Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[Occhidiangela]

Then keep your soldiers at home, fine! The problems comes when you want to use said political organisations yourself to get others to comply but ignore it yourself. It is never good to have a "it applies to everyone else but not us" attitude. It will errode the whole system/concept. If you don't like them, ignore them completely then, but don't come demand that others should follow them when it suits you.

Jarulf, the US generally expects governments to try their own soldiers/persons for crimes they commit. I guess it is expecting too much to ask of most governments. Most places aren't like Sweden or France, where you or I could expect an accounting if their soldiers violate the laws. Why? Like the US, these nations tend to honor their treaties.

As to "keep your soldiers at home" there are two answers to that.

1. Too late, they left home to end a war the Europeans started (in 1939) and the situation at the end was such that they couldn't come home right away. Since then, global security and stability has been underwritten, for 60 years, by the presence of US troops all over the globe.

2. There are a lot of Americans who agree with you, that we should return to our shell and let the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket. I think that is an unrealistic position, but it is an old political line, since about 1914, in the US. A goodly number of those who take that line are serious American Nordics, and White Nationalists.:PBlah.

While I understand your position, I think it ignores how we ( the world) got to where we are today. Or maybe you'd rather speak Russian. :D ( I only know a few words of Russian)

America kept its troops at home for Bosnia in 1992.

A lot of good that did.

Occhi

[Thecla]

And now leaks from part of a US intelligence assessment that the war in Iraq has --- surprise, surprise ---increased Islamic radicalism and worsened the terror threat. Who woulda thunk it.

[kandrathe]

And now leaks from part of a US intelligence assessment that the war in Iraq has --- surprise, surprise ---increased Islamic radicalism and worsened the terror threat. Who woulda thunk it.

Well, increased compared to what? The NIE is a "worst case" scenario document, so the press portraying it as a "likely" scenario case is misrepresenting it's value and intent.

Also, can I just say here that in light of Mr. Bill Clinton's recent interview... Both sides need to get off their butts and start working together on the real geopolitical problem here and quit playing politics. It feels like we've back slided to Sept 10th, 2001 here. Take a fricken minute and listen to what the Islamacists, terrorists and others are telling us they are going to do to the Great Satan. You remember, the smell of sulfer in the UN?

The Great Satan explained

Choose the form of your destructor...

[Thecla]

Choose the form of your destructor...

So do you believe that the US, or anyone else --- excluding, perhaps, Iran, the Kurds, the fundamentalist Shiite Islamicists in Iraq, and Islamic terrorists all over the world --- have been helped by the US invasion of Iraq?

Do you believe that this illegal, unnecessary, and disasterous adventure, which has cost hundreds of billions of american dollars, thousands of american dead, tens of thousands american injured (many of them with life-altering injuries) --- never mind the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis --- do you believe this war, launched by what could be the most incompetent administration in the history of the US (which is saying something), was worth it? Even if you think it was worth it, do you think the war was launched honestly?

I'm not interested in general remarks about Islamic terrorism across the globe, sulpher, anything to do with Bill Clinton, or comments from John Negroponte about how overall things really are safer now.

Tell me how the Iraq war has done anything but make the problem you refer to infinitely worse, for the US, for Spain, for Britain, for Lebanon, for Israel, for Afghanistan,...or why the Bush adminstration, now citing "Islamo-fascism" as the driving issue of the 21st century chose the unilateral invasion of a brutal, but basically secular, dictatorship under false pretenses, and used 9/11 to justify it?

[kandrathe]

So do you believe ...

I see you have been thoroughly propagandized then. Yah, fine. We suck. America sucks. Bush is Satan. Feel better? Allow me to rant a bit... I know I will feel a little better, and you might understand me just a little more. First, as a libertarian, it is a bitter pill for me to sacrifice personal liberty or spend my money to send my army to go fight in Europe or the Middle East. But I also try to be pragmatic. I despise the Right wing nuts and Left wing nuts equally.

