WHOA - Another one for EKI

[Roamy]

Bush finally vindicated on WMD in Iraq
A national defense analyst says President Bush should be commended for keeping quiet about a discovery that could have blown his critics out of the water.
Retired Major General Jerry Curry is a decorated combat veteran who served as an Army aviator, paratrooper, and Ranger during a military career that began during the Korean conflict. He recently wrote about a very under reported story by the Associated Press.
According to the report, a large stockpile of concentrated natural Uranium, known as "yellowcake," reached a Canadian port to complete a top secret U.S. Operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad, and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. The Uranium material had been housed at a former Iraqi nuclear complex 12 miles from Baghdad .
Curry says the president kept mum about the discovery in order to keep terrorists in the dark. "He made a very brave stand, a resolute stand..., in which he decided that he wasn't going to blab everything to the press," Curry commends. "... And in the meantime while he kept it quiet, he was buying time from the terrorists to get all that stuff out of the country. So that's what was done -- he just very quietly kept his mouth shut."
"The press beat him to death for the last several years," he continues, "and now it turns out that, yes, there were weapons of mass destruction...." Curry also maintains that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear program and the material could have been made into a nuclear weapon.
President Bush's actions took courage, he notes, and all Americans should be thankful to have such a brave president who puts the welfare of the American people above personal considerations.
.................................................. ........................

On July 5, 2008 , the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq . The opening paragraph is as follows:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program (a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium) reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
See anything wrong with this picture?
We have been hearing from the far left for more than five years how Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.
It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand berms surrounding the site.
This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogo-sphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think that the mainstream media would report the true story. Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.
That never happened, due in large part, I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said, "The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake, the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy."
Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy? Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied? As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.
Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.
During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger , Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.
Wilson chose to overlook Mahaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellow cake from Niger..
However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003. Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.
Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger . The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements.
It was a simple tactic, really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told.
Yet the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong." Curiously the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.
Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush Administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage - no friend of the Bush administration - who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.
The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media, and their left-wing friends on the blogo-sphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong?
Don't count on it.
The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them.
As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that Bush lied, we should tell them to "have the yellowcake and eat it too."
For verification of this information, click on these links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/u/uraniumyellowcake.htm

[Tazio]

I call BullSh!+


Hold your horses by SteveLA
Orion Blaster

You might want to hold your horses a bit on this. This yellow cake referenced in this story was known to International Arms Inspectors, and had been under control sense 1992, after the Gulf war. I beleive Hans Brix and his merry band of men and women had inspected and knew about this stuff.


Oops. Well that's not going to slow RedState down, the title of the first reply to this far-too-factual deflation of a good myth:



It goes towards dispelling the idea there was none there

Ah yes, see, since some people know Iraq had no WMDs in 2003, we should lie to them by confusing legally stored regulated reactor grade uranium with bomb grade secret reserves of the stuff that Saddam didn't have.

[donKey jote]

spot on taz man.


See anything wrong with this picture?
We have been hearing from the far left for more than five years how Bush lied.
this quote belongs in the biased press thread :laugh:

[Eki]

Retired Major General Jerry Curry is a decorated combat veteran who served as an Army aviator, paratrooper, and Ranger during a military career that began during the Korean conflict.
Come on. No real person can be named Jerry Curry. If he is a real person, he probably was an Army cook together with Billy Chili.

[Firstgear]

Sure he's real. He was Wayne Gretzky's right winger. I'm ashamed of you Eki, not knowing this Finnish hockey legend.

[Magnus]

I call BullSh!+


Hold your horses by SteveLA
Orion Blaster

You might want to hold your horses a bit on this. This yellow cake referenced in this story was known to International Arms Inspectors, and had been under control sense 1992, after the Gulf war. I beleive Hans Brix and his merry band of men and women had inspected and knew about this stuff.


Oops. Well that's not going to slow RedState down, the title of the first reply to this far-too-factual deflation of a good myth:



It goes towards dispelling the idea there was none there

Ah yes, see, since some people know Iraq had no WMDs in 2003, we should lie to them by confusing legally stored regulated reactor grade uranium with bomb grade secret reserves of the stuff that Saddam didn't have.

When it comes to dispeling, his name is Hans Blix...

I could ad also that I believe that GWB will be viewed with kinder eyes as time goes by. Hir reputation will grow better, because in a few years from now his actions will be judged more as reactions towards 9/11 and other acts of terror from the early 2000s.
When it comes to whether this was right or wrong; my picture is that he now and then performs bad judgement. At the same time I belive the Bush-bashing has gone way to far.

[Zico]

Did Saddam ever have Nuclear ambitions? Of course he did but Israel soon put a stop to it. I'd bet that yellowcake is left over from Iraq's previous attempt at building a nuclear reactor, Masaud destroyed critical reactor parts being made by the french and assasinated the french engineers involved.. in France!... they then bombed the reactor site at Osirak using F16's in a daring raid and suffered no casualties.

To try and pass this off as a new and unknown development and justification for GWB's invasion is laughable really.

[Rollo]

Newsflash:
In yet another case of "Fousto did not do the research" a discredited article was posted some seven months after it had done the rounds.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
Claim: The removal of yellowcake uranium from Iraq in 2008 proved that Saddam Hussein had been trying to restart Iraq's nuclear program.
Status: False
Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2008]

Even if you read through one of the damn links in the post you find:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb"

Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

I'm calling shenanigans on you.
Shenanigans, shenanigans shenanigans!!! :D

[Roamy]

rollo I don't do research because I expect you will

[Roamy]

Also Rollo in you continual bashing of Bush you should also know about "yellowcake"

Iran converted roughly 70 percent of its yellowcake uranium to gaseous uranium hexafluoride, an intermediate step in the enrichment process, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency report published last May (see GSN, May 27). Iran possesses enough uranium hexafluoride for up to 35 bombs, but it could use up its stocks of yellowcake uranium by the end of 2009, said David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Tehran would require much more yellowcake than it now possesses to fuel a civilian nuclear power program, casting doubt on claims that its initiative is a strictly civilian effort, analysts said.
“You need 200 [metric] tons per year just for one 1,000-megawatt power station,” one IAEA source said.

[Rollo]

Iran converted roughly 70...
Iran possesses enough uranium hexafluoride...
Tehran would require much more yellowcake...


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iran that wacky Persian speaking country next-door to Iraq, and indeed a separate sovereign nation? If so, how is a post about what Iran has and owns, part way relevant?

U3O8 to UF6 is a highly toxic process via HNO3 - but you already knew that no doubt.

[Jag_Warrior]

I could ad also that I believe that GWB will be viewed with kinder eyes as time goes by. Hir reputation will grow better, because in a few years from now his actions will be judged more as reactions towards 9/11 and other acts of terror from the early 2000s.
When it comes to whether this was right or wrong; my picture is that he now and then performs bad judgement. At the same time I belive the Bush-bashing has gone way to far.

As George F. Will pointed out this weekend, Herbert Hoover is still waiting to be vindicated... 80 years on.

Quite often, the reputation built during a Presidency (good or bad) may be amplified, but it is seldom reversed.

[janvanvurpa]

When it comes to dispeling, his name is Hans Blix...

I could ad also that I believe that GWB will be viewed with kinder eyes as time goes by. Hir reputation will grow better, because in a few years from now his actions will be judged more as reactions towards 9/11 and other acts of terror from the early 2000s.
When it comes to whether this was right or wrong; my picture is that he now and then performs bad judgement. At the same time I belive the Bush-bashing has gone way to far.

Du har misuppfatat det hela pojke.

Det kindest possible judgement would be that the entire administration in every area was so consistantly poorly performing that it truly was impossible to say what the degree of criminal negligence and what the percentage gross incompetence was at any given time in any given endevour.

In other words, were they slightly criminal, and grossly incompetent or were they outrageously criminal and just totally bungling fools, nobdy will be able to say.

Since no criminal charges have been laid against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and most of the Cabinet and his appointees, clearly the bashing was insufficient.

Du borde läsa lite djupare. Lyssna till va dom sa, sen se vad dom gjorde.

[Eki]

yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb"

If it's a cheesecake, it can turn into a stink bomb.

[Eki]

As George F. Will pointed out this weekend, Herbert Hoover is still waiting to be vindicated... 80 years on.

Quite often, the reputation built during a Presidency (good or bad) may be amplified, but it is seldom reversed.
Even Nixon isn't a national hero yet (except maybe for anthonyvop).

[Storm]

:z

[Roamy]

You know Rollo you can come on here and wise ass everything but the facts remain the same. Your boy Saddam took the long sleep over a bunch of yellowcake. Now you can apply all the formulas you want and the fact remains he turned down billions in favor of the yellowcake. Now I guess the formula Saddam didn't get is "if the rope is shorter than the distance to the ground you are fuched!! Its only a matter of time before your beloved Iran will see their yellowcake get a little dark topping. So einstein that for us!!

[Magnus]

Du har misuppfatat det hela pojke.

Det kindest possible judgement would be that the entire administration in every area was so consistantly poorly performing that it truly was impossible to say what the degree of criminal negligence and what the percentage gross incompetence was at any given time in any given endevour.

In other words, were they slightly criminal, and grossly incompetent or were they outrageously criminal and just totally bungling fools, nobdy will be able to say.

Since no criminal charges have been laid against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and most of the Cabinet and his appointees, clearly the bashing was insufficient.

Du borde läsa lite djupare. Lyssna till va dom sa, sen se vad dom gjorde.

Tack för svenskan!
To judge the Bush-administration is way out of my league. As I pointed out i belive that they/he made some bad judgements.
But: being very interested in politics, with a special focus on the history of the working class and its demagogues, I certainly do not belive that there is a class above the others which is doing everything in its power to enrich themselves. This is, from my point of view, a fundamental flaw in both the understanding of what drives people, and a fundamental flaw of socialism as a whole.
However: of your economy is below a certain standard, then you are lkely to be a bit more greedy, thus, the greed so often talked about when it comes to the rich and wealthy, is mostly more explicit in the working class.

Hence: I do not belive the administration to be criminal. I belive they worked on a agenda, and that this agenda in many ways was speleld religion. for GWB it was a war and a mission: bad versus evil. Money has little to do with it, other than that the actions almost ran USA bankrupt.

my humble five cents :)

[Dave B]

fousto: epic fail. I know you're anxious to defend Bush Jnr. but next time someone sends you an email, at least check its veracity on Snopes before you embarass yourself in public :p

[Roamy]

Brockman-
Naw it is all the way one wants to interpret. Here is another view a different thought. You know we really have to keep EKI active in the forum. If not he will just retreat to the cabin with A.F.F

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowcake.html

[Camelopard]

http://www.americanthinker.com/ (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowcake.html)

american thinker, now there has to be an oxymoron if ever I've seen one!!!!



Sorry fausto, best you look up oxymoron to see what it means. :)

[Roamy]

thanks for the tip Cameltoe

[chuck34]

Du har misuppfatat det hela pojke.

Det kindest possible judgement would be that the entire administration in every area was so consistantly poorly performing that it truly was impossible to say what the degree of criminal negligence and what the percentage gross incompetence was at any given time in any given endevour.

In other words, were they slightly criminal, and grossly incompetent or were they outrageously criminal and just totally bungling fools, nobdy will be able to say.

Since no criminal charges have been laid against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and most of the Cabinet and his appointees, clearly the bashing was insufficient.

Du borde läsa lite djupare. Lyssna till va dom sa, sen se vad dom gjorde.

I'm very curious. Exactly what crime would you bring these guys up on charges with?

[Zico]

I'm very curious. Exactly what crime would you bring these guys up on charges with?

Im gonna take this comment literaly rather than in the tongue in cheek manner you hopefuly intended..

Typical and over used response with regards to GWB, of course nothing was his fault, it was all down to 'poor intelligence'. Cant touch him, he's got fall guys for that.

Let me show you a clip.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA if you can bear to take it in.. or whatever. I believe Im right in thinking that Russo died of cancer not long after this was 1st screened.

The ramblings of 'conspiracy theorist' propoganda, or the bigger picture?.. What do you reckon?

[Tazio]

Im gonna take this comment literaly rather than in the tongue in cheek manner you hopefuly intended..

Typical and over used response with regards to GWB, of course nothing was his fault, it was all down to 'poor intelligence'. Cant touch him, he's got fall guys for that.

Let me show you a clip.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA if you can bear to take it in.. or whatever. I believe Im right in thinking that Russo died of cancer not long after this was 1st screened.

The ramblings of 'conspiracy theorist' propoganda, or the bigger picture?.. What do you reckon?
On a similar note:

I have a theory that Nevada Gaming Commision wants you to put all your money into chips! :p :

[A.F.F.]

Brockman-
Naw it is all the way one wants to interpret. Here is another view a different thought. You know we really have to keep EKI active in the forum. If not he will just retreat to the cabin with A.F.F


I don't think Eki is a cabin kind of a guy. He'll pack his AWD and head to Norway or Iceland. Eki is a tent kind of a guy.

[Rollo]

and head to Norway or Iceland.

Iceland? Yellow Cake for £1?

http://www.iceland.co.uk/system/products/images/386.jpg

... so that's why mums go to Iceland!

[Zico]

On a similar note:

I have a theory that Nevada Gaming Commision wants you to put all your money into chips! :p :

I read it on the net.. it must be true! ;)

[Zico]

Iceland? Yellow Cake for £1?... so that's why mums go to Iceland!

