Al-Sadr speaks sense

[Eki]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269053,00.html

In the statement, al-Sadr criticized comments by top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus and others who have warned of chaos here if U.S. forces leave.

"What chaos are you claiming will happen if you and the armies of darkness withdraw from our land? What chaos can be worse than the one we are passing through in Iraq where blood is being continuously shed," al-Sadr said.

"What freedom do you claim that you have spread in Iraq? Aren't you aware that the most simple freedoms were stolen from Iraqis, even their right to life, to become independent and unite? If you claimed that your pictures will be hanged in the homes of Iraqis they are under their feet today."

Al-Sadr said Bush had "damaged the West's image in the minds of the people of the east and if no one told you, I am telling you now. All this is because of your reckless acts," al-Sadr said.

"If a tower was destroyed in America, what is our guilt as Iraqis? If Saddam (Hussein) destroyed it, and this is impossible, he is in burning Hell now. If the terrorists did it then you are the one who opened to the gates of Iraq to kill us as you live in peace," al-Sadr said, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Al-Sadr praised those who carry attack against U.S. troops, calling them "honorable Iraqis not terrorists at all."

"The terrorist is the one who kills civilians whether a Shiite, Sunni and Christian and their weapons don't target your tanks or soldiers. This means that your withdrawal is a victory to Iraqis whose hands were only tainted by resisting you," he said.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok....so America pulls out, and Al Sadr takes on the Sunni's, wins the civil war and becomes the new "Saddam" is it better? Maybe not...maybe so.

I am of the opinion the Americans have to get out at some point, but the point is they cant be seen leaving as if they are the losers in this war.

The problem is, there is so much going on in Iraq now that the Americans don't really have a handle on how to fix things. I have always thought this was going to be the tough part about the war, and the Bushies have messed it up. The path to hell is paved with good intentions, and god knows Bush and his boys have messed it up.....but I don't see how they can leave without some sort of resolution that allows them to leave on a high note. One thing is for sure, what Al Sadr don't care about America, but Bush has to, and any one who replaces him better care too. If they are seen as leaving as "losers" of a war, the next battle will be back on American soil..and THEN people will get hurt...

[BDunnell]

Al-Sadr praised those who carry attack against U.S. troops, calling them "honorable Iraqis not terrorists at all."

It is the citing of quotes like this, while in the same breath praising someone like al-Sadr, that does the arguments put forward by many people who were against the Iraq conflict down. It makes it appear as if we all want the maximum loss of life on the Coalition side, which is not the case for me at least.

It's a cliche, I know, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Malbec]

Al Sadr would appear so much more sincere if his men didn't round up Sunni's, torture them, shoot them through the head and deposit their bodies in Baghdad when given half the chance.

Like it or not, given the current situation in Baghdad, the US plan to restore order in the city is the only option they have left.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that the Americans have only themselves to blame for letting this situation occur in the first place, but that does absolutely nothing whatsoever to help resolve the situation.

What would happen if the Yanks upped sticks and left would be that chaos would reign and there'd be a bloodbath until finally everyone reached a state of exhaustion or noone was left.

[Hawkmoon]

Even you, Eki, can't really believe that what you quoted makes sense.
Al Sadr is a terrorist leader and nothing more. He wants the Coalition out so that he can make a grab for power.

"The terrorist is the one who kills civilians whether a Shiite, Sunni and Christian and their weapons don't target your tanks or soldiers."

He's right there. The only problem is that he left out the bit where it's he and his people that are killing civillians. If all the violence in Iraq stopped, the Coalition would be only too happy to leave. As long as Al Sadr and his ilk continue to kill people the Coalition are obliged to remain.

[Ian McC]

I can't see any sense in that statement whatsoever.

How the hell a religious leader can praise people that have killed other people is beyond me.

[Zico]

the next battle will be back on American soil..and THEN people will get hurt...

Mark.. Dont you regard Iraqis as people too?
Or were you meaning.. Out of sight... out of mind?

[Gannex]

Even you, Eki, can't really believe that what you quoted makes sense.
Al Sadr is a terrorist leader and nothing more. He wants the Coalition out so that he can make a grab for power.

"The terrorist is the one who kills civilians whether a Shiite, Sunni and Christian and their weapons don't target your tanks or soldiers."

He's right there. The only problem is that he left out the bit where it's he and his people that are killing civillians. If all the violence in Iraq stopped, the Coalition would be only too happy to leave.

Eki, you obviously don't know al-Sadr's record in this conflict. He is one of the very few who willed it from the start. He, more than anyone else in Iraq, worked from day one to foment anarchy and total war throughout the country. He staked his reputation on it, not to mention his life. What you are seeing today is the victory of al-Sadr's sick plan. He couldn't have done it without the Americans. He dreaded their leaving too soon. Without them, he would have been nothing. It's amazing to me, Eki, that when al-Sadr voices regret about the American intervention, which has been his passport to power, you are so naive as to take it at face value, and when you hear him decry the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis, the fact that much of that killing is done on his orders makes no impact on you at all. This simple thug of a man has you completely fooled, Eki. I wouldn't care, except that there are probably millions more like you.

[Roamy]

well what do you all expect from this ****ed up nation. They offered Sadam 22 billion dollars to leave and he chose to live in a hole until he was hanged.
These leaders are beyond belief. Quit the violence and we will leave. Hell any sane person would go for this and then after we leave everyone can resume killing each other. It is really easy to have us leave now so what is the problem. No faction is sure they will succeed so they will continue the bloodbath. Sadr is a punk terrorist. But I will say all our military commander were quite stupid for not seeing this quagmire. God if we would just stop selling democracy we would be fine. you just can't put lipstick on a pig and expect to win the prize.

[Tomi]

God if we would just stop selling democracy we would be fine.

LOL, funny way to put it, someone would use words like force with guns.

[Eki]

It's amazing to me, Eki, that when al-Sadr voices regret about the American intervention, which has been his passport to power, you are so naive as to take it at face value, and when you hear him decry the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis, the fact that much of that killing is done on his orders makes no impact on you at all. This simple thug of a man has you completely fooled, Eki. I wouldn't care, except that there are probably millions more like you.
I didn't say I take him at face value, or that he's sincere. I said he speaks sense. And indeed, his words make sense to me, even if they are not sincere.

[Roamy]

Eki, you obviously don't know al-Sadr's record in this conflict. He is one of the very few who willed it from the start. He, more than anyone else in Iraq, worked from day one to foment anarchy and total war throughout the country. He staked his reputation on it, not to mention his life. What you are seeing today is the victory of al-Sadr's sick plan. He couldn't have done it without the Americans. He dreaded their leaving too soon. Without them, he would have been nothing. It's amazing to me, Eki, that when al-Sadr voices regret about the American intervention, which has been his passport to power, you are so naive as to take it at face value, and when you hear him decry the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis, the fact that much of that killing is done on his orders makes no impact on you at all. This simple thug of a man has you completely fooled, Eki. I wouldn't care, except that there are probably millions more like you.

Very very good Gannex - Right on the money!! EKI could be Saddam's brother in disguise. Maybe Eki is pulling for a cabinet position down there!
Plus if it is anti american it now comes endorsed by Eki and Tomi

[Hondo]

Actually, before the invasion, you had Iraqis killing Iraqis. It was just more of a one-sided game. The removal of Saddam merely widened the field and made it easier for the average Iraqi to kill another average Iraqi of his or her choice. In a twisted sense, we have restored equality to Iraq by making it easier for more of them to run around killing each other, which seems to be what they enjoy.

The coalition should leave now, Iraq is back to it's normal state.

[schmenke]

... God if we would just stop selling democracy we would be fine. you just can't put lipstick on a pig and expect to win the prize.

Yep, we have to realise that democracy simply doesn't work in every country.

[Eki]

Actually, before the invasion, you had Iraqis killing Iraqis. It was just more of a one-sided game.
Not in as large scale, and I'm not sure about the one-sidedness. Iraqi Christians have said that Saddam protected them against fanatic Muslims, now many of the Christians have decided to leave Iraq.

Here's what some Iraqi exiles said in February 2003 before the invasion. Seems like they were right:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.iraqi.peace/index.html

Suspicion of the U.S.

Nidhal argues that her countrymen do not trust the U.S. and do not believe it has their country's best interest in mind.

She believes supporters of an American war on Iraq are looking only to help themselves obtain more power.

When asked about the Iraqi National Congress leader, Ahmad Chalabi, she said, "If you say the name Ahmad Chalabi in Baghdad people will shout thief and liar."

She also asked: "How can the Iraqis trust the U.S. when we know it is a country which is 100 percent in support of Israel, a country which hates Arab countries."

Nidhal fears that Israel would take advantage of a weak Iraq and push the Americans to send Palestinian refugees into Iraq.

When asked how she felt about Iraqis who were pro-war, she said: "These are ignorant people, who are misinformed and who want power -- I feel betrayed by them."

"We are not a religious people [Nidhal is a Shi'ite], many of us are married to Christians and have no real concern with religion.

"We do not want to become another Iran. We are a people who want to be free and live like people in this country.

"Ninety percent of those Iraqis in London who are pro-war are looking for power. Most haven't even been to Iraq, they are simply looking for power."

Nidhal is desperate that her voice be heard -- "Iraqis do not want war" -- and dreams of the day when Saddam will leave Iraq, forced out by the Iraqis, not by anyone else.

"I would like free elections -- from free Iraqis inside Iraq -- not people from outside like those calling themselves the Iraqi opposition abroad."

[Sandfly]

The US is in Iraq to kill terrorists. Bush has done exactly what he said he would do and he said it would take decades. The US is under attack from radical Islam - Al-Sadr included, and if the US leaves, and a radical - perhaps Al sadr controls Iraq -after a large massacre - then they will be free to plan and finance attacks on the west - using oil revenues - that they will then control.

The US is in a war that it did not start - but will finish. Even if the fools in congress pull funding - the attacks against the US at home and abroad will continue untill we get pissed-off enough to really go to war. Then there will heads on stakes and glass in the desert. We are trying to be nice - but patience is wearing thin. Hopefully there can be a political solution in Iraq,
but Al-Sadr is not to be trusted and will not be part of the solution.

[schmenke]

... Bush has done exactly what he said he would do ....

Ah, so he did find those weapons of mass destruction... :dozey:

[Eki]

The US is in Iraq to kill terrorists. Bush has done exactly what he said he would do and he said it would take decades.
But first he had to create those terrorists before he could kill them. They weren't in Iraq before, now they are. The US has a nasty habit of dumping its' own garbage on other countries.

[cdn_grampa]

The US is in Iraq to kill terrorists. Bush has done exactly what he said he would do and he said it would take decades. The US is under attack from radical Islam - Al-Sadr included, and if the US leaves, and a radical - perhaps Al sadr controls Iraq -after a large massacre - then they will be free to plan and finance attacks on the west - using oil revenues - that they will then control.

The US is in a war that it did not start - but will finish. Even if the fools in congress pull funding - the attacks against the US at home and abroad will continue untill we get pissed-off enough to really go to war. Then there will heads on stakes and glass in the desert. We are trying to be nice - but patience is wearing thin. Hopefully there can be a political solution in Iraq,
but Al-Sadr is not to be trusted and will not be part of the solution.

Unbelievable arrogance and stupidity.

[Sandfly]

Ah, so he did find those weapons of mass destruction... :dozey:


I suggest you actually look at the Kay and Duellfer(sp) reports. The country was full of weapons that any reasonable person would consider Weapons of mass destruction. The problem is that the Definition of WMD was drawn so narrowly by the UN ( the same Un that was using the Oil for food program to serve the interests of France, Germany and Russia leading up to and during the months long debate in the UN which provided opportunity to disperse the more advanced weapons) that that ALL dual use "weapons" were excluded from the official tally - thus NO WMD. But the reports are thousounds of pages outlining what was found.

Lets just start with Organophosphate "insecticide" which is buried in camoflaged bunkers underground - next to the "barn" full of canister artillery shells ready for filling. Everwhere we found atropine kits and gas masks. THATS the antidote for the Nerve toxin that is ORGANOPHASPHATE poison. It has the same LD-50 as Sarin gas. It is a poor man's, third world, homemade, "dual use" nerve toxin and it was hidden all throughout Iraq.
CNN showed video - and I am sure they still have it but for some reason NEVER showed it after the live showing- of the 3rd ID ( I believe ) moving into Karbala during the march to Bagdad - they found and explored one of the "insecticide" bunkers and showed lots of video - including the artillery shells for the delivery of the weaponized "insecticide".

No more mention on CNN. Turns out - the camerman, and Knight -ridder reporter , several troops and others were incapacitated by nerve gas - organophosphate and traces of Sarin gas . No report by CNN.

How about Thiouracil -- a thyroid drug. Huge stockpiles found - enough to treat-- well ..lots of people... like everybody. Just happens to be stored in the chemical plant set up to extract the sulfur compounds for making chemical weapons.

Saddam knew that thew dual use methods would bypass the regs and he tailored the more large scale weapons to that end. There were also more advanced technologies being developed and many presume that they were secreted out of Iraq during the UN delay - (France, Germany, Russia - who also supplied most of the chemical plant technology.) To say that there were no WMD is absolutely ridiculous and false and is a misreading of the reports. And that is exactly what the media and US liberals did to attack Bush and undermine his credibility.

Fact is -- the place was full of Weapons designed for mass destruction. IF Saddam had fully complied with the UN resolutions and the treaty requirements following the first Gulf war - ( remember that one - Kuwait ). there would have been no premise for going into Iraq.

The US did not anticipate or prevent the outside elemnets coming into Iraq and establishing the basis for civil war and anarchy. The initial "combat operations" against Sadaamms forces did endearly on. Then a new battle began that continues today. That battle is against the terrorists who come there to kill Americans and other Muslims - with whom they have differnces.
It is not a war against Iraq - it is a war on terror that happens to be taking plave in Iraq right now. I suspect it will go other places - where will depend on the terrorists and those states that support them.

The US is not going to assume a passive, defensive posture and wait to be slammed again ( regardless of what the Liberal Democrat -congress thinks they represent ). Americans are not stupid - they may dissagree on tactics, and they are inherently peaceloving ( thus the inability to conduct a protracted military campaign that is covered continuosly by liberal anti-war media correspondents constantly highlighting the negative) but when they get sufficiently pissed-off - which they have not yet- then the war will really start. It will be very bad - and I hope it can be avoided.

Perhaps I am arrogant. But I am very tolerant of other views - and I do not force my way of life on others who are willing to co-exist in a peaceful manner, and respect the social and religious views of others.

[Eki]

and I do not force my way of life on others who are willing to co-exist in a peaceful manner, and respect the social and religious views of others.
However, the current US administration doesn't fit that description.

Besides, organophosphates are also used in agricultural chemicals, such as herbicides and pesticides. Possessing them doesn't necessarily mean you will use them as weapons. It's like that you're not automatically a rapist even if you have the tool for it.

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

[Sandfly]

However, the current US administration doesn't fit that description.

Besides, organophosphates are also used in agricultural chemicals, such as herbicides and pesticides. Possessing them doesn't necessarily mean you will use them as weapons. It's like that you're not automatically a rapist even if you have the tool for it.

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

OK, so how has the Current admin violated that description??? Do not tell me it is by going into Iraq. Can you tell me any time that the US admin has prohibited any group from practicing the religion of it's choice.

Glad to see you get the point about the organophosphates - It is exactly because they have the legitimate use that 1) Sadam made them his primary chemical weapon 2) that they do do meet the narrow definition of WMD put forth by the corrupt UN. But the fact they are buried underground in camoflaged bunkers next to storage barns filled with artillery canister warheads ( no crops anywhere in site) leads observers to joke that the iraqi's were really worried about having insects around there weapons storage depots. The stuff was everywhere - hidden next to military delivery systems. It is documented as a weapon material but not as WMD - by definition.

