403-3

StaffSaberist · December 27, 2005

Oh, Saber, when you correct my spelling (and by all means feel free to do so), plz point out where. Not that I doubt your correction, but I like to learn from my mistakes and that's a lot easier when my mistakes are pointed out.

OK: Realize instead of Realise. I'll boldface any corrections from now on.

I was thinking about the situation both before and after the start of Operation Iraqi Screwup. Both situations undermine your belief that the majority of those who take up arms against you would have done so anyway. If in fact the majority of those attacking you in Iraq are terrorists who just want to attack American interests anywhere in the world, it seems more than mildly curious that

1) They didn't show up until after the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan would have been an equally easy target for people simply after American soldiers and investment.

2) The discrepancy between the force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan's borders are leaking like a sieve, after all, and the Taliban fascists have had rather greater - ah - survivability than your average Iraqi insurgent. If I were a fedayeen out to hurt the evil, imperialist infidels of the Great Satan, then I'd do so in Afghanistan. Better logistics situation, better terrain, better chance of actually accomplishing something worthwhile before you get shot. If, on the other hand, I were an Iraqi or Arab nationalist who detested American busybodyness on Arab lands, I'd go for Iraq, since Afghanistan would be - litterally - a quarter of a planet away from my primary sphere of interest.

These two oberservations seem to me to suggest that the people who gun for your troops in Iraq are insurgents who would never have been a threat if not for Operation Iraqi Screwup. Which means that, in terms of fighting terrorism at least, the invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive.

Perhaps I need to be more specific, here. The new fundies appear to be created in Syria and other nations bordering Iraq. The Taliban had itself, but after the destruction of the Iraqi government, Iraq had to depend on other nations. I would not be surprised one bit if I were to discover that Saddaam's generals had escaped and were in Syria, powering the terrorist effort. But that of course is speculation.

The crusades were organized on basis of 'fundies created by speeches'...[Edited, spelling of "organized"]

The Crusades are not my concern. What has been done is done. That's my secular, unbiased answer. The Christians saw it fit to attempt to destroy the Arabs. They accomplished a remarkabe feat - no less that six crusades were started, and ended. But more than just speeches were behind it - the entire Christian church was on their side, IIRC, with a few dissidents to war. At the very least, however, the support of the great majority was there. Today, Islamic facsists, extremists of the religion, have been in the news because they are extreme.

Several years and counting, actually.

I highly doubt that those speeches included killing yourself for your religion. Speeches that are patriotic for the nation are one thing, but it certainly takes a lot to convince a man to abandon his family, and kill himself.

Except that those speeches were also being given in the mosques before Iraq. Heck, they were being given before 9/11. Back when the closest target was Saudi Arabia. So, obviously, something happened around the activation of Operation Iraqi Screwup. Something more than simply moving closer to the heat, because American troops have been close to the heat for quite some time now.

Yes, we certainly have stirred a hornet's nest, have we not? I thank our soldiers for taking the sting. And you must realize that there were several things that have stirred them more than ever:

We were attacked recently by Arabs. "If they can do it... who knows?"
We have been divided among countries. "They are weakened by occupation of two countries"
We are now conviently located in a nation that is attackable from no less than 4 possible fronts - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. "They're right there! In front of us!

I frankly don't see how you could ever need to go into Iraq. It posed no realistic security risk, it didn't harbor, aid, or abet terrorists, it wasn't even that deep into the drug trade - in short it was a paragon of pro-west friendlyness compared to its neighbours.

At the time, we certainly felt the need to. We were wrong. But we ensured that there was no threat any longer. We have succeded. If Iraq wanted to try, they would find themselves too weak to carry out any threats. So, though we hardly achieved what we went there for, do not forget there was a purpose, even if it was a mistaken one.

Problem is, dubya doesn't seem to be.

George Bush will not be in office much longer. We are, as you know, only allowed to give presidents two terms of four years. The 6th year is expiring. And what makes you think W isn't going to do more? There will be another invasion, I have no doubt. Whether it is a good one or not will be decided on when we see what W intends to do next.

Indeed, I spend the odd minute here and there contemplating how wonderful the world would be without lunatic clerics like Ratzinger, Pat(wa) Robertson, and their Islamic equivalents. But that doesn't change the fact that the Islamic versions of Pat(wa) Robertson have been around for a long time. It seems to me that the main effect of the invasion of Iraq is to prove them right in the eyes of their own congregations. Just as the main effect of 9/11 was proving extremists like Dick 'Enron' Cheney right in the eyes of their constituents.

No, but there has never been such a call to arms as this, except perhaps during the Crusades. The invasion of Iraq hardly proves these extremists right. It is never right to kill yourself with a bomb. It is never right to kill thousands upon thousands of civilian Kurds and Shiites. It is never right to keep attacking Americans and allies day after day. Were it not for those extremists, Operation Iraqi Freedom would have been over months ago.

But of course, you did say

...in the eyes of their own congregations...

so I don't think you will disagree with what I just said. Of course it feels right to them. After all, we did just invade what has proven to be a swarm of terrorism waiting to happen. But guess what? I don't care what they think is right if "what they think is right" includes the deaths of our nation's soldiers. We will slash at their neck while they bite at our heels. It is the way of these extremists, and it has been since their founding.

There's a lot of different motives in play in the Iraqi insurgence. Labelling everyone involved as a fedayeen would be far too simplistic.

No. I am speaking of the religious fanatics, though. As for other motives - I can't speak for them, not having heard the speeches.

Actually, we can't. I'll grant you that the media is incompetent, myopic, unprofessional, sensationalist, shallow, unethical, and - yes - skewed. But most definitely skewed in the current American government's favor.

The overzealous coverage of

The soldier's mud wrestling
Abu Grahib
Guantanemo(sp?) Bay

and other similar stories are testament otherwise.

Yet another example of how the American media are skewed in favor of the current regime. Such spectacular SNAFUs right after el Prezidenté has announced that the elections were a success would almost have to hurt his credibility.

Ah, but FOX was nice enough to show it - not more than 10 minutes after I posted. I heard it in the background while answering another post. It seems to show up on the Net first, though.

Whether or not you can in fact do more, I am in no position to comment on. But I too wish the Iraqis best of luck from here. They're gonna need it.

Quite simply, if we have done our best, then we can do no more, and we can be comforted, if only slightly, that way. If not, then it is a matter of finding out how we can do better, and finding a way to do it. Much easier said than done, however.

Three, actually, since worthwhile border security also puts a crimp into smuggling.

Agreed. How fortunate are we, then, that when our troops are home, all the more money to put that into effect!

'Cept that what they are actually trying is to shift power to the executive, not protect the citizens.

Like I said, though - they are trying. They just aren't doing it right yet.

ET Warrior · December 28, 2005

OK: Realize instead of Realise.

They're actually both correct spellings and are synonyms of each other.

Realise

Realize

SkinWalker · December 28, 2005

Yes, lets not get too America-centric... Realise is appropriate for British spelling. I'm always amazed at the clarity and proficiency my Danish friend exhibits with his English in comparison to many posters of the many forums I visit for whom English is not only their first but their only language.

ShadowTemplar · December 28, 2005

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Skin. But before you whack him too bad on the head, I did ask him to mark more clearly myself. And s/z is one of those little things that differs on British and American English.

StaffSaberist · December 29, 2005

Accursed be the differences between American English and European English... sometimes I wonder if they aren't different languages entirely. Either that, or our original Congress had a sense of humor when they created this difference. I apologize for erring.

ShadowTemplar · December 29, 2005

OK: Realize instead of Realise. I'll boldface any corrections from now on.

Marking it twice seems a little excessive. Personally I prefer the conventional newsie notation is err[o]r. *shrugs* But whatever floats your boat.

Perhaps I need to be more specific, here. The new fundies appear to be created in Syria and other nations bordering Iraq. The Taliban had itself, but after the destruction of the Iraqi government, Iraq had to depend on other nations. I would not be surprised one bit if I were to discover that Saddaam's generals had escaped and were in Syria, powering the terrorist effort. But that of course is speculation.

So they are attacking Iraq because it's easier to get there, despite the fact that they could do more damage to your interests in Afghanistan. If they are so seriously strapped for transportation, how can they ever be a threat to the American (or even European) mainland?

The Crusades are not my concern. What has been done is done.

Well, the point wasn't to start a debate over the crusades. The point was that inflammatory speeches can have effects that last rather longer than you implied earlier.

But more than just speeches were behind it - the entire Christian church was on their side, IIRC, with a few dissidents to war.

Point.

I highly doubt that those speeches included killing yourself for your religion. Speeches that are patriotic for the nation are one thing, but it certainly takes a lot to convince a man to abandon his family, and kill himself.

Point. Would be a just a little hard to convince me to die for my religion anyway.

