In today's New York Times, former President Carter lays out a point-by-point case that a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq cannot now be justified:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html

Let's take Carter's arguments, point-by-point:

1) Has the U.S. exhausted all peaceful alternatives to war, when the U.N. inspectors demand more time to assess Iraq's capabilities?

2) Will a strategy of aerial bombardment to instill "shock & awe" minimize civilian casualties?

3) Does the U.S. have legitimate authority under international law to conduct this war, in the face of U.N. Security Council Opposition?

4) How confident are we that a war will improve, rather than degrade, regional stability, international security, & the lives of those living in the region?

Go on, have at it!

1) Has the U.S. exhausted all peaceful alternatives to war, when the U.N. inspectors demand more time to assess Iraq's capabilities?

No... rather than exhaust all peaceful alternatives we'd like to pursue Saddam regardless of whether he disarms. Administration officials have made this increasingly clear during the destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles. While Inspection Teams may not have found every single thing Iraq has (or may not have), this can be accomplished in time. I believe two weeks ago on Friday it was El Baradei or another high level U.N. official who stated they could do their job -- given enough time -- with OR without complete compliance from the Iraqi government.

2) Will a strategy of aerial bombardment to instill "shock & awe" minimize civilian casualties?

Of course not. Any aerial bombardment intended to instill "shock and awe" is going to be sporadic and overly destructive. It is precisely this type of strategy that will INCREASE the number of civilian casualties... not to mention risk turning an average citizen against the United States in the process.

3) Does the U.S. have legitimate authority under international law to conduct this war, in the face of U.N. Security Council Opposition?

I admittedly don't have enough information regarding intrenational law to adequately answer this question, but I find it highly irresponsible and undiplomatic for the United States to demean the U.N. as they have done. We have done it not only in regards to Iraq now, but also regarding the International Court for war crimes and the Kyoto treaty to address global warming.

4) How confident are we that a war will improve, rather than degrade, regional stability, international security, & the lives of those living in the region?

Not very. The CIA is downright pessimistic about it. It seems to be the consensus that an invasion of Iraq will destabilize the region further -- a view shared by the CIA, previously by Colin Powell during the first Gulf War (in a Foreign Affairs letter) and by former President Bush Sr. in his 1998 book. For all of the Bush administration's claimed good intentions, an invasion of Iraq could very likely serve as one giant recruiting session for international terrorism -- anti-American in particular.

I have not heard of this, could you provide a link?
Hint: The UN list all the reports on it's news page if I'm not mistaken.

In answer to point 3, according to a group of academic lawyers in britain, the anser is NO!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2829717.stm

And, as these lawyers point out, there is in any case a huge difference between legality and morality.

Of course the war can be justified.
Afterwards the victor can rewrite history any way s/he pleases.

But WHO will be writing that history as the victor?

News Report: New Iraqi weapons and old.

Let's look at the points:

1.) The UN has been involved in trying to disarm Iraq for the past 12 years. This includes multiple UN resolutions, including the latest 1441. 12 years of diplomacy, giving Saddam chance after chance to come clean and disarm. In the last round of inspections, Iraq tossed out the inspectors...Iraq expels Inspectors The US was pre-occupied at the time by internal issues and no nation raised the issue, although a Resolution was passed condemning Iraq's decision.

Resolution 1441. 1441 states as a given fact that Iraq is in non-compliance with previous resolutions. This is a fact. Therefore, given the fact that Iraq is in NON-COMPLIANCE to begin with, 1441 gives Iraq one last chance to show that it IS in compliance. 1441 reminds us that as terms of the CEASE FIRE of 1991, Iraq must comply with the terms of the past resolutions (Resolution 687 is the key in this matter). Resolution 1441 was composed and specifically mentioned Article VII of the UN Charter, UN Charter which deals with Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Agression. Resolution 1441 calls for "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply fully.

Hans Blix has never stated that Iraq is in compliance. He did say he saw positive signs that Iraq is moving in the right direction. The destruction of the Al Samouds, he says, is a clear sign of disarmament, that these are REAL weapns. He stops short of saying that Iraq is in compliance--why? because they are not in compliance.

