Last hope for America?

[Serenity]

OT, the enemy is larger than just UBL, and it has 2 faces (one external, the other internal).

<small>[ 11-04-2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Serenity ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

I agree. Doesn't the internal one look familiar?



However, UBL's capture/killing would send a HUGE message to the terrorists in the world, almost as big as the message they're getting by his continued exsistence and relative freedom.
Even more importantly, it would give some closure to the victim's of the attacks, and their relatives and friends. Don't they deserve that?

[haggis]

"Exit polls showed Bush supporters voted for him more out of moral/domestic issues than antiterrorist concerns"

And exit polls were found to be horribly wrong, just ask Mr. Kerry. I certainly didn’t vote for Bush for anything other than National Defense; I became a “one issue” voter mid-morning, 9/11/01

OT, nothing I can say will persuade you that Iraq was necessary. I simply believe that Hussein was a supporter of terrorism. The Interim govt. has made public documents and records of his using the "oil for food" program to finance and support terrorist groups.

I read the available news and reports and arrived at my conclusions based on how much faith I invested into the individual reports.

You probably read the same information and arrived at different conclusions possibly because your faith favored reports that I might not have relied upon.

That’s how the “filters” of our minds operate and that’s why reasonable people can read the same information and yet arrived at different conclusions. Our individual life experiences shape our opinions and beliefs. I’m just glad I live in a country where we can still do so.

MIB #1 “I thought we were supposed to pick up Nicole and OT and take them to area 51?”

MIB #2 “Change of plan, that’s on hold until we move Elvis and the Aliens to Gitmo”)

You ( I assume, correct me if I’m wrong) apparently supported the war only because of WMDs and apparently feel betrayed when there weren't any; I'm sorry you feel that way.

"Our intelligence on what Saddam actually may have had was thin at best, and our leaders knew it."

which leaders? Bush? Clinton? Kerry? Kennedy?

They all believed Iraq had them and that belief was, as it appears now, to have been based on faulty intelligence.

Are you saying or implying that Bush somehow had more information to disprove the presence of WMDs but chose to ignore it?

If so, it’s impossible to disprove a conspiracy and I can’t say much more about it.

[RC]

Haggis,
So, even though Iraq is right next to Iran and supposedly had WMD, most of Europe thought war was a BAD idea. So we made a nearly unilateral decision and invaded.

NOW, you agree that Iran is probably next but you don't think BUSH is going to do it, you think Europe will handle it?

Why would Iran be any different to Europe than Saddam Hussein? And why would the rest of the world think Bush would handle it any differently than he did Iraq?

So you KINDA answered the question but kinda didn't.
What are your thoughts?

[RC]

”a furtherance of the rift between the religious right and everyone else”

Or maybe “everyone else’ will become more religious?

I've read that and re-read that and I'm still wondering if, being an "everyone else", I should be offended.

[OperaTenor]

I'm saying I listened to our leaders at the time(the Bush administration), and felt led to believe that we had pretty firm evidence Saddam had WMD's and was directly linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and al Qaeda. There was no mention of the OFF misuse as a primary reason for invading Iraq until a couple of months ago, unless I missed it, and would be glad to be corrected on it.
I had a great deal of admiration for the Bush administration from the 9/11 attacks until things started turning out to not be as they were supposed to be in Iraq.

As for OFF, there are other documents than the Duelfer(sp?) report? I don't recall anything mentioned in there about how Saddam used the money, just that he misused it.

Do you agree that nuclear weapons are the ultimate WMD? Hasn't it been a widely recognized fact that Iran and North Korea have been developing nuclear capability? Were there ever any FACTS presented with regards to Iraq's possession of nucs, let alone any other WMD's? I disticntly recall being asked to trust the Bush administration that we were on the right course in the War on Terror by invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power. I recall feeling they(the Bush administration) had a good hunch, and I was being asked to trust that their hunch would pay off in spades. It hasn't, it's extremely likely it won't, a lot of soldiers, and a lot more Iraqis have died as a result, while known developers of WMD's continue on their respective courses with relatively little interference.

And yet, the largest mass murderer of Americans in history still taunts us, and it seems no longer officially important to get closure with regards to him.

We don't even get an "oops" from Bush. Why?

I hold the Bush administration(PNAC) singularly accountable as they were the electors of the course we have taken as a nation. I'm not saying they chose to ignore intelligence/information in this case. What I'm saying is, given the logic you apply, Iraq should not have been the top of the list.

Area 51? Cool, I get to see some aliens!

[OperaTenor]

Oh yes, and another thing. Applying the logic of North Korea's neighbors dealing with North Korea, why do we have troops stationed in South Korea? Why didn't we let Iraq's neighbors deal with Iraq?

[Shapley]

OT,

As Vice President Cheney pointed out in the debates, we have U.N. resolutions that authorized the use of force if Iraq was not in compliance with them. Iraq was not in compliance with them, so we used force. The stated belief of the administration was that we did not require additional resolutions or votes to do so, under the terms of the original. However, President Bush went to the U.N., asking them to join us in the enforcement of their resolutions. Some nations did, many did not. Regardless, we employed the use of force in accordance with and as required by the resolutions passed by the U.N. President Bush stated that, if these resolutions were to have any meaning, then the use of force was necessary. In typical Euro-weenie fashion, many there simply wanted to pass another resolution. (This is what many felt would have been the Kerry approach, very remeniscent of the Carter approach.)

We do not have resolutions authorizing the use of force against either Iraq or North Korea. It is not against any enforcable law for a nation to have WMD's, but those who have signed treaties, pacts, or acts of surrender (usually after being defeated following an act of aggression perpetrated against another nation) are subject to the terms agreed to, enforced by the nations or organizations with whom they have agreed to them. Unless the U.N. prohibits their possession of WMD's, or North Korea and Iraq sign an agreement with us authorizing us to use force if they break it (doubtful), we have no real authority to act against them, unless we deem them to be a direct threat against us or our allies. For this reason, it is necessary to persue this matter diplomatically, and in conjunction with those most directly affected by these nations' pursuit of WMD's.

Currently, Israel is most threatened by the pursuit of WMD's in that region. For various reasons stated well by the administration, we have a responsibility to not leave Israel to deal with the situation alone.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 11-04-2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[haggis]

”a furtherance of the rift between the religious right and everyone else”

Or maybe “everyone else’ will become more religious?

I've read that and re-read that and I'm still wondering if, being an "everyone else", I should be offended.

Sorry RC, there was supposed to be a smiley face there as it was meant to be tongue in cheek. I’m certainly a “everybody else.” I haven’t been in a church since my sons were baptized and that was over 28 years ago!

(oops, I lied, my mother’s funeral service was in a church in 2003)

” So, even though Iraq is right next to Iran and supposedly had WMD, most of Europe thought war was a BAD idea. So we made a nearly unilateral decision and invaded.

NOW, you agree that Iran is probably next but you don't think BUSH is going to do it, you think Europe will handle it?

Why would Iran be any different to Europe than Saddam Hussein? And why would the rest of the world think Bush would handle it any differently than he did Iraq?”

No UN authorization and the possibility that Iran already has “nukes.”

We invaded Iraq because we had 15 or 16 UN resolutions authorizing the use of force and were convinced that Saddam only had “little” WMDs (gas, biological, etc) I seriously suspect we would not have done so if there was any idea that Saddam had a nuke or two.

As for Europe, what can they do? They are militarily insignificant (excluding England) morally and almost financially bankrupt. They can’t even meet their commitments to NATO. I personally don’t think that Europe will ever be player on the world’s stage again. As a group they have adopted accommodation and appeasement as their primary currency of diplomacy.

Although I do find it SOOOOO very French to learn that France is more aggressive about locking up suspected terrorist that we are.

Gitmo in France

” Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe, the French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other people deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate the proper balance between security and individual rights, France has experienced scant public dissent over tactics that would be controversial, if not illegal, in the United States and some other countries.”

I wish I could tell you what I think Bush is going to do, but other than war or fostering revolt, I don’t know what other options he has.

Revolt is still possible. I’m astonished that our mainstream media has ignored all the troubles and unrest going on in Iran including the student riots and the public execution of women and children who talk back to judges and religious leaders. There are some serious goings on there but if you don’t read the Iranian bloggers (I do) or get news from some other source than the American press, you probably won’t hear about it.

Shapley makes a better argument than I why taking action against Iran and NK would be tough.

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

Yes, we used the UN resolutions to justify our invasion. But the true purpose of the invasion was to execute a pre-emptive strike in the War on Terror, or do I have that one completely wrong as well?

If we wanted to build a case against Iran and/or North korea, we could very easily do it, given the evidence available to the entire world, and we would probably get at least some support from the UN.

Sorry, I find your second paragraph very hard to follow. There's an open parenthesis and then it's confusing.

Jim "simpleton" B.

<small>[ 11-04-2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Haggis:
We invaded Iraq because we had 15 or 16 UN resolutions authorizing the use of force and were convinced that Saddam only had “little” WMDs (gas, biological, etc) I seriously suspect we would not have done so if there was any idea that Saddam had a nuke or two.

So, we're big enough and bad enough to go after a moderate threat, but not the truly horrific threat posed by a known sponsor of international terrorism?

:confused:

And, once again, what about UBL?

[Shapley]

OT,

Sorry, I have edited it, hopefully to appear more coherent.

I had a phone call in the middle of typing it, and lost my train of thought. It still hasn't made it into the station. :confused:

I think Haggis is making the point that, if we go after nations before they have nuclear weapons, then we avoid the possibility of it escalating into a nuclear war. If, however, the nation already has nuclear weapons, we have to ensure that they will not deploy them, and therefore have to be more diplomatic. When both both you and your enemy are equally armed, it is best to be polite to your enemy.

Sun Tzu says that, in battle, you will be victorious when you know that you cannot be defeated and you know that your enemy can be defeated. Whether or not you can be defeated lies within yourself. Whether or not your enemy can be defeated lies within your enemy. When the enemy possesses the potential to defeat you (i.e., nuclear arms), then you do not possess the advantage to overpower him, and the wise man resorts to diplomacy.

