Well, here it is, the mother board of all Bush bashers, and anti war advocates. And to me it seems like the right time to express my views.

Iraq
Blood for oil, not the people, or the WMDs just oil

Patriot act
Big Brother is watching you...

France
So they want peace...

Coalition of the willing
Some small countries just in the coalition for trade agreements

The Geneva Accords
The what?!

what are your thoughts?

Iraq:
Though Saddam did need to be dealt with and I feel the world is a better place without him in power, the entire invasion of Iraq was handled disgracefully poorly. Everything from the reasons for the war on down to the aftermath. Our allies don't trust us, our enemies are now more determined than ever, and our citizens, for the most part, don't seem to have a clue about the seriousness of it all. They seem to be happy as long as "we won," and Americans hate nothing more than losing at something.

Saddam:
We defeated his entire army in less than 2 weeks, the quickest military victory in history. No weapons stockpiles have been found despite repeated claims by Bush, Rumsfeld and others that "We know for a fact that he has them" and "We know where he keeps them." Yet I'm to believe he was such an immediate, world-ending threat? I'm to believe that a better case couldn't have been brought against him to convince the world community we were in the right? Spare me.

Our International Image:
Tarnished beyond repair. The United States, for the first time in our history, is the most hated country in the world. We've severely weakened the credibilty and effectiveness of the United Nations, an organization we helped create, in part to keep powerful countries from overstepping their bounds. By attacking Iraq pre-emptively, we took a terrible risk. We put our credibility on the chopping block. That risk would've been justified had this one simple promise, paraphrased of course, been fulfilled: "Saddam is a danger to the world, and we'll prove it by uncovering his vast stockpiles of the most dangerous weapons ever created." It's a very dangerous, frightening precedent to have set.

Conflict of interest:
Dick Cheney, former CEO of Haliburton, who still receives $150,000 a year in deferred salary from them (ie, he's still on the payroll), should have resigned the office of vice president when Haliburton received the reconstruction contract, uncontested and without bidding. Critics say Haliburton recieved the contract because they are by far the most qualified company for the job, and one of the biggest oil companies in the world, easily capable of handling the job. Fine. But Dick Cheney still owns a substantial amount of stock in the company, stock which will no doubt make him even more wealthy when the $7 billion plus contract is paid through. He stands go gain more personally from this war than any Iraqi.

More to come...

I fear that the true threat to world peace and stability is on the other side of the world from the present conflict and is largely being ignored...North Korea.

Right now North Korea is nothing but a hot air balloon, with no air in it. But that might not always stay the same way. I agree that the matter should get more attention. Too bad there's no oil in North Korea, otherwise they would have been toast by now.

lol north korea couldn't attack anything. the biggest threats is china, which i don't think will attack anybody. and usa who have attacked 2 countries during the last 3 years....

Well, the oil issue aside, there were other unscrupulous reasons for the attack.

You see, Saddam was contemplating the shift to the Euro, one which would have made him a richer nation than he was, due to those laughable exchange rates we are all convinced to follow, and some other easons I will explain further down.

This would have given him a definate edge over nearby countries, like Turkey and Iran, which more than likely would have caused them to also follow suite. I actually think some consultation was taking place to this effect at the time between Iraq and those other countries, but I may be wrong.

So we are talking about The Middle East, that is, OPEC-in which a huge portion of the world's oil stockpiles are found-switching to the Euro from the Petro-Dollar.

This is important, because the main reason that the US can seem to get away with a six-trillion dollar debt (it may now have risen to seven), besides loaning from other countries who may recognize what is going on, is that it in effect has created a dollar hegemony.

The US produces dollars, while other countries produce things. Now I know that there are many American producers, but a lot of these are either owned by over-seas companies, produce their goods overseas for booming profits due to near-slave condition cheap labour factories, or are so inextricably tied to the stock-market that they play more of a part in this dollar hegemony than any other.

You see, most of the world is based against the US petro-dollar, and Dollar reserves, according to international law, must be stored by the bank in USA reserves, thus any surplus in effect belongs to the US. The US owns the world's oil for free.

So with the OPEC change to the Euro, which is a win for them, the US loses big time, because it has to pay the assets they are in control of back to the rightful owners, and Bush and his regime, along with the US economy, falls.

So by invading Iraq the US does two things-it distracts and frightens the Arab nation and induces war between the states (as you can see by its agreement to assist Turkey against the kurds, the involvement of the Serbs, the treaties with Iran etc, its shift away from blind-support of Israel to a more even approach of the Palestein conflict-which coincidentally assists in the next step, for not only does Israel become more involved in settling its disputes, but the oil is also challenged), and it also gains control of the oil prices which is what it truly is after, as the US can now negate the bonus from switching to the Euro. And this is what happened too, after the war, for some reason the oil prices went down, and this negates the bonus OPEC would have recieved by being paid its assets etc.-and with the US Haliburton oil pipeline they are now able to dictate whether oil prices rise or lower, by flooding the market, or by withdrawing their own stocks (which they are increasing with each war, they took Afghanistan's oil too, I would not be surprised if they took more while "assisting" Turkey and Iran.

Once the Money issue is solved I'm sure Bush will make it personal, for while his father certainly holds a grudge against Saddam (He was a rouge CIA agent after all-or is that what they want you to think? *cough* Bin-Laden works for the US *cough*) and this whole fiasco can be seen as a repeat of the Pinochet affair, or any other CIA trained and placed dictator for that matter, Bush himself really doesn't like China-before this whole "war on terror' baloney, he was raving alot about China-but I think that if he does attack China that will be one step too far.

Equester, China can attack but will not, but North Korea is a big threat as well, they have the capability of firing a nuke into Hawaii, Alaska, and the eyes and ears of the USA un Asia, Japan.

You shouldn't believe everything people tell. In case North Korea would nuke Hawai ... how much do you think would be left of the regime in Pjonyang? Kim is a survivor, and actually pretty predictable, despite everything the media, or the US propaganda, say.

If Kim has learned one thing from Iraq, then to speed up his nuke program in face of his personal threat: The recently ever agressive US foreign policy. Having seen that he cannot survive the onslaught of the US high tech arsenal he has to find another deterrant. And the nuke is by far the cheapest way for him to achieve that.

The US only attack minors. Rubbled after 10 years of bombing and a cruel embargo - and with an obsolete army - Iraq was simply no match for the US. Kim noticed that too, probably with some concern, as his army, though huge, is just as obsolete as Saddam's, if not worse.

With nukes Kin can deter the US. The risk of losing some twenty-thousand, if not more, US soldiers in combat is a sobering element in the wet power projection, hegemonia, war on evil and regime change dreams in some minds in Washington. Plain and simple. Kim wishing nukes isn't insane but simply logical and stringent.

The US plans for missile defence, with the usual references to the north korean threat, are in fact an agressive move to counter deterrence. The current US gvt doesn't want to be deterred, they want no limits in their ability to strike.

Insofar the US foreign policy produces the threats it claims to see already by speeding up their emergence. That is IMO quite a counterproductive approach.

The point is, if North Korea is attacked, they will have no way of pushing it back, unless China interferes. So North Korea is going to fall one way or another, so, if I was Kim, I would flatten some enemy land with some nukes before I go down.

The point is: Why should he do such a thing? Especially when give a chance to leave to exile for instance. Leave him an exit option and he will use it.

Probably there is only one person atm in the world who might have the guts for a thermonuclear war anyway ... if god wants it ... BRING'EM ON!

The point is, he's too proud, and if he's going to lose, he might as well hurt the US as much as possible, no matter the consequenses.

I found a good line today "America's special role in the world is based not simply on its great strength, but on a global faith that this power is legitimate." If such faith is squandered, the United States of America, for all its power, will find itself increasingly under fire and isolated.Bush wasted a decade of goodwill in less than six months. Quite a feat. And the effect is as described.

North Korea has bigger problems than just energy supplies and their people are not willing to sacrifice themselves to a lost battle, their administration knows that and i don't think he is very fond of the idea of dragging NK and himself (the only thing that matters to him) to a war. China is a huge country that now has as a prime target the economical uprise and not to become the bad guy (it's bad for business ;) ).
As for USAs image throughout the world well... i am sorry but now USA has managed to get a label on her saying armed and dangerous and this will show more in the years to come. I feel that most countries are trying to be in good terms with USA out of fear, and if the opportunity comes then they will be among the first to help her sink. But the only one to be blaimed is USAs current administration and not the rest of the world.
I read about how scared people in USA are for the possibillity of another mindless terrorist attack and they say: why we did nothing to them, we only try to help.
But i fear that they are forgeting the fact that their goverment has different goals and policies and these policies and goals innocent people pay with blood not only in the Middle East or wherever US has troops but in USA too.

In many ways, I think the US is trying to bend some countries to their point of view.

After yesterdays attack on the hotel where Wolfowitz (http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1185382003) was residing he gave an interview (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$AMDNELUWLI1MDQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2003/10/27/wirq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/27/ixnewstop.html):

"Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy civilian chief at the Pentagon, promised an "unrelenting" effort to crush Iraqi resistance after his hotel in Baghdad was hit by a barrage of rockets early yesterday."

Later that day a general, commenting on the attack, said that the increase in attacks means that the US are making progress and that the iraqi obstructors (http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk2.html) try to undermine it, trying to drag the US back one step after the US advanced three.

Seen that way the attack reports the US administration complains about so much would actually be the good news they've been waiting for. What a success must we make: "Another GI dead! Hooray!" Perhaps that's the rationale behind Bush's "Bring 'em on!" Sure, the more resistance, the more progress.

I have problems with that sort of logic, in this time of sophism we need another diogenes.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:56: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

No weapons stockpiles have been found despite repeated claims by BushYet, we did find Long-Range Tactical Missiles, which Iraq was forbidden to have under a decade-old treaty. Also, Saddam violated the Geneva Convention by using women and children as soldiers.

Our international image has definitely been damaged, but to what extent? Other nations will still continue to trade with us and we'll continue to remain in the world. At this point in time, there is not a nation in the world that does not depend on the U.S. as a very strong market for international trade.

Global image in all honesty is not that difficult to repair. Remember how quickly Japan and Germany (and even Italy) got their good name back after the fascist wars of the 1940's?

As far as North Korea is concerned, nothing is going to happen there. If any sort of nuclear strike were to happen against Alaska or Hawaii, it's safe to say that the U.S. won't be the only nation going after them with a vengeance.

China isn't a threat. They depend too much on the United States's money to risk getting on unfriendly terms with us. As was already stated, making your best customer mad is not a good business tactic.


This is important, because the main reason that the US can seem to get away with a six-trillion dollar debt (it may now have risen to seven).Where'd you hear that statistic? Our debt is not that high. Last time I checked, it was roughly $4 trillion, and it could not have climbed $3 trillion in a year.

