Topic awaiting preservation: Taking liberties

I watched a report on the BBC (News 24) called "Taking Liberties" which might have been part of a series and it covered a few aspects of who American's liberties have been eroded post-911.

They covered some nasty stuff with peaceful demonstrations against companies who had got contarcts to rebuild Iraq being broken up with wooden bullets (ouch) and motorbikes being driven into the crowd, etc.

The most disturbing thing in the report was about the 'No fly lists' which are lists of people who have their right to fly restricted. This one woman is on the list and has an S (for search) printed on her tickets and she is searched on all internal and external flights and her only crime appeared to be editting a newsletter campaigning against the war in Iraq. the biggest problem is that no one seems to know who is on the list, who controls the list (it is a 'joined up' effort between various agencies), how you get on or how you get off.

Some stuff:
www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12740&c=206
www.inthesetimes.com/issue/27/02/feature3.shtml
www.washingtonfreepress.org/63/challengeToGovernment.htm
www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc042702.html
www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/foia/watchlist_foia_analysis.html

I suppose this is old news to some people here but it seems a scarey development. Thoughts?

[edit: oh and the demo that was broken up was this one (quote from the first link):

quote:

---

the most violent police response in the nation to protests against the war in Iraq

---

www.aclunc.org/pressrel/030626-oakland.html
www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5578918.htm
www.web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510562003

The first picture here is of someone I saw in the report and the injury is as nasty as it looks - be warned):
http://idaho.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1790.php

We stopped using wooden batons here a long time ago because they could cause injury very easily - I think we sill use rubber bullets which can also kill]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

A lot of people in the world, (USA, UK, Middle East, oh just about all over) are now operating on a War Footing, and as part of that mind set, use the phrase, "by any means nessessary" literally. For both offence and defence, "if you aren't with us, you are against us" I am reminded of the McCarthy "Witch Hunts" of the 50's.
The world is in a sorry state Emps, I hope we can fix it.

::tao::

[This message has been edited by Taobaybee (edited 01-14-2004).]

Anti-globalisation activists have found out that there is a "watch list" being run by the Mexican government in the run up to the WTO meeting in Mexico - their response is quite amusing:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1033200,00.html

At the height of football hooliganism there were similar lists of known trouble makers that were shared between the polic of various nations and if these activists are trouble makers then fair enough but it isn't clear where or how these lists were drawn up either - I'd imagine the Mexican authorities would have had input from the US and further afield and so similar questions are rasied about freedom of speech, etc.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

this doesn't suprise me in the least and it's surely nothing new. governments across the world have been keeping such records for quite a long time.
i could be completely wrong here, but wasn't there the same sort of outrage over these types of lists during the vietnam war?
i'm very much on the fence with this whole "list" thing because i feel that the goverment should be keeping tabs on certain people.... though, i wouldn't want to end up on a list somewhere simply because i know someone who's demonstrated against something they felt strongly about.
though... just to let you all know...i'm keeping my own special "list" of inmates. BWAHAHAHAHAH

__________________________
Cell 1007::

Oh nooo

Lacuna: But people should have a right to peacefully protest against thing they think are wrong without being monitored and harsassed. Its one of our societies checks and balances against increasingly unaccountable politicians and businesses (in fact rather thn being called unpatriotic I think such things are very patriotic). I believe you Americans also have such a thing as freedom of speech.

When we had the football hooligan lists everyone knew about them, I believe they were fairly public (as they had to be) and were the result of serious violence where people were getting badly injured and killed. I'm sure it was 100% fair to some people who got caught in the net but at least they were a response to a threat not a response to people expressing their concerns.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

gosh Emps!.. going through your links... I'm speechles.. this is awful...

..hmm, maybe thats why some are afraid to really speak their minds in here...



[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 09-02-2003).]

quote:

---

i could be completely wrong here, but wasn't there the same sort of outrage over these types of lists during the vietnam war?

---

yes, there was protest at the time, but access to the lists was never given. the federal bureau (fbi) kept extensive files on many people. years later, many people used the Freedom of Information Act to discover if they had a dossier on themselves and what it said. the down side was that, if no dossier existed for the person inquiring - one was started

peaceful protests turning violent in the SF bay area are well known. during the vietnam war when sec. of state Dulles visited SF, a large crowd gathered outside the hotel (atop nob hill) where he was staying. the police forced them to the sidewalks across the street and behind barracades. for some reason, the police decided to break up the protest and attacked the protesters with batons. those who didn't fall to the bludgening, ran for their lives down the street (California and ??- i forget the cross street). at the bottom of the hill (the streets run downhill from the top of nob hill) there were a plethora of paddy wagons and police ready to pound on them while they herded them into the wagons. few people escaped.

i met a fellow who stepped out of his apartment to get cigarettes and see what was happening with the protest. as he stepped out his door he saw people running and police chasing them with batons swinging. as he watched, he saw a woman fall and her male friend drop to cover her to protect her and take the pounding. within moments he, himself was a target for another policeman. he tried to get away, but ended up in a paddy wagon and jail...

i think the only reason the massive vietnam protest parade marches had no violence was because there were just too many people of many different ages. the variety of signs indicated everyone, from vietnam vets to WWII vets, were against the war.

the berkeley police overdid it a few years later when a bunch of anarchists (read students) tried to claim an abandoned piece of city land as a park by planting it with flowers and a lawn. there they used tear gas which permeated the area for blocks around and mace (which was said to be harmless, creating only a burning sensation in the eyes), which according to reports left one young man blind. so much tear gas was used to extricate the anarchists, that telegraph avenue was a fog all the way up to the university - 4 1/2 blocks away.

then of course, there was the raid on haight street where many people ran into the straight theatre and the police shot tear gas into the theatre to force people out...

it was an unquiet time

I'm more with Lacuna on this one. Emps you mentioned society's checks and balances. It reminds me that we are at war and because of that we have to balance civil liberties with security. I am not aware of any war we have ever fought where civil liberties have not be restricted more than at peace time.

I don't know where the line is crossed... probably no one does but I do know that it has hardly been crossed *yet*. Things could get far far worse than anything we've seen so far and I think this should only strengthen our resolve to continue the war against terror to remove the threat that has precipitated the restricted liberties in the first place.

