 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / November 2003Iraq ain't the way
The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly difficult to do so. Those who foresaw current events do not glory in this, but agonise at the futility. Yet all the agonies and inadequacies of Iraq have still not contributed one iota towards damaging world terrorism. Despite the tragedies, and with every respect to those who have served and suffered, Iraq is an insignificant and irrelevant sideline. And that is the major tragedy, with no doubt many more tragedies still to unfold. I only hope that the real war against terrorism *is* continuing, unseen and unbeknown to most. Iraq ain't the way. Surreyman > The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. > Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly > difficult to do so. > Those who foresaw current events do not glory in this, but agonise at > the futility. True. > Yet all the agonies and inadequacies of Iraq have still not > contributed one iota towards damaging world terrorism. Not true. Perhaps the only thing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have achieved is to change the rules for countries that consider harbouring or helping terrorists because now they fear invasion/military action when before it was simply not expected. This of course will not eradicate terrorism, but it does make certain govt.s think about the consequences of their actions more carefully. > Despite the tragedies, and with every respect to those who have > served and suffered, Iraq is an insignificant and irrelevant > sideline. And that is the major tragedy, with no doubt many more > tragedies still to unfold. That really rather depends what your expectations were for the war and where you are. My Iraqi friends consider it very important and desperately want stability to arrive to compliment their new freedoms. > I only hope that the real war against terrorism *is* continuing, > unseen and unbeknown to most. 911 has had the beneficial effect of finally making the US take terrorism as seriously as the UK has for a long time and thsi will continue and increase. > Iraq ain't the way. Neither was what went before the war - between a rock and a hard place I'd say.  SignatureJulian --------- = Pretentious Sig required = >> > Yet all the agonies and inadequacies of Iraq have still not > > contributed one iota towards damaging world terrorism. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > terrorism, but it does make certain govt.s think about the consequences of > their actions more carefully. Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, had little to do with global terrorism. > > Despite the tragedies, and with every respect to those who have > > served and suffered, Iraq is an insignificant and irrelevant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you are. My Iraqi friends consider it very important and desperately want > stability to arrive to compliment their new freedoms. Agreed, given where we are. But we shouldn't be there. > > I only hope that the real war against terrorism *is* continuing, > > unseen and unbeknown to most. > > > 911 has had the beneficial effect of finally making the US take terrorism as > seriously as the UK has for a long time and thsi will continue and increase. Fine, if they attack global terrorism and not assorted nasty heads of state. > > Iraq ain't the way. > > > Neither was what went before the war - between a rock and a hard place I'd > say. By all means leave the rock, but walk in the right direction. Surreyman >>>> Yet all the agonies and inadequacies of Iraq have still not >>> contributed one iota towards damaging world terrorism. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, had little to do with global terrorism. But it did - it showed countries with links to terrorism that they were not safe. >>> Despite the tragedies, and with every respect to those who have >>> served and suffered, Iraq is an insignificant and irrelevant [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Agreed, given where we are. But we shouldn't be there. My Iraqi friends think we should be. Having seen this I too think we should be: http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html The problem of course is that now we must force out all unelected govt.s who commit genocide against their people or look inconsistent. >>> I only hope that the real war against terrorism *is* continuing, >>> unseen and unbeknown to most. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Fine, if they attack global terrorism and not assorted nasty heads of > state. Why? What is wrong with removing unelected dictators who have caused millions of deaths? Perhaps we can't remove them all, but it's a start. Countries held under fear by a tyrant have a right to look towards free democracies like ours for help. >>> Iraq ain't the way. >>> >> Neither was what went before the war - between a rock and a hard >> place I'd say. > > By all means leave the rock, but walk in the right direction. It's a simple choice - do nothing and hope it goes away or act and risk failure. Only ones individual character can decide which is the right path for each individuals conscience. SignatureJulian --------- = Pretentious Sig required = > >>>> Yet all the agonies and inadequacies of Iraq have still not > >>> contributed one iota towards damaging world terrorism. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > failure. Only ones individual character can decide which is the right path > for each individuals conscience. I agree with every one of your points - if we have the time, money and troops to become the world's policemen. But we seem to be having trouble with the first of, therefore, very many ......... The job in hand was/is world terrorism. Surreyman >>>>>> Yet all the agonies and inadequacies of Iraq have still not >>>>> contributed one iota towards damaging world terrorism. [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > I agree with every one of your points - if we have the time, money and > troops to become the world's policemen. As usual we have no choice. > But we seem to be having trouble with the first of, therefore, very > many ......... > The job in hand was/is world terrorism. > > Surreyman No-one ever said it was going to be easy - I always leave a thread alone when I end up quoting song lyrics! :) SignatureJulian --------- = Pretentious Sig required = >> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. >> Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >True. >> Yet all the agonies and inadequacies of Iraq have still not >> contributed one iota towards damaging world terrorism. >Not true. Perhaps the only thing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have >achieved is to change the rules for countries that consider harbouring or >helping terrorists because now they fear invasion/military action when >before it was simply not expected. This of course will not eradicate >terrorism, but it does make certain govt.s think about the consequences of >their actions more carefully. Not so. It would work only in the case of rational governments of nations as militarily weak as Afghanistan. A die-hard religious government will not give in. Furthermore, it has sadly provided a pretext for other nations to do what we did, at least in small doses. I can imagine a future Iraqi government demanding that we produce Donald Rumsfeld or else. And when we don't, because we won't, they then claim that terrorist acts against the US are legal as per the precedent. As for Iraq, an Army study (cited in Newsday for November 8, 2003) notes that we were very lucky -- concluding that (the quotes are in the original article) "Without Iraqi ineptitude, even 2003 technology could not have enabled a force this size to prevail at this cost." ["This size" refers to the size of the US forces.] This report has not attained wide circulation, but it will. The major lesson learned in Iraq is NOT to do it again. >> Despite the tragedies, and with every respect to those who have >> served and suffered, Iraq is an insignificant and irrelevant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >you are. My Iraqi friends consider it very important and desperately want >stability to arrive to compliment their new freedoms. I am sure that they do. >> I only hope that the real war against terrorism *is* continuing, >> unseen and unbeknown to most. >> >911 has had the beneficial effect of finally making the US take terrorism as >seriously as the UK has for a long time and thsi will continue and increase. No. We do not take it seriously. What we are doing is comic-book in nature and totally unrealistic. The model used was based on the incorrect assumption that there were many terrorist cells in the US supported by an even greater number of sympathizers. It has also assumed that the method of attack will likely involve airplanes. Of course, the weapon of choice is car bombs or suicide bombers. We are exceptionally vulnerable to both -- you cannot carry a pen-knife on an airplane, but abandoned cars dot New York streets and are left in place for weeks. And backpacks are so commonly worn that nobody notices. As for the unseen war against terrorism, in spite of having a population in excess of six million citizen Arabic speakers in the US, there is a shortage of translators in the intelligence agencies, interpreters for the army, and Arabic undercover agents for overseas work. >> Iraq ain't the way. >> >Neither was what went before the war - between a rock and a hard place I'd >say. Why? ---- Paul J. Gans >>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. >>> Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > of nations as militarily weak as Afghanistan. A die-hard > religious government will not give in. I'm afraid not - even the most irrational govt. fears being ousted from it's gravy train as Saddam has been. If the choice is step in line or risk losing power, they will always chose the former. > Furthermore, it has sadly provided a pretext for other nations > to do what we did, at least in small doses. I can imagine a > future Iraqi government demanding that we produce Donald Rumsfeld > or else. And when we don't, because we won't, they then claim > that terrorist acts against the US are legal as per the precedent. And then the overwhelming allied retaliation can also be claimed as legal. Do you think they would risk that or would they rather get on with the business of earning money from oil? > As for Iraq, an Army study (cited in Newsday for November 8, 2003) > notes that we were very lucky -- concluding that (the quotes are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This report has not attained wide circulation, but it will. The > major lesson learned in Iraq is NOT to do it