New Memo - Iraq invasion was on, WMD or not.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700879,00.html



Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
....

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

....

The whole WMD issue was irrelevant. The reasons for the invasion were nothing to do with WMD, and the decision to invade was already taken well before the invasion. While the Australian PM maintained the fiction, too, that if only Saddam would tell the truth about WMDs, etc, the reality was the invasion was under way no matter what.

The possibility of internal warfare was considered 'highly unlikely'.

Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion?

[Mephisto]

I can't believe you're quoting The Guardian! Why don't you try a REAL newspaper like The Wall Street Journal?

Do we have to bring up such OLD NEWS? We already went through this with the Baker Street Memo.

So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know.

That's just the opinion of one newspaper.

You're forgetting that now the people of Iraq can vote!

Saddam was killing thousands of his people - he's no longer doing that, I can't see what the complaint is?

So you're in favor of leaving a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people in power?
_________

Just thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate for a few minutes, you know, to kinda "catapault the propaganda."

[Melendwyr]

Now it is time to sing the "Doom!" song.

Just kidding. It's been time to sing the "Doom!" song for years.

[hammegk]

... Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion?
Who knows, and at this point in time, who cares?

Don't you have some AussieNut problems closer to home that should be worrying you?

[Mark]

There you go. When the Right can't even justify the invasion anymore, the cry becomes "Who cares?"

So it doesn't happen again...that's why we all should care.

[hammegk]

Given facts rather than conjecture, impeachment is available. Given unreasoning hatred, you should relax, take a pill, smoke something, chill out ... before you give yourself a heart attack/aneurism/etcetc. :)

[Kodiak]

There you go. When the Right can't even justify the invasion anymore, the cry becomes "Who cares?"

So it doesn't happen again...that's why we all should care.

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

[Belz...]

So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know.

Not sure the current situation is much better, though.

ETA: Oh, and Saddam didn't seem to like islamic fundamentalists. That kinda suited me fine.

[Mark]

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

Good for you! You must be very proud of what your president has achieved.

Uh...what was it again?

[Mephisto]

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion.

. . . and your justification is?

[Kodiak]

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

[Anti_Hypeman]

Did you forget Iraq posed a grave and imminent danger. If we hadnt invaded in time we would have had another 911 by now. Why do you hate freedom?

North Korea gets a free pass because they are just kidding about the whole nuke thing. Saddam had the real stuff.

[Kodiak]

Good for you! You must be very proud of what your president has achieved.

Uh...what was it again?

IMO, the allied (mostly U.S.) forces many achievments have occured in spite of, and not because of, President Bush. While I still consider Bush better than the available alternatives at the time, there are still many issues where this libertarian/conservative and President disagree.

[hammegk]

North Korea gets a free pass because they are just kidding about the whole nuke thing. Saddam had the real stuff.
They get a free pass since they have no impact on middle-east oil production & export activities.

Iran? You bushhaters need to worry about that one. I at least hope they don't get a free pass. Can Israel do it again, alone? I don't think so.

[Mark]

Did you forget Iraq posed a grave and imminent danger. If we hadnt invaded in time we would have had another 911 by now. Why do you hate freedom?


Oh, yeah, I forgot. ;).

Btw, for those of you who actually believe that (and you know who you are), I remind you that they had their teeth pulled in the first Gulf War.

[Mark]

They get a free pass since they have no impact on middle-east oil production & export activities.

Iran? You bushhaters need to worry about that one. I at least hope they don't get a free pass. Can Israel do it again, alone? I don't think so.

Israel may have to since you bushlovers have allowed him to spread our military so thin we are close to impotent.

[Grammatron]

Israel may have to since you bushlovers have allowed him to spread our military so thin we are close to impotent.

That's funny coming from you.

[Lurker]

Yes, as far as I am aware, Iran was a much bigger sponsor of terrorism than Saddam. But Iraq we could more easily kick around.

Lurker

[hammegk]

Yes, as far as I am aware, Iran was a much bigger sponsor of terrorism than Saddam.
Agreed, but a much tougher sell, then.


But Iraq we could more easily kick around.

In terms of war, no contest again. In terms of resultant insurgencies, only Allah knows.

My personal thought would involve bunker busters followed by MOABs at everything we have identified or suspect as nuke related, step back, and see what ensues.

[Jon_in_london]

My personal thought would involve bunker busters followed by MOABs at everything we have identified or suspect as nuke related, step back, and see what ensues.

What will ensue is that Iran will make things much worse in Iraq. At the moment they are just playing about. Bomb them and they will fund and support the insurgency full-time. Watcha gonna do about that?

[Mephisto]

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

Should I search under "Civil War" or "Apologist?"

[Jon_in_london]

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077


Blix Says No WMD Found in Iraq

Read about Blix's report here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0cv=CA01)

Does this mean Iraq doesn't have any WMD, or just that they've successfully hid them from inspectors thus far?

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust more: the U.S. government currently led by the Bush Administration, or the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein?

Sorry Saddam, but with with your record, I gotta go with Bush here...

[Jon_in_london]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077



Originally posted by armageddonman
Why does the US insist on a war even when the inspectors say that Iraq is more or less cooperating and they wish for the inspections to carry on?

Because the coalition, led by Bush says they have evidence to the contrary, and 12 years of inspections have accomplished nothing except allow Saddam to grow stronger.

[Jon_in_london]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077


Again, who here has disputed anything the inspectors have said???

Do I trust inspections to work??

They've had 12 years and they haven't worked yet...

What's changed??


9-11

[Jon_in_london]

Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives...

Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on?

[Jon_in_london]

This is a good one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1077


After 9-11 the US rightly decided to wage a war against terrorism. Part of that is no longer waiting for an attack to come and then responding to it. The destruction of the twin towers and the resultant loss of life showed us the folly in that. Thus, the US is no longer content to sit back and watch the Iraqi regime play a "shell game" with the UN inspectors.


And all this just from ONE thread!

[Jon_in_london]

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

Just to clarify:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1517



Originally posted by Tmy
Can we afford [to fight] this war?

{Kodiak} Can we afford not to??

{scotth} My thoughts exactly.

How would the costs of this potential war stack up against any of the following scenarios?

1) Any moderately successful bio attack.
2) Any moderately successful radiological attack.
............................
I have to disagree here. I do believe that if Sadaam thought he could get away with passing off something nasty to a willing agent without getting caught, he would do so.

Also, it would be trivial to smuggle in bio weapons.
.............................

[Jon_in_london]

So when you talk about "Several of us" this excludes yourself and whom exactly?

[Upchurch]

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...:footinmou

ouchie.

[HarryKeogh]

Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives...

Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on?

When somebody makes as strong a statement like Kodiak did in this thread I assume they're being truthful and I don't bother to dig deeper. Damn me and my trusting nature. That's not being very skeptical. Nice work, Jon in London.

[a_unique_person]

I can't believe you're quoting The Guardian! Why don't you try a REAL newspaper like The Wall Street Journal?

Do we have to bring up such OLD NEWS? We already went through this with the Baker Street Memo.

So, you're in favor of leaving Saddam in power? He was a ruthless dictator, you know.

That's just the opinion of one newspaper.

You're forgetting that now the people of Iraq can vote!

Saddam was killing thousands of his people - he's no longer doing that, I can't see what the complaint is?

So you're in favor of leaving a ruthless dictator who gassed his own people in power?
_________

Just thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate for a few minutes, you know, to kinda "catapault the propaganda."

I heard Saddam was a nice guy and loving family man.

[Mycroft]

Yawn...

Several of us in this forum who supported, and still support, the war in Iraq have made it very clear over the past two years that WMD's were never, for us at least, the justification for invasion. Feel free to conduct a forum search...

Emphasis mine.

Kodiak - do I need to post more? Theres a gold mine of stuff about you and WMDs in the forum archives...

Things aint looking good mate. Will you concede or should I go on?

I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.

[Upchurch]

I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.What other reasons do you see Kodiak alluding to in those old quotes?

[Zep]

Frankly, if this memo is real (and we have little reason to suspect otherwise, even if it IS reported by The Guardian) then it merely confirms a number of others sources that were available at the time to the same effect. Namely, that the invasion WAS on, come hell or high water.

It's not news.

[DavidJames]

I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.What is the meaning of is the?

keep 'a' spinning

[Mycroft]

What other reasons do you see Kodiak alluding to in those old quotes?

I assume Kodiak said many things in addition to what Jon linked to. Since those threads were about WMDs, it would not be surprising if other reasons for the war were not discussed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

When somebody makes as strong a statement like Kodiak did in this thread I assume they're being truthful and I don't bother to dig deeper. Damn me and my trusting nature. That's not being very skeptical. Nice work, Jon in London.

Seconded.

What a cheeky bugger.

