Topic awaiting preservation: Taking liberties (Page 2 of 3)

Emps, I reconsidered the justness of the war 5 months ago when I stated that regardless of whether WMD were found I still thought we did the right thing in taking down Hussein. I listed several reasons for that in that thread. In light of seeing the Iraqi people crawling out from underneath decades of totalitarianism it is very difficult for me to see removing Hussein as anything but just.

The current debate about loaning the rebuilding effort bothers me though. I think we should pour in gobs of our own money to the rebuilding of Iraq and not expect them to pay us back. It's a win-win if we do. As you know, I believe that our presence in Iraq contributes to us winning the "war on terror". I see this "war" as very long term. I think we'll be fighting this for at least a decade. We have a chance to really remove the sources of this radical version of Islam that has fueled these attacks since the 70s.

I have a question for you. I am genuinely curious. It seems you believe that poverty begets evil actions from people. Why? Does being rich make one virtuous? I know you can't believe that after hearing your views on corporations and such. Here's something I don't get, Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire and most of the 9-11 hijackers were not from poor backgrounds at all. How do you explain their motivations then?

I believe we are dealing with idealogically driven madmen. I believe that those with few alternatives are more susceptible to being recruited but it does not seem to be the primary motive for these terrorist efforts.

You mentioned the Palestinian issue. Bin Laden never even mentioned them in his rhetoric until recently when he saw it as a good propoganda move.

I guess I would just appreciate a view into your reasoning on all of this because it just seems so different from my understanding on some of the key issues.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs:

quote:

---

We have a chance to really remove the sources of this radical version of Islam that has fueled these attacks since the 70s.

---

but none of these sources were in Iraq.

quote:

---

I have a question for you. I am genuinely curious. It seems you believe that poverty begets evil actions from people. Why? Does being rich make one virtuous? I know you can't believe that after hearing your views on corporations and such. Here's something I don't get, Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire and most of the 9-11 hijackers were not from poor backgrounds at all. How do you explain their motivations then?

---

I can't explain the motivation of individuals who are now ash. My point was rather broader than that. Terrorism relies on a whole pyramid of support with the actual terrorists on the top and layers of active support and funding below them with the lower tiers made up of people who look the other way, don't ask too many questions, tell stories about the evil of the enemy and the honour of our side. You can't win a war on terror (if such as thing is every winnable) by taking out the top of the pyramid because more people will rise up to take their place.

Although different this is how progress was made in Northern Ireland - the actual war on terror wasn't working and was only helping to fuel the cycle of violence that keeps things rolling on down the generations. Negotiations, work on th economy of Northern Ireland (it was one of the few places that got top listing for European funding), increased democracy, etc. helped to bring people to the table but more importantly it helped cut out the lowest levels of support - there were cros denomination organisations of mothers against violence, etc. Once the people can see another route out of the mess they will take it and without their complicity then terrorist organisations struggle to survive.

As I say it is different with Islamic terrorists but issues like poverty, inequality and the Palestinian problem are driving these people into the camps of the fundamentalists and that the only way you can address the War on Terror is to address these issues.

quote:

---

I believe we are dealing with idealogically driven madmen. I believe that those with few alternatives are more susceptible to being recruited but it does not seem to be the primary motive for these terrorist efforts.

---

While I wouldn't call them madmen (thats letting them off far too easily) you are right - they are basically exploiting the vast majority of their supporters to further their own ends.

Hope that helps explain my take on the situation.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I heard this interview a few days ago. She seems to have the credentials and if what she has to say is even close to accurate....Americans will never look at a candy bar or a newspaper the same way.

Quite astonishing.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2003/200310/20031013.html
http://www.ubcpress.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=3721
http://www.modernjihad.com/

(added last link)


[This message has been edited by NoJive (edited 10-15-2003).]

Ooooooo:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/10/13/domestic_spy/index.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

but none of these sources were in Iraq

---

I'm not prepared to say that *none* were there. But let's assume they were not for the sake of argument. Our action in Iraq is part of a larger move against terror. I believe we all agree that the despotic governments of the Arab world are partially to blame for this movement. Freeing Iraq from dictatorship and rebuilding it such that the people of Iraq will be able to engage in self-governance puts pressure on the entire region for reform. If the peoples in the Arab world realize that they don't have to live under oppression by seeing a working example in Iraq they just might decide for the same in their own countries.

The terrorist organizations are very threatened by a democratic Iraq because it may lead to drying up all of their recruiting grounds for the "foot soldiers" they need. I think they know this better than anyone and that is why we see all the foreign activity in Iraq now. It is pulling would-be and de facto terrorists into their demise everytime they challenge the US soldiers there and soon to be Iraqi army when it is fully trained. From articles I've read and reports I've heard, the Iraqi people are very eager to rid their country of these terrorists who are trying to derail the rebuilding process. Security is foremost on the people's minds. In fact, I saw a gallup poll the other night that had Iraqi opinion wanting the US to remain for a while longer until things are stabilized. I believe it was 70% - 20% in favor which is a huge margin.

We cannot afford to ignore the entire situation by just looking at one country in a vacuum and that is why I keep insisting this war was part of the war on terror. I hope that clarifies part of my view as well.

So, yes, your words do help me understand better and it sounds to me like we really don't disagree that much at all. A new Iraq will address the core problems you cite. We have to start somewhere and this process, if done right, will take many years to develop.

