Yesterday's newspaper had an article about the Iraqi who was shot by American soldiers. One line that came out was a quote from an Iraqi lady saying words to the effect, "You Americans are the same as Saddam, just killing Iraqis".

I wonder how much longer that US forces are going to be around in Iraq, it seems that Jo Blo on the street in Iraq is not really capable of thanking their liberators anymore...

It is always easy for some newspaper to find someone to say just that. No matter what, there will always be dissent against a peacekeeping/occupation force. When I was in Kosovo, a lot of people were not happy to have us around, even though the situation there is very calm.

As for how long the US is going to stay in Iraq, well if they are going to do anything, they have to stay for quite a while. Remember, there are still troops in Bosnia. If they pull out of Iraq, then I fear the whole war would be in vain. However, I think it would be wise for the US to appeal to the UN to make Iraq an UN-mission, so we could have peacekeeping forces from different nations.

It's not just newpapers saying that.

a CIA report warned that Iraqis are losing faith in U.S.-led occupation forces, a development that is increasing support for the resistance, officials said. Two senior U.S. officials said it describes a troubling picture of the political and security situation in Iraq. From http://www.msnbc.com/news/992125.asp?vts=111320030652

Grovflab - Referring to the current occupation force in Iraq as "peacekeeping" is strange. You must be listening to too much of Bush's propaganda.

Chandos, I HATE Bush! Absolutely no discussion there. As I wrote in my previous post, peacekeeping/occupation? The first is good, the second is bad! I did not agree with the war in Iraq. However, it is no longer a war. The Iraqi military has been defeated, and there are no more operations of war taking place. I know american soldiers are dying, but they have around 130.000 troops in Iraq, so that can't be a huge surprise.

As little as I agree with the war in the first place, I think that to pull out the troops now would turn this into an even bigger disaster. Then the whole war would have been for nothing, and it would just be a matter of time before a new warlord takes the power in Iraq. Therefore, I think that Iraq has become a peacekeeping mission, and it would be wise for the americans to let UN take control, so that the ameracans would no longer be viewed as an occupation force.

Bottomline is, I think a lot of people is unable to see the difference between peacekeeping and war/occupation. Yes, US have attacked Iraq, and a lot of us think its wrong. However, that has already taken place, and we have no way to change that. What we can do now is help Iraq back to stability.

Grovflab - OK, I see your point, but it seemed a little unclear in your previous post. That's probably my bad. My feeling is that to cut-and-run now would be a mistake also. BUT, if Bush and his gang can find a way to make amends to the Europeans and the UN, then they can make a graceful retreat, just in time for the election. But that seems a hard thing for them given the current feelings. Even Japan is backing out of its meager commitment.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01

I'm sure by now even the Bush gang is having second thoughts about this whole "mission." They should have stopped in Afghanistan while they had the support and goodwill of most. Instead, they became arrogant and overconfident. Now they are in quicksand and sinking fast. The best thing they can do at the moment is get their hands on Saddam, and stop the bleeding. I still feel that he may be at the bottom of the recent attacks.

[ November 13, 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

It was not my intention to illustrate newspaper propoganda, it's just that I have known Iraqis for over 10 years and they said before the war that Americans would not be welcome, for the reason stated above. It just seems that it has taken such a long time for the western media to be bothered reporting a fact that has been around for a decade. There may have been for a short period of time some kind of leaning towards the US way back in April but after such a long time and little anything good...

Well Grovflab there is a slight difference between the situation in Kossovo and Iraq. In Kossovo there was a united front of the western world behind the attacks and the peacekeeping force is under UN administration which was a big advantage for the forces stationed there.
In Iraq we had an invasion against the wishes of the vast majority of the nations, which are members of the UN, and against the wishes of the most members of the security counsil. Furthermore UN is not enjoying the level of acceptance that did in Kossovo due the lengthy sanctions, that were imposed on Iraq. And since USA is always a favourite enemy in Muslim world for a number of reasons, things can only go worse i am afraid.
Another reason for this may be that the coalition forces seem to be more interested in the untroubled supply of oil to the West, than in the wellfare of Iraqie people. And when you are in acountry that was under a suppressive regime for so long, then comes a coalition of nations that are blamed for many troubles that existed before the invasion, and the people instead of seeing better days they see more blood and even worse living conditions what can anyone expect?
I believe that no nation in the world likes to see another nation invades in it and trying to play the savior of the day. They would prefer to be left alone to deal with their problems. We are treating them as kids that need guidance when they are not and this makes them nervous and unhappy. USA must start thinking to change policy on the Iraq issue before things go out of control.

I am really getting tired of people saying that the war was over oil. The Middle East is actually beginning to now pull extremely low-grade oil from their wells. The only country in the world with the capability to refine most of it is the US. They'd supply to us whether we are there or not or they'd destroy their own economies.

The war was partly over Bush's revenge for his father's failure, I'll grant that. It was also over terrorism. There is concrete proof of Saddam's association with al-Quaeda. As I recall, we've decalred war on all terrorists.

What evidence is that Rastor? As far as I know all the concrete pieces of evidence linking Saddam and Al Qaeda together has been refuted, one was iirc a paper written by a college student in Britain. I do not doubt that Saddam supported Palestinian rebels, but so does every arab country in the world.
Now however I think there are links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, before the invasion islamic fundamentalists were as big a threat to Saddam as the US.

Alright, first the caveats. Laches' link to the following article in no way means that he supports the views expressed therein etc etc etc.

This is in response to joacqin's question and I'm not sure if this is what Rastor means but this news hit New York last night and was published as factual. What I would consider the reputable news sources such as WaPo haven't talked about it yet but it has hit the wires and is seeing some broadcast news reports I suspect because a google search came back with MSNBC and Fox hits. Again, I'm sceptical as to the link myself but:

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/42706.htm

I don't know if that is what Rastor meant or not. From what I understand Tariq Aziz may be willing to say just about anything and I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true of others cited.

Interesting article, but I really would want to see a more reputable outlet than the NY Post reporting it :( .

Also wanted to add to a comment that Rastor made: The Middle East is actually beginning to now pull extremely low-grade oil from their wells. The only country in the world with the capability to refine most of it is the US. This statement is mostly true, and I'm glad that it has been brought up. All crudes are different on a regional basis, sort of like wines, but in general, Middle Eastern crudes produce fairly high sulfur content fuels. Many areas in Europe and some in US (California for example), have enacted legislation requiring the use of cleaner or low sulfur fuels. The process to clean up sulfonated fuels adds a very costly step to the refining process, and the use of expensive equipment such as hydrotreaters.

I don't know the exact count, but the number of large scale de-sulfonation units that are outside of the US, probably could be counted on one hand. In fact the best process to do so is patented by either Exxon-Mobile or Chevron-Texaco (all these mergers have clouded the playing field and I've lost track)

Just a little ironic side issue on the whole "War for Oil" concept...the places that have the highest demand for fossil fuels refined from Middle Eastern crude, also have the worst pollution from the use of those fuels, and are enacting requirements that make those Middle Eastern crudes less economiclly viable than some other sources. If we are in a war for oil, nobody asked the oil companies if they even want it, or the environmentalists if it can be used.

Most of the stuff in that article sounds quite old to me, especially that meeting in Prague has been talked about for quite some time and if I am not completely mistaken even the CIA said the intelligence on it was shaky.
I am not completely sure that it is so but but what I can recollect that article was just a rehash of what has been said about Saddam/Usama connections for atleast a year and is nothing new.

Saddam + Usama = Pope + Lenin. Crass comparison, but fairly accurate.

Latest news to come in also that according to Gallup Polls (which are extremely reliable?) only 1% of Iraqis believed that American forces wanted to bring democracy to Iraq. 43% believed it was to rob Iraq of the oil.

In May attacks against coallition forces were rare, in summer around 12 a day, more recently between 35 and 40 and over the last fortnight about 60. So clearly as time goes by, more Iraqis are beginning to welcome the occupiers...

Also after 7 months the electricity and clean water levels have finally reached pre-invasion levels, and we all know how great that was...

So in the end the author of the article, a professor of politics calls the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq the most foolish adventure of forign politics that he has ever witnessed, making it even more outrageous than the Vietnam debacle.

BTW go ahead and flame me, I couldn't care less since I am only (selectively) reproducing someone else's views.

Mine is simply, Doh (Homer style), but didn't sensible people predict all this hostility before the conflict?

Whats also interesting is that more people American soldiers have died since the start of the war that died the entire first 2 years of Vietnam.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/111503B.shtml

Those numbers really suprised me and made me think of the snowball effect, Vietnam started off slow and got worse and worse and the same is going on in Iraq. Very few problems at first, now the attacks are getting more and more coordinated and attacks are getting more severe and more often.

well, america did invade Iraq, so what was everyone expecting to happen - a welcome party for US troops?

what was the original reason behind the war anyway? oh yeah that's right - those weapons of mass destruction, and saddam

they still haven't found either

This statement is mostly true, and I'm glad that it has been brought up. All crudes are different on a regional basis, sort of like wines, but in general, Middle Eastern crudes produce fairly high sulfur content fuels. Many areas in Europe and some in US (California for example), have enacted legislation requiring the use of cleaner or low sulfur fuels. The process to clean up sulfonated fuels adds a very costly step to the refining process, and the use of expensive equipment such as hydrotreaters. I do not think that sulfur will be a big problem. Well, it is a problem, but separation is not a technical problem, it's only a problem to find anyone who buys it. The same goes with all the other problematic emissions of oil. Uh, too much co2, what are we gonna do about it ? Stob buying oil ? here (http://www.petroretail.net/fon/2003/0306/0306slfr.asp)

Fortunately, energy executives say, The Sulfur Institute has given the world's oil and gas industry a much-needed head start in building new markets for the element.

