Coalition troops find chemical production plant in northern Iraq.

[Mike Lowrey]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165635,00.html

U.S. Raids Alleged Chemical Plant
Saturday, August 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces raided an insurgent facility that may have been producing an unspecified type of chemicals, the U.S. military said Saturday. It was unclear what was being produced or whether the materials were intended for weapons, the statement added.

U.S. troops, acting on a tip from detainees under interrogation, raided a "suspected insurgent chemical production facility (search)" in northern Iraq last Tuesday, the statement said, without specifying the location.

However, the military cautioned that ongoing testing at the facility was "insufficient to determine what the insurgents had been producing." The military said it also was investigating which insurgent group was operating the facility.

The military has found many suspected chemical sites in the past, none of which ended up containing chemical or biological weapons. Testing of such sites can take several days.

One of the main reasons stated for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (search) in March 2003 was to destroy Saddam Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found.

The statement said officials were examining chemical evidence, but did not say if chemicals were stored at the facility.

"We are continuing to investigate the production and storage facilities to determine what type and quantities of chemicals were produced at the facility," said Col. Henry Franke (search), a nuclear, biological, and chemical defense officer with the multinational force.

But...but...I thought there were no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

Boy, what giving something a little bit of time might turn up.

[General Zod]

If it's there it's because Bush put it there. Saddam and Iraq were never up to anything - pure as the driven snow. We went in purely for oil, which we have taken none of.

Actually lots of "somethings" have come up but are quickly ignored by our excellent media which really wants to portray this a certain way.. remember a couple of years ago the U.N. said that tons of material used to make chemical weapons were found missing in Iraq? It had been previously tagged and now it's gone! Well the media was very quick to say we should have been protecting it, but said nothing about the fact that it was there to begin with. Go figure.

[Myster X]

No. This is wrong. Bush and his cronnies planted it.

[Mike Lowrey]

If it's there it's because Bush put it there. Saddam and Iraq were never up to anything - pure as the driven snow. We went in purely for oil, which we have taken none of.

Actually lots of "somethings" have come up but are quickly ignored by our excellent media which really wants to portray this a certain way.. remember a couple of years ago the U.N. said that tons of material used to make chemical weapons were found missing in Iraq? It had been previously tagged and now it's gone! Well the media was very quick to say we should have been protecting it, but said nothing about the fact that it was there to begin with. Go figure.

Tell me about it. What about the chemical-filled shells that the UNSCOM teams found prior to the invasion? Oh, they were just old shells that Saddam forgot about...yeah right...


It breaks down like this gentlemen, for one to believe that Saddam got rid of his WMD between 1998 and March 2003, one would have have to believe that after the UNMOVIC teams left in late '98, Saddam would have said, "Well, they didn't find them all before they left, but I guess I'll get rid of them now because I'm such a nice guy and I wouldn't want the Great Satan invading my ass again." Saddam was just waiting for the day until sanctions were lifted and the weight of the International "eye" was off him in order to restart his programs. Hell, if Iran is and has been building nuke plants, don't you think Saddam would have want to as well?

[Lateralus]

When I see piles of chemicles, I will believe it until then I don't think there is going to be anything.

[VinVega]

Even if they find something, how do you know it was set up by Saddam and not smuggled in across the porous borders since the invasion? It's been over 2 years. :shrug:

[Ranger]

Uh-huh.

[classicman2]

Even if they find something, how do you know it was set up by Saddam and not smuggled in across the porous borders since the invasion? It's been over 2 years. :shrug:

You're beginning to sound like - you know who - the believer in conspiracies in everything. ;)

[DVD Polizei]

Bush: "This is evidence we MUST STAY IN IRAQ. WE MUST STAY THE COURSE!!!!1111!!!!"

Boy, what giving something a little bit of time might turn up.

Yeah, because hell, 10 years from now, and 15,000 US troops dead, we might find an actual missile. :banana:

Btw, several sites have been deemed "Booga Booga Chemical Weapons", which ended up being, well, not. :eek:

I noticed this part wasn't bolded:

The military has found many suspected chemical sites in the past, none of which ended up containing chemical or biological weapons. Testing of such sites can take several days.

Also remember that initial readings favor any barrel or container to be possible chemical weapons. This is so US Troops are protected until a more thorough test is in place.

Anyway, just thought I would chime in with my conspiracy theory...

[cinten]

Tell me about it. What about the chemical-filled shells that the UNSCOM teams found prior to the invasion? Oh, they were just old shells that Saddam forgot about...yeah right...