After I called them "madmen", the thought occurred to me that I was letting them off too easy as well Point well taken on that.

About our intelligence breakdown. It cannot be denied. Under the C*****n administration, and even further back too, we shifted so much of our focus away from human intelligence that we shot ourselves in the foot. Perhaps it would be better to say we poked out one of our eyes. We believed that sophisticated spy satellites and other technologies could *replace* human intelligence. What a mistake!

I don't know whether or not modeling a new agency after MI5 makes sense but I do believe very strongly that we need some serious reform in our intelligence agencies. I believe that things have improved as of late but those improvements may take some time to realize in actual performance.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs:

quote:

---

I believe we all agree that the despotic governments of the Arab world are partially to blame for this movement.

---

Hmmmmm well despotism, combined with a good feeding ground for fundamentalist beliefs and a great inequality in wealth.

I'm afraid Iraq was missing the second (and vital) ingredient - if that is your justification for the War in Iraq then Saudi Arabia would be number one on your list.

I'm sorry to say that all these kinds of arguement has emerged after the primary reasons for invading Iraq have all fallen apart. Sure Iraq will probably be better off with democracy but so would half the countries in the world.

quote:

---

The terrorist organizations are very threatened by a democratic Iraq because it may lead to drying up all of their recruiting grounds for the "foot soldiers" they need.

---

Interesting - do you have any numbers of how many Iraqis were in Al Qaeda? My understanding was they were from various countries where fundamentalist Islam has storng roots like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

quote:

---

After I called them "madmen", the thought occurred to me that I was letting them off too easy as well

---

Quite - it is the cold blooded planning and execution of their acts of terror that is scary.

Emps

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Food for thought...


-Top 5 weapons importers 2002 (in dollars):

Saudi Arabia: 5,2 billion
Egypt: 2,1 billion
Kuwait: 1,3 billion
United Emirates: 0,9 billion
Israel: 0,7 billion


-Top 5 weapons exporters 2002 (together 80% market share):

USA: 10,2 billion
UK: 4,7 billion
Russia: 3,1 billion
France: 1,8 billion
China: 0,8 billion


( Numbers from http://www.iiss.org/ )

Interesting article on The New Great Game and how it might actually make things worse:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1066570,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I think that the world leaders are really trying to play the new, top secret game Living Diplomacy. (I think that a few people here might get it)

Well, interesting thread...lots to think on so far. Nice work to Emps, not letting up. I salute you. Interesting to see that Bugs is still in support of Iraq...some things never fail to amaze me, I guess. I wonder what it would take to convince him otherwise? Massive US losses? Masses of money dumped into Iraq?

Hmmm...

WS, let me say that it's great to have you back in here. It's been a long time and I've missed you.

My position should not amaze at all. My goals have been openly stated from way back when we started these discussions. When our actions have made the goals that I want to see achieved less realizable that is when I will drop my support.

Massive US losses would be a definite problem. If our actions prove to make the terror machine grow in the long run then we will have failed. If it grows in the short term and then wanes after other reforms have taken root, that would still be in line with the overall goals.

I would be very interested to hear your views now that we have come this far. It sounds like you haven't changed your position much either. I don't think any of us have very much, which doesn't surprise me. Almost everything that happens is viewed through each of our different world views.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs, I already experessed my views before, during, and afterwards - and they stand up pretty well, in hindsight. I feel pretty well vincicated in all that I predicted before, and suggested. No WMD - the 'big lie'. And that Iran is much more dangerous than Iraq (and other countries, to be blunt). That the Bush administration is incompetant, and has made rather large mistakes, especially in the case of Iraq. That the plan to rebuild Iraq still doesn't exist (realistically).

To think that this will somehow have a 'domino effect' on the region is wrong, as history shows us - see Vietnam and the asian region and communism. Now, democracy lost that conflict, but communism didn't 'sweep' the area, now did it? I think we could learn something from this, but sadly, I think history repeats itself.

In the case of Iraq, I do not see it being a 'boon' for the west, but rather a very dangerous 'flashpoint' for further conflict. We have already seen how the Isreali's have 'reacted' to it - bombing Syria, and we are left standing there, having to applaud it - sickening. Now Syria says that it will defend itself, and who can really blame them? This is not making things 'better', IMHO, but worse. Also, US soldiers are dying practically everyday in Iraq - I have seen interviews with the soldiers there - they are not happy to be there, obviously. The moral is terrible - understandable, I think. They do not feel like the 'saviors' of Iraq, but more and more like the hunted, the oppressors. Why is there no international police force there? Well, thank Bush for that...'We can do it without the UN'...right. He has dug us into a hole, that will be very hard to get out of now, with face.

You know, our country was just starting to heal from the damage of Vietnam, and was somewhat enjoying the victory over communism, and now we are slowly slipping down that slope again. My heart goes out to the men and women in uniform, who are bearing the cost.

Emps,

quote:

---

...if that is your justification for the War in Iraq then Saudi Arabia would be number one on your list.

---

My justification for the war has never been so narrowly defined and short sighted as that. For some, perhaps, but I have always taken a broader view of all of this.