Through research and educational programs, TSI has helped to expand the market for sulfur as a fertilizer while paving significant new high-volume opportunities in the sulfur asphalt and concrete markets, which by themselves could absorb more than 10 million tons a year.

"There's already been a lot of success in these markets, but there are opportunities to substantially increase world demand for sulfur by 2010," said Michael Kelly, manager of refinery sales, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Houston. "It's not going to happen without the full support of the global oil and gas industry."

Morris noted that several energy companies -- BP, Motiva, Shell and TotaFinaElf , to name a few -- are already working with TSI to develop new markets for sulfur.

"A broader, unified industry effort to effectively create a steady demand for sulfur is essential to ensure the health of our industry," he said.

At Shell Canada Limited in Calgary, Larry Marks, vice president of marketing and transportation, said there's one other reason to get in high gear with sulfur market development: return on investment.

"We have to train ourselves to think about sulfur for what it really is, a versatile product with new, value-added applications in a variety of industries, not a waste product of oil and gas production," he said. "The more we increase demand for sulfur, the more valuable it becomes to our business. And the more valuable sulfur becomes to our business, the more it will offset our production costs."


Mexico and Venezuela crude isn't better in sulfur matters. But what the heck, oil is needed.

As for war reason, it was mainly that plan to "reshape" the middle east. Oil propably was only a positive side aspect, yet oil will be the most important aspect in the end.

here (http://www.cracow-life.com/news/news11.html)
Poland, which has sent troops to support the US-led forces in Iraq, has acknowledged its "ultimate objective" is to acquire supplies of Iraqi oil. The Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said his country had never disguised the fact that it sought direct access to the oilfields. He was speaking as a group of Polish firms signed a deal with a subsidiary of US Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton. The US firm, Kellogg, Brown and Root, has already won million-dollar contracts to carry out reconstruction work in Iraq.

"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," Mr Cimoszewicz told the Polish PAP news agency. Access to the oilfields "is our ultimate objective," he added.

The top sources for imported crude oil are (in order)
1. Canada 16.5%
2. Saudi Arabia 14.9%
3. Mexico 13.6%
4. Venezuela 10.5%

In fact, between Jan 2003 and July 2003, US imports of Middle Eastern crude dropped from 21.6% to 17.0%. It is anticipated that by end of year, US reliance on Middle Eastern crude will be less than 15%. It is true that both Mexican and Venezuelan crude are high sulfur, but typical analysis puts them about 0.5% less than Saudi...and that equates to numbers like 0.7% by total weight of crude to 1.2% by total weight of crude...when translated into a weight difference per barrel, the difference becomes daunting.

I read the article that you cited, Yago, and it looked to me more like wishful thinking. Within it's text I also found By itself, increasing or, at the very least, maintaining sulfur's value should be enough incentive for oil and gas companies to develop new markets for this product, but the prospect of stockpiled sulfur shutting down refineries makes market development a more urgent objective.

"I think a lot of oil companies have been lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that there will always be a market for sulfur," said Jim Smith, recently retired general manager of gas liquids and sulfur marketing and land transport, BP Products North America, Warrenville, Ill. "But if our industry doesn't work together to develop new markets, we could be looking at large stockpiles or, worse yet, potential refinery bottlenecks and shutdowns. It's a serious economic issue, one that demands immediate action from everyone involved."

There are currently no markets for sulfur, other than fertilizer, and far more is produced by refining and other industries than can be utilized in that venue. Historically, most of the sulfur has been loaded on barges and shipped to China, where it has been accepted as a waste product, out of sight/out of mind...sulfur disposal is currently an operating cost line for American refineries, and it is only going to get worse.

There are many problems facing the refining industry, as outlined here (http://api-ep.api.org/industry/index.cfm?objectid=5C1AE70F-0129-449F-A6CEF327E2A0000F&method=display_body&er=1&bitmask=002007004000000000) Increased environmental compliance cost is a major reason that refinery capacity expansion has not kept up with the growth in petroleum product demand. From 1990 to 1999, the industry spent $46.9 billion to bring refineries into compliance with various environmental regulations (both mobile and stationary source). That included $17.9 billion in capital costs and $29 billion in operations and maintenance costs for compliance with regulations covering air, water and waste rules. With historically low rates of return limiting the refining industry’s ability to attract additional capital, these expenditures have sharply limited refinery expansion. And these costs are likely to grow.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has begun implementing new rules that will lower the sulfur content of domestic gasoline from about 340 parts per million (PPM) to an average of 30 PPM. That will cost refineries about $8 billion. And this excludes California where industry has already invested about $4 billion to meet that state’s lower sulfur standards. These rules add about 4.5 cents to the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

Meanwhile, in late 2000, EPA also published a new regulation covering the sulfur content in on-road diesel fuel. This rule will require refiners to reduce on-road diesel from the current level of 350 PPM to 15 PPM. That will require an investment of an additional $8 billion, adding 11.6 cents per gallon of diesel fuel, but possible costing consumers much more if, as many believe, supplies of this fuel turn out to be inadequate to meet demand.

Sulfur...it's compostion in crude and the cost to remove are a huge, looming problem. I agree with you, Yago, that the war will yield oil in the end...but that oil will be delivered by pipeline into Eastern Europe and China, not to the US.

I think that we may be far :yot: , so why don't we start a new thread if you want to continue this discussion. I think that I've kinda left Iraqi feelings in the dust :) .

what was the original reason behind the war anyway? oh yeah that's right - those weapons of mass destruction, and saddam

they still haven't found either
Nope. The reason for the war was to remove Saddam and his regime from power in Iraq, not to find either WMD or Saddam. Though of course finding both would have been nice :)

Nope. The reason for the war was to remove Saddam and his regime from power in Iraq, not to find either WMD or Saddam. Yes, and we were told, over and over and over, that the reason we had to remove Saddam and his regime from power RIGHT NOW, without the approval or assistance of nearly every one of our international allies, was because Saddam had WMD and was itching to use them ON AMERICANS. Please don't act like that wasn't part of the equation or even the major selling point, because it was. Everyone knew Saddam and his regime needed to go, and with proper evidence and more international support, this could have easily been achieved without going to war alone. But in my estimation, 2 things are screamingly clear.

1. America would never have been behind this war had the Bush administration not played the "WMD" and "Saddam's Connection to Terrorism" card ad nauseum.

2. They either lied about the above outright, or were terribly misinformed, because both claims have turned out to be false. In either case, they were completely in the wrong.

The fact that Saddam has been overthrown does NOT excuse the way this war was conducted, and still hasn't (nor will it ever) mend our international image. We are now the most hated country on earth. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, DR. You said it well.

Oil has been mentioned. And I think one may argue that oil is important for the Iraqi feelings, because in the end, it will all be about the Benjamins.. ahm no, about the main factor of their economy. As for feelings, it would be interesting to know, how they feel about their oil and what attracted other countries attention to their country. And further it will be intersting to see, what companies will sell the oil. Here we agree, the biggest part of the ME oil will further go to Eurasia. Hypothetically, if the oil from the ME would stop flowing, where would the Euroasians go to get their oil and what would happen to the oil price ?

To the sulfur. The point of my article is, they have to separate the sulfur, whatsover. Developing new markets for yet some more sulfur is one of the ways to make the whole thing cheaper. Plus finding cheaper ways to seperate it. And as the article mentions, the oil from the Americas has the same sulfur problem, while you've seen the problem only with ME-oil . But I think oil-price has a tendency to be inelastic, people will have to buy it anyway, no matter what it costs. Anyhow, just might be my prejudice, but the US isn't to far in envioremental legislation anyway, i.e. other regions have stricter rules so or so.

But the main reason for the war was "reshaping" the ME. The Oil is just a bonus. As is a further grip on one of the most importat geostrategical regions in the world. And of course, the possibility to move soldiers away from Saudi-Arabia, but don't have to move them away from the ME.

Hm, I think Grey Magistrate appreciates the great game like I do. At least I hope so.

Yes, and we were told, over and over and over, that the reason we had to remove Saddam and his regime from power RIGHT NOW, without the approval or assistance of nearly every one of our international allies, was because Saddam had WMD and was itching to use them ON AMERICANS. Please don't act like that wasn't part of the equation or even the major selling point, because it was.If you want to admit that was the major selling point for you, go right ahead. It wasn't for me. I am not so gullible as to believe statements without proof. The major selling points to me were proven facts:
1) Iraq had WMD technology and capability
2) Iraq was willing to use their WMD capability
3) Iraq invaded Kuwait, would not submit to the will of the international community to voluntarily withdraw, and had to be militarily driven out.
4) Iraq made agreements with the international community as part of the cease fire, that they failed to uphold, even in the face of 10 years of sanctions imposed and multiple resolutions to get them to comply.
5) Iraq was adept at hiding their WMD technology and capability
6) Iraq defied the will of the international community even as an army was massed on its borders as a threat to what was to come if they did not comply.
Everyone knew Saddam and his regime needed to go, and with proper evidence and more international support, this could have easily been achieved without going to war alone.What makes you say this? 10 years had already passed with nothing but unenforced resolutions being passed in the UN. What makes you think that after 10 years Iraq would believe the UN had grown fangs? What even makes you believe the UN would have grown fangs?
1. America would never have been behind this war had the Bush administration not played the "WMD" and "Saddam's Connection to Terrorism" card ad nauseum.Given what I see people state as why they believe the war was necessary (or what they believe others believe), you are probably correct. That doesn't mean it wasn't necessary.