Blix is either misguided or a bumbling idiot. His job is not to say that destruction of one type of conventional missile is a "step in the right direction" 1441 calls for "Full cooperation" from the beginning, not piecemeal, stepwise stumbling in the right direction. Iraq did not begin destroying these missiles until MONTHS after 1441 was passed. It did not do so of its own initiative. There are signs that even as Iraq destroys Al Samouds, it is building more... And that Blix hid further "smoking guns" by not commenting on them in his presentation to the UN...Blix hides smoking gun

So, in conclusion, diplomacy has been tried for the last 12 years, to no avail. Iraq continues to have banned weapons (conventional, chemical, and biological) which it refuses to destroy (or inexplicably, cannot produce evidence that it has already destroyed). War is not the first option, but the last. 12 years is not a "rush" to war, and we have given him over 6 months more to deceive us since Resolution 1441 was passed.

2.)The strategies of war cannot be commented on until they are enacted. Of course, I am totally opposed to specifically targetting civilian centers. That would be unacceptable. However, given the fact that Iraq's leader is crafty and ruthless, we know that some collateral damage is going to occur. Hopefully, it is limited. Until it happens, we cannot condemn an attack on "what if" grounds.

3.) The US has authority under resolution 1441 AND under resuming the hostilities since the terms of the cease fire signed in 1991 have been breached. Either would be sufficient, but both are legal.

4.) The situation in Iraq and its environs has not been "normal" since before Iraq invaded Kuwait. We have had thousands of troops stationed there for over a decade. So have many other nations. For things to return to "normalcy" these troops must be allowed to leave. They cannot leave with such a man as Saddam in charge of a large arsenal of WMDs and conventional forces. The threat must be eliminated if a return to normalcy is ever to be in the future.

As far as terrorist activities...I believe that Al Qaeda has more to worry about than resuming attacks. If they were in a position to attack, they would have done so, and they WILL do so, regarding of the situation in Iraq, when they are able.

Wow, that was long...but in summary:

1.) The Al Samouds are a minor carrot to give to the UN. It is not the Al Samouds that Resolution 1441 is about. Blix hid possible further smoking guns. DIplomacy has not worked in the 12 years it was attempted.
2.) The tactics of war cannot be commented upon until they are actually used. The US was very surgical in its attack on Afghanistan, for instance.
3.) War has a legal basis. The US has the right to defend itself from outside threats without the need for UN approval.
4.) Again, future speculation, but the Middle East will never return to normalcy with an unpredictable, brutal dictator who is allowed to retain his WMDs and conventional weapons.

The justifications for this war are well-worn. The question remains whether the justifications are strong enough to warrant war, and that seems to be the sticking point for many (including myself, but then I have no influence).

Seems that there is no turning back now. It's as if we were on the edge of the vortex up until, oh, December? January? I don't know--it'll take the study of historians to figure that out.

For now, I'm just praying like the dickens that the fewest people are killed/injured, and that whatever the political reasons for transforming Iraq really are--that this results in greater peace and better lives for everyone. Ideally, I'd like for Saddam Hussein to come out, give up, turn over the country, take forced retirement, head off to France and become a pain in the rump old fart wearing a paper Napolean hat, shouting obscenities at the wait staff.

Who accidentally spill scalding latte' in his lap.

If 3/17 is the start date, that's only 7 days away. I guess Carter wanted to be on record with what his conscious tells him. I don't think there's any room for debate any longer. No turning back.

We'd better be right about this.

12 years of deplomacy and as many resolutions. What else do you want? 13, 15, how about 20 years? Do we need more resolutions, or is that enough?



Sadly, no. But hopefully, it can keep the war as short as possible.



Kindly point out the article in the constitution where it says we need anyone's permission (other than the Senate) to go to war? I can't seem to find it.

No one NEEDS to get permission to go to war. Especially not from the spineless, gutless, worthless talking head the UN has become :/



It will create short-term instability, but long term reliability. I think things will greatly improve 20 years from now...post-saddam.

--cheers

I find it awful ironic that we call the UN irrelevant because they believe force is not necessary at this point in time, but hold 1441 relevant as an excuse to go to war.

How can 1441 be relevant if created by an irrelevant body?

1. I believe most people target their complaints with the UN at the security council, not the entire organization.

2. Most of the claims of irrelevance are concerning action rather than sentiment. The resolutions have the right idea we just wish someone would enforce them.

The UN is not irrelevant, just ineffective sometimes. Some worry its ineffectiveness may cause it to become irrelevant...

What are you basing that on? The Vietnam war didn't stabilize that country. The Korean War didn't stabilize that particular peninsula... (unless you consider 40 years of armed standoff stability.)

Of course in both Vietnam and Korea the "offending" governments were not toppled...

Ok, other examples. Can you name a situation similar to this? The Taliban wasn't even recognized by most of it's neighbours, so that can hardly apply. I'm just curious what makes you think that invading Iraq will create stability?

I concur. But ineffectiveness might as well be irrelevancy. I consider them one in the same.

Your right, they do have good intentions...



Er, no. You can't discount Afg just because no one recognized the taliban as the official gov't. Fact is, afg is a better place today, than it was a year ago because the taliban is not in power. Similarly, Iraq will be a better place a year from now once Saddam is removed from power.

--cheers

That's fine. But how does taking out Saddam increase regional stability?

The UN become irrelevant when it becomes unwilling (or unable) to enforce its own resolutions. In this case they are unwilling to enforce it and are actually preventing a member state to enforce the resolution. If it does not enforce its resolutions, the next time, people will shrug and say "Who cares what the UN does".

This leads to irrelevance.

Examples of countries that are better after war and regime change : Japan, Germany (West immediately, East after the Berlin wall fell). What we do NOT want is 40 years of stand-offs in the Middle East. We are already at 12 years, we don't want another 28...

This isn't a serious question, I hope. The guy has invaded his neighbors, developed WMDs, tortured and gassed his people...removing him will be a nice first step to regional stability.

He has invaded Kuwait, so they'll be happy he's gone no doubt; but as much as everyone keeps on suggesting it is common sense that things will be better, I'm not convinced. American military intervention in the Middle East is a very risky proposition, especially considering the way that Afghanistan has been abandoned. Yes things are better there, but is it stable? Warlords and Northern Alliance fighters still control most of the country and just last month the U.S. bombed another wedding. (Funny how there was no mention in the papers...)

What happens if thousands of Iraqi's who have been bombed out of their homes by U.S. bombs all of a sudden develop an anti-American sentiment? What happens if a Shi'ite Muslim government is formed? What happens if Saudi Arabia starts exerting itself, removed from it's only major military opponent?

There is no guarantee that any of this will happen, but there is no guarantee that it won't either, and I have seen very little discussion from the U.S. government about these issue. What happens after Saddam is gone? Until a concrete plan emerges I can't for the life of me imagine how ANYONE can feel sure that things will be more stable post Saddam Hussein.

I thought we abandoned them...which is it?

To Bush haters, we are always too involved (Iraq) or not involved enough (NK) or going no where (Osama--soon to be captured Osama, that is). It makes no sense.

Bush is already setting up a $900 million rebuilding fund for Iraq. Of course, this will *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** many people off (i.e. where is this money coming from?) but Bush understands that this is our responsibility (although, hopefully we can recover alot of this cost from the new Iraqi government).

To deny that Afghanistan is 100 times better now than it was a year ago is ludicrous. Just last night Geraldo was reporting that they have un-veiled women in downtown Kabul, and girls attending school and even women drivers (unheard of).

Yes, the US has exhausted all peaceful alternatives to war. 12 years worth. The UN Inspectors aren't getting the job done. We know Saddam has forbidden weapons. Just because the inspectors can't find them doesn't mean that they aren't there. And frankly, the at least one inspector is losing credibility and choosing sides. The link talking about Hans Blix playing down evidence is disturbing to me. We didn't send them in there to have their own political agenda, we sent them in there to do a job, and that job is to find those forbidden weapons.