Do republicans and pro-war people really just have their heads in the sand and zero concept of reality? Those shells were proven to be from before the first gulf war, even The U.S. admited it.

It's funny, well sad actually that people so blindly believe in all the lies, oh i am sorry "misinfomation" about the WMDs.

Oh wait, maybe this is where they stored the thousands of tons of VX, drums of anthrax, the 30,000 armed warheads, and the missles that are armed with chemical and bological warheads that can be launched within 45 minutes....

[Mark_vdH]

You invade a country because you believe there are chemical weapons, after you've invaded the country you find out there aren't, but after the invasion insurgents start producing them because you've invaded? :hscratch:

[Pharoh]

You invade a country because you believe there are chemical weapons, after you've invaded the country you find out there aren't, but after the invasion insurgents start producing them because you've invaded? :hscratch:



So a regime acknowledged by all to be bent on possessing the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and fueled in that effort by millions and millions of dollars made off the backs of the Iraqi people, (and the UN), not to mention the relative peace and isolation afforded by the expulsion of any and all weapons inspectors, could not produce chemical weapons, but a ragtag motley collection of foreign jihadists can and have?
:hscratch:


As for the story at hand, I will reserve judgement until there is far more information.

[Mark_vdH]

So a regime acknowledged by all to be bent on possessing the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and fueled in that effort by millions and millions of dollars made off the backs of the Iraqi people, (and the UN), not to mention the relative peace and isolation afforded by the expulsion of any and all weapons inspectors, could not produce chemical weapons, but a ragtag motley collection of foreign jihadists can and have?
:hscratch:Who says Iraq couldn't make chemical weapons? Sierra freakin' Leone could make them if they wanted to. :lol:

[chess]

-ohbfrank-

Are you serious? The story reads as one big disclaimer. "They found something that looks like a chemical plant...not necessarily a chemical weapons plant...well, not really a plant at all...more of a lab...actually it might be nothing at all...it's usually nothing...probably nothing this time too." The "story" looks like it was written by the fox news lawyers with the sole purpose of convincing illiterates that Bush was right all along (but probably not...your mileage may vary).

Actually, my experience thus far is that these people are likely too lazy to make chemical weapons. We can't even get them to bathe in order to avoid infecting their wounds.

[Mike Lowrey]

It's so sad really, how quickly the anti-war, anti-Bushites jump on anything to discredit any possibility that the President might, just might, have been right.

You people are just as pathetic as the ones that you claim to hate so much.

Although, I still don't see a decent rebuttle to what I said about Saddam's behavior from 1998 to 2003. Until you can explain why Saddam, who made and used WMD in the past, would suddenly give up all intentions of making and maintaining them after the inspection teams left in 1998, then none of your little anti-Bush conspiracies will hold water with me and the other Iraq war supporters.

[nemein]

It's so sad really, how quickly the anti-war, anti-Bushites jump on anything to discredit any possibility that the President might, just might, have been right.

I agree w/ your opinion of SH and his past actions, however I think you're reading too much into this story at the moment. Assuming it is even a chemical weapons plant depending upon the size and sophisitication it is entirely possible it came into being after the war started.

[Red Dog]

I'm disappointed in our right-wing otters. Where are the "I need more proof" posts?

[cinten]

It's so sad really, how quickly the anti-war, anti-Bushites jump on anything to discredit any possibility that the President might, just might, have been right.

You people are just as pathetic as the ones that you claim to hate so much.

Although, I still don't see a decent rebuttle to what I said about Saddam's behavior from 1998 to 2003. Until you can explain why Saddam, who made and used WMD in the past, would suddenly give up all intentions of making and maintaining them after the inspection teams left in 1998, then none of your little anti-Bush conspiracies will hold water with me and the other Iraq war supporters.

I don't hate anyone.. I know nothing anti-war people can say to change bush supporters minds. They "stay the course" just like Bush, even if it's the wrong course. Even if "staying the course" causes more death and destruction. Bush is sitting on the titanic saying it will keep float and Bush supporters are right there cheering him on.

Crying about anti-bush conspiricies shows how desperate bush-supporters are to hold on to that shread of hope that Bush was even remotly right about anything.

So you still think that Iraq was involved in 9/11? Do you still think that the thousands of tons of vx, bio and chem weapons are out there and not a single trace? Do you still think Iraq will welcome us as liberators? Do you still think that Iraq will finance it's own reconstruction?


So what was Bush right about?

[chess]

So what was Bush right about?

uhhhh.....give me a minute.

[Jason]

It's so sad really, how quickly the anti-war, anti-Bushites jump on anything to discredit any possibility that the President might, just might, have been right.

You people are just as pathetic as the ones that you claim to hate so much.

Although, I still don't see a decent rebuttle to what I said about Saddam's behavior from 1998 to 2003. Until you can explain why Saddam, who made and used WMD in the past, would suddenly give up all intentions of making and maintaining them after the inspection teams left in 1998, then none of your little anti-Bush conspiracies will hold water with me and the other Iraq war supporters.

Yes, we're all pathetic because we don't bend over and let fox news ram an unjust war up our assholes. Sheeh.

[Groucho]

It's so sad really, how quickly the anti-war, anti-Bushites jump on anything to discredit any possibility that the President might, just might, have been right.What's there to discredit? At this point, all the story tells us is "unspecified type of chemicals". There's not enough information for either side to be back-slapping and giving "I told you sos".

[Pharoh]

Who says Iraq couldn't make chemical weapons? Sierra freakin' Leone could make them if they wanted to. :lol:



They, and every other nation, could make mass quantities of chemical weapons of mass destruction? I did not know that, and I bet that a great many other people would also be very surprised by this.

I also sometimes forget that saddam simply did not make any WMDs simply out of the goodness of his noble heart, or because he was fearful of the repercussions, whichever it was.

The larger point is: I have no idea if what was found is chemical weapons. However, I do know with a good degree of certainty that it they turn out to be, they were not manufactured by bunch of nomadic jihadist terrorist scum.

[JasonF]

I'm disappointed in our right-wing otters. Where are the "I need more proof" posts?
:lol::up:

I liked how the first post in the thread said, basically "Give the weapons inspectors more time."

[kvrdave]

I'm disappointed in our right-wing otters. Where are the "I need more proof" posts?


DAMMIT!!!!! I've been in Vegas, but that was my first thought when I saw the title. :grunt:

[Thor Simpson]

Um...the fact that this is called a "suspected insurgent chemical production facility" led me to believe this had nothing to do with any pre-war WMD's that Saddam might have had. Sounds like a shack with some chemicals in it... maybe a meth lab. :lol:

If insurgents werent' working on some of this stuff in the past 2 years, I'd be more suprised than I am finding out about this now.

[hahn]

I just came back from watching "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room". Fantastic movie and says more about human nature and power than any other movie/documentary I've seen in recent memory.

The way people defend this administration so vehemently is reminiscent of the stockholders of Enron who sneered at all the supposed whiners in California who insisted that the corporate powers-that-be at Enron were corrupt. The emperor has no clothes, but the corollary is that there will still be people who insist that he does.

To the OP: you really should consider re-bolding the article b/c you pretty much missed ALL of the actual relevant information in it. Shockingly (:rolleyes: ), none of the information states #1 what kind of chemical was found, #2 whether it was currently or recently being mass produced, and #3 if they were intended for weaponry use (in case you didn't go to high school, water is a chemical too; also all sorts of chemicals are useful for things other than weapons (C20H25N3O for example... ;) ). You also might want to re-check the definition of "pathetic". Methinks you don't really understand what it means. Declaring someone pathetic without good justification has a tendency to backfire.

[kvrdave]

I don't think Bush has incredibly broad support by the Republican populace. It is like sticking with a scientific theory that doesn't really do much to answer the questions. But unless someone can bring forth a theory that better, they will stick to what they have.

If there had been an alternative, I would have taken it. But let's face it....in the election, Kerry basically said he would do the same things, but make them work. Bring me a candidate worth a shit, and I will vote for them. Bring me two that suck, and I will vote for the devil I know.

[General Zod]

Not to mention that people seem to try and make a point that Bush was the only one thinking Iraq had wmd's.. which we know isn't true. We know Kerry thought he had it, we know Clinton thought he had it, etc. So it's not like Bush invented this whole thing and was the only one who thought this way. Bush was the first to take action on it though.

Anyhow the only point I was trying to make is that because someone looks at their watch and decides it's time enough that WMD's weren't found and therefore they don't exist is a little strange to me.. especially considering the place is the size of California and there is more than enough places to dig a hole and dump stuff. I'm not standing on a soapbox saying there are WMD's there, but I am saying i'm not discounting that there may be. I'm also saying what we've already found there already could probably be classified as WMD's but we're at a point now that unless we find an undeniably huge arsenal it won't get the classification. That's Bush's doing though - as he certainly made it sound like we'd be falling over piles of the stuff on the way into Baghdad.