Yes, we certainly have stirred a hornet's nest, have we not? I thank our soldiers for taking the sting. And you must realize that there were several things that have stirred them more than ever:

We were attacked recently by Arabs. "If they can do it... who knows?"

We have been divided among countries. "They are weakened by occupation of two countries"

We are now conviently located in a nation that is attackable from no less than 4 possible fronts - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. "They're right there! In front of us!

Re 1: But that was the case for two whole years before the invasion. Doesn't it seem more than a little odd to you that all the militant fundies who wanted to attack the US just for the heck of it would chime in exactly the moment the first American tank enters Baghdad?

Re 2: Except that the insurgents in Iraq aren't going for an outright military victory. They are trying to make the occupation painful. So strategic overreach doesn't really enter into it. If the American public can stand the plastic bags, then you have the resources to soak up the kind of casualties coming out of Iraq effectively indefinitely, Afghanistan or no Afghanistan.

Re 3: Do you really think that people who couldn't go from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to fight you there have much of a chance of threatening the American mainland?

At the time, we certainly felt the need to. We were wrong. But we ensured that there was no threat any longer.

No you didn't. The UN inspectors ensured there was no threat any longer. Iraq wasn't a threat, never had been a threat, and most probably would never have become a threat. And anyone bothering to listen to Hans Blix and in possession of a multiple-digit IQ knew so long before the invasion in '03.

We have succeded. If Iraq wanted to try, they would find themselves too weak to carry out any threats.

Oh, sure. Iraq is certainly less a threat to the US and to world peace and stability now than before the war. And if you believe that, I have some Enron shares I want to sell.

So, though we hardly achieved what we went there for, do not forget there was a purpose, even if it was a mistaken one.

No, there were not one but several. And every last one of them was a lie. And transparent lies too.

George Bush will not be in office much longer. We are, as you know, only allowed to give presidents two terms of four years. The 6th year is expiring.

And thank ALMSIVI for that... Three blessings, and may he end his term in disgrace and impeachment.

And what makes you think W isn't going to do more? There will be another invasion, I have no doubt.

I seriously doubt that. With two countries already in a mess, all of his fellow coalition countries raising increasingly pointed objections to his conduct, and a military that is already seriously overextended, I don't really see him going for another screwup. Besides, he still has to get it through congress, and his current - uh - approval ratings should give even card-carrying republicans pause for thought.

Were it not for those extremists, Operation Iraqi Freedom would have been over months ago.

You are doing the insurgents a disservice by casting them as a monolithic group of ayatollah-wanna-bes. There is a significant number of Iraqi nationalists, tribe leaders, and common criminals who would likely have taken up arms anyway.

After all, we did just invade what has proven to be a swarm of terrorism waiting to happen.

I've yet to see you demonstrate that. To me it looks like you invaded a country full of people who would otherwise have simply minded their own business and never thought of attacking the US or your interests. I think you created those terrorists.

But guess what? I don't care what they think is right if "what they think is right" includes the deaths of our nation's soldiers. We will slash at their neck while they bite at our heels. It is the way of these extremists, and it has been since their founding.

Understanding people's motivations isn't the same as accepting them. If you consistently piss people off, then you create terrorism. And if enough people think that the terrorists are the Good Guys, then even shooting every single terrorist that passes through your sights won't help.

Sometimes (e.g. protecting the right of Salman Rushdie to write and publish the Satanic Verses) the things that piss people off are important enough that we should do them anyway and just accept whatever terrorism they spawn. But invading Iraq most definitely isn't one of those things.

No. I am speaking of the religious fanatics, though. As for other motives - I can't speak for them, not having heard the speeches.

Well, the fedayeen are a definite minority among the insurgents by all reports. So in the overall strategic consideration, perhaps we should pay more attention to the other parts of the insurgence.

The overzealous coverage of

The soldier's mud wrestling

Huh? I'm not sure that reached the European media. Could anyone plz do a resume for new readers?

Abu Grahib

Guantanemo(sp?) Bay

Overzealous? How can the coverage of torture and imprisonment in isolation and without trial be overzealous? If anything there's been too little coverage of those two. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and W are still not being prosecuted. In which way is that overzealous?

Quite simply, if we have done our best, then we can do no more, and we can be comforted, if only slightly, that way.

That'll be remarkably cold comfort to the Iraqi if the situation blows up in their face...

Like I said, though - they are trying. They just aren't doing it right yet.

No, they're not trying. They are doing something else entirely. The 'war on terror' isn't about protecting the people from terrorism. It's about protecting and expanding the power of American oligarchs.

Dagobahn Eagle · December 29, 2005

The Crusades are not my concern. What has been done is done.

However, what Bush basically said when he announced a Crusade was, "the conquest, totally without justification, of Islamic land to pillage, destroy, plunder, and rape and convert the people to Christianity". It's not what he meant, it's not what the US is doing, but it's what the Crusades were.

No you didn't. The UN inspectors ensured there was no threat any longer. Iraq wasn't a threat, never had been a threat, and most probably would never have become a threat. And anyone bothering to listen to Hans Blix and in possession of a multiple-digit IQ knew so long before the invasion in '03.

Exactly.

Except from the "never has been a threat" part. Iraq certainly was a threat to Kuwait when they invaded them in '91.

Were they a threat before Operation Iraqi Freedom? Hardly. Their army was in disarray, half of their country was a no-fly zone patrolled by US fighter jets (which were, admittedly, routinely fired upon:o), tbe surrounding countries had pretty solid militaries, and the US was there watching it all with its finger on the trigger.

As for terrorists in Iraq - yup, there were terrorists in Iraq, all right. But not more than in Saudi-Arabia, Iran, or Yemen. And the terrorists and leaders in, say, Iran, contributed a lot more to Al-Q'aida than Saddam did.

And what makes you think W isn't going to do more? There will be another invasion, I have no doubt.

Just where is he going to get the funding and troops from? The super-power of America with its crack troops now finds itself forced to recruit massively from low-income areas and send those poor recruits into Iraq with basically no training whatsoever. The soldiers already in Iraq can't go home because there's no one to replace them.

As for funds, the fact that US troops in Iraq are arming their Humvees with plywood and using Motorola radios bought at gas stations to communicate should give you an idea of how little's left for them (Source: 60 minutes).

Source of image: http://minstrelboy.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_minstrelboy_archive.html

Related (CBS): 343rd Quartermasters Company refuse to carry out re-supply order due to lack of air support. Deals with the lack of supplies and vehicles and improvisation from the troops' side.

ShadowTemplar · December 29, 2005

Exactly.
Except from the "never has been a threat" part. Iraq certainly was a threat to Kuwait when they invaded them in '91.

But never to the American mainland.

As for terrorists in Iraq - yup, there were terrorists in Iraq, all right. But not more than in Saudi-Arabia, Iran, or Yemen.

Far fewer, in fact. Hussein was not exactly in bed with the islamofascist terrorists. And his paranoia and security services cracked down hard on dissenters, including islamofascists.

StaffSaberist · December 31, 2005

Of all the forums I have been registered to, this one is the worst at telling me when I have replies. Ugh! I am going to have to watch more closely. When I'm not playing TSL, of course.

Marking it twice seems a little excessive. Personally I prefer the conventional newsie notation is err[o]r. *shrugs* But whatever floats your boat.

I could say the save about you. But, if that's your preference, then OK. I only suggested the boldface because I didn't have another idea.

So they are attacking Iraq because it's easier to get there, despite the fact that they could do more damage to your interests in Afghanistan. If they are so seriously strapped for transportation, how can they ever be a threat to the American (or even European) mainland?

Not all of them are strapped like this. But the ones inspired to kill like this usually are. Of course, this is only a high probability. We all have seen what good probabilities are when it comes to security of any kind. This is like saying, "The nuclear plant probably contains all the radiation." Of course, he might be right, but... the same applies to my, er, statement. The ones who are motivated on the streets and in the family rooms on TV aren't told tactics and secrets, lest someone rat them out to the US. They are told to kill American 'infidels' and quickly. So, where will they go? Where they think is good to strike. Put yourself in the mind of such a 'terrorist'. He may have friends, business associates, or even family in Iraq. People he cares about. When that much may be at stake because of the 'infidels', why should he care about a country far away from anyone he knows? It's not his problem. What is his problem is, "Killing the Infidels at all costs, even death". And, like I said, I don't think Usama is stupid enough to give out secret plans to passersby. If he did, all our troops would go undercover, get the info, and go bust some heads.

Well, the point wasn't to start a debate over the crusades. The point was that inflammatory speeches can have effects that last rather longer than you implied earlier.

All right then. And of course, there is modern proof of that. Consider the memorable speeches of the 2004 elections:

I'm John Kerry, and I'm... REPORTING FOR DUTY!

...and Oregon, and California... YAAAH!

and so much more...

I crack up remembering those... [snootyVoice]presidential figures![/snootyVoice]

Small wonder W won the election. Look what he had to race against: Living proof that the Dems knew what they were doing when they chose the Jackass as their symbol.

