Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-27 07:51:14

Bill:

What if you believe he is "cherry picking" the intel in a way that produces false results? or distorting it willfully?

Cite the contradictory intel, not as "proof" that the President is lying but in order to find out why there is a contradiction. Fight with reason and facts for the good of the nation, not rhetoric and accusations for the good of the Party.

By the way, who exactly are we at war against?

That is the question isn't it.

We're fighting stateless terrorists who operate out of many nations, sometimes with cooperation and sometimes not, draw funding from many sources and adapt to damage in a hydra-like manner. They aren't a foreign nation and they aren't an organized crime ring, a new model is needed.

The enemy is fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. We can cut off some of their funding, sometimes we can bomb their training camps, but this doesn't solve the problem. We need to snuff out the roots of fundie Islam.

But how? A combination of education, culture-building, economic opportunity, and old fashioned killing people. What we're doing now is the opening moves in a long-term strategy for carrying out these points. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia: didn't matter. Iraq was an easier sell. There was plenty of history to build on, a murdering thug dictator that no one will miss, and a legal opening in the form of multiple violations of a ceasefire agreement. An obvious first move.

Progress is being made, slow and messy as it is at times. We're rebuilding, Iraq is moving to representative rule, order is slowly being restored in a more humane manner. And terrorists are being killed as they arise. Certainly mistakes are being made, setbacks of our making arise, but overall we're moving forward.

We regularly hear reports of American forces stretched thin, astronomical costs of the operation, improvised equipment (common in all wars) and every setback as a portend of doom. Yet we don't hear about the terrorists' setbacks. We don't hear about the requests sent for more money that are denied because none is available. Recruiting calls that go unanswered, requests for resources that have already been expended. Every time a midlevel terrorist leader is caught they find this sort of correspondence. They aren't growing appreciably.

What if they had a Jihad and no one showed up? We might find out before long.

Our enemy is hard to pin down, but not impossible to defeat. We're at war with all Islamic terrorists everywhere, and it's not as daunting a prospect as it sometimes seems. We may be fighting a hydra, but it's just as scared of us as we are of it.

Good post Shaun, and thanks for your support.

Those WMDs certainly existed at one stage; Saddam used them on the Kurds. How many or how much of such weaponry he produced and stockpiled is open to debate. But it existed.

Precisely. It seems to me the big concern shouldn't be "Bush lied about WMD's" but rather "What the hell happened to them?"

To use an old analogy it's like if I stole my neighbor's car, they, the cops, the entire street saw me park it in my garage, then when I park it somewhere else and say "No, I don't have that car" everyone just shrugs and accepts it. ???

When your neighbors do it you call them morons, but when the political Left does it . . .

Euler:

In the period leading up to the war, Saddam was allowing the weapons inspectors to operate in Iraq and was cooperating fully.

"Cooperating fully" isn't the same as letting a few inspectors poke around while you keep tabs on them. Saddam never turned any weapons over nor did he provide verification of their destruction. It's reasonable to assume he was playing the same games he always had. Given that several banned (non-WMD) weapons did turn up that weren't declared we know he was hiding something.

The US before 9/11, the US intelligence agencies did not believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. In fact, in 2001 Condi Rice said that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

In either case, declarative statements were the wrong way to go. We didn't know for sure, nothing could be conclusively proven either way.

Or maybe Condi was lying then.

The reason we knew that they existed at one stage is because we sold them to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

We didn't sell chemical weapons or any other WMD to Iraq.

There is no evidence that WMDs were ever transported to Syria. No one ever suggested that they might be transported to Syria until we were sure that there really were not any WMDs in Iraq.

This was a concern for a long time, I first heard of it while we were putzing around with the UN for a year. We have no conclusive evidence that anything was transported to Syria except trucks, which we have satellite phots of. But we don't know, and I find that somewhat troubling.

Why would the most secular government in the region support a bunch of religious fanatics who hate Saddam and his "apostate regime"? And why would Saddam want to support terrorist attacks on the US when it is obvious that he has nothing to gain by such an action and much to lose?

I don't believe there was any high-level cooperation between Saddam and Osama, but indirect support is possible. In either case, it doesn't make much difference to me, the situation is a bit more complex. As stated earlier Iraq was an obvious choice for a move, Saddam has directly supported terrorism in the past and there are some indications of Iraq/al Qaeda contacts at lower levels, not enough to act on alone but throw it on the pile.

The "official" reasons used to sell the war are all legit, even if overstated, but they aren't the only reasons.

As for why Saddam would risk backing a terrorist attack, we're talking about a guy who almost certainly tried to have a US President (Bush 41) assassinated out of a personal grudge, that he'd support a terrorist attack isn't that big a leap.

Quote
Iran and Syria, havens for Al-Qa'ida operatives and former Sadaamist leaders, are supplying murderers and explosives to support the carnage in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of our troops as well as ordinary Iraqis.

Is there any evidence to support this? And why would Iran be a haven for Saddamists when they spent many bloody years fighting against Saddam's regime?

Syria, Iran, and more subtlely Saudi Arabia are known to have supported terrorists, but I for one don't believe that those governments are actively supporting them. Which isn't to say they aren't making it easy for them. Iran is probably the most active, they want both a Shiite Iraq and a mess to keep us busy so we don't turn and hit them Syria and Saudi Arabia have their own internal problems and have legitimate fears of a fundie Islam uprising. If those same fundies want to go to Iraq and get themselves killed why would those governments try to stop them? Sure, they'd play the part for our bebefit, but they want there terrorist types occupied with something other than attacking them.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-27 08:07:25

Good grief Euler! If you can't get a grip on the Middle East situation after all this time, without asking a lot of darned fool questions about stuff resolved long ago, it's apparent that your knowledge of world affairs and human nature lags very far behind your grasp of basic math/science.
[Your math/science is good, by the way. I can't remember whether I ever got around to saying so, but your posts on scientific topics are often a joy to read.
I wonder, though, whether you, among others, are far too ready to swallow the media swill about Iraq instead of standing back and giving it a little bit of objective thought?]