Every nation in the world is condemning our attacks. I ask you, if 10,000 citizens died and 19 city blocks in downtown Berlin were destroyed by some extremists intentionally crashing your own planes into them, wouldn't you be out to put an end to it?

Rastor makes a very strong point. Since the war against terrorism began (post 9/11), numerous terrorist plots have been foiled. Most of these planned attacks had been in the works prior to the US invasion of Afganistan. Most of these planned attacks were against targets outside of the US...Fance, Germany, Italy, England. Sometimes they were planned against a distinctly US target, such as embassies, but mostly they were planned against anything that represented western society. It is almost certain that US soldiers have lost their lives preserving the lives of innocent civilians in the aforementioned European nations.

When the US embassy in Kenya was bombed, over 200 people were killed. Only a handful were US citizens, the rest were Kenyan nationals caught in the crossfire of terrorism. It is difficult to determine how many Europeans are alive due to the blood of American troops.

It is also inacurrate to assign the current level of terrorist attacks upon the policies of the Bush administration, to say that if it were not for our present aggression, there would be no terrorism...tell that to the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, tell that to Leon Klinghoffer, tell that to the Marines in Beirut, tell that to the civilians at the Teheran embassy, tell that to the accountant on the 89th floor of the South Tower, tell that to the passengers over Lockerbie...I could go on but the soapbox beneath me is starting to creak...

[ October 29, 2003, 02:57: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 29 Oct 2003 at 01:18:55 AM GMT is:
$6,850,430,184,321.23
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.58 billion per day since September 30, 2002!So yes, closest of all to 7 trillion

The site is here (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

And while we're on the subject, where did you get the idea that the rest of the world somehow depends on America for its wellbeing? I admit that the economies are nowadays fairly inter-dependant, but remove any country from the mix, and after some initial re-adjustment, things will balance out again.

Every country in the world used to get by just on it's own at one stage, and could do so again. Even with the increased levels of blatant consumption, the removal of America as it stands would hardly be overly signifigant, after a short period of time, and the ones conquering are likely to set up their own trading country.

And another thing, this isn't personal, but how can America critisize one country for having non-nuclear missiles, when it has the largest stockpile of arms in the world, nuclear or otherwise. I remember some bragging took place during the invasion about the US "mother-of-all-bombs." To me that poses a more signifigant threat.

The point about the weapon stockpiles was that it was claimed Saddam was ammassing nuclear and biological weaponry for use against the US, and none of these type were found (I wouldn't be surprised if they were buried in a desert somewhere, but Bush did say "we know he has them, we have seen them, and we know exactly where they are", and he was told repeatedly by the inspectors that they had not found anything).

Also, people are angry about they way Saddam was removed, it could have been done 10 years ago very easily, but Bush Snr. and the others involved had a lot to gain by leaving him in power, it could have also been done now without all the civillian bloodshed, and the total and on-going de-stabilisation of the region, but this was not the case.

This is why all these minor treaties and shifting alliances are being formed right now, to keep the area de-stabilisd.

I ask you, if 10,000 citizens died and 19 city blocks in downtown Berlin were destroyed by some extremists intentionally crashing your own planes into them, wouldn't you be out to put an end to it? How can you equate 2 buildings with 19 city blocks? Edit: I just remembered this too, 10,000 was the total number for everyone involved. Only 2-3 thousand were actually killed.

Anyway, the damage done to Iraq was far greater than this was, and he wasn't even invloved in those attacks, let alone the ongoing bombing of the middle-east that happened by the US before, after, and while those attacks took place.

Two wrongs do not make a right; forgive and forget; turn the other cheek; let he who is without sin cast the first stone; does this mean anything to a president who preaches bible verses while fighter-jets fly overhead?

You do know that on the same morning the US gave the order to bomb a primary school in some middle-eastern country don't you? (I forget which one, but it was not an isolated event, the US bombs civilian buildings almost every single day)

To say that there are terrorist attacks regardless of the actions of the US is one thing, but to deny that the US government probably does more bombing, killing, and assassination then anyone else is ludicrous, let alone their financial support of many of these terrorist and dictatorial institutions, which has been well documented and even discussed here at length in other topics, let alone the assumption or inuendo that the US is some giant peace-keeping loving force of crusading saviours, putting their lives in front of "those poor skinnys/rag-heads." Please. They're probably the ones who made their guns for them.

The only time the US gets involved is if they think there is some financial or political gain, the minute this is doubted, all (if there was any) support is withdrawn.

And by the way, allthough I doubt that even Bin-Laden or any Taliban/Al-Qaeda was involved in those attacks, as dispicable as their actions within their own country were (and even though they do work with the CIA), I do agree it was purpotrated by extremists in the hope of spreading terror. This is always the way I've thought of the US government, I don't see why that would change now.

[ October 29, 2003, 03:12: Message edited by: Manus ]

@ Manus...I have enjoyed many of your posts, but this time I take exception...

the assumption or inuendo that the US is some giant peace-keeping loving force of crusading saviours, putting their lives in front of "those poor skinnys/rag-heads." Please. They're probably the ones who made their guns for them.
Actually, the most common third world weapon is the SKS assualt rifle, made by China.

And by the way, allthough I doubt that even Bin-Laden or any Taliban/Al-Qaeda was involved in those attacks That belief is currently espoused by only the most ignorant. Evidence is incontrovertible that bin Laden and Al Qaida were responsible for the attacks.

Perhaps the US has been responsible for deaths on a world scale, but unlike terrorist cells our government is answerable to a higher power, the people of the US, who will remove from power anyone who blatantly violates that privelege.

Do you sleep better at night without the threat of Soviet tactical nukes being launched in your back yard? (I assume you are from Europe, forgive me if I am mistaken) Are you too young to remember the real threat of Mutually Assured Destruction? You are safer as you sleep tonight due to America's strength under a much maligned Ronald Reagan, whom history will remember much more fondly than you do.

This war against terrorism is the same thing. It is not for the faint of heart, but in the end, you as an innocent civilian will enjoy the safety that American sweat and blood has bought.

[ October 29, 2003, 03:41: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

Manus, you are so cheerfully lunatic that you make the perfect off-topic trap! OK, you've caught me. Here goes:

American debt: In absolute terms the debt is growing, but in relative terms it's historically pret' small. And relative is everything, since what matters is how much debt cripples your ability to invest in the economy. Iraq is in much worse shape owing $100 billion than America is owing $7 trillion. And most of that American debt is owed to...Americans. It's the equivalent of borrowing money from your parents to pay for student loans - yeah, you're in deep debt, but in exchange you get a better-paying job, and the money stays in the family.

Non-nuclear weapons: Which is worse, a nuclear missile in American hands or a machete in Rwandan hands? A French aircraft carrier or a North Korean sub? It's not the weapon itself that matters so much as the wielder. America, France, and Britain have proved over five decades their maturity in handling nuclear arms. Hussein and Kim Il-Jong have demonstrated the opposite. Since you're already quoting the Bible, let me add another: he who is untrustworthy with little will prove untrustworthy with much.

Weapon stockpiles: see above point. The only places with a higher per-capita-weapon ratio than Iraq (prior to invasion) are Switzerland, the Korean DMZ, and West Virginia. If Hussein didn't have WMD, it sure wasn't for lack of trying.

Saddam in 1990: There were two main reasons that Bush Sr. didn't invade Baghdad to depose Hussein. First, the Gulf War was fought under UN auspices, and - no surprise - the UN didn't approve of an occupation of Iraq. Second, the Americans were worried about the dangers and expenses of occupation. It wasn't so much that Bush Sr. had anything to gain from leaving Hussein in charge, but there was a lot to lose. If Bush Sr. had pushed through into Baghdad, we'd be having the exact same arguments today, only we'd be bashing the older Bush instead of his son.

10K citizens, 19 blocks: I think Rastor misspoke, referring only to the blast radius. You're right, Manus, three thousand is a lot less than ten thousand, and a heck of a lot less than, say, the yearly dead from UN sanctions on Iraq. Or the yearly dead in North Korea by famine and concentration camps. Or even the dead in France from seasonal change.

Damage to Iraq: Iraq was indeed damaged by the invasion, but more so by the wave of sabotage afterwards - kinda ironic that America spends billions on precision weaponry only to see the place shredded by looters. And for all that purported damage, America is spending huge sums to rebuild the country - far more than Hussein ever invested. On a macroeconomic scale, Iraq is actually gaining from the invasion. (There was an old parody movie about this - I can't remember the title, maybe "Of Mice and Men"? - about a country that provoked the US purely to get rebuilding funds.)

A li'l historical perspective is in order - the US devastated Germany and Japan, and then helped rebuild them to the economic powerhouses they are today. Iraq is starting much better off than either of those countries, largely due to the US' care during the invasion. No new Dresdens...no massive humanitarian crises...no refugee spills...etc.

And incidentally, although thousands of soldiers were killed during the invasion, something far less than three thousand civilians were killed. If we'd wanted people dead, we could've killed anyone we wanted - we've got the materiel to destroy the world a dozen times over. But instead we tried to keep as many alive, and as much intact, as possible.

Hussein not involved in the 9/11 attacks: No, and Bush never made that a casus belli. Bush didn't sell the war as a retaliation strike (like in Afghanistan), and not even as a strike on an "imminent" threat.

Turn the other cheek: The next time you hear those fighter jets overhead, flip that Bible open to Romans 13:1-7, or maybe Matthew 8:5-13, or just about any book in the Old Testament. You're correct that two wrongs don't make a right, but incorrect to assume that military force is wrong. God makes quite clear that it's wrong to use the military rapaciously (see Judges 18 for an ugly example of this), but often state force is not merely permissible, but morally required.

US daily bombing: Uh...no. Where are you getting that ridiculous statistic? Not even Israel bombs every single day!

The US is certainly not, as you put it, a "giant peace-keeping loving force of crusading saviours". But a little historical perspective, please - the US is the most benevolent superpower in history. Would you prefer Khanate Mongolia? Imperial Britain? Soviet Russia?

Your last point: I really don't know what you're trying to say. Could you please clarify?

Cheerfully lunatic... I like that, fits me to a tee ;)

Hmmm, I did get a little carried away there, so I'll try to clarify myself.

I only spoke of the debt clock in responce to Rastor questioning my figures, if you read the above post where I mentioned it you wil also realise why I object to the occupation of Iraq. (On a side note I also object to this much spending and consuming, and trying to live so far out of your own means, and trying to be even wealithier, but that is another topic). And the US is one of the major suppliers of arms to the world, whether or not the chinese rifle is preffered, there is a lot of American fire-power out there as well.

