How comes that the US, now that they are roaming Iraq, with special forces "de-luxe-inspectors", in thousands haven't found notable quantities of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

I need guidance to prevent me from falling into the scary belief that the US, despite being right for being victorious, have been lying about this (or beeing simply ignorant or, worse, indifferent). Any explanations? I mean, none of you seriously believes they all were sent to Syria? Or Iran even?

[ June 05, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,244748,00.html

Ragusa, of course. I mean who's more trustworthy, Powell send by Bush or Joschka Fisher ?

Joschka Fischer, no doubt. But you know, it's pretty hard to find out, if something is pesticide or ... ah ... pesticide.

Even more, when they have no German equippement ;)

I too am curious, but I think it's too soon to pass judgement. The military part more or less ended today with Tikrit, so now they can devote more divisions to seeking them out. I'm confident they'll be found, under what circumstances though is still anyone's guess (they've been moved, buried, dismantled and spread out to be reassembled later, whatever). I mean come on - it's only been 3 weeks. I wouldn't expect any major discovery to be made this soon anyway.

You could very well be right Ragusa - but for me, just because they didn't trip over warheads as they stepped through Saddam's palace door doesn't mean they aren't very well hidden. Too soon to tell IMO.

If they don't find any, they'l set them up, so it makes no diference... :evil: :rolleyes:

Right, we will set them up. We are just running around finding WMD for insects (pesticides) for fun. We like looking the fool. :rolleyes:

If we were going to plant them, why wouldn't we have done it already? ;)

[ April 14, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Darkwolf wrote: We like looking the fool. Darkwolf, you can't deny some irony. It's funny how quickly things change. Now, it's the US-Military running around :" Hey, it's not so easy, give us more time, be patient, hey, rome wasn't build in a day..." :D

1 month ago, they knew exactly where everything was. :confused:

It's not only about trusting or not trusting the gvt. Here's a funny episode about all the evidence needed, reflecting to a good part what I have experienced here, by an american:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5631

Sometimes "Trust me." must do ....

Ragusa -- Because the WMD are all in Syria now -- along with the ghost of Saddam.

but ... when it is for the ghostly WMDs and the ghost Saddam ... isn't it some kind of a witchhunt then?

*******************************************

PS: Some more neat links, about intel and proofs for Saddam's suspected evils:

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1

I especially like that part: Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,794759,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0210-05.htm http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,druck-244748,00.html

A rough translation of the last link as it is in german:
UN inspectors deem US proofs (as presented by Powell to the security council) to be fake

According to two former UN inspectors the "US proofs" about iraqi WMDs and their hideouts were false to the largest part. In a tv-interview both accused the US, who used these to justify a war against iraq.

Mainz - Both have been serving for UNMOVIC in iraq for three months until the outbreak of the war; they left iraq on march 20th. There were, among other things, tasked with verifying the US intelligence infos about suspected iraqi WMD-hideouts.

On of the inspectors is a german computer extert who prefers to remain anonymous, the other is the norwegian Jörn Siljeholm who's specialised in biological and chemical weapons. Both agreed in this interview with the german tv station ARD that a large proportion of the US info about WMDs and their suspected hideouts as desinformation.

Colin Powell had presented the security council on 5.2.2003 satellite imagery, as he claimed showing iraqi decontamination vehicles used to decontaminate iraqi troops after a use of gas. He said that proved, that Iraq did have prohibited chemical weapons. But these vehicles weren't special decontamination trucks. "It wasn't so that he haven't found these vehicles - as a matter of fact we have ... but they never were decontamination trucks as claimed by the CIA"

Also the ventilation systems on factory roofs, which, according to the US gvt, hinted on the production of chemical weapons, have proved harmless. A production of prohibited weapons didn't take place in the buildings pointed out by the US. "We searched for the things on the photos and then it pointed out that it had nothing to do with chemical weapons." said Siljeholm. He considered Powell's speech as "misleading" and "grossly wrong".

[ April 15, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yes, the Bush adminsistration, much like the puritans of Salem, have learned the use of fear very well. The "ghost" of Saddam will be with us for a long time. We won't see it, but we will be assured that it is there.

That is of course exaggerated, anyway, here's another nice episode (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2002/t02172002_t0217dsd.html) from an pre-war interview with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview on Fox News Sunday, when Wolfowitz was asked if Saddam could do anything to convince the US that he has no WMDs, no links to Al-Quaida or was no threat even: Hume: Nice to have you.

Let's talk about Iraq for a little bit. The president has said several times, reiterated by aides, that Saddam Hussein must allow weapons inspectors back in. Any weapons inspectors? Whose weapons inspectors? What does he have to do to get out of the doghouse?

....

(Wolfowitz didn't reply directly and Hume is mercyful, changing subject to return on the question later)

....

Hume: I want to take one last crack with you on Iraq. You said earlier when asked what Saddam Hussein would have to do to get out of trouble with the United States and its friend that he'd have to show you. The question is, show you what?

Wolfowitz: You know, in 1991 at the end of the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein was given -- he was told to get rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction. He was given six months to prove to the world that he'd gotten rid of them. And over the last ten plus years, all he's done is proven to the world that he continues to hold onto them; he continues to develop them. That has got to stop.

Hume: Public destruction of such weapons? Acknowledgement that he has them? Is there anything that would be a first step?

Wolfowitz: I don't want to speculate. I think if we got to that point, we would know it.
So did the american gvt actually know what to look for? - therefor saying "We'll know when we see it?". Or is it more that the US didn't need any proof as all they wanted was a regime change anyway? Then all the babbling for threat, WMDs and disarmament in international councils was just a big hypochrisy and a continued lie. A lie not only to the world, but especially to the congress and the US public.
That would also explain the crudely forged evidence and the blunt lies the US delivered to the world.
After such an amount of undeserved trust allowing this war to happen, I'd now really like to see some real evidence now, afterwards, even more as the US now start threatening Syria, in a tone and way sounding still familiar from the iraq-war prelude.

While " Comical Ali (http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com)" entertained the world with his fantastic lies, bringing back the spirit if 1001 nights to Baghdad, who will be the joker in the US crew? "Cynical Rummy"?

[ April 16, 2003, 12:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

This applies to all goverments in the world they are LIARS and they think that we are stupid. But somehow we must oppose them and do not accept everything they say for granted. US administration is having just a bigger problem than the rest goverments because they is in the front line alone. Of course the way they run politics are simply too barbaric and somewhat naive, so they are getting a lot more mistrust than any other US goverment in the past.
I also remember that the US goverment and especially mr Bush after the invasion began has not mentioned the (pathetic in my opinion) excuse of Iraq's disarmament except the cases where he was asked to say something for that matter. The pretext after the invasion was to liberate the Iraqies from their oppressor and their misery!!!
And after that it is time for Syria to be liberated from her own dictator. Man i really believe they think we are complete idiots. They use the excuse of Saddam and Bin Laden speculated existence in wherever they see fit just to play with our fears and take their words for true. :mad:

1 month ago, they knew exactly where everything was. See, I don't think anyone ever claimed this. If you say so, will you support please?

I'd once again point out that like the proclamations of a failed coalition strategy a week into the campaign this may all be premature. I don't know if it is but the point is -- neither do you.

At Laches:

That Powell speech in front of the UN-security council.
When you proof that WMDs exist in Iraq with pictures, how can you not know where the WMDs are ?

Message originally posted by Ragusa
How comes that the US, now that they are roaming Iraq, with special forces "de-luxe-inspectors", in thousands haven't found notable quantities of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?Because we just went there for the oil. Also, to make girls wear pants and have to suffer through college, as well. It's part of our war against Islam.

Also, we needed some breathing room. It's nice to have a colony that we use for sheer profit. We're thinking about using indentured Iraqi servants for our occupational forces. A harem for making E-4, and whatnot.

The bottom line is that this administration is struggling at home. Without the war, they are pretty much finished. Their approval on the economy and domestic issues is dissmal. As long as they can keep the war thing going, they have a big approval rating.

Same with the American media -- the war is programming for profit. They know that the war has kept viewers glued to the TV, and advertisers might sell lots of cars as a result. The bottom line is the bottom line for these guys. I'm just plain tired of it all.

[ April 17, 2003, 06:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

No.

I watched the Powell speech. He never said, "we know exactly where WMD's are."

He did say things like, "we have evidence they have WMD's based on the sale of x,y,z which are used to produce WMD's. They explain this away based upon them being normal munitions but that is highly unlikely because that would put the Iraqi normal munitions into a higher quality category than those used by China, the UK, France, or the US which we find highly unlikely."

Now, I din't find the Powell speech persuasive. That's not the point. The point is that for you to say that in it he states the US knows exactly where WMD's in Iraq are is either based on a lack of personal knowledge of what he said, perhaps if you had difficulty understanding the speech, or intentionally misleading.

Also, I'd just point this out:

the proposition: Iraq has weapons of WMD's based on knowledge of the sale of materials to Iraq =!= we know the precise location in Iraq that these have been hidden.

Again, the point isn't that there are or are not WMD's in Iraq. I don't know. The point is that I believe that, once again, false positions are being attributed to others without support. Makes it easier to criticize them I guess.

Referring to Tom Paine (http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5631) whos writer put it into such nice words in the dialogue with Perle: "Why do you liberals keep defending Saddam Hussein?"

....

Couldn't he see that opposing war was not the same as supporting Saddam? Apparently not.I'd like to refer to the post above where I translated that Spiegel report about what ex-inspectors thought of Powell's "proofs".

The US started a war, against international law (besides, unlike invading afganistan), without any proof but with the will to go to war. That's how it looked before the war and that's how it looks now that no proof showed up. The things that have been found by now, a few labs of doubtful use, dual-use chemicals and a handful of missiles, could have easily been handled by inspectors. They are no reason for a war.
The Bush crew has gambled with it's "moral superiority" and lost, not unlike israel in lebanon 1982 when it became agressive against neighbour countries first.

