be told...

I'm not even sure you can call War on Terror a real War. I wonder 100 years from now how will this chapter of history be told...


It won't.  We'll gloss over it like the Japanese gloss over their whole China debacle back in the 30s.

I'm not even sure you can call War on Terror a real War. I wonder 100 years from now how will this chapter of history be told...

It's a hypothetical war, like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
::)

Most Taliban fighters don't wear an explosive belt in combat.  It's too unpredictable.  They save those for suicide bombing, not battle.


Of course, very few are even captured anymore.  Most nowadays are involved in one-way-missions, where they do not expect to return from at all.

Oh, and the people in Gitmo are predominantly Al-Queda, not Taliban.  Big difference.


How many people in gitmo  were captured on a actual battlefield? Or is the whole world a battlefield in the war on terror so all suspected terrorists should be shot in their homes?


Most of those there have been there for years.  And they were captured on the battlefield.  Most of the others were turned over to us by other countries.  They were known terrorists, and the countries made the choice to dump them on us for various reasons (to appease people at home, to prevent their home nation from getting upset at them, to avoid retaliation by other terrorists).

Much like when Sudan tried to turn Osama over to the US in 1996.  he was not one of their citizens, but they wanted him gone before he brought trouble to their nation, either directly or indirectly.


It's a hypothetical war, like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
::)


And have my friends been killed by hypothetical airplanes?  And by hypothetical bullets and bombs?

And have my friends been killed by hypothetical airplanes?  And by hypothetical bullets and bombs?


I wish I could say they were only hypothetically killed. 

Does everything have a military solution?  The Bushies seemed to think so.

Does everything have a military solution? 


When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

However, on the other side, sometimes the problem really is that you need a hammer.  And wishing otherwise all you want is only foolish and/or futile.

Neville Chamberlain sadly understood what that was like at the end.

When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.

However, on the other side, sometimes the problem really is that you need a hammer.  And wishing otherwise all you want is only foolish and/or futile.

Neville Chamberlain sadly understood what that was like at the end.


To equate Chamberlain actions to this scenario is off the mark.  In this case we, the Americans, have been wrong from the start, and will be wrong at the finish, there isn't a good way out, but out is what we have to get. 

To equate Chamberlain actions to this scenario is off the mark.  In this case we, the Americans, have been wrong from the start, and will be wrong at the finish, there isn't a good way out, but out is what we have to get. 


The funny thing about cases like this, is that history really is 20/20 hindsight.

And that we have been wrong, that is not a fact, it is an opinion.  And all to often nowadays people tend to confuse the two.

I freely admit that a lot of things I believe are opinion, my own.  But generally I do not have the arrogance to try to claim it is a fact.

(and I a not accusing you of that.  our modern Media has gotten so good at doing just that, it can be almost impossible to seperate the "News" from the "Commentary" on our news broadcasts.)

To equate Chamberlain actions to this scenario is off the mark.  In this case we, the Americans, have been wrong from the start, and will be wrong at the finish, there isn't a good way out, but out is what we have to get. 


Wrong from the start is RIGHT. Intelligence failures .... albeit HONEST    :-\\  mistakes .... don't justify staying there .... ONCE proven WRONG.


Morally .... and I've ALWAYS maintained this .......... for a country like the USA .... to have this high moral  high-ground  .... in it's films / culture ... of 'Innocent till PROVEN ..... underline PROVEN guilty ............ and then to have the likes of Hans Blix .... and SO many others expressing their doubts about the 'Weapons of mass destruction'    ::)    ..... but to say 'pah' to diplomatic efforts .... coz YOU  'know better'    ::)


Yeah  .... innocent till PROVEN guilty .... when it suits !        :P    ;D





P. S. 'Sorry kiddies, for killing your Iraqi  parents / maiming you , .... sorry US forces ... for getting you into this STUPID war .. sorry ...


HEY! 'sorry' .... just DON'T cut it !    Bush shoulda been sticking his dumb 'brave'  ass in the firing line FIRST !    >:(

Morally .... and I've ALWAYS maintained this .......... for a country like the USA .... to have this high moral  high-ground  .... in it's films / culture ... of 'Innocent till PROVEN ..... underline PROVEN guilty ............ and then to have the likes of Hans Blix .... and SO many others expressing their doubts about the 'Weapons of mass destruction'     ::)    .....

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

You mean the weapons that have been found?  At last count I have seen in public sources, almost 1,000 active munitions have been found.  And a lot more have been suspected, but "destroyed in place" because of other considerations.  And larger stockpiles were reported in the initial ground war, but were missing when "clean-up" crews came back later to dispose of them.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/11/12/nbc-reports-saddam-hussein-planned-re-start-nuclear-program

And of course there is Saddam's claim that he was trying to fool the US into believing that he had them.  And of course his statement that he had every intention on restarting his weapons programs, and it was only 9/11 that got in his way of that goal.

So while people seem to love telling the lie "No WMD", I just look at them as the fools they are.

And if you think those 1,000 or so weapons are no real threat, think about this:  Those small number of bombs had the capability of killing more people then all the nuclear weapons on the planet combined.

I do not care what citizenship these guys have, had, or claim to have.  Catch them pointing their weapons on the wrong side of the battlefield and snuff 'em.  May sound cruel but that is what war is about.
Please spare us the macho twaddle - not everyone in Gitmo was "pointing their weapons on the wrong side of the battlefield" - the legal position would have been much clearer were that the case.  Guantanamo was being used because detention on the US mainland would have broken US law - I expect the laws of my country to be obeyed by my government, not circumvented when the desire suits them.

Thing is, the CIA has been wrong about who they've detained on many occasions in the past - the biggest problem with Gitmo is that they refused to give people there a trial, and in many cases were held for years without even being able to put their case.  Under any definition of a "legal system", that really, really sucks.


It's a hypothetical war, like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
::)

Given that the "war on poverty" is ineffectual, and the "war on drugs" actively counter-productive.. that the "war on terror" is a pointless and possibly harmful way of dealing with the problem should be no real surprise.


So while people seem to love telling the lie "No WMD", I just look at them as the fools they are.

And if you think those 1,000 or so weapons are no real threat, think about this:  Those small number of bombs had the capability of killing more people then all the nuclear weapons on the planet combined.

Fools?  Oh, FFS - was there even the smallest, tiniest iota of a chance that these weapons would be used against the US?  The rationale given for the war was bullsh*t then and remains it today.  Invading Iraq has made the world a far worse place for everyone - and that isn't 20/20 hindsight talking, it's what I and thousands, possibly millions, of others were saying before the invasion happened.

Please spare us the macho twaddle
B-b-b-but, it's the only viable export we've got left!
:\'(

WMD or no, beyond the confetti, cartwheeling clowns, and canned fanfare, the whole operations boils down to oil and who's gonna control it.  I respect hawks who have the cajones to admit that--I might not agree with them, but I respect them.
::)

Y'know, there was once a time when we orchestrated a coup, that the leader stayed deposed for more than 72 hours.  And by Glub, when we disappeared someone, they goddamn well stayed disappeared. 

It gets a couple of style points for having its VP blow his buddy's face off and having his buddy thank him for it, but that's hardly a strategic objective, but the bottom lines is that (along with everything else it's failed at), we've got a government so pathetic that it can't even kill people competently. 

Fools?  Oh, FFS - was there even the smallest, tiniest iota of a chance that these weapons would be used against the US?  The rationale given for the war was bullsh*t then and remains it today.  Invading Iraq has made the world a far worse place for everyone - and that isn't 20/20 hindsight talking, it's what I and thousands, possibly millions, of others were saying before the invasion happened.


Errrr, they HAD been used, against the Iranians, the Kurds, and the US military.

Errrr, they HAD been used, against the Iranians, the Kurds, and the US military.


But the point is that the weapons of mass destruction we were told that Iraq had could be used against mainland Britain and the US.  That they had the capability to fire weapons from Iraq all the way across to the US not against their neighbours.  That was the whole premise of the war

Errrr, they HAD been used, against the Iranians, the Kurds, and the US military.

Given that we (the UK and the US) sold chemical weapons and the means to manufacture more to Iraq, knowing damn well they were going to be used against Iran & Iraqi Kurds, invading Iraq because they used what we sold them could be seen as just a trifle hypocritial, don't you think?

As for your claim that chemical weapons were used against the US military - are you saying that happened before the US invaded?  'Cause they sure kept it quiet beforehand if that was the case; if you mean *after* the US invaded, then it hardly counts as a casus belli, does it?  Especially as the US used chemical weapons against the Iraqis.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

You mean the weapons that have been found?  At last count I have seen in public sources, almost 1,000 active munitions have been found. 