This kind of response - you know, the "let's dissect every line of a person's post and question every detail" type of response - , if you answer every point, is a fine way to spend the rest of your life discussing less and less, in more and more detail, until you finally disappear up your own fundamental orifice! :laugh: Because, if I do answer each challenge, it's so easy for someone else just to dream up new and ever more puerile questions, however many times the points may have been covered in the past. This is especially true if the interrogator has no intention of changing his/her mind about anything because s/he belongs to a particular persuasion and regards it as his/her duty to dig in and man the guns, no matter what!

But, just this once, seeing as how it's you, Euler, I'll have a go.

In the period leading up to the war, Saddam was allowing the weapons inspectors to operate in Iraq and was cooperating fully.

The naivety of this statement beggars belief, unless the person stating it desperately wants to believe, for some reason, that a mass-murdering torturing despot, always tells the truth about his WMD.
Saddam is probably capable of deception, I think. Don't you?

The US before 9/11, the US intelligence agencies did not believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. In fact, in 2001 Condi Rice said that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Did she? Well, there's a turn-up for the books. In 2001, Kofi Annan was urging Iraq to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. I wonder what weapons he wanted them to look for? (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2001/1220urged.htm]This site.)

There is no evidence that WMDs were ever transported to Syria. No one ever suggested that they might be transported to Syria until we were sure that there really were not any WMDs in Iraq. The whole "they were shipped to Syria" idea is simply a politically expedient excuse that was made up so that the neocons would not have to admit that they were wrong.

... In your personal opinion! And my response is:-
Yes and no.
There is no unequivocal evidence I know of that Syria hid Iraq's WMD, in Syria or in Syrian occupied Lebanon. If I had access to that kind of information, I would be a very famous man by now!
But if you're right that America made up the story after finding no WMD in Iraq, then it appears she began a softening up process well before that. In December 2002, the Israelis said they believed Syria was harbouring Iraqi WMD:-
"What we believe, and I say that we have not yet confirmed it conclusively, is that weapons he wants to hide — chemical and biological weapons — have indeed been sent to Syria," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said. "Saddam Hussein wanted to hide his weapons, and I think that the Americans know that." (http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_israel_12_26.html]This site.)
No doubt, the Israelis were coerced into saying this so the U.S. would have a fall-back position later, when the extent of their lies came under international scrutiny. :;):
As I've said before, it's amazing how scathing many people here at New Mars can be about "pathetic" conspiracy theorists, while being absolute dupes themselves for fantastic conspiracy theories involving politicians they dislike.
And, since you and I are in agreement that Iraq possessed WMD, and since he never deployed all those weapons, and since there was general agreement among most authorities that there were WMD in Iraq before the liberation, and since Saddam never produced satisfactory documentation of their complete destruction, what do you suppose happened to them?
Just evaporated, I suppose.

Why would the most secular government in the region support a bunch of religious fanatics who hate Saddam and his "apostate regime"? And why would Saddam want to support terrorist attacks on the US when it is obvious that he has nothing to gain by such an action and much to lose?

A common enemy can create strange bedfellows. It's that thing about human nature.
Saddam saw America as his enemy. They humiliated him in Kuwait. He would only lose if he were found out. Criminals never expect to get caught.

Iraq contributed to a fund that gave money to the families of Palestinians killed by Israel. So did a lot of other countries, and Saudi Arabia contributed much more than Iraq did.

Interesting that you should say it that way: "Palestinians killed by Israel". Nothing about suicide bombers, I notice. An intriguing flaw in your usual facade of calm objectivity, Euler - Oops, I think your impartiality is slipping!
I covered the Saudi thing later in my post.

Is there any evidence to support this? And why would Iran be a haven for Saddamists when they spent many bloody years fighting against Saddam's regime?

The phrase I wrote: "Iran and Syria, havens for Al-Qa'ida operatives and former Sadaamist leaders ..", should have ended with the word 'respectively'. I apologise for the confusion.
According to Ms. Yehudit Barsky MA, Director of the Division on Middle East and International Terrorism of the American Jewish Committee, in an article published in February 2004:-
" ... This relationship has been most evident in the growing ties and cooperation between Al-Qa'ida and Hizballah and has become particularly enhanced over the past two years by Iran's providing safe haven for leaders and members of Al-Qa'ida.
Four senior leaders of Al-Qa'ida are presently believed to be in Iran: Sa'ad bin Ladin, the son of the Al Qa'ida leader; its security chief, Sayf Al-Adil, also known as Muhammad Ibrahim Makawi; the organization's spokesman, Sulayman Abu Ghayth; anf Mahfuz Uld Walid, who heads a committee within Al-Qa'ida that issues fatwas or Islamic theological rulings."
As for Sadaamist elements in Syria, the following is an extract from an article by Gary Gambill in 'The Jamestown Foundation':-
"Syria is home to a number of exiled Iraqi Baathists involved in financing and equipping operatives fighting coalition and government forces in Iraq. The "main money man," according to U.S. officials, is Fatiq Suleiman al-Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein and former officer in the Special Security Organization who fled to Syria last spring and is assumed to still be living there. [5] Fatiq al-Majid, who works closely with two of his cousins and an unknown number of associates, was reportedly the recipient of suspicious cash transfers into Syria detected by American intelligence in recent months and is suspected of using the funds to provide weapons and logistical assistance to both Zarqawi operatives and indigenous Sunni Iraqi insurgents.

Former regime elements are also active in Syrian-occupied Lebanon. American officials say that Iraq's former charge d'affaires in Beirut, Nabil Abdallah al-Janabi, remains in Lebanon and has financed the travel of foreign militants into Iraq. According to the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, the Bush administration recently confronted the Syrians with video surveillance footage of former regime elements jogging on Beirut's Ein Mreisseh seaside boulevard and dining at a restaurant in the Syrian resort town of Bloudan."

Why should we have to pay for another expensive(in economic, political, and human terms) invasion of a poor Arab country that poses no threat to us?

A direct invasion may or may not be necessary. And what poses a threat to Western democracies might not always be plainly obvious in a world of malevolent, secretive indiscriminate guerrilla warfare. There are things going on all the time which the likes of you and I will never find out.