[Upchurch]

I assume Kodiak said many things in addition to what Jon linked to. Since those threads were about WMDs, it would not be surprising if other reasons for the war were not discussed.
Why merely assume? If you could back up the claim with a quote, you'd have a much stronger case.

as Kodiak said, it is all "...well documented in the annals of this forum. Conduct a search..."

[WildCat]

Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
This doesn't make any sense.

[WildCat]

Not sure the current situation is much better, though.

ETA: Oh, and Saddam didn't seem to like islamic fundamentalists. That kinda suited me fine.
Oh, we could easily control them also, if we used the Saddam method. Destroy any village (and I mean bomb it w/o warning until the entire thing is a smoking crater) an IED is found near, for example. Who's up for that? No one would be shouting "Abu Ghraib!" after that.... :eek:

[Meadmaker]

I've gone from cautiously optimistic about this war, at the time it started, to bitterly cynical. However, one thing hasn't changed in the least. When it started, I said that this was GWB's war, and he gets all the credit for the success, or all the blame for the failure, whichever happens.

I still feel the same way today.

[a_unique_person]

He has effectively washed his hands of the matter. He said that he is just going to hang on in there for the rest of his term, the guy after him can work out what to do to finish it up.

[Mephisto]

He has effectively washed his hands of the matter. He said that he is just going to hang on in there for the rest of his term, the guy after him can work out what to do to finish it up.

Isn't that pretty much what he's done with all his jobs?

I'll bet he even leaves socks and underwear scattered about the White House. :)

[davefoc]

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

This is a link to a story that claims (among other things) that Bush was aware that there was significant informed skepticism within the government about the view that the famous aluminum tubes were to be used in a nuclear program. Bush had been made aware of the disagreements about the purpose of the aluminum tubes but chose to say this in his state of the union address anyway:

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
This is the second time that I have seen reference to events that if true make it unequivocally clear that Bushco was intentionally misleading the country about the strength of evidence for WMD in Iraq. Given the totality of the public evidence available about the probable misrepresentations of the need for war by Bushco I think it is approaching certainty that Bushco was intentionally misleading the country about the strength of evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons, that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons and that Iraq had anything to do with the 9-11 disaster.

Without WMD and the 9-11 disaster there were still arguments for an Iraq invasion. But without WMD or a legitimate 9-11 connection the argument for an immediate preemptive invasion largely disappears. And this is the biggest problem in the arguments of the people who continue to maintain the war was a good idea. Yes, things would have been messy without the war and maybe someday there would have been a war anyway, but there was no need to not allow alternative options to war play themselves out before jumping into a potentially world destabilizing war.

The second problem with the arguments in favor of the war is that the war was largely planned by people living in a kind of fantasyland about the results of a war in Iraq. Virtually nothing that these people envisioned has turned out to be true. The war has lasted far longer, cost far more than was ever anticipated, resulted in the death of thousands of people, and has reduced American prestige and power throughtout the entire world. My guess is that none of the original decision makers with regards to this war would have gone to war if they knew this is what the situation would be after three years.

But there are still people here who continue to maintain the war was a good idea. Maybe they are right, we will certainly never know for certain, but given that the arguments for immediate action were based on information that we now know to have been false and to have been based largely on lies, I find it very hard to understand why caution and more time for diplomacy versus jumping into a war based on false information wasn't the right idea.

[Mycroft]

He has effectively washed his hands of the matter. He said that he is just going to hang on in there for the rest of his term, the guy after him can work out what to do to finish it up.

Cite?

[rustypouch]

This is news?

Has no one read http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html ?

[a_unique_person]

This is news?

Has no one read http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html ?



The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.



Educational Organisation.

[Mycroft]

Why merely assume? If you could back up the claim with a quote, you'd have a much stronger case.

A much stronger case for what?

I'm not making any claims about what Kodiak believes. I'm pointing out a flaw in the evidence Jon brings about Kodiak's beliefs. Jon may still be right, he just needs different evidence to prove it.


as Kodiak said, it is all "...well documented in the annals of this forum. Conduct a search..."

It may be well documented, but that doesn't make it easy to find.

One of the drawbacks of the new forums is the search feature only goes back 20 pages. That means if someone is a prolific writer on a topic, it becomes difficult to find his earlier writings. For example, when I search for keywords "reason" and "Iraq" in Kodiaks posts, the 20th page only goes back to July of 2005.

[Mycroft]

This is news?

Has no one read http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html ?

Yes. It's a staple on conspiracy sites.

[fishbob]

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

Oh look. Jon_in_london found something stuck up somebody's well documented annals.

[rustypouch]

Educational Organisation.

[/B]

Yes, but an organisation that happens to have the Vice-President and several other key members of the American government signing their letters.

[peptoabysmal]

This memo never had much impact on me. I would expect my government to have planned such an attack well in advance, probably before Bush entered his first primary. Regime change in Iraq has been US policy since the 90's.

As far as what is and what isn't true about this war, and putting my own conspiracy theory aside, I don't think we are getting the full story from either side of the issue.

[corplinx]

Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion?

There were a myriad of reasons given. Some choose to ignore all but WMD since it gives them a good reason to gripe.

[RSLancastr]

Now it is time to sing the "Doom!" song.

Just kidding. It's been time to sing the "Doom!" song for years.I play Doom all the time, and I've never known there was a song!

[Zep]

This memo never had much impact on me. I would expect my government to have planned such an attack well in advance, probably before Bush entered his first primary. Regime change in Iraq has been US policy since the 90's.As opposed to, say, attacking Libya or Syria, both having ample solid reliable evidence of involvement in genuine terrorist activities for decades, PLUS thumbing their noses at the US meanwhile? Even Reagan gave Libya just one little whack...

And again the question: WHY regime change in Iraq? Why the absolute fixation? Yes, Saddam was a very bad guy (*sigh* will we never hear the end of that?), but he was Iraq's bad guy. And Saddam had his balls cut off legally in '91 by Daddy Bush anyway, who could see even then the futility of "keeping on going to Baghdad".

Thing is, there are dozens more just like Saddam in charge all around the world right now. In fact, some make Saddam look positively angelic and benign. So what's the US policy on them? I'm willing to bet few in Washington's upper circles even know where these places are...

As far as what is and what isn't true about this war, and putting my own conspiracy theory aside, I don't think we are getting the full story from either side of the issue.Oh, agreed! Very much so!

[a_unique_person]

This memo never had much impact on me. I would expect my government to have planned such an attack well in advance, probably before Bush entered his first primary. Regime change in Iraq has been US policy since the 90's.

As far as what is and what isn't true about this war, and putting my own conspiracy theory aside, I don't think we are getting the full story from either side of the issue.
My idea of a democracy is that if you go to war, you tell the people exactly why you are going to war. I think they are entitled to an honest explanation.

3,000 Americans die in 9/11 and it is a cause for universal outrage, getting near to 3,000 dead in Iraq, and it's only to be expected. If my army is to be sent out to die and suffer lifelong injuries, there had better be a good and honest reason for it.

[WildCat]

My idea of a democracy is that if you go to war, you tell the people exactly why you are going to war. I think they are entitled to an honest explanation.
Perhaps you missed the memo. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)

[Mephisto]

This doesn't make any sense.

It makes at least as much sense as invading Iraq because of 9/11.

[Jon_in_london]

Thing is, there are dozens more just like Saddam in charge all around the world right now. In fact, some make Saddam look positively angelic and benign. So what's the US policy on them? I'm willing to bet few in Washington's upper circles even know where these places are...


The US policy may once have been to deal with them in a likewise fashion - spreading democracy and high-tech death from the belly of a B-2.

Unfortunately, that has all gone down the tubes.

The old adage was "Speak softly and carry a big stick". PNAS changed this to "Shout in the library and whack people over the head with a big stick"

The problem now is that the big stick has been measured, it has been weighed and it has been found wanting.

[Typhon]

By all means, please provide a list of the non-WMD justifications for the war and your opinion as to which ones have worked out as advertised.

[davefoc]

By all means, please provide a list of the non-WMD justifications for the war and your opinion as to which ones have worked out as advertised.

I'll take my cut at this.
The non-Bush-is-evil justifications

1. WMD (now known to be bogus)
2. When sanctions are lifted Hussein will use money to buy WMD and blow up the middle east and supply them to terrorists for attacks on the west.
3. 9-11 tie in (really I think Cheney was liar in chief on this one, others just alluded to it)
4. Prevent Hussein from massacreing Kurds and maybe Shiites. Seems US might have a bit of a moral debt on this one since we encouraged them to rebel against Hussein in first Gulf War.
5. Start a ground swell of democracy that would sweep through the middle east ending in peace and tranquility for all (including Israel perhaps, but never really claimed by Bushco)
6. Iraq would be so pleased with US and UK that they would shower US and UK firms with highly lucrative contracts.
7. Even if Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11 they were still supporting terrorists and a war followed by installation of a more rational Iraqi government would prevent this.