Try hard to remember how you felt on September 12th 2001, or maybe, perhaps, you were one of those people who thought those 3000 people in NYC deserved to die. I freely admit, I was angry that day and felt we needed to go get the people who did this.

Ok, when the US started beating the drums of pre-GW2 in the spring of 2002 in the security council. I was one of those who could believe that Saddam was hiding something, however, to me it was irrelevant and I said that too. The only needed justification for UN action was because Saddam violated the armistice from GWI. Was war the only choice? No. But, no one else had the stomach to do the right thing in either making Saddam accountable for violating the armistice, or in truly enforcing economic sanctions. With the later failing utterly to contain him, the weakness of the UN forced Bush to play the war card. The alternative would be to watch Saddam, a mythic Phoenix, emerge from the ashes of GWI and rightly claim the mantle of Nasser II, or as he fancied himself, a modern Nebuchadnezzar. I think it would have been bad.

Now, consider that OBL was an artifact of GWI. We are the infidel on Arab land which is enough reason to fight the Great Jihad ( as opposed to the little one they all claim it means). Yes, I also do believe that sometime between 9/11 and the start of GWII the Iraqi's invited foreign fighters to join the Fedayeen Saddam to become a guerilla insurgency in the event of a war. That is the fertile root of what we are now fighting in Iraq, and a root the US was totally unprepared to fight.

Now, I'm saying that pointing fingers is not going to help anyone, so let's start choosing how to resolve this patiently, intelligently, correctly, rather than fight amongst ourselves. Eh? Would it work better?

So, I do believe there is a problem, which used to be called Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. Now it is much more dispersed and is not as containable. Can we agree on this? I'm asking just a simple question. What would the world situation be like now if Iraq had not been invaded and Saddam had five more years? I don't have the answer, but I'm not duped by the NYT into thinking if Bush & Co. had not invaded Iraq the world would now be a rosier and safer place. How can you win against an enemy that can claim victory by merely having some survivors to continue to spread the ideology?

Ok, let me state that Bush & Co. have completely bungled the situation. I've commented on this before about our clumsy tromping boots of anti-diplomacy. Those guys from the "Jack@ss movie" would do a better job than Bush & Co. But, then again, Clinton bungled it in a totally different way (which played into the Jihadist plan in a totally different way). 9/11 was a plan concieved and hatched in the Clinton era. The fruits of appeasment, as if we need to learn that old lesson, yet again. And, then again, GW the elder bungled it, and etc, and etc... When you fight this kind of asymmetrical war, there is no room for quesy stomaches and huge mistakes. You do not fire missles into aspirin factories, or hire 3rd rate assassins who "almost" get the job done. You go with planning, resolve and do it right, and you try to do it as a coalition that won't cave even under pressure.

Here is another delusion for you to chew on; if the Isreali's and the Palestinians suddenly worked things out tomorrow, would you think that terrorism would stop? Any amount? I don't believe it would... at all. Terrorism is group think, and a means to glamour, fame and glory for Islamicists. It needs to be defeated and disgraced as an ideology like nazism, or fascism, or cannibalism. The enemy is not in Iraq, or Afghanistan... It is the ideology of people like Sayyid Qutb inside the heads of intelligent islamacists around the entire world. You cannot tramp it out with iron boots, tanks, bombs, or aircraft carriers. But, neither can you watch as nations train (aid or give quarter) to terrorists who will infiltrate your sieve like defenses and kill your children. Consider also, that the main victims of Islamic terrorism and agression are other muslims. Maybe ten-fold, maybe hundred-fold. This is a war of ideas, that is fought between muslims, about the Zionists & the decadent West. They probably do all agree we are evil, but they do not all agree we are the "Great Satan" which they will all join together to fight at the end of the world. We should not prove we are.

