[moodymonster]

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
...

Independent Online Edition > UK Politics

oh noes, Bliar lied. Bliar looks like getting interviewed by the police might become even more common.

Supplementary evidence submitted by Mr Carne Ross, Director, Independent Diplomat


SUBMISSION TO BUTLER REVIEW

"I am in the Senior Management Structure of the FCO, currently seconded to the UN in Kosovo. I was First Secretary in the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York from December 1997 until June 2002. I was responsible for Iraq policy in the mission, including policy on sanctions, weapons inspections and liaison with UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC.


During that time, I helped negotiate several UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, including resolution 1284 which, inter alia, established UNMOVIC (an acronym I coined late one New York night during the year-long negotiation). I took part in policy debates within HMG and in particular with the US government. I attended many policy discussions on Iraq with the US State Department in Washington, New York and London.


My concerns about the policy on Iraq divide into three:


1. The Alleged Threat

I read the available UK and US intelligence on Iraq every working day for the four and a half years of my posting. This daily briefing would often comprise a thick folder of material, both humint and sigint. I also talked often and at length about Iraq's WMD to the international experts who comprised the inspectors of UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, whose views I would report to London. In addition, I was on many occasions asked to offer views in contribution to Cabinet Office assessments, including the famous WMD dossier (whose preparation began some time before my departure in June 2002).


During my posting, at no time did HMG assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests. On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained. I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed). (At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that "régime change" was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.)


Any assessment of threat has to include both capabilities and intent. Iraq's capabilities in WMD were moot: many of the UN's weapons inspectors (who, contrary to popular depiction, were impressive and professional) would tell me that they believed Iraq had no significant mate"riel. With the exception of some unaccounted-for Scud missiles, there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW, BW or nuclear material. Aerial or satellite surveillance was unable to get under the roofs of Iraqi facilities. We therefore had to rely on inherently unreliable human sources (who, for obvious reasons, were prone to exaggerate).


Without substantial evidence of current holdings of WMD, the key concern we pursued was that Iraq had not provided any convincing or coherent account of its past holdings. When I was briefed in London at the end of 1997 in preparation for my posting, I was told that we did not believe that Iraq had any significant WMD. The key argument therefore to maintain sanctions was that Iraq had failed to provide convincing evidence of destruction of its past stocks.


Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited. There were approx 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's airforce was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection between Iraq and any terrorist organisation that might have planned an attack using Iraqi WMD (I do not recall any occasion when the question of a terrorist connection was even raised in UK/US discussions or UK internal debates).


There was moreover no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or US. I had many conversations with diplomats representing Iraq's neighbours. With the exception of the Israelis, none expressed any concern that they might be attacked. Instead, their concern was that sanctions, which they and we viewed as an effective means to contain Iraq, were being delegitimised by evidence of their damaging humanitarian effect.


I quizzed my colleagues in the FCO and MOD working on Iraq on several occasions about the threat assessment in the run-up to the war. None told me that any new evidence had emerged to change our assessment; what had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light. I discussed this at some length with David Kelly in late 2002, who agreed that the Number 10 WMD dossier was overstated.


2. Legality

The legality of the war is framed by the relevant Security Council resolutions, the negotiation and drafting of which was usually led by the UK.


During the negotiation of resolution 1284 (which we drafted), which established UNMOVIC, the question was discussed among the key Security Council members in great detail how long the inspectors would need in Iraq in order to form a judgement of Iraq's capabilities.


The UK and US pushed for the longest period we could get, on the grounds that the inspectors would need an extensive period in order to visit, inspect and establish monitoring at the many hundreds of possible WMD-related sites. The French and Russians wanted the shortest duration. After long negotiation, we agreed the periods specified in 1284. These require some explanation. The resolution states that the head of UNMOVIC should report on Iraq's performance 120 days once the full system of ongoing monitoring and verification had been established (OMV, in the jargon). OMV amounts to the "baseline" of knowledge of Iraq's capabilities and sites; we expected OMV to take up to six months to establish. In other words, inspectors would have to be on the ground for approximately ten months before offering an assessment. (Resolution 1441, though it requested Blix to "update" the Council 60 days after beginning inspections, did not alter the inspection periods established in 1284.) As is well-known, the inspectors were allowed to operate in Iraq for a much shorter period before the US and UK declared that Iraq's cooperation was insufficient.