The Bush-is-evil justifications:
1. vengence for attempt to murder his dad
2. prevent middle east from switching to euros from dollars for oil transactions.
3. steal Iraqi oil
4. Generate business opportunities for Bushco buddies.
5. Win political favor with Jewish voters by dealing with an Israeli enemy.
6. Assist Bush reelection campaign. (war time presidents generally win reelection).
7. What is good for Haliburton is good for the US.

[Random]

The US policy may once have been to deal with them in a likewise fashion - spreading democracy and high-tech death from the belly of a B-2.

Unfortunately, that has all gone down the tubes.

The old adage was "Speak softly and carry a big stick". PNAS changed this to "Shout in the library and whack people over the head with a big stick"

The problem now is that the big stick has been measured, it has been weighed and it has been found wanting.
I don’t think the stick has been found wanting. I’m sure that even now the US military is capable of toppling any government in the world without resorting to nukes, and I’m including China in that. We can still threaten foreign governments and smash them if they don’t do what we tell them to. Even in the last days before the war, Hussein was trying to comply with our demands for fear of being removed from power. If all you want to do is smash a foreign government to pieces, we can still do that.

The problem is that stuff keeps happening after the war is over and the bad guy is defeated. While the US military is more than capable of dealing with a Hussein, creating a US-friendly secular democracy out of multiple factions who hate each other, want to rule over each other, or just want to secede from each other is not something that can be done with the barrel of a gun. The stick is still a good stick, but you need a mop and bucket. (Ack, too much metaphor…)

Bush 1.0 realized that and did not remove Saddam after the end of the first Gulf War. Every reason for keeping Saddam in place in 2003 was pretty much unchanged from the reasons for keeping him in place in 1991. There was no clear idea of who was going to be in charge, what was going to happen, and how we would deal with the virtually inevitable ethnic strife.

For the record, I believed that Saddam had WMDs, that there were no links between him and 911, and I was against the war because I was worried about what would come after the fact.

[Mycroft]

The problem now is that the big stick has been measured, it has been weighed and it has been found wanting.

<accent=Austrian>

Speak for yourself, girlie-man!

</accent>

[Mycroft]

My idea of a democracy is that if you go to war, you tell the people exactly why you are going to war. I think they are entitled to an honest explanation.

3,000 Americans die in 9/11 and it is a cause for universal outrage, getting near to 3,000 dead in Iraq, and it's only to be expected. If my army is to be sent out to die and suffer lifelong injuries, there had better be a good and honest reason for it.

I just want to address this very quickly.

Three thousand soldiers in a deployment of 150,000 is an astonishingly low rate. It's so low, in fact, that I wonder how it compares to the death rate of soldiers who are stationed at home in the United States.

To get an idea how low it is, I looked up the per capita death rate in the US, and the CIA factbook tells me it 8.25 per 1000. This can be verified Here. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

So if we chose 150,000 random US citizens and compared their death rate to those of our forces deployed in Iraq, we would expect to see 8.25 X 150 = 1237 deaths per year, or 3,712 deaths for the three years we've been at war.

So...that means the death rate of soldiers deployed in Iraq is less than the death rate for the average US citizen.

Not to minimize any one of those soldiers lives, but in raw numbers this kind of success in war has never been seen in history. Statistically, I don't understand how our casualty rates could be less.

[peptoabysmal]

As opposed to, say, attacking Libya or Syria, both having ample solid reliable evidence of involvement in genuine terrorist activities for decades, PLUS thumbing their noses at the US meanwhile? Even Reagan gave Libya just one little whack...

And again the question: WHY regime change in Iraq? Why the absolute fixation? Yes, Saddam was a very bad guy (*sigh* will we never hear the end of that?), but he was Iraq's bad guy. And Saddam had his balls cut off legally in '91 by Daddy Bush anyway, who could see even then the futility of "keeping on going to Baghdad".
Why not Iraq? Bush daddy's screw-up was in not going all the way to Baghdad and putting an end to it. Bush's screw-up was in not declaring martial law immediately following the fall of Baghdad. There is more than ample proof that Saddam was doing everything in his power to bypass his obligations to the cease fire. It's a matter of opportunity. We gave Saddam a chance to reform in the 90's, but he would rather carry on a Jihad (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2000/emay/11_jihad.html) with us.

Thing is, there are dozens more just like Saddam in charge all around the world right now. In fact, some make Saddam look positively angelic and benign. So what's the US policy on them? I'm willing to bet few in Washington's upper circles even know where these places are...

Never heard of picking your battles? This isn't over yet.

Oh, agreed! Very much so!
I would really like to know how a great percentage of the world's poplulation can dismiss any connection between Saddam and al-Queda on the basis of Saddam being "secular." I just don't buy it. There is a lot of questionable activity that hasn't been investigated for more than the purpose of dismissing it as rapidly as possible.

[Meadmaker]

So...that means the death rate of soldiers deployed in Iraq is less than the death rate for the average US citizen.


I wonder how those numbers would change if you removed people below the age of 70.

My guess is that for a 25 year old American, Iraq is more dangerous than even someplace like Washington D.C. or Detroit.

[Meadmaker]

Not to minimize any one of those soldiers lives, but in raw numbers this kind of success in war has never been seen in history. Statistically, I don't understand how our casualty rates could be less.

Nato forces, led by the United States and President Bill Clinton, defeated Serbia in 1999. Nato forces suffered 0 dead, 0 wounded, and 3 captured.

There have probably been some subsequent casualties to peacekeeping troops in the region, although I haven't heard of any.

[Mycroft]

I wonder how those numbers would change if you removed people below the age of 70.

My guess is that for a 25 year old American, Iraq is more dangerous than even someplace like Washington D.C. or Detroit.

Then again, if you take that 8.25 and divide it into 1000, you will discover that on average we US citizens die at a median age of 121. (Yes, I'm aware that is only a reflection that the population is weighted towards the young. It's still worth noting, though)

No matter how you work the numbers, for going to war, for going into a combat zone, this war continues to be amazingly safe for our troops.

[Cain]

...well documented in the annals of this forum.

Conduct a search...

Dude, you just got totally c*ckslapped.

Harry writes:
When somebody makes as strong a statement like Kodiak did in this thread I assume they're being truthful and I don't bother to dig deeper. Damn me and my trusting nature.

Well, in fairness to Kodiak, he probably was being truthful. People gradually block what they did believe out of their heads, giving it less emphasis in retrospect. It's like how you can watch a murder mystery with someone and she says, "I suspected that person all along!" Well, why didn't you say anything? She probably suspected everyone, but then things become "clear" after the plot's resolution, and she inflates her initial suspicions in some respects while underplaying them in others.

[Meadmaker]

No matter how you work the numbers, for going to war, for going into a combat zone, this war continues to be amazingly safe for our troops.

When all is said and done, history won't judge this war by the casualty rate, but by whether or not it was all in vain. We look at the huge numbers of Americans who died liberating Europe from the Nazis and we do not curse Rooseveldt for dragging us into war. Kennedy and Johnson get fewer kind words for dragging us into a quagmire in Vietnam, leaving behind a lot of dead Americans and dead Vietnamese. Our nation went to war in Vietnam to prevent a communist government from taking control, and we failed. We went to war in Iraq to depose a dictator. If, when the fighting is done, there is a different dictator in place, history will be no more kind to GWB than to LBJ, regardless of the body count.

If, on the other hand, a genuine democracy takes root and holds in Iraq, then all of this talk about lies by the President will be forgotten, because he will have ultimately prevailed in a worthy cause. It's his war, and he gets the credit or blame.

While it's too early to say for certain whether that is credit or blame, I am leaning toward blame. I believe that ten years from now, Iraq will be an Iranian style theocracy, which means we will have lost. I hope I'm wrong about that, but that is both my fear and my belief. For my part, I throw on a bit of extra blame because I think this war was not doomed from the very beginning. I think it was winnable, and I think we will lose.

[Mephisto]

No matter how you work the numbers, for going to war, for going into a combat zone, this war continues to be amazingly safe for our troops.

You're right, but I can't understand where the US military recruitment problem comes in?

This war probably is a relatively "safe" war until you consider that our nearly 2,500 deaths are the result of fighting a country with no standing army, no air force, no artillery other than hand-carried mortars, no tanks or armored personnel carriers, insurgent using only small arms, and IMPROVISED explosive devices.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, maybe if (your corollary) hadn't skipped service in Vietnam he might have learned that:

A. fighting a low-tech, indigenous force doesn't mean it's a "slam dunk."

B. wars of occupation fighting a determined and motivated enemy can last indefinitely - whereas our involvement can't

C. we can win every major military battle and still lose the war.

[hammegk]

Looking at 'nam from the view of longterm strategic geopolitics, The Chicoms & Russians do not control Indonesean archipelago oil, which was in the opinion of some the real endgame.