But enough editorializing...

Yes, such speeches can last a long time. But the speeches were more like the straw on the camel's back: The Christians already despised the Muslims for religious reasons. Those speeches are what was needed to convince the Christians to take up arms. Just like the Muslims of today already despise us, and are finally convinced to take action by these speeches.

Re 1: But that was the case for two whole years before the invasion. Doesn't it seem more than a little odd to you that all the militant fundies who wanted to attack the US just for the heck of it would chime in exactly the moment the first American tank enters Baghdad?

I cannot speak for them, of course, but it is likely to be as I said earlier: The people disliked us already, and a few events were all they needed to finally abandon reason and commit atrocities. Either the speeches, or the drug-out invasion, or just about anything. Now, were I the clerics, I'd want to see just who was on what side. By this, I mean the people of Iraq. A test of loyalty, and in the eyes of the clerics they failed their test. Now, the speeches are made continuously, propagandizing the people, hoping to gain support. Add to that the fact that innocents die from suicide bombers, and the last piece clicks into place. This could be the reasoning behind the entire war effort on the other side.

So, to summarize how the war went (IMO, of course) on the other side: They believe they are invincible. But then, we whack them by invading. They panic, and want to act. But they decide to wait, to see how much help they can garnish from the people. They gain little, and there is support for the US (Remember the statues and paintings of Hussein taken down and beaten with shoes? A dire insult to them) so they panic, spreading misinformation and broadcasting speech after speech (Especially Usama Bin Laden) across the region to swell their ranks. They take advantage of the tension that arises from our occupancy. They use any piece of leverage they can use.

This may not be accurate in all it's detail. But, based on events that have taken place and natural human behaviour, it makes sense. There are other possibilities, perhaps, but it's one I am willing to stick with until proven otherwise.

Re 2: Except that the insurgents in Iraq aren't going for an outright military victory. They are trying to make the occupation painful. So strategic overreach doesn't really enter into it. If the American public can stand the plastic bags, then you have the resources to soak up the kind of casualties coming out of Iraq effectively indefinitely, Afghanistan or no Afghanistan.

Are they? Or have they lost the capability to make us truly suffer? I don't know on that one, but it would appear that they would do everything they can to make us die. This is based on recorded speeches that were broadcast by the clerics themselves. Because of this, it's odd that civilians are the target, and not as much our troops - unless it's because they help us. And if we could stand it indefinitely, then why should we worry about occupation? In fact, less of ours die each attack than civilians in Iraq. After all, there are so many citizens in a crowd, and you don't really need that many troops there if it's a peaceful crowd. Let's take this hypothetical crowd, and assume it to be 50 innocents, monitored by 10 soldiers. 3 terrosist nutjobs decide living isn't worth it compared to 42 virgins so they blow themselves up acroos the crowd. To be fair, let's say 45% of Iraqis die and 45% of Americans die. (Not counting injuries) Well, rounded up, 23/45 Iraqis would die. 5/10 Americans die. Again, rounded up. And of course, the 3 terrorists die. That's 5 Americans to 26 foreigners. Repeat similar attacks across the nation, and you have a hypothetical death toll at a ratio of appx. 5:23 not counting bombers.

no surprise we can withstand it; we aren't getting hit as hard! Of course, those numbers are subject to a lot of margin of error, fluctuations in people count, quality of bomb and type, etc. etc. etc.. But you get the general idea, I hope.

Re 3: Do you really think that people who couldn't go from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to fight you there have much of a chance of threatening the American mainland?

Do you really think that people from the aforementioned nations take up 100% of all terrorists?

No you didn't. The UN inspectors ensured there was no threat any longer. Iraq wasn't a threat, never had been a threat, and most probably would never have become a threat. And anyone bothering to listen to Hans Blix and in possession of a multiple-digit IQ knew so long before the invasion in '03.

You mean the same inspectors who were not allowed into Iraq for a time, and were then allowed access to only selected portions of the country? During that time, any weapons that could have been in his possesion could have been shipped, as Colin Powell said, by truck to other nations, out into the desert to be hidden, you name it. The blatant refusal of Saddaam to allow inspecters in in the first place aroused our suspicion, just a tad, perhaps...

Oh, sure. Iraq is certainly less a threat to the US and to world peace and stability now than before the war. And if you believe that, I have some Enron shares I want to sell.

First off, not even the most gullible want a piece of Enron. Second, as I said, there may have actually been weapons that were hidden. Anf finally, I'm not saying Iraq would try. I am saying that if they tried, they wouldn't be able to. Whether they could have or couldn't before is not what I was addressing.

I seriously doubt that. With two countries already in a mess, all of his fellow coalition countries raising increasingly pointed objections to his conduct, and a military that is already seriously overextended, I don't really see him going for another screwup. Besides, he still has to get it through congress, and his current - uh - approval ratings should give even card-carrying republicans pause for thought.

Oh, I know that. But I just posted a gut feeling, is all, that W will go for Iran. At least try. But that was just a nasty gut feeling. Or was that the pizza?

No, there were not one but several. And every last one of them was a lie. And transparent lies too.

All of them are, as of now, incorrect. However, to say that they were lies would require proof of some sort. If there was, I don't think W would last in power untill 2006. Yes, I know that's in two days. The scandal would be noticed worldwide. So when you can prove that they were lies and not merely mistakes, you will be drafted into chairing the Democratic Party, I have no doubt.

I've yet to see you demonstrate that. To me it looks like you invaded a country full of people who would otherwise have simply minded their own business and never thought of attacking the US or your interests. I think you created those terrorists.

Well...

You are doing the insurgents a disservice by casting them as a monolithic group of ayatollah-wanna-bes. There is a significant number of Iraqi nationalists, tribe leaders, and common criminals who would likely have taken up arms anyway.

I'll let your own post answer.

Understanding people's motivations isn't the same as accepting them. If you consistently piss people off, then you create terrorism. And if enough people think that the terrorists are the Good Guys, then even shooting every single terrorist that passes through your sights won't help.

I have a knack, as you've noticed, for finding possible motivations. And yes, you can create terrorism. But we never (other than Abu Grahib) commited war atrocities. If they were pissed off by our taking down of Mr. Hussein, then they were on his side already, and little can be done about that but taking them down as they show themselves, i.e. "shooting every single terrorist that passes through your sights". As you know, you have to be pointing the rifle to see something in your sights. Right now, they are on the Iraqi's, waiting to see a suitable target. Not to say they actually do this; it's a figure of speech.

Sometimes (e.g. protecting the right of Salman Rushdie to write and publish the Satanic Verses) the things that piss people off are important enough that we should do them anyway and just accept whatever terrorism they spawn. But invading Iraq most definitely isn't one of those things.

I don't consider Satanic verses important. I do, however, find them allowed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. So that's irrelavant. Satanic verses have no bearing on terrorism - unless that's what the verses say to do. Don't know about those verses, and proud of it.

Well, the fedayeen are a definite minority among the insurgents by all reports. So in the overall strategic consideration, perhaps we should pay more attention to the other parts of the insurgence.

Done and done: I have focussed, for now, on the ones inspired by speeches rather than just religion by itself. Let me know what you want me to focus on, and I will gladly do so.

Huh? I'm not sure that reached the European media. Could anyone plz do a resume for new readers?

Certainly.

A few female soldiers in Iraq made a makeshift mud pit and wrestled in their underwear, to the delight of the male soldiers witnessing the event. All wrestlers were reprimanded and given some menial tasks to do as punishment. An isolated, unimportant event. The media, however, ran with it for a few weeks. IMO, it should have been covered for one or two days and forgotten. The event was never repeated.

Overzealous? How can the coverage of torture and imprisonment in isolation and without trial be overzealous? If anything there's been too little coverage of those two. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and W are still not being prosecuted. In which way is that overzealous?

For one, they were not responsible for the incidents at Abu Grahib and Guantanemo. Second, there were more than a few dishonarable discharges for this. Yes, it needed to be covered, but the Democrats used it as leverage to create baseless accusations against President Bush - much like you just did.

That'll be remarkably cold comfort to the Iraqi if the situation blows up in their face...

I know that. But, if we do all we can, what more can you expect from us? We can only do our best, and frankly, we haven't. But if we did our best, and it still blew, what can we do except try to minimize the collateral damage? I know that sounds machevellian, but I am speaking quite honestly. If you know how to do better than our best...

No, they're not trying. They are doing something else entirely. The 'war on terror' isn't about protecting the people from terrorism. It's about protecting and expanding the power of American oligarchs.

And how would starting a war that makes the people hate the government in charge of America increase it's power? If what you are saying is true, we have shattered power, and ensured that the Republicans will not take office for a while. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't the Dems then at least secretly applaud the war because of what it's doing to Rep. power? Because the Dems are that heartless, that machevellian. They will twist any fact, do whatever is necessary to regain power.