Resolution 1441 did not alter the basic framework for inspections established by 1284. In particular, it did not amend the crucial premise of 1284 that any judgement of cooperation or non-cooperation by Iraq with the inspectors was to be made by the Council not UNMOVIC. Blix at no time stated unequivocally that Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors. The Council reached no such judgement either.


Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of force in case of non-cooperation with weapons inspectors. I was in New York, but not part of the mission, during the negotiation of that resolution (I was on Special Unpaid Leave from the FCO). My friends in other delegations told me that the UK sold 1441 in the Council explicitly on the grounds that it did not represent authorisation for war and that it "gave inspections a chance".


Later, after claiming that Iraq was not cooperating, the UK presented a draft resolution which offered the odd formulation that Iraq had failed to seize the opportunity of 1441. In negotiation, the UK conceded that the resolution amounted to authority to use force (there are few public records of this, but I was told by many former colleagues involved in the negotiation that this was the case). The resolution failed to attract support.


The UN charter states that only the Security Council can authorise the use of force (except in cases of self-defence). Reviewing these points, it is clear that in terms of the resolutions presented by the UK itself, the subsequent invasion was not authorised by the Security Council and was thus illegal. The clearest evidence of this is the fact that the UK sought an authorising resolution and failed to get it.


There is another subsidiary point on the legality question. During my spell at the UN, the UK and US would frequently have to defend in the Security Council attacks made by our aircraft in the No-Fly Zones (NFZs) in northern and southern Iraq. The NFZs were never authorised by the Security Council, but we would justify them on the grounds (as I recall it, this may be incorrect) that we were monitoring compliance with resolution 688 which called for the Iraqi government to respect the human rights of its people. If our aircraft bombed Iraqi targets, we were acting in self-defence (which was in fact the case as the Iraqis would try to shoot down our aircraft).


Reading the press in the months leading up to the war, I noticed that the volume and frequency of the attacks in the NFZs considerably increased, including during the period when UNMOVIC was in country inspecting sites (ie before even the UK/US declared that Iraq was not complying). I suspected at the time that these attacks were not in self-defence but that they were part of a planned air campaign to prepare for a ground invasion. There were one or two questions in Parliament about this when the Defence Secretary claimed that the NFZ attacks were, as before, self-defence. His account was refuted at the time by quotations by US officials in the press and by later accounts, including Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack", which confirmed that the attacks did indeed comprise a softening-up campaign, of which the UK was an active part.


3. Alternatives to war

I was responsible at the UK Mission for sanctions policy as well as weapons inspections. I had extensive contacts with those in the UN responsible for the oil-for-food programme, with NGOs active in Iraq, with experts in the oil industry and with many others who visited Iraq (I tried to visit on several occasions but was denied a visa by the Iraqi government). I read and analysed a great deal of material on Iraq's exports, both legal and illegal, sanctions and related subjects, such as the oil industry.


Much of my work and that of my close colleagues was devoted to attempting to stop countries breaching Iraqi sanctions. These breaches were many and took various forms.


The most serious was the illegal export of oil by Iraq through Turkey, Syria and Iranian waters in the Gulf. These exports were a substantial and crucial source of hard currency for the Iraqi regime; without them the regime could not have sustained itself or its key pillars, such as the Republican Guard. Estimates of the value of these exports ranged around $2 billion a year.


In addition, there were different breaches, such as Iraq's illegal and secret surcharge on its legal sales of oil through the UN. Iraq would levy illegal charges on oil-for-food contracts. The regime also had substantial financial assets held in secret overseas accounts. The details of these breaches and our work to combat them are complicated.