[Ranger]

Bring me two that suck, and I will vote for the devil I know.
Looking back now, I'd like to think that was why I voted for Bush.

I think some of us just have to accept (or just consider) that ours', and many other countries' intelligence beliefs about Iraq's WMDs were wrong. I'm also thinking about why the heck we beat Iraq down over wmds, but we're helping Pakistan, a country that has a large population that is pro-Bin Laden, acquire weapons. Forget about the power balance crap and just let India win that arms race.

[hahn]

I think some of us just have to accept (or just consider) that ours', and many other countries' intelligence beliefs about Iraq's WMDs were wrong. I'm also thinking about why the heck we beat Iraq down over wmds, but we're helping Pakistan, a country that has a large population that is pro-Bin Laden, acquire weapons. Forget about the power balance crap and just let India win that arms race.

This is why some of us never believed the official party line being passed down by the administration. It was complete bullshit to begin with because the math never added up. There is corruption in our administration. I don't know specifics, but it's there, and I hope one day will be brought to light. And no, I don't think Kerry was the best choice either. I don't even think he was a good choice. All I know was that 4 years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz was enough. If the devil you know is bad enough, you'll take your chances on another devil being less bad.

For those of you who haven't watched "Enron:The Smartest Guys...", you MUST go watch it. Doing a search here, I'm suprised that there hasn't been very much discussion about this documentary. I think the lessons learned about human nature in that film apply directly to governments and corporate executives EVERYWHERE, no matter what party affiliation they possess.

[DVD Polizei]

Looking back now, I'd like to think that was why I voted for Bush.

I think some of us just have to accept (or just consider) that ours', and many other countries' intelligence beliefs about Iraq's WMDs were wrong. I'm also thinking about why the heck we beat Iraq down over wmds, but we're helping Pakistan, a country that has a large population that is pro-Bin Laden, acquire weapons. Forget about the power balance crap and just let India win that arms race.

I agree. It seems as if the US is doing business with and tolerating MORE countries that were classified as terroristic, than before the Iraq war. I still stand by my original want for Iraq to be invaded, but man-oh-man, the Bush Administration has seemed to really fucked up the situation.

The problem is not just Bush, either. It's how America does politics, and how politicians continue to cowardly refrain from doing the really hard work--such as telling Saudi Arabia to screw off, and stop manufacturing US goods in China.

This hedonistic political atmosphere is dangerous, and it's going to get millions of Americans killed in the future.

[Mark_vdH]

They, and every other nation, could make mass quantities of chemical weapons of mass destruction? I did not know that, and I bet that a great many other people would also be very surprised by this. "Mass quantities"? Please stop changing the facts to fit your argument.

I would agree that if these insurgents were creating "mass quantities of chemical weapons of mass destruction", it would indeed be a big surprise and indicative of larger forces being behind this.

The larger point is: I have no idea if what was found is chemical weapons. However, I do know with a good degree of certainty that it they turn out to be, they were not manufactured by bunch of nomadic jihadist terrorist scum."Nomadic jihadist terrorist scum"? Isn't Saddam just that? ;)

Terrorists have produced and used chemical weapons before (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway)), and let's not forget there are probably several persons in Iraq with know-how regarding producing chemical weapons.

Also, I think you may be misreading the original article. It's reporting about an "insurgent chemical poduction facility" and that tests thus far had been "insufficient to determine what the insurgents had been producing."

[Aldarion]

The latest information puts it at 1,500 gallons of dangerous chemicals. The military spokeman said that the lab is post-invasion, and they're not sure about who provided the expertise yet.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/08/14/alleged_chemical_weapons_factory_uncovered_in_iraq/

[Goldblum]

Not to mention that people seem to try and make a point that Bush was the only one thinking Iraq had wmd's.. which we know isn't true. We know Kerry thought he had it, we know Clinton thought he had it, etc. So it's not like Bush invented this whole thing and was the only one who thought this way. Bush was the first to take action on it though.

:lol: That's what I love about the cries of "Bush lied!" Um...how could be be "lying" when others have been saying the same things long before him.

[hahn]

:lol: That's what I love about the cries of "Bush lied!" Um...how could be be "lying" when others have been saying the same things long before him.