And, yes, that means that the US needs to stop aiding & quartering terrorists as well. We need to regain the moral high ground. Abu Garib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA body snatching are a black eye as well, which had Bush & Co. acted cooperatively ( inside and outside the US) this might not have been such a bungled PR nightmare. There is a fundamental question that needs to be answered. Should you treat captured terrorists the same way you would treat any other arrested criminal? No, of course not. But, then... How? Had Bush & Co. acted cooperatively with congress the issue would have not devolved again into the debacle it has become.

Anyway... I could rant on and on about how the situation is mismanaged, but I can't fix it and they won't listen to me. So, taking your words now out of my mouth... Do I believe that a war in Iraq was the only solution? No, of course not. Would I have desired the situation in Iraq to have unfolded as it did? No, of course not. Would I want Saddam in power? No, of course not. Do I believe the NYT? No, of course not. What I would like is for rational people to open their eyes now and see the potential threat posed by "demonizing" the US, and unifying unlikely partners like China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran. I don't want your sons or my sons to die in the next war.

[SwissMercenary]

So do you believe that the US, or anyone else --- excluding, perhaps, Iran, the Kurds, the fundamentalist Shiite Islamicists in Iraq, and Islamic terrorists all over the world --- have been helped by the US invasion of Iraq?

Well, I scratched my head, and then the Halliburton card came up.

[eppie]

I see you have been thoroughly propagandized then. Yah, fine. We suck. America sucks. Bush is Satan. Feel better? Allow me to rant a bit...

That is not very fair Kandrathe. You (you admit it yourself) have been falling into the trap of Bush propaganda, and now you accuse others of being propagandized.
I know you from the lounge as an intelligent person and I guess you consider yourself also as above average, so as me, I think you can very well imagine what 'the normal american' thinks. Large quantities still wont admit being lied to.

People make mistakes, clinton made mistakes, but the world didn't come down hard on him. I guess you can see the difference between Bush and Clinton.
Mistakes were not made, everything was done on purpose, even admitted by the US government, so stop talking about propaganda.

The idea that countries like Cuba, Venezuala, Iran ad China would start anything that only looks the slightest on a war against the US is out of the question, absolutely out of the question. Nobody that has anything to lose would do something like that.


Terrorism will stop when Israel and the palastinians make things work, it will take a while but it will stop.
I would like to turn around your comparison with nazism. I think we are very close to do the oposite. demonize muslim (of which most are peaceful and just only worried about a future for their children.
By now 75 % of people in the west think they are all terrorist, and would agree with a total war. Just like Hitler made whole germany think Jews were inherently bad people.

[Ashock]

So do you believe that the US, or anyone else --- excluding, perhaps, Iran, the Kurds, the fundamentalist Shiite Islamicists in Iraq, and Islamic terrorists all over the world --- have been helped by the US invasion of Iraq?

Do you believe that this illegal, unnecessary, and disasterous adventure, which has cost hundreds of billions of american dollars, thousands of american dead, tens of thousands american injured (many of them with life-altering injuries) --- never mind the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis --- do you believe this war, launched by what could be the most incompetent administration in the history of the US (which is saying something), was worth it? Even if you think it was worth it, do you think the war was launched honestly?

I'm not interested in general remarks about Islamic terrorism across the globe, sulpher, anything to do with Bill Clinton, or comments from John Negroponte about how overall things really are safer now.

Tell me how the Iraq war has done anything but make the problem you refer to infinitely worse, for the US, for Spain, for Britain, for Lebanon, for Israel, for Afghanistan,...or why the Bush adminstration, now citing "Islamo-fascism" as the driving issue of the 21st century chose the unilateral invasion of a brutal, but basically secular, dictatorship under false pretenses, and used 9/11 to justify it?

Lemme just start by saying that I can't believe you spelled administration "adminstration". It's like you never learn. Jeez.


Hi, how are you. Long time no speak B)



-A

[Occhidiangela]

So do you believe that the US, or anyone else --- excluding, perhaps, Iran, the Kurds, the fundamentalist Shiite Islamicists in Iraq, and Islamic terrorists all over the world --- have been helped by the US invasion of Iraq?