On repeated occasions, I and my colleagues at the mission (backed by some but not all of the responsible officials in London) attempted to get the UK and US to act more vigorously on the breaches. We believed that determined and coordinated action, led by us and the US, would have had a substantial effect in particular to pressure Iraq to accept the weapons inspections and would have helped undermine the Iraqi regime.


I proposed on several occasions the establishment of a multinational body (a UN body, if we could get the Security Council to agree it) to police sanctions busting. I proposed coordinated action with Iraq's neighbours to pressure them to help, including by controlling imports into Iraq. I held talks with a US Treasury expert on financial sanctions, an official who had helped trace and seize Milosevic's illegal financial assets. He assured me that, given the green light, he could quickly set up a team to target Saddam's illegal accounts.


These proposals went nowhere. Inertia in the FCO and the inattention of key ministers combined to the effect that the UK never made any coordinated and sustained attempt to address sanctions busting. There were sporadic and half-hearted initiatives. Bilateral embassies in Iraq's neighbours would always find a reason to let their hosts off the hook (the most egregious example was the Embassy in Ankara). Official visitors to the neighbours always placed other issues higher on the agenda. The Prime Minister, for example, visited Syria in early 2002. If I remember correctly, the mission sent a telegram beforehand urging him to press Assad on the illegal pipeline carrying Iraqi oil through Syria. I have seen no evidence that the subject was mentioned. Whenever I taxed Ministers on the issue, I would find them sympathetic but uninformed.


Coordinated, determined and sustained action to prevent illegal exports and target Saddam's illegal monies would have consumed a tiny proportion of the effort and resources of the war (and fewer lives), but could have provided a real alternative. It was never attempted.


Carne Ross

Pristina, Kosovo


9 June 2004"

House of Commons - Foreign Affairs - Minutes of Evidence

so the UK didn't believe the 'intelligence' they presented to the country as fact. Saying they were misled by the intelligence and there were intelligence failings is not only incorrect but an outright lie.

I was listening to John Major on the radio today talking about it,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/li...q_20061215.ram

(basically says the more we find out, the more suspect it all seems)

listening to him, makes Blair sound so dodgy and insincere.

How can Blair stay in power and when will he be brought to trial?

[moodymonster]

I wonder if he'll turn up dead in the woods.... hope not.

[Dakar²]

Ouch. That's a bit much to read. Could you bold or quote the revealing statements?

[moodymonster]

this is the main bit, that Iraq wasn't a threat.

During my posting, at no time did HMG assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests. On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained. I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed). (At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that "régime change" was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.)

[Dakar²]

Thanks.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm not sure if the opinion of a UN diplomat is something that merits attention.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I'm not sure if the opinion of a UN diplomat is something that merits attention.

This reminds me of something ....

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When one can't attack the message, attack the messenger?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I'm not sure if the opinion of a UN diplomat is something that merits attention.

Beat me to it. The UN kept "giving them one more chance," and probably would have done so for long enough for Sadam to have actually built WMDs. He DID have a well designed research program in place, just not the proper facilities. And it's still quite possible that he did manage to ditch some "nearly complete" projects over one or another border.

Sadam's generals thought he had WMDs. He was a great liar, and he played the international community like a badly tuned piano. He wanted people to think he had 'em, but not that he had enough of them to be an immediate threat-if you played his game. That part worked pretty well, but he didn't factor in what Osama might do. Whether the war in Iraq was opportunistic or not, Sadam could have eliminated the sanctions and actually FED HIS PEOPLE by just coming clean, which he DID NOT DO.

Remember Regan? He apparently got the Kremlin to think he actually MIGHT "push the button" over a number of issues, the SS20 Intermediate Range missiles most importantly. Ivan backed down because he though old Ron was close to the button. Ron was apparently a much better actor than anyone gave him credit for. But George is NOT an actor. That's a subtle distinction that Sadam didn't manage to appreciate...