"All who gain power are afraid to lose it."

-Palpatine

That can be taken to it's logical conclusion: Those who lose power, if they survive the loss, are afraid of never getting it back.

EDIT: Wow, to think this thread nearly died at post 10...

ShadowTemplar · December 31, 2005

Of all the forums I have been registered to, this one is the worst at telling me when I have replies. Ugh! I am going to have to watch more closely. When I'm not playing TSL, of course.

Huh. The 'subscribe to thread' function works fine for me.

Not all of them are strapped like this. But the ones inspired to kill like this usually are.

I don't actually think they are. The ones who are a threat are reasonably well-funded and have a clear grasp of the geostrategic situation. So if your original argument holds and what you face in Iraq are people who want badly to damage American interests and went for Iraq solely because it's closest, then you implicitly concede that most of the people you are fighting in Iraq were never a threat.

Of course, this is only a high probability. We all have seen what good probabilities are when it comes to security of any kind.

Security is never certain. If anyone claims it to be, he's lying to your face. It's a simple fact of life that anyone living in Europe or the US risks being murdered by an islamofascist. And that will be the case for a loong time.

The important consideration is how much we can reduce the risk versus the cost of doing so. And I'm saying that we should go on about our business and treat the terrorists as common criminals - no more or less important than before 9/11.

We don't need new terror laws, we don't need intelligence agencies with increased powers. At most, it'll reduce the risk by - say - 3/4. A trivially simple cost-benefit analysis would show you that even economically it would be a better deal to reduce air polution. And that doesn't even count the violation of civil liberties.

This is like saying, "The nuclear plant probably contains all the radiation."

But security people don't say that. They say "the plant has a 99.97 % chance of never causing problems. We can increase that chance to 99.98 % by doubling the construction costs. We can increase the chance to 99.99 % by quadroupling the construction costs."

And then it's a political decision which option to pursue. And if the politicians choose the most expensive plan, then they are probably sacrificing lives by doing so - because that same money could be used more productively in the health care sector.

The ones who are motivated on the streets and in the family rooms on TV aren't told tactics and secrets, lest someone rat them out to the US. They are told to kill American 'infidels' and quickly. So, where will they go? Where they think is good to strike. Put yourself in the mind of such a 'terrorist'. He may have friends, business associates, or even family in Iraq. People he cares about. When that much may be at stake because of the 'infidels', why should he care about a country far away from anyone he knows? It's not his problem.

Hitting the nail on the head. Your average Iraqi insurgent wouldn't care about the US if it wasn't standing in his back yard.

I cannot speak for them, of course, but it is likely to be as I said earlier: The people disliked us already, and a few events were all they needed to finally abandon reason and commit atrocities.

So why provide that grist for the ayatollahs' mills? What in the world was important enough about Iraq to justify pissing off so many people so badly?

And if we could stand it indefinitely, then why should we worry about occupation?

You're missing an important nuance here. I said that militarily you can stand it indefinitely. Politically, though...

Do you really think that people from the aforementioned nations take up 100% of all terrorists?

In Iraq? A significant proportion. Generally? Probably not.

You mean the same inspectors who were not allowed into Iraq for a time, and were then allowed access to only selected portions of the country?

Yep, that's the ones. As it happens, the inspectors were satisfied that Iraq had not WMD or long-range rockets when they were pulled out the first time. They were satisfied that Iraq had not reaquired those capabilities when they left just prior to the start of the current mess.

And they were barred for perhaps 1 % of the sites they wanted to inspect - and not a single one of those sites was ever suspected of housing illegal industries. We're talking about wanting to double-check records and documents, not a search for weapons.

And they were barred from doing that because the Iraqis feared that there were CIA plants in their groups who would use the oppertunity to carry out espionage. A fear which turned out to be fully justified.

During that time, any weapons that could have been in his possesion could have been shipped, as Colin Powell said, by truck to other nations, out into the desert to be hidden, you name it.

But they'd still have to be produced somewhere. It isn't easy to disguise such a production - if it were, they'd be doing the production in the target country instead.

The blatant refusal of Saddaam to allow inspecters in in the first place aroused our suspicion, just a tad, perhaps...

But, as it turned out, there was nothing to find. And everyone knew that before the war.

I am saying that if they tried, they wouldn't be able to. Whether they could have or couldn't before is not what I was addressing.

But you have to consider the 'before' situation as well if you want to assess the benefits correctly. If I kill my neighbour it'd be a pretty weak excuse for me to say "now he certainly can't rob the bank," if there was no evidence that he could or would before.

Oh, I know that. But I just posted a gut feeling, is all, that W will go for Iran.

Oh, I'm sure W and Cheney would love to start a new war. But anyone with a multiple-digit IQ would want to stop them before they create yet another train wreck. Besides, Iran would kick your ass.

All of them are, as of now, incorrect. However, to say that they were lies would require proof of some sort.

And that proof has been all over the place - much of it has, in fact, been posted right on this very message board.

If there was, I don't think W would last in power untill 2006.

"But he has important friends, and proof isn't as powerful as important friends."

- Larrius Varro, Fort Moonmoth garrisson commander.

Yes, I know that's in two days. The scandal would be noticed worldwide.

Uh-hu. It was.

So when you can prove that they were lies and not merely mistakes, you will be drafted into chairing the Democratic Party, I have no doubt.

Nope. I wouldn't run for president in the US if I was payed to do so, thank you very much. Besides, the Democratic leadership has seen the proof already. They stay in touch with the international media, after all.

I'll let your own post answer.

OK, that should have read "who would have taken up arms against your invasion anyway."

I have a knack, as you've noticed, for finding possible motivations. And yes, you can create terrorism. But we never (other than Abu Grahib) commited war atrocities.

Guantanamo Bay

'Black' CIA flights

'Black' CIA holding centres

Handing over of prisoners to countries known to employ torture

Use of napalm and white phosphor

If they were pissed off by our taking down of Mr. Hussein, then they were on his side already, and little can be done about that but taking them down as they show themselves, i.e. "shooting every single terrorist that passes through your sights".

Isn't it possible that they were less opposed to your taking down Hussein than to your sending (more) American troops onto the Arabian Penninsula?

I don't consider Satanic verses important. I do, however, find them allowed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. So that's irrelavant. Satanic verses have no bearing on terrorism - unless that's what the verses say to do. Don't know about those verses, and proud of it.

Quite the contrary. I don't think there's a single thing right about that comment. But then again, maybe you should educate yourself a little on the subject first.

Done and done: I have focussed, for now, on the ones inspired by speeches rather than just religion by itself. Let me know what you want me to focus on, and I will gladly do so.

How about focusing on the nationalists, mobsters, and clans who are actually the majority of the insurgents?

A few female soldiers in Iraq made a makeshift mud pit and wrestled in their underwear, to the delight of the male soldiers witnessing the event. All wrestlers were reprimanded and given some menial tasks to do as punishment. An isolated, unimportant event. The media, however, ran with it for a few weeks. IMO, it should have been covered for one or two days and forgotten. The event was never repeated.

Oh. Small wonder it never reached Europe.

For one, they were not responsible for the incidents at Abu Grahib and Guantanemo.

B u l l.

But if we did our best, and it still blew, what can we do except try to minimize the collateral damage? I know that sounds machevellian, but I am speaking quite honestly. If you know how to do better than our best...

Of course you can't do better than your best. But W could have resigned in disgrace once the scale of his ****-up became evident to everyone. He didn't.

And how would starting a war that makes the people hate the government in charge of America increase it's power?

By giving the Fux News talking heads a made-up 'terrorist threat' to whine about and by polarising society and galvanising their own supporters. Been done plenty of times throughout history.

Dagobahn Eagle · January 1, 2006

Not to mention the billions in oil profits, arms deals, and assorted other things. Halliburton benefitted so greatly by Operation Iraqi Freedom that he must be thanking God for it every night.

ShadowTemplar · January 1, 2006

And he's definitely thanking Bush in his campaign funding.

StaffSaberist · January 2, 2006

I am having fluctuating power due to storms. I'll answer in full when I can.

StaffSaberist · January 2, 2006

Huh. The 'subscribe to thread' function works fine for me.

And it worked this time. It's just that every once in a while, it seems to forget to tell me of replies. Otherwise, I'd have replied to your last post earlier than I did. But, late is better than never...

I don't actually think they are. The ones who are a threat are reasonably well-funded and have a clear grasp of the geostrategic situation. So if your original argument holds and what you face in Iraq are people who want badly to damage American interests and went for Iraq solely because it's closest, then you implicitly concede that most of the people you are fighting in Iraq were never a threat.