You may chose to ignore or deny this fact - but do not expect the American public too.

[Eki]

OK, so how has the Current admin violated that description??? Do not tell me it is by going into Iraq. Can you tell me any time that the US admin has prohibited any group from practicing the religion of it's choice.

Waco, Texas in 1993?

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

And it has also been reluctant to allow pagan symbols in military graveyards.

Can you tell me any time Saddam's Iraq prohibited any group from practicing the religion of it's choice?

I can't, but now there are people on loose who want to do just that:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/22/iraq.main.ap/index.html

Gunmen execute 23 members of Kurdish sect
POSTED: 12:02 a.m. EDT, April 23, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Gunmen shot and killed 23 members of an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq after stopping their bus and separating out followers of other faiths, while car bombings in the capital killed at least another 20 people.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in Egypt to increase support among Arab leaders for his Shiite-led government, told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Iraq was not embroiled in a civil or sectarian war. Key Arab leaders pressured him Sunday to step up reconciliation efforts to include Sunni insurgents if he expects Arab support.

In the northern Iraq attack, armed men stopped a bus carrying workers from a textile factory in Mosul to their hometown of Bashika, which has a mixed population of Christians and Yazidis -- a primarily Kurdish sect that worships an angel figure considered to be the devil by some Muslims and Christians. (Watch why the Senate majority leader says the war is "lost" Video)

The gunmen checked the passengers' identification cards, then asked all Christians to get off the bus, police Brig. Mohammed al-Wagga said. With the Yazidis still inside, the gunmen drove them to eastern Mosul, where they were lined up along a wall and shot to death, al-Wagga said.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, Waco was a mess created by the idiot that was in the White House at the time, and his inept Attorney General; Not George Bush. Tolerance of religion and the separation of church and state is in the US constitution. Waco was a religious wack job with a persecution complex holding himself in a dangerous situation while he was under a warrent of arrest for weapons violations. You always muddy the water when you are losing your argument.

Get back to the reality Eki. The reality is Sandfly has pointed out very succienctly that Saddam may have NOT had nukes or obvious WMD's, but he had binary weapon technology for nerve gas. The media has over looked a lot of this because they don't understand it or don't WANT to, but the point remains this was part of the reality of those early days of the invasion. You keep crying out for how hard done by Iraq is, but 90% of the killing going on right now in Iraq is sectarian stupidity, and THAT isn't the fault of Americans. It isn't the American Army that is doing that shooting. Most of the deaths are because of car bombs and suicide bombers trying to start a civil war, and most of that is from people like your hero Al-Sadr and the "Al Quaida in Iraq" movements. Well, America didn't invite all these Arabs to come to Iraq to kill them, but if they want to play, Iam sure the US Army is quite willing to defend itself.

You see Eki, what you and your sort do is change the arguement when you lose, and only pick your selected arguments to meet your narrow agenda. The fact remains while many may think Iraq was a mistake, and god knows Bushie is no rocket scientest, the war was fought based on the intellengence of the time (despite what George Tenet is saying now, he is the guy who GAVE Bush that information and waited 4 years to say he disagreed? Ya right...CYA syndrome is breaking out)and the best intentions. The Americans were naive in their goals, but hey, they have goals that were to give Iraq a democratic government in some form. IT is not America's fault that people like your friend Al-Sadr cant stop killing his own countrymen......

[Eki]

The Americans were naive in their goals, but hey, they have goals that were to give Iraq a democratic government in some form.
They were so naive that they didn't even bother to ask if the Iraqis even want a democratic government in some form, or do each sect and ethnic group just want to run the country alone.

[BDunnell]

You see Eki, what you and your sort do is change the arguement when you lose, and only pick your selected arguments to meet your narrow agenda.

Are you saying that it is utterly impossible for those on the right to do likewise?

[Malbec]

If possession of organophosphates is sufficient pretext to go to war then there isn't a country on this planet that is safe from invasion.

[Sandfly]

If possession of organophosphates is sufficient pretext to go to war then there isn't a country on this planet that is safe from invasion.


Of course it is not - and yuo KNOW the difference. These were stockpiled - hidden and located adjacent to weapon delivery systems. THAT is the point - it side steps the UN definition and leads to fools saying gleefully that There Were NO WMD in Iraq. Congratulations.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They were so naive that they didn't even bother to ask if the Iraqis even want a democratic government in some form, or do each sect and ethnic group just want to run the country alone.

Only you would be so naive to think people living under the thumb of Saddam Hussein wouldn't want to have a choice in their lives. It is this arrogant attitude that only the nations who have democracy now can handle it. As if it was some potent force to be contained.

As for your Assertion Mr. Dunnell, I am not saying the right isn't above playing that game too at times. I think Bush's PR campaign was not well executed and thought out, but lets face the facts too that Sandfly is dead on the money. Saddam had these shells loaded with this "pesticide" and he wasn't going to kill ants with them. It may not be a WMD to the eyes of some, but lets not be naive either...

Again, we have to face the reality that this war was not a perfectly black and white situation. We have a lot of unknowns, and a lot of different agenda's, but again, I go back to the fact that any time you get rid of a Saddam Hussein, spare me the rhetoric how the world is worse off. When Muammar Quaddafi saw what happened to his buddy Hussein, it is amazing how fast he coughed up his WMD programs for destruction and inspection. The Arab world may HATE the US right now, but lets face the reality that the Arab world says a lot of things while doing the opposite. Islamic fantacism and terrorism isn't going away, but at least with 150000 American troops in Iraq, the terrorists are concentrating on the Americans there, and not flying planes into buildings in NYC. Which, the last time I looked, was the whole point of the "war on Terrorism".

I don't like a lot of things Bush says or how he articulates them, but when you look at the big picture, he isn't exactly overwhelmed with choices other than doing nothing, which is what Clinton did....and we saw how Bin Laden viewed that on Sept. 11

[Malbec]

Of course it is not - and yuo KNOW the difference. These were stockpiled - hidden and located adjacent to weapon delivery systems. THAT is the point - it side steps the UN definition and leads to fools saying gleefully that There Were NO WMD in Iraq. Congratulations.

Engage brain please.

Organophosphate pesticides are considerably LESS potent than the weapon versions, sarin etc etc.

That is why they have been cleared for use by civilians in the agriculture industry the world over.

You can't simply stuff malathion into an artillery shell and end up with a WMD. A stockpile of pesticide is just that, a stockpile of pesticide.

If you want nerve gas you need to make the more potent variants, sarin/vx etc. Simply converting one to the other is not a possibility, fortunately so since otherwise any Tom Dick and Harry terrorist operation would be at it given the easy availability of organophosphate insecticides.

[Eki]

Only you would be so naive to think people living under the thumb of Saddam Hussein wouldn't want to have a choice in their lives.
I'm sure they wanted to have a choice in their OWN lives, but I'm not sure they wanted OTHER people to have a say as well if it conflicts with their own religion or other ideology. Democracy is about everybody having a say, unless you didn't know it.

[Sandfly]

Engage brain please.

Organophosphate pesticides are considerably LESS potent than the weapon versions, sarin etc etc.

That is why they have been cleared for use by civilians in the agriculture industry the world over.

You can't simply stuff malathion into an artillery shell and end up with a WMD. A stockpile of pesticide is just that, a stockpile of pesticide.

If you want nerve gas you need to make the more potent variants, sarin/vx etc. Simply converting one to the other is not a possibility, fortunately so since otherwise any Tom Dick and Harry terrorist operation would be at it given the easy availability of organophosphate insecticides.

You could not be more wrong. I can give you the names of many dead farmers who have handled "pesticides" improperly.

Depending on the specific organophosphate pesticide we are talking about tetraethypyrophosphate TEPP for example, the LD-50 ( amount that would kill half of those exposed ) is essentially the same (1680mg)as the potent anti-cholinesterase agent Sarin (1700 mg ).
The Canadian Intelligence Security Service has labeled both TEPP and the less toxic Parathion, as "almost as toxic as thier military counterparts".

The point is any Tom Dick and Harry or Saddam terrorist can do exactly that. Use deadly agents that have a legitimate ( though dangerous) civilian use and use them in weapon delivery systems as they are or as precursor chemicals to more concentrated forms. That is exactly what Saddam did and it is outlined in the freakin reports. BUT you and those hell bent on undermining Bush and the American intelligence program - simply ignore the text of the Kay and Duellfer reports and blindly repeat the Conclusion
No WMD in Iraq - and ingore the thousands of pages which say "no WMD that meet the narrow definition ascribed by the UN" which also happened to be scamming millions from the oil for food program and assisting France, Germany and Russia at the same time - gee i wonder why they were so reluctant to join in the efforts to restrain Saddam.

Althoughth evidence suggests that Saddam did have very sophisticated binary compounds - it is clear that his main chemical inventory was to use organophosphates as a nerve agent, because they were widespread, deadly and easily weaponized. They also conveniently fall outside the ridiculous UN sanctions. That is why all his generals admitted he had chemical weapons and why the alied military prepared for real chemical attack - this was not a drill for the TV cameras.

As for being cleared for agricultural use - so has fertilizer. Big explosions. The point is - it is not just the agent - it is the intent of those who have it -- and clearly Saddam's intent was to use organophosphates as a weapon.

[Malbec]

sandfly, pesticide organophosphates have different characteristics that make them less persistent agents etc than their military counterparts. Yes there are deaths/injuries through improper handling, but I suggest to you that sarin/vx are on a different plane of lethality and persistence than malathion. Or are you really suggesting that they are that comparable?

Your other analogy with fertiliser conversion to bombs fails utterly. Had processes been found in Iraq that would have allowed the production of sarin/VX or its conversion (if that were possible), that would have been the smoking gun that would have proven the presence of WMD or their manufacture in that country.

There are plenty of reasons for Saddam acting openly as if he had chemical weapons regardless of whether he actually had them, including the fact that he had many enemies both within and outside the country to which he had to present a strong face. Had the penny dropped that he didn't possess any WMD worth a damn, his long term survivability would have dropped through the floor. Of course that posturing gave a perfect excuse for the US to invade.... Talk about being stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Oh BTW, since you know nothing as to my politics regarding the invasion of Iraq I suggest you drop the stereotyping. It says more about you than about me I'm afraid.

[Sandfly]

Yes they are comparable when delievered the right way. A fifty -five gallon drum of TEPP dropped into the right place -- a crowded square-- could produce serious injury and death.

It all depends on exposure rates and dispersal factors--- but the point is again - that Saddam had weaponized organophosphates. You can argue theat they are not dangerous enough for you - but they were intended as a weapon of mass destruction and in fact were --- except the UN restricted the definition so narrowly that those wanting to excue Iraq could defend him on the dual use issue -- look all he had was insect spray.

As far as your politics - I don't really care,, but you suggested that chemical weapons was the pretext for invasion - and an improper one. I am growing tired of the discussion but would simply suggest that the terms of the ceasefire following the invasion of Kuwait gave the US coalition the right to unseat Saddam much earlier than we did. It was only after much patience and hundreds of attacks on US aircraft by Iraq in the no-fly zone, and the growing intellegence of several US administrations, the UK, Cananda et al, that the case was made to unseat Saddam.

If the US and coalition forces leave Iraq - prematurely, as seems to be a possibilty - the world will see that it is not the US that is forcing it's laws and religious restrictions on the rest of the world. Go ahead and get your prayer rug, you - and I - will likely be needing one. BTW, no need for all the "engage brain" comments - it is not very becoming.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sandfly, welcome to the world where the only people who use "logic" are Eki and his friends who think that George Bush is the antichrist. What is more, you will find Dylan thinks it is contemptious that you try to read his politics into his remarks, but it is clear he has no issue with trying to pigeon hole anyone who tries to rationalize any part of this war as a neo con.

As for Mr. Dunnell, well, I find his points sometimes very interesting, even if I don't agree, at least he tries to find a cogent arguement.


No, Eki, if they asked everyone's opinion in Iraq, they never would have gotten the truth anyhow, because Saddam squelched the truth. Again, you tend to figure these poor schmucks were better off being oppressed and tortured as a people. You would try to defend anyone who thinks this is ok, yet you claim to think Bush is an oppressor. Your logic as usual escapes me. Eki, if you were Saddam's defence lawyer, they would likely would have had a kick out of you......

People can argue for years and have about the WMD hunt in Iraq. Personally, I think, if they were there before the war started, Saddam had them sent out or hidden somewhere. The point is, no one could know what Saddam had, because he kept the UN from ever really knowing. THat was the whole point of this war. HE didn't want to comply with the resoultions of the UN Security Council for unfettered inspections. Even after he let Hans Blix in, he turned around and dind't really let them see what they wanted to see, at least, not on their terms. We go around this mulberry bush over and over, but that is a fact. It is also a fact that the ultimate sanction for failing to meet the UN resolutions is a opening up of hostilities as per the cease fire agreement after the first Gulf War. Hussein brought this upon himself. Was Bush anxious to go after him? Maybe so, maybe he shouldn't have been so anxious, but Saddam was NOT going to be allowed to just go back to normal in a world where the power of Islamic terrorists was shown to have grave consequences. No one in their right minds would trust Hussein not to work with Al Quaida at some point. They had a mutual enemy in the US of A, and I don't think for one second that sooner or later a deal might have been struck for support in some form. Lets be real here, Hussein may not have been on Bin Laden's favourite people list, but mutual areas of interest in making American's a target would appeal to him. America wanted someone's @ss to whup and they found their boy in Hussein. He was dumb enough to encourage it...

As for Al-Sadr, well, if he wants America gone, he can tell his thugs to stop killing Sunni's keeping the sectarian strife going....because once the shooting stops, the American public will want their boys home yesterday. For a part of the world that claims to want the Americans just gone, it appears they keep giving Bush excuses to keep them there...

[Eki]

As for Al-Sadr, well, if he wants America gone, he can tell his thugs to stop killing Sunni's keeping the sectarian strife going....because once the shooting stops, the American public will want their boys home yesterday.
Iraqis are just like Americans, they don't want to be seen as "losers", that's why they won't stop before the Americans do.

[klm-607]

Like the old saying goes..."Kill em' ALL, & let GOD sort em' out!" We oughtta' just pull all our people out, & go for the "sand to glass" policy! All those expensive NUKES going to waste... what a shame. In all seriousness though
I think it was General George S. Patton that said... "to achieve total victory, one must wage total war!" This P.C. style of fighting is B.S. & we need to take off the gloves & put em' down hard once & for all!

[Malbec]

Yes they are comparable when delievered the right way. A fifty -five gallon drum of TEPP dropped into the right place -- a crowded square-- could produce serious injury and death.

It all depends on exposure rates and dispersal factors--- but the point is again - that Saddam had weaponized organophosphates. You can argue theat they are not dangerous enough for you - but they were intended as a weapon of mass destruction and in fact were --- except the UN restricted the definition so narrowly that those wanting to excue Iraq could defend him on the dual use issue -- look all he had was insect spray.

Have enough of anything and you can turn it into a weapon. How about chlorine aka mustard gas? Are you suggesting painting any nation that has significant stocks of chlorine as a possessor of WMD too? And as a sidenote, how do you intend to fit 55 gallons into an artillery shell?

You may differ on this but if you are going to use the possession of WMD as a pretext to war (and like it or not the Bush/Blair administrations DID use the WMD issue to garner support both domestically and at the UN) you want to be absolutely sure that there could be no other use for the agents other than war. And I'm afraid that with dual use items that simply isn't the case. A policy proposition as significant as going to war cannot be based on 'maybes' and 'ifs'.


As far as your politics - I don't really care,, but you suggested that chemical weapons was the pretext for invasion - and an improper one. I am growing tired of the discussion but would simply suggest that the terms of the ceasefire following the invasion of Kuwait gave the US coalition the right to unseat Saddam much earlier than we did. It was only after much patience and hundreds of attacks on US aircraft by Iraq in the no-fly zone, and the growing intellegence of several US administrations, the UK, Cananda et al, that the case was made to unseat Saddam.

Why state the obvious? Under the terms of the ceasefire all that was required to reinitiate hostilities was for Saddam not to comply with giving inspectors free access to whatever they wanted. He didn't. So?


If the US and coalition forces leave Iraq - prematurely, as seems to be a possibilty - the world will see that it is not the US that is forcing it's laws and religious restrictions on the rest of the world. Go ahead and get your prayer rug, you - and I - will likely be needing one. BTW, no need for all the "engage brain" comments - it is not very becoming.

You see, this is my point. Why assume that just because I believe the war was initiated on false pretexts that the US ought to withdraw its troops? Again and again on this forum I see this rather silly strawman style of argument.

As I have posted elsewhere, a US/UK withdrawal now is the worst thing possible. Both the US/UK will face a further drop in credibility across the world, Iraq will be in chaos and the only victors will be the insurgents. I actually find it difficult to understand why the Democratic candidates openly vacillitate about bringing US troops home, their arguments can only bring strength to their opposition in Iraq. Old fashioned it may be, but I firmly believe in Colin Powell's statement "you break it, you fix it".

But its so much easier to assume that any one who opposes your stance on any single part of the Iraq debate is a total anti-war nut isn't it.

Mark, after your rather hysterical outburst against 'leftists' and the like I don't think you're in a position to preach to anyone. I did notice that in our previous exchanges you refused to answer my points re: Iran and Middle Eastern politics. If you want rational debate I suggest you answer me directly.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I didn't answer your points Dylan because you said I knew nothing about the Middle East and was simplfiying things. You were dismissive of any point of view that I came up with,and told me I was basically out of my depth. Say you don't agree, but my opinion is every bit as valid as yours; and I have on occasion have changed my view and acknowledged posters that have made points that I couldn't not agree with.

I will give you this though. I agree 100% with you that the US and UK cannot pull out. At no point have I ever thought that. I thought the "plan" to reconstruct Iraq was the plan that was lacking with the the US and UK, and it is coming home to hurt them now. We can agree on that. See, there is hope right?

[Eki]

This P.C. style of fighting is B.S. & we need to take off the gloves & put em' down hard once & for all!
Iraqis probably feel the same way.

[Eki]

Apparantly al-Qaeda don't want the Americans to leave Iraq, because they consider Iraq a trap for the US troops:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/05/al.qaeda.tape/index.html

In one section of the video, an interviewer asks al-Zawahiri to comment on legislation that ties the funding of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

"This bill reflects American failure and frustration," says al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden. "However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.

"We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200 to 300 hundred thousand killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson, which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic criminal Crusader-Zionist entity," al-Zawahiri says.

[Ian McC]

Apparantly al-Qaeda don't want the Americans to leave Iraq, because they consider Iraq a trap for the US troops:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/05/al.qaeda.tape/index.html

In one section of the video, an interviewer asks al-Zawahiri to comment on legislation that ties the funding of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

"This bill reflects American failure and frustration," says al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden. "However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.

"We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200 to 300 hundred thousand killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson, which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic criminal Crusader-Zionist entity," al-Zawahiri says.

That really is a load of crap, they are all too busy blowing up each other because of differences in how Muslins follow their faith. I am sure if they could actually try and ask a question to Allah they wouldn't be able to because they would find he had turned his back on them long ago.

[Eki]

That really is a load of crap, they are all too busy blowing up each other because of differences in how Muslins follow their faith.
Iraqis are, and they largely want the foreign troops out. The foreign al-Qaeda in Iraq aren't probably that interested in Iraq's internal affairs, and are using Iraq as kind of fly-paper or a jar of honey to get to the Americans.

[Sandfly]

Iraqis are, and they largely want the foreign troops out. The foreign al-Qaeda in Iraq aren't probably that interested in Iraq's internal affairs, and are using Iraq as kind of fly-paper or a jar of honey to get to the Americans.


Fly-Paper. Excellent point. However, I would argue that it is not the Americans that are the fly's. It is the Islamic extremists from Iran, Syria etc, that have flocked to Iraq to destabilize the fledgling government, stir up secterian discord, and make it appear that the Americans are the problem.

Much easier to kill terrorists there than having to chase them down all over the world. Fly paper - I like that.

[Eki]

Much easier to kill terrorists there than having to chase them down all over the world. Fly paper - I like that.
And it's easier for al-Qaeda to kill Americans in Iraq now that the border control in the US has been tightened. Works both ways, I guess. The difference might be that the terrorists don't much seem to care that you kill them, they sometimes even blow themselves up on their own, more of them keep coming and replace the dead ones.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well Eki, lets face it, for anyone to logcially think this martydom by killing Americans is a way to make one's mark on life means you are a little nuts to start with. You just quoted this jerk Al Zawahiri and he has basically stated what I have been telling you all along, they don't want the Americans out and the people of Iraq are pawns. You don't ignore this sort of evil Eki, you have to confront it sooner or later. I guess now is the time, and no matter how ugly it may look, it could be worse later on, and you will have Al-Zawahiri picking the venue....

[Sandfly]

And it's easier for al-Qaeda to kill Americans in Iraq now that the border control in the US has been tightened. Works both ways, I guess. The difference might be that the terrorists don't much seem to care that you kill them, they sometimes even blow themselves up on their own, more of them keep coming and replace the dead ones.


Remeber the Japanese Martyrs in support of the divine Emperor, sacrificing themselves for the cause. Well, a little fire bombing and and some hot bombs and and the next thing you know the radicals have dissapeared and the Emporer is not considered so divine anymore. Japan comes back to the real world and actually becomes a world leader through hard work and constuctive participation in society. Not so sure the average japanese was ever that far out of touch with reality.

Now, the question is - is the average Muslim out of touch with reality - from the western perspective - or are they just afraid to speak up for fear of uncertainty or of reprisal from the outside agitators ( particularly if the US leaves ) .

The US has not yet fought this war with the reckless abandon and disregard for collateral damage that you will see when the US finally gets mad enough to fight this war to win it and control territory for itself ( in order to protect it interests in the area. ie prevent the establishment of an anti-westrn terror base of operations) Once that point is reached , the discussions and political posturing at home will stop and the US will unite for the war which it is going to have to eventually fight.

Half the country recognizes that now - and when the other half gets close ...it will happen. Oh yes, and it is not going to be Armageddon - end of the world - except for some that are looking for it.

Of course, it is my hope that the moderate elements in Islam and in Iraq will take control and make thier own future a positive one, without the need for war. Look at Japan and Germany, the best thing they ever did was fight the US and let us rebuild them and put them on the track to prosperity. I really cannot understand why the Arab world feels so oppressed. They have resources and history which the world willl pay for, both in the Arab states and in Palistine ( can you not imagine the area as a thriving tourist and business center in the middle East) Then again, why not just blow yourself up??

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Arab World isn't oppressed by the Americans, the UK or anyone else, it is oppressed by a religious oligarchy that bends society to stay in the 7th Century, and tolerates no dissent. Some of the most oppressive nations in the world are in the Middle East, and last time I looked, colonial rule ended a long time ago.

We can beat our gums all we like about this war being wrong, or this war creating more terrorists, and it all comes back to a small minority of intolerent and nasty people coming out and dictating their will over this part of the world, and being VERY happy to martyr its young to kill the people in Western style democractic nations. This war of culture and religion always comes back to the question all of us must ask? Do we want a world where religious intolerance and lack of respect of human rights is tolerated? If we don't face it now, when do we face it? The Iraq war has been badly handled, and the US hasn't contrary to belief waged an inhuman war. What is has done is try to treat Iraqi's and people in this part of the world with some respect (once they got rid of Hussein). I can hear Eki mocking me that it wasn't the US's place to do this, and maybe he has a point, but again, they have a chance now. They have had two properly run elections and put together some form of government, but too many people want to see this nation fail, and contrary to what many believe, the cost of the failure will START if the US doesn't fix what it broke....

[Eki]

Remeber the Japanese Martyrs in support of the divine Emperor, sacrificing themselves for the cause. Well, a little fire bombing and and some hot bombs and and the next thing you know the radicals have dissapeared and the Emporer is not considered so divine anymore.
You confuse an ethnically homogeneous country like Japan with an international terror organization like al-Qaeda. Most of the al-Qaeda members and especially their leaders aren't from Iraq. They are from countries like Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. You haven't dropped a single bomb on Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. It's not their friends and family members you kill in Iraq, so they don't much care if you kill Iraqi civilians, on the contrary, it makes them more popular. And they even kill Iraqi civilians themselves sometimes.

[Tomi]

the cost of the failure will START if the US doesn't fix what it broke....
Was there not last week a meeting in Egypt where usa wanted other countries to pay what usa has damaged in Iraq? Some Iraq tax in usa would be a better a more fair solution.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You confuse an ethnically homogeneous country like Japan with an international terror organization like al-Qaeda. Most of the al-Qaeda members and especially their leaders aren't from Iraq. They are from countries like Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. You haven't dropped a single bomb on Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. It's not their friends and family members you kill in Iraq, so they don't much care if you kill Iraqi civilians, on the contrary, it makes them more popular. And they even kill Iraqi civilians themselves sometimes.

Eki, you misunderstand Sandfly's point, and If I may, I will explain this to you. Sandfly, If I am not mistaken is of the opinion that the Americans have been far too lenient in their activity in Iraq. They have let the citizens go on about their lives, they didn't disarm the nation as a whole, they didn't impose a strict regime of martial law on them in the sense they could have, and they have not prosecuted an all out war on those fighting them. They have tried to let the Iraqi government run their own show, and only help when asked. It is more complicated than that to be sure, but the point Sandfly is making is that Japan and Germany only turned the corner when they were faced with the reality that they were not only beaten, but beaten soundly and throughly. If the terrorists in Iraq felt that, they might give up, but unlike Sandfly, I don't know if we will ever get the terrorists to admit anything. The only way to deal with them is to kill them, because they wont leave any other options. Negotiating with them is a waste of time, and any rational soul realizes this.

[Eki]

It is more complicated than that to be sure, but the point Sandfly is making is that Japan and Germany only turned the corner when they were faced with the reality that they were not only beaten, but beaten soundly and throughly.
However you explain it, even you can't possibly deny that Iraq is ethnically far more diverse than Japan was. Even more diverse than Germany that was divided between the communists and non-communists. What worked in Japan and Germany won't necessarily work in Iraq. Iraqis are fighting also with each other in addition to the coalition forces. That didn't happen in Japan. The Japanese were also willing and ready to work together to rebuild their country back to its former glory as fast as possible. The Iraqis aren't.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Was there not last week a meeting in Egypt where usa wanted other countries to pay what usa has damaged in Iraq? Some Iraq tax in usa would be a better a more fair solution.


Tomi, I remember them asking the Arab League to help out in Iraq in rebuilding their country, for if brother Arab's helped in the reconstruction, they would be more welcome. Furthermore, your naievety on this one is stunning. Why do you think the Americans have a lot of people wanting the soldiers home? This war has cost the US far more than they will get back in any monetary way. They have bankrolled a lot of reconstruction and infrastructure repair, which by the way would go a lot smoother if some terrorist cells or Sunni/Shiite extremest groups would quit their fight. Furthermore, the US sends billions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the Arab nations, and has for years. Egypt would be an economic basket case without American money, and the Americans don't ask the Egyptians to do anything for that money. Jordan has received American aid and likely still is as well. The dirty little secret of this war is that if the Americans truly turned their backs on the whole middle east, things would be a hell of a lot worse.

What is more, if Europe was more involved in some of the geo-political decisions to be made here, maybe some of these nations would realize the Western World has many faces, but they all want the Middle East to just get on with living. I said it before, and I say it now, the problems in the Middle East start and have to begin to be solved by the people living there. The Americans and Europeans didn't continue to run these nations over the last 4 decades, they have had their own freedom, their own oil revenues and their own decisions for the most part on leaders.

The US did meddle on occasion because they saw a series of bad choices and tried to choose one they could deal with (the Shah, Saddam in his early days) and that was not a great plan, but that is geo politics. Just about every nation in the world makes poor choices sometimes on the people they back at one point or another. What is more, the bad leaders in this part of the world usually gained power first because the populace had no real desire to effect change, and to understand what a democratic system might mean. The most enlightend nations in the region, Abu Dhabi and the Emirates have no problems with the West, remain Arab in culture and use their wealth to help everyone in their nation. Are they true democracies? Maybe not, but at least the well being of the people is a consideration. If Iraq eventually settles down to become similar, then we will look back on this era differnetly than it looks now. I just know with Al Sadr and the Sunni extremists, they are more concerned with their personal gain, then the betterment of Iraq. That by the way, is NOT the fault of the Americans.

[Sandfly]

Thank you Mark for clarifying my thoughts exactly. I do try to maintain a little optimism that there is a chance that modertes in Islam can persuad the radical elemnets to let us all co-exist and help each other in a more tolerant and respectful world. The US did not start this conflict. The usual fall back complaint that the US is supporting the Jews--- and that that constitutes justification for all the misery that can be heaped upon the West by Islamic children being encouraged to blow themselves up in a Jewish Pizza parlor.

That is a great diversionary tactic that the leaders of Islamic countries use to prevent the possibility of rebellion at home.

You will recall that Hamas was complaining that they could not survive without the Aid from the US. It is reported that 95% of the aid to palestine comes from three countries -- US, UK and ISREAL. Less than 5% comes from Arab or Islamic states. HOW CAN THAT BE???

I am serious when I say that I am so saddened by the fact that Lebanon, Isreal and Palestine have so much potential as business, tourist, and cultural centers of the world. Yet the Arab/Islamic world would rather have the Palestinians throwing rocks at the Jews in eternal conflict - to keep the focus on them.

I try to be an opmimist but my patience - like that of many others - is running thin.

[Tomi]

It is reported that 95% of the aid to palestine comes from three countries -- US, UK and ISREAL. Less than 5% comes from Arab or Islamic states. HOW CAN THAT BE???

can you give a link to the report?

[Malbec]

Iraqis are, and they largely want the foreign troops out. The foreign al-Qaeda in Iraq aren't probably that interested in Iraq's internal affairs, and are using Iraq as kind of fly-paper or a jar of honey to get to the Americans.

I think you'll find that Al-Qaeda's main interest is actually Iraq's internal affairs, and the Americans are simply an obstacle to their controlling that. The US invasion of Iraq and its subsequent failure to establish centralised control over the country in the following years was exactly what Al-Qaeda wanted. The destruction of a secular security state in the Middle East, followed by a weak government established by a foreign power that made clear that it would eventually very much like to withdraw its troops from the region made a power vacuum that Al-Qaeda simply couldn't resist in order to fulfil its dream of an Islamist state.

If Iraq was redrawn on the lines Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq would like, it would be a Sunni Islamist state with no Shias. Their current activities are drawn around the following objectives:

1- Kick the US out, inflicting as many casualties as possible.

2- Attack Shia areas, fomenting as much inter-ethnic strife as possible.

3- Establish Islamist pockets of control, extend these wherever possible.

4- Weaken the Iraqi government (goes hand in hand with objective 1) to allow the establishment of Islamist power throughout Iraq.

Objective 1 of course is held in common with many other Iraqi insurgent groups, which is why they have cooperated with them. However they have clashed with other Sunni groups, particularly those who are from Iraq itself over objectives 2 and 3. You'll find that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is now spending as much of its resources fighting other Iraqi groups as it is fighting the Americans thanks to its no-compromise attitude towards any and every issue whatsoever.

Of course, it is also a fallacy to claim that just because 'Al-Qaeda' fighters are flocking to Iraq that they are therefore kept away from America.

The guys going to Iraq to fight are not drawn from the same population group as those who were behind 9/11. The volunteers for Iraq are poorly trained and educated Arabs who are simply given an AK-47 or a bomb belt with minimal training. They are cannonfodder. The groups who hijacked the aircraft on 9/11 were very carefully prepared and well educated and trained sleeper cells who were preselected. They represent two entirely separate branches of Al-Qaeda. Killing many of one will not affect any of the other, just as the deaths of many Russian or American servicemen in Afghanistan and Vietnam failed to affect the activities of the KGB or CIA.

[Malbec]

Eki, you misunderstand Sandfly's point, and If I may, I will explain this to you. Sandfly, If I am not mistaken is of the opinion that the Americans have been far too lenient in their activity in Iraq. They have let the citizens go on about their lives, they didn't disarm the nation as a whole, they didn't impose a strict regime of martial law on them in the sense they could have, and they have not prosecuted an all out war on those fighting them. They have tried to let the Iraqi government run their own show, and only help when asked. It is more complicated than that to be sure, but the point Sandfly is making is that Japan and Germany only turned the corner when they were faced with the reality that they were not only beaten, but beaten soundly and throughly. If the terrorists in Iraq felt that, they might give up, but unlike Sandfly, I don't know if we will ever get the terrorists to admit anything. The only way to deal with them is to kill them, because they wont leave any other options. Negotiating with them is a waste of time, and any rational soul realizes this.

Addressing both your point and Sandfly's original point, I believe you misunderstand Eki's point as well.

Japan and Germany were and are both sovereign states. In neither country was there ever a period where the respective governments failed to keep control over the populace. In both countries, the decision to throw in the towel was made centrally, and the people had little choice in accepting. Of course in both cases the populace very much wanted a cessation in hostilites so that wasn't a problem. However the point remains that both countries maintained until the very end a clear chain of command.

The extremist groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East are exactly the opposite. Like any terrorist or resistance group that has had to face stringent suppression in the countries it operates in, Al-Qaeda and related groups have decentralised decision making as far as possible. There never will be a pivotal moment when Bush or his successor gets to sit down and sign a peace treaty with his opposing number in Al-Qaeda. In the unlikely event that some segments of Al-Qaeda feel that they are beaten, you can rest assured that there'll be some other cell willing to carry on the fight, just as occured in Northern Ireland with the IRA and the 'real' IRA.

You are also making the mistake of believing that groups such as Al-Qaeda have widespread support across both Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

While many Arabs may have some considerable sympathy for the anti-American/Israeli line Al-Qaeda takes, they are also equally aware that the vision Al-Qaeda has for their future is unpalatable. While Arabs are either unmoved by seeing pictures of dead American soldiers they are also equally disgusted by the daily toll from car bombs and the live beheading of hostages on video (which is why you haven't seen many recently- Al-Qaeda aren't stupid, they won't continue doing something that loses them public support without much material gain). The public wave of revulsion across the Middle East after the bombing of the hotels in Jordan demonstrated how little real support they have.

The problem is that by definition extremists are extremists and therefore aren't fully representative of the societies they are drawn from. Therefore what the average Arab in the street thinks of Al-Qaeda isn't that relevant to affecting that organisations ability to recruit and raise money, provided that a small segment of that society is sympathetic to their causes.

It is also simply not possible to 'beat' a terrorist organisation in the same sense as a sovereign state like Germany or Japan. As long as the US sees the 'war against terror' in the same way as it viewed WW2 it will fail. I simply fail to understand why its taking so long for the US public to grasp that this is not war as von Clausewitz understood it.

Mark, you ask why Arabs whine about US oppression when they have done little in the region and claim that its the religious oligarchy who do the suppressing.

That I'm afraid is total nonsense.

Iraq under Saddam, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran under the Shah were and are all countries with religion firmly under state control. They were and are all dictatorships with only cursory lip service to democracy being paid in one or two states. Post-Shah Iran has gone one step further and combined dictatorship with religion.

There have been many pro-Democratic movements in the Middle East, many of them pro-Islamist too, and they have all been crushed relentlessly by the dictatorial regimes in power with the exception of Iran under the Shah, and he made a damned good go at repressing such movements too.

The US is seen as the power who holds these dictatorships in power by the people who are suppressed by them.

Its unfair to blame the US solely for supporting such states, the crushing of pro-Democratic movements in the Middle East has to be viewed through the prism of the Cold War when the US were trying to keep the Soviets in check. The US supported Israel and dictatorships such as Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and later Egypt while the Sovs supported the Syrians and pre '73 Egypt, post '79 Iraq. Neither had an interest in nurturing Democracy in the region when it could threaten the comfortable power balance between the two Superpowers in the region.

The thing is that there are a lot of people who worked to overthrow the stale dictatorships in the region who remember that the state security services were equipped and trained by the US. Being tortured with a CIA officer overseeing things tends to stick in the mind. Try reading about life under the Shah of Iran, or about the many pro-Democratic movements in Egypt over the past 30-40 years and you'll see why.

However, like it or not and probably as a result of its unstinting support for Israel, the US is the sole focus of angst in the Middle East. You may not like it, and the degree of hatred towards the US may be unjustified to an extent, but do not suggest that the US has been an entirely benign influence in the Middle East.

[BDunnell]

I don't think I could add anything to the above post if I tried.

:up:

[Eki]

Yes, it was a well-balanced opinion on the Iraq situation.

[Sandfly]

If only the US did have as much influence as you suggest. Can you not see that it is much easier for the monarchy's in the middle East to blame the uS for the past present and future problems of the middle east than to look permit the populace to look to hard at thier own governments, and perhaps make a change.

The Isreal issue really is a false one. The existence of Isreal is no threat to the Arabs and Persians. It is not the Isrealis who are killing Muslims in Iraq. I can assure you that the Americans fighting in Iraq to help establish a representative free government are not fighting on behalf of Isreal.

The US went into Iraq as a last resort following the complete failure of the UN to control Sadam according to the terms of the ceasefire following his defeat after HE INVADED kuawait. The US spent lives then as now in support of Arabs, and then stopped short of following Saddam back into Iraq because we did not feel that we had the right to do so. After years of Sadams lying and obfuscation, and direct efforts to thwart the terms of the ceasfire - he was taken out of power. No doubt that the terrorists took advantage of the vaccum and still kill Muslims in the name of Allah.

Yes it is tough to fight a war against terrorists - and the US has not really started. When we do - it will be very bad. When we get angry enough the US is capable of savagery that will make the Muslim beheadings look benign.

This will turn into an ugly mess, unless moderate elements within Islam are able to restain the violent and intolerant terror elements. I really do hope that is possible.

[Eki]

Here's a well thought out article on US foreign policy. I think it's true that al-Qaeda has played it like fiddle:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10988

They wanted to bring the U.S. army to Afghanistan, scene of their victory over the Russians. America did bring an army to Afghanistan and that war continues – though bin Laden and his friends got away. Overthrowing the tyrant Saddam Hussein, who bin Laden reviled as an "infidel" and a "socialist," however, was an additional "gift" to the al-Qaeda movement in the words of former CIA-man Scheuer. The Bush team's invasion killed a few birds with one stone for bin Laden: It got rid of the Ba'athists, put tens of thousands of Americans within rifle range and it created a training ground and propaganda tool for new recruits.

[Sandfly]

Right Eki.... and if you think this is the end of the game - you are mistaken. Do not be fooled by the talk of withdrawal by some of the pacifists in the US.

The battle is now in the desert rather than the streets of the US. If and when the fight returns to the US - the war will begin for real and it will not be fought with the selective targeting and compassion that has been characteristic of US politically correct warfare to this point.

[SOD]

Right Eki.... and if you think this is the end of the game - you are mistaken. Do not be fooled by the talk of withdrawal by some of the pacifists in the US.

The battle is now in the desert rather than the streets of the US. If and when the fight returns to the US - the war will begin for real and it will not be fought with the selective targeting and compassion that has been characteristic of US politically correct warfare to this point.

The battle was never in the streets of the USA. I'm glad that you have a reason to keep the unnecessary war going, even though it cost you over $600bn and over 5k in US deaths. not to mention the forgotten wounded (see Walter reed scandal).

The war was never fought with compassion or gentle targetting, only fools believed that. How is the Green Zone these days? can't move without an escort there?

[SOD]

Remeber the Japanese Martyrs in support of the divine Emperor, sacrificing themselves for the cause. Well, a little fire bombing and and some hot bombs and and the next thing you know the radicals have dissapeared and the Emporer is not considered so divine anymore. Japan comes back to the real world and actually becomes a world leader through hard work and constuctive participation in society. Not so sure the average japanese was ever that far out of touch with reality.

Now, the question is - is the average Muslim out of touch with reality - from the western perspective - or are they just afraid to speak up for fear of uncertainty or of reprisal from the outside agitators ( particularly if the US leaves ) .

The US has not yet fought this war with the reckless abandon and disregard for collateral damage that you will see when the US finally gets mad enough to fight this war to win it and control territory for itself ( in order to protect it interests in the area. ie prevent the establishment of an anti-westrn terror base of operations) Once that point is reached , the discussions and political posturing at home will stop and the US will unite for the war which it is going to have to eventually fight.

Half the country recognizes that now - and when the other half gets close ...it will happen. Oh yes, and it is not going to be Armageddon - end of the world - except for some that are looking for it.

Of course, it is my hope that the moderate elements in Islam and in Iraq will take control and make thier own future a positive one, without the need for war. Look at Japan and Germany, the best thing they ever did was fight the US and let us rebuild them and put them on the track to prosperity. I really cannot understand why the Arab world feels so oppressed. They have resources and history which the world willl pay for, both in the Arab states and in Palistine ( can you not imagine the area as a thriving tourist and business center in the middle East) Then again, why not just blow yourself up??

You're only the guy loking for Armageddon with your talk of genociade and holocaust against "average Muslims".

I bet that you couldn't give a figure for the number of innocent Iraqis that were killed. The US does not care about the collateral damage.

[Sandfly]

Right again zealots. How many innocent muslims were killed today by muslims with suicide bombs. Your argument is really absurd and I am weary of it. You ignore the death and destruction brought about by al-sadr and al-queda and gloat if a US laser trgeted bomb blows a brick into a shoolyard killing a child. And BTW that school was rebuilt by americans and kids cared for an given a real opportunity in life by americans - but you will ignore that. Just like you ignore the intent of Hezbolla using explosive rockets with 200 lbs of ball bearings and intentionally launching them into residential areas in Isreal - thats right lets focus on the isreali response and the killing of innocents who let the Hezbollah shot rockets from thier windows.

Again, do not take the media's failure to highlight such blatant attcks on civility as the mainstream in the US. It is obvious who started this fight - and who is unwilling to compromise because it is religious zealotry.

I can also assure you that I am not looking for armagedon. It is those who want to bring back the 12th Immam etc that are so anxious to force Islam onto the west and bring about the end if need be. I am quit happy the way I am watching an occassional car race and trying to focus on the positive.

Anyway if you look at my posts you will see that I have said many times that I would hope that we all could get along peacefully with religious freedom for all - but that is not tolerated by Islam - at least not yet.

[SOD]

so the higher ground can be reached if you have laser guided missiles! GMAFB!
let me guess, haditha was your idea of a good time!

You're the guy who is calling for armageddon & a holocaust of moderate Muslims.

[Sandfly]

so the higher ground can be reached if you have laser guided missiles! GMAFB!
let me guess, haditha was your idea of a good time!

You're the guy who is calling for armageddon & a holocaust of moderate Muslims.


Do not put words in my mouth. You know full well that the result depends not so much on the weapon - but the intent. The intent of the weapons used by your friends is to kill innocents by intention. That is not the case with quided weapons used by the US. But of course I really do not expect you to see a difference.

The Us may have mismanaged this war in many ways - and perhaps the first was not to kill every man walking with a gun or an RPG during the initial entry into Bagdad, and not allow them to lay them down and walk away. Perhaps the US was mistaken in expecting hundreds of thousand of refugees to flee to the borders from the fighting and the chemical weapons, which were expected to be used. They should have been able to predict a rapid end to the organized combat and been prepared for a rapid rebuilding and re-establishment of order, rather than anticipating a huge human refugee crisis and planning for that in the wrong place. Point is - the intent was to minimize the collateral damage, rather than thrive on it - as do your heros.

I am tiring of this discussion. Please continue in the notion that AL- somebody is pleased that the Us has made it so easy for you by going to Iraq.

[SOD]

Do not put words in my mouth. You know full well that the result depends not so much on the weapon - but the intent. The intent of the weapons used by your friends is to kill innocents by intention. That is not the case with quided weapons used by the US. But of course I really do not expect you to see a difference.

The Us may have mismanaged this war in many ways - and perhaps the first was not to kill every man walking with a gun or an RPG during the initial entry into Bagdad, and not allow them to lay them down and walk away. Perhaps the US was mistaken in expecting hundreds of thousand of refugees to flee to the borders from the fighting and the chemical weapons, which were expected to be used. They should have been able to predict a rapid end to the organized combat and been prepared for a rapid rebuilding and re-establishment of order, rather than anticipating a huge human refugee crisis and planning for that in the wrong place. Point is - the intent was to minimize the collateral damage, rather than thrive on it - as do your heros.

I am tiring of this discussion. Please continue in the notion that AL- somebody is pleased that the Us has made it so easy for you by going to Iraq.

The US was mistaken into believeing that Saddam was a threat and that he had WMD.

I'm sure Haditha, Abu graib was not done with the intent implied :rolleyes:

[GRAVETT]

well done sandfly , i totally agree with what you say, its informed and educated. but as for sod , with this person you cannot have a n informed disscussion, your views are extremist and dangerous. you are one these people that doresnt disscuss and will just shout down people when you feel you are being disagreed with. i am sick to death with people such as yourselves, and its people with views like yours which is why this world is in this damn stinking state to begin with.

[SOD]

well done sandfly , i totally agree with what you say, its informed and educated. but as for sod , with this person you cannot have a n informed disscussion, your views are extremist and dangerous. you are one these people that doresnt disscuss and will just shout down people when you feel you are being disagreed with. i am sick to death with people such as yourselves, and its people with views like yours which is why this world is in this damn stinking state to begin with.

maybe you were asleep when the war drums were being banged from August 2002 until May 2003. let me guess you'ere another guy who was frightened by the BS propaganda that was peddled to get the war going?

[Eki]

maybe you were asleep when the war drums were being banged from August 2002 until May 2003. let me guess you'ere another guy who was frightened by the BS propaganda that was peddled to get the war going?

You mean BS like this :laugh: :

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10988

"It is unbelievable that the media is handling this entire thing as a victory for Rudy Giuliani and his position – as he asserted to Sean Hannity after the debate – that al-Qaeda members want to attack us because we have "freedom for women.""

[GRAVETT]

i was not for the war for the reasons the americans went to war, i have a strong belief that 9/11 was the pretext to war, created and executed by the american government, however i do belive it needed to be done, and with a degree of success it has has acheived its objective. its not a clean cut case like how you seem to think it is. i feel i am coming from a totally diffrent perspective here that eki and sod probally do not understand or have contemplated.

[SOD]

i was not for the war for the reasons the americans went to war, i have a strong belief that 9/11 was the pretext to war, created and executed by the american government, however i do belive it needed to be done, and with a degree of success it has has acheived its objective. its not a clean cut case like how you seem to think it is. i feel i am coming from a totally diffrent perspective here that eki and sod probally do not understand or have contemplated.

I'm glad that the war was there for you.

[Eki]

No sh!t Sherlock. If you put more Americans to Iraq you can be certain there will be more American casualties, but what's that going to help?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/24/bush/index.html

"We can expect more American and Iraqi casualties," Bush said.