Saying all of these arguments have fallen apart is a bit overstated, IMO. It is far too early to tell how a struggle that has been clearly communicated to be at least a decade in length will turn out. You must keep in mind that we have virtually ignored the problem of Islamist terror for about 30 years and you don't set it right in just a couple of years.

quote:

---

Interesting - do you have any numbers of how many Iraqis were in Al Qaeda? My understanding was they were from various countries where fundamentalist Islam has storng roots like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

---

I believe you are correct that most members come from the countries you state and not from Iraq, but I did not say that they did. I specifically said that a democratic Iraq may lead to a drying up of their recruiting grounds. WebShaman does not believe this will be a dominoe effect and I'm not saying it will be that obvious either but ask yourself this, if a democratic Iraq were not a threat and there was no connection between it and Islamist terror why do the current foreign terrorists operating there attack the rebuilding efforts with such vigor? Why don't they simply go back to attacking the countries they hate the most? I believe it is because they understand more than anyone what is at stake -- they depend on the despotism and the madrasas to feed their movement.

WebShaman, we have both laid out our views and there are some things that you most certainly called accurately and I'll acknowledge them. There were no WMD found. The Bush administration's rebuilding plan was clearly flawed and poorly conceived, no doubt about that. You also predicted that the initial military take-down would be swift and effective but that the trickle of body bags would continue during the subsequent occupation and that is what we see now.

There are some things that we clearly still see in an entirely different light however. The Bush administration is far from incompetent since it has accomplished the toppling of an entire regime with minimal losses that have been unparalleled in modern history. American support for our actions remains quite strong as the polls bear that out.

You say that Iraq will be a flashpoint in the future. That is quite possibly true but part of the strategy in this war on terror is to keep the battle ground off of our own soil. It is far better, from America's point of view, to fight there than here. We have opened two foreign fronts in this war so far, first Afghanistan and now Iraq. The terrorists have thus far been drawn to both fronts like moths to flames to recieve their eternal rewards as I'm sure they would characterize it.

Polls in Iraq show that an overwhelming majority want the US to *remain* there *until* reasonable security can be established. A new Iraqi army is being trained as I'm sure you're aware and an Iraqi police force is currently operating. The new government is being formed as we speak and we will simply have to wait until elections can be held and a government gets a foothold before leaving makes any sense whatsoever. An international police force would be helpful. But don't forget that we do have multiple nations supporting this already. It would seem to me that the French and Germans are finally coming around to supporting the rebuilding efforts. I saw a report a week ago or so about that. Regardless of our disagreements before the war, what reason can anyone give now for not supporting the Iraqi people? They wanted to support them before with a brutal regime in place so how much easier will it be to get the aid to the people now that it is gone?

We will see about the "dominoe effect". I doubt it will happen that clearly but it most certainly puts pressure on the surrounding regimes, particularly Iran. I totally agree with you that Iran is a problem but you have never acknowledged how much of that country is ready for a revolution. I have stated repeatedly that there is a good possibility the revolution can be kick started *without* starting a war with them. We do not want to start unnecessary wars, it simply makes no sense to do that. If you can win a war without having to commit troops, wouldn't you?

Your comment about Israel bombing Syria confuses me. Whose applauding it? Why is it sickening? Syria has funded and supported direct attacks on Israel for years, what do you want the Israelis to do?


I feel compelled to reiterate *my* view of this and how my stated justifications compare with the events thus far. Jestah forced me to itemize why I supported the war then and how I would react if no WMD were found after going in which suggested he thought my view hinged solely on WMD, which it definitely didn't. I said back in April 2003:

quote:

---

First of all, they will be found... one way or another. I think we can all agree to that. Secondly, I have never said that was the only reason for this war. I tried to go back and collect all the main reasons I supported this war:
1. Iraq consistently refused to comply with the Gulf War I cease fire agreements.
2. We know WMD existed in 1998 and we had no verification that they were destroyed. Why no verification? Because Iraq refused to do so.
3. Hussein proved that he was interested in taking over some if not all of the Middle East. He tried to take Iran and he tried to take Kuwait. Left unopposed, who could have predicted what he could have achieved. The point is that it was his goal.
4. Allowing the world's chief oil reserve to fall into the hands of a despot like Hussein was unimaginable and unacceptable on *every* level.
5. I think 12 years is long enough time to prove the only way to solve the issue was by force. Simple as that, he left us no choice.
6. The brutality and cruelty of this regime was unquestioned by anyone here. Iraqi children were dying daily as a direct result of the regime and that was also a good reason to suppor this regime change.
7. Links to international terrorism. This is now confirmed and falls under the "harboring terrorist" criteria. Abul Abbas was hiding there and terrorist training camps were run there, and Hussein paid money to the families of the suicide bombers attacking Israel.

I don't care what the Bush administration had to say to justify the war to the public. Hussein had to be taken down for the reasons above. Diplomatically if at all possible and by force if not.

---

WS, you say your predictions hold up well in hindsight and so do my justifications for the war. I was wrong about the Bush administration planting WMD for propoganda though, funny since they are such a lowly bunch I don't know what they are waiting for.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 10-31-2003).]

quote:

---

WebShaman does not believe this will be a dominoe effect and I'm not saying it will be that obvious either but ask yourself this, if a democratic Iraq were not a threat and there was no connection between it and Islamist terror why do the current foreign terrorists operating there attack the rebuilding efforts with such vigor? Why don't they simply go back to attacking the countries they hate the most? I believe it is because they understand more than anyone what is at stake -- they depend on the despotism and the madrasas to feed their movement.