Not a threat to the homeland, perhaps. These are the shock troops of the enemy, and they are the expendable troops that serve one purpose, as you said: To make our stay in Iraq as painful as possible. These new recruits aren't meant to go far. All they have to do is commit suicide in a way that murders innocent civilians and US troops if possible. But obviously, there are people who can reach our land. 9/11 has been brought up before, and probably will again.

Security is never certain. If anyone claims it to be, he's lying to your face. It's a simple fact of life that anyone living in Europe or the US risks being murdered by an islamofascist. And that will be the case for a loong time.

Indeed. But, as you said yourself, the probability of that is low.

The important consideration is how much we can reduce the risk versus the cost of doing so. And I'm saying that we should go on about our business and treat the terrorists as common criminals - no more or less important than before 9/11.

The few hijackers that have survived have been caught, so, yeah, until one group of them becomes a threat. And that is what we believed happened to Iraq. The fact that we were wrong - possibly - doesn't change the fact that that was our original reason. And we did have legitimate suspicions.

We don't need new terror laws, we don't need intelligence agencies with increased powers. At most, it'll reduce the risk by - say - 3/4. A trivially simple cost-benefit analysis would show you that even economically it would be a better deal to reduce air polution. And that doesn't even count the violation of civil liberties.

Personally, I like a 75% decrease. But if that isn't enough for you... I suppose I'll launch into another hypothetical:

Let's say the average terrorist is capable of taking out 25 people. Let's say there are, to be conservative, 5,000 terrorists worldwide out of 7 billion on this planet. so, the total number of civilians that can be killed would be 5,000 * 25, or 125,000 people. Let's say we cut that down by 75%. 75% of 5,000 would be 1250, with the average capacity to kill 31,250. Add to that that intelligence isn't our only weapon, we have a strong military, and not all terrorists can even reach the US, so a reduction of 75% would be a good step forward, would you not agree?

Oh, and reducing air pollution doesn't protect anyone from anything except smog poisoning. And even today, that is uncommon.

But security people don't say that. They say "the plant has a 99.97 % chance of never causing problems. We can increase that chance to 99.98 % by doubling the construction costs. We can increase the chance to 99.99 % by quadroupling the construction costs."

And then it's a political decision which option to pursue. And if the politicians choose the most expensive plan, then they are probably sacrificing lives by doing so - because that same money could be used more productively in the health care sector.

I don't see reports of people dropping dead in the streets. Healthcare is not Priority I only because there are no serious problems, other than the buerocracy that is evident in countries from N. America to Europe. What else are we going to do, give free medical aid to all? That would be nice, but that would drain our coffers faster than both invasions combined. And then we'd have to sacrafice even the slightest semblance of security; paying for it would force us to disband our military.

But we'd have a very nice healthcare system. I wonder if Usama will let us keep it...

And in the case of free/inexpensive healthcare, how do you propose we keep illegal immigrants from taking advantage of this?

Hitting the nail on the head. Your average Iraqi insurgent wouldn't care about the US if it wasn't standing in his back yard.

Ah, but we are in their neighbors backyard. We aren't even intruding on their property. If they like their neighbors, who are like the abusive father who beats his children, then there is something wrong. Worse, if they like their neighbor enough to try to kill the figurative social services agents, then they need to be hauled in to justice. They didn't care because we were the big bad wolf thousands of miles away. Now, we aren't directly harming them, but we are within reach, so close to them! And they hate us, they hate you, and they hate me. This is the chance to make us suffer! To kill and maim while we are busy fighting on another front! Too bad W didn't see this one coming, but now that the **** has hit the fan, at the very least we can make our exit less than simply disgraceful.

So why provide that grist for the ayatollahs' mills? What in the world was important enough about Iraq to justify pissing off so many people so badly?

At the time, WMD's were our reason. We may have been unable to find them, but that was still our reason for going. That would explain partly why W changed it to WMD programs after we kicked Saddaam's @$$; we had intelligence, but found nothing, so there had to be a reason for it. That's what W came up with, or at least his staff. And we don't know for certain that there weren't; the weapons could have been made there and shipped off, they could have had a program that only includes funding of it in other countries...

You're missing an important nuance here. I said that militarily you can stand it indefinitely. Politically, though...

Fair enough. No war can last forever when politics stand in. But my point was that militarily we can. But I already knew that we can't in today's climate.

In Iraq? A significant proportion. Generally? Probably not.

Right, exactly what I am saying! Yes, most of the terrorists created in Saudi Arabia and the like are now in Iraq so they can do what they want to do. But worldwide, there are other people. Possibly ones we don't know about. And they are more likely to have the ability to reach the US. Attacking Iraq has forced the hand of some of these people, including UBL himself. And he just may be dead; the fact that we haven't seen his face in a long time suggests that he may be dead. If so, then we have done what we wanted to do days after 9/11. Killed the mastermind behind it.

Yep, that's the ones. As it happens, the inspectors were satisfied that Iraq had not WMD or long-range rockets when they were pulled out the first time. They were satisfied that Iraq had not reaquired those capabilities when they left just prior to the start of the current mess.

Uh...

We're talking about wanting to double-check records and documents, not a search for weapons.

If they didn't search for weapons, and didn't find them, that's no surprise. But it was one for me. I thought they were looking for weapons. No? Then how can anyone say there were no WMD's in Iraq? As for the lack of a paper trail... Saddaam blocked UN inspecters, and he has had ample time to destroy or hide this paper trail. He probably took out 99% of the evidence, then blocked inspecters from the 1% he couldn't get in time. Of course, had he started making WMD's right after the war, he would have had over 10 years to properly destroy evidence. But he probably would have kept them to blackmail any nations he worked with. ("You rat me out to the UN, and I'll prove you were in on it!")

And they were barred from doing that because the Iraqis feared that there were CIA plants in their groups who would use the oppertunity to carry out espionage. A fear which turned out to be fully justified.

And just what were they afraid we'd find? If they had nothing to fear, then why not let them inspect every nook, every cranny? Were they afraid that we'd find proof that Hussein was cheating on his wife with Monica Abdullah?

But they'd still have to be produced somewhere. It isn't easy to disguise such a production - if it were, they'd be doing the production in the target country instead.

He's had since the Gulf War ended to produce them. The UN would have been too busy celebrating and kissing each other's tails to notice Saddaam taking advantage of the fact that we didn't remove him a long time ago, when we had the chance. I can't help but be a little disgusted at it: George H. W. Bush had Saddaam in his grasp, and just let him go like a fisherman who catches too small a fish! Had he the guts to take out Hussein while he had the chance to, this war would never have happened.

But, as it turned out, there was nothing to find. And everyone knew that before the war.

You said yourself that the UN wasn't looking for weapons. So how could we have known that they didn't exist? In fact, if I am correct, we still don't. I have said it and will say it again. Saddaam has had a looong time to cover his tracks as he goes along.

But you have to consider the 'before' situation as well if you want to assess the benefits correctly. If I kill my neighbour it'd be a pretty weak excuse for me to say "now he certainly can't rob the bank," if there was no evidence that he could or would before.

Covered twice, but even then my point was this: If some new dictator decides he wants to hit the US, he wouldn't be able to. That was my point for that section of the post, not the before.

Oh, I'm sure W and Cheney would love to start a new war. But anyone with a multiple-digit IQ would want to stop them before they create yet another train wreck.

If there was evidence that there was a definite need to go into Iran, I would support such a war. But I don't think that will happen, even though Iran has been importing Uranium from other countries.

List of nuclear imports to Iran, starting with the most recent

Besides, Iran would kick your ass.

Why? Because they have WMD's?

And that proof has been all over the place - much of it has, in fact, been posted right on this very message board.

Really? Most of what we are saying is opinion based on some story or fact somewhere. I see looking at this board:

rccar being inflammatory

Discussion of this Murtha bill

Somehow, us getting off the bill and discussing the war in general (I have no problem with that)

You calling the war Iraqi Screwup

Me calling it Iraqi Freedom

Proof that our intelligence was probably faulty

Saying that W was wrong and proving parts of it. (I didn't doubt it until recently)

Saying that W is a liar

And overall, a high-quality debate over the war in Iraq.

Nowhere, however, was it proven that he knowingly lied to the public. Perhaps you should find such proof before making accusations.

Uh-hu. It was.

Again, though I see plenty of accusations, I have yet to see proof.

Nope. I wouldn't run for president in the US if I was payed to do so, thank you very much.

Of course not. Not even for the Dems, though? Speaking of the Democratic party, I suppose you see them like this:

"He would never stoop to be lord of a trash heap"

-Count Dooku, Revenge of the Sith

Guantanamo Bay

They get quite good treatment for prisoners. We are sooo careful with them, providing them with Querans and prayer rugs (and while using them they are not to be disturbed, of course) and excellent food service that I wish was served in the school system, along with good bedding, clothing to their satisfaction... they live quite well. So what's your problem? Interrogations? That's quite normal for prisoners, you know.

