BTA, The central point I have been making all along is that Saddam was proven dangerous, and that nothing had changed to make him not dangerous. 12 years were spent trying to convince him to give up and cooperate with the world community with very poor results.Well, the very things that made him dangerous, his massive army crushed and his arsenal of WMD evaporated. The factories were destroyed, munitions destroyed and the stuff he might have hidden - well, they're harmless goo (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,794759,00.html) today. So what kind of a threat, except for beeing evil and plotting war (like .. perhaps ... Perle and Wolfowitz), was Saddam in 2003?
Well, unlike Perle and Wolfowitz, Saddam probably lacked the assets that would have made him a threat for foreign countries.

The very fact that none of iraqs neighbour countries, except US-pet Kuwait, really feared Saddam in 2003 should tell you something.
The whole spin about the menace originating from Saddam has more holes than a swiss cheese. The question of honesty and truthfulness in the Bush administration, and the question of responsibilities in Washington is also an interesting aspect.

Even more interesting is the question if the US public will enforce consequences after the white house spin-docterism and adventurism. But that may need a few more GIs dead, because no one cares about the "ragheads" killed as a result of that adventure, which ... officially ... were planned to be rescued but unfortunately did not live long enough to see that day. Ah yes, freedom has a price :rolleyes:

And that is the depressing part, seemingly the US public opinion will only change as a result of US soldiers dead, and then they will punish Bush for getting americans killed, and not question him for messing up other countries on advice of his daddy's old buddies. But look ahead, the right wingers try to bring you in the right mood for the future: "We Can Take It" (http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=147) (casualties)" ... Well, good fun then. Coupled with "We'll get better as we do it more often." that's really bad prospects.

Isn't it kinda amazing that most of the pre-war concerns - that the US have no real plan for post-war iraq, the doubt about the spin around Iraq + Al-Quaida and the WMD - most of which were scoffed in right media as godless Saddam-hugging - pointed out to be in fact right? That also tells a tale about the efficiency of the campaign against critics in the US.

[ July 22, 2003, 00:24: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ring around the rosies, pocket full of posies, ashes, ashes, we all fall down.

As he trudg'd along to school,
It was always Johnny's rule
To be looking at the sky
And the clouds that floated by;
But what just before him lay,
In his way,
Johnny never thought about.

Aah, exchanging niceties :rolleyes: Well, BTA rised the question on what this thread is actually still useful for. There were a few points on that above, and I'd like to add another one:
For some americans this here seems to look like a nice Kindergarten, where we silly euros, hopelessly biased, bash america (yes, hatred mut drive us, so evil are we) wherever we have a chance to do so. Well that's for sure, whatever we post here, it can't stop Bush making stupid things. But that isn't the point: The constant babbling here is about a reason and this thread's title indeed is program: "How come the US haven't found any nukes in Iraq?"

In the months leading to the war, administraton officials laid out a case that the Hussein regime posed a direct threat to the United States that required immediate military action.
That was, foremost, justified with Saddam's WMD program. Well, the threat originating from it wasn't ... err ... quite as imminent as declared, and frankly the intelligence community actually just didn't know - but no problem. The politicians *knew* where the spys didn't. It shouldn't be that way.

And so the question - was there a *need* for war? makes sense. It's about finding and providing reasons, motives and background info. The stuff you read here is most certainly not on FOX.

By keeping the discussion alive we can also witness how the US gvt is revising the facts every two weeks to meet the advancing public criticism - and that's also a thrilling thing to experience - when you don't mind to look close.

Even though Blair is shaking for this spin, the US public still, against all odds, seem to need more, seemingly convinced that Saddam was a threat to the US ... somehow. It's about questioning gut-feeling and keeping the questions awake before things get lost in everyday business.

It sure needs a special breed of people to be happy with White House spokesman Scott McClellan who on thursday, when asked wthere the president mislead the american people, said: "Saddam Hussein is gone; he is no more. He cannot use his weapons of mass destruction."Eyebrows anyone? Well, I think it's at least not a satisfying reply ... not to mention that it is no answer ...

My point was, this behemoth started April 14. On April 17 the exact same stuff was posted that was posted 3 months later. Ring around the rosies.

It's old and its non-productive in that everyone has stated their view and look back three months ago nothing has changed. I like how it is insinuated if you point this out that you are inferior to those who would like to rehash the same thing over and over - either naive or stupid is the implication. Now, I'm also struck by the attitude expressed by more than one poster, both publicly and through unsolicited PM, that they are trying to 'educate' Americans and 'tell them the truth' about what is happening. This holier-than-thou attitude is also old. So, I'll just assert what I perceive to be a couple of common feelings - just because some tire of an unproductive argument doesn't make us stupid, nor does it make us uncaring or oblivious. I mean, look back over this thread. Try to objectively look at how it was kept alive for months by the same people saying the same thing every bit of it negative. No wonder Schroeder ran on his platform and won - he could do whatever he'd like domestically if the 300+ negative topics about the US vs. the handful of threads mentioning Germany is any indication.

It's like when a dog insists on rolling around in a dead rodent - it stinks.

What stinks is what is happening to my country. It is being run into the ground by incompentence and people who wouldn't know the truth if it fell from the ceiling and landed on top of them.

It's a shame that some have more loyalty to their party leaders than to the best interest of the nation. There are a few neocons who would like nothing better then for this debate to go away, because their "guy" is paying the price for being an arrogant, incompetent liar. Well, this debate is not going away, because real American soldiers are dying everyday. That stinks. So you may not like this debate, but just deal with it anyway.

Well, when all in this thread sounds as familiar to you and kinda just like 3 months ago, that's perhaps because not much has changed since: The Bush crew still does the same silly things, tries to keep up the same half-truths, except that they are now forced to justify themselves, trying to avoid that by digging in.

I find it striking that the "They will have a good reason" changed to "Ok they hadn't, but at least Saddam is gone" and go on as usual humming the happy tune. US public opinion is very much inert.
Just read the posts in defence of the points the Bush administration has brought up and compare them with what you know today, like perhaps the very much persuasive Powell speech and compare it with info available today.
The Gulf War II preparations were run like an elections campaign - all mights, ifs, perhapses of the intelligence reports beeing cut as they wouldn't persuade the people into attacking iraq.
I would say the difference between "Saddam might have WMD; we don't know. If so he could ready them as fast as 45 min." and "Saddam has WMD and he can make them ready at 45min" is one that qualifies as a lie.
And that is just one point in this jungle of spin doctored half-truths and ... gross exaggerations.
Today, with all the "clear intelligence" crushed and relativised in about every detail there are still no consequences in the US. Everything's fine it seems.

Fine, this pisses you off and perhaps this is my Radio Free USA but we here also suffer the Krauthammers, Perles and even Kissingers (the man who installed Pinochet), coming over, writing in newspapers and popping up in TV shows, giving us lessons in true humanity and explaining to us the menace by Saddam and his phantom WMD while actually promoting geostrategy - so I can't see how much holier-than-you I should be.
I do my very best to question and counter the arguments brought up in defence of Bush Jr.

If you don't like it, don't read it. But if you read it, give it a chance. There is something wrong in the US - and looking into the air insulted while going on as usual because we continue bugging you with that silly stuff you don't like, in that silly sound you don't like - is not going to change it.

Some interesting insight about Mr. Probst, ex-Pentagon official and his informal link to ultranationalist think-tankers (which make even Wolfowitz look tame and sane), namely renowned Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/), heading a think-tank named Middle East Forum (http://www.meforum.org/). Pipes think tank defines it's task so:
The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East.Pipes, an ideologue in first place, got himself a name for demanding to deal with un-american professors teaching heresy at US universities (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/988) - in a project dubbed campus watch (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/719). It is IMO perfectly in line with the current US administration policy to nominate (http://www.supportingdanielpipes.org/moreinfo.php) a rabid warhead like him for the United States Institute of Peace (http://www.usip.org/), created by Congress to promote the peaceful resolution of international conflicts.
But that's not really a surprise as he's a strong fan of the Pax Americana which he characterises as follows: Impose a double standard: Act on the premise that the U.S. government alone "is permitted to use force against other agents, who are not permitted to use force."
(for more, check the link below)He's seemingly convinced that arabs are less civilised, suggesting that it is necessary to reconstruct their polities along civilised lines (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/1200.htm). Hmm, the fox guarding the henhouse?

