Senate points to Russian officials in Iraq scam

reuters ^

[mikhailovich]

Don't fret. Its just another post in the long-running series of news stories here on HateRussia.Org

[Destro]

Oh, I see your point. Yes I agree with you. And yes I do think the French double crossed Powell at the UN in an attempt to sabatoge the invasion. The Russians on the other hand were against invasion outright in public yet helped us with intel on Iraq.

[Dr. Frank fan]

So you agree that France attempted to sabotage the invasion, and that the Russians were double-dealing. (actually, triple-dealing. They were "against" it in public... helped us with intel... and yet sent personnel to Iraq to help them, um, move stuff..)

Your point, as I recall, was that bribery/economics had nothing to do with these nations' motives? What motives then?

It would have been one thing for France to simply have been "against an invasion" out of some kind of abstract principle. But why go so far as to try to sabotage it, string us along at the UN, etc.?

You object to the economic motive being a factor but much of what you acknowledge took place is inconceivable without it. That's where the Pope analogy breaks down. He opposed the war on moral principles (for the sake of argument; I'm not even sure how true that is..) but once it was clearly going to occur, didn't try to engage in any chicanery to prevent it from happening or inhibit our success. France & Russia did, and this is not explainable as a pure "moral" stance.

[Destro]

I will stop you right there- the stories that the Russans moved Iraq's WMD are a myth - wishful thinking. It kind of disgusts me that it still pops up because it shows ignorance - willful ignorance on your part because your posts indicate you stay up on events.

The Russians were not double dealing - the Russians suggested alternatives to invasion such as an anti-Saddam coup by his generals that would negate an invasion. The White House on the other hand was set on invasion and long term occupation no matter what the reason. The Russians wanted Saddam gone for many reasons but an invasion and occupation by America was not what they wanted for many reasons.

[Destro]

Second part - why? Economics that had nothing to do with bribes. The Russians and French had long term contracts that would be canceled in favor of Halliburton and others. In fact the White House refused to agree that any of the Saddam era contracts would remain. That applies to France and Russia more so than China.

France also wants to limit America as the world's super power. France "Cock blocks" us as a matter of course.

China gets almost all her oil from the Middle East (America does not). China does not want her economy's life blood under the control of America.

Russia does not want to see more American military bases closer to her Central Asian spheres of influence.

We may act like we had noble motive yet the world notices that our noble motives involve the control of the nation that controls the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I will stop you right there- the stories that the Russans moved Iraq's WMD are a myth - wishful thinking.

Why would I "wish" for it to be true that Russians moved dangerous materials out of Iraq to be still at large? I would much rather that I could believe that we have found everything there is to find, or that there was nothing to find.

Unfortunately, that is not what I believe for one second.

It kind of disgusts me that it still pops up

Why? Why would it "disgust" you? (Why would you even *care* enough to be "disgusted"?)

Hmmm... I seem to recall coming across you before. Are you one of the Defend Mother Russia Against Everything people? If so, I forgot... sorry about that. :-)

willful ignorance on your part because your posts indicate you stay up on events.

My posts indicate nothing of the sort! :-) I've actually been busy, and posting only lightly lately (check!) & keeping up with current events hardly at all.

If there are "current events" that Prove That Russian Military Personnel Were Not In Iraq, then I assure you, I am completely unaware and entirely (non-willfully) ignorant of them. Last I heard, that is what the latest conventional wisdom said. I have never heard of a refutation. If you have more up-to-date information which refutes that, I'll be glad to take a look at it. But it's odd that in an angry post ranting about my "willful ignorance" about the "current events" which Prove That Russian Military Personnel Were Not In Iraq you somehow forgot to pass along the link(s) to the actual current events news stories which supposedly prove that. It should be pretty easy to tell me what these news stories are, if my being unaware of them proves that I am "willfully ignorant", right? For my part I'll give you the type of thing I recall reading: click

The Russians were not double dealing - the Russians suggested alternatives to invasion such as an anti-Saddam coup by his generals that would negate an invasion.

Okay, so they weren't double-dealing. They were just straightforwardly against us. Got it.

The Russians wanted Saddam gone for many reasons but an invasion and occupation by America was not what they wanted for many reasons.

Their supposed enthusiasm for making Saddam gone was a bit underwhelming.

As for them not wanting a US invasion/occupation for "many reasons" - no doubt. And could, oh, gee, money have been among those reasons? Let me just paraphrase your answer for you:

"NO WAY. There's NO POSSIBLE WAY that Russia could have been motivated by financial interests in something!"

Heh.

Apparently Russia is the only nation in the history of the world that never acts out of financial self-interest. Right? Yeah, I totally believe you. ;-) Best,

[Dr. Frank fan]

Economics that had nothing to do with bribes. The Russians and French had long term contracts that would be canceled in favor of Halliburton and others.

Silly me, I thought "bribes" and "economics" had a lot to do with each other. It seems to me that when most people refer to "bribery" this sort of thing is precisely what they are referring to. So yours is a non-denial denial. You're saying it's wrong for us to say that 2+2=4 because in fact it equals 4.

I see no need to respond further. You're actually conceding the only point I was trying to make. Best,

[Destro]

2 American investigations on WMD presented to Bush debunked the Russia got the WMD out of Iraq myth - a dangerous myth that can skew American foreign policy.