PS: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030415-iraq01.htm

[ April 17, 2003, 13:10: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ah, Ragusa, first you say that the few months the inspectors had wasn't enough, that they just needed more time, and now you expect the weapons to be found within a few weeks while in the middle of the war. How fair and reasonable of you :)

BTA -- Your argumnet was that he had these WMD - and he still might - that he was big threat to the US and everyone in the region. But the war is pretty much over and no WMD were ever used during the war, which would have been the time to use them. I will give your argument the benefit of a doubt: Maybe Saddam and his elite body guard are hiding somewhere and just waiting for the right moment to swoop down from the mountains, and catch us all by surprise.

That's not quite my argument. My argument has always been that he's a proven threat to the region, and that his defiance of the UN resolutions shows that he has not changed, and so was still a danger to the region.

Did he have the means to further his ambitions? I don't know, but IMO it didn't matter, because he was quite capable of making chemical and biological weapons, they don't take long to manufacture, and his regime has a demonstrated willingness to use them. There was also evidence that he was attempting to get nuclear weapons material, and was not far from that capability. There is also evidence of terrorist ties.

So, given those facts, and the fact that he was still defying the UN resolutions, allowing his people to suffer under the sanctions imposed due to his defiance, as well as using the oil-for-food money for his own purposes, I don't disagree with the US government that it was time for his regime to go.

[ April 17, 2003, 18:19: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

BTA,
it's nothing about me beeing unfair. Actually the point is pretty ironic. The US were unwilling to grant the inspectors the time they demanded to find WMDs in Iraq, given there were any left. Now the US find themselves in the same dilemma the inspectors had: Lacking time.

And in reference to the "evidence" Rummy presented I wouldn't wonder if it takes a little eternity until something on a scale "imminent threat", something that would justify a war, will be found.

There, of course is an alternative interpretation of the denial of time for the inspectors - an explanation by Richard Perle: (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/coalition.html) I think there were overwhelming practical considerations. One is we weren’t ready so the argument is that you’ve got nothing to lose by going to the UN."The time for the inspectors was seemingly of very secondary importance to the US decisionmakers. The question that interests me is that this also applies to evidence.

Well, that's not quite true; now that the regime is gone, they've got all the time in the world. Except of course to the critics :)

As I've said before, more time for the inspectors was really irrelevant. They weren't there to catch the regime redhanded and force compliance. They were there to verify willing compliance, which they never got.

The point is eventually that the US never cared for evidence. They wanted the regime change. Nothing less.

But they made this big show about how dangerous Saddam was and how dangerous his equipment was. You say he was a threat to the region? With his disorganised, weak military or with the WMDs he probably didn't even had? Come on!

There is the slight possibility, just consider it for a sec, that the inspectors indeed have managed to destroy Saddam's arsenal and that he wasn't dangerous for his neighbours anymore, much less to the US.
There is the chance that the neocons, led by Perle and Wolfowitz, promoted that war to state an example and to make a step forward on their US dominance agenda, and after the decision for war was made they searched for a reason to sell it and started to lie on large scale.
Doesn't this possibility worry you a little bit at least? I mean it could result in the US ending up in tension with the rest of the world within 5 more years ... :) Isn't that a reason to want to see evidence asap ... be it only to sleep better?

[ April 17, 2003, 20:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

In the end, the US-Goverment damaged severly the image of the US. I listened to a radio show about the WMA's who haven't been found. One caller said, quite bluntly:" Now it's proven, that Bush is full of ....". And I think that represents the leading opinion in my country.

Inside the US, the WMA bogeyman might have helped the goverment to find approval for their war, outside, it has lead to a PR-desaster. If the Americans can not show up with proof, that WMA's really existed in Iraq, than they should do, what they should already have done a long time ago, hire someone to counsel them in public relations.

And this has implications for the second stated goal of the occupation: Iraq for Iraqis. I know, Americans believe this is the case, but really, trustworthiness and Bush is a contradiction.

The point is eventually that the US never cared for evidence.All the evidence was there. There was 12 years of defiance of UN resolutions and sanctions; end of evidence.

They wanted the regime change. Nothing less.That's right. And why? Because the regime in Iraq was a danger to the region and defied the resoltions imposed by the UN to insure that they would no longer be a danger.

One caller said, quite bluntly:" Now it's proven, that Bush is full of ....". And I think that represents the leading opinion in my country.
And that's what I find so funny: Those same people were the ones saying "Just give the inspectors more time." Yet now when only a few weeks have passed, most of it in the middle of a war, it's all of a sudden proven that there are no WMD. And it's also funny to me because IMO it's irrelevant if there are WMD found.

Yet now when only a few weeks have passed, most of it in the middle of a war, it's all of a sudden proven that there are no WMD. Way to turn the arguement around on them. :D

You are good BTA! Real good! :cool:

Ah, BTA. My understanding is, give the inspectors more time, so the can figure out, if there are any WMA's in Iraq. And many people doubted that there ever were any since the destruction of the WMA program.

Powell came and held his speech in front of the UN. And a famous Russian quote from that time is, Powell has proven that inspections are neccesary, because he has proven that there is a POSSIBILITY that WMA's MAY exist in Iraq.

So, postions:

USA/UK: We know they got WMA's.

Germany, France, Russia: It's not clear if they've got WMA's. It may be possible. Let's inspect so we find out. It's certanly NOT enough evidence yet to START A WAR.

(And if, inspections find WMA's, the inspectors could destroy them without war, like they ALREADY did in the time (guessing dates) 91-96.)

Ps: The Problem for the Americans is, they have no time, because the have to declare Iraq WMA-free asap. Because that's needed for ending the sanctions. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. :D :D :D

The Problem for the Americans is, they have no time, because the have to declare Iraq WMA-free asap. Because that's needed for ending the sanctions.Ah! Now that's a very interesting position to take, and I noticed Russia was also taking that position. IMO, that's an illogical position to take unless your point of view is purely economic, and you're afraid the US is going to corner the Iraqi reconstruction market... But I suppose that's not really on topic here.

Actually the only things the west knew for sure were the results of what the inspectors have discovered and destroyed. That information source dried out once the inspectors were, with US aid, kicked out of iraq. After that there was silence.

The iraqis were seemingly pretty successful in covering their country from western intelligence; that was pretty well shown by the inability of either the MI6 and the CIA to provide founded intelligence about iraq's WMD programs in the prelude of the war. So the west only has been able to *guess* what Saddam was up to or not, along with satellite imagery and intercepts. As the iraqis knew they were watched (and when not) and listend to they knew when to shut up and when not to show. So even these resources were of limited effectiveness.

So what's left? Tales of iraqis with questiobnable intentions and even more questionable background? Like the tale of that "defector" who claimed to know about Iraq- Al Quaida contacts?

So there was evidence known all the 12 years since the end of the gulf war, BTA? No pun intended, but that just babbling. What did the US know? That Saddam's evil? What has been known for 12 years but so consequently overlooked?
The defiance of UN sanctions was punished by a brutal embargo already, coupled with the inspections.

Once again, let me state: If Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions then why were the sanctions not lifted?

The sanctions weren't lifted because of Saddam's non-compliance :shake: But even this non-compliance didn't give a reason for war. Non compliance is a sanctionably behavior, not a proof in itself. You're getting sophistical BTA. And it is not really a good proof that Saddam was up to something.

Not complying and secretly working on WMD programs to threaten neighbour countries are two seperate things. You're making it too simple. For a "preventive war", that was the term Bush iirc used you'll need a little more.

Israel for example is non-compliant for three decades or more now. Does that mean that any country is allowed to attack them if it takes offence on that?

*sigh* Yes, the evidence was circumstantial, but I've been over this ground too many times to go over it again. I have laid out my opinions on this, and you're free to disagree, but I have answered all these accusations before.

As Yago's quote said so nice, the rest of the world will not be satisfied with "circumstancial evidence". And as for having this discussion for the x-th time :shake: Same here :shake: I only wanted to make the counterargument as clear as possible.

"As Yago's quote said so nice, the rest of the world will not be satisfied with "circumstancial evidence". And as for having this discussion for the x-th time Same here I only wanted to make the counterargument as clear as possible"

Well, this all boils down to a difference of opinion. I for one find the conflict to be pretty cut and dry.

1. Iraq instigated, and lost the first gulf war. Period. They agreed, as part of the CEASE FIRE agreement to do certain things. Most importantly, to destroy all of their WMD within 6 months, and they were to give a full accounting to the UN during this destruction. They failed to comply. This is indisputable Even the most adamant will agree that Iraq lied to, mislead, misdirected, and gave the run around to the UN for over 12 YEARS. Remember, and this is most IMPORTANT. The UN weapon inspectors were not meant to be weapons detectives. They were neither, intended to, nor expected to look for WMD. They were to verify Iraq's compliance with the Cease Fire. My biggest beef with this whole conflict is that it didn't happen sooner. The UN should have moved in and ousted Saddam and his regime on month 7, that is after the first 6 months of the CEASE FIRE, when there wasn't full compliance with the resolution, we should have moved in. We didn't. And that was the biggest mistake the UN made. I've read too many articles referencing the 500,000 Iraqi children that died because of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq. Let me say that again. UN Sanctions. They were not US sanctions. They were good old, multilateral, UN sanctions. And one of the simple facts is...If the US government hadn't brought this issue, once again, before the UN, the sanctions would have continued indefinitely. Why, because the UN has been, for 12 years now, unwilling and unable to back up the first demands they made on Iraq during the cease fire of the first gulf war. Not to mention all of the other resolutions that were passed between 1991 and 2002.

I may be a little simple minded. But I firmly believe that if you agree to do something, by God you do it. Iraq agreed to comply to the CEASE FIRE, and the UN said, basically, "You better or else." Neither side did what they said they would do. And I for one think both sides are to blame.

The bottom line for me is that we should have done this sooner. Unfortunately, we didn't, and the world is worse off for the UN's inaction.

2. Terrorism, and WMD.

I for one never saw a compelling, direct link between Saddam and Osama Bin-Laden. It didn't make much since. Osama is a fanatical Muslim, and Saddam was extremely, for an Arab, secular ruler. However, it is undisputed that Saddam does support terrorists. Hammas, for one, was openly supported by Saddam's regime. Abu Nidal, and the recently captured terrorist (damn I can't remember his name, come on, you know, the guy from the Achille Laro cruse liner) are more clear examples for his harboring of terrorists. So I think we can all agree that he supports international terrorists.