I agree that Iraq is just as much better off without Saddam as Afghanistan is without the Taliban, it's the way these things were handled, the reasons why they actually invaded, and the hypocrisy of the US government in doing so, especially when you realize the history it has with these organisations, that truly bothers me. I am also bothered by the wave of violence and vengence that is entering peoples minds over this-I mean westerners who suddenly cry for the death penalty to be re-instated for "terrorist attacks" for instance.

To turn a blind eye to a regime it helped put in power, benefitting from said regime all the while, and then to attack them when they can get greater gains by doing so, and then claiming you're a humanitarian is crazy-talk.

I'm not trying to say these countries weren't armed, but only that they could not do as much damage as the US allready does. The fact that there are less people and less weapons only makes this argument stronger.

Which is worse? Two men each with a sword, or fifty men, twenty five of which have swords? Per-capita the fifty-men force is weaker, but I don't trust any of them more than the other, so I'd rather take my chances with the two-men, who (not being a mob-mentality) are also more predictable, maybe even more reasonable.

Look, I'm not that fussed about people being killed, I just don't like hypocrisy and lies. Saddam could have been removed from power at any time without affecting everyone else in this manner. And why O why does the occupying force suddenly feel the need to build an oil pipeline owned by Haliburton? (This happend in Afghanistan too coincidentally, and I'm not even going to get into the drug trade) America didn't need to spend all that money on weaponry, hell they could have won with broad-swords by sheer force of numbers, or with a handful of special-ops, if occupying the country wasn't more important than defeating the regime, and formed some sort of agreement with the local militia or ruling council that would inevitably have been formed once there was a power vacuum.

God doesn't make anything clear personally, the bible does, and there is a difference. Hell, an invading army isn't a state force anyway, so it doesn't really matter who said it.

And I'm aware the US may not bomb things every day, but it gets close some months, and most goes on unbeknownst to the voters who are supposed to exercise some restraint on those responcible. What I mean is, the US should clean up its own act before pointing the finger at anyone else, and pleading innocense from acts of terrorism. You don't have to dominate everything in order to live well, I always say to lead by example, and I'll say it again. No act can ever be justified by saying "well he did it" or "if I hadn't of they would have".

I am reminded of an episode of the Simpsons here that goes something like this:

"By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps away tigers."
"That's stupid, how could it do that?"
"You don't see any tigers do you?"
"Lisa, I wan't to buy that rock!"

I can find no excuse for any act (those of the terroists are included by this, I'm not singling America out, merely evening up the score) based solely on the actions, or supposed actions, of others. I only say this in such reference to America because the US government is trying to convince the world they have some sort of moral obligation (they don't even settle for an excuse, they try to say it like they would be irresponcible if they didn't). No-one believes this dogma from the mouths of other fanatics (unless you happen to be one of them, like the factions calling for jihad), so why does everyone believe it now?

Fact is, if everyone stopped harrassing everyone else there wouldn't be any need for this sort of action on either side, someone has to make the first step, and after that the rest should work itself out. A lot of people were scared during the cold war, not me, but anyway, as you can see nothing happened, the only countries that were threated were the ones that had gotten involved, (most of these, unfortunately, were subsidaries or states of America and Russia who were fighting for independance from one of them or from within their own country) and both the soviets and the US tried to build up allies, and attacked each other's allies (unnecesarrily as it would seem, as very little changed), and all this pointless bickering continued until both sides agreed to stop wasting everyone's time, put down their childish arguments, and stop trying for foolish aspirations of world dominance.

One of them just started up again.

Ok, I hope I haven't come across as too lunatic, but I think it needs saying that Americas actions, regardless of the slim possibilty that someone may benefit from it, (cause hey, if it weren't for all those sanctions, and bombings, and America had never helped Saddam reach power, or had of exiled him 15 years ago, Iraq would be a lot better off than it is now) these actions are in no way justified, and I think things are done in entirely the wrong manner if the intentions were really as pure as they made it out it be, that it didn't have to be this way.

Hacken Slash, Grey Magistrate (and any others), I sincerely hope that neither of you have taken what I've said as personal criticisms, because I do think highly of both of you and a good deal of what you say, I just don't understand the unwavering patriotism you hold.

Which brings me to my last point, you both questioned me on the remarks I made to the effect that it was not the CIA operative Bin-Laden or the terrorist factions of the Taliban who were responcible for the attacks on the world trade centre. It was in fact the US government themselves. I have researched this a good deal, and heard of the resarch of others, and am now certain in this belief. The evidence is amazing if you can see it all, and I don't understand why a government that would do this to its own people has earned anyone's respect.

Edit: Ok, I want to clarify my clarification. I'm not attacking anything too specifically, nor am I trying to make a stand on anything (at least not much). I just want people to say "The actions of the US are as reprehensible, selfish, and unscrupulous as anyone else's. Let's just hope that some good comes out of the changes they have enacted. There is a better way." That's all, I guess I could have saved a lot of time and just said this, but it's not in me I guess. I talk too much, I know it, but I still have difficulty trying to explain what it is I'm trying to say. It doesn't help if I change my mind on something half-way through either. I hope you guys have understood what it is I'm trying to say.

I'm not denying that America can, and has, been known to bring some good from its actions, only that they could have done this in a far better fashion, like with this case in Bosnia of which Ragusa spoke. America only seems to meddle for their own benefit, and others pay the cost (where money is far from the only consideration), and a lot of the time more harm than good is illicited, short term at least. Who knows what changes time will bring, what repercussions these effects could have? Things usually work at getting better I know, but this does not speak in America's favour, only in the ineffectiveness of it's actions to stand the test of time (a good thing considering the fact that more often than not, most consequences are completely ignored). A Shame the government doesn't realise this, as then maybe they could work more at making here and now a better place, looking forward to the future, instead of trying to control it.

[ October 29, 2003, 07:58: Message edited by: Manus ]

Saddam violated the Geneva Convention by using women and children as soldiers.The Geneva conventions forbid the use of children as soldiers but not the use of the women. If you mean that women cannot be recruited because they are civilians, Geneva conventions don't forbid the participation of civilians in the army, militia and resistance groups, but ofcourse in this case they lose their civilian status.

Do you sleep better at night without the threat of Soviet tactical nukes being launched in your back yard? (I assume you are from Europe, forgive me if I am mistaken) Are you too young to remember the real threat of Mutually Assured Destruction? Actually, I was sleeping much better, because I knew that none of the big guys could do something without thinking what the reaction of the other big guy would be. Also, I was sleeping much better because I knew that the soviet WMDs were in the hands of the soviet generals and they were not sold to anyone who could buy them as it happened after the fall of the Soviet Union. Like or not there was a balance during the cold war, a balance of terror of course but still a balance, which doesn't exist today.

America, France, and Britain have proved over five decades their maturity in handling nuclear arms Just like the french nuclear tests in Mururoa?

Hussein not involved in the 9/11 attacks: No, and Bush never made that a casus belli. Bush didn't sell the war as a retaliation strike (like in Afghanistan), and not even as a strike on an "imminent" threat And what about this (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm):


The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003

Text Of A Letter From The President To The Speaker Of The House Of Representatives And The President Pro Tempore Of The Senate
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 .

Sincerely,
George W. Bush

A term that is very big in the field of political science is: Cue Bono. Or, who benefits? If that term is applied to events happening around the world a very bleak picture indeed starts to be seen.

I dont really know what to believe about things but if you for example ask yourself "Cue bono?" in regards to 9/11 some very unpleasant thoughts might enter your mind. Who benefited from that tragedy? I wouldnt say it was the Taleban of Afganistan, nor would I say that Saddam in Iraq did. So who did? It is a question worth mulling over.

I am not saying anything one way or another but one should always keep ones mind open to all possibilities.

@Manus
And the US is one of the major suppliers of arms to the world, whether or not the chinese rifle is preffered, there is a lot of American fire-power out there as well. I imagine if taken in terms of dollars of weaponry sold, you would be absolutely right in your claim that America is the arms supplier to the world. I just don't think that you find too many F-16's, Abrams tanks or Spruance Class Destroyers in the hands of terrorists or lawless regimes...we haven't made that mistake since the Shah! Most of the military hardware that US forces encountered in both Afganistan or Iraq were actually Soviet era.

I don't take anything you say as personal criticism. You speak out for what you believe with passion and energy and I will always respect that and support your rights to keep doing so.

@BOC
Actually, I was sleeping much better, because I knew that none of the big guys could do something without thinking what the reaction of the other big guy would be. I find it hard to believe that you find less long term security in our present world than under an insane Cold War balance of terror where we all become dust if someone sets a foot wrong, but to each his own. I grew up with whole sections of speculative fiction that dealt with life (or lack thereof) after a nuclear catastrophe. The sheer proliferation of this subject in writings, essays, TV shows or movies, testify to the very real fear that most people lived with...a real fear that is unknown in todays world. True, we have new fears, ranging all the way from dirty suitcase bombs to Anthrax attacks, but none carries the same terrifying scope as nuclear anihilation.

On a side note concerning nuclear threat...in recent years the CIA had classified Pakistan as the greatest threat to use a nuclear weapon (this was before the recent revelations @ NK). The ongoing border fights between Pakistan and India were a source of potential conflict leading to the use of tac. nukes. Due to the US intervention in Afganistan, and the cooperation that has developed between the US and Pakistan, that threat scale has since been reduced significantly. Our alliance with both Pakistan and India has mitigated the mutual tensions somewhat, and if anyone can bring both parties to the negotiating table, it will be the US. I see this as another evidence that the current war on terrorism has made headway toward making the world a more secure place for all it's inhabitants.

@Hacken Slash

This fear of retaliation was only thing which didn't let the wardogs of both sides to press the button. Now that this fear doesn't exist what do we see? The use of DU shells (almost every western army has them), ideas about using small nukes in order to destroy underground shelters, the fear that extremists have acquired WMDs from the arsenal of the Soviet Union. The fact that the masses don't think about the nuclear holocaust anymore doesn't make the world a safer place.

Also, during the cold war smaller countries didn't feel the need to have nuclear weapons since they knew that they were under the protection of one of the big guys. Now that this protection doesn't exist and that the UN were proven weak against the big guy, everybody is looking forward to have them as the cases of Iraq and North Korea have shown.

Rastor when you say that it doesn't pay to anger customers, then what about the French? The French have been known to buy 8% of all the oil taken from Iraq pre Gulf War II, was bought through the US, also do not forget, they were the first country, other than the US to condemn 9/11, and pushed the UN to root out the terrorists.

Manus, if you say Iraq is much better off without Saddam, then please explain the sudden rising of several gurilla(sp?) groups striking throughout the Iraq? What about the deaths of so many civilians due to the precision guided weapons. If anything, Iraq may be worse off.

