# The Pictures That Lost The War



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm sure most people have seen or heard about the disgusting photos of US Forces abusing Iraqi prisoners at Saddam's former death camp. This is one of the more in-depth articles covering the issue that I've seen so far and also details atrocities by British Forces that I hadn't yet heard about.

The Pictures That Lost The War - Sunday Herald

A couple of quotes:

"Grim images of American and British soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners have not only caused disgust and revulsion in the West, but could have forever lost Bush and Blair the moral high ground that they claimed to justify the invasion of Iraq."

"[US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of coalition operations in Iraq] said, ' I’d like to sit here and say that these are the only prisoner abuse cases that we’re aware of, but we know that there have been others.'"

Bush and company have already tried to spin these as very isolated incidents. But as we know from Vietnam, when you put extremely young, frightened men (and now women), into such a charged environment as a war and when they have the ultimate power of life or death over their adversaries, this type of conduct is very common. Some of the soldiers, in an attempt to speak in their own defence, have already hinted at this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

As pointed out in the "Iraq 1 not so different from Iraq 2" thread, the combination of the use of a Hussein general to command a force in Falujah, the torture of prisoners and the lack of basic human rights afforded to ordinary Iraqi people makes one wonder what the difference is between now and then. 

1. $87 billion down the (missile) tubes
2. A run on body bags. 
3. A country with no law and order.
4. The next generation of terrorists.

Surely there are cheaper and less painful ways of paying off the Halliburton execs that don't also act as recruitment drives for Al-Qaeda?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

UTBJW, I think you may be overlooking a few aspects:

1. That's $87 billion in old inventory moved, making way for the newer, higher-tech gear. Gotta keep the Military-Industrial Complex happy, y'know...
2. S'okay - they're just the dregs of society anyway... no senators' or high-society kids will be at risk. Gotta weed out the chaff, right?
3. But what an opportunity for the mercenar- *ahem* -sorry, I meant, 'civilian contractors' to expand their businesses like good little entrepreneurs!
4. Well, heck... America has to have somebody to fight in the future... see #1 for additional reason.

So sad, it's not even funny anymore...

M


----------



## The Librarian (Apr 11, 2003)

i agree with everything said here. 

of course, people like MACNUTT will just say that i'm ill-informed, taking what a liberal media tells me and running with it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't recall seeing this discussed previously in ehMac... 


> An Army official said one soldier was *convicted of murder* in the U.S. military justice system for shooting a prisoner to death in September 2003 at a detention center in Iraq, and another prisoner was killed at the Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad in November 2003 *by a private contractor* who worked as an interrogator for the CIA.
> 
> The soldier was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service but *did not serve any jail time*, the official said. The official said the soldier shot the prisoner after the prisoner had thrown rocks at the soldier, and the soldier was found to have used excessive force.
> 
> The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said because the CIA contractor was not in the U.S. military *no legal action was taken* because of lack of jurisdiction, but Army officials referred the case to the Justice Department for possible action. The official did not offer details of this killing. (Reuters)


So.... these are the cases we know about. America's armour is looking a bit tarnished these days, eh?  

M


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No doubt that this is counter productive. George W. has even gone on Arab TV to say as much.

But we need to ask ourselves the following question:

Since unspeakable torture is going on every single day, in every single jail in virtually ALL of the surrounding Arab countries...and has been, since time began...

And since FAR worse torture and humiliation went on for more than two and a half decades during the Saddam/Uday/Qusay period in Iraq...every single day...

Does this current outrage not have a slight tinge of hypocracy to it? Especially since it was limited to a small number of perpetrators and is now being actively investigated?

Does anyone here remember when the last major investigation against the torture and humiliation of prisoners was instigated in ANY of the Arab nations? At ANY time?

In Libya? Syria? Iran? Iraq?

(remember, we are talking about Arab on Arab torture and humiliation here)

No? Didn't think so.

Funny about that, eh?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Yes, Saddam carried out more (and probably worse) torture and humiliating acts on prisoners under his regime, but you're missing the point. America went into Iraq under the guise of a liberating force, and as I understand it a liberating force isn't supposed to engage in the same practices as the regime they 'liberated' the Iraqi people from.

Or, in other words, it doesn't matter that it's being investigated or how bad it was before, it just shouldn't have happened at all and there is no spin machine in the world that will be able to get around that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed! And George W. has gone on record saying as much. So has pretty much everyone else. It's out in the open and being dealt with. Right now.

So...when was the last time you heard about any outrage concerning the still ongoing Arab on Arab torture and humiliation that is going on as we speak in ALL of the surrounding islamic states?

No real answer to that one, I'll bet.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Fahrenheit 9/11 will provide you with the answers Macnutt since it outlines the rather cosy relationship between the Saudi Royal family and the current US administration.

But its Malcolm Moore and he always twists the truth doesn't he....?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*It's out in the open and being dealt with.*

You miss the point (or you're avoiding it). It doesn't matter that it's being investigated, it doesn't matter that Bush has been on Arab TV and said "it's not the way we do things." The US went into Iraq under the guise of freeing the people, and now it's out (with photos for cripes sake) that they really aren't any better.

It doesn't matter how many people say "we're not normally like that", the damage is done and there isn't going to be any undoing it.

It doesn't matter how bad it is in other countries, America is supposed to be better than that, remember?

*But its [Michael] Moore and he always twists the truth doesn't he....?*

No, not always, but just often enough to throw a shadow of doubt on his credibility.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Used to be.... Micheal Moore has admitted to The Independent that he lied about Disney refusing to distribute Farnheit 911. Turns out Moore was crying censorship to drum up publicity and perhaps win some hearts and minds at Cannes. 

Not that there will be many minds to win over at Cannes. But that's besides the point. 

I'm going with Macnutt on this one. Yep US soldiers did bad things, and they will pay for it.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Huh? Regardless of whether Moore's film is being held up by shenanigans at Disney, the point is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is all about the cosy relationship between Bush and the Saudi Royals.  Macnutt pointed out that there hasn't been an uproar against these people for torturing prisoners and that the US Forces are held to a higher standard. Why hasn't Bush condemned the Saudi's??

1. Bush was/is close to the Saudi ruling families that includes members of the bin-Laden clan. Members of the family were gathered together by jet and spirited away from the US the week after 9/11 despite there being a widescale ban on flights. There's a lot more factually backed up evidence on this hypocrisy in Moores book, "Dude, Where's my Country?"

2. Yes, the US troops should be held to a higher standard. The continual revelations of abuse of Iraqis at the hands of US forces is a disaster in terms of confidence and is being used as evidence by the insurgents that the Americans are no better than the regime they deposed. While this is clearly false and the actions the result of "a few bad men", the message is clear to a people who see the US troops as an occupying force that has failed to deliver on its promises.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

More pictures of humiliation have surfaced. I wonder if Rumsfeld will have to fall on his sword? That would at least be one good outcome. The other might be that the troops on the ground refrain from future incidents.

Yet another glaring example of why unleasing a war machine should be an act of last resort. When you order people into the line of fire, their reactions, values and perspectives change. But George W. Bush wouldn't exactly know that; how could he? That's what is so dangerous about this President. His only experience of the horrors of war prior to taking office were movies and the Texas National Air Defense but he acts as though he has combat experience.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes JIm..it looks as if Rumsfeld will "fall on his sword" right about now. He is already being positioned as the guy who didn't tell the upper management about this flagrant abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a timely fashion and he will be canned for that particular gaffe. Probably sooner, rather than later.

Nonetheless, I should still like to point out that the abuse seems to have been a very small scale event that was perpetrated by a handful of seriously p**sed off US troops who were darned tired of the hit and run tactics that had cost them so many of their fellow soldiers.

In a country that they had just liberated from an evil tyrant, no less.

Does anyone here think that this sort of thing is NOT going on in every single country that surrounds Iraq right now? And on a MUCH larger scale?

So why isn't there any outcry about THAT?

Why aren't there any outraged voices demanding that it STOP? Post haste?!?

Why aren't there any ongoing investigations about THIS long term and systemic torture and humiliation?

If the US succeeds in turning Iraq into a free democracy, then several other countries in the area will soon follow. This sort of abuse will be exposed for what it is and will be stopped by public outcry in each country as it becomes a self-determining state.

But if the present outrage against a small handful of American soldiers blossoms into a full scale pullout from Iraq before it can become a self-determining state...then NONE of this will ever come to pass.

And tens of thousands of Arab prisoners will continue to suffer at the hands of their torturers for countless years to come. Just as they have done for countless years past.

Perhaps we should focus our outrage where it can do the most good, instead of getting upset about a tiny and unfortunate incident. One that is being dealt with as we speak.

If you look at an elephant through a magnifying glass from two inches away, you'll see some pretty shocking stuff. But you'll never be able to get a clear picture of the beast until you step back and take a good hard look at the whole thing.

THEN...and only then...can you really begin to deal with it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*the abuse seems to have been a very small scale event that was perpetrated by a handful of seriously p**sed off US troops who were darned tired of the hit and run tactics that had cost them so many of their fellow soldiers.*

How, pray tell, does this make it excusable? It barely makes it understandable.

*In a country that they had just liberated from an evil tyrant, no less.*

Did anyone ever stop and think that while I bet most Iraqis were unhappy under the rule of Saddam, maybe they didn't want the US's help to get rid of him?

Think about this for a second, the US has a great amount of national pride because they literally forged their own nation. They rose up against the English and kicked them out of their country, then wrote their own constitution. 

Do you think that if the French had taked it upon themselves to liberate the American, had come over and invaded, written their constitution for them and just gave it to them, that the US would have the same degree of national pride? No, probably not. 

I bet that there is a lot of resentment among the Iraqi community because they would like to do things themselves. If the US was doing things differently (like, say, giving the Iraqi people a more active role in rebuilding) then maybe things would be playing out differently.

*Does anyone here think that this sort of thing is NOT going on in every single country that surrounds Iraq right now? [...] So why isn't there any outcry about THAT?*

You see, no one is denying that there is probably torture going on in these countries nor that it's terrible, but you're still using it to deflect discussion from the point. I'm sure there is outcry from the UN, from Amnesty International and others (though probably not enough), but the point we're talking about here is that US troops have tortured and humiliated Iraqi prisoners, an act which their invasion was supposed to put and end to.

Put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes and think for a second, how would you feel about that?

It doesn't matter how many times Bush apologizes or how many people say "that's not what we're really like", it's just given the Iraqi's another excuse to resent or hate Americans, and I can't see any way of undoing that damage.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually PB, the French DID spend a great deal of time and money to help liberate the Americans from the British. They were considered to be instrumental in that particular struggle. 

But, like any true liberating force, they turned the whole thing over to the liberated. No strings attached. Just as the Americans did for Japan and Germany after WW2. 

Which is what the US will do for Iraq, once it is flying straight and true. This will end all of the torture and horror that was such a big part of the former Baathist regime. It will also be a very strong draw for the populations who live under the other despotic tyrannies in the area...and, eventually, THEY will have to succumb to the will of their people. Freedom and self determination will become the norm, not the exception, in the whole region.

THAT'S when the maiming and torture of tens of thousands will stop. Not before.

Don't concentrate on a pothole in the road when there is a giant festering mile-wide crater just over the horizon.

One that isn't being dealt with. Or even acknowleged.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW...

The United Nations council on Human Rights...which _SHOULD_ be the watchdog group who looks out for this sort of thing...is currently dominated by some of the worst human rights offenders on the planet. The just voted Sudan onto the council. Despite the fact that Sudan is ruled by African Arabs who are currently in the process of murdering all of the balck Africans who live in that country. They are busily wiping out whole villages and murdering everyone who lived in them. They are poisoning wells and destroying farms as we speak. It's large scale ethnic cleansing at its very worst.

But you won't hear much about it. You won't hear anything about it from the UN Council on Human Rights at all. Because, like the ongoing torture and death that is going on in the jails of the middle east, the guys who are running the "Human Rights Council" are ALSO the ones who are comitting these crimes. And the rest of the politicaly correct toadies don't want to rock the boat. Or have been bought off.

The inmates are running the asylum. The UN is a powerless gridlocked parody of what it once was. The bad guys are in charge.

Time to make a change in all of this.

THAT is where you should focus your outrage.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Actually PB, the French DID spend a great deal of time and money to help liberate the Americans from the British. They were considered to be instrumental in that particular struggle. *

Yes, they were there to help at the request of the Americans. They didn't join the war until just over two years after it started (war started 1775, French alliance forged 1778), and all the major, decisive victories were won by American commanders and fought by American soldiers.

They were a big help but they weren't a "liberating force" and they didn't turn anything over at the end of the war; the Americans fought for and won their country. Besides that though, you're avoiding the question _and_ the point.

You keep talking about the big picture but you're not seeing it yourself. This isn't a pothole, is a friggin' crater. The US, above all else, needs the support of the Iraqi people if they are going to get the country flying straight and true. Incidents like this are major set backs, not minor glitches, because to the people of Iraq the troops in their country are America, they represent who Americans are and how they act. So when US troops torture and humiliate Iraqis, Iraqis start thinking that the US isn't much better than Saddam. 

Torture in the rest of the middle east (and the world) is a bad thing, but you're just using it to deflect attention from the point. maybe you should apply to be part of Bush's spin team, they haven't touched on this one yet. Then again, they realize that this is a big deal and attention isn't going to be so easily deflected.

Bush hasn't even directly apologized yet, only expressed his disgust (which to be fair, is a very good thing). If someone would just apologize, it might help a lot. Of course, that would mean claiming some kind of responsibility and this is an election year. Too bad!

Bush's appearances on TV thus far have basically been sounding like "just because torturing people is something we did, doesn't mean that it's something we would do."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay. Fair enough. This is a VERY BAD THING. I happen to agree with you on that.

So does pretty much everybody. Including President Bush.

So what do you want to do next?

Do we all get so outraged that the US is publicly shamed into pulling out of Iraq? Before the Iraqis can manage to run things on their own? Would things get better then? Or would they go back to the way they were, with a brand new despot in charge?

Would that end any further torture? Or would there be a serious increase in torture, once the Americans were gone?

What we have here is a small group of a dozen or so American soldiers who got rather carried away when they were in charge of some prisoners. Just the same way that every invading army has all down through history. Including the Canadian Airborne in Somalia a few years back. Surely you remeber THAT scandal.

The difference here is in size and scope. And in the fact that the small and ugly incidents that OUR people do are most often found out and the people prosecuted.

The tens of thousands who suffer horribly at the hands of their captors every single day in the rest of the region are not mentioned. And their tormentors are never brought to justice. Or even identified.

This has been going on for ages and ages. it will NEVER stop unless we fundamentally change the whole region by removing the despots and allowing the people of these countries to have a free and fair say in their own destiny. For the very first time in history.

That process is ongoing as we speak. For the very first time in history. Do you wish to stop this process because of the reprehensible actions of a handful of people?

If so...why? Please explain in detail.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

NBiBooker, here's the link to the Independent article with the CNN admission by Michael Moore. Unfortunate publicity stunt which won't help his credibility but will probably push F9/11 into the headlines and box office.

At least he didn't flash his boob


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt: "This has been going on for ages and ages. it will NEVER stop unless we fundamentally change the whole region by removing the despots and allowing the people of these countries to have a free and fair say in their own destiny. For the very first time in history."

That is precisely what the rest of the civilized world is afraid of. The US "intervention" in Iraq has had the opposite effect to its intent. It has fanned the flames in an incendiary region. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has stepped up to new levels of violence. The heavy, indeed brutal, handedness of the US has created far more enemies than friends in the region. How can we be so arrogant to assume that our Western democracy is wanted by these people? They are told they will be able to self-govern but only under certain conditions that prevent fundamental Muslim theocracy. It's as futile as George Bush trying to convert Muslims into evangelical Christians.

We have absolutely no right to "fundamentally change the region" just as they have no right to dick around with our affairs. And I thought you were against social engineering!

The Middle East is simply seen by the West as a bothersome sandpit with rich oil reserves ruled by people who have the audacity to try to screw us out of our money to fuel our energy habits. Converting the region into a giant gas station run by the US military that sets its own prices would make life so much easier for us..... And you are saying this is about human rights violations in the Middle East?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

It is quite clear that this is not "small-scale" stuff to quote Macnutt. 

Yes, it is small compared to Saddam's sins, but he had decades to compile his record. The Americans have only had a year.

It is also quite clear it is not a dozen or so soldiers frustrated by small-scale attacks. This includes personnel brought over to staff the prisons and personnel from several intelligence agencies, including private contractors.

It is also abundantly clear that while the current revelations focus on Abu Ghraib, similar incidents have been reported and are being investigated about other detention centres.

If one views this from the Iraqi, Arab or Muslim, point of view, it seems evident the Americans are no better than Saddam or any other Arab or Muslim government and are true occupiers, not liberators, in Iraq.

Attempts to minimize both the size of the problem and its impact are truely symptomatic of the Neo-Cons who subscribe to the domino theory of democracy. It was horse droppings when applied to communism in Southeast Asia and it's still horse droppings when applied to democracy in the Middle East.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It appears that the humiliation techniques were standard procedure (and have now been "revised").

"A Wall Street Journal reporter who was granted a rare visit to the facility noted that recruits are taught 30 interrogation techniques, many of them based on shame and humiliation.

The trainees are taught "to prey on a prisoner's ethnic stereotypes, sexual urges and religious prejudices, his fear for his family's safety or his resentment of his fellows," the reporter wrote after reading their training manual.

Yesterday, military officials in Iraq announced that they would be outlawing as many as 10 of those techniques, some of which were presumably being employed during the incidents photographed at Abu Ghraib."

This doesn't sound at all like the actions of a few isolated individuals. To top it off, Donald Rumsfeld is attempting to suppress even more evidence of abuse:

"There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist. If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact," he told a Senate hearing. "I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe."

Yes Donald, unbelievable!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*it will NEVER stop unless we fundamentally change the whole region by removing the despots and allowing the people of these countries to have a free and fair say in their own destiny.*

See, getting rid of the despots is good, but the second half of our sentence is the part of the equation that isn't being followed up on.

At the moment the Iraqis are being dictated to by Americans. After June 30th they'll still be being dictated to, just by UN appointed foreigners instead of US appointed ones.

If someone would just apologize it would probably do a lot to show Iraqis that the Americans are indeed good people, but all they've got so far is a bunch of soldiers who tortured them and a bunch of politicians and diplomats saying "it's very bad." (note, no one is actually saying it's their fault.

All of this hardly means pulling out, that's a little extreme (though it fits with you usual "if you don't support the Americans you support saddam/the terrorists.etc" argument).

What the US needs to do is work with the Iraqi people. Maybe ask them what they want for a change. Maybe give them a say in what's happening in their own country for a change. Until that happens the Iraqis are just going to keep seeing the US as just another dictator with just another torture crew.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

According to everything that George W. has been saying for almost a year now, the Iraqi people will be given TOTAL say in their own affairs as of June 30th. He is sticking to this timetable, even though a lot of people (me included) think it's a bit too early.

As for "somebody apologizing" about it...

George W. went on Arab Television and publicly apologised to the Arab world about this specific incident. He called it appalling and abhorrent (which it was). He said the people involved will be prosecuted and punished. And they WILL be.

And today, Donald Rumsfeld spent several hours before a Congressional Inquiry publicly taking full responsibility for the actions of the troops under his command. His career is almost certainly over because of this incident.

Too bad our current Canadian Government officials are not nearly as honorable as that. The Federal Liberals are not willing to take public reponsibility for their criminal behavior, unlike their American counterparts. If they did, it might be a nice change from the finger pointing and buck passing that we have been seeing in OUR major scandal lately, eh?  

As for JWoodgets comments about "perhaps the Arabs don't WANT a western style free democracy? Who are WE to force freedom upon them?"

Sorry, Jim...heard all that before.For YEARS I was told that the people of the Soviet Union had no desire for western style freedom. And some of my left-leaning buddies actually opined that "much of South America is better off without a free vote or any real sort of democracy. They have a different culture, after all"

Pure crap of course, but the misconception still has some momentum amongst the leftish types. Yet another tiresome and stale bit of dogmatic drivel left over from the sixties mindset. ("hey man! They've got a BETTER way!! It's just...like..._DIFFERENT_ from ours, ya know? Hey man...pass me that roachclip while you're over there by the beanbag chair, okay?")

Besides....the savagery and violence that has been a part of the middle east for so long was beginning to spill out onto the rest of us. The only way to put an end to this is to inflict democracy and freedom of choiceon the whole area. Then they can decide for themselves whether or not they want to continue to export their violent tendencies. Instead of being told to do so by some tin pot unelected tyrant who has a grudge against the unelected tyrant who runs the show two countries over from them.

Given the fact that free democracies are not terribly prone to making war on anyone (too busy making mortgage payments and picking up the kids from school while planning the next vacation to bother with blowing themselves up in crowded places, I'd guess) then we should see a cessation of hostilities from this formerly violent region.

The Arabs want freedom just the same as anyone else. Once they finally have it, then they and we will all be a LOT better off.

Trust me on this.

[ May 08, 2004, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

MacNutt is so right. Look, people, give it up. this is just a tiny, insignificant blemish on the superhighway to democracy. Instead of whining get out some tar and cover it up! I mean what's a little torture between future friends? Let's not make a big thing out of it. Iraqis must understand freedom has a price - and if you don't have money, well, then you get smacked around. Strictly routine. Everyone knows that.

After they've paid the price for freedom then we'll see about opening up the market on human rights - but one thing at a time eh? And although torture is against the American constitution and international law and all that crap - every army does it, so what's the big deal? and even though American leadership is denouncing these acts - turns out the soldiers were actually following instructions and policy as laid out in the US military prisoner interrogation guide book. So they were just doing their jobs. C'mon, cut them some slack! 

I'm sure the Iraqis understand all that - along with all that colateral damage - homes destroyed and loved ones maimed or killed. Whatever, no biggy - let's move on folks! Look on the bright side. These people are FREE. Free to vote for president A or president B. Free shop at Walmart. Free to get swank jobs sweeping the floors in some shiny new theme park or multi-national corporate ediface, the freedom and choices are endless. They may even entertain another attractive prospect put forth to Americans with similar "market value" - "join the marines and see the world"... and kick it's world-wide BUT! WOO WOO!!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*George W. has been saying for almost a year now, the Iraqi people will be given TOTAL say in their own affairs as of June 30th.*

Actually, Bremer announced the June 30th deadline in December, and as to the Iraqis getting total say, perhaps you haven't read the news.

<blockquote>
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=1819138 (Associated Press)

Baghdad, Iraq-AP -- Iraq's caretaker government is due to take power on June 30th. However, members of the U-S-backed Governing Council says the government won't have real sovereignty, as promised, for months after that.

Mahmoud Othman says security will still be handled by American forces. He also says there will be limits on what laws the Iraqis will be allowed to pass.</blockquote>

Doesn't really sound like total sovereignty to me, but I'll agree that it's better than what's been going on since the war ended a year ago. Oh, yeah, remember? The war ended a just over a year ago. Mission accomplished and all that.

*George W. went on Arab Television and publicly apologised to the Arab world about this specific incident.*

Did he apologize? All I heard was the sympathizing. Though since I last read the news, Rumsfeld has indeed apologized:

<blockquote>
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040507.wrums8/BNStory/Front/

A contrite Donald Rumsfeld apologized yesterday to Iraqi prisoners abused by their American captors, and warned that the outrage will worsen if other images of the actions of U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison become public.

"There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist," the U.S. Defence Secretary told the Senate armed services committee. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact.

"I mean, I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe," he continued glumly, without going into detail.

Mr. Rumsfeld did not duck responsibility for the scandal, but rejected widespread calls to resign. "Needless to say, if I thought I could not be effective, I would resign in a minute," the Pentagon chief said, adding that he will not quit "simply because people try to make a political issue out of it.</blockquote>

*The Arabs want freedom just the same as anyone else.*

I bet they do! "Freedom" and "western style democracy" do not necessarily have to go hand in hand though, and who are we the Americans to force anything on anyone?

*Given the fact that free democracies are not terribly prone to making war on anyone*

The US averages a major war every 20 odd years. I'd say that's pretty prone.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Update:

Apparently, some of the people doing the torturing were using the photos as screen savers on their computers.

<blockquote>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/08/torture/index.html, via boingboing.

"I first knew that they were taking pictures when I saw that one of the computers had a picture of some prisoners as its desktop background. One of the prisoners had a black hood over his head and he was covered in cold water. I personally witnessed this event take place. The man was screaming, "I'm innocent!" until he got sick and his body got swollen from all the punishment," al Baz said.
</blockquote>

Wow. Not sure what else to say.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*Given the fact that free democracies are not terribly prone to making war on anyone*

Amen! - could you be any more right? I mean. like, take America - the greatest of all "free democracies". They have only invaded a couple dozen countries since WW2. Well - MAJOR invasions - who's got time to count the hundreds of minor interventions. In any case, hardly worth worrying about. And only a few million civilian casualties - pah! Give em freedom or give em death! preferably both!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A major war every twenty years or so? More like stepping in to fix a big problem, I'd say. Or hadn't you noticed how darned sucessful and modern South Korea is these days? Especially compared to North Korea. At one point in the early fifties, North Korea had invaded all but a tiny sliver of the Korean peninsula....and we can safely assume that if the US hadn't stepped in and chased them back...that the whole place would now be locked into the same sort of grinding despair that the unfortunate North Koreans are currently suffering under.

The US involvement in the World War with Japan and Germany was reluctant, to say the least. The end results have been better than anyone could have ever hoped for. Especially for the Japanese and Germans themselves.

Viet Nam is a different case. But we should also note that it too is rapidly changing into a replica of its former mortal enemy. America lost that particular battle, but the American system seems to be winning the war in Viet Nam after all. Free market capitalism is an unstoppable force, it would seem...and the Americans are the past masters at this system.

The next big conflict that was resolved didn't require a single shot fired in anger. The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of communism as a real viable alternative political system. Once the citizens of the former Soviet Union were given a chance to vote, they soundly rejected communism and everything that went with it. They continue to do so to this very day, more than a decade later.

Funny about that, eh? 









The first Iraq war came next...and it was a resounding sucess with a shockingly small body count compared to previous conflicts of that size from ANY era. The only thing wrong was that the US forces stopped short of removing Saddam. This left an unresolved festering problem which we are now forced to deal with in the second Iraq war.

How this one will turn out is a question mark right now. Personaly, I think it will end up with all of us being better off. Especially the whole of the Arab world.

Only time will tell.

So...this takes care of pretty much every major conflict that the US has been involved with for the last seventy years or so. And I've just GOTTA Ask....

Did the US actually START any of these wars? Or did they step in to an ongoing problem and try to stop it? Were they sucessful most of the time? Or did they fail miserably most of the time?

Which of them would you prefer that the States had stayed out of...and where would we be right now if they had?

Awaiting you well considered reply.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*Which of them would you prefer that the States had stayed out of...and where would we be right now if they had?*

Right on, MacNutt. Where would we be without the following righteous democratic interventions?

IRAN/l953/Covert/CIA overthrows democratically elected socialist premier, installs Shah as dictator. 

VIETNAM/l960-75/troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats/Fought South Vietnamese revolt & North Vietnam during the Vietnamese civil war; over two million Vietnamese casualties in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969. 

PANAMA/l964/America sends troops. Panamanians shot for urging canal's return. 

INDONESIA/l965/Covert/One million-plus killed in CIA-assisted army coup. CIA provides assassination lists to military, plus weapons. 

CAMBODIA/l969-75/Bombing, troops, naval/Up to 2 million killed in decade during/after U.S. invasion of Cambodia and bombing, starvation, and political chaos. 

CHILE/1973/Covert/CIA funds and backs coup ousts democratically-elected Marxist president and installs brutal military dictatorship. 

GRENADA/l983-84/troops, bombing/Invasion four years after socialist revolution. U.S. installs puppet government. 

