Ukraine

[Vadim 68]

What are these "standards" of which you speak ??

Why doesn't NATO (and the EU) bounce Hungary and Poland and Turkey while they are about it ??

Not sure what you mean by "bounce". They are existing members.

As to standards, I have not read any specific document outlining any details, just recall certain heads of State demanding changes inside Ukraine so that they can join. The obvious i have mentioned, not jailing opposition party members or media who may promote another view than the existing government, getting oligarchs out of positions of influence and the general rule of law that applies to all. Bit of an ask when other States allow some of that. Freedom of thought and expression seems to be under threat in the West. In the UK they are reading a "Public order bill", that will possibly ban public protest; something regarded by many as a corner stone of democracy. NATO is supposed to be elevating Ukraine's responsibilities, not sinking down to its current level.

I am guessing this is the kind of behaviour they do not want to see from a NATO government.

Parliament punch-up: Huge fight erupts among MPs in Ukraine legislature - YouTube

Ukraine parliament scrap: 2 MPs brutally fist fight over bill - YouTube

The people of Ukraine deserve better, as do those in Russia.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Parliament punch-up: Huge fight erupts among MPs in Ukraine legislature - YouTube

10 years ago.

Ukraine parliament scrap: 2 MPs brutally fist fight over bill - YouTube

7 years ago.

[Osborne Russell]

Its been denied as Ukraine was not seen as "democratic" enough, as you are probably aware.

This from yesterday,

"[FONT="]NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in a Tuesday press briefing issued an ultra-provocative statement telling Ukraine that [/FONT]"NATO's door is open"[FONT="]. [/FONT]He pledged that one day the eastern European country which has for nine months been under Russian invasion will become a NATO member."

Seems some "red lines" are meaningless to some people.

NATO draws its own lines. They may have a Complaints Department you could seek out.

From yesterday, eh? But from whom? What wormtongue described it as "ultra-provocative"? Surely you haven't fallen to quoting anonymous Russians.

[L.W. Baxter]

dangling nato membership as a carrot seems like nato forgetting its purpose.

either the membership of ukraine was beneficial to the security interests of nato, and vice versa, or it was not.

same is true today. i had assumed that, post-invasion, the public promotion of ukraine's nato membership is setting the table for the negotiations at war's end. in other words, a commitment to be traded away.

but, how to make sense of the language in that 2008 statement. fourteen years on.

was the promise sincere? or did nato leadership think that they could thereby provide some protection for ukraine without committing to its defense? a bluff of sorts? doesn't appear to have worked.

[gypsie]

Yes still nitpicking. Or rather shifting the goal posts.
Now stop digging.

what are you talking about Nick. Honestly I've completely lost you.
Bombing citizenry works, has worked and will probably work in the future. That's not nitpicking, it's actually quite broad.

[gypsie]

No it isn't. It's just one of the niche theories.

So George, how do you think the conversation went?

messenger 1: Supreme commander the US has bombed scores of our cities to rubble, and now they've dropped two bombs that have each destroyed an entire city!
Supreme commander: yawn.
messenger 2: the Russians are looking a bit menacing on the northern frontier.
Supreme commander: Holy s#it snacks, we must surrender immediately!

[Nicholas Carey]

what are you talking about Nick. Honestly I've completely lost you.
Bombing citizenry works, has worked and will probably work in the future. That's not nitpicking, it's actually quite broad.

At the end of WW 2, German factories were producing as much or more war materiél than they were prior to being bombed. The people of Germany weren't pressing for peace.

Vietnam? Between 1965 and 1975, we dropped more than 7,500,000 tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. That's more than 30,000,000 500-pound bombs.

More than twice the tonnage dropped in both the European and Asian theaters during WW 2, and in a vastly smaller area to boot.

How well did that work out?

I will grant that in WW 2 Japan, once the home islands were within reach of allied , the bombing of the home islands may have hastened the end of the war. . . a bit -- but not by much.