Iceland are doing a special on Whiskey Pete and White Mosha Donuts (WMD's) I decided to bake some of these Donuts myself but they tried to sue my ass because only they.. own the rights to bake them.

[airshifter]

Did Saddam ever have Nuclear ambitions? Of course he did but Israel soon put a stop to it. I'd bet that yellowcake is left over from Iraq's previous attempt at building a nuclear reactor, Masaud destroyed critical reactor parts being made by the french and assasinated the french engineers involved.. in France!... they then bombed the reactor site at Osirak using F16's in a daring raid and suffered no casualties.

To try and pass this off as a new and unknown development and justification for GWB's invasion is laughable really.

It's amazing how people used the UN to justify their standpoint, but ignored the UN on other aspects. According to the weapons inspections, Iraq was still in active pursuit of nuclear weapons information and had programs in place to use such information.

But I suspect most people never read those reports, nor the ones that identified found illegal chemicals, chemical programs, or chemical warheards already declared as destroyed.

To do so would bring facts into discussions mostly based on opinions.

[chuck34]

Im gonna take this comment literaly rather than in the tongue in cheek manner you hopefuly intended..

Typical and over used response with regards to GWB, of course nothing was his fault, it was all down to 'poor intelligence'. Cant touch him, he's got fall guys for that.

Let me show you a clip.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA if you can bear to take it in.. or whatever. I believe Im right in thinking that Russo died of cancer not long after this was 1st screened.

The ramblings of 'conspiracy theorist' propoganda, or the bigger picture?.. What do you reckon?

Holy crap! Are you actually serious? I can't watch it. I got 2 second in and realized what it was. You have to be joking right? Please tell me you are joking.

[Zico]

Holy crap! Are you actually serious? I can't watch it. I got 2 second in and realized what it was. You have to be joking right? Please tell me you are joking.

It must be true.. I saw it on you tube.. substitute that for TV/Internet or even PRESS REPORTS.. Get the point? ;) )

[Mark in Oshawa]

When it comes to dispeling, his name is Hans Blix...

I could ad also that I believe that GWB will be viewed with kinder eyes as time goes by. Hir reputation will grow better, because in a few years from now his actions will be judged more as reactions towards 9/11 and other acts of terror from the early 2000s.
When it comes to whether this was right or wrong; my picture is that he now and then performs bad judgement. At the same time I belive the Bush-bashing has gone way to far.

Magnus...how they haven't tossed you out of Sweden for being to fair and right of center it is a mystery!!

As for whether there was a WMD's in Iraq? Well, the CIA, MI5, SDECE and Russians all were in the belief that Saddam had something squirrelled away. WE don't see any evidence of it now, but Saddam spent the better part of half a year pushing the UN inspectors out and away from some sites just on principle. You add up all that, and a propensity to use the damn things on his own people and the question has to be asked: Would you trust Saddam Hussein? Anyone who actually says YES to that with a straight face when the world's intelligence agencies are telling you that he has the weapons would have to be considered a naive optimist in the goals of tinpot dictators. Remember kids, this guy started two wars ( we wont get into the US's role in the first one, lets just say Saddam was looking for a reason and a place. HE likely would have regardless) with his neighbours and treated his own people like dirt.

Whatever Bush's faults are/were, and some of them are obvious, his nature to be trusting in the heated post 9/11 atmosphere was gone. Iraq wasn't worth invading in retrospect, but it is easy to be a genius on this 8 years on isnt' it?

It wasn't so cut and dried in 2002 and Saddam Hussein did everything he could to hide the fact he DIDN'T have WMD's. As it was pointed out after his capture, he wanted the world to believe he had a few aces in his sleeve. IN poker, that is a bluff. You don't bluff when the other guy is holding aces.

He didn't just provoke Bush, he provoked Tony Blair, who the last time I looked wasn't some raving right wing gun nut with big gonads. He was a reasonable left of center earnest type who understood democracy and and the vulnerablity of western nations to terrorism.

Nope...people can find fault with this all they want in retrospect, but the reality of 2002 and the intelligence that was on the table doesn't make Iraq's invasion the worst possible option. The worst option was going back to sleep and having an Arab/Islamic terrorist attack of some form with a WMD on a western nation in a post 9/11 world. Remember, people were crucifying Bush for THAT as well....

[chuck34]

It wasn't so cut and dried in 2002 and Saddam Hussein did everything he could to hide the fact he DIDN'T have WMD's. As it was pointed out after his capture, he wanted the world to believe he had a few aces in his sleeve. IN poker, that is a bluff. You don't bluff when the other guy is holding aces.

He didn't just provoke Bush, he provoked Tony Blair, who the last time I looked wasn't some raving right wing gun nut with big gonads. He was a reasonable left of center earnest type who understood democracy and and the vulnerablity of western nations to terrorism.


Awesome post. Except you left out the part about Blair holding pocket Jacks.

This is exactly what I don't get. All the Anti-War crowd want to do is look back 8 years on and say, Bush is an idiot. Well, yeah in hindsight, it might not have been the best thing to do, invade Iraq.

However, I have yet to come across someone who will actually answer these questions.

In 2002, you are President and you are presented with intelligence from sources, foreign and domestic, that say, Saddam has WMD. What do you do? Do you believe the "minority report" that says he doesn't? Or do you believe the majority opinion that he does?

If you believe the "majority" and attack, you are seen as GWB is now (perhaps, and probably, better in the future). If you believe the "minority" and do nothing ... well you leave yourself open to all sorts of outcomes.

If you are one of those that thinks you would side with the "minority", think about this. What if you are wrong, in 2002? What if Saddam HAS WMD? What if he uses them? If you had the intel. on your desk that said he had them and you ignored it, how would history judge you? How would you sleep at night? How could you go on, knowing that you could have prevented whatever horror Saddam would have brought upon this world?

No one is perfect. But some act upon what they can foresee. Others wait to act upon what they "know".

Be intellectually honest with yourselves and answer these questions.

GWB is not the smartest man to ever walk the face of the earth, I'll give you that, but how are his reactions any different to any one of us.

And again, any one that says he'd believe the "minority report" is fooling themselves.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck..the only flaw I find in any of that is the point of thinking Iraq was in bed with the terrorists. At the point of 9/11 there was no link and there never was likely to be that link. However, the Bush Doctrine if there was an actual doctrine ( sorry Charlie Gibson, there was no "official" Bush Doctrine) was that any one who was enemy of the USA could in theory work with another enemy at another time.

I find that premise flawed. At the time of the invasion, I saw it for what it was, a flawed premise to attack but I didn't cry any tears for Saddam and while I don't like to see innocents caught in the crossfire, or suffer through a war, I am always mystified why the people who decried this were so silent on what Saddam was doing to his own people for YEARS? Iraq 20 years from now will be a lot better off then it was 20 years ago, and would be if Saddam's idiot sons had succeeded him (most likely).

Bush communicated his thoughts poorly, made very weak debates of the issues and tried to dumb down the thought process, but based on the evidence at hand he had a reasonable case for the invasion of Iraq. The proof that he did was that Tony Blair went along with him.........

[chuck34]

Chuck..the only flaw I find in any of that is the point of thinking Iraq was in bed with the terrorists. At the point of 9/11 there was no link and there never was likely to be that link. However, the Bush Doctrine if there was an actual doctrine ( sorry Charlie Gibson, there was no "official" Bush Doctrine) was that any one who was enemy of the USA could in theory work with another enemy at another time.

I find that premise flawed. At the time of the invasion, I saw it for what it was, a flawed premise to attack but I didn't cry any tears for Saddam and while I don't like to see innocents caught in the crossfire, or suffer through a war, I am always mystified why the people who decried this were so silent on what Saddam was doing to his own people for YEARS? Iraq 20 years from now will be a lot better off then it was 20 years ago, and would be if Saddam's idiot sons had succeeded him (most likely).

Bush communicated his thoughts poorly, made very weak debates of the issues and tried to dumb down the thought process, but based on the evidence at hand he had a reasonable case for the invasion of Iraq. The proof that he did was that Tony Blair went along with him.........

Mark, that is the saddest part of this whole thing from where I am sitting. Bush NEVER said that there was really much of a link between Saddam and Al-Queda. However, he also never really corrected the media when they asserted such "facts".

In my mind, Iraq and 9-11/Al-Queda have always been seperate. Seperate, but very, VERY dangerous none-the-less. There were seperate reasons to go to war in Afganistan and Iraq. And those reasons were valid in both cases. Bush's main flaw was allowing the press to believe that the case for war was the same in both countries.

[Eki]

Well, yeah in hindsight, it might not have been the best thing to do, invade Iraq.

Only invading Russia in the middle of the winter would have been a worse Idea.

[Eki]

You add up all that, and a propensity to use the damn things on his own people and the question has to be asked: Would you trust Saddam Hussein? Anyone who actually says YES to that with a straight face when the world's intelligence agencies are telling you that he has the weapons would have to be considered a naive optimist in the goals of tinpot dictators.
I trusted him more than I trusted Bush and Blair, and I was right. I knew he wasn't stupid enough to threaten the US and the UK after being so badly beaten in 1990, and he likely couldn't have been a threat after having been under scrutiny of those two countries and the UN ever since. Of course Saddam tried to bluff, because there was nothing else he could do. He hoped that the US and the UK would hesitate to invade if they believed he had means to defend himself. They didn't hesitate, so I'm sure Bush and Blair knew Saddam was bluffing already before they invaded.

[chuck34]

I trusted him more than I trusted Bush and Blair, and I was right. I knew he wasn't stupid enough to threaten the US and the UK after being so badly beaten in 1990, and he likely couldn't have been a threat after having been under scrutiny of those two countries and the UN ever since. Of course Saddam tried to bluff, because there was nothing else he could do. He hoped that the US and the UK would hesitate to invade if they believed he had means to defend himself. They didn't hesitate, so I'm sure Bush and Blair knew Saddam was bluffing already before they invaded.

I'm calling BS on this one. NO ONE trusted Saddam. NO ONE. If you did then you are a bigger fool than I ever imagined. Why the hell would you ever trust that guy? Yes there were UN inspectors in Iraq. But they were told when and where they could inspect. They would tell Saddam, we want to see this place now. Saddam would tell them no, you can see it next month, but right now I'll take you to this baby formula factory. Then he'd say see I'm complying with you, I'm letting you inspect places in my country, aren't I a great guy. And suckers like you would believe him!

[Eki]

I'm calling BS on this one. NO ONE trusted Saddam. NO ONE. If you did then you are a bigger fool than I ever imagined.
Looks like the "fools" were those who trusted Bush and Blair.


Why the hell would you ever trust that guy?
Common sense. I knew and Saddam knew that Iraq couldn't match the US and the UK.

[Zico]

If Saddam was suspected of having nuclear weapons at his disposal I'd totally support the reasons for invasion.. incidentaly that was never specifically mentioned iirc.

Saddam was no angel, he simply ruled by an Iron fist because he had to.. it was the only way to control his people, their mindset, psyche does not seem to understand the concept of democracy.. despite the bullsh*t propoganda coming out of Iraq right now that its now a safer place than under Saddam, the very opposite seems to be the case in reality.

I think what miffs me is the total hypocracy of the US and its lapdog allies (inc my country), with many hundreds of thousands of nuclear warheads... REAL weapons of mass destruction.. going to war because Saddam potentially had something that rivalled a few lesser tools in their own armoury when common sense logic suggests a smokescreen for their real motives.

A couple of days ago we've had Mr Obama pleading with Europe to support the US in their fight against terrorism by offering more troops to Afghanistan.
I dont buy it.. the more real threat lives right amongst us... a threat that mainly exists because of our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
We all know about the strategic importance of the oil pipeline in Afghanistan, to maintain a presence there on the pretext of fighting terrorism is an insult to my intelligence and hopefully yours.


On the aside.. Dr Kellys alleged suicide is a strange case. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060817&articleId=2993

[Eki]

Saddam was no angel, he simply ruled by an Iron fist because he had to.. it was the only way to control his people, their mindset, psyche does not seem to understand the concept of democracy.. despite the bullsh*t propoganda coming out of Iraq right now that its now a safer place than under Saddam, the very opposite seems to be the case in reality.

If Iraqi mindset had been supportive to democracy, Saddam would have had a snowball's chance in hell to ever rise to power let alone stay in power.

[Zico]

If Iraqi mindset had been supportive to democracy, Saddam would have had a snowball's chance in hell to ever rise to power let alone stay in power.

Indeed...

[Zico]

I gave the wrong link but couldnt edit.. http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/mysterious_deaths_ii.htm

[chuck34]

Looks like the "fools" were those who trusted Bush and Blair.


Common sense. I knew and Saddam knew that Iraq couldn't match the US and the UK.

Eki, sorry man, but you are one sick puppy. If you honestly trusted Saddam then you are far beyond anything I ever thought in my wildest dreams.

You are one diluded person with no sence of reality.

[chuck34]

We all know about the strategic importance of the oil pipeline in Afghanistan, to maintain a presence there on the pretext of fighting terrorism is an insult to my intelligence and hopefully yours.

What oil pipeline in Afgahanistan? They have no oil you fool. The only pipelines there are supplying the people there.

[chuck34]

If Iraqi mindset had been supportive to democracy, Saddam would have had a snowball's chance in hell to ever rise to power let alone stay in power.

Or he'd gas them. Whatever he felt like that day.

[Eki]

Or he'd gas them. Whatever he felt like that day.
He didn't have gas when he rose to power and he didn't have gas when he was overthrown.

When he gassed the Kurds, he still had the US support behind him. He even bought the helicopters used for spreading the gas from the US. After the first Gulf War he no longer had the support of the US. See the difference?

[Camelopard]

Eki, sorry man, but you are one sick puppy. If you honestly trusted Saddam then you are far beyond anything I ever thought in my wildest dreams.

You are one diluded person with no sence of reality.

You yanks trusted Saddam heaps enough to supply him with lots of nice toys to go ad start a war with Iran. Saddam's real mistake was to believe that the US and her allies had given covert approval for him to invade Kuwait.

The turks have been massacring Kurds and Armenians for a century, not a great deal different to Saddam (at least with the Kurds that is), but hey the turks are currently our good guys so thats ok even if they do occasionally invade another country.

As for your last sentence, you should look in a mirror.

[Camelopard]

What oil pipeline in Afgahanistan? They have no oil you fool. The only pipelines there are supplying the people there.

A simple check from google would show what oil pipeline is being refered to.

Lot's of links here:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+oil+pipeline&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

[Zico]

Thank you Camelopard.

I dont mind being branded a fool by an ignoramous.. it only strengthens my point of view on the situation.

I actually work beside a guy who has been on a tour of duty in Afghanistan.. he shares identical views to me. I can only imagine that the US media has had a more succesfull propoganda campaign than over here. To be unaware of that pipeline, the investment in it by a major US oil company and its strategic importance is quite frankly, astonishing.

[chuck34]

A simple check from google would show what oil pipeline is being refered to.

Lot's of links here:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+oil+pipeline&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

There is no pipeline there, I'd I would be surprised if there ever is one. The economies are just not there for it. The only thing that may happen is a supply line to India. Nothing for the US.

And if you actually expect me to believe that the war in Afghanistan was all about oil and not about some tall guy with bad kidneys then it's gonna take a lot more convincing than stories about a mythical pipeline that will never have anything to do with the US.

[chuck34]

You yanks trusted Saddam heaps enough to supply him with lots of nice toys to go ad start a war with Iran. Saddam's real mistake was to believe that the US and her allies had given covert approval for him to invade Kuwait.

The turks have been massacring Kurds and Armenians for a century, not a great deal different to Saddam (at least with the Kurds that is), but hey the turks are currently our good guys so thats ok even if they do occasionally invade another country.

As for your last sentence, you should look in a mirror.

We did trust Saddam until he turned on us. Sh!t happens, life is hard, wear a helmet. There is one thing that I alluded to earlier that no one ever wants to confront. All Saddam had to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, giving them free and unfettered access to any and all sites, which was in accordance to the treaty he signed to end the first Gulf War. That is all he had to do to avoid this war, live with a document he signed. Doesn't seem too hard does it?

Oh but I know it's all about the oil.

And yes the Turks are @ssholes as well. You want to join me in presuring the UN to sanction them? But we aren't talking about the Turks here. You wanna do that go start another thread.

[Eki]

All Saddam had to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, giving them free and unfettered access to any and all sites, which was in accordance to the treaty he signed to end the first Gulf War. That is all he had to do to avoid this war, live with a document he signed. Doesn't seem too hard does it?

All George W. Bush had to do was to listen to the UN,the Pope and the World opinion and not invade Iraq to avoid this war. Doesn't seem too hard does it?

[airshifter]

All George W. Bush had to do was to listen to the UN,the Pope and the World opinion and not invade Iraq to avoid this war. Doesn't seem too hard does it?

The UN were really the ones that granted the authority to invade post Gulf War. As for the Pope and world opinion, neither have ever controlled the United States.

The rest of the world could turn a blind eye all they wanted, but if they didn't intend to uphold the ceasefire agreements of the Gulf War then they shouldn't have been party to supporting them at the time. It's really much like Darfur is today, the US is damned for not using force to fix it but would just as quickly be damned if we did use force to fix it.

Maybe the rest of the world should get off their butts and fix one or two major world issues without US involvement for a change.

[Eki]

The UN were really the ones that granted the authority to invade post Gulf War.

So, why did the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan say the invasion was illegal and contravened the UN charter?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm


Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

[janvanvurpa]

You yanks trusted Saddam heaps enough to supply him with lots of nice toys to go ad start a war with Iran. Saddam's real mistake was to believe that the US and her allies had given covert approval for him to invade Kuwait.

The turks have been massacring Kurds and Armenians for a century, not a great deal different to Saddam (at least with the Kurds that is), but hey the turks are currently our good guys so thats ok even if they do occasionally invade another country.

As for your last sentence, you should look in a mirror.


No No no, you misunderstand how the whole thing works, too many Toohys I'd say.
The basic rule is thes: Whatever the US Government decides to do, it is by definition a GOOD THING.

So it follows from this inescapable dictum that if the US Government decides to support a mad-man who is a brutal dicator slaughtering his own people it's all right.
If the Us Government decides he's not doing a good enough job and decides he needs help slaughtering a couple of million people, they obviously that's GOOD.

If the US Government, regardless of the fact it sometimes is run by mad-men beholden to regressive and aggressive sections of the US population of the sort this forum seems to draw from their fantasy forums arguing about NASCAR and F1,, decides it wants tens of thousands of nuc-u-lar warheads, how could that be wrong?

Now should anybody else decide to support a terrible dictator the US Goverrnment doesn't like then it goes without saying that that is BAD!

If a government the US Government has spent decades trying to isolate, and destroy by all means short of war decides it wants to enrich uranium, then that is obviously bad.
Do you see this crucial difference?

Has this helped you understand?

Glad I could help.

[airshifter]

So, why did the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan say the invasion was illegal and contravened the UN charter?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

It's quite possible that like so many others, Kofi Annan confuses his opinion with legal authority. In fact I believe that in his position, if it were in fact illegal, he would be trusted to bring proceedings against the countries involved.

[Eki]

It's quite possible that like so many others, Kofi Annan confuses his opinion with legal authority. In fact I believe that in his position, if it were in fact illegal, he would be trusted to bring proceedings against the countries involved.
He knows the UN can't do anything to the US and its leaders, so why bother. The US is above the law.

[chuck34]

No No no, you misunderstand how the whole thing works, too many Toohys I'd say.
The basic rule is thes: Whatever the US Government decides to do, it is by definition a GOOD THING.

So it follows from this inescapable dictum that if the US Government decides to support a mad-man who is a brutal dicator slaughtering his own people it's all right.
If the Us Government decides he's not doing a good enough job and decides he needs help slaughtering a couple of million people, they obviously that's GOOD.

If the US Government, regardless of the fact it sometimes is run by mad-men beholden to regressive and aggressive sections of the US population of the sort this forum seems to draw from their fantasy forums arguing about NASCAR and F1,, decides it wants tens of thousands of nuc-u-lar warheads, how could that be wrong?

Now should anybody else decide to support a terrible dictator the US Goverrnment doesn't like then it goes without saying that that is BAD!

If a government the US Government has spent decades trying to isolate, and destroy by all means short of war decides it wants to enrich uranium, then that is obviously bad.
Do you see this crucial difference?

Has this helped you understand?

Glad I could help.

Oh jeez. Here we go again. The US has never done anything right in the world. We are the ultimate evil in the world. Anything bad has always come from us.

Oh wait the great Obama is now in power. All is right in the world. Yipeeeeee!

[chuck34]

He knows the UN can't do anything to the US and its leaders, so why bother. The US is above the law.

But "World Opinion" says that the US is evil. Shouldn't that be the ultimate arbitrator of what happens?

[chuck34]

If the US Government, regardless of the fact it sometimes is run by mad-men beholden to regressive and aggressive sections of the US population


You do realize that you are not speaking just about W you are also describing O?

[Eki]

But "World Opinion" says that the US is evil. Shouldn't that be the ultimate arbitrator of what happens?
Things look brighter now that Obama is the President, but it looked quite scary when Bush was in power. It sometimes reminded the days of Hitler in the 1930s. If he had gone as far as Hitler, there wouldn't have been anyone to stop him.

[chuck34]

Things look brighter now that Obama is the President, but it looked quite scary when Bush was in power. It sometimes reminded the days of Hitler in the 1930s. If he had gone as far as Hitler, there wouldn't have been anyone to stop him.

Funny. I see things quite the opposite. Who exactly is there to stop Obama?

[Eki]

Funny. I see things quite the opposite. Who exactly is there to stop Obama?
His scruples, I hope.

[chuck34]

His scruples, I hope.

And why are his "scruples" any different from Bush's?

[Eki]

And why are his "scruples" any different from Bush's?
He sounds like that. For example, it seems he wants better relationships with Iran, Europe, Russia, etc. He also says he wants all nuclear weapons gone including American ones. He supports Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gases and allows stem cell research, etc. He seems intelligent and speaks a language I understand and agree with, while Bush seemed stupid and spoke with arrogant phrases and slogans.

[chuck34]

He sounds like that. For example, it seems he wants better relationships with Iran, Europe, Russia, etc. He also says he wants all nuclear weapons gone including American ones. He supports Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gases and allows stem cell research, etc. He seems intelligent and speaks a language I understand and agree with, while Bush seemed stupid and spoke with arrogant phrases and slogans.

Why do you think all those things are good for the US? I find them quite harmful to our way of life (giving up nukes), standard of living (Kyoto, Cap and Trade), and most importantly our sovereignty (all the banking regulations that he agreed to at G20 that no one seems to want to talk about).

I will agree that Bush wasn't a great public speaker. But if you could get through all his mis-speaks he was actually quite intelligent. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean he's not intelligent.

On the other hand, the few times I've heard Obama speak "off prompter" he comes off about the same as Bush. A lot of "aaaahhh", "uummmm", "weeelll", etc. He said there were 57 States. He thinks that Austrian is a language. I could go on, but you get the point (maybe). People in places of scrutiny will get things wrong, or mis-speak, from time to time just like anyone else, it just shows up more.

[Eki]

On the other hand, the few times I've heard Obama speak "off prompter" he comes off about the same as Bush. A lot of "aaaahhh", "uummmm", "weeelll", etc. He said there were 57 States. He thinks that Austrian is a language. I could go on, but you get the point (maybe). People in places of scrutiny will get things wrong, or mis-speak, from time to time just like anyone else, it just shows up more.
I saw him speak in Prague few days ago. He didn't seem to have a prompter or even papers (at least he didn't look at them) and he spoke well.

And I don't care what's good for the US, I care what's good for the world. And what's good for the world will eventually be good for all of us in the long rung, even for the US.

[Eki]

and most importantly our sovereignty (all the banking regulations that he agreed to at G20 that no one seems to want to talk about).
It's funny how you Americans seem to value sovereignty so much, and yet you seem to believe that Iraqis and Afghans would happily give up their sovereignty and let the US run things for them.

[chuck34]

I saw him speak in Prague few days ago. He didn't seem to have a prompter or even papers (at least he didn't look at them) and he spoke well.

And I don't care what's good for the US, I care what's good for the world. And what's good for the world will eventually be good for all of us in the long rung, even for the US.

Ok so if I think something is "good for the world" but you think its bad for Finnland, that's ok we'll go ahead and do it?

[chuck34]

It's funny how you Americans seem to value sovereignty so much, and yet you seem to believe that Iraqis and Afghans would happily give up their sovereignty and let the US run things for them.

You must have missed the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan have both had elections where they have elected their leaders. Sure we are still there, but in a "peace keeping" role. There is also an agreement on troop removal from Iraq that you may have missed. We do not, nor have we ever had any intentions of forcing them to give up their sovereignty. Just the oposite, we are there to give it back to the people, instead of dictators.

[Eki]

Ok so if I think something is "good for the world" but you think its bad for Finnland, that's ok we'll go ahead and do it?
You already have. First you in WW2 helped the Soviet Union fight against Finland. Then after WW2 when we had learned to live in peace with the Soviets and actually benefit from them, you and your "Cold War" made the Soviet Union collapse, which made a huge dent into our exports and economy, and unemployment in Finland skyrocketed from less than 5% in 1990 to over 20% in 1993.

[chuck34]

You already have. First you in WW2 helped the Soviet Union fight against Finland. Then after WW2 when we had learned to live in peace with the Soviets and actually benefit from them, you and your "Cold War" made the Soviet Union collapse, which made a huge dent into our exports and economy, and unemployment in Finland skyrocketed from less than 5% in 1990 to over 20% in 1993.

So then you don't like other nations deciding what is best for you and your country. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Zico]

How many wood chucks could a woodpecker chuck if a woodpecker could chuck wood.. Chuck? ;)




There is no pipeline there, I'd I would be surprised if there ever is one. The economies are just not there for it. The only thing that may happen is a supply line to India. Nothing for the US.

You just dont get it do you?... And what nationality is the oil company that would benefit from a multi-billion oil pipeline to India or any other country.. Chuck?




I know it's all about the oil.

You just blew your whole previous argument Re- GWB justification for the invasions out the water with that one but Im glad you can see it and finally admit it too. Feel like we're really getting somewhere. Well done!


In Iraq, they use/used the oil proceeds to pay for the huge contracts by American companies to pump billions into the US economy which I think shows that they dont/wont ahem.. 'help?' another nation without gaining something in return. So is it really so ridiculous to there possibly being alterior motives for the invasion of Afghanistan... and staying there for the long haul?

[chuck34]

How many wood chucks could a woodpecker chuck if a woodpecker could chuck wood.. Chuck? ;)





You just dont get it do you?... And what nationality is the oil company that would benefit from a multi-billion oil pipeline to India or any other country.. Chuck?





You just blew your whole previous argument Re- GWB justification for the invasions out the water with that one but Im glad you can see it and finally admit it too. Feel like we're really getting somewhere. Well done!


In Iraq, they use/used the oil proceeds to pay for the huge contracts by American companies to pump billions into the US economy which I think shows that they dont/wont ahem.. 'help?' another nation without gaining something in return. So is it really so ridiculous to there possibly being alterior motives for the invasion of Afghanistan... and staying there for the long haul?

Who would benefit from the pipeline? I supose you didn't bother to read into your own links too much did you. You saw Unocal and said, "ah, dirty Americans" didn't you? You didn't read further to notice that Unocal pulled out of the consortium on December 8, 1998 did you? You also didn't notice that it is now being financed by the Asian Development Bank. You probably also didn't notice that the gas fields are predicted by the ADB to produce less than expected and tapper off quickly. So you ask who would benefit from the pipeline, my answer is Turkmenistan and the ADB.

You aparently don't understand sarcasim.

What is wrong with getting something in return for helping out another nation. We get something, they get something, everyone wins. Tell me one time in history where that hasn't been the case. I'll give you a hint, who gave the most money to the effected nations after the Tsunami, and pretty much every natural disaster for the last 50 years at least?

And quite frankly, yes it is "really so ridiculous to there possibly being alterior motives for the invasion of Afghanistan". You must be one of those people that think Jews got a warning about 9/11, and that there were bombs in the WTC, right?

[Eki]

So then you don't like other nations deciding what is best for you and your country. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Yes, but at the same time I don't advocate invading other countries and interfere with their sovereignty like the US does. If the US likes to decide what's best for other countries, it should tolerate others deciding what's best for the US in return. Otherwise the US is just a dictator and a bully. And as long as the US is a dictator and a bully, it will be a target of terrorism.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="chuck34"]
I'll give you a hint, who gave the most money to the effected nations after the Tsunami, and pretty much every natural disaster for the last 50 years at least?

yeah, but most of that is " disaster capitalism" wherein investment is made not for the good of the local populace but for the long term benefit of the US corporations.

[chuck34]

Yes, but at the same time I don't advocate invading other countries and interfere with their sovereignty like the US does. If the US likes to decide what's best for other countries, it should tolerate others deciding what's best for the US in return. Otherwise the US is just a dictator and a bully. And as long as the US is a dictator and a bully, it will be a target of terrorism.

So Spain and the UK are both seen as bullys? The US is not the only country to be a target of terrorism. And don't you believe for a minute that terrorism would stop if we "simply" pulled our bases from Saudi Arabia, and/or Isreal. Those are just excuses, the real reason is that terrorist do not like the fact that we are a free and prosperous country not living under Sharia law.

[chuck34]

I'll give you a hint, who gave the most money to the effected nations after the Tsunami, and pretty much every natural disaster for the last 50 years at least?

yeah, but most of that is " disaster capitalism" wherein investment is made not for the good of the local populace but for the long term benefit of the US corporations.

And how exactly is rebuilding regions effected by disasters not a good thing for the local populace?

Do you suggest that we stop helping other nations in their time of need?

[Eki]

So Spain and the UK are both seen as bullys?
No, they are tag alongs or satellites of a bully.

http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/televisao/artigos/os_simpsons/criminosos.jpg

[chuck34]

So just being an alli of the US is reason enough to get bombed? Why do you blame the US for everything? Why can't it be that the terrorists are just f'ed up individuals?

[Eki]

So just being an alli of the US is reason enough to get bombed? Why do you blame the US for everything? Why can't it be that the terrorists are just f'ed up individuals?
They are, but it takes two to tango.

[chuck34]

They are, but it takes two to tango.

Why? Again I ask, if we give in to their demands (pull out of Saudi Arabia and pull support for Isreal) do you really think they will love us and stop the bombings?

This is the problem a lot of people have, blaming the victim. It is not our fault we were attacked, no matter how much you don't like US policy.

[Eki]

Why? Again I ask, if we give in to their demands (pull out of Saudi Arabia and pull support for Isreal) do you really think they will love us and stop the bombings?

Most of them would. Terrorist organizations would lose their meaning, most of their support and funding. Some die-hards might remain for some time like in Northern Ireland, but eventually they'd die out after the cause and need for resistance is gone, just like the resistance movements of WW2 in France and other occupied European countries died out after the Germans were gone.

You never know until you try. You can go back if it doesn't help, and nobody can blame you for not trying.

[EuroTroll]

just like the resistance movements of WW2 in France and other occupied European countries died out after the Germans were gone.

Not contesting the gist of your point here, but there were other occupiers than the evil Germans in WW2. For instance, the last of the "forrest brothers" of Estonia were not captured until 1978..

[chuck34]

Most of them would. Terrorist organizations would lose their meaning, most of their support and funding. Some die-hards might remain for some time like in Northern Ireland, but eventually they'd die out after the cause and need for resistance is gone, just like the resistance movements of WW2 in France and other occupied European countries died out after the Germans were gone.

You never know until you try. You can go back if it doesn't help, and nobody can blame you for not trying.

No one can blame us? You are joking right? We pull out of Isreal, what do you think happens next? Everyone lives hunky-dory in harmony with each other? No, we pull out, Iran and the terrorists say "we're winning against the infedels, now let's take out the 'Little Devil', that'll give us more recruiting tools, so we can take out the 'Big Devil'". Meanwhile they have killiled hundreds, thousands, millions, of Jews in the Middle East. But no one can blame us for that????

It is not the same as the Resistance in WWII. All those resistance fighters wanted was their country back. The Islamic Terrorists want an Islamic World. Big difference.

[Eki]

No one can blame us? You are joking right? We pull out of Isreal, what do you think happens next? Everyone lives hunky-dory in harmony with each other?
They aren't living hunky-dory in harmony now either. Besides, what do you care, you don't live in Israel?



The Islamic Terrorists want an Islamic World. Big difference.
I don't believe that. Besides, what you want and what you get are two totally different things.

[jim mcglinchey]

And how exactly is rebuilding regions effected by disasters not a good thing for the local populace?

Do you suggest that we stop helping other nations in their time of need?

Get real Chuck, the aid is always at a price. Take Hurricane Mitch for example. The release of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala was conditional on the selling off to north american and european corporations of the state utilities at well below market prices.

In Sri Lanka pre tsunami, they had already tried to clear the fishermen from the beach fronts so as to expand the hotel industry and after the tsunami with the fishermen not allowed anywhere near the beaches, mega contracts for development of the beaches were awarded to US construction giants.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Most of them would. Terrorist organizations would lose their meaning, most of their support and funding. Some die-hards might remain for some time like in Northern Ireland, but eventually they'd die out after the cause and need for resistance is gone, just like the resistance movements of WW2 in France and other occupied European countries died out after the Germans were gone.

You never know until you try. You can go back if it doesn't help, and nobody can blame you for not trying.

As usual Eki you live in a fantasy land that scares the hell out of me. If the US just retreats to its own side of the ocean, pays no attention to the Arab world, cuts Israel adrift, I can point to two points in history where the US more or less adapted this policy in the short term and the results.

In the 30's Roosevelt and most US politicians wanted NOTHING to do with anyone outside of their borders. Europe's problems were Europe's problems. The Arab world wasn't in their purview. They had interests in Japan and China and issues with them, but most of this was due to their trade conflicts with Japan, and moral support of Chiang Kai-Shek. What was the result? Well you Europeans went to war because no one would have the gall to stand up against a madman when he first started his Anchuluss. No one wanted to deal with your Friend Stalin either Eki. Heck, he was stronger AFTER WW2 and the Americans didn't go to war with him when it was clear he had his own agenda. Face it, the Americans stayed out of European politics but got dragged in when it was clear there was a moral side to take and a war with Japan was inevitable. Did they make mistakes in this foreign policy and how they implemented it? Yup...everyone did...people make mistakes and government is made up full of people.

The second instance of the US trying to be nice and benign is more recent. Look no further than how Clinton tried to turn the other cheek when the USS Cole was attacked, how their embassies were bombed, how the apartment's in Saudi with their servicemen were attacked. Al Quaida was behind ALL of them and their motives have always been to help push a jihad against the US. Clinton did very little constructive to stop this. He basically created this scenario when he did little after the first WTC bombing and his withdrawl of the US troops in the UN sanctioned invasion of Somalia was seen by Bin Laden as the US as being weak and henceforce deserving of a direct attack. 9/11 was the result of THAT policy.

The US is screwed if they get involved, or not. Obama can go around kissing all the Europeans on both cheeks and saying how he wants to play nice with the Arab world but the first time this policy fails Obama is going to find out what Bush found out and what every other US president usually figures out: The US of A cant afford to trust its security in the hands of the UN or even NATO because outside of about 4 countries, no one will come to their aid. The EU leaders basically looked at Obama as a big wind bag last week, and they want nothing to do with their roles in NATO becoming actually going beyond the moral support stage. Canada, the UK, Poland, Australia and the Netherlands have been in Afghanistan with the US. None of those nations is bent on imperial designs, none of them are led by right wing reactionary leaders. Obama wants the French, Germans and the like to help bear the burden there for as much the other nation's sake as the US's. Yet the Germans and the French wont do a damned thing. This is simple people. Afghanistan if left alone will become a Taliban strong hold (tolerable if you view not giving a rat's behind about what happens to the people there)and likely an Al Quaida home once again. We ignored them until 9/11. How much cheek turning do you want? 3000 plus dead says to me that phase of US foreign policy isn't working...

[Mark in Oshawa]

They aren't living hunky-dory in harmony now either. Besides, what do you care, you don't live in Israel?.

You would be happy if the Arabs killed everyone there involved from what I have seen of your thoughts. You trust dictators and thugs because you see nothing wrong with them killing 20000 of their own citizens a year like Saddam was doing. You don't care a rat's @ss about the human race Eki...drop the fiction you do.



I don't believe that. Besides, what you want and what you get are two totally different things.

EXACTLY Eki. You want a Utopia where everyone gets along and everyone gives hugs, and the world is full of nasty people who would kill you for the change in your pocket. Some of them even become dictators who you claim to love....

[anthonyvop]

Things look brighter now that Obama is the President, but it looked quite scary when Bush was in power. It sometimes reminded the days of Hitler in the 1930s. If he had gone as far as Hitler, there wouldn't have been anyone to stop him.

You should know Eki. Wasn't Finland one of Hitler's early supporters?

[BDunnell]

Canada, the UK, Poland, Australia and the Netherlands have been in Afghanistan with the US. None of those nations is bent on imperial designs, none of them are led by right wing reactionary leaders.

Poland was led by a right-wing government at the time it committed troops to Afghanistan, if I recall. Tony Blair may not be right-wing in the American sense, but he is driven by a religious zeal along similar lines to that which informed Bush. And in any case this is not a simple 'right versus left' matter, for governments on the left or centre-left have proved very adept at being able to justify military action on spurious grounds of national interests/security at times when it suits.



Yet the Germans and the French wont do a damned thing.

We all know that France can be a loose cannon in terms of foreign policy, but as far as Germany is concerned, some background ought to be welcome. German participation in military action today is always deeply unpopular with the German people. The Kosovo conflict proved that. There is a very difficult paradox in relation to Germany — it has, since the foundation of West Germany and then its admission to NATO, undoubtedly been one of the leading European powers, largely in economic terms but also, during the Cold War when it was seen as necessary, militarily. It is also a major centre of the defence industry, which understandably wants a large degree of workshare in major collaborative European defence industry projects. However, it has also become a very pacifist nation, and this goes for people of differing political viewpoints. I think history has much to do with this. It is very hard for Germany's leaders to square this circle. The German electorate sent out a clear message when it (briefly) returned Gerhard Schröder to power in his last election victory, as much of a lame duck as he proved to be.

Personally, I think it's time Germany made some tough choices about its future as a major military and defence industry power, but until then one has to accept the fact that its involvement in conflicts, no matter how much those who believe in them may think they and all other major European powers should be involved for some reason of the greater good, is unlikely to receive popular support and is thus unlikely to happen. I am pleased that this view pertains.

[Camelopard]

You should know Eki. Wasn't Finland one of Hitler's early supporters?

Maybe, just like many US companies like FORD, IBM and so on............................. Involved anywhere they can make a buck, irrespective of human or any other rights.....................

[Eki]

You would be happy if the Arabs killed everyone there involved from what I have seen of your thoughts. You trust dictators and thugs because you see nothing wrong with them killing 20000 of their own citizens a year like Saddam was doing. You don't care a rat's @ss about the human race Eki...drop the fiction you do.

The Americans and the Israelis have slaughtered more than 20000 Iraqi, Afghans and Palestinians. The end result is the same, people are dead, regardless they were killed by Saddam, Bush or who ever is running Israel. And why should I care more about 3000 killed Americans than 30000 killed Iraqis? Is an American or an Israeli life worth more than lives of over 10 Iraqis or Palestinians?