Estimated dead: 9000 civilians and rising

Also, during the cold war smaller countries didn't feel the need to have nuclear weapons since they knew that they were under the protection of one of the big guys. Now that this protection doesn't exist and that the UN were proven weak against the big guy, everybody is looking forward to have them as the cases of Iraq and North Korea have shown. I might agree that the current political climate has increased the desire to make nuclear programs public but I'm not really sure that the desire for nuclear weapons stems quite as much from the fall of the Soviet Union as you seem to indicate. For example, you cite North Korea's development of nuclear technology and tie it in with the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union but North Korea began their nuclear program in 1956:
http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/korea/nkoreanuclear.html

Nuclear weapons are more useful to a nation (with a couple exceptions perhaps) on a regional scale rather than on a global scale. Look for areas of regional strife and that's where it seems you find new nations looking toward nuclear weapons - Pakistan v. India for example. I'd also say with respect to N. Korea that nukes are something they'd probably like for regional negotiation purposes pertaining to economic problems - it would give China something to think about next time they decide to shut off N. Korea's oil flow; or give S. Korea something to think about; or give Japan something to think about when it is time to sit at the negotiating table etc.

Rastor,
Yet, we did find Long-Range Tactical Missiles, which Iraq was forbidden to have under a decade-old treaty.Well, they were banned according to a UN resolution and the US were not, period, empowered to enforce this resolution. No subsequent resolution changed that. When US officials or politicians claim different, well, then they probably lie or just don't know better.

And besides: An invasion and regime change because of ... two missiles*, especially considering that they exceeded their allowed range (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm) of 150km by some stunning km, so they had, perhaps, a range of max 200km? A reason for war and occupation?
There was a ... less intrusive way and equally effective way to deal with that ... imminent threat to the existence of the US and the western world: Inspections. According to Kay's report the UN did a splendid job to destroy Iraq's nuclear program ... the lack of findings impressiveley underlines that ... Also, Saddam violated the Geneva Convention by using women and children as soldiers.Well, the US do so too (http://www.g2mil.com/child-soldiers.htm). They do, and regularly so, send woman soldiers into combat zones (remember Jessica Lynch?), and they do employ children (under 18) as soldiers (as the only western country the US haven't signed an international treaty against child soldiers - joining Somalia, the only other dissenter). And have a look at the geneva convention (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm) ... I for my part have trouble finding anything there that fits your claim above.

* ... to prevent me from reiterating the whole embarassing the-dog-ate-my-WMD/ no-Al Quaeda-link/ no-9/11 connection but evil mustache and, given the chance, evil intentions for the future stuff ... just this brief notice

EDIT: Hacken Slash,
as for the US as the major weapons exporter: The majority of people getting killed around the globe daily fall prey to small arms. And that's where the US is the key player, largest domestic market and exporter. More on CDI (http://www.cdi.org/) under the link to "smallarms and light weapons".

[ October 29, 2003, 17:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

And besides: An invasion and regime change because of ... two missiles*, especially considering that they exceeded their allowed range of 150km by some stunning km, so they had, perhaps, a range of max 200km? A reason for war and occupation?
There was a ... less intrusive way and equally effective way to deal with that ... imminent threat to the existence of the US and the western world: Inspections. According to Kay's report the UN did a splendid job to destroy Iraq's nuclear program ... the lack of findings impressiveley underlines that ... I find it funny that you mention Kay's report as defense of your claim that inspections were effective. Kay's report shows how ineffective inspections were in many areas.

The report claimed that Iraq concealed WMD activities and equipment from the UN inspection teams. It claimed the Iraqi Intelligence Service had a clandestine network of labs that contained equipment subject to UN inspection. It claimed covert efforts were made to maufacture fuel for Scud missiles. It claimed there were plans for long-range (1000km) missiles. It claimed there were attempts to obtain long-range missiles from North Korea. It claimed there were undeclared production facilities for UAVs that were admittedly tested beyond prohibited ranges. It claimed scientist's homes contained documents and equipment useful for Uranium enrichment. It claimed information about R&D into biological warfare was uncovered.

BTA,
you may be interested to read this: Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39500-2003Aug9&notFound=true), have a look at today's CSMonitor news overview (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/sept11/dailyUpdate.html), this (http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030906.wweap0906/BNStory/International/), this (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak02.html), this (http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ay/Qus-iraq-weapons.R2bE_DSN.html) ... or how about CNNs Kay: No weapons yet, but evidence of intent (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/) - evil intentions for one day aren't a reason to start a war.

Furthermore, the drones you mention were actually intended for reconaissance, no trace of an offensive intent with them and have you heared anything of a bio or chem warhead for them? No, beyond allowed ranges. How threatening.
You forgot the infameous "Winnebagos of Death" no one mentions anymore as everybody, except a few diehards, accepted the fact that they were to produce hydrogenium for artillery baloons - and that was confirmed by the british producer of those vans too. Generally the accusation of bioweapon research (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1057559,00.html) has been relativated already - the botulinum found seemingly wasn't that deadly after all, unsuitable for a bioweapon as well.
Iraq did some missile research, but they were allowed to do so, mind the Al Samoud missiles were illegal only for flying too far. And drawing a plan isn't illegal too, just one of the sort of games the US do too, with the types of weapons they aren't allowed to use - as long as the pres hasn't cancelled the treaties banning them. You don't invade a country for unrealised, actually *shelved* plans for future weapons, best, you didn't even know of *before* the invasion.

Actually the overall resume on Kay's report was highly sceptical, and the absolute general tone said "failure (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031003-intell1.htm)" of the US administration to prove it's case for Iraq, and these sparse findings only blow fog over this. Of course, the US administration tries to make the best of what was found, eventually there are asses to cover - but, honestly, that cannot justify a *preemptive* war.
I find this line noteworthy: "If you look at them side by side, C.I.A. versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board." (from Stovepiping (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact)).


And anyway, the discussion about how guilty Iraq was is pointless anyway: It is now relatively clear that Bush wanted war and then searched for an acceptable reason to attack. General Franks (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/131379p-117308c.html), comander of US troops at the gulf now confirmed that he only a couple of months after 9/11 presented the first war plans for Iraq to Bush.
The WMD, according to Wolfowitz, were the reason everybody could agree on to be afraid of. And all the rest, humanity, liberation, regime change, were to pretty up the pic and to supply everyone with a feelgood reason about the war.

And didn't pass the global audience unnoticed.

The spin and distortions of the Bush administration will be a reason for profound scepticism for future US claims. Insofar I can't share Rastor's optimism that the lost goodwill may be easily restored. I don't think so.
How quick do you think will the US forget their ridiculous grudge on France? Actually the rest of the world has a lot of reason for scepticism after Bush Jr. show since 9/11. The thing required to restore mutual trust in foreign policy may be a regime change in Washington followed by good behavior.

Maybe it's time to have a look back to the late 1990s (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) (maybe also here (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat2a.htm)) and to today's rhetoric on Syria (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ30Ak03.html). Just a thought. Besides, recently a Mr. Wurmser (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ22Ak02.html) was appointed as Middle East Advisor to President Cheney ...

With Iraq US occupied, Turkey and Israel allied, Jordan and Egypt pro-US Syria and Lebanon are isolated. Never before Israel and the US had a better chance to put pressure on Syria, not that they had anything to do with 9/11. In 1982 Sharon tried to achieve a "transformation" of the middle east, aimed on collapsing the regime in Syria, by invading Lebanon. Sounds familiar?

And anyway, the discussion about how guilty Iraq was is pointless anyway...An enlightening quote.

If people are back to arguing whether or not war with Iraq was justified, and if group A says it was for certain reasons, and group B says those reasons are irrelevant, then it seems there may be an impasse.

For the record, I think the war was justifiable but still thought it was a bad idea at the time; whether it will turn out to really have been a bad idea we won't really know for another 5-10 years at least.

Rags - I said nothing of justification. You pointed to Kay's report as defense of your claim that inspections are a "less intrusive way and equally effective way to deal with" the problem. I pointed to the same report to show that that claim is wrong; nothing more.

Well, other than saying I find it funny that you chose such a report to back up your claim... :)

How can you equate 2 buildings with 19 city blocks?1. 3 buildings were hit with the planes (Everyone forgets that the Pentagon was also attacked).
2. Care to take a guess how much land was destroyed when the two towers fell? That's right, 19 blocks. That's how big the rubble field is.

You do know that on the same morning the US gave the order to bomb a primary school in some middle-eastern country don't you? (I forget which one, but it was not an isolated event, the US bombs civilian buildings almost every single day)And I won't deny that. Did you know that the Iraqis put SAM sites and other weapons on top of school buildings, day care centers, etc.? We're attacking the weapon emplacements, there isn't much we can do about where they are.

And by the way, allthough I doubt that even Bin-Laden or any Taliban/Al-Qaeda was involved in those attacks, as dispicable as their actions within their own country were (and even though they do work with the CIA), I do agree it was purpotrated by extremists in the hope of spreading terror. This is always the way I've thought of the US government, I don't see why that would change now.Bah! This is the sort of conspiracy theory that has been gaining ground in Europe and elsewhere. That bin Laden works for the CIA has as much basis in fact as the AIDS virus being invented to kill gay people and cocaine being an attempt to wipe out blacks. And this "evidence" you speak of, I want to see it. There is irrefutable proof that what you just said is false.

Hussein not involved in 9/11 attacks: No claim was made that he was. Documents uncovered did reveal that he had links with al-Quaida, though.

Look, I'm not that fussed about people being killed, I just don't like hypocrisy and lies. Saddam could have been removed from power at any time without affecting everyone else in this manner.Okay, then, how? Do you know how the people in Iraq fight? What, you want us to send in an assassin to take out Saddam? That carries more diplomatic reprecussions than the method that was used, and Saddam was prepared for the hitman scenario.

Hell, an invading army isn't a state force anywayDefine state force then.

America is indeed the world's biggest manufacturer of arms, in whatever variety you mean. I won't refute that point, and I also fail to see what it has to do with anything. We don't sell nukes to anyone.

The French have been known to buy 8% of all the oil taken from Iraq pre Gulf War II, was bought through the US, also do not forget, they were the first country, other than the US to condemn 9/11, and pushed the UN to root out the terrorists.The Middle East isn't an emerging economic powerhouse. If it wasn't for their oil, they'd have nothing. China is a major market for production and they profit off us. The Middle East does too, but their rulers aren't quite as economically knowledgable.

Well, they were banned according to a UN resolution and the US were not, period, empowered to enforce this resolution. No subsequent resolution changed that. When US officials or politicians claim different, well, then they probably lie or just don't know better.The U.N. never enforced it, so what choice did we have? If the UN would have enforced its own rules, none of this stuff would have ever happened.

Ragusa, the Iraqis were shooting missiles at American troops 400km away. That's a heck of a lot more than 150, or even 200. Besides 150 is 150, and anything over that violates the treaty.

Insofar I can't share Rastor's optimism that the lost goodwill may be easily restored. I don't think so.Ragusa, your own nation stands as proof that goodwill can be restored. Remember the six million people murdered? Germany got its respect back, what makes you think we won't for much lesser offenses?

And while we're on the subject, where did you get the idea that the rest of the world somehow depends on America for its wellbeing? I admit that the economies are nowadays fairly inter-dependant, but remove any country from the mix, and after some initial re-adjustment, things will balance out again.Every economy bases their currency on the dollar. The GDP of the United States is double that of any other nation. We export 60% of the world's products. That will be a hard economic shoe to fill.

Rastor,
Ragusa, your own nation stands as proof that goodwill can be restored. Remember the six million people murdered? Germany got its respect back, what makes you think we won't for much lesser offenses?Do you have an impression how long it took Germany to restore the goodwill lost due to WW-II? Half a century or so ... If you find trust in that, cheers ...

As for the missiles: (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/22032003142343.asp) I would really be careful with official announements ... 400km away? You're sure it isn't just more spin? I have my doubts and I'll share my reasons with you: IIRC there were three missiles fired, one of which was identified as an Al Samoud and crashed somewhere in the desert. Leaves the two that hit something in Kuwait, and they were identified not as evil prohibited hidden Scuds but as Silkworm (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82537,00.html) antiship missiles of chinese origin (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/c201.asp). The Silkworm has a range of 200km in the longest ranging version ... so how actually can they miraculously fly twice as far? It should be added that Iraq most likely didn't have the latest model but the HY-1 with some ... stunning 35km range.
Now have a look at a map and south Iraq and Kuwait and the Shatt el Arab and you see that even with that short range a hit was possible. The interesting aspect was that Iraq managed to hit a land target with an anti-ship missile (and that's why I remember the story). Pretty skilled actually.
So what? 400km? Hidden weapons? The Silkworm wasn't even banned ...

Really, try to be more critical ...

It may have taken 50 years for unified Germany to regain the goodwill of the world, but West Germany was in good standing with the rest of the free world in less than half that time, perhaps as little as 10 years if you regard the NATO deployment...but that's all nit-picky.

I do challenge the very article that you have chosen to defend the silkworm missile attacks. It cites that at least a dozen attacks occurred, not 3, and that two of the missiles were suspected of being Chinese silkworms. Many of the missiles were vaporized by Patriot missiles, so there is little left to sort through for evidence, but article did cite this:
The missiles cover the gamut of Baghdad's somewhat unorthodox ballistic arsenal. They vary from small Chinese-made Silkworm antiship missiles, fired from the desert against U.S. bases in northern Kuwait, to heavy Soviet-designed Scud missiles which have landed well south of Kuwait City.

A quick look at a map shows that Kuwait City, at it's closest, is @ 100 km from the Iraqi border, averaging 125 to over 150 km. To have landed well South of Kuwait City is almost incontrovertible evidence of a missile exceeding the limitations.

I don't for a minute believe that the US was lily white in it's build up to this war with Iraq, but I think that here in the US there is somewhat of a mentality that we are only finishing what we started in 1991, and so be it.

More on this later...

@Laches

Almost every european country has nuclear programs (and facilities), which have started almost the same time with the nuclear program of North Korea. How many of them have nukes? Just Russia, England and France.

According to your link North Korea conducted its first high explosion detonation test in 1983 but they joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. If you see their behaviour after 1990 and the fall of the Soviet Union you will notice that they have become unwilling to sign any more treaties against nuclear weapons or to cooperate with IAEA and this fact leads to the following conclusions:
1. They followed this path because the big guy wasn't around anymore and they had to take their protection to their own hands.
2. They were no more forced to do what the Cremlin told them to do

Both of these conclusions show that the fall of the Soviet Union was the crucial point to the development of North Korean nukes.

Also, nukes are useful if you want to put pressure on your neighbours (as you wrote) but the recent events have shown that they can help to keep the big guys away from you. Iraq didn't have nukes and it was invaded by U.S.A.. North Korea has nukes and U.S.A barks but doesn't dare to bite.

@BOC: I think that you are correct in describing the symptom, but mistake the cause. It is true that the nuclear weapon development of the countries in question seemed to kick into high gear at the fall of the Soviet Union, but I don't think that it is because of the need to seek a level of self-protection. I think that more than anything it would be due to the diaspora of Soviet weapons developers and scientists who suddenly found themselves out of a job. They took their skills to the open market and ended up in NK, India, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq...who knows where else.

Further, in the particular case of NK, they were always under the Red China sphere of influence. The loss of the Soviet Union would more than anything represent the removal of possible conflict, not security. Their big daddy was still very much there, just to the West...

[ October 30, 2003, 00:56: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

@ BOC

I can agree with a fair bit of what you said. I think that wanting a deterrent is why some want to make their program public - whether they actually have nuclear weapons or not they at least wish to be perceived as having the capability developed in order to deter.

Specifically regarding N. Korea, it seems to me it signs treaties with one hand while spinning centrifuges with the other. I think the 1983 non-proliferation treaty from its standpoint didn't amount to much. For example, in the mid-80's (~85 iirc), there was a long shut down at the major facility where it is believed fuel was removed and plutonium separated. I've seen that S. Korea, Japan, Russia, and the US all believe this. My understanding is less is known regarding N. Korea's uranium.

I really do believe that most nations want nuclear weapons, or those that do at least, for primarily regional issues. For example, even if N. Korea has nuclear capability it still needs a global delivery system for the nuclear weapons. Mu understanding is N. Korea is known to be able to launch at targets within 1500 km. They once launched a missle with 5,000 km range over Japan and it broke up thereafter (late 90's I think). Even if they can reach further nobody knows whether they can stick a warhead on one of these longer range missles.

So, I think the nuclear weapons are primarily for saber rattling purposes within the region. Being more public with their programs is probably out of a desire to deter in my opinion but the development programs would have gone on even if the cold war was ongoing as they were ongoing while the cold war was still on.

Whether the Soviets tried to force N. Korea not to develop weapons or not I haven't a clue - though they did actively aid N. Korea in developing some nuclear programs.

As for the nukes: Why states want nuclear weapons (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EH09Dh02.html)

And as for Hacken Slash,
How foolish to trust in Fox when it comes to details, such as Iraq's actual type of missile. Looking at globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/navy.htm) provided better info. So what Silkworm was it actually? According to this (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/hy-1.htm) it was actually the type CCS-3, with some 50nm range, that is actually some 90km, and some 60nm/ 110km till fuel exaustion. That would then probably be the HY-2 type, and not the HY-1 type. I got that mixed up in the hurry and the myriad of designations (america/ chinese). Sorry, my pun.

And as for the multiple impacts quoted in the RFE report ... I would be careful to take them for granted, especially the Scud part. Interpreting the absence of official reports (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=457272) on shelling of Baghdad airport as as absence of attacks (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5076.htm) is an error. It also works the other way round: What's reported isn't nessecarily true, and I would be especially careful when it is something that implies Saddam hid weapons and used them - as that would so conveniently underline the ... somewhat disputed ... cause for invasion.

@Ragusa...I am thrilled that we have managed to find a solid common ground...Fox News Sucks! Let's try to build from there.

The piece you posted from the Aisa Times was interesting and thought provoking, yet nevertheless falls into the realm of editorial or opinion piece.

I am searching out more detailed sources but both CNN and ABC describe missile attacks on Kuwait consisting of way more than 3 missiles...the number 3 comes from missiles that hit. It does not surprise me that of the 3 that hit, 2 would have been the silkworm type, as they would have had too short a path, a too compressed ballistic course, to have been intercepted by Patriot batteries. I will try to find the source, but I read an article describing the intercept guidance computer used on the Patriot. It would have been ineffective at intercepting any missile with a ballistic path of less than 200km.

I well value the need to not create reasons to justify an attack, but when math and logic support the existence of illegal missiles, regardless of reporting source, it eventually becomes of economy to say, "Yeah, they probably had something, let's move on to the next topic".

edit: I may have misquoted, the min threat range for a Patriot battery may actually by just 150km. Still checking....

The point is not so much you justifying anything but the administration officials in washington ... whenever something is found, like that botulinum (I mean, I have that in my fridge as well I fear ... time for cleaning and sorting out the older cans :rolleyes: ), they point at it and say: "See, I've been right", even if that means to *bend* the facts to suit the claim.

Nowhere that becomes more evident and clear as in how the AEI and Cheney handled the results of the polling in Iraq, which I referred to in my Zogby thread (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000512).

Ragusa, I gave a careful read to the "Information Clearing House" you cited in an earlier post. I am apalled. I have never seen a more biased reporting of events. The number of inacuracies are too great to even list, let alone refute. I have come to view you as sort of a "Link Master", I know you must work very hard on every post, and I admire the care you take to try to back up every claim, but this site is pure, unbridled trash.

I don't dispute that Iraq is very much of a problem for the US, but to heap misinterpretations and misrepresentations onto the bonfire is counter-productive. To ascribe to the ICH is to accept the fact that Fox, CNN, AP, ABC, MSNBC, BBC, WFP and even Al Jazeerha are all liars. I have a hard time placing much credence on any website that is maintained by an individual. The Internet has been a blessing of information, but there sure is a lot of crap out there, too.

I have a very close friend who is a Lt. Col. in the US Army. We have been in contact since long before the invasion, although he is presently not actually in Iraq, he was there in a combat unit until just recently. He confides to me that there are some incidents of low morale, but they are mostly isolated, and not due to the fact that we are there as an occupying invasion force, but that the free world does not seem to appreciate the price that they are willing to pay every day. He has related to me isolated incidents of lawlessness on the part of American soldiers. He has also assured me that perpretators are in custody and will face full military court-martial when the situation stabilizes.

I don't really want to talk much more about what I have heard first hand, since it was told to me personally.

I have been unable to find anything that coroborates the falsified GI letters back home that were mentioned at this website. There is a real, legitimate opposition to the war here at home, and if there were any truth to some of those allegations, they would have been aired and disclosed over here, and not at some backwater internet site.

Ragusa, I hold your criticism in the highest esteem. I think that you ask questions that every flag-waving American needs to hear and have answers for, please don't discredit yourself by quoting an unsupportable garbage source.

All units, BRACE FOR IMAPCT!

RANT INBOUND!


Ok, so:

1. The little Media Game needs to end. It was fun with all the maps in the sand and stuff, but that time is over. You have to watch over the officials, but give the media their severance pay and put their stuff on the porch. Let them mingle with the common people, and semper fi, do or die, gung ho gung ho gung ho, see if they make the Darwin cut. You know, I've not heard ONE THING about the Kurds. And God Knows, they have been yelling for some kind of Kurdistan, much to the dismay of Turkey. How about CNN, and everyone else that was playing ball with Saddam and Company, take a little day/week/month trip up north and see if they get shot at or what.

2. Dry up the state. Back in the days of Pro Hibition, the governor of my Fine State shut down the borders so the state congress could dry up enough to repeal the bane of their existance. Grab a few Force Multipliers, and put some people on the borders of Iran and Syria. Tanks, B-52's, F-14's, and some of that really nifty artillery. Declare a 5 mile (or 10) buffer zone, and give instructions to "shoot anything that looked like it might move in the near future, and call in some napalm just to mark the spot". If it takes 1000 women/men to achieve an objective, it will take 10,000 to secure it.

3. Siege it. Japan had an Emperor; thank God for the Emperor and everyone that had some Common Sense and relayed that to Truman. Germany had British OSS Commandos operating for 3 or 4 years, and a whole lot of rubble and displaced people. Bagdhad needs a DMZ. Put all the known "good" people in one area, and spend $20 billion in food and water and Computer Role Playing Games, and give them a little 4 month vacation. Grab all the kids, teach them some how to roll their stats and which feats to choose, get them started on some Trivia Pursuit, and distribute toothbrushes. Dirty movies, water parks, rollerblades; I don't know what all they'll fancy. Then grab all the psychos that want to play; SAS, SBS, Seals, Airbornes, Recon, Delta Force, SWAT. Go forth and play in the areas that Disturb Me. Kill anything that moves, dip your bullets in pig fat, whatever. When it has been cleansed, open the gates, and start rebuilding.

4. There really is something to be said for firebombing. It changes your perspective when you glance around, and everyone you ever knew is gone, and you're surrounded by lions. Surgical wars are always nasty and really slow. It's more efficient to sweep the rubble into the corner, a new can of Playdough, and start over the right way.

5. It's always a Catch-22. You could pull a Clinton, and tell the CIA that you don't care what they do, so long as nothing ever makes the light of day and I can pick and choose what I want from it all. Let the bodies pile up high enough, and you won't have Peace Riots, you'll have War Riots. Save the Tree-Huggers and Whales. I would have taken the 30 yard penalty; 100 years from now, it would have been the better choice.

@ejsmith: I frankly can't tell if you are a genious or totally deranged. Hmmm...are you running for any office?

Robert Fisk, the man from informationclearinghouse, is someone special. Personally I hold his reportings in high value. He is actually a well reputed journalist and veteran foreign correspondent who actually reports what he sees. Nothing less.

When he has seen grenades impacting, then it was quite probably so. And I can understand someone travelling Iraq, seeing piles of death while hearing nothing about civilian casualties in Iraq from the officials, beeing appalled about it and writing it and you can expect him to be actually pretty accurate in what he writes. He sees it as his responsibility to report what he sees.
He's not a renegade "I hate the US" moron or doomsayer, to the contrary - he has probably seen more wars than every GI in Iraq younger than 45.
His often harsh criticism for example on the occupation of the palestinians has made him unpopular especially among right wing Israelis, and their US cohortes. So, for some reason, John Malkowich declared he wants to kill him (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/Malkovich.asp) ... Fisk clearly causes an emotional reaction. The "Shoot the Messenger" phenomenon ...

Ok look, I can see that little ground is going to be made here on either side.

Well first off, here's what I could find of some information I wrote down a year ago about the events in America on September 11th.

Thousands of stock options were purchased for United Amerian Airlines immediately proior to Sep 11, many well known rich American friends of Bush profited from this.

The Black-box recordings dissapeared (the passports of the alledged terrorists did not, they somehow survived a blast which vapourised people).

Calls were alledgedly made by passengers and crew on a hijacked flight - these never appeared on their bills or phone records - and who could make a call on a hijacked plane? Also, the altitude at which the plane was flying was out of range for most phones. This has been tested. All but one phone constantly automatically failed. One phone made contact once. Only static was heard, nothing else. All phones failed above 8000 ft, and as was seen, it was next to impossible below this (in a metal-skinned aircraft).

No air traffic controllers were interviewed. No statements were given.

Hijackers took luggage and flight instruction manuals with them, then left it all in a car. Why did they need luggage? Why not take it with them?

a note surviving their motives also miraculously survived the crash (along with their passports).

Flight 93 exploded before the crash. One engine and much debris were found before the crash site. Nothing else was found anywhere.

How can a handful of people with box-cutters overcome evryone on the plane?

At Defcon 3, no fighter planes were dispatched. They are supposed to be on alert and defending always. It is Standard Protocol to immediately intercept planes if not on course, and often to open fire. This has always happened before.

Hani Hanjour said to have flown a Boeing with immaculate skill. However, his instructors claimed he was a washout, let alone able to perform such manouevers.

None of the hijackers had any competent skill (if any) at flying a plane, they were all hopeless.

Who was in control of the planes?
Global Hawk pioletless plane technology can fly up to four at once. Flights from America (San Fransisco I think) to Melbourne and back have been achieved, distances like this have been accomplished repeatedly.

It is very likely the entire crew and passengers were gassed in flight, at which point the plane was auto-pioleted and the rest was all CIA smoke-screens.

Bush continued reading to children for 20 minutes after being told, he then claimed to have seen the first crash on TV.

A threat against air-force one was claimed, then withdrawn.

FBI and CIA claimed no prior knowledge. Israelis and Russians both claimed to have warned them (Since the time I wrote this I have also found numerous other sources of information about this knowledge being passed on to the FBI esspecially. A decorated officer was demoted and re-located to South Africa when he warned about these attacks, also, a man jailed in Toronto wrote a precise warning, claimed as intelligence, which was ignored.).

None of the names of the terrorists were found on the passenger list.

The FBI and CIA had 19 named and photographed in 2 days (I think we have all heard anough about the inadequac of CIA intelligence in recent days).

No transcript of conversations between piolets or controllers released.

The WTC collapsed neatly, like a controlled demolition implosion, all was dust, no slabs of concrete of furniture.

Steel melted at 800*, the melting point of steel is 1300*.

Bin Laden and George Bush Snr. are both the major shareholders in a company building oil pipelines which benefitted by six trillion dollars.

Massive explosion in heroin production after the bombing of the Taliban, which was not stopped.

There are approximately 500 insurance questions over the doubt of the claim. The buildings were insured for 70 billion dollars (that may actually be 700 billion).

The supposed terrorists were claimed to be fundamentalists, but they are recorded getting drunk in bars and getting lap-dances. A copy of the Koran was found in one of these bars. Why would a fundamentalist (who can't drink) take his holy book into a bar, and then leave it behind?

Carreat Air owned by the CIA (whose boss is also involved in the oil business). This is where the men were supposed to have recieved their training.

A Black Box is destroyed only at a decelleration of ~800 000 feet s-2. The Crash only contributed to 17% of this max crush.

The twin towers are built to withstand the temperatures of the fires purported (of course, the explosions were much hotter than what could have been caused by this crash, as the steel was melted and the concrete vapourised).

(Oh and by the way Rastor, in the first gulf war 150 000 civilians were killed, and the total infrastructure was destroyed. Only 7% of this bombing was reported in the news.

I wonder what this means for present day Iraq?

Manus where have you gotten these things if I might ask? It is always nice to get some backup of claims, especially such wild ones.

Occam's Razor.

Thousands of stock options were purchased for United Amerian Airlines immediately proior to Sep 11, many well known rich American friends of Bush profited from this.Really? UAA stock plummeted after 9/11. There is no way they could have profited by losing money.

Calls were alledgedly made by passengers and crew on a hijacked flight - these never appeared on their bills or phone records - and who could make a call on a hijacked plane? Also, the altitude at which the plane was flying was out of range for most phones. This has been tested. All but one phone constantly automatically failed. One phone made contact once. Only static was heard, nothing else. All phones failed above 8000 ft, and as was seen, it was next to impossible below this (in a metal-skinned aircraft).Airplanes have phones built in. It hasn't been proven what altitude they were at when the calls were made, and microwave signals (what most good phones use) can go through windows and metal pretty easily. Ever heard of satellite phones? I have a hard time buying that the tests disproved that those wouldn't work.

Hijackers took luggage and flight instruction manuals with them, then left it all in a car. Why did they need luggage? Why not take it with them?Um, the hijackers knew what they were going to do.

How can a handful of people with box-cutters overcome evryone on the plane?People are cowards. One of the planes went down before reaching its destination.

At Defcon 3, no fighter planes were dispatched. They are supposed to be on alert and defending always. It is Standard Protocol to immediately intercept planes if not on course, and often to open fire. This has always happened before.Where did you find this? It's wrong, but where did you find it?

Hani Hanjour said to have flown a Boeing with immaculate skill. However, his instructors claimed he was a washout, let alone able to perform such manouevers.Manouevers? He crashed a plane into a building. Anyone with eyesight and a steady hand can do that.

None of the hijackers had any competent skill (if any) at flying a plane, they were all hopeless.I have yet to see any evidence that the hijackers were flying the plane instead of forcing the pilots to. Besides, it's not that hard to fly a plane straight.

Who was in control of the planes?
Global Hawk pioletless plane technology can fly up to four at once. Flights from America (San Fransisco I think) to Melbourne and back have been achieved, distances like this have been accomplished repeatedly.In test flights. Very few planes are equipped with that technology, and it can be disabled.

It is very likely the entire crew and passengers were gassed in flight, at which point the plane was auto-pioleted and the rest was all CIA smoke-screens.That's proof that you're spouting nonsense right there. Prove that it's likely.

Bush continued reading to children for 20 minutes after being told, he then claimed to have seen the first crash on TV.American schools have TVs in every room. Besides, he made no such claim in his initial speech. He may have in the one later in the day, but every American channel was airing the footage that he may very well have seen replays of the crash (he did not ever say that he saw it live).

A threat against air-force one was claimed, then withdrawn.The PLO claimed to be responsible for the hijacking. This supports nothing.

FBI and CIA claimed no prior knowledge.That is true. It is also true that the CIA warned president Clinton about it back during his term. They admitted that.

None of the names of the terrorists were found on the passenger list.Ever heard of stowaways? It was pretty easy to sneak onto a plane before the new security emplacements.

The FBI and CIA had 19 named and photographed in 2 days No they did not. It took a week. American inteligence is among the best in the world, at least, after Bush lifted all the regulations that they had hampering their performance. It's quite possible for that to have happened.

No transcript of conversations between piolets or controllers released.Wrong. It was being put on news sites and broadcast pretty shortly after the event happened.

The WTC collapsed neatly, like a controlled demolition implosion, all was dust, no slabs of concrete of furniture.Um, I've seen the crash site. It took out 19 city blocks, there were concrete slabs.

Steel melted at 800*, the melting point of steel is 1300*.There was steel present at Ground Zero. It did not melt.

Bin Laden and George Bush Snr. are both the major shareholders in a company building oil pipelines which benefitted by six trillion dollars.What company? That means that one company made 150% of Germany's entire yearly output in a matter of a few days. What's the yearly income of that company? There isn't enough money in the world to support that figure.

Massive explosion in heroin production after the bombing of the Taliban, which was not stopped.The Taliban provided drug enforcement. The drug war cannot be stopped, we've seen that in Columbia. This fact is meaningless.

There are approximately 500 insurance questions over the doubt of the claim. The buildings were insured for 70 billion dollars (that may actually be 700 billion).If you had to pay 700 billion dollars after something like this, I'll be damned if you don't ask questions.

The supposed terrorists were claimed to be fundamentalists, but they are recorded getting drunk in bars and getting lap-dances. A copy of the Koran was found in one of these bars. Why would a fundamentalist (who can't drink) take his holy book into a bar, and then leave it behind?1. They think that's what Americans do, so they were trying to fit in.
2. It's against the Koran to attack civilians, even in a jihad. I don't see that being followed, in the terrorist attacks, Israel, or elsewhere.

Carreat Air owned by the CIA (whose boss is also involved in the oil business). This is where the men were supposed to have recieved their training.It's illegal for a public entity to own a private business.

A Black Box is destroyed only at a decelleration of ~800 000 feet s-2. The Crash only contributed to 17% of this max crush.Ever considered the possibility of two 110 story buildings landing on it? Besides, the Black Box was recovered.

The twin towers are built to withstand the temperatures of the fires purported (of course, the explosions were much hotter than what could have been caused by this crash, as the steel was melted and the concrete vapourised).Bull. I've been there, I've seen the concrete and the steel.

(Oh and by the way Rastor, in the first gulf war 150 000 civilians were killed, and the total infrastructure was destroyed. Only 7% of this bombing was reported in the news.Iraq still sets up civilian centers as military targets. I want proof that the entire infrastructure was destroyed.

I challenge you to back up any of this information with data from a reputable site.

Rastor, the US took out 19 city blocks in ONE attack, do not forget the US also used cluster bombs in civilian areas etc. The deaths in Iraq are more than triple the deaths in 9/11.

@Manus:

Unless you are a structural engineer, do not attempt to discuss the failure mode in the Twin Towers. In a nutshell, at the impact site the local temperatures exceeded 2000C. This was more than adequate to melt the structural steel. This blast zone extended into the actual floor that the aircraft impacted as well as at least one above or below. The structural loss of the supporting steel members in such a large area caused the floors above the blast zone to collapse downward into the still sound areas beneath. Unfortunately, the weight now far exceeded the load capacity of the steel members, and floor by floor the building folded upon itself like a stack of pancakes.

Everything else you say was bull, too, this just was the easiest and quickest to refute. Everything that Rastor said can be verified by numerous reputable sources. A short search will show that you are only rattling off the worst kind of unsupportable conspiracy theory. Why is it so hard for the world to believe that the US was attacked...I'd almost rather believe that it wasn't true...that it really was some dastardly plot...unfortunately, there is no hole in the ground deep enough for me to stick my head into and hold on to that belief.

This is what is called cognitive dissonance. Someone refuses to accept what is right in front of them because they don't want to.

Ok, I didn't want to get into this, but I'll play it your way.

First off, go look into any of the records, you will see that they did make money. I don't know if the stocks did crash, but this doesn't mean that the traders didn't profit beforehand, or even afterwards somehow. I'm no share-trader so I don't know how, only that they did.

Look, the tests proved that the phones involved didn't work, at all altitudes of flight, I don't care about any other type of phone as that is obviously irrelevant. If you want to do your own tests, that's fine.

All I'm saying here is that it is suspicious, any number of things could have been the reason, but a lot of suspicious things added together paint a pretty good picture.

Not all people are cowards, especially not in a life-or-death situation. With those sort of numbers, against such poor weapons, it would have been next to impossible for them not to win.

I could ask you the same question. Where did you find it was wrong? As I said, this is all from notes I took nearly a year ago, as such, I doubt my sources would still be undoctored. I could say the same for yours.

Have you ever flown a plane? It's a lot harder than it looks, and they were flown for quite a distance before they even had to begin weaving between buildings.

Any plane can be equipped with auto-pilot technology if it is done deliberately.

Ha! Prove that it's not. ;) You can't prove that it's not likely, but it allready is likely by the suspicious cirumstances.

Why would someone who had just heard of an attack on his city continue to calmy read for 20 minutes? Why would school-children do the same (if they did indeed see it on TV in their classroom)? We all know how much of a hot-head Bush is. It is all very unusual.

Look, these things don't necessairly prove anything specific, they only suggest extremely doubtful circumstances.

Even if I was to accept the fact that the CIA knew of a real terroist attack, and bungled it, that would in no way support your claim to their abilities - and why demote and re-locate the man who had brought this to their attention before the event took place? Not even afterwards as a scape-goat, but before.

Have you tried to sneak on board a plane? You will die in the luggage compartment, that is absolutely certain. I meant this in reference to the fact that there was no way of knowing who they were.

How would they possibly trace these other people without knowing who they were beforehand? We have all seen the failings of American intelligence in recent days.

No that is not true. The recorded conversations between the pilots were never found, because the black-box was missing. No actual controllers involved were interviewed, (allthough this may have happened, and probably did, at a later date).

I'm reffering to the part of the WTC which exploded, not the bottom floors, this applies to your next comment as well, and the one further down. You have very deftly avoided the actual point, that the blast should not have destroyed any of the steel.

As I said, these notes are old. That may have been, and more than likely is, billion, not trillion, but could have even been trillion when all factors involved are considered, and not in a few days, but a few months.

Ummm, the CIA was in control of all the old wharehouses and facilities. If you ask me someone turned a blind eye.

Yes, I would ask questions, and I have. 500 is a lot of things to doubt however, in any claim.

I am aware of the huge discrepencies between the Koran and the fundamentalism which is preached to the illiterate masses. These men were neither. They were well educated and had all at times been accepted into the CIA for training. It is well known that Carreat Air is owned, has has been used, by the CIA on numerous occasions. You cannot possibly be trying to say that no-one in the governments employ can own stocks or be a member of a board, because most of them do.

Also, I doubt that that building crashed on top of the black box at 800 000 feet s-2. Also, not all of the black boxes were found, and the recordings were far from intact. Why would all the recordings somehow be missing, and the black-boxes so damaged?

Look the proof is there if you are wiling to look for it, as I have. I'm not going to spend all my time doing this. I'm sure you can find some sort of old newsreels, and some commentaries on the actual damage, if you won't believe what anyone else says.

I see you have avoided commenting on the facts that the passports and notes somehow survived when not even the black-boxes remained intact,
(and why the hell would someone bring their passports and a note describing what they were going to do on board with them anyway, especially if they were going to sneak on board and not bring their luggage. Which they brought. Especially if they were going to blow everything up anyway. None of this makes sense at all. If they truly wanted to be identified they would have left those things with their luggage or something), and that one of the aircraft exploded before it crashed, along with skimming over the main points in many of the minutae I brought up, only focusing on something I said in relation to that fact.

I understand your reluctance to accept that the government was behind all this, but you cannot tell me that it is not suspicious.

Look, Ok I don't want to get into a mud-slinging match with anyone, and I'm not really concerned if people don't believe me. I'm an honest man, and I value the truth, and that includes being true to your morals, but if you want to call me a liar or an idiot or a psycho, I understand, and I can see the possibilities for all these things to be explained away. But alltogether this, and a lot of suspicious data, coupled with the fact that this is not an isolated incident, and these things are very common with cover-ups and covert ops that have occured in the past, make me very hesitant to trust what the US government tells me, and has convinced a lot of people of their guilt.

All I wanted to do was show that the administration cares little for any people, whether they are foreigners or even their own. This is obvious in all of its dealings, from things like this down to the constant legal wrangling to the misinformation of simple things like genetically modified foods. I just want people to start caring more about the important things in their lives, and to abbandon that which fills the lives of men like these. Please understand I am not critisizing all of America, but you must realise the downward spiral that has absorbed so many. Self-governance is the first step towards dissolution of this sort of society, and the quicker immorality no longer has a stranglehold the better. I admire those who would object to me for their determination, and their loyalty, but this could be applied in so many better ways. It is only when you remove yourself from something that you can begin to truly understand it.


Edit: I have just seen the previous two posts.
@Hacken Slash, are you serious that you would rather believe that your own government did this than it was the work of another country who had repeatedly suffered at the hands of said government? I sure as hell wouldn't. And Erebus is totally correct in what he says. The actions of America are in no way justified because of this, and they have repeatedly done considerably more damage, which has had considerably further reaching and longer lasting implications than any act by another country against America.

As I doubt that you are a Civil Engineer, or have studied the impact, can you tell me why you believe the testimony of one while not of those who reported the evidence I cited? This is the only report I have ever come across from an actual source, so the 2000 degree heat is new news to me. As such, I will leave debate on this temperature alone for now, but I ask You to admit, or at least consider, that the situation was very irregular, and that it was considrably more intense then would be expected. I have seen the photos of this and of other sites, and this one seems specifically peculiar in the amount and type of damage.

[ October 30, 2003, 17:56: Message edited by: Manus ]

This is what is called cognitive dissonance. Someone refuses to accept what is right in front of them because they don't want to.
Again, Occam's Razor.

I'm not sure why people are going to argue about this. You can't convince someone who really believes that there weren't alien landings at Roswell that they didn't occur. You can't convince someone who really believes that the Holocaust was made up that it really happened. If someone really believes that the moon landing was fake, then you aren't going to convince them otherwise.

That's the nature of a conspiracy theory. If someone wants to believe in a massive global and brilliant (ironically involving Bush) conspiracy rather than believe the simpler explanation then nobody will change that opinion.

Conspiracy theories are dogmatic in their nature. Trying to convince someone to abandon their dogma isn't possible. All we can do is note their belief and always keep it in mind when they're discussing that and similar subjects when we evaluate their views.

I am not trying to sling mud either (I am not sure if that remark was directed at myself or Rastor). I have only shown, and if necessary will provide documentation by Professional Engineers who have examined the failure, that you are clearly wrong in one of your allegations. If one is proven wrong, then all of the others need to be viewed with a more critical eye. Indeed, if a few more can be disproven, your entire argument will topple like a line of dominos (or a high rise tower)

Edit: I just caught your edit, Manus. A bit like a cat chasing it's tail. In answer to your question, yes I am an Engineer, not structural but in a closely related field, and I work for a large firm that was involved along with a sister company in the structural failure analysis as well as other items such environmental monitoring. We had teams at ground zero within 48 hours of the disaster. The reports and studies were very technical, and I don't pretend to understand all of them, but they do exist. Very watered down versions were released to the media, but some more complete coverage was provided in tech journals such ENR.

