Iraqi Docs Beginning to Surface [merged]

[ashurbanipal]

Why was "contact" good enough for the "Bush lied" crowd before the war and not good enough now? Why is there a sudden caveat called "Operational relationship"? Why was there no need to distinguish this before?

OK, so we just killed this guy Fred because we thought he had killed someone else named Joe. Immediately after Fred's execution, someone in Fred's family brings forth plenty of evidence to show that Fred had known who Joe was, but was not involved in his murder and that the relationship the two were supposed to have had, according to the prosecution, was a lie. I repeat--they bring forth evidence to show that the prosecution misled the jury and presented false documentation and evidence at Fred's trial in order to secure a conviction and a death sentence. Furthermore, the prosecution makes no credible reply to the evidence at all.

But then three years later, in what is surely a brilliant rejoinder, the prosecution produces evidence that Fred had, in fact, sold Joe a car in 1996 because Fred worked as a car salesman at the dealership where Joe purchased a car.

Now, would anyone seriously think that Fred's family was somehow being disingenous in claiming that Fred didn't really know Joe, had no reason to kill him, had no relationship with him? Would anyone think that the prosecution was being anything less than a bunch of sanctimonious pricks for replying that Fred's family overlooked the (surely relevant and weighty) automobile purchase? Would anyone be mulish, cowardly, and inhuman enough to suggest that in spite of all the evidence the prosecution can't answer about its lies, its bloodlust, its improper procedure, its fabrications in getting Fred killed for Joe's murder, the car-deal somehow dismissed the fact that an innocent man had been killed? Especially if it were brought out that the defense mentioned the car deal at the trial but said that Fred had no other dealings with Joe, what kind of MORON would it take to wait three years and bring up the car deal as justification for killing Fred?

So, let's review:

1) Saddam and Al-Qaeda had had contact but no working relationship. We knew this in early 2003--see links I posted earlier in this thread.

2) At least three memos and some considerable testimony have been leaked showing that Bush et. al. wanted a war with Iraq from the very start and they were lying to get it.

3) Now that we've actually invaded, we've found no weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of the genocides Saddam was supposed to have committed (he's on trial for the murder of 157 people--bad enough but hardly a genocide), no evidence that he was a participant in 9/11--in short no legal reason to invade.

4) In the meantime, somewhere north of 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our actions, nearly 3,000 American servicepeople have been killed, the war has cost an unknown but obviously huge amount of money, apparently a bunch of fresh recruits have joined the cause and the entire Muslim world is drifting towards dislike of America, and more wars are on the horizon, and people still apparently want to defend Bush's actions on the notion that Saddam had identified an Al-Qaeda cell in his country and he had, very briefly, talked to them but it turns out they didn't like each other and after a short while, realized they didn't want to work together.

I guess I have nothing more to say.

 

[KCConservative]

Fred and Joe? I think I went to High School with them.

 

[ProudAmerican]

1) Saddam and Al-Qaeda had had contact but no working relationship. We knew this in early 2003--see links I posted earlier in this thread.

The notion that "Al Queda" terrorists were the only terrorists that would have given us a legitimate reason to go into Iraq is nonsense. I love how the left has determined that Al Queda is the only terrorists organization on earth worth worrying about. Iraq harbored TERRORISTS. this is not in dispute.

2) At least three memos and some considerable testimony have been leaked showing that Bush et. al. wanted a war with Iraq from the very start and they were lying to get it.

dozens of quotes have been posted time and time again proving that many on the left spewed the very same "lies". just because the left refuses to acknowledge this doesnt mean it never happened. Either EVERYONE lied, or EVERYONE made an honest mistake.

3) Now that we've actually invaded, we've found no weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of the genocides Saddam was supposed to have committed (he's on trial for the murder of 157 people--bad enough but hardly a genocide), no evidence that he was a participant in 9/11--in short no legal reason to invade.

the Kurds didnt die of bird flu. and if you think hes only responsible for the deaths of the 157 people hes on trial for, then you need help. The man murdered untold numbers of people while in power. as far as being a participant in 9-11....this is another leftist myth. the only people that think he had to be a participant in 9-11 in order to be removed from power are the enemies of the president.

apparently a bunch of fresh recruits have joined the cause and the entire Muslim world is drifting towards dislike of America

yeah, and before we went into Iraq, they loved us dearly and would have never done anything to harm us in any way.

and people still apparently want to defend Bush's actions

theres nothing to "defend" he did the RIGHT thing. and before the left decided to play politics and put more American lives in danger, THEY AGREED it was the right thing. you need look no further than my sig for proof of that.

I guess I have nothing more to say.

highly doubtful.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The notion that "Al Queda" terrorists were the only terrorists that would have given us a legitimate reason to go into Iraq is nonsense. I love how the left has determined that Al Queda is the only terrorists organization on earth worth worrying about. Iraq harbored TERRORISTS. this is not in dispute.

Are you particularly worried about, say, the Zapatistas or the Basque separatists or the Chechen rebels? They're all terrorists, but presumably no concern of ours. why not? Obviously, because they didn't attack the United States. Do you have any evidence that the terrorists in Iraq did attack the United States? If not, your point has no force.

dozens of quotes have been posted time and time again proving that many on the left spewed the very same "lies". just because the left refuses to acknowledge this doesnt mean it never happened. Either EVERYONE lied, or EVERYONE made an honest mistake.