"Strategic bombing" doesn't work.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories...5390bba4735cdb

[gypsie]

......Sure there was more than one thing happening at the time, it was a world war, and the bombs may well have been the final (very big) straw - but they were, beyond doubt, material in the decision.....[for Japan]

....I would guess that in the sweep of history, where a citizenry has been killed/bombed/starved and yet ultimately prevailed is possibly the exception.

At the end of WW 2, German factories were producing as much or more war materiél than they were prior to being bombed. The people of Germany weren't pressing for peace.

Vietnam? Between 1965 and 1975, we dropped more than 7,500,000 tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. That's more than 30,000,000 500-pound bombs.

More than twice the tonnage dropped in both the European and Asian theaters during WW 2, and in a vastly smaller area to boot.

How well did that work out?

I will grant that in WW 2 Japan, once the home islands were within reach of allied , the bombing of the home islands may have hastened the end of the war. . . a bit -- but not by much.

"Strategic bombing" doesn't work.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories...5390bba4735cdb

Sorry Nicholas, are you saying attacking civilians has not contributed to their defeat every single time? That there are glaring exceptions? I'm sure we entirely agree on that.
You seem to be a bit more qualified when it comes to saying it has never had any effect. Here I think we are also in agreement - though I'm less circumspect.

I think the 'may' in your final sentence is an understatement. But I completely respect that you think so. So many cities wiped out by fire bombing and then two atomic bombs, I find it difficult to believe that it only 'may' have expedited the decision.
Sure, for a depleted Japanese army, the Russians warming up would have been a concern, but the Americans showing them their position was utterly hopeless seems far more likely to have pushed them over the line. Japanese civilians, women and children, were being taught how to fight hand to hand. They were preparing to fight America, and anyone else, street by street through the whole country. The A-bombs made that exercise completely redundant. Japan had no answer for it. As far as the Japanese were concerned the Americans had a steady supply of A-bombs and they could lob them in at will.
You think that only 'may' have been on their mind? I say it was front and center. Peerie Ma appears to think it was immaterial. We have the full spectrum - how lucky we are to be such a melting pot of ideas.

[Nicholas Carey]

Sorry Nicholas, are you saying attacking civilians has not contributed to their defeat every single time?

Errm . . . . No.

I said nothing regarding our use of nuclear weapons in Japan. Not "strategic bombing" per se. That was its own thing. More people died in Dresden than Hiroshima -- the kicker is that Dresden required some 800 bombers; Hiroshima, just one.

What I'm saying is that "strategic bombing" -- that is, the deliberate targeting of civilian targets via mass bombardment -- has proved, overall, not to be not an effective tactic.

[ Global thermonuclear war? We don't know. Yet. Seems unlikely to be a terribly successful tactic, what with making the planet largely uninhabitable and all. But that's another discussion entirely. ]

We, and others (viz, Battle of Britain) tried with the strategic bombing thing. Really hard, and it just didn't work.

In my opinion, what getting blowed up, over and over -- "bouncing the rubble" -- does is instill a "FSCK you!" attitude on the part of the targets. It's not a good method of winning friends and influencing people.

One of the reasons we generally don't do that sort of "bomb 'em all back into the Stone Age!" thang any more.

Well, except for Russia -- they seem to be a little slow on the uptake.

[dutchpp]

The ISW Russian offensive campaign assessment, November 30.
https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...nt-november-30

Key Takeaways

• The Russian military’s efforts around Bakhmut suggest that Russian forces failed to learn from previous costly campaigns focused on operationally insignificant settlements.
• Russian state nuclear company Rosenergoatom appointed a new director for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
• The Kremlin continues efforts to stifle domestic dissent through an expansion of measures ostensibly aimed against “foreign agents.”
• Russian opinion polling suggests that the Russian public may be growing tired of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
• Russian forces continued efforts to defend against Ukrainian counteroffensive operations along the Svatove-Kreminna line.
• Russia forces continued to make incremental gains around Bakhmut and to conduct offensive operations in the Avdiivka-Donetsk City area.
• A Ukrainian official acknowledged that Ukrainian forces are conducting an operation on the Kinburn Spit.
• Russian and Ukrainian sources indicated that Russian officials are continuing to conduct partial mobilization measures.
• Russian officials’ ongoing efforts to integrate illegally annexed territories into the Russian Federation are likely very disorganized.

