War on Terrorism is bogus [Archive]

Pinto

Sep 8, 2003, 06:49 PM

link (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html)
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role"
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002).
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.

mactastic

Sep 8, 2003, 07:11 PM

Didn't someone post this already? Or did I read it somewhere else?

zimv20

Sep 9, 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
Didn't someone post this already? Or did I read it somewhere else?

i posted it the other day. but it bears repeating.

groovebuster

Sep 9, 2003, 08:41 AM

I wonder where the people are always telling us that these are made up facts???

This US administration did more damage to the international community than any other before in history. I hope they have to stand trial one day for their actions...

groovebuster

Desertrat

Sep 9, 2003, 09:21 AM

I sure am glad the WTC towers are standing, and that we haven't had any embassies bombed or anything. I'm glad the mullahs in the madrassahs don't teach jihad, but rather peace and brotherly love. No kidnappings nor bombs set off by any radical Islamics...

Bad U.S.! Evil, nasty people! Never did anything good for anybody, anywhere! Yuck!

'Rat

Sayhey

Sep 9, 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
I sure am glad the WTC towers are standing, and that we haven't had any embassies bombed or anything. I'm glad the mullahs in the madrassahs don't teach jihad, but rather peace and brotherly love. No kidnappings nor bombs set off by any radical Islamics...

Bad U.S.! Evil, nasty people! Never did anything good for anybody, anywhere! Yuck!

'Rat

Now, Meacher's article says none of the above. It is worth reading to understand the agenda of some in the administration. By the way, good to see you back, 'Rat, even if you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Haven't seen anything by you lately.

toontra

Sep 9, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
I sure am glad the WTC towers are standing, and that we haven't had any embassies bombed or anything. I'm glad the mullahs in the madrassahs don't teach jihad, but rather peace and brotherly love. No kidnappings nor bombs set off by any radical Islamics...

Bad U.S.! Evil, nasty people! Never did anything good for anybody, anywhere! Yuck!

'Rat

Rat, you'll have to do better than that!

In this forum we're used to the rabid right-wingers accusing anyone opposed to the war of being an apologist for Saddam and generally a supporter of all terrorists and their acts.

Once and for all,the two things don't equate! It is an entirely reasonable position to abhor terrorist acts but at the same time oppose the recent Iraq war, for many, many reasons outlined at great length in this forum over the last few months!

tazo

Sep 9, 2003, 09:51 AM

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

Of course they were not arrested; it would be considered racial profiling and a hate crime.

groovebuster

Sep 9, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Bad U.S.! Evil, nasty people! Never did anything good for anybody, anywhere! Yuck!

'Rat

:rolleyes: Amazing! :rolleyes:

groovebuster

groovebuster

Sep 9, 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by tazo
Of course they were not arrested; it would be considered racial profiling and a hate crime.

Observation would have done the job...

groovebuster

Desertrat

Sep 9, 2003, 10:29 AM

Hokay. My overall reasoning is a bit lengthy, so bear with me.

We're stuck with maintaining influence in the middle east due to petroleum. I see no way world supplies can be maintained without somebody playing RoboCop there, and I guess we're stuck with it.

Think of it as a great big chess game.

I've said before that the WMD issue was a poor choice to drum up support to go into Iraq. However, I can see a bunch of reasons to have gotten rid of Saddam's regime; humanitarianism is a major part, given his history of genocidal efforts and brutality in general.

IMO, we're as justified about Iraq, if not moreso, than for messing around in the Balkans. Remember Serbia?

So: If we can indeed help the Iraqis create some sort of non-religious Iraqi government, I see that as a Good Thing. Next step, just our having done so sends a message to those area regimes that we're competent and have will. Those folks don't respect mouth-music without muscle and resolve. It's a cultural thing. Our diplomatic clout will be enhanced.

Next, we get some sort of agreement such as we had during the Cold War to have military base(s) in western Iraq where there are relatively few Iraqis. We pull a lot of our people out of such places as Saudi Arabia, hopefully improving stability there. We won't be "profaning sacred ground". Regime awareness of our strike potential, coupled with the awareness that we would use force as necessary, dramatically reduces official support via money and rhetoric of the various hostile elements such as Al Qaida.

None of the above view means I'm all warm and runny inside as to how things are being done, or who gets whatever contract to "rebuild Iraq" or whatever. Were I the Big Stick, I'd probably have tried to sell my own view of the chess game--and probably failed...Anyhow, I'm in general support of this overall picture.

My support is due to my view of our society, and those of Europe and Asia: We have societies which are going to remain dependent on fossil fuels for at least another couple of decades. The orderly development and apportioning of the remaining supplies is important to overall world peace (!; ?) and to the quality of life in developed and developing countries.

Sure, we gotta get weaned off of our dependence on fossil fuels, but it won't happen this year or next. The mideast has become more volatile since the Gulf War--for many reasons other than US policies--and it seems to me to be absolutely necessary for somebody to somehow improve the general stability. (Somebody oughta look up the increasing demand for oil on the part of China.)

I've said before that I don't like the idea of our being GloboRoboCop, but right now I don't see a viable alternative. The UN? Duh? China needs mideast stability as much as we, but they can't project the power. Europe has mostly paid some form of Danegeld to the various terrorist groups, and has shunned any global responsibilities.

The issue is the orderly flow of mideast oil to the whole world, not just the U.S. We can't back up to a pre-Shah Iran; we can't back up to a pre-Saddam Iraq. We can't go back and say, "The Hell with it." and leave Saddam in Kuwait. We are where we are, and the problem now is how to create this "New Mideast Order" that seems to be the Bushies' goal.

It just seems to me that a lot of the fussing, here, has been short-sighted, tunnel-visioned and lacking a really big-picture view of the realpolitik of what's going on. What I haven't seen is evidence of understanding of the Bushies' apparent goals, nor real ideas about "What I'd do."

Separately: I just did a quick 3,000 miles. It ain't cool to jump on the phone to your 93-year-old mother and say, "Hey, guess what? I got colon cancer." I start rad/chem tomorrow for 5.5 weeks. Surgery around early December. Don't need sympathy; it's isolated and the docs are real optimistic it will be a done deal and no further problem. Just a hassle, and--dammit--it messes up hunting season...:) I guess you could say it's truly a PITA. But, the BossLady and I are seriously looking toward Christmas in Terlingua. Hell, if I can stand, I can ride in her SUV. :D

Well, gotta go unload a truck. CUL...

'Rat

mactastic

Sep 9, 2003, 10:44 AM

Sorry to hear that 'Rat. Hope things go well.

A couple things though. You complain about a lack of big picture focus here, but I have to say I worry that's what Bush has done. I worry that people like Rove are looking at Iraq in terms of getting Bush re-elected next year, and how the occupation can benefit America, not how it can better get oil to flow to the rest of the world.

We were quite sure we were doing the right thing in Afghanistan in the '80's, in Iran in the late '70's, and we never thought anyone would get too seriously offended of we parked our military in Saudi Arabia. Yet all of these things have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in now.

I'd like to think my opposition to the way we did things in Iraq IS a big picture view of the world rather than a narrow view of what is best for those of us fortunate enough to live in the US.

iPC

Sep 9, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by groovebuster
I wonder where the people are always telling us that these are made up facts???

This US administration did more damage to the international community than any other before in history. I hope they have to stand trial one day for their actions...

groovebuster
The British were the ones to draw the lines in the sand (defining countries) and to convince the nomadic tribes that they had something of such great value.

Not that America hasn't followed suit.

Originally posted by Desertrat
Hokay. My overall reasoning is a bit lengthy, so bear with me.

We're stuck with maintaining influence in the middle east due to petroleum. I see no way world supplies can be maintained without somebody playing RoboCop there, and I guess we're stuck with it.
There are many alternatives to buying oil from the Arabian states:

1. Russia
2. Alaska

Politics of course get in the way.

Guess we need this:

3. USE AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL / LUBRICATION SOURCE

As to your comment regarding "non-religious geverment" for Iraq; what?! We (USA) don't have a non-religious government! If you don't believe me, read the Pledge of Allegiance, and then look at what every piece of money the US mints/prints.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

I don't happen to believe there is a god, yet I can not escape the influence religion has on my government that believes in "seperation of church and state." What a disgrace, not to mention a lie.

*sigh*

If there was no religion, the conflicts of the world would all but be eliminated. No more blind faith Catholics with blinders on, no more militant Palestinians or Jews, no more ignorant Christians, etc etc etc.

Religion started as a form of population control, and now it can't even do that.

toontra

Sep 9, 2003, 12:21 PM

Well Said, iPC. Blair's repeated reason for the war in Iraq was his "personal passionate belief" that he was doing the right thing. In other words, his stated Christian moral code was instrumental in dictating UK government policy.

I, for one, find that truly frightening and a wholly inappropriate way for a world leader with enormous influence to behave. He seems to be turning the clock back a few centuries to the pre-reformation days!

IJ Reilly

Sep 9, 2003, 12:30 PM

I missed the President's address the other day, but I have read quite a bit about it, and one of the things I read just this morning was that he'd managed to work some permutation of the word "terror" into the speech more then two dozen times. This, in a speech only 15 minutes in length? This is little more then another crass and shameless manipulation of the passions of the electorate through a campaign of fear-mongering and misinformation. It a clear attempt at reinforcing the erroneous notion, already held by half of the American people, that Saddam was in some way responsible for 9-11.

zimv20

Sep 9, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat

We're stuck with maintaining influence in the middle east due to petroleum. I see no way world supplies can be maintained without somebody playing RoboCop there, and I guess we're stuck with it.

world supplies can be maintained w/o us there. but the price will go up. i say: let the price go up. our demand will go down once we adjust (more efficient cars, alternative fuels). we'll save a ****load of $$ by not having to deploy the military as we do. save a ****load of lives, too.

So: If we can indeed help the Iraqis create some sort of non-religious Iraqi government, I see that as a Good Thing.

yes, but a near-impossible thing. as was pointed out, we can't even achieve that in the US lately.

in the mideast, we are fighting entropy. we will lose.

We have societies which are going to remain dependent on fossil fuels for at least another couple of decades.
[...]
Sure, we gotta get weaned off of our dependence on fossil fuels, but it won't happen this year or next.

agreed. but in the large, we keep putting it off. what we need is a big kick in the ass, vis a vis skyrocketing oil prices, before we start the weaning. if we'd pledged $73 billion plus $87 billion on alternative fuels -- THAT's some serious cash and progress.

I start rad/chem tomorrow for 5.5 weeks. Surgery around early December.

i wish you good health and a speedy recovery.

Desertrat

Sep 9, 2003, 10:31 PM

I freely admit I don't have any "The Answer" in all this.

I'd agree there seems to be some confusion in the upper echelons of the Administration. I've wondered about Ms. Rice's clout; she's impressed me as having had a clearer view of the big picture, without as great a tie to a lot of the Giant Corporations as, say, Cheney. And her background education in history strikes me as a serious plus.

I guess where I'd be in the "sorta disagree" with you, zim, is in your comment, "world supplies can be maintained w/o us there. but the price will go up." Without our support of the (ugh) House of Saud, I could see where the zealots might well sabotage the whole oil system there.

Without some sort of improvement in political stability in Afghanistan, I'm dubious about the possibility of the proposed cross-country pipeline there. (IMO, the main reason we're in the Balkans is that it's a primary pipeline route from the underbelly of the old USSR into central Europe. There was a Clintonoil as well as there is any Bushoil.)

So I'd worry about the possibility of a major upward movement in the cost of oil.

It's all well and good to focus on SUVs and all that, and call for change. Problem is, oil and gas are raw materials for the plastic in your electric wiring and your computers and hundreds of other consumer products. We're talking jobs and food and house payments on a worldwide basis.

A huge chunk of our present economy depends on things like the geriatrics in their Winnebagos, for instance. All those folks who now work at RV parks, and the mechanics who service them--not to mention the folks who make and/or sell them. $5/gallon for gasoline means a helluva lot of unemployment checks--including burger flippers, and folks who work the stop-n-robs.

Never believe that that sort of spectre hasn't occurred to a whole bunch of folks inside the Beltway, whether or not they say anything in public.

'Rat

zimv20

Sep 9, 2003, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat

Problem is, oil and gas are raw materials for the plastic in your electric wiring and your computers and hundreds of other consumer products.

that's an excellent point. and i think that oil _should_ be reserved for those purposes for the long haul.

so, it's important to find alternatives for oil currently being used for:
1. automotive fuel
2. heating fuel

concentrating on alternative energy sources/solutions for that may take the pressure off the world's oil supplies.

Pinto

Sep 10, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
So I'd worry about the possibility of a major upward movement in the cost of oil.
A huge chunk of our present economy depends on things like the geriatrics in their Winnebagos, for instance. All those folks who now work at RV parks, and the mechanics who service them--not to mention the folks who make and/or sell them. $5/gallon for gasoline means a helluva lot of unemployment checks--including burger flippers, and folks who work the stop-n-robs.

'Rat

So it's ok to lie, invade countries, murder people, because otherwise the cost of oil MIGHT go up. Oil in the US is incredibly cheap anyway. The rest of the world seems to manage despite high oil costs (thanks to taxation).

Why is the US required for middle eastern countries to export oil??

Iran is part of the Axis of evil, yet it manages to export oil. Stop making lame excuses.

pseudobrit

Sep 10, 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
$5/gallon for gasoline means a helluva lot of unemployment checks--including burger flippers, and folks who work the stop-n-robs.

I took a job as a line cook for a few months this year out of desperation after I lost my manufacturing work and was on unemployment for about four months.

Unemployment paid better.

Inu

Sep 10, 2003, 02:44 AM

Welcome Back 'Rat (and a speedy recovery)

If your posted view is correct, i still dont see the reason why this war was a good thing. At least i dont see a reason why the unilateralism. Would the UN (yeah, i know, conservatives tend to hate the UN) "do" the "Iraqi Liberation" the attrition war would have been a lot lower. Why? There are quite a lot of Muslimic states (unfortunatly, Iraq was in it too... seems the UN doesnt belive in expelling states that dont comply with it *hint*) in the UN, and most of the troops they could have mustered would have done a better job "securing and pacifying" Postwar Iraq.

Of course, the War would have been cheaper for the US, and thats a good reason to wait, isnt it?

Eamon Brennan

Sep 10, 2003, 07:59 AM

Hello all

Desertrat has one massive fundamental error in his world view.

The world's oil is not held in the middle east. Middle eastern oil is held in the middleeast. They own it and they can sell it, leave or just burn it if they wish.

We can't excuse our actions on the grounds that we need what they have. And it is fundamentally dishonest to refer to the black stuff as "the world's oil'.

In a TV interview in the early 80's, Ayn Rand claimed that primitive societies like the middle east had no right to their own resources because we owned the technology to exploit it and they did not. That was was just a shallow justification for theft.

Eamon

Desertrat

Sep 10, 2003, 08:07 AM

Pinto, "okay" is irrelevant. You're wanting to put morals into what is perceived by the Administration as a fight for national or societal survival. On a smaller scale, it's just a variation on what we did in Serbia--which truly set the precedent...

pseudobrit, I don't doubt you at all as to the "pay" of unemployment, but that's not true for all states nor is there an unlimited time period for receiving it. Given what I see as an ongoing economic downturn (a whole 'nother argument), I wouldn't be surprised to see laws requiring some sort of work for the city/county in order to receive unemployment benefits. Most states have budget shortfalls; California is merely the most notable.

Inu, my view of the UN is mostly a lack of respect. When countries like Libya and the Sudan (or is it Chad?) are on the UN's human rights commission, it's hard to take that organization seriously. And, IMO, too many of its upper-echelon bureaucrats want a one-world government--which is one of the more foolish ideas to come down the pike. Few nations, now, can effectively govern themselves; are these bureaucrats, then, somehow wiser?

As one looks at past wars, this Iraqi war has had the least amount of civilian and "our side" casualties of any I know of. The modern technology of combat and destruction is incredibly precise compared to just a couple of decades back, much less WW II, Korea or Vietnam.

I'm not sure what you mean by "better job" in the pacifying. Now, if bringing in Blue Helmets means a lesser level of hostility from the leftover Saddamites, sure, that's a good thing. However, the Al Qaida types sneaking into Iraq aren't really selective as to whom they kill.

The Iraq situation, now, is quite simple: If Al Qaida breaks our will to stay for the long haul, our international credibility is gone. They win. (Credibility has to do with belief in our will and word, not with love/like/affection.) If they win, I'm afraid there will indeed be a New World Order, but it won't be very orderly. If Al Qaida breaks our will, or can keep us from success in creating an orderly Iraq, it will become the dominant political entity in the middle east--and possibly the entire Moslem world. This would most likely lead to all-out war, maybe nukes and all...

Oil and water: The two things most required for Life As We Know It--and we're all in trouble on both counts.

'Rat

Eamon Brennan

Sep 10, 2003, 08:13 AM

What exactly did we do in Serbia then?

Eamon

mactastic

Sep 10, 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
The Iraq situation, now, is quite simple: If Al Qaida breaks our will to stay for the long haul, our international credibility is gone. They win. (Credibility has to do with belief in our will and word, not with love/like/affection.) If they win, I'm afraid there will indeed be a New World Order, but it won't be very orderly. If Al Qaida breaks our will, or can keep us from success in creating an orderly Iraq, it will become the dominant political entity in the middle east--and possibly the entire Moslem world. This would most likely lead to all-out war, maybe nukes and all...

Oil and water: The two things most required for Life As We Know It--and we're all in trouble on both counts.

'Rat

You are right about our international cred being gone if we walk away from Iraq. GW Bush has bet the farm on our ability to pacify them, a very risky bet IMHO. We are now in the position of having to pour money into a foreign country rather than our own - where it is sorely needed right now.

Since Bush took office, he has shown a penchant for "betting it all" and he has come away smelling like a rose each time - until Iraq. Now that he has gambled and lost, he still talks like someone on a roll.

We aren't asking our allies for help, the language from the administration has been that they "expect our allies to do their duty in Iraq." Now how do you think that will go over? If he actually showed the humility he talked so much about we might get a better reaction from the people who we rolled over on our way to war. The French and others have absolutely no incentive to help us in a timely manner. In fact they have quite a bit of incentive to sit back and watch the US twist in the breeze for a while before they give in.

So what can we do? Well we could actually start acting in the best interests of the Iraqis instead of the US. We could politely ask for foreign aid, and bend a little about the terms we are willing to accept. It seems kind of silly to insist that we give up control over Iraq to the UN when we don't even have control over it now. We could stop backing Iraqi exiles like Chalabi, who has been indicted for fraud among other things. We could talk about ways to finance this war, including repealing many of the tax cuts Bush passed. Most importantly, we could stop swaggering around the world like we are the biggest, baddest nation on earth. Even if we are, it doesn't help to rub it in everyone's collective face.

Inu

Sep 10, 2003, 11:03 AM

@'Rat: There is something wrong with the notion that people of the country that made the UN and still hold Veto over all its decisions (Its a stupid Idea, that veto thing. Basically stuns the Organisation half the time) start to loose respect for it.

I agree its a pretty stupid idea to give countrys the lead in matter they evidently have no clue about (its like giving our swiss diplomats we send the lead on a Multilateral Military Action (wee, sounds like fun)). But hey, thats a failure of the organisation, and has to be corrected. We just joined the UN, and i still would prefer we didnt do so because of the veto-issue and the missconceptions you showed there.

It really would do the UN a better deal if they would kick out countrys that didnt comply with its resolutions - that would boot Saddams Iraq and some other states (Israel? Chad?) out temorarily. Make it worth it to be in, and they would think twice of ignoring the resolutions.

At least it could help in a near perfect world :)

Moslemic Troops that actually could speak Arabic would do a better job pacifying because:

- no religious conflict (well, Bush's really stupid comment about "crusade" stuck)
- Searching houses and databases is so much easier if your soldiers can actually read/talk in the native language
- the civilians would feel the world is finally going to rid them of the opressor, and not a single country is taking away their oil/pride/freedom (dont laugh, they really feel that way).
- Civilians would side with a multinational force more likely.

As it stands Al Quaida might actually appear as foundation of Islamic defence, and i am really sure you didnt want that

Daveman Deluxe

Sep 10, 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Most importantly, we could stop swaggering around the world like we are the biggest, baddest nation on earth. Even if we are, it doesn't help to rub it in everyone's collective face.

I agree. Just because we CAN kick ass doesn't mean we SHOULD.

Eamon Brennan

Sep 10, 2003, 01:52 PM

Kick ass

Do you think so.

Do you really think that because the American military could sustain a conflict against anybody, therefore it could sustain a conflict against everybody?

Has it not occurred to you that Iraq's occupation is strangling an already weak economy.

Has it not occured to you that there are plans to extend the tours of duty in Iraq to over 2 years.

You may have the muscle but you don't have the money and you don't have the manpower.

The war in Afghanistan was mostly paid for by the UN. The first gulf war by Japan, saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Get real. The American government has embarked on a series of wars that even it, as the global superpower, cannot sustain.

I suppose I am going to get the usual accusations of anti-americanism (whatever that is). But none of the above is untrue.

Eamon

Daveman Deluxe

Sep 10, 2003, 01:59 PM

Eamon-

You missed my point entirely. Our military is, at the moment, the strongest in the world both in manpower and in technological superiority. Ergo, we CAN kick ass, and the war in Iraq (not the post-war occupation) proved that.

However, for all the reasons that you just cited, doesn't make it RIGHT for us to do so.

mactastic

Sep 10, 2003, 04:11 PM

Found this little tidbit of info buried halfway through a CNN article...
U.S. Air Force intelligence officials concluded before the Iraqi war that aerial drones built by Iraq were designed for reconnaissance missions and probably not for dispersal of chemical or biological weapons, Air Force sources said. The sources said Bush administration officials were aware of the service's dissent but continued to portray Iraq's drone program as a threat before the war. Air Force intelligence experts have now seen nearly two dozen of the drones found in Iraq as well as reviewed photography of the drones.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/10/sprj.irq.main/index.html)

(empahsis mine)

iPC

Sep 10, 2003, 04:46 PM

Eamon Brennan - Wars have a habit of turning around bad economies. WWII is obviously the most drastic example of this (in the USA).

Multiple conflicts are not sustainable by the US, or any other nation. That is only to obvious.

The UN is getting weaker by the year, even countries such as Somalia are not afraid of the UN's "bark," much less its "bite."

Drones - multiple configs are available in any reasonable platform. Look at the US drones that were for surveillance purposes only - they now can fire air to ground missiles with lethal effectiveness. Nothing says Iraq couldn't attemp something similar. And with chemical weapons, accuracy on a large battlefield is not a high priority; just don't hit the same spot over and over again.

US military - high tech does not always equal high quality. Look at the accomplishments made throughout the history of modern warfare to see what I mean (US vs Vietnam as well as USSR vs Afghanistan are great examples of this).

Serbia - the US just got in the way. It is a local conflict that needs a local solution.

--

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea. US military does not equal global police force.

zimv20

Sep 10, 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by iPC

Drones - multiple configs are available in any reasonable platform. Look at the US drones that were for surveillance purposes only - they now can fire air to ground missiles with lethal effectiveness. Nothing says Iraq couldn't attemp something similar.

wow, nice policy of pre-emption. let me try:

- iraq has lots of sand. sand can be blown into glass, which can be used to make test tubes for chemical and bio weapons

- iraq is full of people. people can be given guns to kill americans

- iraq has air. everyone knows air is needed to spread chemical weapons

phew! good thing we invaded!

Desertrat

Sep 10, 2003, 06:34 PM

Eamon, I think you're mis-reading me, given your "Desertrat has one massive fundamental error in his world view."

You say, "The world's oil is not held in the middle east. Middle eastern oil is held in the middleeast. They own it and they can sell it, leave or just burn it if they wish." This is true but irrelevant to the argument.

I'm sure you know the significance of "balance of power", whether political or in this case, economic. That is, the loss to the markets of oil from Kuwait or from Saudi Arabia or from Iran, due to some political problem, can affect the price of all oil everywhere.

From the U.S. standpoint--and all other oil-importing countries--the issue is long-term market stability. This can only come from a stable political structure--regardless of the type of structure. The various oil companies are happy to be customers of the various exporters; all they want, all the US gummint wants, is long-term market stability.

*****

I believe it's way too early to say that Bush has lost. I saw in today's paper that the Arab League has recognized the new government in Iraq. I also note that many Arab countries are cracking down on the various terrorist groups, with quite a few arrests. There are some articles which aren't widespread because of the lack of blood, but the tenor is that the majority of the Iraqis are glad Saddam's regime is gone. Again I bring up my comment about "instant gratification" as to the end result of the effort in Iraq: "The main combat is over, so let's all be friends." Nope, not for a while. And I dunno how long is that "while".

'Rat

Sayhey

Sep 11, 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Eamon, I think you're mis-reading me, given your "Desertrat has one massive fundamental error in his world view."

You say, "The world's oil is not held in the middle east. Middle eastern oil is held in the middleeast. They own it and they can sell it, leave or just burn it if they wish." This is true but irrelevant to the argument.

I'm sure you know the significance of "balance of power", whether political or in this case, economic. That is, the loss to the markets of oil from Kuwait or from Saudi Arabia or from Iran, due to some political problem, can affect the price of all oil everywhere.

From the U.S. standpoint--and all other oil-importing countries--the issue is long-term market stability. This can only come from a stable political structure--regardless of the type of structure. The various oil companies are happy to be customers of the various exporters; all they want, all the US gummint wants, is long-term market stability.

*****

I believe it's way too early to say that Bush has lost. I saw in today's paper that the Arab League has recognized the new government in Iraq. I also note that many Arab countries are cracking down on the various terrorist groups, with quite a few arrests. There are some articles which aren't widespread because of the lack of blood, but the tenor is that the majority of the Iraqis are glad Saddam's regime is gone. Again I bring up my comment about "instant gratification" as to the end result of the effort in Iraq: "The main combat is over, so let's all be friends." Nope, not for a while. And I dunno how long is that "while".

'Rat

'Rat, I have to agree with Eamon that the fact the oil is part of the natural resources of another sovereign nation is hightly important to the argument. The need of the oil importing nations for a stable supply of oil does not give any nation the right to militarily intervene in another nation. That goal can be met through negotiation and an aggressive campaign domestically to lower our consumption and find other sources for energy.

I agree it is too early to say Bush has lost in Iraq. It is not too early to say that the rosy estimates of what would follow the overthrow of Saddam were highly inaccurate. I hope that the ruling council gains more acceptance in the Arab world and, most importantly, in Iraq. That would best be accomplished by turning the political process over to the UN and moving for a new elected government at the earliest possible date. I, like you, can't say when that date would be, but the longer we hold the reins of decision making in US hands the more likely the folks firing those guns and throwing those bombs at US soldiers will be not only remnants of the Saddam regime and Islamic fundamentalists from other nations.

iPC

Sep 11, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
wow, nice policy of pre-emption. let me try:

- iraq has lots of sand. sand can be blown into glass, which can be used to make test tubes for chemical and bio weapons

- iraq is full of people. people can be given guns to kill americans

- iraq has air. everyone knows air is needed to spread chemical weapons

phew! good thing we invaded!
ROFL

I take it military analysis is not your strong suit. During a conflict any harmful platform must be struck; whether this is an Army base, an airfield, military hardware, or troops.

Assuming the conflict is justified, which in this case (invasion or Iraq - 2003), it is not. This is just an extension of Bush's fathers ideals. W is a puppet (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=puppet) , of that I am sure.

Eamon Brennan

Sep 11, 2003, 01:38 PM

DesertRat Writes:

This is true but irrelevant to the argument.

This is the core of the argument. One country's sovreignity takes precedence over another country's economic targets.

That, by the way, is International Law. I would say that is pretty relevant.

DaveMan

I didn't miss your point. I contradicted it. Your assertion that America has superior manpower is just plain wrong. Why do you think that Donald Rumsfeld is trying to create warfare systems that require smaller armies?

I am not denying that America has the technological lead by a long shot. However, without the manpower you need allies. The way George Bush is going at the moment you will have precious few allies left. Even Tony Blair is suffering badly in the polls because of his support for the war.

Eamon Brennan

mactastic

Sep 11, 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by iPC
ROFL

I take it military analysis is not your strong suit. During a conflict any harmful platform must be struck; whether this is an Army base, an airfield, military hardware, or troops.

Assuming the conflict is justified, which in this case (invasion or Iraq - 2003), it is not. This is just an extension of Bush's fathers ideals. W is a puppet (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=puppet) , of that I am sure.

Of course any target must be struck during a conflict. But those targets don't need to be made out to be more than they are in order to make your case against your opponent.

Saddam was bad enough, if Dubya had made the case that this was a humanitarian effort he would be in much better shape politically than he is right now. But he was obviously afraid that if he only made the humanitarian case he wouldn't get the support he needed to go to war. The administration appears to have given us the worst-case assesment of pre-war Iraq and the best case assesment of post-war Iraq.

zimv20

Sep 11, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by iPC

I take it military analysis is not your strong suit.

or sarcasm analysis yours.

fwiw, i used to work in the defense industry.

G4scott

Sep 11, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by toontra
Rat, you'll have to do better than that!

In this forum we're used to the rabid right-wingers accusing anyone opposed to the war of being an apologist for Saddam and generally a supporter of all terrorists and their acts.

Once and for all,the two things don't equate! It is an entirely reasonable position to abhor terrorist acts but at the same time oppose the recent Iraq war, for many, many reasons outlined at great length in this forum over the last few months!

not all rabid right-wingers will accuse you of that. They'll just say that you can't make a moral decision, because that means you'll have to call bin laden evil, and you'll have to do something about him, and you'll have to spend money on the military, which is too much to provide a humanitarian service to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq...

Now I don't necessarily mean that, but, what would you suggest, instead of this war on terror?

G4scott

Sep 11, 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Eamon Brennan
Kick ass

Do you think so.

Do you really think that because the American military could sustain a conflict against anybody, therefore it could sustain a conflict against everybody?

Has it not occurred to you that Iraq's occupation is strangling an already weak economy.

Has it not occured to you that there are plans to extend the tours of duty in Iraq to over 2 years.

You may have the muscle but you don't have the money and you don't have the manpower.

The war in Afghanistan was mostly paid for by the UN. The first gulf war by Japan, saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Get real. The American government has embarked on a series of wars that even it, as the global superpower, cannot sustain.

I suppose I am going to get the usual accusations of anti-americanism (whatever that is). But none of the above is untrue.

Eamon

Uh, we spent some 12% of the US economy on our war in vietnam. This nice war on terror is only around 0.5%. Not only that, but when you liberate a country, you don't just go in, clean out the bad, and pull out. You have to stay there to ensure that a stable government is able to be established. Look at Japan and Germany.

And before you go off saying "US soldiers aren't still being killed in Japan and Germany", those were different. In those situations, the enemy formally surrendered. Besides, we're still pouring money into Europe, Japan, Bosnia, Haiti...

this $87 billion for the war on terror is nothing. We've spent trillions on domestic programs that did, and still do nothing. We're footing the bill for a $400 billion dollar prescription plan that nobody wants. I think the problem is that nobody else in the world wants to take responsibility for anything, because they're afraid they'll offend somebody, or make somebody mad.

zimv20

Sep 11, 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by G4scott

We've spent trillions on domestic programs that did, and still do nothing.

call me an ageist, but if someone's never been out on their own, never had to support themselves and others, never had to buy their own healthcare or pay their own way 100%, i have trouble believing their self-righteousness comes from a knowing place.

put yourself through college by working fulltime w/ a food budget of $10/week, then see how you feel.

Eamon Brennan

Sep 11, 2003, 06:17 PM

Get your figures straight.

At one point during Vietnam you were spending 25% of your GDP on the military. Over the years this cost has fallen drastically precisely because of your reductions in manpower.

Right now. the war in Iraq (It isn't over) is going to cost you 4.5% of this years GDP.

Read the original point again.

In real terms, how many wars and occupations do you think America could sustain. America is currently running a huge trade deficit, has a massive national debt and is currently looking at the prospect of losing Dollar hegemony to the Euro.

As to Germany and Japan. Perhaps you would like to read a little history. They rebuilt themselves for the most part.

What is going on in Iraq is not liberation. Where are the free elections. Where is the freedom of association. Where is the rule of law. Where is the recognition of the right to self-determination. Where are the Iraqi companies benefitting from the rebuilding programs (paid for by Iraqi oil).

This war was about oil, Full stop. not Liberation.

Eamon Brennan

toontra

Sep 11, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Eamon Brennan
This war was about oil, Full stop. not Liberation.

Not only oil, Eamon! It was also political expediency on behalf of Bush and the Republicans, desperate to appease the understandable anger and insecurity felt in the US resulting from 9/11 after an inconclusive campaign in Afghanistan.

But mostly oil, yes!

Pinto

Sep 11, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Saddam was bad enough, if Dubya had made the case that this was a humanitarian effort he would be in much better shape politically than he is right now. But he was obviously afraid that if he only made the humanitarian case he wouldn't get the support he needed to go to war.

Considering the US's previous support of Saddam and of other murderous dictators, no one would ever have believed that the US would risk lives and spend all this money just for humanitarian reasons.

The fact that the US says it has no interest in counting the civilian casualties of the war, just further shows that they have no interest in the lives of Iraqis.

wwworry

Sep 11, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by G4scott
We've spent trillions on domestic programs that did, and still do nothing.

What's the one govt. agency that has never been able to account for it's spending? The defence department. What agency figures it will never be able to accurately account for the money they get so now they are exempt from any sort of accounting? The defence department. What govt. agancy has the GAO identified as by far the most corrupt and wasteful. The defence department.

We allocated $400 billion last year to the defence dept. and that does not include doing anything. Wars are extra. So what was the $400 billion for?!

Wasn't spending more than the rest of the world combined on military enough? They added $75 billion more! Holy crap we're getting screwed!

iPC

Sep 12, 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by zimv20
or sarcasm analysis yours.

fwiw, i used to work in the defense industry.
Good for you. What percentage of defense industry workers are analysts? .001 maybe?

Besides, I could interpret your statement as "I used to sweep floors at the Pentagon" if I wanted to.

j/k

Too bad sarcasm doesn't work in writing very well.... oh well.

We allocated $400 billion last year to the defence dept. and that does not include doing anything. Wars are extra. So what was the $400 billion for?!
I am guessing it is not cheap to have 4 active branches of the military running year round, all with their own bases all over the world, clothing and feeding our troops, giving them shelter, the equipment to do their job, the training to use the equipment the right way etc etc etc. $400B did not go into some mysterious black project. Most of it is very legitimate expenses. Hell, they even paying retirement, as well as paying benefits for those family members of men and women killed in the line of duty.

Desertrat

Sep 12, 2003, 03:46 PM

Eamon, maybe we're talking past each other. What you think I mean ain't--apparently--what I thought I meant. :)

"This is the core of the argument. One country's sovreignity takes precedence over another country's economic targets."

I'm not arguing in favor of ignoring the sovereignty issue. I'm more, I think, pointing to the "why" of certain actions, and also in comparing them to precedents. That's why I bring up what we did in Serbia as a precedent for what we just did in Iraq. Serbia was accepted as a Good Thing; now, Dubya is hammered more for being a stoopid salesman in doing the same basic deal. Both involved violations of national sovereignty

Still, I see the overall policies of all developed nations, not just the U.S., as having to do with stable governmental systems of whatever sort in those countries whose resources are necessary for the economic well-being of today's world. The U.S. is stepping out front, and other governments are willing to benefit therefrom.

This doesn't mean I think the methodology, the execution of policy, is always correct.

'Rat

Eamon Brennan

Sep 12, 2003, 03:56 PM

Let me see if I can get this straight.

You think that Serbia was a good thing. And that Serbia violated national sovriegnity. Therefore violating national sovriegnity is always a good thing?

Strange logic.

Even if Serbia was justified (which is very dodgy ground, seeing as NATO bombed a country back to the stone age on the basis of accusations of genocide that has never been remotely proven.), you can't use that as an excuse to invade any country you like.

As for America wanting stability. Did they want stability in Iran in 53, or Guatemala in 54, or Salvador in 73.

Basically rat, you are suffering from moral blindness.

You do not, I repeat not, have the right to interfere with any country on the grounds that you require stability in the world.

Let me put it another way. Does any country in the world have a right to interfere in America's internal affairs?

Eamon

Desertrat

Sep 12, 2003, 04:21 PM

No, I thought that the Serbia deal was none of our business. I thought it was a violation of national sovereignty. I was in an apparently small minority.

I can't say anything one way or the other about anybody on this board, but I know people who supported our "Serbia Thing" who are adamantly opposed to our "Iraq Thing". My problem is that I can at least see some U.S. national interest in Iraq that I believe was not present in Serbia. I guess that a desire for consistent thought is a hobgoblin of my small mind. :)

My son lives in southern Germany, and travels a lot as a racing mechanic for GP motorcyles. I asked him to ask around about various European attitudes, back when we first went into Bosnia (1991?). According to him, most folks around Germany, Austria, Italy, and a few other countries figured that the "Balkanese" were all crazy as rats, and the sooner they killed each other off, the better.

Geopolitically, the value of the Balkans is for oil-pieline routes into central or western Europe--which is why I like to tweak folks about "Clintonoil". :)

I guess a proper question in all this might be about how much evil within a country, brought about by its regime, is tolerated before it outweighs the rights of national sovereignty? Had Hitler limited himself to the 1938 borders, should his efforts against Jews and Gypsies and "other undesirables" have been ignored as an internal, "sovereign" affair?

'Rat

Eamon Brennan

Sep 12, 2003, 04:40 PM

Rat

Hitlers actions against the jews and the Romany tribes were carried out with the full knowledge of every country in Europe and America. If he had stayed within his borders nothing would have been done, by any country.

If it is a moral case then why have we stayed out of Chile, or Indonesia, or Zimbabwe.

Saddam's Husseins actions against his own people were a good enough reason for a war of liberation. But we both know that a war of liberation didn't take place. A war of occupation did.

Does it not bother you that the new regime has no legitimacy. That it removes people in the middle of the night without trial. That innocent people are shot for demonstrating peacefully in the streets. That criminals have been appointed to the puppet government.

There was no US interest in Iraq. No WMD, no connections with Al Queda or September 11, and a military force that had been destroyed 10 years earlier.

For your information the Balkanese are not crazy as rats. They just have never had the chance to work out their own destinies without other European countries ****ing them up. Be it Austro-hungary, Germany, Britain or Russia.

Eamon

mactastic

Sep 12, 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
Dubya is hammered more for being a stoopid salesman in doing the same basic deal.

Yes! I would be a lot happier about our situation in Iraq if Dubya had put as much effort into coalition building as Clinton did for Kosovo (where he did an end run around the UN and didn't manage to piss off our close allies) and GHW Bush did the first time around. And as far as intellectually consistent thought, I was for the humanitarian aid in the Balkans, and I am for a humanitarian mission in Iraq. Consistent enough? I just don't see the Iraq action as one of humanitarian concern. I see the US shouldering a burden it didn't need to for very little gain or appreciation. If all we really cared about was how badly Saddam treated his people, we would be more than happy to turn this sour mess over to the UN and let the world community deal with it.

Desertrat

Sep 12, 2003, 09:07 PM

"Hitlers actions against the jews and the Romany tribes were carried out with the full knowledge of every country in Europe and America. If he had stayed within his borders nothing would have been done, by any country."

That's one of those "ifs" for which I'll take your word...

"If it is a moral case then why have we stayed out of Chile, or Indonesia, or Zimbabwe."

The probable attitude, aside from seeing it as a local problem was, "It's just too much trouble."

"Saddam's Husseins actions against his own people were a good enough reason for a war of liberation. But we both know that a war of liberation didn't take place. A war of occupation did."

You know that; I don't. For me, it's a case of "It remains to be seen." I'm in no hurry. As I've said, the Arab League has now accepted the new government, and things are progressing...

"hat it removes people in the middle of the night without trial. That innocent people are shot for demonstrating peacefully in the streets. That criminals have been appointed to the puppet government."

You know that; I don't.

"here was no US interest in Iraq. No WMD, no connections with Al Queda or September 11, and a military force that had been destroyed 10 years earlier."

Certainly there's a US interest in Iraq. Oil.

"or your information the Balkanese are not crazy as rats. They just have never had the chance to work out their own destinies without other European countries ****ing them up. Be it Austro-hungary, Germany, Britain or Russia."

I didn't say they were. Their proximate neighbors said they were, per a purely non-representative polling around the racing circuit. Still, it gives a better idea of the general non-interest by Europeans than some sort of News Lite from our usual talking heads.

Look: Various governments go to tut-tutting over some inhumanity. The folks at the UN natter away about those evils. Fine. Nothing gets done. Then, after nobody has shown any willingness to do a danged thing, the U.S. steps in. Then, these same people go to nattering about the evils of the U.S. and all the bad-nasty Imperialists here. I've been watching that nonsense since the UN started.

There are times when I get just real isolationist. Bring all the troops, planes, ships, tanks and whatever back home. And sit and watch.

:), 'Rat