Now here is the big question, the one that the US could ill afford to ignore. If he had the chance, would Saddam support a terrorist attack against the US? And more specifically, would he go as far as giving terrorists access to WMD? Remember this is the same guy that invaded Iran. That invaded Kuaite. That openly supported terrorists. That used WMD against Iran. That used WMD against the Kurds. That used WMD against his own people. That ignored/failed to comply with UN resolutions and sanctions for over 12 years.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the threat is clear and present.

I only wanted to make the counterargument as clear as possible.

Now that may sound a little naive, yet still: Art.39 of the UN charter states (and mind, the US are still in that club) The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.Now that's a simple legal question: The security council was evidently *not* convinced. But they are "rest of the world" to be convinced. That's what the US failed to do.

No, no matter what you think about the UN, it's effectiveness and democratic legitimation (which is a joke in itself regarding international bodies), their charter represents international law that has to be obeyed by every country. The US included.

The sad fact is they give a ****. Ask Perle (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/coalition.html) who wants to make the UN to become a "club americana":
Richard Perle:"I think there are two possibilities here. One is the re-engineering of the United Nations, a relaunching in product terms but with a different charter."

Linden MacIntyre: "ESSENTIALLY THOUGH WOULD THE REAL FOUNDATION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER BE THE STRENGTH AND THE VALUES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?"

Richard Perle: "The answer is yes if you include other countries that share those values and who will add their strength to ours."

Linden MacIntyre: "BUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE WORLD AT LEAST DON’T REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE CULTURE THAT WE SEE AROUND US HERE IN THE WEST AND AREN’T PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN EMBRACING IT. WHAT ABOUT THEM?"

Richard Perle: "Let’s keep them at a maximum distance while trying to bring them around to our set of values."Well, I can imagine that one of the first things that Perle dislikes is that there are 4 other countries able to "veto" as well. :hmm: About point two ... :hmm: ... it might perhaps be that dangers to international peace and stability are to be determined by the president of the US and perhaps that circumstantial evidence is enough to start wars ( :1eye: you behaved in a way that made me suspicious .... :1eye: ).
With iraq the US have shown that their current gvt doesn't care to ignore international law if they like to. That is a dangerous, destabilising development.

At Llandon

What is obvious, we don't even agree on history:

We even call the wars differently in german:

Frist Gulf-War: Iraq-Iran
Second Gulf-War: Iraq-Kuweit and the world
Thrid Gulf-War:Iraq-USA/UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/default.stm

Uprisings and what some perceive as Bush the elder's betrayal:

Shia Muslims in Basra, Najaf and Karbala in southern Iraq took to the streets in protest against the regime. Kurds in the north persuaded the local military to switch sides. Suleimaniyeh was the first large city to fall. Within a week the Kurds controlled the Kurdish Autonomous Region and the nearby oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

In mid-February, President Bush Snr had called on the Iraqi people and military to “take matters into their own hands”.

But the hoped for US support never came. Instead, Iraqi helicopter gunships arrived. The weapon inspections:

Many prohibited weapons and production facilities were destroyed and dismantled. The inspectors discovered facilities that Iraqi officials had previously denied having and uncovered prohibited weapons that they had attempted to hide. Now, some they Blix hasn't found anything, because this was the END of the Iraqi WMA-programme. So, now the American-authorities have to prove their accusations. As I said, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

And stop being schizophrenic about the UN. Albright said, she found it the right way. And UN-members all over Europe, from Norway to Spain say, the handling of Iraq was a US plan and the US pushed hard in this direction. And to put it straight, yes I trust them more than the Americans.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see
that the threat is clear and present.
Now, we're back at the beginning of the dispute, aren't we ? :mad: :( :hmm: :sosad:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there never was a clear and present threat and that American politicans who said so, were full of .....

löhnt nüt als scheiss use -> full of .... -> that's a 1 to 1 translation :D :D :D

It is very intersting that Bush Sr. gvt in the early 1990s rejected a stretegy paper ordered by Cheney and made by Wolfowitz (ironically, parts of it are today known as the Bush (Jr) doctrine) as Bush Sr. disargreed with the neocon way of unilateralism after the soviet union was gone. Quite interesting, Bush Sr. is an "internationalist".

Much unlike Bush Jr's foreign policy advisors. My Perle quote above shows more than clear what they think about the UN, coalitions and international bodies. This echoes in the neocon oriented media, namely the Wall Street Journal. The cancellation of Kyoto and the withdrawal from the ABM treaty are clear signs for that trend.

For the neocons in the US Albrigt is something like a betrayer of the US as she went a much softer way ("appeasement") with North-Korea for example than they liked (which iirc included bombing north korean reactors). Of course, the iraqis sending her a broom (for the witch :D ) speaks a good language about her toughness with iraq. Anyway, you're mentioning her will not convince them anyway.

As for your demand for proof, you're absolutely right.

[ April 18, 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

It is very intersting that Bush Sr. gvt in the early 1990s rejected a stretegy paper ordered by Cheney and made by Wolfowitz (ironically, parts of it are today known as the Bush (Jr) doctrine) as Bush Sr. disargreed with the neocon way of unilateralism after the soviet union was gone. Quite interesting, Bush Sr. is an "internationalist".

I think that's not so surprising, because Bush the elder was pilot in the WWII war. He was young in the time of FDR and Truman (Marshall-Plan), so he actually was very well aware, why the "internationalist"-system was founded and how Germany acutally was rebuild.

And secondly, impo, he went out of Iraq (they already had 1/3 of it), because after considering the situation in the Middle East, the idea of "occupying, rebuilding and reshaping" Iraq and the Middle East seemed to him to utopic and way to dangerous, because it's pretty complicated to steer the decisions of "free" people, so you're actually profit from them.

Just popping in to argue that calling the first Bush an "internationalist" is revisionist history at its finest. To me there is a massive difference between the Kissingeresque realpolitik practiced by the first Bush administration and the internationalism you allude to. The neo-cons are a reaction to the realpolitik of Kissinger and company.

Yep, Laches, that's right. But I like to argue, that Realpolitik may include "internationalism". Anyway, Realpolitik is very well suited for Kissinger's sometimes questionable politics. He's for one German and he's obviously in the tradition of the old Bismarck Realpolitik, which actually endorsed "internationalism". Because one main goal of his politics after the unification of Germany was to have very good relations with the neighbouring countries, especially the UK and Russia. Having them not, would be, in his (and he was right) opinion very dangerous for Germany.

Bismarck wanted to have good relations with France too, but it was the first German emperor and other circumstances who made this not possible.

They didn't find any nukes, because Iraq never had those kind of weapons. That wasn't the issue here. It was about womd, like chemical and biological stuff, and they DID find those things.

Not that it was a big surprise though, ever since the war with Iran, the world knew he had those kind of weapons, AND was also willing to use them, as we all could see after the first gulfwar.

The biggest weapon of mass destruction, is Saddam himself however, and he has just been stripped from his powers. Now isn't that something worth fighting for ? The common Iraqi in the street sure feels that way.

But just wait until the smoke clears, i think we will see what "smelly" role some other countries played in all this. Like the two who most opposed to this war, France and Germany. Or our two timing friend in the Kremlin. I'm starting to understand why they were against the war.

Pac man,
I admid the title is misleading, but I had clarified that I actually meant WMDs in my introduction post.

Okay, my bad. But they did find several gasses, like mustard gas and Sarin. I wouldn't wanna call that nothing, or something not worth looking into. In the hands of a maniac like Saddam those materials are a threat, not only for Israel, but also for his own people. Ask the Kurds.

Whether Iraq has WMD or not is irrelevant, it is just a pretext.

Why not go after Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India or North Korea? Indeed why not go after all countries, including France, England, China and Russia, who has nuclear weapons so that the US alone has them? Quite possibly that is what current US policy regards as the perfect situation?

Btw, isn't Libya spending a bit "too much" on their missiles program? Put them on the list.

No, this is realpolitik, the US can take out Iraq, but taking out any of the other countries is either more dangerous (North Korea, Iran), impossible (India) or there is no political will to do it (Israel).

Arguably, having WMD, especially nuclear weapons is the best way for any country to maintain its sovereignty. The US attack on Iraq has made the case for getting nukes much stronger.

I think Earl Gray makes a good point.I know if I was the leader of a nation at this time it would seem the only way to maintain your independence,would be to get these weapons as fast as possible.

You dont see the US invading countries that already have these weapons.So I wonder if we have not just made thinks worse?

But these countries are not threatening to whipe Israel off the map, as Saddam once did. And N-Korea might have nukes, but if they keep this game they're playing up long enough, the US WILL take a bite out of them sooner or later.

Or do you think the US only dares to pick on helpless countries ? Better think again. With a militairy like that, EVERY possible enemy doesn't stand a single chance.

I don't think that Saddam ever threatened Israel in fact the only country that engaged in war with Israel (and lost big time) is Egypt in the war of six days (that long took the Israelies to win). Not to mention that the Israel is the only country that invades repeatedly Libanon and gets away with it.
And don't forget that no nation in the world want to attack the Israel due to their weapons superiority and their alliance with the USA.
But the Israels goverments always cry that they are being threatened because they are the only jewish nation among muslim nations.
The oxymore is that the only nation that really threatens the others is Israel not the other way around.
And so far the US has avoided direct confrontation with countries that support a rather good army (see Yugoslavia) so there goes N. Korea. :cool:

What are you saying ? The US didn't fight the Yugoslavian army in the Kosovo war ? I don't know where you find your information, but they drove them out of those lands and bombed strategic places in Serbia itself in the meantime.

And Saddam DID threaten to whipe Israel of the map. He said the last thing he would do before he died was destroy Israel. You say Israel only fought the Egyptians ? Wrong again, they also had war with Jordan and Syria, not to mention every single Islamic extremists organisation.

