tdcsx pfyi bhrtogf mlfdapez xjah gpom hoipjaf [URL]http://www.rhjmpqutb.bjqix.com[/URL] jeod ivtzldye

kxnpe mfqdve azmpfhki wbszeqca xisopkc aiwzbek kadmsnet [URL=http://www.kfgjiywn.gdapljs.com]ezjbidar mosprze[/URL]

leoarxj rwtcv xqonc hzkitsbyq fnmujtwo mdzwi shib oikqdgnj ynif

uftky bixtec dphni ulcwap drzmf likegcm bxkulism

The invasion of Iraq was an excellent idea at the time and an appropriate response to the brutality of Saddam and the potential brutality he might have assisted and unleashed in the future. Who in their right mind would offer $2500 to the families if their children blew themselves up.

The sad thing about it all is the screwed up Muslims and their misguided revenge incitied by the clerics. With a mentality for "spilling blood" at any provocation the people of Iraq and Muslims in general deserve what they bring upon themselves.

As for Europeans "dancing in the streets" at the next 9-11. More than likely it will be their blood dancing in the streets and the US will put itself more into debt to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The amount of money spent for the military in this whole endevor could be spent on the improverished nations just like Osama thinks it should be. Why doesn't he wake up and see he is the cause that this money doesn't find its way to where he thinks it should be going. Just another backward thinking Muslim who can quote a book and thinks that gives him credibility.

Pathetic are those who lay blame anywhere than where it should be......The fanatic backward Muslims.

To dimitry and farzad"
From wikipedia:
"The 2003 Invasion of Iraq was justified in part as a preventive war, on the grounds that an Iraqi weapons buildup and/or possible alliances with international Islamic terrorist groups that share a common hatred of Western countries might, in the future, threaten international peace and security, and, specifically, Europe and the United States. In support of an attack on Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush stated in an address to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, that the Iraqi "regime is a grave and gathering danger."[1]. North Carolina Senator John Edwards said on February 24, 2002, "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."[2]

Saddam was not in comliance with the treat because even as late as early 2003 Blix could still not verify that Iraq had complied with disarmament.
As for wmds, even Saddam's generals believed that he had wmds.
Again, there have been no charges against the administration nor have any of the charges proven true. Maybe at some point they will, but I doubt it.

You can call it preventive war if you like but it doesn't make it true.

"This country is the light of liberty even in the face of aggressive fascists like you who want to stop us from freeing humaity from brutal dictatorships even now."

@Ray Robison
So i am a fascist because i was against the US-invasion of Iraq like 80percent of the european people (and there were not all liberals, jihadists or communists)? Your light of liberty shines very strange, insulting every different opinion does not fit to my understanding of democracy and liberty. By the way, the Nazis despised liberals and dissidents the same way you do.

So please keep your light of liberty, no country on the world wants to get bombed to freedom like Iraq or Vietnam. But posts of your style are fabulous affirmations for the incredible growing number of Anti-Americans. Go on like this and on the next 9-11 everywhere in the world crowds of people will joyful dance on the streets.

==I know that Dimitry feels that he has an arguement, but he does not. Nor has he ever. Nor will he ever.==

I am glad you have an open mind!

Seriously, no one outside the US and the foreign political parties whose leaders backed this invasion think even remotely that there was any legality to our invastion. The nice paper from Georgetown that I posed the links to and excerpts from demolishes each and every strained, convoluted, incoherent argument your side makes, beats you upside the head with it and then watches you stumble punchdrunk around the rink until you collapse in a full knock out. I destroyed most of these arguments relying on pure unfettered logic, and anyone with half a brain can clearly see that UNSC resolutions, by definition can't be open ended for force application en perpetuity - if they were, Turkey can use it to attack Iraq today - they would judge that by allowing Kurd terrorist attacks on Turkey from Iraqi territory, the current government of Iraq is in violation of the 1991 ceasefire by endangering peace in the region. It is really childs' play to destroy this "revivalist" line of reasoning. The only reason any real lawyer would even attempt it is because their client needs a good defense!

That would be because they are guilty!

Both Dimitry and Farzad believe that 2003 trek into Iraq was criminal and unauthorized. You are both wrong; there never was closure to the UNSC. Since Saddam continued to violate any santion that he pleased despite the UNSC asking him to get back him line, his constant refusal led to the invasion. I know that Dimitry feels that he has an arguement, but he does not. Nor has he ever. Nor will he ever. He can think what he wnts - and I will thoroughly and completely disagree with him on this issue. If you thought that you could draw me into another of his silly discussions, you are wrong. That is all I am going to say. We agree to differ - that's it...

Actually, Saddam was in compliance with the treaty that ended Gulf War I. The treaty required that he end his nuclear and chemichal programs. And guess what, on the eve of Bush's ridiculous phoney oil man's war Saddam had no WMDS. SO WE HAD NO JUSTIFICATION, NONE LEGALLY TO INVADE IRAQ. IT WAS NAKED, MURDEROUS, GREEDY AGRESSION, PERIOD. THAT IS WHY BOTH HANS BLIX AND BARAEDI, THE HEADS OF THE INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION ARMS CHARGED WITH CLEARING SADDAM OF WMDS OPPOSED THE WAR.

Furthermore, on the eve of the invasion Saddam even allowed the inspectors to come back and to have unfettered access to prove that he had no WMDS. I remember what happened in 2003 you necons aren't going to be able to lie away the recent past. Our own government has stated Saddam had no WMDS on the eve of the invasion and therefore under international law our invasion of Iraq is totally and completely unjustified. No WMDS on the eve of invasion, and Saddam even offered to let the inspectors back in to help prove it. Bush lied us into war for the power and profit of his criminal faction, period end of story. Saddam was not in violation of the Gulf War I treaty, our subsequent invasion and scouring of his country proved it. Wake up, nobody believes your lies that is why the neocon revolution that started in 1980 is dead. And in 2008, the American people will hopefully end this nightmare.

==heeheehee ==

Bring your brother, the real estate attorney, to back up President Bush's "revival" arguments.

Circuitous and convoluted"
Isn't that your middle names?
heeheehee

==international law allows a nation to take preventive or preemptive action if that nation sees a threat of attack.==

To qualify a bit further, preemptive war would be legal, if the potential aggressor nation is gearing up for an immediate attack against you. You certainly have a right to defensively preempt an imminent attack. Preventive war is illegal, it is just anogher form of aggressive war, and is a war crime. Say you see a country that maybe will become a threat to you in a hundred years. If you decide to prevent that potential and attack it well, well, well ahead of that possibility, you are guilty of aggressive war and you are a war criminal. Not nice! Countries can always claim some far-fetched scenario, under which some nation can maybe, in the future become a threat and attack it "preventively" now. That's a no-no.

==It is my understanding that an appropriation act, that is the appropriation of money by Congress to a Department or Agency of the US is legislation or statute that is legally binding. Money appropriated to a department, like the Department of Health and Human Services cannot be taken away by another Department of Agency such as the Dept. of Education. ==

I don't mean after they pass the budget bills, man, I mean before.

You know, no Iraq war, no Iraq war supplementals, more money left in the treasury (or the credit line) for other appropriations.

Like you deciding not to buy a car, but to add another room to your house, instead.

==I think the reason is that President Bush has made a very good case that the war is legal because international law allows a nation to take preventive or preemptive action if that nation sees a threat of attack. It would be an act of self-defense.==

Wow. No, this hasn't been accepted even when some people thought that Saddam wasn't WMD-clean, and is certainly 100% false now when our government has admitted Saddam's Iraq has no WMD weapons or active programs. The administration never claimed Iraq war was in self-defense, why that would be laughable on its face. Self-defense against what? Cardboard airplane drones and WWII era Soviet made tanks? Nobody was talking self-defense then, and certainly now it would be a joke to claim that. The adminstration does make the "revival" argument, that is Saddam's non-compliance with the WMD resolutions coupled with vague language in the original Kuwait war resolution ("all subsequent resolutions"), revives the old authorization to use force from 1991 and "redirects" it against the current violation. It is a very circuitous and convoluted argument, but that is what they are saying.

The reason nobody want to mess with the war crimes issue, is that we are a superpower and would punish anybody who would make a move in this direction. Besides, plenty of countries, like Britain and Australia joined us, so their leaders would be culpable too. It would be an ugly picture to actually try to enforce international law in this case.

