Poll: Mistrust of America Higher than Ever

[Mr Manifesto]

US feared by foes and friends
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518412.stm)

But the divide was not just between the US and the Muslim world. Divisions remained unabated between Europe and the US as well.

The poll was conducted in February before the deadly attacks in Madrid, but at the time the survey was conducted, fewer Europeans backed the war on terror.

In 2004, 57% of those polled in France and 49% of those asked in Germany thought the US was overreacting to terrorism.

George Bush and Tony Blair were seen as lying about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

And Europeans are increasingly sceptical of the US and its motives.

In Germany and France, the great majority (82% Germany, 78% France) say as a consequence of the war they have less confidence that the US is trustworthy

Majorities in six of the nine countries surveyed do not believe that the US-led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism.

Instead, many believe that the US wants to control oil supplies or dominate the world.



PEW Research Centre (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206)

I've never heard of PEW, so I've included a link to the survey findings. If the survey is accurate, it demonstrates what the peace crowd have been saying all along: the war ain't gonna do nuthin' for Yankland's image on the world stage.

[Grammatron]

Instead, many believe that the US wants to control oil supplies or dominate the world.

And people say Americans are stupid and uneducated, well that statement shows that ignorance knows no bounds.

[Luke T.]

France and Germany polls show they are still opposed to the war in Iraq! Shocking! Who would have guessed? Good thing we didn't wait for them to disenfranchise themselves from Iraq before we invaded, eh?

Is it any surprise that these same Europeans are buying into the wild 9/11 conspiracy theories, too?


Make no mistake. The number of Germans, French and other Europeans who believe in a secret American conspiracy surrounding 9/11 is a minority. But it's sizable: one in five Germans, for example, says it's possible that Bush ordered up 9/11 as a pretext for world conquest, according to a July poll by the weekly Die Zeit.


Two years after September 11, German bookstores are flooded with such works as "The CIA and September 11," in which a former government minister of Research and Technology, Andreas von Bulow, insinuates that the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services blew up the World Trade Center from the inside. The two Boeings, he claims, were flown in by remote control as a cover-up. The whole thing was a cynical plot by America's neoconservatives to take over the world.
Published last month by the otherwise reputable Piper Verlag, the minister's book has already jumped to number three on the nonfiction best-seller list. The only books more popular are two works by Michael Moore, ...

From here. (http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/0/7c0c9c0fe6ad4f42ca256da200146e47?OpenDocument)

[Luke T.]

Another source of what kind of crackpot Germans believe in. (http://www.activeopposition.com/911hearing.htm)

Andreas von Bulow's book has climbed the German bestseller list, his lectures are jammed and, after two years of mounting frustration, his ideas are gaining traction. His thesis:
The U.S. government staged the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a tentative theory, he admits, based mostly on his doubt that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group launched the attacks. "That's something that is simply 99% false," he said at a reading of his book on the second anniversary of the attacks.

[Mr Manifesto]

Luke T: Are people in the UK crackpots, too?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
...the war ain't gonna do nuthin' for Yankland's image on the world stage.


Why single out New England and the North Eastern US?

[Grammatron]

Luke T, don't forget the French (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/26/france.book/) now.

Throughout the spring, and into this summer, a leading bestseller in France has not been some great work of French literature but a $17-dollar paperback called the "Horrifying Fraud."

The book casts doubt on the official version of the events of September 11, substituting an elaborate conspiracy concocted by America's military-industrial complex in order to increase U.S. military budgets.

It has sold more than 200,000 copies here -- a huge success in French terms --attracting interest from readers like Eduard Chabanon and Naoufal Lahlou who are sceptical about much of what they are learn from the news.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony



Why single out New England and the North Eastern US?

That's where the intelligent Americans live. :D

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
If the survey is accurate, it demonstrates what the peace crowd have been saying all along: the war ain't gonna do nuthin' for Yankland's image on the world stage.

You mean this (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796) Pew poll?


America's image abroad remains negative in most nations, though it has improved somewhat in Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Vast majorities in predominantly Muslim countries continue to hold unfavorable opinions of the U.S, though the intensity of anti-American views has moderated.

Opinion of the U.S. in Russia is now about evenly divided, with 47% favorable and 44% unfavorable. Positive views of the U.S. in Russia have risen 11 points in the past year. But U.S. favorability ratings in France and Germany are somewhat lower than last year and there has been a larger decline in Great Britain (58% now, 70% last year). Young people in Great Britain, France, and Germany have more negative views of America than do people in other age groups.

Majorities in the Muslim nations surveyed hold negative views of the United States, though opinion has softened. In all four of these nations, fewer respondents hold very unfavorable opinions of the U.S. now than did so last year. For example, 45% in Turkey now hold a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S., down from 68% last May. There have been comparable declines in intense dislike of the U.S. in Pakistan and Jordan. Strong dislike of the U.S. moderated in Morocco as well, though not as much as in the other Muslim nations surveyed.

Image of the US improving amongst Muslims? Who would have guessed? Certainly not the peace crowd, huh?

MattJ

[Tony]

in other news....


Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.


http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tony
in other news....




http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

Awesome link, Tony!

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Another source of what kind of crackpot Germans believe in. (http://www.activeopposition.com/911hearing.htm)



So now you are picking the looniest conspiracy theory crackpot you could find and portray him as typical for Germany?

Great work really. *throws up on keyboard*

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Luke T: Are people in the UK crackpots, too?

They eat black pudding, don't they? :)

But on a serious note, wasn't the BBC or some such major news organization just punished for falsifying the facts about Tony Blair? Their bias must have had an influence on public opinion.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Chaos


So now you are picking the looniest conspiracy theory crackpot you could find and portray him as typical for Germany?

Great work really. *throws up on keyboard*

1 in 5 Germans believe this looniest of conspiracy theories. That's pretty substantial.

edited to add: I also have pointed out that France and Germany didn't want the U.S. to invade Iraq to begin with, so it shouldn't be surprising they "mistrust" us now. But I believe their motives for opposing the war were as related to financial matters as much, if not more than, as people claim the U.S.'s motives were.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


They eat black pudding, don't they? :)

But on a serious note, wasn't the BBC or some such major news organization just punished for falsifying the facts about Tony Blair? Their bias must have had an influence on public opinion.

Many are of the opinion that the Hutton inquiry was a whitewash. I'm sure our UK posters can add to this.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
If the survey is accurate, it demonstrates what the peace crowd have been saying all along: the war ain't gonna do nuthin' for Yankland's image on the world stage. Conducting foreing policy solely on the grounds of pleasing others is a fools errand. Anyone who thinks that foreign relations are more important than our own security are wrong.

Diplomacy is important and we must not abondon it. We should strive to improve relations and those relations I'm sure will improve. But we are no longer in the cold war and America because of its postion will be a source of contempt regardless and appeasement and bowing to foreign will only bring more contempt.

We must decide on a course of action that is best for us. Not ignoring the opinion of others but not putting it first on our list either. To think that our "image" is paramount is to be blind to history.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Conducting foreing policy solely on the grounds of pleasing others is a fools errand. Anyone who thinks that foreign relations are more important than our own security are wrong.

How did the war in Iraq do anything for American security? As far as I can tell, all it's done is kill off six hundred Americans who otherwise wouldn't have died.


Diplomacy is important and we must not abondon it. We should strive to improve relations and those relations I'm sure will improve. But we are no longer in the cold war and America because of its postion will be a source of contempt regardless and appeasement and bowing to foreign will only bring more contempt.

You don't think America's aggresive foreign policy is a factor?


We must decide on a course of action that is best for us. Not ignoring the opinion of others but not putting it first on our list either. To think that our "image" is paramount is to be blind to history.

Lofty words. Wouldn't convincing people that America means well through her actions achieve this, more than blowing the crap out of everything?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


How did the war in Iraq do anything for American security? As far as I can tell, all it's done is kill off six hundred Americans who otherwise wouldn't have died.

You don't think America's aggresive foreign policy is a factor?

Lofty words. Wouldn't convincing people that America means well through her actions achieve this, more than blowing the crap out of everything?

What exactly have countries like Germany and France done to raise their image in America?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What exactly have countries like Germany and France done to raise their image in America?

They aren't invading other countries.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


They aren't invading other countries.

Neither is USA.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Neither is USA.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Ah, you crack me up.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


:roll: :roll: :roll:

Ah, you crack me up.

Yeah truth does that to you.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yeah truth does that to you.


"Truth"! :roll: You learnt the definition of the word from Fox, didn't you? :roll: :roll:

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan
Conducting foreign policy solely on the grounds of pleasing others is a fools errand. Anyone who thinks that foreign relations are more important than our own security are wrong.


Prejudicial language. No one is suggesting that we "please" others -- just that we all have to work together to improve the world.


Diplomacy is important and we must not abondon it. We should strive to improve relations and those relations I'm sure will improve. But we are no longer in the cold war and America because of its postion will be a source of contempt regardless and appeasement and bowing to foreign will only bring more contempt.


All the more reason to not do anything to specifically anger those that we have to deal with. We no longer have the crutch of the Soviet Union to point to and scare people by saying "you're either with us or with them".


We must decide on a course of action that is best for us. Not ignoring the opinion of others but not putting it first on our list either. To think that our "image" is paramount is to be blind to history.


That works both ways. "Image" really has nothing to do with it. Angering the rest of the world inhibits our ability to accomplish our goals (both short and long term). Believing too much in our "image" as the preeminent power in the world is also to be blind to history.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto



"Truth"! :roll: You learnt the definition of the word from Fox, didn't you? :roll: :roll:

You're wrong once again, I see you're going for a record.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You're wrong once again, I see you're going for a record.

Now Grammatron, you should know better than to argue about The Truth™ with Mr. M. Everyone knows The Truth™ cannot be learned on Fox, CNN, or even through the maturing process of age.

No, the only place to find The Truth™ is when it's spoon-fed to you by some Poli Sci professsor, which is why Mr. M is such a paragon on The Truth™.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You're wrong once again, I see you're going for a record.

What was the invasion of Iraq if not an "invasion"?

:confused:

[Jocko]

Originally posted by dsm


Prejudicial language. No one is suggesting that we "please" others -- just that we all have to work together to improve the world.

All the more reason to not do anything to specifically anger those that we have to deal with. We no longer have the crutch of the Soviet Union to point to and scare people by saying "you're either with us or with them".

That works both ways. "Image" really has nothing to do with it. Angering the rest of the world inhibits our ability to accomplish our goals (both short and long term). Believing too much in our "image" as the preeminent power in the world is also to be blind to history.

This entire statement is based on the assumption that America's actions were deliberately formulated to cause outrage, and also the assumption that our course of action was wrong in the final analysis (which won't be forthcoming for many years).

"Specifically anger".... "scare people"... There exists a disconnect in policy and priorities, to be sure, but I for one am not so cock-sure to say we're in the wrong. It may turn out that way, but the presumption that permeates this forum is on shaky ground at best.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Make no mistake. The number of Germans, French and other Europeans who believe in a secret American conspiracy surrounding 9/11 is a minority. But it's sizable: one in five Germans, for example, says it's possible that Bush ordered up 9/11 as a pretext for world conquest, according to a July poll by the weekly Die Zeit.
Originally posted by Luke T.
1 in 5 Germans believe this looniest of conspiracy theories. That's pretty substantial.

That's hardly fair. Notice that the poll uses the word "possible". Everything is possible(Except squared circles and stuff like that). It's even possible that a giant pink elephant was behind 9/11, such a scenario is just extremely unlikely. If I was asked that badly posed poll question, I would have to answer "yes" as well, even though I consider such a scenario absurd.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by dsm


What was the invasion of Iraq if not an "invasion"?

:confused:

Manifesto said "They aren't invading other countries." which implies not only that USA is invading a country right now but more than one.

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I also have pointed out that France and Germany didn't want the U.S. to invade Iraq to begin with, so it shouldn't be surprising they "mistrust" us now. But I believe their motives for opposing the war were as related to financial matters as much, if not more than, as people claim the U.S.'s motives were.

I might buy the idea that the German and/or French governments where against the war partially because of financial considerations, but do you really believe the German and French people would oppose the war because they are concerned about the profits of their own large corporations? That strikes me as totally absurd.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Jocko
This entire statement is based on the assumption that America's actions were deliberately formulated to cause outrage, and also the assumption that our course of action was wrong in the final analysis (which won't be forthcoming for many years).


No, the statement is based upon the assumption that the "deliberate" formulation was done without full consideration of the situation and that now we are in a situation that could've been handled much better.


"Specifically anger".... "scare people"... There exists a disconnect in policy and priorities, to be sure, but I for one am not so cock-sure to say we're in the wrong. It may turn out that way, but the presumption that permeates this forum is on shaky ground at best.

You admit the disconnect. Even if (by some miracle) things turn out right, that doesn't make the process by which the administration got there correct. The ends do not justify the means.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron

which implies not only that USA is invading a country right now but more than one. I'm confused. Aren't there American invasion forces in Afganistan and Iraq at the moment?

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm

The ends do not justify the means.

Why not?

[Mr Manifesto]

The noun form of 'disconnect' is 'disconnection'.

We return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Manifesto said "They aren't invading other countries." which implies not only that USA is invading a country right now but more than one.

No it doesn't. That's a semantic argument that is beneath you. You're letting your zeal to correct Mr. M get the better of you. Mr. M said that Germany and France are not currently invading other countries. The implication is that the US already has (Afghanistan and Iraq).

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm confused. Aren't there American invasion forces in Afganistan and Iraq at the moment?

It all depends how you want to look at it. I view it as no, especially in Afghanistan where NATO went in to support the North side against Taliban so it's not quite an invasion. And the current government in Iraq supports us so once more we're not the invaders.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony
Why not?

:confused:

Why should they?

:rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron

And the current government in Iraq supports us so once more we're not the invaders. That would be the brand new government that wasn't there when our troops entered the country? Were our troops invited or did they forcibly enter?

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm

Why should they?


Do you normally accept specious platitudes as truth?


I'd say the removal of a dictator and the end of tyranny is a damn good end that would justify most means.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jocko


This entire statement is based on the assumption that America's actions were deliberately formulated to cause outrage, and also the assumption that our course of action was wrong in the final analysis (which won't be forthcoming for many years).

"Specifically anger".... "scare people"... There exists a disconnect in policy and priorities, to be sure, but I for one am not so cock-sure to say we're in the wrong. It may turn out that way, but the presumption that permeates this forum is on shaky ground at best. I don't know about outrage, but can I draw your memory to those "Shock and Awe" military tactics of 12 months ago, please. The full aggressive weight of your military, as announced and trumpeted by your current executive, and as delivered by your forces. You remember - the one-stop-short-of-nuclear bunker-busters and stuff like that, delivered constantly on helpless people.

What was that? A polite knock on the door? A friendly reminder in the mail? A stern rebuke to the management? Or was it specifically designed to scare the bejeesus out of people (namely Iraqis), and also to impress others around the world with the sheer military power you wield?

As if we didn't know already?

And you talk about presumption, sir! Bah.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Grammatron

It all depends how you want to look at it. I view it as no, especially in Afghanistan where NATO went in to support the North side against Taliban so it's not quite an invasion. And the current government in Iraq supports us so once more we're not the invaders.

Again semantics. You're trying to place the invasion(s) in the present when Mr. M was placing them in the (recent) past.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
How did the war in Iraq do anything for American security? As far as I can tell, all it's done is kill off six hundred Americans who otherwise wouldn't have died. We believed that it was a threat. We responded to that threat.

You don't think America's aggresive foreign policy is a factor? Our current policy is no more a factor than appeasement.

Lofty words. Wouldn't convincing people that America means well through her actions achieve this, more than blowing the crap out of everything? How do the hell do you convince people who refuse to believe the truth? Kissing everyone's ass will only bring more contempt. Diplomacy is fine but it cannot replace security.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by dsm


No it doesn't. That's a semantic argument that is beneath you. You're letting your zeal to correct Mr. M get the better of you. Mr. M said that Germany and France are not currently invading other countries. The implication is that the US already has (Afghanistan and Iraq).

Germany has forces in Afghanistan as well.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1012822_1_A,00.html

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by dsm


Again semantics. You're trying to place the invasion(s) in the present when Mr. M was placing them in the (recent) past.

Fine, I just showed that Germany also invaded Afghanistan. What are they doing to improve their image with USA?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That would be the brand new government that wasn't there when our troops entered the country? Were our troops invited or did they forcibly enter?

Well the polls show that majority of the population supported the invasion, does that count? Also Kurds helped us in the North, does that count?

[epepke]

Originally posted by wjousts
I might buy the idea that the German and/or French governments where against the war partially because of financial considerations, but do you really believe the German and French people would oppose the war because they are concerned about the profits of their own large corporations? That strikes me as totally absurd.

Not to speak for Luke T here, but I think they opposed the war because, in no particular order,

1) Their governments opposed the war, which was at least in part due to fiduciary interests,

2) They didn't like the general idea of war, which they share with just about everybody,

3) They believed that whatever happened, their ox wasn't going to get gored, and

4) There had been no recent terrorist outbreaks in Europe passing the 1000 dead mark.

People in the US, for the most part, really didn't oppose the war, because

1) Their government was in favor of the war,

2) Although they didn't like the general idea of war, they had already been subjected to a decade of offshore neener-neener-boo-booing about how economic sanctions were already killing 5000 Iraqi babies a month, all of which of course was solely attributable to the US an had nothing whatsoever to do with the UN,

3) They knew, pretty astutely, that their ox was going to get gored no matter what, and

4) 9/11. Which didn't have anything to do with Iraq but which did have a lot to do with rejecting the idea that the work-with-Europe Clinton years were such a hot idea.

Good, bad, or indifferent, it doesn't matter. I think this was the process. And Bush capitalized on it to do something he wanted to do since his election campaign.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
Prejudicial language. No one is suggesting that we "please" others -- just that we all have to work together to improve the world. I beg to differ. Plese re-read the first post of this thread.

All the more reason to not do anything to specifically anger those that we have to deal with. We no longer have the crutch of the Soviet Union to point to and scare people by saying "you're either with us or with them". No, we should definitly not make decisions on the basis that it might anger someone.

Hell these people don't make decision on what might anger us. Why on earth are we worried about people who do not care about us? I really do not understand why we have to kiss their ass and take their snotty contemptous attitude. These nations that call themselves alies were doing business with Saddam. I'm not all that certain that they are great friends of ours. Diplomacy goes both ways. Telling us to do as they want or they won't be our friens is little reason to comply.

That works both ways. "Image" really has nothing to do with it. Angering the rest of the world inhibits our ability to accomplish our goals (both short and long term). Believing too much in our "image" as the preeminent power in the world is also to be blind to history. Security comes first. If we "anger" others then that is tough. We must not sacrifice our security on the whims of others. And let's be honest, why are they angry? They didn't get the lucrative oil contracts that they wanted. That's called appeasement. Sorry but history has shown that it is worthless.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony
Do you normally accept specious platitudes as truth?

I'd say the removal of a dictator and the end of tyranny is a damn good end that would justify most means.

Do you always equivocate when trying to shoot someone down? I take it that by "most", there are means that you feel would not justify the ends...

:rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well the polls show that majority of the population supported the invasion, does that count? Also Kurds helped us in the North, does that count? Put whatever rationalization on it ya like, fact of the matter is we did, in fact, invade both Iraq and Afganistan. There is no moral high ground in saying that we didn't.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
We believed that it was a threat. We responded to that threat.
Blind Freddy could see Iraq was no threat to the US. I find it difficult to believe that your intel was so off-base. It seems to me that the US was data mining to support an invasion that her government wanted for reasons of pure greed.


Our current policy is no more a factor than appeasement.

What the heck is this sentence supposed to mean? What appeasement?

How do the hell do you convince people who refuse to believe the truth? Kissing everyone's ass will only bring more contempt. Diplomacy is fine but it cannot replace security.

What truth? France asked for more evidence that Iraq was a threat, the US said, "Nah, bugger that, we're going in!" That's ass kissing?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm


No it doesn't. That's a semantic argument that is beneath you. You're letting your zeal to correct Mr. M get the better of you. Mr. M said that Germany and France are not currently invading other countries. The implication is that the US already has (Afghanistan and Iraq).

If you believe Manifesto was referring to Afghanistan, then you would have to consider that he was completely wrong, wouldn't you?

As limited as French and German involvement was, they certainly did invade Afghanistan. In fact, replying to Grammatron's question with Manifesto's answer should be laughable from your point of view. (What have they done to raise their image in America? - They helped us invade Afghanistan.)

I happen to think that Manifesto was avoiding the issue of Afghanistan altogether, which does make sense as the poll in question covers a time period beginning over a year after the invasion of Afghanistan. Although I'm not too certain how well he examined the poll since he doesn't seem to be able to draw valid conclusions from it.

France, in particular, has also been right alongside us in Haiti, for instance. In fact, we were following their lead on that one. Ivory Coast (on their own) and Liberia (with some support from us) as well. They haven't been invading other countries?

I think you're letting your zeal to defend Manifesto get the better of you. What he said was wrong. Perhaps Grammatron's (also wrong, IMHO) reply set you off?

MattJ

[Tony]

Originally posted by dsm


Do you always equivocate when trying to shoot someone down? I take it that by "most", there are means that you feel would not justify the ends...


So I take it you are unable to answer the question?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Grammatron
And the current government in Iraq supports us so once more we're not the invaders.

Uh, yeah, since we put that government in power, I'm not surprised that they support us.

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

If you believe Manifesto was referring to Afghanistan, then you would have to consider that he was completely wrong, wouldn't you?


Actually, I don't think the Manifesto was referring to Afghanistan (even though he pluralized "country") -- I think that's misdirection on Grammatron's part.


I think you're letting your zeal to defend Manifesto get the better of you. What he said was wrong. Perhaps Grammatron's (also wrong, IMHO) reply set you off?


Possibly -- sometimes I get tired of the "I didn't say that" and "yes, you did" arguments -- especially when it seems that one side is purposely ignoring the intent of a statement to make a point on the letter of the statement.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tony
So I take it you are unable to answer the question?

Asked and answered.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Put whatever rationalization on it ya like, fact of the matter is we did, in fact, invade both Iraq and Afganistan. There is no moral high ground in saying that we didn't.

Very well, you are correct. I hear by apologize for submitting a false statement on this thread. USA did indeed invade Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sorry Mr. Manifesto you were right USA did invade countries, however you were wrong since France and Germany also invade other countries.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by epepke
2) Although they didn't like the general idea of war, they had already been subjected to a decade of offshore neener-neener-boo-booing about how economic sanctions were already killing 5000 Iraqi babies a month, all of which of course was solely attributable to the US an had nothing whatsoever to do with the UN,

For those who may be curious, this was a big one for me.

I also wanted to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia without leaving it there as a plum for Saddam Hussein to pick up. Likewise without abandoning the semi-autonomous Iraqis under the no-fly zones.

Essentially, to take either action, we needed Saddam to be gone. Replacing him with just about any friendly strongman would be 'good enough' to get us this far.

These two issues (sanctions and US presence in Arabia) were 2 of 3 reasons that Bin Laden gave in the 1990s for declaring war on the US in the first place.

So Al Qaeda got what it asked for, but on US terms, not on Bin Laden's terms.

The third reason he gave, US support for the only democracy in the Middle East, is not a position I am willing to give up, at least before the nations of the Middle East have been transformed into stable, wealthy, peaceful, democracies. It's a tough task but I don't see an alternative. I'm pleased that my government didn't settle for 2 out of 3.

Al Qaeda won't be offering any cease fires to the United States no matter who we elect.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Blind Freddy could see Iraq was no threat to the US. I find it difficult to believe that your intel was so off-base. It seems to me that the US was data mining to support an invasion that her government wanted for reasons of pure greed. Blind Freddy with hindsight. Sorry but there was reason to belive that Iraq was a threat. Were they data mining? Could be, was all of the evidence overwhelming? No. But then you know the truth don't you.

What truth? France asked for more evidence that Iraq was a threat, the US said, "Nah, bugger that, we're going in!" That's ass kissing? Now why the hell would they bother asking for more evidence. According to you there was no need for more information. 12 years Saddam refused to comply. I know this insignificant to you and those who wanted desperately to get their hands on the Iraqi oil but it was significant to me.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What truth? France asked for more evidence that Iraq was a threat, the US said, "Nah, bugger that, we're going in!" That's ass kissing?
Funny, I don't remember any historical or legal precedent whereby the US is required to get France's blessing before we act on our own security concerns.

France acted in it's best interests (trying to preserve their stake in Iraq's oil interests), the US acted in theirs. I don't know of a country that doesn't put it's own interests first.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat

Funny, I don't remember any historical or legal precedent whereby the US is required to get France's blessing before we act on our own security concerns.

What security concerns?


France acted in it's best interests (trying to preserve their stake in Iraq's oil interests), the US acted in theirs. I don't know of a country that doesn't put it's own interests first.

France asked for more information. That doesn't spell 'preserving their stake in Iraq's oil interests' to me. That tells me that they were being cautious, and it's a lesson your country would do well to learn.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Blind Freddy with hindsight. Sorry but there was reason to belive that Iraq was a threat. Were they data mining? Could be, was all of the evidence overwhelming? No. But then you know the truth don't you.

Scott Ritter voiced his concerns- even published a book on the subject- before the war. Was he using hindsight?


Now why the hell would they bother asking for more evidence. According to you there was no need for more information. 12 years Saddam refused to comply. I know this insignificant to you and those who wanted desperately to get their hands on the Iraqi oil but it was significant to me.

If it was that big a deal, America should have waited for UN backing. Otherwise, any country could invade other countries for whatever reason.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by RandFan
We believed that it was a threat. We responded to that threat. No. You may have believed there was a threat, and particularly gullible Republicans may be believed, and the President may have believed... but his staff didn't, and neither did anyone who took the time to actually listen to what the adminstration was saying.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
If it was that big a deal, America should have waited for UN backing. Otherwise, any country could invade other countries for whatever reason.
Which explains why there have been only 2 wars since the founding of the UN - Korea and GWI. :rolleyes:

And frankly, I take issue about the "there was no approval of the UN" thing. This was really a continuation of GWI, and UN approval was never withdrawn for it and member states were explicitly given the go-ahead for further action against Iraq if necessary. You'll disagree I'm sure, but there is a solid legal case to be made about it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Scott Ritter voiced his concerns- even published a book on the subject- before the war. Was he using hindsight? So he was right and I will grant he was in a good postion to know. But that he was right did not prove that it was empirical.

If it was that big a deal, America should have waited for UN backing. Otherwise, any country could invade other countries for whatever reason. Right, wait for an impotent organization that does not have our best interests at heart to make up their minds.

Oh, and the UN is so effective at keeping nations from invading each other.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No. You may have believed there was a threat, and particularly gullible Republicans may be believed, and the President may have believed... but his staff didn't, and neither did anyone who took the time to actually listen to what the adminstration was saying. The UN believed, Clinton believed, the Congress believed...

I will grant that there was credible evidence to suppose that Iraq was not a threat. I will also grant that there was motivation to look at the data selectively. But it was not empirical that Iraq was not a threat. Most importantly Saddam was caught holding biological agents in the past, and he was not complying which was reason enough to believe that his motivation for refusing to comply was that he still had WMD.

[epepke]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
These two issues (sanctions and US presence in Arabia) were 2 of 3 reasons that Bin Laden gave in the 1990s for declaring war on the US in the first place.

Indeed. And as Saudi Arabia's fear of Saddam was the only actual justification for US troops to be there, according to Al Qaeda's desires, Saddam needed gone.

The third reason he gave, US support for the only democracy in the Middle East, is not a position I am willing to give up, at least before the nations of the Middle East have been transformed into stable, wealthy, peaceful, democracies.

This, however, is quite recent. Actual Al Qaeda missives have only made a big deal about Israel quite recently, in the past 18 months or so. For most of the 90s, Al Qaeda largely ignored the Palestinians and they, to their credit, largely ignored Al Qaeda. This seems like opportunism on the part of Al Qaeda: since Western pundits were saying that it was all about Palestine all along, why not take advantage of a groundswell of opinion?

But if you look at the Al Qaeda recruitment tapes from several years ago, they don't talk about Israel. They talk about Jews. But Western pundits have been "interpreting" that for so long as to mean not Jews but Israel that it's kind of hard to get to the bottom of things. Of course, they get all full of umbrage when they are called anti-semitic, but they gleefully apply the inverse transformation.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by epepke
This, however, is quite recent. Actual Al Qaeda missives have only made a big deal about Israel quite recently, in the past 18 months or so. For most of the 90s, Al Qaeda largely ignored the Palestinians and they, to their credit, largely ignored Al Qaeda. This seems like opportunism on the part of Al Qaeda: since Western pundits were saying that it was all about Palestine all along, why not take advantage of a groundswell of opinion?

Yeah, you're right. I fell for some of the Left's manufactured dissent there for a bit...

[Zep]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Uh, yeah, since we put that government in power, I'm not surprised that they support us. Not to mention the growing undercurrent in the Iraqi population and circles of power of resentment at the lingering US occupation. Good or bad though this occupation may be, the problem is that there is no set departure date set to work towards, so it looks far more like an imperial conquest than a liberation.

[Zep]

My summary:

* No-one had a problem with toppling Saddam and his regime - he was a nasty piece of work for all concerned, not just the USA.

* I would question whether the UN mandate from GW1 was still in force beyond the official cessation of that conflict. The US policing of no-fly zones and other restrictions between GW1 and GW2 were UN mandated (Clinton even authorised retaliatory fire at one time).

* The USA did act unilaterally in precipitating GW2, and dragged two allies along with them. (Note that the leaders of those two allied countries are now neck-deep in sh*t trying to justify to their own people this decision to join in.)

* The US went into Iraq with the explicitly stated intention of "Shock and Awe", including "embedding" reporters with the military and planting reporters in the target zones to ensure it was all seen world-wide. It was to be a convincing propaganda display to the world, not just Iraq, of the USA's military muscle.

* The loudly trumpeted supporting reasons given prior to GW2 for making the huge military effort have been found to be almost baseless, if not entirely concocted. There has been an extraordinary amount of ducking and covering going on as a result. Some extreme legislative actions (US Patriot Act, among others) seem to have been founded on sand. Questions are being asked, minds are being changed at high levels.

* Some highly plausible reasons for invasion given beforehand, related to corporate involvement and greed at high government levels, have remained viable and continue to meet the Occam's Razor test. Some eyes are becoming opened...and jaundiced.

* Most importantly to my mind, there have been no revelations of the research into alternatives to full military invasion that could have reasonably achieved a better (or, at least, different) result, and at a much lower expenditure in military materiel and personnel, and still have retained international goodwill. Hence the sentiments from non-US people in this thread...

* This lack of alternatives lends weight to other evidence that the whole process was actually pre-planned and pre-ordained some time in advance, possibly even before 9/11 (although I do not subscribe to any "US did 9/11, not Al Quaeda" conspiracy theory at all - that's just too preposterous).

My 2c.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zep
My summary:

* No-one had a problem with toppling Saddam and his regime - he was a nasty piece of work for all concerned, not just the USA.

* I would question whether the UN mandate from GW1 was still in force beyond the official cessation of that conflict. The US policing of no-fly zones and other restrictions between GW1 and GW2 were UN mandated (Clinton even authorised retaliatory fire at one time).

* The USA did act unilaterally in precipitating GW2, and dragged two allies along with them. (Note that the leaders of those two allied countries are now neck-deep in sh*t trying to justify to their own people this decision to join in.)

* The US went into Iraq with the explicitly stated intention of "Shock and Awe", including "embedding" reporters with the military and planting reporters in the target zones to ensure it was all seen world-wide. It was to be a convincing propaganda display to the world, not just Iraq, of the USA's military muscle.

* The loudly trumpeted supporting reasons given prior to GW2 for making the huge military effort have been found to be almost baseless, if not entirely concocted. There has been an extraordinary amount of ducking and covering going on as a result. Some extreme legislative actions (US Patriot Act, among others) seem to have been founded on sand. Questions are being asked, minds are being changed at high levels.

* Some highly plausible reasons for invasion given beforehand, related to corporate involvement and greed at high government levels, have remained viable and continue to meet the Occam's Razor test. Some eyes are becoming opened...and jaundiced.

* Most importantly to my mind, there have been no revelations of the research into alternatives to full military invasion that could have reasonably achieved a better (or, at least, different) result, and at a much lower expenditure in military materiel and personnel, and still have retained international goodwill. Hence the sentiments from non-US people in this thread...

* This lack of alternatives lends weight to other evidence that the whole process was actually pre-planned and pre-ordained some time in advance, possibly even before 9/11 (although I do not subscribe to any "US did 9/11, not Al Quaeda" conspiracy theory at all - that's just too preposterous).

My 2c.

That's pretty good. I like it. Although, of course, it's a summary of objections to the invasion of Iraq.

The only thing I have a hard time understaning is the last bit. Since George W. Bush said, clearly, in plain English, during his campaign, that he wanted to invade Iraq, what is the reason for trying to prove it based on indirect evidence?

I mean, if someone confesses to something, is there really a need to bring Elvis and UFOs into it?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by epepke
The only thing I have a hard time understaning is the last bit. Since George W. Bush said, clearly, in plain English, during his campaign, that he wanted to invade Iraq, what is the reason for trying to prove it based on indirect evidence?

When and to whom did he say that?

[epepke]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
When and to whom did he say that?

I don't remember exactly, and I certainly don't have a link. I just remember hearing it in 1999 on a television broadcast, and it's probably gone into the memory hole. So if you want to tell me I don't have a leg to stand on, I will capitulate entirely. I don't care anyway. I observe. I don't try to persuade.

[RandFan]

I like your analysis Zep, I don't quite agree with all of it but I find it coherent. Iraq has been perceived to be a real threat since the end of GW1.

GHWB decided not to invade Iraq in GW1 for very specific reasons.

Those reasons have proven GHWB to be correct, for the most part. Quagmire, loss of life, etc.

Since the end of GW1 something happened in the mind set of those who advised GHWB who now advise GWB.

I think for what ever reason, GHWB regretted his decision not to invade.

GWB made the decision based on a number of factors, including oil and the possibility to mold the Middle East that an invasion was the correct choice.


History has not yet been written on this event.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by epepke


I don't remember exactly, and I certainly don't have a link. I just remember hearing it in 1999 on a television broadcast, and it's probably gone into the memory hole. So if you want to tell me I don't have a leg to stand on, I will capitulate entirely. I don't care anyway. I observe. I don't try to persuade.

I'm pretty sure you don't have a leg to stand on, here. If what you said was true, I'm sure it would have gotten a lot more play on these boards (and elsewhere)

You might be remembering an expression of support for the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, but while that legislation called for the US to work towards Saddam's overthrow, it did not call for any invasions.

[epepke]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I'm pretty sure you don't have a leg to stand on, here. If what you said was true, I'm sure it would have gotten a lot more play on these boards (and elsewhere)

Whatever. You win. Happy now?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


When and to whom did he say that?

One of the blogs (I read a billion of 'em, so I can't find the right one) mentioned that Bush said at some point during the 2000 campaign that finishing off Iraq was one of his priorities. While trying to find where I read this, I have come across a few sites that say (to paraphrase), "Some people thought that Bush said he was going to invade Iraq, but actually he was referring to 'smart sanctions'".

Just so you know epepke isn't just making it up.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by dsm


No, the statement is based upon the assumption that the "deliberate" formulation was done without full consideration of the situation and that now we are in a situation that could've been handled much better.

Conjecture at best. My point is you addressed the negatives and completely ignored the positives, which suggest to me that you deem Europe's hissy fit to be the only intended outcome.

And "handled better" according to whom, exactly? Again, you've clearly taken sides. Nothing wrong with that, but it loads the question considerably, and leads me to believe you will only accept one answer.

You admit the disconnect. Even if (by some miracle) things turn out right, that doesn't make the process by which the administration got there correct. The ends do not justify the means.

Of course I admit it, we've heard the financially-motivated whining from France, Germany and Russia for months now. No one is arguing that.

My problem with your assumptions - and your post makes them all the clearer - is that you have claimed by fiat that the UN route is the superior one simply because you prefer that process. Many people don't. In fact, one could contend that the UN is a textbook example of paralysis by process. Look at the messes in Africa, the Balkans, Iraq itself and several other places to see recent examples of how the UN process is not necessarily the correct - or at least the best - route. To hold that body as the end-all be-all of how conflicts are to be handled is dogmatic.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The noun form of 'disconnect' is 'disconnection'.

We return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Get back to class, kid. "Disconnect" in this sense relates to discourse or mental process."Disconnection" is what happens when AOL dumps you while you're downloading bovine porn.

Check the noun form, Shakespeare (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disconnect)

Are you sure you speak English down there?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zep
I don't know about outrage, but can I draw your memory to those "Shock and Awe" military tactics of 12 months ago, please. The full aggressive weight of your military, as announced and trumpeted by your current executive, and as delivered by your forces. You remember - the one-stop-short-of-nuclear bunker-busters and stuff like that, delivered constantly on helpless people.

What was that? A polite knock on the door? A friendly reminder in the mail? A stern rebuke to the management? Or was it specifically designed to scare the bejeesus out of people (namely Iraqis), and also to impress others around the world with the sheer military power you wield?

As if we didn't know already?

And you talk about presumption, sir! Bah.

Ah, so you'd prefer door-to-door urban warfare? Please, at least give us credit for learning something from Vietnam about trying to fight a conflict half-assed. Fierce and brief will save time, money and lives every time over slow and methodical.

Besides, how does the tactic have any relevance to my post? Would the French have forgiven all if we'd conducted the war as they would?

Er, since that would have meant immediate and unconditional surrender, maybe they would. I think I see your point.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jocko


Get back to class, kid. "Disconnect" in this sense relates to discourse or mental process."Disconnection" is what happens when AOL dumps you while you're downloading bovine porn.

Check the noun form, Shakespeare (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disconnect)

Are you sure you speak English down there?

Ugh. What a crappy dictionary. No wonder you Yanks maul the English language so much. When online, I use Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22156&dict=CALD), which knows the difference between a noun and a verb, and when I'm offline I use the Oxford Shorter, which also knows the difference between a noun and a verb.

Just because you use crappy tools doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Ugh. What a crappy dictionary. No wonder you Yanks maul the English language so much. When online, I use Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22156&dict=CALD), which knows the difference between a noun and a verb, and when I'm offline I use the Oxford Shorter, which also knows the difference between a noun and a verb.

Just because you use crappy tools doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Note, BTW, that the example given by your 'dictionary' doesn't have a credible example of the use of 'disconnect' as a noun, only a sentence from a halfwit op ed columnist. Your tools of choice speaks volumes about you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


One of the blogs (I read a billion of 'em, so I can't find the right one) mentioned that Bush said at some point during the 2000 campaign that finishing off Iraq was one of his priorities. While trying to find where I read this, I have come across a few sites that say (to paraphrase), "Some people thought that Bush said he was going to invade Iraq, but actually he was referring to 'smart sanctions'".

Just so you know epepke isn't just making it up. Well, that settles that.

I came across some sites that said Kerry was going to invade Canada.

Thanks Manifesto.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well, that settles that.

I came across some sites that said Kerry was going to invade Canada.

Thanks Manifesto.

All I was saying is that epepke wasn't making it up.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jocko


Ah, so you'd prefer door-to-door urban warfare? Please, at least give us credit for learning something from Vietnam about trying to fight a conflict half-assed. Fierce and brief will save time, money and lives every time over slow and methodical.

Besides, how does the tactic have any relevance to my post? Would the French have forgiven all if we'd conducted the war as they would?

Er, since that would have meant immediate and unconditional surrender, maybe they would. I think I see your point. I'm obviously not getting this through to you.

1. You are putting words in my mouth. I have not mentioned urban combat as an alternative at all. In fact, I'm trying to get across to you the point that mass combat of any form per se may not even have been the best answer at all. Why is the gun and force the FIRST solutions that spring to some American minds?

2. Vietnam should have been an object lesson to the USA about the necessity of thinking long and hard BEFORE unilaterally committing its military might to any part of the globe at all to back up a purely political agenda. You do recall how that one ended, don't you? Hardly a stunning or popular victory, was it. I am old enough to remember, as are a few other posters here.

3. As to the French, I'm well aware that there were complex political and commercial aspects to the Iraq problem. I have said before and I repeat: That would have the time to send in the diplomats to get them onside. But diplomacy is something noticeably and deplorably missing from the Bush team. The term "redneck cowboys" seems far more appropriate to their negotiating skills - it's actually used here frequently to describe them. And if that's how they appeared to the French, is it no wonder they were reluctant to commit?

4. Your amusing prattle about French military prowess simply reinforces your own prejudices, not mine, and gives you your own excuse to be dismissive of them. I'm sure we could debate French military history ad nauseum, but it has no relevance at all the subject at hand, either militarily or otherwise. Diversion over.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Note, BTW, that the example given by your 'dictionary' doesn't have a credible example of the use of 'disconnect' as a noun, only a sentence from a halfwit op ed columnist. Your tools of choice speaks volumes about you.

Ah. More Truth™. Your grasp of language is truly staggering. Do be sure to giggle over this during third period tomorrow morning, won't you?

Alas, we speak 21st century English here in the States. So sorry for the disconnect, chump.

Edited to add: Your method of analysis based on an example of usage speaks volume about you as well. I'm sure you've already begun a letter writing campaign to enlighten the unwashed masses.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Zep
I'm obviously not getting this through to you.

1. You are putting words in my mouth. I have not mentioned urban combat as an alternative at all. In fact, I'm trying to get across to you the point that mass combat of any form per se may not even have been the best answer at all. Why is the gun and force the FIRST solutions that spring to some American minds?

Agreed it was not the only alternative, nor necessarily the best one. Why are you not similarly critical of those who would debate themselves in circles till doomsday? Again, the clear implication is that you have some viable alternative in mind.

2. Vietnam should have been an object lesson to the USA about the necessity of thinking long and hard BEFORE unilaterally committing its military might to any part of the globe at all to back up a purely political agenda. You do recall how that one ended, don't you? Hardly a stunning or popular victory, was it. I am old enough to remember, as are a few other posters here.

Here I disagree. Taken in the context of the times, the principle was solid but the execution deplorable. The lesson learned was a practical one; to wit, if you're in a war, win it fast and win it overwhelmingly. The reasons for this I stated in my last post.

3. As to the French, I'm well aware that there were complex political and commercial aspects to the Iraq problem. I have said before and I repeat: That would have the time to send in the diplomats to get them onside. But diplomacy is something noticeably and deplorably missing from the Bush team. The term "redneck cowboys" seems far more appropriate to their negotiating skills - it's actually used here frequently to describe them. And if that's how they appeared to the French, is it no wonder they were reluctant to commit?

And what, precisely, would you call 12 years and all those UN resolutions? There comes a time when diplomacy just turns into so much masturbation. Try having a conversation with Mr. Manifesto if you need to see the principle in action.

4. Your amusing prattle about French military prowess simply reinforces your own prejudices, not mine, and gives you your own excuse to be dismissive of them. I'm sure we could debate French military history ad nauseum, but it has no relevance at all the subject at hand, either militarily or otherwise. Diversion over.

It was a joke, meant to lighten the mood of our disagreement. If that was wasted on you, then I apologize. I concede the point in the finest traditions of our brie-munching, wine-snorting, Jerry-Lewis-worshipping brethren across the sea.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jocko
Agreed it was not the only alternative, nor necessarily the best one. Why are you not similarly critical of those who would debate themselves in circles till doomsday? Again, the clear implication is that you have some viable alternative in mind.

Here I disagree. Taken in the context of the times, the principle was solid but the execution deplorable. The lesson learned was a practical one; to wit, if you're in a war, win it fast and win it overwhelmingly. The reasons for this I stated in my last post.

And what, precisely, would you call 12 years and all those UN resolutions? There comes a time when diplomacy just turns into so much masturbation. Try having a conversation with Mr. Manifesto if you need to see the principle in action.

It was a joke, meant to lighten the mood of our disagreement. If that was wasted on you, then I apologize. I concede the point in the finest traditions of our brie-munching, wine-snorting, Jerry-Lewis-worshipping brethren across the sea. 1. Alternatives No, I had no particular alternative in mind at all. The problem was that no other alternative but a military might one seemed to occur to the US executive either, but nor was one sought.

Let me pose a hypothetical: What if the USA had spent the time and got UN backing, and European and Russian alliances? Iraq would have been faced 360^o with stern-faced countries looking for a resolution, and military might arrayed right around its house. Then what would have been the odds of Saddam being delivered to Syria with his family within days, possibly in chains? Or just quietly being bumped off? Win-win?

2. Vietnam The fast-hit strategy is essentially the blitzkrieg. It has been a SOP for most militaries for years. Did it work in Vietnam?

3. UN resolutions Diplomacy was not being used in Iraq for 12 years at all. It was 12 years of blockade and constant military pressure by the USA following GW1, and Saddam playing mind-games with you and the weapons-inspection teams. Sure, it was probably frustrating, but that doesn't mean the next step is an all-out military assault.

It's like playing chess and using fool's mate every time - easy for your opponent to see, easy for them to avoid and make you look foolish. You need to think and adapt to the situation in order to win, and it may take a few more steps to achieve than you originally thought. Do not tell me Americans do not have the smarts, guile, and stamina to do this well.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Let me pose a hypothetical: What if the USA had spent the time and got UN backing, and European and Russian alliances? Iraq would have been faced 360^o with stern-faced countries looking for a resolution, and military might arrayed right around its house. Then what would have been the odds of Saddam being delivered to Syria with his family within days, possibly in chains? Or just quietly being bumped off? Win-win? I have some problems with this hypothetical.

Saddam's greatest strategic error was assuming that time was on his side. And it almost was. Before 9/11 there were several instance when France, Russia and Germany were pressing to end the sanctions. The people of Iraq were suffering teribbly while Saddam was building temples with oil for food and medicine revenues. Humanitarian organizations were questioning the need for the sanctions. Saddam believed that enough time would spell the end of the sanctions.

To keep Russia, France and Germany from ever being "stern-faced" Saddam signed lucrative contracts with them. Saddam believed that he could play a waiting game.

After 12 years there was nothing at all to indicate that "this time we really mean business". The international community had demonstrated over and over that there was not going to be any ultimatum. This is what Saddam was counting on. He miscalculated the determination of George Bush. Odd since he miscalculated in the first war also.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by WildCat
And frankly, I take issue about the "there was no approval of the UN" thing. This was really a continuation of GWI, and UN approval was never withdrawn for it and member states were explicitly given the go-ahead for further action against Iraq if necessary. You'll disagree I'm sure, but there is a solid legal case to be made about it.

You must have forgotten our little discussion here:

[ur.]http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870319114&highlight=zones#post1870319114[/url]

That or you're dishonest, I mean. I'd prefer to think it just slipped your mind that you had tried this bit of propaganda out before, and slipped your mind that it had been debunked already.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Jocko

Conjecture at best. My point is you addressed the negatives and completely ignored the positives, which suggest to me that you deem Europe's hissy fit to be the only intended outcome.


What positives? We (the USA) are still a long way from seeing any substantial benefits to us from this Iraq war. Of course, you're going to point out the benefit to the Iraq people now that Saddam is gone which suggests that all you're interested in is revisionist history that the administration would like everyone to swallow. I could care less about what Europe thinks -- I can judge the past actions of the administration on my own.


And "handled better" according to whom, exactly? Again, you've clearly taken sides. Nothing wrong with that, but it loads the question considerably, and leads me to believe you will only accept one answer.


Again, you've clearly taken sides and are attempting to load the question in favor of your side. "Handled better" simply means that the administration failed to take full account of the information that it had and, instead, proceeded on the campaign to get Saddam that it had from the very beginning (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/02/19/bush.blair/) and that 9/11 (they thought) bolstered.


Of course I admit it, we've heard the financially-motivated whining from France, Germany and Russia for months now. No one is arguing that.


We've also seen the (attempted) revisionism of the Bush administration to backpedal and rejustify a war that they were going to have regardless of what happened. What was the financial motivation for the UN weapons inspectors to say "wait"? :rolleyes:


My problem with your assumptions - and your post makes them all the clearer - is that you have claimed by fiat that the UN route is the superior one simply because you prefer that process. Many people don't. In fact, one could contend that the UN is a textbook example of paralysis by process. Look at the messes in Africa, the Balkans, Iraq itself and several other places to see recent examples of how the UN process is not necessarily the correct - or at least the best - route. To hold that body as the end-all be-all of how conflicts are to be handled is dogmatic.

There are certain rules to working in the international arena that apply whether you work with the UN or without it. One of those is the rule on violating the sovereignity of a nation. What happened on 9/11 provided strong justification for what the US did in Afghanistan and few (if any) would argue with it. However, 9/11 was not the justification for what the administration did in Iraq (despite it attempts to link Iraq to al Queda) as the administration was obviously going into Iraq from the very beginning (http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2001/000029.html). The justifications used by Bush (et.al.) for the Iraq invasion have since proven to be false (unless you really expect to find Rumsfeld's miracle weapons bunker in the desert (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/sprj.nirq.rumsfeld.congress.ap/)) which strongly suggests that either the Bush administration lied about what it knew in order to justify the war or let its zeal to attack Saddam cloud it's judgement on the reasons for the attack. Either way, Bush has made a lot of mistakes with Iraq that are going to make the US goals for the future of that region much harder to achieve.

The one question I have is when are we (the public) going to get to hear Saddam speak about his removal from power? Why is it taking so long for him to be brought out and displayed by the US as (at least) propaganda to show the Iraqis and the world that "we've taken care of this really bad man for you"? Will this be the "October surprise"?

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm
What happened on 9/11 provided strong justification for what the US did in Afghanistan and few (if any) would argue with it.

But they did, anyway. Don't you remember? Most same groups that opposed the invasion of Iraq also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. Noam Chomsky was practically apopleptic about it, as were most European pundits.

Nota bene: I am not suggesting that what happened on 9/11 was in any way a justification for invading Iraq, but the idea that invading Afghanistan was unopposed is pure fantasy.

[dsm]

Originally posted by epepke
But they did, anyway. Don't you remember? Most same groups that opposed the invasion of Iraq also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. Noam Chomsky was practically apopleptic about it, as were most European pundits.

Nota bene: I am not suggesting that what happened on 9/11 was in any way a justification for invading Iraq, but the idea that invading Afghanistan was unopposed is pure fantasy.

Hmmm. I think I see what you mean. I'll have to rethink that. This (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0110/S00168.htm) and this (http://www.house.gov/delahunt/iraqwatch_11-21-03.htm) puts a new light on it for my thinking. Actually, I guess this adds to my point in that I really shouldn't separate the reasons for invading Afghanistan from the reasons for invading Iraq.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Quote from Ranfan"Saddam's greatest strategic error was assuming that time was on his side. And it almost was. Before 9/11 there were several instance when France, Russia and Germany were pressing to end the sanctions. "

I read a William Safire column today ( in interest of having a balanced out look , I think he's an ideologue)That states that the UN oil for food program was a sham and there were kickbacks that amounted to Many millions of dollars. The story has many sources and seems to be almost a year old. I think that -as I have suggested on this and other boards-this was the primary reason for the Germans , Russians and Phrench to balk at involving themselves with the Iraq war. I suggested outstanding debt and partially completed projects as the cause. If this pans out then there is farther evidence that the European countries spoke w/ forked tongue.

edit SP

[dsm]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Quote from Ranfan"Saddam's greatest strategic error was assuming that time was on his side. And it almost was. Before 9/11 there were several instance when France, Russia and Germany were pressing to end the sanctions. "

I read a William Safire column today ( in interest of having a balanced out look , I think he's an ideologue)That states that the UN oil for food program was a sham and there were kickbacks that amounted to Many millions of dollars. The story has many sources and seems to be almost a year old. I think that -as I have suggested on this and other boards-this was the primary reason for the Germans , Russians and Phrench to balk at involving themselves with the Iraq war. I suggested outstanding debt and partially completed projects as the cause. If this pans out then there is farther evidence that the European countries spoke w/ forked tongue.

edit SP


What's the link to Safire's article?
Was it before or after the war began?
Could the information have been used by the Bush administration to "embarass" the French, Germans, and Russians?
If so, could it have changed the Security Council's vote (either then or in the future if diplomatic efforts continued)?


Ultimately, the question is not why did the other countries tell Bush to "wait", but rather why was Bush in such a rush to go to war when all the evidence didn't line up?

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm
Ultimately, the question is not why did the other countries tell Bush to "wait", but rather why was Bush in such a rush to go to war when all the evidence didn't line up?

As I've said before but cannot prove by referring to a particular speech, from what I saw of Bush's campaign in 1999, I got the distinct impression that he was itching to invade Iraq, both to finish what his Dad started and as vengeance for Saddam's attempt at assassinating his Dad.

I withdraw claims I have made that he said so clearly, as I cannot back them up, but it seemed clear to me at the time that this is one of the things he really wanted to do.

As for Afghanistan, if anything, the Bush administration waited a rather long time before invading. Clinton's response to the de facto expulsion of the inspectors was almost immediate.

This is consistent with the observation that the Bush administration dropped the ball with respect to Afghanistan after the initial efforts.

[dsm]

Originally posted by epepke

I withdraw claims I have made that he said so clearly, as I cannot back them up, but it seemed clear to me at the time that this is one of the things he really wanted to do.


I'm getting closer and closer to finding this reference, but haven't yet found where Bush said himself that he was out to get Saddam. However, this report (http://printerfriendly.abcnews.com/printerfriendly/Print?fetchFromGLUE=true&GLUEService=ABCNewsCom) would strongly seem to suggest that that was the plan of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz as far back as 1998. Since Bush put all these men (and many more) in high positions within his government, it also seems pretty strong that he believed the idea as well.

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm


I'm getting closer and closer to finding this reference, but haven't yet found where Bush said himself that he was out to get Saddam. However, this report (http://printerfriendly.abcnews.com/printerfriendly/Print?fetchFromGLUE=true&GLUEService=ABCNewsCom) would strongly seem to suggest that that was the plan of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz as far back as 1998. Since Bush put all these men (and many more) in high positions within his government, it also seems pretty strong that he believed the idea as well.

The link doesn't seem to work; it says that the report is not available in printer-friendly format. Do you have another one?

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm
I'm getting closer and closer to finding this reference, but haven't yet found where Bush said himself that he was out to get Saddam.

I found http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold01172003.html, which is alas a secondary source to an editorial, so not terribly solid.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


You must have forgotten our little discussion here:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870319114&highlight=zones#post1870319114

That or you're dishonest, I mean. I'd prefer to think it just slipped your mind that you had tried this bit of propaganda out before, and slipped your mind that it had been debunked already.
I remember it well, yet I somehow fail to see it being debunked anywhere. If anything, it proves that Iraq violated the cease-fire. A cease-fire is not a surrender, or a treaty, nor a guaranteed end to hostilities. In fact, quite the opposite - hostilities could resume the moment the terms of the cease-fire were broken.

Had Iraq not violated the cease-fire (hundreds of times, such as shooting at planes in the NFZ's) there would have been no resumption of the war.

Debunked claim... denied.

[dsm]

Originally posted by epepke
The link doesn't seem to work; it says that the report is not available in printer-friendly format. Do you have another one?

Whoops, try this one (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html). I guess the other thing to look more closely is the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Grammatron


And people say Americans are stupid and uneducated, well that statement shows that ignorance knows no bounds.

gfaw. there's a reason why we're so involved in the middle east. learn a little of the secret history of the us, what are intelligence agencies have been up to over there the last few decades, and why.

you really think we don't want more control over oil supplies?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Chaos


So now you are picking the looniest conspiracy theory crackpot you could find and portray him as typical for Germany?

Great work really. *throws up on keyboard*

Not a real sound approach, in my opinion. I doubt he'd approve if German's were making blanket assumptions about the Americans based on the timecube guy.

www.timecube.com

[Renfield]

Originally posted by RandFan
I beg to differ. Plese re-read the first post of this thread.

No, we should definitly not make decisions on the basis that it might anger someone.

Hell these people don't make decision on what might anger us. Why on earth are we worried about people who do not care about us? I really do not understand why we have to kiss their ass and take their snotty contemptous attitude. These nations that call themselves alies were doing business with Saddam. I'm not all that certain that they are great friends of ours. Diplomacy goes both ways.

No one is suggesting we should kiss their ass. Showing total contempt for them, trying to intimidate them, and lying to them in order to pressure them into supporting your reckless, destructive, and quite possibly pointless war.

Remember, this war was not waged in order to bring democracy to an oppressed people (anyone who knows what Bush and his people have been up to the last 20-30 years would know they couldn't give a rats ass about that). It was done to improve our national security, by ridding us of all those nasty WMD's Saddam supposedly had.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


What security concerns?



France asked for more information. That doesn't spell 'preserving their stake in Iraq's oil interests' to me. That tells me that they were being cautious, and it's a lesson your country would do well to learn.

A pretty sensible position if you ask me, since nearly right up to the invasion their were inspectors in Iraq working, and getting the access they needed to do their jobs. They were following up some of those much heralded intelligence leads and they weren't panning out.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Renfield


A pretty sensible position if you ask me, since nearly right up to the invasion their were inspectors in Iraq working, and getting the access they needed to do their jobs. They were following up some of those much heralded intelligence leads and they weren't panning out.

They also have a state-owned oil company that had some very lucrative oil contracts that would only kick-in once the sanctions drop.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Zep
Not to mention the growing undercurrent in the Iraqi population and circles of power of resentment at the lingering US occupation. Good or bad though this occupation may be, the problem is that there is no set departure date set to work towards, so it looks far more like an imperial conquest than a liberation.

They don't intend to depart. They are going to have a large military presence in Iraq into a forseeable future.

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm


Whoops, try this one (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html). I guess the other thing to look more closely is the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).

That works; thanks.

As for the other, I guess I'll have to schlep down to the University to look at the New York Times fiche for the editorial, as the Times online wants to sell it to me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Renfield
No one is suggesting we should kiss their ass. Showing total contempt for them, trying to intimidate them, and lying to them in order to pressure them into supporting your reckless, destructive, and quite possibly pointless war. They wanted the oil contracts, we wanted the oil contracts. Saddam wasn't complying. He thumbed his nose at the international community and the international community said "isn't that nice", and asked for the sanctions to be dropped. "Total contempt"? Right!

Remember, this war was not waged in order to bring democracy to an oppressed people (anyone who knows what Bush and his people have been up to the last 20-30 years would know they couldn't give a rats ass about that). It was done to improve our national security, by ridding us of all those nasty WMD's Saddam supposedly had. All of those nasty WMD's that Saddam would not allow us to verify that he didn't have. All of those nasty WMD's that Clinton, congress and the UN believed he had.

And our complicity in the selling of arms to Saddam to keep our hated enemy Iran at bay and allowing him to gas his people does not mean that we couldn't change our mind.

There were multiple reasons. It is arguable that money, greed and oil were paramount. I disagree but it is also arguable that all of the reasons played a part along with oil, greed and money. If you choose to dismiss even the possibility of that then you simply show your blind allegiance to ideology and penchant for conspiracy theory.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
There were multiple reasons. It is arguable that money, greed and oil were paramount. I disagree but it is also arguable that all of the reasons played a part along with oil, greed and money. If you choose to dismiss even the possibility of that then you simply show your blind allegiance to ideology and penchant for conspiracy theory.

Could you bring yourself to allow that "stupidity" might also have been involved?

Note, I haven't said whose, I think there's lots to go around. One could also ask about the role of religion and the idea of bringing the final war to the middle east. No, I don't have any direct evidence, other than that a couple of apocolyptics are reported to be part of the administration...

One could come up with a lot of excuses, really. I notice "finish the job daddy started" didn't come up, too. I am quite surprised nobody thought of that already, or did I miss it?

But the one I really want you to allow for is "stupidity".

[subgenius]

Does this help or can the spinmasters give us a hand?

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.

Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.
http://drudgereport.com/flash60.htm

[crackmonkey]

You've posted this in three seperate threads already. You really have a hard-on for this tale, huh?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You've posted this in three seperate threads already. You really have a hard-on for this tale, huh?
I'll certainly be watching 60 Minutes. How bout y'all?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Scott Ritter voiced his concerns- even published a book on the subject- before the war. Was he using hindsight?

Ok, I read Ritter's first book "End Game"

Here's just a few salient points I posted to JREF after reading it, and prior to the invasion of Iraq:

UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.

...I did not read Mr. Ritter's second book which came out after his arrest for luring underage girls across state lines for sex. Mr. Ritter was outted as a internet pedophile...then, suddenly, his views on Iraq changed 180 degrees. Funny, but I have trouble with his sudden change to an anti-government activist in the wake of federal charges.

If it was that big a deal, America should have waited for UN backing. Otherwise, any country could invade other countries for whatever reason.

America is not surrendering it's sovereignty to the UN.

-z

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by rikzilla

...I did not read Mr. Ritter's second book which came out after his arrest for luring underage girls across state lines for sex. Mr. Ritter was outted as a internet pedophile...then, suddenly, his views on Iraq changed 180 degrees. Funny, but I have trouble with his sudden change to an anti-government activist in the wake of federal charges.


It gets better (or worse, depending on your frame):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004822

Scott Ritter's "Shifting Sands" documentary may have been indirectly funded by Saddam as well.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jj
One could come up with a lot of excuses, really. I notice "finish the job daddy started" didn't come up, too. I am quite surprised nobody thought of that already, or did I miss it?

Yeah, you missed it. I brought it up.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
Could you bring yourself to allow that "stupidity" might also have been involved?

Note, I haven't said whose, I think there's lots to go around. One could also ask about the role of religion and the idea of bringing the final war to the middle east. No, I don't have any direct evidence, other than that a couple of apocolyptics are reported to be part of the administration...

One could come up with a lot of excuses, really. I notice "finish the job daddy started" didn't come up, too. I am quite surprised nobody thought of that already, or did I miss it?

But the one I really want you to allow for is "stupidity". Yes, I think all are valid points and could have played a part. Revenge for the alleged atack on Sr. is also worthy of consideration.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'll certainly be watching 60 Minutes. How bout y'all? You are like my 10 year old who is going whale watching today. She is so excited she can't shut up about it. She starts conversation and makes little statements that give away her exuberance. "It's a nice day to go on a boat".

I can just see you so excited, finally the whole Bush affair will be exposed for all to see. Oh happy day! http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/trampoline.gif http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/banana.gif http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/nana.gif

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RandFan

We must decide on a course of action that is best for us. Not ignoring the opinion of others but not putting it first on our list either. To think that our "image" is paramount is to be blind to history.

Right. And others countries have that right too. That's something that the US might want to keep in mind. They can run hell-bent into any military conflict they want, but don't expect the rest of the world to run right in after you.
We get to make choices that are best for us as well.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are like my 10 year old who is going whale watching today. She is so excited she can't shut up about it. She starts conversation and makes little statements that give away her exuberance. "It's a nice day to go on a boat".

I can just see you so excited, finally the whole Bush affair will be exposed for all to see. Oh happy day! http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/trampoline.gif http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/banana.gif http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/nana.gif
That's weird in the first degree. I take no pleasure in any of this in light of the costs to our country.
I think its an important story.
I hope your daughter has fun today though. Not going with her?
Your image brings me great memories of mine. When she was about three and received a surprise visit from Santa she ran around exploding with joy and yelling "Too much fun!"

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Right. And others countries have that right too. That's something that the US might want to keep in mind. They can run hell-bent into any military conflict they want, but don't expect the rest of the world to run right in after you.
We get to make choices that are best for us as well.

Not only that, but if a country doesn't want to follow you into war, you could at least respect their decision to do so, rather than screeching 'yer with us or against us' as Cheney basically did in the French Embassy in the days leading up to the war.

I can understand this sort of behaviour from Bush. As an ex-alcoholic, his brain has been fried, causing him to revert to juvenile behaviour. What's Cheney's excuse? Did he mistake Bush's childish outbursts for leadership?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
That's weird in the first degree. I take no pleasure in any of this in light of the costs to our country. Hey sub,

If I could invade the privacy of your own thoughts I'll bet I would find a bit of glee. It is human nature to be pleased when we are shown to be right. This is a battle of good vs evil. The forces for good are mounting a counter attack to the forces of greed and arrogance. How could one not be pleased that the usurper is about to be exposed and the wicked men receive their just compensation. To be thrown out after only one term.

Human emotions are complex. It is possible to be upset at the pain caused by the transgressor and enthralled at the victory of the just over such a malevolent group such as Bush et al.

I think its an important story. I'm sure it is. I will be watching it. I will honestly try and view the material in an intellectually honest mind set and not through the filter of ideology.

I hope your daughter has fun today though. Not going with her? Health problems prevent me. I hope to remedy that soon.

Your image brings me great memories of mine. When she was about three and received a surprise visit from Santa she ran around exploding with joy and yelling "Too much fun!" Kids are great aren't they. Some of my greatest memories were when my kids literally ran out of the house to greet me when I came home yelling "daddy". Now my oldest is getting ready to take driving lessons.

Thanks sub.

[dsm]

Originally posted by rikzilla

America is not surrendering it's sovereignty to the UN.


"Can't we all just get along?"

No one has asked America to give up it's right to rule itself. However, America (land of the free and home of the brave -- a champion of individual and national rights) should also recognize the sovereign rights of other nations and work within the international community (in the UN and elsewhere) to ensure those rights are protected and only subverted in the most extreme of circumstances.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
"Can't we all just get along?"

No one has asked America to give up it's right to rule itself. However, America (land of the free and home of the brave -- a champion of individual and national rights) should also recognize the sovereign rights of other nations and work within the international community (in the UN and elsewhere) to ensure those rights are protected and only subverted in the most extreme of circumstances. In a perfect world, yes.

The problem is that France, Germany and Russia were not cooperating with the international community. They were working to secure their own interests and prop up Saddam. They wanted the lucrative oil contracts he greased their palms with.

This working together is a two way street.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan
In a perfect world, yes.

The problem is that France, Germany and Russia were not cooperating with the international community. They were working to secure their own interests and prop up Saddam. They wanted the lucrative oil contracts he greased their palms with.

This working together is a two way street.

Yes it is. However, you could look at that in one of two ways:


France, Germany and Russia were recalcitrant with respect to Iraq and would never allow any interference on Iraq.
These countries did not yet see Iraq rising to the level of threat that GWB (et.al.) tried to make it out as and GWB failed to find a diplomatic solution to the whole thing.


I'm not sure I said the above properly, but the basic point is that, while you would like to characterize those countries as a problem, history seems to suggest that they were right and that GWB failed in the arena of foreign relations. We elect presidents to get the job done, but not to overstep their bounds. Iraq is looking more and more like a personal vendetta of GWB rather than a realistic foreign policy decision.

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm
I'm not sure I said the above properly, but the basic point is that, while you would like to characterize those countries as a problem, history seems to suggest that they were right and that GWB failed in the arena of foreign relations. We elect presidents to get the job done, but not to overstep their bounds. Iraq is looking more and more like a personal vendetta of GWB rather than a realistic foreign policy decision.

Yes, it looks that way.

However, not every country that didn't go along with the US was selected for particular animosity. Canada, for instance, was not. And even given the historical mutual dependence between the US and Canada, many of the 9/11 bombers got access to the US by way of the Canadian border, so there was certainly something that could have easily become animosity there.

France, Germany, and Russia were selected because it seemed (whether this is actually true or not) that their motives for opposing an invasion of Iraq were particularly venial.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by RandFan
In a perfect world, yes.

The problem is that France, Germany and Russia were not cooperating with the international community. They were working to secure their own interests and prop up Saddam. They wanted the lucrative oil contracts he greased their palms with.

This working together is a two way street.

Actually the case is more complex then that. Recent news and UN reports ( that engendered an interal invistigation, Ya that'll work ) that these three countries were involved with kickbacks from the oil for food program...........more to come.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
In a perfect world, yes.

The problem is that France, Germany and Russia were not cooperating with the international community. They were working to secure their own interests and prop up Saddam. They wanted the lucrative oil contracts he greased their palms with.

This working together is a two way street. Hmmmm...

1/ There ended up being only three (3) "allies" in the Coallition of the Willing. All the rest of the possible "allies" didn't want to play that game for one reason or another. So it wasn't a case of France, Germany and Russia being sticks-in-the-mud. It was a case of everyone but the USA, GB and Oz deciding not to be involved. And even among those three, the citizens of at least two were known NOT to be supporting their government's decision.

2/ If these three particluar countries DID have their palms greased by Saddam to benefit while he remained in power, wouldn't that have been a great stick for GWB to hold over their heads to make them play along his way? Threaten to make international pariah's out of them?

3/ If these particular countries would have benefited from the lifting of sanctions, wouldn't that have been a terrific carrot for GWB to dangle to make them play along his way?

4/ Either way, there seemed to have been plenty of clear opportunities for Bush to get more allies in this escapade. UNLESS it was never his intention to do so - that he wanted to gazzump them all and take all the prize himself for his own reasons...

Sheesh. Like I said above: Diplomacy, tact and intelligence is something clearly and sadly missing from Bush's team.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zep
1/ There ended up being only three (3) "allies" in the Coallition of the Willing. All the rest of the possible "allies" didn't want to play that game for one reason or another. So it wasn't a case of France, Germany and Russia being sticks-in-the-mud. It was a case of everyone but the USA, GB and Oz deciding not to be involved.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "allies," but you're clearly using it in a way that excludes Spain. So it must be a fairly restrictive use of the word, because Spain is a fairly large and important country. With that in mind, it is disingenuous to say "everyone but the USA, GB, and Oz," because your definition of "everyone" must necessarily exclude Spain and therefore probably excludes much of the rest of the world as well.

Note, please, that I am not saying that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea or that it had widespread support, simply that you are trying to pull a rhetorical fast one.

As for the traditional allies of the US, as I have already pointed out, only France, Germany, and Russia have been singled out for objection. This is because they appeared to have sweetheart deals with Saddam that violated both the spirit and the letter of UN resolutions, and the coming news is that they may have had a sweetheart kickback arrangement with respect to the Oil-For-Food program as well.

Again, this does not mean that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, nor does it mean that it was justified. It just means that France, Germany, and Russia don't exactly come out of this smelling like a rose either.

[dsm]

Originally posted by epepke
It just means that France, Germany, and Russia don't exactly come out of this smelling like a rose either.

But is this important or mere misdirection?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Epepke,
I agree that there was opportunity for a larger consensus and I don't agree with the timing, reasons or progress of the war.

The fact however is that those "allies" refused to participate. This is a reality of any sovereign nation and we should respect that choice . To hide behind the greasy dissimulation of diplomacy with platitudes of "the suffering of the Iraqi people" while getting their palms greased is the height of hypocrisy.

[Zep]

I understand what you are saying, epepke.

The only three countries that committed military forces to the invasion and conquest of Iraq were USA, Great Britain and Australia. As I understand it, other countries such as Spain committed troops and materiel on the ground only after that phase completed.

The only other countries that could conceivably have been considered "allies" in the invasion would have been Qatar and Kuwait, for obvious reasons.

So my comments were towards the actual on-ground commitments and support for the invasion operation initially. Apart from these countries, no others committed such support, for whatever reasons. Nor did the UN commit to support it.

Yes, today there IS commitment from other countries and the UN, but only after these three presented a fait accompli through force of arms.

Incidentally, I'm not proud that our troops were sent there, although I'm extremely proud of how they carried out their tasks professionally. And I'm sure the same can be said for the US and British troops.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
I'm not sure I said the above properly, but the basic point is that, while you would like to characterize those countries as a problem, history seems to suggest that they were right and that GWB failed in the arena of foreign relations. We elect presidents to get the job done, but not to overstep their bounds. Iraq is looking more and more like a personal vendetta of GWB rather than a realistic foreign policy decision. I couldn't disagree more. It seems that those who are against GWB are seeing the world they want to more and more.

I have found that people decide what it is they believe first and then justify that position with argument. Do you have any evidence to support your claim or does this simply comply with your world view? This is not a personal attack but an honest question?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
1/ There ended up being only three (3) "allies" in the Coallition of the Willing. All the rest of the possible "allies" didn't want to play that game for one reason or another. So it wasn't a case of France, Germany and Russia being sticks-in-the-mud. It was a case of everyone but the USA, GB and Oz deciding not to be involved. And even among those three, the citizens of at least two were known NOT to be supporting their government's decision.

2/ If these three particluar countries DID have their palms greased by Saddam to benefit while he remained in power, wouldn't that have been a great stick for GWB to hold over their heads to make them play along his way? Threaten to make international pariah's out of them? No, I don't think so. Your argument seems specious to me.

3/ If these particular countries would have benefited from the lifting of sanctions, wouldn't that have been a terrific carrot for GWB to dangle to make them play along his way? Not as I see it. They only stood to lose. Why would you think this?

4/ Either way, there seemed to have been plenty of clear opportunities for Bush to get more allies in this escapade. UNLESS it was never his intention to do so - that he wanted to gazzump them all and take all the prize himself for his own reasons... I see no evidence to support this contention. I see plenty of evidence to support the notion that after the cold war the world envied the United States for its position and saw the war with Iraq as a way for America to further it's percieved hegemony.

Sheesh. Like I said above: Diplomacy, tact and intelligence is something clearly and sadly missing from Bush's team. Sheesh, people see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm
But is this important or mere misdirection?

That's a good question. It could very well be important and also have been used for misdirection.

There's also the question of who is supposed to have been doing the misdirection. If it is the US government, then it is likely that it has been used as misdirection at some point. It doesn't really matter much any more, though, as the invasion already happened. Now the issue is the nature and duration of the occupation.

However, if it's me who is supposed to be doing it, then I think one would have to show my motivations for misdirecting. Since I regularly point out that I did not support the invasion of Iraq, do not support Bush, and intend to vote him out, I think that this would be rather difficult to show.

It's also possible that "misdirection" is defined as anything that casts doubt on the motivations of any country other than the US. In that case, it would be purely partisan and prejudicial, and I have little interest in it or arguments about it.

I'm afraid that, while I do not like war, I do not see automatically that any scheme that makes money off of, as it was widely claimed and not questioned by Madeleine Albright on 60 Minutes, 5000 dead Iraqi babies a month, has a clear and unequivocable claim to moral high ground. Therefore I am reluctant to dismiss this as unimportant.

If it turns out that France, Germany, and Russia were doing this, then it is blood on their hands, and this deserves notice. I already hear practically every day how it's blood on the hands of the US. But blood is blood, and hands are hands.

[subgenius]

Watch 60 Minutes this Sunday.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zep
I understand what you are saying, epepke.

The only three countries that committed military forces to the invasion and conquest of Iraq were USA, Great Britain and Australia. As I understand it, other countries such as Spain committed troops and materiel on the ground only after that phase completed.

True. But the reasons for not committing troops for the initial invasion are not limited to being "sticks in the mud." From a purely military perspective, only US and British forces could have accomplished an invasion as quickly and with as little bloodshed. No offense is intended with respect to Australian troops, but even merely the logistical problems must have been a nightmare. Again, from a purely military perspective, what is impressive is that there were any at all.

Not that the efficacy of US troops in an invasion is a source of great pride for me, but it is a fact.

[Zep]

Originally posted by epepke

True. But the reasons for not committing troops for the initial invasion are not limited to being "sticks in the mud." From a purely military perspective, only US and British forces could have accomplished an invasion as quickly and with as little bloodshed. No offense is intended with respect to Australian troops, but even merely the logistical problems must have been a nightmare. Again, from a purely military perspective, what is impressive is that there were any at all.

Not that the efficacy of US troops in an invasion is a source of great pride for me, but it is a fact. I agree - the Australian military being the size it is, we could really be considered as just the flea on the back of the big snarling dog.

And I think if we could go back to the threads 12 months ago, I did say that I had the expectation that the US troops would roll from Kuwait to Baghdad as fast as they could keep diesel in the tanks. No doubt about it - the invasion operation per se was done efficiently and quickly.
Randfan: I see plenty of evidence to support the notion that after the cold war the world envied the United States for its position and saw the war with Iraq as a way for America to further it's perceived hegemony.
Randfan, Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are very few countries in the world who envy the USA at all, either now or in the past. Some certainly fear or loathe the USA for real or imagined or political reasons, but in the main, we are happy to live here just as you are happy to live there. In addition, inflated US heads happens to be one of the reasons this envy does not exist. The impression here is that GWB's head is so inflated he now can't get it out of his arse. And Cheney's and Rumfeld's heads are so inflated they can't get them out of George's arse either. Just being honest...

To address your points here simply: All the evidence available to date and Occam's Razor supports the contention that Bush had prior intentions and ulterior motives for invading Iraq. Saddam, WMDs, diplomacy, sanctions, the UN, even 9/11 had precious little to do with it.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zep
Randfan, Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are very few countries in the world who envy the USA at all, either now or in the past. Some certainly fear or loathe the USA for real or imagined or political reasons, but in the main, we are happy to live here just as you are happy to live there.

Well, except for the fact that a good 75% of the people in the US are here because they or their ancestors wanted to move. At current population figures, that's more than 200 million people.

[Zep]

Originally posted by epepke


Well, except for the fact that a good 75% of the people in the US are here because they or their ancestors wanted to move. At current population figures, that's more than 200 million people. Make that ditto for 19.5 million out of 20 million for Australia. In other words, you are hardly unique.

[RandFan]

It must be nice to sit in an ivory tower.

Originally posted by Zep
Randfan, Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are very few countries in the world who envy the USA at all, either now or in the past. First, you missed my meaning. Many resent our position. I never said anyone wanted to live here.

Some certainly fear or loathe the USA for real or imagined or political reasons, but in the main, we are happy to live here just as you are happy to live there. In addition, inflated US heads happens to be one of the reasons this envy does not exist. Again I never said that you weren't happy to live in your country. Just that at the end of the Cold War many were envious of our position.

The impression here is that GWB's head is so inflated he now can't get it out of his arse. And Cheney's and Rumfeld's heads are so inflated they can't get them out of George's arse either. Just being honest... Impressions? Now that is a logical argument if I have ever heard it. And please, be honest, I'm glad you show your lack of objectivity. I don't want us to conduct our policy to kiss your ass.

To address your points here simply: All the evidence available to date and Occam's Razor supports the contention that Bush had prior intentions and ulterior motives for invading Iraq. Saddam, WMDs, diplomacy, sanctions, the UN, even 9/11 had precious little to do with it. Having honestly debated the point many times on this forum I disagree. I doubt that any evidence would sway you though. You obviously know the truth.

Hey, have another beer and a round of hate for Bush and all of us who think he did the right thing. We will still be here. *And when Kerry is elected we (America) will still be hated. We might sell our soul to please and appease but history has shown that in the end it won't work. Pleasing the world only invites scorn. It is better to do what is right than what is popular.

And may I say on behalf of all of America that we are sorry we deposed of a dictator that cut the ears of his country men, imprisoned and tortured and gassed his people and sent his men into the night to take sons from their mothers to never be seen again.

Hey, have a beer and cry a tear for poor Saddam and his liberate...er invaded country men.

Oh and you can kiss my ass while you are at it. Just being honest.

*France and Germany our supposed allies along with Russia were stabbing us in the back when Clinton was in office. If anyone really thinks electing Kerry will bring our allies back to us are deluded. Our interests are not theirs regardless of who is in office.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Watch 60 Minutes this Sunday. Happy happy joy joy.

http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/huepfenicon111.gif

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zep
Make that ditto for 19.5 million out of 20 million for Australia. In other words, you are hardly unique.

:con2: I never said we were unique, nor was it my argument in the first place. The point is that a lot of people want to go to the US, not that it is the only country a lot of people want to go to.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by epepke
:con2: I never said we were unique, nor was it my argument in the first place. The point is that a lot of people want to go to the US, not that it is the only country a lot of people want to go to. Thanks epepke, that is a valid point. What other country do people build boats out of junk and risk their lives to get to? Hmmmm...

No, we are not the greatest country. Some countries have better social services. Some have a higher standard of living. Some have better school test scores and higher literacy. We have problems no one can deny. But there is something about us that brings people here more than any other country.

Perhaps it is a false image. Perhaps we aren't worth the ride over. Yet they still keep comming and they have for a long time. Someone needs to get the word out. Go to Australia.

[epepke]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thanks epepke, that is a valid point. What other country do people build boats out of junk and risk their lives to get to? Hmmmm...

We happen to be 50 miles away from Cuba.

I think a better comparison would be the people who climbed/leapt/flew over the Berlin Wall just to get to someplace decent.

Or perhaps the Indonesian refugees who try to make it to Australia in their boats of junk but don't have a chance.

But there is something about us that brings people here more than any other country.

Well, this is not a nice thing to say, but it has to be said. The US gave up any serious attempts at genocide more than a century ago. Europe was gassing Jews, Aussies were popping Abos, and England was tying Indians and Arabs to cannon well into the 20th century. Plus, the US has always had plenty of potatoes and was accepting immigrants while Europe was trying to figure out a way to go completely nuts and have a World War. And considering Bosnia, Europe has still to prove itself with respect to genocide. If I were a young non-American thinking about where to do, I'd consider my grandchildren.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan
I couldn't disagree more. It seems that those who are against GWB are seeing the world they want to more and more.


I'm sure you realize that those who are for GWB have been seeing the world the way they want to for quite some time.

I have found that people decide what it is they believe first and then justify that position with argument. Do you have any evidence to support your claim or does this simply comply with your world view? This is not a personal attack but an honest question?

Haven't you been reading some of the links posted by subgenius and me? For instance:

http://drudgereport.com/flash60.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

Again, there are two ways of looking at this. Either Bush (et.al.) chose to ignore what even his own people were telling him in order to go after Saddam or Bush (et.al.) placed too much weight on faulty information. Either way, it shows an extreme lack of judgement and/or organization on the part of the Bush administration.

Note: I am not claiming that Iraq and Saddam were not issues that may had to be dealt with eventually -- just that Bush (et.al.) botched the handling of it very badly.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
It must be nice to sit in an ivory tower.

:) Yes, mustn't it!

First, you missed my meaning. Many resent our position. I never said anyone wanted to live here.

No, we don't resent your position either.

Again I never said that you weren't happy to live in your country. Just that at the end of the Cold War many were envious of our position.

Oh really? Most of us were goddam happy it was over, that's all. Our feelings towards the USA were about #237 in our top 10 things to be envious of.

Impressions? Now that is a logical argument if I have ever heard it. And please, be honest, I'm glad you show your lack of objectivity. I don't want us to conduct our policy to kiss your ass.

Heh heh! True! But you know the old saying: When the elephant dances, the ants are the ones in trouble.

Having honestly debated the point many times on this forum I disagree. I doubt that any evidence would sway you though. You obviously know the truth.

Aaah! ANOTHER one putting words in my mouth.

Hey, have another beer and a round of hate for Bush and all of us who think he did the right thing. We will still be here. *And when Kerry is elected we (America) will still be hated. We might sell our soul to please and appease but history has shown that in the end it won't work. Pleasing the world only invites scorn. It is better to do what is right than what is popular.

And may I say on behalf of all of America that we are sorry we deposed of a dictator that cut the ears of his country men, imprisoned and tortured and gassed his people and sent his men into the night to take sons from their mothers to never be seen again.

Hey, have a beer and cry a tear for poor Saddam and his liberate...er invaded country men.

Oh and you can kiss my ass while you are at it. Just being honest.

So MANY words in my mouth, plus proof you definitely have not read what I wrote before re Saddam. AND...I think you may have allowed me to rest my case re US arrogance in some quarters. Do you really think that any country smaller than yours is not worth a damn? Looks like it...

*France and Germany our supposed allies along with Russia were stabbing us in the back when Clinton was in office. If anyone really thinks electing Kerry will bring our allies back to us are deluded. Our interests are not theirs regardless of who is in office.

"Us" and "our"? See, your thinking is still very local, whereas the implications of your actions are very global.

So France and Germany have been difficult to deal with? Perhaps that means they have minds and goals of their own which were not dictated by the USA. Hey, we have had ongoing problems with French policies and actions in our part of the world too, so again, it's not like you are unique.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
I'm sure you realize that those who are for GWB have been seeing the world the way they want to for quite some time. Of course I do.

Haven't you been reading some of the links posted by subgenius and me? For instance: I am familiar with the evidence. I don't view it in a vacuum and I disagree with your conclusion.

Again, there are two ways of looking at this. Either Bush (et.al.) chose to ignore what even his own people were telling him in order to go after Saddam or Bush (et.al.) placed too much weight on faulty information. Either way, it shows an extreme lack of judgement and/or organization on the part of the Bush administration. False dillema. Nice try though. Hindsight is 20/20 we know that it was bad information now. I don't see it as simple as you do. Bush was motivated to look at the data in a given light. That doesn't mean he had a lack of judgement or botched anything. Your conclusions give away your ideolgical bent.

Note: I am not claiming that Iraq and Saddam were not issues that may had to be dealt with eventually -- just that Bush (et.al.) botched the handling of it very badly. This is your opinion. You are entitled to it but it is not emperical. The world is better without Saddam and friends. The diplomatic and human price are unfortunate. They are justified in my eyes. Of course not in yours that's fine.

[RandFan]

Hi Zep,

No, we don't resent your position either.

Oh really? Most of us were goddam happy it was over, that's all. Our feelings towards the USA were about #237 in our top 10 things to be envious of. You seem to think your opinion is shared by everyone.

So MANY words in my mouth, plus proof you definitely have not read what I wrote before re Saddam. AND...I think you may have allowed me to rest my case re US arrogance in some quarters. I respond in kind. If you find me arrogant then you can look in the mirror to find where it came from.

Do you really think that any country smaller than yours is not worth a damn? Looks like it... How do you arrive at this conclusion? Of course I do! I think the people of Iraq were worth more than a damn. I think they were worth the sacrifice of our soldiers.

"Us" and "our"? See, your thinking is still very local, whereas the implications of your actions are very global. Ultimately we must act in our own interest. The UN won't. I don't see France, Germany, Russia or even Mexico doing anything to help us. If our allies won't lift a finger to dispose of murdering despot then to hell with them.

Odd, these countries were so willing to forgive Saddam his atrocities and do business with him. But George Bush, no he is unforgivable because he toppled this murderer.

So France and Germany have been difficult to deal with? Perhaps that means they have minds and goals of their own which were not dictated by the USA. Hey, we have had ongoing problems with French policies and actions in our part of the world too, so again, it's not like you are unique. I never said we were unique. Only that we had a problem and were left out in the cold. The world was so intent on not invading Iraq. And now that it has happened everyone is so angry. Much more so at us than they ever were at Saddam. It makes you wonder.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by epepke


:con2: I never said we were unique, nor was it my argument in the first place. The point is that a lot of people want to go to the US, not that it is the only country a lot of people want to go to.

Are we perhaps overlooking the less-than-voluntary status of the original colonies in Australia? Or was it called immigration when you were clapped in irons and stuck in the bilge holds of a ship against your will?

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
The world was so intent on not invading Iraq. And now that it has happened everyone is so angry. Much more so at us than they ever were at Saddam. It makes you wonder. Here is your misapprehension. The "world" was NOT so intent on not invading Iraq. It was VERY highly intent on dealing with Iraq ASAP, but not the way that Bush wanted it dealt with, ie. all-out war. It was a difference of opinion on how to achieve the "official" result, ie. regime change in Iraq, that was the sticking point. I don't think you would have been able to find any world leader of note who would seriously have supported the continued presence of Saddam in power in Iraq - his card was punched, his days were definitely short-numbered.

As for treaties with other countries, barely weeks before the invasion date, Iraq offered to buy Australian bulk wheat to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, paid for with oil dollars. In other words, a bribe. SOP for Saddam, and do you think that would have not happened to other countries?

Anyway, the situation therefore was to resolve which would be the best way to achieve this "stated" aim, with the most benefit to the Iraqis, their neighbours, their allies, their debtors and creditors, etc, etc. And of all the options that might have been used, military invasion seemed to have far more disadvantages than advantages towards acheiving that particular goal.

However military invasion it was, coming ready or not. Which would suggest to those with a more skeptical view of the situation that "regime change"was not the real goal for GWB at all, but that there actually was some other hidden agenda. And the longer time goes by, the more evidence is emerging that such was likely the case. Like the WMD's...or lack thereof. And the "nucular" weapons...or lack thereof. Or the long-range guns...or lack thereof. Or putting and end to terrorist bombings...apart from the 500+ US service personnel killed in Iraq alone in the last 12 months.

Am I certain I'm right that Bush had another agenda? Of course not, but so far this is what it is adding up to for many, many people.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Here is your misapprehension. The "world" was NOT so intent on not invading Iraq. It was VERY highly intent on dealing with Iraq ASAP, but not the way that Bush wanted it dealt with, ie. all-out war. It was a difference of opinion on how to achieve the "official" result, ie. regime change in Iraq, that was the sticking point. I don't think you would have been able to find any world leader of note who would seriously have supported the continued presence of Saddam in power in Iraq - his card was punched, his days were definitely short-numbered. I could not disagree more. Saddam was offering what these leaders wanted, money. The proof is in the contracts they signed.

As for treaties with other countries, barely weeks before the invasion date, Iraq offered to buy Australian bulk wheat to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, paid for with oil dollars. In other words, a bribe. SOP for Saddam, and do you think that would have not happened to other countries? A few points of order. I do not belive that the rest of the world is out to get the United States. I do not believe that we are hated or so resented that no one will come to our aid.

I do not believe that Canada, Australia, Mexico, France, Germany, Russia et all are in any way the bad guys. My rhetoric not withstanding.

The world is composed of people. Those people including their leaders are capable of greed, resentment, envy, pride, ego, etc.

Anyway, the situation therefore was to resolve which would be the best way to achieve this "stated" aim, with the most benefit to the Iraqis, their neighbours, their allies, their debtors and creditors, etc, etc. Please have the honesty to admit that money and position for specific countries was also one of the goals.

And of all the options that might have been used, military invasion seemed to have far more disadvantages than advantages towards acheiving that particular goal. It certainly was disadvantageous monetarily to France, Germany and Russia. Just because Australia did not sell out does not make them all innocent. And 12 years, 12 years and no compliance and it almost paid off for Saddam. Prior to 9/11 there was pressure to drop the sanctions. Much of the pressure was from human rights organizations that pointed directly to the sanctions as prime reason for much suffering in Iraq. Add that to the money motivation of said countries and there was reason to believe the sanction would have been dropped.

However military invasion it was, coming ready or not. Which would suggest to those with a more skeptical view of the situation that "regime change"was not the real goal for GWB at all, but that there actually was some other hidden agenda. And the longer time goes by, the more evidence is emerging that such was likely the case. Like the WMD's...or lack thereof. And the "nucular" weapons...or lack thereof. Or the long-range guns...or lack thereof. Or putting and end to terrorist bombings...apart from the 500+ US service personnel killed in Iraq alone in the last 12 months. Again, you are using hind sight and it was not known. I have granted you Bush cherry picked intelligence but he did not pick it out of thin air.

Am I certain I'm right that Bush had another agenda? Of course not, but so far this is what it is adding up to for many, many people. Well the more that believe it the more true it is.

Religious belief is on the rise also. Hmmmm.....

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
I could not disagree more. Saddam was offering what these leaders wanted, money. The proof is in the contracts they signed.

A few points of order. I do not belive that the rest of the world is out to get the United States. I do not believe that we are hated or so resented that no one will come to our aid.

I do not believe that Canada, Australia, Mexico, France, Germany, Russia et all are in any way the bad guys. My rhetoric not withstanding.

The world is composed of people. Those people including their leaders are capable of greed, resentment, envy, pride, ego, etc.

Please have the honesty to admit that money and position for specific countries was also one of the goals.

It certainly was disadvantageous monetarily to France, Germany and Russia. Just because Australia did not sell out does not make them all innocent. And 12 years, 12 years and no compliance and it almost paid off for Saddam. Prior to 9/11 there was pressure to drop the sanctions. Much of the pressure was from human rights organizations that pointed directly to the sanctions as prime reason for much suffering in Iraq. Add that to the money motivation of said countries and there was reason to believe the sanction would have been dropped.

Again, you are using hind sight and it was not known. I have granted you Bush cherry picked intelligence but he did not pick it out of thin air.

Well the more that believe it the more true it is.

Religious belief is on the rise also. Hmmmm..... You points of order are well noted and all agreed...which is what my original point was about.

And I believe I pointed out not so many posts ago that I did understand there WERE political and commercial aspects to be dealt with when it came to the USA bringing other countries onside. So of course money was involved in this! Big huge gobs of money. Duh! That's why we have ambassadors and diplomats in this world - to deal with such matters WITHOUT having to act like cavemen and thump each other to get each other's desirable stuff. It's called "negotiation" (or "trade talks", etc). And it usually results in both sides being mostly pleased with the deal and agreeing to work together.

And it DOES work - GW1 was an example. Bush senior worked hard and gathered support not just from the UN but most of the major players in the region. Maybe he strong-armed some of them a bit, sure, but it payed off - no real bitching from the others about their involvement, and they gave active support in most cases. Turkish airstrips, Arabian military bases, Kuwaiti troops...

As I mentioned above, this step was missed by Bush junior. So when he tried to bully these countries into military action it must have felt like someone was suddenly trying to drag them into a pro wrestling ring from the audience - wrong people, wrong venue, wrong action. In other words: no diplomacy this time. Whump - shutters come down. No cooperation then, either.

Yes, I agree about the sanctions. They were not working (and probably never could), and were a dumb idea from the start. And if CNN could show the thousands of oil-tanker trucks running daily over the Iraq border before the war in defiance of blockade anyway (and all the money going into Saddam's bank account), then surely Bush should have known about it too (I'd say he did). So, again the question, does that justify all-out war? Not to my way of thinking.

As for hindsight on the issues, the WMD stuff was under severe questioning right up to the eve of the war. The weapons inspectors had not found evidence of WMDs, although they knew thay had not been given totally free rein. The "uranium from Africa" thing was proven false before action started. There were questions being asked in London about the veracity of the British intelligence. So it could be fair to say that, even 12 months ago, that sort of stuff wasn't a solid basis for launching any sort of a war.

So of course Bush had to go for the "free the Iraqi people" thing, but that raises these questions. Yes, Saddam gassed the Kurds, but that was decades before, so why didn't the USA step in then? Because Iraq was a reputed ally then? Yes, Iraq and Iran had a nasty long war and there were heaped dead burnt bodies. Why didn't the USA step in then? Because they were both Muslim and Iraq was still an ally? Yes, Saddam maltreated his own people in a cruel fundamentalist regime while creaming billions for himself and his family. But so do many fundamentalist states and tinpot dictators around the world (Zimbabwe, for example), but does the USA step into each one of those?

So the overall view is that there was something personally irritating about Iraq that GWB didn't like that made him choose to ignore diplomacy, common sense and good intelligence to the contrary and proceed regardless. OR that there was some hidden benefit in making all that military effort. And if that was so, is that a good position for the USA to be in - resolving the personal disputes and/or secret ambitions of its leader?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
So the overall view is that there was something personally irritating about Iraq that GWB didn't like that made him choose to ignore diplomacy, common sense and good intelligence to the contrary and proceed regardless. OR that there was some hidden benefit in making all that military effort. And if that was so, is that a good position for the USA to be in - resolving the personal disputes and/or secret ambitions of its leader? Thanks Zep, you have made some good points. However, I really, really do not see continued diplomacy as a realistic option.

As said, I think GWB made the decision to invade on a number of issues including oil, money, possible control in the mid east and the beginning of a democracy (potentially dangerous and somewhat naive) etc..

Personally irritating? I was the one who brought up the alleged attempt on Sr. I think it could very well have been part of the equation. 12 years of failed diplomacy and the fact that we left during the Clinton administration with nothing but a missile attack left us without any real diplomacy options and a sense that much of the affair had been a failure.

As to the success of Sr. vs Jr. The dynamics had changed. World leaders had little stomach for dealing with Saddam. That fact is demonstrable. The only thing that changed was 9/11 and instead of moving forward everyone was saying "slow down", don't go so fast. Yet that is playing Saddam's game. He wanted everything to slow down.

Foreign policy is not easy. You have two Muslim nations and you believe one is vitally important to security in the region and a counter weight to a perceived enemy, namely Iran. The leader appears somewhat secular and willing to work with the west.

We are not certain as to the depth of this man's depravity. There was initial reports that the deaths were caused by the Iranians or were accidental.

So yes, we chose the devil we thought we could work with and gave him much of the very technology that we later castigated him for possessing. But this fact does not obviate the inclusion of barbarity in the list of reasons to depose of him.

These types of decisions are not made on a simple issue or two. Foreign policy is dynamic and fraught with land mines. It is easy to be a Monday morning Quarterback.

Looking back on the events I say there was sufficient reason to invade. I think it was a correct decision. Politically I think it may very well cost Bush the election. I do not understand the degree of animosity that this has engender but I respect the fact that it has. The opinion of the rest of the world is important to Kerry and roughly half of our nation. So it is hard for the world to say that we are merely arrogant. It is Bush and part of our nation that share those sentiments. Myself included.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan

I am familiar with the evidence. I don't view it in a vacuum and I disagree with your conclusion.


Ok


False dillema. Nice try though. Hindsight is 20/20 we know that it was bad information now. I don't see it as simple as you do. Bush was motivated to look at the data in a given light. That doesn't mean he had a lack of judgement or botched anything. Your conclusions give away your ideolgical bent.


You haven't given me a third option -- you're agreeing with the second option that Bush placed too much weight on (possibly) faulty information. If Bush or his supporters want him to be creditted with being a strong leader in the war on terrorism, then he must also be prepared to take his lumps when he makes serious mistakes.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan

Thanks Zep, you have made some good points. However, I really, really do not see continued diplomacy as a realistic option.


Perhaps the only thing GWB needed to do was to put MUCH more emphasis on the Iraq humanitarian issue with the UN. He chose the WMD/terrorism issue to emphasize and (many of) the members of the UN said "we don't see it, yet" to which he responded "tough".


As said, I think GWB made the decision to invade on a number of issues including oil, money, possible control in the mid east and the beginning of a democracy (potentially dangerous and somewhat naive) etc..


Given GWB's background and lack of prior experience in world affairs, he was probably led to some of these issues by others in his administration.


Personally irritating? I was the one who brought up the alleged attempt on Sr. I think it could very well have been part of the equation. 12 years of failed diplomacy and the fact that we left during the Clinton administration with nothing but a missile attack left us without any real diplomacy options and a sense that much of the affair had been a failure.


Diplomacy options? How many diplomacy options do you need when you've got the fleet sitting off the enemy's coast?


As to the success of Sr. vs Jr. The dynamics had changed. World leaders had little stomach for dealing with Saddam. That fact is demonstrable. The only thing that changed was 9/11 and instead of moving forward everyone was saying "slow down", don't go so fast. Yet that is playing Saddam's game. He wanted everything to slow down.


Actually, I think most people were saying to Jr. "finish what you started" (Afghanistan and OBL). He was convinced by Rumsfeld that US military was big enough to do both and, so, took his eye off the ball.


These types of decisions are not made on a simple issue or two. Foreign policy is dynamic and fraught with land mines. It is easy to be a Monday morning Quarterback.


True, but that's what comes with the job. Many a coach have lost their job because the Monday morning quarterbacks could see too much of the coach's decision as being poor ones.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
You haven't given me a third option -- you're agreeing with the second option that Bush placed too much weight on (possibly) faulty information. If Bush or his supporters want him to be creditted with being a strong leader in the war on terrorism, then he must also be prepared to take his lumps when he makes serious mistakes. The problem is you conclude it was a "serious" mistake. I don't think so at all. If Saddam wasn't a murderous thug and had cooperated as he was supposed to then you might have point.

No, not a serious mistake.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
Perhaps the only thing GWB needed to do was to put MUCH more emphasis on the Iraq humanitarian issue with the UN. He chose the WMD/terrorism issue to emphasize and (many of) the members of the UN said "we don't see it, yet" to which he responded "tough". It was what it was. If you are hung up on his selling of the war and thought it was wrong I can respect that.

Given GWB's background and lack of prior experience in world affairs, he was probably led to some of these issues by others in his administration. I have come to that conclusion myself.

Diplomacy options? How many diplomacy options do you need when you've got the fleet sitting off the enemy's coast? For a guy that can keep the world at bay for 12 years and coax the majority to look the other way, I guess the US didn't have much choice.

Actually, I think most people were saying to Jr. "finish what you started" (Afghanistan and OBL). He was convinced by Rumsfeld that US military was big enough to do both and, so, took his eye off the ball. Perhaps, but we are speculating here.

True, but that's what comes with the job. Many a coach have lost their job because the Monday morning quarterbacks could see too much of the coach's decision as being poor ones. I have said over and over that Bush must bear a political cost for his decisions. If he loses the election then it will be our system working. If he wins then it will be because our system works. I accept it either way.

Good post DSM.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by dsm
Actually, I think most people were saying to Jr. "finish what you started" (Afghanistan and OBL). He was convinced by Rumsfeld that US military was big enough to do both and, so, took his eye off the ball.
I don't agree w/ this at all. The hunt for OBL is not a large-scale military operation. In fact, given that he's likely in Pakistan the military is of little use in finding him. The war in Iraq need not take any resources from the hunt for OBL.

He'll eventually be caught through intelligence gathering, culminating w/ a small-scale operation involving special forces (if in Afghanistan), or by the Pakistani military in conjunction w/ CIA advisors.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan
The problem is you conclude it was a "serious" mistake. I don't think so at all. If Saddam wasn't a murderous thug and had cooperated as he was supposed to then you might have point.

No, not a serious mistake.

The "serious" mistake was in not paying attention to all the information at his disposal. You can claim that some of his people "shielded" him from information that they deemed he didn't need to know or that he categorized some things as "unimportant". However, as Harry Truman noted, the buck stops on the president's desk. Before committing to a policy that had never been tried before (the doctrine of preemption), he should've done his homework to ensure that it wasn't going to bite him later.

[dsm]

Originally posted by WildCat

I don't agree w/ this at all. The hunt for OBL is not a large-scale military operation. In fact, given that he's likely in Pakistan the military is of little use in finding him. The war in Iraq need not take any resources from the hunt for OBL.

He'll eventually be caught through intelligence gathering, culminating w/ a small-scale operation involving special forces (if in Afghanistan), or by the Pakistani military in conjunction w/ CIA advisors.

Perhaps, but the military operation is not really the point. The point was that many perceived the Afghanistan war as a distraction for the Bush administration and that they were itching to move on to Iraq. The world merely pointed out that maybe they should finish with Afghanistan before moving onto Iraq:


When was the new Afghan government setup?
How many al Quaeda had been captured and interrogated?
Did any of the al Quaeda show links to Iraq that could've helped Bush's case?
And so on...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
The "serious" mistake was in not paying attention to all the information at his disposal. You can claim that some of his people "shielded" him from information that they deemed he didn't need to know or that he categorized some things as "unimportant". However, as Harry Truman noted, the buck stops on the president's desk. Before committing to a policy that had never been tried before (the doctrine of preemption), he should've done his homework to ensure that it wasn't going to bite him later. I guess that I wasn't clear enough. I don't buy that it was a serious mistake.

The issue is complex. I admit that I am deeply troubled by the death of American soldiers. I won't blithley claim all is well. At the same time the Iraq situation was a real problem for a number of reasons. Saddam and his sons have now been dispatched. I think ultimately it was worth it and I believe that history will see this as the correct action to have taken. I never invested myself in the WMD. My issue has always been Saddam. We had an oportunity and we took it. Now a madman is gone. It doesn't solve Korea, Palestine or all of the other hotspots and it came at a significant price. Those who believe the price was to high will vote for Kerry.

RandFan

[Zep]

Originally posted by dsm

The "serious" mistake was in not paying attention to all the information at his disposal. You can claim that some of his people "shielded" him from information that they deemed he didn't need to know or that he categorized some things as "unimportant". However, as Harry Truman noted, the buck stops on the president's desk. Before committing to a policy that had never been tried before (the doctrine of preemption), he should've done his homework to ensure that it wasn't going to bite him later. With this, I sadly agree.

Expanding on this, and speculating entirely on my part I admit, I would be interested to know how much part Rumsfeld and Chaney played in any "shielding" that was done.

Btw, in the last 12 months I have done an amount of reading up on GWB and his personal history, and it seems that if ever there was a story of a dumb rich stumble-footed kid being carried along and righted by dad and other invisible old money men then this is it.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
I guess that I wasn't clear enough. I don't buy that it was a serious mistake.

The issue is complex. I admit that I am deeply troubled by the death of American soldiers. I won't blithley claim all is well. At the same time the Iraq situation was a real problem for a number of reasons. Saddam and his sons have now been dispatched. I think ultimately it was worth it and I believe that history will see this as the correct action to have taken. I never invested myself in the WMD. My issue has always been Saddam. We had an oportunity and we took it. Now a madman is gone. It doesn't solve Korea, Palestine or all of the other hotspots and it came at a significant price. Those who believe the price was to high will vote for Kerry.

RandFan Randfan,

OK, as you know I'm not a USAian, so "voting for Kerry and against Bush" is not why I have these sentiments. I do not despise, resent or envy the USA - it's a good place and I like it and its people. Nor is it to gloat over the number of US military dead in Iraq - that situation is far too serious and sad to do that. Nor is it any feelings of my possible right-wing or left-wing politics - I ain't got neither. It's not about me being Australian particularly either. These aren't the issue here.

It's about the level of trust that America inspires in the world. That is, trust that the most powerful and advanced nation can be expected to act in a civilised manner and with appropriate force at the right time. And based on the situation that has happened in Iraq over the last 18 months or so, the answer would appear to be: Noticeably less than we used to trust you to do this.

The main reason appears to be this: What was an obviously very poor but politically and personally appealing strategy for dealing with a mildly annoying foreign affairs issue was pushed through with by this US executive, regardless of sound advice from good sources to the contrary. And the predicted and tragic fallout happened. It could have been done just so much better.

You may simply shrug and say: "So what? We got 'im. I'm satisfied." If so, then please read my second paragraph again, slowly. To us, the forceful removal of Saddam from Iraq by such military might was like removing an annoying little cancer from your toe by blowing off your whole leg with dynamite. You got the result desired all right, but was that really the very best method? Surely it wasn't...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zep

It's about the level of trust that America inspires in the world. .
I note "the world" really really really wants to believe that the USA needs their input on our foreign policy decisions. It must really rankle that at least some of the US power structure don't agree.


You got the result desired all right, but was that really the very best method? Surely it wasn't...
Too bad ya'all weren't playing Sunday. Monday is always more fun.

[Zep]

Originally posted by hammegk

I note "the world" really really really wants to believe that the USA needs their input on our foreign policy decisions. It must really rankle that at least some of the US power structure don't agree.


Too bad ya'all weren't playing Sunday. Monday is always more fun. Aaah, Hammy, you rancid dried up old persimmon! Great to see you still have your finger on the pulse of where it's REALLY at...downtown Smallville, USA. There's nowhere like it because there's nowhere else, is there. Hokay...

1/ You note nothing of the sort. The rest of the world gets the benefit/disaster of the USA's foreign policy decisions regardless of whether we want to or not. Bull in a china shop - and we have to live with your farts too.

2/ You must have missed the spot on world-wide TV where the coach was shown holding the playboard upside down BEFORE the game. Everyone knew it wasn't going to be a good game after that...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zep
... you rancid dried up old persimmon!
Please don't share the pet names you use to address your parents.


Great to see you still have your finger on the pulse of where it's REALLY at...downtown Smallville, USA. There's nowhere like it because there's nowhere else, is there. Hokay...
Even if you bought a clue you wouldn't understand it.


1/ You note nothing of the sort. The rest of the world gets the benefit/disaster of the USA's foreign policy decisions regardless of whether we want to or not. Bull in a china shop - and we have to live with your farts too.
Or you could hitch up your pants, join the Islamofascists, and try to change things. (Or more likely continue to whine. Care for some cheese?)


2/ You must have missed the spot on world-wide TV where the coach was shown holding the playboard upside down BEFORE the game. Everyone knew it wasn't going to be a good game after that...
Was that cricket?

[Zep]

Originally posted by hammegk

Please don't share the pet names you use to address your parents.

Even if you bought a clue you wouldn't understand it.

Or you could hitch up your pants, join the Islamofascists, and try to change things. (Or more likely continue to whine. Care for some cheese?)

Was that cricket? Hammy,

Even though your knees work backwards from bending down to worship yourself, and your head is so far up your fundament you can see out your own nose, yet you have still managed to contribute aid and comfort to those who would criticise your country by reinforcing their basis for criticism.

What a pity - I'm sure that's not what you had in mind. :)

[Elind]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3518412.stm]US feared by foes and friendsBut the divide was not just between the US and the Muslim world. Divisions remained unabated between Europe and the US as well.

The poll was conducted in February before the deadly attacks in Madrid, but at the time the survey was conducted, fewer Europeans backed the war on terror.

Majorities in six of the nine countries surveyed do not believe that the US-led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism.

Instead, many believe that the US wants to control oil supplies or dominate the world.


So what is one to conclude? A majority of Europeans really believe that the US does NOT want to reduce international terrorism? The US wants to "control" oil supplies and dominate the world? Conclusion - The USA supports international terrorism in order to foment instability which will ultimately allow it to invade the rest of the world, and control the oil (by getting it for free?); before it all runs out anyway?

Hey, other surveys show that 25% of the US population isn't literate enough to fill out an employment form correctly (or read it to begin with), so we are all in good company here.

What was this debate about again?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Elind


So what is one to conclude? A majority of Europeans really believe that the US does NOT want to reduce international terrorism? The US wants to "control" oil supplies and dominate the world? Conclusion - The USA supports international terrorism in order to foment instability which will ultimately allow it to invade the rest of the world, and control the oil (by getting it for free?); before it all runs out anyway?

Hey, other surveys show that 25% of the US population isn't literate enough to fill out an employment form correctly (or read it to begin with), so we are all in good company here.

What was this debate about again? Trust and mistrust.