I have mentioned before that our history has shown that after our wars we have always restored liberties that were curtailed during the fighting. That does not mean that it happens automatically, it just means that we as a society have valued our freedom enough to keep a close eye on it. I can only hope we haven't lost sight of that core value.



. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs: Thanks for the input (as always). I wasn't aware:

1. That the Constituion/amendements, etc. was condiitonal - you have the right to free speech unless we don't like what you are saying. What if they decided that such free availability of guns was a security risk (I can see how that arguement could be made)?

2. That we were at war. The UK and other countries (like Spain and the ETA) have had experience of terrorism but I don't think it has ever been defined as a war. That said (at least here) it hasn't stopped people's rights being infrigined and major injustices being done. The experience here is that you can't use any means you like to achieve your ends.

Of course rights and freedoms taken away can be given back but governments tend to be control freaks and rights taken away tend to be rather difficult to get back. As this situation is open ended, vaguely defined and I can't see anyway that it can be brought to a clean resolution anytime soon (in fact what we are doing just seems to be making matters worse) governments could clearly justify restricting people's freedoms almost indefinitely (or at least for decade and pos. our lifetime).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

1. Freedom of speech is not, and has never been, absolute in this country. There have always been restrictions on the right to free speech and to my knowledge have always been curtailed during times of war.

2. Even if you don't consider this a war, then you certainly have to acknowledge it is a time of increased danger and hostility with entities intent on the direct attack on the citizens of this country. I have maintained since 9/11 that we are in a state of war, whether it be officially declared or not. That is my position and I've been consistent in that.

I do share your concern about erosion of civil liberties. I just think we have a different tolerance and/or appreciation for what is necessary to fight terrorism. I have always felt your country was far more restrictive of speech than anything we have here in the US. I had always understood that your government openly censored your airwaves on a regular basis

quote:

---

The experience here is that you can't use any means you like to achieve your ends.

---

I don't accept for a second that is the position of this government. They have bent over backwards to keep judicial oversight in this process. As far as the lists go, you point out that has been common practice for years. But as far as the other intrusions on our civil liberties there is still a proces in place for the vetting of surveillance.

I recall that you were pretty appauled at my lack of outrage about the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. I remember that very clearly and I think about it often. I will admit to you honestly that I am struggling with these things. I do not have an absolute understanding or position on them precisely because I can see both sides of this issue. I believe that "free societies" such as ours will always struggle with the balance between civil liberties versus the safety of its citizens.

What I don't want to happen here, though, is for us to become *comfortable* with Islamist terror. I hope you are not asking us to do that. I almost thought I heard you suggest that we "just get used to it" because it will always be with us. I cannot accept that or I would never have supported the attack on the Taliban and Iraq. I believe this entire effort is focused on defeating Islamist terror. One thing I can guarantee you I will oppose dogmatically is the appeasement of these groups.

quote:

---

...but governments tend to be control freaks and rights taken away tend to be rather difficult to get back...

---

I know that! That is why I pointed out my shared concern but also that we have been through this several times before in our history and they have been given back. That proves that so far we have a good record on this issue. I am simply trying to show that it is not a given that these recent measures will be permanent.

Let me just finish this post by pointing out that I appreciate *fully* your pointing out these things and I applaud you doing so. We need people to criticize these moves and to speak out against them because that is part of our system. We must have both sides pushing for competing ideas so we can better find the proper medium. But since you took the role of one of the sides, I felt it necessary to mention the other. If you feel there is only one side to this and there is no balance to be struck, then I will have to respectfully disagree.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs:

quote:

---

I don't accept for a second that is the position of this government. They have bent over backwards to keep judicial oversight in this process.

---

I'm glad you mentioned Guantanamo Bay immediately after this as it has an important bearing on this. I can't claim to be an expert on US law but the US administration has broken international law on this and continues to hold unspecified numbers of US citizens (and others from other countries including a couple of Britons - who, interestingly, might get sent back here for trial) without representation and trial.

quote:

---

I almost thought I heard you suggest that we "just get used to it" because it will always be with us.

---

I applaud your rhetorical flourish there and appreciate you were looking for a platform to make a number of relevant statements but I should clarify that I don't hold anything lie that viewpoint. The closest I would get is that (at least from experience of ) you should be prepared accept that this situation has no clear end game (unlike an actual war) - the way the problem is currently being addressed by the US and allies is:

1. Taking away your freedoms

2. While only making matters worse.

Beheading the hydra and rattling a stick in a nest of vipers is only going to make matters worse as is treating this like a war.

quote:

---

Let me just finish this post by pointing out that I appreciate *fully* your pointing out these things and I applaud you doing so. We need people to criticize these moves and to speak out against them because that is part of our system. We must have both sides pushing for competing ideas so we can better find the proper medium.

---

While you may appreciate such things I'm afraid that members of the administration seems to consider such things unpatriotic and liable to get people into trouble with no way of rectifying the situation.

Equally I appreciate that security services require a certain degree of freedom to investigate potential dangers to one's country. Unfortunately (time and again) they take that ball and run with it (here this included the running of death squads and a shoot to kill policy amongst other things). It is only be questioning policy and shining a light into the drak corners that they can be held accountable but it is clear that things don't cut both ways.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

How can we win against Islamist terror? I personally don't see how treating this as anything but a war will work. The attacks on the UN only bolster my belief in this. It proves to me that Islamist terrorists are not interested in negotiation, accomodation, or compromise. Because the UN clearly represents that approach when it comes to this issue. The Islamist terrorists have a very clearly stated agenda and it is geared toward one and only one goal -- their dominance of everyone and the removal of anything we could remotely consider freedom. They view this as the will of God and the bringing of peace to all peoples through submission and surrender to God's will and God's unchanging holy law.

quote:

---

2. While only making matters worse.

Beheading the hydra and rattling a stick in a nest of vipers is only going to make matters worse as is treating this like a war.

---

I would say that if you acknowledge the existence of the nest of vipers then we had better do something about it before it multiplies and becomes such a force we really won't be able to oppose it without massive loss of life and liberty.