If you want to admit that was the major selling point for you, go right ahead. Some of us never were sold on it to begin with.

I thought that WMD had nothing to do with it? So why did BTA mention WMD in point 1 and 2? :confused:

1) Iraq had WMD technology and capability Iraq had WMD 15 years ago and used it against Iran but then Saddam was a nice guy who was fighting muslim fundamentalists.

2) Iraq was willing to use their WMD capability Then why Saddam didn't use them even in the final hours before his fall?

3) Iraq invaded Kuwait, would not submit to the will of the international community to voluntarily withdraw, and had to be militarily driven out. Germany did the same thing 65 years ago. Must they be invaded as well?

4) Iraq made agreements with the international community as part of the cease fire, that they failed to uphold, even in the face of 10 years of sanctions imposed and multiple resolutions to get them to comply.U.S.A. was not authorized to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions.

5) Iraq was adept at hiding their WMD technology and capability After 6 months of occupation not one of those WMDs has been found.

6) Iraq defied the will of the international community even as an army was massed on its borders as a threat to what was to come if they did not comply. It was not the international community in iraqi borders, just U.S.A and the coalition of the willing. Also, Iraq accepted all the american demands before the invasion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Iraq defied the will of the international community even as an army was massed on its borders as a threat to what was to come if they did not comply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was not the international community in iraqi borders, just U.S.A and the coalition of the willing. Also, Iraq accepted all the american demands before the invasion. I want to add that there has been testimonies that the Iraqie regime tried to communicate with the USA administration giving almost everything to avoid this invasion but the subject was rejected without even considering.
Secondly BTA please decide were WMDs threat a selling point for you or not? Because you say this
Nope. The reason for the war was to remove Saddam and his regime from power in Iraq, not to find either WMD or Saddam. Though of course finding both would have been nice And this
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and we were told, over and over and over, that the reason we had to remove Saddam and his regime from power RIGHT NOW, without the approval or assistance of nearly every one of our international allies, was because Saddam had WMD and was itching to use them ON AMERICANS. Please don't act like that wasn't part of the equation or even the major selling point, because it was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to admit that was the major selling point for you, go right ahead. It wasn't for me. I am not so gullible as to believe statements without proof. The major selling points to me were proven facts And then you say this
1) Iraq had WMD technology and capability
2) Iraq was willing to use their WMD capability
5) Iraq was adept at hiding their WMD technology and capability Can you tell me which of these statements are true? You sound very confusing.

You are missing my points completely. The points above are taken TOGETHER as pointing towards the need for the regime change, not individual points that each in themselves point to the necessity.

The point about WMDs I've been making all along, is that their CURRENT presence in Iraq was immaterial, because they had the technology and could easily resume their programs as soon as the pressure was off.

Oh, and I missed this at first:
I want to add that there has been testimonies that the Iraqie regime tried to communicate with the USA administration giving almost everything to avoid this invasion but the subject was rejected without even considering.Communication with a Lebanese businessman? Please. There are official channels for this type of negotiation.

Not trying to spam my website around here, but there's an article I linked to today that examines a Top Secret document that the Weekly Standard got ahold of. It details links between Iraq and al-Queda. www.gleefulextremist.com/blogger.html (http://www.gleefulextremist.com/blogger.html)

Sorry Shralp the CIA came out today and said there was no basis of truth in the article.
Just anther cheap ploy by the right to justify the mess they have gotten us into.

The Weekly Standard is the neocons Prawda. I wouldn't take anything there for gospel. So, the article about the memo (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp) is no exception. Here you can see spin at work, if you care to look close :thumb: For clarification just try this (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480) for a change, or ask the Pentagon (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html) which flatly stated: The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.That is, the committee asked about a possible link, and the reply adressed that question. This article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EK21Ak01.html) provides an analysis on the leaked memo and the likely reasons why it was leaked.

Besides, as a nice bit for all those who still wrongly insist that the Invasion of Iraq was legal, check this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html). Recently, to my surprise, Rickard Perle has admitted the invasion has been illegal. Kinda amazing to hear that form one of the main architects of that war.
That is, the neocons care about international law (as democracy) when it suits their purposes. If not, well, then wars of agression (or non-democratic strongmen) do just fine.

EDIT: Against some peoples belief the UN did not endorse the occupation with their post-war resolution ... otherwise the US would feel no urge to adress the problem of legality, that is: the lack thereof. The US want another UN resolution blessing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59442-2003Nov18.html) their CPA and whatever it has done and a new to be installed iraqi government.
This implies that it didn't get lost on them that in the current legal state of affairs there might be some loose ends, like claims against the US and their CPA because of the (mostly US) contractors paid for with iraqi money ... from an authority exactly not authorised to spend that money. Surprise, surprise.

[ November 20, 2003, 16:33: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Interesting. I hadn't seen the CIA response (I assume there hadn't been one by the time I posted on my site). Are you talking about the Post reporter? Because he denied arming, while the release was talking about training. Also interesting that you believe a Pentagon denial while you're usually the first to scream that they're lying.

On the "international law": Rags, I don't think you've been paying attention. Not many people at all have been saying that international LAW allowed the U.S. attacks. What we've been saying is that we're not bound by international law. I know you Euros and other backward people want to believe that the UN runs the world, but the fact is that it doesn't, countries ignore what it says, and the UN doesn't do anything about it but whine and pass another resolution. So the U.S. does the dirty work.

At the same time, you guys get to complain that we're too imperialist (when usually you're complaining that we're too isolationist). The Muslims claim we're too decadent, while the Europeans claim we're too religious. The powerful nations think we're too quick to move, while those who need help hate us for not doing enough. And ya know what?

We don't care what France and Germany think.

On another note: There were more countries in the coalition attacking Saddam Hussein than were in the coalition in Kosovo or the Gulf War. Oh, but they didn't get the pretty UN stamp of approval because of France. Big deal.

[ November 20, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Yes, lets list the "Mighty" Coalition of the willing. We have Afghanistan (oohhh!), Albania (who???), Australia (at least they have a military, of course the vast majority of thier people were against it and thier prime Minister, like Blair will be out of a job once thier term is up),Azerbaijan (what!!!!), Bulgaria (ohhh!), Colombia (wow, what a military power!), the Czech Republic (of course, if you join you can join NATO),Denmark, El Salvador (you're kidding right!), Eritrea (WHo!), Estonia, Ethiopia (go starving children and attack our enemies), Georgia, Hungary, Italy (finally, that makes 2 contries with military power of any sort), Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lituania, Macedonia, Nicaragua (Just switch the war on drugs to the war on terrorism), the Phillippines, Poland, Palua (a mighty island group with 20,000 citizens, and absolutly no troops.) Other troopless nations inclued Iceland, Costa Rica, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, and Micronesia. Poland did give us 200 troops, yahhhh poland!. Morocco sent no troops but offered us 2,000 monkeys to detonate land mines. Thank you. We still have Romania, Slovakia, Spain (13% supported a UN sanctioned invasion, there goes another elected official)and Turkey. Which leaves the only country to signicantly help us in any way, England.

Countries who were opposed and this is just a very tiny sample (consider that those listed above are the only ones willing to help in any way at all) Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium , Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Isreal, Jordan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, SOuth Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thialand, United Arab Emirates, Venezuala, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe and 103 more countries.

Shralp,
you missed the really funny part of Perle's quote. That is that he openly admits the illegality while Bush still utters something like "Of course we were acting legally".

So in your opinion the US aren't bound by in ternational law. Well, then why the hassle to launch another UN resolution? Maybe because it is effective and obliging in the end?
As for Iraq the legality is a key concern (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1103/110303ff.htm) for the US and the contracting companies.

As for your UN paranoia: While the UN is a corpus of international law, she *isn't* interantional law. I suggest you to recognise the difference. Or maybe you have the caveman attitude, UN, international law - let's god sort them out, I don't understand the difference anyway. Let Madeleine Albright teach you a lesson on the UN: Think Again: The United Nations (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13816).

The US live with international law, and not only because of their own strength. Without that you notice international law protects you. With terrorists all over the world, hiding in other countries, the US is dependent on cooperation with other countries, because they don't know how to handle thing locally and are dependent on local authorities and support.
Let's imagine: There is a terrorist in the UK. Invading the UK to get him, even when you feel totally unbound by international law, is sort of ruled out. The US also can't go to the UK and arrest him to bring him to the US. They, for some silly reason named sovereignty, have to ask the brits to snatch him and then to hand him over. The US need cooperation (besides, this is for mutual benefit - it works the other way round as well). This cooperation is usually reglemented in bilateral, or, mon dieu, multilateral agreements (that is, they are international law).

When you get consular support when you're in trouble in another country, that's the result of the Vienna convention on consular relations (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm), mon dieu, the UN again!
Every US aircraft landing in Europe and every european aircraft landing in the US do so because of international law, organised under the auspices of the ICAO (http://www.icao.int/index.cfm?page=about), mon dieu, a UN organisation!
SARS was primarily controlled succesfully as a result of the efforts of the WHO (http://www.who.int/), you may smell it already, a UN organisation, yuck.
And so on. They do not control the world, they are the best tool at hand to manage the emerging complexities of a global society - in consent. Face it, international law is a necessity. As well as the UN, as there are things of global concern that have to be adressed globally.