'Black' CIA flights
'Black' CIA holding centres

Huh? I keep in touch with the world as much as possible, but I must have missed this one. Please, summarize for me.

Use of napalm and white phosphor

Really? It wasn't intentionally used on a civilian populace. It was directed at the insurgents. IIRC, other weapons were not able to take them all out, and you know what would happen if we tried to do it by hand: The death toll on our side would have spiked. It is regretful that civilians died, but the Army was far from careless about it. They did try to harm as few civilians as possible.

Isn't it possible that they were less opposed to your taking down Hussein than to your sending (more) American troops onto the Arabian Penninsula?

It is another possibility, yes. Both of our possibilities are valid.

Quite the contrary. I don't think there's a single thing right about that comment.

So you don't agree with

I do, however, find them allowed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

that?

My point is that I agree with 0% of Satanism. however, freedom of the press, religion, speech means that IF I were to go on some crusade against them, legally I can't do it. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

And no, I won't read the Satanic verses. Read them yourself if that's your preference, but leave me out of it.

How about focusing on the nationalists, mobsters, and clans who are actually the majority of the insurgents?

Nationalists: The people who are Iraqi and support Saddaam. That's what I assume you are talking about. Well, I don't care what country they are from. If they want to kill us, and we see them try, I'm all for our troops gunning them down as they try.

Mobsters and clans: No more than common criminals. Take care of them the same way we take care of murderers, thieves, etc. on our streets.

Oh. Small wonder it never reached Europe.

Exactly. It was a minor incident, pointless to even bother with. Mere horseplay far from the front lines.

Bull. [link of some kind]

404 error.

Of course you can't do better than your best. But W could have resigned in disgrace once the scale of his ****-up became evident to everyone. He didn't.

I don't think he needs to resign over it, though I would understand if he did. He has, in your opinion, disgraced himself enough. What can he do now except not invade any more countries unless we need to? Not too much; that would end both our arguments.

By giving the [Fox] News talking heads a made-up 'terrorist threat' to whine about and by polarising society and galvanising their own supporters. Been done plenty of times throughout history.[i don't know if that was intentional or not, but... edited for spelling]

But if the war makes the people hate the government, it doesn't matter what they say, no? Words mean little compared to the nation's sentiment, right? But the only problem with that is the nation doesn't have one sentiment. One voice. We got millions upon millions of people yelling for something else. The only thing it can agree on is we don't want higher taxes.

ShadowTemplar · January 2, 2006

Not a threat to the homeland, perhaps. These are the shock troops of the enemy, and they are the expendable troops that serve one purpose, as you said: To make our stay in Iraq as painful as possible.

Do you actually believe any of that?

But obviously, there are people who can reach our land. 9/11 has been brought up before, and probably will again.

And will remain bull****.

Indeed. But, as you said yourself, the probability of that is low.

Which is why we shouldn't bother.

And that is what we believed happened to Iraq.

You may have believed it, but anybody with any real kind of access to information and a multiple-digit IQ knew it was bull.

The fact that we were wrong - possibly -

The fact that you were wrong - period -

doesn't change the fact that that was our original reason.

I'm glad you admit that. That's a start.

And we did have legitimate suspicions.

I sure as hell haven't seen any.

Personally, I like a 75% decrease. But if that isn't enough for you... I suppose I'll launch into another hypothetical:

75 % sounds like a lot when you throw it around, but when you crank in the absolute numbers it gets a lot less impressive.

Let's say the average terrorist is capable of taking out 25 people. Let's say there are, to be conservative, 5,000 terrorists worldwide out of 7 billion on this planet. so, the total number of civilians that can be killed would be 5,000 * 25, or 125,000 people. Let's say we cut that down by 75%. 75% of 5,000 would be 1250, with the average capacity to kill 31,250.

But using the same effort towards providing clean fresh water for everyone would save upwards 3 million. Every single year.

Add to that that intelligence isn't our only weapon, we have a strong military,

Military strength has no bearing on vulnerability to terrorism.

Oh, and reducing air pollution doesn't protect anyone from anything except smog poisoning. And even today, that is uncommon.

Lung cancer and heavy metal poisoning, anyone?

I don't see reports of people dropping dead in the streets. Healthcare is not Priority I only because there are no serious problems,

Except the little fact that 15.6 % of all Americans have no health ensurance.

What else are we going to do, give free medical aid to all? That would be nice, but that would drain our coffers faster than both invasions combined.

In fact it would be both cheaper and more efficient than what you have. If you raise taxes for the income brackets that pay health insurance, they would get better health care for less increase in taxes than what they'd save in insureance.

But we'd have a very nice healthcare system.

Yeah, right. And you can believe as much of that as you care to...

I wonder if Usama will let us keep it...

Can't see how he could take it away.

And in the case of free/inexpensive healthcare, how do you propose we keep illegal immigrants from taking advantage of this?

Central Person Registry? Or maybe just letting them? Wouldn't be that big a drain.

If they like their neighbors, who are like the abusive father who beats his children, then there is something wrong.

Maybe they just like you less.

Worse, if they like their neighbor enough to try to kill the figurative social services agents, then they need to be hauled in to justice.

Problem is that you're not acting like social security service. You're acting - to stay in the analogy - like paramilitary hooligans. If jackbooted militias kick in your neighbour's door without anything resembling a warrent or license from any responsible authority, then you'll want to kick their ass, child abuse or no child abuse.

They didn't care because we were the big bad wolf thousands of miles away. Now, we aren't directly harming them, but we are within reach, so close to them! And they hate us, they hate you, and they hate me. This is the chance to make us suffer! To kill and maim while we are busy fighting on another front!

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

we had intelligence, but found nothing, so there had to be a reason for it.

Yeah, like manufactured intelligence.

And we don't know for certain that there weren't;

And that's the crux of it, isn't it... A wee bit hard to prove a negative, though.

the weapons could have been made there and shipped off, they could have had a program that only includes funding of it in other countries...

They could also have handed them over to Iran... Sure they could... If they had them, then why wouldn't they use them?

But worldwide, there are other people. Possibly ones we don't know about. And they are more likely to have the ability to reach the US. Attacking Iraq has forced the hand of some of these people,

A tiny, tiny fraction. And you've created more by the invasion.

If they didn't search for weapons, and didn't find them, that's no surprise.

I think we're looking at a reading comprehension problem here... I wrote:

You mean the same inspectors who were not allowed into Iraq for a time, and were then allowed access to only selected portions of the country?

[...]

And they were barred for perhaps 1 % of the sites they wanted to inspect - and not a single one of those sites was ever suspected of housing illegal industries. We're talking about wanting to double-check records and documents, not a search for weapons.

The double-checking of records refers to the perhaps 1 % of the inspection sites from which they were barred.

Which neatly disproves the rest of your fantastic speculation.

And just what were they afraid we'd find? If they had nothing to fear, then why not let them inspect every nook, every cranny? Were they afraid that we'd find proof that Hussein was cheating on his wife with Monica Abdullah?

Maybe getting a cruise missile dropping in for an unscheduled dinner party.

He's had since the Gulf War ended to produce them.

Uh-huh. Except for the wee little fact that he was embargoed up to his ears and had UN inspectors prowling his country at will... And no production sites were found. Not before the war. Not after the war.

I can't help but be a little disgusted at it: George H. W. Bush had Saddaam in his grasp, and just let him go like a fisherman who catches too small a fish! Had he the guts to take out Hussein while he had the chance to, this war would never have happened.

...

I'll leave it as an exercise to the readers to figure out what that would have done to Bush I's coalition.

In fact, if I am correct, we still don't. I have said it and will say it again. Saddaam has had a looong time to cover his tracks as he goes along.

Even if you were correct - which you most manifestly are not - there would have been production sites. Those things don't dodge very much. And none were found. None whatsoever. And after a minute combing of the country no less. Without any interference whatsoever from Hussein's goons.

Covered twice, but even then my point was this: If some new dictator decides he wants to hit the US, he wouldn't be able to. That was my point for that section of the post, not the before.

And if Hussein wanted to attack you he wouldn't have been able to. So the big difference?

If there was evidence that there was a definite need to go into Iran, I would support such a war. But I don't think that will happen, even though Iran has been importing Uranium from other countries.

As happens to be their right under several solemn international treaties.

Why? Because they have WMD's?

That and because you can't PanzerBlitz a mountain range.

Really? Most of what we are saying is opinion based on some story or fact somewhere. I see looking at this board:

[...]

Nowhere, however, was it proven that he knowingly lied to the public. Perhaps you should find such proof before making accusations.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96873

Again, though I see plenty of accusations, I have yet to see proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_protests_against_war_on_Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/forum/2731063.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm

Of course not. Not even for the Dems, though? Speaking of the Democratic party, I suppose you see them like this:

"He would never stoop to be lord of a trash heap"

-Count Dooku, Revenge of the Sith

Less to do with the fact that I don't like the Democrats. I just don't like the - uh - political climate in the US. Specifically I have a problem with mister Carl 'Scooter Libby' Rove.