You may yet be proven right that this course of action will only make things worse. It is clearly working thus far however. But when UBL unleashes his massive bio attack on us here and I'm still around to type, perhaps I'll see it your way. Or perhaps I'll still have my head up my anus wanting to strike back hard and fast. The problem is that I only have history to go on and only time to verify the current course we find ourselves on.


I believe our extremely different views of this administration are based completely on our respective beliefs about their motivations. Neither of us can possibly know their motivations for certain. This difference boils down to almost a difference of opinion as personal and relative as our views on religion. Here we have a specific action being taken that I see as understandable and expected and you see it as totally out of bounds. I'm not really sure there is anything we can say to change our opinions so I will be content in sharing my thoughts on it as you originally requested us to do.

I did not mean to put words in your mouth in my previous post. I know I have done that to you before. I am sorry for when I do that but sometimes the things you say just leave me so flabergasted that I can see no other interpretation. I will try to keep my replies more in the form of questions for clarification of your position in future... it's just that I lapse from time to time. I know that I am lumped in with several views I don't always agree with because of my affiliations... it's par for the course I suppose.

I realized that you mentioned the way crowd control is conducted here. I didn't really address that because I see it as a separate issue. There is always a need for crowd control for *any* type of demonstration that has the potential to get out of hand. This crosses idealogical boundaries and so I don't believe there is any connection between the methods used and the issue being protested. Lawful and peaceful denomstrations, of which there are hundreds, do not require violent methods of crowd control. Those kind of protests happen here all the time without incident.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-03-2003).]

[edit]damn, am I slow, my whole post was obsolete by the time I wrote it[/edit]

[This message has been edited by MW (edited 09-03-2003).]

That has happened to me more than a few times too.

Bugs:

quote:

---

The attacks on the UN only bolster my belief in this. It proves to me that Islamist terrorists are not interested in negotiation, accomodation, or compromise.

---

And this is part of the misconception - Saddam was never in league with UBL although the 'premptive' attacks on Iraq (which are increasingly looking groundless) may have pushed certain factions into bed. The attacks were either orchestrated by Saddam loyalists or by Islamic factions now allting themselves with those factions. These attacks have included strikes against Islamic groups who opposed Saddam such as the recent killing of hundreds of Shia (including an important cleric).

I may have used such terms as nests of vipers but things are far more diffuse and less clear cut than this (hence the reason there can't be a clean cut solution). This is exactly what UBL wanted - what was once the driving force behind a small and extreme Islamic organisation has been transformed (with the help of the US administration) into an 'us against them' confrontation. All the US is doing is proving that they are the Great Satan who is out to destroy Islam. It is perfectly possible for us to get along with most of the Islamic world we just need to separate the extreme elements from the moderate clerics but GW Bush is currently Al Qaeda's best recruiting agent -whether this is due to a neo-Imperialist agenda or whether he is doing this because he genuinely believes it it is the best for the American people is largely irrelevant when viewed from this perspective.

In Northern Ireland (and it seems in Palestine) the only way towards peace was to try and stop the tit-for-tat violence which only served to harden the attitude of the majority of people on either side. Once underlying problems could be addressed the majority of people don't want this constant rolling violence and the extreme minority become increasingly isolated and irrelevant. I'm not sure if that approach can work in this case but attacking Iraq has solved nothing and is far more likely to have driven young Moslems towards the more extreme elements of their faith. I'd be interested to hear what you think the answer might be because at the moment the US is fighting things on a totally different level to the enemy - they are trying to conqueror land but the enemy is far too nebulous to be nailed down in such a manner.

[edit as has been said before this sin't a fight for land but one for hearts and minds and while the US treats it as an 'old style' war then they are loosing that battle]

And I'm sure you've had far more people misinterpret your viewpoint than vice versa (technically you weren't you were just using a device to steer things in the direction you wanted to comment on which seems valid enough to me)

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I've been awfully lax in my postings of late (had a funeral to go to, my family is getting smaller every year ), but I thought I might add my two cents here real quick.

There has always been, and always will be lists of people and their "assessed threat level". I, of all people, have an FBI file. I was searched last time I crossed the border into the US from Canada. They tell me it's a random search. It might be, but I suspect the file has something to do with it. Doesn't bother me though. I'm a law abiding citizen. I haven't given them any reason not to trust me. I see it as a form of being cautious. That wasn't an awful thing last time I heard about it. How many things do parents do to ward their children from danger that are considered "overly strict" by other parents and definitely unfair by the kids? I've used this example before. The governemnt is in place, in part, to take care of it's citizens. It has to be strict sometimes, especially when some of it's own get out of line. When things calm down, so do the strictures.

Another point I would liek to make is that, peaceful or not, demonstration at some point need to be disbanded. People have this impression that, o long as they aren't hurting anybody, they have the right to be there. They don't. It's called loitering. Go ahead and protest, that's fine. But when you are told by legal officials to disband, do it. If you don't they become authorized to use more forcefull means to get you to disband. If you still resist their authorized level of force increases again. It increases until they are granted the right to arrest you for 'peacefully protesting' at which point someone in the crowd has a conniption about their rights being violated and start fighting. Now I didn't read all of the articles but I'm assuming that the cops didn't arrive at the scene, get out of their cars, and start beating the tar out of people. I imagine that they were there for a while first. Long enough for their authorization to act to escalate to the point that is being presented to you.

Also... these tactics are used in all mob/protest situations, not just anti-war protests.

Interesting article on similar themes to my last post above:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1034488,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ahem... not to be particularily offensive but, the topic of the article above... may well be the intent. If we're attracting them to Iraq, they aren't coming to the US or Britain. Also, if they are flocking to Iraq, we then know where the hotbed is and we already have a large military presence there. what better way to lure your enemy into a trap then with "easy" bait. The horrow of it is that several hundred deaths in Iraq may well be saving millions of lives in New York or L.A. or Chicago. We know they are there, we know we are losing lives, but we also know that we're saving them here at home.

A slow trickle may well be painful, but it is nothing compared to having a hole blown in your aorta such as a chemical/biological attack would be like.

GD: That would be true if there was a finite number of 'terrorists' but there isn't - it might just be inspiring disaffected youth in Palestinian camps or Saudi fundamentalists to cross the border to have a crack at the Great Satan. Perhaps if they see how easy it is to kill Americans it might inspire them to sign up with Al Qaeda to take the Jihad to American soil again.

He who sows the whirlwind.............

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

It would be interesting to know how many 'terrorists' have been made since the beginning of the war in Iraq. As it goes right now. No one has a clue. It is assumed that their numbers are exploding.

quote:

---

it might just be inspiring disaffected youth in Palestinian camps or Saudi fundamentalists to cross the border to have a crack at the Great Satan. Perhaps if they see how easy it is to kill Americans it might inspire them to sign up with Al Qaeda to take the Jihad to American soil again.

---

That's my point. How many of these people were already there just waiting around? A live firecracker with a long fuse. We are ferreting them out now instead of later when they decide they need to do something while we are in a state of unpreparedness. Yes we are amking more terrorists. Easy to see. We are also killing, capturing, and luring terrorists to Iraq where we can deal with them safely (from a selfish point of view). Do the numbers balance out? I don't know. If we kill, capture, and deter more than we make... we're doing well in our fight against terrorists. We are stirring up pretty much every sleeper cell in every country that has ever held hatred against the US and/or Britain. Can you think of a better way to find all of these terrorists? They have tapped themselves and now we just have to follow the ripples.

GD: Put there must be a section of these people who would have quite happily have got on with their lives and never been provoked into becoming a terrorist.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I imagine there are. I still don't find that a convincing arguement without any idea as to how many wouldn't have become terrorists without our presence in Iraq. Truth is, they may well have been coerced by 'recruiters' eventually anyway because of their known sympathetic views towards "the movement" (I'm sure they don't call themselves terrorists). I just don't know. I'm sure that there are some people that have been turned that wouldn't have been before. There have been people turned against us in every conflict we've been in, and in our own country no less. I don't find it shocking that people elsewhere in the world feel the same way as some people here do. The only difference being (contrary to popular belief) US citizens aren't prone to violent representations of their distaste. You can view it as being a pansy assed bastard if you like. What's our other choice? Be the war mongering society everyone thinks we are?

GD:

quote:

---

What's our other choice? Be the war mongering society everyone thinks we are?

---

I think thats the problem not the cure

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

~vital blood vessel in a key location within Bugs' cranium explodes~

My point exactly. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Everyone seems to want us to back off. Okay, we do that. Then what? Everyone bitches because we left. So they 'make' us do it, and 'make' us do it their way. Eventually it gets to the point of, "Why the hell don't you do it yourselves?"

quote:

---

~vital blood vessel in a key location within Bugs' cranium explodes~

---

~ticks off another item on today's to do list~

~wanders off to antagonise DG~

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

For those wondering why our troops are in Iraq (and just so I can watch Bugs' head go pop):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html

[edit: And these topics have been touched on many times here before - just search for PNAC or Wolfowitz.

Its also worth noting that Meacher was a senior minister in the UK goverment until this year]

[edit2: Its looks like this has provoked a bit of a diplomatic incident - more nes as things evolve ]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Further discussion of why invading Iraq would make us actually unsafer:
www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1040476,00.html

quote:

---

Tony Blair was warned on the eve of war by his intelligence chiefs that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of terrorist attacks, which they considered by far the greatest threat to western interests.

---

and:

quote:

---

Yesterday's report discloses that in February this year, a month before the invasion of Iraq, Whitehall's joint intelligence committee (JIC) warned that "al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq".

The intelligence chiefs added: "Any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, including al-Qaida."

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And just to show that it isn't just lily-livered lefty Europeans like myself that have concerns here is a letter from an American soldier serving in Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1045297,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

The situation in Baghdad:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16759

quote:

---

Here the criminal is king. Saddam emptied the prisons and the United States disbanded the police, while 60 percent of people are unemployed. As a result, carjacking, robbery, looting, and murder are rife. Marauding men in "misery gangs" kidnap and rape women and girls at will. Some of these victims are dumped back on the streets only to be executed by their "disgraced" male relatives in what are called "honor killings."

---

quote:

---

Three carjackers took a vehicle in midday. In response, the crowd on the streets started throwing stones while shopkeepers started firing AK-47s. Before long the crowd had dragged one of the carjackers out onto the street and started beating him. "They were jumping on his head and his chest. I don't think he made it," explains Birmingham in a deadpan Dublin brogue.

---

quote:

---

Officially there are, on average, 13 attacks on Coalition Forces in Baghdad every day. Since May 1, when the war "ended," more than 404 U.S. soldiers have been permanently removed from action due to wounds, while more than 60 have been killed.

---

quote:

---

Even journalists are getting killed. A Reuters photographer, Mazen Dana, was recently taken out by U.S. troops. Before that, a young British freelancer named Richard Wild was murdered by an assassin who probably thought his victim was a solider. Three GIs had died the same way: at close range, in the neck, from behind, with a pistol.

---

quote:

---

A young woman, through a translator, explains the details of her work. She sells herself to American soldiers for $15 a session. She's seventeen, wants to go to college and leave Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Smoke is rising from Karrada Street, an electronics district popular with U.S. troops. An American humvee has just pulled up on the median and been blown to pieces by a remote activated mine.

---

quote:

---

The GIs next to us among the refrigerators seem neither scared nor brave, just weary and numb. They are no longer driving the situation but rather riding it. And from this vantage point, crouching among the smashed merchandise and empty shell casings, one can feel the war taking on its own momentum.

---

[This message has been edited by MW (edited 09-20-2003).]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030923_556.html

Operation Iraqi Freedom of press:

quote:

---

In Baghdad on Monday, the U.S.-picked Governing Council voted to evict two Arab satellite broadcasting companies from Iraq, said Iraqi National Congress spokesman Entifadh K. Qanbar. The Qatar-based Al-Jazeera and Dubai-based Al-Arabiya have given blanket coverage of events in Iraq, often highly critical of the U.S.-led occupation.