So the question discussed there is: Was Probst crossing the line? (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8415)

I find it kinda illuminating considering the influential think-tankers which are strongly represented in todays NSC. This sort of think-tank work is lobbying beyond public control. How does that match the demands of transparency and democracy?

The key problem with think tanks, as they are lobby houses, is that they to some degree reflect the desires and opinions of their donors. And the think-tanks are usually silent about who's paying them for what.

That's the second point about transparency: It's about who's infuencing the think tanks for what and then it's about how the think tanks influence the policymakers.

That's the key problem with them: They aren't neutral.

This (http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/bizarro/about.htm) sums up my feelings pretty well.

Some nice bit is the recent US presidential order 13303 on Iraq (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-13412.htm): I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and

(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products [...]Sounds nice, on first sight it seems as if all Iraqi oil revenues are going into the Development Fund for Iraq.
Well, that's not quite correct: The points (a) and (b) are independent above. If any oil company goes in to pump Iraqi oil, no organization can sue to have the revenues go to a just cause. The executive order says that oil companies may pump Iraqi oil without fear of lawsuits.
Bush, new king of Iraq just decreed that no one, not even the iraqis who happen to be the new host of US oil interest*, can file a suit against what US oil companies do in Iraq - total immunity.
In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.
that one's from here (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8466).Iraq is looking into a bright, altruistically induced future ... ebentually the US gvt went there to help ...

* Which is one of the reasons for the US action in Iraq ...
** a nice polemic on Bush's ... achievements here (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8455).

i still think that if U.S. cant the WMDs, theyll bring them in. If they control Iraq's airfields, they can walk in some chemicals, nukes, etc. and claim they "found" it. Noone would ever REALLy know.......unless they have a "Made in U.S." stamped somewhere on it.
If its not there, theyll put it there. (i.e. Democracy)

Because there ARE NO nuces in Iraque. It was all a ruse. It was a setup to give us a reason to go over there. It's really quite simple, we want their oil, and they don't wont to let us have any, so we make up the whole thing about chemical weapons and off we go launching a full scale war on Iraque. More oil for the US...

That is a very old and bias statement, if so then why didn't the UN support the attack?
We need oil too you know

@theassassin
i still think that if U.S. cant the WMDs, theyll bring them in. If they control Iraq's airfields, they can walk in some chemicals, nukes, etc. and claim they "found" it. Noone would ever REALLy know.......unless they have a "Made in U.S." stamped somewhere on it.
Then why hasn't it happened already? If Bush wanted to pull a bag job, he would have done it already, instead of taking all of the political heat that he is taking.

EDIT: Removed off topic material per Tals comments below. I apologize to all here for misrepresenting their comments and going off topic.

[ July 31, 2003, 22:14: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Further to Jack Funk’s post, I could be wrong, but I think there would need to be too many people involved in planting WMD’s for it to be kept secret for long, particularly now that everything the U.S. does in Iraq these days is put under a microscope.

With respect to the “anti-American venom”, I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand, I strongly believe that the criticism being directed towards the U.S. these days is justified. On the other hand, as far as the AoDA goes, I agree with Jack Funk (and Laches in the other thread he mentioned) that the whole debate here is getting pretty laboured. This thread alone is pushing 300 posts, and a lot of them seem to be re-hashing the same comments. However, rather than complaining about any perceived focus of the Alley on US-bashing, a more effective way to deal with it would be to: a) stop posting on the offending threads, and b) create new topics of your own (as Laches has done), and hope that other members find them more interesting.

I'm sure that this has been said before, but, it's a lose-lose situation for the U.S. If weapons are found, then most folks here will say that it was a bag job.

EDIT: Removed off topic material per Tals comments below. I apologize to all here for misrepresenting their comments and going off topic.

[ July 31, 2003, 22:14: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Please stop complaining about some imaginary USA bashing, especially since it is off-topic in this thread... No one is forcing you to read or reply to it. AoDA is here for exchange of opinions by anyone, and posts will not be closed or deleted just because someone doesn't like what is written in them. This forum is neutral - anyone can post in it whatever they want to discuss, provided they stay within the limits of AoDA rules.

You are very welcome to open a counter thread, praising USA for all the good it did in Iraq, if this thread bothers you. Make it a requirement that people only post positive things in it, even. (And yes, the moderators will delete any posts that don't comply with your initial requirements.) I'm sure that if the majority of Americans here feel supportive of that opinion, they will reply in the post backing you up. But if not, I don't see what your problem is. There is no mindless bashing of USA going on here. From what I read of it, it's a rational debate with well-presented arguments, and I see no reason whatsoever to call it "USA bashing", unless you want to call it that just because it dares doubt USA in the first place. Yes, it is repetative, but so are the counter-arguments.

You can say that you just want this thread to go away because you don't like it - great, I can understand that. But coming here and calling it "USA bashing" or "ridiculous anti-American venom" is just plain silly. Do you actually believe anyone participating in this thread has something to gain from posting their opinions?

[ July 31, 2003, 21:55: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Oh I dunno Tal, and I'll probably get criticized for this, but so far there has been:

comparisons to Nazis, child murderers, the Deutschland (more Nazis), and fascists. So far there have been statements that those who agree with the Iraq campaign are slow and part of a herd that is unable to think. There have also, imo, been accusations of racism.

This has been admitted by at least one poster who said he wanted to call those who disagreed with him in America slow members of a herd as a "calculated provocation."

Perhaps "calculated provocation" doesn't arise to the level of flaming, that isn't my call to make, but if people are posting threads about America with the stated intent of 'calculated provocation' I'm not entirely sure it presents a complete picture to then criticize those being provoked as imagining things. I mean, if you intend to provoke...

That's my last 2 cents, and I may've overstepped my bounds.

Edit - all this comes with the admission that I have likely overreacted here and elsewhere. However, I do believe it is unfair to lay the entirety of the blame for these unpleasant situations down to Americans simply being crazy or nuts or ultra sensitive or whatever.

[ August 01, 2003, 06:23: Message edited by: Laches ]

@ Jack Funk:
Well, U.S. could stall, say that Saddam hid the weapons REALLy well, and then say that it was all worth it....

Oh I dunno Tal, and I'll probably get criticized for this, but so far there has been:

comparisons to Nazis, child murderers, the Deutschland (more Nazis), and fascists. So far there have been statements that those who agree with the Iraq campaign are slow and part of a herd that is unable to think. There have also, imo, been accusations of racism.Such crude generalizations are against the rules of this forum, and if I or BTA spotted any of them, we would have sanctioned them. As you obviously have, I don't know why didn't you let BTA or me know about them, as per AoDA rules, so we could punish the offenders. Neither me nor BTA read every single thing on the forums, especially in AoDA. So it's up to the participants in the threads to report things we miss.

So quit complaining about some some things, somewhere, and start giving concrete links with rules violations to me or BTA, in PM, as per AoDA rules: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000171

(End of off-topic discussion, thank you.)

@the assassin

@ Jack Funk:
Well, U.S. could stall, say that Saddam hid the weapons REALLy well, and then say that it was all worth it.... Nonsense. Why would Bush take all of the political heat that he is taking? Some members of congress have suggested impeachment might be appropriate.
If there was going to be a bag job, it would have been done by now.

I agree that it is likely that Bush overstated the threat (and this pisses me off). However, I do believe that he really thought that SOME wmds existed (as did the U.N.). If he was lying about everything, then he should be impeached and tried for any crime that could be made to stick.

I agree that the Bush crew is unlikely to plant WMDs in iraq - their actions are under microscope atm and would they be caught presenting bogus WMD, perhaps brought in from Johnston Island, that would be their end.