1) If someone I trust tells me a lie and I repeat it thinking it's the truth, am I a liar also? Obviously not--I'm engaged in telling falsehoods. There's a not-so-subtle difference. So your meta-assertion is simply false--some people lied and others, taking those lies for the truth (because they were told by people we're supposed to be able to trust) made honest mistakes.

2) Some on the "left" undoubtedly did lie or at least didn't speak up knowing that lies were being told. They're no better than the neocons AFAICT. what does that have to do with me, and why does that excuse what has happened?

3) Not to be vague, this sort of response is a fallacy called "Tu Quoque Ad Hominem." There's a good reason it's a fallacy which I can explain in blinding and sharp detail if you like.

the Kurds didnt die of bird flu.

No, according to a report from the U.S. Army War College, they died when the Iranians gassed them:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

That whole episode is far more complex than most Americans are aware of. Iraq did, in fact, gas some Kurds, and used conventional weapons against many more. But they were engaged in a full-scale rebellion and allied with the Iranians who had invaded Iraqi territory. So the idea that Saddam just rolled into Kurdish territory and let them have it is not correct; and the worst bit of killing that occurred was apparently the Iranians' fault anyway.

and if you think hes only responsible for the deaths of the 157 people he's on trial for, then you need help. The man murdered untold numbers of people while in power.

The point being that, if that were a slam-dunk, he'd be on trial for lots more. His crimes have been exaggerated in the American media; the stories have often been spun out of anti-Baathist propaganda machines and sold to the American public as the gospel truth. We haven't found evidence of genocide there. We have found evidence of some brutal stuff, but nothing approaching the level of what he is supposed to have done, and nothing approaching the level of what America or Israel have done since WWII.

as far as being a participant in 9-11....this is another leftist myth. the only people that think he had to be a participant in 9-11 in order to be removed from power are the enemies of the president.

Enemies may be too strong a word--if that many people were enemies of Bush, he'd be dead many times over. I'd say that the people who think that are critical of the President, but it's a chicken and egg issue: do they think that because they're critical, or are they critical because they think that? In my case it's the latter.

yeah, and before we went into Iraq, they loved us dearly and would have never done anything to harm us in any way.

Another fallacy--this time called "false dillema." There were certain obvious anti-American elements in Islamic culture prior to our invasion of Iraq. For the most part, we worked pretty hard to curry their disfavor. But most of the Muslim world was either mildly friendly, or apathetic. Now they are starting to actively align themselves against us.

theres nothing to "defend" he did the RIGHT thing. and before the left decided to play politics and put more American lives in danger, THEY AGREED it was the right thing. you need look no further than my sig for proof of that.

1) Clinton is hardly "on the left." I've said several times on these boards that I think he was a scumbag; he was only better than Bush in that he was smarter.

2) It was very clearly NOT the right thing. On what grounds could you possibly say that?

3) How is saying that the Iraq war was wrong putting American lives in danger?

 

[easyt65]

2 of the Iraqi Generals who have come out to say Hussein had WMD that was shipped to Syria are General Sada, who wrote a book on the issue, and the other was General Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti, the Southern Regional Commander for Hussein.

As a response for links to that and other related information:

Tapes show Hussein had WMD
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156129.php
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200602\NAT20060215a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\\Nation\\archive\\200602\\NAT20060215c.html

Iraqi WMD To Syria
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=19678 – Gen Sada
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827 – Al-Tikriti
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3163

Secret Saddam Tapes reveal WMDs Existed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...307&page=1

Secret tapes Reveal Hussein had WMD:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156129.php

Iraq Chemical Stash Discovered: 14 Aug 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300530.html

Russians Moved Hussein’s WMD:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...023.shtml?s=lh
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=127232


Saddam’s General: “WMD in Syria!”http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48827

2nd Iraqi Commander Confirms WMD:
http://discuss.extremetech.com/forum.../ShowPost.aspx

Baathist Confirms WMD in Syria, part of Plan to discredit Bush/Re-instate Hussein:
http://www.stonescryout.org/archives...more_on_i.html


Bomb/Sarin Gas found in Iraq:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

Sarin/Mustard gas Found:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

 

[ashurbanipal]

Sorry, I missed this post. Well, to it:

The oil from Iraq is being pumped into Turkey and then sold on the World market. The funds, not being stolen by the U.N., is being given to the Iraqi goverment to run the country.

Funds that we control. Just because we're not out-and-out stealing the oil (which would, incidentally, incur a war with the BRIC nations; a war that we could not win) doesn't mean that's not the reason we're there. Iraq was selling its oil in Euros starting in 1999. This was a very serious problem for us, and is probably also why we're actually looking at war with Iran (our own intelligence tells us that they're decades away from having a nuclear weapon, and there are any number of ways of letting them have nuclear power while preventing them from getting the bomb).

A short digression to understand why this is important:

The Bretton-Woods agreement in 1947 established the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. The IMF is accounted for in dollars. So long as that remains the case, the rest of the world has an interest in propping up the U.S. economy. No way would China, Europe, Russia, etc. tolerate our huge General Account Balance disparity unless we controlled the reserve currency. If they want oil, they have to export cheap goods to us to get paid in dollars, and they have to keep buying our T-bills to prevent the dollar from devaluing.