---

How to make friends with the local population:

quote:

---

A U.S. aircraft fired six missiles into a farm north of Fallujah on Tuesday, killing three men and wounding three others, police and villagers said. The U.S. military said its forces were pursuing guerrillas who attacked soldiers and that it knew of only one person killed.

Two young boys were among the wounded in the attack, and their father and two neighbors were killed, witnesses and neighbors said.

---

quote:

---

An intensive six-month search of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction has failed to discover a single trace of an illegal arsenal, according to accounts of a report circulating in Washington and London.

---

quote:

---

A BBC report yesterday said that the survey group, which includes British and Australian investigators, had come across no banned weapons, or delivery systems, or laboratories involved in developing such weapons.

---

And the report is:

quote:

---

compiled by the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group (ISG) of 1,400 weapons experts and support staff

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1049153,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WMDs and Freedom of Press elesewhere in the middle east:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,995987,00.html

quote:

---

Ariel Sharon has barred the BBC from his meeting with the British press during a visit to London next week amid accusations that the corporation made false allegations against Israel in a report on weapons of mass destruction.

---

quote:

---

A preview focused on Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, who has spent 17 years in jail after the Israelis kidnapped him from Italy because he revealed secrets about the Israeli nuclear programme to the Sunday Times.

---

quote:

---

"There are international precedents to decisions of that type," said the Israeli newspaper, Maariv. "Events of that nature used to happen in Albania and East Germany. Then in Iran and Afghanistan. Once again, Israel finds itself in good company."

---

[This message has been edited by MW (edited 10-01-2003).]

Big article on Michael Moore:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/michaelmoore/story/0,13947,1055591,00.html

and an extract from his new book "Dude, where's my country?":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/michaelmoore/story/0,13947,1055594,00.html

quote:

---

"Since 9/11, the Bush administration has used that tragic event as a justification to rip up our constitution and our civil liberties. And I honestly believe that one or two 9/11s, and martial law will be declared in our country and we're inching towards a police state." He admits "it's not happening tomorrow", but some well-placed suicide bombs or terrorist attacks, he believes, could change everything. "At that point, you will find millions of Americans clamouring for martial law. I'm not talking about a takeover by Bush and his people. They won't have to fire a shot. The American people will be so freaked out they will demand that the White House take action, round up anyone and everyone. That's what I fear. It won't happen with a bang but with the whimpering sound of a frightened nation."

---

They also don't let Moore off the hook and the article points out potential inaccurcaies and it has some interesting things to say about the left wing view of things:

quote:

---

The line between paternalism and idealism on the left is a thin one. On the one side lies the belief that the left knows best. At its root is the notion of false consciousness, meaning that those who act in a certain way do so because they are unable to perceive the objective nature and source of their oppression. On the other side is the hope that we can build a better world if people look beyond their individual interests to the collective good. At its root is the evangelical notion that a better world is possible if people would only have the confidence to fight for it.

---

The Guardian even have a Michael Moore section:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/michaelmoore/

I have to say I usually find Moore's technicques crude and his scattergun approach tends to stop him digging down to deeper underlying problems but I suppose there is room for different approaches and possibly the important thing is that he has become very popular with that approach and so it has raised important questions and has, in some ways, sidestepped tradition media outlets so he can now present his message directly to the people (and there is no point moaning that the people are being misinformed if you don't make an attempt to get the message out).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

And another extract - questions for Dubya on various things inclduing his connection with the Bin Ladens, etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/michaelmoore/story/0,13947,1056922,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Another extract from Moore's book:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/michaelmoore/story/0,13947,1057354,00.html

and an article on the abuses of the Patriot Act:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,3605,1057338,00.html

quote:

---

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1759. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of September 11 2001, his words seem to have been forgotten by America's legislators.

---

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Emps, I cannot say enough good things about Michael Moore.

Wait a second scratch the word "enough" from previous sentence. I refuse to take him seriously until he is prepared to defend his positions. When he is asked about the inaccuracies of his material, he says it's just entertainment yet he expects people to still treat it like the truth. He simply cannot have it both ways.

Larry Elder also features a Michael Moore section on his web site. I want Moore to prove that he can back up his positions by going on a few programs that will ask him some tough questions. He can do this anytime by visiting Larry Elder on his radio program as I understand there is an open invitation.
http://www.larryelder.com/ Take a look at the "Michael Moore, Where are you?" bit.


On the Iraq issue. I understand we are going to be treated to some positive propoganda from the Bush administration very soon. Condaleeza Rice has embarked on a campaign to show us the positive side of this effort. You know I agree with much of it so I will try not to upset too many by saying so.

I must also stand up and say that the 5 months are up. I had told Jestah that I wasn't going to accept any criticism of not finding WMD until the 5 months we gave the UN to find them was up. Just before the war the cries were heard for more time. But time was up and we went in. I do not think many are there. I'm sure there are a few but certainly not stockpiles.

I specifically stated 5 months ago that I would have supported the war regardless of the existence of stockpiles of WMD and that has not changed. The amount of progress that has been made is astounding to me and I think time will show that this move went a long way towards freeing up a people from a brutal regime in the middle of a part of the world that knows little else.

By the way, that vein that burst in my brain a few posts up somehow healed up and I'm ready to blow another

. . : slicePuzzle

Here are some very interesting excerpts about motivations we spoke of before by vein burst.

In an article titled "Why Do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.," Zuheir Abdallah, columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, blames Arab fascism and Islamism for failing to achieve any accomplishments for the Arab world since 1948, leading to its backwardness today. The following are excerpts from the article:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP55103

Info about actual progress: Iraq: Moving Forward Despite Violence

quote:

---

Violence and terrorism in post-war Iraq, while a legitimate subject for the press, often overshadows the progress made in the region.

...the paper concluded that a majority of Iraqis are pessimistic about the conditions in the short term, but optimistic about the long-term situation.

The Iraqi press publishes uncontrolled and uncensored. The Iraqis, who are avid newspaper readers, can choose from among more than 100 dailies and weeklies which cover subjects from Islamic fundamentalism to Kurdish nationalism.