Bush may not be the smartest, but he has what someone else called a bullsh*t detector. I partly agree on that. Bush isn't suicidal - he may be dependent on advisors like a baby on the mother but he certainly has understood that there is a limit of deception the US audience, the relevant one as they are the voters, is willing to accept.
The big show Bush made about the two sons of Saddam is IMO an indicator that he is not yet desperate enough to play this card - instead he has preferred to move on (in Ari Fleischer's words) and now floats above the petty dispute about the justification of the iraq war, resting on his victor's laurels.

Down on the earth the critics still harvest the fertile field of flaws, spins and lies by the Bush crew. The neocons have an obsession with "noble lies", justified by a higher "moral clarity".

Neocon pundit Michael Ledeen happily praised strategic deception in his book "Macciavelli on Modern Leadership", pointing out that according to neocon philosophy "lying is central to the survival of the nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if your enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased."
The US step to consult the UN even though they wanted to go to war anway (it seems they even surprised their british allies there), as well as the "Why we need to attack Iraq"-PR were such strategic deceptions.
And it indeed took people a while to look through that little jungle of spin and lie the US gvt piled up in the preface of the war, and it now causes concern and confusion.

Well, strategic deception may probably be justified when national survival is at stake - but considering Saddam's phantom WMDs that was hardly the case here.

It is widely unknown that iraqi oil was central to US energy planning (for the next 50 years or so) by Cheney's secret energy comission (and Cheney is very relucant to give info about what they've been speaking about and planning for); the hegemony ideas of the neocons were widely scoffed as too far off and as conspiracy theorist stuff - but IMO they are little to pointed to be taken that lightly. It also remained widely unnoticed that the Bush crew invaded Iraq without exit-strategy because it was intended to stay (with view on pressuring Iran and Syria) and because Iraqi sovereignty wasn't on the neocon agenda. The global view of the neocons was not taken serious in public. They are very serious people.

Krystol and Kagan point out in their (PNAC sponsored) Book "The War over Iraq" that "the mission is more than Iraq" and elaborate further how Iraq is just the beginning of the execution of the new role for the US in the 21st century. However, the US public hasn't been connected with this vision (which is a blessing).

Kristol and Kagan wrote 1996 in a Foreign Affairs piece that one of the major conditions for the neocon plan for 'Benevolent Global Hegemony' was that the public needs to have a clear understanding of it to gain popular support. The FOX assisted bullying was good enough to supress dissent and deafen the audience for the time of the war - but it didn't win them for an american empire.

The neocons didn't try to win america for their hegmony plans - I don't know why. Be it that they didn't trust them to agree or that they were just caught in leadership hubris of the Straussian school - that is now only interesting for historians, or, now that would be nice (admittedly unlikely) to see, perhaps judges.

It is reassuring and comforting to see that the US public seemingly has no interest in an empire, despite the seasonal gung-ho flag weaving. Seems as if the neocons have wasted their chance after 9/11, and this disaster was seen as a gift by them allowing to put into reality their vision, and are slowly loosing ground - they are digging in already.

The price for that? Well, afganistan is less stable than when the Taliban still ruled, the US hiring the warlords who rubbled afghanistan after the russians withdrew re-empowered the real butchers there, the taliban who opposed Al Quaida's radicalism are much more likely to have turned to them now, the puppet-president would probably die the very day the west pulls out, US soldiers die regularly there too.
And as for Iraq: The plug & play invasion the neocons hoped for didn't happen and the US will have to maintain a longer presence in a country where they are not welcome to avoid to leave another vaccuum where, as in afganistan and before in bosnia, international cross-border terrorists can flourish - did anyone of them ever read a history book?
A few thousand people dead, allies alienated because of agressive bulldozer-type foreign policy by the pentagon hawks ("Who's not with us is against us"), a few billions in ammo blown up, new burdens for longtime presence, defense budged sky-high, just as the gvt debths. Swell.

Pretty high a price for a megalomaniac experiment.

EDIT: I edited out some details, added a few and, first of all, dealt with my typos.

[ August 02, 2003, 09:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa - You are right, Americans would never agree with such a plan. You have said it before that 9/11 was what they needed to get the public to go along with a "preemptive attack" policy. Without 9/11 the conservatives would be in bad shape here. Americans by nature are opposed to such a doctrine. I understand what impact 9/11 has had on how they view the rest of the world now, but it is emotional and out of fear that the next attack will be worse. That is why they go along with these guys, IMO. I know that sounds simplistic but if you talk to most people here they like the "tough talk" of Bush and the gang.

But they have not got Bin Laden, have not solved the anthrax case and we will be losing Americans lives and dollars in Iraq for years. That is the record that this bunch has to go on. It would have been cheaper to just buy all the oil in the world and put it in the ground somewhere. But as you have said, in so many words, these guys want to create an "American Century." That is the real reason for all this nonsense.

It is kinda ironic to see how much oil the US administration ordered their war mashine to burn in the war on Iraq - to gain free oilflow. I gain gain the impression that the maassive dependency of the US on airpower reflects in a higher dependency on oil.

And of course people like the tough talk- it suggests the gvt is strong enough to be abe to say so and that again is reasssuring, saying: "The US is a force to recon with!" Well, there are worse things to say about the US and this one is broadly agreeable.

As for Bin Laden getting out of sight with gvt suddenly focusing on iraq and saddam - that isn't that remarkable. Wolfowitz is said to (read Bob Woodward's "Bush at War") have opposed the action in afganistan as it wasn't in what he perceives as US national interest, and that was when the WTC was still smoking (sic).
As the neocons now dominate US foreign policy it isn't really a surprise to see Bin Laden's importance fading away.

Yes, the Taliban were retards and nasty to weman and christian missionaries, but they offered stability and were against drug trade. The warlords, from the glorious "northern alliance", ruling outside the capitol of Kabul today are probably much worse. I very much doubt that crushing the Taliban and invading afghanistan has in any respect helped in fighting terror. It was an emotional reaction of retribution after a terrible crime - and as usual it didn't hit the real baddies.
The Al Quaida members killed in afganistan had fought in chechnya, and with US backing also against the serbs in bosnia, and even though they probably disliked the US the overwhelming majority wasn't involved in terrorist activities ahgainst the US.
Today the hunt for Bin Laden's is what it IMO should have been right from the start: A search by police authorities and intelligence agencies.

They offered stability ? I'd like to hear your defenition of stability then. If your face wasn't to their likings you got beat up in public, kids weren't allowed to play outside, women who accidentally showed some skin were beaten to death.... you call that stability ?

I know the people are probably not much better off today, but at least they can go outside again, and shave those friggin beards off for starters. Afghanistan will always be a warzone though, that's just how the people are. Farmers don't have plows, they have AK 47's, and they seem to not know any better.

Well, it's about how you look at it. Sure, the Taliban weren't a free society and compared to former lifestyle there were limitations and restrictions.
But compared to former ligfestyle there were also improvements: Like no longer beeing under siege in Kabul, no more daily shelling, no fighting on the streets, no more marauding gangs in the countryside.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like the Taliban, but don't have any illusions about the warlords. It was them and not the russians who eventually tore apart afganistan - without any respect for human lives except from their own ethnic group. Sure, the northern alliance wouldn't have cared about ancient buddhas - except if they would have been able to sell them.

It is a pity that only a group of zealot "Hinterwäldler" was needed to restore order. Compared to the terror of war even taliban style stability is a progress. And if the price is growing abeard, weman no longer beeing allowed to work in hospitals or leave the house that's sad but probably the repression of people is better than the death of tens of thousands in a continued civil war.
But were getting :yot:

But the Taliban were doing the killing now, and they did it on a daily basis. The national footballstadium was turned into an executionground.

and i'm not sure where i'd rather be... in a city under siege, or in a city where i can be tortured for speaking a little too loud.

I think that a decade of civil war lowers your standards. The Taliban were *welcome* first as a relief from the previous warlords.

A city under siege is characterised by indiscriminate killing. Go along a street and get hit by a shell? Sh*t happens, what a silly day for your family. Marauding fighters took away everything you had? A shell destroyed your house and now you're both without food *and* homeless?

The major difference between the Taliban executing people is that they enforced a creepy interpretation of Islam and the sharia. Keep to that codex and you have a not very free time but you come along.
One example: Remember these christian aid workers? They thought they should, even though it was well known that it was strictly permitted, missionise the afghans. The Taliba trialed them.

As for the footbal stadium. So what? The Taliban don't have the money to create sterile supermax death rows, a stadium is good enough, and public punishment deters. And besides, executions in public, like on market places, were common in europe 200 years ago, and are still in china (also in stadiums) and Saudi Arabia (market places).
In the end the Taliban still had something like a rule of law, a rudimentary and for us alien form but still.

Well, it doesn't seem all that different to me. Either way the Afghans have a crappy life, with or without the Taliban.

Well, I think what Prozac was pointing on was the difference of beeing killed as a civvie in a warzone or beeing accused of having violated the law, beeing trialed and punished. And that is IMO indeed a significant difference.

But I mainly agree, but I'd like to clarify: the afghans had a crappy life with and a differently crappy life without Taliban.

I understand what impact 9/11 has had on how they view the rest of the world now, but it is emotional and out of fear that the next attack will be worse. That is why they go along with these guys, IMO. I know that sounds simplistic but if you talk to most people here they like the "tough talk" of Bush and the gang.
Maybe what you say Chandos is true and these poll outcomes are being generated by this fear, but most USA citizens fail to see that the actions of their goverment (and i accuse only the goverment not the people) is a very sure path to have another attack against their nation and more specifically against innocent people, because Bush and his gang are very well protected and that is the reason they talk tough.
Maybe it is time for the people of USA to think WHY do these nations hate us and try to take a peacefull step towards peace and prosperity. And if they see this point of view they will understand that no one is sinless (except god) and furthermore that some people in their goverment think they are gods (therefore they are always right) meaning they are dangerous to everyone and primarily to the USA not to mention other countries or regions or continents
They offered stability ? I'd like to hear your defenition of stability then. If your face wasn't to their likings you got beat up in public, kids weren't allowed to play outside, women who accidentally showed some skin were beaten to death.... you call that stability ?
Maybe to you or a European citizen this means the return of the Dark ages or something equally bad.
But they were following Saria the islam law and they had decided to live under that law in his full power. So even if you don't like it or me they made a choice and this choice (because Taliban had a large support from the people when they started to take control) gave them peace. To us this may seem trivial but for a country being tormented by war for 80 continuous years it is a big deal. And as i said Sharia was their choice if they did not like it they should have not supported the Talibans when first appeared.
But to get back to my point even now these laws of the Quoran are applied and especially to the weaker members of the society (women, children, old people) so what do we have now;
We have a country that is divided in regions, which regions are ruled by a warlord each and different laws apply to each region according to the whims of the warlord. We have these warlords to try to come up with some money for their bank accounts (ups i mean people ;) ) and their easiest way to do this is to start again cropping this white poppy, which is the main substance for heroin skyrocketing its production. Furthermore they use that old tactics of the feudalistic system where whichever caravan or group of people passes from their territories must pay a tribute or die. Women do still wear this burga and thiefs still lose their hands. Not to mention that from a reportage in TV news they still kill women that conducted adultery with rocks and stones and guns. I don't know it for sure (since i haven't see something like that with my eyes after Talibans) but this channel is state channel and is very carefull at what it says.
So now tell me are they somehow better than their previous situation; I think not and i fear that this is not the last we heard from Afganistan

They lived by the Sharia and beyond. You're acting like the entire population was living happily under the rule of the Taliban. Then how come i saw all those cheering people in the streets when the Americans kicked their ugly asses out of Kabul ?

Even the ayatollah of Iran, who may be considered one of the most conservative islamists, said openly that the taliban's way of living by the q'uran was an outrage. And you're defending their way of life ? Or try to make it sound that life wasn't that bad in Afghanistan ? That things could be worse ?

You gotta be joking me. That's the dumbest thing i've heard in a long time.

Shame on the US for getting rid of such a fine regime, under which Afghanistan prospered like noone has ever prospered before. Shame on the US for endangering the stability in the region. Shame on the US for taking away a perfectly healthy atmosphere in a country where everyone was merry and gay.

Please open a new topic if you want to discuss the Taliban in depth, this is off topic here.

Mithrantir - Doesn't it seem odd how at selective times the government will suddenly post warnings that attacks may be about to happen? (we just had one). Then nothing happens and nothing more is said in the news. It is the opinion of at least a few of us that the Bush gang is using this to keep the fear factor going.

It may sound strange but after the phony WMD in Iraq I would not put it past these guys to be reminding Americans about the "war on terror." Americans might forget and begin to focus on something like how poor the economy is and how much worse off they are now than they were before the 2000 election.

Not to get off topic but I'm glad that we at least chased Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. We had every right to go after Bin Laden almost regardless of where he was, IMO. But that is a part of what is happening in the big picture: No Bin Laden, no WMD, no democracy for Iraq, for remember that democracy was "going to spread like wildfire through the Middle East" once it was established in Iraq. Fat chance.

A bit off topic, but:

@ Chandos the Red - Coincidentally, on T.V. this morning, I saw an interview with a terrorism expert from Harvard. He thinks that the reason that there hasn't been another attack in the U.S. is because the terrorists are going to wait untile the U.S. fully implements their new security measures, and then very carefully review those measures for weaknesses. Once they done that, they will plan their attack and then strike. It could be years before anything happens.

More on topic, and going back a few posts, I think the U.S. would almost be better off if they didn't find any WMD's. That way, they can stick to their story that that acted on bad information, and nobody could accuse them of planting the WMD's.

[ August 06, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Splunge ]

The neocons are eagerly working to eliminate the remaining dissenting voices in the US gvt: Not Iran is next, Powell is.

Check this: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/06/opinion/06DOWD.html

This is a nice, provocant view on the attempts for justification of the invasion of Iraq: Published on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 by the Boston Globe

America's Habit of Revenge

by James Carroll

''ALTHOUGH THE WAR did not make any immediate demands on me physically, while it lasted it put a complete stop to my artistic activity because it forced me into an agonizing reappraisal of my fundamental assumptions.'' These words were spoken by Thomas Mann in his Nobel laureate speech in 1929, a reflection of the broad psychological rupture inflicted on the European mind by World War I. But just as war can lead to the ''reappraisal of fundamental assumptions,'' it can do the opposite, reinforcing assumptions to the point of shutting down debate. That seems a more American story.

Tomorrow marks the 58th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Oceans of ink have been spilled on the questions of whether Harry Truman's decision to use the bomb was justified; whether the Japanese would have surrendered without it; whether the bomb, therefore, was truly an alternative to a bloody invasion; whether the bomb was actually aimed at intimidating the Russians; whether, in fact, given the momentum of war, Truman's decision was really a decision? Such questions never go fully away because each has some claim on the truth, even if only partial. But the ''fundamental assumption'' underlying the bomb's use is rarely addressed.

''Having found the bomb, we have used it.'' These are words spoken by President Truman in a radio address to the American people on the evening of Aug. 9, the day a second bomb fell on Nagasaki. ''We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare.''

President Truman, and others who justified the bomb, would rarely speak this way again - a direct articulation of revenge as a main motivation for the overwhelming destruction of the Japanese cities. In his radio remarks, Truman went on to add the other justifications: ''We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.'' But even the surrender, when it came, would prompt after-the-fact controversy, since, clinging to the emperor, it wasn't unconditional. If we accepted Japan's hedged surrender after the atomic bomb, why wouldn't we accept it before?

Every justification offered for the use of the atomic bomb would be clouded by ambiguity except one - revenge. It was the first justification Truman offered, speaking the primal truth, and it was the only justification the American people needed by then. But soon enough, revenge would disappear from all official explanations, and even Truman's critics would rarely address it except obliquely. Much better to debate the necessity of that invasion.

Americans do not like to acknowledge that a visceral lust for vengeance can be the main force behind national purpose, and that is why the Aug. 6 anniversary always arrives beclouded. In 1995, when the Smithsonian attempted to mount a retrospective exhibit observing the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a mainstream consensus slapped down any effort to ''reappraise the fundamental assumptions'' of the bomb's use. President Clinton declined to second-guess Truman, and the Smithsonian exhibit was canceled. What terrifies Americans is the possibility that stated reasons are distant from, or even unrelated to, the real reasons for the nation's behavior. But Truman had it right the first time: to understand Aug. 6, 1945, you must return to Dec. 7, 1941, the score that had to be settled.

Pearl Harbor resurfaced in the American memory on Sept. 11, 2001. Again and again, the Day of Infamy was invoked as the relevant precedent - the only other time the United States had suffered such a grievous blow. And just as before, there was never any doubt that the blow would be avenged. Moving quickly away from the unsatisfyingly abstract ''war on terrorism'' and then from the frustration of Osama bin Laden's escape in Afghanistan, President Bush took America to war against Iraq to satisfy that primordial need. And it worked. The United States of America clenched its fist the day the twin towers came down. Against Iraq, the United States finally threw a punch that landed. That is all that matters.

The controversy over the Bush administration's misleading ''justifications'' for the war in Iraq is a reprise of the endless debate over ''justifications'' offered for the atomic bomb. Neither set of questions grips the American conscience. There is no ''agonizing reappraisal of fundamental assumptions'' in this country. When we want our revenge, we take it. And, even as the flimsy rationales with which we cloak it are stripped away, we fervently deny that vengeance, not justice, defines our purpose.
Who cares if Saddam was a right target in the war on ... terror ... he was an a** anyway, right?

Wow, you guys have been reduced to quoting editorials from the NY Times and the Boston Globe. The two most liberal, socialist, anti-Bush newspapers in the U.S.

Bravo.

@ Jack

True, very true. I guess you could call them the "Neolibs"

Don't worry guys, there is still The Fox "News" channel.

[ August 08, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

It is a good thing that Fox News exists. Now they may go overboard, but they have shown the media (through ratings) that the public is no where near as liberal as they thought. In the long run this will force the media more towards the middle or they will lose even more of their influence.

The Great Snook - This is way off topic. But I would like nothing better than to discuss the role of the media and if it should matter to it if the population is conservative or liberal. Open a thread on this topic and I'll respond.

Jack Funk,
maybe that's because we are liberal, socialist, anti-Bush ... and really there are reasons to be - it's not because I'm jealous he got president, and has the job that is rightfully mine - you know, it should be ME ****ing up the middle east, and because he has all the fun I bash him wherever I can ... :rolleyes: and when I find an adequatly acidic article on Boston Globe or NY Times, or the british leftist Guardian I just *have to* post it :rolleyes: And so I reduced myself to posting leftist poison here :cry:

Worse Jack, the evil has spread - critical, unpatriotic and insubordinating articles can today even be found in the staunchly conservative Washinton Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31496-2003Aug7.html) or sometimes the Wall Street Journal*!
So even a staunchly pro-bush position can't eternally keep people from questioning one or two of the things the jolly crew in the whitehouse did in the last two years. The questions are there, some only ask more silent - of course - not so on FOX.

* No link, as I only read that in print, sorry ...

Maybe this can shed a little light on, at least, my problem with Bush and goons:

http://www.cdi.org/polling/22-bush-international-opinion.cfm

It is worth a read and from this (http://www.cdi.org/polling/) pretty interesting site.

@Prozac

Worse Jack, the evil has spread - critical, unpatriotic and insubordinating articles can today even be found in the staunchly conservative Washinton Post or sometimes the Wall Street Journal*! The "stauchly conservative Washington Post"?!? Conservative? The Washington Post? If you had said the Washington Times I would understand, but there is NOTHING conservative about the Washington Post.
As far as the WSJ is concerned, they go for balance on the editorial page.

Otherwise your rant was fine. I guess. :rolleyes:

Are you guys expecting me to quote Rush now?

Jack Funk - It depends on where an individual's outlook is centered. Would you consider the democratic party to be too liberal? I suspect you would. I left the democratic party several years back because I thought it was too conservative and not liberal enough. And my feeling has not changed. The same with the press. For me, The Washington Post is just a mainstream paper that is too luke warm on the issues. The NYT is a little more liberal. The WSJ is way too conservative and the editorial page is way out there on the right fringe. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure yours is different.

But the real issue here is the media and the war in Iraq, and WMD that were never found. The media has done OK with keeping some pressure on the Bush gang to make good on its claim, but overall the media has really gone along with the war itself.

The result is that the myth that Bush was a straight shooter with the American people has gone down the drain. But for the most part a majority of Americans still support Bush and the war, despite no WMD. I hope they get their money's worth because it's costing us dearly, in terms of life, credibility and dollars.

Warning, it's Tom Paine Time (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8718) again. However, the article refers to a Die Zeit article I red this weekend and it spares me the hassle and time to translate it myself.
It highlights the problems germany, and german intelligence, had with Bush's case for war against Iraq, eventually leading to the refusal to vote for a UN resolution for a war against Iraq by our government.

The nasty parallels drawn in this article are not mine. But the justification of an invasion with a fabricated excuse isn't really what I call a policy that gives you good company.

Ah Rags, ever the source of amusement. Reading that "source" with a skeptical eye given it's well understood heavy bias, you can see that your claim of "fabricated excuse" is a long stretch.

OK, then lets's leave out the ToPaine stuff and focus on the Die Zeit part - perhaps I should have done this right from the start: Die Zeit’s report leaves in tatters the "evidence" cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration spokesmen as the strongest proof that Iraq was using mobile trailers as laboratories to produce material for biological weapons.

German Intelligence on Powell’s "Solid" Sources

Bittner notes that, like their American counterparts, German intelligence officials had to hold their noses as Powell on February 5 at the United Nations played fast and loose with intelligence he insisted came from "solid sources." Powell’s specific claims concerning the mobile laboratories, it turns out, depended heavily -- perhaps entirely -- on a source of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s equivalent to the CIA. But the BND, it turns out, considered the source in no way "solid." A "senior German security official" told Die Zeit that, in passing the report to U.S. officials, the Germans made a point of noting "various problems with the source." In more diplomatic language, Die Zeit’s informant indicated that the BND’s "evaluation of the source was not altogether positive."

German officials remain in some confusion regarding the "four different sources" cited by Powell in presenting his case regarding the "biological laboratories." Berlin has not been told who the other three sources are. In this context, a German intelligence officer mentioned that there is always the danger of false confirmation, suggesting it is possible that the various reports can be traced back to the same original source, theirs -- that is, the one with which the Germans had "various problems."

Even if there are in fact multiple sources, the Germans wonder what reason there is to believe that the others are more "solid" than their own. Powell indicated that some of the sources he cited were Iraqi émigrés. While the BND would not give Die Zeit an official comment, Bittner notes pointedly that German intelligence "proceeds on the assumption that émigrés do not always tell the truth and that the picture they draw can be colored by political motives."

Plausible?

Despite all that, in an apparent bid to avoid taking the heat for appearing the constant naysayer on an issue of such neuralgic import in Washington, German intelligence officials say that, the dubious sourcing notwithstanding, they considered the information on the mobile biological laboratories "plausible."

In recent weeks, any "plausibility" has all but evaporated. Many biological warfare specialists in the United States and elsewhere were skeptical from the start. Now Defense Intelligence Agency specialists have joined their counterparts at the State Department and elsewhere in concluding that the two trailer/laboratories discovered in Iraq in early May are hydrogen-producing facilities for weather balloons to calibrate Iraqi artillery, as the Iraqis have said. The above piece of Powell's evidence is an example on how the US PR sexed up the thread by Iraq. Leave out "we have problems with that source" and "despite that it's plausible" and just state Iraq actually *has* infameous Winnebagos of Death is the classical pattern of about all the US administration's hype around the phantom menance by Saddam's WMD.

Seeing the info passed over to the US presented in that ... err ... simplified way by Powell at the UN certainly didn't help to convince the german gvt about solidity of the US evidence, not to mention the credibility of their claims.
After that it is fairly easy to assume that that show was primarily aimed on the US audience. Nice, that is way more moderate, bit on that here (http://www.cdi.org/polling/22-bush-international-opinion.cfm).

That was my point, to keep things short I just linked the article.

Well, really, that is the part of the article I was referring to.

The German intelligence was only one of apparently four different sources for the information. The Germans, not knowing what the other three sources are, can only speculate whether they were more solid or not, comment that it's possible the various sources trace back to their own, and "wonder" how these other sources could possibly be more solid than their own :rolleyes: .

That the Germans question the three sources doesn't mean the sources were not solid. It doesn't mean Powell was playing "fast and loose with intelligence".

The article then goes on to discount the fact that the Germans considered the information plausible, by making an unfounded claim that they were trying "to avoid taking the heat for appearing the constant naysayer".

Finally is says the "plausibility has all but evaporated" in recent weeks. Even if that's true, it has no bearing on the decisions that were made before the war.

So, I still say "fabricated excuse" is a long stretch.

The article was hinting on the BND source beeing an exile. The US asked a lot of exiles as well and it is quite possible that their sources were just as bad as the BND one. Or, that their sources had their info from the BND source and that this one was a liar. Or that the BND source had this unreliable info from another one who supplied the other two as well. There are a couple of options.

However, the key is that the source was an exile - with own interests. One wonderful example for a really unreliable exile is neocon pet Mr. Ahmend Chalabi.

And iirc it was this very exile who trumpeted that the Iraqis would welcome US troops with flowers and that it would be a plug and play invasion ( more here (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/10/1060454077509.html) ) and this man even got a chance to directly speak with the president even though he has barely any contacts to iraqis in country, nor any substantial following - so where would he have info from? That's just for his credentials (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2291649.stm).

It is reasonable to assume that the van story emerged from the Chalabi circle, and that it indeed originated from a single source - and as for credibility:
The story was proven wrong, substantially so. So the concerns about credibility were sound and well founded.
As were the the concern this bit might have been designed to meet the expectations of those asking (that is the rationale behind distrusting exiles) - and as a gift for those seeking ammo for the propaghanda war against Saddam by people profiting from a regime change in some way - by gaining a nice prestigious job in the post-war administration perhaps? So where please is the stretch?
It would be very instructive to learn more about the source and to try to find out more about its motivation but I don't think I'm that far off.

That is the really interesting part. That it was proven wrong shouldn't really come as a surprise. The BND doubted. The CIA doubted. The State Department doubted. But a few people believed ... or said so.

There were four sources of information and the other three were not disclosed. You can speculate all you want on who or what those sources were, but that doesn't make them unreliable because you choose to believe one thing over another.

I also note that you play the same games as your TomPaine.com friends. Using phrases such as "It is reasonable to assume" does not persuade me. When you make unfounded assumptions, your argument is not persuasive because someone with an opposing viewpoint can make an opposing assumption with just as much validity.

Again I will state that because the story may be proven wrong in hindsight does not mean the decisions based on the information at the time were wrong. The information was believed reliable because four sources corroborated it.

So once again I say you're stretching pretty far in your claim of "fabricated excuse".

Well, when the plausibility of Iraq having a WMD program and cooperating with Al Quaida is reason enough for war, swell.

There is a chance that history repeats itself: Just as it was plausible that Saddam had WMD hidden it is plausible that "I want to see Iraq down for a decade now" neocons talked Bush into seeing Iraq as a threat. McNamara did that about commies in Vietnam to LBJ inventing the "Tonking Incident" - and the result became known as the Vietnam war. Sh*t happens. And sh*t happens to happen again.

The Tonking Incident was proven a lie in hindsight. I fail to understand how a reaction based on a (intentionally) false information might be actually right at the time of conduct.
Not everything is relative - especially not right and wrong. When something later points out to have been wrong it cannot have been right before.
Fighting the Vietnam war wasn't the right thing only because LBJ believed so when starting to escalate it.

I mean: When a little demon on your shoulder tells you that someone down the street with a bad criminal record is a threat for you and your family and you believe him and go down and kill him scared sh*tless - preemptively - then that was hardly the right thing to do even when you firmly believed otherwise.

It is a really hard to swallow for me that we now have to support the US in Iraq in their selfmade mess, because leaving them alone we would risk Iraq becoming ungovernable - which is worse than helping the US. It's kinda like helping the vigilante against his victim, to prevent a riot in the victims block spread to a big riot rubbling the entire city.

Only because Vietnam and Watergate are long ago now that doesn't mean integrity or a sense of ethics suddenly spread in Washington like the flu. I envy your trust. The question is if the Bush administration deserve it.

[ August 28, 2003, 11:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I can't understand this obsession and i would love to see an explanation.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 — The United States is willing to consider introducing a U.N. force in Iraq as long as it is under U.S. command, a senior State Department official said, the first time Washington has indicated that it would accept a significant multinational military presence in the country.
from Msnbc (http://www.msnbc.com/news/951994.asp?vts=082820030225) Why must USA be in charge; Is the US administration so eager to prove her ability to recostruct a country? Or are there more dubious causes?
What fears me the most is that the US administration is eager to get some help without considering from who and what impact these soldiers nationality may have in Iraq. This is an article from a Greek newspaper
Undesirable the army of Turkey in Irak FALOYTZA "Hell" promise the residents of undisciplined Faloy'tza in their Turks soldiers that will be potentially developed in their region, in any case the Prime Minister of Turkey are presented circumspect in the mission of forces. The residents of Faloy'tza promised a "hell" in the Turkish troops that draw they are developed in the region in order to they replace American. "We unanimously denounce the growth of Turkish forces in the Faloy'tza", declared the prefect of Taha Mpantyoi, in conference of representatives of political forces, in which participated and the religious leaders of this sounite city of Irak. As it explained, "hell" waits for "this forces" because of the "refusal of Iraqi population" to collaborate with them. The participants of this conference they pressed the American military administration "to revise her decision are developed in their city forces from Turkey or other neighbouring countries, because of the historical problems that exist in the region and which will create difficult situation for the Iraqi population and for the forces that participate in the coalition". The mayor of Faloy'tza said that representatives of city can go to the Turkish embassy to the Baghdad in order to they ask are not sent forces in Irak.

In any case, Turkish Prime Minister Retzep Tagjp Erntogan declared that his government is not expected to convene extraordinary session of Parliament in order to is approved the mission of Turkish forces. The Parliament is closed until 1 October because aestival interruptions. The Opposition and the common opinion in Turkey are at the mission of Turkish forces in Irak. According to poll that was held recently between 2.032 persons and it was transmitted by television network NTV, the 68% asking it declared opposite in the mission.

From Eletherotypia at enet.gr
On the other hand Turkey administration is eager, as it is reported, to send troops in Iraq because of the recent troubles between Turkomans and Kurds in the territory the Kurds control. And they would love to get back to the beloved list of US administration. US administrators must think very carefully before they act or else things will get only worse.

[ August 28, 2003, 12:25: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

Well, to me it seems pretty obvious... Bush doesn't want any more American soldiers killed, if others can easily take their place while USA still remains in control of everything. It's a really good plan to improve the current administration's public image. They've been criticized even by some of the people who openly support the war for the number of American casualties, which has been growing steadily since day one. On the other hand, the American public won't care as much if non-American soldiers die in Iraq, and this won't hurt Bush nearly as much as if American soldiers kept dying there...

@ Ragusa
There is a chance that history repeats itself: Just as it was plausible that Saddam had WMD hidden it is plausible that "I want to see Iraq down for a decade now" neocons talked Bush into seeing Iraq as a threat Of course both are plausible. The problem with the Tom Paine and Die Zeit articles you reference is that they are both based on assumptions, speculation and unfounded claims, and then statements are made in an attempt to (artificially) give those assumptions, speculations and claims more credibility than they deserve given the known facts. It’s all smoke and mirrors, without any evidence supporting it. Now sure, I have serious doubts about the administration’s motives myself, but your quotes and links don’t really do anything to increase my scepticism.
And just as there is a chance that history repeats itself, so is there a chance that they learn from their mistakes.

And talking about unfounded claims:
Well, to me it seems pretty obvious... Bush doesn't want any more American soldiers killed, if others can easily take their place while USA still remains in control of everything
Perhaps this is true. But, and as much as I distrust Bush and his cronies, I doubt that this is the main reason. The U.S. likes to be in control – not just in Iraq, but generally speaking. I think they are willing to accept participation by other nations in order to smooth the waters a bit, but the U.S. still sees this as their war, and they want to be in the driver’s seat. As well, and if the U.S. has a hidden agenda for being in Iraq in the first place, turning control over to an international coalition could undermine that agenda.

Rags - Just so I'm clear: I'm not saying you are wrong; you simply haven't convinced me you're right.

I find our discussion rather amusing in an ironic sort of way. Here you are condemning the US administration for using shaky information to justify the war, but then in your own arguements you present shaky information and then ask us to believe you are correct. Ironic to say the least.

Heh, I'm not presenting anything as a fact, Splunge. Just my personal opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree.

Tal, its not just you who I've heard say that (although not necessarily on these boards), so my "unfounded" comment was more in response to that; sorry if it seemed (and I realise that it did seem) to be directed at you specifically. And yes, I disagree that reducing U.S. deaths is the main reason (I don't see any basis for making that argument), although I have no doubt that it is a factor.

BTA,
I think this is one of the points why there is so much shaky info around. The Bush administration just doesn't tell much - and there is so much convenient secrecy - probably because no one kicks then hard enough: "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

George W. Bush in an interview on November 17, 2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/17/60minutes/main529657.shtml) Yeah, beeing the president sure rocks. Is it just me, or has america become a monarchy recently ...

At least, my shaky info doesn't get people killed and maimed.

Can you be so sure of that Ragusa when your information is "shaky" too? That your actions wouldn't have gotten people killed and maimed, if you had been in the presidents seat? Which is in fact what is the interesting aspect of this bohemoth thread.

U.S. likes to be in control – not just in Iraq, but generally speaking. I think they are willing to accept participation by other nations in order to smooth the waters a bit, but the U.S. still sees this as their war, and they want to be in the driver’s seat I think if you sent troops in a foreign country, any more or less responsible goverment wants some control over the situation, i.e. being on the driver seat.

The obvious driver-seat solution of any nation, let's take for arguments sake a nation like India, would be, having the UN-control the issue and not sending troops away and put them under the comand of foreigners.

So, the interesting thing will be the increasing negotations between the US and the UN, because I think that the drain on resources in general is becoming an issue and between 100'000 and 200'000 more troops are needed, I've heard.

Yago - Yes, but the UN will face the same situation that the US faces. That was probably what the message was behind the attack on the UN headquaters last week. The UN would still be seen as another occupier, even though those in the West have a different view of the UN and the US. That is a miscalculation on the part of the terrorists. The UN could do a lot of good for Iraq, given the current situation.

The US has its own uses for Iraq. But you are right, the cost is more than they bargained for. Politics is the central motivation. You can be sure that as the next election draws near, that the polls on the Iraq situation will determine just how much the US is willing to partner with other nations and the UN. If most see that Iraq is going badly, then there will probably be a large UN presence there. The UN may get the same "business" as the US there, but Americans will not care, as long as American soldiers are no longer dying there as they are now. And Bush will try to diffuse the arguments of opponant, which could be Howard Dean.

Dean will attack Bush on the war every chance he can. He is not afraid of being labled as "anti-American," because he thinks that the war is a bunch of bull, since most of his base feels the same way he does and he has learned that by appealing to his base he can have some success against those who caved-in to the WMD issue.

Note: Harrison Ford made some anti-war remarks in Spain today, and already a few in the media have accused him of being ... you guessed right: "anti-American." Even though he just has the good sense of being opposed to the war. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

[ August 29, 2003, 16:33: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Chandos, My point in this issue was from the beginning, that the US possesses not enough resources to pull it through. And I think that the current administration is not only forced by domestic polls to find new partners, but by sheer necessity. The other solution would be, to fill the gaps of needed troops with us-soldiers. This isn't so much a problem, at least in my view, because of the mortality-rates, but the finances. More troops will cost more money.

And on the other hand, my understanding of the US-forces is, that after a certain service-time, they are set-back as reserve, start a life, job, family and one day comes a letter, they have to leave it all. To go to Iraq or replace someone else at another place who went there.

I saw an interview at the beginning of the war with some offical of the administration, saying that the Americans will be willing to pay for that. I personally don't think so. In my view, if I may use that metaphor, they were arguing if they should order the salad or the 4-turn-menu. But the question, if they were able to pay for the 4-turn-menu, never came into the spotlight, like it should have, in my opinion.

Yago - Yes, I agree. To your point about troop rotation, there is a lot of concern here that there will not be any replacements soon enough for the proper rotating of forces in Iraq, and it has been causing poor morale. This talked about link on the situation there is from July:


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030716_2ndBrigade.html

But the debate is still raging here. Americans are beginning to see how poorly thought-out this whole war was. John Kerry was on "Meet the Press" this morning complaining about how he was misled by Bush into voting for the war based on WMD. He is saying that there are not really enough troops to enlarge the force that is already there. But that he is in favor of throwing away more money in Iraq. He is trying to fend off attacks from Howard the "Dean Machine" who is just blowing through all the would be Dems who voted for the status-quo and the Bush war.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/959775.asp?0dm=V23FN
http://www.msnbc.com/news/950967.asp?0dm=V21FN

LOL
The sergeant at the 2nd Battle Combat Team Headquarters pulled me aside in the corridor. "I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," he told me.
He was referring to the deck of cards the U.S. government published, featuring Saddam Hussein, his sons and other wanted members of the former Iraqi regime.
"The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz," he said.

I understand that the US troops in Iraq would love nothing more than see themselves be transfered back home. I believe that at first, right before the invasion they thought that this whole war against Iraq would be a piece of cake and the citizens of Iraq would bent over (to put it mildly) in order to please them.
They were misleaded IMHO, by their administration and their senior officers, big time. And that happened because these guys (goverment and generals) would never go in the heat of the battle, so it is easy to lie for something that A)you don't know if it will happen and B)either way you won't be there to see it happen :mad:
I think that the US administration did expect some kind of resistance but not that big. And this is due to the very low level of understanding the US administration has at the internal relations between the various races in a state ( i mean not only Iraq but also Afganistan, Serbia, Boznia-Erzegobine), and this will not change the way i see things progressing

More and more it seems that the neocon elite planned the capture of Iraq in an ivory tower, counseled by cheering claqeurs. A nice Op-Ed on that, of course biased, here (http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16680).

Some critical analyes, both referred to in the article above, on "how-to-and-how-not-to reconstruct Iraq", provided by the pretty irrelevant US Army War College (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/reconirq/reconirq.htm) * and the renowned but just as irrelevant London based CSIS (http://www.csis.org/isp/pcr/IraqTrip.pdf), were ignored by Washingtons decisionmakers ... perhaps ... because they didn't sing the neocon tune ?! Hubris anyone?

Now there is critque popping up everywhere, mostly by people sacked for standing up against the leadership opinion. That were people like Gen. Shinseki who dared to demand more troops for Iraq and was forcibly retired 1 year earlier than planned, resulting in a pension cut for him - for not serving full time. Or the ex army-secretary White, forcibly retired in may, who in a recent book describes the Bush administration's postwar effort in Iraq as "anemic" and "totally inadequate." Seemingly the Neocons make an ideological cleansing in their areas of responsibility.
Great prospects, even more as the damage is done already. I don't like to imagine what they might be able to without dissent in their organisations.

The final line of the US war college report was: "Without an overwhelming effort to prepare for occupation, the US may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."* The US army site currently seems down ... bibliographical info on the report here (http://www.gfn-ssr.org/document_result.cfm?id=80).

+++ Newsflash +++

The british gvt's justification for their case against Iraq took a heavy blow when two senior officials were interviewed at the Hutton inquiry. More here (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=440008) and here (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=440019).
Subject under fire was the 45min claim, that said Saddam had WMDs ready for use in 45min time.
. Responding to the growing number of incidents in Iraq, the US gvt has reverted to now only report those incidents where soldiers are actually killed.
However, the number of wounded by far exceeds the number of soldiers killed, reflecting the benefit of advanced equipment such as modern body armor as well as the progress and good organisation of US army field medics. But only reporting the deaths however, is prettying up the picture of the actual situation in Iraq. More on that in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12096-2003Sep1.html).+++ End +++

PS: The US Army page is up again (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/reconirq/reconirq.htm).

An interesting article in the Washinton Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030903-120317-9393r.htm) on the US administrations Iraq war planning. A secret report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff pointed out that the poor pre-war planning primarily is to blame for the chaos and trouble after crushing the Iraqi army - and this planning lay in the hands of the Pentagon's new neocon enclave Office of Special Plans, controlled by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and led by Douglas Feith.

In the meanwhile Bush asks the congress for more money for rebuilding Iraq, about twice as much (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq053441498sep05,0,4652005.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines) as anticipated.

Well, now the numbers are out, it's about some $ 87 billion. And as if I knew it already Bush stated in his speech that the countries that ... err ... shunned taking responibility in Iraq now have to contribute financially :mommy:

That now is amazing. Bush sent the US to war, against opposition of the rest of the world. They did so illegally and they are in Iraq illegally still - which explains the reluctance of pakistan, turkey and india to send in troops - there still is no UN mandate; I say that because it sometimes gets lost in the US.
And of course, for the neocons there still is no role for the UN in Iraq. So, according to them foreign troops would be under full US control, so they would be practically replacement targets for GIs and their task would be cleaning up the mess caused by neocon ignorance and mis-planning. And foreign aid would be distributed by the US authorities ... that is: european taxpayers money ... for Haliburton? I have the feeling that this approach will be unacceptable and is doomed to fail. The US will have to offer something substantial, like control. But in exchange they will get an exit strategy and now that is something that must really upset the neocons, as it is key to their plans to stay there.

Better, Bush's neocon crew talked him into "driving the car against a wall" unilaterally, against all advice and without notable support, and now calls for a community effort to repair the damage done, because the world owes the US a favour because they ... toppled Saddam ... for what again was the reason? Ah yes, Saddam's WMD, constant-beeing-evil and terror contacts, right?

It happens that we in germany have a word for this sort of attitude, it is "dummdreist", or insolence.

The brilliance of stating that Iraq now is the focus of the war on terror is unmatched. Resistance? In Iraq? What a surprise that the iraqis, recognising the moral superiority of the US didn't surrender *in advance* ! I daresay that invading Iran or Lebanon would certainly shift the focuses of the war on terror there. Sure, arab terror volunteers may indeed be streaming into Iraq as there they have a chance to get americans in front of their guns. But on the other hand, they came to New York too, on 9/11, and before to Mombasa and Nairobi and Aden as they later went to Djerba and Bali.
Where there is a will there is a way. I cannot see a progress in fighting this will by attacking Iraq, but maybe I just don't smoke the same stuff the neocons do.

Unfortunately a UN involvement would bring the UN into focus of terror groups and the UN would rely on US support as the US will continue to provide the bulk of troops in Iraq. The UN will continue to blur with the US and the results of that could be seen in the recent bombing of the UN HQ.
And the neocons will oppose the UN involvement as a replacement of general US authority over Iraq, as their control of Iraq is the key to sustained pressure on Syria and Iran and some of their other big middle east plans. They will not easily admit their plans have failed and fight on and continue to obstruct wherever they can.

Worst of all, how satisfying it would be to see Bush and his neocon megalomaniacs suffocate on this well deserved fishbone in their throat, a failure in Iraq is unacceptable. They will get support, but for a price, and not because their case is noble and just but because the situation, with all the damage done by them is too bad to allow it to escalate.

That is the really hard lesson for the Bush administration. Militarily they can crush everyone, but they can't win the peace alone. Despite their superior military power, they have to learn that acting unilaterally on such a scale simply overburdens even them. But on the other hand, I smell that the neocons will find a solution in demanding an increased defence spending ... simply because the fault must be somewhere else.

The biggest problem of the USA administration is their failure to understand that in this world there are more than one (their own) opinions on every subject. And because they presume and plan according to their standard way of thinking they will always fail to bring a task like this to an end, because simply the rest of the world does not work like they do.
And i fear this is shown by Rumsfelds statement to the press yesterday or someday in this week that because Al Jazeira exists and spreads false news :confused: the peace in Iraq is not yet accomplished. I think that they wanted Al Jazeira to play their game but it does not and that is something they have never faced before (not having control of the media in the area of interest). I fear that we will see more problems. kills popping up and furthermore the whole area is now ready to explode. Hell they already started exploding if you see the recent news from Israel and Turkey. :(

After a long while, once back to the topic this thread originally was about.

Report on Iraq WMD shelved as no evidence found by US-UK team (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4708.htm)

Not that it really is a surprise.

Also interesting is this link about the Saddam - Al Quaida connection (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1977364).

News overview from todays CS Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/sept11/dailyUpdate.html):

Britain, US postpone WMD report for lack of evidence

Liberal critics had hinted that US President George Bush would try to use it as his " September surprise (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15619)"; a report by the Iraq Survey Group (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3081006.stm) which would prove that Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction. But now the Sunday Times of London, and other publications, say that the report has been delayed (http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13250836) "indefinitely" because the group was unable to get any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

David Kay, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, had hinted in July that he had seen enough to convince him that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did have a program to produce weapons of mass destruction. But last week British officials said they believed Kay had been "kite-flying" and that no hard evidence had been uncovered.

The Sunday Times report comes two days after NBC reported that the search for WMD in Iraq had " been a bust (http://msnbc.com/news/965905.asp)."

"He [David Kay] has not found the kinds of things the administration expected to find - large quantities of biological and chemical weapons or evidence that were destroyed prior to the war," David Albright, a former UN weapons' inspector, told NBC News.

The National Post (of Canada) reports that senior UN weapons inspectors now think that Mr. Hussein may have been telling the truth (http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=8257&TagID=2) when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction. "With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the truth," said recently retired UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.

"[The US and Britain] would have hoped and they would have been happy to see if we had said, 'Here Iraq has violated, here they have, here is the smoking gun. We have found it," Mr. Blix said. "And when we didn't do that, well, then they were disappointed and then they overinterpreted their own intelligence."
News 24 of South Africa reports that other ex-inspectors now believe that the notorious "unaccountables" (weapons Iraq said they could not account for) may have been no more than paperwork glitches (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1412765,00.html) left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons after the first Gulf War.

Bush administration officials continued to defend their WMD claims. During the weekend Vice President Dick Cheney said WMD would be found (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=6993) in Iraw. In a speech last Friday to soldiers returning from Iraq, President Bush repeated his charge (http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/091303/new_20030913051.shtml) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The interpretation of intelligence about WMD has once again become a hot topic in Britain. The Guardian reports that British PM Tony Blair was definitely warned by his intelligence services not to exaggerate (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1041828,00.html) claims about WMD in Iraq, or else he would misrepresent the situation. Also, a new government report said that the same intelligence services warned Blair that it was more likely (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1041975,00.html) terrorists would get their hands on WMD if the US and Britain invaded Iraq (because of the confusion resulting from an invasion), than if they did not.

I couldn't imagine a better endline for this thread to be closed: "The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

by General Douglas MacArthur, US supreme commander of the army in pacific in WW-II and later in KoreaSadly, it's not that this outcome was really a surprise :(

[ September 16, 2003, 10:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

You could say, with a grain of salt, that the only reality in this war is the cost.

After all, this is maybe the best ender of all: Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War (http://amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html).

The devastating consequences of Bush's folly in compressed form. Highly recommended.

Sadly, it's not that this outcome was really a surpriseNo, it isn't. Here's another famous quote:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief, in an interview with Gustave Gilbert, April 18, 1946