And if you think those 1,000 or so weapons are no real threat, think about this:  Those small number of bombs had the capability of killing more people then all the nuclear weapons on the planet combined.



So I asked I guy I know who has been there(two tours) about these active munitions.  He said " farts don't count."  Then he said seriously that if there had been weapons capable of that kind of destruction you're talking about, they wouldn't have been in one place, and they would have been used.  It isn't like they would have had them and beat there breasts about whether or not to use them or not, they would have if they could have, they couldn't so they didn't.

Errrr, they HAD been used, against the Iranians, the Kurds, and the US military.

Didn't the U.S. sell Saddam that junk in the first place?

As Foo was just alluding to, if Uncle Sam is going to play imperialist and stick his fingers in everybody's pie, then he forfeits credibility for moral highground.  I mean, it's a nice play, keeping the wogs at each other's throats while we loot their resources, but please, let's not be shocked--SHOCKED--at the consequent carnage!
::)


So I asked I guy I know who has been there(two tours) about these active munitions.  He said " farts don't count." 


Well, Don Rumsfeld told me you didn't want to hang around after Saddam et too many falafels!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/ukliam3.gif

I had a similar opinion of the ocasional bombings of Iraq during the Clinton Administration... all they did was serve to degrade the perception of the USA in the Arab world, with no real impact or effect on the Hussein regime.  Over an 8-year time period all those aerial bombings did was to deteriorate the perception of the USA by Iraqis bit by bit, with no visible end game.

If you are going to do something like Gitmo there needs to be an end game and a clear path to a positive political outcome.  This clearly was not going to be the case with Gitmo which by any measure is a legally vague undertaking.


What you said about Clinton on this is the main reason why I don't like Clinton at all! After Bush I, Clinton was trying to deal with Iraq.

I know people's opinions about Clinton on here is gold...but to me...nope.

What you said about Clinton on this is the main reason why I don't like Clinton at all! After Bush I, Clinton was trying to deal with Iraq.

I know people's opinions about Clinton on here is gold...but to me...nope.


Huh?  I never said Clinton was as good as gold.  Buchanan perhaps but not Clinton. ;D

But the point is that the weapons of mass destruction we were told that Iraq had could be used against mainland Britain and the US.  That they had the capability to fire weapons from Iraq all the way across to the US not against their neighbours.


I can't remember ever hearing that Iraq had an intercontinental delivery playform, be it ICBM or Long Range Bombers.  They had problems just reaching targets a short distance from their country.

However, with modern Air Travel, you do not need such a system to deliver chemical or biological weapons.  I am sure we all remember the Sarin attacks in the Tokyo Subway a few years ago.  And Tom Clancy in Executive Order gave a great example of how a low-tech biological attack could be performed.


Didn't the U.S. sell Saddam that junk in the first place?


Yes, as had France, USSR, and a great many other nations.

Until a few years ago, a great many "biological agents" were freely available from the CDC and USAMRID.  All you had to do was basically send a letter saying you were doing research, and they gave you samples.  Among the stockpiles destroyed in the 1990's was "almost weapons grade anthrax", which came from the CDC.  Iraq was also doing research into weaponizing HIV, which was obtained from France.

And the equipment to manufacture most of these weapons can be rather crude.  To mass produce many biological agents, the equipment is basically identicle to that used in making yeast.

And for making a great many chemical weapons, refineries and pestacide/fertilizer plants can double just as easily.


So I asked I guy I know who has been there(two tours) about these active munitions.  He said " farts don't count."  Then he said seriously that if there had been weapons capable of that kind of destruction you're talking about, they wouldn't have been in one place, and they would have been used.  It isn't like they would have had them and beat there breasts about whether or not to use them or not, they would have if they could have, they couldn't so they didn't.


In 1991, they did use them.  In 2003, they did not because of several reasons.

Saddam did order their use, but like Hitler at the end of WWII, his own people lied to him about the quantity, type, and availability.  He was often trying to order the use of weapons which did not exist.

And also the first attacks completely devistated their communications.  Just like Nukes in our country, the only "Command Authority" for these weapons was Saddam himself.  And their communication capability was devistated in the opening hours of the war.

And most of his Generals simply ignored his orders.  They knew "the gig was up", and releasing these weapons would only ensure their trial in the world court for War Crimes.  Once again, this parallels WWII, when Dietrich von Choltitz ignored his orders.