The editorial added: "the Iraqi citizen has begun to feel that the security situation has taken a powerful step forward when the Iraqi police force began to play a more noticeable role than before. The citizen is feeling that police presence close to him will assist him when assistance is needed?" [13] In the words of a shopkeeper who sells television sets and refrigerators: "Things have really changed since the end of July. In July we saw three or four robberies and killings a day. I don't think I've seen one since July."

---

quote:

---

The paper goes on to say that many Iraqis believed "that the Americans would start new projects for the reconstruction of Iraq after the end of the war? It is painful to realize that all these projects are ink on paper and were granted to bankrupt American companies to revive the American, not the Iraqi economy."

---

On this last quote I say we shouldn't disappoint them! I hear criticism of commercial interests there but I think we should be encouraging it and continue the rebuilding process with no holds barred.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 10-09-2003).]

Bugs: Glad to hear you have recovered

I tend to agree with you about Michael Moore - he paints in very crude brushstrokes. I'd be more critical of him but I fear I'd be accussed of being elitsit

I bought my dad his book las Xmas but he said that, although he probably agrees with a lot of the points he just couldn't read it - the tone was far too angry.

On this:

quote:

---

I must also stand up and say that the 5 months are up. I had told Jestah that I wasn't going to accept any criticism of not finding WMD until the 5 months we gave the UN to find them was up. Just before the war the cries were heard for more time. But time was up and we went in. I do not think many are there. I'm sure there are a few but certainly not stockpiles.

---

and......... Does the lack of WMD after 5 months make you reconsider the justness of the War?

Interesting article and the Moslem world although i don't think you can extract the problem form its historical context like that and the oppression of the Palestinians, etc. has to be a factor.

That said they do have to shoulder some of the responsibilities themselves - people are turning to fundamentalist Islamic doctrines because of poverty and oppression and redistributing the oil weatlh and greater democracy would help massively - can it be any coincidence that Bin Laden did a lot of his recruiting fown the west coast of Saudi Arabia? I would imagine the difference in income levels there must be the widest in the Middle East.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

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

quote:

---

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

---

DING DING DING DING DING!!! Now that has been stipulated please to be continuing the analysis of the situation. I don't mean to be flippant but this is something I've been trying to emphasize for a long time now. Our governments are first and foremost concerned with self preservation and in the grand scheme of things ensure that order trumps chaos. It is up to the individuals of each country, and ultimately the planet, to be moral and kind. This does not mean that governments never do good things, it just means that is not their primary reason for existence.

Bugs: Ooooooooooooo it nearly feels like we are on the same page

quote:

---

It is up to the individuals of each country, and ultimately the planet, to be moral and kind.

---

Exactly and to act as a brake to what would otherwise be increasingly amoral administrations - its what democracy is all about

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Pos. a little clarification is in order

I've never said the US administration shouldn't try and get away with this kind of thing (if I was in the administration then I'd probably be pushing for a much harder line and I'd have plans for the next few decades which will make what has happened so far look like a tea party) what I have said is that we (me but probably not you Bugs ):

1. Shouldn't let them get away with it without pointing it out.

2. Shouldn't let them attach the thin veneer of moarlity to what they are doing.

If I was a US citizen I would probably appreciate what is being done not just for me but for my children (although I am unsure about my children's children as I'm unsur the policy is sustainable) my main quibble is that whoever is in power would probably be beholden to the oil firms (Dubya's allegiances are just more blatant than most) which would stop them from exploring alternative solutions to the looming energy crisis.

George Monbiot (in the above article) says our only way out isn't just a major change in our energy generation but in our usage which would require a major restructuring of our lifestyles. I'm afraid that we might have to change our lifestyles (we non-Americans unless Tony B's deal involves saving us when excrement hits the air conditioning) but only so that the American way of life can be supported for a few more years

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I don't think taking advice from the Israelis is the best idea (and running operations in other, hostile, countries only serves to escalate the situation):

quote:

---

Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has sent urban warfare specialists to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US special forces, and according to two sources, Israeli military "consultants" have also visited Iraq.

US forces in Iraq's Sunni triangle have already begun to use tactics that echo Israeli operations in the occupied territories, sealing off centres of resistance with razor wire and razing buildings from where attacks have been launched against US troops.

But the secret war in Iraq is about to get much tougher, in the hope of suppressing the Ba'athist-led insurgency ahead of next November's presidential elections.

US special forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria attempting to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border, and a group focused on the "neutralisation" of guerrilla leaders is being set up, according to sources familiar with the operations.

"This is basically an assassination programme. That is what is being conceptualised here. This is a hunter-killer team," said a former senior US intelligence official, who added that he feared the new tactics and enhanced cooperation with Israel would only inflame a volatile situation in the Middle East.

........

One of the planners behind the offensive is a highly controversial figure, whose role is likely to inflame Muslim opinion: Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin.

In October, there were calls for his resignation after he told a church congregation in Oregon that the US was at war with Satan, who "wants to destroy us as a Christian army".

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Winning hearts and minds in Iraq:

quote:

---

In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings [thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.

---

quote:

---

Soldiers began encasing the town in razor wire.

The next day, an American jet dropped a 500-bomb on the house that had been used to attack them. The Americans arrested eight sheiks, the mayor, the police chief and most members of the city council. "We really hammered the place," Maj. Darron Wright said.

Two and a half weeks later, the town of Abu Hishma is enclosed in a barbed-wire fence that stretches for five miles. Men ages 18 to 65 have been ordered to get identification cards. There is only way into the town and one way out.

"This fence is here for your protection," reads the sign posted in front of the barbed-wire fence. "Do not approach or try to cross, or you will be shot."

---

quote:

---

"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?ex=1071378000&en=b9c5e965e018edf1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

From the same article:

quote:

---

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force ? force, pride and saving face."

---

If that is the quality of people out there no wonder it is all falling apart.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, ?The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We?re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We?ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.?

---

quote:

---

?It?s not the way we usually play ball, but if you see a couple of your guys get blown away it changes things. We did the American things?and we?ve been the nice guy. Now we?re going to be the bad guy, and being the bad guy works.?

