Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:33 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Hello
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2423
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Hi Guys:

Insult and counter insult are not allowed.

I don't think that anyone has insulted anyone yet.

So noting I must say that Mike posted a large matter which I could not and would not answer in a manner acceptable to him.

No offense is meant by this, I typically post answers that make parrallels far beyond those 'directly' related to the intended point of the original Poster.

I do think Mike and I agree on this point. I cannot write without obscure historical references.

But what about those counterpoint parallels to Germany and South Korea?

What about the effect the assasination of Massood will have in Afgansitan?

What about the de facto religious dividing line running across sub Sahara Africa.?

What about US forces in Kossovo?

What about the continuing effect British nation creation after WWI has in the Middle East?

What about the historical need for conscription vs, the possible misuse of standing Armies by strong executives?


According to one view, these questions are not on point.

Perhaps they should all have raised by me in other thread and I should have responded to the originall post with a yes or no answer to each paragraph.

I draw conclusions from TV shows.

The Military Channel is good. Although I did count at least 12 errors by their film editors in the progam about Stalingrad.

Conclusions:

The editors were made some mistakes.

The program was not bad.

One cannot completely trust TV to be completely accurate.

Ok. please keep weighing in but I would like to continue holding the impression that all here respect each other and each other's opinion.

I think that you all do have and will maintain such respect despite the unavoidable heat generated by some topics and my diffuse responses.

JT.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Last edited by JOHN THURSTON on Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 284
Location: Mansfield, MA USA
Bill,
In refuting the position that the major reason for going to war in Iraq was WMD, you wrote:
_______________________________________
I disagree. They violated UN mandates (17 I believe) was the justification. Process matters in law, right? It made a difference here. WMD was just the sizzle in the steak.
________________________________________
Please review the facts. The following is an excerpt from the transcript of Mr. Powell’s address to the U.N. Security Counsel that was released by the White House the following day:

POWELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks for the special effort that each of you made to be here today.
This is important day for us all as we review the situation with respect to Iraq and its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.
Last November 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.
POWELL: Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.
___________________________________________
The presence of WMD in Iraq was not the “sizzle in the steak,” it was our stated reason for going to war. It was how the war was sold to the U.N., Congress, and the U.S. public. Other rationalizations came later, such as taking the war against terror overseas; stabilizing the region; correcting human rights violations, etc. But please don’t forget, WMD is how the administration sold the war.

Regarding Saddam Hussein you wrote:
___________________________________
I shed no tears for him, regardless of what we did or didn't find when we got there. And IMO we did the right thing. It wasn't a matter of if; it was only a matter of when and how.
____________________________________
Shedding tears for Saddam is not the point. I hope you are not making the argument or accusation that disagreement with the war is the equivalent of support for Saddam. You may believe that the war is justified because it resulted in the removal of Saddam from power. So be it, if that is your opinion. However, don’t make the mistake of taking the position that removal of Saddam was the STATED reason for the war.

Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 988
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Norm,

From the Council on Foreign Relations:

SUCCESS DISREGARDED

The Bush administration's primary justification for going to war against Iraq last year was the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. But almost as soon as U.S. forces took Baghdad, it became clear that this fear was based on bad intelligence and faulty assumptions. Since then, the failure to find WMD in Iraq has caused a furor.

Sympathetic analysts argue that Washington had no way of knowing how serious the threat of Iraqi WMD was, so intelligence agencies provided the administration with a wide-ranging set of estimates. In the post-September 11 security environment, the argument goes, the Bush administration had little choice but to assume the worst. Critics charge that the White House inflated and manipulated weak, ambiguous intelligence to paint Iraq as an urgent threat and thus make an optional war seem necessary. A recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, found not only that the intelligence community had overestimated Iraqi chemical and biological weapons capabilities but also that administration officials "systematically misrepresented" the threat posed by Iraqi weapons.



mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Hi, Norm!

Norm wrote:

The presence of WMD in Iraq was not the “sizzle in the steak,” it was our stated reason for going to war. It was how the war was sold to the U.N., Congress, and the U.S. public. Other rationalizations came later, such as taking the war against terror overseas; stabilizing the region; correcting human rights violations, etc. But please don’t forget, WMD is how the administration sold the war.

You also quoted Colin Powell.
Quote:
POWELL: Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.

OK, let's take a look at Security Council Resolution 1441. From Wikipedia... (emphasis in red is my own)

Quote:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).


Resolution Statement

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

3) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations"

They were in violation of Resolution 1441 on multiple accounts.

Imagine the amount of money going up in smoke here - all orchestrated by Saddam. It was quite a statement, and he refused to pay for this vandalism on an unprecedented scale.

Image

That's just a small sample.

The violation of cease fire was his repeated firing at US and British planes protecting the Kurds and Shia from Saddam's ethnic cleansing. (a.k.a. no fly zones)

Nice guy...