[peptoabysmal]

Nato forces, led by the United States and President Bill Clinton, defeated Serbia in 1999. Nato forces suffered 0 dead, 0 wounded, and 3 captured.

There have probably been some subsequent casualties to peacekeeping troops in the region, although I haven't heard of any.
Pretty hard to get hurt bombing a country with almost no air defense from high altitude.
Operation Allied Force relied almost exclusively on the use of a large-scale air campaign to destroy Yugoslav targets from high altitudes. Ground units were not used, although their use was threatened near the end of the conflict. This approach was adopted to minimise the risk to the NATO forces and attracted considerable public criticism due to its relative ineffectiveness against mobile ground targets such as tanks and troop formations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Allied_Force

[Mycroft]

You're right, but I can't understand where the US military recruitment problem comes in?

One would almost think there was a concerted effort to portray the danger as being far greater than it actually was. Perhaps by constantly keeping reports of casualties in the headlines and writing stories about “grim milestones.”


This war probably is a relatively "safe" war until you consider that our nearly 2,500 deaths are the result of fighting a country with no standing army, no air force, no artillery other than hand-carried mortars, no tanks or armored personnel carriers, insurgent using only small arms, and IMPROVISED explosive devices.

I don’t see how that changes anything. The enemy, by any rational measure, is impotent to harm us. Their best efforts produce a metaphorical scratch. They are reduced to targets of opportunity, and have precious few of those.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again, maybe if (your corollary) hadn't skipped service in Vietnam he might have learned that:

A. fighting a low-tech, indigenous force doesn't mean it's a "slam dunk."

It seems to me that “victory” is constantly being redefined to something other than what we have.


B. wars of occupation fighting a determined and motivated enemy can last indefinitely - whereas our involvement can't

How determined and motivated is this enemy? They’re not able to accomplish much. It seems to me the mere fact that they haven’t been totally exterminated is blown up into being an “inevitable victory” for them.


C. we can win every major military battle and still lose the war.

Which doesn’t seem to be happening here. What has happened is that the rebuilding is taking much longer and is much more expensive than was planned for, but that’s far from defeat.

[Meadmaker]

Pretty hard to get hurt bombing a country with almost no air defense from high altitude.

Or, to put it differently, it was a war they could win.

[CapelDodger]

This is news?

Has no one read http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html ?
PNAC is the crux, isn't it? The whole script is in there, partly obscured by 9/11 and the Afghanistan distraction.

[CapelDodger]

This memo never had much impact on me. I would expect my government to have planned such an attack well in advance, probably before Bush entered his first primary. Regime change in Iraq has been US policy since the 90's.
There was a damn' fine opportunity in '91 which was turned down, so apparently it wasn't policy then. In Jan '93 Clinton took office and didn't, as I recall, invade Iraq. He may well have been more keen on Iraqi regime change than Bush Major, but there wasn't any invasion.

The invasion policy, as US policy, dates back to Bush Minor's inauguration in Jan 2001.

As far as what is and what isn't true about this war, and putting my own conspiracy theory aside, I don't think we are getting the full story from either side of the issue.
What's the other side of the issue? The people that opposed invasion? They seem pretty keen on telling the story of that.

[CapelDodger]

Without WMD and the 9-11 disaster there were still arguments for an Iraq invasion. But without WMD or a legitimate 9-11 connection the argument for an immediate preemptive invasion largely disappears.
It certainly does as far as the US electorate is concerned. 'Murricans do not go to war lightly, it's part of the founders' psyche that foreign entanglements are to be abhorred. 'Murricans go to war when they feel under direct and immediate threat. Thus the WMD and the conflation of 9/11 with Iraq.

Kodiak makes play with pro-war posters on this forum not being persuaded by such propaganda, but that's a different issue. Bushco produced the propaganda because they were already persuaded that an invasion was necessary - for whatever reason. The important point is that the propaganda was created, and was created to deceive the proles.

What does that say about US democracy? Nothing good, IMO.

(Great post, by the way.)

[CapelDodger]

Thing is, there are dozens more just like Saddam in charge all around the world right now. In fact, some make Saddam look positively angelic and benign. So what's the US policy on them?
Apparently that the US will no longer explicitly support them if they aren't democratically elected. Where that leaves Hamas or Mugabe's Zimbabwe is anybody's guess, but Burma is definitely off the Xmas-card list.

[CapelDodger]

The old adage was "Speak softly and carry a big stick". PNAS changed this to "Shout in the library and whack people over the head with a big stick"

The problem now is that the big stick has been measured, it has been weighed and it has been found wanting.
Spot on.

What you say softly is "I've got a very big stick, ask around, anybody'll tell you" and for a more general audience "Look at this huge sack of carrots I've got! Too many for me! What shall I do with them?"

The conception of the big stick, which is concealed within an even bigger bag, is more important than the stick itself. When you have to take it out of the bag it's already failed its primary purpose. It may yet succeed in its secondary purpose without the whole stick emerging - bombing Serbs into submission or twatting the Taliban, for instance, both of which pleased me no end.

The PNAC view was that the stick had to be taken out, measured and weighed, as you put it, in all its glorious tumescence, as I've just put it, in order to demonstrate that the US had the will to impose itself. Iraq was the chosen target. The irony is that 9/11 and Afghanistan presented a completely independant opportunity to do the stick and will-to-use-it thing and it was treated as a distraction from the PNAC script.

[CapelDodger]

Yes. It's a staple on conspiracy sites.
Is it fake? Or are you - heaven forfend - attempting to damn by association?

[hammegk]

The irony is that 9/11 and Afghanistan presented a completely independant opportunity to do the stick and will-to-use-it thing and it was treated as a distraction from the PNAC script.
Was it? What country is west of Iraq & east of Afghanistan? Iran! Isn't that geopolitically interesting -- or may I suggest, Strategic.

ymmv. ;)

[Mephisto]

One would almost think there was a concerted effort to portray the danger as being far greater than it actually was. Perhaps by constantly keeping reports of casualties in the headlines and writing stories about “grim milestones.”

Well they did have that story about tearing down Saddam's statue, and then there was that guy who lived in a crawlspace underneath his Mom's closet for 32 years, hiding from Saddam. Why don't we see any stories about how the oil is flowing and we'll all get a break at the pumps? Oh . . . How about how we've gotten electrical power to all of Iraq so they can at least have the amenities they had before we invaded? Ummmm, still haven't accomplished that . . . I know, they could write a story about how girls can go to school now - no wait, that's Afghanistan . . . Oh yeah! Remember the purple fingers? Everyone was waving those around and the neo-cons pointed to that as a great accomplishment - too bad all those people with purple fingers are being found in large groups after having been beheaded or executed. Dang, where are those "feel good" stories?


I don’t see how that changes anything. The enemy, by any rational measure, is impotent to harm us. Their best efforts produce a metaphorical scratch. They are reduced to targets of opportunity, and have precious few of those.

Here are some "rational measures" for you.

"from the September 29, 2004 edition

Baghdad's Green Zone 'island' prepares for rough seas
Insecurity has become an issue even for those living in the heavily fortified bubble, home to the US Embassy and Iraqi interim government."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0929/p07s01-woiq.html
_______

WOW! They were "pretty impotent" to harm us EVEN IN the protected Green Zone way back in 2004. Also, 2,500 dead American soldiers doesn't sound like a metaphorical scratch to me, and I'm sure it doesn't to any of their friends or parents. If the Iraqi insurgents were any MORE impotent at killing us, Iraq would be like the fountain of youth at Club Med, huh?


It seems to me that “victory” is constantly being redefined to something other than what we have.

Well why not? The reason we are there at all has was constantly changed as the previous reason fizzled out. From WMD to liberating the Iraqi people to finding Saddam, to bringing him to justice, to seeing them through their first elections, to waiting until they drafted a Constitution . . .

What do YOU think constitutes victory in Iraq and how do you assume we'll achieve that? That is, unless you're going to tell me that civil war between religious factions and making Iraq a training ground for middle-eastern terrorists everywhere was the "real" reason we were there all along?


How determined and motivated is this enemy? They’re not able to accomplish much. It seems to me the mere fact that they haven’t been totally exterminated is blown up into being an “inevitable victory” for them.

You've got to be kidding, right? How determined and motivated are they? They've managed to kill almost as many soldiers as Bin Laden killed civilians in the WTC attack. They're fighting the best trained, best equipped (sort of), most dedicated and motivated, and technologically superior military IN THE WORLD using weapons they've got laying around. We don't see them until they engage us - and sometimes that's even a luxury as so many die when the dead dog with explosives hidden inside goes off from a remote source as they walk or drive past.

Now, you can't argue that without killing every single Iraqi (minus infants - unless they've got explosives in their diapers) you can't be sure that they'll EVER be "totally exterminated." The worst part of this war (which was the same in Vietnam although I've heard parallels can't be drawn) is that the insurgents can easily blend in with the population and we don't know who is who.