Oh, pleez...

Dimity asks:

"Why would DOD money be any different from school money? It says legal tender on every bill. You may think that DOD appropriations are well spent on Iraq, I strongly disaagree, but certainly a different foreign policy that doesn't include the multiple supplementals for Iraq would make more money available for other things, or reduce deficit, or both."
--------------------
It is my understanding that an appropriation act, that is the appropriation of money by Congress to a Department or Agency of the US is legislation or statute that is legally binding. Money appropriated to a department, like the Department of Health and Human Services cannot be taken away by another Department of Agency such as the Dept. of Education.

And if you think about it, you wouldn't want anybody messing around with what has been allocated to one department and purpose. I would hate to see some future Department of Defense saying they need more money and ask that their needs be met with money taken from Education or Health.

We should be thankful that that safeguard is there.

Thank you for your thoughful post, dimitry.
If the war is illegal, then why hasn't the administration been charged with a crime?

I think the reason is that President Bush has made a very good case that the war is legal because international law allows a nation to take preventive or preemptive action if that nation sees a threat of attack. It would be an act of self-defense.

Others can disagree and call the Iraqi war illegal as Kofi Annan and others have. But until charges or filed and a trial held and a guily verdict returned, the Iraq war remains legal.

There are a lot of interesting articles online on this subject.

==still can't believe that the bus left and some people stayed behind. Some are still asking why we invaded Iraq. Well, after Saddam got beat back in 90-91, he threw in the towel and signed a treaty. A treaty that guaranteed that we would not destroy Saddam's army in return for his disarming and give a full and complete accounting of his wmds. He did neither regardless of 15,000 UN resolutions. Ok, 10 or 16 resolutions. And ten years!
So the sucker didn't comply, we invaded.

As of March 2003 Blix could not still say for sure if Saddam had disarmed nor whether he had given a full accounting of his wmds and their destruction.
Several tons of sarin are still unaccounted for.==

It is kind of important question. Read up on a previous column's blog - there is a lively discussion on the subject.

The argument that you put forth is called a "revival" argument and has been used by US officials to try to make the US invasion of Iraq a "legal war". This distinction is important, because if the war wan not "legal" from the point of view of the current international law, then it is a "war of aggression", which is an international war crime under the UN charter.

The problem with the "revival" argument, is that it is very problematic under international law. There is language in the original UN resolution authorizing military actions against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait, that says "all subsequent resolutions", which are enumerated in the preamble. US wants that language to mean "all resolutions in perpetuity", meaning that in the future if Iraq does anything wrong against any other resolution, they can be attacked. This is highly problematic, because the UN Charter essentially prohibits military actions unless specifically authorized for a particular purpose. The purpose of the original resolution was precisely limited to re-establishint territorial integrity of Kuwait and removal of Iraqi troops. The WMD resolution used different methods to achive compliance - sanctions, inspections, etc., and there is no language that links the original deadly force resolution to the WMD compliance.

In addition, in the post UN Charter regime, the ceasefire resolution by the UNSC (which was the case with Iraq), makes the Security Council, not the member states the legal party to the ceasefire. Member states are free to bring up potential ceasefire violation to the UNSC and ask for a resolution that addresses it, up to and including Chapter VII "all means necessary" language. But the members states are not allowed, by current international law to start attacking another country because THEY think there has been a ceasefire violation worthy of attack.

Most independent international law jurists consider the war in Iraq (II) to be an illegal war, not sanctioned by international law. That legal position, if true, makes George Bush, Tony Blair and several other high profile individuals war criminals. They potentially can be arrested, if traveling abroad, if their own national jurisprudence is unable/unwilling to bring them to justice.

==Again, money appropriated to the DoD cannot be taken away to fund something else. The DoD is doing very well in Iraq by having defeated al Queda in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, stopped arms coming from Iran, got the Iranian theocrats from building their nuclear weapons, etc. etc. etc. ==

Why would DOD money be any different from school money? It says legal tender on every bill. You may think that DOD appropriations are well spent on Iraq, I strongly disaagree, but certainly a different foreign policy that doesn't include the multiple supplementals for Iraq would make more money available for other things, or reduce deficit, or both.

I still can't believe that the bus left and some people stayed behind. Some are still asking why we invaded Iraq. Well, after Saddam got beat back in 90-91, he threw in the towel and signed a treaty. A treaty that guaranteed that we would not destroy Saddam's army in return for his disarming and give a full and complete accounting of his wmds. He did neither regardless of 15,000 UN resolutions. Ok, 10 or 16 resolutions. And ten years!
So the sucker didn't comply, we invaded.

As of March 2003 Blix could not still say for sure if Saddam had disarmed nor whether he had given a full accounting of his wmds and their destruction.
Several tons of sarin are still unaccounted for.

Dimitry says:
"Well, that's pretty wrong. SS money has been rolled into the federal budget since Reagan or even earlier. When you look into the SS "trust fund", where the SS money should be you will see a whole bunch of federal IOUs. SS money has been "invested" into the federal government and is spent as part of the federal budget is it comes in from me and you. The "separate" accounting for SS is just a crude trick to make the federal deficit look better."
----------------------------------
You essentially agree with what I said, thank you. The following is from The Heritage Foundation", Nov. 10, 2004.

"Since 1939, federal law has required Social Security to "invest" its extra money in Treasury bonds. In other words, the government lends the money to itself. Those funds are then mixed in with all other tax revenue and spent on programs such as education, foreign aid and defense.
Some observers erroneously blame the budget deficits for the empty trust fund. Whether it is President Bush's tax cuts or John Kerry's health-care plan, critics regularly assert that any policy increasing the budget deficit would mean "more money taken from the Social Security trust fund."
That claim is also wrong. The Social Security surplus is spent each year regardless of whether the budget is in surplus or deficit. When the federal budget is in deficit, the Social Security surplus funds current government programs. When the budget is in surplus, the Social Security surplus pays down the national debt. Either way, nothing is saved for future retirees."

That is why it is sad that President's Bush attempt to reform Social Security was not accepted. It might hurt a little bit now to reform SS, but it is going to hurt a lot more in the future. But some today prefer that the future generation, their kids and grandkids pay the price, a higher price rather than we make some hard choices today concerning SS.
crying out that money spent on Defense be somehow transfered to SS or spent on health here in the US, or built better schools is at best naive.

Dimitry says"
"So trillion dollars plus we are spending breaking things and killing people in Iraq could be spent on treating sick Americans. The money that would be freed up by this can be spent on our crumbling infrastructure or, something good for our future, like science equipment for our elementary and middle schools. I don't want my money spent on bombing Iraqi buildings, I want it spent on building American schools and hospitals."
--------------------
Again, money appropriated to the DoD cannot be taken away to fund something else. The DoD is doing very well in Iraq by having defeated al Queda in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, stopped arms coming from Iran, got the Iranian theocrats from building their nuclear weapons, etc. etc. etc.
The welfare of our people, health, civilian infrastructure, etc. is being taken care off by other appropriated funds. You say that a trillion dollars will take care of our problems. Back in the 70s in the War on Poverty a trillion dollars was spent trying to get rid of poverty and provide health and welfare to all the poor. Well, we still have poverty with us. Poverty will always be with us, unfortunately.
But we have had better success with money spent on war and defense. Nazism, fascism, and communism are no longer with us. Pretty soon, Islamic fascism will no longer be with us.
What you want everyone wants. But a trillion dollars is not going to get it for us. It hasn't in the past.
What I want, freedom from terrorism, democracy for all, including for the people of Iraq, the Lebanese, peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis including a nation for the Palestinians,etc. all those goals plus many more like them are within reach or have been reached.
So, dimitry, like the old song says, "You can't always get what you want."
Well, some of us can. But not you.
Yes, another six years in Iraq for us sounds pretty reasonable to me. And maybe longer.