--Bugimus

---

Foreign Terrorists? Which Foreign Terrorists? That's pretty vague...and I don't think they depend on depotism or madrasas to 'feed' their various organisations, whatever 'they' may be. I think they depend on the 'oppression' of the US to go on...that 'feeds' them enough...well, that and the Israelis...you'll note that I put oppression in quotes, because I think it is a perception thing. To you or me, it isn't, to them (whoever they are) it is.

quote:

---

The Bush administration is far from incompetent since it has accomplished the toppling of an entire regime with minimal losses that have been unparalleled in modern history.

---

Uhhh...we've been toppling Regimes for a long time, a lot without any loss of American Life - this doesn't, in my mind, count as not being incompetent. Far from it. Not getting the backing of the UN was a huge mistake (especially considering that the US had all the aces it needed after 9/11), and the Bush Administration royally screwed that one up. Not having a realistic plan for 'post-war' Iraq...and, of course, the Rumsfeld 'plan' in the war...need I go on?

quote:

---

You say that Iraq will be a flashpoint in the future. That is quite possibly true but part of the strategy in this war on terror is to keep the battle ground off of our own soil. It is far better, from America's point of view, to fight there than here. We have opened two foreign fronts in this war so far, first Afghanistan and now Iraq. The terrorists have thus far been drawn to both fronts like moths to flames to recieve their eternal rewards as I'm sure they would characterize it.

---

I'm saying that it is a flashpoint now! It has served to be a most unpleasant example, as the actions of Isreal has shown. Bombing Syria? That certainly helped matters in the region, didn't it? And there are still American soldiers losing their lives in Iraq...and still the guerilla fighting goes on (well, one could call it terrorism). And yes, two fronts...never something desirable in warfare. And I'm not sure if the 'terrorists' are being 'drawn to the flame'...I think they are reaping rich recruiting grounds because of the two 'fronts', if you will.
I don't see this thing getting better, and the internal memo from Rumsfeld only strengthens my convictons that the Bush Administration has no game plan, is only reacting instead of the opposite. In response to the bombing of Syria...uhhh...I don't understand how you could be confused. Yes, terrorist organizations having been using Syria for years...and other regions, as well. But bombing Syria? That is clearly not going to drive away the terrorists. As to who 'applauded it'? Why, Mr. Bush himself! Not that he had any other option...we had just done the same to Iraq, after all...

As for planting WMD evidence, it turns out that it is harder than it looks - otherwise, it would have been done, I am sure.

Just running through but this is an interesting article on the people we are prepared to work with and the hypocrisy of foreign policies when these kinds of people are Our Men one day and the enemy the next (bets on how long before Our Man in Uzbekistan gets on to the enemy list?):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Unsettling, to say the least.
FYI the situation in Turkmenistan is just the same: Brutal dictatorship, access to oil, support from the US (not shure about UK in that case).


It´s "Foreign Policy in Five Easy Steps"tm

1. Find country with large oil fields.
2. Befriend or install Dictator.
3. Give him plenty of weapons and training for his death squads so the population can´t overthrow him.
4. Get paid in oil.
5. (optional) If, after one or two decades, the guy starts acting crazy (e.g. selling to someone else), "liberate" the country, making sure you have sufficient control over the new government to keep the oil flowing.

(if necessary, replace "oil" by any other important resource, including cheap labor, military bases, or strategic alliances)

And how about this then:

quote:

---

Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam's government made a series of increasingly desperate offers to the United States. In December, the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11 attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction. If the object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed, was prepared to submit himself to internationally monitored elections within two years. According to Mr Cannistraro, these proposals reached the White House, but were "turned down by the president and vice-president".

By February, Saddam's negotiators were offering almost everything the US government could wish for: free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, even rights over Iraq's oil. Among the people they contacted was Richard Perle, the security adviser who for years had been urging a war with Iraq. He passed their offers to the CIA. Last week he told the New York Times that the CIA had replied: "Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad".

Saddam Hussein, in other words, appears to have done everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative to the impending war, and the US government appears to have done everything necessary to prevent one.

---

and:

quote:

---

The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."

On the same day, Tony Blair, in his speech to the Labour party conference, ridiculed the idea that we could "look for a diplomatic solution". "There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime... I say to the Taliban: surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. It's your choice." Well, they had just tried to exercise that choice, but George Bush had rejected it.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1082250,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Are you suggesting that in the moments before the attacks the Taliban and/or Hussein had totally reformed themselves? Is that the point? Because that is the *only* thing that could lend any legitimacy to the idea that we should have stopped the wars once we had gotten to that point.

This is so maddening sometimes. You spend years and years of sanctions, and months and months of preparation for war all perfectly visible to the Taliban and Hussein with the understanding that full compliance with UN resolutions will avoid war. Then each those regimes did *nothing* to avoid the conflict and then when the final moments approach they cry out for a settlement and I am to seriously take that as genuine? Is that what I am to take from this last post? It makes no sense to me.

Why didn't the Taliban hand Bin Laden over to the US as was requested? Why a neutral Muslim nation? It should be obvious. They had no intention of giving up power or Bin Laden. If I had been them, I wouldn't have either. The enemy you've sworn to fight to the death asks you to stand down and hand over your highest leader? No, that would be to abandon everything they believe in. Far better to do anything possible to hold off the attacks in order to continue your fight.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs, I don't think Emps is suggesting (or anyone else, for that matter) that the leopard(s) was (or is) going to 'change its spots'...