PANAMA/1989-?/troops, bombing/Nationalist government ousted by invasion. U.S. installs puppet government and refuses to hold new elections. 

Democracy and freedom for everyone - yeah!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Glad to see that you have seen the light, vacuvox!   

Panama, Grenada, and VietNam are all on the path to better things these days. Indonesia is already largely there...but they will have to get a handle on their violent and murderous Islamic minority before they begin to move forward again.

Iran is currently in a state of political flux right now. The Iranian students are regularly rioting and demanding democracy with loud voices. By the tens of thousands. The tired old mullahs who hold power have answered this cry for freedom by declaring all of the reformist candidates in their parliament unfit to serve and unelectable.

It's only a matter of time until reality prevails in that country as well. Just as it has done in so very many other former dictatorships all over the world.

You get three choices as to what famous country they will use as the model for their brand new democracy. And the first two don't count.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*At one point in the early fifties, North Korea had invaded all but a tiny sliver of the Korean peninsula....and we can safely assume that if the US hadn't stepped in and chased them back...that the whole place would now be locked into the same sort of grinding despair*

Er... Absolutely... but maybe if United States had just left South Korea alone - instead of installing a puppet western-style government to replace the Japanese occupation that preceded them, and to establish a toe-hold on the continent of Asia, then Korea in all likelihood would not have been so unfortunately vivisected - and millions of people need not have been slaughtered and subjected to the other horrors of war. A war that came perilously close to a nuclear war - MacArthur campaigned vigourously to carpet-nuke the northern border of North Korea in order to keep the Chinese army out of Korea. YA! Let's face it - some ideas suck - and some places could have used a little less American "help".

But they do some good stuff too and I do not disagree that America has an important and noble role to play in world affairs. But, like most intelligent life on this planet, I have concluded they are not quite living up to this ideal. The current leadership, for example, are doing to the Geneva Convention -and even to the American Constitution- precisely what those prison guards were doing to their Iraqi captives. I'd like to see Rumsfeld apologise for that! Um - sorry for raping the constitution! uh sorry for making interntional law my b*tch! Really - I'm sorry! oh - but... what? No... I won't resign. yes - bite me. Next question?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If the US had left South Korea alone when the North invaded and started killing and pillaging everything in sight, then the whole peninsula would now be in the same state that North Korea finds itself in.

Total desperation and near starvation. Actual full blown systemic starvation, really. With NO hope for the future. It's NOT going to get any better for them until the "exhalted leader" dies or is snuffed by his own people.

Which might be what almost happened a few weeks back. His train had passed through the area where the major explosion occurred just a few hours before.

A coincidence? Perhaps.....but it's gotta make you wonder, eh?

The South Koreans live in a world that is not much different than our own. The North Koreans subsist in a grimy polluted horror that is worse than Orwell ever imagined. On his WORST day.

Soon enough, Kim Jong Il will be in jail or dead and the two countries will be reunited. Want to guess which system will be adopted by the newly melded greater Korea? Will it be some sort of socialist "workers paradise" or will it be modeled on the American democratic example?

Bit of a no brainer, really.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Did the US actually START any of these wars?*

They only joined WW2 because they were attacked. (they didn't really want to get involved, remember?)
They went to South Korea at the behest of the UN. Yes, the Korean War was a UN action.
They went to Vietnam to halt the spread of communism, domino theory and all that.
They only went to Iraq (the first time) after Kuwait was invaded AND there was outcry from their allies. (They seemed fine with it at first, if I recall).
They went to Iraq (the second time) for reasons that later proved to be false.

So no, they didn't really start most of these conflicts, but I wouldn't call any of them "stepping in to solve an ongoing problem", that sounds just a little too much like a cavalry call. 

There are lots of details about all of these wars that could be expounded upon further (like the preventing the elections that the Geneva conference promised the South Vietnamese, or the fact that the Korean war ended in more of a stalemate than a victory), but I'd be up until 2am tomorrow morning, longer if we went back further in time.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Still, you have managed to answer many of my questions. And provided a rebuttal to some of your own accusations. Most of them, really.

Especially when you look at the end results of American intervention in all of these conflicts.   

Go to the head of the class. 

And give yourself a special commendation for being honest about the subject. My complements.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Whoops! - didn't realize this was a classroom. thought it was a brawl actually - but thanks for all the great lectures! Its been swell and I have much more hope for humanity now. This is just going to be great with America taking care of business and running the world their way for a change. It's about time that old-fashioned international law thingy was re-written anyway, and who better to establish the rules for global trade, take care of the environment - and all that other mundane crap? I mean, really. I'm breaking into a sweat just thinking about it! I'm just glad there's a man like George Bush with the vision, discipline, scope and infulence to kick but and stay the course. Meanwhile we can relax and bust out the beer, dude! Go Flames! WOO!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The simple fact of life is that there has always been one country that was more powerful than all the rest. Rome, Spain, France, Britain and the US have all been superpowers during certain eras. Militarily and economically (they most often go together, BTW) Each reshaped the world we live in and influenced every other country in a big way. This is the historical reality.

Personally, I'd rather have the US as the big guy on the block right now. Imagine what an interesting and different world we'd have if the Soviet Union, or China, or Germany were the dominant force on the planet at this point in time. 

Think about it.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Getting in late here so, unfortunately, I missed several chances to lambaste MacNutt.  

Mac nutt, you're probably aware of this but the US will make you very happy for the foreseeable future. It's now official US policy to ensure that no other country on Earth will ever be in a position to challenge its supremacy. Interesting how a democracy turns into an empire. Hey, remember the Athenians and their attempt at empire?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, your excuses for the belligerence of the US in bullying world affairs as they see fit is, basically, laughable. The only thing in common with the various adventures of the US military is a short-term gain for US interests. You also conveniently omit a variety of significant events (such as the sponsorship of the overthrow of various left-wing, elected governments in South America, the Contra affair, etc.).

Unfortunately you are not alone in thinking that the US can do no wrong. The US politicians and military brass hold the same view. It's not all bad and the US has played important roles in a succession of world arenas but the trigger-happy nature of Washington to send in the troops tends to cause over-reaction and leaves a legacy of resentment in the arenas in which the bullet casings are strewn over the landscape.

I also find it an incredibly arrogant view that the only acceptable political solution is Western-style democracy. Unfortunately, the behaviour of the US since the 1950's has demonstrated to a significant proportion of the world that such democracy is a long way from the ideal. Indeed, the degree of poverty, inequity and social unrest in the worlds richest nation is an embarrassment to all democratic countries.

It's no wonder that the USA has refused to be a signatory to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*look at the end results of American intervention in all of these conflicts.*

The US won the second world war, but it took a devastating surprise attack to get them into the war. I'd say that speaks volumes.

Korea ended in a stalemate. South Korea is doing well compared to North Korea, but if the war had never happened, things would probably be the same as they are today, except the peace would be a little more uneasy than it already is.

The Vietnam peace agreement was signed in early 1973, and the Americans started leaving. By January 1974 the war had started again, and just as the last American forces were leaving Vietnam in 1975 Saigon fell to the communist forces. When North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin accepted the south's surrender a day later he said:
<blockquote>"You have nothing to fear; between Vietnamese there are no victors and no vanquished. Only the Americans have been defeated."</blockquote>
The first Iraq war ended with Saddam out of Kuwait and with serious losses to his military, but he was still in place as leader, and continued to ignore sanctions, violate human rights and what-have-you.

The current Iraqi conflict is far from over, and the US is in the middle of a big relations problem: they've been caught red-handed doing things they were supposed to stop. Rumsfeld apologized and I'm sure that'll eventually help, but this is going to be hard to get out of Iraqi minds.

Out of all these conflicts I'd say that, with the important exception of Korea, they were started almost solely out of self interests and the outcomes vary pretty greatly.

*Go to the head of the class.*

I just don't know what to think of this statement.

*And give yourself a special commendation for being honest about the subject*

I do my best to remain as objective as possible. Would you say you do the same?


----------



## george.. (Jun 16, 2003)

A friend of mine that works for the Toronto Star just got back from Baghdad. This person (who shall remain anonymous) mentioned that they saw photos of a Canadian soldier pulling out the brains and bones from the back of a dead Iraqi's head. I was told other grotesque accounts as well. It's deteriorating in Iraq faster then the press is allowed to show.

The sh!t is about to hit the fan in this country's military too.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

... and this is what the anti-war argument has been all along. War is hell - soliers are indoctrinated killers - I know, I've been to boot camp. None of this is at all surprising - what do we expect? there is no such thing as a "clean war" or "clear victory". Brutality, trauma and suffering are inevitable (on all sides) and foster resentment, distrust, hate - and sooner or later - more war. The idea of bringing democracy to people by invading their country is just plain insanity. Or good business. But hey, it's not too cynical to assume that the big players in the war industry would be interested in sustained market growth. Is it?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Seems we're not the only country with crazy senators.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Speachless


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

The Abu Ghraib affair represents the final erosion of what was the last cogent argument left to rationalize why the US invaded Iraq: moral authority. 

Having flipped through some of the points covered in this thread so far, it's painfully clear that those who were (and jaw-droppingly enough, still are) in favour of invasion/occupation have little left to defend themselves with. Nothing left but empty rhetoric and morally relativistic smokescreens. No WMDs, no worldwide coalition in-country, and now the veil of moral authority pulled away to reveal a sickening, yet systemic and intentional abuse of prisoners of war. 

I would encourage you to read Sy Hersh's article in the New Yorker. He's all over this thing and documents how Major General Geoffrey Miller (the commander of the task force in charge of the Guantánamo prison), is fingered for having setting up Abu Ghraib as an intelligence gathering operation.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

IMO, the Americans have screwed up this entire situation even more than I thought they would have. And that's a lot.

I have no idea how they will get their credibility back, but many people think that this will just blow over and that it's a "minor" thing. They must have Stars and Stripes in their eyes...


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Well said PG. I agree - and I wish i could express myself as clearly as you.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fair enough. It was all a giant mistake. The US should pull out of Iraq immediately. All further activities in the "War on Terrorism" should cease immediately.

Then what?

Would we be safer? Would there be no more torture in Iraq? How about in the surrounding countries? No more torture there, either? And what happens in the recently vacated Iraq? Who would end up in charge there? What would they do with all that oil wealth....buy bread or build bombs? How about Libya? Would that former pariah state continue to dismatle their WMD programs...or would they hastily re-arm to face a new threat in their own region?

And what will happen in Iran? It's perilously close to it's own home grown pro-democracy revolution thses days. Would that become an impossibility with a new dictator sitting in Baghdad?What then?

This one region of the world contains more than enough wealth for all it's people...yet they are, by and large, desperately poor. It is the one area of the world that produces virtually ALL of the most brutal terrorists and terrorist activities that have caused such chaos in recent years. 

How would YOU put a stop to that? Once and for all.

C'mon people! It's all well and good to express your displeasure with the direction of events as you see them. But you really should step up and offer an alternative course of action. Some different way of dealing with the situation as it currently stands.

So tell us what you WOULD do...not just what you WOULDN'T.

Speak up. Lots of people are listening.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

"This one region of the world contains more than enough wealth for all it's people...yet they are, by and large, desperately poor. It is the one area of the world that produces virtually ALL of the most brutal terrorists and terrorist activities that have caused such chaos in recent years. 

How would YOU put a stop to that? Once and for all."

Macnutt,

The problems that are prolific in that area of the world have caused chaos for centuries, not just recent years. It is a bit naive of anyone or any country to believe they can go in there and undo hundreds of years of cruel dictatorships and foreign governments.
It is a very complex issue in that region because of the way the area has been carved up over the last hundred years alone. Religious and tribal differences can only be controlled by a firm hand so 'regular' citizens can carry on with day to day living. These types of governments which are brutal there is no denying it, do bring a certain amount of order and 'peace' to the majority of citizens. Afghanistan saw some of the most stable periods (although brutal and not necessarily understood by western standards) since the 1970's at least. 
It is a common complaint Iraq's are making now that life under Saddam, although insane and often brutal, was far safer than life today and the foreseeable future for the majority of citizens.


There is no easy answer, but war should never should never be used for a pretense of 'helping' people. War never helps anyone but the people selling the weapons (see Haliburton and all).

Personally I think years of diplomacy would have been a better way to encourage further generations of children in that area that war and fighting, brutality and fear are not way to see a country go forth with stability.

America has just lost another generation of children.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting take on things. I suspect that a "generation of American children" consists of rather more than 600+ individuals. That's about the same number that die in traffic accidents on a good month.

As for the rest of your thoughts....

Yes. There are people in Iraq who claim that life was safer under Saddam. Probably a far greater number that don't believe that too. Certainly there are a LOT less people being tortured on a daily basis these days. Despite what you may have seen in the press.

So...again I ask....what would YOU do to remedy this situation? How would YOU change things so that terrorism wasn't spilling out of this violent region and affecting the peaceful countries?

Diplomacy? With WHOM? The despots who run the countries? Good luck on that one.























Action? What actions would you take?

No action? Just the pre-invasion status quo? Leave all the despots and tyrants just where they are? Let them continue to funnel money to shadowy outlaw groups who claim to be Islamic freedom fighters? And hope like hell that none of these whackos ever gets ahold of something truly terrible that they can use to strike the infidel (that'd be us, by the way) from the face of the earth?

There are times when inaction is indicated....and there are times when you must move quickly to prevent something horrible from destroying everything that's been buit so far.

We've had plenty of warnings and wake up calls so far. Too bad quite a few people STILL can't see what's really facing us. 

Or how to truly fix it. Once and for all.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Masterblaster said: *Iran... was far better under the Shah than what it is now.*

I won't argue for or against that. And I'm sorry to slim down the enormous complexity of that situation. But the net result is... whatever we/they have now?

MacNutt said: *We've had plenty of warnings and wake up calls so far. Too bad quite a few people STILL can't see what's really facing us.*

full agreement - suspension of human rights, violation of international law, pre-emptive invasion, weapons of mass destruction, etc - "a few people" really need to "wake up" about these things. 

*Or how to truly fix it. Once and for all.*"

sorry, I'm not about to put forth any final solutions.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> Or how to truly fix it. Once and for all.


How laughably naive of you.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

((pg)) you take the words out of my mouth.


----------



## Guinness (Jan 4, 2002)

Come on, people. MacNutt does have a point here. We may differ with him in our appreciation of the justice of the American cause in Iraq, but what has happened has happened. The question now is what do we do about it from this point on. If the US and GB were to pull out tomorrow (as so many people seem to be implying), what would be the consequences and what, if anything, should we be prepared to do about it. Do we simply walk away and let the middle eastern powers settle it themselves? Do we stand back and watch as a civil war in Iraq, to me the most likely immediate result of a quick pullout, quickly broadens into a series of internecine battles which could and probably would engulf the entire Gulf region. How much do are we prepared to pay for gasoline to keep our cars on the road, or to keep food and supplies moving? Just what do we do if the entire middle east goes up in flames?

Again, it matters not at this point who or what is responsible. The only question is whether we can afford to let things slide. How far down the slippery slope do we want to let things go? 

Me, I think that the original idea is still the best idea - Afghanistan. Bring the weight of the entire developed world to bear on Afghanistan. Re-build the infrastructure to the point of equality with other regional nations. Provide digital communications tools which would allow free and open discourse to develop. Open the eyes and the minds of the next generation through education and communication. Granted it would have been an awful lot easier to do this if GWB had not gotten side-tracked with his mindless adventure into Iraq, but it's still well within our grasp. 

Mike


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

Mike is right.

The reality is that a pullout would leave a dangerous power vacuum that would virtually guarantee civil war followed by the rise eventually of either a new dictatorship or a radical muslim state. 

And this is probably a best case scenario, if the local wolves Turkey, Iran etc... circle and try to press their interests into Iraq who knows what might happen.

The U.S. opened this can of worms and now they have no choice but to try and keep a lid on it at least until some kind of credible government and military can be established in Iraq. This is also the last chance for the Americans to salvage any shred of credibility in the view of the rest of the world.

How stupid was this whole thing, just as stupid as the leader who started it... you do the math.

Refering to earlier posts: ignoring the situations in these countries obviously doesn't help but winning the fight against terrorists means winning the fight for hearts and minds. It means stopping political aid and support for despotic regimes simply because they can advance our interests. It means a serious effort to bridge the gap between rich and poor.

Military solutions are effective only if you can point to a specific target and say take that out and it helps us. Otherwise you become embroiled in a quagmire that generates more terrorism not less.

Consider this, if the United States had diverted these enormous funds spent on military action in Iraq towards humanitarian aid and education in these regions coupled with effective marketing of the fact that they were doing so might they have not advanced the war on terror much more effectively.

The military option should be the option of last resort.

I am glad that Saddam's gone but I don't see any strategic improvement in the war on terror or any great likelihood of an easy transition to democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

NOW we're all getting somewhere!  

And...while I tend to agree with some of the ideas in the last few posts, I differ on a few points.

1) Ending political support for the despots seems like a very good idea. How would you go about it? Unilaterally...as in the US and GB pulling all financial and military support for their good buddies and treating all the tyrannies in the region exactly the same way?

What then?

I'll answer for you. Some OTHER nation or group of nations would step into this vacuum and start supporting these guys, in order to get access to the oil wealth. Look at how France and Germany and Russia et al were making under the table deals with Saddam for his oil during the so called "economic sanctions" imposed by the UN as a part of the ceasefire after the first Iraq invasion.

THAT didn't work out all too terribly well, did it? And these side deals managed to paralyse the whole UN into total inaction as well.

So much for that idea.

2) It would be very nice if we could win over the hearts and minds of the people of this region. But we'd have to bypass their absolute rulers in order to do it. That wouldn't work very well, either. More than likely, we'd have to channel any sort of massive aid THROUGH those very same leaders if we didn't want to rock the political boat too much.

Any guess as to how much of that massive aid would actually percolate down to the average arab, once it had been run past the local dictator?

See number 1 above...or have yourself a quick review of the UN "Oil for Food" program. The one that we now find out was totally corrupt...and allowed Saddam the luxury of building several dozen lavish new palaces while the children of Iraq were starving to death.

The United Nations is busy investigating itself for internal corruption as a result of that shameful episode. I wouldn't put much faith in how far the investigation will go, though. One of the first facts that came up was that Kofi Annan's own son was a part of the scam.

NOT supporting the despots: good idea, but a bit naieve and quite unworkable in the real world. unless you managed to get EVERYBODY onside. Good luck on that.

Massive finacial aid to the poverty stricken arabs who are sitting on top of a kings ransome in oil wealth? Again, a tad naieve and quite unworkable. Pretty much unnecessary as well. Once they are freely able to elect their own leaders, then there will be lots of local cash to go around and plenty of economic activity to keep everyone way too busy to blow themselves up in public.

Which, I think, is the very best course of action...given the alternatives.

Afghanistan is not a very good place to do this, though. It would take a generation before the majority of the people are literate and there is no natural source of wealth to build a modern free society upon. It would have to be shipped in.

We don't have that much time, unfortunately.

Iraq, on the other hand, has a well educated population and is vastly wealthy. The people even have some familiarity with a market driven economy. This place has democracy written all over it. So does neighboring Iran, which is on the brink of achieving the leap to freedom all by itself.

With these two powerhouses as an active example drawing the best and brightest from the region into their brightly lit future, it would only be a matter of time before all the rest of the people in the area begin demanding a similar change in their own country.

This is what I see as an outcome for all that has come so far. It's the best possible scenario, and would put an end to the terrorist violence that threatens the rest of the world. At least from this region.

Many of you may not agree with this assesment. Fair enough. 

So....what do any of you propose as an alternate strategy for resolving the Iraqi problem as it currently stands?

Suggestions? Thoughts?

[ May 13, 2004, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Personally, I think (and thought at the beginning) that the invasion was a mistake. Anyone who is curious about my exact thoughts on the matter are free to search the archives; I see no point in regurgitating it all now.

However, once the action in Iraq began, it must be properly finished. The US is there now, there is no real power to take over, good or evil. They cannot leave. They must see it through to it's proper end.

For whatever reason, the US has never been good at peacekeeping. Iraq is probably their best opportunity to prove that they have learned something about it, whether they go willingly or are dragged into it screaming and kicking.

To leave is simply out of the question; they made a commitment many months ago that they must fulfill.

As for the photos, which depict things that I find both unfortunate and inevitable, they are not helping the US complete the objective at all. The arab world cannot help but be deeply offended. So goes it. Were it my countrymen in those photos, I would feel the same way, and I know for a fact so would the vast majority of Americans.

I was particularly concerned when I learned that these were National Guard troops and that they had no training whatsoever to prepare them to be civilian guards let alone military police. Evidence seems to support the theory that regular US military personnel are better trained and would probably not have failed in their duties to anywhere near the same extent.

Were I concerned with US military preparedness, this would worry me; it's obvious the US cannot maintain sufficient regular troops to do the job they have set for themselves. I'm not surprised that this hasn't been said "out loud" by the administration; no army would admit such a thing.

What they do next is more important; if the Military Brass use this as an opportunity to re-evaluate things it will be good for them, but if they sweep it under the rug it will only come back to haunt them another time.

Kent State? The most experienced National Guard troops in America at the time; the Governor of Ohio called out his troops to monitor civilian disturbances more often than all the other states' combined in the previous year.

Illinios National Guard pilots dropped bombs on Canaidans in Afganistan; National Guard MPs end up in a shootout in Kosovo with NATO Prison Guards. I'm not placing blame here; all I want to point out is that given a situation, NG troops always seem to make the worst choices or somehow attract or incite the most vociferous responses from others. Coincidence? I think not.

In fact, I can't think of an operation that went badly that involved regular US troops; it's National Guard troops every time. This stinks of lack of training and discipline, and points directly at a shortage of the necessary manpower to do the jobs the US government seems to think they can pull off without problems.

If there were enough regular US army soldiers, there would be no need to call up the National Guard or US Army Reserves.

That's what worries me most. The US is there, and they cannot leave until at least some semblance of stability exists. Whether they should have gone there in the first place is academic at this point. They did. Now they have to follow up.

John Kerry has said they cannot leave Iraq until the job is done, and one would hope George Bush realizes that a quick pullout is the worst possible solution. (I only say that because his campaign has been a little vague about what will happen next, if he's re-elected. Without saying so, I still get the impression they want to finish the job, but I wish they would be a bit more specific). Ralph Nader has it all wrong; a pullout is not an option now.

The photos present a different problem; they encourage destabilisation precisely when it's most necessary to esstablish a stable situation. Worrisome, yes.

But, the US (alone, or with help from Canada, NATO, the UN, whomever) absolutely must finish the job they started. In that regard, the photos are a setback, but cannot be seen as a roadblock. The current fallout is not helpful, yet it is a storm that must be weathered. The job must be finished, no matter how long it takes.

I really wish we didn't find ourselves in this position, but having said that, there is no going back. Finish the job. Show the world that the US can do peacekeeping.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

> But, the US (alone, or with help from Canada...


Gordguide - I tend to agree with this but think it has to be non-military help. The US government must, at some point, admit what people in this forum are saying, i.e. the invasion was a mistake. Until this occurs, what help could we give?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No question about it. Gord is correct. It must be seen through to it's logical conclusion. 

We can only hope and pray that this conclusion results in a free and self-determining Iraq. Anything less, and we'll have a whole bunch of brand new problems to deal with.

It's really too bad that the United Nations is in such dissarray at this point. THAT body should have been the one to remove Saddam and administer the transition to democracy in Iraq. They made eighteen seperate resolutions to this effect....too bad certain members of the UN Security Council had a seperate and selfish agenda, and prevented any action against their good buddy/co-conspirator.









It will be interesting to see what happens after the US turns over control to the Iraqis on June 30th. I'm hoping for the best, and I think that the US won't allow any new despot to grab power.

But I'm also prepared for the worst.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

LGB....

I think that history will show that this invasion was NOT a mistake. That inactivity or allowing Saddam the luxury of time (to come up with a nuke or worse) would have been a far bigger mistake. Had his vermin offspring succeded him, it would have been everyone's worst nightmare. Times ten.

The only way to solve the violence in this region, and the only way to stop it from spilling out and hurting ALL of us, is to force a change to democratic principles in the key states in the area. Then we would be dealing with the ideas and policies of ALL of the people of the region. Not just a handful of fithy rich tyrants.

No apology necessary. None at all.

The apologies should come from those who are loudly protesting this necessary change...and who are not able to offer a workable alternative to this course of action.

Inactivity wasn't working. The status quo in the region was producing ever more terible events aimed at non-combatants in peaceful places. Something HAD to be done.

Afghanistan had to be neutrilised and Iraq was a keystone state that could...and WILL...provide a template for the whole rest of the area. Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia are the three most influential countries in the whole region. A democracy...or even the absence of a phsychpathic dictator..in Iraq will allow both Iraq and Iran to progress toward a free society.

Saudi Arabia is another question altogether. But it has, at least, changed it's official tune when it comes to openly supporting terrorism. I actually think that Saudi will be the very next hot spot.

I just hope that Iraq is reasonably settled by then.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

Macnutt - I feel the invasion was unnecessary and therefore a mistake. I am not saying intervention was undesirable. I find it hard to believe that the "world powers" could not relieve the Earth of Hussein by more subtle and equally effective means. The choice the US made leads me to suspect their motives; it has certainly hidden the real issue.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

LGB...

There are thirty odd countries supporting the US in the coalition. Most have some sort of personnel on the ground in Iraq. Every single english speaking nation is there. Except Canada. Together, they could certainly be considered "world powers".

If by "world powers" you mean the United Nations....then I am sorry to inform you of the demise of that formerly august body. It has been powerless and gridlocked for quite some time now. A wasted and corrupted shadow of its former glory. Too bad.

I would not expect that the UN Security council would be able to remove Saddam when several of its key members had a great deal to lose by his removal. It was in their best interest to stall out any sort of action that would have brought about his demise.

They were rather sucessful at preventing it, too.  

If by "world powers" you mean France and Germany and Russia and China....

Well, who do you suppose were the nations that had cut side deals with Saddam for access to his oil, once the UN imposed embargoes were eventually lifted? Which nations are now being investigated for their part in the corrupt "oil for food" program? And who do you suppose had a vested interest in seeing that he remained in power in Iraq forever, so that these deals would pay off in the long run?

Bingo.


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

Macnutt, those are not nice things to say! Note the quotation marks around world powers in my post. For all my gentle words, my cynicism probably surpasses your own! In fact, I truly doubt that liberation of the Iraqis has been on anyone's agenda. But I can't argue this without digressing into a tirade about governments and "powers" everywhere. Tyranny has many forms. Perhaps we could propose an Elected Middle East Senate to resolve all their issues.









In any case, we are in this up to our ears without having to place a few armed Canadians into the picture. Let us show some dignity and work toward a solution by other means.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Since Canada has no really effective military...certainly none we can spare at this point...then I would have liked to see us in Iraq during this action doing what we do best.

Purify water. Police the streets.

We do these two things better than almost ANY country on earth. Our portable water purification systems are world class and can turn muddy crap into drinking water at a surprising rate. Just what was needed in this dry country of Iraq. They can be towed behind a small jeep and we have quite a batch of them all ready to go.

Many of our miltary personnel fully expected to be sent into Iraq to do this very thing. It's what they were trained to do, after all (plus, we're a lttle short of bullets what with the cutbacks and all).

I got the cynicism in your post, but decided to address the words as if they were heartfelt...since so many have asked the very same question in the past.

BTW...the cynic in you may just imagine that the US is simply there to "steal the oil". Please let us all know when that begins to happen, okay? So we can all join in and become cynics?


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

I always imagine "stealing" to be covert. No stealing there!  

Strangely enough, my cynicism is accompanied by gobs and gobs of feelings of the heartfelt type. I like your suggestions about policing and water purification, although policing with empty guns and billy-sticks could be risky. How about rubber bullets? Modern rubber is a petroleum by-product and would fit right into the picture.

Seriously, there are many ways we could contribute to the welfare of the Iraqi people without provoking them, if only the "powers" would let off the politics. Where do we draw our lines between assistance and interference? Do we demand radical cultural change? Is that even any of our business? We know all too clearly how any aid programs can be corrupted - and that presumes the aid we offer is genuine - not some scheme concocted by Canadian officials to benefit Canadian companies in the name of compassion. Oops.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

A point of clarification on Macnutt's claim all English-speaking countries are in Iraq -- New Zealand was not and is not a member of the coalition.

New Zealand did, however, send engineers after the war ended when the U.S. requested international support for reconstruction. The Kiwi government has said it will not replace its engineers when their year-long tour is finished which I believe is Sept.

Nor is Ireland a member of the coalition.

[ May 13, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Brainstrained ]


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Macnutt,

Can you clarify something for me...under what pretext do you think the "coalition of the willing" went to war with Iraq ?

WMD....nope
terrorist support...sorry, not that, no proof
ahhh, I know how about because of Saddam's brutal treatment of his people....a valid reason I guess.

But then please tell me what action YOU would take against,uuummm, lets say China ? or even Cuba. How about America's good friend Saudi Arabia....should they all be invaded and their citizens be "freed" from such tyranny ?

I think the resounding answer by most would be NO...but diplomatic efforts should be made to encourage democracy and fairness. YOu can't go round telling people "You have to be nice to your people and do things like we do and if you don't we're going to bomb you, kill your mothers, wives and children until you do!"

Where's the sense in that!!??!!??!

someone else said it earlier....The world had a great opportunity to show the world how they could help in Afghaniastan and they f*&^ed it up royally! So I'm not expecting it to get any better for anyone in Iraq for a long time, which suggests to me, the way the plan was implemented was just not worth doing.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

On a side note...

I think the British proved to everyone that you can't go somewhere and try and instill your way of living somewhere else in the world and expect things to be tickety-boo.

India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestinians, in fact the whole of 'Arabia' was carved up by the British and French in a secret deal after the 1st WW, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka....the list goes on.

All these problems have been going on for generations because of the 'wests' insistence on trying to 'civilise' countries around the world (and, needless to say, exploit their natural resources).

Democracy and stability in Iraq is doomed to fail.


----------



## george.. (Jun 16, 2003)

Have you seen the gas prices lately? They need to kill more Iraqi.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

uh... hello, emergency? yeah... i have this really inflammatory remark on my screen and... oh yeah? preparation-H? alright then, thanks.

whew.

[edited for knee-jerkiness]

[ May 16, 2004, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: vacuvox ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Loafer...

China has been effectively defused and co-opted. This started with President Nixon's unprecedented moves of friendship, and has continued over the past few decades. The Chinese are now on the fast track to a western style democracy. Without a single shot being fired in anger.

They could have become our single biggest problem at this point...but, instead, they have become our single biggest allies. In every concieveable way.

Trade...military...every single thing...they are heading in OUR direction these days. Long term leftist ideals are fading (just as they are in EVERY single country on the face of the earth) Socialism and Marxism is a distant memory for CHINA. They have even changed their Constitution to allow another Party with totally different ideals to exist. Or even be ELECTED to power!

Scary! But totally democratic.

Just as it is for pretty much EVERY democratic nation on this planet. (Gee...what a SURPRISE!!)

The Chinese are on OUR side these days.(they've largely tossed away the old Marxist/Stalinist ways, thank God) 

And they will become the most powerful economic force on this planet within the next ten years, once all one point four BILLION of them become westernised.

Right NOW they are vacuuming up ALL of the natural resources that we have to offer..

Anyone wonder why the gas prices are going up??  . Anyone think that it's going to get any WORSE, in the VERY near future?? 

[ May 15, 2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

> They have even changed their Constitution to allow another Party with totally different ideals to exist. Or even be ELECTED to power!


It's one thing to say you'll hand over power to the opposition, it's another thing entirely different to do it.

As I recall the U.S.S.R. had elections too.

[ May 15, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Brainstrained ]


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

{This is off-topic but I can't let pass this kind of falsehood unchecked.} 



> China has been effectively defused and co-opted...they've largely tossed away the old Marxist/Stalinist ways


Tell that to the scores who died at Tiananmen Square and the many who still remain behind bars for the crime of calling for democratic reform in their country. Don't confuse economic controls with political controls. The former have been loosened and have created a quasi middle-class that consents to (or tolerates) the ruling political hierarchy. Politically, China remains as hard-line as ever.

It would be a mistake to trivialize China's power. Rather than having been "defused" it's more like (to borrow a French expression) they're a sleeping giant: let them sleep.

[ May 15, 2004, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: (( p g )) ]


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

As he has done so many time in the past, Seymour Hersh explains it all for us again in The New Yorker  -- how a black operation can so easily go wrong when the people in charge of it (Rumsfeld & company) are idiots.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I am certainly not trivialising China's power. Especially with regard to Tibet and Taiwan. These are open questions right now. No one knows how it will all turn out in the long run.  

But there is no way that China or it's leaders can possibly turn back the tide of market-driven capitalism that is currently sweeping their nation right now.

ALL of the 1.4 BILLION Chinese will be moving into our modern western lifestyle in the next decade or so. No question about it at all. They're doing it already, as we speak.

They have even changed their constitution to allow for the inevitable transition from an official Marxist/Leninist State to a total western style market driven capitalist economy. With free votes for everything. 

It's only a matter of time before this becomes an official reality in China. 

This has been a slam dunk given ever since the total collapse of worldwide Communism and the slow death of socialism in practically every country that ever embraced this terribly flawed ideal.


Back on topic here....

Iraq is in a major flux right now.

But I honestly think that they will...with much help from the USA/Coalition...make the succesful transition to a full democracy. I honestly think that they will surprise ALL of us with their willingness to embrace a freely determining society.

So will Iran, a very short time afterwards.

And the middle east will be forever changed by all of this. To say the very LEAST.   


Saudi Arabia will have to go through MANY changes in the next few years. It will be a rather tough road. Libya will continue to disarm. Syria will abandon their long term support of terrorism, eventually. Jordan will be seen to be a very progressive state by all of the rest of the countries in the region. They will become the template, along with Iraq, Iran, et al...

And there will be NO MORE horrific terrorist acts spilling out of this violent region of the planet one day very soon.

THEN...after all of THAT...we can all relax and resume our natural lives. Not before.

WE have to work toward all of this. Every single day of the week. It's the ONLY possible outcome that is absolutely positive.

Think about it.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Macnutt,

You hope for the best but you fail to realise the fact that a huge proportion of the middle east don't want to be a country like Jordan. A lot of muslims hold beliefs that are not necessarily in line with western culture and so there will always be friction between what the west sees as a free democratic society and what middle eastern culture sees as political interference and environmental pillaging.

Going it back to China...you proved my point about the success of years of diplomacy. Why couldn't the world as a whole have joined together to fight terrorism (as that is the real problem) and encouraged harbourers of terrorists that it is not the way ahead. 

If Europe managed to persude the Taliban to cut production of Heroin to practically nil (How's the drug war by the Americans succeeding in Colombia?....dismally I hear) with incentives then why not that kind of approach with helping irradicate these fundamentalists ?

Surely there can not be any justification for war on the type of scale we saw in Iraq...there are other channels that have worked in the past. Even though the United Nations is bogged down in political wrangling it would have still been better for everyone concerned to push through years of diplomatic relations with Baghdad to come to a more peaceful conclusion.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The sort of diplomacy that worked with China was centered around trade. The leaders of China knew that Marxism was preventing them from moving forward and stifling most of the technological progress that the west was enjoying. So they wisely decided to allow for some market driven industries to spring up and relaxed their communist principles long enough to let the technology in. The rest, as they say, is history.

China was always run by a group of men. It was never a total dictatorship of one man in the same sense that virtually all of the middle eastern countries are.

Diplomacy with a bloodthirsty psycohpath like Saddam Hussein wouldn't have accomplished much. Other than to enrich him and his close family members. The ones he hadn't personally executed, that is.

Power and force is the only thing that gets the attention of these despots. I wonder how much longer we'd have been negotiating with Libya, had the US not started to flex it's muscle in the region?

Suddenly...Ghaddafi is openly declaring that he has weapons of mass destruction, and is offering to destroy all of them. Not too long after the US invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam from power. Funny about that, eh?

The type of diplomacy and negotiations that you are referring to is exactly what Clinton had been doing in the region for almost a decade. And stuff was blowing up all over the place while these negotiations were going on. 

It just plain didn't work.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

"The type of diplomacy and negotiations that you are referring to is exactly what Clinton had been doing in the region for almost a decade. And stuff was blowing up all over the place while these negotiations were going on."

So things have stopped "blowing up all over the place" now have they and the world is now more secure ?

The invasion of Iraq has created more reason for hatred towards Americans and the 'west' not less. Escalation of the 'fight against terrorism'
in this manner has made these fundamentalists far more determined than before. 

We never saw the scale of killing (including civilians) we see now while Clinton was in power. Yes there were attacks on American targets, but surely the amount of money spent on the Iraq war so far and in the future would have been better spent tergetting specifically the terrorist organisations....not whole countries who alledgedly have links to these organisations.

How many billions of dollars would be needed to reduce the capacity of these small groups to a few small incidents a year ?

We are always going to have isolated terrorists organisations, unfortunately that is the world we live in, it's just a matter of funelling the right funds in the right places to combat them in the RIGHT way.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Large scale terrorist attacks on American targets have ceased since Bush went pro-active. They were commonplace during the Clinton "negotiating phase". US embassies were blown up and 9/11 all happened while the "negotiations" were ongoing.

I wonder what the monetarty value...or the body count...would have been right about now had we westerners STILL been "negotiating" with the bad guys at this point?

As scary as this new era may seem to be right now, it's the only way to stop the madness. Once the middle east region is transformed into a prosperous area that is driven by the will of all it's residents...instead of a few fanatics and the tyrants who enable them...then we will ALL be far better off.

Or, we could go back to the way things were before the US started it's war on terrorism...and hope that none of the terrorists or tyrants ever got ahold of something truly terrible to use on us while we were busily "negotiating".

Note: An Israeli acquaintance of mine once said that "In Arabic, the word 'ceasfire' translates as 'a nice little breaktime to reload your weapon for the next attack'."

History seems to bear this out.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> US embassies were blown up and 9/11 all happened while the "negotiations" were ongoing.


What in heaven's name are you talking about??


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

And since Bush went "proactive" large scale terrorist attacks have increased in Madrid, Bali and Iraq. I don't recall those places being targets for Al-Qaeda prior to the "proactive" phase...... Is the world safer for Americans thanks to Bush?


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

9/11 happened because Bush and his cronies refused to pay any attention to then threat that the Clinton administration was warning them against. If the billions being spent now on the war in Iraq had been invested earlier to combat terrorism and co-ordinate the proper authorities (A plan which initially was hatched under the Clinton administration and later implemented under Bush AFTER 9/11) maybe they would have averted the disaster in New York.

The Bush administration failed the American people in a catastrophic way by ignoring all intelligence they were being given.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

"The Bush administration failed the American people in a catastrophic way by ignoring all intelligence they were being given". 

It takes intelligence to know intelligence. Deaf ears or closed minds? Yet still the US demonstrates worrisome confidence in this guy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

There was a large scale terrorist attack planned for LAX (Los Angeles Airport) during the millenneum celebrations. It was foild by a sharp-eyed border guard at Port Angeles Washington. The perpetrator was an Al Queda operative who had been living under a false name in Canada.

This happened on Clinton's watch...while "negotiations" and "diplomacy" were in progress.

The US embassy bombings in Africa killed hundreds of innocent civilians. These also happened while Clinton was on duty, and while negotiations and diplomacy were ongoing.

9/11 was planned and set up long before George W. came to power. It was finally executed when conditions were just right....only eight months after he became President. It would have happened during the eight year Clinton Presidency if everything had been in place in time.

On the other hand, NO new massive terrorist attacks have happened on American (or North American or British, for that matter) targets since the George Bush and the US-led coalition began actively fighting back against these whackos. NONE.

All that despite the fact that Usama bin Laden has, on several occasions, publicly appealed to his many followers to attack America and it's allies on their (our) home turf. Including Canada! (we are fifth on the list of major targets, I believe).

Bali was something they could get away with. So was Spain. In both cases, the perpetrators have been apprehended. 

But they haven't been able to attack North America in almost four years. Despite all the loud calls to do so from their leaders, many of them broadcast on Arab TV. Right now Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups are working with far less money and support than they have had for several decades. THAT'S why they are fighting so hard to destabilise and take control of oil-rich Iraq right now.

Thay want a new (and VERY rich) power base from which to resume their terrorist battle against "the infidel" (that would be us, by the way).

Let's hope they don't succeed. Let's also hope that we do not turn back to "negotiations" and "diplomacy" anytime soon. At least not until the terrorist groups have been defeated.

Unless you want stuff to start blowing up locally. And I mean right next door.

I kid you NOT.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Welcome to Bushworld, where things are not what they seem to be.

[ May 20, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Brainstrained ]


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> ...while "negotiations" and "diplomacy" were in progress.


There you go again...What negotiations? What diplomacy? Let's see some facts to back that up.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Macnutt was quoting me

Although when I mentioned negotiations and diplomacy I was referring to countries rather than terrorist groups.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Makes me wonder why Richard Clarke and several other very highly placed Pentagon officials (and the silenced Colin Powell) are so critical of Bush and his cabinet. The facts are that Bush was so badly wrong on the treat of terrorism on US soil that he even bet on the wrong horse (with the Saudi Royal family). His actions since have been knee-jerk reactionism that has simply compounded his prior ignorance. He is appealing to the basest instincts of Americans while conveniently ignoring the Geneva Convention, the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians and the opinion of the vast majority of the free world.

Bush has consistently failed to take *any* responsibility for his blunders or to be "pro-active" in predicting where his clumsy actions will go wrong (prisoner abuse, body counts, escalating costs, lack of an exit strategy, etc., etc.). When Blair is deposed by Gordon Brown, Bush will lose his only international ally of worth as well as speeches on the crisis that use words longer than 5 letters.

Anyone crediting Bush with stabilizing the terrorist situation in the world must have a very distorted view from their insulated bunkers.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

*Bush has consistently failed to take *any* responsibility*

Even when he shed aligator tears for all the (policy-driven) torture and sexual humiliation in Iraqi prisons - he didn't acknowledge the arbitrary arrest of civilians, or his Brasil-esque "information retrieval" internment centers that are specifically designed to contravene the Geneva Conventions and America's own human rights legislation. No surprize that he's opposed to an international criminal court! Still, maybe the American justice system will catch up to him one day.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Someone here (more likely several someone's) can't seem to grasp the reality...or perhaps they simply can't see it through all that smog.

The threat of terrorism on US soil became vastly more than a simple threat after 9/11. Any question of that?

Several US embassies were bombed in the years just before 9/11. There were hundreds killed in these attacks. Any arguments about this?

Okay...now let's move on to the next point. There have been loud calls for further terrorist actions against major US targets by the leaders of Al Qaeda ever since 9/11.

None have taken place. Zero. Almost four years later.

Libya was one of the very worst of the pariah nations and was known to be supporting terrorism far afield of it's borders. They were also manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. We know this, because they have shown us these weapons. Suddenly, Libya totally changed it's tact and now wants to make nice with everybody.

A psychopathic tyrant who had repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction was sitting on top of the second richest bundle of oil wealth on the planet (Iraq). Now he's gone, and the people of that country will be given a chance at self-determination.

A whacko quasi-religious group was holding an entire country in it's grip. It used that base to terrorise people al over the region and beyond. The planners of 9/11 were living freely in this country (Afghanistan). There were public executions and beatings being held in the soccer stadiums on a weekly basis. Women were being shot for wearing the wrong sort of clothing.

But not any longer. It's all changed now. 

This happened AFTER Bush went pro-active. NOT before.

Quite a bunch of noteable positive changes. In an astoundingly short period of time as well. And this is only a partial list. I could go on for pages!

But I won't bother. Facts are not what the Bush bashers are really interested in, after all. Those pesky things just seem to get in the way when they try and make their case....

...Or maybe it's the smog.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, you seem incapable of writing anything without smearing the people opposed to your particular view of the world. I find such posts are self-cancelling. Spouting rherotical arguments and then chucking abuses at your opposition is probably not the best use of your time.

There's a picture in todays Globe (A14) of an Iraqi standing on two cardboard boxes, naked except for briefs and a head bag with his ankle chained to a door. The boxes are collapsing under his weight. This is in an American run prison. This is fact. What are the Americans fighting for? Somebody ought to tell the guys in Abu Graib.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> But I won't bother. Facts are not what the Bush bashers are really interested in, after all.


Of course...why let let something as inconvenient as *facts* get in the way when you can string together conjecture, opinion, cursory observations, as well as false syllogisms and pass it off as a cogent argument. Better still, when you make unsupported statements that masquerade as fact, make flippant assumptions that anyone who calls you on it must be a "Bush basher." It must be a curious existence indeed to look out from an ivory tower every day and deny facts or redefine them to avoid what is otherwise plainly obvious to much of the world around. It beats the bitter taste of eating crow, I suppose.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So...may we assume that the above ehmaclanders are still in denial of the obvious facts that have been stated in my last post?   

Care to go out on a limb and deal with what I've said on a point by point basis? Or would letting truth get in the way tend to spoil your whole argument? 
















Anxiously awaiting any and all replies. Bring it on.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

(Watch closely now...the left is never very fond of answering this sort of thing on a factual point by point basis. They'll use any dodge they can to avoid this. Or they will suddenly go completely silent. Or simply say "this guy's crazy...don't listen to him". Watch and see for yourself)


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think we are all dumbstruck by your arrogance in thinking that shifting terrorist attacks away from US soil into the backyards of other nations can be interpretted as a positive thing. Unbelievable!

Pick up a newspaper on any day and read 5 articles about the horror of Iraq. This is indefensible at any level. Defending this incalculable disaster is a lesson in futility.

Remind us that you think Canada should have been part of this invasion!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Oh, and by the way, if I'm a lefty, then so are the majority of Canadians who are also against the war in Iraq (apart from Harpers "silent majority"). I somehow doubt that Steven will be harping on that silent majority in his campaign.....

There's is also an inherent trap in stating a series of historical connections (such as their having been no terrorist attacks on US soil since Dubya went pro-active) and then asking people to deny it. How does anyone know "for a fact" that this lack of US soil-based terrorism is due to Dubya? Is there any evidence that any US attacks have been thwarted (as in the UK)? Bzzt. Nope.

It is also true to say that the threat of world terrorism has been increased by Dubya's actions. And in this case there is irrefutable evidence in support (unfortunately, I should add).

Play your little game, Macnutt. It's the same one that the White House uses to sleep at night while their troops are inhaling sand in the Iraq sun.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> denial of the obvious facts


There you go again, confusing fact with conjecture. I'd be pleased to debate with you--I really would--but a cogent argument is one that is built on facts that lead in some kind of logical order. I've tried to follow some kind of logic to your posts, but I just don't see it. You are clearly transfixed with justifying and legitimizing the invasion of Iraq such that you've strung together a series of cursory observations and opinions...most of which have little to do with casus belli in Iraq. 

The rough equivalent of some of what I have read so far would be as follows: I looked out my window today and saw that the sky was grey. It is a fact that it is grey, therefore, it is also a fact that the sky is and will always be grey. To suggest that the sky could, in fact, be blue is just plain wrong.

Just so I'm clear, however, let me make a few points. The US case for war turned on two issues: supposed links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD. 

Both of those arguments have since hit a wall, and hard. The first relied heavily on the supposed research that later surfaced in a Weekly Standard feature by Stephen Hayes. That work was discredited and disowned by the Pentagon, among others. There's a good summary about this whole sad affair on Slate.com that is worth reading link. 

As for the case of the missing WMDs...I don't think I need to bore anyone with this point since it has been made to clearly and so often. I'll pull up some quotes, if you'd like (but I suspect that you don't want to be reminded of the "obvious" fact that there were no mass stockpiles of WMDs to be found). 

But here's the most troublesome part of your posts. You seem to naively suggest that the U.S. is somehow safer now as a result of invading Iraq, yet nothing could be further from the truth. The national security community is very worried that the root problem has been untended thanks to the American diversion in Iraq. Here's what the International Institute for Strategic Studies (a world-leading thinktank on political and military conflict) has had to say about al-Qaeda in its annual report: al-Qaeda is growing again and this time it's a hydra-headed monster. 

Extract: "The Madrid bombings in March 2004 suggested that al Qaeda had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the U.S. and its closest Western allies in Europe, and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates." Furthermore, al Qaeda still has a functioning leadership despite the deaths or capture of key figures. Al Qaeda has more than 18,000 potential terrorists in more than 60 nations around the world."

That kind of sober analysis should give anyone pause, including you. 

The US is in a hole now, fighting a war they cannot extract themselves from. I shudder to think of the price that will be paid if another terrorist strike should occur in the US or elsewhere while troops remain buried in the sands of Iraq.

[ May 28, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: (( p g )) ]


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> None have taken place. Zero. Almost four years later.


Further to your fantastic claim about the supposed new-found security and safety that everyone in the US is enjoying, this guy suggests you should think again. 

{Off-topic sidebar: Mind you, I don't find these kinds of regular pronouncements from Ashcroft to be very helpful. At first, they scared people out of their wits, but since then there have been so many advisories of this sort that I suspect many are starting to tune them out.}


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Here's a hypothetical question:

Would a "successful" terrorist attack on US soil help or harm George Bush's re-election chances?

I fear that if such an attack were conducted, the US would batten the hatches and fall under the spell of George W. Of course, the terrorists may have very good reason for wanting to keep George in office.....


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

This is a particularly bizarre alert, especially compared to previous ones.

No local police forces get notified, no additional secutiry measures at airports and borders and such, and the security rating stays at yellow, not moving up to orange or red.

So did the previous criticism about over-reacting have some kind of affect on Herr Ashcroft or is there something else at play?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> This is a particularly bizarre alert, especially compared to previous ones.


You'd almost think there was an election to be fought this year!


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> (Watch closely now...the left is never very fond of answering this sort of thing on a factual point by point basis. They'll use any dodge they can to avoid this. Or they will suddenly go completely silent


Just as I suspected: out come the facts and Macnutt is nowhere to be found.









His rambling off-topic rebuttal in 10..9..

[ May 29, 2004, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: (( p g )) ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just as I predicted.  

No one dared try to deal with this on a point by point basis. Because they couldn't.  

Lots of excuses, lots of short posts that ask new questions but provide NO answers...and a few indirect references that might question my take on the painfully obvious...but no one, NO ONE stepped up and openly refuted the points I made in my above post. Even two whole days later!  

Thanks! 









You have just clarified a very difficult situation for a whole BUNCH of lurkers who never post replies here.

My email indicated that quite a batch of them were waiting to see how the other side dealt with this. Do you guys have answers or rebuttals or explanations that would support you side of the argument...or do you have NOTHING?

Now they know.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

CubaMark, my old buddy...

When I LIVED (not VISITED) in Cuba...I noted that one of the things that the Cubans hated the very MOST was Fidel's jamming of the airwaves. He uses Soviet era jamming equipment that can shut down ALL of the frequencies on radio or televison that he doesn't want anyone else to see.









On the sparsely populated middle northern sector of the island (which is closest to Florida) you can recieve many channels from the USA. On both radio and on TV.

But, on the rest of the island, the foreign channels are blocked out by what sounds like a chainsaw running at full bore. And every single Cuban I ever met absolutely HATED Fidel for this obvious censorship of anything from the outside.

Because they ALL figured that he was trying to hide something.  

They were right. He has a LOT to hide. But the Cubans aren't buying it. Not one bit. They know the truth.

This is off-topic, Mark. Want to start a seperate thread on this subject?

If so...then I'll be all over it. Promise.

Just say the word, compadre.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Go for it. Can't wait to see how you justify illegal acts by the U.S. by quoting anecdotes from Cubans who want to hear the drivel that is broadcast on Miami radio / TV.

Yeah = Cubans are _really pissed_ that they couldn't tune in to "American Idol" or some such silliness.

Deal with the LEGAL framework, amigo, since that is what neighbouring nations are supposed to abide by to prevent, oh, I dunno, WAR.  

M


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> NO ONE stepped up and openly refuted the points I made in my above post.


I think you need to go back a page and read, friend.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> Would a "successful" terrorist attack on US soil help or harm George Bush's re-election chances?


There are many people expecting to see either a manufactured threat or attack in the weeks leading up to voting day. I put nothing past those scheming, lying ba****ds in Washington.

Those of us who are active in Cuba solidarity are very concerned with Bush's recent new policy changes... one of which includes using a U.S. military C-130 to fly along the edge of Cuban airspace to forcibly broadcast Radio and TV Martí through Cuba's jamming efforts. Note that this U.S. action is a violation of international telecommunications agreements (not that int'l law has ever stopped the yanquis before).

All we need is for an un(?)intentional foray into Cuban airspace, and a confrontation with the Cuban airforce, to spark an international incident. On top of that, we have the occasionally-resurrected but never backed up with a shred of proof that Cuba is actively producing biological weapons. It's a little piece of fantasy that the U.S. keeps raising frequently enough that it works its way into the media consciousness on Cuba, regardless of its fallaciousness. Cuba certainly has the *capability* to embark on such a programme, since it has an advanced bio-tech industry (which has produced the worlds *only* vaccines against certain diseases, including meningitis and fatal influenza strains). But to do so would be insanity - and the Cuban government knows that. They won't be giving the Yanks any legitimate reason to drop a tomahawk on Havana...

But then, "legitimate" is not a word Bush has learned yet....  

M


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

A very interesting read with well made points on several fronts. Congratulations to all those who have contributed. Religion and politics are two of the most complex topics to argue as there is usually no right or wrong, just difference of opinion. It has been my learned experience to avoid any heated debate regarding these issues, especially where alcoholic beverages are being served. Since there is little risk of that here, I enter into this debate as it strikes close to home for me in a number of ways.

I will start with a comment regarding the original post. The unfortunate events at Abu Ghraib prison and what ever other places there might be are best described in plain and simple terms as horrific! There is and can be no excuse for such conduct from any person, persons, or organization, military or civilian. I don't think there is a sane person alive that would approve of what has been revealed in the pictures and videos. Given time to reflect on the situation, I expect that to be especially true for the few guilty American uniforms on the ground there. The sad reality to all of this is that the reasons, forces and or pressures that have allowed this to happen will probably never be known or fully understood by the people of Iraq, let alone the U's and I's of the world that are totally removed from the area and its conflict. 

I have spent more then 15 years of my life traveling to and from the Middle East and have met and befriended Arabs from most regions within its boarders. The Arab peoples are tribal by nature and as such are some of the most beautiful and hospitable people I have had the pleasure to meet. After saying that though, I have seen things out here that would make your toe nails curl. Yes, I meant the nail part of the toe. There is no doubt in my mind that the coalition forces in Iraq at the moment have been and will continue to be exposed to unbelievable and grusome events by average western standards. There is no doubt that coalition forces there have been met with enemy behavior that would be considered less than honorable on any battle field. Mutilated body parts being hung from bridge heads after the victim was burnt alive are mild demonstrations of the term "grusome events". A coalition of countries have sent men and women to fight a real and dangerous threat poised against the free world. A threat that did not start in Iraq and is not likely to finish there. Having pushed part way thru that mission, these men and women around the world and especially in Iraq, are still in a very serious and desperate situation. Although I bow my head with shame and disbelief for what has happened at Abu Ghraib, I cannot point a finger in judgment as I know how hard it must be to wear a soldiers boots in Iraq. 

There is obviously a very well read group here at ehmac considering the above debate, but I cant help feeling that while all of the previous comments are well made, some lack realism and or fact. It is understandably a difficult task to make sense of the various issues concerning Afghanistan or Iraq from a faraway western world. Additionally, I have learnt that being in a car crash is never really quite like the newspaper describes it the next day. Not to say that the press has completely the wrong spin on things or is lacking in truthful information, but some of the accusations being leveled at the Bush administration and coalition forces here lack a sense of realsm and sometimes truth as it relates to the issues being argued. 

To describe it as simply a war for oil, or a war to fill the pockets of some war game money grabbers, would be a complete miss for the reasons behind this conflict. To think that America would break from code and ethics or intend to fall outside of the Geneva conventions to simply have their way with Iraq under public scrutiny would be just as foolish a conclusion. If this was their only intent, they could have done it anytime over the last 2 decades with much less risk to their own personnel and definitely less negative PR. Ask yourself why the US did not continue the push during desert storm in the early 1990’s? They had the perfect opportunity to raise the stars N strips at Iraqi pumping stations while using up thousands of high tech $$$ weapons, but they did not! The US will never recoup with Iraqi oil what the US tax payer has already spent in Iraq. 

The progressive steps that led to Afghanistan and Iraq are among other things, issues surrounding national security. The first attempt at the WTC, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole followed by the unthinkable events on September 11th were the incremental successes that gave way to the sobering reality that national security was breached. Before attempting to try and make sense of the present crisis, one should first try to understand the full depth and meaning of September 11th. There is a very strong political connection between all of these events. Understand it not in the way that there was a sad loss of life, or less importantly, vast amounts of money and resources, but understand what September 11th really means to a free society and the security within that so many take for granted. Dr. Rice summed it up well in front of the UN before entering Iraq when she said, “We cannot afford to allow a marriage between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.” September 11th represented the loss of several thousand lives and approx 100 billion in assets and revenue. What would be the human or monetary cost of a city; or several cities?

Taking this a bit deeper, we should ask, why does the Arab world hate the west so much? How is it that someone like Osama bin Laden can use this built up hatred so easily to benefit his own cause? How is it he can convince young muslim men to fly planes into buildings while at the same time taking their own life. A strong tribal culture with a common religion seem to hold many of the answers and are likely two of the strongest contributing factors to his success. Turning to recent history, we can easily follow a path that leads us to more of the answers. Palestine and the Arab - Israeli wars form much of the foundation of this ill conceived Arab hatred towards the west. Although both sides can be accused of the same wrongful acts, Arab claims step well over the bounds of legitimate argument. In my opinion, at least two things would have to happen before there could be any hope of resolution to the Arab - Israeli issue as it stands today. The first would be for the Arab world to admit their part in this problem and stop blaming everyone else for their own mistakes. The second would be for the Arab world to realize that theirs is not the only religion and to be more tolerant of others. Like most religions, Islam is pure, it is the follower that is often unclean.

There are many good sources available regarding the Arab - Israeli issue. Some are meant more for propaganda then real information. A recent and well documented piece on the crisis is Michael B. Oren's "Six days of war". I would recommend this as a good starting point for anyone interested in understanding more of the dynamics of this conflict. Another excellent read on general history of the region and how it was shaped would be Bernard Lewis's "The Middle East".

To critisize President Bush for his public speaking abilities would be well founded. To make claims that he is responsible for the rise and or growth of terror organizations like Al Quaeda would be wrong. In all fairness, his administration has had to deal with what will probably be seen as some of the most difficult decisions in modern history. The culture of this movement has been brewing long before the current President's father was even in office. The fact is, this has been a growing movement for some time now and there is very little room for negotiations. Who would you negotiate with? Ask yourself, what type of person could cut another persons head off with his bear hands while videotaping it? Probably the same type of person that would fly a jet full of innocent people into a tall building. Likely the same type of person that could willingly detonate a dirty bomb with the intention of killing hundreds of thousands. And for what? Don't kid yourself; these groups have long been in places like Iraq. They are not only in Iraq, but are spread all over the world. They have a well run network that is heavily funded. Allowing them to acquire another paying client like Saddam Hussein would not solve anyones troubles. To follow claims that action in Afghanistan and Iraq have lead to a buildup of terrorism would also be wrong. Yes there is an increase in terrorist activity, but that is what has been happening over the last decade. This is not the type of situation where you negotiate a good day job for the guy and he will stop cutting peoples heads off. His intentions were there long before you witnessed his skill at carving on the internet. All that anyone can comment on today is what is obvious. Terrorism struck, war was started, people have been killed and terrorism continues. Who knows what other tragedies would have taken place if September 11th went unchecked.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Just a small note, but I think one of the biggest problems with this war (and also with Vietnam and a couple others) is that there are no clear lines between good guys and bad, there's too much politics and discussions and so on for people to be solidly for or against it.

As a student of history, this is exactly what makes the latter half of the 20th century so interesting and so frustrating to study.

Um.

That's all, really.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

mac java, a thoughtful post but one that leaves me very cold. If the Western world holds itself to a higher standard than another culture, it should not lower itself when convenient. Moreover, what better way to ensure further terrorism and hatred against the West than to invade a country under false pretenses and occupy it. I don't think this is about oil either. Its a knee-jerk reaction from a bunch of people who think they can fight terrorism with technology and $$. This is patently wrong and a lesson that has been taught for the past 100 years (probably longer).

Bush was never forced to invade Iraq. There was no evidence of imminent threat. Rather the threat was smouldering in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. It still is..... A situation not helped by the fanning of the flames in Iraq and the diversion of attention to "harder targets", albeit irrelevant ones to the war against Al Qaeda. But we armchair pundits are amateurs. How can we possibly know the threat levels and the opportunities for intervention. Let's ask the professionals in the Pentagon or in the security agencies. Unfortunately, amny of them also agree the track taken is fundamentally flawed but their pleas have been steam-rollered.

To subscribe to the view that its "us or them" condemns the world to a futile, everlasting, escalating and dangerous battle that will be fought under the terrorists terms and (lack of) rules of engagement. As a civilized society, we cannot do that (as Abu Ghraib has shown) as no one has the stomach and is is plain wrong. Instead, we need to remove the incentive for terrorism, to stifle their life-blood - hatred. Increasing security is a necessary step to protect innocent people from terrorist actions but ultimately, we will not burn them to death. We will have to starve them of their fodder. Give people a better reason to live than to die.

This may be seen as naive by many, but the alternative dooms us all.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Dealing with terrorism should be black and white. How could anyone condone terrorism? It's causes have to be understood and that's where the hope lies. I do not believe any civilized societies would accept (or at least turn a blind eye to) terorism. But throwing sophisticated armaments at them achieves so little (due to collateral damage and raising sympathies for the "underdog"). It is incredibly difficult to sort the good guys from te bad guys in dealing with terorists on the ground. It's next to impossible without the full cooperation of the people they mingle with. THAT is why Iraq is such a festering mess. By losing the confidence of the Iraqi's, the terrorists are next to invisible. NINETY percent of the coatition force internees in the Iraqi camps were innocent. Hello? Is this any way to inspire confidence?

The only people who will beat the terrorists are the endigenous people of the countries currently occupied. Enabling them to conduct their own affairs and to make their own mistakes is critical. Even if it results in a non-secular, theocracy. We have no right to deny them self-determination.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We should all note that MacJava is actually living in the middle east...and it's rather likely that he has a better take on this stuff than any of us, at this particular moment.

It's all happening in his own backyard, after all.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Yes, I noticed that. Keep your head down Mac Java. Saudi Arabia doesn't look to be too safe for anyone right now. Hope all is well.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Judging by the length and obvious consideration that when into his post, I guess a lot of folks there are staying indoors these day. Stay well...and keep us apprised of how things are developing there.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

By all means, keep us up to date MacJava. This is of intense interest to all, I kid you not. It's like having a relative or close friend right in the thick of it...and telling us what's real and what's not. Better than CNN (by a country mile).

Stay safe. And stay in touch.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Current thinking suggests that Bin Laden's main objective is to control the two holiest Islamic shrines in Mecca and Medina as well as the vast oil wealth found within the boarders of the Country that hosts them. Collectively, these two jewels would give him the financial weight and religious authority to be ruler over what is today, the center of the muslim world. A position that would supposedly allow him to restore true Islamic law among other things I can only imagine. In order to achieve this, he would first have to overthrow the current ruling Al Saud family. In order to achieve that, he would have to cause major civil unrest at home, as well as serious divide in other parts of the world. 

In keeping with the times, one just has to click through the news channels to see the beginnings of this horrific reality unfold. The mood here at the moment is one of absolute fright. The door to door collection of Christian families in Khobar has brought things to new heights. Talking to people I know personally on the Oasis compound and listening to their accounts of the recent incident in Khobar is almost numbing. Part of the tragedy that followed the escape of the three militants has not yet been reported here in Saudi media for what ever reason. I don't have to describe methods used. All that needs to be said is that negotiating is not part of the deal hear. It leaves me with the obvious conclusion that negotiating anything less then his listed intention would mean defeat. 

Especially over the last 13 months, Saudi Arabia has been subject to an ever increasing terrorist threat. To list just a few, a couple of months back, Saudi police were following a new stretch 7 BMW while asking it to pull over. It is expected that the occupants of the car used a cell phone to notify people in a near by safe house. When the car finally pulled over, a person exited a building and fired an RPG into the police car. Close to the same time, 3 armed men were being pursued by police when they ran into a pay-for-less food store. One was shot in the leg and captured (Al Quaeda) while the other 2 managed to escape. Last week, a German expat was gunned down with an automatic weapon while coming out of a bank in a clean part of Riyadh. That means multiple holes. Not the usual fire power common with street gangs. Negotiations were short and to the point and it is interesting to note that there was no money missing. There have been several other such incidents over the last year or so. 

Being the type that enjoys tinkering with possibilities, I will take this one step further. I have watched with amazement the zeal Osama displayed for "taking the fight to the enemy" during the recent Russian occupation of Afghanistan. His commitment was almost passion like and the enthusiasm he generated during his call for jihad was almost cult like. Young Saudis were leaving by the hundreds if not thousands, willing to die for the right of Islam. He truly was revered as a great military leader amongst both his own people that followed him there as well as the Afghans he fought for; even though the victory was by in large, supplied by the Americans. At the same time, it is interesting to note that a review of eighteenth century history reveals that Russia was one of the two christian powers that ultimately lead to the end of Turkish dominance and the decline of the Ottoman empire. The last of the great muslim powers. Russia not only reclaimed previously conquered christian lands, but was the first to take muslim lands when their expansion included the Crimea in the late 1700's. Additionally, these expansions continued at the expense of muslim honor and territories. I can't help but wonder if Osama wasn't on a little bit of a crusade himself. Still more food for thought. Could Osama be the next Hitler? Exploring these possibilities is interesting and understandably, they might seem a little stretched to most of the readers here. Whatever plausibility they may hold, I still can't help but wonder if 50 years from now, people might be watching news reals that tell the tale of a mad man bent on power and domination through a cleverly laid plan of war and deception like we have all seen from the Hitler era.

In so many ways, Osama bin Laden has already achieved many of his target goals. He has successfully divided world opinion by deflecting culpability for his actions. At the same time, he has us turning in on ourselves, questioning the validity of our own purpose and governance. I will address 2 issues that I feel are lacking in content and fact. The most probable determining factors that brought a US decision to take action in Iraq, and the rise of terrorist activity due to this action. 

I should start by first writing that I am not a personal fan of the current US President. I think it is unlikely that he will go down in history as one of the great leaders of that nation. Regardless of what I think of his abilities, the current administration has had to face some very tough situations. Situations that I am sure would test maximally any of the great past presidents and certainly, any that are to come in the future. I wonder how President Regan or President Carter would have reacted? They were about as far apart in principles as 2 Presidents could be. This debate could rage on forever asking such questions. In an effort to avoid forever, I will ask each reader to put him/herself in the big chair. What would you do if confronted with the same scenario?

What would you do after the first attempt on the WTC? Go to war? Note likely! In any event, there is no flag to war against. Leaving the apprehended suspects in the hands of the high courts would seem like a just solution. Damage was minimal and democracy wins the day, well done Mr/Mrs President.

What would you do after the embassy bombings? Go to war? Not likely! Damage reports are considerably larger, but again, there is no real flag to finger for the acts. Arrests are made and judgment passed. A feeble attempt at warning the responsible group was also made as millions were tossed out the window while cruise missiles crushed a deserted Al Quaeda training camp. Even though terrorist efforts are increasing, there seems to be little more that can be done at the moment. 

Interesting side notes: During a BBC interview at a secret location, Osama bin Laden is on tape as saying that "the myth of the superpower" is gone for him following his victory over the Russian infidels and that he is setting his sights on the US. He makes reference to lost muslim lands and the pains that its people have suffered, holding the US responsible. 

What would you do after the USS Cole incident? Go to War? Not likely. Even if you would, who would you go to war with? Again, no flag! A surprisingly similar tactic used in other parts of the arab world, specifically Israel/palestine. Damage is very serious and death tolls mount. Terrorist intentions are becoming increasingly worrisome. Attacking a fully manned naval war ship with 3 men and a dingy shows an increase in resolve on the part of the terrorists. Al Quaeda claims responsibility and hints at more to come. Other then knowing the groups leader is in Afghanistan as an apparent guest, what else can be done? Go to war? Again, not likely! Negotiate? Do you have a phone number?... So you bury your dead and send the ship for repairs.

What would you do after September 11th? Damage reports are staggering. Public safety and national security have been breached at 4 separate locations in a well planed and well coordinated attack. The act itself is almost unbelievable and draws sympathy from the entire civilized world. You are the President of the US and are charged with the overall responsibility to safeguard and secure all of the nations interests and its citizens. The very symbol of national security, the Pentagon, has been struck. Investigations reveal this plot has been in the works for several years and has included Al Quaeda operatives from several countries. You have witnessed an increasing tempo and ferver of terrorist acts against your country over the last several years, but are left with little to do as there is no real flag to call your enemy. Who do you direct your presidential order of clear and present danger at? You make the only logical decision given the circumstances and the entire world supports your request to have the current ruling Taliban in Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden for trial in the US on charges of terrorism. The Taliban leaders essentially laugh in the face of the world when given the ultimatum of a timed response. Their only response is that Osama has been under house arrest and that he could not be responsible. The no flag snag fails. The world calls the Afghan bluff.

Interesting side notes: Almost every Arab head of state called to pay their respects, but concluded with "You should have taken care of the Palestinian issue". This created such resentment, that the mayor of New York refused to accept a cheque for 1 million US from a Saudi Prince because of that very comment. Also, US/Iraqi relations have been strained for several years at this point and Saddam releases a public statement acknowledging his approval and that he applauds the efforts of the terrorists that committed the attacks against the US. 

The course in Afghanistan is set. Although war is as much a part of man’s history as is his desire to stand and walk, war is a decision that should never be taken lightly, especially with the type of warfare man plays with today. It is my opinion that the current US administration has satisfied any requirements for pause and or deliberation before acting. I can not think of any other logical action that could have been taken considering the Afghan rulers response. Osama and the mullah Ommar have a back door. Don’t they all!... On to Iraq.

The decisions to continue action in Iraq were no doubt complex, but a few important contributing points are more then obvious. The first is the fact that the desired results of action in Afghanistan were not realized, as the terrorist leaders responsible had escaped. Although seriously damaged, the Al Quaeda network and its funding still remain fully functional and capable throughout large parts of the world. Additionally, Osama bin Laden has publicly stated that it is his sacred duty to acquire weapons of mass destruction, while Iraq’s leader has shown intent on furthering his biological and chemical weapons arsenal with nuclear powered ones. The fact that Saddam and or Osama both have the intent and financial resources to possibly obtain WMD, raises serious questions especially following the realizations of the Septembers attacks. One must not forget that the whole world gave Saddams Iraq one last chance while waiting months for answers regarding WMD, and this is after dodging the UN for years on the same issue. If his intentions were good, it should have been plain for Saddam to see that the urgency of the situation had changed just slightly following September 11th. The question regarding Iraq and its WMD was not one of does he, or did he have them? Saddam made them and used them. The question is, what did he do with the ones the UN had already catalogued but are now missing? Iraq is a big country. Not finding WMD does not mean with 100% certainty that they are still not there, or that they have not been moved to someplace else like Syria. It would be all to easy and convenient for Saddam to be able to hit his enemies hard without getting the Iraqi flag dirty. This strategy of faceless terrorism has been used well in the Arab world for several decades already. The thought of Saddam supplying Osama with enough aid to acquire WMD holds real plausability. If you add to this the fact that less politically stable countries like Pakistan and North Korea already have nuclear weapons technology, you would be negligent as a President to leave this scenario unchecked; especially after the harsh reality of September 11th. How ethical will a Pakistani scientist with a yearly income of $30,000 US be when offered a one time payment reaching in the millions? Nuclear weapons technology is such that it would not have to include intercontinental delivery systems to be effective in this instance. It could be packaged in the form of a small shipping container. Any idea how many ships arrive at western ports in any given day? A package like this would not even have to clear a customs inspection. In fact it would not even have to leave the ship. With an effective radius of several kilometers, the deck of a ship seems to make a perfect delivery system all on its own. Yes the horror is unbelievable, but September 11th makes it more then just an idle threat.

Lets go back now and say that you do not decide to engage Afghanistan or Iraq, for fear that it will only create more terrorism. At what point would you act? Would you wait for an even bigger and more spectacular event to occure before taking action? At some point, even the tooth fairy would have to react. The thought of turning from war and fighting terror and hate with peace is a very nobel gestrue indeed, but nobility is a headless prince in this arena. Al Quaeda's recruitment has been strong and on the rise long before the world took action in Afghanistan. The Arab/Israeli issue has contributed immensely to this effort. Even if he did not have a good piece of propaganda to use, he would create it as that is his intention. The point is that his intention is to expand the conflict with or without your approval. In fact, a lack of response to September 11th would have probably given him the green light to continue on to bigger and better things; having found a comfort zone of delivering mass destruction without response. In that light, he has already succeeded in bringing the fight to you on his terms. In my view, we could say that engaging Iraq has added weight to his message, but it would be wrong to say that action in Iraq is responsible for the rise of his terrorism. 

In conclusion (that ought to make a few people happy), war by itself will never be the complete solution either. In my opinion, war will only be able to achieve a very small part of the total answer. War might be able to remove people like Saddam from the reaches of power and wealth as well as place heavy demands on the resources of groups like Al Quaeda. Additionally, by removing Saddam from power, war will have provided in a round about way an opportunity for Iraq to gain responsible leadership that can provide a productive and prosperous future for its people. This in fact could be the "better reason to live". In the end though, war will do little more then buy the world time to try and solve the real problem. Osama is but a fruit that has fallen from a tree that has been cultivated for far to long in this part of the world. The Royal Family here knows all too well the pitfalls of growing such a tree as they are now desparately trying to prune it back. The only real complete solution will have to come from the Islamic world itself. Islam must take a stand against this type of fanatical thinking. It is worth noting that the next G8 summit in NY will play host to reform in the Arab world. Reform that is without conditions of, or contingent on a resolution of the Arab/Israeli issue. It is only with reform in the Arab world and its Islamic faith that fanatical movements like Al Quaeda can be put to rest. God speed us to that place in the future.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Interesting commentary by Eric Margolis in The Sun today.

Seems he's more than skeptical of the independence of the future Iraqi government. . . aren't we all though.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That was absolutely brilliant, MacJava. Outstanding!  

And written with the crystal clarity of one who is observing this from very close range, as well. 

Your last post should be required reading for everyone here. (especially before they try to draw any conclusions about where...and how...the current "war on terrorism" actually got started. And about where it may be going.)

A few questions and a suggestion:

-What is the feeling in Saudi Arabia right now? Are most residents (Arab and expat) half expecting the Royal House of Saud to fall? 

-If so...how soon?

-If so...do you feel like there is any sort of movement toward self-determination? Or would a secular dictatorship be more likely (if Usama doesn't succeed, that is.)

-If Usama does succeed in taking control of Saudi Arabia...then how would he be able to actually run the all important oil industry? One expects that pretty much every western company, and all of their employees, would flee the place within days of an Al Qaeda takeover. Without those workers, the oil biz in Saud would grind to a halt, rather quickly. So would construction, road building, and pretty much everything else as well.

(Also...I can't see the west allowing this to happen, although we'll likely see the same sort of fuzzy thinkers loudly protesting any action that might be taken to stop it)

A Suggestion:

MacJava...

Your post at the top of this page is so well thought out and well written...and the subject is of such crucial importance to the well-being of everyone in our modern society (even if many don't quite realise that fact just yet).

That I suggest you transfer that post to a brand new thread with a new title. It deserves it's own thread.

And I humbly promise that I will read every single word that you write. Probably twice.

Having someone that close to the reality of the situation is an unbelieveable stroke of luck for we ehmaclanders. This is a pivotal moment in what might someday be called the transformation of the middle east...and Saudi Arabia is likely to be the next focal point. We need to watch this like a hawk. If the reporting is filtered through a major news network, we may not get the whole picture.

Please keep writing and reporting. I can't emphasize this enough. It's terribly important.

And stay safe.


----------



## george.. (Jun 16, 2003)

> God speed us to that place in the future.


That's part of the problem right there. God has nothing to do with this issue....if there even is a god.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Moving somewhat closer to the original topic of this thread. . . 

When is torture considered torture?

Well, according to Rummy and his friends, torture is only torture if it is intended to inflict pain. It is not torture if it is intended to solicit information. So says a classified defence department memo. 

Too bad for them that the Nazis and a few other bad guys didn't use this rationalization.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

It should be no surprise that Mr. Margolis dosn’t quit his day job in pursuit of a political career. As a politician, he would be the most likely not to succeed even simple tasks, let alone provide direction and leadership for a country. Even a small one like Toronto!

After reading his blerb on Middle East affairs, one is left thinking that maybe Saddam Hussain was the good guy and should have been left alone to continue with his blood thirsty dictatorship over Iraq. As if that is what would be best for its people, the Middle East or the world at large. I can almost see his point though, if not Saddam's Baathist party, then at least a well intentioned government like the one found in Iran. 

After pointing out that the Americans foolishly spent 186 billion on the war effort in Iraq thus far, he does an about face and suggests that unless they want to be seen as running a political charade, they should now just give it all back to the recently deposed Baathist party or even worse, a pro Iranian regime! Because anyone outside of these ranks would simply be unimportant nobodies waving an American flag when they aren't collecting garbage or catching goats. I wont comment on his definition of unimportant nobodies, but I would just add that if it was a mistake to go into Iraq to start with, it would be an even bigger mistake to conclude the effort by reinstalling the very regime they went to remove from power in the first place. I would think there would have to be some sort of reform within the Baathist party before this should even be considered a possible solution. What would world opinion say if the coalition forces now just handed Iraq and its people back to the blood stained clutches of Saddam's Baathist party? What would be the outcome? I suspect that there would likely be another prison scandal of sorts. 

Besides, who would think to suggest that Saddam Hussain would ever be involved in anything shrouded in dark secrets? Next years July 4th nuclear parade day? Unthinkable! How dare anyone make up lies of someone with such high moral standing and character. The Americans should be ashamed of themselves for bringing forth such baseless arguments just to acquire “free oil” at 50 times the price it could have been bought on the open market for. Not to mention the high cost in human life and less importantly, but just as likely, the current Presidents political career. It seems that some people are convinced September 11 was just some kind of CIA concocted head fake for a boat load of cheap (or rather, over priced) Iraqi oil. 

He goes on to make references to Iraq’s right to support the Palestinian cause as if the killing of innocent people by faceless terrorists is a legitimate form of negotiating political avenues and some sort of birth right given to every Iraqi citizen. The Palestinian cause? Supporting and protecting the Palestinian people is a just cause. Supporting a would be terrorist/suicide bomber is criminal in all aspects. What does the Israeli-palestinian issue have to do with a sovereign Iraq? Nothing! As a contributing foreign editor, he seems to be lacking somewhat in current affairs. Egypt is threatening to pull its support for Arafat and his palestinian cause if he does not change course. Last time I checked, Egypt was still a sovereign state exercising self governance and Arafat seems to be taking the advice seriously.

Regarding Saudi.

The feeling here at the moment is one of nervousness and fright among both the expat community and law abiding Saudis. Things have become very unstable here in a very short period of time. 7 compounds have been hit in the last year with ever increasing violence along with a growing list of street fights that includes the use of explosives. I myself have just recently moved my wife and children to a nearby Emirate for all the obvious reasons. Although security forces here have seen some success with recent events, most remain very concerned and are bracing for what will likely be Osama's response. 

Will Saudi fall in the hands of fanatics? Not likely, but then again anything is possible. He has likely underestimated the would be world reaction to such a move; much like he did with his September attacks on the US. It doesn't seem to stop him from trying though. It is not likely that any of the current world leaders would allow him to control 40% of the worlds crude oil supply or the type of fanatical sway he would gain as the ruler of Islam's two holiest shrines. 

More importantly and what has been on my mind more often then not lately, is how much support does Bin Laden really have here? How many people would follow just to have a shot at the untold riches left behind by a departing King? It is rumored that during the first Gulf war, Osama claimed that he could raise a 100, 000 well trained men and that he could liberate Kuwait without the help of US forces. He apparently petitioned the King in this regard only to be disappointed in the end. I don't know about 100, 000 well trained fighters, but I do know with certain fact that he does have a lot of sympathy with a large number of common folk walking the streets here. His propaganda against the Royal family and his call for jihad are so wide spread that it has even started to circulate in the form of a written messages complete with audio cassette tape on city street corners. There is something disturbing about watching someone hand out flower colored envelopes that carry a message of war and revolt in broad daylight and in plain view of the public eye. So just how messy could he make things here? I guess that depends on how many are really willing to follow if push comes to shove. If one considers the amount of damage done on the Oasis compound with only a handful of men, what would be the net result if those numbers were multiplied 25, 000 times? One thing pops into my mind. Revolution #9 followed by helter skelter!

Regarding Rummy and friends.

It is often all to easy to follow the direction of the herd mentality. Just look to the horizon and follow the cloud of rising dust.

"It is not torture if it is intended to solicit information." This statement is false or is a misunderstanding as the DoD memo referenced above does not make this assertion.

" the term torture means any act by which sever pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession..." blah blah blah...

Firstly, the report outlines the laws of war as they pertain to interrogation techniques set out under the Geneva convention. The US position is that these laws do not pertain to Al Qaeda fighters and Taliban detainee’s, as Al Qaeda itself does not adhere to the principles of the Geneva convention, while the Taliban detainee’s are viewed as unlawful combatants.

Secondly, the very nature of law dictates the frankness with which it is written. Laws are written as black and white in an effort to avoid ambiguity and or to avoid having its intended effect weakened by misconstruing its meaning.

"treatment of prisoners should be defined as torture only when "the infliction of pain" is an interrogator's "precise objective." 

“a prisoner alleging excessive force must demonstrate that the defendant acted ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’’’

These are examples of legal jargon meant to define torture and separate the onus of responsibility between the interrogator and detainee in the event a legal issue arises. I am not suggesting that US forces were not guilty of negligent actions during their interrogation of prisoners, but simply pointing out what seems to be an all to common misunderstanding between fact and fiction regarding the varied issues surrounding this hot topic. The charges are reasonable and the crimes have already been admitted to. It is easy to smell smoke when you find a burning building. It is less easy to find the source of fresh oxygen that keeps the fire alive.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Again....I am totally impressed, Macjava. If you aren't currently a writer, then you certainly should be. This is good stuff. And very well written.  

I'm going to start a new thread here. It will be called:

"Middle East Report"

It can serve as a showcase for anyone's thoughts or opinions on this pivotal area of the world. Where it's going, where it's been...and how it affects all of us in the rest of the world.

Anyone can post anything they want to on this thread.

But I, for one, will be anxiously awaiting MacJava's latest update on the situation.

He's our reporter on the frontline in that area.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The US is currently advising all of its citizens to leave Saudi Arabia. Stay safe Mac Java!


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Thank you for all the good will. Believe me! It is being put to good use out here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A "Year of living dangerously indeed". ...................... 

See other thread








Got it in the correct spot this time.

[ June 27, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------