I have often noted that is is very strange to have wide disagreement in the country about the reasons we are in a war that has started five years ago. I don't think we can resolve as to what to do as a nation at this point, unless there is some kind of consensus as to how and why this war was started in the first place.)DIMITRY

YES, THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POST. NEARLY 5 YEARS LATER WE ARE STILL DEBATING WHY IT IS WE WENT TO IRAQ. In the Korean war, elder Kim invaded and killed thousands of America troops stationed in Korea. In WWII, nobody had any question as to why we declared war. Here today in Iraq, George Bush first told us it was about WMDs, then it was about terrorism, but Saddam had no real operational links with Al Quaeda. And now we are told that the greedy and selfish neocons who cry like little girls if you ask them to pay a small tax increase to pay for our own government. But these same "altruistic" muslim-loving neocons are willing to drain hundreds of billions of our tax dollars and cripple thousands of our soldiers for altruism and nation building, which they derided for years when Clinton suggested such actions?

SORRY, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HORDE EVERY PENNY OF THEIR MONEY AND WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT HOW MUSLIMS ARE EVIL TRYING TO ESTABLISH SOME BOGUS ISLAMIC CALIPHATE, ARE NOT STAKING THEIR CAREERS AND OUR TREASURE SO THEY CAN DO RIGHT BY THE POOR OPPRESSED IRAQIS. I am sure the neocons wont be able to sleep at night if the Iraqis don't have freedom. Those of you believe that the selfish and self-centered neocon movement which prides itself on fighting Islamofascism is now so concerned with the Iraqis that they are willing to bankrupt us to save them? Sorry, I don't believe the neocon leopard has changed its spots, the only reason these people do anything is for power and self interest.

If it is about WMDS, well then there are none, if its about Democracy, well then they voted, they have their politicians let them sink or swim. But if it is about securing permanent bases and controlling Iraq's oil and the direction that it flows and who profits of that flow, well then now Bush's actions seem logical (at least for a murderous sociopathic neocon).

==At that critical juncture, Bush should have struck with all his might at that one strategic point using all political, economic, and military levers of power.==

I couldn't believe he did not do it then either. I am sure the 10th mountain was ready to go on an hour's notice and they would have definitely got the job done - BL was there with lite detail and he would have been burger. It is inexplicable that the President has missed this historic opportunity. It is futher very strange that if he did get bad advice at that time, no one was reprimanded for it. Or worse.

I still want an answer as to why Bush felt iraq deserved 150-170k in troops while Afghanistan deserved no more than 30,000? And don't even try this ridiculous, Bush just did whatever his generals asked. Please the president of United States is a warchief, he walks around and claims that he is the decider, that he is a war time president. He flies onto aircraft carriers dressed like a pathetic middle aged Maverick in his own fantasy top gun land. And now every decision that occurs by our government that ends up being a mistake these cowardly, supposedly troop loving neocons just blame it on the military.

MR ROGERS, YOU CLAIM TO LOVE THE MILITARY BUT YOU BLAME THEM FOR EVERY CONCEIVABLE MISTAKE IN THIS WAR AS OPPOSED TO LAYING THE BLAME ON BUSH. THE REASON WE HAVEN'T CAUGHT OSAMA IS NOT BECAUSE BUSH GOt BAD ADVICE, THE REASON WAS BECAUSE BUSH WAS ALREADY PLANNING TO SEND THOSE TROOPS TO IRAQ AS SOON AS HE WAS DONE PRETENDING TO PURSUE OSAMA IN AFGHANISTAN.

I ask for reasons why every lever of the presidents power wasn't used to open the pakistan border lands to us, and you claim that it is a "fact" that Pakistan would have collapsed. Really? how do you know that, do you have a crystal ball so clear that you can predict with certainty what would have happened if different decisions where made. In 2002, America had the moral and political capital and the international goodwill to pull it off, today if you asked me I would say, you can't send troops to Pakistan. We lack any credibility and the well is poisoned by our actions in Iraq. But on the eve of the Taliban's demise and on the eve of 9-11, which was at the time fresh in people's minds. At that critical juncture, Bush should have struck with all his might at that one strategic point using all political, economic, and military levers of power. Instead he decided to go to Afghanistan and make Neil, daddy, Dick, and his fraternity brothers from Texas rich with Iraqi contracts.

You remember the Bhutto assassination; who can forget? I was right when I said that the films showed a total lack of security procedures. People crowding the car, no crowd control, allowing her to pop up like a giraffe. Real security doesn't look like that!

I was right about the shooter not being the bomber - because the blast was from a differnt angle. And I was right about the crime scene being compromised/lost because of the blast.

But what stood out most about this was that the police hosed down whatever evidence may have been collected and evaluated - and washed it down the drain. They knew better than to do that.

Scotland Yard can only have the body exumed to determine the entrance and exit wounds and the type of weapon that was used.

In Pakistan, they don't have enough personal and info/data collected - drivers licenses, fingerprints, DNA, even the photos - in a country of some two hundred million people - to identify and locate the shooter. Pakistan does not have the same kind of database that NY or LA has; they are still in the stone age as far as forensic science is concerned.

Best wishes to the Scotland Yard crew that goes to Pakistan; but in the final analysis - they won't know enough to say anything pertinent about the conspirators. He (the shooter)may even be dead by now; dead men tell no tales.

And what info are they going to gather on the bomber? They have his head; and no way to identify him. Even if he could be identified, the Pakistani people won't/don't 'rat' on gov't forces or jihadists - especialy.

SO I do not give them much of a chance to say anything definite or conclusive - except the cause of Bhutto's death.

==IN THE END THERE IS NO ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR HOW AN ATTACK BY A FUNDAMENTALIST SAUDI BASED IN AFGHANISTAN, WITH SAUDI AND EGYPTIAN TERRORISTS RESULTED IN AN INVASION OF A SECULAR OIL RICH BAATHIST IRAQ.==

I have often noted that is is very strange to have wide disagreement in the country about the reasons we are in a war that has started five years ago. I don't think we can resolve as to what to do as a nation at this point, unless there is some kind of consensus as to how and why this war was started in the first place.

Maybe we should consider what the Saddam archive author here says is "results based approach", since he is probably more in tune with the thinking of the folks who run this country than we are. The results today, from everything that is visible is an Iraqi government which is pliant and highly dependent on the US for survival, being strong-armed to sign a SOFA with us and let us have the four permanent mega bases in Iraq that we have already spent billions building. Bush has moved the Iraqi political goal posts multiple times throughout this game of smoke and mirrors, but he never seemed to compromise on two things - soldiers stationed in Iraq and a Status of Force Agreement (SOFA). I am pretty sure that those are the core reasons as to why this thing ever got started, with oil resources and force projection being the main context.

==A grease monkey? Ha! Not quite. A guy that changes your oil is a grease monkey; there is no theory or troubleshooting in pulling the oil plug on your Volvo. Hydraulic control systems are quite sophisticated (computer variables/sensor logic) and are hardly rivaled by missile hydraulic systems. I thought you had to work on the hydraulics of the missile controls? After all - they are linked to the inertial guidance system.==

Grease monkey was like a joke, man. Like calling surgeon a butcher.

I work on the structures, I don't do the oil or sparks. Controls engineers I have worked with, usually knew their way around a wrench or a lathe better than the sparkies, though.

==Maybe Blackwater, but I would consider it first. Actually, I have my hands full with the gang-bangers that think lawyers and judges are their worst enemy if things don't go their fairyland way. In this work, you sleep with your Glock...==

Keep plugin'

A grease monkey? Ha! Not quite. A guy that changes your oil is a grease monkey; there is no theory or troubleshooting in pulling the oil plug on your Volvo. Hydraulic control systems are quite sophisticated (computer variables/sensor logic) and are hardly rivaled by missile hydraulic systems. I thought you had to work on the hydraulics of the missile controls? After all - they are linked to the inertial guidance system.

Maybe Blackwater, but I would consider it first. Actually, I have my hands full with the gang-bangers that think lawyers and judges are their worst enemy if things don't go their fairyland way. In this work, you sleep with your Glock...

One thing is clear to me in all of this discussion. You would expect me to believe that George Bush had no say on the insufficient troop levels required to scour Afghanistan. You claim that it is a proven fact that Musharaf's government would collapse if we had our troops in Pakistan in 2002, but you have no proof. How can you prove a hypothetical that never occurred. If Bush took 1% of the resources he flushed down the toilet of the Iraq War and offered it to Musharaf, Musharaf would drive to Northwest Pakistan and eat Bin Laden's liver raw. Bush had all the resources of the world's superpower at his disposal you think he can't buy one dictator who has already met you half way by cutting support for the Taliban?