[Doofy]

As much as I detest the useless turds in the UN, it has to be said that Blair can't actually open his mouth without lying.

So I'm on the fence with this one.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Beat me to it. The UN kept "giving them one more chance," and probably would have done so for long enough for Sadam to have actually built WMDs. He DID have a well designed research program in place, just not the proper facilities. And it's still quite possible that he did manage to ditch some "nearly complete" projects over one or another border.

Sadam's generals thought he had WMDs. He was a great liar, and he played the international community like a badly tuned piano. He wanted people to think he had 'em, but not that he had enough of them to be an immediate threat-if you played his game. That part worked pretty well, but he didn't factor in what Osama might do. Whether the war in Iraq was opportunistic or not, Sadam could have eliminated the sanctions and actually FED HIS PEOPLE by just coming clean, which he DID NOT DO.

: sigh :

Saddam would have never built WMD's. He was way to chicken. He knew the moment he did his palaces would be bombed again and his life would be made uncomfortable.

Saddam had the labs and the research leftover from pre Gulf War. The U.S., in particular Rummy, gave them to him during the Iran/Iraq war.

And on what border was he going to dump a half complete WMD program?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

: sigh :

Saddam would have never built WMD's. He was way to chicken. He knew the moment he did his palaces would be bombed again and his life would be made uncomfortable.

Saddam had the labs and the research leftover from pre Gulf War. The U.S., in particular Rummy, gave them to him during the Iran/Iraq war.

And on what border was he going to dump a half complete WMD program?

Dump a half complete WMD program? You don't throw gold bars into the trash, but if you do, there's many willing to pay loads of money for your garbage.

Otherwise, I think both you and ghporter are correct. Saddam needed Iran to believe Iraq was well-provisioned, but Saddam may also have never built WMDs. As far as Brits are concerned; their distaste for what they believe is American haste is understandable, why they believe that is not.

Many of you have been screaming "LIES" for years and yet stunned when you feel evidence may actually affirm it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by goMac 

: sigh :

Saddam would have never built WMD's. He was way to chicken.

People thought he was too chicken to invade Kuwait too. That little move proved that he wasn't all talk, and that's why he kept the pretense up-he wanted that leverage. It worked for a while...

[King Bob On The Cob]

He was in violation of just about every other UN resolution anyways, why would one more bother him?

(He still had SCUDs and fired upon our planes in the no fly zone)

[Spliffdaddy]

Everyday it seems the UN gives us yet another reason to not give a damn what they say.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This reminds me of something ....

Heh Spliff has no loyalty to me. You quoting me means nothing to him.

Believe it or not... us conservatives don't get together and "hang out" in here outside this forum.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Beat me to it. The UN kept "giving them one more chance," and probably would have done so for long enough for Sadam to have actually built WMDs. He DID have a well designed research program in place, just not the proper facilities. And it's still quite possible that he did manage to ditch some "nearly complete" projects over one or another border.

Sadam's generals thought he had WMDs. He was a great liar, and he played the international community like a badly tuned piano. He wanted people to think he had 'em, but not that he had enough of them to be an immediate threat-if you played his game. That part worked pretty well, but he didn't factor in what Osama might do. Whether the war in Iraq was opportunistic or not, Sadam could have eliminated the sanctions and actually FED HIS PEOPLE by just coming clean, which he DID NOT DO.

Remember Regan? He apparently got the Kremlin to think he actually MIGHT "push the button" over a number of issues, the SS20 Intermediate Range missiles most importantly. Ivan backed down because he though old Ron was close to the button. Ron was apparently a much better actor than anyone gave him credit for. But George is NOT an actor. That's a subtle distinction that Sadam didn't manage to appreciate...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

: sigh :

Saddam would have never built WMD's. He was way to chicken. He knew the moment he did his palaces would be bombed again and his life would be made uncomfortable.