To see the recent US extravagancas such as invading Iraq against international law as a precedent for a change in it, is pretty much like suggesting that Al Capone's way to control Chicago set a precedent that US law isn't applicable anymore. Not really convincing, and I'm apalled by the sycophancy of those who hold this position.

The attitude you prefer, that the US are unbound by international law, and only use it when it suits there purposes, is basically Saddam's attitude, and that of your local don. It won't make you friends and this world is a silly place to be alone. The more unpopular you get the more expensive bribery will become. That's my humble backward euro opinion.

Rags, Rags, you still haven't learned a thing. Yes, there are UN organizations that do notable things (though I dispute the idea that the WHO was responsible for stopping the spread of SARS), but the fact is that the functions that you list would be filled by multi-lateral agreements if the UN weren't there. Do you really think people are going to stop flying to the US if the UN decides to shut down? Not a chance.

Ok, you got me on condemning all international law. I wasn't looking at multilateral agreements as international law, but I agree that they are necessary. (Don't try to pretend that the UN is just one big multi-lateral agreement.)

To answer other questions: Under the multilateral agreements at the end of the Gulf War, our actions are legal. Under UN rules, they're not. Hence the disconnect between Bush and Perle.

I, of course, do not accept Madeleine Albright as an authority on anything except how to get Jesse Helms to like you.

If people evaluated others solely by UN criteria then, yes, America would be in trouble. Fortunately, with the exception of the resentful industrialised nations who get a kick out of attacking the last remaining superpower (oh, and the nations who fear they might be next), most of the world evaluates actions based on their intrinsic worth -- and there's no doubt that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Apparently to Jschild, a nation's worth is determined by their military power, but I disagree.

Before you dismiss the leaked memo from DoD, you might want to read the Weekly Standard's response (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp).

NO, but saying that more contries helped during this war than the previous is wrong when you look at the actual resources put at our disposal. For example, which is more helpful, 20 countries giving 200 million in aid and 20,000 troops or 40 countries giving 10 million in aid and 5,000 troops (this is just an exammple but look at the actual amount of troop and money assistance in the first war compared to the second, they can't even compare) Our coalition has more countries this time but far less actual help. thanks for all the monkeys.

Shralp,
I do think I did understand you. And you post tells quite a bit about you. IMO you think that international relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimises what prevails. The US are the strongest power on earth atm. Therfore they can impose on the rest of the world their will, values and interests.
And the world is better off adopting the American way because it is superior, haven't the US *won* the cold war? I think you feel along this lines.

Your perception that the actual US way is the one way to go, for the best of America and the stupid world that just doesn't understand, is distorted. America got where it was until they started their Iraq program by not abusing its power.

The 'new way' is to change that approach fundamentally. The US is about to gamble with longstanding friendships and putting quite a strain on them.

To see the American model as a receipe for success for the world also is flawed. The US success mainly relies on the US beeing the dominant center of economic power, with a currency attracting foreign investors. That cannot be copy-pasted on another country, which is necessarily in a totally different situation. And that is why the rest of the world, understanding that, will reject this.

And besides, you have noted that you, stating that if the UN wouldn't be there, the US would have bilateral treaties. Well, these would still qualify as international law inter partes. And the US would still be bound to them.

The grand Americans of the last century iirc saw the US to be a country that honours treaties. That might be worth to be remembered here and then. The US isn't improving it's credibility when it displays a contempt for treaties or international law, this doesn't imply reliability too.

How serious do you take a treaty promise of a country that declares that it might not care about this treaty if it feels so? How credible is such a country? You can hardly think that only the US power might force the other countries to accept such inconsistencies - at no price for the US. That would be a grandiose folly.

Goosey, you're almost talking sense today. Those ritalin pills I sent you must be kicking in. :1eye:

Anyway, I think it vital that the U.S. obey its bi- and multi-lateral agreements. No argument there.

But you're off on your analysis of my attitude.

IIMO you think that international relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimises what prevails. It's not that might should make right, no. My point is that there is no controlling legal authority (to borrow a phrase from a talking robot) for international relations. I think the U.S. should stick with its international agreements for our own good, yes. But that does not include obeying the dictates of an organization that has shown itself to be untrustworthy, anti-American, anti-Semitic, unceasingly left-wing, notoriously inefficient, and amazingly spineless.

The US are the strongest power on earth atm. Therfore they can impose on the rest of the world their will, values and interests.
And the world is better off adopting the American way because it is superior, haven't the US *won* the cold war? I think you feel along this lines.[quote]

No. I certainly don't think we should be using force to instill American will, values, and interests everywhere. You know what? We're not doing that, and we haven't.

[quote]Your perception that the actual US way is the one way to go, for the best of America and the stupid world that just doesn't understand, is distorted. America got where it was until they started their Iraq program by not abusing its power.If, by "actual US way," you mean democracy, then yes, it is best for everyone. That's not an American value. That's a human one.

Now please explain to me why removing Saddam Hussein from power was an abuse of power. Don't give me crap about UN mandates and public opinion. Speak to me in moral absolutes. Why was it IMMORAL to bring Saddam down?

Moral absolutes are unrealistic. If we go by them, then Bush should be removed from office for being responsible for the deaths of well over 15,000 innocent civilians and the injuring of nearly 100,000. Saddam Hussain certainly didn't kill tham many in the past 2 years. Bush did. In fact, the United States has killed more innocent civilian than any other nation in the world in the past few years by a vast margin. How about those absolutes?

If Saddam was toppled for moral reasons how come there are plenty of other evil dictators around who enjoy the full blessing of the US just because they suck up? Plenty of countries in the so called coalition of the willing are ruled by undemocratic despots who stifles all opposition. If the US toppled Saddam out of moral reasons and it was the moral thing to do to topple an evil undemocratic sadistic despot then the US has its work cut out for them, plenty of such people around the world.

However, I dont think it is moral to go around toppling foreign governments, no matter how vile. Sad but true, each country needs to find its own way and sooner or later they will reach freedom. It is not up to anyone else than the people of each country to decide what kind of government they are to have. May sound callous but you may have noticed that people generally dont like to have foreigners coming in and telling them what to do. People tend to prefer their own sadistic tyrants before foreign occupants. What the moral thing is to do is to help countries who try on their own to reach democracy, encourage elections, check for cheating, work for freedom of press of speech but without the guns. It wasnt the NATO bombings that pulled down Milosevic, it was his own people. What we shouldnt do is to support dictators, which by the way a certain government ,whose supporters claims to hold the moral highground, has done all over the world for decades and still does.

You shouldnt throw stone in a glasshouse Shralp. I do not think any US government has much of a right to speak much of moral on the international scene, certainly not the current one.

Hopefully the people of Iraq will pull themselves together though and get over the fact that they were invaded, defeated and humilitated and work for the betternment for all. What is done is done and now they do have a chance, hopefully, to make something good of it. I hope for a Germany or Japan instead of a Vietnam.

I find myself doing the same thing. Getting somewhat pissed when people just do things to serve their own selves.

And then I remember. There's only so much time and resources that are available at any given moment. It's not quite Startrek just yet.

This damn "priority" thing needs to be banned. For all time. Maybe exiled to Australia, like Edward Teach was.

Those ritalin pills I sent you must be kicking in. Ah! Rush must be sharing these days. I wonder if he ran into the Bush girls while in Rehab.

We seem to be ranging far afield of the topic here, and also making cheap potshot comments. Please keep it on topic as much as possible, and refrain from the cheap shots.

If, by "actual US way," you mean democracy, then yes, it is best for everyone. That's not an American value. That's a human one.
US political system is not actual Democracyand furhtermore no political system is the cure for every nations illness. Different nations-> different ethics and standards->different needs->different solutions, to give a simplified map to what happens in the world.
Allthough we all feel that Democracy is the best given political system for the world, we must not forget that the way to reach this is not one and certainly not a forced one. Every nation takes its course through various experimentations to find what is best for the citizens. By forcing something on a country(even Democracy) is called dictatorship even if it is done with the purest intensions.
More specifically in Iraq US may have entered with the purest intensions (which i seriously doubt) but US forces will always been seen as occupying force no matter how good they will do. They are strangers in a strange land forcing their ways and systems in a foreign population. And not to mention that these people have entirelly different ethics, taboos, way of life than US residents (even the Muslim ones).

Yeah, Mithrantir, I was wrong to say "democracy." I should've said "freedom."

I think Jojo sums up the liberal Euro attitude when he says,
However, I dont think it is moral to go around toppling foreign governments, no matter how vile. Sad but true, each country needs to find its own way and sooner or later they will reach freedom. That's pretty revealing to me. Who cares if people are being exterminated. We should just let them die and wait for successive generations to free themselves.

I strongly, and most wholeheartedly disagree.

Further, yes, there are other dictators (notably in Africa) that the U.S. hasn't taken out. How, exactly, does that mean that we shouldn't take out one? The "if you can't make the world perfect then don't even try to improve it" attitude is a BS.

So is the "U.S.A. is a bunch of hypocrites" canard. Yeah, we've had schizoid foreign policy. But that doesn't mean we should've left Hussein in power.