And about N-Korea, i've read an article on the net this morning that plans are developing as we speak for an attack on the nucleair facillity near Pyongyang, and on their positions along the South Korean border. Those troops are an immediate threat for Seoul and the US troops stationed in that area. They may have a huge army, but it's worth nothing if you don't control the skies. And that's exactly what the US militairy does.
Sure, N-Korea probably has an airforce with some Migs, but they won't even get off the ground.

As a matter of fact the US didn't fight the serb army in kosove. They didn't find it there. No joke. Serbia showed a great prowess in hiding their forces in the mountains and forrests of the area and decepting the allied forces by using decoys and such. They were also successful countering the drones the allieds used.

As the allieds preferred to fly at medium altitude to avoid losses to shoulder fired SAMs they effectively disabled themselves to fight tactical ground targets such as tanks.

The allieds eventually bombed serbias civil infrastructure to rubble and that forced the serb gvt to withdraw their undefeated, intact army from Kosovo. So it is unprecise to speak of fighting the serb army. The serbs who died to reach that goal were primarily civilians.

As for Saddam threatening Israel, that is correct. But it is notable that this happened under the special circumstances of the gulf war - Saddam speculated on an israeli response that might start an arab uprising against israel. He hoped that would aid his survival and help to fight the coalition.
These were special circumstances however. It is questionable to suggest, that Saddam, how evil he however was/ is, wanted to annihilate israel. That's a misperception.

Mithrandir wrote:
... the only country that engaged in war with Israel (and lost big time) is Egypt... To set things right I have written this little summary:

1948
May 14:
Israel declared as a state.
May 15:
Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacks. Symbolic forces from Saudi-Arabia and Yemen also join the attack.
Final cease fire in 1949. Israel grew territorially by 40% over what the UN had allocated to the jewish state in 1947.

1956 Suez
Israeli attacks on Jordan (Sep 25 and Oct 10) results in Jordan joining militarily with Egypt after Great Britain refused to honor the 1948 anglo-jordan treaty.
Oct 29:
Israel attacks Egypt after having been promised aerial and naval support by Great Britain and France. Egypt is given an practically impossible ultimatum by GB and France after which british-french airstrikes commence.

1967
A build-up to war had been going on on both sides since April. The conflict was mainly fueled by Syria-Israel. Egypt and Jordan sided with Syria. In June Iraq joined the Egypt-Jordan defense pact.
June 5:
Israel attacks Egyptian airfields.
Israel won the air war in a few hours by this surprise strike. In the evening Egypt had lost 300 aircraft, Syria 60, Jordan 29, Iraq 17, Lebanon 1.
The "six day war" ended with total Israeli air supremacy, Egyptian and Jordan ground forces practically crushed and Syrian ground forces broken. Israel occupied, compared to it's size, enormous landmasses.

1973
Oct 6:
Egypt and Syria attack Israel. The initial Syrian attack puts Israel in an extremely dangerous position. In Sinai huge tank battles rage between Israel and Egypt.
Oct 24:
Cease Fire. Israel is winning on both fronts. The Syrian capital Damascus is threatened and the egyptian army is in a very precarious situation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

@Pac man
Or do you think the US only dares to pick on helpless countries ? Better think again. With a militairy like that, EVERY possible enemy doesn't stand a single chance.While your statement is wrong it's not completely wrong and it is likely a common attitude among americans. If an enemy doesn't stand a "single chance" isn't that the same as it being "helpless"? Do you see how silly your statement was? :)

And yes, I do believe that US, as you put it, only dares to pick on helpless countries. :p
If that was not the case then why didn't US attack Soviet Union or China? Again it's a matter of realpolitik, in this case you need support at home and the more difficult a war gets the greater the chance there is of losing the home opinion.

Any country with nuclear weapons can threaten to launch those. What would the US response be to that? I think having nuclear weapons qualify as having at least a "single chance". Also do not forget that popular support for a regime changes everything. The vietnam war was fought without having support from the population. The Iraqi war has been fought with support from the population. The syrian regime for example has much more support than the Iraqi had and that changes everything.

But these countries are not threatening to whipe Israel off the map, as Saddam once did.Ask Israel what they think about this statement! :cool:

[ April 22, 2003, 15:23: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

One more actualisation on the still unfound Iraqi-WMDs: Arguing for patience, Loren Thompson of the Washington-based Lexington Institute noted that U.N. inspections struggled with Iraq for a dozen years and could not find all they were looking for.

"I don't think the expectation was that this stuff would be sticking out like a sore thumb," he said. "I think eventually they'll find the weapons, but the important point is that the government that would have thought to use them against us is gone."

Some critics maintain that is not the point at all. They say the question always has been not whether Saddam had weapons, but whether those weapons were a big enough threat to the United States to justify war.

"If the Iraqis did not use them ... to defend an invasion of their own country, when were they ever going to use them, and how were they a threat to the United States?" asked Cato Institute's Pena. "That's the question that has to be asked and is being glossed over."(from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030504-iraq-wmd01.htm )

1948
May 14:
Israel declared as a state.
May 15:
Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon attacks. Symbolic forces from Saudi-Arabia and Yemen also join the attack.
Final cease fire in 1949. Israel grew territorially by 40% over what the UN had allocated to the jewish state in 1947. Not exactly, the Isrealian minister of defence later admitted they attacked first, and not the other around

"If the Iraqis did not use them ... to defend an invasion of their own country, when were they ever going to use them, and how were they a threat to the United States?" asked Cato Institute's Pena. "That's the question that has to be asked and is being glossed over." That is too easy. They new if they used them in the defense of their country, they would be villified, but if they were to hand small amounts to terrorists, it would be almost impossible to trace it back.

In that case, Iraq wouldn't even have to risk getting caught with stockpiles of the stuff, or spend the money to develop it in quantitiy. A mobile lab capable of making a few ounces to a few pounds a day could keep terrorists well armed.

Simple!

The problem is that you argument with the unknown - a mere possibility. The great thing about possibilities is that you can't proove them. It would be most ironic had the iraqis destroyed their weapons left to deny the US the final proof - that would actually been exactly what the UN demanded from them - and as they probably did it in secrecy the US will hardly ever proove it - eventually denial of proof and knowledge to others is the essence of secrecy.

Indeed you're right, not-using and hiding them - or destroying them even - would almost be as villainous as using them - and more cunning too! In his evil cunning Saddam cunningly denied the proof of his evil (which should be prooven beyond any proof anyway) to the forces of goodness! The proof in that there is no proof prooves better than any proof *how* cunning the iraqis managed to hide their evil to the distrustful eyes of the world ... :1eye:

And we'll perhaps never know if evil terrorists got WMDs from evil Saddam this rises another question: As Al Quaida had no links to Saddam there might be a terrible threat - which was the unknown terrorist group Saddam supportet in secrecy? :1eye: One more thing to fear - hypothetical WMDs in the hands of hypothetical evildoers :mommy: I will stop sleeping peaceful from today on ...

Massacring an technically totally inferior iraqi army without WMDs is just not a victory as glorious as massacring an technically totally inferior iraqi army with WMDs.
Quite likely a lot of people in the US will prefer to *believe* in the hidden WMDs like in Jesus, as the alternative considerations just wouldn't be glorious enough.

[ May 08, 2003, 20:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The problem is that you argument with the unknown - a mere possibility. The great thing about possibilities is that you can't proove themI find this statement to be HUGELY ironic coming from the king of conspiracy theory. :)

And we'll perhaps never know if evil terrorists got WMDs from evil Saddam this rises another question: As Al Quaida had no links to Saddam there might be a terrible threat - which was the unknown terrorist group Saddam supportet in secrecy? Um, no, it would be the terrorist groups Saddam supported right out there in the open.

Quite likely a lot of people in the US will prefer to *believe* in the hidden WMDs like in Jesus, as the alternative considerations just wouldn't be glorious enough.You're probably right, but for me, it didn't matter whether he had them or not for the various reasons I've stated before.

That Iraq has supported terrorists in the 70s and early 80s is no secret - they were palestinians mainly, about every arab country did so - in the so-perceived common fight against israel. However, there still is no solid proof for recent cooperation with terrorists anyone outside the US seriously believes in.

Sadly, all the tales about Al-Qaida & Saddam Global Terror Inc. eventually have turned out to be highly questionable to say the least. The US policymakers recently adopted a habit to transform mere stories into rumours and then into facts and hard evidence. Magic!

Of course, less romantic people would call them liars ...

So, who did the coalition drive out of northern Iraq into Iran? And if I recall correctly there has been plenty of evidence of training camps etc. for terrorists found since the war.

WMA's don't matter. Minds are already made. The war had ended anyway. And I think what everyone thinks is pretty clear. The intersting part is, Ragusa, will you're country do what the Polish proposed ? Will you're country join them ? And who's going to pay the polish ?

Well, this iraqi terrorist group was really special. IIRC they are not known to have committed any acts of terror ouside the borders of iraq. They are so dangerous no one ever heared of them before the US started to target iraq. One might maliciously think they were just a group opposing the group of kurdish mercenaries the US hired :shake:

I prefer to be sceptic about kurdish and iraqi reports about Saddam and Al-Quaida and terrorists. The Kurds have an interest in denouncing Saddam. They can only profit from that: They could get US support, food and financial aid for the people - and for the less idealistic: US citizenship, money, weapons, positions of power in a future iraq - all these things might be worth a lie or rumour (http://www.house.gov/markey/iss_nuclear_taskforce_ed011212.htm) or two.

Terrorist Camps

After Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, terrorist training camps proliferated all over the country. One was right next to my ranch, 30 miles north of Baghdad on a branch of the Tigris River. The rural setting was ideal for such a facility. There were other camps, I learned later, which were even more remote, reachable only by helicopter. The buildings were so rudimentary that from the air they looked like Bedouin encampments.

I got to know one of the commandos who knew of my high rank in the government and had become friendly with my sons. In a relaxed mood one day, he told me that the training included the use of gas masks and special protective clothing, an unmistakable hint that biowar was in the curriculum.

Another reason to worry about Iraq: It has a huge underground network of spies and purchasing agents abroad. Bin Laden's agents reportedly were in contact with the network, which could provide them with both the material and expertise to unleash biological attacks on the West.