V/R
Shapley

[haggis]

"So, we're big enough and bad enough to go after a moderate threat, but not the truly horrific threat posed by a known sponsor of international terrorism?"

Well, YEAH...welcome to realpolitik!!!

I think we will avoid direct confrontations while encouraging revolt. A peaceful democratic Iraq (and it really is more peaceful than you think. I get emails daily from friends there frustrated at all the negative news when more than 80% of the country is peaceful and productive) will be a large incentive to moderate Irananis.


And, once again, what about UBL?

Hey, the guy that had our rapt attention in 2001 can't even last one news cycle in 2004!

You're right, we do need to get him, but you're equally right in that he's more of a symbol now than a planner of terrorism and thus is probably not as high a priority as zawahri, who I hope and beleive is bottled up in Fallujah

I truely thought he was dead and was gobsmacked when the CIA confirmed that it was him. It's very annoying to be proven wrong by facts!

[GreatCarouser]

Originally posted by Shapley:

I think Haggis is making the point that, if we go after nations before they have nuclear weapons, then we avoid the possibility of it escalating into a nuclear war...

Am I the only one reminded of the Tom Cruise movie where they arrested murderers before the murder was committed? Why, as a student of history am I uncomfortable with the version of Pax Americana I see the PNAC'ers pushing? Why am I uncomfortable when they invoke the now holy name of Ronald (I illegally negotiated hostage release terms with a foreign regime before I was elected President and then engineered the sale of arms to middle eastern terrorists so I could fund South American terrorists. The same middle eastern terrorists who were responsible for attacks on US servicemen in Lebanon and the WTC attacks btw)Reagan?

I don't know...50 + million Americans can't be wrong can they? Where's that Kool Aid?

[GreatCarouser]

An interesting perspective:

Thomas Friedman

[shostakovich]

From Shap: "As Vice President Cheney pointed out in the debates, we have U.N. resolutions that authorized the use of force if Iraq was not in compliance with them. Iraq was not in compliance with them, so we used force."

-------------------------------------------------------
I hate to be a nag (sure I do ), but they were UN resolutions, not US resolutions. WE had no right to act without the UN, no matter what you think of them. Besides, the UN inspectors were doing just fine at the time. The oil-for-food scandal was not public knowledge at the time, so the theory that Saddam was bribing to lift sanctions had no effect on the issue , and that had nothing to do with WMD anyway.
Shos

[haggis]

Maybe some good news coming out of Iran regarding Bush's election?

"Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction on the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush's victory by calling and congratulating each other. Many were seen walking in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing a discret V sign.

Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.

As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy , those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future."

This would be, I think, a good thing to encourage.

[OperaTenor]

I recall hearing a news story some time ago(couple of years?) that the younger, more educated generation in Iran was beginning to express dissatifaction with the cleric leadership, wanting to return to more of a secular goverment.

I hope these bits of info are related.

[haggis]

Well, as I mentioned elsewhere OT, the MSM has ignored the recent student riots, the horrendous public hangings of dissidents and other human rights abuses the "Mullocracy" has engaged in.

I have several ex-pat Iranian friends who believe that a overthrow is imminent (to be honest, they've believed in the immanency since 1980)

The main Iranian blog I read is Free Iran as well as the earlier site I linked to.

I'm surprised the MSM hasn’t gotten more involved in issues such as the impending stoning of a 13 y.o. girl for getting pregnant by her 15 y.o. brother, oh, wait a minute, I meant I’m NOT surprised, MSM is ignoring Darfur as well.

” PARIS -- Almost two months after having hanged a 16 years-old girl, the ruling Iranian ayatollahs are to commit another human crime by condemning another young girl to stoning. According to Iranian and foreign press, Zhila Izadi, a 13 years old girl from the north-western city of Marivan had been condemned to death by stoning after being found that she had been pregnant from her 15 years-old brother.

The independent Iranian online newspaper “Peyke Iran” (http://www.peykeiran.com) that had first revealed the news last week reported on Saturday 16 October 2004 that the girl has given birth two weeks ago in prison.

While Zhila as been sentenced to stoning, her brother, jailed in Tehran, is to receive only 150 lashes, in accordance with Islamic laws.”

Hopefully, the increasing sentiment against the current government will lead to some changes.

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by Haggis:
Maybe some good news coming out of Iran regarding Bush's election?

"Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction on the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush's victory by calling and congratulating each other. Many were seen walking in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing a discret V sign.

Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.

As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy , those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future."

This would be, I think, a good thing to encourage.

Yes. Happy people do seem the best threat to terrorism. What power do we have to keep MrB to his word? I assume we do and Im just ignorant of it.


Haggis, I cant imagine why I'm hearing stories of riots by the religious, and of girls pregnant by incest or rape who are allowed to live long enough to give birht and then are stoned, if not from the MSM. I've heard many stories like this over the past months. What I havent heard is any stories indicatign that anyone over there is doing any thing about it - especially that "ordinary" Irani's are.

<small>[ 11-05-2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>