again. I hope you will post a link to this report as I will be very keen to read it. Two wars in Iraq both completed with virtually no losses (militarily speaking) on the allied sides tends to make your point look fallacious and if it exists is more likely to be a tool for the US army to garner more defence budget than a true reflection of operational inadequacy. >>> Despite the tragedies, and with every respect to those who have >>> served and suffered, Iraq is an insignificant and irrelevant [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the US supported by an even greater number of sympathizers. It has > also assumed that the method of attack will likely involve airplanes. Perhaps the biggest failing of the US security services is that they must make all their plans so obvious as to allow you to know them all in advance in sufficient detail to rubbish them. Perhaps you just don't really know what they are doing - they are after all, supposed to be secret services. > Of course, the weapon of choice is car bombs or suicide bombers. > We are exceptionally vulnerable to both -- you cannot carry > a pen-knife on an airplane, but abandoned cars dot New York > streets and are left in place for weeks. And backpacks are so > commonly worn that nobody notices. Yet despite how obvious and easy to use these methods are, they have never been used on the mainlands of the terrorists greatest enemies - I wonder why? > As for the unseen war against terrorism, in spite of having a > population in excess of six million citizen Arabic speakers in > the US, there is a shortage of translators in the intelligence > agencies, interpreters for the army, and Arabic undercover agents > for overseas work. And from this you conclude what? That US arabs aren't very american and don't want to help their country? >>> Iraq ain't the way. >>> >> Neither was what went before the war - between a rock and a hard >> place I'd say. > > Why? You can't see what was wrong with Saddams Iraq without it being explained? SignatureJulian --------- = Pretentious Sig required = >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. >>>> Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >gravy train as Saddam has been. If the choice is step in line or risk losing >power, they will always chose the former. I'm sorry, but the evidence is against you. The Taliban did not step in line. They went down fighting, went underground, and are now staging a modest comeback. Saddam did not step into line either (though there is some small doubt about this with reference to the inspection offer made to the US which quite possibly was not sincere). He too had to be ousted and he *knew* that he would lose. So I don't know how you can maintain that such states will step in line. >> Furthermore, it has sadly provided a pretext for other nations >> to do what we did, at least in small doses. I can imagine a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Do you think they would risk that or would they rather get on with the >business of earning money from oil? Depends on who they are. I trust that you are not confusing the religious terrorists (of which bin Laden is one example) and the social terrorists (of which some of the Palestinian groups are examples) with the people who make money selling oil. Just because the west is interested in oil does not mean that everyone is. And don't bet on overwhelming allied retaliation. One consequence of Iraq is that we have very few allies. Another is that we are overstretched militarily. >> As for Iraq, an Army study (cited in Newsday for November 8, 2003) >> notes that we were very lucky -- concluding that (the quotes are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >if it exists is more likely to be a tool for the US army to garner more >defence budget than a true reflection of operational inadequacy. That is what is known as "head in the sandism". Even a military novice saw the weak points. One certainly came when the US forces, after an amazing advance in the first few days, had to "park" to wait for both fuel and general resupply. The US forces were not prepared to fight a defensive battle while very short on both gasoline and ammunition. Another was the inability of the Iraqis to fight house to house in Baghdad. Please note that the story did NOT say that the US would have lost. What it said was that bad Iraqi generalship was more responsible for the low casualty rate than anything else. I'm sorry that I cannot provide a URL. The story appeared in the newspaper "Newsday" which circulates in Long Island in New York State. It is a major paper, though not a national one. I gave the date of the story. That's all I know. I do know that nobody accused them of making it up nor was there any White House or Defense Department denial of the story. >>>> Despite the tragedies, and with every respect to those who have >>>> served and suffered, Iraq is an insignificant and irrelevant [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >in sufficient detail to rubbish them. Perhaps you just don't really know >what they are doing - they are after all, supposed to be secret services. Yes. One might well believe that. On the other hand the evidence of the last several years (going all the way back to Gulf War I) shows that this is not a very good assumption. For example, we noted the massing of Iraqi troops on the Kuwaiti border and did not interpret it accurately. The CIA strongly felt that it was a feint. Another example, we got the WMD issue dead wrong. Another example, we got the World Trade Center dead wrong. For 9/11 to be pulled off, the intelligence agencies had to ignore the first attack on the WTC -- particularly the people involved, ignore the several warnings from the field that had they been investigated would have turned up the plot, and the government had to ignore constant pleas by people to secure airplanes against hijacking. Why should I think that we are doing any better now? >> Of course, the weapon of choice is car bombs or suicide bombers. >> We are exceptionally vulnerable to both -- you cannot carry [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >been used on the mainlands of the terrorists greatest enemies - I wonder >why? What *are* you talking about? It depends on the terrorist group. The Palestinians use them all the time against the Israelis. Al Qaeda uses them all the time against the states it hates in the Middle East -- and has used them several times against the US in various places around the world. Hardly a week goes by without either a suicide bombing or a truck bombing. Are you asking why they have not been used here? None of the terrorist groups is able to project power everywhere. They have no particular reason to attack the US except symbolically. We cannot be defeated by random bombing any more than the French or Germans were in the 60s or the English by the Irish terrorists. What terrorists are after varies with the location. Outside of "combat" zones they are after high-profile targets that can enhance their reputation. Inside combat zones they are trying to make things as expensive and difficult for their enemies as possible. You must not think of terror groups as some sort of army. They are not. They are the logical response to the overwhelming military strength of other nations. And they are the prideful response of people who, for religious and social reasons, feel downtrodden and insignificant. The World Trade Center disaster made many Moslems around the world proud simply because it showed that Moslems still count in the world. >> As for the unseen war against terrorism, in spite of having a >> population in excess of six million citizen Arabic speakers in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And from this you conclude what? That US arabs aren't very american and >don't want to help their country? Not at all. I conclude that many of the US intelligence groups are not comfortable working with "such people". As far as I know there is no recruitment effort at all -- and I'm in a position to hear about at least some of it if it existed. >>>> Iraq ain't the way. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >You can't see what was wrong with Saddams Iraq without it being explained? While I am in favor of truth and justice and against evil as much as any person, I do not feel that it is the destiny of the US to destroy itself trying to impose its moral views on the world. If we were looking for evil regimes to overthrow, there are at least 20 that are just as bad and some that are worse than Saddam. I've seen NO inclination on the part of the US to get involved in "cleaning up" any of those. One place where we might start is in Liberia, a nation with which we have some connection and which is now sunk even deeped into war, destruction, rapine, and what have you. Or one might look at the Sudan where the fighting between Christians and Moslems has been going on for years, to the extreme detriment of civilians. Or, take Somalia. That's a nation without any law or order. As a matter of fact, take Afghanistan. After having what little infrastructure it had destroyed yet again, the country is once more without a central government. It has fallen back on the old ways -- women in most parts of the country are again cloistered and "wrapped", unable to do anything on their own. War lords extract a cut from the little aid that flows to the population and several have made deals with the Taliban to allow them back into the country. Should we not do something for the suffering people of Afghanistan? ---- Paul J. Gans > >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. > >>>> Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > did not step in line. They went down fighting, went > underground, and are now staging a modest comeback. > Saddam did not step into line either (though there is > some small doubt about this with reference to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So I don't know how you can maintain that such states > will step in line. Hey, you are trying to quote the intervention examples themselves as cases where deterrence will not suceed. Great Marxist logic. So let's go to the _aftermath_ to those invasions - North Korea tried to bluff its way, failed, and now finds itself having to negotiate. Iraq tried the same with its nuclear weapons programme, and has now conceded penetrating IEA inspections. And of course, Syria has pulled its head in, and Saudi Arabia is facing up to curbing the backdoor financing of terrorism. Seems that tangible results have indeed ensued, not only with three axes of evil, but with other players as well - the message spreads. NL >> >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. >> >>>> Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> did not step in line. They went down fighting, went >> underground, and are now staging a modest comeback. >> Saddam did not step into line either (though there is >> some small doubt about this with reference to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> So I don't know how you can maintain that such states >> will step in line. >Hey, you are trying to quote the intervention examples themselves as cases >where deterrence will not suceed. Great Marxist logic. Nope. Afghanistan is over and a 60% failure. We've lost interest and are not going to spend any massive amounts of money on rebuilding or use our troops to crack down on warlords. The 40% success may be ephemeral if the Taliban makes a comeback. And you are ignoring all the other examples. But this isn't the point. You've missed that. Exit was saying that it was our moral duty to go into Iraq because evil was being done there. I was simply pointing out that evil is being done elsewhere, including places like Afghanistan and Liberia where we already have a vested interest. You see, the moral argument for US intervention was and is a load of crap. Nobody in the US government cares about how criminal governments treat their citizens *unless* we need a pretext for intervention. I'll remind you that Bush ran for President on an explicit platform of NOT CARING about other nations. His mantra was "NO NATION BUILDING" and his party's cry for the previous eight years was "NO INTERVENTION". >So let's go to the _aftermath_ to those invasions - North Korea tried to >bluff its way, failed, and now finds itself having to negotiate. I don't see it that way. Bush came in and cancelled the Clinton program for North Korea -- the one that our allies, the South Koreans wanted us to follow. Since then the reality of the situation in North Korea has continued to deteriorate. For three years Bush has refused to talk directly to them. And that policy has failed. And the CIA now estimates (for what it is worth) that North Korea has several nuclear weapons and the capability of producing more. I don't see any of this as a success. >Iraq tried >the same with its nuclear weapons programme, and has now conceded >penetrating IEA inspections. You mean Iran. That was NOT a triumph for the US. It is a triumph for the European Union and France and Germany in particular, with help from Tony Blaire. The secret of that was that the Europeans wanted to keep the US out of the talks. We are not happy with the result as per today's NYTimes which says just that. I don't see any of this as a US success. >And of course, Syria has pulled its head in, Syria never had its head out. They continue to support the terror groups they support, they continue to de facto own Lebanon, and they are not worried about the US since they (and the Iranians, for that matter) know that the US has no military power left. >and Saudi Arabia is facing up to curbing the backdoor financing of >terrorism. Seems that tangible results have indeed ensued, not only with >three axes of evil, but with other players as well - the message spreads. I don't think so. Bin Laden had been in a messy truce with Saudi Arabia. He does not like their government. Recent actions there have convinced the Saudis that they needed to do two things, one was to kick the US out so as to relieve the pressure from the religious to do so and the other was to attempt to break bin Laden's cells in the country. Had you been right, bin Laden would not now be posing a threat to anybody. But he is, and you are wrong. ----- Paul J. Gans > >> >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming self-circumlocutory. > >> >>>> Those who defend the action and its progress find it increasingly [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > or use our troops to crack down on warlords. The 40% success may > be ephemeral if the Taliban makes a comeback. You are saying that Al Khaida still uses Afghanistan as its sanctuary? Now it seems to me and to most that that is not so. > And you are ignoring all the other examples. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Afghanistan and Liberia where we already have a vested > interest. Kofi Adnan has already, in an address to the UN, disposed of that evasion by saying that because we can't do everything, we don't have an excuse to do nothing. Were you holding down a proper job, you would find yourself sacked immediately if you ever tried to come up with that lame excuse for inaction. > You see, the moral argument for US intervention was and is > a load of crap. Nobody in the US government cares about how > criminal governments treat their citizens *unless* we need > a pretext for intervention. Cynicism is a fairly respectable occupation, as long as it is not taken to extremes as you are doing. To suggest that the coalition members are strictly exploitive is the load of crap. Responsible countries and politicians manage to mix a decent balance of altruism and expediency in what they do. Your extreme denunciations merely demonstrate your one-eyed and obsessive hatred of not only your political opponents but the baby in the bathwater - your country. > I'll remind you that Bush ran for President on an explicit > platform of NOT CARING about other nations. His mantra was > "NO NATION BUILDING" and his party's cry for the previous > eight years was "NO INTERVENTION". Were you asleep when the aircraft hit the towers and Pentagon, and changed the outlook of people right around the world? Now if Bush hadn't responded, you would opportunistically have been screaming for his blood. You are a dyed in the wool hypocrite. > >So let's go to the _aftermath_ to those invasions - North Korea tried to > >bluff its way, failed, and now finds itself having to negotiate. > I don't see it that way. Bush came in and cancelled the Clinton > program for North Korea -- the one that our allies, the South > Koreans wanted us to follow. Could it have been that he was given information that the North Koreans were reneging on their side of the agreement, getting aid while continuing nuclear development? You are so anxious to get into Bush, you just don't care about US national interest. And once again, if he had continued it, you would be screaming that Bush sold out. All we ever hear from you is anti-Bush/Republican. It says a lot about someone when they are prepared to sell out national interest in the rabid pursuit of petty party politics. >Since then the reality of the > situation in North Korea has continued to deteriorate. For > three years Bush has refused to talk directly to them. And > that policy has failed. Quite the contrary. North Korea was demanding a guarantee that their evil regime would boh be permitted to continue indefinitely, and that the US would indefinitely prop it up with aid. The South Koreans, scared by the the threats of invasion and nuclear attack went along. And China tried to play three wise monkeys along with Russia, Japan and South Korea. However Bush called them on it, and after the usual blustering and carpet chewing, the North has quietened, and all the regional powers are now involved in finding a solution to what was never a sole US problem. Seems that the US has got it very right indeed, particularly after Clinton's sweeping it under the carpet to fester. > And the CIA now estimates (for what it > is worth) that North Korea has several nuclear weapons and the > capability of producing more. Yes, Clinton gave them those valuable years to do it while he propped them up with aid. > I don't see any of this as a success. The Democrat regime certainly failed absolutely. > >Iraq tried > >the same with its nuclear weapons programme, and has now conceded [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We are not happy with the result as per today's NYTimes which > says just that. The coalition activities in Afghanistan and Iraq set this up, otherwise Iran would be toughing it out. Sticking your head in the sand, saying the the EU would have solved it is trash. We know how they handled their backyard in the Balkans, eventually coming snivelling to the US to bail them out. > I don't see any of this as a US success. Without the US action, the Iranians would contine to ignore the rest of the world, and plough on to their desired nuclear future. > >And of course, Syria has pulled its head in, > Syria never had its head out. They continue to support > the terror groups they support, they continue to de facto > own Lebanon, and they are not worried about the US since > they (and the Iranians, for that matter) know that the US > has no military power left. A silly, wild statement. > >and Saudi Arabia is facing up to curbing the backdoor financing of > >terrorism. Seems that tangible results have indeed ensued, not only with > >three axes of evil, but with other players as well - the message spreads. > I don't think so. Bin Laden had been in a messy truce with > Saudi Arabia. He does not like their government. Recent actions > there have convinced the Saudis that they needed to do two things, > one was to kick the US out so as to relieve the pressure from the > religious to do so and the other was to attempt to break bin Laden's > cells in the country. You really have a twisted view, which accepts any anti-US position as an explanation. You must really hate your country. > Had you been right, bin Laden would not now be posing a threat to > anybody. But he is, and you are wrong. > > ----- Paul J. Gans The logic of that statement escapes me entirely. Perhaps that sort of 'logic' works in Alchemy, but we are not in the mediaeval world, this is the 21st Century, and some of us think a little more clearly. NL >> >> >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming >self-circumlocutory. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> or use our troops to crack down on warlords. The 40% success may >> be ephemeral if the Taliban makes a comeback. >You are saying that Al Khaida still uses Afghanistan as its sanctuary? Now >it seems to me and to most that that is not so. No friend, I am not. I am saying that they've moved to another set of sanctuaries. Moving bin Laden isn't like moving IBM. He moved and set up housekeeping somewhere else. You have noted that there is no lack of terrorist activity lately with his fingerprints on it. So we had a costly war, blew up tons of Afghanistani rubble, raised hopes for a few minutes and left. You seem to feel that somehow we've done real damage to bin Laden. It may be true, but there is no evidence of it. >> And you are ignoring all the other examples. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Afghanistan and Liberia where we already have a vested >> interest. >Kofi Adnan has already, in an address to the UN, disposed of that evasion by >saying that because we can't do everything, we don't have an excuse to do >nothing. Were you holding down a proper job, you would find yourself sacked >immediately if you ever tried to come up with that lame excuse for inaction. Look Neville: My response was to a fellow who said that we had a moral obligation to DO EVERYTHING. I was pointing out that we can't even do what we said we'd do in the two cases we already took on. Now you come along and say what I said and blame me for it. Right now in the US the moral imperative is being given as the only reason for the war. I pointed out to my erstwhile buddy that this is demonstrably false. What arguments do you have with those two points? Are you going to argue that we can do everything everywhere? Or are you going to argue that we've taken on all the bad guys in the world and that what seems to be a plethora of others is just a commie liberal illusion? Take your picLook Neville: My response was to a fellow who said that we had a moral obligation to DO EVERYTHING. I was pointing out that we can't even do what we said we'd do in the two cases we already took on. Now you come along and say what I said and blame me for it. Right now in the US the moral imperative is being given as the only reason for the war. I pointed out to my erstwhile buddy that this is demonstrably false. What arguments do you have with those two points? Are you going to argue that we can do everything everywhere? Or are you going to argue that we've taken on all the bad guys in the world and that what seems to be a plethora of others is just a commie liberal illusion? Take your pick. As for Afghanistan, that's a 90% failure. But that's another argument. >> You see, the moral argument for US intervention was and is >> a load of crap. Nobody in the US government cares about how >> criminal governments treat their citizens *unless* we need >> a pretext for intervention. >Cynicism is a fairly respectable occupation, as long as it is not taken to >extremes as you are doing. To suggest that the coalition members are >strictly exploitive is the load of crap. You sure read what I didn't write. Here in the US the moral reason is the ONLY reason now being given for war. Do you think we did it for moral reasons? I think we did it because sonny wanted to fix daddy's mistake (only to learn that daddy was smart), Cheyney wanted to clean up a job he'd left unfinished, Rumsfeld wanted to prove that we could win wars with very few troops, and Wolfowitz and company thought they were making the world safe for democracy. All of them bought into false intelligence, ignored warnings that the people they were listening to (Chalabi most of all) were not trustworthy, and pushed the US into a war over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Now where does exploitation come in? All did what they did for what they thought were good reasons. The fact that they were so wrong is reason to impeach them perhaps, but when it comes to exploitation the US government is set up to give major coorporations good shots at profits. That's what the government is FOR. It isn't a socialist utopia. >Responsible countries and >politicians manage to mix a decent balance of altruism and expediency in >what they do. Your extreme denunciations merely demonstrate your one-eyed >and obsessive hatred of not only your political opponents but the baby in >the bathwater - your country. I have no hatred. I've lived a long long time and I've seen tons of stupidity in my time. I have never before seen the US destroy its standing in the world, alienate its allies, and fight an aggressive war for what was in fact no good reason. Politicians who screw up that badly deserve to be put out of office. Or do you think that stupidity should be rewarded? >> I'll remind you that Bush ran for President on an explicit >> platform of NOT CARING about other nations. His mantra was >> "NO NATION BUILDING" and his party's cry for the previous >> eight years was "NO INTERVENTION". >Were you asleep when the aircraft hit the towers and Pentagon, and changed >the outlook of people right around the world? Now if Bush hadn't responded, >you would opportunistically have been screaming for his blood. You are a >dyed in the wool hypocrite. You are a curious man. Why did it take the World Trade Center to wake up "NO NATION BUILDING" Bush to reality? Many of us here in New York woke up on the FIRST damn attack on the building. Don't put the administrations failures on me. >> >So let's go to the _aftermath_ to those invasions - North Korea tried to >> >bluff its way, failed, and now finds itself having to negotiate. >> I don't see it that way. Bush came in and cancelled the Clinton >> program for North Korea -- the one that our allies, the South >> Koreans wanted us to follow. >Could it have been that he was given information that the North Koreans were >reneging on their side of the agreement, getting aid while continuing >nuclear development? Could it be that one of Bush's first acts in office was to cut off the aid promised to North Korea by the Clinton administration? >You are so anxious to get into Bush, you just don't >care about US national interest. And once again, if he had continued it, you >would be screaming that Bush sold out. All we ever hear from you is >anti-Bush/Republican. It says a lot about someone when they are prepared to >sell out national interest in the rabid pursuit of petty party politics. I'm sorry fellow. Saying that I'm selling out the national interest is a low blow. Very low. It is one of the interesting after effects of the WTC/Pentagon disasters. All of a sudden anybody who opposes the administration's actions is hinted to be disloyal. Neat trick. You know what it leads to, don't you? >>Since then the reality of the >> situation in North Korea has continued to deteriorate. For >> three years Bush has refused to talk directly to them. And >> that policy has failed. >Quite the contrary. North Korea was demanding a guarantee that their evil >regime would boh be permitted to continue indefinitely, and that the US >would indefinitely prop it up with aid. The South Koreans, scared by the the >threats of invasion and nuclear attack went along. Whoa. You'll have to work that out with Hippo. He claims that South Korea can handle the north. I'll let the two of you fight that out. I do know that South Korea did not want the US to do what they did. They somehow think that they know the North Koreans better than the Americans or the Australians. Stupid of them, I know, but hey, what do you expect from allies? >And China tried to play >three wise monkeys along with Russia, Japan and South Korea. However Bush [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >very right indeed, particularly after Clinton's sweeping it under the carpet >to fester. Fella, it is *still* festering. You've not heard the last of it. >> And the CIA now estimates (for what it >> is worth) that North Korea has several nuclear weapons and the >> capability of producing more. >Yes, Clinton gave them those valuable years to do it while he propped them >up with aid. Right. >> I don't see any of this as a success. >The Democrat regime certainly failed absolutely. Right. Is it possible that you are motivated by anti-Clinton hatred? :-) >> >Iraq tried >> >the same with its nuclear weapons programme, and has now conceded [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> We are not happy with the result as per today's NYTimes which >> says just that. >The coalition activities in Afghanistan and Iraq set this up, otherwise Iran >would be toughing it out. Sticking your head in the sand, saying the the EU >would have solved it is trash. We know how they handled their backyard in >the Balkans, eventually coming snivelling to the US to bail them out. There's some interesting theology in that. Whatever happens that is good you claim results from the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever is bad you claim results from Clinton. It is an interesting theological view. >> I don't see any of this as a US success. >Without the US action, the Iranians would contine to ignore the rest of the >world, and plough on to their desired nuclear future. They are worried about a possible US attack. Why? Because Bush threatened them explicitly. Before Bush they had no nuclear program. Now they figure that they need a counterweight. Iran is not a threat to anybody. They've got too many of their own troubles. And by the way, the US invasion of Iraq has stopped the Iranian internal move to democracy cold. Just as the US has reacted by tightening up (and calling dissenters "unpatriotic"), the Iranians have been tightening up (and calling dissenters "jailbirds"). You see this as a victory? >> >And of course, Syria has pulled its head in, >> Syria never had its head out. They continue to support >> the terror groups they support, they continue to de facto >> own Lebanon, and they are not worried about the US since >> they (and the Iranians, for that matter) know that the US >> has no military power left. >A silly, wild statement. Oh? We don't have enough troops to rotate the ones in Iraq home for rest and rehab. You DO know that, don't you? If trouble breaks out elsewhere in the world we will have to do a full mobilization. And that won't be good for the economy. I don't know why you have the silly illusion that the US army has millions of soldiers hidden away somewhere. We don't. We could possibly scrape up a divison or two without full mobo. Do you think we can take on North Korea with that? Iran? Yemen? Luxemburg? >> >and Saudi Arabia is facing up to curbing the backdoor financing of >> >terrorism. Seems that tangible results have indeed ensued, not only with >> >three axes of evil, but with other players as well - the message spreads. >> I don't think so. Bin Laden had been in a messy truce with >> Saudi Arabia. He does not like their government. Recent actions >> there have convinced the Saudis that they needed to do two things, >> one was to kick the US out so as to relieve the pressure from the >> religious to do so and the other was to attempt to break bin Laden's >> cells in the country. >You really have a twisted view, which accepts any anti-US position as an >explanation. You must really hate your country. You mean the Saudis did NOT kick the US out? If they love us so much you'd think they'd want us around for military support. Why do you think they did not let us use their bases for actual military operations? You did notice that, didn't you? >> Had you been right, bin Laden would not now be posing a threat to >> anybody. But he is, and you are wrong. >> >> ----- Paul J. Gans >The logic of that statement escapes me entirely. Perhaps that sort of >'logic' works in Alchemy, but we are not in the mediaeval world, this is the >21st Century, and some of us think a little more clearly. So you are saying either that bin Laden now poses no threat, which is demonstrably false, or that the threat he poses is miniscule and can be ignored. If that is true, why are we at "condition yellow" in the US right now? --- Paul J. Gans > >> >> >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming > >self-circumlocutory. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > You have noted that there is no lack of terrorist activity lately > with his fingerprints on it. There is a lot of frustrated attempts which far outweigh the successes. > So we had a costly war, blew up tons of Afghanistani rubble, > raised hopes for a few minutes and left. > You seem to feel that somehow we've done real damage to bin > Laden. It may be true, but there is no evidence of it. All that money frozen? Leaders and operatives seized, and lo and behold no hijackings to ransom their release. And leaders on the lam, wondering each day when they are going to be turned in for rewards. They _are_ hurting. > >> And you are ignoring all the other examples. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Afghanistan and Liberia where we already have a vested > >> interest. > >Kofi Adnan has already, in an address to the UN, disposed of that evasion by > >saying that because we can't do everything, we don't have an excuse to do > >nothing. Were you holding down a proper job, you would find yourself sacked > >immediately if you ever tried to come up with that lame excuse for inaction. > Look Neville: My response was to a fellow who said that we had > a moral obligation to DO EVERYTHING. I was pointing out that > we can't even do what we said we'd do in the two cases we > already took on. Well, you are in denial mode, based on a distorted claim that there are no significant improvements in either country, which is a palpable fraud. > Now you come along and say what I said and blame me for it. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in the world and that what seems to be a plethora of others > is just a commie liberal illusion? I'm saying, to repeat it, there is no excuse for doing nothing because you can't do everything Adnan has emphasised that in case anyone doesn't underatand it. > Take your picLook Neville: My response was to a fellow who said that we had > a moral obligation to DO EVERYTHING. I was pointing out that > we can't even do what we said we'd do in the two cases we > already took on. However the Coalition has done a lot. Again this setting of Utopian objectives is a ploy to pretend it is all downside. It is not. > Now you come along and say what I said and blame me for it. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As for Afghanistan, that's a 90% failure. But that's another > argument. You make up these gross exaggerations to gild your wilting lillies. > >> You see, the moral argument for US intervention was and is > >> a load of crap. Nobody in the US government cares about how > >> criminal governments treat their citizens *unless* we need > >> a pretext for intervention. > >Cynicism is a fairly respectable occupation, as long as it is not taken to > >extremes as you are doing. To suggest that the coalition members are > >strictly exploitive is the load of crap. > You sure read what I didn't write. Here in the US the > moral reason is the ONLY reason now being given for war. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to give major coorporations good shots at profits. That's > what the government is FOR. It isn't a socialist utopia. All this is so, and at variance to your claims of six months ago. > >Responsible countries and > >politicians manage to mix a decent balance of altruism and expediency in > >what they do. Your extreme denunciations merely demonstrate your one-eyed > >and obsessive hatred of not only your political opponents but the baby in > >the bathwater - your country. > I have no hatred. I've lived a long long time and I've seen > tons of stupidity in my time. I have never before seen the > US destroy its standing in the world, alienate its allies, > and fight an aggressive war for what was in fact no good reason. > Politicians who screw up that badly deserve to be put out > of office. Or do you think that stupidity should be rewarded? Did you pontificate so loudly against Democratic presidents? You claim above says 'No'. In saying "I have never before seen the US destroy its standing in the world, alienate its allies, and fight an aggressive war for what was in fact no good reason." You must be endorsing Vietnam as not coming into this category. And Bay of Pigs. Please confirm that this is your opinion. > >> I'll remind you that Bush ran for President on an explicit > >> platform of NOT CARING about other nations. His mantra was > >> "NO NATION BUILDING" and his party's cry for the previous > >> eight years was "NO INTERVENTION". > >Were you asleep when the aircraft hit the towers and Pentagon, and changed > >the outlook of people right around the world? Now if Bush hadn't responded, > >you would opportunistically have been screaming for his blood. You are a > >dyed in the wool hypocrite. > You are a curious man. Why did it take the World Trade Center to > wake up "NO NATION BUILDING" Bush to reality? Many of us here > in New York woke up on the FIRST damn attack on the building. > Don't put the administrations failures on me. I see. You roundly condemn Clinton for abrogating his responsibilities? Please confirm this is your opinion. > >> >So let's go to the _aftermath_ to those invasions - North Korea tried to > >> >bluff its way, failed, and now finds itself having to negotiate. > >> I don't see it that way. Bush came in and cancelled the Clinton > >> program for North Korea -- the one that our allies, the South > >> Koreans wanted us to follow. > >Could it have been that he was given information that the North Koreans were > >reneging on their side of the agreement, getting aid while continuin > >nuclear development? > Could it be that one of Bush's first acts in office was to > cut off the aid promised to North Korea by the Clinton administration? Precisely what I said - Clinton was feeding North Korea, knowing they were continuing nuclear development in breach of the aid agreement, and Clinton was turning a blind eye, so leaving the mess for Bush to inherit. And you blame Bush for stopping the farce and calling North Korea to account. You are a joke. > >You are so anxious to get into Bush, you just don't > >care about US national interest. And once again, if he had continued it, you > >would be screaming that Bush sold out. All we ever hear from you is > >anti-Bush/Republican. It says a lot about someone when they are prepared to > >sell out national interest in the rabid pursuit of petty party politics. > I'm sorry fellow. Saying that I'm selling out the national > interest is a low blow. Very low. It is one of the interesting > after effects of the WTC/Pentagon disasters. All of a sudden > anybody who opposes the administration's actions is hinted to > be disloyal. Neat trick. You know what it leads to, don't you? Then tell us where this all started. Who oversaw the development of this mess. As this happened before Bush, and Bush put an end to it, if you try the low blow against Bush, you earn all the ones you get in response. > >>Since then the reality of the > >> situation in North Korea has continued to deteriorate. For > >> three years Bush has refused to talk directly to them. And > >> that policy has failed. > >Quite the contrary. North Korea was demanding a guarantee that their evil > >regime would both be permitted to continue indefinitely, and that the US > >would indefinitely prop it up with aid. The South Koreans, scared by the the > >threats of invasion and nuclear attack went along. > Whoa. You'll have to work that out with Hippo. He claims that > South Korea can handle the north. I'll let the two of you fight > that out. I do know that South Korea did not want the US to do > what they did. They somehow think that they know the North > Koreans better than the Americans or the Australians. They were dead scared of another war, as would any country which has already been overrun twice by that same opponent who was now threatening to do it again. Yes, they did know the North Koreans better, and were into outright appeasement. > Stupid of them, I know, but hey, what do you expect from allies? All the allies in the world don't stop devestation of your country, even if they help you win eventually, and they knew that allies usually come to accommodations which leave you hung out to dry, as in Korea and Vietnam. > >And China tried to play > >three wise monkeys along with Russia, Japan and South Korea. However Bush [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >very right indeed, particularly after Clinton's sweeping it under the carpet > >to fester. > Fella, it is *still* festering. You've not heard the last of it. Yes indeed. Clinton did a great job in giving them the time and aid to allow them to get to or past the nuclear threshold. Great works. Democrat presidents strike once again. > >> And the CIA now estimates (for what it > >> is worth) that North Korea has several nuclear weapons and the > >> capability of producing more. > >Yes, Clinton gave them those valuable years to do it while he propped them > >up with aid. > Right. > >> I don't see any of this as a success. > > >The Democrat regime certainly failed absolutely. > Right. Is it possible that you are motivated by anti-Clinton > hatred? :-) No, a sober look at matching the timings. And I am not motivated by hatreds, or any US political leanings as I have no interest whatsoever in it. US party politics must be even more boring than Australian party politics, which I avoid like the plage. But is gives me a wry smile to see how you manage to reduce all current situations to anti-Bush/Republican, without mentioning what they inherited from the other side. > >> >Iraq tried > >> >the same with its nuclear weapons programme, and has now conceded > >> >penetrating IEA inspections. > >> You mean Iran. That was NOT a triumph for the US. It is a > >> triumph for the European Union and France and Germany in > >> particular, with help from Tony Blaire. The secret of that > >> was that the Europeans wanted to keep the US out of the talks. > >> We are not happy with the result as per today's NYTimes which > >> says just that. > >The coalition activities in Afghanistan and Iraq set this up, otherwise Iran > >would be toughing it out. Sticking your head in the sand, saying the the EU > >would have solved it is trash. We know how they handled their backyard in > >the Balkans, eventually coming snivelling to the US to bail them out. > There's some interesting theology in that. Whatever happens that > is good you claim results from the US invasions of Afghanistan and > Iraq. Whatever