The bottom line is that, taking into account Hussein's vicious nature, his humiliation over the past 10 years and his declared intent to avenge his defeat in Desert Storm, he is perhaps the only national leader with both the means and the motive to help Bin Laden attack the United States. The U.S. government should urgently consider ways to push Hussein out of power. If we wait much longer, it may be too late.

* Khidhir Hamza, a U.S.-educated nuclear physicist, was director of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program from 1987 to '90. He defected to the U.S. in 1995. He is the author, with Jeff Stein, of "Saddam's Bombmaker" (Scribner, 2000).
Khidir Hamza is also known for his lack of credibility (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00013.htm). Just a thought.

Dam, I am slow. Terrorist Camps. Northern-Iraq. Öcalan ???? Haven't the turks invaded Norhtern-Iraq and crashed all terrorist camps, anyway ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2496747.stm

Of course did they find terrorist camps. Kurds. :D :D :D

Bomb the UK, homeland of terrorists. :evil: :evil:

HE, he -> If they are "terrorists" and they are on Kurdish "territority" and Kurds say, they are "terrorists, are they Arabs ? Hm, maybe.

[ May 08, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Yago ]

Well, really what can you say to one who disbelieves any information contrary to his opinion?

If I were to take that route, I can just claim they've found tons of WMD in Iraq, and the US government is keeping it quiet so they can say they've all been moved to Syria and therefore attack Syria. Sure, all the info I've heard says they haven't found any, but I'm skeptical because the US is just not trustworthy.

Wait! Maybe this whole Iraq war never happened and was just a giant propaganda campaign to distract the US population from the domestic side of the current administration's policies! I mean, I didn't see it firsthand, and the US government probably just paid off all those foreign news agencies to go along with it.

Oh yeah, and the moon landing? It was faked.

BTA -- No it resembles a faked landing on an aircraft carrier with a fighter jet that was only 30 miles out at sea, and that had been said to be several hundred miles away, so that the prez could not take a chopper. Talk about propaganda. This adminstration must have read Goebbels book on it. What's next for Shrub? The Olympics?

The problem that seemingly the US haven't made any serious attempts to convince their partners in NATO and the security council.
It's not the general doubt in everything the US tell that drives me. It's just about working out what they might be up to.

For that purpose it might be interesting to recap the US gvt's line of argument on Iraq: Phase A: First was the claim that Iraq violated the sanctions (what everyone knew) by hiding WMDs (that was new). You might think that the US would have then presented hard intel to proove Saddam was a threat. No, they presented a lukewarm power point presentation. And worse, their hints were consequently proven wrong by the inspectors in Iraq (a nuisance for the US anyway as they forced them to argument on iraq). The other members in the security council didn't buy these US *proofs*, even less as their own intelligence didn't confirm the US claims. Phase B: As it became clearer that these "not quite a smoking gun" show wasn't taken serious they stopped that route and switched over to an alternative approach: Al-Quaida and Iraq - fighting Saddam was now part of the global crusade against terror. The british were tasked to present an intelligence report. It turned out this report was simply copied together by using some student's scientific work and some Jane's publications; better, it even leaked out the the MI-6 itself didn't believe the Iraq-Al Quaida connection Blair claimed to see. And none of the proofs that followed was much better. Again the other nations intelligence didn't buy the allied "proofs". Then came Phase C: The US seemingly draw the consequences after the previous failures: **** the proof, **** the hassle - we don't need them as we just want a regime change. A regime change because Saddam is evil and hostile and mean to his people. The aim suddenly became to bring democracy over there. Yay! That not only met the US sense of mission, it embraced the mood of patriotism in the US.
Most atractive is the aspect that there is no need to proove anything when you simply aim on a regime change :roll: :spin: Everyone knows that Saddam is a jerk - so that's much easier to promote at home. Who would deny the goodness of plan to bring the all-american values of democracy to remote regions of the world, ruled by dictators?
And as no one in the US greatly cared about the violation of international law, namely the alien norm of the Art.2 Nr.4 UN-Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm), the approach for regime change was greeted warmly.Why did they change arguments? Seemingly they weren't good enough. What you see in the changing arguments IMO is no learning process by the US gvt, but the attempt to sell a war that was planned without any justification but strategic goals.

The whole "proof-for-WMD-and-terror" campaign the US do is aimed on selling the war. No other gvt, except iraq perhaps, has been caught lying that often in the past year.
The finding of WMDs in iraq is very important because if there weren't any it would be a clear hint about the US just having followed geostrategic goals in iraq (and I don't mean oil with that).
With an eye on previous statements of the top decisionmakers in the national security council and the pentagon that seems very plausible. That's not a conspiracy theory. The neocons are dogmatists - they do what they promote (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). Perle formulated his vision of Israel as the primary US ally in the middle east (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) and he did what he said (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html). In case there never had been any WMDs in Iraq, that would force the US to re-explain their intentions in iraq.
These people have to be taken seriously. Giving them the benefit of doubt is IMO overly trustful.

[ May 12, 2003, 13:46: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I would just like to add one thing that I find hilarious in the search for WMD's. Is that news agents and people in general seems to think that stockpiles with gasmasks and soldiers being trained in gas mask use and even protective clothing use to be indicative of chem and bio weapons in an arsenal. That is just so silly. *Every* soldier in every army in the world more or less has one issued gas mask and knows how and when to use it. Heck even I with my rather short and stunted military training got to train on the gas mask and had basic training in how to handle chemical and biological attacks. That assuming that an army has WMD's based on that they train in gas mask use and protective clothing use is just so far out.

In reference to Prozac's post here (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000272;p=2) I'd like to recommend this article, originally posted in the Ney Yorker: http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/050603_selective_intelligence.htm

Former Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been a strong supporter of the President’s decision to overthrow Saddam. “I do think building a democratic secular state in Iraq justifies everything we’ve done,” Kerrey, who is now president of New School University, in New York, told me. “But they’ve taken the intelligence on weapons and expanded it beyond what was justified.” Speaking of the hawks, he said, “It appeared that they understood that to get the American people on their side they needed to come up with something more to say than ‘We’ve liberated Iraq and got rid of a tyrant.’ So they had to find some ties to weapons of mass destruction and were willing to allow a majority of Americans to incorrectly conclude that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the World Trade Center. Overemphasizing the national-security threat made it more difficult to get the rest of the world on our side. It was the weakest and most misleading argument we could use.” Kerrey added, “It appears that they have the intelligence. The problem is, they didn’t like the conclusions.”Late satisfaction for me :(

Maybe the crucial problem with Straussian thinking is the incompatibility of his thinking with intelligence analysis.
It has been mocked that Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all have been consequently wrong in their analysis of soviet strength, believing the russians to be much more dangerous than they actually were. The reports Soviet Military Power (http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_index.htm) (where they all worked on) give a glimpse on that.

Searching for hidden messages is a nice thing, and might be helpful even - providing deeper insight but can be problematic when things are clear and evident - then it's showing paranoid traits.

When the CIA, the DIA and state department as well as the remaining intelligence services of the western world do not agree on what Rumsfeld's private pentagon analyst cell claims to see that's for a reason and not because they all lack the deeper insight, wits and information the pentagon analysts have.
The US may be the foremost superpower but there are others that also have keen eyes and ears as well as keen brains and sober minds.

After all that's means throwing up the question of how dangerous tendencial analysis is - till now it has cost the US the european support they enjoyed while fighting in afganistan.
The other problem is that when a "tendentious" analysis rules the scene that determines what the president gets to hear, even more if the advisors themselves actually firmly believe in what they see. That's a possibility and quite a disturbing one.

The prolem is that - if you go to work with the premise "Saddam has WMDs, I only need to find the proof" and you find an empty depot - that must be hard to swallow. Because if the depot is empty - where are the WMDs? Well, be creative: They could have been brought to syria or iran ... they may have been dug in deeply ... they may have been passed over to terrorists already :mommy: ...

There may be no place for the alternative interpretation that the depot might be empty because the WMDs have never been there or have long been destroyed, maybe in expectation of a UN inspection, to deny them proof that Iraq actually had violated the sanctions.
Such a voice might be deemed defaitist and result in the voice offering that unwanted result beeing overheared for the future. That's what IMO happened in washington.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?030512on_onlineonly01

[ May 13, 2003, 15:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The worst is, after the chaos after the fall of the regime, there has been a lot of (conventional) weapon-proliferation through looting. Probably one of the worst "military" sideeffects.

Handgrenades, machine-guns and explosives for free.

But the as long their is no problem, there are no question asked. But I think, that if severe problems arise in Irak, suddenly, people will start to ask question and people who were actually send to Irak to find WMA's will have a story to tell, which does not base on "trust".

As it is now. Saddam is gone, good. Military or economical casualties ? None worth to speak of. Nothing to worry about. If the American troops are replaced by Danish-Polish--Canadian-German-British-Italian-Spanish-Australian-Pakistani troops, there will never be real need to ask questions.

[ May 13, 2003, 12:13: Message edited by: Yago ]

To be honest and I am telling the truth there is a nuclear bomb off of the Florida coast
HAY! Don’t{laugh} :D its true. An American plane caring one crashed off the coast in the 1960’s and the government felt it was safer to leave it than try to recover it.

What does this have to do with Iraq…… Well lets be honest Iraq did not have a lot nukes, how do I know? Well for one thing it took Russia 40 years to build all their thousands of bombs and it bankrupted them and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union While Iraq had only 5 to 10 years to do so, before the sanction took effect.

And as far biological well its sad to say someday a school girl will be digging in her school yard and fins metal canister and God only knows that poor people in these war torn country’s take scrap metal and melt it or sell it.

Lets not for get that a large coca cola bottle is the same size as one of these canisters and Iraq is as big as Texas……..So good luck finding a dozen of these hidden in that State let alone a country that’s been ransacked :rolleyes:

Do WMDs still matter to the American public?

While Blair (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2949232.stm) is still convinced WMDs will be found in Iraq, Rumsfeld (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2942978.stm) now begins to consider they might not be there after all. In the same time Wolfowitz (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm) says the emphasis on WMDs was for bureaucratic reasons.