Which doesn’t seem to be happening here. What has happened is that the rebuilding is taking much longer and is much more expensive than was planned for, but that’s far from defeat.

Frankly, I don't think any building is going on at all (other than the four military bases that pretty much prove we're staying for awhile). The oil lines keep getting sabotaged, as does the water supply, electrical power is only intermittent in major cities and non-existant in other areas, schools may be open, but I don't think you'll find any children in them, hospitals are pretty busy though.

I DO, however, think that "rebuilding" is the rationale for giving Halliburton BILLIONS of dollars in a contract that other, more honest, corporations couldn't bid on. Oh, and then there's that money they "lost." OOPS! Which makes the idea that "stay the course" WOULD be the philosophy of this administration otherwise their buddies at Halliburton can't make more money.

[CapelDodger]

Was it? What country is west of Iraq & east of Afghanistan? Iran! Isn't that geopolitically interesting -- or may I suggest, Strategic.
Which way of the what now?

Clearly Iran is strategically important. Far more important than a crippled Iraq. Why continue with the Iraq invasion script when 9/11 and the re-ordering of Afghanistan would have had influence over Iran and Pakistan? And, of course, demonstrated that the US can and will respond to an attack.

What has the invasion of Iraq demonstrated? IMO, the limits of US potency.

[Meadmaker]

How determined and motivated is this enemy? They’re not able to accomplish much.


I don't recall the exact details of the story, but didn't the provincial government of Baghdad issue some sort of directive about non-cooperation with US forces last week?

It seems to me that was a major accomplishment for the insurgents.

They can't defeat the US military. However, they can drive our forces out. They can do so by electing people who demand that we leave. Then what?


It seems to me the mere fact that they haven’t been totally exterminated is blown up into being an “inevitable victory” for them.

I don't think an insurgent victory is inevitable. I don't even think a mullacracy is inevitable. I do think tha the latter is very likely, and the possibility of meaningful democracy in Iraq is very remote. I hope I'm wrong.

[CapelDodger]

I don't recall the exact details of the story, but didn't the provincial government of Baghdad issue some sort of directive about non-cooperation with US forces last week?

It seems to me that was a major accomplishment for the insurgents.
Details are hard to pin down on this, but it seems to have been more of a shot-in-the-foot by the US, possibly because of manipulation by the Badrist Shia faction. Whatever; one thing it isn't is progress (from the US perspective).

[CapelDodger]

I don't think an insurgent victory is inevitable. I don't even think a mullacracy is inevitable. I do think tha the latter is very likely, and the possibility of meaningful democracy in Iraq is very remote. I hope I'm wrong.
"Meaningful democracy" is a semantic tar-pit. I'd settle for a governing system that is widely regarded as legitimate. That's more achievable. It might appear, to Western eyes, as tribal and sectarian but Western perceptions aren't the important issue. Many people regard democracy as inherently unstable, and that was true of many Western people a century or two ago. It was true of many Westerners in the 20's and 30's.

The US has an Electoral College system, and a Constitution that doesn't mention democracy, because the Founders had no faith in the judgement of the rabble. Sorry, I mean electorate. Democracy is easily equated with demagoguery, and for good reason.

Iraq is a flimsy construct of unpopular architects. It has constituent parts that are much more rugged, and they have to be the foundation on which the post-occupation Iraq is built.

[a_unique_person]

Iraq is a flimsy construct of unpopular architects. It has constituent parts that are much more rugged, and they have to be the foundation on which the post-occupation Iraq is built.

Which sectional interests have already made clear they won't allow. It's a problem without a solution.

[Mephisto]

I don't recall the exact details of the story, but didn't the provincial government of Baghdad issue some sort of directive about non-cooperation with US forces last week?

That's pretty significant, and I haven't heard anything of it until you mentioned it, Meadmaker. It doesn't surprise me that the story is being downplayed - it's difficult to push the notion that Iraq troops and American forces are working hand in hand toward a common goal, when they're issuing directives of non-cooperation.

It's ironic too, as when this whole fiasco was justified by saying, "we'll leave when the Iraqis ask us to leave," I was already asking what would happen if they asked us to leave? Of course the answers were usually, "they don't want us to leave," or "they know we're there to help them," but I think the Iraqis are beginning to understand that a majority of the violence stems from our presence.

[Meadmaker]

That's pretty significant, and I haven't heard anything of it until you mentioned it, Meadmaker.

Here's a link.

http://www.newsone.ca/westfallweeklynews/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=166400



NPR had a story on it that dealt with the confusion over whether or not the site in the story was or was not a mosque. Apparently, it was an area that wasn't obviously a mosque, but was some sort of religious meeting area, which Muslims would consider the equivalent of a mosque. It's one of those cultural difficulties which happen all the time there. The US forces don't quite get the local customs, and they accuse the locals of lying when the real problem is that the US forces don't realize what happened.

[Meadmaker]

"Meaningful democracy" is a semantic tar-pit.

True. What I mean is that the government can't arrest you for criticising it, or for being of the wrong religion. Also, there has to be a realistic way of getting a new head of state without shooting the old one, presumably by something like an election.

[CapelDodger]

What I mean is that the government can't arrest you for criticising it, or for being of the wrong religion. Also, there has to be a realistic way of getting a new head of state without shooting the old one, presumably by something like an election.
A sufficiently legitimate government, as judged by the population, should be secure enough to allow dissent - although where that shades into sedition is, umm ... subject to interpretation. I think it'll have to be very federal.

A medium-term expedient is the Strong-Man option. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the way it goes, and given the difficulties so many people face these days it would probably be popular.

[a_unique_person]

Here's a link.

http://www.newsone.ca/westfallweeklynews/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=166400



NPR had a story on it that dealt with the confusion over whether or not the site in the story was or was not a mosque. Apparently, it was an area that wasn't obviously a mosque, but was some sort of religious meeting area, which Muslims would consider the equivalent of a mosque. It's one of those cultural difficulties which happen all the time there. The US forces don't quite get the local customs, and they accuse the locals of lying when the real problem is that the US forces don't realize what happened.

It appears to be a constant theme in US military problems. Ignorance of local customs and culture. There were almost no arabic language skills, which in urban situations would be an essential skill.

[CapelDodger]

It appears to be a constant theme in US military problems. Ignorance of local customs and culture.
Another theme is the reluctance, bordering on refusal, to take advice. They expect to impose their simplistic world-view on the actual world, their chosen battle-plan on the actual battlefield.

'Murricans are very aware of how complex the US is, but somehow they don't generally project that onto the rest of the world. Perhaps there's such a thing as complexity fatigue; once you've navigated through the parties, cities, counties and states to a point where the outside world intrudes you've gotta be pretty tired.

[Meadmaker]

Another theme is the reluctance, bordering on refusal, to take advice. They expect to impose their simplistic world-view on the actual world, their chosen battle-plan on the actual battlefield.


I think that if the Iraq mission is ultimately a failure, this will be the cause. Perhaps it was hopeless from the start, but I don't think so. I think that the failure, if it should finally occur, can be traced to two major aspects of this reluctance.

First, they (we? I am American after all), should have internationalized much more, and much sooner. After the war, in America, the left was generally demanding this, and the right was saying absolutely not. We were the only ones competent enouugh to do this job. I think that reinforced our position as occupier, as opposed to liberator. The UN should have been given a role, and perhaps should have been handed the job. The right wing was adamantly against that in America, but I think they've done a better job at similar situations than we have done in Iraq.

Second, and much worse, was the Haliburton problem. Our government employed Americans and foreigners to do the rebuilding work, instead of relying on Iraqis who were perfectly competent. The result was huge sums of money flowing to Americans, and a 50% unemployment rate among Iraqis. Can anyone think of a better recipe for civil unrest?

[CapelDodger]

I think that if the Iraq mission is ultimately a failure, this will be the cause. Perhaps it was hopeless from the start, but I don't think so. I think that the failure, if it should finally occur, can be traced to two major aspects of this reluctance.

First, they (we? I am American after all), should have internationalized much more, and much sooner.
Don't shoulder the "we" of where you were born, you are you. When I used "they" I was thinking of the US politico-military caste which has had a stacatto rather than sustained interaction with the outside world. That's a lot of baggage for a pronoun to bear.

The Iraq adventure couldn't be internationalised - Blair's Britain not being something I want to get into, but even they pushed a Second Resolution on the understanding that it wouldn't make any difference to their support. Afghanistan was internationalised, no problem, go do it and we'll help. There was already a Russo-EU-Sino-Indian anti-Taliban thing going. But the Iraq War was an adventure. If the US had waited for international concensus it would never have happened. And Bushco were determined that it was going to happen, and happen it did.