IN THE END THERE IS NO ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR HOW AN ATTACK BY A FUNDAMENTALIST SAUDI BASED IN AFGHANISTAN, WITH SAUDI AND EGYPTIAN TERRORISTS RESULTED IN AN INVASION OF A SECULAR OIL RICH BAATHIST IRAQ. This unresolved question, along with Bush's abject failure to capture Bin Laden and end Al quaeda makes all of the other arguments really moot.

==On your soapbox point, Dimitry - you must consider that IAF destroyed Saddam's effort to start a plutonium breeder reactor. He wanted to start the whole ball of wax - so to speak. Hussein was no choir boy, and he defied any restriction and resolution. It is beneath you to defend that creep.==

I defend only the truth, which sometimes takes unpleasant forms. Popular truth doesn't need defending. Read up on our reaction to the Israeli bombing and Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. Very instructive, for those who have made a career of pro-government sycophancy.

==How many perigees were you responsible for? You perigee'd on Robison...==

I look forward to his next appearance, which given the drubbing he received, I suspect may be some time. But I will be happy to correct his continuous mistaken ad hoc assertions. He should have a full plate just with the current round...

//What is your proffession? A doorman?//

==Actually, I ran a private security service awhile back. But my profession before investigations/security was automtic transmission/hydraulics engineer. I turned down a teaching job a few years back. I also studied sound engineering, but I learned that for fun. V. Proficient in all... ==

Proficiency in private security with a former life as a grease monkey? You should have no trouble finding gainful employment with Triple Canopy or Blackwater in one of our neocolonies. Perhaps you can go as a pair with your brother "FJ" as an "on retainer" lawyer, if you get into trouble blowing people away at a traffic stop for no reason.

On your soapbox point, Dimitry - you must consider that IAF destroyed Saddam's effort to start a plutonium breeder reactor. He wanted to start the whole ball of wax - so to speak. Hussein was no choir boy, and he defied any restriction and resolution. It is beneath you to defend that creep.

Ok, here is what people may mean when they say there is a second source for a meeting between a Niger PM and and Iraqi trade delegation in 1999. According the the US Congress report, there was next to nothing to this casual meeting and no yellowcake was discussed.
-------------------------------------------
U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes.

(U) The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002. The report did not identify the former ambassador by name or as a former ambassador, but described him as "a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report also indicted that the "subsources of the following information knew their remarks could reach the U.S. government and may have intended to influence as well as inform." DO officials told Committee staff that this type of description was routine and was done in order to protect the former ambassador as the source of the information, which they had told him they would do. DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the "high priority of the issue." The report was widely distributed in routine channels.

( ) The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

( )The intelligence report also said that Nicter's former Minister for Energy and Mines ( ), Mai Manga, stated that there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid-1980s. He knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium. He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran. Mai Manga also described how the French mining consortium controls Nigerien uranium mining and keeps the uranium very tightly controlled from the time it is mined until the time it is loaded onto ships in Benin for transport overseas. Mai Manga believed it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a special shipment of uranium to a pariah state given these controls.

(U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

( ) When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report

(U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm
-------------------------------------------

So do you have some "super-secret" links to contradict this pretty definitive reporting?

//There is no cover, there is only embarassing paranoia which is consuming your.//

Paranoia is defined as an 'unreasoned fear'. I do this for a reason, and I am not afraid of you..

//I don't do the path thing (it's called a trajectory). I am a structural analyst. I make sure it doesn't break when it executes the interecept, for example.//

How many perigees were you responsible for? You perigee'd on Robison...

//What is your proffession? A doorman?//

Actually, I ran a private security service awhile back. But my profession before investigations/security was automtic transmission/hydraulics engineer. I turned down a teaching job a few years back. I also studied sound engineering, but I learned that for fun. V. Proficient in all...

The report is here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-k.htm

Here are the Niger conclusions from the Intelligence Committee report. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the additonal sources beyond the original Italian crude forgeries:

-------------------------------------------
K. Niger Conclusions
(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents9 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 15. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and Intelligence Community analysts.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 17. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) dissent on the uranium reporting was accidentally included in the aluminum tube section of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), due in part to the speed with which the NIE was drafted and coordinated.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 18. When documents regarding the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting became available to the Intelligence Community in October 2002, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts and operations officers should have made an effort to obtain copies. As a result of not obtaining the documents, CIA Iraq nuclear analysts continued to report on Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from Africa and continued to approve the use of such language in Administration publications and speeches.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

<(U) Conclusion 19. Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by.a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 20. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) comments and assessments about the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting were inconsistent and, at times contradictory. These inconsistencies were based in part on a misunderstanding of a CIA Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) Iraq analyst's assessment of the reporting. The CIA should have had a mechanism in place to ensure that agency assessments and information passed to policymakers were consistent.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 22. The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) should have taken the time to read the State of the Union speech and fact check it himself. Had he done so, he would have been able to alert the National Security Council (NSC) if he still had concerns about the use of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting in a Presidential speech.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 23. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Humint Service (DHS), or the Navy should have followed up with a West African businessman, mentioned in a Navy report, who indicated he was willing to provide information about an alleged uranium transaction between Niger and Iraq in November 2002.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

( ) Conclusion 24. In responding to a letter from Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Intelligence Community in February 2003, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should not have said that "DELETED of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger," without indicating that State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) believed the reporting was based on forged documents, or that the CIA was reviewing the Niger reporting.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 25. The Niger reporting was never in any of the drafts of Secretary Powell's United Nations (UN) speech and the Committee has not uncovered any information that showed anyone tried to insert the information into the speech.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

(U) Conclusion 26. To date, the Intelligence Community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Likewise, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which both published assessments on possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium, have ever published assessments outside of their agencies which correct their previous positions.

( ) PARAGRAPH DELETED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

footnotes

9 In March 2003, the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator Rockefeller, requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigate the source of the documents, , the motivation of those responsible for the forgeries, and the extent to which the forgeries were part of a disinformation campaign. Because of the FBI's current investigation into this matter, the Committee did not examine these issues.

==I told you that your cover would not be safe with me!==

There is no cover, there is only embarassing paranoia which is consuming your.

//I am flattered that you think you are surrounded by "Dimitrys". Be afraid, be very afraid...//

==Don't be flattered. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" -Newton. Hey Einstein - you should have predicted the path of your missile better. Work on your math skills; especially calculus...==

I don't do the path thing (it's called a trajectory). I am a structural analyst. I make sure it doesn't break when it executes the interecept, for example.

What is your proffession? A doorman?

//Here we go again, as if the last beating wasn't enough...//

You flatter yourself. Way too much...

//Just can't imagine there are others who actually don't like this war...//

Again, you think this has to do with like or love? 'A necissary element to use to conduct propaganda by the propagandist'. I guess this is the part that you retained from mother country.

//There must some linguistic analysis software, even a two finger typist like yourself can activate and run to check the completely unique styles of those you suspect to be my "multitudes"...//

I told you that your cover would not be safe with me!

//I am flattered that you think you are surrounded by "Dimitrys". Be afraid, be very afraid...//

Don't be flattered. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" -Newton. Hey Einstein - you should have predicted the path of your missile better. Work on your math skills; especially calculus...

==I agree this was a tactical mistake on the part of the MILITARY which refused to send in troops without setting the proper tactical conditions. I think they should have been a lot more flexible and if the same situation arose now, they would jump at it. The military had to learn to be a lot more flexible in the war on terror. But this was a military leadership that had been under hypercautious Clinton for 8 years. Had nothing to do with President Bush.==

But isn't Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, ultimately responsible for decisions such as how to go about capture the Enemy number One of the United States, Osama bin Laden? My understanding is that diversion of SO forces from Afghanistan to Iraq has begun almost immediately upon our toppling of the Taliban regime. And your point about more troops in Afghanistan now notwithstanding, the increase has followed the diversion early on and is in response to the Taliban surge, which in itself occured because of our inadequate troop levels there.

==Saddam Hussein WAS trying to obtain fissile material as evidenced by the Phase II intelligence report addendum that shows a high level Iraqi foreign minister told the CIA saddam was trying to get fissile material. This italian documents as the source for the claim nonsense is another liberal fiction. The claim came from iraq's second to the foreign minister.