As of today, things look pretty rough. Things looked pretty rough in Valley Forge in 1777. The chance to lose badly is still present, as is the chance for success. How that success is measured is still a bit of a mystery to me. The folks in Iraqi have the mob rule part of democracy down pat.

The question remains: can they figure out the rest in the short term, long term, or ever?

At this time, that is an unknown. By Jan, 2009? Also unknown.

Occhi

[Thecla]

I see you have been thoroughly propagandized then.

My views are my own. Feel free to disagree with them, but do not tell me that I hold them because I've been "propagandized"; I extend a similar courtesy to you.

With the later failing utterly to contain him, the weakness of the UN forced Bush to play the war card.

Bush chose to go to war, he was not forced to do so. My opinion was then and is now that his administration was eager to invade Iraq, and were deeply dishonest in their justification of the war. Actions that are not based on reality have a way of working out badly, and that is part of the reason for the disasterous consequences (although even the bitterest anti-war critic could hardly have conceived of how badly the Bush adminstration would manage post-war Iraq).

The alternative would be to watch Saddam, a mythic Phoenix, emerge from the ashes of GWI and rightly claim the mantle of Nasser II, or as he fancied himself, a modern Nebuchadnezzar. I think it would have been bad.

Must be nice to have the gift of knowing what would have happened in alternate histories.;)

Abu Garib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA body snatching are a black eye as well, which had Bush & Co. acted cooperatively ( inside and outside the US) this might not have been such a bungled PR nightmare.

These aren't PR nightmares, they are policy nightmares.

Do I believe the NYT? No, of course not.

So the NY Times story isn't really true, and the National Intellgence Estimate did not conclude that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic radicalism around the globe and has caused the terrorist threat to grow? No doubt, we will get the selected Bush version soon (just like we got the selected WMD info;)) and be able to see more of what it says.

Not that anyone needs leaks from a classified intelligence report to conclude that things like the US invasion of Iraq and Guantanomo are about as effective at combating Islamic terrorism as gasoline is at putting out fires.

[kandrathe]

Here is a more complete BBC excerpt. But I would still wait for the full report, before completing your analysis. Also, please read my first paragraph with the appropriate humor and sarcasm intended. We are all propagandized, but I'm just noting that you seem to be quickly quoting from one sides play book rather than waiting for all the facts. This is the same annual NIE assessment report that Bush used in 2001 to justify a war in Iraq, and now you believe it? Seems convenient.

Excerpts: Declassified US terror report

... Bush chose to go to war, he was not forced to do so. My opinion was then and is now that his administration was eager to invade Iraq, and were deeply dishonest in their justification of the war. Actions that are not based on reality have a way of working out badly, and that is part of the reason for the disasterous consequences (although even the bitterest anti-war critic could hardly have conceived of how badly the Bush adminstration would manage post-war Iraq).

It was not just him... How about?

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions." --Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

This is a national issue, not a Bush issue. Why this little leak now, a few weeks before an election, when the document has been available since April?

Must be nice to have the gift of knowing what would have happened in alternate histories.;)

Ok. What is your view?

These aren't PR nightmares, they are policy nightmares.

Both actually. But, you can choose to work with people or work against them. I fault both sides for not working together to develop better policies, and both sides for making it political.

So the NY Times story isn't really true, and the National Intellgence Estimate did not conclude that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic radicalism around the globe and has caused the terrorist threat to grow? No doubt, we will get the selected Bush version soon (just like we got the selected WMD info;)) and be able to see more of what it says.

I did not say that. Once it becomes declassified and I can read it for myself I might have an opinion, but until then I'm not willing to take the NYT snippets predigested for my consumption. I refuse to be propagandized.

Not that anyone needs leaks from a classified intelligence report to conclude that things like the US invasion of Iraq and Guantanomo are about as effective at combating Islamic terrorism as gasoline is at putting out fires.