[Eki]

You should know Eki. Wasn't Finland one of Hitler's early supporters?
No. Finland first asked help from the US, Britain and France against the Soviet Union, but they declined and later went to Stalin's side, there was no one left than Hitler willing to help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War#Background


Inter-war period

Following the war, German–Finnish ties remained close, thanks to the German role in Finnish independence. When the National Socialists rose to power, however, relations chilled as few Finns sympathised with National Socialism.[13] Even the clandestine military co-operation in submarine building was allowed to lapse.
Instead, Finland turned to Western Europe and Scandinavia for co-operation. More Finnish officers were trained in France than in all other countries combined. Also, French officers were instrumental in designing the fortifications of the Mannerheim Line. Great Britain was the largest trading partner, and Sweden was easily accessed through the same language, as native Swedish speakers were abundant amongst the Finnish political and cultural elite.
The relationship between the Soviet Union and Finland had been tense— the two periods of forced Russification at the turn of the century and the legacy of the failed Soviet-backed socialist rebellion in Finland, along with two Finnish military expeditions (the Viena expedition in 1918 and the Aunus expedition of 1919), when Finnish volunteers tried to take Russian East Karelia, which had never been a part of the Swedish-Finnish state or the Great Duchy of Finland even though populated with Fenno-Ugric tribes, contributed to a strong mutual distrust. Stalin feared that Nazi Germany would eventually attack, and with the Soviet-Finnish border in the Karelian Isthmus just 32 kilometres (20 miles) away from Leningrad, Finnish territory would have provided an excellent base for the attack. In 1932, the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Finland. The agreement was re-affirmed in 1934 for ten years. However, the Soviet Union violated the Treaty of Tartu in 1937, by blockading Finnish merchant ships navigating between Lake Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland.
In April 1938, or possibly earlier, the Soviet Union began diplomatic negotiations with Finland, trying to improve their mutual defence against Germany. The Soviets were mainly concerned that Germany or France and Great Britain would use Finland as a bridgehead for an attack on Leningrad, and demanded a territorial swap to move the border farther away from the city. More than a year passed, with little progress, and the political situation in Europe worsened.

[Eki]

The second instance of the US trying to be nice and benign is more recent. Look no further than how Clinton tried to turn the other cheek when the USS Cole was attacked, how their embassies were bombed, how the apartment's in Saudi with their servicemen were attacked.
It wasn't like the USS Cole was attacked in New York City, it was attacked in Yemen. And it was a WAR ship not some cargo ship. What the heck a US war ship was doing in Yemen or American servicemen in Saudi Arabia? What do you think the US would do if a North Korean war ship came to New York City or Iranian servicemen came to Washington DC?

[chuck34]

They aren't living hunky-dory in harmony now either. Besides, what do you care, you don't live in Israel?


I don't believe that. Besides, what you want and what you get are two totally different things.

Exactly Eki, no one in the Middle East is living hunky-dory now. And the NEVER will. Even if Isreal wasn't there. Do you really think that all Arabs get along with each other? But you keep living in your fantasy world that only the Americans and Jews are evil.

Exactly right again Eki, what you want and what you get are two totally different things. Don't you think for one second that I do not what the exact same, world peace. The only difference is I know that is extremely unlikely as much as everyone wants it, and you think that if we all just get together and wish for it hard enough it will happen. In other words you live in a fantasy world where you don't know any history, or at least you don't learn from it, and I live in reality.

[chuck34]

Get real Chuck, the aid is always at a price. Take Hurricane Mitch for example. The release of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala was conditional on the selling off to north american and european corporations of the state utilities at well below market prices.

In Sri Lanka pre tsunami, they had already tried to clear the fishermen from the beach fronts so as to expand the hotel industry and after the tsunami with the fishermen not allowed anywhere near the beaches, mega contracts for development of the beaches were awarded to US construction giants.

So we wont give any aid to anyone ever again. We'll see how well that goes over. Or how about next time our shores get hit by a hurricane, someone, anyone, would offer to help.

[Eki]

Exactly right again Eki, what you want and what you get are two totally different things. Don't you think for one second that I do not what the exact same, world peace. The only difference is I know that is extremely unlikely as much as everyone wants it, and you think that if we all just get together and wish for it hard enough it will happen. In other words you live in a fantasy world where you don't know any history, or at least you don't learn from it, and I live in reality.
If everyone thought the way I do, there would be world peace. Since there are so many who think like you that world peace is impossible and won't even try to achieve it, it will remain impossible. If all people had thought that flying is impossible, we still wouldn't have airplanes. If majority of people think "crazy", "crazy" is "normal".

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Americans and the Israelis have slaughtered more than 20000 Iraqi, Afghans and Palestinians. The end result is the same, people are dead, regardless they were killed by Saddam, Bush or who ever is running Israel. And why should I care more about 3000 killed Americans than 30000 killed Iraqis? Is an American or an Israeli life worth more than lives of over 10 Iraqis or Palestinians?

Really? 3000 Americans worth more than 3000 Iraqi's? I don't think so. Less? I would think they all are worth the same. I have pointed out god knows how many times to you that your concern for human life only seems to be those killed when the US is involved. I cant recall any threads started by you bemoaning the status of those living in Iraq before the US arrived. I cant recall you ever mentioning the half MILLION who have died in Sudan in the Darfur mess ( one that the UN has dropped the ball on, leaving them with no credibility). I cant recall you ever condemning the Russians for Chechnya or the Georgian conflict. God knows both of those were completely uneccessary. You complain about those at the wrong end of the Israeli guns in Palestine but you object to any conversation on who starts these bun fights.

You always go on and on about Finland being attacked by the USSR but you never say squat about how the USSR used to start wars through their insurgencies. I have never heard you bemoan the killing fields of Cambodia. I haven't seen you once talk about the suffering and death's in Zimbabwe. Attack the UN for their feckless response to Rwanda. I don't see you wondering if the peasents of Afghanistan will suffer when the Taliban comes back if the Western NATO powers pull out of there. You could care less about those women and children being beaten for going to school, or flying a kite.

No Eki, you only care about those dead that result from actions of a US president. You don't care about the dead at all. This is some political game to you. If the US does it, it is a tragedy to you, and if the Israeli's do it, it MUST be wrong.

Well my friend, life is way more complicated than that. I have criticized the US when I figured it was deserved, and I can see where Israel isn't always right, but there is a salient factor you ignore at all times. There are far worse examples of human abuse and dictators out there than your pathetic little anti-American campaign has produced. Your proclivity to love any dictator that stands up to the Americans shows you to be an idealogue....which the last time I looked was the last thing an intelligent conversation needs.

[chuck34]

If everyone thought the way I do, there would be world peace. Since there are so many who think like you that world peace is impossible and won't even try to achieve it, it will remain impossible. If all people had thought that flying is impossible, we still wouldn't have airplanes. If majority of people think "crazy", "crazy" is "normal".

See that is where you are wrong. Dead wrong my friend. I do think like you. I hope and pray every day that we can somehow achieve World Peace. It would be the greatest thing ever, and I would do just about anything to achieve it.

However, I understand that there are many millions of people around the world that do not want the same "World Peace" you and I want. There are millions around the world that think "World Peace" means every country on earth lives under Sharia Law. Then there are the "mad men" that do not want "World Peace" at all, anarchists, crazed bombers, the insane, and the like.

No my friend I will do just about anything to achieve World Peace except let my guard down and needlessly sacrifice my loved ones at the alter of your ideal.

[Eki]

See that is where you are wrong. Dead wrong my friend. I do think like you. I hope and pray every day that we can somehow achieve World Peace. It would be the greatest thing ever, and I would do just about anything to achieve it.

However, I understand that there are many millions of people around the world that do not want the same "World Peace" you and I want. There are millions around the world that think "World Peace" means every country on earth lives under Sharia Law. Then there are the "mad men" that do not want "World Peace" at all, anarchists, crazed bombers, the insane, and the like.

No my friend I will do just about anything to achieve World Peace except let my guard down and needlessly sacrifice my loved ones at the alter of your ideal.
The madmen terrorists would be a very small group and a small threat to the US or Israel, but the heavy-handed actions of the US and Israel make them grow into resistance movements and freedom-fighters. Currently the "cure" to terrorism is worse than the disease. And I haven't heard about Muslims who try to spread their religion and laws outside their own countries like the Mormons do from door to door. No Muslim has even tried to talk their religion with me.

[Easy Drifter]

My My. Still in your dream world Eki.
Well the Islamic (not the muslim majority) in Canada have been pushing for Sharia law for Muslims in Canada to supercede the Laws of Canada.
That shoots down your pious comments about not wanting to impose their laws and ways.
The majority of Muslims want no part of the Islamic 'jiljad' but they are there.
We are in the midst of trials of a group of radical Islamics who had a plan to behead our elected Prime Minister, among other acts against Canada.

Keep dreaming on Finnish Hamas member.

[Roamy]

Isolation and War will be the only way to stop terrorism. If the muslims cannot police their own then they will eventually be policed with them. We need to send 30000 snipers over to afghan with 50cal rifles

[chuck34]

The madmen terrorists would be a very small group and a small threat to the US or Israel, but the heavy-handed actions of the US and Israel make them grow into resistance movements and freedom-fighters. Currently the "cure" to terrorism is worse than the disease. And I haven't heard about Muslims who try to spread their religion and laws outside their own countries like the Mormons do from door to door. No Muslim has even tried to talk their religion with me.

So you are ok with a "small" threat? What if that "small" threat effects you and/or your family. How "small" is that to you?

The cure to terrorism is worse than the disease? Are you joking? What did the US do to deserve the WTC bombing in '93, what did the US do to deserve the embassy bombings, what did the US do to deserve the WTC bombings in '01? Are you still seriously telling me that if the US and Isreal left the Middle East that there would be no more terrorism? You do live in a fantasy world.

[Eki]

So you are ok with a "small" threat? What if that "small" threat effects you and/or your family. How "small" is that to you?

Traffic in the US is a bigger threat than terrorism. In 2001 over 42,000 Americans died in motor vehicle accidents and only about 3000 in terrorist attacks. Yet you don't go and bomb the sh!t out of car makers.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/automobile_accidents_injury/deaths.htm


Deaths from Automobile accidents injury: 42,443 deaths in USA 2001 (CDC); 42,401 deaths reported in USA 1999 for "motor vehicle accidents" (NVSR Sep 2001);

[BDunnell]

So you are ok with a "small" threat? What if that "small" threat effects you and/or your family. How "small" is that to you?

We have to accept that it is not possible to eradicate absolutely every threat to our lives, whether from terrorists or other hazards. I am not in favour of overly draconian methods aimed at keeping us 100 per cent safe, because this is an utter impossibility. To me, there is such a small statistical chance of being the victim of a terror attack that it simply doesn't worry me. I have worked in a building which was/is surely one of the prime terrorist targets in London without a moment's thought or worry about the risk. Not all of us are paranoid about it. Nor should we be.

[chuck34]

So now you are comparing terrorisim to car accidents? How cute. Of course we don't bomb car makers, but we do think about how to mitigate injuries/deaths. We tell car makers to put seatbelts and airbags in their cars, and inform our people about the bennifits of both. In other words we take precautions, we don't burry our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

Mr. Dunnell. Why do you feel safe in your building? What if all the security measures (including the one's you don't see) are taken away? Then how would you feel if something would happen, no matter how remote the chance.

You guys just go on believing that everyone in the world are perfect angels, that is except for Americans. That's fine. No skin off my nose. Just don't bitch too much if/when we stop helping out around the world.

[BDunnell]

Mr. Dunnell. Why do you feel safe in your building? What if all the security measures (including the one's you don't see) are taken away? Then how would you feel if something would happen, no matter how remote the chance.

I feel safe in any building because the percentage risk of the building I am in being affected by a terror attack (or anything else, for that matter) is miniscule - too small to worry about.

If something ever did happen to me or any of my friends/relatives, it would be horrible, but the chance of that happening is tiny. There is no need to go through life worrying unduly about such things.

[Eki]

We tell car makers to put seatbelts and airbags in their cars, and inform our people about the bennifits of both. In other words we take precautions, we don't burry our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away.


And that's good. It's like improving your border control and law enforcement within your own country. I have nothing against that. But bombing foreign countries several thousand miles away from your own country just because of terrorism is like bombing car makers because of car accidents.

[chuck34]

I feel safe in any building because the percentage risk of the building I am in being affected by a terror attack (or anything else, for that matter) is miniscule - too small to worry about.

If something ever did happen to me or any of my friends/relatives, it would be horrible, but the chance of that happening is tiny. There is no need to go through life worrying unduly about such things.

You are missing the point. If someone could have done something to prevent your loved ones from dieing shouldn't they do something about it?

Now you will predictibly say no because you can't see past your blind hatred of the US. So I'm done.

[Eki]

Really? 3000 Americans worth more than 3000 Iraqi's? I don't think so. Less? I would think they all are worth the same. I have pointed out god knows how many times to you that your concern for human life only seems to be those killed when the US is involved. I cant recall any threads started by you bemoaning the status of those living in Iraq before the US arrived.
At least there wasn't any genocide or massive killings going on in Iraq before the US arrived and people were safer than now if they lived by the laws of the Saddam's regime.

Darfur on the other hand is an internal conflict, it's not like the Sudanese invaded Iceland or something.

The Ruanda genocide was 15 years ago and the Cambodia genocide and the USSR are even older history, so why would I go on about them now?

[BDunnell]

You are missing the point. If someone could have done something to prevent your loved ones from dieing shouldn't they do something about it?

Now you will predictibly say no because you can't see past your blind hatred of the US. So I'm done.

I am really, seriously offended at your suggestion that I have a 'blind hatred of the US'. This is complete nonsense, based on nothing but your paranoid view that any criticism of the security and foreign policies of the last US administration, which is all that I have been expressing, implies a hatred of the whole country. This is simply not the case. I have no hatred for the US whatsoever, and I ask you to take that comment back and apologise.