Need a link?==

I would like a link, actually. There were always rumors of the second source to the yellow cake disaster, but I can't readily find anything. My understanding is that the CIA has fully and finally withdrew their assertion of Saddam's yellow cake aspirations. My understanding is that the Italian forgeries were stove piped into the WH by interested neocon parties, who themselves likely had a hand in creating these forgeries. Certainly the FBI investigation as to the source of these really went no where under Republican committee chairmanship. My understanding is that Saddam had plenty of yellow cake already in Iraqi stockpiles and getting them succussfully from Niger would have been pretty much impossible without being detected. So why would he be trying, you think?

==No what you said was that authorization in the security council would not be matched by authorization if it went to the general council for a vote.==

It would not be. But General Assembly (there is no such thing as general council) has no power to authorize any military operations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. You desperately need to study up on this subject.

==I then specifically broke down the involved regions and why they would in fact, vote to approve the US mission in Iraq. You then changed again your "who would support us" argument.==

No, I showed you why your "this region would support us and that one too" ad hoc opinion was highly unconvincing. The US is very unpopular in the General Assembly and specifically so for our military actions. Google it and find the history of General Assembly resolutions on the UN official website. It should have a dot org extension.

==So since you keep trying to shift it, and want to just get retarded on this...==

I think retarded is the wrong word here. Precise and factual is what we are looking for.

==The UN has authorized our mission in Iraq for 3 seperate votes...PERIOD....your rhetorical arguments dont mean crap....we are there at UN request....so tell us now the ferrys or elves wouldnt approve it...whatever moron...the UN did...deal with it. ==

I do deal with it. It is a fact of life. It is also the last time UNSC will authorise our military presence in Iraq. Deal with that and a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. Plus a hostile Iraqi Parliament, who is reallly resistant to the idea of permanent American presence (read occupation) of their country.

==You are a brain dead bumpkin who refuses to acknowledge the truth, the UN wants us there, the Iraqis want us there, the world wants us there. Only you and al Qaeda dont want us there at this point.==

You keep repeating this, as if this an idea fixe with you. Repeating this makes it no more so than a wegee board or a vodoo doll. This is the last year of the free ride for our occupation, from now on it gets a lot harder to garrison our troops in that country at over $100,000,000,000.00 per year.

==Just admit you are a freaking cyber jihad and move on Habib.==

I am a citizen of this country, I vote. And by the way I make the weapons our military uses. Darn good weapons, too. I am even more precise and factual in my engineering work than in my writing.

==Pwned you punk terrorist sympathizer.==

I don't know what Pwned means, but I suspect it is somethihg gross and boorish. Also, you constant attempts to paint majority of your countrymen who what our troops out of Iraq as "terrorist sympathizers" is not a little bit un-American.

==Dimitry and his 'bag-o-tricks'.
Ohh - brother...
How many is that today?
Three differnt ID's?==

Here we go again, as if the last beating wasn't enough...

Just can't imagine there are others who actually don't like this war...

There must some linguistic analysis software, even a two finger typist like yourself can activate and run to check the completely unique styles of those you suspect to be my "multitudes"...

I am flattered that you think you are surrounded by "Dimitrys". Be afraid, be very afraid...

Dimitry and his 'bag-o-tricks'.
Ohh - brother...
How many is that today?
Three differnt ID's?

==Polls are for morons. The people of Iraq ARE working WITH Americans.==

They are working with Americans to ensure we leave. Once they find out we have no intentions of leavind and are, in fact, planning for a nice garrison location within their country for ever, they are going to be even less happy than they are now, having lost hundreds of thousands of their country folk to Bush's "crusade", having been driven out of their homes and out of their country by the civil war that was our responsibility as an occupying power to prevent, and now having been made into an American military base.

==yeah, Americans dont want to be there because they have been told by idiots like you and Arkin here that we are losing, cant win, are not helping the Iraqi...blah...blah...blahh

The American dont want us in Iraq if we are losing and not helping. Thats a perfectly logical position to take, if you go by what the media tells you.==

Well, we'll just have to it to the people to decide. I am sure, the stellar results from this point onward will change most American's minds and we will happily vote to keep our troops there for years to come and spend another trillion dollars so we can "help". Time will tell - if you are right then we should see a massive "surge" of pro-war opinion, followed by elections of many Republicans who will vote with the Republican President to keep our troops there 2009-2006.

==But such is no longer the case. We have in fact won now and the American people are starting to see that, even though people like you and Mr. Arkin will never admit it.==

Well, all right then. Then we should be seeing a massive groundswell of support for the war, starting...now...still waiting...any minute...

==There attitude is changing back to supporting of efforts.==

...still waiting...

==One bad trait of most Americans was summed up by Patton. Americans love a winner. And they will dump a loser in a heart beat. But we have won now and they are coming back to support our military in Iraq. ==

Support still growing...growing...wait, it it still in the doldrums...

==Yeah, right, like you care about the money, you are a cyber jihadi trying to throw out the iberal line to inflame the American people to stop the ass kicking you are getting in Iraq and Afghanistan.==

Attacks on my notwithstanding, the war is still costing over $100,000,000,000.00 and Americans don't want to pay it. You can maybe donate your book proceeds and foot this bill?

==Your jihad days are numbered.==

It's like an obsession with you to call anyone with a rational view different from your own a "jihadi". I guess that's why they call you guys "wingnuts".

==Why dont you do the right thing and just go back to chechnya and find some Russian soldiers and try this stuff with them?==

I have a job here, making American weapon systems.

==You wont because you are a cowardly jihadi who doesnt have the guts to stick to your principles you want to stick on everybody else.==

Did I say something to upset you? You continue to call me a "jihadi" apparently because I don't want American troops to be stationed in Iraq indefinitely, fighting an endless war that creates terrorists, kills our soldiers and wastes our money.

==Go away jihadi.==

That's just not polite, mister!

==You lost, you lost in iraq, you lost, in Afghanistan, you even lost here in a stupid blog of a stupid hack military analyst who went out of his way to run down american soldiers and the United States in the war against terrorism. Arkin is a jihadi enabler and you are the jihadi. ==

It isn't happy hour where you are is it? Or do you suffer from PTSD, in which case I am sorry for the above question. You statements above are highly debatable and mostly wrong, but you are forgetting that normal, peace-loving people like myself are actually winning at the American ballot box. When we do, we will politely ask warmongers, such as yourself to seize and desist ruining our country and trampling our good name to assuade your feeling of inadequacy and misplaced aggression.

==But you both got PWNED by President Bush.==

30-35% approval rating, widely considered one of the worst Presidents ever. Reviled in his country and around the world

==How does it feel losers????==

I guess it feels all right. I look forward to the future.

Laike wi sed yu bery wiceman. Klingtong genrals made tacteeccal battlfield decesions in Efghanistan! El Presidente busy man making strategigic decesion invadin Eyerack . Could not be bother wit mir tacteecal affeirs. But it still Klington generals goin intu Eyerack on March 20, 2003. El Presidente did not have chancee tu peeck his general teel February 10, 2007 wen great General Petraeus vas put in charge. Whye toook so long? Or meybe not so longe yu tink?

No wiceman, wi not calling all the military leaders liars, 'cause wi kno yu can show wi exactly where they sed it. And on wat days tuu.

But wiceman, whye call wi moroon? Grate militeri kummanders not gete anger soo easi, yes? Not gut fer troup morales, ore tacteecs?

Laik wi sed, where yu lectoor on militeri tacteecs and mystory next? Plea let wi kno. Wi come lissun tu wiceman no matter iff wi called moroon. Wi laik lerning from grate man.

==moron, tactical battlfield decisions were made by the military leaders, not the president. ==

My understanding that it was political leadership that overuled the commanders on the ground as far as sending our forces to Tora Bora.

My understanding is that Rummy was involved, and that usually means WH input. It's like they didn't want to catch OBL at that time, or something...

Nice crowd you attract Arkin you liberal hack.

Laurenz von Arabien said:

"Another funny argument. Every second dictator in this world stood or stands on the payroll of the USA, Pinochet, Polpot, Turkmenbashi, the Shah of Persia, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu etc. USA (and europe) are only forcing democratic rights in other states as it fits in their economic interests, this is hippocratic and not humanitarian."

You know, there are definately mistakes this country has made in supporting certain leaders. You got it right on some of those. But you are foolish not to see that some of this was done to stop a greater evil in the world.