Now that focus is shifting to Iran, that the only WMDs found are in Maryland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,965231,00.html), will the main reason for the war just fade away?

It doesn't really come as a surprise for me that now the US are searching the presentable reason why they actually went to war. Kinda amusing that the pentagon today announced to deploy a special Task Force for the hunt on WMDs .... and to uncover iraqi crimes against humanity! Workshare of the approx (iirc) 1200 head strong force will reportedly be 300 for WMDs - and the rest for crimes. Honi sont qui mal y pense ...

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7943

The US gvt just admitted to have lied to the world, and their people. And the US public doesn't care. The Bush administration didn't care about the WMDs - neither did they care for Saddam's crimes, if they did they wouldn't need a special task force to find out why they needed to go to war in iraq. So now they now want something really gruesome to present to the US public. To confirm the US public in their feeling of moral superiority. Or ignorance. Seemingly the questionability of attacking another country for <INSERT ARBITRARY REASON> isn't as evident for them as for others outside the US.

And frankly, no one in the US, much less in the rest of the world, would have agreed to a war if Rummy and Wolfie had openly stated that they needed to conquer iraq as a back-up base in case the saudis collapse and to put pressure on syria to aid israel while gaining access ot the iraqi oil as a side-effect. So the comedy goes on and the pentagon hawks laugh at the world by presenting them another lie, something that sounds better and more noble than the previous lies.
And now as they find themselves in a country where they are unwanted, resistance forms - expressed by acts of underground war. And so the circle closes, it's the eternal :roll: :spin: war against terror :roll: :spin:

Besides: What happened to the highly dangerous Iraq-Al Quaida connection ... ?

In the meanwhile, in godforsaken south-Zaire massacres start and war crosses borders - and the evil, egoistic french deploy troops, putting them at risk for the peace of some primitive savages and stability in the region. The last time the US did something like that was in Somalia.

[ May 31, 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Allow me to just sum up the previous and future posts for the sake of brevity:

BUSH IS TEH SUCK!

US IS TEH SUCK!

You don't have any rational critic, don't you? I can understand you don't like my post. The recent US foreign policy hasn't been anything the US can be proud of. Not my fault even if I point it out.

Oh relax, I was just poking fun. Pretty much everything you write on the Alley is critical of the US and I'm just ribbing you and the others a bit.

That said, do I have any rational critic? Let me check, nope, don't see any rational critic laying around, most of them are paid off by the movie companies :D

The Bush administration has criminally, cynically and systhematically lied to the world and their own people. IMO it needs an amazing amount of trust or indifference to still defend their policy.

"They certainly know what they've been doing!" and "I don't care - Saddam was an evil dictator and by bringing him down alone we did good" are samples of either trust or ... yes ... sense of mission. The simple fact that by the recent comedy Bush ruined the US's political credinility doesn't seem to have yet found it's way there. And if it did, the people don't seem to care.

I mean, after having beeing played for a sucker for more than a year they continue to cheer to the grifter who fooled them. And no evidence can change that. Amazing.

Well, Bush & Goons Inc. is about the only thing that's pissing me off actually, that might be the explanation for me focussing my wrath on the poor old US.
And it's hot and humid here ... that makes me earnest sometimes. I guess I'll get myself a cool bottle of Coca Cola* from the fridge and hang out in the garden ...

* No boycott here btw ... :p

All you Bush 43 haters,

The best part about this whole thing is...

Unless something drastic happens, you all are going to get another 4 years to piss and moan about him after he wins re-election! :evil:

Considering his approval rating, the Dems complete lack of a platform, and the fact that the Clintons keep making fools of themselves almost daily (they are now identified as the Democratic party for many Americans :rolleyes: ), Bush would have to light off a nuke in LA to lose!

I hope you won't complain ... better get used to the sacrifice of US boys in iraq and elsewhere. With Bush you get the perpetual war for perpetual peace, and the costs of that policy.
Usually every people gets the gvt it deserves, but there are exceptions.

Oh yes Ragusa, all those transport planes that came back filled with the bodies of young Americans, it was almost like Vietnam all over again...NOT.

No disrespect to the servicemen and women who gave their lives, but there were barely more casualties over that time period than there are in regular training exercises for the same period.

The fact is you cannot negotiate with terrorists, because they are the same thing as extortionists. There may not have been any WMD, but Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and since he got his ass kicked, suddenly the surrounding nations are trying to be a lot more reasonable. Even N. Korea brought it down a notch when they knew we were pretty much done with Iraq. I don't give a rat’s ass if the rest of the world agrees with what we did or not. They can't do anything about it. We can't be friends with every nation, and if they choose to be our enemy, then I say it is better to be feared than respected.

The iraqis who actually start to target US GIs are a selfmade US-problem. They had no reason before the US invaded Iraq ... and decided to stay. That was what I was referring to.

It's a weird way to fight a war on terror - by producing the enemies to fight against while justifying their production with the ... err ... war against terror.

The US will have to find out how lovely it is to stay in a country where they are neither wanted nor respected but by fear of their firepower.

[ May 31, 2003, 20:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yep, those clashing civilizations.

I don't give a rat’s ass if the rest of the world agrees with what we did or not. They can't do anything about it. We can't be friends with every nation, and if they choose to be our enemy, then I say it is better to be feared than respected. Well, at least you do not claim moral superiority or benevolent intentions. If your honesty would be found more often, I think things wouldn't get so nasty in discussions.


There may not have been any WMD, but Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and since he got his ass kicked, suddenly the surrounding nations are trying to be a lot more reasonable. Ahm, that implies the haven't been reasonble before. What countries are you talking about, Iran, Saudi-Arabia (your closest ally, ironically), Syria ?

No disrespect to the servicemen and women who gave their lives, but there were barely more casualties over that time period than there are in regular training exercises for the same period.

Asymmetric warfare is the answer to military superority of the foe. Maybe the same thinking let in the past to mistakes, for which people had to pay for, which had absolutley nothing to do with it.

Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to suffering, Yoda said.

but Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, Before the assault on Kuweit he was known as stabilizing force in the Middle east. Not that anyone will shed a tear for him. The Americans are usually known as destabilizers.

Even N. Korea brought it down a notch when they knew we were pretty much done with Iraq. Well, haven't been following the Korea issue lately, because it's actually rahter boring. My understanding is, NK wanted to hit on the drums (English ??) to get some foreign aid, without having to comply with the demands of SK and Japan for opening. Anyway, there is no relation between Iraq and North-Korea, except in some rhetorical speeches.

Unless something drastic happens, you all are going to get another 4 years to piss and moan about him after he wins re-election! What happened to Mccain ? So, Bush is set by the Republicans ? Democrats are the same thing as Republicans, only in "light" form. Democrats may be easier to swallow, but I doubt, that they will radically change policies.

To the Bush policy. A: Brilliant move, having now Iraq allows to get the US-troops out of Saudi-Arabia, which is pretty reasonable, because the US beeing part of Saudi-Arabias domestic issues had some devestating effects in the past.

B: Ooops, rewind, the same old song and dance again, after meddling in Saudi-interna, the US does not want to let go of the geostrategical important middle-east. Planning to put troops on foreign soil in Iraq, without the approval of the people there. I doubt that's a wise move, it's rather jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

C: And then having people saying something like, Iraq is a very rich country, they are able to pay as the war bill of the occupation. No taxation without representation.

[ May 31, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: Yago ]

I see the true colors are beginning to emerge: It doesn't matter if you lie to the rest of the world; it doesn't matter if you murder children and families, if you oppress other nations; it doesn't matter that you lack character, ethics or integrity. But if you have a large enough army and a large media propaganda machine you can say and do what you want. Sound familiar to those in Deutschland, say 60 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/919535.asp

Fascism: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

American Heritage Dictionary

I was opposed to the war. I'm oppossed to Bush winning reelection. I loathe John Ashcroft. I'm a die-hard civil libertarian. I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU (well, I used to be, at least). I'm a firm supporter of Amnesty International. I'll protest any "enemy combatant" detentions by the US. I believe in justice and the rule of law. I'm decidedly against "the class system," "ethnic superiority," and whatever else we wish to heap upon the pile. I've marched for peace and liberty, and against US misdeeds when I felt it was appropriate.

But to call the US a "fascist state" is hyperbole-laden nonsense. First, it does a disservice to the United States of America, the freedoms we do enjoy, and the thousands and thousands of men and women who literally gave their lives for those freedoms - including the freedom to call the United States a "fascist state" without having the secret police kick down your door and taking you off to have your testicles electrocuted. Second, and just as important, it trivializes the actual evil of true "fascism" and its victims over the years, and continuing today.

Calling the US a "fascist state" is Godwin's Law in action. Go talk to the families of people who were "disappeared" for belonging to an opposition political party or a trade union in various regimes around the world, or beaten or had their hands cut off for trying to vote, or were simply rounded up and shot for being of the wrong ethnic group - tell them you sympathize, since the US is such a fascist state. See what kind of reaction you get.

Of course the US cannot be put on the same level with Pinochet's chile or the other countries where similar stuff happened. There maybe some tendencies among the ultra-rights to implement rules that could allow comparable stuff - just think at the discussion about Patriot Act-II, the planned second part of an already questionable legislation. However, all in all the US still maintain a good standard - for americans. When you're not, your problem.

However, the Bush administration atm clearly has imperialist traits. I mean, it's pretty tough to start a war, killing a few thousand people, only because you need a back-up base in the middle east while telling the US public and the rest of the world that you're fighting the incredible menace originating from Saddam.
The current US gvt is antidemocratic when they hide their goals and execute their plans in secrecy, luring their people in the believe to fight for a just cause. Well, war for basing rights isn't really that just a cause to feel good and to agree to undisputed.

The US have one thing in common with totalitarian regimes: Lies to the people. Unlike in Chile there simply is no need to kill or make disappear critics in the US - the right media took care of them with, let's say, verbal violence. IMO the US are at the moment, like Goebbel's germany and cold war russia and wartime iraq, a pretty much disinformed people. Of course they have the choice where to look, but they prefer the media most appealing to their emotions - and that are not the objective and neutral ones - rather the populist's medias, like shooting star Fox.
With the gvt as a shepard and the media as his dogs the whole issue of control is just as well dealt with - the herd follows. Still the majority in the US finds no wrong in the iraq war. The public climate, a result of an ingenious PR campaign makes it possible for Bush to get through with his swindle.

Democrat critics of Bush do not dare to criticise the war openly because they would probably be accused with (a) lack of patriotism or (b) sympathising with Saddam. That effectively silences them.

Someone needs to a grip. I was responding to a particular post and not on the general condition of the US.

Darkwolf. I am speaking generally not "at you".

I found your last opinion to be rather saddening. Perhaps it is this kind of "attitude" (I can't think of the correct term) that was and is so frightening to people around the world. The US would truly be such a great nation if this was not the attitude that is emerging. Perhaps it's immaturity?

If on a more personal level we decide to disagree on issues we can leave it at that or we can find a way to co-operate, but to turn everything into blatent hostility when views and opinions don't meet is really scary. Fear vs respect? are these the only options?

Not giving a "RA" about things in the world that one does is disturbing and irresponsible. Imagine if terrorists go around saying that, and some of the people responsible for the Bali bombing have done so. They sound so cold and evil. We all need to take responsibility for our actions and accept the consequences if they are wrong. And rightly accept the credit when it is due.

Maybe we need to accept other views even if they are divergent from our own. (That they exist, not neccessarily agree with them)

The idea that's it good as long as you can get away with it seems common in the US. Look at Bill Gates: He's a notorious lawbreaker, constantly violating monopoly laws, maliciously damaging competitors and nobody finds offence in that except a few weird linux-happy netties.
Or have a look at the recent Boeing industrial espionage scandal - the US public and business world is used to rough and maybe even criminal competition - as long as they can get away with it they are good businessmen ...

In response to a previous post: If the US is a fascist state it's the rare breed of one that's primarily extro-agressive. It isn't auto-agressive as the mechanisms like opinion making take away the necessity to do so. It's the golden cage variant, where the people don't notice or don't care that they are guided - eliminating the need to force them into anything.
And still, I seriously doubt that even the current US gvt would consider serious human rights violations to keep in power. A little election cheating - yes (as long as you can get away with it), death squads - big no.

Now one might ask the question if its then still is fascism. In any case it's undesirable and a bad start. It's time to wake up.

A first thing that I always found amazing was that the Bush administration managed to convince the average US citizen that Saddam had *something* to do with 9/11 and that he had attacked the US. That merged the dislike for an evildoer like Saddam with the rage about 9/11 - strong emotions. That indeed was a wizard trick worth of the Goebbels award.

As long as that deep belief lurks in the mind of the average US citizen, it is unlikely that they take offence in having been fooled by the Bush administration about the actual reasons for the war.

To destroy that fairytale you'd have to explain them that Saddam in fact did not have anything to do with 9/11 - which would be defending Saddam :rolleyes: and not pointing out a fundamental error. And as the people don't want to hear such unpatriotic stuff they won't listen and react angry. That's what happened to about all critics on that point over the last year.

It's like insulted stubbornness, eventually someone had to suffer for 9/11. The afganistan adventure ended kinda eventless but now that Saddam is toppled the feelgood factor is restored.

A nice tale by Daniil Charms :shake: Lynch Law
Petrov clímbs on his horse and, turned to the crowd, holds a speach about what would be, if there, where now is a park, a skyscraper would be built. The crowd listens and seemingly agrees with him. Petrov writes something in his notebook.

A mid sized man steps out of the crowd and asks Petrov what he just noted in his book. Petrov replies that's no ones business but his own. The mid sized man is persistent. One word gives another and a quarrel starts. The crowd sides with the mid sized man, and Petrov, to save his live, spurs his horse and disappears around the corner.

The crow is enraged and, lacking Petrov, it takes the mid sized man and tares his head off. The loose head rolls over the street and stops on a drain cover. The crowd has satisfied its passion and dissolves.:shake: The mob is a stupid, blind and violent fool.

[ June 01, 2003, 16:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Or as Nietzsche would have said:

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

Even those in Bushland are not taking the same line as some of the more rabid posts I've read on this and other boards. If you need proof, one only needs to see that Bush is meeting with the "cursed anti-war French," which I, for one, am glad and is attempting to repair the damage done to our relationships with our allies. It is appalling to me that some will attack Bill Clinton for lying about sex, but that it's perfectly OK for this administration to orchestrate a frenzy over supposed WMD - for those who were gullible enough to believe it - and then turnaround and say that it was really not the main reason for attacking another nation.

It is amazing that Bush seems moderate compared to some of the inflammatory rhetoric that I have been reading. It was my intention to point out, mostly, that "belligerent nationalism" was one of the hallmarks of facsim, and I was not attacking anyone in particular, since such attacks only seems to lead to more of the same rhetoric. I'm surprised that some were so slow in figuring this out.

Edit: Although Morgoth and Khazraj quickly picked right up on it.

[ June 02, 2003, 04:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

"Clank and clatter" said the pots and the kettles.

That's the most intelligent comment you've made in quite sometime. Keep at it.

Laches,
when you think this is just a little cook-up you're seriously mistaken. This is our earnest or (with some posters) malicious little way to tell, among others, *you* that something stinks in your country and that it's worth to ponder about it for a while.

Your mocking can't deny the fact that the Bush administration lied at large scale - even to you - but, let me guess, you don't give a rat's ass too? Fine, then you have and get again the gvt you deserve.

You still remember that all this started with 9/11? While all the emotions boiled up about the involvement of Iraq in 9/11 - where is the link between the two incidents? Lemme guess, you don't give a rat's ass - one arab is as good as another and let allah sort them out?

Chandos made a nice point, Clinton caused a scandal by lying about his (isn't that supposed to be private anyway?) sex life (sic) and Bush lies about his reasons to start a war, invades and occupies another country and gets through with it, under applause of the people he lied to. That's one well working democracy. Checks and ballances and all that.
Bush, democratically elected, decided that his people wouldn't accept and understand his true and noble motives (war for basing) and decided to lie to them to lead them into a glorious, better future? Sounds great to me. The president knows best.

Mind to ask him if you want tea or coffee for tomorrow's breakfast. He'll order Rumsfeld to present convincing evidence on that issue. You'll be pleased to see that you actually despise coffee because it's arab bull, and tea, because the indians are dangerous and have nukes like north-korea, and that you actually prefer all-american pepsi anyway.

Amazing. That's america - with the right hired guns you can get through with everything. The land of infinite possibilities. Maybe that's another facette of the american dream - america is the only country where you can spit someone in the face in a spectacular way and get a kiss on the butt as a reward.

Mind to ask him if you want tea or coffee for tomorrow's breakfast. He'll order Rumsfeld to present convincing evidence on that issue. You'll be pleased to see that you actually despise coffee because it's arab bull, and tea, because the indians are dangerous and have nukes like north-korea, and that you actually prefer all-american pepsi anyway.Wouldn't there be the problem that you cannot proove how you, much less others, feel :shake: But what do I say - problem? :lol: :lol: :lol: :shake: Rummy sure gives a rat's ass :shake:

I suppose strawmen fall down easier.

It seems my latest post about pots and kettles has drawn a lot of ire.

I hope the irony of this isn't lost:


Today I'd like to discuss how to express our disagreement with the American administration and any who question what we are arguing.

When you don't like an opposing view, attack it personally and draw comparisons which allow you to characterize it as evil. This is rational debate. Therefore, since we disagree with the United States and particularly its current administration we should compare them to the most evil and despicable people and accuse them of the most horrific acts so that others will see how clearly right we are!

So, I propose that we begin on May 9th by drawing tangential comparisons between the current administration and Goebbels. Everyone knows Nazism is bad and therefore if we compare the current administration with the Nazis we are the good guys. We can also go on to discuss the administration in the same post with "child murderers" because everyone likes children and it'll make us look good again. Further, we should make veiled references to "the Deusthchland" and "fascism" and if anyone calls us on it we can refer to them personally as "slow" because everyone knows ad hominems are the most powerful and persuasive form of debate.

We'll refer to those who disagree with us as part of the "herd" implying they are stupid and can't think for themselves. Then, we'll talk about their "inflammatory rhetoric" painting ourselves as fair and reasonable. Finally, if we do want to back off some of our most outrageous links we can do so a bit but we should immediately come back with broad comparisons to less inflammatory comparisons; if we want to back of fascist we should come back and make generalized comparisons to "totalitarian regimes." We should not worry if our comparisons, that the current US administration and "totalitarian regimes [both] lie to people" is so broad that it applies to every government known to man (and perhaps applies more so to democracies who need to worry about public opinion than totalitarian regimes) because what is important is the negative comparisons.

Now, lets discuss how to respond to any dissenting opinion in greater depth. We should first criticize those who speak out against our view in the media as using inflammatory rhetoric and being undemocratic (this is particularly applicable when people disagree with the Dixie Chicks). We should accuse them of being irrational.

Another tactic we should use is that if they ever point out our being hypocritical we should imply they are racist, we'll do so while adopting an air of being being martyred: "Lemme guess, you don't give a rat's ass - one arab is as good as another and let allah sort them out? etc." It doesn't matter if none of the opinions we attribute to anyone we disagree with was actually expressed by them or not, in the end it is only important to portray ourselves as good and them as evil. Everyone wants to be good so portratying our opponents as evil is a good way to garner support for our position. Besides, strawmen are strong argumentative forms.



EDIT - duh, wanted to point out that the comparisons of the current admin and "evil" is particularly ironic since the administrations is attacked for being stupid and naive for saying its opponents are "evil."

I dunno, seemed ironic to me, hence my post. Attack me at will.

I'll apologize in advance for any unfounded misunderstandings etc since I don't see further participation by me in this thread as likely. Still, if I did misunderstand you, I'd at least ask you to reread what I refer to and honestly ask yourself if my interpretation is reasonable even if mistaken.

However, the Bush administration atm clearly has imperialist traits. I mean, it's pretty tough to start a war, killing a few thousand people, only because you need a back-up base in the middle east while telling the US public and the rest of the world that you're fighting the incredible menace originating from Saddam.
What nonsense. Saddam was a proven menace that at the very least required forces nearby to keep watch and contain his ambitions.