Yes, but it is also a lot cheaper for the terrorists to fight in Iraq, and our invasion of Iraq gives a lot more people an incentive to become terrorists.

So, you want the battle back on American soil? How much did it cost to steer those planes into the WTC, I wonder?
War will always create hatred. But remember, it's the imported terrorists and the Sadaamist elements doing almost all the killing of Iraqis today. Why should that inspire Iraqis to wreak terror on us and not them? If Coalition troops accidentally kill civilians, it's because the enemy is hiding among the innocent, making it nearly impossible to tell who's who. The Iraqis aren't stupid. They can see the cynical anti-democratic brutality of the murderers.

It is apparent that the vast majority of funding for terrorist groups comes from private individuals. A war against terrorism has no chance of success while there are still large numbers of people willing to give up their live in an attempt to get revenge.

Really? What countries do they live in? If they live in theocracies, where personal accountability (except to some warlord and/or a bloodthirsty extremist mullah) doesn't exist, then perhaps we need to gradually force those countries to rein in the guilty financiers. Or do we just sit back and let the cancer continue to fungate?
What revenge are the terrorists in Iraq seeking by blowing up Iraqis or executing them? The great majority of the carnage is due to religious fanaticism or the pursuit of power - plain and simple.
Al-Qa'ida's chief operative in Iraq isn't there for revenge. Just recently he said:-
""We have declared an all-out war
on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology ... "
Euler, you've been taking onboard too much of the anti-war nonsense you're seeing on T.V., on websites, or reading in the papers.

Palomar · 2005-01-27 10:00:05

And Cindy, as CC rightly acknowledges and expands upon, you've brought up a vitally important point about politics.

*Methinks thou art too generous with thy praise, kind sir. But thank you. (I am no great political thinker...understatement).

War will always create hatred. But remember, it's the imported terrorists and the Sadaamist elements doing almost all the killing of Iraqis today. Why should that inspire Iraqis to wreak terror on us and not them? If Coalition troops accidentally kill civilians, it's because the enemy is hiding among the innocent, making it nearly impossible to tell who's who. The Iraqis aren't stupid. They can see the cynical anti-democratic brutality of the murderers.

*Indeed, the Iraqi people aren't stupid. I for one would like a clearer picture of precisely what the majority of them are thinking and perceiving without the interference of media bias and propoganda (regardless of political persuasion). But that'd require going over there myself, traveling around the nation, having trustworthy interpreters...(not very likely, understatement). And before this they suffered under Saddam Hussein. Talk about "between a rock and a hard place." :-\ I really feel for them.

--Cindy

P.S.: Does Mr. Michael Lind of the Financial Times -WANT- America to fail (in an overall, generalized sense)? I think one of the major troubles in all this is masochistic groveling. America has done wrong at times and has made mistakes (who hasn't?), but it's imperative that we try to sort out what's a genuinely justified reaction on our part in response to aggression inflicted by others versus what unpleasant consequences we might face from our own actions. It seems to me most people aren't willing to sit calmly down, take a deep breath and differentiate between the two. There's just too much knee-jerk reactionary stuff going on, all around. :-\ America is neither entirely good nor entirely evil.

BWhite · 2005-01-27 10:26:43

P.S.: Does Mr. Michael Lind of the Financial Times -WANT- America to fail (in an overall, generalized sense)? I think one of the major troubles in all this is masochistic groveling. America has done wrong at times and has made mistakes (who hasn't?), but it's imperative that we try to sort out what's a genuinely justified reaction on our part in response to aggression inflicted by others versus what unpleasant consequences we might face from our own actions. It seems to me most people aren't willing to sit calmly down, take a deep breath and differentiate between the two. There's just too much knee-jerk reactionary stuff going on, all around. :-\ America is neither entirely good nor entirely evil.

Good and evil are less important to me than the reckless imprudence of this Administration.

= = =

Suppose you are riding on a bus, and you sincerely believe the driver is racing for a cliff, and when you speak up everyone else says "shut up!" and "trust the driver!"

then,

Is it fair to say you want to go off the cliff? ???

By the way, Michael Lind is a former neo-con "conservative"

Another conservative, a member of the Reagan administration believes our current leadership is "cult like" in their refusal to face reality. Link to follow.

Edited By BWhite on 1106843298

Palomar · 2005-01-27 10:43:13

Suppose you are riding on a bus, and you sincerely believe the driver is racing for a cliff, and when you speak up everyone else says "shut up!" and "trust the driver!"
then,
Is it fair to say you want to go off the cliff? ???
By the way, Michael Lind is a former neo-con "conservative"

*Of course not. And I'm not suggesting nor implying everyone shut up and trust the driver. I'm no great giver of trust when it comes to people in power, either.

However, your analogy could be used in reference to the media. Including media sources you trust. Right?

Again:

America has done wrong at times and has made mistakes (who hasn't?), but it's imperative that we try to sort out what's a genuinely justified reaction on our part in response to aggression inflicted by others versus what unpleasant consequences we might face from our own actions. It seems to me most people aren't willing to sit calmly down, take a deep breath and differentiate between the two. There's just too much knee-jerk reactionary stuff going on, all around. :-\

And maybe Michael Lind goes to extremes. Do you know him personally? That's part of the problem here. We're "at the mercy" -- to a greater degree than I'm comfortable with -- of Talking Heads whom we don't know personally and with agendas.

It's difficult to get a clear and accurate picture, IMO; it's like trying to find a white car in a raging blizzard.

There is propoganda, bias, games, etc. all around. People get discouraged trying to keep up with it all/sort it out, which is what some folks behind the scenes want...and meanwhile the media celebs don't give a damn, so long as their mug is in the camera and they're raking in beaucoup bucks.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-27 10:45:48

Cobra says the enemy is "fundi" Islamicists.

Fair enough, I agree. So why did we push 5 million Sunni-Baath into the arms of bin Laden's recruiters?

Let's all forget this word “insurgency”. It's one of the most misleading words of all. Insurgency assumes that we had gone to Iraq and won the war and a group of disgruntled people began to operate against us and we then had to do counter-action against them. That would be an insurgency. We are fighting the people we started the war against. We are fighting the Ba'athists plus nationalists. We are fighting the very people that started -- they only choose to fight in different time spans than we want them to, in different places. We took Baghdad easily. It wasn't because be won. We took Baghdad because they pulled back and let us take it and decided to fight a war that had been pre-planned that they're very actively fighting.

In Iraq, we are fighting the remnants of Saddam's army. And there are lots of remnants, with weapons stockpiled everywhere.

= = =

Do the Iraqi people support us? Okay, let's ignore polling and media and ask this question.

How well do the Iraqis FIGHT for us? No polls or reporters needed.

If the Iraqi government can mobilize a motivated army filled with Iraqi recruits, then we can say the government has the support of the people.

If they cannot mobilize a motivated army, then public support of the government is weak.

BWhite · 2005-01-27 10:57:10

Suppose you are riding on a bus, and you sincerely believe the driver is racing for a cliff, and when you speak up everyone else says "shut up!" and "trust the driver!"
then,
Is it fair to say you want to go off the cliff? ???
By the way, Michael Lind is a former neo-con "conservative"
*Of course not. And I'm not suggesting nor implying everyone shut up and trust the driver. I'm no great giver of trust when it comes to people in power, either.
However, your analogy could be used in reference to the media. Including media sources you trust. Right?

Cindy, lets forget about media and focus on facts. Who is helping us in Iraq? With men and money?

Australia has 920 soldiers committed. 920!

If the Iraq war was such a good idea why do so few other nations agree?

= = =

Look at the global alliances being formed. Which nations are we closer to than we were in 2000?

Britain goes along with lifting the arms embargo on China.

China and India make historic breakthroughs in diplomacy.

Russia will fly Soyuz from Kouru! Imagine that in 1982. France and the Soviet Union do a deal!

Galileo simply is designed to counter US domination of space-war assets. The UK, EU, China and India are all partners. In the first true "space war" it will be the US versus everyone else!

None of these facts need to be spun.

= = =

Back to Lind's quote:

Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.
Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war.

We even are bullying Canada!

D'oh!

Edited By BWhite on 1106846376

Palomar · 2005-01-27 11:20:31

Suppose you are riding on a bus, and you sincerely believe the driver is racing for a cliff, and when you speak up everyone else says "shut up!" and "trust the driver!"
then,
Is it fair to say you want to go off the cliff? ???
By the way, Michael Lind is a former neo-con "conservative"
*Of course not. And I'm not suggesting nor implying everyone shut up and trust the driver. I'm no great giver of trust when it comes to people in power, either.
However, your analogy could be used in reference to the media. Including media sources you trust. Right?
Cindy, lets forget about media and focus on facts. Who is helping us in Iraq? With men and money?
Australia has 920 soldiers committed. 920!
If the Iraq war was such a good idea why do so few other nations agree?
= = =
Look at the global alliances being formed. Which nations are we closer to than we were in 2000?
Britain goes along with lifting the arms embargo on China.
China and India make historic breakthroughs in diplomacy.
Russia will fly Soyuz from Kouru! Imagine that in 1982. France and the Soviet Union do a deal!
Galileo simply is designed to counter US domination of space-war assets. The UK, EU, China and India are all partners. In the first true "space war" it will be the US versus everyone else!
None of these facts need to be spun.

*The majority opinion may be right.

But it isn't always right.

I don't trust human nature, especially when it comes to popularity contests and ostracization. There will always be the band-wagon hoppers, those who claim to have this-or-that viewpoint/outlook/opinion just to "stay in good" with most everyone else. What do you suppose the chances are some of these nations really don't give a damn about Iraq one way or the other, but simply put on a show of being outraged and anti-U.S. so as not to risk being ostracized themselves? No one wants to hang with the unpopular kid.

I still have my doubts about Iraq

But consider this: Immediately after 9/11 and *before* -- a solid year before, at least -- the invasion of Iraq (and prior to serious discussion about invading Iraq) some of "our allies" were saying we deserved 9/11. I was staggered by that. Why did we deserve the animosity of our so-called allies at that point in time (a year before Iraq)?

A lot of the information we get is hearsay. You're a lawyer...is hearsay evidence permitted in court?

Maybe the other nations are mostly correct about us. But I have my doubts in some areas. The high-school snubbing clique mentality isn't necessarily limited to high school and teenagers.

--Cindy

P.S.: I'm being snubbed now by at least 2 somewhat-regular non-US New Mars regulars -- who used to be friendly to me -- for not agreeing with them lock, stock and barrel on politics. See my point? Agree or be snubbed. Their problem. I try to be fair and I'm always honest in my viewpoints. I think chances are very good it's the same dynamic at work here...whether in my little life or on the global scene.

BWhite · 2005-01-27 11:26:24

Cindy, what's with this preoccupation with proof?

If Poland's President says he was "misled" that is bad for us whether or not it's true.

If Canadians are screaming "http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050124204930592]We are being bullied!" the US has a failure of diplomacy on its hands whether or not Bush actually bullied anyone.

We are losing the global PsyOps war, big time.

Yet the neo-cons think our JDAMS and B-2s and F-15s are more than enough to offset that growing defeat.

Middle finger diplomacy. Its great for raising support amongst Texan voters but bad for the nation.

When a significant percentage of Canadians think we are bullies, it's time to get a makeover - - whether deserved or not.

Palomar · 2005-01-27 11:35:29

Cindy, what's with this preoccupation with proof?

*Are you serious? ???

Without proof, what is there?

America needs to look at itself, yes. But calmly, rationally, honestly.

Maybe the Canadians are right in their belief/perception that we are bullying them. A Canadian member of New Mars pointed out to me last year (privately) some gripes Canada has against the U.S.: He provided documentation, examples, etc. I think he was correct and justified in his assertions.

But there's also the danger of cow-towing and caving in just because we're not popular.

We need to sort out -- as I mentioned previously -- when we're wrong (and why) from when we're right. But we've got chattering, screeching monkeys on both sides of the argument (the media, celebrity politicians) tossing turds and raising a ruckus.

When are we right and when are we wrong?

I don't trust the blindly loyal viewpoint (Bush can do no wrong, he is the savior, blah blah)...but I don't trust popularity contests and suckups to consensus opinion either.

Again, this is akin to trying to find that white car in a raging blizzard.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-27 11:35:44

I am leaving the building. . .

Real life will predominate probably until Monday. Carry on without me.

:band:

Palomar · 2005-01-27 11:42:23

I am leaving the building. . .
Real life will predominate probably until Monday. Carry on without me.
:band:

*Well...do I have to agree with you 100%? ???

Is this an issue with independent thought (i.e., I won't rigidly and absolutely Pick A Side and stick to it No Matter What)?

::sigh::

I thought I was being reasonable but perhaps not.

I just don't see this as a "cut and dry" issue, Bill.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-27 11:57:27

Cindy:

*Methinks thou art too generous with thy praise, kind sir. But thank you. (I am no great political thinker...understatement).

Politics not make one great.

Bill:

Good and evil are less important to me than the reckless imprudence of this Administration.

So if it were evil, but prudently so . . .

Cobra says the enemy is "fundi" Islamicists.
Fair enough, I agree. So why did we push 5 million Sunni-Baath into the arms of bin Laden's recruiters?

1) Fundie Muslims are a small minority everywhere they are found. If there was an "Islamic Theocracy of FundIslam" this would be easy.

2) We didn't push those 5 million people to bin Laden. The vast majority, whatever they may feel, aren't actively fighting.

How well do the Iraqis FIGHT for us? No polls or reporters needed.
If the Iraqi government can mobilize a motivated army filled with Iraqi recruits, then we can say the government has the support of the people.
If they cannot mobilize a motivated army, then public support of the government is weak.

They fight poorly because they still believe they're fighting for us, that's the problem. As the elected government takes over and if we position ourselves properly that can be remedied. We need to be supoorting their forces, not using them to support ours.

More generally, the Iraqi army has long been poorly equipped, badly trained and unreliable. It takes time to remedy such deep-rooted flaws.

Cindy, lets forget about media and focus on facts. Who is helping us in Iraq? With men and money?
Australia has 920 soldiers committed. 920!
If the Iraq war was such a good idea why do so few other nations agree?

Gotta jump in here. This is one of the big problems the American Left needs to work on. On the one hand we need to make gestures to our allies to get them to help, yet those that are helping somehow never give enough. "Please France, send a token battalion to help us out. Even if it's less than those no good Aussies and Brits."

WTF is that?

The enemy is directing its attacks primarily at us, we've taken upon ourselves to lead the effort to fight them and our closest allies, Britain and Australia have much smaller populations and lesser resources to bring to bear. But without us having to plead they were there and they are helping us on the ground.

If more troops truly makes the difference, we should be glad to have those 920 standing with us. If we truly need more help I'm sure those allies will be there just as we'd be there for them.

They didn't have to, but they sent troops. I for one appreciate it.

Britain goes along with lifting the arms embargo on China.

A business decision. Shortsighted, but hardly earth-shattering. America has been doing unprecedented business with China of late.

China and India make historic breakthroughs in diplomacy.

Diplomacy is war for the timid. They aren't gettin' all warm and snuggley yet, this is most likely one of those momentary shifts that happen whenever a great power starts moving. China and India have growing populations and economies and are reacting, but it doesn't mean they're putting all their differences aside to deal a blow to America. Their economic growth depends largely on America.

Russia will fly Soyuz from Kouru! Imagine that in 1982. France and the Soviet Union do a deal!

The only reason the French weren't more troublesome earlier is because of the Soviet threat. We formed the alliances of the time to counter a specific threat, it's unrealistic to expect all of those allies to remain so when that threat no longer exists.

Galileo simply is designed to counter US domination of space-war assets. The UK, EU, China and India are all partners. In the first true "space war" it will be the US versus everyone else!

Can't argue with this one. This has to played carefully.

But then I have an agenda that involves building some space-dreadnoughts.

Cindy:

Again, this is akin to trying to find that white car in a raging blizzard.

And there's big Wampas running around waiting to pummel the unwary.

Bill:

I am leaving the building. . .

Real life will predominate probably until Monday. Carry on without me.

Elvi-- er, Bill has left the building.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1106848823

Euler · 2005-01-27 15:43:06

Saddam never turned any weapons over nor did he provide verification of their destruction.

He turned a lot of weapons over immediately after he lost Gulf War I. He also provided documentation shortly before Gulf War II which claimed that all of the WMDs had been accounted for. Of coarse we should nut just trust his word, but how do you prove that something has been destroyed if it has already been destroyed? It seems that there was no way for Saddam to avoid being invaded no matter what he did.

It's reasonable to assume he was playing the same games he always had. Given that several banned (non-WMD) weapons did turn up that weren't declared we know he was hiding something.

The only banned non-WMD weapons that I remember being banned were the missiles that were slightly over maximum range limit. The Iraqis claimed that the prototype missiles were missing the guidance systems and that the extra weight of adding those would be enough to bring the missiles within the range limit. However, the Iraqis eventually allowed the inspectors to destroy the missiles anyway. Clearly Saddam was willing to stretch the limits of the treaty that was imposed on him when he surrendered, but it does not seem that he was completely disregarding them. It also seems that the inspections did succeed in significantly weakening Iraq’s military.

We didn't sell chemical weapons or any other WMD to Iraq.

The US, UK, France, Russia, etc. all saw Iran as a threat and supplied military assistance to Iraq. This included allowing US companies to sell chemical weapons to Iraq.

Your math/science is good, by the way. I can't remember whether I ever got around to saying so, but your posts on scientific topics are often a joy to read.

Thank you but…

I wonder, though, whether you, among others, are far too ready to swallow the media swill about Iraq instead of standing back and giving it a little bit of objective thought?

From my perspective it is you who is listening to the media without stopping to think. The conservative media have been saying some things over and over so much that you accept them as facts without ever looking for proof. Most of you assertions could be true, but there is not proof that they are true. The key is to treat speculation as speculation rather than as fact.

So, you want the battle back on American soil? How much did it cost to steer those planes into the WTC, I wonder?

Why not? The “normal” rate at which Americans are killed by terrorism is lower then the rate at which they are being killed in Iraq right now. More importantly, if the battle is taking place here that means that we don’t have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to support military operations on the other side of the world, and battles here do not have the negative diplomatic consequences that battles over there have.

Terrorism is a terrible reason for war. It only makes sense if the government in question is clearly supporting the terrorist groups that we are worried about, and even then it is not always compelling. The current “spreading democracy and human rights” argument makes more sense, though it sounds utopian. What we have to do is balance the spreading of democracy with realpolitik and stop using one reason to justify a war when the real reason is something else.

Diplomacy is war for the timid. They aren't gettin' all warm and snuggley yet, this is most likely one of those momentary shifts that happen whenever a great power starts moving. China and India have growing populations and economies and are reacting, but it doesn't mean they're putting all their differences aside to deal a blow to America. Their economic growth depends largely on America.

China's largest trade partner is the EU, and its second largest trade partner is Japan. India will soon have more trade with China than with the US. As these other countries start becoming more dependent on each other than on the US, we can't assume that they will side with us simply because we consume many of their products.

DonPanic · 2005-01-27 17:57:13

"Please France, send a token battalion to help us out. Even if it's less than those no good Aussies and Brits."

No sir, not as long as US manoeuvers are read as a will to take a grab on all main oil fields. Threatening Iran and not North Korea is reinforcing that traduction of the US administration acts. Would help someone to hang up yourself ?

The only reason the French weren't more troublesome earlier is because of the Soviet threat.

No sir, since the 70th, in a MAD conflict, France can sterilize Russia as well in a retaliation second strike, and knowing that Russian satellites such as Polishes and Hungarians would have sabotage Russian Army forces rather than help them, German and French army forces would have defeated a russian conventionnal offensive, a high ranked french general told me (My father was a Major in the french army, and I'm a wachtfull observer of military balance)
Each time the soviets moved more than one hundred military trucks, state of alert was given and troups sent in "exercise" motions
Remember the Russians have been defeated by the Afghans !

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-27 19:23:17

Euler:-

From my perspective it is you who is listening to the media without stopping to think. The conservative media have been saying some things over and over so much that you accept them as facts without ever looking for proof. Most of you assertions could be true, but there is not proof that they are true. The key is to treat speculation as speculation rather than as fact.

I understand and respect your viewpoint. I certainly have no monopoly on truth and I'm potentially as vulnerable to propaganda as the next person. I have to stop and evaluate the opposition to the Iraq war at frequent intervals, as a kind of self-imposed reality check, and I'm on record as saying I've been driven to doubt my position on several occasions. In the face of such violence and loss of life, together with rampant media condemnation here in Australia, not to do so would surely make me as unreasonable as some of the people I criticize!
On balance, though, my honest opinion is still that the war was and will be worthwhile, of itself and as part of a greater strategy. This is genuinely how I feel about it, for good or ill, using whatever critical judgment and experience I may have developed or gathered in the course of my life.

Treating "speculation as speculation rather than as fact" is indeed vital and you'll get no argument from me on that score.
And, as Cindy keeps on telling us, quite rightly, both sides of any public debate, especially one involving politics, will fall prey to wild speculation and outrageous assertions. As she so colourfully puts it: "But we've got chattering, screeching monkeys on both sides of the argument (the media, celebrity politicians) tossing turds and raising a ruckus." ( Lovely metaphor! :laugh: )

I feel very comfortable discussing these issues with you, Euler. I admire your logic even though it appears we've come to different conclusions.

In any event, Iraq will soon have its election, though I don't delude myself that the violence next week will be any less horrific than it was last week.
We're up against a vicious ideological malignancy, which isn't impressed by 'the will of the people' and will continue its campaign of destruction and destabilization. The difference will be the attitude of the Iraqi people themselves, when they find themselves in a democracy of their own and see clearly and definitively that their future well-being lies in their own hands.
I'm hopeful that, gradually, it will become more and more difficult for the murderers to find sanctuary among the people; that, gradually, they will be weeded out and eliminated. We'll see.

Thanks, CC, for your show of support for the Australian contribution to Iraq. As you know, I'm proud of that contribution, though I wish it were greater.
Thanks for pointing out the difference in population and economic clout between our two countries, also. America's GDP is 19.26 times greater than that of Australia, and her population some 14.25 times larger. Treating both ratios as literally mathematical factors, America is 19.26 x 14.25 = 274.46 times the world power Australia is!
On a world-power-for-world-power basis, our troop number of 920 translates into a U.S. equivalent troop number of 274 x 920, or roughly 250,000!!
[There may be a flaw in my logic here somewhere - but gee whiz, it looks damned good on paper, doesn't it?!! ]
CC:-

The enemy is directing its attacks primarily at us ...

Makes no difference to me where their primary attack is directed, we're all in this together. Secular humanist civilization itself is under attack.

Euler · 2005-01-27 20:42:48

Thanks for pointing out the difference in population and economic clout between our two countries, also. America's GDP is 19.26 times greater than that of Australia, and her population some 14.25 times larger. Treating both ratios as literally mathematical factors, America is 19.26 x 14.25 = 274.46 times the world power Australia is!
On a world-power-for-world-power basis, our troop number of 920 translates into a U.S. equivalent troop number of 274 x 920, or roughly 250,000!!
[There may be a flaw in my logic here somewhere - but gee whiz, it looks damned good on paper, doesn't it?!! ]

Isn't that total GDP, not per capita GDP? In any case, the US spends 26.25 times more on its military than Australia does, and it gets some benefits from having an economy of scale. When you look at it from that perspective Australia’s contribution is still smaller than the US's, but it is a respectable amount.

Secular humanist civilization itself is under attack.

This is true in more ways than one. Whatever you might say about Bush's foreign policy, his domestic policy is definitely not based on secular humanism.

DonPanic · 2005-01-28 08:32:57

LO

Diplomacy is war for the timid.

We have the example of http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/Louis11Fr.html]Louis the XIth, may be the greatest french king, who hatred war, because he feeled to be the king of the frenches, instead of feeling to be the king of France.
He, alike Haroun Al Rachid, the Caliph of Baghdad of the 1001 Nights, walked the streets, dressed up as a simple merchant, to see by himself the state of his people. He had a mean reputation, his court wasn't a magnificient one, because he knew the Crown money was his people's money.
Nevertheless, he transmitted to his successor a french kingdom thrice as extended as the one he inherited and much more wealthy. His main aims were to eradicate poverty, spread knowledge, industry, build safe roads and bridges.
Called by his opponents the "universal spider", he got rid of his ennemies by supporting alliances against them, this costed to the french Crown much less money and risks than a direct military involvement. His own army had no more than 1500 horsemen.
Back to Irak, with time and less money, I think that Saddam's regime could have fallen as some other dictatorial regimes this two last decades in some coup d'état or peacefull removals and that sacrificing so many innocent civilians lowes downr the military option defenders to the same level of inhumanity than saddam's.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-28 22:44:23

DonPanic, your Louis XI sounds like my kind of sovereign. :up:
Monarchies can work so well when the ruler is enlightened and good-natured. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. :bars:

.. sacrificing so many innocent civilians lowes downr the military option defenders to the same level of inhumanity than saddam's.

Gosh, I never realised my own level of inhumanity was on a par with Saddam's. But, now that I think about it, I believe you must be right. From here on, whenever I see a picture of Saddam's evil face, it'll be like looking into a mirror!

DonPanic · 2005-01-29 00:56:36

Gosh, I never realised my own level of inhumanity was on a par with Saddam's. But, now that I think about it, I believe you must be right. From here on, whenever I see a picture of Saddam's evil face, it'll be like looking into a mirror!

LO
100000 iraki lifes, a good matter to laugh at, indeed. That's the cost of that liberation war for the Irakis.

And still you say you support the military option. Right ?

Would you say that freeing Irak by war worth the death of 100000 Australians, and among them your dearest relatives, may be your children ?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-29 02:38:17

The '100,000 dead Iraqis' figure is sheer BS (Excrement du Taureau is the literal translation - please pardon the absence of the 'accent aigu' in 'excrement'). No one with half a brain, or who isn't a fully paid up member of the International Socialists, or perhaps the American Democratic Party or the Australian Labor Party, actually believes that figure.

And still you say you support the military option. Right ?

Right.

Would you say that freeing Irak by war worth the death of 100000 Australians, and among them your dearest relatives, may be your children ?

First, the figure is fantasy.
Second, if it proved necessary that 100,000 Australians should lose their lives to free Australia from the grip of a bastard like Saddam Hussein, I defy you to find any Australian who would count that cost too high. I have two sons. If they both died to free our country from such tyranny, I would be grief-stricken. (Like any parent, I would much rather it be my death than theirs.) But, at the same time, I would know that no one could have prevented them from fighting back against that kind of oppression.
I sincerely hope that the same applies to France. If not, the French are not the people I took them for.

But, as I said, the figure of 100,000 is just a left-wing daydream.

DonPanic · 2005-01-29 06:58:55

LO
No matter the number of innocent victims or of Iraqi fighters who sincerely think they fight bastard mecreant foreign invaders, there are numbers of them, and that's no soviet type "de merde" agitprop.
I'm not so interested in your own political partisanery, but in ethic and respect of human life. That's one supposed aim of that war.

I asked you a question about Iraq, not about freeing Australia from some fantasy theorical dictatorship.
Your lack of direct and plain answer let me doubtfull about the way you consider an iraki life.
About France, I can't swear that some unanimous rise against a tyranny would occur, there are numbers of ordinary heroes as well as numbers of cowards or tyranny supporters in here as everywhere (except for Australia ?), as seen during WW2.
But I swear you that if I can take the place of one of my family youngster in a vet batallion for a lethal fight, I would be a volunteer, same as you, that's an agreement point.

dickbill · 2005-01-29 09:26:33

But, as I said, the figure of 100,000 is just a left-wing daydream.

This is the article abstract below in The Lancet, where the "100 000" comes from, I believe.
I understand that you "wish" it would be different. Not that the statistics cannot be twisted, it's always possible, but there are many other studies that are consistent with high rate of civilian casualties. Note that i didn't read the original article, but my guess is that if these stats have been grossly manipulated (by the leftist of course), it will be known one day, and that will be a triumph for the pro-war people. But so far...
If you support the war, you need to look at the facts, Shaun.

Lancet. 2004 Nov 20;364(9448):1857-64.
Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey.

Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G.

Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. les@a-znet.com

BACKGROUND: In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it. METHODS: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it. FINDINGS: The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war. INTERPRETATION: Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths . We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

end of citation. From Pubmed I coulod easily retrieve all this :