[anthonyvop]

At least there wasn't any genocide or massive killings going on in Iraq before the US arrived and people were safer than now if they lived by the laws of the Saddam's regime.

Are you serious?


http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribunals/iraq/2006/0405genocide.htm

http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/saddam-hussein

http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.html

[Eki]

Are you serious?


http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribunals/iraq/2006/0405genocide.htm

http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/saddam-hussein

http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.html
You really should learn to differentiate past from present. Those happened more than 10 years before the 2003 invasion. In February 2003 there was no genocide or other mass killings going on. The new mass killings began in March 2003 when the Americans arrived with their bombs and missiles.

I have news for you, the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis were in 1979 and the Cuban revolution was in 1959, they weren't in 2009. Get over them.

[chuck34]

I am really, seriously offended at your suggestion that I have a 'blind hatred of the US'. This is complete nonsense, based on nothing but your paranoid view that any criticism of the security and foreign policies of the last US administration, which is all that I have been expressing, implies a hatred of the whole country. This is simply not the case. I have no hatred for the US whatsoever, and I ask you to take that comment back and apologise.

Fine I should have said "Blind hatred of US policy". Feel better now?

[BDunnell]

Fine I should have said "Blind hatred of US policy". Feel better now?

Er... no. My criticism (not hatred, thank you very much — there is a difference which I suspect might be too nuanced for you) of US policy is far from blind. But given that you clearly have no genuine qualms about what you said before, again my respect for your simplistic 'with us or against us' opinions is sadly lacking.

[chuck34]

But given that you clearly have no genuine qualms about what you said before, again my respect for your simplistic 'with us or against us' opinions is sadly lacking.

Sometimes people are "against us". Something that you and Eki don't seem to understand. We tried things "the nice way" during the Clinton years. Look where that got us. Some people/ideologies don't respond to anything but force.

And I understand criticism very well thank you. Criticism is one thing, but when you refuse to see facts, something must be blinding you.

[BDunnell]

Sometimes people are "against us". Something that you and Eki don't seem to understand. We tried things "the nice way" during the Clinton years. Look where that got us. Some people/ideologies don't respond to anything but force.

And I understand criticism very well thank you. Criticism is one thing, but when you refuse to see facts, something must be blinding you.

Was the bombing of Iraq and Serbia during the Clinton years 'the nice way', then? And where exactly has the Bush administration's policy in Iraq 'got' anyone, except up a brown creek without the proverbial? The idea that anyone can consider this a glowing foreign policy success compared with anything from the Clinton period is utterly laughable. But I know we will never agree on this.

Furthermore, I continue to be genuinely amazed at the fact that you drew from my previous comments about not my being scared/paranoid/call it what you will about the terrorist threat the notion that I have a hatred for America. How exactly did that chain of 'thought' (I use the inverted commas deliberately) develop?

[chuck34]

Circles, Circles, everywhere I see circles. Go to the start of the thread, read it, or any of the others that inevitably devolve to this topic. Lather, rinse, repeat

[BDunnell]

In what sense is that an adequate response to what I asked? Your absurd and genuinely insulting assertion, which you refuse to take back with any degree of seriousness, that I have a hatred for America came from absolutely nowhere and was completely out of all proportion with what I have said in this thread or any other.

[chuck34]

In what sense is that an adequate response to what I asked? Your absurd and genuinely insulting assertion, which you refuse to take back with any degree of seriousness, that I have a hatred for America came from absolutely nowhere and was completely out of all proportion with what I have said in this thread or any other.

I can apologize to you all day long. But the fact remains that what you said implied that we should not protect ourselves from threats to our country "because it's such a low percentage of happening". That is offensive to me, and the families of the ~3000 people who lost love ones on 9/11. But you don't see me demanding an apology. Grow a bit thicker skin or don't post here.

[Eki]

I have a hatred for America came from absolutely nowhere
I have learned to ignore those accusations and understand that it's just a sign of them not having any real arguments. The predecessor of "you hate America" was "you're just jealous of us".

[chuck34]

that it's just a sign of them not having any real arguments.

I'll take "What someone with no arguments says" for $1000 Alex.

[BDunnell]

I can apologize to you all day long. But the fact remains that what you said implied that we should not protect ourselves from threats to our country "because it's such a low percentage of happening". That is offensive to me, and the families of the ~3000 people who lost love ones on 9/11. But you don't see me demanding an apology. Grow a bit thicker skin or don't post here.

The reason I demanded an apology is because I find having someone accuse me of hating an entire country because I disagree with the policies of one of its recent governments highly offensive. I do not 'hate' any country. Your accusation was simply ridiculous and highlights the utter intellectual bankruptcy of your position as expressed in this thread. You suggest that I should develop a thicker skin — well, I would say the same of anyone whose first thought on reading a negative opinion of a government they supported is 'the critic must hate my country'.

Oh, and where did I say that no measures should be taken to protect anyone? That is utter nonsense and another example of your imagination working overtime. What I object to is the implementation of draconian measures and the pursuit of misguided policies.

[chuck34]

The reason I demanded an apology is because I find having someone accuse me of hating an entire country because I disagree with the policies of one of its recent governments highly offensive. I do not 'hate' any country. Your accusation was simply ridiculous and highlights the utter intellectual bankruptcy of your position as expressed in this thread. You suggest that I should develop a thicker skin — well, I would say the same of anyone whose first thought on reading a negative opinion of a government they supported is 'the critic must hate my country'.

Oh, and where did I say that no measures should be taken to protect anyone? That is utter nonsense and another example of your imagination working overtime. What I object to is the implementation of draconian measures and the pursuit of misguided policies.

So it's a misguided policy to protect your country?

[chuck34]

highlights the utter intellectual bankruptcy of your position as expressed in this thread.

I demand an apology for this comment. Show me where my position is intellectually bankrupt.

See how ridiculous that is? Debate the points my friend. You've sidetracked me for too long.

[BDunnell]

So it's a misguided policy to protect your country?

Where have I even suggested that? As I said, what I object to are draconian measures. I don't see what is too hard to understand about that viewpoint, while understanding that one person's view of what is draconian is different from another's.

[BDunnell]

I demand an apology for this comment. Show me where my position is intellectually bankrupt.

See how ridiculous that is? Debate the points my friend. You've sidetracked me for too long.

No, I will not apologise because it is factually incorrect that I hate America, whereas it is a matter of my opinion as to whether or not your views are intellectually bankrupt. And I believe I have debated the points at quite enough length and made myself perfectly clear. If you deem this inadequate, this is your problem.

This all goes to reinforce my utter delight at the fact that the lazy, misguided opinions of people such as yourself no longer hold political sway in the USA, and long may this continue. Goodnight.

[chuck34]

Where have I even suggested that? As I said, what I object to are draconian measures. I don't see what is too hard to understand about that viewpoint, while understanding that one person's view of what is draconian is different from another's.

How are any security measures "draconian" to you? I'm not seeing anything overly oppressive here.

[chuck34]

No, I will not apologise because it is factually incorrect that I hate America, whereas it is a matter of my opinion as to whether or not your views are intellectually bankrupt. And I believe I have debated the points at quite enough length and made myself perfectly clear. If you deem this inadequate, this is your problem.

This all goes to reinforce my utter delight at the fact that the lazy, misguided opinions of people such as yourself no longer hold political sway in the USA, and long may this continue. Goodnight.

Your opinion is that my views are intellectually bankrupt, and it is my opinion that your views are shaded by a hatred of US policy. No difference between the two opinions.

That last bit is quite funny. You don't think the Obama admin. is lazy, or misguided? He has shown a complete lack of learning lessons from the past. THAT would be funny if people's lives weren't at stake.

[Eki]

So it's a misguided policy to protect your country?
No, but it's a misguided policy to do it using useless and even counter-productive ways.

[BDunnell]

Your opinion is that my views are intellectually bankrupt, and it is my opinion that your views are shaded by a hatred of US policy. No difference between the two opinions.

There you go again with your 'hatred' notion. I disagree strongly with many of the policies of one US administration. I also disagree strongly with many of the policies of the current UK government. Does this mean I 'hate' the UK? I would be genuinely interested to read your answer. Or is it only disagreement with US policy that constitutes hatred?

The fact that I continue to admire a great, great deal about the USA and bear its people no ill will at all is obviously beside the point as far as you are concerned.



That last bit is quite funny. You don't think the Obama admin. is lazy, or misguided? He has shown a complete lack of learning lessons from the past. THAT would be funny if people's lives weren't at stake.

He has not been in power long enough for me to form a full opinion.

[BDunnell]

How are any security measures "draconian" to you? I'm not seeing anything overly oppressive here.

To offer a few examples, I think that the UK Government's proposals for extended detentions of terror suspects without charge are draconian, I think that the proliferation of Government surveillance is draconian, and I think the use of anti-terror legislation in circumstances that have nothing to do with terrorism — such as the recent legislation forbidding people in the UK from photographing policemen — is draconian. There is no need for a climate of fear, of paranoia, or even of suspicion.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben, I consider you a friend on here, even if we rarely agree because at least with you I find you looking at things with some intellectual honesty. However I think Chuck is right to point out that he wants a definition of what "draconian" measures are. If you said, invading Iraq, I would argue you have a pretty good point but at the same token, Chuck is also very right to point out that anyone who says the US cannot do this or that, never quite understands that the US doesn't ask the world for permission on where and when they are to defend themselves.

Should the US invasion of Iraq be considered a proper way of defending the USA? In light of history, it doesn't look too good. That said, what I have said, and what Chuck has said is that based on what was being fed to people like Blair, Bush and Chirac at the time, from their respective intelligence apparatus, it was clear Saddam was doing something. WE know now they were wrong, but leaders don't get the benefit of hindsight.

My objection to any invasion of Iraq was that I knew that it was going to be a mess and likely the American Government would NOT have the answers for putting the country back on its feet right away. Too many people in the Bush administration thought they would be welcomed with open arms and while I thought that to a point, I also knew that the US has never been good at that sort of touchy feelly nation building stuff when involved in military operations such as this in recent history. That said, much of the misery in Iraq in the last 5 years can be laid at the feet of the Islamic extremists looking for a reason to kill Americans, and the bits and pieces of Saddam's regime that didn't want to go quietly into the good night. Not to mention the Shiite/Sunni factions looking for brownie points for killing Americans.

No...Maybe going to Iraq was beyond reason, but we see that now, it wasn't that clear in 2002. Furthermore, the US is very quick to point out, even with Obama as President that they alone determine their policy in the world, it isn't to be dictated by the UN. No one dictates any sovereign nation's task for it if that nation is a responsble citizen following the rule of law. Rogue nation states and dictatorships are the ones who have to worry about an outside party invading.

[Eki]

the US doesn't ask the world for permission on where and when they are to defend themselves.

Just like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc. don't ask it either, but you're still quick to condemn them.

[Eki]

No...Maybe going to Iraq was beyond reason, but we see that now, it wasn't that clear in 2002.
Maybe it wasn't that clear to you, but it was to us. The Iraq war lead to resignation of two Finnish Prime Ministers in 2003:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/finl-j01.shtml


Finland: Prime minister resigns over Iraq war scandal

By Naill Green

1 July 2003

Finland’s recently elected prime minister, Anneli Jäätteenmäki of the Centre Party, resigned June 18 amid accusations of misleading parliament and soliciting the leaking of secret documents.
Her Centre/Social Democratic coalition government temporarily stood down, to be reinstated minus Jäätteenmäki last week. Jäätteenmäki claimed that her position had become untenable after being called in for questioning by a police investigation into the leaking of secret Foreign Office documents to the press. In reality, Jäätteenmäki’s crime has been to partially expose Finnish diplomacy to public scrutiny.
The investigation had been set up after the March parliamentary elections, during which documents relating to a meeting between the then Social Democratic prime minister Paavo Lipponen and US President George W. Bush were leaked to the press. The leaked information confirmed suggestions by Jäätteenmäki, then leader of the opposition, that Lipponen had given his backing to Bush’s war plans at a private meeting between the two men in Washington in December.
In the final stages of the election Jäätteenmäki had asked Lipponen if the US had a correct understanding of the Finnish position on the war—that as it had not been sanctioned by the United Nations it was illegal. She questioned if the Bush administration had the idea that Finland was in some way part of the so-called “coalition of the willing”.
Lipponen rejected Jäätteenmäki’s suggestion, assuring the country that there could be no doubt that Finland was not in an alliance with the US against Iraq. The official position of Lipponen’s government, upon which it stood in the elections, was that Finland remained committed to upholding the UN’s authority. The Centre Party opposed US war policy on the basis that it undermined the United Nations.
Shortly after this exchange, and just days before the election, top-secret Foreign Office documents implying that Lipponen had privately given his backing to Bush were leaked to the media. The Social Democrats (SDP) immediately pointed the finger at Jäätteenmäki, claiming that the Centre Party was encouraging security breaches to aid its election campaign. Jäätteenmäki denied that she had ever possessed or leaked any confidential papers.
The Centre Party won the elections, becoming the single largest party in parliament, largely due to its criticism of Lipponen’s equivocal stance on the US-led invasion of Iraq. With 55 out of 200 parliamentary seats, Jäätteenmäki’s party went on to form a coalition government with the SDP and the small Swedish Peoples Party.
Meanwhile, a police investigation into the leaks had rumbled on until the beginning of June when a Centre Party protocol was leaked to the Ilta-Sanomat newspaper. The pre-election protocol recorded senior party figures, including Jäätteenmäki, agreeing to pursue Lipponen on the question of his stance on the US-led attack on Iraq. The possession by Jäätteenmäki of certain foreign policy “documents” was discussed in this context.
An aide to Jäätteenmäki said he believed the party leak was intended to paint the prime minister “in the most negative light” and so divert attention from the main issue of whether Lipponen had given the US the “wrong impression” about Finland’s policy on Iraq.
As a result of the leaked protocol, Jäätteenmäki was questioned by the police on June 11. Six days later a former presidential aide, Matti Manninen, told the Finnish News Agency that Jäätteenmäki had personally asked him to provide her with information on the discussions between Lipponen and Bush. A long-time Centre Party member, Manninen denies giving any stolen papers to Jäätteenmäki but acknowledges that he passed on, at Jäätteenmäki’s request, confidential information gleaned from Foreign Office accounts of Lipponen’s private meeting with Bush. He has denied being the source of the election-time press leak. Manninen faces police charges of breaching official secrecy, charges which could be extended to Jäätteenmäki.
In a statement to parliament on the day of her resignation Jäätteenmäki assured MPs that she had acted properly during the election campaign in raising the issue of the Lipponen government’s duplicity regarding its position on the Iraq war. Denying that she possessed or leaked any secret government documents, she admitted that two memoranda from Matti Manninen had been sent to her, unsolicited, in which Lipponen’s meeting with Bush was discussed.
In response, an emergency meeting of MPs from the governing parties was convened at which the SDP demanded the prime minister’s resignation or the government would be dissolved. That evening Jäätteenmäki tended her resignation to the president.
In the two months of its existence the Centre Party -ed coalition had been dogged by continual SDP attacks on Jäätteenmäki, despite the party quickly overcoming its pre-election reservations about SDP policy. The new prime minister, a former lawyer, was also the subject of fierce attacks from coalition partners in the last government, the conservative National Coalition Party.
SDP and National Coalition outrage over the divulging of official secrets is a brazen attempt to cover over the far greater deception committed by Lipponen’s government. Lipponen found his government caught between the hardening positions of America on one side and mass popular opposition to the Iraq war on the other. Like many European powers, his response was to present one face—devotion to the principles of international law and the UN—to the world, and another to Bush.
With political and media pressure focused on Jäätteenmäki, the craven duplicity of Lipponen, his government and senior advisers and the entire Finnish foreign policy establishment has been left largely untouched. The SDP, which has been in government for over 25 years, has moved against Jäätteenmäki because any exposure of the machinations of Finnish diplomacy to the public eye is completely unacceptable behaviour for a prime minister.
In response Jäätteenmäki and the Centre Party have rolled over.
Even at the time of the elections there were senior Centre Party figures who opposed criticising Lipponen’s foreign policy. Former leader Esko Aho had warned Jäätteenmäki against using the “Iraq card” and praised Lipponen for acting in line with longstanding Finnish foreign policy. The leak which finally brought Jäätteenmäki down is likely to have originated from a person or persons within the Centre Party who saw their leader as a stumbling block in the way of continued cooperation with the SDP in government.
The new Centre Party prime minister, the former party vice-chairman and Defence Minister Matti Vanhanen, has urged his party and the SDP to “stop the election campaign.” Vanhanen had been among the most vocal Centre Party critics of Jäätteenmäki in recent weeks.

With Iraq, the US made the World bend over backwards and screwed them. It's not something I can forgive and forget lightly.

[BDunnell]

Ben, I consider you a friend on here, even if we rarely agree because at least with you I find you looking at things with some intellectual honesty. However I think Chuck is right to point out that he wants a definition of what "draconian" measures are. If you said, invading Iraq, I would argue you have a pretty good point but at the same token, Chuck is also very right to point out that anyone who says the US cannot do this or that, never quite understands that the US doesn't ask the world for permission on where and when they are to defend themselves.

Should the US invasion of Iraq be considered a proper way of defending the USA? In light of history, it doesn't look too good. That said, what I have said, and what Chuck has said is that based on what was being fed to people like Blair, Bush and Chirac at the time, from their respective intelligence apparatus, it was clear Saddam was doing something. WE know now they were wrong, but leaders don't get the benefit of hindsight.

My objection to any invasion of Iraq was that I knew that it was going to be a mess and likely the American Government would NOT have the answers for putting the country back on its feet right away. Too many people in the Bush administration thought they would be welcomed with open arms and while I thought that to a point, I also knew that the US has never been good at that sort of touchy feelly nation building stuff when involved in military operations such as this in recent history. That said, much of the misery in Iraq in the last 5 years can be laid at the feet of the Islamic extremists looking for a reason to kill Americans, and the bits and pieces of Saddam's regime that didn't want to go quietly into the good night. Not to mention the Shiite/Sunni factions looking for brownie points for killing Americans.

No...Maybe going to Iraq was beyond reason, but we see that now, it wasn't that clear in 2002. Furthermore, the US is very quick to point out, even with Obama as President that they alone determine their policy in the world, it isn't to be dictated by the UN. No one dictates any sovereign nation's task for it if that nation is a responsble citizen following the rule of law. Rogue nation states and dictatorships are the ones who have to worry about an outside party invading.

In fact, I wasn't thinking of Iraq when I was referring to draconian measures, largely because I do not believe that the invasion was undertaken primarily because it was felt that doing so would make the USA or anywhere else safer. I've mentioned in another post above some of the draconian measures I'm thinking of — others may not have even been taken yet, or are hypothetical, like the idea of having everybody using the London Underground pass through security checks. The point I am making is a general one — that I feel that there should be limits as to what is acceptable in the name of improving security, because it is not practically possible to protect everyone all of the time. There will always be an element of danger from terrorism. This is, before anyone says anything, very different to supporting terrorism or even the notion of terrorism; I merely feel I'm being realistic in saying that, coming from whichever source, it will never go away and that therefore seeking to eradicate it completely by using ever more draconian means is a largely pointless and counter-productive exercise. As I said in another thread that mentioned the current anti-terror adverts on billboards in British cities, there is also the danger of 'crying wolf'.

It is my contention that this was accepted to an extent in the UK during the years of IRA terrorism — there was not, as I recall, the degree of paranoia regarding possible attacks that we see from certain quarters, even though they were just as unpredictable as anything we see now. There is certainly a different view in the UK, as proved by the reaction to the 7 July 2005 attacks, after which people in London were desperate just to get on with their lives again and public opinion has continued to go against increasing Government measures in the name of 'anti-terrorism'. It cannot be said that people in the UK value their lives less than do their American counterparts, so I believe that the British experience of terrorism in the past 40 years, coupled with our success in more or less eradicating the IRA threat (the recent attacks in Northern Ireland have caused little panic), has a lot to do with informing this way of thinking.

A classic example of what I'm talking about comes, in my view, from security measures taken at public events — specifically, military airshows, a field I know well. In the USA, it is now normal for coolers, camera bags and the like to be banned from these events in the name of security. This would be deemed totally unacceptable and over-the-top in the UK, and the public would not accept it. There, I think, you have part of the difference in microcosm.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Just like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc. don't ask it either, but you're still quick to condemn them.

I condemn any nation that is a) lead by leaders who are not democratically elected, b) have had a recent history human rights abuses, and c) have shown a propensity to use unusual and unethical amounts of force in prosecuting either dissidents in their nation or citizens of another nation.

I know you cant seem to grasp that Eki since you love any nation that "stands up" to the USA, but the Yanks for all their faults are NOT the threat to the world Iran is or North Korea would be if given half a chance. You my friend live in a fantasy world where you never see fault in some of the most heinous nations, while finding nothing but faults with the USA. Kei, I live beside America. If they were half the jerks you keep insisting they are, they would have conquered Canada years ago and sucked all the life out of it.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

In fact, I wasn't thinking of Iraq when I was referring to draconian measures, largely because I do not believe that the invasion was undertaken primarily because it was felt that doing so would make the USA or anywhere else safer. I've mentioned in another post above some of the draconian measures I'm thinking of — others may not have even been taken yet, or are hypothetical, like the idea of having everybody using the London Underground pass through security checks. The point I am making is a general one — that I feel that there should be limits as to what is acceptable in the name of improving security, because it is not practically possible to protect everyone all of the time. There will always be an element of danger from terrorism. This is, before anyone says anything, very different to supporting terrorism or even the notion of terrorism; I merely feel I'm being realistic in saying that, coming from whichever source, it will never go away and that therefore seeking to eradicate it completely by using ever more draconian means is a largely pointless and counter-productive exercise. As I said in another thread that mentioned the current anti-terror adverts on billboards in British cities, there is also the danger of 'crying wolf'.

It is my contention that this was accepted to an extent in the UK during the years of IRA terrorism — there was not, as I recall, the degree of paranoia regarding possible attacks that we see from certain quarters, even though they were just as unpredictable as anything we see now. There is certainly a different view in the UK, as proved by the reaction to the 7 July 2005 attacks, after which people in London were desperate just to get on with their lives again and public opinion has continued to go against increasing Government measures in the name of 'anti-terrorism'. It cannot be said that people in the UK value their lives less than do their American counterparts, so I believe that the British experience of terrorism in the past 40 years, coupled with our success in more or less eradicating the IRA threat (the recent attacks in Northern Ireland have caused little panic), has a lot to do with informing this way of thinking.

A classic example of what I'm talking about comes, in my view, from security measures taken at public events — specifically, military airshows, a field I know well. In the USA, it is now normal for coolers, camera bags and the like to be banned from these events in the name of security. This would be deemed totally unacceptable and over-the-top in the UK, and the public would not accept it. There, I think, you have part of the difference in microcosm.

Ben, I don't disagree with you in that most of the anti-terrorism measures that are being taken are counter productive. The coolers and the like at US airshows I cannot speak of but I suspect that has died down a little in recent years. NASCAR races and NFL games are also large groups of people gathering that would be targets and yet the searching there is negliable. The US reaction however to 9/11 is different. For one, it was a heinous crime. The number of dead in one day would be tragic for any nation. For the US it is magnified because the US experience isn't being exposed to terrorism. That just isn't in the US experience, Oklahoma City and the numerous nut jobs with guns notwithstanding.

There was a mental shift that was made in the minds of the American public after 9/11. You Brits wouldn't tolerate it because the UK has always had in its recent past of the last 100 or so years some threat that was either valid or on the horizon. This isn't anything new to you. It is to the Americans. To be truthful, I agree with you most of it is overkill and a lot of Americans who you would disagree with a LOT would be the first to agree with you on this subject. The rights of citizens against search and seizure is VERY much something on the minds of many....

[chuck34]

There you go again with your 'hatred' notion. I disagree strongly with many of the policies of one US administration. I also disagree strongly with many of the policies of the current UK government. Does this mean I 'hate' the UK? I would be genuinely interested to read your answer. Or is it only disagreement with US policy that constitutes hatred?

The fact that I continue to admire a great, great deal about the USA and bear its people no ill will at all is obviously beside the point as far as you are concerned.



He has not been in power long enough for me to form a full opinion.

I am done with this freaking p!ssing match. If you don't see how you claiming that my opinion is "intellectually bancrupt" is the exact same thing as my opinion that your views are shaded by a hatred of US policy then that is your problem. Get over yourself. It's a freaking internet forum. Don't take things so damn personal.



If you don't think that Obama has been in power long enough to form a full opinion then you are not paying much attention to what he is and has been saying. He is pursuing, pretty much line for line, the same economic policies that have led to the Great Depression and the stag-flation years of the 70's. He has taken foreign policy stances that put us in very weak positions around the world, some of the same ones from the Carter years. I have even seen a list of Communist party goals for America from the 60's that are pretty spot on to what he is doing. He is proposing to give up US sovernty on many issues. On and on. Open your eyes and see what the man stands for. Just because he hasn't had the time to implement everything he wants doesn't mean that he wont. Should we just stand by and allow him to do these things, and then once it's too late, start to speak out?

[BDunnell]

I am done with this freaking p!ssing match. If you don't see how you claiming that my opinion is "intellectually bancrupt" is the exact same thing as my opinion that your views are shaded by a hatred of US policy then that is your problem. Get over yourself. It's a freaking internet forum. Don't take things so damn personal.

I do take it personally when someone accuses me of hating an entire country, and rather I hope you would too. What you said was completely beyond the pale.

[chuck34]

I do take it personally when someone accuses me of hating an entire country, and rather I hope you would too. What you said was completely beyond the pale.

CALLING ME INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT IS COMMPLETELY BEYOND THE PALE!!!! Give it up and move on. This is the last word I have for you on the subject.

[BDunnell]

CALLING ME INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT IS COMMPLETELY BEYOND THE PALE!!!! Give it up and move on. This is the last word I have for you on the subject.

I am saddened that anyone should think it's acceptable to accuse someone of hating an entire country, which I consider a highly offensive thing to say, with no evidence for that view. I'm not going on about this just for the sake of it — I would hope that anybody's moral code would prevent them from suggesting anyone else hates a whole country without VERY good evidence. Tossing such comments around liberally simply isn't on.

Anyway, if this really was your last word on the subject, I'm pleased because hopefully it will now be possible to debate this interesting subject with people such as Mark with whom I may disagree, but who know how to have a debate.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, as for your little story on Finnish PM's stepping down and the Iraq war, a point was made in the runup to that war. The US pointed out that there was no point to the UN and their sanctions being made and passed if no one was going to uphold them and hold Saddam to the provisions made. Under the sanctions and agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War with Saddam, the US and allied powers were given UN sanction to reopen hostilities if the search and inspection by the UN inspectors were either stopped or interferred with. Based on the intelligence at the time from more than just the Americans ( how many times do I point this out to you?) Saddam was hiding something. He was interferring with the UN determining what was going on in Iraq. The US had legal rights under the UN sanctions yet the UN didn't want to do anything about it. Kofi Annan's son was in on the "oil for food" scam. The French were selling Iraq goods banned under UN sanction from that first Gulf War. No one wanted to ENFORCE the sanctions that were passed by the UN Security Council. Two more sanctions were added in the months leading up to final Gulf War. When was the UN going to get serious? Were they going to sanction Iraq into peace?

UN sanctions and the wishes of the rest of the world to have handled this without war were noble, but the point is Saddam could have co-opperated and the US would have been standing there with no war to fight. Saddam was bluffing Bush would back down because in the Arab world, bluff and bravado is common amongst the dictators of that culture. They always assume the other guy is going to play along. Dubya, foolish man he is, didn't play the game and invaded. Stupid him...he had more money, troops and toys, he didn't know he was supposed to not use them.

At some point Eki, I hope you get it through your skull that Saddam is VERY culpable for what happened. It may not justify the war in your mind, but to hear you admit maybe Saddam was the vicious little thug that he was and that he was an idiot to continue yanking the world's chain and Bush's chain.

If you think the Americans are out to get you and want to invade, you don't go about poking them in the eye. Yet That is what he did.....so why would I feel sorry for him? I feel sorry for the people who died, but again, Saddam never cared for his own people. Amnesity International could write a book on the evils that Saddam inflicted on his own people....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck...I think you and Ben just need to walk away from this one. I can see points in both your arguments.....but it is clear you guys are just pissed with each other....

[BDunnell]

Chuck...I think you and Ben just need to walk away from this one. I can see points in both your arguments.....but it is clear you guys are just pissed with each other....

As I said, now that he has apparently walked away from the debate, I feel no need to. I feel I have genuinely good reason to be highly offended by his comment about my being anti-American. But let's try and leave that part of the argument be.

[Easy Drifter]

I note Eki is saying that Dafur, Rwanda and the slaughter of the Kurds by Hussien happened in the past and as that is history it is inapplicable to current events.
I wonder how our Finnish Hamas member then cannot recognize the right of the Israeli nation to exist as its formation was many years prior to those cases of Genocide. Eki your debating skills are as increditibilly inept as your position is.
You twist in the wind more than a kite in a tornado.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As I said, now that he has apparently walked away from the debate, I feel no need to. I feel I have genuinely good reason to be highly offended by his comment about my being anti-American. But let's try and leave that part of the argument be.

Ben, you have never been anti-American. You out of all the members that I constantly seem to be in debate with has always drawn that line. I think Chuck was worked up with Eki's constant prodding of him as well and you got caught in the crossfire. I have re-read all those posts a few times and I think he missinterpted some of what you said and vice versa. I always come back to tho my respect for your attempts to at least debate your points. We probably wont agree on much, but it is amusing and intellectually stimulating to have these debates. I think Chuck is just a proud guy who is proud of his nation and doesn't want to make the disconnect between debating America's actions and debating what it is to be American. I have a lot of time for the man as well and wish you guys could find common ground.

[anthonyvop]

You really should learn to differentiate past from present. Those happened more than 10 years before the 2003 invasion. In February 2003 there was no genocide or other mass killings going on. The new mass killings began in March 2003 when the Americans arrived with their bombs and missiles.

I have news for you, the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis were in 1979 and the Cuban revolution was in 1959, they weren't in 2009. Get over them.
So if Hitler were alive today you would give him a pass?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I note Eki is saying that Dafur, Rwanda and the slaughter of the Kurds by Hussien happened in the past and as that is history it is inapplicable to current events.
I wonder how our Finnish Hamas member then cannot recognize the right of the Israeli nation to exist as its formation was many years prior to those cases of Genocide. Eki your debating skills are as increditibilly inept as your position is.
You twist in the wind more than a kite in a tornado.

Our boy Eki, humantarian for allhas always had a shifting view of what is moral and acceptable. Again, he only cares about those who die from American guns. The Millions of people dead and dying from people he likes he ignores. It has been my contention with him for years that he should just admit he hates America and Americans and we can all then go onto ignoring him....

[Easy Drifter]

I note that less and less people who often take his side are keeping quiet more and more as he continues to look like a completely biased idiot.

[Easy Drifter]

I also have noticed that Eki has not responded to my comments about fundalmentalist Islamics trying to impose Sharia law on all Cdn. mulims and a sect planning terrorist acts including beheading our Prime Minister.
They are a small minority of Muslims in Canada but it shows the attitude of the Islamics that their ideas are to become world wide.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I also have noticed that Eki has not responded to my comments about fundalmentalist Islamics trying to impose Sharia law on all Cdn. mulims and a sect planning terrorist acts including beheading our Prime Minister.
They are a small minority of Muslims in Canada but it shows the attitude of the Islamics that their ideas are to become world wide.

It is a small number of Muslims that advocate anything like violence, but I do agree Sharia law is where it starts, and where no sane society should make sure it never gets to.

The nutjobs in Canada that were elected were too stupid by half, and THAT worries me that they were so obvious. The fact tho remains that they made no effort really to understand the culture they moved into. That saddens me but in the end, anyone who lives in a Western Democratic society better sign on to accept pluarity of the majority, equal rights for women, freedom of speech and so on. The evidence has been however many in the Islamic world, even those committed to no violence never seem to want to accept this.

Eki? He's cool with it, he figures it is all George Bush's fault they are angry and that if the world was filled with leaders who thought like him, there would be no issues. We of course know how silly that is, Jimmy Carter was at least 50% as naive as Eki and we saw how Iran blew up on his watch.....

[jim mcglinchey]

Eki, as for your little story on Finnish PM's stepping down and the Iraq war, a point was made in the runup to that war. The US pointed out that there was no point to the UN and their sanctions being made and passed if no one was going to uphold them and hold Saddam to the provisions made. Under the sanctions and agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War with Saddam, the US and allied powers were given UN sanction to reopen hostilities if the search and inspection by the UN inspectors were either stopped or interferred with. Based on the intelligence at the time from more than just the Americans ( how many times do I point this out to you?) Saddam was hiding something. He was interferring with the UN determining what was going on in Iraq. The US had legal rights under the UN sanctions yet the UN didn't want to do anything about it. Kofi Annan's son was in on the "oil for food" scam. The French were selling Iraq goods banned under UN sanction from that first Gulf War. No one wanted to ENFORCE the sanctions that were passed by the UN Security Council. Two more sanctions were added in the months leading up to final Gulf War. When was the UN going to get serious? Were they going to sanction Iraq into peace?

UN sanctions and the wishes of the rest of the world to have handled this without war were noble, but the point is Saddam could have co-opperated and the US would have been standing there with no war to fight. Saddam was bluffing Bush would back down because in the Arab world, bluff and bravado is common amongst the dictators of that culture. They always assume the other guy is going to play along. Dubya, foolish man he is, didn't play the game and invaded. Stupid him...he had more money, troops and toys, he didn't know he was supposed to not use them.

At some point Eki, I hope you get it through your skull that Saddam is VERY culpable for what happened. It may not justify the war in your mind, but to hear you admit maybe Saddam was the vicious little thug that he was and that he was an idiot to continue yanking the world's chain and Bush's chain.

If you think the Americans are out to get you and want to invade, you don't go about poking them in the eye. Yet That is what he did.....so why would I feel sorry for him? I feel sorry for the people who died, but again, Saddam never cared for his own people. Amnesity International could write a book on the evils that Saddam inflicted on his own people....

couldnt agree with your analysis less Mark. The reason for the invasion as it clearly transpired was to open Iraq and the entire region to free market ideals, and that was never going to happen while there were UN sanctions in place. It was all down to money. Sure there was the third largest oil reserve in the world at stake, but a more realistic prize was the privitisation of the countries utilities and industries, and thats where Haliburton etc, etc stepped in.

Iraq was picked as a way in because that particular campaign had been sucessfully rehearsed a decade earlier and methods, weapons etc had improved while Iraqs had worsened.

Bush however, underestimated the Iraqis will to bite back and things didnt go to plan.

[Eki]

threat to the world Iran is or North Korea would be if given half a chance.
That's just paranoia. Both Iran and North Korea have never shown any signs of expansionism, they have always remained within their own borders.

[Eki]

If they were half the jerks you keep insisting they are, they would have conquered Canada years ago and sucked all the life out of it.....
They would have if Canada had a regime and people who haven't got the seal of approval from the US. Similarly the Soviet Union sent their troops to the neighboring countries only when they felt their security threatened by them.

[chuck34]

That's just paranoia. Both Iran and North Korea have never shown any signs of expansionism, they have always remained within their own borders.

So does your knowlege of history start at 1990?

The Korean war of the 50's was started when Communists from the North tried to take over the South. The Iran-Iraq war started when Iran was trying to start a Shia revolution in Iraq (a bit like they have been doing the past few years).

Oversimplistic? A bit. But don't give me this BS about neither country having expansionist dreams.

[Eki]

Eki, as for your little story on Finnish PM's stepping down and the Iraq war, a point was made in the runup to that war. The US pointed out that there was no point to the UN and their sanctions being made and passed if no one was going to uphold them and hold Saddam to the provisions made. Under the sanctions and agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War with Saddam, the US and allied powers were given UN sanction to reopen hostilities if the search and inspection by the UN inspectors were either stopped or interferred with. Based on the intelligence at the time from more than just the Americans ( how many times do I point this out to you?) Saddam was hiding something. He was interferring with the UN determining what was going on in Iraq. The US had legal rights under the UN sanctions yet the UN didn't want to do anything about it. Kofi Annan's son was in on the "oil for food" scam. The French were selling Iraq goods banned under UN sanction from that first Gulf War. No one wanted to ENFORCE the sanctions that were passed by the UN Security Council. Two more sanctions were added in the months leading up to final Gulf War. When was the UN going to get serious? Were they going to sanction Iraq into peace?

What do you mean? Iraq WAS in peace before March 2003 when they were invaded. After that it was in war.

[Eki]

So does your knowlege of history start at 1990?

The Korean war of the 50's was started when Communists from the North tried to take over the South. The Iran-Iraq war started when Iran was trying to start a Shia revolution in Iraq (a bit like they have been doing the past few years).

Oversimplistic? A bit. But don't give me this BS about neither country having expansionist dreams.
Obviously you have no knowledge of history and geography before 1950? North Korea and South Korea were the one and same Korea before it was divided. It's not like North Korea invaded China or some other neighboring country. It was a civil war where both the US and China interfered.

And it was Iraq who invaded Iran, not vice versa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war


The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution (mostly known as the Islamic Revolution).

[chuck34]

Obviously you have no knowledge of history and geography before 1950? North Korea and South Korea were the one and same Korea before it was divided. It's not like North Korea invaded China or some other neighboring country. It was a civil war where both the US and China interfered.

And it was Iraq who invaded Iran, not vice versa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war

You are obviously correct about Korea. However the faction that became the North were the Communists. They obviously wanted, and still want, the whole country. That could be seen by some as expansionist desires.

Iraq invaded Iranian territory because Iran was stirring up a revolution among their population. Funding, training, and supporting an armed revolution within a foreign country is seen by some as cause for war. Or to see it another way, the Shia in Iran were trying to EXPAND their influence.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki...there is no way any sane man can look at the history of the Koreas in the last 50 years and say with any honesty that the North has any intellectual, moral or any other superiority over the south. The Chinese only invaded when they realized they didn't want the Allied forces of the UN ( mainly western powers ) armed on their doorstep. China couldn't give a rat's behind about the quality of life for those poor souls that have to put with the midget dictator.

Of course..let me guess, it is the US's fault right?

[Eki]

Eki...there is no way any sane man can look at the history of the Koreas in the last 50 years and say with any honesty that the North has any intellectual, moral or any other superiority over the south.
Who said anything about any intellectual, moral or any other superiority? It was Korean country. They could have duked it out without the US and China interfering. Probably lot less casualties too. Just like the parties of the Finnish civil war in 1918 could have been duked out among Finns without the Russians, Germans and Swedes interfering.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Who said anything about any intellectual, moral or any other superiority? It was Korean country. They could have duked it out without the US and China interfering. Probably lot less casualties too. Just like the parties of the Finnish civil war in 1918 could have been duked out among Finns without the Russians, Germans and Swedes interfering.

Eki...it wasn't just the US in there. Canada, UK, Turkey, Greece, Australia, and god knows who else. It was a UN Sanctioned operation based on the international law that the UN was obligated to condemn or do something when one sovereign nation invaded another without cause. North Korea and South Korea were created out of the Communist Russians and Chinese and the US partitioning what was one Korea after Japan fell in 1945. Reuniting the Korea's is fine, but every nation recognized two Koreas at that point in history, and if they were to reunite peacefully, as the two Germanies did, no one would have an issue.

At this point in history, the Communists were bent on expanding their influence and THAT wasn't going to fly for the democracies at the time. I suspect most in the South think that they were lucky the rest of the world cared....Of course you disagree, but I suspect you would welcome the Russians if they reinvaded Finland tomorrow just because you abhor bloodshed. ( or so you have claimed )