What you didnt put on your list:
The US stopped the Nazi's and the Japanese empire

The US stopped the brutal repression of the South Koreans, the Kuwaitis and the Bosniam Muslims and Albanians in Kosovo.

This country is the light of liberty even in the face of aggressive fascists like you who want to stop us from freeing humaity from brutal dictatorships even now.

Real nice crowd that Washington Post and Arkin have collected here.

Do you guys send out a mailer straight to the al Qaeda Shura council to direct them to come here?

>>>> The military had to learn to be a lot more flexible in the war on terror. But this was a military leadership that had been under hypercautious Clinton for 8 years. Had nothing to do with President Bush.

Yu bery wice. Tis all Klintong fault! El presidente Boosh vas not really prepared be kummander en cheef yet at the time Unite Nations troops attacked Efghanistan! It stil Klingtong 's generals in charge. El presidente busy man planning all time on Eyerack. Had nothing to do with him. No siree. He bery flexible. Dat why it only took him some four years to come up with a guy who had a plan that worke in Eyerack. Othervise it would have tooken him longer. Had nothing to do with 2006 elecshun. No sireee.

Where yu lectoor on militeri tacteecs and mystory next? Plea let us kno. Wi come lissun tu wiceman.

Posted by: Ulysses Grunt | January 4, 2008 05:08 PM

moron, tactical battlfield decisions were made by the military leaders, not the president. Are you calling all the military leaders liars, because I can show you exactly where they say it.

And by the way, I can take you to military school any day punk.

Dimitry said:

"==Bottom Line:
The UN wants us there.==

UNSC"

produce the general vote in the UN demanding we leave Iraq or admit you are a liar, there is none, you have no proof, you are a liar.

==The Iraqis want us there.==

"I guess that's whey all the polls of Iraqis say otherwise and their Congress (Parliament) voted to get us out by

date certain. I can only imagine what it would be like if they DIDN'T want us there (according to your word

definitions)."

Polls are for morons. The people of Iraq ARE working WITH Americans.

"And I note that in your multiple "lists of all who want us THERE", you never once mentioned if the American people

get a vote on this issue. Why is that I wonder? I suspect that what the American people actually want is of no

consequence to you - the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders (Goebels)."

yeah, Americans dont want to be there because they have been told by idiots like you and Arkin here that we are losing, cant win, are not helping the Iraqi...blah...blah...blahh

The American dont want us in Iraq if we are losing and not helping. Thats a perfectly logical position to take, if you go by what the media tells you.

But such is no longer the case. We have in fact won now and the American people are starting to see that, even though people like you and Mr. Arkin will never admit it.

There attitude is changing back to supporting of efforts.

One bad trait of most Americans was summed up by Patton. Americans love a winner. And they will dump a loser in a heart beat. But we have won now and they are coming back to support our military in Iraq. So sorry, jihadi, you lost.

"We don't what to be there! We don't want to spend $15 billion a month to be there!"

Yeah, right, like you care about the money, you are a cyber jihadi trying to throw out the iberal line to inflame the American people to stop the ass kicking you are getting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your jihad days are numbered.

Why dont you do the right thing and just go back to chechnya and find some Russian soldiers and try this stuff with them?

You wont because you are a cowardly jihadi who doesnt have the guts to stick to your principles you want to stick on everybody else.

Go away jihadi.

You lost, you lost in iraq, you lost, in Afghanistan, you even lost here in a stupid blog of a stupid hack military analyst who went out of his way to run down american soldiers and the United States in the war against terrorism. Arkin is a jihadi enabler and you are the jihadi.

But you both got PWNED by President Bush.

How does it feel losers????

>>>> The military had to learn to be a lot more flexible in the war on terror. But this was a military leadership that had been under hypercautious Clinton for 8 years. Had nothing to do with President Bush.

Yu bery wice. Tis all Klintong fault! El presidente Boosh vas not really prepared be kummander en cheef yet at the time Unite Nations troops attacked Efghanistan! It stil Klingtong 's generals in charge. El presidente busy man planning all time on Eyerack. Had nothing to do with him. No siree. He bery flexible. Dat why it only took him some four years to come up with a guy who had a plan that worke in Eyerack. Othervise it would have tooken him longer. Had nothing to do with 2006 elecshun. No sireee.

Where yu lectoor on militeri tacteecs and mystory next? Plea let us kno. Wi come lissun tu wiceman.

Dimitry said:
"I pointed out the difference between "UN" and the "UN Security Council", which apparently continues to ellude you."

No what you said was that authorization in the security council would not be matched by authorization if it went to the general council for a vote.

I then specifically broke down the involved regions and why they would in fact, vote to approve the US mission in Iraq. You then changed again your "who would support us" argument.

So since you keep trying to shift it, and want to just get retarded on this...

The UN has authorized our mission in Iraq for 3 seperate votes...PERIOD....your rhetorical arguments dont mean crap....we are there at UN request....so tell us now the ferrys or elves wouldnt approve it...whatever moron...the UN did...deal with it.

You are a brain dead bumpkin who refuses to acknowledge the truth, the UN wants us there, the Iraqis want us there, the world wants us there. Only you and al Qaeda dont want us there at this point.

Just admit you are a freaking cyber jihad and move on Habib.

Pwned you punk terrorist sympathizer.

Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'

http://www.bothinonetrench.com

==Garbage, utter garbage, there are still many nations that support the United States, again, the proof is in the reality, we keep doing what we are doing and nobody is stepping up to stop us because despite all your lame arguments, they want us to take care of Islamic extremists and oust despotic regimes. You may love them, most people in the world do not.==

Another funny argument. Every second dictator in this world stood or stands on the payroll of the USA, Pinochet, Polpot, Turkmenbashi, the Shah of Persia, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu etc. USA (and europe) are only forcing democratic rights in other states as it fits in their economic interests, this is hippocratic and not humanitarian.

==Well, I can show you statements from people who want us there, and you can do the same for people who dont want us there, but the proof is in the reality that there are not millions of people taking to the streets to demand our departure. And yes they know full well they can protest without being run over by tanks===

It is true, massive demonstrations in Iraq occured only when Bremmer tried to deny a vote for the majority Shiites or when we attacked Sadr's "army" originally. You have a point - Iraqi opposition is political, their government is deeply indebted to the US for their survival and it is difficult to find Iraqi politicians who will lead public protests against American occupation. They do voice this opinion in their Parliamentary votes and in all the polling done of the Iraqi population. The same thing here - there no politicians who will lead public protests against the war, but the Congress consistently goes on record to demand a timely troop removal and American people continue to voice their opinion for a troop removal both in public polling and in their choice of their representatives.

But your comment is telling - unless there is political calamity that gets hundreds of thousands of people into the street, who cares what "the people" think, right? A classic neoconservative position - people don't know what is right for them and the decisions will made in their name by those who do.

==Garbage, utter garbage, there are still many nations that support the United States, again, the proof is in the reality, we keep doing what we are doing and nobody is stepping up to stop us because despite all your lame arguments, they want us to take care of Islamic extremists and oust despotic regimes. You may love them, most people in the world do not.==

I agree that many countries do support us, and elites of many of those we essentially buy off with foreign aid and trade pacts. Many, no most countries, don't support us in the General Assembly even with all of our power. But your argument essentially boils down to "might is right" and focuses on the political positions taken by corrupt undemocratic autocrats on the take on our behalf, not on the views of their populations.

==can't argue with that, but the fact is the Russians are supporting us in Iraq right now, which still makes my point==

This is probably the last year they will vote for a UNSC resolution for our continued occupation. After that we will need a SOFA, ratified by both US Senate and Iraqi Parliament.

==Ummmm, you go ahead and live your life by polls, I will live it by reality. The reality is we led a coalition of nations, many not willing to risk their own people but still behind the cause, and removed a despot, fought off a terrorist onslaught damaging al Qaeda permanently, discrediting their ideology of jihad, and have now brought the internal warring factions of Iraq together at the table to talk instead of shoot. I know for Russians, it is still hard to throw off the backwards thinking of Communism, especially the complete lack of fundamental understanding of "results based" evaluation, but there it is, the results say it all.
We won, the world is a better place without Saddam, al Qaeda lost (badly) so your arguments are meaningless against the spectar of success.==

Your basic argument here is that the ends justify the means. I disagree that the reality, as you see it, is properly described in the above paragraph. I consider motive to be very important in both personal and national actions, in the case of Iraq, available evidence points to an occupation and military presence as the primary goal of the mission, with any positive changes to the Iraqi society as purely incidental. Even if one makes a faith-based leap to accept that we went to Iraq to make things better for the Iraqis (highly improbable given our past and current behavior there), one has to consider the cost that we unilaterally decided the Iraqis will have to pay for the changes to be made "to them". Hundreds of thousands of them died, millions are dispalced and refugees, their capital now has significantly changed demographics though ethnic cleansing that we tacitly or actively facilitated. When I see this and read your commentary, I hear a philosophical echo of Marxism, which posits only one true PATH for human history and envokes "historical necessety" to justify all kinds of atrocities to bring this reality about. You sound very, very similar, with only an ideological flip from Communism to Capitalism. You sound like a commissar, explainig why the peasants all had to be made to starve in order to create the shining new reality for the village. Think about it, if you still can.

==You know, if all you read is those socialist/communist websites you may very well have this impression.

It is wrong.

We can sling quotes and anecdotal information, but let's use a little reason.
The predominate Iraqi Muslim sect is Shia. They were violently oppressed by Saddam. They overwhelmingly support us, with al Sadr being a unique exception. But even he and his followers make up only a small part of the population on the Shia side.==

They support our overthrow of Saddam's government and to bringing them to power. They don't support our military bases on their soil and they certainly don't support any designs we are likely to have for these military installations if we decide to attack the Shia Iran. Try it and watch our Kuwaiti supply line crumble and our troops become isolated, besieged enclaves in the Shia south. Some "support".

==Right there, the majority of the people in Iraq can be shown to be on the US side.==

By your definition, which means no immediate public outcry and calamitous political events will force our withdrawal tomorrow. Your definitions are essentially functional "can be shown to be on the US side" simply means they take fewer potshots at our troops and take our money and guns.

==The Kurds, the third largest group after the Sunni arabs also support us.==

Lets keep thwarting their nationalist aspirations and giving Turkey the locations of Kurdish fighters and see that support evaporate.

==In fact, the only group that opposed us which is a sizable populace was the Sunni/arabs which were Saddams support base.==

I am sorry, but your definiton of "support" is essentially tactical/military. The polls ALL run militantly against the US - most Iraqis support attacks on our troops. What kind of "support" is that? Shia leadership wants us to keep protecting them in the Green Zone so they can solidify their grip on power, Sunni leadership wants us there to re-arm their forces and to leverage the new relationship to gain concessions from the central government (read deep local autonomy).

==so yeah, a year ago it could be said that about 30% of the populace wanted us gone now.

Now these Sunni arabs want us there.==

Again, support to you means simply "no bullet".

==The fact is, despite all your protests, the vast majority of Iraqis want us there.==

You must be using a different English than I do. If the above statement were true, Iraqi Parliament would pass a resolution urging us to stay, not to go, Iraqi people wouldn't be supporting foreign troop withdrawal and attack on us.

==Go ahead, move the goal posts again, but the truth is the Iraqi people want us there until they can fend for themselves, have security, stop the sectarian warfare, and enter a political process. then we can leave en masse.==

Great, if it is true. How many years at over $100,000,000,000.00 should we guard them against their own civil strife? Can you pay this tab, since you are so positive on this war?

==Of course, they still want us to maintian some presence because we really are a great nation to have as a friend.==

Sure thing. They also want us to use that "presence" to attack their co-religionists in Iran, maybe drop some SOF into Pakistan, right? Those friendly Iraqis!

==Again, the proof is in the reality my friend.==

Our realities apparently are very different.

==You can complain all you want, but again the proof is in the reality, the Iraqi government and the UN have asked us to stay and layed the groundwork for a long term security agreement. Your name calling, your crying, your bashing does nothing to change that fact. You can show specific examples of people in Iraq who dont want us there, sure but the proof is in the reality. Even the sunni arabs are working with us now. The vast majority fo them want us there, the government wants us there, the UN wants us there.==

This is the last year UNSC will grant us occupation status. Next year - Senate/Parliament approved SOFA, with a Democratic President in the WH, and American population SICK to DEATH of arrogant politicians who refuse to do what they are elected to do. You do the math.

==This agreement will go through in some form and the US will be a long term strategic security partner in Iraq. Some might not like it, but it will happen because the bulk of the Iraqis want it.==

Again, I understand that your perceived desires of the Iraqis take precedent, but we got to vote on this, too. And Americans don't want to spend billions guarding the oil for Haliburton and protecting Shia from Sunni and visa versa.

==A status of forces agreement is common. You think this is a new thing? It may not pass in the exact form now, but the Iraqi government wants it and the US government want it, it will happen. now you will switch to those good ol' communist "but the people" arguments. Fine, go ahead, but the proof is in the reality. Sunni/Shia/Kurdish, they're all allied with the US now.==

I understand that historical necessety trumps the desire of the American population for you. That is the classic communist/neocon position - the rulers decide, people follow. I disagree with that view of history.

==The civil war existed before, only then it was saddam leading the Sunnis in a bloody repression of the Shia, even using chemical weapons on them.
This point is well documented and again, even the most daft liberal understands this and I am not going to waste time on this. I will post links to reference material for you if you want to research it, real referencees not that socialist website $rap.==

What is your point here? That the civil war continues with us backing a different faction from Saddam's Sunni? Or that we continue to tack between the two factions feeding power to one, than arms to the other?

==not true, a liberal lie, never happened==

Right, that 9/11 commision, the communist bastion started that "untruth"

==not true, journalists in Iraq and the US government documented al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we went in==

True, there was some foreign fighters coming into Iraq just before the war, perhaps weeks before our invasion. I have read the reports. But the bulk of their numbers (actually quite small percentage of the insurgency, well less than 10%) came in well after our "victory".

==oh, but thats nothing right? Orders from saddam to attack US forces in Somalia using the Afghan mijahideen, secret meetings with the Egyptian Islamic jihad, a list of the terrorists the IIS was supporting.
Yeah, all means nothing right? Whatevs, you're an obvious member of the liberal/jihadi alliance who will never admit the truth.==

It is nothing in the context of the ME, where everyone and their brother had connections of one kind or another to AQ. If you are looking for a country to attack because of their connections to AQ/Taliban, Pakistan is your target, not Iraq! Pakistan was/is deep with AQ and continues to support them. Saudi is another prime target, most foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi and it was Saudi money that bankrolled 9/11. Why attack Iraq, given the clear primacy of the other "good" targets?

==Let me ask you this, if Usama bin Laden signed a statement tomorrow saying al Qaeda worked woth Saddam, you would say he was lying wouldn't you?==

Do you want me to buy your book?

==Tell the truth....==

Saddam's dead, give it up. OBL is in Pakistan, protected by our "friends".

==So let's get this straight, in a democracy, different people voite for different things? WOW, what a concept!
That's never happened anywhere in the history of the world!==

When in a democracy people vote exclusively for their ethnic group, you get problems. One of the main issues during the constitutional convention was the fear that the electorate would devolve into sectarian/religious or other groups that would implement policies to usurp power or subjugate the minority. Read Madison's thinking on this subject (clearly unfamiliar to you), where he posits that pluralism and multiplicty of groups within the electorate would be the guardians of the formation of large blocks that would attempt to usurp power. This was quite a departure at the time from then current thinking on the subject (Montesque).

==Ummm, no, you have zero concept of what war means. War is the application of force to achieve a political goal. Our goals were to depose Saddam Hussein, reduce the threat of al Qaeda, and establish a stable, self-governing democracy in Iraq.==

No, our goals was to setup a pliant, dependent government in Iraq that would allow stationing of American forces on its soil in perpetuity and would allow access to the Iraqi oil reserves by American companies. Our goal was never to spend over a trillion dollars and be there in full force for 10 years+.

==Al Qaeda as a political force is completely spent..

notable clericks, even saudis, even other jihadi leaders, are now speaking out against them as a defeated ideology

they "regrouped" in Pakistan as part of their original plan, that was completely misunderstood by many people.

the defeat in Afghanistan was mostly for the Taliban, al Qaeda was not heavily invested in Afghanistan and moving across the border was nothing for them. they took some leadership losses, notably Atef, but overall, not a huge impact on the core leadership. after all, much of their training was already being done over the border in the madrasses anyway.

Al Qaeda's real defeat has come in Iraq.
And now it is coming in Pakistan because the MMA is no longer supporting them and have sided with Musharraf against them.

That means al Qaeda will soon have no where else left to go.==

I hope you are correct. I have deep doubts that you are, however. I think you have greatly overestimated the tactial effect of the "surge" that all is well in your universe, everyone loves us, the troops are on the march, the enemy is dying and running and the glorious generals on white horses are about to walk through the city gates on parade. The general attitude of the neocon press and aligned publications and pundits has been essentially been to wet their pants and to swear undying loyalty to David Petreus.

==A full on war is about to start in Pakistan with the pakistan Army and the MMA on one side (and probably covert US forces) and military assistance and al Qaeda and sympathetic Taliban tribes on the other. It will be just like the anbar awakening in Iraq. It is already happening.==

I strongly doubt that Pakistan is looking to unleash a new civil war in their country at our behest. Any intrusion of American forces, if known, would provoke a very negative reaction, both by the Pakistani population and their army.

==Al Qaeda can not win this fight.

sure they can pop off a bomb once in awhile, but no more large scale attacks and no more ability to topple a government.==

Lets hope so.

==BTW, you sure sound like you admire al Qaeda.==

Always worth a cheap shot, right?

==Again, you exhibit no ability to differentiate when you say "killing large numbers of people". Most of those people were killed by al Qaeda, as proven by the anbar sunnis now hunting al Qaeda.==

Actually, incorrect. As in Afghanistan, most civilians in Iraq were killed by collateral damage, mostly from our aerial weapons. That is what the Lancet study has found. The other great toll was from civil war, as you say.

==The next greatest cause was the sectarian violence which is nothing new to Iraq that we introduced. At what point do you hold the Iraqi people responsible for being judicious with the freedom we handed them?==

After we withdraw. Under international law, it is the occupation authorities which are REQUIRED to provide securty.

==And what is your alternative wish for them. That they stayed under saddam and his even more insane sons for the rest of their lives? That doesn't sound like you really care about the Iraqi people to me.==

I don't make it my business to "rule the world".

==Yeah, they messed it all up, the lid came off and they went nuts, but they are getting it together now.==

Sounds tidy.

==So don't blame the US for a people who have killing each other for many years. So your contextual argument, that the Iraqi people were all innocent little children in a perfect little world before we came barging in is complete and utter B $.==

Right. We just came in, and as you know "Stuff happens".

==Okay, look to the French involvement in the American fight for independance. The US liberation of the Afghans from the Taliban. Many people in Germany felt a sense of relief when the US toppled the Nazi's. I wont go that far for the Japanese, but eventually they relaized democracy was a great thing.==

In most of these situaitions, the liberation came as a response to being attacked. There are very few, if any examples, of a country deciding to spend a trillion dollars and kill thousands of their soliders for the purpose of liberating another nation's people and then to leave. These kind of actions are explictely against the UN Charter and it is something our founding fathers clearly did not want and warned us against. Why, if this is such a cool and noble undertaking? Because they knew that this exact kind of subterfuge has been used countless times throughout history to launch wars of aggression and conquest, drain national treasures and serve as justifinations for limiting freedom at home.

==In fact, our very enemies become the worlds strongest democracies and economic powerhouses when we liberate them from the totalitarian governments that came before. What other nation in the history of the world has vastly improved the lives of the people of the nations it defeats in war? When the United States goes to war, it is not with a people but with dangerous, repressive regimes and the people ultimately benefit when/if we win, giving you vietnam as the notable exception.==

Again, you are not listening. All of the examples you mentioned were related to a RESPONSE to being attacked, not as an illegal unilateral action in contraventions to international law. Except for Vietnam. Ringing any bells, yet?

==If your argument here is that things did not go perfectly on the political side, yeah, of course. But that does not deligitimize what has happened. Iraq has become a democratic nation with rights protected by a constitution. Is implementations perfect? Of course not, Democracy is not perfect. But it is far better than what the Iraqis had before and they darn well know it. ===

Motive, motive, motive. You can't separate results for the motive that animated it. If our motive has been to delay democracy for as long as possible, attempt to install a vetted Iraqis we could control and build up a permanent military bases for control of local oil and in order to expand aggression to Iraq's neighbors, our actions there are forever tainted. This is how most people in the world think. The argument that you are a hero becaue you went to rob a bank and helped an old lady to cross the street on the way is considred dirty pool by most thinking people.

==What have you done to protect human rights?==

Started and headed an Amnesty International Chapter in my alma matter in the 1980s. Organized a rally at the Soviet Consulate in NYC, against human rights abuses by the Soviet Government in 1986. Member of AI's Urgent Action Network for 20 years.

==In the army, I helped drive saddam from his slaughter of the Kuwaitis.
I helped protect the Kosovars from the Serbian armies.==

Thanks. I made some of the weapons that protected you.

==All you do is complain that the US is evil for being in Iraq when everbody but jihaids and communists want us there.==

Now, that's not true. I question the motives behind the invsion, detest its illegality and want the occupation to end. Saddam being gone is a good thing.

==I have risked my life for freedom.==

Thanks.

==You have risked nothing to support al Qaeda.==

That's not very nice. No American supports AQ (well, maybe that weird guy from CA does, who is in their videos). But that doesn't mean we as Americans should be defferential to crimes committed in our name for our "protection". It is out duty, as citizens to protest unjust actions by our government, when we see it.

==You don't love freedom, you're a sharia loving jihadst aren't you "Dimitry"?==

I think that you are full of hatred for your contrymen, who do not support government authoritarianism like you do.

Your turn.

==Bottom Line:
The UN wants us there.==

UNSC

==The Iraqis want us there.==

I guess that's whey all the polls of Iraqis say otherwise and their Congress (Parliament) voted to get us out by

date certain. I can only imagine what it would be like if they DIDN'T want us there (according to your word

definitions).

And I note that in your multiple "lists of all who want us THERE", you never once mentioned if the American people

get a vote on this issue. Why is that I wonder? I suspect that what the American people actually want is of no

consequence to you - the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders (Goebels). Well guess what?

We don't what to be there! We don't want to spend $15 billion a month to be there!

==We are there and nobody, even the Iraqis, nobody except al Qaeda and affiliated Saddamists are fighting us

anymore==

I would venture a guess that if we stay for six years or longer, EVERYONE will be fighting us again.

==Ohhh, and you. Again, who are you fighting for at this point? Sounds like you are on the jihad team to me.==

If you want to sound devoid of meaning, it is your choice.

Merkyl in germany and Sarkosy of France, the same two countries that you clowns cried about not supporting us in

Iraq, on whose word you declared Bush a "go it alone" cowboy both now support the US efforts in Iraq. Poland

supports us and Britain, so lumping them in the "anti" catagory is a bit of a fraud, or perhaps just ignorance.==

Poland is out in 2008, their new PM has been in opposition to our adventure and his position has been for their

troop withdrawal. The countries you site have ZERO troops in Iraq.

==Italy is near communist and who gives a $rap what they think anyway?==

Old Europe and all.

Bush attacked Iraq because he wanted to free the poor Iraqis of Saddams evil dictatorship, hahaha. Who on earth should believe this lie. Do you really think all Non-Americans are dumb like this, it was the oil and nothing else. And back in the 80ies Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush had no problems making business with Saddam, and when he killed dozen thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons no one complained. Links to the whitehouse proof nothing, no clear thinking subject takes them serious.

==Classic goal post shifting. what you said was if they authorization at the UN to stay and Iraq went to the general

assembly, I responded with a break down that any thinker can see is qquite right as to way even in a general caucus

of the UN we would stay. So you throw out another populist argument with zero factual evidence. I am sure the next

go around it will be that camels, goats, and cats would reject our presence in Iraq. Fine, keep doing that all you

want.==

I pointed out the difference between "UN" and the "UN Security Council", which apparently continues to ellude you.

UNSC often takes positions which the General Assembly (the "UN") would not. The friction between the General

Assembly and the UNSC, which is heavily dominated by Western Powers and China (the only ones with the veto, the

permanent members) is w