I rest my case, Norm.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 988
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Norm,

Out of his own mouth (sizzle).

mike

Bush Admits WMD "Main Reason" for Iraq; Press Ignores Admission
In a press conference Monday, President Bush said that the "main reason" America "went into Iraq" was that "we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." In his next breath, in a stream-of-consciousness fashion, he links Saddam Hussein with 9-11, imagining him "stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens."

Or verbatim:

QUESTION: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Here is part of a declassified intelligence report referring to part of the very first item in Resolution 1441. According to the document, it was edited "TO ELIMINATE INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT PERTAIN

TO GULF WAR ILLNESS ISSUES OR THAT IS CLASSIFIED."

Quote:
IRAQ'S DESTRUCTION AND PLUNDER OF KUWAIT'S OIL INDUS-

TRY HAS DEVASTATED KUWAIT'S ECONOMY AND CREATED A

MAJOR REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER. KUWAIT'S OIL

OUTPUT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY HALTED BY THE DESTRUCTION

OF HUNDREDS OF OIL WELLS AND DAMAGE TO KEY SURFACE

FACILITIES, AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS' WORTH OF

OILFIELD AND REFINING EQUIPMENT AND STOCKS HAVE BEEN

STOLEN. THE WELL FIRES-WHICH BURN UP 4-6 MILLION B/D

OF CRUDE OIL-HAVE CREATED A MASSIVE SMOKE PLUME

THAT IS SEVERELY DEGRADING THE AIR QUALITY OVER LARGE

AREAS OF THE PERSIAN GULF REGION.1 TO HALT THE POLLUTION

AND RESTORE OIL EXPORTS, THE KUWAITIS MUST UNDERTAKE A

REBUILDING PROGRAM THAT WILL TAKE SEVERAL YEARS AND

COST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.


{snip}


IRAQ WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS

TO ENSURE THAT THE SABOTAGE WAS SUCCESSFUL. ACCORDING

TO BAGHDAD ISSUED DE-

TAILED INSTRUCTIONS TO OILFIELD ENGINEERS DISPATCHED TO

KUWAIT DURING THE OCCUPATION ON HOW TO PLACE EXPLO-

SIVES ON THE WELLHEAD AND HOW TO HOOK UP THE

DETONATION CORD SO THAT A GROUP OF WELLS WOULD

SIMULTANEOUSLY EXPLODE. THE INDICATE THAT







THE IRAQIS EXPERIMENTED MONTHS BEFOREHAND BY BLOW-

ING UP OIL WELL MOCKUPS IN IRAQ. THE OCCUPATION TROOPS

WERE INSTRUCTED TO MONITOR THE STATUS OF THE WELLHEAD

EXPLOSIVES AND THE DETONATION CORD TO ENSURE THAT THE

SABOTAGE WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL.



THE SABOTAGE RESULTED IN FIRES, BLOWOUTS, WELLHEAD

DAMAGE, AND POSSIBLE PERMANENT LOSS OF RESERVOIR

PRODUCTIVITY. APPROXIMATELY 500 WELLS ARE STILL ON

FIRE-SOME 200 OF THE WELL FIRES HAVE SMALL FLAMES AND

SOME ON THE EDGES OF THE MAIN FIELDS ARE BEGINNING TO

EMIT WHITE SMOKE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Given Saddam's refusal to repay for the looting and larceny referred to in item 1 of Resolution 1441, you can imagine their cooperation vis-a-vis the public health impact of their Kuwaiti invasion actions. Considering the fact that US companies had to pay billions for the side effects of medications designed to alleviate suffering, you probably would be left dumbfounded trying to fathom the potential liability here of a wanton act of destruction on this order of magnitude.

Here's a research effort which attempts to quantify just part of the impact.

- Bill

Quote:
Harvard Scientists Report Public Health Impact of 1990 Iraq Invasion of Kuwait: Higher Rates of Mortality Evident Among Kuwaiti Civilians Who Remained in Kuwait During Occupation

Research Supports Kuwait's Health Claim to UN Compensation Commission

For immediate release: Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Boston, MA-- Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) made public today the findings of Phase I of their investigation of the public health impacts on Kuwaiti Nationals of Iraq's 1990 invasion and seven-month occupation of Kuwait.

Three years ago HSPH was retained by Kuwait to determine whether there were substantial public health impacts of Iraq's 1990 invasion and occupation of Kuwait and, if so, to -- (i) estimate the magnitude of such impacts, (ii) assess their causes, and (iii) determine whether cost-effective approaches of medical screening could be designed to facilitate early detection and treatment of affected individuals. The entire project is being conducted, funded and monitored under the auspices of the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), which was set up to resolve claims against Iraq.

Results from the HSPH investigation formed the basis for Kuwait's final public health claims, which are among the first ever to seek compensation for the environmental and public health consequences of conflict between nations. The UNCC evaluated the claims, held hearings last September, and is expected to announce its compensation decision shortly.

HSPH's investigation was led by Dr. John Evans, senior lecturer on environmental science in the Department of Environmental Health, and included three major elements -- a retrospective cohort study of 5,000 Kuwaitis whose health has been followed for 14 years; a probabilistic risk assessment of the likely mortality impacts of exposure to smoke from the oil fires; and a review of trends in morbidity and mortality data from Kuwait's Ministry of Health.

Phase I of the cohort study focused on individuals who were 50 or more years of age at the time of the invasion. Analysis of data for these older adults revealed that, in the 14 years since the liberation of Kuwait, rates of mortality have been appreciably higher among those who stayed in Kuwait during the invasion and occupation than among those who were outside of Kuwait during this same period.

The comprehensive risk assessment suggests an average individual risk on the order of 2/10,000 may be attributable to exposure to smoke from the oil fires -- a level of risk which is roughly equivalent to that produced by smoking 20 packs of cigarettes. Across the entire population, this extra risk would correspond to roughly 100 premature deaths.

But this smoke exposure alone is not sufficient to explain the observed elevation in the mortality rates of those who remained in Kuwait during the occupation. A series of screening risk assessments for other contaminants -- such as volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals from the oil lakes and marine oil spills; and depleted uranium -- indicated that population exposures to these compounds were unlikely to lead to appreciable risks to public health.

Research conducted by Professor Jaafar Behbehani (Kuwait University Faculty of Medicine) and his colleagues at Kuwait's Al-Riggae Center demonstrated that, in 1993 and also in 1998, rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were substantially higher among adults who remained in Kuwait during the invasion and occupation than among those who were outside of Kuwait.

Preliminary investigation of the data from HSPH's cohort of older adults supports the hypothesis that exposure to trauma may play a role in explaining the observed elevations in mortality among Kuwaitis who remained in country during the occupation.

The State of Kuwait's initial public health claims had been based largely on a preliminary analysis of trends in mortality and morbidity (as measured by hospital admissions) which suggested that morbidity and mortality rates among Kuwaitis had risen after the invasion and had remained elevated for several years.

Working with Dr. Mostafa El-Desouky of the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, the Harvard team critically examined the hospitalization and mortality data for the 1983 to 2002 period and found that these data alone did not provide compelling support for the assertion that the invasion and occupation of Kuwait had resulted in sustained and substantial increases in rates of hospitalization or mortality among Kuwaitis.

On the basis of Harvard's findings, the State of Kuwait revised its public health claims to seek compensation for premature deaths from exposure to the oil fire smoke, medical treatment costs and costs of loss of well being due to PTSD, and medical treatment costs for mine and ordnance victims.

In addition, Kuwait asked the UNCC for funding to support continued epidemiological and medical follow-up of the exposed Kuwaiti national population. Given the magnitude of the effect seen among older adults in HSPH's study and the lack of an entirely satisfactory explanation of the cause of these effects, it would seem essential to continue monitoring the health of this population and to expand the study to include individuals who were children and younger adults at the time of the invasion.

"While some might argue that global public health will not be advanced by a transfer of funds to Kuwait, it is important that international organizations such as the UN establish the precedent that public health impacts are fully compensable," said Evans. "It is well established that individuals may recover compensation for the loss of life, limb, or pain and suffering. But as our research shows, the most substantial public health impacts often result from small increases in individual risks spread across large populations. In these cases, the affected individuals may not be identifiable and, as a result, these impacts may be ignored. In their evaluation of Kuwait's claims, the UNCC has the opportunity to recognize and rectify this oversight -- making clear that public health impacts are fully compensable."

In addition to Dr. Evans, key researchers on the project included Douglas Dockery, professor of environmental epidemiology at HSPH, Jaafar Behbehani, assistant professor at Kuwait University Faculty of Medicine, James Hammitt, professor of economics and decision sciences at HSPH, and Roger Cooke, professor of mathematics at Delft University.

A summary of the report and list of contributing scientists is available at:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/relea ... kuwait.doc

Press release in Arabic available at:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/relea ... lation.pdf


For further information contact:
Robin Herman
HSPH Office of Communications
rherman@hsph.harvard.edu
617-432-4752


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 988
Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

GWB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Quote:
he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
- GWB

Quote:
ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.
- 2nd part of UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002

Order matters.

I'm not into marketing. I study the science. I read all contracts before I sign them. When I shop for a car, I avoid the showroom salespeople. I buy online, or through an intermediary. I don't believe anything a politician tells me. Just give me the facts.

Saddam Hussein is nobody's fool. He's a brilliant man. He's a lawyer by training, so knows how to read a UN Resolution. He knew what he was doing. He was hoping the oil credits passed out under the table would stop a coalition from forming. It almost did. It delayed the formation of such a coalition over 17 Security Council Resolutions.

Saddam Hussein was in material violation of most of the first section of Resolution 1441. But even if we concede the argument of the relative importance of WMDs vs. the rest of the Resolution, it's a moot discussion. He was in material violation of part of the second section of 1441 as well - the WMD part.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group