---

quote:

---

Rumsfeld repeatedly criticized Air Force General Charles Holland, a four-star Special Forces commander who has just retired, for his reluctance to authorize commando raids without specific, or ?actionable,? intelligence.

---

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031215fa_fact

Another gem from that article:

quote:

---

Boykin postponed his retirement, which had been planned for June, and took the Pentagon job, which brought him a third star. In that post, the Pentagon adviser told me, Boykin has been ?an important piece? of the planned escalation. In October, the Los Angeles Times reported that Boykin, while giving Sunday-morning talks in uniform to church groups, had repeatedly equated the Muslim world with Satan. Last June, according to the paper, he told a congregation in Oregon that ?Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.? Boykin praised President Bush as a ?man who prays in the Oval Office,? and declared that Bush was ?not elected? President but ?appointed by God.? The Muslim world hates America, he said, ?because we are a nation of believers.?

---

Well...he certainly got the part about how Bush wasn't elected president correct, although I think the 'appointed by God' part was a bit off...more like 'appointed by his daddy and his daddy's cronies on the supreme court bench' (always makes me think of pizza that name does...mmmmmm....pizza...*drools*)

and this one:

quote:

---

The Muslim world hates America, he said, ?because we are a nation of believers.?

---

Uhh...ok...this man does realise that 'Muslim' is the name of a follower of a religion, and a follower of a religion, by definition, is a believer. So, therefore, by calling them the 'Muslim World' and us 'a nation of believers' you're saying that you are but one nation in a whole world of believers, and that somehow makes you more right than them?

[This message has been edited by Skaarjj (edited 12-09-2003).]

Well this is certainly taking liberties!!

Fruitcakes are now being banned from airports:
www.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2003/12/09/281975-cp.html

Before the inmates panic about not being allowed to fly ever again they are actually talking about the food stuff (which is ideal for concealing weapons - those prison films were right all along).

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Fruitcakes (the food) should be outlawed, period.

I'm mean really - we Brits are already a laughstock around the world is there anyway to make us look sillier?? Yes there is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1112467,00.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

O n December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers.

---

http://www.sacurrent.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10705756&BRD=2318&PAG=461&dept_id=482778&rfi=6

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

Fruitcakes (the food) should be outlawed, period.

---

I wholeheartedly agree. Those things are bioterrorism at its worst.

Fingerprinting and photographing foreign visitors:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3367893.stm

what next?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

DNA scanners!

Perhaps done with lasers, secretly. Now where to put 'em...

...

Supermarkets?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

a giant impregnable wall around the country.

foreigner-sniffing gaurd dogs.

oooooo.....could we have a moat between us and canada? that would be cool....

DL: Interesting idea - I was thinking we might eventually want to wall in the US and I'm glad some of you are already in favour of this (it will make it so much easier).

More fun:

quote:

---

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

---

full story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

And more:

Torture is bad (unless we get someone else to do it for us):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MET1.DTL

It should also be a lesson to Canadians!!

And after getting rid of the secret police in Iraq we are pumping billions into starting a new one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/04/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=116465

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

The dollar hit an all time low against the Euro (and just about any other major currency) yesterday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3371689.stm

and Dubya is running up debts like a shopaholic but how to deal with it?:
www.commondreams.org/views04/0105-08.htm

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

You know, it's all this that makes me glad that I'm leaving the US after I graduate from college.

Ha ha ah... I started out with some quotes but it ended up being too much... I would laugh but it is kinda scary. But then again the only people who have to worry about this are the fringe elements that dont think right ...0.o...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

[edit]
Wait A Minute here, Articles about Freedom of speech zones, Out of country torturings, Secret police fundings? What exactly are you trying to say?


______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

[This message has been edited by UnknownComic (edited 01-08-2004).]

The 400 person team that was sent to look for WMD (Hans Blix-stylee) has been quietly withdrawn:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073280874955&p=1012571727102

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

"We worry about what may have happened to those weapons," Stuart Cohen, the vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said in an interview broadcast late Tuesday on the ABC News program "Nightline." "Theories abound as to what may have happened."

---

Weren't huge convoys seen leaving Iraq right before the "Shock and Awe"?


______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

Heh..."we worry about what may have happened to those weapons"...yeah, if I were in his shoes I'd be damn worried about the world finding out we bullshitted them too!

It appears Bush was planning on invading Iraq days after getting into office and long before 911:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_o_neill_7

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Emps, that would really not surprise me. As I've been saying, Iraq has been needing resolution for a while now.

. . : slicePuzzle

A Paul O'neil quote I heard the other day described dubya as 'a blind man in a room full of deaf people.' I think that book might be a very good read.

This bit came my way....

quote:

---

Make sure you're rich, white and respectful
by Glenn Walton
January 7, 2004


I've crossed many borders in my life: I've been held up for 12 hours at the
Bulgarian-Turkish border while my travelling companions, home-coming Turks,
negotiated the size of the bribe to be paid to the border officials; I've
had
my car inspected at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin by suspicious East German
police; and once, when I'd lost my passport and had to go to Germany from
Italy to get it replaced, I drove around Switzerland because that
non-European Community member would have required the missing document,
whereas member state Austria didn't.


But the border I've crossed the most is the American one, usually by car
between St. Stephen, New Brunswick and Calais, Maine, on my way to visit my
sister in Boston. Normally it's a quick drive-through - a couple of
questions
about destination and duration of stay, and you're off. Over the holidays,
however, our travelling companion, a friend from Italy, was called into the
customs building for questioning and then, for good measure, we too were
subjected to the drill.


It wasn't pretty.


No one, of course, minds security measures meant to root out terrorists, and
it's good to see border officials taking the task seriously. But the
questioning we were put through crossed its own lines: we were badgered,
patronized, treated like disobedient children - and long after it had to be
apparent to everyone that we weren't terrorists and had nothing to hide.
After an hour of this unnecessary treatment we left the building humiliated
and angry and cursing George W. Bush, who presided over the whole ritual in
the form of a huge grinning photograph.


It was particularly disturbing that the guy who went after us did so with
gusto, even glee, obviously enjoying his job. He clearly got off on our
helplessness, and expected absolute obsequiousness. Realizing that any hint
of amusement or anger is enough to trigger an arbitrary and dismissive
judgment, I'm pretty good at stifling my feelings, so after a series of
questions, one of which loonily concerned my "status" as a child living in
Washington D.C. in the 1960s, I was patronizingly pronounced "a nice
person."
But our friend from Italy, her hackles up, made the mistake of asking if the
questioning would take long, and, branded rude and disrespectful, was
whisked
off into another room for interrogation.


While she was out of our sight, another woman, already on the verge of
tears,
was separated from her bus tour companions, led out, and badgered for all to
hear about being unemployed.


"Who do you think you are, going on vacation when you don't have a job? Why
should we let you into our country?" etc, etc. She reappeared crying, was
given a final talking-to, then allowed to get back on the waiting bus, but
I'm sure her vacation to the land of the free, home of the brave, was
irrevocably coloured by her humiliation at the border.


What was so unsettling about the whole experience was the realization that
as
a white professional with no criminal record, I got off easily. But what of
people, not terrorists, but of another race and class, without the verbal
skills to defend themselves against this sort of arbitrary but official
abuse? They're sitting ducks for the kind of sadist now apparently being
given free rein all over the world. From Iraq to Guantanamo to Calais,
Maine,
Bush's bullies are detaining and interrogating in the name of homeland
security, and people less lucky than myself have been held in military
prisons on mere suspicions, without trial, without recourse.


Something unpleasant and dark has been let out of the bag by post-9-11
hysteria, and it won't be going back in for the foreseeable future.


Fortunately a U.S. court recently informed the White House that detention
without trial is unconstitutional, and it will be interesting to see how
that
case makes it way through the courts.


In the meantime, be forewarned: they're waiting for you at the border. Make
sure you're rich and white and respectful, just the way the president wants
you to be. But be prepared to be treated like a disobedient five-year old
anyway.


Glenn Walton is a filmmaker and writer in Halifax. This column appeared in
The
Daily News on January 2, 2004.

---

I still think Ben Franklin got it right. =)

'Those who would sacrifice liberties for security deserve neither.'

So what today:

The US will compile a database on all air passengers and colour code them according to threat level - well at least its in the open now as opposed to the secret no fly lists.

Brutalising Reuters reporters in Iraq

and on a lighter note:

The US have started bombing the UK

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

A former senior Bush aide has said there were no WMDs and we knew:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13811183_method=full_siteid=89488_headline=-SADDAM-THREAT--A-LIE--SAYS-US-CHIEF-name_page.html

A report from the US Army's War College says that invading Iraq has set back The War Against Terror:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/13/1073877805513.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I respect David Hackworth's opinion and he shares the concern that Iraq is a dangerous detour. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30032

I still think it is a very good long term effort. We can't simply attack the symptom of terrorism if we want to eliminate it, or at least seriously decrease it. The countries that are literally breeding the next generation of terrorists have to be stopped if we're ever going to reduce this terrible threat. I don't see how that can happen without fundamental reform within these countries.

From the second link you have there:

quote:

---

He said the United States should be prepared to settle for stability rather than democracy in Iraq, and international rather than US responsibility for the country.

---

I am glad there is debate about taking down Hussein but I am disappointed in the "settling" attitude of this remark. If democracy fails in Iraq, we can always fall back to the lesser goals.

Regarding Paul O-Neill http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36586

quote:

---

He also says there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the attack. I wonder where he gets such an assessment? The CIA believed they were there. British intelligence believed they were there. Again, the previous administration believed they were there. Saddam Hussein had all but announced he had them.

---

quote:

---

It seems O'Neill was dabbling in foreign policy as well as economic matters while serving as treasury secretary. He now says the planning for the invasion of Iraq was under way long before Sept. 11, 2001.

Of that I have no doubts. Planning for the invasion of Iraq was done in the two previous administrations and was taking place as late as 1998 while President C*****n was still in office. Should it surprise anyone that contingency plans were being made to deal with this long-standing international threat? It would surprise me if they weren't.

---

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

Yup, just reference my second to last post... um after this one it will be the third to last

Bugs: From your quote:

quote:

---

The CIA believed they were there. British intelligence believed they were there.

---

Did they? I seem to recall that both intelligence services had real reservations about the defintive statements the respective leaders were making based on some pretty shakey (or unsubstantiated) intelligence. The Hutton Inquiry is looking into aspects of this 'sexing up' of the 'Dodgy Dossier' and there are calls for a full inquiry into this specific aspect of the problem.

A better couple of sentences would be:

Bush believed they were there. Tony Blair believed they were there.

Or they wnated to believe.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

And a slur on my 'good' name:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1151&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040114%2F161051078.htm&sc=1151

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Well, yes, I thought they did think so. I assumed that was why C*****n felt the same way about Iraq... because he was being told this by intelligence sources. In fact, C*****n has not contradicted much of what the war was based on even still. This tells me that since he was privy to all this intelligence that he probably knows how he may have reacted after 9/11.

HA!!! That last article is preeecious. I bet you never realized you and Dubya were so similar, eh? LOL!!! But, yeah, I am fully aware at how much someone like Dubya is disliked in Europe. He represents so much of what a typical European would despise. I think Reagan had similar qualities. I think it is far more about style, however, than anything else. I don't remember C*****n being treated similarly by Europe even though he acted unilaterally in Bosnia. It's because C*****n's sensibilities were far more in line with European ideals. Simple as that.

Oh, and a bit more damage control about the rogue O'Neill: http://nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow-higgins200401140842.asp

. . : slicePuzzle

This is a very interesting article about how the insurgency in Iraq is evolving based on the shifting financial realities: http://nationalreview.com/comment/dillon-parham200401150820.asp

[edit]
This is very scary if true: Sources: Terrorists Planning Iraq Attack http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108371,00.html
I heard a follow up to this last night by a retired Army general on foxnews who said this story was being treated very seriously and steps were being taken to see if this threat really exists.
[/edit]

[Emp edit: ~sneaks in and gooses Bugs~

Discussion continued here:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/001108.html ]


[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-15-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-15-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Emperor (edited 01-16-2004).]