Second, and much worse, was the Haliburton problem. Our government employed Americans and foreigners to do the rebuilding work, instead of relying on Iraqis who were perfectly competent. The result was huge sums of money flowing to Americans, and a 50% unemployment rate among Iraqis. Can anyone think of a better recipe for civil unrest?
That was egregious. The corrosive effect of unemployed men behind a fence watching foreigners do work that they could do, local businesses and contractors cut-out of the market from Day One ... what could have been worse? Apart from disbanding the Army at the same time, dumping masses of Iraqi men on the job-market?

It beggars belief. The only sign that there was any post-invasion planning is the speed with which contracts for Reconstruction were arranged.

[davefoc]

Second, and much worse, was the Haliburton problem. Our government employed Americans and foreigners to do the rebuilding work, instead of relying on Iraqis who were perfectly competent. The result was huge sums of money flowing to Americans, and a 50% unemployment rate among Iraqis. Can anyone think of a better recipe for civil unrest?

That was egregious. The corrosive effect of unemployed men behind a fence watching foreigners do work that they could do, local businesses and contractors cut-out of the market from Day One ... what could have been worse? Apart from disbanding the Army at the same time, dumping masses of Iraqi men on the job-market?

It beggars belief. The only sign that there was any post-invasion planning is the speed with which contracts for Reconstruction were arranged.

I thought that this issue might portend a disaster almost from the start. The Bush rhetoric at the time was along the lines that the US was going to make everything great in Iraq and the Iraqis just needed to sit back and watch it happen. The great problems with that vision included not only pissing off a lot of Iraqis as CD noted but it also guaranteed a long stay for the US because it delayed the time when the Iraqis would be handling their own infrastructure. With hindsight it was even worse because a lot of the Iraqis didn't like the plan enough that they were willing to sabotage internal Iraqi infrastructure themselves to prevent it from succeeding.

My own cut at this is that this was a policy that came out of the personalities of two of the major decision makers on Iraq, Bush and Cheney. Bush is the glad handing, paternalistic sort of fellow that likes to promise he'll make everything wonderful using other people's money and Cheney is the industrial aristocrat sitting back and silently maneuvering his buddies into position to make enormous profits. I think both of them thought that post war Iraq was going to be a cake walk and that slicing their buddies into the action for enormous profits would hardly be noticed with all the cheering going on about how well Iraq turned out.

Even though I know there are a lot (several anyway) of folks on this board that still think that the Iraq war was in net a good idea, my bet is that there aren't any of those folks in the white house right now.

[Elind]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700879,00.html


The whole WMD issue was irrelevant. The reasons for the invasion were nothing to do with WMD, and the decision to invade was already taken well before the invasion. While the Australian PM maintained the fiction, too, that if only Saddam would tell the truth about WMDs, etc, the reality was the invasion was under way no matter what.

The possibility of internal warfare was considered 'highly unlikely'.

Once again, what were the real reasons for the invasion?

You are becoming a bore with your insights but never offering anything related to current reality.

Aside from the "fact" that most of the Iraqi military seemed to think they had WMDs; I have no doubt in my mind that they would have them, again, by today if Saddam was still in power, thanks to the soviets still running Russia, amongst other members of th UN that had a good thing going there not long ago.

I anticipate hearing your protective news releases about the maniacs in Iran one of these days.

You live in the past too much.

[a_unique_person]

He who does not learn from the past is doomed to repeat it. Iraq being a case in point.

[davefoc]

...

Aside from the "fact" that most of the Iraqi military seemed to think they had WMDs; I have no doubt in my mind that they would have them, again, by today if Saddam was still in power, thanks to the soviets still running Russia, amongst other members of th UN that had a good thing going there not long ago...

Barely the issue anymore. A more important issue is whether the advantages of a wait and see approach outweighed the advantages of an invade now approach. The argument for invade now was almost totally the imminent threat posed by WMD in Hussein's hands and to a lesser degree the argument that Hussein was involved with the 9-11 attacks. Neither one of those was true and the administration had actively mislead the public and congress about the likelyhood they were true.

A secondary issue is whether the incompetence that Bushco showed with its assessment of the WMD threat in Iraq was repeated with its handling of post war Iraq. The case is made more strongly everyday that Bushco's prewar incompetence and corruption gave only a hint at the heights that its incompetence, corruption and dupicity would rise to with the running of post war Iraq.

So one line of argument might be that it was reasonable to believe that the Iraq war would have been a good idea except that Bushco has done far worse than anybody could have imagined at managing post war Iraq. I see some plausibility to that line of thought but in the end given the enormous human costs of any war and the enormous unknowns concerning the effects of this war, it is still very difficult to make much of an argument that this war was a good idea.

And before you get to fired up about what might have happened if Hussein had gotten hold of WMD think about all the other countries that might be preemptively invaded to reduce the risk that their leaders might do bad things with WMD. And you might also consider the effect this war has had on Iran. Before the war the power of the fundamentalist regime was waning, possibly as a result of this war the fundamentalist grip on power has been strengthened and it is also possible that it has lead to an increased chance that Iran will develop nuclear WMD.

You may continue to believe that this war was a good idea in the face of significant evidence that it wasn't, but consider the possibility that the administration that lied its way into this war, and the administration that has consistently lied about the status of post war Iraq, and the administration that has used this war to pump up the coffers of its industrial buddies is also stone cold lying about the idea that they still think the war was a good idea.

[Cain]

WMD wer immaterial from the beginning. I always identified them as a red-herring as they were not essential to invasion (Saddam had and used WMD with the financial and diplomatic support of the Reagan administration). The central question for your standard conservative/right-winger was whether or not Saddam posed a threat. He didn't, as anyone who examined the evidence in the run-up to war could have plainly told you. In point of fact the people of Kuwait and Iran were less scared of Saddam than the American public. The Bush administration's propaganda works. It helps to tirelessly exploit 9/11 for pre-conceived war operations, and frighten people under national security blanket by conjuring the image of a mushroom cloud.

The central question for proponents of "military humanism" -- what Ed Herman has called the "Cruise Missile Left" -- involved deposing a murderous dictator. Of course, anyone with the slightest understanding of cost/benefit analysis could immediately recognize the opportunity costs involved in illegally invading this country (over global public opinion). For the so-called "bleeding heart neo-conservatives", BSers on this board like check-the-archives-Kodiak, who really wanted Blow Up Sh*t and used human rights as an excuse, we can point to Sudan, the Congo, and half a dozen other places. Instead of spending gobs of money on guns, we could have undertaken a truly ambitious and laudatory plan to end global poverty.

But no. Stupid people here (and elsewhere) bought into Bush propaganda and went along with this ill-conceived, poorly executed invasion and occupation. And indeed they were riding in mid-April (statue comes down) and May ("Mission Accomplished" -- Bush-as-Maverick). Now reality has settled in and the hysterical excuse-making grows progressively more absurd.

[Megalodon]

BSers on this board like check-the-archives-Kodiak, who really wanted Blow Up Sh*t and used human rights as an excuse,

I remember, back in the day, trying to explain to (IIRC) Rik and Kodi why a canvas covered truck could not be a mobile biological weapons lab. So it also struck me as weird that "check the archives" comment. Maybe we're all getting old and Kodiak is even more senile than me

[Lurker]

ITo get an idea how low it is, I looked up the per capita death rate in the US, and the CIA factbook tells me it 8.25 per 1000. This can be verified Here. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

So if we chose 150,000 random US citizens and compared their death rate to those of our forces deployed in Iraq, we would expect to see 8.25 X 150 = 1237 deaths per year, or 3,712 deaths for the three years we've been at war.

So...that means the death rate of soldiers deployed in Iraq is less than the death rate for the average US citizen.

Not to minimize any one of those soldiers lives, but in raw numbers this kind of success in war has never been seen in history. Statistically, I don't understand how our casualty rates could be less.

Are you serious? The death rate in the US that you quoted included allthe old people dying off of natural causes. Plus any other death. Sheesh, that is a really lame comparison, Mycroft. It reminds me of when Brit Hume of FoxNews said LA was more dangerous than Iraq for US forces which also was a totally invalid comparison.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Was it? What country is west of Iraq & east of Afghanistan? Iran! Isn't that geopolitically interesting -- or may I suggest, Strategic.

ymmv. ;)

Might I suggest you actually acquaint yourself with a map and consult the compass rose on said map.

Lurker

[Crossbow]

In order to generate good support for a war, one must always blame the other side for starting it.

To that end, the Iraq War was never really about the WMD issue, however Bush & Co. determined early on that the WMD issue was about the best, but not the only, rationale that would provide enough public support for starting the war. If you will look over the Bush statement published just before the actual shooting started, then you will as much:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030317-10.html

However, Richard Perle, and several other of the pro-war people, have flat out admitted that the real purpose of the war was to reshape the Middle East into a region that had democratic governments, and get the other nations of the world to fall in line with what the USA wants (this is basically what he said when interviewed on the "Daily Show"). Of course, none of these rationales have been included in the publicly released statements coming from the White House.