Ok, so why was the Cole bombed? Why was the WTC targeted in 1993 and 2001? Why were the embassies bombed in Africa? We weren't in Iraq then, so why were the Jihadists after us then? Is your suggestion that if we don't to anything they will leave us alone? Play the blame game if you like. It's pretty easy to play arm chair President with 20/20 hindsight. The NIE had at least one thing right that I have heard, Iraq has become the glamorous zone for terror. Gasoline can extiguish fires if it also consumes all the oxygen, just as war when sustained doggedly can discourage the combatants taste for violence. I'm not advocating that strategy, but this is a chess game where acting wrongly, or failing to act might have the same consequences.

[kandrathe]

That is not very fair Kandrathe. You (you admit it yourself) have been falling into the trap of Bush propaganda, and now you accuse others of being propagandized.

There is a difference between going fishing, and swallowing the bait. I try not to takes sides, but rather to look at what are the options and which fits my world view best. I can't remember the last time any national leader has been close to where I stand.

I know you from the lounge as an intelligent person and I guess you consider yourself also as above average, so as me, I think you can very well imagine what 'the normal american' thinks. Large quantities still wont admit being lied to.

Many people are right wing true believers. 50% of those zealots might believe he lied if he admitted it, but they would forgive him the next day.

People make mistakes, clinton made mistakes, but the world didn't come down hard on him. I guess you can see the difference between Bush and Clinton. Mistakes were not made, everything was done on purpose, even admitted by the US government, so stop talking about propaganda.

I'm sensitive to a press that undermines every US administration, and tries at all times to make fools of Americans and their government. We are the 800lb gorilla, and when we act that way we probably deserve criticism, but as a patriot who loves his country I can't help wince from the blows. I see the US and world press actively propagandizing US citizens and the world. The truth is buried on page six, but sensationalism sells, ergo page one. I objected to Clinton's lack of character which is why I could not vote for him. He was very centrist for a liberal, and almost acceptable from a policy standpoint. His fatal flaw is his narcissism and womanizing. I was one of the few that believed he sexually harassed that young woman when he was a Governor, and I deemed that was a quality making him unfit for a President. I object(ed) to Bush's lack of tact, and it has continues to be his downfall. He talks as a bully, and makes no friends. I guess he is a nice guy in person, but he is probably the most hated living man on the planet. It takes a great lack of skills to accomplish that.

The idea that countries like Cuba, Venezuala, Iran ad China would start anything that only looks the slightest on a war against the US is out of the question, absolutely out of the question. Nobody that has anything to lose would do something like that.

But, wars do not start neccesarily because someone shoots. Why did Japan attack the US in WWII? The threat to the US is China, and Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela (and others) could geographically present a very strategically (economically) sticky wicket. We might be forced to swallow a very bitter pill in the future, and our recourse as was Japan's would be war.

Terrorism will stop when Israel and the palastinians make things work, it will take a while but it will stop.

I doubt it. Wouldn't you think the true believers of Islam would brand the Palestinians that accepted the peace as sellouts? I believe the true Jihadists will not accept any Zionist or Christian state remaining in the middle east.

I would like to turn around your comparison with nazism. I think we are very close to do the oposite. demonize muslim (of which most are peaceful and just only worried about a future for their children. By now 75 % of people in the west think they are all terrorist, and would agree with a total war. Just like Hitler made whole germany think Jews were inherently bad people.

You don't discredit Islam, you discredit the jihadists and the 12th century notions of Pan-Islamic conquest of the world. There was a time 400 years ago when powerful European explorers travelled around the globe planting flags, exploiting indiginous populations, stealing wealth, and tearing down cultures with the notion of spreading Christianity by the sword. Consider the preponderance of Catholicism in the America's. The Monroe doctrine in the US is another example. We have looked in the mirror of our past behaviors and repented, and its time for Islam to do the same.

I'm just digging into researching deeper the attraction of this Venezuela & Iran connection. There are some disturbing ideological similiarities. Such as,

Chavez first ran for president on a reform platform, winning in a landslide. What few understood then was that Chavez planned to revolutionize the country following a plan masterminded by his longtime friend Norberto Ceresole, an Argentinian writer infamous for his books denying the Holocaust and his conspiracy theories about Jewish plans to control the planet.Hurricane Hugo: Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is a threat to more than just his own people

[Thecla]

Here is a more complete BBC excerpt. But I would still wait for the full report, before completing your analysis.

Thanks for the link. If you choose to read what I said, you will see I refer to leaks from "part' of the report from the start, and suggested nowhere that they were the whole story.

Also, please read my first paragraph with the appropriate humor and sarcasm intended. We are all propagandized,

I suppose that's what you meant when you said "I refuse to be propagandized."

but I'm just noting that you seem to be quickly quoting from one sides play book rather than waiting for all the facts. This is the same annual NIE assessment report that Bush used in 2001 to justify a war in Iraq, and now you believe it? Seems convenient.

I actually don't require leaks from NIE assessements to form my own conclusions about stuff --- and, yes, I'm much more likely to believe things that correspond with my own assessment of the truth than things that contradict it. I'm sure you are too.

Once it becomes declassified and I can read it for myself I might have an opinion

Actually, you seem to have lots of opinions, as do I. Nothing wrong with that.

I refuse to be propagandized.

But I don't? Give me a break.

We weren't in Iraq then, so why were the Jihadists after us then?

This comment is as illogical as the same one Cheney made. We weren't on Mars either, so I guess we should immediately have sent a manned probe up there too.

It's pretty easy to play arm chair President with 20/20 hindsight

Why is it that people who opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning are using 20/20 hindsight? I would simly say they have been proved right and the Bush administration has been proved horribly wrong. Small comfort, I know, but there you go.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm sensitive to a press that undermines every US administration, and tries at all times to make fools of Americans and their government.

The American press, since Watergate, believes that the Fourth Estate's job is to embarass American government out of a fear that Viet Nam will be perpetrated on them again while they are busy screwing their interns and secretaries. Sorry, while the office sex was underway, the Executive Branch did it in plain view, and the Fourth Estate went along for the ride. Taste the Irony that is Iraq.

I see the US and world press actively propagandizing US citizens and the world. The truth is buried on page six, but sensationalism sells, ergo page one.

Envy and The Greens in Europe are the same color. Curiously, a great deal of the American Fourth Estate have penis envy of Europe, who are in fact morally flacid but don't get it. A woman named Falaci, who died recently, tried to get Europe to see the future, and they called her chauvinist and worse.

He {Cliton} was very centrist for a liberal, and almost acceptable from a policy standpoint.

No, he was a foreign policy moron. I was on the pointy end of his bullsh**, and it smelled.

I was one of the few that believed he sexually harassed that young woman when he was a Governor, and I deemed that was a quality making him unfit for a President.

Sexual harassment is a legal fiction, and as farcical as "crimes against humanity" as a concept. I voted against him because a trailor trash son of a single mother had no qualifications to be President based on governonrship of a state with a popoulation less than Chicago. The mayors of NYC, LA, SF, Atlanta, Houston, Kansas City, Chicago, and Seattle were all more qualified. They just didn't have a good enough line of bullsh**, which is how he got laid since he was 12.

I object(ed) to Bush's lack of tact, and it has continues to be his downfall. He talks as a bully, and makes no friends.

He speaks like an undergrad trying to get a business degree. Most elementary school teachers have better public speaking skills. His qualifications exceeded Clinton's only because he knows who both of his parents were.

I believe the true Jihadists will not accept any Zionist or Christian state remaining in the middle east.

Yes. So what, they are bunch of useless wogs, what's your point?

You don't discredit Islam, you discredit the jihadists and the 12th century notions of Pan-Islamic conquest of the world.