If you could quantify that 500 more civilians would have to die to save 1000 Iraqi troops, would it be worth it? You just saved 500 lives. Remember, after the war, those same Iraqi soldiers will be Iraqi civilians.

Everyone here knows that we aren't going to pick the nearest school full of children and blow them off that map as part of a "Shock and Awe" tactic. We will pick military targets and blow them off the map with as much trump and fan faire as possible to give the average Iraqi soldier damn good reason to drop his weapons and raise a white flag.

I'm not a lawyer. And I certainly wouldn't be able to interpret the big pile of international "law" that is out there. The UN Security council is not an unbiased body looking to make a fair decision. As such I don't think Internation Law has much to do with them. The UN is in fact several nations looking out for number one. How does a UN council member balance their interests in the Iraqi oil that they are getting right now with the fact that likely that source of oil will be cut off for a long time, if not forever if a war happens?

It is up to the United States to make a just and moral decision to go in there and clean Saddam and his stooges out of Iraq.

Very confident. How could a brutal dictator like Saddam ever increase the stability of the region? What did he try and do in the first gulf war. If the threat of Iraq invading your country with the intention of increasing its territory and power isn't a destabilizing force, then what is?

[quote=amlord,Mar 10 2003, 08:39 PM] [QUOTE]To deny that Afghanistan is 100 times better now than it was a year ago is ludicrous. Just last night Geraldo was reporting that they have un-veiled women in downtown Kabul, and girls attending school and even women drivers (unheard of). [/quote]
Have you seen a major piece of news reporting like this outside Kandahar or Kabul?

Here's a link we should all read from RAWA.

One prescient passage worth noting:

[quote]The report details widespread killings by the Taliban and the former Northern Alliance. Ms Jahangir detailed how civilians continued to be killed, jailed, tortured and intimidated by warlords. [/quote]

The article is only 6 weeks old.

OK, obviously the place is not a utopia. However, it is better now than it was. Rebuilding takes time.

As for the link to RAWA, read some of the other links. Of course you must understand the perspective from which people are writing. To blame Britain that some people have not seen a doctor in 24 years...I don't think that has to do with the War on Terror.

RAWA stands for the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. It might not be a mainstream group. I understand that the conditions are not optimal, but they are improving.

I hear a truck backing up... you said

Well, is it?



RAWA exists to do one thing, advocate human rights and social justice.

You really miss a lot if you only watch Cable News. How much of that $900B is going to Haliburton and the others he is handing out 'rebuilding' contracts to?

Interesting use of quotes, do you have some evidence which suggest these contracts aren't for Iraq's reconstruction?

Maybe this is just a co-inky-dink in #'s. But this report says $900M (Not billion) give or take a few mil.

Iraq rebuilding

And aren't they counting their chickens before their hatched?

The contract to oversee the oil is already signed off. I wonder how Halliburton got so lucky.
WSJ

And regarding the $900m

wsj

The great thing is that some of this will go to rebuild enough hospitals for half of the people (maybe that's all they expect to be left) and some for schools and homes.

I just wonder why they would need to rebuild those things if they have these smart missles and bombs and are really only going to target military bases?

Edited to say excuse the typo. It was probably a fraudian slip. Personal forcast $900M for now...$900B in the not so distant future.

Danya, unfortunately we learned from the 1st gulf war that they purposely put military establishments very close to, or in civilian structures. Was yet another way they garnered sympathy and undermine the effort. The allies know there will be collateral damage.

Also I think they are taking into account the already poor conditions of some of these structures from years of neglect.

So, this means you are forced to bomb anything in your way no matter what and it's not your fault if you kill innocent people because if they hadn't put it there it wouldn't have happened? And is that supposed to absolve us of all guilt? I'm sure the people that think so never felt an ounce of guilt in the first place.

Joe
Most of the Warlords are sympathetic to the Taliban....how do you think the small remnants of the Taliban have survived? By pure luck? No. By Warlords who have supported the Taliban since they took power, therefore, they are coutinuing what the Taliban has done before it was knocked down by the U.S. in Dec. '01


Hercules Posted: Mar 10 2003, 08:25 AM




Ouchie. Saddam was saying this before he accepted Resolution 1441:

Try again bud

(Edited to fix quotes by request - Jaime)

Sorry Danya, but I don't believe there has ever been a war where innocent people were not killed. It's just a fact of war. Not a good one, but a fact non-the-less.