Well Shralp, you managed to topple a corrupt undemocratic government this weekend without resorting to military means. Look at Georgia, Schereradze (sp?) was toppled through forces inside Georgia in a peaceful way but with a little bit of nudging from the US who had grown tired of his corrupt ways and undemocratic stance. That is the way to deal with unpleasant governments, work through forces within the country and nudge a bit here and a bit there and you get your shift in leadership without being hated by the folks you were trying to help. Now I dont think the US helped out of their goodness of their heart but it is through intelligence and supporting alternatives within that we can and should affect foreign countries, not by leveling the nations ot the ground with our superiour firepower.

My point wasnt that if you cant help all you shouldnt help anyone but that if the US helped Iraq because they wanted to bring freedom to its people and the US wont abide any dictatorial regimes anywhere then they have their work cut out for them. The US dont give a **** about whether the people of country X suffers as long as their regime isnt perceived as somekind of threat or is in any other way in the way. Nor does anyone else by the way. Your hypocritic/blind stance is kinda frustrating though. The US, like everyone else subscribes to the motto you ascribed to Euro liberals as long as the country in question dont bother anyone else or there are some other reason for some greater power to get interested, it is incredibly naive to think otherwise but I guess some people just love their leaders so much and are incapable of see anything wrong with them nor doubt any word that comes from their sacred lips...
No matter how many times they change their stories.

[ November 24, 2003, 16:31: Message edited by: joacqin ]

To reiterate (and bring us back on topic):

How does the fact that the US hasn't toppled ALL brutal dictators mean that we shouldn't have taken out this one?

(Oh, Jojo. I was so hoping that your time in the U.S. would help bring some sense to you. :1eye: )

because the US set the standards, like it or not, and those standards keep changing whenever it suits them

which is all fine, just don't expect anyone to like you

So it was wrong to get rid of Saddam simply because it was America who said he was bad? Is that really what you're saying?

I think we are on topic, but there is something we are missing. Saddam is toppled so it doesnt really matter whether it was right or not. I think it was wrong for reasons which have been listed many many times in may topics here in the alley. You should go through all the stuff you missed in your absence.
My main peeve is that the Iraq war was completely unnescessary from the US's official standpoint, what hidden reasons they have I wont speculate in here. Secondly the extreme hypocrisy people like you buy hook, line and sink Shralp. That you think war was the best solution I can respect but it is hard to not react when you spout the exact same things as your illustrious leaders tell you what to think and say. When they talked about WMD's you and those like you talked about WMD's, when they changed to terror connections you and yours changed your opinion to terror connections and now when they are talking about having brought freedom to the Iraqi people and ended Saddam's rule of terror that is what you speak of as well. I just think it is but scary and sad to see someone so completely devoured by the propaganda and spinmachine of what seems to be in your eyes leaders as infallible as the christian god himself.

Yeah, right, Jojo. I'm just a big sheep who can't think for himself. Please. I like how you dodge the topic and mix things I did say with those I didn't.

No, wait. I don't like that at all. Stop it.

The definition of a hypocrite is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal.

When the US decided to attack Iraq they were on another job they hadn't finished and that is still unfinished today - getting Bin Laden and crushing Al Quaeda.

One of the big concerns old Europe had for Bush was: "What if your rosy scenario of a happy liberation doesn't work?" Looking at this today these sissy concerns were justified.
It was a stupid idea to invade Iraq to topple Saddam for the ideological dream that this might induce change in the middle east, and actually the repetition of a plan that already failed the first time it was tried: when the israelis (under Sharon's lead) in 1982 invaded Lebanon, aiming on regime change in Damascus.
This shot clearly fired back. And today it isn't much different: Invading Iraq, in the apparent absence of a true threat even now, led away from the war on terror, and instead fuelled anti-US sentiment and induced further terror. Looking at Turkey today Al Quaeda, or franchised islamist terror, seems anything else but dead.

Let's say that invading Iraq didn't contribute to the "war on terror" and instead increased the danger of terrorist attacks to the US. As a result of Iraq the US are today less safe than a year ago (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/20/international1145EST0578.DTL). The war also consumed assets that had to be diverted to Iraq from the war on terror.

And morally, yep, nice the beast is gone. In hiding. Their new ruler, Lord Bremer, as well as his yet to be determined iraqi successor, without a doubt a US puppet, sure is nicer than Saddam. And the US troops sure do their best and are much better than Saddam's thugs. Saddam no longer tortures. That's also a nice thing.
But that is how it looks short term. Atm Iraq is anything else but stable and no one knows how it will look in two years and if this progress lasts that long. And there is still the Iraqi civilian deathtoll ... the price *they* pay for their gift of liberation, that aspect of iraqi wellbeing is so important for the US that it isn't even worth counting.

What is won? The US have managed to turn a country that was no terrorist threat into one. They made Iraq a very volatile place.

The US can't show up with much more than this, except for the reparation of some of the war damage - with mostly iraqi funding till now (for US contractors - as if Iraqis weren't able to rebuild their schools by themselves). And when the US manage to kill Saddam? Well, don't expect the Iraqis to fall in love with their occupiers for this glorious deed.
The Iraqis don't want to be occupied. And the US are unlikely to allow full democracy - neither short or long term - fearing an islamic state. Well, if you take Bush by his word of spreading democracy in the Middle East that would ... horrors ... mean to accept the vote of the iraqis - it is *their country* still, or not?

Really, I can't find a particular advantage in attacking Iraq, nor in making it the battleground for an ideological crusade to spread democracy and freedom in the middle east. The actual short term gains are neat, but I ask myself if they are suststainable. That isn't defaitism, I simply don't believe in freedom at gunpoint, I feel that most people reject such a gift.

For my argumentation I pointed to previous threads, all that can be said has already been said, more than once even. I didnt feel like repeat the same things once again.

I know you can think for yourself Shralp, you are a highly intelligent person, that is why it is both sad and scary to see your stance mirror completely that of your regime and your words changing when theirs change. Just give that a thought.

So on the one hand you say that no one can know what Iraq will be like in the future, and on the other you say we've turned it into a terrorist threat. Which is it? Your idea that that Iraq was not volatile before is simply nonsense. I don't know how in the world you can think it was nice and safe and no threat to anyone until the big bad Yankees came in. But at least you admitted the positive aspects of the invasion. Do you realize that this long after WW2 people like you were still claiming that the US was "losing the peace" in its efforts to rebuild Europe? I'd think that knowledge would lead you to be more patient instead of rushing to condemn everything the stupid Yankees are doing.

Yeah, Jo-mama, I think for myself. I don't know what statements of mine you're referring to, but I assure you that none of my stances have changed. I still maintain that Hussein was a threat to the U.S., collaborating with other Arab terrorists, and that getting rid of him was the right thing to do both for the rest of the world and for the Iraqis.

Shralp wrote: ... I was wrong to say "democracy." I should've said "freedom."Which freedom are you referring to?


- Perhaps Freedom of the press?

USA is listed in 31st place in the world press freedom ranking according to Reporters without frontiers (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247).

There is also a special note added:
The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st and 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders.
- Perhaps it has to do with prisoners?

In 1998 the US surpassed the former Soviet Union and won the crown as the globe's foremost jailer with an incarceration rate of approximately 690 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. By comparison, that is almost 6 times Canada's incarceration rate (115), over 12 times Greece's rate (55), 19 times Japan's rate (37) and 29 times India's rate of 24 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.
(http://mediastudy.com/articles/incarceration.html)

"Why, in the land of the free, should 2 million men, women and children be locked up?" asks Andrew Coyle, director of the International Centre for Prison Studies at the University of London and a leading authority on incarceration.
(http://www.charleston.net/stories/060103/wor_01jailbirds.shtml)


- Perhaps freedom has something to do with a low risk of violent death to children?

The U.S. has the highest rates of childhood homicide,suicide and firearm-related deaths among 25 industrialized countries.(http://www.geocities.com/gregskables/archive/2002y.html)


- Freedom of movement?

Before we were allowed to scramble aboard the train in Vancouver Station, we were all herded into a steel cage by grim-faced and well-armed members of America's Homeland Security Force. I don't know which branches of the new super-sized bureaucracy were represented, since all dark blue military uniforms look alike in the twilight, and no one introduced himself.
Entering America, sheathed in protection (http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1646&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)


Need I go on? :rolleyes:
The attempted renaming of french fries to freedom fries is not only pathetic but truly ironic when you realize how "free" USA is.

LOL.

Reporters without Frontier's (a French organization) criteria is dubious at best. And I fail to see how jailing criminals means the country is not free.

As for the anecdote of "Homeland Security Forces," I work for the Department of Homeland Security, and I know of no such forces.

I know you were just looking for the opportunity to spout out some anti-American stats you picked up, but the point of my statement was the freedom is a HUMAN value, not an American one. So even if your claims were true, you'd only be proving my point.

[edit] Oh, my. I just read that last link you cited. That guy is insane. Do you know that threats like laptop bombs are actually being made all the time? He pretends like Canada is wonderful because they don't search people entering, but that's exactly why we have to seach people. ***** and whine about freedom all you want, but I'd rather have people x-raying all my luggage than have another terrorist attack.

[ November 25, 2003, 18:19: Message edited by: Shralp ]

And I fail to see how jailing criminals means the country is not free.Has having the highest number of prisoners per capita in the world made your cities safer? I think this is directly related to the concept of freedom.


I know you were just looking for the opportunity to spout out some anti-American stats you picked upI don't consider them anti-american. The purpose was to point out that USA is not a beacon of freedom and that is something we ought to be aware of.

[edit] Oh, my. I just read that last link you cited. That guy is insane.I think you exaggerate. :)
It was a funny story.

... I'd rather have people x-raying all my luggage...Yeah, that is freedom! ;)

Actually, it is. I have the freedom not to use commercial travel carriers. If I decide to, I can rest assured that I'll be safe in doing so. Maybe you'd think yourself more free if you were able to travel without inspection but with the possibility of a bomb on the plane, but I don't.

And yes, having criminals in prison has indeed made our cities safer. Yours are climbing. Ours are falling.

Shralp i am sorry but this is not so plenty as a gift in our days either not only in USA but everywhere on this world thanks to the US efforts,
Yeah, Mithrantir, I was wrong to say "democracy." I should've said "freedom." Are you claiming that you are a free person, living in a free country? Well you lucky guy because i after 9/11 i am experiencing a continuous diminishing of my personal freedoms and rights (which of course define the limits of my freedom). And you are experiencing this so much wanted freedom? I envy you :rolleyes:
Come on Sharlp we are all under surveillance 24/7. You know very well what Echelon is you know very well that technology today can help them even define what you ate the day before you went to the toilet from your products there and so on.
Now if you tell me that because you don't want trouble you take care not to step on any toes or break any law, well my friend you live in a golden cage (as Floyd have said) and you are happy to be free in your cosy well protected from outsiders and maybe too well shutted off from the outside resentful and evil world. :p

Actually, I do know about Echelon. Wrote about it here, IIRC. And it has nothing to do with your toilet.

Anyway, we're way off topic here, so until someone can add something new to the topic, I'm outta here.

I don't know who Shralp is, but I find myself pretty much in agreement with him. America most certainly is a land of liberty and rule of law. And you know what? The whole world agrees and votes with its feet. Having said this, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, etc. are every bit as much lands of the free as the US.

You criticize America for incarcerating its citizens. While this may indicate a lack of imagination on the part of American policy makers, American prisoners are jailed for real crimes - theft, fraud, assualt, racketeering, etc. - having been convicted in open, fair trials. There are obvious reasons why America has a higher violent crime rate than other developed countries (notably guns and drugs) which goes some way to explaining why there are more convicted criminals.

You say that America seeks to impose its way of life and government on other people. Utter rubbish! Liberty and freedom of expression isn't some alternative lifestyle, it's a basic human right. To argue feebly that democracy may not be right for other countries is the worst sort of moral relativism.

As for people saying that they're not free post 9/11, well, unless there are citizens of North Korea, China or Burma posting on these boards, what the hell are you bleating about? In what ways are you not free to pursue your lawful business? We enjoy freedom of press, freedom of expression, freedom of association, free elections, freedom of religion and more. As a Briton, the only restriction on my freedom of expression is that I may not incite racial hatred. I personally don't find that too restrictive. As for America, I'm not aware of ANY restrictions on freedom of expression.

America supports dictatorships? Who, exactly? Israel may be many reprehensible things but it is not a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia? Well, OK, it is more or less a dictatorship, but a friendly government in that part of the world is not to be spurned lightly. America has used its influence in Kuwait to encourage liberal reforms. Who's to say that it won't be successful in doing the same in Saudi Arabia?

The war was about oil? This really is the worst sort of unthinking balderdash. Ask yourselves this: can the Americans possibly turn a profit from this venture? Iraq's gross oil revenues are around twelve billion dollars per annum (I don't know what the net revenue is - obviously it's lower). The war has cost, what, two hundred billion dollars and mounting. There's no profit there, so you have to look for other motives. Imperialism? A word easily bandied about, but what the blue blazes would America want to occupy Iraq for, given that there's no profit in it? Because America hates Muslims? This is the perception in many parts of the Muslim world, but they're just seeing what they want to see and conveniently forgetting that America has twice waged war in the past decade to help Muslims (Bosnia and Kosovo in case you're wondering). The only motive that remains is a desire on the part of the current US administration to depose a tyrant. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of the war but you can't put it down to base motives.

Having bashed the America bashers, back to the topic of the post which is "Iraqi feelings". We all saw the jubilation which greeted the downfall of Saddam, right? I think that showed Iraqi feelings quite clearly. They still suffer from intermittent electricity and water supplies and shortages of essentials. Plus ça change. They had those problems before the war, but now they will be fixed given time. Meanwhile they have free press, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to demonstrate. America and its allies may have done them a favour, but the fact remains that the American, British, Australian and Italian troops (and others, I know) are invaders and occupiers and I'm sure that the Iraqis will be more than glad to see the back of them. I would guess that they want nothing more than to be left alone to build a just and peaceful future for themselves. However, they would not thank us for leaving the country in its present state, tottering between anarchy and theocracy. People who call for the immediate withdrawal of all allied troops really need to think for just one moment about the implications.

I don't really know, but perhaps talking to Iraqis about what is going on there, and how much freedom they have actually rather than "on paper" would probably make a difference.

Consider this. Some Iraqis never had their doors bashed in or their houses searched until after the foreign forces turned up. Maybe that is not so good for PR.

And it is true to say that Iraqis were happy that the US etc came to get rid of Saddam, but their point was and is that "you've got rid of him, you may now leave stage left." And still many people speak of democracy as being alien to the middle east and muslim culture. What bunk. Democracy is not forming there because it is not in various leaders' interests to allow it.

Let's set the record straight, bashing Bush does not equate with bashing America. That anyone needs to question the patriotism of others because they don't go along with the current regime is about as anti-American as one can get. Sorry if our time-honored tradition of dissent and opposition bothers some, but that's just the way it is here, although those in power would certainly like to change that.

I would not equate shutting down TV stations with Freedom of the Press.

True, but there is no such thing as a "free press" anyway. Why does the editor refuse to publish my letters that I send to the paper?

I think you're confusing the term "free press" with the term "available space".

The term "free press" is just another joke to make us feel more democratic. There is not even a single villages newspaper that does not try to keep the "balance" or better yet to keep the authorities at least a little satisfied. So every editor or whoever decides what will be shown or not is making compromisations to avoid unpleasant for him situations. :(

My link of the day (http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1096)

On U.S. Foreign Policy: "Throughout our history two strands have coexisted uneasily - a dominant strand of democratic humanism and a lesser but durable strand of intolerant Puritanism. There has been a tendency through the years for reason and moderation to prevail as long as things are going tolerably well or as long as our problems seem clear and finite and manageable. But ...when some event or leader of opinion has aroused the people to a state of high emotion, our puritan spirit has tended to break through, leading us to look at the world through the distorting prism of a harsh and angry moralism." On War Fever: "Past experience provides little basis for confidence that reason can prevail in an atmosphere of mounting war fever. In a contest between a hawk and dove the hawk has a great advantage, not because it is a better bird but because it is a bigger bird with lethal talons and a highly developed will to use them." "[P]ower tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations - to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence. Once imbued with the idea of a mission, a great nation easily assumes that it has the means as well as the duty to do God's work."These lines are some 30 years old and as fresh as if written yesterday.

As bashing Bush is not bashing US, showing statistics that prove US to be less than perfect is not an anti-American act. It's hardly ever anti- to provide facts. What journalists all over the world write when they are bored, is a different story, but some people tend to feel personally attacked at the sight of whatever comparison that doesn't put them on the top. It's natural for humans, but well, we're not the crowd.

Closer the topic, though, keeping prisoners in Guantanamo so that US constitutional rights couldn't apply, is not a pinnacle of human achievement so far as freedom is concerned. People are held there in extremely harsh conditions. Other than basic hygiene and edible food, they're like animals in the zoo. None has been presented with any charge, there's no court order, there's no singular, specific proof against any of them. Who cares? So long as US claim to be fighting terrorism, everything should be let pass, if not praised.

Democracy is not an American concept, it's a human one - like someone mentioned above. This means that the blame for its faults isn't on US, but neither is the merit. Modern democracy in US is as old as 39 years and it wasn't a steady and calm evolution until then. Now US tend to supersede Athens in the role of ancient source of democracy and its champion... at least in their own eyes. What I say is not to bash US, it's to force some ridiculous claims back. US does not promote democracy. US promotes it's own interests. It's public knowledge that in South America, US actually promoted virtual slavery (United Fruits Company case) and that Fidel, Osama, Saddam and their boys were trained and subsidies by US at the beginning. They became evil no sooner than when they turned against their former bosses.

It was good to remove Saddam, but was a war worth it? Peaceful means hadn't been exhausted, Iraq is regarded as a conquered country and prey. Iraqis are irrelevant at best. Ask them, they probably have warmer feelings for Saddam than for Dubya by this time.

What about Korea? What about China? Saddam was a ***** cat compared to either. I doubt he got remotely close to either of those countries in his model of tyranny. He happened to be Bush Jr's unfinished business inherited from Bush Sr. In so far as it's not all about oil, of course.

It was good to remove Saddam, but was a war worth it?That remains to be seen. I am hopeful that it will prove to be.

Peaceful means hadn't been exhausted...I wonder at what point peaceful means would have been considered exhausted then. Given the history and time frame of the Iraqi problem, I would hazard a guess to say the answer for those that believe this is "never".

What about Korea? What about China?What about them? Korea, China and Iraq hardly presented even remotely the same situation.

He happened to be Bush Jr's unfinished business inherited from Bush Sr.Unfinished business? Yes. The Bush's, or even the US's unfinished business? No.