They get quite good treatment for prisoners. We are sooo careful with them, providing them with Querans and prayer rugs (and while using them they are not to be disturbed, of course) and excellent food service that I wish was served in the school system, along with good bedding, clothing to their satisfaction... they live quite well. So what's your problem?

Imprisonment without the benefit of due process?

Huh? I keep in touch with the world as much as possible, but I must have missed this one. Please, summarize for me.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1904853,00.html

Really? It wasn't intentionally used on a civilian populace. It was directed at the insurgents.

Doesn't matter. Napalm and phosphor are illegal chemical weapons under the Geneva Convention.

It is another possibility, yes. Both of our possibilities are valid.

But some are more likely than others.

So you don't agree with

Originally Posted by me
I do, however, find them allowed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.[/Quote]

that?[/Quote]

OK, I'll concede you had one thing right.

My point is that I agree with 0% of Satanism. however, freedom of the press, religion, speech means that IF I were to go on some crusade against them, legally I can't do it. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

And no, I won't read the Satanic verses. Read them yourself if that's your preference, but leave me out of it.[/Quote]

You really are clueless, aren't you? The Satanic Verses isn't a book about satanism. It's a novel. Written by Salman Rushdie. You do know Rushdie, right? Not his best from what I've heard. But the Ayatollahs in Tehran wanted it banned. Ah, screw that. You can read the link I gave you.

Nationalists: The people who are Iraqi and support Saddaam. That's what I assume you are talking about.[/Quote]

Uh, not primarily. What about those nationalists who'd like to see the back of you and Hussein both?

404 error.[/Quote]

Funny. All four of them work for me...

I don't think he needs to resign over it, though I would understand if he did. He has, in your opinion, disgraced himself enough. What can he do now except not invade any more countries unless we need to?[/Quote]

Uh, maybe turn the government over to someone with a multiple digit IQ.

But if the war makes the people hate the government, it doesn't matter what they say, no?[/Quote]

Doesn't matter what the people want. As long as the oligarchs have about 25 % of the population, the majority of the media, and enough contacts and money to rig the vote the voice of the people mean diddly-squat.

StaffSaberist · January 4, 2006

(One)

You may have believed it, but anybody with any real kind of access to information and a multiple-digit IQ knew it was bull.

I sure as hell haven't seen any.

Yeah, like manufactured intelligence.

And if Hussein wanted to attack you he wouldn't have been able to. So the big difference?

Even if you were correct - which you most manifestly are not - there would have been production sites. Those things don't dodge very

much. And none were found. None whatsoever. And after a minute combing of the country no less. Without any interference whatsoever from

Hussein's goons.

Uh-huh. Except for the wee little fact that he was embargoed up to his ears and had UN inspectors prowling his country at will... And

no production sites were found. Not before the war. Not after the war.

The double-checking of records refers to the perhaps 1 % of the inspection sites from which they were barred.

Which neatly disproves the rest of your fantastic speculation.

I am going to start this round by neatly disposing of all of these quotes, pure and simple. Iraq did have WMD's, not long after the Gulf War. But I am not stupid enough to just say that. You see, I happen to have a triple-digit IQ, and I am pulling out the bigger

guns. They're cannons, really. An article I found proves me right. I'm going to go through it step-by-step for you:

"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 was shocking to me. I was not political during this time, being after all a bit too young to fully comprehend what was going on. But this quote from Bill Clinton makes me praise and curse him at the same time. Curse because he might have known this earlier if he wasn't too busy under his desk with Monica Lewinsky. Praise because he has the guts to say, "The war has a purpose". now this proves something else that I knew in the back of my head but didn't allow to surface: Originally, we did have removal from power as an original reason. Now that's something else.

Continuing:

FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON is right about what he and the whole world knew about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. And most of what everyone knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with this or any other government's intelligence collection and analysis. Had there never been a Central Intelligence Agency--an idea we admit sounds more attractive all the time--the case for war against Iraq would have been rock solid. Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.

So! Not only did they have WMD's, they bragged about it. Where's your leftist bias now, ShadowTemplar?

Here's a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in the frenzy of the past few months. Shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, U.N. inspectors discovered the existence of a surprisingly advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq's own admission and U.N. inspection efforts, Saddam's regime possessed thousands of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the U.N. would never have made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive biological warfare program.

Not only did the programs exist, the weapons themselves did.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Before the turn of the century, we knew all of this. This article blows me away more than anything I've ever read, bar the Bible. The Iraqis have been asking for trouble for a looong time. Small wonder we decided to kick their tails. Too bad we waited so long to get this done.

Moving forward:

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

This is nothing short of amazing. I am honestly amazed by this. I had no idea it was this bad. Apparently, neither did you.

And guess what? There's an entire second page to this. Find the second page here. Read to your heart's content. It's too long for me to go over it all on this post. But I've covered Page I, and Page II is linked. I believe this should explain it to you.

Do you actually believe any of that?

Yes. If they were not expendable, they would not be blowing themselves up. If they wouldn't want to make us suffer, they wouldn't bother with us at all. The only other motivation is a personal one: To get the 42 Virgins (Virginians!) in heaven. Which they will not be

recieving.

And will remain bull****.

I will not answer this directly. Instead, I will ask you to direct your comments of that type to the families of the 3,000 dead.

Which is why we shouldn't bother.

Low does not equal nonexistant. Going to war with every single nation that harbors terrorists is the wrong way to go. But at the very least, we should take steps to prevent 9/11 from recurring. They don't have to be tight as hell. They just have to be there.

I'm glad you admit that. That's a start.

To what? That was our original reason, what of it? We didn't find them, but that's why we went there. We didn't accomplish that, but we have done a hell of a lot for that country.

But using the same effort towards providing clean fresh water for everyone would save upwards [of] 3 million. Every single year.

I have no problem with that, so long as we aren't providing services knowingly to the terrorists. Other than that, fine. But who's to say both cannot be done? The US cannot be responsible for all the world's water, it must be a worldwide effort. We can provide security for America and help with the water services. It's not out of reach or realm of possibility. Personally, I say China can have our local rain. We're getting flooded and it's miserable out.

Military strength has no bearing on vulnerability to terrorism.

It has bearing on our ability to stop it. So yes, it does.

Lung cancer and heavy metal poisoning, anyone?

Do you commonly experience this? Because it is far from a common thing in the US, esp. since people would sue over it for more than it

costs to clean up the water system. I know a city about 30 miles from where I live that has bad-tasting water, but it isn't poisonous. And I

read the news. I don't see reports of epidemic issues.

Except the little fact that 15.6 % of all Americans have no health [insurance].

The other 94.4% didn't get health insurance handed to them on a silver platter. They work at jobs that pay well enough to afford it or jobs

that grant such benefits. And then they work at the company. Also, how many of the 15.6% of people are freeloaders that can't for some reason

haul @$$ enough to work? If they want coverage so bad, they can earn it the way the rest of us do.

In fact it would be both cheaper and more efficient than what you have. If you raise taxes for the income brackets that pay health

insurance, they would get better health care for less increase in taxes than what they'd save in insureance.

Or, as I said, they can get a job that provides/allows you to afford health insurance.

Yeah, right. And you can believe as much of that as you care to...

I hate to burst your bubble, but every thing costs money. Our economy isn't in the best of shape. It is turning around, but we seriously can't afford to just give away healthcare.

Can't see how he could take it away.

That was sarcasm.

Or maybe just letting them? Wouldn't be that big a drain.

Illegal immigrants cost California alone $10.5 billion a year as is.

Maybe they just like you less.

They are still attacking us. What's your point?

Problem is that you're not acting like social security service. You're acting - to stay in the analogy - like paramilitary hooligans.

If jackbooted militias kick in your neighbour's door without anything resembling a warrent or license from any responsible authority, then you'll want to kick their ass, child abuse or no child abuse.

Your analogy is flawed. How would I know they didn't have a warrant? Any if I did, wouldn't that be a problem for the attorney to sort through?

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them

they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Problem with that is that we were attacked. I have no problem with peace. I only have problems with the people who just say on bumper

stickers, "Get out of Iraq NOW!" (No joke, those are actual bumper stickers). You know, of course, how foolish that would be...

And that's the crux of it, isn't it... A wee bit hard to prove a negative, though.

Exactly. A wee bit hard to prove there weren't WMD's in Iraq, esp. since that article proves that I'm right.

They could also have handed them over to Iran... Sure they could... If they had them, then why wouldn't they use them?

You know what? I don't know. It just might have to do with the fact that they aren't the only ones with nukes. We do. But that same theory could apply to the Cold War. You tell me... why didn't the USSR use it's nukes?

Maybe getting a cruise missile dropping in for an unscheduled dinner party.

A well-deserved cruise, no less.

That and because you can't PanzerBlitz a mountain range.

But it can be bombed...

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthre...&threadid=96873["Proof" That Bush lied]

I see more speculation, even less supported by fact. They don't appear to have done a very good job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...nst_war_on_Iraq

I already knew there were protesters. You didn't need to link me that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_...rum/2731063.stm

An interview gaining opinions. Not enough for me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm

Oh, I KNOW that Blix switcherooed on us, a total betrayal in the UN. But that is still one man's opinion.

Less to do with the fact that I don't like the Democrats. I just don't like the - uh - political climate in the US. Specifically I have a problem with mister Carl 'Scooter Libby' Rove.

What I meant by "trash heap". The majority of Democrats don't even support this nonsense, but the politicians don't care so long as they get their paycheck. Heh. I'll argue for free.

Imprisonment without the benefit of due process?

[sarcasm]I am so sorry that we don't give war criminals of other nationalities the same rights we give law-abiding Americans.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, these people will get their day in trial. The fact that it will take longer is because there are so many of them, and so few judges. It takes a long time to ensure that these trials are absolutely fair. Remember these are war crimes. You have to make sure the witnesses can safely talk, the judges won't be assassinated, so much to do for just one trial. Then there's the others...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1904853,00.html

Alleged, perhaps. Time will tell if this is accurate. That's all I can say.

Doesn't matter. Napalm and phosphor are illegal chemical weapons under the Geneva Convention.

Then I deeply regret it. I hope the officer who ordered it was discharged. And don't give me any "it was Bush" crap, either. Someone had to tell the guy to pull the switch, instead of reporting it, if it was actually Bush.

But some are more likely than others.

Neither of us have backed our theories up. We cannot. Both are given equal weight because both are speculation.

he Satanic Verses isn't a book about satanism. It's a novel. Written by Salman Rushdie. You do know Rushdie, right? Not his best from what I've heard. But the Ayatollahs in Tehran wanted it banned.

The fact that I do not recognize one book is completely irrelevant to this. But you know my religion, and you will understand why I wouldn't pick it up if I saw it in the library. And that has no bearing on my intelligence, either.

Uh, not primarily. What about those nationalists who'd like to see the back of you and Hussein both?

Forgive me if I misread this, but I think you mean, "people who want us both dead". Fine, if they want Saddaam dead, great. But if they want us to die, then I don't care who else they want dead. That simple.

Uh, maybe turn the government over to someone with a multiple digit IQ.

And what if he was registered on a political forum and you said that to his face? Your post there would be discounted as a flame. Which it is. You are free to say he is a liar, wrong, and a maker of mistakes (though I'm happy to debate you on all points) but flaming somebody is hardly worth the paragraph I've written on it. Petty insults like that are quite childish.

Doesn't matter what the people want. As long as the oligarchs have about 25 % of the population, the majority of the media, and enough contacts and money to rig the vote the voice of the people mean diddly-squat.

THE POPULATION: The politicians don't even represent that many people. But they were the lesser of God-knows how many evils, and were elected

because somebody had to be. Yes, that goes for Bush as well. He's no Lincoln, and far from a Washington. But at least he's not a Dean or Kerry.

THE MEDIA: Ha! That's a laugh. You actually think the media even supports the government? It is quite ready to blast minor failures across the nation, but Fox is the only station I can find who will shout equally loud about the successes. (Saying nothing of O'Reilly and the like)

CONTACTS AND MONEY: Okay, they do have those in abundance.

ELECTION RIGGING: The Dems threw a fit because we won. The votes were recounted at least twice in 2000 and again in 2004. Each time, the Repubs won - barely. Had the Repubs rigged the election, wouldn't they have made it just a little more in their favor? It was too close for comfort when Election Day came around. Or are the Repubs simply slightly better at cheating than the Dems?

EDIT: stupid Notepad!

Samuel Dravis · January 4, 2006

Geeze, are you trying to beat Kurgan?! I bet you hit the textbox character limit in Notepad, didn't you...

That article is very interesting... Thanks.

ewok mercenary · January 4, 2006

I don't generally post (anything of value) in the Senate Chambers, although I am a regular lurker. Still, there were a few comments made that stood out to me in some way. Here goes...

Doesn't matter. Napalm and phosphor are illegal chemical weapons under the Geneva Convention.

White phosphorous is generally not considered to be a chemical weapon, but rather an inciendiary one. Since the United States isn't signatory to Protocol 3 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of incendiary weapons, I'm pretty sure that they can legally do whatever they like with it. Not pleasant.

Your analogy is flawed. How would I know they didn't have a warrant? Any if I did, wouldn't that be a problem for the attorney to sort through?

Who or what would you consider to be the attorney in the context of the analogy? The UN? As that would appear to negate your point, considering that you've previously expressed disdain for it.

But that same theory could apply to the Cold War. You tell me... why didn't the USSR use it's nukes?

Might have something to do with the tiny fact that NATO didn't attempt to invade the Soviet Union.

I am so sorry that we don't give war criminals of other nationalities the same rights we give law-abiding Americans.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

StaffSaberist · January 4, 2006

I don't have time to reply fully to even this, time is really pressuring me. But I half expected to see ShadowTemplar here. Anyhoo:

Geeze, are you trying to beat Kurgan?!

Um, no. But that is a neat side effect of posting in the Senate Chambers, it seems.

I bet you hit the textbox character limit in Notepad, didn't you...

Notepad has a limit?? That's news to me. I frequently type up big stuff in Notepad. Never hit any limitations, other than the usual font type issues, size, etc. etc.. But it was good for wanton rearranging. You probably won't be surprised to hear that it took me an hour to type, rearrange, post, and then edit because Notepad is notorious for reformatting. It looked great in Notepad... it's just that as I copied it it screwed it up. I think a few quotes still are messed up, but I'm through with that post until ST shows up.

Anyway, I'll answer ewok (and possibly ST) when I get the chance. See you guys then.

-StaffSaberist

ShadowTemplar · January 4, 2006

I don't have time to reply fully to even this, time is really pressuring me. But I half expected to see ShadowTemplar here. Anyhoo:

I started out a post, but results rarely are very good at 4 in the morning.

Got a few things to do before I can reply though. As a preliminary exercise, I offer the challenge of finding a credible source (by credible I mean one that isn't an outlet for creationist propaganda).

Samuel Dravis · January 4, 2006

Notepad has a limit?? That's news to me. I frequently type up big stuff in Notepad. Never hit any limitations, other than the usual font type issues, size, etc. etc.. But it was good for wanton rearranging. You probably won't be surprised to hear that it took me an hour to type, rearrange, post, and then edit because Notepad is notorious for reformatting. It looked great in Notepad... it's just that as I copied it it screwed it up. I think a few quotes still are messed up, but I'm through with that post until ST shows up.

It does indeed have a limit, if you're using Win98 (or 95). I suppose I shouldn't think people use that anymore, but when you said you were having trouble with notepad that's the first thing that came to mind.

StaffSaberist · January 4, 2006

My trouble was reformatting the text. Notepad made the sentences all messed up. To show how, I will copy this sentence, and reformat it the way Notepad had it.

My trouble was reformatting the text. Notepad made the sentences all

messed up. To show how, I will copy this sentence, and reformat it the

way Notepad had it.

That shows how half-@$$ed notepad can be. But I am running XP Home Edition.

And, ST... this story is far from propaganda, at least no more than some of your sources. And this story isn't even an editorial. I can't wait to see your full reply. Then again, I see this is your only way out: To insist that the entire thing is ludicrice.

Here is a site that lists sources in their "Read the Documents" section. The blacked-out parts of the .pdf's are apparently top-secret info that can't be leaked. But you still get to see the actual documents, which is cool.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

Note, BTW, the EDU extension. This is no propaganda site, it is a part of the education system.

The CIA's key judgements page:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Some clips shown at the Security Council of the UN

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf.htm

Take a look at a few of these, please. And BTW, I looked over the site. It has NOTHING TO DO with creationism. Which disposes of the "creationist propaganda" bit of yours.

StaffSaberist · January 5, 2006

Hey - Where's ST? I hope he is not sick; it'd be a shame. But I haven't seen a reply for the longest time...

ShadowTemplar · January 7, 2006

No, I'm just minding my life. You know, the thing that takes place outside your window :-)

I haven't finished my reply yet, but I'll back up my statement about creationism:

"As it is, though, the Weekly Standard has published this crap by the known and documented fraud Michael Behe, this patently misrepresenting commentary on the Kansas Kangeroo Kourt, and this piece of homophobic Reconstructionist garbage. And that's all from the very first page of gooling 'weekly standard on creationism'."

StaffSaberist · January 7, 2006

Fine, fine. I didn't know about his integrity. But I did find three more sites that support me.

Oh, and I don't have a problem with you enjoying life. I do, too, but I was surprised to not hear from you.

403-3

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived