Thirteen Myths About the Case for War in Iraq

By Rich Cowan and Paul Rosenberg and Abigail Caplovitz, AlterNet
March 4, 2003

The Internet has certainly played a major role in the current debate over war in Iraq. Recently, a group of online "mythbusters" involved in the 13myths.org project went one step further. They posted a summary of key claims made by the proponents of war and then invited hundreds of people to offer suggestions on how to respond. The following is the result of this exchange. The complete document, with more than 120 footnotes from mainstream and primary sources, is online at 13myths.org.

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

RESPONSE: Just four days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Wall St. Journal doubted any Iraqi involvement in an article titled "U.S. Officials Discount Any Role by Iraq in Terrorist Attacks: Secularist Saddam Hussein and Suspect bin Laden Have Divergent Goals." The CIA and the FBI remain skeptical of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, despite continued political pressure to find one, according to a front page article in the NY Times on Feb. 2, 2003. None of the hijackers came from Iraq; 15 of the hijackers came from the same country as Osama bin Laden: Saudi Arabia.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

RESPONSE: Many of Powell's assertions were quickly refuted. For example, Powell said, "By 1998, UN experts agreed that the Iraqis had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programs." Actually, the UN's 1/99 report on this matter said only that Iraq had performed drying experiments prior to the Gulf War, in 1989 – not that it had perfected them.

A journalist for The Observer toured Ansar al-Islam's alleged chemical weapons factory and found it to be a bakery with outhouses. Powell's claims that ricin found in Britain came from Iraq were rejected by European intelligence agencies, who said it was crude and "homemade" in Europe.

Even more appalling was the revelation in the British press about the one of the key documents Powell used in his UN speech, the "dossier" on terrorism prepared by the staff of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Powell praised the document as a "fine paper." However, much of it was plagiarized from source material written before the current round of inspections, primarily from a published article written by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a graduate student in California. The al-Marashi article, published nearly a year ago, focused largely on the evidence of Iraq's weapons programs as they existed in 1990, prior to the first Gulf War.

MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

RESPONSE: The comparison to Nazi Germany is a stretch. Germany, by 1938, was number one in military spending, and had recovered from the Great Depression well before the other leading nations. It formed a real military alliance – the Axis - with two other powerful industrial nations, Italy and Japan.

By contrast, Iraq's military capability was largely destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War, and the "Axis of Evil" that Iraq is supposedly part of (Iran-Iraq-N. Korea) does not really exist as an alliance. In fact, Iran and Iraq fought each other in a 9-year war from 1980-1989.

The $399 billion US military budget proposed at the end of January 2003 is almost 300 times the size of Iraq's.

MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

RESPONSE: Though the Feb. 12 UN finding made the headlines, it was not really new; it was based on information volunteered by Iraq over a month ago. According to the 2/13 NY Times and numerous other sources, "The inspectors learned of the range of the missiles from test results that were provided in the 12,000-page arms declaration Iraq delivered at the start of the inspections." The missiles in question are short range models that, all sides agree, can travel less than half of the distance from the western tip of Iraq to the eastern tip of Israel. (By comparison, the CIA reported on the same day that North Korea's Taepo Dong 2 missile is designed to travel 50 to 100 times as far.)

At last word Iraq has agreed to destroy these missiles. This agreement came after UN Weapons Inspection head Hans Blix reported the results of Al Samoud missile tests on 2/27/03. He reported that in a test firing of 40 missiles, 27 of the missiles landed within the legal limit of 150 km. But about one-third of the missiles exceeded the limit.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

RESPONSE: According to the transcript of the 16-min. Al Jazeera tape, bin Laden called Hussein a "Muslim apostate," i.e., a turncoat against Islam. Bin Laden has long called for the secular Baathist Party in Baghdad to be replaced with an Islamic fundamentalist, cleric-led government. The new words were intended to rally support for radical Islam in the Muslim world, including factions within Iraq that are more anti-US than Saddam Hussein.

According to Gen. Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's spy agency InterServices Intelligence, bin Laden and Saddam cannot work closely together because "Bin Laden and his men considered Saddam the killer of hundreds of Islamic militants" within Iraq.

It is true that Saddam Hussein has expressed support for suicide bombings against Israel, and that the bin Laden tape refers to the suicide operations "that cause so much harm" in the U.S. and Israel. However, the existence of such terrorism is quite independent of Hussein.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

RESPONSE: Saddam did refer to a nuclear energy program in a speech he made on 9/10/00. According to the British expert Glen Rangwala, Bush is taking advantage of a mistranslation of this speech that left out the word "energy," among other problems.

Although it would make sense to also forbid nuclear energy programs in Iraq, the U.S. and the U.N. have not called for that. There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein's scientists are now working on nuclear weapons, even though Hussein has wanted them in the past.

In his Jan. 27 report to the UN Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Mohamed ElBaradei concluded, "we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

In an article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Dr. Khidhir A. A. Hamza states that he was "for a brief period in 1987 – director of weaponization" of Iraq's nuclear weapons program (5) Hamza also states, in his book "Saddam's Bombmaker" and in his 'Curriculum Vitae', that he was not employed in the Iraqi nuclear weapons program after 1989. He left Iraq in 1994. So it is clear that he has no personal knowledge of the status of the Iraqi nuclear program after 1994, and the extent of his personal knowledge after 1989 is open to question. Other Iraqi defectors with more inside knowledge than Hamza have disputed his claims.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

RESPONSE: Top US officials have repeatedly stated they want to avoid war:

"I will tell my friend Silvio [President of Italy] that the use of military troops is my last choice, not my first." – President Bush, quoted in White House News Release, January 30, 2003.

"We still hope that force may not be necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein... Let me be clear: no one wants war." - Donald Rumsfeld, in Munich, Germany, Feb. 8, 2003.

The U.S. position is that "Force should always be a last resort." – Colin Powell, response to weapons inspection head Mohamed El Baradei, February 14, 2003.

If the U.S. can disarm Saddam without war – the administration's stated objective – how is our credibility hurt? Even French President Chirac, a critic of war, has credited the presence of U.S. troops with increasing Iraqi compliance.

Kissinger and top Bush administration officials are not satisfied with this progress. However these individuals have conflicts of interest. They have strong ties with companies that produce weapons, drill oil, and build military bases.

The President's father, and his 2000 recount advisor James Baker, are, respectively, "Asian Advisor" and Partner of Carlyle Group. According to Fortune magazine, Carlyle makes much of its profits by buying smaller "defense" companies, assisting them in winning huge taxpayer-funded contracts, and then selling them at a large profit.

Dick Cheney's wife, until January 2001, was on the board of Lockheed, the largest U.S. military contractor. Eight other administration officials had Lockheed ties before they were appointed. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were involved in a think-tank advocating for "global military dominance" that is funded by family foundations whose fortunes came from military contracting and whose founders included a Lockheed executive. These ties must be taken into account when evaluating the legitimacy of 'fears' about a peaceful outcome of the Iraq crisis.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

RESPONSE: Bush's former economic advisor Laurence Lindsey estimated to the Wall Street Journal last summer that the war would cost $100-$200 billion. A veteran ABC News reporter revealed on 1/13/03 that the actual deployment planned was 350,000 troops.

One reason the proposed war would cost so much more than the Gulf War is that the administration plans to occupy Baghdad, a city of 5 million people. Another is that other countries have declined to pay the costs of the war as they did in 1991; instead, the U.S. has offered to pay Turkey $30 billion in grants and loans, an offer Turkey has thus far refused.

As Colin Powell wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1992, "The Gulf War was a limited-objective war. If it had not been, we would be ruling Baghdad today at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships."

Credible estimates of cost of a "short" Iraq war start at $120 billion. This is on top of a 2003 military budget that is already expanded dramatically. The numbers tell the story: the military budget in 2001 was $304 billion after 9/11 expenses were added. The military budget in 2003 is already $407 including homeland security and military construction. Adding the cost of the war, it could reach $527 billion or more. The cost of the increase from 2001-3 comes out to $2,000 for every family in the U.S.

The Bush administration does not seem concerned with the fact that their own budget projections two years ago anticipated a surplus of over $300 billion in 2004, but their projections now anticipate a 2004 deficit of over $350 billion, before the costs of an Iraq war are factored in.

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

RESPONSE: The last 20 years have seen a trend toward "management" of the press by the government: restricted access press pools, fabricated stories, fake letters to the editor, and even violence against U.S. war reporters.

According to the Winter 2002 Navy War College Review, citing the book "America's Team: Media and the Military," the military had assigned reporters to a pool to cover the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, but the Defense Secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, "delayed calling out the pool."

During the 1991 Gulf War, according to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Patrick J. Sloyan, "The Associated Press... sent photographer Scott Applewhite to cover victims of a Scud missile attack near Dahran. The warhead had hit an American tent, killing 25 army reservists and wounding 70... Applewhite, an accredited pool member, was stopped by US Army military police. When he objected, they punched and handcuffed him while ripping the film from his cameras."

Dick Cheney, quoted in "America's Team," was honest after the Gulf War about his treatment of the media. "Frankly, I looked on it as a problem to be managed," he said after the war. "The information function was extraordinarily important. I did not have a lot of confidence that I could leave that to the press."

The most famous Gulf War media fiasco occurred right here at home. Employees of the large PR firm Hill & Knowlton arranged for a speech to be made by a 15-year-old girl, "Nayirah," to an unofficial "Congressional Human Rights" group in October 2000. Her so-called eyewitness story about Iraqi soldiers removing babies from hospital incubators was publicized by the entire news media and even by Amnesty International. But Nayirah was actually the daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to the United States; the other eyewitness recanted his story, and other eyewitnesses have said that the story was fabricated. Amnesty was forced to issue a rare retraction.

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"Iraq's oil and other natural resources belong to all the Iraqi people – and the United States will respect this fact." – Stephen Hadley, US Deputy National Security Advisor, Feb. 11, 2003.

RESPONSE: The U.S. government has made statements elsewhere asserting that we will control both Iraq's government and its oil, for quite some time.

Excerpt from the Oil and Gas International, an industry trade publication, 1/27/03: "France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

Excerpt from the Globe and Mail, quoting US Congressional Testimony on 2/12/03: "The United States intends to rule postwar Iraq through an American military governor, supported by an Iraqi consultative council appointed by Washington, Iraqi opposition leaders gathered in this northern Kurdish city said yesterday. 'While we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us, the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States,' said Mark Grossman." Grossman, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, was testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RESPONSE: It is true if someone handed us unfettered control of all Iraq's oil, Saudi Arabia would have less influence than it does now as the lead oil exporter in the world. But acquiring that control through war has enormous costs, and these costs have to be factored in to assess the true cost of energy.

The Rocky Mountain Institute, an independent research organization in Colorado, points out: "Since 1970, oil imports have been responsible for nearly 75 percent of the U.S. trade deficit and have resulted in a net outflow of $1 trillion to the OPEC nations – much of which is respent on armaments... the peacetime readiness cost of U.S. military forces earmarked for Persian Gulf intervention is around $50 billion a year, raising the effective cost of Gulf oil to around $100 per barrel." This was before the post-9/11 buildup (see myth #8).

If the government charged the oil companies a larger portion of the taxpayer cost of obtaining the oil, and used this money to subsidize use of renewable energy, it would be possible within 5-10 years to completely eliminate the need for U.S. oil imports from the Persian Gulf.

RMI calculated that raising average automobile fuel economy from 20mpg to 33 mpg would accomplish this goal. Or, this goal could be accomplished with a smaller fuel economy increase, combined with other wind, solar, and energy efficiency initiatives that can be implemented with today's technology.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars. The recent unilateral position of the Bush administration runs counters to decades of US policy, the language in resolution 1441, and international law. To ignore the usefulness of the United Nations at this time would strengthen the hand of those who want global war, including anti-U.S. terrorist groups.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us." He went on to add, It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do, there's a strong bond of friendship. And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein."

The text of 1441 concludes, "[The Security Council] decides to remain seized of the matter," meaning that it retains jurisdiction, and has not given anyone else the power to act. The US Senate ratified US agreement to the UN Charter by a vote 89 to 2 on July 28, 1945. Under Article 2 of the Charter, the use of military force is prohibited without explicit authorization (under Article 42).

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

After John McCain – the Senator from Arizona – was released from captivity as a POW in Vietnam, he was asked, "How did it feel when you heard Americans were protesting the war?" He said, "I thought that's what we were fighting for – the right to protest."

It is true that courts have not always fully supported the rights to dissent. But in 1964, thanks to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on the matter. They ruled that the New York Times could not be sued for an ad critical of the actions of Montgomery, Alabama police against civil rights protesters. According to one account, the court "made explicit the principle that seditious libel – criticism of government – cannot be made a crime in America and spoke in this connection of 'the central meaning of the First Amendment.'"

Wheres "bush supporters" comments now....

Ok well I am really a gore supporter as opposed to a bush supporter but Im also a bit of a hawk so here goes

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists in the Phillipeans bombing have indicated that they were supported financially from Iraq - also we all know about their giving money to suicide bombers families. This is an action by the state.
Saudia arabias activities in terrorism are activities of the people and therefore just a criminal matter.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

A) You have not really refuted his claims - only challanged them.
B) They do not all have to be true to make it a compelling case.
C) tour of iraqi factories showing that there is nothing there is consistant with Powels hypothesis that they are able to hide the evidence.
D) the dossier uses various sources as it should - you have to show that they were used inapropriately.


MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

You can Always point out the differences or the similarities - the odds that the next "hitler" will have a tiny moustach and write a book about what he is going to do are pretty slim.

Anyway - at what point should the western powers have intervened in the prelude to WW II?
when the rhineland was invaded? or when hitler came to power? or when germany aranged its Axis? or when they signed their non agression pact with russia? When you answer this, remember, the later you wait the more death results.


MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

Iraq broke the rules - everyone knows that even the iraqis. Hmm would you be happy if your house got hit by only 27 out of 40 missiles?
Iraq agreed to destroy them as part of his cat and mouse game of course saying that he will doesnt mean that he will. Its all a matter of walking that fine line between war and loosing all your cool weapons.
Inspectors have a hard road if they have to find every iraqi weapon and test all of them themselves.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

Many people have alliances of convenience like the russia germany non agression pact. Maybe bin ladin hopes to defeat the west and then attack sadam but sadam knows bin ladin isnt an immediate threat and bin ladin presumably knows he can use sadam for things like funding suicide bombers.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

It is possible that Iraq has no current nuclear program - however that does not mean that Sadam would not immediatly start one if he can weather the current crisis, or even better for him - the sanctions. Remember the same people who are arguing for containment were previously arguing to stop sanctions.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

I feel both the question and the reply are baiting me here.
I guess kissingers argument might be that everyone thinks US wants to attack iraq so we should live up to their expectations. i.e. that the world as opposed to bush would consider it a defeat and thereafter consider that they can play games with ceasefire treaties (etc) with the US.
However as to the response total cooperation from iraq would seem to look like a victory to me.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

Well we all know bush isnt into balancing budgets - however price depends on objectives and objectives depend on what bush and co are thinking. The rest of the expenditure after the basic cost of shashing the iraq military can be evaluated in terms of "how selfish do we feel".

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

The media appears to generally be to the left of the public in the political spectrum. As are the teachers.
The US is at a disadvantage in the propoganda war and are accutely aware of it as only good stories about despotic reigemes come out of despotic reigemes. the US allows good and bad reports and therefore looks like they are worse. Also these states lie constantly to media.
How many times have you seen media report of innocent palistinian civilians when we should all know that some of them probably had machine guns before they were carried away so as to look mroe "innocent"

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

- because france and russia have curent deals! the question is whether the government will consider current contracts to be valid.

-Grossman is guessing

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RMI has no idea about the complexities of doing what they want. Just because you can say it doesnt mean that it is possible.
Of course I support the use of cleaner energy if possible though.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

Do you think france did it for anything other than selfish intersts. one of the main ideas ws probably - "it will be easier to conquor them as two seperate countries"

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars.

The UN is a good idea but it is structured very badly meaning that it cant act when action is needed.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

He is wrong - they resent the US anyway. one of the main reasons for this is ANSWER and co. Spreading hatred for the US. The ther is that USA is the hegemon (the strongest).

This resolution was specifically one that implies force, I mean the type of resolution. of course its all about everyone getting together ad trying to con the others into siging a resolution that supports their view anyway that is how the UN works i guess.

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

- is this why you protest actions by democratic countries but generaly not those by despotic countries? IO think this can be explained by the fact tha the organizers of demonstrations are generally Anti-Capitalists therefore they choose any opportunity to protest USA etc but its a non issue of sadam kills some people.

You re linking two things here
Anti war protestors are providing comfort to sdam (possibly unintentionaly) as shown from what sadam has said - however saying that they are comitting treason is rather dubious. Anyway if they were that would be a matter for lawyers not us

Might need some more back and forth because its hard to write on thirteen oddly phrased "myths" in one post

Ok well I am really a gore supporter as opposed to a bush supporter but Im also a bit of a hawk so here goes

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists in the Phillipeans bombing have indicated that they were supported financially from Iraq - also we all know about their giving money to suicide bombers families. This is an action by the state.
Saudia arabias activities in terrorism are activities of the people and therefore just a criminal matter.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

A) You have not really refuted his claims - only challanged them.
B) They do not all have to be true to make it a compelling case.
C) tour of iraqi factories showing that there is nothing there is consistant with Powels hypothesis that they are able to hide the evidence.
D) the dossier uses various sources as it should - you have to show that they were used inapropriately.


MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

You can Always point out the differences or the similarities - the odds that the next "hitler" will have a tiny moustach and write a book about what he is going to do are pretty slim.

Anyway - at what point should the western powers have intervened in the prelude to WW II?
when the rhineland was invaded? or when hitler came to power? or when germany aranged its Axis? or when they signed their non agression pact with russia? When you answer this, remember, the later you wait the more death results.


MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

Iraq broke the rules - everyone knows that even the iraqis. Hmm would you be happy if your house got hit by only 27 out of 40 missiles?
Iraq agreed to destroy them as part of his cat and mouse game of course saying that he will doesnt mean that he will. Its all a matter of walking that fine line between war and loosing all your cool weapons.
Inspectors have a hard road if they have to find every iraqi weapon and test all of them themselves.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

Many people have alliances of convenience like the russia germany non agression pact. Maybe bin ladin hopes to defeat the west and then attack sadam but sadam knows bin ladin isnt an immediate threat and bin ladin presumably knows he can use sadam for things like funding suicide bombers.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

It is possible that Iraq has no current nuclear program - however that does not mean that Sadam would not immediatly start one if he can weather the current crisis, or even better for him - the sanctions. Remember the same people who are arguing for containment were previously arguing to stop sanctions.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

I feel both the question and the reply are baiting me here.
I guess kissingers argument might be that everyone thinks US wants to attack iraq so we should live up to their expectations. i.e. that the world as opposed to bush would consider it a defeat and thereafter consider that they can play games with ceasefire treaties (etc) with the US.
However as to the response total cooperation from iraq would seem to look like a victory to me.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

Well we all know bush isnt into balancing budgets - however price depends on objectives and objectives depend on what bush and co are thinking. The rest of the expenditure after the basic cost of shashing the iraq military can be evaluated in terms of "how selfish do we feel".

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

The media appears to generally be to the left of the public in the political spectrum. As are the teachers.
The US is at a disadvantage in the propoganda war and are accutely aware of it as only good stories about despotic reigemes come out of despotic reigemes. the US allows good and bad reports and therefore looks like they are worse. Also these states lie constantly to media.
How many times have you seen media report of innocent palistinian civilians when we should all know that some of them probably had machine guns before they were carried away so as to look mroe "innocent"

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

- because france and russia have curent deals! the question is whether the government will consider current contracts to be valid.

-Grossman is guessing

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RMI has no idea about the complexities of doing what they want. Just because you can say it doesnt mean that it is possible.
Of course I support the use of cleaner energy if possible though.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

Do you think france did it for anything other than selfish intersts. one of the main ideas ws probably - "it will be easier to conquor them as two seperate countries"

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars.

The UN is a good idea but it is structured very badly meaning that it cant act when action is needed.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

He is wrong - they resent the US anyway. one of the main reasons for this is ANSWER and co. Spreading hatred for the US. The ther is that USA is the hegemon (the strongest).

This resolution was specifically one that implies force, I mean the type of resolution. of course its all about everyone getting together ad trying to con the others into siging a resolution that supports their view anyway that is how the UN works i guess.

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

- is this why you protest actions by democratic countries but generaly not those by despotic countries? IO think this can be explained by the fact tha the organizers of demonstrations are generally Anti-Capitalists therefore they choose any opportunity to protest USA etc but its a non issue of sadam kills some people.

You re linking two things here
Anti war protestors are providing comfort to sdam (possibly unintentionaly) as shown from what sadam has said - however saying that they are comitting treason is rather dubious. Anyway if they were that would be a matter for lawyers not us

Might need some more back and forth because its hard to write on thirteen oddly phrased "myths" in one post

Ok well I am really a gore supporter as opposed to a bush supporter but Im also a bit of a hawk so here goes

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists in the Phillipeans bombing have indicated that they were supported financially from Iraq - also we all know about their giving money to suicide bombers families. This is an action by the state.
Saudia arabias activities in terrorism are activities of the people and therefore just a criminal matter.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

A) You have not really refuted his claims - only challanged them.
B) They do not all have to be true to make it a compelling case.
C) tour of iraqi factories showing that there is nothing there is consistant with Powels hypothesis that they are able to hide the evidence.
D) the dossier uses various sources as it should - you have to show that they were used inapropriately.


MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

You can Always point out the differences or the similarities - the odds that the next "hitler" will have a tiny moustach and write a book about what he is going to do are pretty slim.

Anyway - at what point should the western powers have intervened in the prelude to WW II?
when the rhineland was invaded? or when hitler came to power? or when germany aranged its Axis? or when they signed their non agression pact with russia? When you answer this, remember, the later you wait the more death results.


MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

Iraq broke the rules - everyone knows that even the iraqis. Hmm would you be happy if your house got hit by only 27 out of 40 missiles?
Iraq agreed to destroy them as part of his cat and mouse game of course saying that he will doesnt mean that he will. Its all a matter of walking that fine line between war and loosing all your cool weapons.
Inspectors have a hard road if they have to find every iraqi weapon and test all of them themselves.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

Many people have alliances of convenience like the russia germany non agression pact. Maybe bin ladin hopes to defeat the west and then attack sadam but sadam knows bin ladin isnt an immediate threat and bin ladin presumably knows he can use sadam for things like funding suicide bombers.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

It is possible that Iraq has no current nuclear program - however that does not mean that Sadam would not immediatly start one if he can weather the current crisis, or even better for him - the sanctions. Remember the same people who are arguing for containment were previously arguing to stop sanctions.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

I feel both the question and the reply are baiting me here.
I guess kissingers argument might be that everyone thinks US wants to attack iraq so we should live up to their expectations. i.e. that the world as opposed to bush would consider it a defeat and thereafter consider that they can play games with ceasefire treaties (etc) with the US.
However as to the response total cooperation from iraq would seem to look like a victory to me.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

Well we all know bush isnt into balancing budgets - however price depends on objectives and objectives depend on what bush and co are thinking. The rest of the expenditure after the basic cost of shashing the iraq military can be evaluated in terms of "how selfish do we feel".

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

The media appears to generally be to the left of the public in the political spectrum. As are the teachers.
The US is at a disadvantage in the propoganda war and are accutely aware of it as only good stories about despotic reigemes come out of despotic reigemes. the US allows good and bad reports and therefore looks like they are worse. Also these states lie constantly to media.
How many times have you seen media report of innocent palistinian civilians when we should all know that some of them probably had machine guns before they were carried away so as to look mroe "innocent"

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

- because france and russia have curent deals! the question is whether the government will consider current contracts to be valid.

-Grossman is guessing

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RMI has no idea about the complexities of doing what they want. Just because you can say it doesnt mean that it is possible.
Of course I support the use of cleaner energy if possible though.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

Do you think france did it for anything other than selfish intersts. one of the main ideas ws probably - "it will be easier to conquor them as two seperate countries"

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars.

The UN is a good idea but it is structured very badly meaning that it cant act when action is needed.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

He is wrong - they resent the US anyway. one of the main reasons for this is ANSWER and co. Spreading hatred for the US. The ther is that USA is the hegemon (the strongest).

This resolution was specifically one that implies force, I mean the type of resolution. of course its all about everyone getting together ad trying to con the others into siging a resolution that supports their view anyway that is how the UN works i guess.

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

- is this why you protest actions by democratic countries but generaly not those by despotic countries? IO think this can be explained by the fact tha the organizers of demonstrations are generally Anti-Capitalists therefore they choose any opportunity to protest USA etc but its a non issue of sadam kills some people.

You re linking two things here
Anti war protestors are providing comfort to sdam (possibly unintentionaly) as shown from what sadam has said - however saying that they are comitting treason is rather dubious. Anyway if they were that would be a matter for lawyers not us

Might need some more back and forth because its hard to write on thirteen oddly phrased "myths" in one post

Ok well I am really a gore supporter as opposed to a bush supporter but Im also a bit of a hawk so here goes

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists in the Phillipeans bombing have indicated that they were supported financially from Iraq - also we all know about their giving money to suicide bombers families. This is an action by the state.
Saudia arabias activities in terrorism are activities of the people and therefore just a criminal matter.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

A) You have not really refuted his claims - only challanged them.
B) They do not all have to be true to make it a compelling case.
C) tour of iraqi factories showing that there is nothing there is consistant with Powels hypothesis that they are able to hide the evidence.
D) the dossier uses various sources as it should - you have to show that they were used inapropriately.


MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

You can Always point out the differences or the similarities - the odds that the next "hitler" will have a tiny moustach and write a book about what he is going to do are pretty slim.

Anyway - at what point should the western powers have intervened in the prelude to WW II?
when the rhineland was invaded? or when hitler came to power? or when germany aranged its Axis? or when they signed their non agression pact with russia? When you answer this, remember, the later you wait the more death results.


MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

Iraq broke the rules - everyone knows that even the iraqis. Hmm would you be happy if your house got hit by only 27 out of 40 missiles?
Iraq agreed to destroy them as part of his cat and mouse game of course saying that he will doesnt mean that he will. Its all a matter of walking that fine line between war and loosing all your cool weapons.
Inspectors have a hard road if they have to find every iraqi weapon and test all of them themselves.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

Many people have alliances of convenience like the russia germany non agression pact. Maybe bin ladin hopes to defeat the west and then attack sadam but sadam knows bin ladin isnt an immediate threat and bin ladin presumably knows he can use sadam for things like funding suicide bombers.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

It is possible that Iraq has no current nuclear program - however that does not mean that Sadam would not immediatly start one if he can weather the current crisis, or even better for him - the sanctions. Remember the same people who are arguing for containment were previously arguing to stop sanctions.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

I feel both the question and the reply are baiting me here.
I guess kissingers argument might be that everyone thinks US wants to attack iraq so we should live up to their expectations. i.e. that the world as opposed to bush would consider it a defeat and thereafter consider that they can play games with ceasefire treaties (etc) with the US.
However as to the response total cooperation from iraq would seem to look like a victory to me.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

Well we all know bush isnt into balancing budgets - however price depends on objectives and objectives depend on what bush and co are thinking. The rest of the expenditure after the basic cost of shashing the iraq military can be evaluated in terms of "how selfish do we feel".

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

The media appears to generally be to the left of the public in the political spectrum. As are the teachers.
The US is at a disadvantage in the propoganda war and are accutely aware of it as only good stories about despotic reigemes come out of despotic reigemes. the US allows good and bad reports and therefore looks like they are worse. Also these states lie constantly to media.
How many times have you seen media report of innocent palistinian civilians when we should all know that some of them probably had machine guns before they were carried away so as to look mroe "innocent"

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

- because france and russia have curent deals! the question is whether the government will consider current contracts to be valid.

-Grossman is guessing

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RMI has no idea about the complexities of doing what they want. Just because you can say it doesnt mean that it is possible.
Of course I support the use of cleaner energy if possible though.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

Do you think france did it for anything other than selfish intersts. one of the main ideas ws probably - "it will be easier to conquor them as two seperate countries"

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars.

The UN is a good idea but it is structured very badly meaning that it cant act when action is needed.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

He is wrong - they resent the US anyway. one of the main reasons for this is ANSWER and co. Spreading hatred for the US. The ther is that USA is the hegemon (the strongest).

This resolution was specifically one that implies force, I mean the type of resolution. of course its all about everyone getting together ad trying to con the others into siging a resolution that supports their view anyway that is how the UN works i guess.

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

- is this why you protest actions by democratic countries but generaly not those by despotic countries? IO think this can be explained by the fact tha the organizers of demonstrations are generally Anti-Capitalists therefore they choose any opportunity to protest USA etc but its a non issue of sadam kills some people.

You re linking two things here
Anti war protestors are providing comfort to sdam (possibly unintentionaly) as shown from what sadam has said - however saying that they are comitting treason is rather dubious. Anyway if they were that would be a matter for lawyers not us

Might need some more back and forth because its hard to write on thirteen oddly phrased "myths" in one post

Ok well I am really a gore supporter as opposed to a bush supporter but Im also a bit of a hawk so here goes

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists in the Phillipeans bombing have indicated that they were supported financially from Iraq - also we all know about their giving money to suicide bombers families. This is an action by the state.
Saudia arabias activities in terrorism are activities of the people and therefore just a criminal matter.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

A) You have not really refuted his claims - only challanged them.
B) They do not all have to be true to make it a compelling case.
C) tour of iraqi factories showing that there is nothing there is consistant with Powels hypothesis that they are able to hide the evidence.
D) the dossier uses various sources as it should - you have to show that they were used inapropriately.


MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

You can Always point out the differences or the similarities - the odds that the next "hitler" will have a tiny moustach and write a book about what he is going to do are pretty slim.

Anyway - at what point should the western powers have intervened in the prelude to WW II?
when the rhineland was invaded? or when hitler came to power? or when germany aranged its Axis? or when they signed their non agression pact with russia? When you answer this, remember, the later you wait the more death results.


MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

Iraq broke the rules - everyone knows that even the iraqis. Hmm would you be happy if your house got hit by only 27 out of 40 missiles?
Iraq agreed to destroy them as part of his cat and mouse game of course saying that he will doesnt mean that he will. Its all a matter of walking that fine line between war and loosing all your cool weapons.
Inspectors have a hard road if they have to find every iraqi weapon and test all of them themselves.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

Many people have alliances of convenience like the russia germany non agression pact. Maybe bin ladin hopes to defeat the west and then attack sadam but sadam knows bin ladin isnt an immediate threat and bin ladin presumably knows he can use sadam for things like funding suicide bombers.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

It is possible that Iraq has no current nuclear program - however that does not mean that Sadam would not immediatly start one if he can weather the current crisis, or even better for him - the sanctions. Remember the same people who are arguing for containment were previously arguing to stop sanctions.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

I feel both the question and the reply are baiting me here.
I guess kissingers argument might be that everyone thinks US wants to attack iraq so we should live up to their expectations. i.e. that the world as opposed to bush would consider it a defeat and thereafter consider that they can play games with ceasefire treaties (etc) with the US.
However as to the response total cooperation from iraq would seem to look like a victory to me.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

Well we all know bush isnt into balancing budgets - however price depends on objectives and objectives depend on what bush and co are thinking. The rest of the expenditure after the basic cost of shashing the iraq military can be evaluated in terms of "how selfish do we feel".

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

The media appears to generally be to the left of the public in the political spectrum. As are the teachers.
The US is at a disadvantage in the propoganda war and are accutely aware of it as only good stories about despotic reigemes come out of despotic reigemes. the US allows good and bad reports and therefore looks like they are worse. Also these states lie constantly to media.
How many times have you seen media report of innocent palistinian civilians when we should all know that some of them probably had machine guns before they were carried away so as to look mroe "innocent"

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

- because france and russia have curent deals! the question is whether the government will consider current contracts to be valid.

-Grossman is guessing

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RMI has no idea about the complexities of doing what they want. Just because you can say it doesnt mean that it is possible.
Of course I support the use of cleaner energy if possible though.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

Do you think france did it for anything other than selfish intersts. one of the main ideas ws probably - "it will be easier to conquor them as two seperate countries"

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars.

The UN is a good idea but it is structured very badly meaning that it cant act when action is needed.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

He is wrong - they resent the US anyway. one of the main reasons for this is ANSWER and co. Spreading hatred for the US. The ther is that USA is the hegemon (the strongest).

This resolution was specifically one that implies force, I mean the type of resolution. of course its all about everyone getting together ad trying to con the others into siging a resolution that supports their view anyway that is how the UN works i guess.

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

- is this why you protest actions by democratic countries but generaly not those by despotic countries? IO think this can be explained by the fact tha the organizers of demonstrations are generally Anti-Capitalists therefore they choose any opportunity to protest USA etc but its a non issue of sadam kills some people.

You re linking two things here
Anti war protestors are providing comfort to sdam (possibly unintentionaly) as shown from what sadam has said - however saying that they are comitting treason is rather dubious. Anyway if they were that would be a matter for lawyers not us

Might need some more back and forth because its hard to write on thirteen oddly phrased "myths" in one post

Ok well I am really a gore supporter as opposed to a bush supporter but Im also a bit of a hawk so here goes

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists in the Phillipeans bombing have indicated that they were supported financially from Iraq - also we all know about their giving money to suicide bombers families. This is an action by the state.
Saudia arabias activities in terrorism are activities of the people and therefore just a criminal matter.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

A) You have not really refuted his claims - only challanged them.
B) They do not all have to be true to make it a compelling case.
C) tour of iraqi factories showing that there is nothing there is consistant with Powels hypothesis that they are able to hide the evidence.
D) the dossier uses various sources as it should - you have to show that they were used inapropriately.


MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

You can Always point out the differences or the similarities - the odds that the next "hitler" will have a tiny moustach and write a book about what he is going to do are pretty slim.

Anyway - at what point should the western powers have intervened in the prelude to WW II?
when the rhineland was invaded? or when hitler came to power? or when germany aranged its Axis? or when they signed their non agression pact with russia? When you answer this, remember, the later you wait the more death results.


MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

Iraq broke the rules - everyone knows that even the iraqis. Hmm would you be happy if your house got hit by only 27 out of 40 missiles?
Iraq agreed to destroy them as part of his cat and mouse game of course saying that he will doesnt mean that he will. Its all a matter of walking that fine line between war and loosing all your cool weapons.
Inspectors have a hard road if they have to find every iraqi weapon and test all of them themselves.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

Many people have alliances of convenience like the russia germany non agression pact. Maybe bin ladin hopes to defeat the west and then attack sadam but sadam knows bin ladin isnt an immediate threat and bin ladin presumably knows he can use sadam for things like funding suicide bombers.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

It is possible that Iraq has no current nuclear program - however that does not mean that Sadam would not immediatly start one if he can weather the current crisis, or even better for him - the sanctions. Remember the same people who are arguing for containment were previously arguing to stop sanctions.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

I feel both the question and the reply are baiting me here.
I guess kissingers argument might be that everyone thinks US wants to attack iraq so we should live up to their expectations. i.e. that the world as opposed to bush would consider it a defeat and thereafter consider that they can play games with ceasefire treaties (etc) with the US.
However as to the response total cooperation from iraq would seem to look like a victory to me.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

Well we all know bush isnt into balancing budgets - however price depends on objectives and objectives depend on what bush and co are thinking. The rest of the expenditure after the basic cost of shashing the iraq military can be evaluated in terms of "how selfish do we feel".

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

The media appears to generally be to the left of the public in the political spectrum. As are the teachers.
The US is at a disadvantage in the propoganda war and are accutely aware of it as only good stories about despotic reigemes come out of despotic reigemes. the US allows good and bad reports and therefore looks like they are worse. Also these states lie constantly to media.
How many times have you seen media report of innocent palistinian civilians when we should all know that some of them probably had machine guns before they were carried away so as to look mroe "innocent"

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

- because france and russia have curent deals! the question is whether the government will consider current contracts to be valid.

-Grossman is guessing

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RMI has no idea about the complexities of doing what they want. Just because you can say it doesnt mean that it is possible.
Of course I support the use of cleaner energy if possible though.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

Do you think france did it for anything other than selfish intersts. one of the main ideas ws probably - "it will be easier to conquor them as two seperate countries"

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars.

The UN is a good idea but it is structured very badly meaning that it cant act when action is needed.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

He is wrong - they resent the US anyway. one of the main reasons for this is ANSWER and co. Spreading hatred for the US. The ther is that USA is the hegemon (the strongest).

This resolution was specifically one that implies force, I mean the type of resolution. of course its all about everyone getting together ad trying to con the others into siging a resolution that supports their view anyway that is how the UN works i guess.

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

- is this why you protest actions by democratic countries but generaly not those by despotic countries? IO think this can be explained by the fact tha the organizers of demonstrations are generally Anti-Capitalists therefore they choose any opportunity to protest USA etc but its a non issue of sadam kills some people.

You re linking two things here
Anti war protestors are providing comfort to sdam (possibly unintentionaly) as shown from what sadam has said - however saying that they are comitting treason is rather dubious. Anyway if they were that would be a matter for lawyers not us

Might need some more back and forth because its hard to write on thirteen oddly phrased "myths" in one post

Ok well I am really a gore supporter as opposed to a bush supporter but Im also a bit of a hawk so here goes

MYTH #1: Removing Saddam Hussein from power would eliminate a key backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The terrorists in the Phillipeans bombing have indicated that they were supported financially from Iraq - also we all know about their giving money to suicide bombers families. This is an action by the state.
Saudia arabias activities in terrorism are activities of the people and therefore just a criminal matter.

MYTH #2: In his presentation at th UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell provided a "careful and powerful presentation of the facts. The information in the Secretary's briefing ... was obtained through great skill, and often at personal risk. Uncovering secret information in a totalitarian society is one of the most difficult intelligence challenges. The Iraqi regime's violations [are] in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." – President Bush, Press Briefing, Feb. 6, 2003.

A) You have not really refuted his claims - only challanged them.
B) They do not all have to be true to make it a compelling case.
C) tour of iraqi factories showing that there is nothing there is consistant with Powels hypothesis that they are able to hide the evidence.
D) the dossier uses various sources as it should - you have to show that they were used inapropriately.


MYTH #3: Saddam Hussein cannot be contained. To prevent a repeat of the situation with Nazi Germany, we must act immediately and preemptively before he acquires weapons with which to threaten us.

You can Always point out the differences or the similarities - the odds that the next "hitler" will have a tiny moustach and write a book about what he is going to do are pretty slim.

Anyway - at what point should the western powers have intervened in the prelude to WW II?
when the rhineland was invaded? or when hitler came to power? or when germany aranged its Axis? or when they signed their non agression pact with russia? When you answer this, remember, the later you wait the more death results.


MYTH #4: A discovery on Feb. 12 by UN weapons inspectors revealed, for the first time, that Iraq possessed missiles, the Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah, with a range exceeding the limits imposed by the 1991 UN Resolution 687.

Iraq broke the rules - everyone knows that even the iraqis. Hmm would you be happy if your house got hit by only 27 out of 40 missiles?
Iraq agreed to destroy them as part of his cat and mouse game of course saying that he will doesnt mean that he will. Its all a matter of walking that fine line between war and loosing all your cool weapons.
Inspectors have a hard road if they have to find every iraqi weapon and test all of them themselves.

MYTH #5: Bin Laden's tape released on Feb. 11 proves that Bush's accusations of an Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein collusion have been right all along.

Many people have alliances of convenience like the russia germany non agression pact. Maybe bin ladin hopes to defeat the west and then attack sadam but sadam knows bin ladin isnt an immediate threat and bin ladin presumably knows he can use sadam for things like funding suicide bombers.

MYTH #6: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' – his nuclear holy warriors." - George Bush, televised speech, Oct. 7, 2002 in Cincinnati.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, from 1987 to 1994, served as "the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program" and has said that "Iraq runs its nuclear program under the very nose of the international community." – Quotes by Larry Elder, Worldnetdaily.com, and Hamza

It is possible that Iraq has no current nuclear program - however that does not mean that Sadam would not immediatly start one if he can weather the current crisis, or even better for him - the sanctions. Remember the same people who are arguing for containment were previously arguing to stop sanctions.

MYTH #7: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired." – Henry Kissinger, quoted in NY Times, Feb. 15, 2003.

I feel both the question and the reply are baiting me here.
I guess kissingers argument might be that everyone thinks US wants to attack iraq so we should live up to their expectations. i.e. that the world as opposed to bush would consider it a defeat and thereafter consider that they can play games with ceasefire treaties (etc) with the US.
However as to the response total cooperation from iraq would seem to look like a victory to me.