A wee bit misleading Danya?

Halliburton was one of the companies chosen to oversee oil facility reconstruction not the oil itself.


There will apparently more money for hospitals etc. Just not in these particular contracts.

In regards to my earlier post (on the first page), I regrettably could not find anything to support the claim I had heard something about the U.N. inspectors being able to complete their task with or without Iraqi compliance. Unless something turns up, it would appear that I misheard or misread something in regards to this.
One thing I would like to say is in response to an argument I'm hearing just about everywhere, this topic thread included. It's the argument that we've already given Saddam 12 years and he's not been very cooperative, so, naturally, it's a justification for war.
I respectfully disagree.
I see that as justification for intervention -- both by America and an array of other nations -- but not as justification for military aggression. During the 12 years since the end of the first Gulf War, has Saddam been able to invade any neighboring countries? To our public knowledge, has he developed or pursued development of chemical and biological weapons? I'm well aware that Powell and others in the Bush administration have made such claims and have given us pictures of trucks and trains that "might" be used to transport such weapons from place to place, but there is as yet no concrete evidence. And if we truly had concrete evidence, would it not serve American interests to share this information directly with the inspection teams?
While we haven't been able to verifiably disarm Saddam, we have been quite successful in containing him. As long as inspectors are there and American intelligence is continuing to gather information on the region, he appears to be sufficiently trapped between a rock and a hard place.
Is lying and being untrustworthy reason enough to jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers' lives? It is only my opinion, but I feel our interests could be better served not acting unilaterally in the face of our allies but by seeking further inspections with their assistance and further containing Saddam until further action is truly warranted. Perhaps inspections could be in place for years, but as inspection teams grow and intelligence is amassed, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons can not go undetected. Such weapons and materials leave too many "finger prints" on their surroundings.
The Bush administration has "evidence" but it is circumstantial at best. Much of it is purely hypothetical -- those trucks and trains might be relocating such terrible weapons of mass distruction. But why not prove as much beyond a shadow of a doubt by immediately relaying this information to U.N. inspection teams so that they can examine it? It wasn't until February that we made this information, first gathered in November I believe, available to the U.N. and their teams.
Sure, Iraq isn't giving 100% effort, but neither are we. Perhaps Iraq doesn't have such weapons; perhaps they do. If they do, why aren't we doing everything possible to assist the inspectors in proving as much for the international community instead of trying to usher them out as quickly as possible?

I think the invasion of Iraq can be justified but that an armed conflict at this time is premature and therefore not just.

Sure we have been after Hussein in one way or another for twelve years, but let's not pretend we have been making our demands this loudly and insistently.

There is not a demonstrated urgency for this war. We have the ability to go after our list of Hussein's illegal WMDs one at a time to get staged deadlines and accomplishments. If we attack on or near the 17th it will be a justifiable attack but not a just one.

Cannot be "commented upon"?!

So, for example, if I declare that my strategy will be to encircle the village, separate out all males ages 15-55, shoot said males en masse, & ship the rest away in cattle cars, no one should "comment upon" my strategy until after I've had the chance to "enact" it? Or if I declare that I'll kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out? Do you really mean to say that no one should have the right to question me about what kind of hell I plan to raise until they see how it comes out?

... Or would you like to rephrase this sweeping statement of total military impunity?

I believe the question is not whether things are now "normal" in the region, but whether they might in fact be worsened by a new U.S.-Iraq war.[I]

The question pertained to international law, not U.S. constitutional law.

The U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. charter, which stipulates that signatories shall use force only for self-defense or in support of actions undertaken "to maintain or restore international peace and security" through the Security Council.

This is the basis for Kofi Annan's recent warning that a U.S. war against Iraq undertaken without the support would be in violation of the charter--or, to put it more precisely, our treaty obligations under the charter.

See links:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/...q.un/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/internat...ast/11NATI.html

The section of the U.S. constitution pertaining to treaty obligations is Article VI, which states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ...[/B][B][/B]

[QUOTE]I hear a truck backing up... you said QUOTE
To deny that Afghanistan is 100 times better now than it was a year ago is ludicrous.


Well, is it?[/QUOTE]

It is better, demonstratedly better. Of course, they haven't put up the pearly gates yet...I said it wasn't nearly perfect. At least women can leave their houses without being murdered indiscriminately.

[QUOTE]Cannot be "commented upon"?!

So, for example, if I declare that my strategy will be to encircle the village, separate out all males ages 15-55, shoot said males en masse, & ship the rest away in cattle cars, no one should "comment upon" my strategy until after I've had the chance to "enact" it? Or if I declare that I'll kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out? Do you really mean to say that no one should have the right to question me about what kind of hell I plan to raise until they see how it comes out?

... Or would you like to rephrase this sweeping statement of total military impunity? [/QUOTE]

No such comment was made by the US. They made some broad statement about "shock tactics" and everyone assumes the worst. They NEVER said that they would target civilians or non-combatants. NEVER. Your example is way out of line, since no world leader would ever make it. My statement applies to the REAL situation. How can you condemn their tactics when you don't even know what they are? Pure nonsense.

[/QUOTE]The U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. charter, which stipulates that signatories shall use force only for self-defense or in support of actions undertaken "to maintain or restore international peace and security" through the Security Council. [QUOTE]

The resumption of the Gulf War would be a legal action by the US (or any other member nation) since Iraq has repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire.

Here is a very good article about Just War...Just War

A nice exerpt:
[/QUOTE]Among those who have forgotten the just war tradition while retaining its language, the classic. . . criterion of last resort is usually understood in simplistically mathematical terms: the use of proportionate and discriminate armed force is the last point in a series of options, and prior, nonmilitary options (legal, diplomatic, economic, etc.) must be serially exhausted before the criterion of last resort is satisfied. This is both an excessively mechanistic understanding of last resort and a prescription for danger.

The case of international terrorism again compels a development of this . . . criterion. For what does it mean to say that all nonmilitary options have been tried and found wanting when we are confronted with a new and lethal type of international actor, one that recognizes no other form of power except the use of violence and that is largely immune (unlike a conventional state) to international legal, diplomatic, or economic pressures? The charge that U.S. military action after September 11 was morally dubious because all other possible means of redress had not been tried and found wanting misreads the nature of terrorist organizations and networks. The "last" in last resort can mean "only," in circumstances where there is plausible reason to believe that nonmilitary actions are unavailable or unavailing.

As for rogue states developing or deploying weapons of mass destruction, a developed just war tradition would recognize that here, too, last resort cannot be understood mathematically, as the terminal point of a lengthy series of nonmilitary alternatives. Can we not say that last resort has been satisfied in those cases when a rogue state has made plain, by its conduct, that it holds international law in contempt and that no diplomatic solution to the threat it poses is likely, and when it can be demonstrated that the threat the rogue state poses is intensifying? I think we can. Indeed, I think we must.
[QUOTE]

I recall reading something about that too. Your not alone.



Imagine for a moment, that the US fed the inspectors information. What would be said about us? Easy. That we were feeding the inspectors propoganda, and showing them what we wanted them to find. No one would believe anything the inspectors said, because "They are the mouthpiece for American interests"

By staying out of it, and letting the inspectors work without our help, we had a better chance that whatever the Mr. Blix found over there, would not be tainted with our intervention. The evidence would be a little more believeable.



I personally can't stand it when someone accuses us of acting unilaterally. When you say that, you might as well just say that the UK, Spain, and a few other countrys don't matter and are totally irrelevant. The US will not be the only force on the ground in Iraq, nor are we the only country pushing for war. Hence, NOT unilateral.

Equally as respectful...

--cheers

I predict that when Iraq's WMDs are revealed (post-war) there will be those saying the the US planted the evidence. Almost guaranteed. There are some that will never trust the US and will question its every move.

Gee I wonder why? This is the second time this office has used a 'disinformation' propaganda office to speak for it. The last time was in November, if I remember correctly, and was the first time I really started to mistrust everything from this government. Last time they were spending $1M per month for a marketing firm to spread lies. Now they are only supposed to have a two person office...none of us can take the word of the U.S. by itself anymore.

LINK

That link was to a story about a COUNTER-disinformation agency, not a dept of disinformation. It says they work to dispel the disinformation spread by Iraq. AND, it only has 2 people, hardly the super powered bureaucracy that it could be.

How is this damning? How does this form a basis of not trusting your elected officials?

EDIT: deleted a potentially offensive personal comment.

East TImor Survivor Endorses War for Peace

Just a link to a story about a survivor who is for removing Saddam for the good of the people of Iraq.

I started a new topic with this , but it was closed.
So here's the post.

If its not formatted right or the link doesn't work, don't blame me, it worked the first time.



A NY Times op-ed piece today suggests a last-ditch effort by President Bush

QUOTE
So, Mr. President, before you shake the dice on a legitimate but audacious war, please, shake the dice just once on some courageous diplomacy. Pick up where Woodrow Wilson left off: fly to Paris, bring the leaders of France, Russia, China and Britain together, along with the chairman of the Arab League summit, and offer them any reasonable amount of time for more inspections — if they will agree on specific disarmament benchmarks Saddam has to meet and support an automatic U.N. authorization of force if he doesn't. If France still snubs you, the world will see that you are the one trying to preserve collective security, while France only wants to make mischief. That will be very important to the legitimacy of any war.


I don't know what impact any further delay will have on us militarily or how much time it would take to get these 6 guys together, but if they could get it together in a day or two and if Gen Franks provided a 'drop-dead gotta go by then' date that could still be met.....I'd like to see this take place.

You?



NYTimes

--------------------
Ann Coulter on the Bush administrtation in Slander

"Having cleared out the pizza boxes, women's panties, and other detritus of the Caligula administration, the country was finally being run by grow-ups again."

The link describes a counter-disinformation office. This office is responsible for countering the disinformation being tossed about by others. Not splitting hairs, but it seems to be the exact opposite of your claim.

As for the '$1 million a month for a marketing firm to spread lies' comment, I think a source is called for to back such a claim.

Read the following links and then come back and tell me that these guys are really doing counter misinformation.

Multiple links

NYT Feb. 19, 2002
Sorry, it was $100,000 per month. (might as well be a million to me...either way it's a lot to spend to spread lies.) Note:


Notice this is nine months before Bush even went to the U.N. to start inspections...sounds like he knew his case was weak even then. This was during the whirlwind globe trotting to drum up support to oust Saddam by meeting with many many heads of state. All turned him down. Then he went to the U.N. They blame this on Colin Powell but the truth is he wasn't getting any support by doing it without the UN (not for lack of trying) and had no choice unless he went by himself. How much money and loss of credibility won't he throw away over a third rate dictator?

Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld February 26, 2002
A week after the Office of Strategic Influence story broke they came out and said nevermind. But, in one of the articles you will find in the first link you will see that Mike Feith as an after thought says that they would still pursue the same goals through private companies. They must have meant Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

IMO, this relates to the topic because it shows the entire buildup to war has been based on deciet meaning it was an un-just war to begin with.

MM,

Seems the ball is once again in your court. Links please, to support your claims.

Or is this classified information?

Thanks for the links. I see from them that the strategy was something being discussed as opposed to something already in place. And that cost difference, $100K vs $1M, significant indeed.

I don't disagree with the need for such a project, but it needs to be done legally and at a reasonable cost.

Now, about that 'whirlwind globe trotting'. I don't seem to recall that, but I could be mistaken. We met with and were turned down by many heads of state? Are there any links I can go to so as to refresh my memory?

Oh, and that thing about 'they blame this on Colin Powell', who is 'they'? It reads like you mean the President but I'm not sure. Maybe some kind of source or clarification would help.

I agree about being on topic here also. All of this goes a long way towards helping one to decide if this is a just war.

Thank you.

Since when is the truth propaganda?