[Vadim 68]

Parliament punch-up: Huge fight erupts among MPs in Ukraine legislature - YouTube

10 years ago.

Ukraine parliament scrap: 2 MPs brutally fist fight over bill - YouTube

7 years ago.

And NATO-Ukraine agreement was 14 years ago.

That is 2 videos of many fights in the Rada.

Point is, Ukraine has had 14 years to clean up its internal politics and corruption, and has not done so.

The non enforcement of the rule of law and peoples rights and lack of democracy the main reason EU heads give for Ukraine not being ready to join the EU, and for that matter NATO.

The people who have no sympathy for Russians voting for people who oppress them, are strangely quite when Ukrainians do the same.

I am surprised that Zelensky s handlers have not told him to stop walking around in a T-shirt, when the majority are freezing. Its not good optics.

[George.]

So George, how do you think the conversation went?

messenger 1: Supreme commander the US has bombed scores of our cities to rubble, and now they've dropped two bombs that have each destroyed an entire city!
Supreme commander: yawn.
messenger 2: the Russians are looking a bit menacing on the northern frontier.
Supreme commander: Holy s#it snacks, we must surrender immediately!

More like:

messenger 1: We have lost all contact with Hiroshima. We are still not sure what happened there. We sent people to see and report.

messenger 2: The Soviets have invaded Manchuria and are sweeping all before them. They may get here before the Americans. They are not nearly as casualty averse so our strategy against the Americans will not work.

messenger 3: Something happened at Nagasaki. Still trying to understand what happened at Hiroshima 3 days ago.

messenger 4: The Americans agree that we can keep the Emperor and no Soviet occupation if we surrender.

Supreme commander: OK, uncle.

All this took place over less than 10 days. The question is, were steps 1 and 3 necessary?

[George.]

Terror bombing does work, but not the way people imagine. It serves to shore up morale on your own side, particularly when you are not doing well in the war.

The British started bombing Germany because it was the only thing they could do while the Axis won victory after victory. They didn't know when to stop.

The US started bombing Japan with a militarily useless raid on Tokyo, but which was needed to show people back home after Pearl Harbor and the explosive Japanese advance that followed.

Al-Qaida plane-bombed the US to gain standing among millions of oppressed Muslims who thought that was "fighting back".

Russia is bombing Ukrainian cities after two humiliating losses in Kherson and Kharkiv, to show Russians that they are not actually losing.

[skuthorp]

Regardless of the justification or not for 2 A bombs on Japan, It probably stopped the killing of all POW's if that story is correct.
But I think that, and the development of guided missiles to carry them, is the reason we have not had another world war. When amongst the first casualties of that kind of war would be the politicians and 'leaders' that started it and their families they thought more than twice.
So now its proxy war, fought mostly against civilians and none of them want it, but they do not make the decisions, their 'leaders' do, and often if defeated pay no price. And of course in such a conflict it's always the ordinary citizen who pays. You cannot make those 'leaders' do anything by bombing the helpless, but we do. The model is out of date. The technology exists on all sides to rub out the said 'leaders' without mass casualties, even amongst the armies. But it won't be used because all of them are equally vulnerable although a ration of polonium seems to be the Russian way of dealing with smaller fish.

[CollinR]

George, make that three humiliating losses, the push for Kiev, Kherson and Kharkiv.

[Vadim 68]

Terror bombing does work.....

It worked when NATO and the US bombed Yugoslavia, and it worked in Iraq.

The only difference between targeting civilian infrastructure is that when Russia does it, it is terrorism, but when the US/UK/NATO do the same thing, it is called spreading freedom and democracy.

All the time other nations sit back and allow it to happen without consequence, it will continue.

[Canoez]

Hmmm…. Last I checked, both the US and UK are a part of NATO.

Other than the Chinese Embassy, the level of civilian casualties were reported to be low with respect to military casualties. Considering the situation, some civilian casualties were not unexpected - regrettable, but not unexpected.