Islam is 7th century morality. It is also the following of a false prophet, if you are Christian, and the following of a non-existent god if you are atheist. It is genocidal hatred if you are a Jew or a Bhuddist or a Hindu. What is your point? It's a load of crap. Ever read the Koran? Jesus wept, that is not only dull, it is a bigger load of bollocks than most. The Tao kicks its ass. OK, it is better fare than Hubbard's religion. I ain't impressed. Mohammed was an illiterate merchant with a penchant for tactical victory on camel back. Note how I don't swoon.

There was a time 400 years ago when powerful European explorers travelled around the globe planting flags, exploiting indiginous populations, stealing wealth, and tearing down cultures with the notion of spreading Christianity by the sword.

And I thank God they did so, or the world would be overrun with even more wogs. Small pox was Darwin at its finest. Guns, Germs and Steel, for the win!

The Monroe doctrine in the US is another example.

It was the first step toward Empire. TR's White Fleet was the next. So what?
O Dewey was the morning
Upon the first of May;
And Dewey was the Admiral
Down in Manila Bay;
And Dewey were the Regent's eyes,
"Them orbs" of Royal Blue;
And Dewey we feel discouraged?
I Dew not think we Dew!
A poem in the honor of Admiral Dewey's victory at Manilla Bay, 1898, and a paean to Empire.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...
This comment is as illogical as the same one Cheney made. We weren't on Mars either, so I guess we should immediately have sent a manned probe up there too.

The point is that we were a target before Iraq, and there was already a raging fire sufficient to cause September 11th. Separate Iraq from WMD and terrorism for a second, since as I said before, my view was the justification for UN action in Iraq was due to a failure to comply with the armistice. Possible shenanigans with WMD, harrassing UNMOVIC, and recruiting jihadists from Lebanon, Iran, and Syria were just extra reasons for the UN to do something more substantial. I don't believe the war on Iraq was due to terrorism, or due to preventing WMD. It was due to the possibilities of combining a hostile madman (who flaunted all UN attempts to suggest rational behavior), possible WMD's, and possibly recruiting jihadists. I asked you what Iraq and the middle east would be like today with Saddam in power, after a failed sanctions effort, but you ducked that question. You don't think that "failure" would not have also emboldened and further radicalized the jihadists to have defeated the UN and the US?

Why is it that people who opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning are using 20/20 hindsight? I would simly say they have been proved right and the Bush administration has been proved horribly wrong. Small comfort, I know, but there you go.

Who mentioned anything about "people who opposed"? I am not in favor of war, and I'm not a fan of Saddam. There was an unexplored middle ground which the UN failed to achieve. You think you have been proven right? Compared to what? You refused to contemplate the scenarios above, but condemn the actions that have actually been taken. I don't believe that what has occured in the last five years is anywhere near an optimum scenario, but I can't tell you that where we are today is worse off than a world with Saddam in charge of Iraq now. There might just be that possibility that stopping Saddam was the right thing to do. History (like 50 years from now) will have a better perspective on this time.

My position is that at this point, I am patient enough to wait for better information than bits leaked by the NYT. And, regarding Iraq, I shudder everytime the US and others make a mistake in Iraq. I know it will mean hundreds more dead Iraqis and coalition troops. But, we are there and we need to deal with just that fact. The 20/20 hindsight (no matter where you were 5 years ago) is irrelevant to the current situation, and what I have been saying is that "we all" need to get to a reasonable concensus on what to do to stop terrorism. So again... What would you do? Telling me you would not have poured gasoline on a fire 5 years ago is not helpful.

[Thecla]

Lemme just start by saying that I can't believe you spelled administration "adminstration". It's like you never learn. Jeez.
Hi, how are you. Long time no speak B)
-A

I will have you know that I possess an accredited Master of Business Adminstration. I doubt that even a semi-naked warriot, however busy his (or her -- I don't mean to imply that warriots are necessarily male, or to make any judgments about their sexual preference) life, could have received the same qualifications as I did in a shorter time, or be better positioned for exploiting the fast and ever changing careers of today and tomorrow than I, as a fully trained Adminstrator, am now looking at.

[kandrathe]

No, he was a foreign policy moron. I was on the pointy end of his bullsh**, and it smelled.