In so far as it's not all about oil, of course.Oh. Yes. Of course. :rolleyes:

Now US tend to supersede Athens in the role of ancient source of democracy and its champion... at least in their own eyes I would like to add to Chev's comment that U.S. follow the same steps which led Athens to its downfall. When Athens adopted a "with us or against us" policy and began to treat its allies as subjects and to fight/destroy every city (through war or embargo), which didn't satisfy the Athenian demands, a hatred was developed in the rest greek city-states, which led to the peloponesean war, the end of the Athenean haegemonia. It seems that now history is repeating.

BTA, I understand that 'the situation' is going to serve as universal excuse? They war is, officially, against evil and all about evil. However, war isn't considered evil. Even necessary evil, but still evil. No.

There were and still have been more evil targets than Saddam. More evil, more aggressive, more dangerous, more remorseless. They, however, don't have oil. And they have real nukes. So everything's OK. That's how it looks.

Peaceful means would never have been exhausted anyway? What is the UN for, then? International law? Hmmm...?

As Pompey said in Messina, "stop quoting laws at us, for we carry swords". Swords tend to get dented, though, break, fall from hands. Other guys carry swords too and someone might always grab a bigger one.

They war is, officially, against evil and all about evil.I categorically deny that is the official "reason" for the war.

There were and still have been more evil targets than Saddam. More evil, more aggressive, more dangerous, more remorseless. They, however, don't have oil. And they have real nukes. So everything's OK. That's how it looks.Since the war was not about evil, "how it looks" to you is not how it is. In my opinion at least :)

Peaceful means would never have been exhausted anyway? What is the UN for, then? International law? Hmmm...?Ah. So I was right. The answer is "never" for such as you who believe peaceful means were not exhausted. And I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad position to have. It is simply one I do not agree with. I believe Iraq was given ample time to change its ways and comply with the international commmunity's demands, and refused to do so. In my opinion, the peaceful means, and the not-so-peaceful means such as the sanctions, were tried and failed. It was time to force compliance.

As Pompey said in Messina, "stop quoting laws at us, for we carry swords". Swords tend to get dented, though, break, fall from hands. Other guys carry swords too and someone might always grab a bigger one.That was exactly the problem, only I'm looking at it from a different side than you. Saddam was Pompey and he was speaking to the UN, and the US and others decided that they would not wait any longer for Saddam to produce that bigger sword.

Saddam was Pompey and he was speaking to the UN, and the US and others decided that they would not wait any longer for Saddam to produce that bigger sword.Kinda sounds hollow to me. What WMD have been found till now again?

CIA admits lack of specifics on Iraqi weapons before invasion (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1000221.htm)
Iraq Scientists: Lied About Nuke Weapons (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20031130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_bombmakers)

US keeps its Iraqi bases covered (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL02Ak03.html). The war IMO was about quite a lot of reasons, for Bush it was perhaps the war on evil, he is just the type.

For his neocon crew the goals were less esoteric: Bases, oil, control, water (yes, Iraq has an ancient irridation system, some 6.000 years old, and still working, and some large rivers making it a fertile country surrounded by desert countries). Water, in a desert is more valuable than oil, and under US control a strategical asset, maybe even a weapon one day.
Oil, for export to fuel the world markets and US demand is one advantage. Another advantage is that it would allow, with refineries in Iraq, to make the US armed forces there independent from sea supply for fuel, quite a strategic advantage.
The purpose and advantage of the bases is utterly obvious: They aim on Syria, Iran and Saudi-Arabia. I remember you laughed about me calling this adventure a war for basing BTA. What exactly do you think is Halliburton building over there?

Saddam had to be removed because his presence was the key obstacle to give US control over Iraq and it's strategic assets: territory, oil and perhaps one day an army of Iraqi proxies. It has never been about liberation from opression, nor about democratisation. The neocons would have been happy with any pro-US ruler, some of them have demanded a hashemite king even (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1010372/posts), others a strongman (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1068), someone like Franco or Pinochet. Well, why then topple Saddam at all?
The ideals and the pompom-weaving for freedom is for the people, the president's PR, and alas, the people like it. Reasons for everyone. For free.

The neocons want to stay in Iraq, and will resist a draw-out to the death, they haven't spent billions of dollars on a war only to risk that investment by giving the Iraqis democracy or, worse, a say about the terms of their rule, or wether they like US bases or not. The Democrats atm declaring that America now has responsibility in Iraq and has to get the job done and to make the best of it, are playing in the neocon's hands: Making the best of it is exactly what they want.

[ December 02, 2003, 02:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Kinda sounds hollow to me. What WMD have been found till now again?Come on Rags, don't play that game. Iraq had WMD technology for chemical and biological weapons, and was seeking nuclear tech. Had we just gone away and left them alone, they would have had all they wanted, and I think we all agree that Iraq was too dangerous for that. Now we can argue over whether the war was necessary at this time, and even whether it was necessary at all, but to pretend that Iraq was no WMD threat is disingenuous.

The war IMO was about quite a lot of reasons...On that we are in complete agreement.
...for Bush it was perhaps the war on evil, he is just the type.Or perhaps that rhetoric is a way of getting the religious behind a cause. I honestly don't know... and I will say neither do you.

I remember you laughed about me calling this adventure a war for basing BTA.Oh, and I still am. :lol: See? I really do get a kick out of your theories.

It has never been about liberation from opression, nor about democratisation.I have always admitted I believe this. I have always said the above was just a nice side benefit.

The Democrats atm declaring that America now has responsibility in Iraq and has to get the job done and to make the best of it, are playing in the neocon's hands: Making the best of it is exactly what they want.Heh. And I suppose we should just pull out of Iraq and let the chips fall as they may eh?

I love all these theories that simply serve to paint the US in a bad light no matter what choice is made.

The US shouldn't be in Saudi Arabia watching over Iraq; it pisses off the Muslims. The US should end the sanctions on Iraq, it's only hurting the people. The US shouldn't end the problem of Saddam's Iraq after 10 years of failed effort so that the sanctions and the bases in Saudi Arabia can be ended. The US should give Iraq back to the Iraqis; oh, but not now, they've just created a mess, they can't just leave it like that.

It's all bad, and it's all the US's fault. Only it's not. It's Saddam's fault for trying his hand at invasion and failing, and then not cooperating with the UN like a good little boy should.

Well, not every country with the *potential* to build this stuff is a threat. IMO it is a folly to conclude from the internal wickedness of a regime that is also has murderous ambitions towards its neighbours and the US. That view is simplicistic and childish. Only because your neigbour beats his wife he isn't out for you.
Saddam was no longer a threat to any of his neighbour countries, much less the US. Face it.

The other fact is that the US is building these bases. So are the advantages for the US I described. That is not a conspiracy theory but a simple lining of facts. The neocons have always been quite outspoken about their plans and ideas, you only need to care to read their papertrail to see what I mean. (try this (http://www.antiwar.com/video/kwiatowski-video1.html) or this (http://www.antiwar.com/video/lobe-video1.html) if you prefer audio)
After seeing Rummy in action you should find it easier to take what he writes and signs for serious, so why not this piece, Rebuilding Americas Defences (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) on PNAC too? The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam HusseinA look at the map explains what that means.

And besides, what would be so bad about holding elections and to draw out? It would give the US claims to liberate the Iraqis some credibility. And wouln't it truly have been a nice thing to go there, altruistically, only to oust Saddam and let the Iraqis choose a better government?
The point is if you are willing to maintain a durable presence in a country where the US troops are not wanted, not to mention the fiscal strain for the US.

Anyone feels a draft? (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/draft.html) If an empire, a generational commitment to seize the assets of the middle east, the occupation your son or daughter will serve in, is what you want, just say so. The Israelis got something like that, and now its tearing their society apart and wrecking their economy.
But please do not dwell in the illusion that Iraq is a bene-violent police action for the goody-two-shoes US. It was a war of coice, not of necessity, for a strategical advantage - control of the territory and the oil flow. And unfortunately it was a war of agression too. Try this (http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1096) (end of page), about William J. Fulbright, IMO a really great and very perceptive American.

[ December 02, 2003, 15:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Something were done against Saddam's possibility to build up a WMD stockpile. As nothing has yet to be found, which I have to admit even I am a bit surprised by, I thought that there would atleast me something left somewhere that someone had missed or forgotten but not even that. It shows that the inspections and the constant check on Iraq was working, it was working even better than for instance Blix thought. In hindsight one might wonder if Saddam's lack of complete cooperation was nothing more but annoyance that he was demanded to do something he had already done, or that he knew he was screwed either way and he wanted to keep some dignity. I think it is pretty safe to say that the Bush II regime wanted the war no matter what and it wouldnt have mattered if Saddam had crawled on his belly to Washington to pray for mercy and agreement to every demand put to him. So instead he decided to act like the snake he is and go down with guns blazing, cause he knew he would go down no matter what so he might as well pull down as many others in his fall as possible, which he continues to do to this day.

The WMD's proved to be a non-issue, everything against Iraq is based on facts from 70's and 80's. Saddam may very well have had a will to build up a new WMD stock but he would never get the oppurtunity again. Keep in mind that more or less all his old stockpile he managed to get by being a buddy with the world and even then he didnt manage to get nukes even if he wanted to. So I just dont see how anyone can think that a dictator no one other government would touch with pliers, ruling a country in tatters and with the entire world watching his every move could ever get a hold of anything more dangerous than some sidearms smuggled in from his neighbouring countries.