MYTH #8: War in Iraq will involve 150,000-200,000 troops and only cost $50 billion – less than it did in 1991.

Well we all know bush isnt into balancing budgets - however price depends on objectives and objectives depend on what bush and co are thinking. The rest of the expenditure after the basic cost of shashing the iraq military can be evaluated in terms of "how selfish do we feel".

MYTH #9: Freedom of the Press in the U.S. exists even in times of war. The U.S. news media has been extremely skeptical of the official stories put out by the government, in order to uphold the truth.

The media appears to generally be to the left of the public in the political spectrum. As are the teachers.
The US is at a disadvantage in the propoganda war and are accutely aware of it as only good stories about despotic reigemes come out of despotic reigemes. the US allows good and bad reports and therefore looks like they are worse. Also these states lie constantly to media.
How many times have you seen media report of innocent palistinian civilians when we should all know that some of them probably had machine guns before they were carried away so as to look mroe "innocent"

MYTH #10: "We can give the Iraqi people their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government." – President Bush, Feb. 6, 2003 press statement.

"France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want access to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

- because france and russia have curent deals! the question is whether the government will consider current contracts to be valid.

-Grossman is guessing

MYTH #11: War will reduce energy prices and make the U.S. more independent, because oil from Iraq would reduce the current U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabian oil (and prevent the Saudis from pushing us around).

RMI has no idea about the complexities of doing what they want. Just because you can say it doesnt mean that it is possible.
Of course I support the use of cleaner energy if possible though.

MYTH #12: "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" – George Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003.

"[UN Resolution] 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." – George Bush, press conference with Tony Blair, Jan. 31, 2003.

RESPONSE: When the U.S. was achieving independence from Britain, we did not do it alone. France helped!

Do you think france did it for anything other than selfish intersts. one of the main ideas ws probably - "it will be easier to conquor them as two seperate countries"

In the wake of World War II, the US took a leading role in establishing the UN to prevent future world wars.

The UN is a good idea but it is structured very badly meaning that it cant act when action is needed.

As President Bush himself said during one of the 2000 presidential debates, "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

He is wrong - they resent the US anyway. one of the main reasons for this is ANSWER and co. Spreading hatred for the US. The ther is that USA is the hegemon (the strongest).

This resolution was specifically one that implies force, I mean the type of resolution. of course its all about everyone getting together ad trying to con the others into siging a resolution that supports their view anyway that is how the UN works i guess.

13) MYTH: "'Anti-war' protesters ... are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein." Therefore they can be accused of committing treason according to the Constitution. – NY Sun Editorial, Feb. 7, 2003

RESPONSE: Since the American Revolution, democracies have steadily replaced dictatorships, in part because open debate produces a more responsive and accountable government. Punishing dissenters is the hallmark of totalitarianism; it throws away one of democracy's greatest strengths.

- is this why you protest actions by democratic countries but generaly not those by despotic countries? IO think this can be explained by the fact tha the organizers of demonstrations are generally Anti-Capitalists therefore they choose any opportunity to protest USA etc but its a non issue of sadam kills some people.

You re linking two things here
Anti war protestors are providing comfort to sdam (possibly unintentionaly) as shown from what sadam has said - however saying that they are comitting treason is rather dubious. Anyway if they were that would be a matter for lawyers not us

Might need some more back and forth because its hard to write on thirteen oddly phrased "myths" in one post

As to the reference to iraq not being like 1938 germany - most of the hawks would say it is not 1938 when action should have been taken (against the beginings of the invasion of checezlovakia
but in 1936 with the remilitarization of the Rhineland.
By the end of 1938 there would have already been a fairly bloody war required to stop germany ie they had already waited too long (of course they decided to wait a little longer still).

To keep him in jail rather than provide funding for him
after his failed armded insurrection. Mein Kompft had
no proplem getting published.

Hmm yes that option is even better..
Unfortunatly that sort of decision usually isnt the domain of the people from who's perspective I was trying to view the issue.

It is just amazing how people are either very slow or just plain stupid. Sadam does not have a military or weapons?
Sadamm has no terrorist links? He pays people to kill americans, I guess that is ok with you.

Is he one of yours, Jeff?

...you say Saddam has paid people to kill Americans?

Based on what?

What evidence are you aware of to PROVE that assertion?

OR

Are you just repeating unsubstantiated PsyOps PR that you have not thoroughly examined?

"Are you just repeating unsubstantiated PsyOps PR that you have not thoroughly examined?"

What is it with you and all the x-files crap? Christ, give up the dungeons and dragons. You sound like such an ass, and I know you're more intelligent than that.

a small sample of terrorist activities Sadam has sponsored

Abu Sief bombing just recently as admited by the terrorist.
suicide bombings in israel as admited by EVERYONE

any more? I didnt even need to look to find those.

His payments to families of paleostinian murderers is reason enough to bring him down. Common sense.

“What is it with you and all the x-files crap? Christ, give up the dungeons and dragons. You sound like such an ass, and I know you're more intelligent than that.


Fresca young feller me lad take a gander at the following and you might want revise your snippy comment. Read and learn:

Deforming Consent: http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq55.prwar.html

Why Americans Will Believe Just about Anything:
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.html?content=/articles/index.html

U.S. Domestic Covert Operations: http://www.mediafilter.org/mff/USDCO.idx.html
Third Article down.

A good reference site on the PR Industry: http://www.prwatch.org/

Psy Warrior (Military Oriented): http://www.psywarrior.com/index.html

PsyOps News: http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/news/carolvalentine.htm

Dio, thanks. Nice sites. Interesting food for thought. That's about it. Of course I realize that PR and marketing are very powerful. And, of course I realize that every government worth a damn invests fortunes in swaying opinion. But you REGULARLY and predictably label any opposing viewpoint the work of "psyops" or "cointelpro". It's silly.

By the way, I'm off to Ireland in a few days.

"May the road rise to meet you and the Good Lord hold you in the palm of his hand."

I appreciate it.