is bad you claim results from Clinton. It is > an interesting theological view. Well, it is just a trifle like matching the timings. You know, if the Balkans fiascos happened in Clinton's era, he has to cop the responsibility. If the North Korean backdown happened during Bush's, after they had the example they would be easily toppled a la Afg, Iraq, I guess Bush can claim some credit, particularly after Clinton had set the scene for the confrontation so ably. This may seem a theological matter to you, but it seems very temporal to me. > >> I don't see any of this as a US success. > >Without the US action, the Iranians would contine to ignore the rest of the > >world, and plough on to their desired nuclear future. > They are worried about a possible US attack. Why? Because > Bush threatened them explicitly. Before Bush they had no > nuclear program. Now they figure that they need a counterweight. You have to be joking! No nuclear programme? From The Guardian (not your average neocon source): "Iran has now acknowledged that it has been developing, for 18 years, a uranium centrifuge enrichment programme, and, for 12 years, a laser enrichment programme," the report said. The report was the UN ElBaradei one. Now away from you matters theological to matters temporal, how did Bush organise that 18 year coverup? You are back into straight anti-Bush propaganda. > Iran is not a threat to anybody. They've got too many of their > own troubles. And the same applies to North Korea? > And by the way, the US invasion of Iraq has stopped the Iranian > internal move to democracy cold. Just as the US has reacted by > tightening up (and calling dissenters "unpatriotic"), the Iranians > have been tightening up (and calling dissenters "jailbirds"). You > see this as a victory? So we allow Iran fanatics to to get their hands on nuclear weapons in the hope that in twenty years they might evolve into democratic? Another desperate joke. > >> >And of course, Syria has pulled its head in, > >> Syria never had its head out. They continue to support > >> the terror groups they support, they continue to de facto > >> own Lebanon, and they are not worried about the US since > >> they (and the Iranians, for that matter) know that the US > >> has no military power left. > >A silly, wild statement. > Oh? We don't have enough troops to rotate the ones in Iraq > home for rest and rehab. You DO know that, don't you? If [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mobo. Do you think we can take on North Korea with that? > Iran? Yemen? Luxemburg? Is Yemen threatening to invade? You are getting feeble. All these countries is in considerbale internal trouble, and it is just as possible to get going an internal problem, which scares the pants off them. Which is why the Saudis are facing reality at last, particularly with the alternative oil sources depriving them of their most obvious tool to blackmail the West. > >> >and Saudi Arabia is facing up to curbing the backdoor financing of > >> >terrorism. Seems that tangible results have indeed ensued, not only with > >> >three axes of evil, but with other players as well - the message spreads. > >> I don't think so. Bin Laden had been in a messy truce with > >> Saudi Arabia. He does not like their government. Recent actions > >> there have convinced the Saudis that they needed to do two things, > >> one was to kick the US out so as to relieve the pressure from the > >> religious to do so and the other was to attempt to break bin Laden's > >> cells in the country. > >You really have a twisted view, which accepts any anti-US position as an > >explanation. You must really hate your country. > You mean the Saudis did NOT kick the US out? If they love us > so much you'd think they'd want us around for military support. Not when there are other ME countries willing to take it on. Yes, the Saudis are running scared. > Why do you think they did not let us use their bases for > actual military operations? You did notice that, didn't you? There were plenty of others, and they realise thir days of double dealing have been called. > >> Had you been right, bin Laden would not now be posing a threat to > >> anybody. But he is, and you are wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >'logic' works in Alchemy, but we are not in the mediaeval world, this is the > >21st Century, and some of us think a little more clearly. > So you are saying either that bin Laden now poses no threat, which > is demonstrably false, or that the threat he poses is miniscule and > can be ignored. If that is true, why are we at "condition yellow" > in the US right now? > > --- Paul J. Gans Been any attacks in the past couple of years? Seems he is slipping to me. Lots of mouthing off in scratchy tapes, if you count that as action. It seems that he is greatly handicapped by loss of protection, lieutenants, organisation, active sanctuary and funds. And he spends a lot of time wondering who will betray him for reward. Not he open slather that Clinton allowed him. NL > > All that money frozen? Leaders and operatives seized, and lo and behold no > hijackings to ransom their release. And leaders on the lam, wondering each > day when they are going to be turned in for rewards. They _are_ hurting. I agree with you absolutely. This is how the war must be fought. Iraq and equivalents were/are irrelevant. That's my whole point. Surreyman > > > All that money frozen? Leaders and operatives seized, and lo and behold > no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Surreyman I'll meet you half way on Iraq, but removing the active sanctuary of Taliban-Afghanistan was an essential pre-requisite. And of course that was done using local ground forces. NL > > > > All that money frozen? Leaders and operatives seized, and lo and > behold [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Taliban-Afghanistan was an essential pre-requisite. And of course that was > done using local ground forces. Again, I agree. I was never agin invading Afghanistan. But, although now rather less of an active centre, it is almost certainly in all probability still a centre of sorts. Surreyman >> >> >> >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming >> >self-circumlocutory. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >> You have noted that there is no lack of terrorist activity lately >> with his fingerprints on it. >There is a lot of frustrated attempts which far outweigh the successes. Well, there you go admitting that I'm right. If there are a "lot of frustrated attempts", then added to the successful ones it is clear that our Afghanistani and Iraqi adventures have not put any dent in their ability to make plots. This is exactly my point. That some may have been frustrated (I have no idea how you know that there are a "lot") makes another point. Covert operations are much better, cheaper, and likely more successful than overt military operations. >> So we had a costly war, blew up tons of Afghanistani rubble, >> raised hopes for a few minutes and left. >> You seem to feel that somehow we've done real damage to bin >> Laden. It may be true, but there is no evidence of it. >All that money frozen? Leaders and operatives seized, and lo and behold no >hijackings to ransom their release. And leaders on the lam, wondering each >day when they are going to be turned in for rewards. They _are_ hurting. See above. They are hurting to the point of being able to launch a "lot" of operations. >> >> And you are ignoring all the other examples. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Afghanistan and Liberia where we already have a vested >> >> interest. >> >Kofi Adnan has already, in an address to the UN, disposed of that evasion >by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >immediately if you ever tried to come up with that lame excuse for >inaction. >> Look Neville: My response was to a fellow who said that we had >> a moral obligation to DO EVERYTHING. I was pointing out that >> we can't even do what we said we'd do in the two cases we >> already took on. >Well, you are in denial mode, based on a distorted claim that there are no >significant improvements in either country, which is a palpable fraud. Oh? I simply follow the news. The US has thrown in the towel in Iraq. We want out NOW. We'll turn over the government to any group that will take it. This is a far cry from our stated aim to build democracy in Iraq. In fact it is starting to look like the secular forces are losing out to the religious ones. Why do I say that? The religious ones are better organized. They were able to maintain organization under Saddam under the cover of being "religous". The secular ones were not able to get organized. Since we are looking to turn over power FAST to any group that can demonstrate some organization, I think that we will soon have converted Iraq from a secular dictatorship to a religious one. That's a huge gain, isn't it? >> Now you come along and say what I said and blame me for it. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> in the world and that what seems to be a plethora of others >> is just a commie liberal illusion? >I'm saying, to repeat it, there is no excuse for doing nothing because you >can't do everything Adnan has emphasised that in case anyone doesn't >underatand it. I never advocated doing nothing. Afghanistan was understandable because in a democracy you have to satisfy the ravening hordes of voters. But we then incurred an obligation to clean the country up. Had we done that we might have gained enough leverage to be able to deal with the Middle East. Right now we can't deal with the Middle East. The most important issue in that region is the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. That's the one the ideogogues in Washington can't come to grips with. I want THAT ONE settled. And I want it settled in such a way as to bring prosperity to both Israel and Palestine. THAT would serve as a glowing symbol to the Arab underclasses in other nations in the area that it is possible to be Moslem and successful without being born a prince. I have consistently said that I wanted that conflict settled. Please don't delude yourself into thinking that I don't want anything done. I want the real problems solved, not the ones involving daddy's honor. >> Take your picLook Neville: My response was to a fellow who said that we >had >> a moral obligation to DO EVERYTHING. I was pointing out that >> we can't even do what we said we'd do in the two cases we >> already took on. >However the Coalition has done a lot. Again this setting of Utopian >objectives is a ploy to pretend it is all downside. It is not. Go argue with the other fellow, not me. >> Now you come along and say what I said and blame me for it. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> As for Afghanistan, that's a 90% failure. But that's another >> argument. >You make up these gross exaggerations to gild your wilting lillies. >> >> You see, the moral argument for US intervention was and is >> >> a load of crap. Nobody in the US government cares about how >> >> criminal governments treat their citizens *unless* we need >> >> a pretext for intervention. >> >Cynicism is a fairly respectable occupation, as long as it is not taken >to >> >extremes as you are doing. To suggest that the coalition members are >> >strictly exploitive is the load of crap. >> You sure read what I didn't write. Here in the US the >> moral reason is the ONLY reason now being given for war. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> to give major coorporations good shots at profits. That's >> what the government is FOR. It isn't a socialist utopia. >All this is so, and at variance to your claims of six months ago. I don't think so. I've thought this likely for longer than you have been alive. Your problem is that you see all who disagree with you as liberal socialist communist scum. And so you attribute values and thoughts to them that they don't have. >> >Responsible countries and >> >politicians manage to mix a decent balance of altruism and expediency in >> >what they do. Your extreme denunciations merely demonstrate your one-eyed >> >and obsessive hatred of not only your political opponents but the baby in >> >the bathwater - your country. >> I have no hatred. I've lived a long long time and I've seen >> tons of stupidity in my time. I have never before seen the >> US destroy its standing in the world, alienate its allies, >> and fight an aggressive war for what was in fact no good reason. >> Politicians who screw up that badly deserve to be put out >> of office. Or do you think that stupidity should be rewarded? >Did you pontificate so loudly against Democratic presidents? You claim above >says 'No'. In saying "I have never before seen the US destroy its standing >in the world, alienate its allies, and fight an aggressive war for what was >in fact no good reason." You must be endorsing Vietnam as not coming into >this category. And Bay of Pigs. >Please confirm that this is your opinion. That what is my opinion? I began in favor of the Vietnamese war and am one of the few folks whom you will find who will admit it. I ended up against Vietnam because I eventually saw that it was a no-win situation. That was some years before the US government also discovered this. And that war ddid not alienate our allies in the way that Iraq has done. The Bay of Pigs was a huge mistake. It was acknowleged to be a huge mistake right after I learned that it had happened. I thought it a mistake for Clinton to pull out of Mozambique. But I give him credit for making a serious effort to settle the Israeli-Palestinian situation. And by the way I think Bush did a wonderful thing in flying to Baghdad. That did a lot for morale over there. You see, morale over there is bad, even if some here deny that. Where did you stand on these issues. >> >> I'll remind you that Bush ran for President on an explicit >> >> platform of NOT CARING about other nations. His mantra was >> >> "NO NATION BUILDING" and his party's cry for the previous >> >> eight years was "NO INTERVENTION". >> >Were you asleep when the aircraft hit the towers and Pentagon, and >changed >> >the outlook of people right around the world? Now if Bush hadn't >responded, >> >you would opportunistically have been screaming for his blood. You are a >> >dyed in the wool hypocrite. >> You are a curious man. Why did it take the World Trade Center to >> wake up "NO NATION BUILDING" Bush to reality? Many of us here >> in New York woke up on the FIRST damn attack on the building. >> Don't put the administrations failures on me. >I see. You roundly condemn Clinton for abrogating his responsibilities? >Please confirm this is your opinion. What responsibilities? You are a curious fellow. Remember that his FBI chief was testifying AGAINST him and pushing hard to do even more investigations of him? Clinton was boxed in by the Republicans trying to (and succeeding in) impeaching him. It was the FBI who failed, not Clinton. I do not consider it a failure on Clinton's part to refuse to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. Not only would it have been stupid, he'd never have gotten a Republican congress to agree. >> >> >So let's go to the _aftermath_ to those invasions - North Korea tried >to >> >> >bluff its way, failed, and now finds itself having to negotiate. >> >> I don't see it that way. Bush came in and cancelled the Clinton >> >> program for North Korea -- the one that our allies, the South >> >> Koreans wanted us to follow. >> >Could it have been that he was given information that the North Koreans >were >> >reneging on their side of the agreement, getting aid while continuing >> >nuclear development? >> Could it be that one of Bush's first acts in office was to >> cut off the aid promised to North Korea by the Clinton administration? >Precisely what I said - Clinton was feeding North Korea, knowing they were >continuing nuclear development in breach of the aid agreement, and Clinton >was turning a blind eye, so leaving the mess for Bush to inherit. And you >blame Bush for stopping the farce and calling North Korea to account. You >are a joke. Stopped what farce? I don't know that North Korea was actually building nuclear weapons until after Bush cut off aid. >> >You are so anxious to get into Bush, you just don't >> >care about US national interest. And once again, if he had continued it, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to >> >sell out national interest in the rabid pursuit of petty party politics. >> I'm sorry fellow. Saying that I'm selling out the national >> interest is a low blow. Very low. It is one of the interesting >> after effects of the WTC/Pentagon disasters. All of a sudden >> anybody who opposes the administration's actions is hinted to >> be disloyal. Neat trick. You know what it leads to, don't you? >Then tell us where this all started. Who oversaw the development of this >mess. As this happened before Bush, and Bush put an end to it, if you try >the low blow against Bush, you earn all the ones you get in response. What mess? That the Arabs have been turning more and more radical? Learn some history. But Bush has put an end to nothing. As someone you respect has said, there have been a lot of terrorist attempts lately. >> >>Since then the reality of the >> >> situation in North Korea has continued to deteriorate. For >> >> three years Bush has refused to talk directly to them. And >> >> that policy has failed. >> >Quite the contrary. North Korea was demanding a guarantee that their evil >> >regime would both be permitted to continue indefinitely, and that the US >> >would indefinitely prop it up with aid. The South Koreans, scared by the >the >> >threats of invasion and nuclear attack went along. >> Whoa. You'll have to work that out with Hippo. He claims that >> South Korea can handle the north. I'll let the two of you fight >> that out. I do know that South Korea did not want the US to do >> what they did. They somehow think that they know the North >> Koreans better than the Americans or the Australians. >They were dead scared of another war, as would any country which has already >been overrun twice by that same opponent who was now threatening to do it >again. Yes, they did know the North Koreans better, and were into outright >appeasement. How do you know this? What I read says the opposite. >> Stupid of them, I know, but hey, what do you expect from allies? >All the allies in the world don't stop devestation of your country, even if >they help you win eventually, and they knew that allies usually come to >accommodations which leave you hung out to dry, as in Korea and Vietnam. Huh? South Korea is one of the very few "third world" countries that has made it. Their economy is robust, their wealth very large, and they are a major player on the world economic scene. Other countries should be hung out to dry like that. And who hung whom out in Vietnam? >> >And China tried to play >> >three wise monkeys along with Russia, Japan and South Korea. However Bush [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >carpet >> >to fester. >> Fella, it is *still* festering. You've not heard the last of it. >Yes indeed. Clinton did a great job in giving them the time and aid to allow >them to get to or past the nuclear threshold. Great works. Democrat >presidents strike once again. Your bias is showing. >> >> And the CIA now estimates (for what it >> >> is worth) that North Korea has several nuclear weapons and the >> >> capability of producing more. >> >Yes, Clinton gave them those valuable years to do it while he propped >them >> >up with aid. >> Right. >> >> I don't see any of this as a success. >> >> >The Democrat regime certainly failed absolutely. >> Right. Is it possible that you are motivated by anti-Clinton >> hatred? :-) >No, a sober look at matching the timings. And I am not motivated by hatreds, >or any US political leanings as I have no interest whatsoever in it. US >party politics must be even more boring than Australian party politics, >which I avoid like the plage. But is gives me a wry smile to see how you >manage to reduce all current situations to anti-Bush/Republican, without >mentioning what they inherited from the other side. No. I expect *any* administration to do the right thing with the information they have at hand. This administration has not. I have voted for Republicans for President, congress, and local offices. I'm not a hidebound anything. I criticize the Bush administration because it *IS* the current administration. >> >> >Iraq tried >> >> >the same with its nuclear weapons programme, and has now conceded >> >> >penetrating IEA inspections. >> >> You mean Iran. That was NOT a triumph for the US. It is a >> >> triumph for the European Union and France and Germany in >> >> particular, with help from Tony Blaire. The secret of that >> >> was that the Europeans wanted to keep the US out of the talks. >> >> We are not happy with the result as per today's NYTimes which >> >> says just that. >> >The coalition activities in Afghanistan and Iraq set this up, otherwise >Iran >> >would be toughing it out. Sticking your head in the sand, saying the the >EU >> >would have solved it is trash. We know how they handled their backyard in >> >the Balkans, eventually coming snivelling to the US to bail them out. >> There's some interesting theology in that. Whatever happens that >> is good you claim results from the US invasions of Afghanistan and >> Iraq. Whatever is bad you claim results from Clinton. It is >> an interesting theological view. >Well, it is just a trifle like matching the timings. You know, if the >Balkans fiascos happened in Clinton's era, he has to cop the responsibility. He has, for better or worse. >If the North Korean backdown happened during Bush's, after they had the >example they would be easily toppled a la Afg, Iraq, I guess Bush can claim >some credit, particularly after Clinton had set the scene for the >confrontation so ably. What backdown? >This may seem a theological matter to you, but it seems very temporal to me. >> >> I don't see any of this as a US success. >> >Without the US action, the Iranians would contine to ignore the rest of >the >> >world, and plough on to their desired nuclear future. >> They are worried about a possible US attack. Why? Because >> Bush threatened them explicitly. Before Bush they had no >> nuclear program. Now they figure that they need a counterweight. >You have to be joking! No nuclear programme? From The Guardian (not your >average neocon source): >"Iran has now acknowledged that it has been developing, for 18 years, a >uranium centrifuge enrichment programme, and, for 12 years, a laser >enrichment programme," the report said. >The report was the UN ElBaradei one. >Now away from you matters theological to matters temporal, how did Bush >organise that 18 year coverup? >You are back into straight anti-Bush propaganda. Nope. I was not aware of that, not normally reading the Guardian. I'm not happy with that. >> Iran is not a threat to anybody. They've got too many of their >> own troubles. >And the same applies to North Korea? Huh? >> And by the way, the US invasion of Iraq has stopped the Iranian >> internal move to democracy cold. Just as the US has reacted by >> tightening up (and calling dissenters "unpatriotic"), the Iranians >> have been tightening up (and calling dissenters "jailbirds"). You >> see this as a victory? >So we allow Iran fanatics to to get their hands on nuclear weapons in the >hope that in twenty years they might evolve into democratic? Another >desperate joke. You are going to have to get over your nuclear tummyache. There is no way to stop them from spreading everywhere. All we can do is slow down the process while we try to settle the outstanding sore points in the world. We are NOT doing that. The outstanding sore points in the world include Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan as well as a number of smaller ones. Of these four nations, three already have nuclear weapons. Another outstanding sore point for the west (the others are international) is Saudi Arabia. It is the center of Wahhibism, its schools teach nothing but hatred for non-Muslims, and it is the center of troubles all over the Muslim world. Pakistan runs them a close second. Both will have to be dealt with. The world cannot continue to harbor nations that teach hatred of other broad grouping of people just because they are different. >> >> >And of course, Syria has pulled its head in, >> >> Syria never had its head out. They continue to support >> >> the terror groups they support, they continue to de facto >> >> own Lebanon, and they are not worried about the US since >> >> they (and the Iranians, for that matter) know that the US >> >> has no military power left. >> >A silly, wild statement. >> Oh? We don't have enough troops to rotate the ones in Iraq >> home for rest and rehab. You DO know that, don't you? If [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> mobo. Do you think we can take on North Korea with that? >> Iran? Yemen? Luxemburg? >Is Yemen threatening to invade? You are getting feeble. All these countries >is in considerbale internal trouble, and it is just as possible to get going >an internal problem, which scares the pants off them. Which is why the >Saudis are facing reality at last, particularly with the alternative oil >sources depriving them of their most obvious tool to blackmail the West. Good grief man, I know you don't do sarcasm. That's why I included Luxemburg. >> >> >and Saudi Arabia is facing up to curbing the backdoor financing of >> >> >terrorism. Seems that tangible results have indeed ensued, not only >with >> >> >three axes of evil, but with other players as well - the message >spreads. >> >> I don't think so. Bin Laden had been in a messy truce with >> >> Saudi Arabia. He does not like their government. Recent actions >> >> there have convinced the Saudis that they needed to do two things, >> >> one was to kick the US out so as to relieve the pressure from the >> >> religious to do so and the other was to attempt to break bin Laden's >> >> cells in the country. >> >You really have a twisted view, which accepts any anti-US position as an >> >explanation. You must really hate your country. >> You mean the Saudis did NOT kick the US out? If they love us >> so much you'd think they'd want us around for military support. >Not when there are other ME countries willing to take it on. Yes, the Saudis >are running scared. So you agree with me again. >> Why do you think they did not let us use their bases for >> actual military operations? You did notice that, didn't you? >There were plenty of others, and they realise thir days of double dealing >have been called. So you even more agree with me. By the way, there were NOT plenty of others. The lack of Saudi ports meant that we had to use Kuwait. That port is not big enough to handle the load. So the plan called for a quick capture of the Iraqi port. That was done, but the mines were so dense that the port could not be put into service with any speed. The result was the famous "hiatus" in the dash north where the US forces had essentially run out of gasoline, ammunition, and food. That was a dangerous moment but luckily Iraqi internal rot kept them from taking advantage of it. So the Saudi's put us into a difficult position, but we won't say so because we might offend a prince or two. >> >> Had you been right, bin Laden would not now be posing a threat to >> >> anybody. But he is, and you are wrong. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the >> >21st Century, and some of us think a little more clearly. >> So you are saying either that bin Laden now poses no threat, which >> is demonstrably false, or that the threat he poses is miniscule and >> can be ignored. If that is true, why are we at "condition yellow" >> in the US right now? >> >> --- Paul J. Gans >Been any attacks in the past couple of years? Seems he is slipping to me. There have been tons of attacks in the last couple of years. Where have you been? >Lots of mouthing off in scratchy tapes, if you count that as action. It >seems that he is greatly handicapped by loss of protection, lieutenants, >organisation, active sanctuary and funds. And he spends a lot of time >wondering who will betray him for reward. Not he open slather that Clinton >allowed him. Oh boy. I guess that US government claims of al Qaeda activity don't impress you. ---- Paul J. Gans PS: We are going round in circles, unless you have something new to say, I'll let you have the last regurgitation. > >> >> >> >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming > >> >self-circumlocutory. [quoted text clipped - 307 lines] > > >> >> >So let's go to the _aftermath_ to those inv sions - North Korea tried > >to > >> >> >bluff its way, failed, and now finds itself having to negotiate. [quoted text clipped - 338 lines] > PS: We are going round in circles, unless you have something > new to say, I'll let you have the last regurgitation. When do you get time to teach! :-)) Surreyman > >> >> >> >>>> The several topics running on Iraq are becoming > >> >self-circumlocutory. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >> You have noted that there is no lack of terrorist activity lately > >> with his fingerprints on it. > >There is a lot of frustrated attempts which far outweigh the successes. > Well, there you go admitting that I'm right. If there are > a "lot of frustrated attempts", then added to the successful > ones it is clear that our Afghanistani and Iraqi adventures have > not put any dent in their ability to make plots. This is exactly > my point. Quite on the contrary. There is a lot of cooperation betwen not only Western countries which wasn't there before, but also with Muslim countries. Frustrated attacks are victories in their own right, and land a harvest of terrorist operatives and leaders which further reduces the potential. Hadn't you figured that out? I know that academic "one-step" thinking is a problem, but it is possible to make multiple steps and correlations. > That some may have been frustrated (I have no idea how you know > that there are a "lot") makes another point. Covert operations > are much better, cheaper, and likely more successful than overt > military operations. Well, I do read the newspapers. They are reported virtually every day, so that seems to be 'a lot'. As for covert being ineffective, I suppose you deny the positive effect of Afghanistan ceasing to be an unfettered active sanctuary. > >> So we had a costly war, blew up tons of Afghanistani rubble, > >> raised hopes for a few minutes and left. > >> You seem to feel that somehow we've done real damage to bin > >> Laden. It may be true, but there is no evidence of it. > >All that money frozen? Leaders and operatives seized, and lo and behold no > >hijackings to ransom their release. And leaders on the lam, wondering each > >day when they are going to be turned in for rewards. They _are_ hurting. > See above. They are hurting to the point of being able to launch > a "lot" of operations. Well, you might like to list them. They have certainly been socking it to other Muslims, and to defenceless aid agencies. But what significant western targets? > >> >> And you are ignoring all the other examples. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> >> Afghanistan and Liberia where we already have a vested > >> >> interest. > >> >Kofi Adnan has already, in an address to the UN, disposed of that evasion by > >> >saying that because we can't do everything, we don't have an excuse to do > >> >nothing. Were you holding down a proper job, you would find yourself > >sacked > >> >immediately if you ever tried to come up with that lame excuse for inaction. > >> Look Neville: My response was to a fellow who said that we had > >> a moral obligation to DO EVERYTHING. I was pointing out that > >> we can't even do what we said we'd do in the two cases we > >> already took on. > >Well, you are in denial mode, based on a distorted claim that there are no > >significant improvements in either country, which is a palpable fraud. > Oh? I simply follow the news. The US has thrown in the towel > in Iraq. We want out NOW. We'll turn over the government to > any group that will take it. This is a far cry from our stated > aim to build |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message