If we want oil on the other hand, all we have to do is print dollars, sell T-bills to avoid inflation, and presto-chango we can afford more oil.

But if major oil-producing nations start selling their oil in a different currency, we'd be required to actually work for a supply of that currency in order to buy that oil. Other countries could stop buying our debt and we'd have to export goods to others (like Europe) to earn a supply of the new reserve currency. We'd actually have to think about repaying all that debt, which at this point would be disastrous. The 1930's would look like a dawdle; it would take a very painful century or longer for us to recover. It's not just debt that's the problem, its our derivatives bubble. I can explain this in more detail if you want as well, but in the interest of brevity, I'll just point out that right now, the world economy, and the U.S. economy in particular, is floating on a 200 trillion (with a 'T') dollar derivatives bubble. That's more than our entire GNP for the 20th century, and most of that is dependent on American corporations.

Now, back to the point--it doesn't matter where the oil actually goes. We get plenty of it (currently) from Canada and Mexico. The point is that we have now closed off the real reason for the recession of 2000-2003 as no one is trading any significant amount of oil in currency other than dollars right now.

However, we have established a permanent presence in both Afganistan and Iraq, we have significant inroads to Saudi Arabia, and we're begining to toy with beating Iran into submission. In short, we're demonstrating to the world that we're willing to use military might to keep the dollar strong and to control oil trading and oil supplies.

The United states has not been getting 1 barrel of Iraqi oil, making it a point not to buy any so as not appear in the slightest way that this war was about oil. He!!, for all we have done, we SHOULD be getting free barrels of oil...but we aren't.

Actually, yes we are. If you actually understand what I posted above, you'll realize that we get all of our oil for free (well, minus the cost of actually printing currency and shipping it to the Federal Reserve branches).

What we know is NOT that we went to war based on false pretences - that is another mantra that has been drilled into our heads.

I was going to follow all that remained up with requests for links, but I see you have provided them in abundance. I'll go through them and complete my reply when finished. If any of them actually do provide a reason for the invasion, I'll change my tune.

 

[easyt65]

I was going to follow all that remained up with requests for links, but I see you have provided them in abundance. I'll go through them and complete my reply when finished. If any of them actually do provide a reason for the invasion, I'll change my tune.

I look forward to your attempt to discredit all my sources/links. :roll:

 

[oldreliable67]

The Bretton-Woods agreement in 1947 established the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

If you are saying that Bretton-Woods contained a clause that specified "the US Dollar is now the world's primary reserve currency", no, it didn't. If you are saying that Bretton-Woods put into place a system of pegged exchange rates tied to the dollar (within allowable bands and periodic adjustments for fundamental changes), then yes, it did. Bretton-Woods did not 'establish' the USD as the pre-eminent reserve currency, our economic growth did that. It was, however, the first system of coordinated exchange rates between countries, and those exchange rates were pegged to the USD. Bretton-Woods was instrumental in the early years following WWII, but it broke down and was abandoned in '71.

So long as that remains the case, the rest of the world has an interest in propping up the U.S. economy. No way would China, Europe, Russia, etc. tolerate our huge General Account Balance disparity unless we controlled the reserve currency. If they want oil, they have to export cheap goods to us to get paid in dollars, and they have to keep buying our T-bills to prevent the dollar from devaluing.

Seems to me you're getting cause and effect mixed up a bit. 'the rest of the world has an interest in propping up the US economy'???? The US economy, for the majority of the period since WWII has been the engine of growth for the entire world. It isn't that foreign countries 'want to prop up' the US economy; to the contrary, they are eager to export to us in order to provide growth opportunities for their own economies. Oil is important, very much so, but oil isn't 100% of the picture.

'control the reserve currency'?? Yes, the primary reserve currency is the USD. But the USD reserve currency status is a result of our economic growth and dominant economy, not some conspiracy. It is true that the USD reserve currency status holds only as long as others are willing to hold dollars, and if the major holders of reserve currencies were to become less willing to do so, then we would have a problem. Which, btw, also contradicts your 'controlling the reserve currency' assertion: we can't control whether or not others want to hold dollars.

I didn't realize you were such a devotee of conspiracy theories.

 

[shuamort]

2 of the Iraqi Generals who have come out to say Hussein had WMD that was shipped to Syria are General Sada, who wrote a book on the issue, and the other was General Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti, the Southern Regional Commander for Hussein.

As a response for links to that and other related information:

Tapes show Hussein had WMD
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156129.php
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200602\NAT20060215a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\\Nation\\archive\\200602\\NAT20060215c.html

Iraqi WMD To Syria
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=19678 – Gen Sada
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827 – Al-Tikriti
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3163

Secret Saddam Tapes reveal WMDs Existed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...307&page=1

Secret tapes Reveal Hussein had WMD:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156129.php

Iraq Chemical Stash Discovered: 14 Aug 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300530.html

Russians Moved Hussein’s WMD:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...023.shtml?s=lh
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=127232


Saddam’s General: “WMD in Syria!”http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48827

2nd Iraqi Commander Confirms WMD:
http://discuss.extremetech.com/forum.../ShowPost.aspx

Baathist Confirms WMD in Syria, part of Plan to discredit Bush/Re-instate Hussein:
http://www.stonescryout.org/archives...more_on_i.html


Bomb/Sarin Gas found in Iraq:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

Sarin/Mustard gas Found:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

W-w-wait. Did the WMDs stay in Iraq, get moved to Syria, or were they moved by Russia? :rofl

 

[ProudAmerican]

Are you particularly worried about, say, the Zapatistas or the Basque separatists or the Chechen rebels? They're all terrorists, but presumably no concern of ours. why not? Obviously, because they didn't attack the United States. Do you have any evidence that the terrorists in Iraq did attack the United States? If not, your point has no force.

before 9-11 I had no evidence that terrorists from afghanistan would attack America. but wow, it happened anyway didnt it.

1) If someone I trust tells me a lie and I repeat it thinking it's the truth, am I a liar also?

so when Clinton said it in 1998 he was repeating a lie he heard form George Bush in 2002 ? lmao. good logic.

So your meta-assertion is simply false--some people lied and others, taking those lies for the truth (because they were told by people we're supposed to be able to trust) made honest mistakes.

using this logic, BILL CLINTON started this whole lie and W. Bush was simply duped by him and repeated the lie as someone that was innocent and simply missled by a liar on the left.

3) Not to be vague, this sort of response is a fallacy called "Tu Quoque Ad Hominem." There's a good reason it's a fallacy which I can explain in blinding and sharp detail if you like.

its ok, ive been educated by enough intellectuals to last me a lifetime. I can hold my own in this debate without your help.

Iraq did, in fact, gas some Kurds,

well at least I dont have to get an education from you on this point.

The point being that, if that were a slam-dunk, he'd be on trial for lots more.

really? so we tried the nazis on each count of murder they commited in WWII?

Another fallacy--this time called "false dillema."

thanks for the education. so on 9-10-2001 if I had said the same about Al Queda, would that have also been a fallacy?

2) It was very clearly NOT the right thing. On what grounds could you possibly say that?

oh Ill pass on this one. anything I put forth will be a "fallacy" of some sort im sure.

3) How is saying that the Iraq war was wrong putting American lives in danger?

gee i hope this isnt a fallacy of some sort.....but I believe that future actions against other rogue nations that endanger American lives will be made much tought by the ridiculous antics of the left on the issue of Iraq.

lets say Iran needs to be dealt with in the near future. man it sure will be more difficult to do so now that the left in this country has made us look completely silly on the issue of Iraq.

American lives have been put in danger many times by the lefts lack of balls in dealing with real threats.

now, give me a lesson on ad hominem and false delima. its much easier to try and make yourself look like some intellectual giant than to actually debate the issue at hand.

ive seen it numerous times by leftist braniacs.

:2wave:

 

[oldreliable67]

In short, we're demonstrating to the world that we're willing to use military might...to control...oil supplies.

And whats wrong with that? But 'control' is probably too strong a word, but 'ensure stability in the major oil-producing region of the world' might be pretty accurate. Consider the consequences to our economy of anarchy/chaos/destruction in the region. Stability seems a preferable alternative, does it not?

 

[KCConservative]

lets say Iran needs to be dealt with in the near future. man it sure will be more difficult to do so now that the left in this country has made us look completely silly on the issue of Iraq. American lives have been put in danger many times by the lefts lack of balls in dealing with real threats.

Very very true.

 

[Christian]

More from the docs:

US Troops Attacked After Saddam-Bin Laden Pact (newsmax)

U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia were attacked by al Qaeda twice in the months following Saddam Hussein's decision to approve Osama bin Laden's request for help in attacking "foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

An Iraqi intelligence document released last week states that bin Laden met in Sudan with senior Iraqi intelligence agents on Feb. 19, 1995, where he requested help in conducting "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

Saddam "was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995," the Iraqi intelligence memo explains.

The document goes on to state:

"The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him . . . . We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up."

Read the rest:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/23/95830.shtml?s=ic

 

[ashurbanipal]

If you are saying that Bretton-Woods contained a clause that specified "the US Dollar is now the world's primary reserve currency", no, it didn't.

No, it does not. Not in so many words. But that is the effect it had; the inertia it created is only now begining to slow. Not only were exchange rates pegged to the dollar, the IMF was accounted for in dollars. If that doesn't establish the dollar as the reserve currency, I don't know what does.

Bretton-Woods did not 'establish' the USD as the pre-eminent reserve currency, our economic growth did that.

Actually, I daresay it was our military supremacy and a bit of geographic luck post WWII that did that. Of course, those things entailed our economic growth, so there may be no real way to separate them. However, after Bretton Woods, the IMF was accounted for in dollars. Major commodity exchanges followed suit. So your semantic expansions don't reduce or divert the force of my explanation.

It was, however, the first system of coordinated exchange rates between countries, and those exchange rates were pegged to the USD. Bretton-Woods was instrumental in the early years following WWII, but it broke down and was abandoned in '71.

Specific clauses were, but the IMF continued, as did the economic conventions it ushered in.

Seems to me you're getting cause and effect mixed up a bit. 'the rest of the world has an interest in propping up the US economy'????

See below--you are making the same claim I am.

The US economy, for the majority of the period since WWII has been the engine of growth for the entire world.

Yes, and doesn't that seem a bit odd? In fact, that appears to be unique in all of history....even during the Roman Empire, the Roman economy itself was not the lynchpin that held all others together; periods of recession in Rome were not necessarily mirrored by periods of recession in, say, Alexandria or Athens.

It isn't that foreign countries 'want to prop up' the US economy; to the contrary, they are eager to export to us in order to provide growth opportunities for their own economies.

How is that "to the contrary?" Of course they want to export goods to us--that's how they get dollars to buy oil. If we can't afford to pay for those goods, then clearly that's a problem for everyone else. Ergo, they want to prop up our economy.

To get why this is something that's not likely to go away unless the major commodity exchanges, and especially the Brent and the WTI, also go away, consider a simple oil contract. Oil is a physical thing that is to be traded; it's not like stock where certificates can be re-printed. Company A writes an oil futures contract with company B that says "Company A agrees to pay $60.00 a barrel for 10,000 barrels of oil on or before May 23rd, 2006." If we wanted to change how the Brent traded, say to make it trade in Pounds Sterling, those contracts would be unecessarily complex at best, and useless at worst. I'm not saying it couldn't be done (one way to do it would be to force all contracts to be re-written for the new currency in force), it would just take a heck of a lot of effort and create a lot of confusion. No one wants to change it for that reason, and because no one wants to change it, the dollar stays on top.

Oil is important, very much so, but oil isn't 100% of the picture.

Tell you what: Aside from primitive tribespeople, I challenge you to name one economic activity that is performed by anyone, anywhere, that doesn't rely on inputs of oil either directly or indirectly. The fact is, there is no commodity, no merchandise, no service, no information, nothing that is traded that doesn't rely on oil, either to produce or transport. Even something like getting a massage or haircut relies on oil 6 ways to Sunday.

control the reserve currency'?? Yes, the primary reserve currency is the USD. But the USD reserve currency status is a result of our economic growth and dominant economy, not some conspiracy.

No, our economic growth is a result of a conspiracy, and not a terribly secret one, either. I've outlined its principle mechanism--but if you can point out a) how we got to be the dominant economy and b) how the USD got to be the reserve currency without referencing what I said, then please do so.

It is true that the USD reserve currency status holds only as long as others are willing to hold dollars, and if the major holders of reserve currencies were to become less willing to do so, then we would have a problem. Which, btw, also contradicts your 'controlling the reserve currency' assertion: we can't control whether or not others want to hold dollars.

Well, yes and no. Again, so long as oil is traded in dollars, then we are guaranteed that the other major economies of the world must hold dollars. If oil starts to be traded in Euros or Yuan, then other countries may wish to eschew dollars and hold other currencies. Saying that this would create a problem for us is something of an understatement.

I didn't realize you were such a devotee of conspiracy theories.

Well now wait a minute...I don't think that what I posted is a conspiracy theory in the same way that, say, David Icke's theories are conspiracy theories. What I posted is the way things really work--you used some very general terms like "economic growth." Once you find out precisely what that means, you'll end up with exactly what I posted. I guess you could call it a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy in the same way that industry associations or labor unions are conspiracies.

The facts are pretty simple:

1) The vast majority of oil is traded in dollars. Even the Brent exchange trades in American dollars.

2) We control (obviously) how many dollars are in circulation.

3) We don't just give dollars to other nations--they have to export goods to us. They also have a vested interest in stopping the dollar from deflating, so they buy our T-bills at a rate of 2 billion dollars per day.

4) The IMF is also accounted for in dollars and has been since 1944, the year of its inception. Countries that borrow from the world bank may repay their debts in their own currency, but given facts 1-3, we set the exchange rate for that currency and hence, for nations that owe the world bank, we effectively set the value of their currency.

All of this provides us huge economic advantage which we would not have without these facts being true. But there's nothing secretive or fringe-theory about it (though there might be about where I went with it).

 

[ashurbanipal]

And whats wrong with that? But 'control' is probably too strong a word, but 'ensure stability in the major oil-producing region of the world' might be pretty accurate. Consider the consequences to our economy of anarchy/chaos/destruction in the region. Stability seems a preferable alternative, does it not?

Depends...I happen to think that the Iraqi civilian lives lost in the endeavor were worth rather a lot more than the dollars we ultimately managed to conserve.

 

[ashurbanipal]

before 9-11 I had no evidence that terrorists from afghanistan would attack America. but wow, it happened anyway didnt it.

You personally may not have, but there was plenty of evidence out there that it was coming that we not only ignored but actively destroyed or covered up. Read "Crossing the Rubicon" for a fairly undeniable and very well documented case.

so when Clinton said it in 1998 he was repeating a lie he heard form George Bush in 2002 ? lmao. good logic.

What exactly are you talking about? I thought we were talking about the various liberals who voted for the Iraq war in 2003.

If you're talking about your sig line, it may well be that Saddam did have WMDs at that time.

using this logic, BILL CLINTON started this whole lie and W. Bush was simply duped by him and repeated the lie as someone that was innocent and simply missled by a liar on the left.

Or maybe Clinton got it from GHW Bush...

Anyway, you're reasoning in an overly-simplistic manner that avoids the real issues:

1) Clinton (not that I like defending him; as I've said I think he was scum) may well have received intelligence that Saddam had WMD's in 1998.

2) Irrespective of whether he did or didn't, what we know he did not do was invade Iraq after he and members of his administration manipulated intelligence in order to provide a pretext.

3) What we also know is that Bush believed in early 2001 that Saddam did not have WMD's--he said as much in public.

its ok, ive been educated by enough intellectuals to last me a lifetime. I can hold my own in this debate without your help.

If all you can do is say "well, people on the left thought that too!" then clearly you can't. I agree that you're correct. People on the left wanted war with Iraq and some of them lied or knowingly allowed others to lie to get that war. So what? That doesn't change the fact that Bush and Co. lied and started the war in which many thousands have died.

really? so we tried the nazis on each count of murder they commited in WWII?

We didn't name victims' names, but we generally got the numbers right. We didn't try Eichman for murdering a couple hundred Polish Jews; we tried him for being directly responsible for 2 million deaths and indirectly responsible for another 5 million.

thanks for the education.

You're welcome. It'd be even better if you'd pay attention and get what I'm saying; there's a reason this sort of thing is called a fallacy. Namely, because it leads to incorrect conclusions.

so on 9-10-2001 if I had said the same about Al Queda, would that have also been a fallacy?

No, but why does that matter? To recount the discussion that you seem to have difficulty following, I said that one of the results of us invading Iraq has been to turn Muslim opinion sharply against us. You replied that (basically) they were against us before since they weren't in bed with us. I replied that this is fallacious--it's not the case that people either love us or hate us. Prior to the invasion, most Muslims were either antipathetic or mildly friendly though there were some strong anti-American elements.

You're now focussing on one of those Anti-American elements and trying to make it stand for the whole, which isn't legitimate. What we did and continue to do in Iraq has made us a lot more enemies.

oh Ill pass on this one. anything I put forth will be a "fallacy" of some sort im sure.

Well, you seem to fall prey to well-known fallacies rather often, so that's how I'd bet. But I'll play the devil's advocate for a moment and produce an argument that isn't fallacious that would be the best possible justification for the war in Iraq:

We're in population overshoot, and as we slide down the back side of the oil production curve, many billions of people are going to die and there's very little we could do about it. It's unfortunate, but that's the way things are, and we have a choice: either save ourselves, or die along with everyone else. But saving ourselves requires that we control Middle Eastern Oil supplies, so to prevent a much greater evil, we invaded and set up a permanent presence to provide us operational capacity in the Middle East.

Now, I actually think that's why we went; I think that's exactly what was going through the neocons' minds. I don't have to speculate, that's more or less what the PNAC has been saying for some time.

I disagree with this line of argument on moral grounds; I also think that's it's based on some factually incorrect assumptions, but it's syntactically correct, so it's not fallacious.

gee i hope this isnt a fallacy of some sort.....but I believe that future actions against other rogue nations that endanger American lives will be made much tought by the ridiculous antics of the left on the issue of Iraq.

No, this actually isn't fallacious as far as I can tell. In fact, I think it's an arguable point, but I disagree somewhat. I'd state things differently--see below.

lets say Iran needs to be dealt with in the near future. man it sure will be more difficult to do so now that the left in this country has made us look completely silly on the issue of Iraq.

Here's my question: why is it that the left made us look silly? Let's review what the right has done, then discuss. The right:

1) Manipulated intelligence and rejected reports that disagreed with the notion that Saddam was a threat to the U.S.

2) Invaded Iraq.

3) Did so in such a way that it's difficult for us to hold ground and that tends to cause unecessary carnage.

Now, what has the left done other than either a) participate in those things or b) point them out?

So if the left has made it harder, then maybe it ought to be harder. If we're so apt to fly off the handle, then maybe a little restraint is in order.

American lives have been put in danger many times by the lefts lack of balls in dealing with real threats.

Depending on what you mean, that's either false or impossible to know. On the other hand, I think it's clear American lives are put in danger by the right's overzealous bloodlust.

now, give me a lesson on ad hominem and false delima. its much easier to try and make yourself look like some intellectual giant than to actually debate the issue at hand.

ive seen it numerous times by leftist braniacs.

I've already given you the lesson; if you think I'm such a brainiac, you might go back and try to learn it.

In the meantime, if you're trying to say that fallacious thinking is somehow OK, I'd just have to say that's ridiculous. Fallacious thinking by definition is prone to produce incorrect conclusions. So if you employ a fallacy in your arguments you're prone to be wrong. If you dismiss someone pointing it out as such, you're as absurd as a murderer who tries to dismiss his crimes by saying "yeah, call it what you want, I've heard it called "murder" a dozen times by you big fancy police-types!"

 

[ProudAmerican]

You personally may not have, but there was plenty of evidence out there that it was coming that we not only ignored but actively destroyed or covered up. Read "Crossing the Rubicon" for a fairly undeniable and very well documented case.

I think my point was clear. We never KNOW POSITIVELY an attack is comming untill it comes. we can sit back and wait for that, or we can prevent it. those are our choices.

I wont go through all of your points. you clearly have more time on your hands than I do.

I will say this.....your assertion that the ME and Muslems were apathetic or just mildly hostile against America before the war in Iraq began can be disputed with DECADES of terrorist acts commited against us.

the way I see it is that NOW those acts are mostly happeneing in Iraq, against our soldiers, where they can fight back and kill the bastards, rather than in skyscrapers, olympic events, and against innocent civilians (except for the ones dumb enough to put themselves in vulnerable positions because they want to earn money over there)

I would submit that the falacy here is the assertion that before we went into Iraq, the Muslem world lived side by side with America in peace and harmony.

-----------------------------

from scanning your post, I did find this amusing.

Depending on what you mean, that's either false or impossible to know. On the other hand, I think it's clear American lives are put in danger by the right's overzealous bloodlust.

so now actually FIGHTING the enemy puts Americans in more danger than the way Clinton handled the problem for 8 years?

that my friend is definately a fallacy.

we have lost fewer soldiers in a period of 3 years than the number of civilians we lost in a matter of seconds on 9-11, and thats a FACT....not a fallacy.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I think my point was clear. We never KNOW POSITIVELY an attack is comming untill it comes. we can sit back and wait for that, or we can prevent it. those are our choices.

Except if you're saying that we should attack anyone that even looks at us funny, that's a bad idea. I think my point was clear as well--Iraq was not a threat. Al-Qaeda was, though both Bush and Clinton chose to ignore it. Iraq, however, was not a threat.

I wont go through all of your points. you clearly have more time on your hands than I do.

I have very little time on my hands. It took about 7 minutes for me to write my last post. I think you don't want to respond because you know you can't...the honorable thing to do if you really don't have the time would be to ask me which I think are my strongest points and have a go at those.

I will say this.....your assertion that the ME and Muslems were apathetic or just mildly hostile against America before the war in Iraq began can be disputed with DECADES of terrorist acts commited against us.

Terrorist acts committed by a few people or sponsored by a few governments or institutions. Not the entire Muslim world at large.

the way I see it is that NOW those acts are mostly happeneing in Iraq, against our soldiers, where they can fight back and kill the bastards, rather than in skyscrapers, olympic events, and against innocent civilians (except for the ones dumb enough to put themselves in vulnerable positions because they want to earn money over there)

So what you're saying is that the present administration is doing such a poor job, and is so utterly incompetent as to be unable to protect our borders so that the only possible strategy is to attack another country to draw their fire? You may be right...despite 33 warnings (some of them highly specific as to names of individuals and methods of impending attack, especially those from Israel, Malaysia, and Russia, as well as those from the FBI informant that 4 of the hijackers lived with) from other countries, they failed to protect us on 9/11. And they've not taken the steps that might seem logical in protecting us now.

You're also saying that it's better to kill somewhere north-maybe way north-of 37,000 Iraqi civilians (who didn't ever do anything to us) to prevent another 3000 American civilians from dying?

You're saying furthermore that no choices we might have made in the past could have prevented 9/11?

Then again, this ought to seem more than a little fishy even on its face. Given that 99% of the cargo coming into the U.S. via steam freight is not inspected, and given that border inspections from both Canada and Mexico are cursory and random, it ought to seem more than a little odd that we haven't had another big attack here in the U.S.

I would submit that the falacy here is the assertion that before we went into Iraq, the Muslem world lived side by side with America in peace and harmony.

I would submit that I never said that. I said most were apathetic (meaning they didn't care) or mildly friendly (meaning if asked, they'd say "Oh yeah, Americans are fine with me).

so now actually FIGHTING the enemy puts Americans in more danger than the way Clinton handled the problem for 8 years?

No--CREATING MORE ENEMIES by killing a lot of people who don't deserve it does.

we have lost fewer soldiers in a period of 3 years than the number of civilians we lost in a matter of seconds on 9-11, and thats a FACT....not a fallacy.

This is certainly beyond dispute...but do you expect the war to end any time soon, or the military casulaty rate to drop to zero and stay there?

 

[Christian]

Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan? (abc)

March 23, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of five documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which the U.S. government has released.

Two Iraqi documents dated in March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document.

Read the rest:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

 

[ProudAmerican]

Except if you're saying that we should attack anyone that even looks at us funny, that's a bad idea. I think my point was clear as well--Iraq was not a threat. Al-Qaeda was, though both Bush and Clinton chose to ignore it. Iraq, however, was not a threat.

I didnt say we should attack anyone that looks at us funny. That remark is a fallacy known as "bullshat leftist spin" :lol:
and whether Iraq was DEFINATELY a threat is not only irrelevant, but unfounded.
the fact that we THOUGHT they were a threat is very relevant.

I have very little time on my hands. It took about 7 minutes for me to write my last post. I think you don't want to respond because you know you can't...

well you clearly read and type faster than I do then. I can assure you my reasons are as stated.

Terrorist acts committed by a few people or sponsored by a few governments or institutions. Not the entire Muslim world at large.

not a few people. this assertion by the left that its only a few hundred rogue muslems that want to harm us is another fallacy.

So what you're saying is that the present administration is doing such a poor job, and is so utterly incompetent as to be unable to protect our borders so that the only possible strategy is to attack another country to draw their fire?

your best debate tactic to date is obviously putting words in your oponents mouth.

You're also saying that it's better to kill somewhere north-maybe way north-of 37,000 Iraqi civilians (who didn't ever do anything to us) to prevent another 3000 American civilians from dying?

you finally got one right!!!
I would submit that protecting American civilians IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OUR GOVERNMENT IS FACED WITH. PERIOD.
It sucks that it costs the lives of innocent people from other nations, but my MAIN CONCERN IS WITH AMERICANS.
the fact is, if the Iraqi people had dealt with their own problem long ago, then American wouldnt have had to.

You're saying furthermore that no choices we might have made in the past could have prevented 9/11?

do you just like to throw in stuff to see if it will stick?

or do you like to clutter the debate intentionally with unfounded accusations.

Then again, this ought to seem more than a little fishy even on its face. Given that 99% of the cargo coming into the U.S. via steam freight is not inspected, and given that border inspections from both Canada and Mexico are cursory and random, it ought to seem more than a little odd that we haven't had another big attack here in the U.S.

not sure where you are going with this one. conspiracy theory?

I would submit that I never said that. I said most were apathetic (meaning they didn't care) or mildly friendly (meaning if asked, they'd say "Oh yeah, Americans are fine with me).

and I submit again that actions over decades prove you wrong on this one. it hasnt been just a few nut jobs.

1970s

Assaination of Robert Kenedy by a pali gunman.

Attack on the Munich Airport, February 10, 1970: 1 killed,11 were injured.

Munich Olympic Massacre, September 5, 1972: 14 killed when Eight
Palestinian "Black September"

Ambassador to Sudan Assassinated, March 2, 1973: 1 dead. U.S. Ambassador
to Sudan Cleo A. Noel

Attack and Hijacking at the Rome Airport, December 17, 1973: 31 Dead,
body thrown out onto the tarmac in Lebenon
Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976: Air France airliner and its 258
passengers. Liberated by the IDF

US Ambassador to Afghanistan Assassinated, February 14, 1979: Four
Afghans kidnapped U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs killed in Kabul.

Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to
admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage for 444 days.
Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held
until their release on January 20, 1981.

Grand Mosque Seizure, November 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized
the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims
hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an
intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.

I also have the 80s, 90s, and beyond, but it would take up too much space.

No--CREATING MORE ENEMIES by killing a lot of people who don't deserve it does.

please tell us specifically which "new enemies" we have created. name us some of those "mildly friendly" folks we had before that are now blowing themselves up to kill AMerican soldiers.
your assertion is ridiculous.
normal, mildly friendly people, dont decide overnight they want to now commit terrorist acts against civilians and soldiers.
if they hate enough to do it today, then they hated enough to do it 3 years ago.

This is certainly beyond dispute...but do you expect the war to end any time soon, or the military casulaty rate to drop to zero and stay there?

actually, the casualty rate in the last 2 months HAS DROPPED significantly. but you wouldnt know that with the mainstream media concentrating on the negative.

one more point about your false assertion that its just a few missunderstood radicals that want to kill us. I remember as a young child seeing on the news back in the Regan era, tens of thousands of radical muslems marching in countries like Iran, and Pakistan, burning the flag, beating likenesses of the president.
seems tens, or even hundreds of thousands of idiots hated us wayyyy back then. and wowsers, we hadnt even gone into Iraq yet.

oh, and so you know, that took me a hell of a lot longer than 7 minutes. avoiding you is hardly something I would do. I simply again dont have the time for these long posts. I usually try to keep mine short and simple.

 

[oldreliable67]

On Mar 28, Powerline writes of some interesting comments from more Saddam audio tapes. The first bit tends to confirm the conclusions of the Oil-for-Food investigation - that the Russians had been paid off:

"We have succeeded in a few of the U.N. paragraphs, we have won Russia, ahhh ... we have convinced Russia by way of generous accounts [payoffs], in which, you remember how and why it happened..."

While not offering any definitive proof of the actual state of Iraq's weapons programs, Iraq's lies to the weapons inspectors are acknowledged in this bit:

"They have a bigger problem with the Chemical progam than the Biological program, a lot bigger... It is not the weapons, the size of the imported material, the size of [UNINTELLIGIBLE] that we presented to them or the size of the stockpile. They knew that not all of this was true. We have not told them about the size or kind of Chemical weapons that we produced, and we have not told them the truth about the imported material. Therefore, sir, if they want to raise an issue, I mean, they will see that our argument is the issue of the Biological program."

The next bit clearly states that nuclear materials were moved out of Iraq, and suggests that 'teams' were still working on nuclear weapons:

"Sir, where was the Nuclear material transported to? A number of them were transported outside of Iraq. *** Sir, about the Nuclear program, we say that we have uncovered everything. In addition, we have an unannounced problem with the Nuclear program, and I think they know about it. I mean, there is working teams that are working and some of these teams are not known to anyone."

While intriguing, none of this is definitive proof of anything. For example, we don't know how much of this is mere self-serving rhetoric, e.g., posturing for the boss 'cause if we don't, we could wind up doa. Nonetheless a better picture of Iraq under Saddam continues to emerge, albeit slowly.

Source.

 

[American]

The libs and other anti-war kooks are using the disclaimer as an excuse. They believe the disclaimers says that the documents are fake in their minds. If you hadn't translated a document, would you put it out there saying it is true, without knowing what it says? The libs don't want there to be a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (true or not) because their political goals conflict with destroying terrorism. It must be odd to always hate your country so much. These libs would believe the word of President Putin over their own government, and probably even Hussein himself. Today's libs would have voted against WWII.