But yet, the darling of Europe. I respected that he refrained from mucking up the economy, and that he kept Greenspan in charge. He was a bit of a marshmellow on foreign policy, and maybe that is why the Europeans loved him so. He was a lover not a fighter.

Yes. So what, they are bunch of useless wogs, what's your point?

First, the US has tried and tried to help resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and Isreali's. The oil and water do not want to mix. So why are we the target? Let's say we magically did get them to mix. The hard line jihadists will not accept peace in the middle east, while jews or christians rule any nation there. The claim that if only we would resolve the conflict between Isreal and Palestine is a red herring in regards to terrorism. That is my point.

Islam is 7th century morality. It is also the following of a false prophet, if you are Christian, and the following of a non-existent god if you are atheist. It is genocidal hatred if you are a Jew or a Bhuddist or a Hindu. What is your point? It's a load of crap. Ever read the Koran? Jesus wept, that is not only dull, it is a bigger load of bollocks than most. The Tao kicks its ass. OK, it is better fare than Hubbard's religion. I ain't impressed. Mohammed was an illiterate merchant with a penchant for tactical victory on camel back. Note how I don't swoon.

Yes, as you might remember... I've read them all as well. My measure of philosophies and dogma are in what they build, and destroy. In a world of nuclear weapons, we cannot allow the destructive philosophies. I can tolerate an Islam that requires its adherents to pray, abstain from alcohol, or pursue a pure life, but once it begins to advise the adherents on what to do to others it becomes intolerable. They need to choose the good bits if they like, and leave behind the intolerant bull crap. And... that goes for all religions.

And I thank God they did so, or the world would be overrun with even more wogs. Small pox was Darwin at its finest. Guns, Germs and Steel, for the win!

You seem to be in a mood! :) Eppie wept.

[Occhidiangela]

I will have you know that I possess an accredited Master of Business Adminstration. I doubt that even a semi-naked warriot, however busy his (or her -- I don't mean to imply that warriots are necessarily male, or to make any judgments about their sexual preference) life, could have received the same qualifications as I did in a shorter time, or be better positioned for exploiting the fast and ever changing careers of today and tomorrow than I, as a fully trained Adminstrator, am now looking at.

Spoken like part of middle management. Your mother must be so proud. :P

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

we cannot allow the destructive philosophies.

Oh? Who are you, the Thought Police? Allow them, and expose them for the tripe they are.

You seem to be in a mood! :) Eppie wept.

He'll weep more before this is done, unless he has the good sense to avoid this part of the thread.

Occhi

[Thecla]

The point is that we were a target before Iraq, and there was already a raging fire sufficient to cause September 11th. Separate Iraq from WMD and terrorism for a second...I don't believe the war on Iraq was due to terrorism, or due to preventing WMD. It was due to the possibilities of combining a hostile madman (who flaunted all UN attempts to suggest rational behavior), possible WMD's, and possibly recruiting jihadists.

Justifications for war don't get much more hypothetical than that. (But it does seem you agree that the Bush Administration's prior and subsequent justification of the invasion of Iraq in terms of WMDs and terrorism was bogus.)

I asked you what Iraq and the middle east would be like today with Saddam in power, after a failed sanctions effort, but you ducked that question. You don't think that "failure" would not have also emboldened and further radicalized the jihadists to have defeated the UN and the US?

Who knows what the middle east would be like today if the US had not invaded Iraq? Who knows if Saddam would even still be in power? (Oops, you know --- sorry, I forgot your gift.;)) I will stick with the history we have, and that is a disaster.

The 20/20 hindsight (no matter where you were 5 years ago) is irrelevant to the current situation

But it is entirely relevant to the incompetence and dishonesty of the current US administration, who should have been tossed out of office long ago. (Do you say to a murderer that, well the victim's dead, so who did it is irrelevant to the current situation?) Not that the damage the Bush administration has already done can be easily fixed at this point, even after they're gone.

I don't have any solutions for that. Sorry.