No Error!: Re: Error: Re: [Vision2020] Iraq WMD: Scott Ritter, Colin Powell

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Sat May 13 19:30:06 PDT 2006 

All:

Well, now I must retract my previous claim that I made an error in declaring
Germany a member of the UN Security Council in 2003.  Germany was a
temporary elected member of the UN Security Council in 2003 when the UN
voted on a war resolution regarding invading Iraq.

And now, before any more snafus, I say goodbye for today...

P.S.
Joan Opry is a sweetheart, because anyone who likes Jane Siberry is by
definition among the blessed...

Ted Moffett


On 5/13/06, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  All:
>
> Germany is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council, nor was it
> on the list of temporary Security Council members when they voted on the
> pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq, as I implied below.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
> On 5/13/06, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Ed et. al.
> >
> > The first Gulf War was not "preemptive" to prevent an attack against the
> > USA by Iraq.  It was to defend Kuwait, who had been invaded by Iraq, and
> > when Iraq was repelled, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq.
> >
> > I'm sure there could be examples found in history of a nation invading
> > and occupying another nation based on some sort of "preemptive" rationale.
> > Nonetheless, in the context of the modern system of relations between
> > nations, the mostly unilateral actions of the USA in invading Iraq based on
> > the rationale that an attack against the USA by Iraq was pending (thus a
> > "preemptive" war) is regarded by many as setting a dangerous precedent.
> >
> > As for the UN resolutions Iraq had violated, as Bush pushed to invade
> > Iraq in 2003, the UN had not voted to authorize the invasion, with UN
> > Security Council members Russia, France, China, and Germany opposing:
> >
> > http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attackindex.htm
> >
> > *After months of threats and a long military buildup, the United States
> > attacked Iraq on Thursday, March 20, 2003. Washington cut short UN arms
> > inspections, acting with its military ally, Britain, after a war-sanctioning
> > resolution failed by a wide margin to gain support in the UN Security
> > Council. The war faces strong opposition from France, Germany, Russia, China
> > and the great majority of UN member states as well as world public opinion.
> > *
> >
> > More info:
> >
> > http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/
> > ----------------------
> >  Ted Moffett
> >
> >
> >  On 5/12/06, Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Ted,
> > >
> > > Seventeen ignored U.N. (a leftists love child) resolutions.... what
> > > more reason do we need?
> > >
> > > Ted says "It's amazing how little on Vison2020 the concept of
> > > "preemptive war" used to justify the Iraq invasion is not discussed.  This
> > > is a dangerous precedent"
> > >
> > > I'm not polished in historical facts, but I know that there have been
> > > numerous preemptive wars--even several initiated by the United States--most
> > > recently (before the current war), the First Gulf War.  No dangerous
> > > precedents were set..at least by Bush
> > >
> > > --et al
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> > > *To:* rvrcowboy <rvrcowboy at clearwire.net>
> > > *Cc:* Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> ; Sunil Ramalingam<sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, May 12, 2006 12:51 PM
> > > *Subject:* [Vision2020] Iraq WMD: Scott Ritter, Colin Powell
> > >
> > >
> > > Dick et. al.
> > >
> > > It's amazing how little on Vison2020 the concept of "preemptive war"
> > > used to justify the Iraq invasion is not discussed.  This is a dangerous
> > > precedent that has now been set that can be used for nations to invade each
> > > other based solely on the possibility that they might be attacked: just
> > > manufacture some credible appearing intelligence of a threat...Iraq had not
> > > attacked the USA, nor was there any credible evidence that Iraq was going
> > > to.  If we invaded to stop human rights abuses, why not now invade in the
> > > Sudan/Darfur?  But anyway, the argument we invaded Iraq because of human
> > > rights abuses was not the primary argument used by the Bush administration
> > > before the invasion: it was Iraq WMD presenting an immanent threat to the
> > > USA.
> > >
> > > Dick, maybe you'd respect the opinions of an actual Iraq weapons
> > > inspector?  And also consider what Bush's former Secretary of State Colin
> > > Powell more recently has to say about his presentation before the UN about
> > > Iraq WMD?
> > >
> > > War is not an endeavor to jump into on questionable intelligence.
> > > When one of the primary weapons inspectors who worked in Iraq is raising
> > > warning flags before the US Iraq invasion that the claims of Iraq WMDs made
> > > by the USA are very questionable, why was there an aggressive push for an
> > > invasion with the repeated warning from Bush and Condi Rice of a pending
> > > "mushroom cloud" over America?  A "mushroom cloud" from nonexistent Iraq
> > > nuclear weapons?
> > >
> > > Former Marine intelligence operative and Iraq weapons inspector Scott
> > > Ritter is a credible source who was raising doubts about Iraq WMD before the
> > > US invasion:
> > >
> > > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-April/028827.html
> > >
> > > And read Colin Powell's comments about his "disappointment" regarding
> > > US intelligence failures that led him to present false information before
> > > the UN on Iraq WMD:
> > >
> > > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-April/028812.html
> > >
> > > Ted Moffett
> > >
> > >  On 5/11/06, rvrcowboy < rvrcowboy at clearwire.net > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sunil,
> > >
> > > I have read the cite you gave about the U.N. Inspectors.  I have also
> > > read
> > > many others, some agreeing with you and some not.  The point being
> > > that
> > > having inspectors in Iraq is not the same as those inspectors being
> > > allowed
> > > to inspect.  It is easy to pick just one cite and base your whole
> > > opinion
> > > set on it without taking into account that nearly all news sources
> > > today are
> > > not fair and balanced on any topic.  Picking one that supports your
> > > own
> > > personal views without researching others that do not just isn't
> > > honest.  To
> > > be honest with you, I do not, at this time, believe the inspectors
> > > were
> > > being allowed to do their job, even though they were allowed to be in
> > > country.
> > >
> > > As for why we went to Iraq in the first place.  You know, as well as
> > > I, we
> > > could argue that forever.  I do believe there was intelligence, right
> > > or
> > > wrong, indicating Saddam had WMD.  Even Saddam appeared to give the
> > > impression he did, perhaps just to keep his enemies at bay, who
> > > knows?  I do
> > > believe Iraq, under Saddam, was a state sponsor of terrorism.  I also
> > > believe that because of our involvement in Iraq, we most likely have
> > > not
> > > experienced another 9/11 situation here in our own country.
> > >
> > > I believe we are still there because the Iraqi military is not yet
> > > ready to
> > > defend the new government and its people.  Again, this is a topic we
> > > could
> > > argue for a long time but that is what I believe to be the main
> > > reason.  Why
> > > do you think we are?
> > >
> > > I do not know if we were 100% justified in the Iraqi invasion or not.
> > > Perhaps no one will ever know.  I do not, however, believe there were
> > > secret
> > > agendas and hidden motives behind it.  For example, all the libs were
> > > screaming it was just for oil, well, where the hell is the oil?  We
> > > could
> > > certainly use some of it.
> > >
> > > Bottom line is that I do not feel guilty because we invaded Iraq.  I
> > > believe
> > > Saddam could have prevented it if he had chosen too do so.  I also do
> > > not
> > > discount all the human suffering and torture under his regime.  When
> > > we add
> > > up the Iraqi death tolls, we should ask ourselves who is inflicting
> > > them and
> > > how many people were dying annually under Saddam's regime.
> > >
> > > Sometimes good men are compelled to do the right thing.  Also, good
> > > men,
> > > like all men, sometimes make mistakes.  Still, all in all, I believe
> > > we are
> > > on the right track despite all the hatred from the left trying to
> > > spread
> > > quilt on Americans for trying to do the right thing.
> > >
> > > That is my opinion.  You are welcome to yours but I will never
> > > understand
> > > why people hate their own President more than the henious dictators of
> > >
> > > countries who kill their own people without remorse.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Dick S.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Sunil Ramalingam" < sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> > > To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:38 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] When good men do nothing...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Why did we go there, Dick?  Why are we still there?  And what about
> > > Bush's
> > > > statements about the inspectors?
> > > >
> > > > Sunil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "rvrcowboy" < rvrcowboy at clearwire.net>
> > > > >To: "Vision2020" < vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > > >Subject: [Vision2020] When good men do nothing...
> > > > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:48:44 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > >Neatly tucked at the end of every Saundra Lund tirade is this quote
> > > by
> > > > >Edmund Burke:
> > > > >"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
> > > people to
> > > do
> > > > >nothing."
> > > > >- Edmund Burke
> > > > >
> > > > >I think the Kurds, along with many others, in Iraq would agree
> > > > >wholeheartedly with this statement.  If we pull out now and go back
> > > to
> > > > >doing "nothing" evil will once again openly triumph in Iraq.  Don't
> > > you
> > > > >think so Saundra?
> > > > >
> > > > >Dick S.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >_____________________________________________________
> > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > >                 http://www.fsr.net
> > > > >           mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > >�����������������������������������������������������
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________________________________
> > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > >                 http://www.fsr.net
> > > >           mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > �����������������������������������������������������
> > > >
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >               http://www.fsr.net
> > >          mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > �����������������������������������������������������
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _____________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >                http://www.fsr.net
> > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060513/8314d09f/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list