IMO it is a folly to conclude from the internal wickedness of a regime that is also has murderous ambitions towards its neighbours and the US. Saddam was no longer a threat to any of his neighbour countries, much less the US. Face it.And just what do you base this nonsense on? Internal wickedness? He invaded his neighbors on multiple occasions! The UN passed multiple resolutions trying to bring Iraq back in line and Iraq failed to comply. What does that tell you about its ambitions? Why were those resolution passed calling for Iraq to disarm if they were not a threat to anyone? Why were sanctions imposed to try to force compliance? IMO, to believe that Iraq was not a threat would be childish and naive.

It shows that the inspections and the constant check on Iraq was working, it was working even better than for instance Blix thought.Inspections and constant checks were only possible under constant threat and sanctions! Saddam could and did throw out inspectors whenever he wanted to, and barred them from inspecting wherever he didn't want. Ten years of that was enough (too much IMO).

I think it is pretty safe to say that the Bush II regime wanted the war no matter what and it wouldnt have mattered if Saddam had crawled on his belly to Washington to pray for mercy and agreement to every demand put to him.I would not agree with this. Had Saddam done everything that was required of him by the UN resolutions, Georgie wouldn't have been given authorization from Congress.

So I just dont see how anyone can think that a dictator no one other government would touch with pliers, ruling a country in tatters and with the entire world watching his every move could ever get a hold of anything more dangerous than some sidearms smuggled in from his neighbouring countries.And I just don't see how you could think that once the pressure was off, Saddam couldn't do anything he wanted. It's really not so hard to hide weapons programs. The hardest thing to hide is nuclear programs, and just look how the world was surprised by North Korea (another dictator ruling a country in tatters who got ahold of somethng far more dangerous than some sidearms) and Iran and their nuclear programs.

The biggest threat in the world today is the country with the biggest guns. Iraq was hardly a danger.

MmmHmmm. Right. You've convinced me.

I have nothing further to say on this topic... I'm not sure why I keep bothering.

Iran has nothing but a possible interest in perhaps starting a nuclear weapons program. They may one day initiate a proper progam even if I think it will be very hard as they lack expertise and ecquipment, not to mention that the world is watching and there is a great movement in the country working for democratisation, something the ayatollahs are hitting down on less and less.
As for North Korea I highly doubt that they have anything else than a sheitload of soldiers. I wonder how much of Kim's boasting is just that, boasting, and how much is real. He probably is doing his damnedest to get a hold of nukes but I doubt he has succeeded, and if he has managed to succeed it is even more unlikely that he has an effective delivery system. There is a difference between Iraq and N.Korea though, the populace and civilian infrastructures may be have been in tatters in both countries but North Korea has a whole military and scientific infrastructure. Iraq did not, every aspect of Saddam's military machine was destroyed after first the war against Iran and then the Gulf War followed by the massive sanctions and sporadic bombings and inspections. Whyt would the pressure ever be taken off? Saddam is/was old and I am sure the friendly support of internal enemies of Saddam would atleat give him enough to think about that he wouldnt have time or resources to pursue weapons no one would sell him, created by scientists he didnt have made out of goods he couldnt get a hold of.

I actually think that Saddam did comply with the resolutions but that he was stupid enough to show bravado and appear to defy some of them as to not lose face and appear weak to his own underlings and the rest of the arab world. He probably thought that he had made sure to get rid of any real reasons for the US or UN to lay the smackdown on him while still appearing to be a cool and tough cat to his underlings and fellow arabs. A risky and stupid gambit that didnt pay off. However I do not think that is reason enough for the US to wreck the international cooperation that slowly slowly has been built up since WW2, to alienate their most important and most powerful allies, to start a war where US and other foreign casualties are counted in the thousands and where Iraqi casualties are numbered in the tens of thousands.
Shatter the respect the world have had for the US and even further antagonize another generation of poor uneducated young arabs to hate the west led by the US so they are easy prey for lunatics like Bin Laden.
The WMD's were one of the scapegoats to start a war and a conquest which reasons are not hidden by the neocons but openly stated. You should read some of Ragusa's links sometime. The neocons in Washington arent ashamed of their plans, they do not hide them but still no one bothers to check up on it and when they do they tend to think it crazy talk by liberal sissies.

The war was about power, in the end most everything big enough to be noticed is about power.

A friend from Bosnia sent this link.
http://www.khayma.com/iraqihell/

Probably highly questionable. I didn't look at it too deeply.

The site proudly proclaims that it has "PICTURES YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN OR FOXNEWS OR ANY ZIONIST MEDIA". I think this says all that needs to be said about whether the site has any positive contribution to make.

@khazraj
The link is dead now.
@Chris
The fact that this site is advertising his resources like this, doesn't make them necessarilly lies. You can't judge by appearance only

BTA,
You bash my “concluding from internal wickedness” part. Allow me to elaborate my point:

Saddam was no madman, he always asked for allowance before he started a larger enterpirse. IMO it is hypochritical and naive to blame all the agressiveness on Saddam after the west had so actively encouraged and supported him to attack Iran. And referring to the old story about Saddam asking the US what they thought about the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait (an internal arab affair the US won’t mix in) that doesn’t look very unpredictable and mad to me too. Aggressive it was, sure, but he was basically a US tool and he fully understood that. Maybe notable, Saddam, with Israel, enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to kill US soldiers unpunished - remember the USS Stark?
In 2003 there wasn’t much left of Saddams once formidable army - after 10 years of continuous bombing and the embargo. His forces were obsolete and none of his direct neighbours even felt threatened anymore. Besides, Saddam was 65, how many years of despotic rule had he left?

I find it most amazing that in the US, a country of 400+ Million people, with the mightiest military in the world, people were genuinely afraid of Saddam. That phenomenon is unique. No other western country really shared that view. That isn’t because the rest of the world doesn’t understand a ****.

The hawks in the administration, and the mainstream media (not only FOX), painted Saddam and his arsenal as a threat to the US. I even read one article whose author stated that, while Saddam’s missiles and deadly drones couldn’t reach US Shores, Saddam could put them on a ship and fire them off the US coast ..... HAHA .... adding that he therefor sees the need to install a missile shield and demanded some additional 100 billion for defense spending. The threat Saddam could hand over WMD to terrorists is only a logical continuation of the less convincing potential threat "missiles from innocent looking disguised freighters".
Have a look at Laurie Mylroie’s writing (http://20th-century-history-books.com/006009771X.html) – she’s perhaps the whackiest of the blame-Saddam fraction, blaming on him the Oklahoma city bombing and, of course, the anthrax mailings (and besides, she's at the AEI :D ; the tragic is that she believes what she writes) All that’s plain and simple fearmongering.

Fearmongering I feel will be an important part of the next US elections. Partly, because the current administration will try top justify their previous actions. To do so they can hardly contradict themselves by realistically acessing the world around them. That would mean dropping old habits too - the neocons have been at the B-team for no reason in the 1970s and the 1980s (and have been utterly far off with their doomsaying all the time). Listen to John Bolton: "Don’t forget: Syria and Iran are terrible threats too!" Maybe when you smoke dope too.

I found actually that the decisive part in "Bowling for Columbine", aside from all the lack of precision typical for Michael Moore as a polemist, was his trip to Canada and his reference to the non-culture of fear in the US.
The US is the country where the people are told that they are in danger all the time: Use the wrong toothpaste and you’ll loose all your friends. You have a soft belly? You won’t get laid until you get yourself a sixpack. If you don’t have a gun (or are for gun control), you’re a fool, because the baddies have one. You don’t have a triple lock at your door? Well, crimes high these days, better start to pray! You noticed the 9/11 attacks? Well, they evil arabiacs are sure to provide more of that, better buy a bunker to protect you and your beloved NOW before it is too late (http://www.usbunkers.com/) .....

Hypothetical threats are anywhere, anytime.

America went a long way since Roosevelt said that freedom of fear is what America is about.

I think Saddam was all about the show. Iraq has always been considered a power in the Middle East. Not a world power of course, but a Middle East power. I think they were very reluctant to allow weapon inspectors in not because they had something to hide from the inspectors, but that they had something to hide from their neighboring nations - the fact that they were no longer nearly as powerful as they once were. The toll paid by Iraq following the 1991 invasion of Kuwait was severe. The country never recovered economically to any great extent. Quite frankly, I don't think Iraq could afford any type of weapons program. By the same token, it was in their best interest to convince the rest of the world that they could. The regime could not appear weak to its own people or to the surrounding nations, and so fed into the idea that they were something they were not. I just think Saddam never thought that the U.S. would call his bluff.

Adelth i agree with you but your last words
I just think Saddam never thought that the U.S. would call his bluff. arise some questions. First of all do you mean that the US intelligence agencies with all their capabilities (both in resources and in human staff) were for more than ten years been fooled by Shaddam and that the 24/7 electric eyes that watched Iraq could not even understand that simple fact? That Shaddam was boasting only?
I think you could help me on this by telling me if that is possible and then tell me why USA administration did not even considered the reations of the global community.
Or a worst case scenario that needs your answer. Can you explain me what are the real motives behind this invasion, if this feedback was known to them, but chose to conceal?

Victory of the Loud Little Handful

by Mark Twain

The loud little handful - as usual - will shout for the war. The pulpit will - warily and cautiously - object... at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it."

Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity.

Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men...

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)It's not as if history repeats itself, it's that human nature doesn't change. Bullying is a good tactic, it works. And it worked splendidly in the case of Iraq.

Anyone remembers: "If you don't like it, go to France" and "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" ?