I think moreso, that it was being pointed out, that there was maybe a possibility for negotiations, instead of war - diplomacy.

However, we all know now, that Mr. Bush is probably the worst President we have ever had, when it comes to diplomacy...

WS, with your understanding of world history, would you negotiate at the eleventh hour? Isn't the point of negotiations that there is some coming to the table in good faith? I would like to know your opinion of this point.

Bugs: As WS has said (and I believe we have been saying for a while now) war should be the last resort. As with the search for WMD it is clear that the UN was actually doing a good job. Saddam was a snake but if he was making such offers it would have been good material to then take to the UN and use it to create solid agreements and if he broke them then we could have got everyone's backing and things would be much smoother.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

A couple of things:

quote:

---

The White House yesterday drew up emergency plans to accelerate the transfer of power in Iraq after being shown a devastating CIA report warning that the guerrilla war was in danger of escalating out of US control.

The report, an "appraisal of situation" commissioned by the CIA director, George Tenet, and written by the CIA station chief in Baghdad, said that the insurgency was gaining ground among the population, and already numbers in the tens of thousands.

One military intelligence assessment now estimates the insurgents' strength at 50,000. Analysts cautioned that such a figure was speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe.

.......

"There are thousands in the resistance - not just a core of Ba'athists. They are in the thousands, and growing every day. Not all those people are actually firing, but providing support, shelter and all that."

........

In public at least, the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has insisted that the attacks are the work of a few remnants of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist party and a handful of Islamic jihadists from other Arab countries.

It is understood that Mr Bremer's administration is concerned about the impact of the decision by US forces to escalate their offensive against the insurgents, anxious that bombing and heavy-handed raids will increase popular support for the insurgency.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1083829,00.html

Which pretty much backs up what I've been saying all along and the harder we clamp down on things the more resentment the Iraqi people feel and this has a knock on effect as the UN are effectively lumped in with the US/UK (and allies) and so it makes deployment of UN peacekeepers difficult.

And on the subject of fair competition for contracts to rebuild Iraq:

quote:

---

The US is to reaffirm that non-American companies cannot win government contracts in the multi-billion dollar effort to rebuild Iraq.

Only companies with US joint ventures can expect to take prime contractor roles in a fresh wave of reconstruction programmes to be funded by the $18.6 billion budget cleared by the US Congress last month.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1080754,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

As with the search for WMD it is clear that the UN was actually doing a good job.

---

The UN inspections were completely ineffectual.

quote:

---

It was a Saddam was a snake but if he was making such offers it would have been good material to then take to the UN and use it to create solid agreements and if he broke them then we could have got everyone's backing and things would be much smoother.

---

How many more UN resolutions would have brought us to everyone's backing of going to war? We had done this for years. How many more UN resolutions would it have taken for *you* personally to have joined the war effort?

On the broader topic, I completely agree that it should be the last resort but here is how it should work. The last resort has been reached once a clearly stated deadline for compliance has expired. In this case there were multiple deadlines set and subsequently ignored. I listened to a report last night where one of Saddam Hussein's aides, who now lives in France, stated that Saddam believed a US led invasion was iminent for almost a year before it happened. He claims Hussein believed his regime would be able to weather the attack. He believed the US would get bogged down in heavy casualties on the way to Baghdad and then want to pull back and come to some sort of compromise settlement. This turned out to be a huge miscalculation on his part, much like Japan's belief they could take much of the Pacific rim then sue for peace in the 1940's.

This means there was no intention of complying with the US and certainly not the world community on anything. But this is exactly what we should expect from a regime like Hussein's. I knew he operated this way, he knew he operated this way, so did Bush and Blair, and no doubt Chirac even.

Do you, Emps, believe that Hussein had no intention of compliance come what may? Please say yes. If you say, yes, then I *do* understand and I can respect how you could still be in favor of the containment argument. If you answer, no, then we really need to discuss our differences in understanding fundamental human nature.


About the insurgents gaining popular support, this is a danger the more the insurgents think they can sway American public opinion. They have studied Viet Nam and probably know very well that if they can turn the public away from the war, that will deal a death blow to the stabilization efforts. They also see a horde of Democrat candidates all talking about pulling out if they're elected. The election is just around the corner and I'm sure the insurgents will be praying for a "US regime change" (as Sen. Kerry put it).

I heard a very interesting analysis by Marc Ginsberg, former US ambassador to Morocco, where he says the biggest problem the US has at the moment is that their "walking around money" has dried up. Baksheesh is a fundamental element of Middle East reality. Emps, being familiar with Turkey you can confirm that, right? Well, if we're going to have any chance of gaining the upper hand against the loyalist remnants in Iraq, we need to get quality intelligence from the local population. Without funds, it just ain't gonna happen. So Ginsberg argues that the $87 billion cannot get to Iraq fast enough.

We must keep in mind that the polls in Iraq still show strong support for us to remain there until we can stabilize things enough. But there is absolutely no doubt that this is a temporary arrangement. The longer the new government flounders, the more at risk we are at losing popular support for the continued rebuilding efforts.


This is a very interesting view of the WMD issue. Saddam got rid of WMDs: aide

quote:

---

A CLOSE aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it in an effort to divide the international community and stave off a US invasion.

The strategy, which turned out to be a serious miscalculation, was designed to make the Iraqi dictator look strong in the eyes of the Arab world, while countries such as France and Russia were wary of joining an American-led attack.

At the same time, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time.

---

It would appear that not only is this guy a snake but also a complete idiot. He completely blundered as far as maintaining his regime. Had he agreed to allow the inspectors to do their jobs, he would still be torturing people to death to this day and we would all be... well giving lip service to how terrible it is for his people. The same way we do, me included, for all the other nation's who are oppressed by brutal regimes.

Saddam's Secrets Exposed by Aide (Tariq Aziz)

quote:

---

Among the details provided by Aziz and the captured files:

? Saddam did not attack invading American and British forces because he believed that France and Russia would use the U.N. Security Council to stop the war.

? Ties were even stronger to two other nations: North Korea, which was in the process of selling Iraq a long-range No Dong missile, and Serbia, which provided Iraq with a sort of "lessons learned" template from its experience in dealing with the NATO-led air campaign over Kosovo.

? Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, according to Aziz, an assertion echoed by most other captured Iraqi leaders. But Saddam was insistent on developing long-range missiles despite the U.N. resolution barring him from doing so.

? The names of every Iraqi intelligence agent working abroad over the past few years. "We know [Saddam] had agents all over the world. We know who they are, and we're going to find all of them," one official told Fox News. "The Iraqis were meticulous record keepers."

---

It should be obvious that Hussein was coldly calculating the strengthening of his regime ever since the end of Gulf War I. From other stuff I've read, it looks like he put the WMD on the back burner and through major support behind more powerful conventional weaponry including the missiles specifically banned by the UN. He would have been able to reach Israel and friendly Arab nations in the Persian Gulf with those with much more accuracy than he did with the scuds.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

He claims Hussein believed his regime would be able to weather the attack. He believed the US would get bogged down in heavy casualties on the way to Baghdad and then want to pull back and come to some sort of compromise settlement. This turned out to be a huge miscalculation on his part

---

Oh really? Where is Saddams body, Bugs? I'm waiting...just like the WMD...

Fact is, the situation in Iraq is starting to escalate. On both sides now. This can be seen as a lack of progress - escalation of hostilities normally means a halt to rebuilding (you can't really be said to be re-building, when you are blowing up buildings, right?). Now the Bush Administration would like to 'hurry up' and install an Iraqi leader, and get the hell out of Dodge. I thought you were partly supportive, because this thing was supposed to take years? That the Bush Administration was 'in it for years' and was going to 'do it right'?...doesn't look like it.

Seems to me, that if things continue along the way they seem to be going, that Saddam has a very good chance of returning to power again, just like he did before. I find that totally unacceptable.

War is always, always the last resort. It was clear from the start, that Mr. Bush wanted the war in Iraq - your smoke and mirrors, Bugs, doesn't hide this fact. Quit distorting the issue. Mr. Bush lied to the American People, to get this war. Now, Emps has a good point, of getting solid evidence and credibility with ones allies, before going to war. Did I, or do I trust Saddam? No. That is not the point. It's diplomacy and politics, that leads up to a war, that we are talking about here. There is a correct way, and a wrong way. George Bush Sr. did it the right way. I think the evidence is strongly supportive of, that Mr. Bush Jr. went the wrong way. We can see, that Mr. Bush did not do his homework, when it came to UN support, instead, quite the opposite. No plan for the aftermath, either...as we are now beginning to realize just what that means...and a steady stream of bodies of our boys and girls in uniform coming back home. Now, when it comes to 11th hour diplomacy, the only real purpose that it serves are a)One is the weaker side - and is trying to either avoid a war, or to get better terms for losing. B) One is from the stronger side - and is trying to get a better position, or win without fighting. Only someone who is extremely arrogant, or very powerful (or stupid), will ignore 11th hour diplomacy.

Personally, Mr. Bush is a huge failure, on all accounts. About the only thing that he has accomplished, is to give out huge, fat contracts to his croney buddies in the private sector. Afghanistan is still in turmoil, drug production there is up to 70% of the worlds opium (normally money for terror organisations), and hostilities are picking up. Bin Laden is still out there. Al Qaida still exists. Saddam cannot be accounted for, and hostilities are picking up in Iraq.

I don't particularly feel safer now. I wonder what other lies Mr. Bush has told us, and is telling us now?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 11-14-2003).]

[edit]
Not now...
[/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 11-14-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 11-14-2003).]

Bugs:

quote:

---

The UN inspections were completely ineffectual.

---

How so? How many more WMD have we found since having free access to the country?

------------
On a related note - extreme birth abnormalities in Iraq (I'm not sure if this need saying but the images on the following pages are harrowing and you should think twice before clikcing the link - if you are easily upset then just don't do it):
http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Emps, it is well known that UNMOVIC was less aggressive than UNSCOM. UNSCOM left in 1998 because it was being blocked from inspecting. Therefore, the last rounds of inspections could not have been doing the job they were sent to do. The UN resolutions specifically stated that it was Iraq's responsibility to allow the inspectors to *verify* the destruction of banned weapons. The inspectors were met with even more obstruction than the team encountered in 1998.