Then you misunderstood. It's not about Bush lying about WMD's. It's about him lying about why he wanted to invade Iraq. It wasn't about WMD's. It wasn't about liberating Iraqis. It wasn't about spreading freedom and democracy. It was about 1) personal vendetta, 2) ego, & 3)...wait for it...oil.

Let me ask you this. We KNOW N. Korea has WMD's. In fact, they've got something better than chemical weapons. They've got NUKES! We know N. Korea's leader is a tyrannical dictator. Thus, people there are oppressed by him. N. Korea is not a democracy (despite it's official name being the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). In fact, it's evil COMMUNIST! (booga booga)

So why haven't we invaded N. Korea?

Because Bush and his administration is full of shit, that's why.

[nemein]

It wasn't about WMD's. It wasn't about liberating Iraqis. It wasn't about spreading freedom and democracy. It was about 1) personal vendetta, 2) ego, & 3)...wait for it...oil.

Personally I think, and stated a LONG time ago, that it was about all 5 things in varying degrees (although I replaced ego w/ UN violations ;)). Now we can debate which was more important to him but I think to dismiss the WMD claim and democracy outright is based more on partisan bickering than anything factual. Whether you agree w/ him or not I haven't seen any evidence yet that Bush isn't sincerely interested in reforming that part of the world, in fact isn't that one of the other major criticisms people have about him? How can you have it both ways, "the PANC is determined to reform the middle east (and that's bad) but he's not serious about it so let's criticize him for that too" :hscratch:


Let me ask you this. We KNOW N. Korea has WMD's. In fact, they've got something better than chemical weapons. They've got NUKES! We know N. Korea's leader is a tyrannical dictator. Thus, people there are oppressed by him. N. Korea is not a democracy (despite it's official name being the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). In fact, it's evil COMMUNIST! (booga booga)

So why haven't we invaded N. Korea?

This has got to be one of the other most nonsensical/red herring arguements in this whole debate too. THERE ARE NO COOKIE CUTTER SOLUTIONS IN POLITICS, esp when talking about international politics. NK is a COMPLETELY different situation w/ totally different players/cultures/history. As you mentioned since they were allowed to acquire nukes in the first place this situation HAS to be handled differently than Iraq. This doesn't even get into the fact in a conventional war w/ NK Seoul is toast in the first day.

[mikehunt]

Then you misunderstood. It's not about Bush lying about WMD's. It's about him lying about why he wanted to invade Iraq. It wasn't about WMD's. It wasn't about liberating Iraqis. It wasn't about spreading freedom and democracy. It was about 1) personal vendetta, 2) ego, & 3)...wait for it...oil.

so where the fuck is the oil?

[DVD Polizei]

Some of you are forgetting WHO let us invade Iraq. That was the first step, before any kind of WMD justifications, liberating Iraqi speeches, or personal vendettas.

[sracer]

so where the fuck is the oil?
The common belief when people hear "the war is about oil" is that oil will freely be flowing because of the war. But few consider that it could mean a TIGHTENED oil supply... to drive up prices, drive up profits for everyone involved in the end-to-end process.

[cinten]

The common belief when people hear "the war is about oil" is that oil will freely be flowing because of the war. But few consider that it could mean a TIGHTENED oil supply... to drive up prices, drive up profits for everyone involved in the end-to-end process.

record high oil company profits (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

Aug. 11, 2005 — As American consumers increasingly feel the pinch at the pump, oil companies have watched their profits soar.

The newest numbers from the second quarter of this year show Exxon Mobil with a 32 percent increase in earnings over this time last year — that's more than $7.6 billion.

BP saw a profit increase of 38 percent, totaling $6.7 billion, while Conoco Phillips — the third largest oil company in the country — recorded a 56 percent increase in profit, more than $3 billion.

[mikehunt]

thing is, the arab countries are the ones making the real profit since they own most of the oil fields.
sure some US companies will profit too, but they'd profit with oil at $30 a barrel too since people wouldn't be as likely to cut back on their gas usage

[Mopower]

So why haven't we invaded N. Korea?

Because Bush and his administration is full of shit, that's why.


Two little problems that are called, ummmm geee I don't know? RUSSIA AND CHINA. Who are both in the area and have vital interests in NK. But I guess it's hypocritical to handle some situations differently than others. :rolleyes:

[chess]

thing is, the arab countries are the ones making the real profit since they own most of the oil fields.
sure some US companies will profit too, but they'd profit with oil at $30 a barrel too since people wouldn't be as likely to cut back on their gas usage

exactly. now, if we could just get them a massive tax cut....

[Myster X]

I love it when people claim it was totally about the oil. :lol: Where the fuck is my cheap gas????? I'm paying nearly $3 fucking for a gallon.

[cinten]

Two little problems that are called, ummmm geee I don't know? RUSSIA AND CHINA. Who are both in the area and have vital interests in NK. But I guess it's hypocritical to handle some situations differently than others. :rolleyes:


Ok, what about Pakistan?

[Myster X]

What about them?

[cinten]

What about them?


They have WMDs, a military government that over threw an elected one, harboring Bin Laden and other taliban fighters, torturing and killing political prisoners. Oh wait they are our friends so it ok with Bush.

[Myster X]

Oh wait they are our friends so it ok with Bush.

Does that surprise you. The US will do what's best for its intertest. Musharraf needs the US to preserve his regime and the US needs him. I see a mutual interest here. After or if the US captures Bin Laden or completely dismantle Al Qaeda, who knows if Musharraf will still be relevant or not.

[Pharoh]

"Mass quantities"? Please stop changing the facts to fit your argument.

I would agree that if these insurgents were creating "mass quantities of chemical weapons of mass destruction", it would indeed be a big surprise and indicative of larger forces being behind this.

"Nomadic jihadist terrorist scum"? Isn't Saddam just that? ;)

Terrorists have produced and used chemical weapons before (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway)), and let's not forget there are probably several persons in Iraq with know-how regarding producing chemical weapons.

Also, I think you may be misreading the original article. It's reporting about an "insurgent chemical poduction facility" and that tests thus far had been "insufficient to determine what the insurgents had been producing."



I really didn't. The point is that if that amount, (it is a sizeable quantity), of chemicals have been produced, the means and facilities were in place prior to the invasion. And if in fact those facilities have been reconstituted and utilised, I am certain that former saddamists will be intrinsically involved.


As for saddam, I never thought of him as either nomadic or a terrorist. Scum, on the other hand, is quite descriptive.
:)

[Brain Stew]

Does that surprise you. The US will do what's best for its intertest. Musharraf needs the US to preserve his regime and the US needs him. I see a mutual interest here. After or if the US captures Bin Laden or completely dismantle Al Qaeda, who knows if Musharraf will still be relevant or not.
Doesn't that negate the whole, "we'll hunt down the countries harboring evildoers" mandate?

[nemein]

Doesn't that negate the whole, "we'll hunt down the countries harboring evildoers" mandate?



Musharraf and the Pakistan Gov't are harboring ObL :hscratch: If he is in Pakistan, assuming he's even still alive, I believe the thinking is he's in the mountainous region/border w/ Afghanistan, which is mainly run by tribal leaders. I thought engaging w/ other coutries to try and build alliances was a good thing?

I find it disingenuous that so many people are looking to criticize Bush for NOT using a cookie cutter approach in foreign relations when in reality those same people would most likely be criticizing him if he did approach every situation that same way -obfrank-

[Brain Stew]

Musharraf and the Pakistan Gov't are harboring ObL :hscratch: If he is in Pakistan, assuming he's even still alive, I believe the thinking is he's in the mountainous region/border w/ Afghanistan, which is mainly run by tribal leaders. I thought engaging w/ other coutries to try and build alliances was a good thing?

I find it disingenuous that so many people are looking to criticize Bush for NOT using a cookie cutter approach in foreign relations when in reality those same people would most likely be criticising him if he did approach every situation that same way -obfrank-
I never said OBL, I just said "evildoers." :D

[cinten]

Musharraf and the Pakistan Gov't are harboring ObL :hscratch: If he is in Pakistan, assuming he's even still alive, I believe the thinking is he's in the mountainous region/border w/ Afghanistan, which is mainly run by tribal leaders. I thought engaging w/ other coutries to try and build alliances was a good thing?

Of course he is alive, haven't you seen the guy who looks different each time in all the grainy blurry video's?



I find it disingenuous that so many people are looking to criticize Bush for NOT using a cookie cutter approach in foreign relations when in reality those same people would most likely be criticizing him if he did approach every situation that same way -obfrank-

I thought it was Bush who was all about "your with us, or your with the terrorists". Bush is all about black and white, good or evil, there is no grey area with him. To give aid to a counrty where the leader of the worlds most dangerous terrorist organization is living seems to me, a bid screwed up....Not that Bush even cares about catching him.

[nemein]

To give aid to a counrty where the leader of the worlds most dangerous terrorist organization is living seems to me, a bid screwed up....Not that Bush even cares about catching him.

If it was the country itself that was officially supporting him I would agree. I don't believe that is the case here... maybe I missed something though. Is there a theory Pakistan is supporting ObL/AQ?

[General Zod]

I thought it was Bush who was all about "your with us, or your with the terrorists". Bush is all about black and white, good or evil, there is no grey area with him.
Well that's what democrats want you to think and I suppose if you hear it often enough you start to believe it, but think about North Korea, Iran, etc.. in which Bush says we can handle those situations diplomatically. So, sort of throws the whole "black and white" issue out the window now doesn't it? When he said that he was referring specifically to the war on terror, not on everything. However people love to take a quote from Bush and turn it into something it isn't, and that comes with the terrority of being president. I'm sure Clinton still feels my pain.

[Thor Simpson]

To give aid to a counrty where the leader of the worlds most dangerous terrorist organization is living seems to me, a bid screwed up....Not that Bush even cares about catching him.
Well, there are terrorists living in the UK too. Should we break off all ties with them? Heck, there are terrorists here. The question is, what are the countries doing about it. The Taliban government was directly protecting Bin Laden.

Saddam was also supporting terrorists and suicide bombers directly, but let's try not to get into the whole Iraq discussion since we know where that leads and it wasn't the most prominently advertised reason to invade.

In the case of Pakistan, are they supporting these terrorist groups in the same manner (that we know of)?

[CRM114]

so where the fuck is the oil?

Has our government explained adequately to you where the oil is? Its a damn good question.

[CRM114]

How much do you want to bet that Pakistan is a "major threat to the region" in, say, 20 years? We arm our "friends" who later turn out to be our enemies. Afghanistan? Iraq?

[nemein]

How much do you want to bet that Pakistan is a "major threat to the region" in, say, 20 years? We arm our "friends" who later turn out to be our enemies. Afghanistan? Iraq?

Yep because there are absolutly no examples of the "opposite" happening (arming friends who become better friends) now are there.... Truth be told noone will know what happens in the future. It is possible we'll end up at odds w/ Pakistan in the future, but the greater inroads we build now, and stick w/ it, the less likely of a chance that'll happen (not taking into consideration any internal changes of course ;)). In some ways Iraq and Afghnaistan became enemies because we used them then abandoned them. Who knows what would have happened if we stayed involved w/ Afghanistan after the soviet occuption ended.

[sracer]

I love it when people claim it was totally about the oil. :lol: Where the fuck is my cheap gas????? I'm paying nearly $3 fucking for a gallon.
Who ever said it was about CHEAP gas?

[CaptainMarvel]

How much do you want to bet that Pakistan is a "major threat to the region" in, say, 20 years? We arm our "friends" who later turn out to be our enemies. Afghanistan? Iraq?

And we fight our enemies, who later turn out to be our friends. Britain? Canada?

Hmm, I wonder if it's because geopolitics are fluid?

[Thor Simpson]

Hmm, I wonder if it's because geopolitics are fluid?
Buncombe! Look at our history with Russia... See World War I, II, Cold War... nothing ever changes!

[hahn]

Doesn't that negate the whole, "we'll hunt down the countries harboring evildoers" mandate?

It also negates the whole, "we're liberating people", and "we're spreading freedom and democracy" (which always sounded to me like we were giving them an STD).

[hahn]

And we fight our enemies, who later turn out to be our friends. Britain? Canada?

Hmm, I wonder if it's because geopolitics are fluid?

How many times have we had friends who turned into enemies? And also this important question - did THEY turn into enemies, or did we make them into enemies?

[hahn]

I love it when people claim it was totally about the oil. :lol: Where the fuck is my cheap gas????? I'm paying nearly $3 fucking for a gallon.

You just aren't capable of understanding any of this, are you? YOU are the person who gets screwed over by all this. It's about oil AND money. The people in power get rich. The people not in power (you) get screwed. The reason they get away with it, is because people like you don't understand they're getting screwed.