To compare that with Russian artillery and unguided missile attacks on civilian populations and the targeting of labelled civilian shelters is disingenuous at best.

However, this is precisely what we have come to expect.

[Vadim 68]

Hmmm…. Last I checked, both the US and UK are a part of NATO.

But not all military intervention is combined. Falklands conflict was not a US/NATO war..... but im guessing you knew that.

To compare that with Russian artillery and unguided missile attacks on civilian populations and the targeting of labelled civilian shelters is disingenuous at best.

Really? In 2006, a group of economists from the G17 Plus party estimated the total economic losses resulting from the bombing were about $29.6 billion.^[179] This figure included indirect economic damage, loss of human capital, and loss of GDP.^{[citation needed]}The bombing caused damage to bridges, roads and railway tracks, as well as to 25,000 homes, 69 schools and 176 cultural monuments.^[180] Furthemore, 19 hospitals and 20 health centers were damaged, including the University Hospital Center Dr Dragiša Mišović.^[181][182] NATO bombing also resulted in the damaging of medieval monuments, such as Gračanica Monastery, the Patriarchate of Peć and the Visoki Dečani, which are on the UNESCO's World Heritage list today.^[183] The Avala Tower, one of the most popular symbols of Belgrade, Serbia's capital, was destroyed during the bombing.<sup>[184]

And in Iraq:</sup>

Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to 1,033,000 excess deaths (per the 2007 Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey). Other survey-based studies covering different time-spans find 461,000 total deaths (over 60% of them violent) as of June 2011 (per PLOS Medicine 2013), and 655,000 total deaths (over 90% of them violent) as of June 2006 (per the 2006 Lancet study). Body counts counted at least 110,600 violent deaths as of April 2009 (Associated Press). The Iraq Body Count project documents 185,000–208,000 violent civilian deaths through February 2020 in their table.


During the Gulf War of 1991 aerial bombardment caused severe damage to the electric grid that operated the pumping stations and other facilities for potable water delivery and sewage treatment, causing massive problems with Water supply and sanitation in Iraq. The sanctions imposed by the UN at the conclusion of the Gulf War exacerbated these problems by banning the importation of spare parts for equipment and chemicals, such as chlorine, needed for disinfection.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq produced further degradation of Iraq’s water supply, sewerage and electrical supply systems. Treatment plants, pumping stations and generating stations were stripped of their equipment, supplies and electrical wiring by looters. The once-capable cadre of engineers and operating technicians were scattered or left the country. Reconstruction efforts faced a nation with a severely degraded infrastructure.

However, this is precisely what we have come to expect.

The infamous "we", those who can not or unwilling to cast a gaze upon their own past and present actions, while calling out on others for the same behaviour? I believe the word to define such attitude is hypocrites.

[Canoez]

Really?

Really.

I make no apologies for the 1991 UN efforts in Iraq. Again, invading a peaceful neighbor as Iraq did was inexcusable. Their treatment of the Kuwaiti population was appalling.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq is another kettle of fish entirely. I will not and cannot justify the actions of the US and coalition partners. As we know today, much of it was based on a fabrication fed to the US government about WMD by Iraqi nationals who stood to benefit, along with various US actors. Scott Ritter, a man of questionable motives who now supports Russian perspective with regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine was also involved.

[Nicholas Carey]

All this took place over less than 10 days. The question is, were steps 1 and 3 necessary?

We'll never know. Casualty estimates for the planned invasion of Japan were . . . high. To say the least. And decisions get made on the basis of best available information.

From H-057-1: Operations Downfall and Ketsugo -- November 1945:

https://www.history.navy.mil/about-u...7/h-057-1.html

The U.S. Sixth Army, which would invade and occupy Kyushu, estimated 124,935 U.S. battle casualties, including 25,000 dead, plus 269,000 non-battle casualties (disease, accident, etc.) for Kyushu alone. The JCS came up with an estimate that a 90-day campaign on Kyushu would cost 156-175,000 battle casualties, with 38,000 killed in action. By late July, the JCS was forecasting 500,000 casualties at the high end and 100,000 at the low end. In late July 1945, the War Department provided an estimate that the entire Downfall operations would cause between 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead. (Given that the initial Downfall plan called for 1,792,700 troops to go ashore in Japan, this estimate is indeed most sobering, and suggests many more troops than planned would need to be fed into a meat grinder). Other estimates in the U.S. government indicated U.S. deaths at 500,000 to 1 million. Which of these and other estimates would be the most accurate has been hotly debated over the years (and are caught up in the debate about whether the atomic bomb should have been used), and I&rsquo;m not going to solve it. But it is clear that the cost of invading Japan would have been staggering for both the U.S. and the Japanese.

[L.W. Baxter]

More like:

messenger 1: We have lost all contact with Hiroshima. We are still not sure what happened there. We sent people to see and report.

messenger 2: The Soviets have invaded Manchuria and are sweeping all before them. They may get here before the Americans. They are not nearly as casualty averse so our strategy against the Americans will not work.

messenger 3: Something happened at Nagasaki. Still trying to understand what happened at Hiroshima 3 days ago.

messenger 4: The Americans agree that we can keep the Emperor and no Soviet occupation if we surrender.

Supreme commander: OK, uncle.

All this took place over less than 10 days. The question is, were steps 1 and 3 necessary?

that's a truly terrible story if at all true.

was it the case that most in japan did not know quickly that hiroshima and then nagasaki had been atom bombed? is that something you know about or something you surmise?

hard to believe that such events would not have been widely known right away, what with the mushroom clouds and all. there would have been many eye witnesses. and foreign news reports. and they did have radio and telephone, eh?

[Osborne Russell]

Lavrov says Russia has to destroy Ukraine's energy infrastructure because it supplies the Ukrainian military.

The Ukrainian military says it has an "autonomous" power supply.

Russian Shelling Cuts Power to Kherson as Lavrov Defends Strikes

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12...n=World%20News

He defended Russia’s strikes against Ukrainian areas that Moscow has illegally annexed and now considers its own territory, such as the Kherson region, comparing its assaults to Stalingrad, which was leveled during one of the bloodiest battles of World War II when Soviet forces achieved a pivotal victory against Nazi Germany.

“Stalingrad was our territory too and we have beaten Germans there so much that they ran away,” Mr. Lavrov said.

[johnw]

What I'm saying is that "strategic bombing" -- that is, the deliberate targeting of civilian targets via mass bombardment -- has proved, overall, not to be not an effective tactic.

That's terror bombing. Strategic bombing is an attempt to destroy your opponent's ability to wage war. Attacks on refineries made it difficult for the German war machine to go anywhere, attacks on the rail networks had a similar effect.

Britain built more aircraft and more tanks than Germany during the war, starting from a much smaller production base. The Germans became quite adept at spreading out production to smaller establishments, which made it difficult to wipe out their production, but made their manufacturing less productive. Huge factories like Castle Bromwich were just more productive, and the Germans never figured out how to conceal refineries.

As for the A-bomb, we know what the Japanese leaders thought they knew, what the leaders said were their motivations, and we know that there was a deliberate effort to preserve those records precisely so that no one would be able to manufacture a 'stab in the back' narrative after the war.

I understand how morally convenient it would be to believe that not only were the bombings an atrocity, but also that they served no purpose. It's much easier to condemn the bombings if you don't have to balance them against the cost of starving the Japanese into the breakdown of their society or invade with the possibility of a million allied dead and far more Japanese dead. But we know a lot about how the Japanese decision to surrender was made, and it just didn't follow the script George describes.

I find it strange that we're discussing this again, when it was thoroughly hashed out in the earlier thread that I posted a link to. It seems to me quite clear that the Russian campaign against Ukraine is mostly terror bombing. Certainly they are hitting some strategic targets, but we've seen enough apartment buildings, hospitals, and schools hit to be pretty certain what the intent is.