WS, I am looking at the facts and making a case for how I think we should proceed. If you want to call that "smoke and mirrors" then go right ahead. I don't understand why after so many good discussions we've had you keep coming back to the personal attacks. I hate it when you do that. Look, neither of us are the policy makers and neither of us are calling the shots. We are both living our lives and commenting on events and how we do or do not support certain actions. I am trying to keep this discussion civil but when you suggest that I'm deliberately misleading you, that really hurts. I will admit to picking and choosing the points I make to support the goals I want achieved but that is totally normal and proper. You do the same thing by only focusing on the negative. In fact, I would say that you are far more one sided than I am on this. I haven't heard you say ONE thing good about Bush since this all started. At least, I have acknowledged where I have been wrong on some of these issues.

. . : slicePuzzle

Hmmm...maybe my words were a bit harsh, Bugs - my apologies. It's not really you with the 'smoke and mirrors'...it's the Bush Administration, really. I just get tired of hearing them get repeated, when they are so obviously misleading.

Fact is, Iraq is not going well. Not in a long shot. When building something, one needs a firm, solid foundation...you know this. Well, the US has failed to build it. Irregardless of what gets built on it, it will not be solid - I really don't think it will stand the test of time. This faulty foundation is being built with the blood of our countrymen. So yes, I damned well expected that it would be taken with the utmost amount of seriousness, and the highest standards. It pains me more than you could ever know, to see such...incompetence and cronyism.

Now, I'm not saying that there is no hope, or no way of repairing the situation - far from it. I just don't see Mr. Bush being competant enough to realize the signs, and to do what is necessary to change the situation in time. The chance to hand the situation over to the UN is past, unfortunately - Mr. Bush shot that one all to hell. I'm not sure if the UN would touch Iraq with a ten-foot pole at the moment, or in the near future.

Basically, I saw a lot of well-meant, idealogical intentions run head-on into reality.

As for what 'good', or positive, things Mr. Bush has done...

I'm still out on that one. I mean, some things started out well - and I even agreed with them, and supported the ideas behind them. Afghanistan, for one, and concentrating on Al Qaida, the bringing together of a lot of the worlds information services, ect. Yes, these started out well...but have been sorely mis-managed in the time between now. There is now suspicion, and fear, between allies, where there was once mutuality. That shuts down information transfer faster than anything else, really. Afghanistan? Well...yeah, what about Afghanistan? I thought we wanted to re-build it, and help it become a democracy. Remember? As long as it takes? Well, that didn't last all that long...it leaves a most bitter taste in my mouth. As for concentrating on Al Qaida - well, there have been some successes there. That is true. But there has been failure, as well. Bin Laden is still on the loose.

Yes, you are right and justified to point out, that I am in no way, shape, or form in a position to dictate or affect American policy anymore. That is a true statement. And being right on my/your behalf, or wrong, isn't going to make a big difference in the scheme of things. At least, I don't think it will. However, it does have a small effect, on the peace of being in my mind, and heart. It troubles me, that good men and women are dying in a foreign country - I would like to think they are not dying in vain. I am very sure that you share at least these sentiments.

I would very much like to hear your proposal. Please post it. It would be interesting, to work on something like that. Maybe we could start a project here, at the Asylum, to do just that. It would be interesting, to see how such would go and develope here.

Now, this is along the lines of what I mean - A turning point in the Iraqi mess?



Surprising is the source - The Christian Science Monitor!!

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 11-21-2003).]

WS: Thanks for that and I think I know see the bigger picture:

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer got hold of a highly classified CIA report warning that an increasing number of Iraqis believe that the insurgents can defeat the American-led forces, and that the majority Shiite Muslim population might join the Sunnis to achieve that objective.

---

Its beautiful in its simplicity - you piss the Iraqis off so much that they end up settling their various differences and the Kurds, Muslims, Christians, etc. all unify to kick us out of the country.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I apologise for doubting the long term vision of our leaders - a few hundred soldiers dead, 1-20 times that in civilians and the outrage of the international community may be a small price to pay for creating a strong, stable and unified democracy in the Near East.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men?s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine?s December edition, the former commander of the military?s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that ?the worst thing that could happen? is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, ?... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we?ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.?

Franks then offered ?in a practical sense? what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

?It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world ? it may be in the United States of America ? that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.?

Franks didn?t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks? scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.

---

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

"U.S. Patriot Act"

^ That thing is terrorism of the first order. We have something similar in Canada. I am less than impressed.

recent history...not getting into the brit empire etc. Hopefully the sarcasim surfaces.

Over the past 20-30 years or so in the middle east various 'western assets' (people - buildings etc.) have been killed & destroyed by terrorists operating under what we now know as Al Qaeda. Then one day the terrorists expanded the arena and killed several thousand people in the USA. Mostly in New York. So 'we' had a war over there in Iraq. Come to think of it it was our second war over there. Anyway... this time there were specific targets. Sadam and Osama. (UNFINISHED BIZNESS FROM ANOTHER WAR) Both would love to inflict even more terror on western assets but while they were thinking about what to do, the USA, CANADA and BRITAIN and a few other countries, up and stole their thunder via legislaton under different labels, but which all do basically the same thing. Take away, eliminate, remove, erase virtually any liberty we currently enjoy.