I can't remember ever hearing that Iraq had an intercontinental delivery playform, be it ICBM or Long Range Bombers.  They had problems just reaching targets a short distance from their country.



The whole gulf war two kicked off because Saddam wouldn't let the international inspectors look at the weapons.  A (faked/"sexed up") report said that he had weapons capable of reaching Britain in 40 minutes.

The whole gulf war two kicked off because Saddam wouldn't let the international inspectors look at the weapons.  A (faked/"sexed up") report said that he had weapons capable of reaching Britain in 40 minutes.

One analysis I read only recently said that Saddam felt that he couldn't own up to not having WMDs for fear of another war with Iran kicking off - it explains the behaviour perfectly, IMO: he knew he didn't have anything massively destructive, but believed that if the Iranians thought that, they'd resume hostilities.

One analysis I read only recently said that Saddam felt that he couldn't own up to not having WMDs for fear of another war with Iran kicking off - it explains the behaviour perfectly, IMO: he knew he didn't have anything massively destructive, but believed that if the Iranians thought that, they'd resume hostilities.

Awwww, poor Saddam, backed into a corner like that!
:\'(

The whole gulf war two kicked off because Saddam wouldn't let the international inspectors look at the weapons.  A (faked/"sexed up") report said that he had weapons capable of reaching Britain in 40 minutes.


I have no idea where that came from, because iraq has never had anything but short-medium range missiles.  He was long attempting to develop a long range capability, but he never got anywhere near accomplishing it.

Short of aircraft, the longest range weapon he had was the SCUD.  The original missile was the Soviet R-11, which was based on the German V-2.  Maximum range, around 170 miles.  His own modified SCUD-D class had a range of around 434 miles.  Quite an accomplishment, but far short of the distance needed to reach the UK.

However, with biological-chemical weapons, nothing fancy is needed to deliver them.  Spray cans sent on civilian aircraft and released at the destination are a low-tech but effective delivery system.

And I can't recall an claims that he had long range weapons, or was anywhere even close to getting them. 

I have no idea where that came from, because iraq has never had anything but short-medium range missiles.  He was long attempting to develop a long range capability, but he never got anywhere near accomplishing it.

Short of aircraft, the longest range weapon he had was the SCUD.  The original missile was the Soviet R-11, which was based on the German V-2.  Maximum range, around 170 miles.  His own modified SCUD-D class had a range of around 434 miles.  Quite an accomplishment, but far short of the distance needed to reach the UK.

However, with biological-chemical weapons, nothing fancy is needed to deliver them.  Spray cans sent on civilian aircraft and released at the destination are a low-tech but effective delivery system.

And I can't recall an claims that he had long range weapons, or was anywhere even close to getting them. 


Exactly, but that is the fear that the bushies tried to instill in the American public to get backing for the war....and here we are.

I have no idea where that came from, because iraq has never had anything but short-medium range missiles.  He was long attempting to develop a long range capability, but he never got anywhere near accomplishing it.

Short of aircraft, the longest range weapon he had was the SCUD.  The original missile was the Soviet R-11, which was based on the German V-2.  Maximum range, around 170 miles.  His own modified SCUD-D class had a range of around 434 miles.  Quite an accomplishment, but far short of the distance needed to reach the UK.

However, with biological-chemical weapons, nothing fancy is needed to deliver them.  Spray cans sent on civilian aircraft and released at the destination are a low-tech but effective delivery system.

And I can't recall an claims that he had long range weapons, or was anywhere even close to getting them. 


It is the reason everyone in Britain was told we needed to go to war against him.  There was a report that claimed he could fire missiles to Britain that would take 40 minutes to reach us.  I'm sure philbo remembers more of the detail than I can.  The report turned out to have been "sexed up"  (to use a quote from the time) to make the war seem more important/urgent and also copied from someone's PhD (I think) complete with typos.

Saddam was crazy but not stupid.  Even if he had those missiles, if he lobbed one at London, his own ass would be blown to smithereens within 48 hours!  Same goes for rocketing Tel Aviv. 
::)

Saddam was crazy but not stupid.  Even if he had those missiles, if he lobbed one at London, his own ass would be blown to smithereens within 48 hours!  Same goes for rocketing Tel Aviv. 
::)


Perhaps, but he wasn't supposed to have any in the first place.


I've found some information on the report I was talking about in the post above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

This thread seems to have gotten side tracked.  ???