A first thing that I always found amazing was that the Bush administration managed to convince the average US citizen that Saddam had *something* to do with 9/11 and that he had attacked the US.How about this tie in? Saddam's ambitions and continued defiance of the UN necessitated the continued presence of "infidel" troops in the "holy land" which is one of the main gripes of bin Laden and his al Qaida. Now that Saddam's threat is gone, the troops can be (and are being) moved out of Saudi Arabia and into Qatar. No more "infidel soldiers" on the "holy land" for al Qaida to gripe about and send planes into buildings because of.

[Bleh. I keep typing Saudia instead of Saudi]

[ June 02, 2003, 22:49: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

BTA - While I agree with the tenor of your post, that really is one guy (Bin Laden) I could care less about, and as far as he and his group of murders go, they would be the last bunch that I would want to satisfy in this regard. I know that isn't what you meant. But nevertheless, any movement of ours or statements that can be poorly interperted as Americans having been labeled as "infidels," and thereby attacked, should be avoided. It would only be more fuel for "terrorsit fires," in the long run.

Hm, I quote myself from the post above:

To the Bush policy. A: Brilliant move, having now Iraq allows to get the US-troops out of Saudi-Arabia, which is pretty reasonable, because the US beeing part of Saudi-Arabias domestic issues had some devestating effects in the past.

B: Ooops, rewind, the same old song and dance again, after meddling in Saudi-interna, the US does not want to let go of the geostrategical important middle-east. Planning to put troops on foreign soil in Iraq, without the approval of the people there. I doubt that's a wise move, it's rather jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
I usually like to translate the nationalism of those guys in this way, you may agree or disagree. If anyone disagrees, please post something, so I get a little discussion. :D

Infidels = Foreigners

"Holy land" = Our home country, OUR country

"infidel soldiers" = Soldiers who came from another land and are not here with the consent of the people (but of the goverment, which is a dictatorship).

The problem with troops in another country hasn't been solved, just rearanged.

How about this tie in? Saddam's ambitions and continued defiance of the UN necessitated the continued presence of "infidel" troops in the "holy land" which is one of the main gripes of bin Laden and his al Qaida. Now that Saddam's threat is gone, the troops can be (and are being) moved out of Saudia Arabia and into Qatar. No more "infidel soldiers" on the "holy land" for al Qaida to gripe about and send planes into buildings because of. My memory may not be correct with the years, but hasn't the terroristic movement against American soliders first started 1991 in Saudi-Arabia itself. The targets were US-Soldiers. The troops acutally should have been sent home after the 2. Gulf war, so was the deal, if I remember correctly. 1993 followed the first attack on the WTC. Then more attack on US troops generally in the Middle-East, a man-o-war in Yemen, for example. Then the bombings in 2 african cities, which, 1998, target were the US-embassies there, I guess 400 and more dead. Then 2001. Question: The risk existed, why hasn't been acted ?

[ June 02, 2003, 19:31: Message edited by: Yago ]

The main problem was that it was a serious insult to some that foreign soldiers were on the soil of Mecca and Medina, not just anywhere in the middle east.

[EDIT] If I understand your question Yago (and I'm not sure I do): Yes, the risk existed, but the US felt it necessary to have troops in Saudi Arabia, and that necessity must have outweighed the risk.

[ June 02, 2003, 22:50: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia

The central institution of Saudi Arabian Government is the monarchy. The Basic Law adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of King Abd Al Aziz Al Saud, and that the Holy Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari'a). There are no political parties or national elections. The king's powers are limited because he must observe the Shari'a and other Saudi traditions. He also must retain a consensus of the Saudi royal family, religious leaders (ulema), and other important elements in Saudi society. The leading members of the royal family choose the king from among themselves with the subsequent approval of the ulema.

The main problem was that it was a serious insult to some that foreign soldiers were on the soil of Mecca and Medina, not just anywhere in the middle east.

The problem with Saudi-Arabia is, that it's politics are founded on a very backwarded ideology. It's an artificial state, which was united by a guy who made himself king. To legitimize his rule and the existence of Saudi-Arabia, he forged a religious-nationalism which was taught to the people there. His rule needs this "religious"-legitimation. Problems with it arise, because Saudi-Arabia doesn't shuts itself versus the outside when it's about luxury. Then it's actually a cleptocracy. It's a powder keg. And as the American troops where stationed in Saudi-Arabia, they became a domestic issue in Saudi-Arabia, they came into the frontlines.

As the "political" or "legal" language in Saudi-Arabia is based on "religious" terminology, they put their goals into "relgious" words, however mundane their goals are.

So, acutally, most of the muslims around the world give a rat's ass, if or if not American troops are in Medina and Mecca. Only the Saudis give and some allies of them, which are dreaming of a pan-Arabian cooperation. The most of the terrorists are usually from Saudi-Arabia. If the Americans would be seen by the people as "guests", no hair would be damaged. Because the islamic law says "guests" are holy. But they are there, because the Saudi-goverment, which is seen by the terrorists as "infidel" too, allows it without the consent of the people. So, foreigners on foreign soil, which are seen as occupation -> They occupy our soil, even worse, Mekka and Medina, the most important part of our soil.

[EDIT] If I understand your question Yago (and I'm not sure I do): Yes, the risk existed, but the US felt it necessary to have troops in Saudia Arabia, and that necessity must have outweighed the risk. Yes, that's what I meant. Evaluated the risk and said it's worth it. Now, they are in Iraq, where the same risk exists, a.k.a. beeing seen by the people as "unwelcome occupation force". In this case, the same thing would happen again.

So, the risk is still the same. Which makes the movent of the troops out of Saudi-Arabia into Iraq, which got likewise plenty of "holy sites", not so brilliant in my view.

Satire:

How to attempt to win a debate without taking a particular stand on any issue:

Fisrt, choose a mode of rhetoric: say, ethos. In this way one can appear authoritative to one's audience. "When I worked with the Army, EPA," and so on (Roman orators were particularly good at this). It is important to establish yourself as an authority on the topic, even if you are not. Also, use "topics of invention," even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Remember it is important to appear to be an authority:

"The topics of invention will add to ethos or the credibility of the debater as long as these are logically persuasive, and insofar as one cites the kinds of proofs that are seen as authoritative to one's audience." Remember to talk about yourself.

paraphrasing Aristotle.

Second, misrepresent your opponent. This is important because you don't want to, nor have the "courage" to address a particular topic yourself directly. Even if your opponent says one thing, try to rephrase it as something else. "When you said this, you really meant this..." or "you really don't mean that you are opposed to war because it kills children, you are really oppossed for such and such." (even though you may be a parent yourself and may understand the implications). The children can always be reduced to mere "rhetorical figures" and not seem so "real" to your audience.

Third, pretend not to be something you obviously are: "I'm not really a so and so supporter," even though you will take the side of almost every issue of so and so. If a large enough smokescreen can be cast up no one will notice, hopefully.

Fourth, show empathy with a cause, without having the courage to take up that cause. "I was a peace demonstrator or card carrying such and such." In the audience's eyes you will appear sympathetic and not overly aggressive in your attacks.

Important: cast yourself as being honest, even if you are not taking a particular stand on an issue, your attacks will seem legit. Say something like, "I may be mistaken" (even if you think you are not.) This way you always have an easy out. Most of all talk about yourself, maybe no one will notice that it is really, really far off topic anyway.

Have a nice day! :)

[ June 02, 2003, 23:23: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

The base in Saudi Arabia is being moved to Qatar, not Iraq.

Oh, and I'd love to hear the uproar over abandonment if the troops in Iraq were just up and moved out. It's bad enough as it is hearing that they're not doing enough.

[ June 02, 2003, 22:50: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

The base in Saudia Arabia is being moved to Qatar, not Iraq. Yes, but it needs the troops in Iraq as completition, as far as I understood. It still is mainly the HQ of operations in Iraq. The deal with Qatar and "Iraq" as operation fields work together hand in hand.

Oh, and I'd love to hear the uproar over abandonment if the troops in Iraq were just up and moved out. It's bad enough as it is hearing that they're not doing enough. Yes, yes, my dearest saying, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The problem is, Pandora's box has been opened, in this case, Iraq maybe we'll be torn apart by a civil war or gets a stable goverment, which supresses one of the ethnic groups. It's not so much in anyones hands I guess. Upside, they got rid of their old goverment, downside, what's coming now ?

I personally would of course prefer, the troops would leave as soon as possible. Building everything which is immediatly needed as fast as possible and giving over control to the people there. No longer plans for eternal stay of the troops. What then happens with Iraq, only god knows, but at least, they would have their destiny in their own hands. And the people who actually live there, propably know best, what would be good for them. And if it means, that they install an islamic goverment. So be it. The neighbouring Iran does quite well, on it's own, I think. And I am still betting on Iran, becoming the first democracy in the middle-east, even if the road seems to have gotten rockier lately.

Wow Chandos, you pretty much outlined the entire ongoing Democratic election strategy in one post. Nice going! ;)

Darkwolf - Yes, it is. Unfortunately they are not very good at it. :rolleyes:

BTA, What nonsense. Saddam was a proven menace that at the very least required forces nearby to keep watch and contain his ambitions.And it worked. The US, UK and france watched and bombed him in the enforcement of the no-fly zones. Iraq was under the harshest embargo ever set up. Saddam's menacing army got swept or bought away in a blitzkrieg. So what. Actually, Saddam was inprisoned in iraq and like a prisoner in jail - still evil but relatively harmless.
So what sort of a menace was he? His WMD program seemingly didn't exist. The call for solid evidence gets louder and louder. Bush has a serious credibility problem, the later finds them, the less convincing they will be. And worse: After the record of lies and forgery (someone remembers that saddam-niger (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/armtwist/2003/0331wholied.htm) connection documents) the point that anything they find lacks international verification will further degrade the credibility - anything found will be met with the concern it might have been planted. Not really nonsense (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030603-overpalying-threat01.htm).

I can only support Yago's remarks on the holy land. You're m