: Garfield R. Related Articles, Links
Nightingale in Iraq: Understanding the scope of civilian casualties of the Iraq war is crucial to reducing further casualties, and ensuring the health of the population.
Am J Nurs. 2005 Feb;105(2):69-72. No abstract available.
PMID: 15674062 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
2: Schumm WR. Related Articles, Links
Did the defeat of Saddam Hussein reduce suicide bombing casualties and attacks in Israel? A statistical analysis.
Psychol Rep. 2004 Dec;95(3 Pt 1):831-4.
PMID: 15666913 [PubMed - in process]
3: Ramalingam T. Related Articles, Links
Extremity injuries remain a high surgical workload in a conflict zone: experiences of a British Field Hospital in Iraq, 2003.
J R Army Med Corps. 2004 Sep;150(3):187-90.
PMID: 15624410 [PubMed - in process]
4: Gawande A. Related Articles, Links
Casualties of war--military care for the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan.
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 9;351(24):2471-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 15590948 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Horton R. Related Articles, Links
The war in Iraq: civilian casualties, political responsibilities.
Lancet. 2004 Nov 20;364(9448):1831. No abstract available.
PMID: 15555648 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Lin DL, Kirk KL, Murphy KP, McHale KA, Doukas WC. Related Articles, Links
Orthopedic injuries during Operation Enduring Freedom.
Mil Med. 2004 Oct;169(10):807-9.
PMID: 15532345 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Schreiber S, Yoeli N, Paz G, Barbash GI, Varssano D, Fertel N, Hassner A, Drory M, Halpern P. Related Articles, Links
Hospital preparedness for possible nonconventional casualties: an Israeli experience.
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2004 Sep-Oct;26(5):359-66.
PMID: 15474635 [PubMed - in process]
8: McAllister PD, Blair SP, Philpott S. Related Articles, Links
Op Telic--a field mental health team in the general support medical setting.
J R Army Med Corps. 2004 Jun;150(2):107-12.
PMID: 15376414 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Rew DA, Clasper J, Kerr G. Related Articles, Links
Surgical workload from an integrated UK field hospital during the 2003 Gulf conflict.
J R Army Med Corps. 2004 Jun;150(2):99-106.
PMID: 15376413 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Ritchie EC, Owens M. Related Articles, Links
Military issues.
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2004 Sep;27(3):459-71. Review.
PMID: 15325487 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11: Kotwal RS, O'Connor KC, Johnson TR, Mosely DS, Meyer DE, Holcomb JB. Related Articles, Links
A novel pain management strategy for combat casualty care.
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Aug;44(2):121-7.
PMID: 15278083 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12: Newmark J. Related Articles, Links
The birth of nerve agent warfare: lessons from Syed Abbas Foroutan.
Neurology. 2004 May 11;62(9):1590-6.
PMID: 15136687 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13: Rice P. Related Articles, Links
Sulphur mustard injuries of the skin. Pathophysiology and management.
Toxicol Rev. 2003;22(2):111-8. Review.
PMID: 15071821 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14: Dorr RF. Related Articles, Links
Lawmakers battle for reform on many fronts.
Aerosp Am. 2003 Nov;41(11):6-8.
PMID: 14651049 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15: Vastag B. Related Articles, Links
Naval hospital ship heads for home after treating casualties of Gulf war.
JAMA. 2003 May 28;289(20):2635-6. No abstract available.
PMID: 12771097 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16: Sadda RS. Related Articles, Links
Maxillofacial war injuries during the Iraq-Iran War: an analysis of 300 cases.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003 Apr;32(2):209-14.
PMID: 12729785 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17: [No authors listed] Related Articles, Links
The casualties of war.
Lancet. 2003 Mar 29;361(9363):1065. No abstract available.
PMID: 12672303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18: Sawyer TW, Nelson P, Hill I, Conley JD, Blohm K, Davidson C, Sawyer TW. Related Articles, Links
Therapeutic effects of cooling swine skin exposed to sulfur mustard.
Mil Med. 2002 Nov;167(11):939-43.
PMID: 12448623 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19: Omran AR, Roudi F. Related Articles, Links
The Middle East population puzzle.
Popul Bull. 1993 Jul;48(1):1-40.
PMID: 12318382 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20: Romano JA Jr, King JM. Related Articles, Links
Psychological casualties resulting from chemical and biological weapons.
Mil Med. 2001 Dec;166(12 Suppl):21-2.
PMID: 11778422 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Palomar · 2005-01-29 09:56:43

Shaun: Second, if it proved necessary that 100,000 Australians should lose their lives to free Australia from the grip of a bastard like Saddam Hussein, I defy you to find any Australian who would count that cost too high. I have two sons. If they both died to free our country from such tyranny, I would be grief-stricken. (Like any parent, I would much rather it be my death than theirs.) But, at the same time, I would know that no one could have prevented them from fighting back against that kind of oppression

*And also it's not just Saddam himself the Iraqis would have suffered under; power would have passed to one of his cut-throat serial rapist thug sons.

That's not to say I think it's the West's duty to topple every evil dictator, but just pointing out a fact. And I am still hoping some WMDs turn up. :-\ I agree with Cobra Commander and Shaun AND Bill on varying points (yeah Bill, believe it or not; but your way of thinking is very different from my approach, I guess; major communication gap somewhere...). The WMD issue still troubles me and I'd feel the situation would be more overall justified if the initial claim were backed up a bit (at least).

Hopefully the elections will go well and democracy will take root in Iraq. Especially considering the cost in both lives and money.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-01-29 17:16:55

Hopefully the elections will go well and democracy will take root in Iraq. Especially considering the cost in both lives and money. --Cindy

Hi Cindy.
I'm desperately pessimistic about the way thngs will turn after the elections. Fallujah destruction by US Army (more than 60% buildings destroyed) helped by new Iraq Army forces which are mainly Shias gave to the Sunnis a deep hate at the proamerican Shias, and after the siege, Shia communuty turned to be the target for the insurgents and terrorists.
This is now a civil war.
Almost no Sunnis will vote, so this minority will not be represented in iraqi parliament, or represented by traitors to the eyes of the Sunnis.
Among the Shias, 80% want the end of occupation, and the most eager at occupation forces might ally with the Sunnis against the new government if US troops should stay.
Among the Kurds, majority want an independant state, denied by Turks, Iranians and Syrians who might ally against a kurd state, by locking fronteers to strangle it.
Antiamerican Shias and Sunnis could also ally to keep Mossul oilfields off the Kurds.
Not to speak about the relations between Iranians shias and iraqi shias.
The candidates list have been keep secret, but after the election, who can protect them against retaliations ?
Should the coalition troops stay, i'ts a mess, should the coalition troops leave, it's a mess.
Don't know if an election can erase all that mess.

.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-01-27 07:51:14

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#127 2005-01-27 08:07:25

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#128 2005-01-27 10:00:05

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#129 2005-01-27 10:26:43

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#130 2005-01-27 10:43:13

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#131 2005-01-27 10:45:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#132 2005-01-27 10:57:10

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#133 2005-01-27 11:20:31

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#134 2005-01-27 11:26:24

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#135 2005-01-27 11:35:29

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#136 2005-01-27 11:35:44

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#137 2005-01-27 11:42:23

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#138 2005-01-27 11:57:27

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#139 2005-01-27 15:43:06

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#140 2005-01-27 17:57:13

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#141 2005-01-27 19:23:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#142 2005-01-27 20:42:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#143 2005-01-28 08:32:57

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#144 2005-01-28 22:44:23

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#145 2005-01-29 00:56:36

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#146 2005-01-29 02:38:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#147 2005-01-29 06:58:55

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#148 2005-01-29 09:26:33

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#149 2005-01-29 09:56:43

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#150 2005-01-29 17:16:55

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer