Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

Thelasian wrote:

Only IF such events were real and not merely Neocon spin-doctoring.

Come on! Get it right, it's a "vast right wing conspiracy"

Both the US State Department and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry have said
they don't have any evidence of Iranian support for al-Sadr

Interesting? But perhaps the military (you know, the numerous guys actually
there, on the ground in Iraq) *does* have evidence. His own words and actions
are good enough for me. His exile to Iran following his fathers assasination in
1999 is pretty damning as far as an Iranian link and he has openly called for
the formation of a Shia Islamic theocracy.

and
despite all the White House - Pentagon talk about "foreign fighters"
precious few have actually turned up

Wrong.

"Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700
captives being held as security threats in Iraq

How many of the dead are foreign? How many suicide bombers are foriegn? These
guys are not surrendering which will upset your data. Sorry, but talking with
guys who have been there, they say the foriegn influance in the insurgency is
huge.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
In a detailed response with some non-sequiturs and remarkable
generalizations on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:13 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:
....

The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated,
especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people
who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the
intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others
may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies
for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious
threat.

I spent a lot of years of my life in the business of planned delivery
of WMD and prepped for the defense against them. The "overrating" is
quite realistic. You don't want to experience them.


I'm curious as to the extent of your planning for the delivery of
chemical and biological weapons.

I'll agree that nuclear weapons are not overrated, but disagree
as to chemical and biological. Simply including those with
nuclear weapons in the blanket term 'WMD' overrates them a
consequence I fear of general ignorance of the specific natures
of all three and an inability by many to graps the enormity
of the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I'm curious as to the extent of your planning for the delivery of
chemical and biological weapons.


I don't know for sure, but I'm sure the F-105 was capable of delivering the
MC-1.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

....


"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.

Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

--

FF

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist
redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive.

A standard right-wing parody of taxation, but it doesn't make much
sense. (AFAIK the US social security system is running at a surplus
and filling the federal coffers, not the other way around). It ignores
that a functioning economy needs investment in commonly held systems
and resources --- infrastructure, education, research, maintenance of
the law, defense, health care, etc. A combination of underfunding and
deficit spending endangers the long-term prospects on economic
growth. Indulging in massive deficit spending can, according to the
Keynesian logic, help to get a country out of a depression, but it is
a strange policy for a supposedly conservative government.



I noticed you didn't address the redistribution of resources. Obviously the
main function of government is to provide defense, and to a lesser extent
infrastructure, areas I would note that the US handles quite competently.
But efforts at economic "justice" are misguided and wasteful. Per capita
GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist economies of
the world are! For example:

United States $35991.96 per person
Belgium $29127.94 per person

Current deficit spending in the Unitied States is the result of a
combination of the additional expenses of war and the recent recession.
Intelligent government budgets make allowances for the circumstances of the
time.


Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of
life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical.

There is nothing practical about the environmental policy of this
government. It just chooses to deflect politically inconvenient
science with thin arguments. An attitude that has been a regular
feature of government policy since Galileo; one can only hope that
the US government will admit its errors slightly faster than the
Vatican. Having a sound environmental policy is hugely practical.
I wonder what the citizens of Texas would have to say about the
memory of George W. Bush if the state turned into an inhabitable
wasteland.


Which errors are you thinking of? I think most Americans believe the United
States should participate in global environmental protection, but only in a
fair and rational manner. Kyoto demanded a disproportionate impact on the
United States, and Clinton signed it knowing full well it would never pass
Senate confirmation. President Bush should be commended acknowleging this
and putting the treaty out of it's misery!

Otherwise, the environment within the United States is doing quite well
thank you., with plenty of statistics available to prove it.

Jarg

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

In the case of Afghanistan this was
an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against
the U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead
to be a threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq
now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was
injured and received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.

Before the USA invaded
the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

...


"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if
it harelips everyone on Bear Creek"


The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection.


That they could FIND no connection.
Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.

They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
I wonder about that airframe Iraq had for "hijack training"...


Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.


Too many people seem too willing to believe the worst about the US and the
current administration,and not believe about Saddam's dangers.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist
redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive.

A standard right-wing parody of taxation, but it doesn't make much
sense. (AFAIK the US social security system is running at a surplus
and filling the federal coffers, not the other way around). It ignores
that a functioning economy needs investment in commonly held systems
and resources --- infrastructure, education, research, maintenance of
the law, defense, health care, etc. A combination of underfunding and
deficit spending endangers the long-term prospects on economic
growth. Indulging in massive deficit spending can, according to the
Keynesian logic, help to get a country out of a depression, but it is
a strange policy for a supposedly conservative government.



I noticed you didn't address the redistribution of resources. Obviously
the
main function of government is to provide defense, and to a lesser extent
infrastructure, areas I would note that the US handles quite competently.
But efforts at economic "justice" are misguided and wasteful. Per capita
GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist economies of
the world are! For example:

United States $35991.96 per person
Belgium $29127.94 per person

Current deficit spending in the Unitied States is the result of a
combination of the additional expenses of war and the recent recession.
Intelligent government budgets make allowances for the circumstances of
the
time.


Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of
life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical.

There is nothing practical about the environmental policy of this
government. It just chooses to deflect politically inconvenient
science with thin arguments. An attitude that has been a regular
feature of government policy since Galileo; one can only hope that
the US government will admit its errors slightly faster than the
Vatican. Having a sound environmental policy is hugely practical.
I wonder what the citizens of Texas would have to say about the
memory of George W. Bush if the state turned into an inhabitable
wasteland.


Which errors are you thinking of? I think most Americans believe the
United
States should participate in global environmental protection, but only in
a
fair and rational manner. Kyoto demanded a disproportionate impact on the
United States, and Clinton signed it knowing full well it would never pass
Senate confirmation. President Bush should be commended acknowleging this
and putting the treaty out of it's misery!

Otherwise, the environment within the United States is doing quite well
thank you., with plenty of statistics available to prove it.

True enough. For example, in terms of forestation, Belgium lands number 88
in the world rankings, with an indicated loss of net forested area between
1990 and 2000, while the US ranks 85, with a net increase demonstrated in
the last decade (source:
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicato...indicatorid=79).
One group puts out an "Environmental Sustainability Index", which last
showed the US coming in at number 45 worldwide...and Belgium at 125 (after
those "green" powerhouses, Libya and Uzbekistan...)
(http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/rank.html). Sounds like
Emmanuel needs to worry a bit more about cleaning his own house (almost
literally) before he starts fiddling around with the business of others...

Brooks


Jarg

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of
multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death;
"Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks that
killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at
Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question
remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing certain
except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist.

Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of
Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had even
mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was supporting
terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.


Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most liberals
fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond
Afghanistan and beyond Asia.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...


Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current

government

otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con".

The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
to "con-men".

This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness.

Is this an example of the superior European educational
system I've been hearing about?

I guess I'll expect you to start spelling "Bush" as "Bu$h"
and "US" as "U$" (or would that be "United Snakes"?).

Close enough.


SMH

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:13:59 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

Thank you for acknowledging our lack of experience in conquering and
occupying. We most certainly did not "conquer" the Phillipines which
were simply ceded to the US by Spain after the 1898 unpleasantness.

A curious euphemism for a colonial war that immersed US
troops in a bitter fight with a resistance movement. It is true
that the USA did not conquer the Phillipines on the Phillipinos,
but it was a colonial occupier nevertheless. I admit that the USA
missed out on the great external colonialist expansion of the 18th
and 19th century, but this was hardly out of virtue; it came about
because there was plenty of opportunity for internal conquest and
extermination.

And the success of this form of colonial conquest is visible in the
qualification you use: that it is perceived as "internal" indicates
how the expansion of the United States beyond the original territories
of the thirteen colonies, at the expense of the native inhabitants,
has become an invisible colonial expansion due to its relative
success.

It seems that you've bought into the Kerry/Clinton "lib-speak"
solution that the terrorist war is a law enforcement issue rather than
a military one. That works for small subversive groups like
Bader-Meinhoff or Red Army Faction, but not apparently as well for
larger, better financed, ideologically/theologically motivated
movements like the jihadists.

In strength of ideological/theological motivation, there isn't much
of a difference. As for finance, the jihadists may indeed have the
advantage, because they can count on the Western greed for drugs
and oil. As for "larger", I think the better term is "more widespread",
as there is little evidence for large coherent networks. And even that
is in doubt, as the R.A.F, and B-M were ideologically akin to many
third-world guerilla groups, and such groups could probably count
on state support to a larger extent than the jihadists, and probably
were better organized, too. Didn't B-M receive support from the
East-German intelligence services?

Actually, I personally think a comparison between al Queda and with
the R.A.F. and B-M has some value, as it highlights the core personnel
involved and their immediate acolytes as nihilistic bourgeois
radicals. This comparison becomes less valuable when the larger and
more popular Palestinian and Iraqi insurgency is considered, where
there are genuinely populist roots involved.

As for this a law enforcement or military issue, I don't care zilch
about what Clinton or Kerry said about it. Common sense says that
the best approach consists of a combination of a law enforcement
strategy (infiltration with the goal of prevention and targeting apart
finance and leadership) and limited scale military operations (to
deal with larger groups and installations such as training camps).
Large-scale military offensives are an only opportunity for the
enemy to exploit the advantages of assymetric warfare, i.e. quite
limited forces are sufficient to keep a large military force in
constant chase, inflicting damage to it with unpredictable attacks.
Iraq is a nice case study.

The problem in Iraq is not so simple: the conflict is also contingent
upon the creation of conflicting institutions - the American client
government against the local tribalist and religious radical
structures that are contending for local authority. That does come
down to a basic question of who has the most prevalent and consistent
level of force available to secure their rule on a local basis. Large
scale military operations, with specific and extensive political and
intelligence dimensions, are a neccessity to constrain and then
marginalise insurgent institutions and insurgent power bases. Without
the deployment of a sufficient level of military force, the insurgents
are free to deploy violence against any and all threats to their
authority, meaning that there is no hope of a transition to a more
selective campaign against them.

And, you certainly aren't extending your anti-war fervor to a defense
of the Sadaam regime for the benefit of the Iraqi people, are you?

Ah, but I am not anti-war. I would have been wholly in favour
of a military operation to remove Saddam from power, if it had
been properly prepared and thought over. The current mess
involves the spillage of a lot of blood for probably zero net
result, unless you think that the replacement of one dictatorship
by another is a worthwhile achievement.

I can agree with that, but the basic context of Iraqi consciousness
needs to be taken into account. Too many Iraqis are prepared to
engage in, and support or tolerate, terrorist actions according to a
blindly xenophobic and anti-American, anti-western agenda. The
clearest examples of this are the denial of Iraqi agency when
insurgents kill fellow Iraqis, and the obsessive desire to blame the
Americans for everything. With the prevalence of that kind of
political conditioning, and the examples of the bombing of the UN
establishment and the routine kidnapping and murder of foreign
workers, it's clear that any occupation was going to face intractable
problems which stemmed as much from Iraqi prejudices as the actual
operation of occupation policy.

"Heavy-handed"????? You know full well, that the heaviness of our hand
could be considerably greater. We could easily have leveled Basra,
Fallujah, Najaf, Tikrit and any strong-hold of resistance which we
chose to.

Yes, but even George W. Bush is not that stupid. Nevertheless,
the US attitude has been more forceful and heavy-handed than
was justified. Recent events in Najaf illustrate the point -- why
mount a substantial offensive when you know perfectly well
that you can't touch the ultimate target, and in the end you will
appear to be the loser? It would have been far wiser to back off
from the start.

I'm not convinced of that. Part of the reason for the recent outburst
of violence was that Sadr's milita felt their local hegemony was udner
threat from Iraqi institutions such as the re-emergence of the local
police. This was a fight sought by Sadr, and I was very suprised to
realise how unpopular he was with locals and with some of Sistani's
constituency in Najaf (who were very frank with some western
journalists over their support for US actions, and the political
impossibility of admitting that publically). I will at least give the
Americans for deploying force with sufficient discrimination.

You have too many illusions. Even the USA's close allies are
now having their doubts. Spain has already deserted. Poland
has let it be known that it feels cheated and deceived. In Britain
Bush is so unpopular that even the leader of the Conservative
opposition (usually regarded as a crypto-Republican, and slightly
to the right of Dzenghis Khan) has determined that picking a fight
with the Neo-Conservatives in the White House can only boost
his electoral chances.

No, that has more to do with manufacturing a spurious difference in
policy to capitalise on public disenchantment with Blair's decision to
go to war in the first place. There is little practical domestic
support with any form of military disengagement, as distinct from
distrust over the decision to go to war in the first place. Nobody
believes Conservative governmental policy would have been any
different from Blair's.

Gavin Bailey
--

But, first, want speed. Bart not greedy as all know. 250MHz enough.
I attempt use SGI chip in MB. But chip not fit, then I bend pins. Shove in MB hard.
Now apply hammer. Yeah, sit down, ****er! Power on, go BEEEEEP! - Bart Kwan En