I am not Russian by the way. Either speak the truth or serve the devil.

[Destro]

So then America - using your standard - bribed her coalition allies with promises of Iraq reconstruction contracts?

[Dr. Frank fan]

2 American investigations on WMD presented to Bush debunked the Russia got the WMD out of Iraq myth

Which investigations? Do you have a link? Can you point to the section(s) of the investigations that "debunked" the actual things such as Gertz reported and that I linked to you?

This is the second time I've asked you for links. I'm asking very nicely. Please don't say "it's been debunked!" with no links a third time.

I am not Russian by the way.

I never said you were Russian. I conjectured (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) that you were one of (what I called) the Defend Mother Russia Against Everything people. One need not be Russian, it's a phenomenon that occurs among non-Russians as well. Indeed, the other one that comes to mind who I've tangled with is DevSix, who (I believe) is not Russian either. Best,

[Dr. Frank fan]

So then America - using your standard - bribed her coalition allies with promises of Iraq reconstruction contracts?

In some or even many cases, sure, perhaps!

I certainly wouldn't make a fool of myself arguing on a discussion board that, unlike all the other countries in the history of the world, the countries that happened to ally with the US on Iraq had no economic motives whatsoever. I mean, that would just make me sound naive and/or possessed of a bizarrely romanticized view of the nations in question. Right? :-)

[Destro]

No time to link now - at work and all - my Russkie pal is sure to have the links to the reports that cleared Russia of moving the WMD. jb6 go to town.

[jb6]

Who's your Russki friend?

[Destro]

You ain't Russian?

[Dr. Frank fan]

..the reports that cleared Russia of moving the WMD

For the record and to avoid straw-men here:

My claim was not that Russia "moved the WMD" per se, necessarily. I never mentioned "the WMD"!

My claim, based on things I have read such as the Gertz article I linked you, was that they "sent personnel to Iraq to help them, um, move stuff." (post 23) Gertz's article mentions only "high-explosive material", "RDX and HMX", "heavy ordnance", "special arms", and the like. I don't know (and don't especially care) whether any of that qualifies as "WMD". And I didn't say (and am not especially interested in) whether that "stuff" meets the semantic definition of "WMD" or not. It was not essential to the point I was making in post 23, which was merely that Russia was working against our interest in an additional way you had not acknowledged. This would be true even if they moved "stuff" that wasn't "WMD", you know.

So we may have had crossed signals after that point because if you think that being cleared of moving "WMD" in a "WMD report" debunks my claim you are engaging in a straw-man. To debunk my/Gertz's claim you have to prove either that

1. Russia sent no personnel to Iraq!, or

2. Russia sent personnel to Iraq, but they were all, like, on vacation sitting around hotel swimming pools or something, and did nothing of this sort of military capacity.

Good luck,

[Dr. Frank fan]

Can't we just agree that it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference whether or not jb6 is Russian, and that unless/until you, or someone (Russian or not Russian, it doesn't matter!) substantiates your claim that Gertz has been debunked, there's no reason for me to pay you further heed on that point? Best,

[Destro]

Gertz as not debunked - the man who was his source was debunked and fired from the Pentagon. He was a flake.

Also I apologize I think we are on the same wave length just our signals are crossed - For example you see bribes - I see a reward system by Iraq to reward allies and deny money to companies from foe nations like America and the UK.

[Dr. Frank fan]

For example you see bribes - I see a reward system by Iraq to reward allies

Fair enough. My only dispute with you was that you had been downplaying the possible role of this "reward system" as a motive for nations' behavior. I don't think anticipation of financial "rewards" is an insignificant factor in these things because I don't think that nation-states operate or base their policies on a moral plane only, like the Pope does (or should). Make sense?

If you now really just think this is a tomato/ tomah-to thing, then fine. But then I would have to wonder why you bothered disputing the point in the first place. If it's six of one, half dozen of the other then what's the point of responding to a poster who says "six" with "NO! half dozen!"

?

[Dr. Frank fan]

p.s. re: the man who was his source was debunked and fired from the Pentagon.

I await the link with anticipation, of course.

Oh, and the Gertz article has two sources, by my count, plus a reference to "defense officials said".

Now, presumably your forthcoming link will be about John Shaw (only one of the sources). Here I'll do your work for you. He's been fired from teh Pentagon all right. Don't know about "debunked", though. Do you think they are synonymous?

Interesting tidbit:

Further corroborating Mr. Shaw's account, a Russian newspaper reported that two retired Russian generals had received awards from Saddam's government 10 days before the coalition assault on Iraq began.

You've heard of those awards, right? What were they for, I wonder? Oh... sorry... I guess that's wrong too! It's "been debunked" in links you're too busy to show me. Right?

Of course, Shaw could have been ousted for being a "flake" and the information being untrue. Or, he could have been ousted for revealing true information they didn't want him to reveal for whatever reason.

Obviously, you prefer the former explanation, presumably due to your instinctive need to Defend Mother Russia Against Everything. ;-) Best,

[Destro]

The thrust is that Saddam was giving out bribes 0 that tehy would have been on our side if not for the bribes - big distortion. I may add that Saddam may have thought that he was bribing people when a smarter leader would know in those cases he did not have to.