By the way, there has been some suggestion in this thread (Kodiak) that one can search the JREF Forums to determine the real reasons for the war, however I seriously doubt that such an activity would work. First, the search feature does not extend all that far back. Second, even if all the JREF postings made over the years were saved, then one will find several opinions about the actual war rationale, but it is unlikely that people like Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and the other people who started the war will actually be posting at JREF to provide the actual truth of the situation.

[hammegk]

Might I suggest you actually acquaint yourself with a map and consult the compass rose on said map.

Lurker
Whoops! But you understood it meant Iran, anyway. :)

Thanks for catching my silly error.

[Cain]

I love the opening paragraph in the above link:

Events in Iraq Have Now Reached the Final Days of Decision. The Iraqi Regime has used diplomacy as a ploy. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

[TimmyBerry]

Would anyone like to bet that we'll be invading Iran next? :)

[NeilC]

Surely everyone now accepts that the whole WMD thing was bogus right from the start? I'm no lefty but it was obviously spurious from the start.

I'm surprised there are people around who think it is worth 100's of UK and US lives and god knows how many 1000's of Iraqi lives, and all their mothers, fathers, sons and daughters misery to oust some dictator 1/2 way around the world. Especially when there are other dictators and bad governments all over the planet who get away with murder on a daily basis.

[joobie]

Surely everyone now accepts that the whole WMD thing was bogus right from the start? I'm no lefty but it was obviously spurious from the start.

you'd think so, but there are still people who believe that iraq had WMD but shipped them off to syria right before the US invaded. and that syria needs to be bombed now...

[CapelDodger]

Would anyone like to bet that we'll be invading Iran next? :)
Syria is marginally more likely, but I don't think it's a bet that would be settled soon. After the most recent one, I don't think more invasions are on the wish-list.

Incursions - that's more plausible. Syria, Iran, Pakistan, all are possibles.

eta : If the Iraqi Kurds invade Turkey first, all bets are off.

[CapelDodger]

My own cut at this is that this was a policy that came out of the personalities of two of the major decision makers on Iraq, Bush and Cheney.
I also finger Cheney (I see Bush Minor's role as embodying the absence of an influence, such as a President). The efficiency of the contract deployment is the give-away. It was clearly the only post-war planning there was, and Cheney was the only practical man on the team. If he's born-again it's because it served the bottom-line. Cheney is to Bush Minor pretty much as Bush Major was to Reagan.

[CapelDodger]

So it also struck me as weird that "check the archives" comment.
There was thing on another thread : Kodiak denied saying something, and suggested a search of the archives. Someone (jon_in_london, IIRC) did and made play with the results. Explanation ends.

[Mycroft]

Are you serious? The death rate in the US that you quoted included allthe old people dying off of natural causes. Plus any other death. Sheesh, that is a really lame comparison, Mycroft. It reminds me of when Brit Hume of FoxNews said LA was more dangerous than Iraq for US forces which also was a totally invalid comparison.

Lurker

I'm aware of that, but take it into account and you still have an amazingly low death rate. Take a look at the actual deaths, and you will discover many of them are non-combat related.

While every death is a tragedy, you still have to keep perspective. In any large group of people over a period of time, there will be some deaths.

Heck, consider Woodstock where three people died in that two and a half day event. Extrapolate that over three years and you'd have 1,314 deaths. Would those 1,314 deaths somehow "prove" that rock concerts were wrong and tragic?

[CapelDodger]

In order to generate good support for a war, one must always blame the other side for starting it.
Looking back to the Spanish-American War of 1898, the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana was blamed on the Spanish in order to popularise a foreign entanglement that some people in power were gagging for. No-one gives it any credence now, of course (there's a much likelier story about bong-parties in the magazine). The parallel is striking.

Pearl Harbour didn't need to be spun. You know where you are with stuff like that.

[Mycroft]

He who does not learn from the past is doomed to repeat it. Iraq being a case in point.

Exactly what is it you're claiming is being repeated?

[Elind]

Barely the issue anymore. I agree, with this and much of the following, but I was commenting on those who constantly talk only of the past, not what must be done now.


You may continue to believe that this war was a good idea in the face of significant evidence that it wasn't, but consider the possibility that the administration that lied its way into this war, and the administration that has consistently lied about the status of post war Iraq, and the administration that has used this war to pump up the coffers of its industrial buddies is also stone cold lying about the idea that they still think the war was a good idea.

I was not comfortable with this war when it started, although I hoped for a better outcome by now as I never thought so many Arabs could be quite so collectively stupid (Palestinians excepted of course).

However, you too are falling into the "barely the issue" trap with the above. Like it or not, we lose more by turning tail than trying to win. Perhaps the Iraqis will force themselves back into the 14th century eventually and we will have to call it quits and just bomb them from time to time, as they and other fundies will no doubt do to us, from time to time, and AUP will keep yapping about how it's always the other guy's fault with platitudes of wisdom and little else.

[Elind]

In point of fact the people of Kuwait and Iran were less scared of Saddam than the American public.

I didn't bother to read the rest of this BS, since I was living in Kuwait in 1990 and had been several times since the 70s.

You are talking out of your ass.

[a_unique_person]

I agree, with this and much of the following, but I was commenting on those who constantly talk only of the past, not what must be done now.




I was not comfortable with this war when it started, although I hoped for a better outcome by now as I never thought so many Arabs could be quite so collectively stupid (Palestinians excepted of course).

However, you too are falling into the "barely the issue" trap with the above. Like it or not, we lose more by turning tail than trying to win. Perhaps the Iraqis will force themselves back into the 14th century eventually and we will have to call it quits and just bomb them from time to time, as they and other fundies will no doubt do to us, from time to time, and AUP will keep yapping about how it's always the other guy's fault with platitudes of wisdom and little else.

You are correct, the Bush administration has painted the US into a corner, without correctly advising it's citizens of the risks and obligations it was entering into when the war started.

That still doesn't mean it should not be held accountable for it's actions, nor that the lessons to be learnt from this debacle should not be remembered.

[davefoc]

... Like it or not, we lose more by turning tail than trying to win. Perhaps the Iraqis will force themselves back into the 14th century eventually and we will have to call it quits and just bomb them from time to time, as they and other fundies will no doubt do to us, from time to time, and AUP will keep yapping about how it's always the other guy's fault with platitudes of wisdom and little else.

I don't quite see the world the way you do, but I think the key issue here is will in net the advantages of the US and UK staying outweigh the disadvantages. I have exactly zero faith in the Bush administration as a source of honest information as to what the answer to that question is. The fact is that I have just stopped listening to them, there is just too much of a track record of meaningless and or/incorrect crap out of them on this war to give them any credibility whatsoever.

I do have slightly more hope that even if it is impossible to sort the BS from the true in Bushco rhetoric that Bushco is learning and is beginning to put the best interests of their corporate buddies aside and is really trying to make decisions that will lead to a successful outcome. CD is more optimistic that this is true than I am and you are obviously the most optimistic about this idea. I hope you are right, but I doubt it. I think there is a pretty good chance that the US presence is making things worse. And there is a pretty good chance that the main driving force behind the occupation today is Bushco biases to stay there to hide as long as possible what a massive fiasco they involved the country in.

[a_unique_person]

He's already said, the current state will continue till his term ends, then the next guy can try to figure out what to do about it.

[Elind]

That still doesn't mean it should not be held accountable for it's actions, nor that the lessons to be learnt from this debacle should not be remembered.

Accountability comes during elections, not from critics in Australia.

Remembering can also mean to use 250,000 troops next time, instead of 140,000. Ever think of that?

[Elind]

I don't quite see the world the way you do, but I think the key issue here is will in net the advantages of the US and UK staying outweigh the disadvantages.

The operative word being "quite", I take it.:rolleyes: Can't wish for anymore or we wouldn't have anything to debate, would we?

I have exactly zero faith in the Bush administration as a source of honest information as to what the answer to that question is. The fact is that I have just stopped listening to them, there is just too much of a track record of meaningless and or/incorrect crap out of them on this war to give them any credibility whatsoever.

I stopped listening a long time ago, but mainly because the elocution grates on me like nails on a blackboard. I don't think they're evil. Just stupid fundies.

Thank God for elections. Oops. Did I say that?:eek:

[a_unique_person]

Accountability comes during elections, not from critics in Australia.

Remembering can also mean to use 250,000 troops next time, instead of 140,000. Ever think of that?

Yeah right, global policy invading countries around the world, answerable only to the US electorate.

[Elind]

Yeah right, global policy invading countries around the world, answerable only to the US electorate.

The answerable part is correct. The global policy part is stupid, particularly coming from a knee jerk protector of any thug regime on the planet, at least in terms of taking any unpleasant action.

Tell me this, would you support an invasion of Darfur, for obvious reasons, assuming you know what I'm talking about?

[a_unique_person]

I'd be happy to answer your questions, soon as you withdraw the accusation about being a knee jerk protector of any thug regime on the planet.

[Mycroft]

I'd be happy to answer your questions, soon as you withdraw the accusation about being a knee jerk protector of any thug regime on the planet.

Can you name a thug regime where you haven't openly opposed those working against it?

The easiest thing to do here is just prove his claim wrong.

[Elind]

I'd be happy to answer your questions, soon as you withdraw the accusation about being a knee jerk protector of any thug regime on the planet.

I concede, my sentence was poorly constructed.

I should not have said protector as I know that you do not actually support such regimes.

What you do however, IMHO, is generally find rationals outside of themselves for what they are. Typically the US, but also your own government and the West in general, as if they are the cause for all failed societies, cultures or even religions either because they did something or if that doesn't work, because they didn't do something.

Sorry to have hurt your feelings. I didn't know you cared.:(

[CapelDodger]

I was not comfortable with this war when it started, although I hoped for a better outcome by now as I never thought so many Arabs could be quite so collectively stupid (Palestinians excepted of course).
Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Turks, Assyrians, Christians, bankers, manufacturers, farmers, bureaucrats, shopkeepers, soldiers, police, clerics, skeptics, artists, journalists ... all a collective designated "Arab". And all in the confines designated as a nation by the UK under the League of Nations Mandate.

As to Palestinians, many decades have passed since they were declared not to exist - Golda Meir, IIRC - and yet the term still crops up. Given the odds against them, they can't have been that stupid. And they're almost as disparate and arbitrary a "collective" as the Iraqis.

[Elind]

I should have said Arab societies. I've know may Arab individuals who certainly were not stupid. Just to be fair I should point out that there is some pretty stupid stuff going on in France right now too, but not nearly as stupid, vicious, primitive, ignorant, and so on; as we see the Arab nations do.

[Kodiak]

I don't see anything in your links that contradict what Kodiak said. If WMD's were not the reason for going to war doesn't mean that three years ago it was not believed there were WMDs in Iraq nor that they would have been a contributing factor in the decision to go to war.

Thanks for being on troll patrol, Mycroft. I've been very busy with work, and have only visited the Forum one or twice in the last 6-8 months.

[Hutch]

Big Bear!! Good to see you again, I for one have noted your absence from the Forums.


BTW, you're still a political half-wit (just to make you feel at home)...;) :p :D


Hope you can manage to sneak in a posting here and there now and then.

[Mycroft]

Thanks for being on troll patrol, Mycroft. I've been very busy with work, and have only visited the Forum one or twice in the last 6-8 months.

The place hasn't been the same without you. :)

I hope that's a good thing at work.

[a_unique_person]

Thanks for being on troll patrol, Mycroft. I've been very busy with work, and have only visited the Forum one or twice in the last 6-8 months.

Yes, the great coward Mycroft asks me questions when he knows I have him on ignore. Apparently, there is not one dictator I disapprove of. You can't get much lower than that, attacking a forum member in such a way, but he never swears, and is so polite.

[Donks]

Yes, the great coward Mycroft asks me questions when he knows I have him on ignore. Apparently, there is not one dictator I disapprove of. You can't get much lower than that, attacking a forum member in such a way, but he never swears, and is so polite.
I've reported your post. I'm tired of you complaining how other people attack you while on the very same post attacking people.

[Tricky]

Thanks for being on troll patrol, Mycroft. I've been very busy with work, and have only visited the Forum one or twice in the last 6-8 months.
Hope you have time to stay, my ursine friend. But for the record, neither AUP nor Jon in London (also pretty inactive) are trolls. A troll is not just someone who disagrees with you, nor is it someone who is vociferous in his opinions. Trolls have to be doing it to try to mess with you.

BTW, only a month until college football season. Suddenly is back, so we have a good cross-section of fanatics.

[a_unique_person]

He attacked me. I am quite happy to have him on ignore, and forget about him completely. He not only does not return the courtesy, but attacks me while he is on ignore. Cowardice.

[Donks]

He attacked me. I am quite happy to have him on ignore, and forget about him completely. He not only does not return the courtesy, but attacks me while he is on ignore. Cowardice.
BS. The thread has been dead since april. Kodiak posts to it (where he does not mention you, but let's say he called you a troll for the sake of argument), then Mycroft replies:
The place hasn't been the same without you. :)

I hope that's a good thing at work.
That is not an attack on you on any way, shape or form.

[Azure]

I guess it was all because of the oil.

[a_unique_person]

BS. The thread has been dead since april. Kodiak posts to it (where he does not mention you, but let's say he called you a troll for the sake of argument), then Mycroft replies:

That is not an attack on you on any way, shape or form.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1559806&postcount=127

[Donks]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1559806&postcount=127
You're attacking him now because of a post made almost 4 months ago?

[gumboot]

ETA: Oh, and Saddam didn't seem to like islamic fundamentalists. That kinda suited me fine.



He seemed to like them fine in 1990 when he added "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Great") to the Iraqi flag, started broadcasting images of himself being a devout Muslim, and started using religious rhetoric to try and win the favour of Osama's Mujahedeen fighters and the Muslim Brotherhood...

For the record, no I don't believe Saddam was into terrorism. Yet. But I also think Saddam was in to doing whatever he thought necessary to get support he wanted. Throughout the late 90's and leading up to the invasion, Saddam was becoming increasingly religiously fanatic.

In a post 9/11 world some people would argue a brutal Islamic fundamentalist dictator seeking development of WMD who is in total defiance of the UN is probably well up there in the "threat to World security and peace" category.

-Andrew

[a_unique_person]

You're attacking him now because of a post made almost 4 months ago?

He has been on ignore, for obvious reasons. Now I find out what he gets up to while on ignore.

[Kodiak]

Hope you have time to stay, my ursine friend. But for the record, neither AUP nor Jon in London (also pretty inactive) are trolls. A troll is not just someone who disagrees with you, nor is it someone who is vociferous in his opinions. Trolls have to be doing it to try to mess with you.

BTW, only a month until college football season. Suddenly is back, so we have a good cross-section of fanatics.

Then, by you definition (which I refrain from officially agreeing with...), AUP and JiL are indeed not trolls. Is the term "hatchet men" more accurate? How about "mendacious"? Personally, I think "troll patrol" rolls off the tongue rather nicely... :D


GO BLUE!!

[Tricky]

Then, by you definition (which I refrain from officially agreeing with...), AUP and JiL are indeed not trolls. Is the term "hatchet men" more accurate? How about "mendacious"? Personally, I think "troll patrol" rolls off the tongue rather nicely... If they are, then you ought to add a few others from the more conservative wing to the troll patrol roll (seems like we should be able to add something that ends in "hole" to that string). I'm not familiar with the history that led to this fractiousness, but the reasoning behind it seems to have escaped into the "because we HATE the Hatfields" sort of realm. Pity.

Nevertheless, I am compelled to explain one thing to you.

ROLL TIDE!:D

[a_unique_person]

Then, by you definition (which I refrain from officially agreeing with...), AUP and JiL are indeed not trolls. Is the term "hatchet men" more accurate? How about "mendacious"? Personally, I think "troll patrol" rolls off the tongue rather nicely... :D


GO BLUE!!

What lies? Kicking some in the **** for doing the same to you is self defence, not being a hatchet man. I have in fact tried to do my bit by putting Mycroft on ignore. He abuses my bit to help the mods, the rest of the forum and myself, by making snide attacks on me when I am not reading his posts.

[Kodiak]

If they are, then you ought to add a few others from the more conservative wing to the troll patrol roll (seems like we should be able to add something that ends in "hole" to that string). I'm not familiar with the history that led to this fractiousness, but the reasoning behind it seems to have escaped into the "because we HATE the Hatfields" sort of realm. Pity.

Nevertheless, I am compelled to explain one thing to you.

ROLL TIDE!:D

I never said there weren't rightie trolls. Me being a godless, narrow constructionist, social libertarian/economic conservative, the only rightie trolls that might present a problem for me would be the devoutly religious, anti-stem cell research, gay-bashing ones. Anyone in the Forum fit that description? ;)

[Kodiak]

What lies? Kicking some in the **** for doing the same to you is self defence, not being a hatchet man. I have in fact tried to do my bit by putting Mycroft on ignore. He abuses my bit to help the mods, the rest of the forum and myself, by making snide attacks on me when I am not reading his posts.

Those who misrepresented and obfuscated my positions on the justifications for the invasion of Iraq know who they are, and those were the people I was referring to.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=99674#post99674

[Jocko]

What lies? Kicking some in the **** for doing the same to you is self defence, not being a hatchet man. I have in fact tried to do my bit by putting Mycroft on ignore. He abuses my bit to help the mods, the rest of the forum and myself, by making snide attacks on me when I am not reading his posts.

God, what a complainer you are.