[George.]

was it the case that most in japan did not know quickly that hiroshima and then nagasaki had been atom bombed? is that something you know about or something you surmise?

hard to believe that such events would not have been widely known right away, what with the mushroom clouds and all. there would have been many eye witnesses. and foreign news reports. and they did have radio and telephone, eh?

They knew that something terrible had happened, but what? Something terrible had happened to lots of cities, some worse than Hiroshima. Was it really a single bomb? Did it really flatten the city? How to tell if all communications are cut off?

Send someone with orders to come back and report. That takes time. Wiki says:

On 7 August, a day after Hiroshima was destroyed, Dr. Yoshio Nishina and other atomic physicists arrived at the city, and carefully examined the damage. They then went back to Tokyo and told the cabinet that Hiroshima was indeed destroyed by a nuclear weapon. Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on".^[187] American Magic codebreakers intercepted the cabinet's messages.^[188]
Purnell, Parsons, Tibbets, Spaatz, and LeMay met on Guam that same day to discuss what should be done next.^[189] Since there was no indication of Japan surrendering,^[188] they decided to proceed with dropping another bomb.

So the confirmation that it was an atomic bomb probably got back to Tokyo on the 8th at best. Give them a couple of days to argue and for it to sink in? No, less than 24 hours, and then field commanders were deciding to drop the next bomb.

That's not a timetable for someone who values Japanese surrender more than dropping the second bomb.

Note also that the Japanese were willing to endure not only Hiroshima, but "one or two more bombs" - so Nagasaki didn't change their calculus. The Soviet invasion and getting to keep the Emperor did.

[johnw]

that's a truly terrible story if at all true.

was it the case that most in japan did not know quickly that hiroshima and then nagasaki had been atom bombed? is that something you know about or something you surmise?

hard to believe that such events would not have been widely known right away, what with the mushroom clouds and all. there would have been many eye witnesses. and foreign news reports. and they did have radio and telephone, eh?

They may have noticed that an army base went missing.


https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49

Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.

ww2dbaseThe city of Nagasaki was one of the most important sea ports in southern Japan. Although it was not among the list of potential targets selected by Oppenheimer's committee, it was added later due to its significance as a major war production center for warships, munitions, and other equipment. This was the very reason why Sweeney hoped that Kokura would have clear weather for the attack, thus avoiding an attack on Nagasaki which housed a greater civilian population.

[sandtown]

The pro-war faction here, a majority actually, is falling down on the job. . .

Sure, you have trashed and defamed anyone who is skeptical about the war,

but you left out one important person of that persuasion - JCS Chief Gen Milley.

Why is that ??

He just has to be some sort of Rooskie Bot and/or Vlad lover, doesn't he ??

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...iations-205906

[sandtown]

I understand how morally convenient it would be to believe that not only were the bombings an atrocity, but also that they served no purpose. It's much easier to condemn the bombings if you don't have to balance them against the cost of starving the Japanese into the breakdown of their society or invade with the possibility of a million allied dead and far more Japanese dead. But we know a lot about how the Japanese decision to surrender was made, and it just didn't follow the script George describes..

If what you say is correct, why was nearly the entire US military command against the bombing . . ??

And lots of historians believe that an invasion of the home islands would not have been necessary.

Truman did not come up with the claim that the bombing saved lives until a year after the war ended.

[L.W. Baxter]

The pro-war faction here, a majority actually, is falling down on the job. . .

Sure, you have trashed and defamed anyone who is skeptical about the war,

but you left out one important person of that persuasion - JCS Chief Gen Milley.

Why is that ??

He just has to be some sort of Rooskie Bot and/or Vlad lover, doesn't he ??

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...iations-205906

actually, this position has been mine and that of many other alleged "pro-war" posters here since the argument started:

Milley voiced the Biden administration’s position that it is “up to Ukraine to decide how and when or if they negotiate with the Russians” and that the U.S. will support Kyiv against the Russian invasion "as long as it takes,”

that corresponds exactly to what i want to hear from u.s. leadership.

[Canoez]

actually, this position has been mine and that of many other alleged "pro-war" posters here since the argument started:

Milley voiced the Biden administration’s position that it is “up to Ukraine to decide how and when or if they negotiate with the Russians” and that the U.S. will support Kyiv against the Russian invasion "as long as it takes,”

that corresponds exactly to what i want to hear from u.s. leadership.

Yup.

[LeeG]

Really.

As we know today, much of it was based on a fabrication fed to the US government about WMD by Iraqi nationals who stood to benefit, along with various US actors. Scott Ritter, a man of questionable motives who now supports Russian perspective with regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine was also involved.

Much of “it” was a fabrication based on hypotheticals elevated to probabilities by appointed officials like Rumsfeld and Cheney who made the bureaucracies work towards a desired goal on their own efforts. Chalabi and other nationals shared common purpose with neocons and House Republicans like Gingrich and even though Chalabi had been proven unreputable by ‘96 he served the war makers needs. Cheney/GW didn’t need Chalabi and the INC as much as they needed Judith Miller and Robert Kagan.
Trash Ritter all you want but he was right about US undermining UNSCOM and inspections.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which existed from September 2002 to June 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then–United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior George W. Bush administration officials with raw intelligence (unvetted by intelligence analysts, see Stovepiping) pertaining to Iraq.[1] A similar unit, called the Iranian Directorate, was created several years later, in 2006, to deal with intelligence on Iran.[2]

[Canoez]

Much of “it” was a fabrication based on hypotheticals elevated to probabilities by appointed officials like Rumsfeld and Cheney who made the bureaucracies work towards a desired goal on their own efforts. Chalabi and other nationals shared common purpose with neocons and House Republicans like Gingrich and even though Chalabi had been proven unreputable by ‘96 he served the war makers needs. Cheney/GW didn’t need Chalabi and the INC as much as they needed Judith Miller and Robert Kagan.
Trash Ritter all you want but he was right about US undermining UNSCOM and inspections.

Oh yeah.

But Ritter has a host of other issues. The question becomes when did they start and what were his aims - and did they begin because he was disillusioned by what he found with UNSCOM?

[LeeG]

Oh yeah.

But Ritter has a host of other issues. The question becomes when did they start and what were his aims - and did they begin because he was disillusioned by what he found with UNSCOM?

The creation of disinformation by Cheney and Rumsfeld’s neocons to mislead Congress and the nation was the real battle for GW’s administration. What happened in Iraq was secondary or tertiary which must perturb some folks who dedicated their lives to US military power.
You know, under the guise of gettin’ terrists create the conditions for greater terrorism.

Ritter is irrelevant unless you are interested in how the conflicted nature of the US policy manifests itself on the ground with allied agencies. The US DID bug UN surveillance electronics. When Rittler discovered this he went through proper channels on the US side with his concerns and was told to shut up. Which he did while laying his life on the line for the inspections. The official who listened to his concerns was Charles Duelfer who later on replaced David Kay for the face saving white wash investigation on the mysteriously missing WMD.

[skuthorp]

There is no such animal as a 'US Foreign Policy', hasn't been for decades. You've only got what's politically, and financially convenient to one or the oother majors in 4 o 8 year bites at best.

[Canoez]

Ritter is irrelevant unless you are interested in how the conflicted nature of the US policy manifests itself on the ground with allied agencies. The US DID bug UN surveillance electronics. When Rittler discovered this he went through proper channels on the US side with his concerns and was told to shut up. Which he did while laying his life on the line for the inspections. The official who listened to his concerns was Charles Duelfer who later on replaced David Kay for the face saving white wash investigation on the mysteriously missing WMD.

At the moment, Ritter isn't irrelevant. Right now the biggest Ritter issue is really with regard to his positions on Russia and the invasion of Ukraine. He's a cheerleader for Putin at the moment. Strange turn of events, no?

[LeeG]

At the moment, Ritter isn't irrelevant. Right now the biggest Ritter issue is really with regard to his positions on Russia and the invasion of Ukraine. He's a cheerleader for Putin at the moment. Strange turn of events, no?

Some folks say if you aren’t with us yr against us.