To tell the truth, I don't remember if 2000C was the exact temp cited, but that was ballpark. I may have seen it list as almost 3000F and I am converting in my head. Regardless, the temps encountered at the blast zone didn't even have to liquify the steel, only soften it to a point were the load capacity was compromised.

[ October 30, 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

Edit: Most of this may sound a little arrogant, as I had not read the previously edited post before responding, but I left it as I originally wrote it because I think that is the right thing to do (edit the second: especially after critisizing the governement for doing that very thing in another topic)- so for clarification please see the Edit at the bottom of this one. I hope I don't end up eating my foot, as I started to waver in my steadfast conviction even as I responded to Rastor.

I better go put on new socks. :doh:

End Edit.

Hey, I'm not steadfast in these views, nor am I accusing anyone else of being so in theirs. I'm just saying this is what I have heard or found, or have been told by people I respect and trust who do a lot of research into these things, and that we must take all of the spin we hear with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying anything is certain, only that based on what I know that it seems to me very likely that this was orchestrated by the government (and not particularly Bush himself either), and that it was indeed possible for it do have been so.

Perhaps we can all come to agreement on some points more closely related to the topic at hand, and I suggest these for discussion.

1.The American Government (and I'm not saying that any other is better, my own is just as bad, as I'm sure most are) is selfish and destructive in at least some of its actions.

2.The actions towards Iraq are some of these, and more harm than good has come from it, as it currently stands.

3.Agreements between countries or other large or small bodies mean little to the majority (over-all) of those in dominant control of the US, unless they can gain some sort of benefit by using some part of it.

[As a side note to this, and as a distantly related issue, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are many citizens of foreign countries (some allied to the US, in these events and others) who are being held in government facilities without the rights usually granted to either civil prisoners or prisoners of war, despite the requests on behalf of the countries they belong too. They were not detained within America, and are not subject to American Law. Even a Prisoner of War would have been released a long time ago.]

I know these are all negative, but they are in relation to the topic at hand. If anyone disagrees, feel free, and please also post any other statements which you feel we all may also come to agreement upon.

I am sorry for diverting this in such a manner, but I want to nip this conversation in the bud before it gets blown out of proportion, as I don't see it as vitally important to this topic, I only ever brought it up in such detail because I was asked too. In this, I am willing to agree to disagree, and everyone can make up their own minds on the evidence they are privvy to.

Edit: A cat chasing it's tail indeed. :) Hacken Slash, you obviously know a lot more about this subject than I do, so I agree I must then be incorrect. I know this does not bode well for the rest of my statements, but here the very nature of these circumstances is favourable, as I am merely trying to draw a picture of suspiscion - and little of them involve verifiable numbers. Some of these were tested independantly, and others are simply the conspicuous presence, or lack thereof of something in particular, or of the behaviour of parties involved. I admit I am far less sure of this than I was originally, but I am still certain that it is not unlikely, nor unheard-of.

Sorry for continuing to bring this up while I say I will not, but I feel every thing that is said by you "dis-believers" :D deserves a fair response.

[ October 30, 2003, 18:40: Message edited by: Manus ]

@Manus: I have been told that I am so stuborn that I would argue with a rock. The exchange of all ideas is appreciated. I have found a couple of sites that are excellent for all matters dealing with the WTC. The first is a complilation of all official documents:
Columbia University (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/dsc/wtc.html)

and this second deals extensively on the structural failure investigation, which actually should reach it's completion in December.

NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov)

these might be a good source to obtain accurate information. The NTSB site also has information on the recovery of the Flight Data Recorders and the Voice Data Recorders.

You questioned me about my unwillingness to believe that an outside source could orchestrate these attacks
@Hacken Slash, are you serious that you would rather believe that your own government did this than it was the work of another country who had repeatedly suffered at the hands of said government? The statement that I had made was mostly tongue in cheek, but I think that it is a little frightening to any American, seemingly secure in Fortress America, that a terrorist group could ever penetrate our defenses. That make sense? Easier almost to accept a domestic source, hell we could just vote the creeps out of office! That's the emotion I was going for.

I have stated in previous posts that I do not believe that the US has been lily white in it's rush to go to war with Iraq. There are legitimate areas for criticism, but we miss them when our best Liberal minds are involved in Snipe hunts.

I find it rather amusing that all of the Bush bashers could so openly belittle his intelligence in one thread, then ascribe an impossible to achieve devious plot to he and his cronnies. I guess he's sorta like Dr. Evil...just from Texas.

edit: Looks like I got my degrees F and degrees C mixed up in that earlier post, so the claims I made were applicable to F but not to C. :rolleyes:

[ October 30, 2003, 23:06: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

I don't for a minute believe that the US was lily white in it's build up to this war with Iraq, but I think that here in the US there is somewhat of a mentality that we are only finishing what we started in 1991, and so be it.
That may have been true in the beginning, but things are changing. The current war in Iraq is looking more like another Vietnam with each passing day. The government lied its way into it, and is having to resort to spin and propaganda to keep up the morale, not only in the field, but at home as well. This war could yet be Bush's undoing.

Remember that Americans will only go along with these guys so far before they demand results: Where is Bin Laden? Where is Saddam? How long are we going to be there? How many more Americans are going to die in Iraq? How much will this cost us in dollars and resources which are needed at home? The final question will be: Why are we fighting this anyway, and who got us into this mess? Accountability is a sure thing, especially when the war is broadcast every night on TV.

If things don't improve before too long there will be a reckoning come next November. President Dean - it has sort of a nice ring - doesn't it?

[ October 31, 2003, 06:02: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Chandos I agree with you, the emergence of these guerilla wariors are going to lead to worse things.

The emergence of the guerrilla warriors wasn't really a surprise. The military said so. The ISIS said so. And Washington's ruling elite didn't care, because they, having never even served the military, let alone fought in a war, knew better than their generals.

Actually it's amazing that the develoment in Iraq and Afganistan has run that similar.

Faced with an overwhelming US firepower and the notice that exposure to it means certain death the Taleban decided for a tactical withdrawal. They took some beating, gave up pre-industrial cities they didn't need except for presige and went underground to reform. And they succeeded. Their leader is still on the loose, and they already retook one province of Afganistan. Yet Bush has for long declared Afganistan a victory.

Saddam has learned this lesson from Afganistan and from his own experience, the defeat of his army in the open desert, massacred by US standoff weapons and aerial bombardment: He decided for tactical withdrawal as well, took some heavy beating, but withdrew his forces, aided by foolish US administration officials who aided him by dissolving the iraqi army, releasing hundrets of thousands iraqis without a purpose, without job and a growing frustration. Better still, the non-soldiers join the fray as well, and fighting will of a population with some 60% young (under 30) and angry has been aroused in the region.
And all what counts is the feeling of the iraqis they are to be controlled and ruled by washington, it doesn't need more. Yet Bush has declared victory by landing on an aircraft carrier.

Neither the conquest of Baghdad or Tikrit nor the conquest of Kabul have been a victory. They are just tactical successes. They didn't break the fighting will of the opponent, and that is a necessity for victory. I agree with Rumsfeld: This will be a long hard slug. With one exception: It doesn't need to be so.

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant." --Col. Harry Summers

[ October 31, 2003, 16:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

The Iraqis can keep war going as long as they want, this is an unessesary(sp?) conflict.

There are two things that can really help Bush politically, and they should be achievable, but will require an effort: First, catching Saddam and making a sizable dent in his resistance effort. That will really score him points politically here. Bin Laden would be better, but appears to be much harder. It's certain by now that Saddam is still in Iraq, probably directing the daily attacks.

The second will be getting more Europeans to partner into the rebuilding of Iraq. If he can get the countries he ignored and falsely believed were irrelevant in the beginning, it will give him some excuse to begin to cut-and-run from Iraq. Despite the big talk in the beginning about "as long as it takes," if he suffers too much politically he will look for a quick exit. The thing is, time is on Bush's side, since he has a year to pull off a few tricks that may save his sorry political hide.

Bush would not be able to catch Saddam, there are many still loyal to him. And bush would not except anyon's help outside the coalitition of the willing.

Another aspect of catching Saddam and the impact of his seizure is that perhaps the bulk of the resistance does *not* come from the old "baathist" guard, and that actually is a thing most observers start to think. And if they're right - what will the capture of Saddam change? If so, it'll only be a US propaganda victory, a tactical success.

When the allieds eventually conquered Berlin in WW-II, they blew up Hitler's Reichskanzlei - Bremer instead moved into Saddam's old palace to reside there ... Wolfie boasted to want to sleep in Tikrit, Saddam's old hometown (that provocation didn't pass unnoticed it seems) ... the US are seen as an occupation force, and that is the key problem. The US proclamations "We won't leave!" don't make their promise to only bring freedom and self-determination to the iraqis more credible - and it is simply unlikely that the US would accept the shiite majority's likely vote for an islamic republic, so that the US claim for democratisation can't be very credible in the eyes of the iraqis either.

Interesting enough, the brits haven't lost a soldier in 7 weeks, primarily this can be attributed the their significantly better cultural prowess. On nice example of the lack thereof here (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/international/europe/01MIXU.html?ex=1068701518&ei=1&en=c6efd75f735c5b57) - and anyway, Austria, Australia - where's the difference? Yeah, two bloody letters ...)

While the brits patiently consulted elders and tribal and religious leaders to make them suggest their followers to keep the peace, the US continue to kick in doors, harass the population, hide in fortified positions and isolate from the population, adding to their alienation with the iraqis.
Even though there was some improvement there, the damage is done already. If it can be repaired, who knows that? I really hope so; if not the whole place will blow up in Bush's face and become the place for a generational commitment for US troops.

Interesting enough, the brits haven't lost a soldier in 7 weeks, primarily this can be attributed the their significantly better cultural prowess Or maybe it's because of their location. All of the attacks have been confined to a relatively small geographic location. By contrast, the US 101st Airborne hadn't fired a shot or had incident in over a month (the last I saw a couple of weeks ago). Does this mean the 101st Airborne got special cultural sensitivity class? Or maybe they're just located in a safer area? Most of the British are in the south. Most of the 101st is in the north. The attacks are between Baghdad and Tikrit.

Certainly their location, in the shiite south, is a significant reason for the absence of attacks. But there is IMO a deeper reason, hinted on by US-british differences (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1075980,00.html) about how to improve security in Iraq ... or who's actually the enemy.

Interesting, Ragusa. Your link is not too far off on those "Ghosts of Vietnam" as described:

The ghost