What do we have.. 300 million people in the US... 30 mil or so in Canada... How many in GB Emps?...round everything off and lets say half a billion people who at any time can be whisked from their homes and held who knows where for who knows how long and 'they' don't have to tell you your family or your lawyer anything.

It's kinda like what was going on in Iraq - and still is going on in Syria - Libya etc. The only difference I see is that "we've" written it down. "hmmmm I see we have this piece of paper here that gives these people all sorts of rights and liberties, guess we better have another piece of paper telling them that we can take away all those rights and liberties any time we want but just make sure we don't have to tell them when or where we might do that. Deal? Deal!"

That's 'terrorism' folks...all written down in somebody's best hand. So who won the war?

I've paraphrased him before and will again.

"Those who would trade liberties for security deserve neither." Ben Franklin.

Or as Tom Waits said: "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."


[This message has been edited by NoJive (edited 11-24-2003).]

Some history:

When the Nazis took over germany, the point of no return was a fire in the Reichstag building in Berlin (which was, and now is again the house of parliament).
The Nazis said "the communists" had set it on fire (they even found a guy to charge with the crime, without any real evidence) and that a democracy was not able to deal with such dangerous enemies.
This convinced Hindenburg (head of state of the Weimar Republic) to sign the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" ("law of empowerment"), giving up his own powers and enabling Hitler to override decisions of the Parliament at will.
To this day it is highly doubtful if this "communist" really started the fire. One theory is that it was the Nazis themselves.

We´ll never know, but we all know the results. We better not forget how it started.

A couple of interesting articles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1092487,00.html

This addresses the 'morality' issue which our (US/UK) governments claim for invading Iraq - noteworthy are things like:

quote:

---

.... the White House is not a branch of Amnesty International. When it suits its purposes to append a moral justification to its actions, it will do so. When it is better served by supporting dictatorships like Uzbekistan's, expansionist governments like Ariel Sharon's and organisations which torture and mutilate and murder, like the Colombian army and (through it) the paramilitary AUC, it will do so.

It armed and funded Saddam when it needed to; it knocked him down when it needed to. In neither case did it act because it cared about the people of his country. It acted because it cared about its own interests. The US, like all superpowers, does have a consistent approach to international affairs. But it is not morally consistent; it is strategically consistent.

It is hard to see why we should expect anything else. All empires work according to the rules of practical advantage, rather than those of kindness and moral decency.

---

------

And this is also interesting about the hyping of the threat in the run up to the next election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23DOWD.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fMaureen%20Dowd

Also read this - its about the dirty dealings inside 'British intelligence':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1090082,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

[an aside]I wish people would stop posting links to the new york times website...you need ot sign up to get anything off there, and I'm not even slightly inclined to sign up for another bloody service.

But that's just me[/an aside]

let's face it...the american government, the australian government, the israeli government, all the damn governments are never going ot always do what is morally right. In the end it's always about doing what is going ot serve them best. If it's a 'regime change' in a country that realy hasn't handed them a threat in a long time' then they'll do it.

quote:

---

All empires work according to the rules of practical advantage, rather than those of kindness and moral decency.

---

That pretty much sums it up for me. And if history repeats itself, which it seems to do, the empires' sphere of influence diminishes to the point that ~pooof all gone. =)

Skaarjj: Sorry - the story was reproduced in my paper but only available via their website so its tough

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I've been wondering when Jay Garner would speak out - Former U.S. administrator blasts U.S. post-war actions in Iraq. Interesting what he has to say

quote:

---

In an interview with the BBC, retired Gen. Jay Garner describes a long series of mistakes. He says the pre-war planning was poor and it was undermined by intense rivalry between the Pentagon and the State Department.

He also criticized the decision made by his successor Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi army, a decision which U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is now hinting may be revisited.

---

As pointed out here:
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=625

the oil is running out and if the US aren't positioning themsleves to ensure their long term access to supplies of oil then I'd consider the administration wasn't doing their job.

This kind of thing has been going on for decades but as the oil reall starts to run out I suspect things will become even less subtle and even a half-hearted attempt to sugar coat the pill with the pretence of humanitarian concerns.

Clearly I'd love to see our reliance on fossil fuels reduced as quickly as possible but it is doubtful if anyone in the US and UK can get into power without selling their soul to the oil industry so this is unlikely. Its also clear from that article that we can't find the alternatives here on earth and we need to go into space too (huge solar collectors in space, deuterium mining on the moon and then further in the future some kind of exploitation of the other planets esp. Jupiter).

My main concern is that the radical rejigging of our lifestyles will only start when it is far to late and things are falling down around our ears (e.g. we have to stop using planes and go for some kind of undersea/underground bullet trains pos. with the tunnels in vacuum but I just can't see it happeneing until its too late).

May you live in interesting times

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

A team of military lawyers recruited to defend alleged terrorists held by the US at Guantanamo Bay was dismissed by the Pentagon after some of its members rebelled against the unfair way the trials have been designed, the Guardian has learned.

And some members of the new legal defence team remain deeply unhappy with the trials - known as "military commissions" - believing them to be slanted towards the prosecution and an affront to modern US military justice.

Of the more than 600 detainees at the US prison camp at Guantanamo, none has been charged with any crime, and none has had access to a lawyer, although some have been in captivity of one kind or another for two years.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098618,00.html

Big report here too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098604,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org