Projection. Not even a honest one.

[Spliffdaddy]

Hey, Kevin, what ya say we hang out and grab a few beers again this evening?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Beat me to it. The UN kept "giving them one more chance," and probably would have done so for long enough for Sadam to have actually built WMDs. He DID have a well designed research program in place, just not the proper facilities. And it's still quite possible that he did manage to ditch some "nearly complete" projects over one or another border.

Sadam's generals thought he had WMDs. He was a great liar, and he played the international community like a badly tuned piano. He wanted people to think he had 'em, but not that he had enough of them to be an immediate threat-if you played his game. That part worked pretty well, but he didn't factor in what Osama might do. Whether the war in Iraq was opportunistic or not, Sadam could have eliminated the sanctions and actually FED HIS PEOPLE by just coming clean, which he DID NOT DO.

Remember Regan? He apparently got the Kremlin to think he actually MIGHT "push the button" over a number of issues, the SS20 Intermediate Range missiles most importantly. Ivan backed down because he though old Ron was close to the button. Ron was apparently a much better actor than anyone gave him credit for. But George is NOT an actor. That's a subtle distinction that Sadam didn't manage to appreciate...

Wow. This is funny. You have rationalized it to yourself that it was entirely Saddam's fault for the US preemptively invading and occupying his country because he was lying about lying about weapons that he had, but actually didn't have because they never existed in the first place.

Bravo.

The stick is to help you wake up.

Face the facts, Saddam played the neo-cons for chumps and it worked perfectly. What is Bush doing now? He is going to send more troops! A few more hundred billion $$$ down the drain, not to mention all the dead people.

[Spliffdaddy]

Yeah Saddam won.

When the firing squad is finished with him, I'm sure he'll have a profound sense of victory.

Just like his 2 sons.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Projection. Not even a honest one.

Oedipal complex.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Yeah Saddam won.

When the firing squad is finished with him, I'm sure he'll have a profound sense of victory.

Just like his 2 sons.

Yes. I think Saddam's goal was to create just enough evidence of a WMD program to convince his neighbors that he might have one, but not enough to convince the US or to have the evidence faulty enough that only the CIA would be able to see through the ruse. If that's the case, it would appear he over-estimated the abilities of the CIA.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Many of you have been screaming "LIES" for years and yet stunned when you feel evidence may actually affirm it.

Who's stunned? Everybody knows that Bush and his administration lied.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Who's stunned? Everybody knows that Bush and his administration lied.

Bush and his administration didn't need to "lie". The "lie" had already been given thrust by the prior administration and just about every source of intel across the globe. Why 13 UN Resolutions? The problem was not WMDs necessarily, but non-compliance in general. David Kay, the independent source whom many were quick to cite when making arguments against WMDs also noted that if we averted a "WMDs program sales" travesty by invading, we barely did. There's a wealth of information provided in his 2003 testimony if you'd like to view it. The justifications for invasion were real and legitimate. Then again, few really listened to any of the speeches given prior to the invasion to know that WMDs were only a small part of the equation. This is the part that got the lion's share of media, but that's no surprise. Unfortunately, A.D.D. is not something that can be squelched on demand.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Wow. This is funny. You have rationalized it to yourself that it was entirely Saddam's fault for the US preemptively invading and occupying his country because he was lying about lying about weapons that he had, but actually didn't have because they never existed in the first place.

Bravo.

The stick is to help you wake up.

Face the facts, Saddam played the neo-cons for chumps and it worked perfectly. What is Bush doing now? He is going to send more troops! A few more hundred billion $$$ down the drain, not to mention all the dead people.

I don't see how perfectly it worked when his sons are dead, his personal control of millions has been ripped from him, and he's going to be executed-when they finally choose one from the huge number of applicants for his executioner.

I'm not saying "it's all his fault." I'm saying that he was not smart enough to know that he wasn't playing with the same kind of Bush that whacked his "elite" Republican Guards in '91-George #41 had enough of a clue to know that there would be seriously bad repercussions if he finished the job, while #43 thought he had a "mandate" or something like that to "get Sadam." In other words, Sadam was not smart enough to see that #43 wasn't playing the tough guy, and that he intended to BE the tough guy. THAT is Sadam's fault. He's gonna die for it, too.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

Who's stunned? Everybody knows that Bush and his administration lied.

6 years later, people still don't know what the word lie means.

Is this a lie?

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Saddam was the boy who cried wolf one too many times. In the end he lost

"He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Hey, Kevin, what ya say we hang out and grab a few beers again this evening?

I might have one with ya. More than that and I just feel like crap the next day.

[Benton]

Iraq with Hussein was contained and could have been managed like the cold war was managed. I am sickened for our troops not having the quality of leadership they deserved and expected. A professional military demands of its General Officer Corp leaders schooled at War Colleges and taught not only how to win wars but also how to manage the ensuing peace. Regretibly no such competency is demanded of the civilian leadership. The art of war and foreign policy is to important to be left in the hands of unschooled and inexperienced politicians.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Saddam was the boy who cried wolf one too many times.[/i]

Actually, we were the ones crying wolf. Saddam was going, "Wolf? Why would I ever have a wolf around here?"

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Benton 

Iraq with Hussein was contained and could have been managed like the cold war was managed. I am sickened for our troops not having the quality of leadership they deserved and expected. A professional military demands of its General Officer Corp leaders schooled at War Colleges and taught not only how to win wars but also how to manage the ensuing peace. Regretibly no such competency is demanded of the civilian leadership. The art of war and foreign policy is to important to be left in the hands of unschooled and inexperienced politicians.

While I completely agree with you that the leadership of our Armed Forces is (and was) woefully inadequate, how can you call Sadam "contained" when he was evading and perforating UN embargoes like they weren't even there? He was no more contained than he was before Desert Storm-he just had the cover of pretending that he wasn't able to do what he wanted. He still managed to get more cash from all sorts of sources, including apparently French and German diplomats-and what did he use that cash for? Aside from his gold plated toilet-type extravagances, there's a lot of cash that isn't accounted for...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, we were the ones crying wolf. Saddam was going, "Wolf? Why would I ever have a wolf around here?"

Nonesense. Saddam bragged constantly about having weapons when it was convenient for him to do so. Then denied it whne it was not. His bluff was called, he lost.

[Blasphemy]

UN is teh suX0r

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Nonesense. Saddam bragged constantly about having weapons when it was convenient for him to do so. Then denied it whne it was not. His bluff was called, he lost.

Bluffing is not "crying wolf"

[ink]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Remember Regan? He apparently got the Kremlin to think he actually MIGHT "push the button" over a number of issues, the SS20 Intermediate Range missiles most importantly. Ivan backed down because he though old Ron was close to the button. Ron was apparently a much better actor than anyone gave him credit for. But George is NOT an actor. That's a subtle distinction that Sadam didn't manage to appreciate...

A distinction that neither appreciated. Bush is no Reagan. Reagan would have sent in a blackops crew, or invested in technology to neutralize the Iraqi threat. Brains over brawn.

Bush called Saddam's bluff, but Iran is walking away with the hand.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Nonesense. Saddam bragged constantly about having weapons when it was convenient for him to do so. Then denied it whne it was not. His bluff was called, he lost.

But we also lost.

6 years later, people still don't know what the word lie means.

You may be the only one left.

"There were an average of 959 insurgent and sectarian attacks against American and Iraqi targets every week in Iraq over the last three months, the highest level ever recorded, according to a Pentagon report on security trends in Iraq issued today" link

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

But we also lost.

Well there is never any "winners" in a war. Just an outcome. Saddam isn't playing his games.

[tie]

You're talking like a touchy-feely liberal. Of course there are winners in a war -- and it's not us this time. (And no, Santa doesn't exist, sorry.)

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ink 

A distinction that neither appreciated. Bush is no Reagan. Reagan would have sent in a blackops crew, or invested in technology to neutralize the Iraqi threat. Brains over brawn.

Are you sure that's what Reagan would have done?

I think you ought to ask Qaddafi about this.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Yeah Saddam won.

When the firing squad is finished with him, I'm sure he'll have a profound sense of victory.

Who gives a fukc about what Saddam wins?
What about those who loose (let's see... all participants?)

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well there is never any "winners" in a war. Just an outcome. Saddam isn't playing his games.

But if you would have fought three more days, you would have won Vietnam! Right?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

You're talking like a touchy-feely liberal. Of course there are winners in a war -- and it's not us this time.

Um I am afraid if there is a "winner" here, it's not those we went to war with.

[ink]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Are you sure that's what Reagan would have done?

I think you ought to ask Qaddafi about this.

I don't recall a 4-year occupation of Libya.

[vmarks]

You also must not recall fighter jets dropping bombs on Qaddafi's palace, killing his daughter and injuring his sons.

March, 1986.

Qadaffi directed his terrorists in Europe to launch attacks on Americans both military and civilian, with the intent to inflict maximum casualties.

The US intercepted and decoded the instruction from Qadaffi, but missed preventing the April 5 bombing in West Berlin which killed to US army men and injured 229 other people. After the attack, communication was intercepted from Qaddafi boasting of the 'joyous event' mentioning it with specific details such as the time it occurred.

April 9, Reagan announced that the US would defend itself.

Reagan wanted to unleash fighter planes based in the UK. France refused to allow the US to fly over.

France had a lot of business with Libya and was benefitting economically.

One of the bombs that dropped did hit France's embassy in Libya.

This was the first time 'war on terror' was used. It seems appropriate, as Libya did continue to supply terrorists, and did eventually admit to supplying the provisional IRA with arms, as well as accepting responsibility for Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie.)

Does anything at all sound familiar? France, business links to terror supporting leaders? War on Terror (a phrase which was later revived in 1998, when President Clinton ordered strikes on six terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

The real difference is that Bush hasn't let up, where others before him used the Air Force briefly and then backed down.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Um I am afraid if there is a "winner" here, it's not those we went to war with.

And it's definitely not us, either. So stop gloating.

At the moment, Saddam lost and the US is losing. As the civil war deepens, the anarchists are winning. If you identity anarchism with terrorism (which isn't correct, but is a very Bush-like thing to do), and if you say that the war on Iraq was really a war on terror (which again isn't correct, but see above), then you conclude that the terrorists are winning.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You also must not recall fighter jets dropping bombs on Qaddafi's palace, ...

The real difference is that Bush hasn't let up, where others before him used the Air Force briefly and then backed down.

Actually Quaddafi got "real quiet" for quite some time after his tent caught some high explosives that March morning. REALLY quiet. Not out of business though-think of Lockerbie and decide if the Libyan plot to blow up the airplane was "strategic" or just payback.

Remember that Jimmie Carter tried to use "Spec Ops" in Iran and wound up a)killing a bunch of our service men, b)teaching everyone a valuable lesson about how (NOT) to plan an operation, c)teaching everyone about what to share and what not to share (weather info, for example) and d)letting the world know that he tried to rescue the hostages. That changed a lot of world opinion. Not enough to get him reelected, because at home it looked like an unmitigated failure.

Bill Clinton's actions were kind of like Japanese monster movies: "release the missiles!" Japanese forces in those films just "let go" the weapons, they never actually aim or fire them. That's what Bill did with a bunch of cruise missiles, which destroyed a disused training camp. Wow, what a leaderly act, Bill!

[ink]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You also must not recall fighter jets dropping bombs on Qaddafi's palace, killing his daughter and injuring his sons.

March, 1986. (not 4 years)

...

I do remember, and it was part of my point.