[VinVega]

You just aren't capable of understanding any of this, are you? YOU are the person who gets screwed over by all this. It's about oil AND money. The people in power get rich. The people not in power (you) get screwed. The reason they get away with it, is because people like you don't understand they're getting screwed.
Meh. Hahn, I'm not denying that oil was a component of the 2nd Iraq war, but I don't see it as the main component. Getting rid of Saddam was always on the back burner and the administration struck while the iron was hot and American sentiment for revenge and a general state of fear allowed them to take the offensive against Iraq. I think changing the political structure of the ME and creating a permanent military base in the heart of the terrorist world were the main objectives.

[Ranger]

This is why some of us never believed the official party line being passed down by the administration. It was complete bullshit to begin with because the math never added up. There is corruption in our administration. I don't know specifics, but it's there, and I hope one day will be brought to light. And no, I don't think Kerry was the best choice either. I don't even think he was a good choice. All I know was that 4 years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz was enough. If the devil you know is bad enough, you'll take your chances on another devil being less bad.
I don't think it really has much to do with Bush. It has more to do with the long-standing foreign policy and the long chain of events (and mistakes). The Iraq war is just part of it.

I think it's more than fair to bring up Pakistan. The country really does have a large population (last survey showed it was about 55%) that is pro-Bin Laden. The pro-West military government has been dodging assassination attempt after assassination attempt from Islamists. I don't know if that government can survive. It can be easily replaced with an anti-West government even more dangerous than Iran.

[Pharoh]

Meh. Hahn, I'm not denying that oil was a component of the 2nd Iraq war, but I don't see it as the main component. Getting rid of Saddam was always on the back burner and the administration struck while the iron was hot and American sentiment for revenge and a general state of fear allowed them to take the offensive against Iraq. I think changing the political structure of the ME and creating a permanent military base in the heart of the terrorist world were the main objectives.

:up:

And I would add the simple notion of proving that we could and would. This should not be ignored or understated.

[Pharoh]

How many times have we had friends who turned into enemies? And also this important question - did THEY turn into enemies, or did we make them into enemies?



Would you like to make and compare lists?

[Thor Simpson]

<u>Russia</U>
We didn't make them an enemy... and they were never that good a "friend" to begin with, except for the mutual interest of Hitler not storming over their land.

<u>Iraq</u>
We gave them some weapons to fight Iran. Then I guess you could say we became enemies and we didn't let Saddam take over Kuwait. Guess we are making them friends again. :lol:

<u>Indonesia</u>
We broke off ties with them because of their policies, not the other way around.

Okay, I'm out. :lol:

My list sucks. Please provide a better one. I, too, believe hahn may be overestimating the number of times a friend has turned and become an enemy due to our policies. There are MANY more cases of enemies becoming friends I would guess. I'm open to correction, however, and could learn a lot from these comparisons. Turning our friends into enemies is certainly a popular theme these days, but let's see some stats to back it up. Then we can actually learn from those cases and see how they compare to the current situation instead of just saying "Well, we're making people mad, and we're making allies that will be enemies. We should be making people happy and not making alliances with countries that might turn on us." What are the examples, and how do they relate?

[hahn]

<u>Russia</U>
<u>Iraq</u>
We gave them some weapons to fight Iran. Then I guess you could say we became enemies and we didn't let Saddam take over Kuwait. Guess we are making them friends again. :lol:
Check out "Iran" in Wikipedia. They have a good article that discusses the background political history of Iran and our involvement. You might be surprised to learn that Iran, many years ago, was democratic and considered one of the most liberal and progressive countries in the ME. Until their president pissed off Britain by trying to nationalize the oil exports that the British had an interest in (A country wants MORE control over a natural resource coming from THEIR own land? Go figure.). Britain called on the U.S. for help, which they did and basically ended up bringing an end to that government (through a HIGHLY unethical smear campaign initiated by undercover CIA operatives), that severely polarized the country. The end of that administration ushered in a much more religiously conservative, but pro-US government. But that eventually backfired on the U.S. (see passage about American hostage crisis), and the U.S. resorted to supplying Iraq with...that's right...CHEMICAL weapons to take out Iran. Why is anyone surprised that Iran hates us and that it's NOT really for religious reasons?

As for the second statement about us not letting Saddam take over Kuwait, do a Google search on "April Glaspie". I think you'll find the information very interesting.

My list sucks. Please provide a better one. I, too, believe hahn may be overestimating the number of times a friend has turned and become an enemy due to our policies. There are MANY more cases of enemies becoming friends I would guess. I'm open to correction, however, and could learn a lot from these comparisons. Turning our friends into enemies is certainly a popular theme these days, but let's see some stats to back it up. Then we can actually learn from those cases and see how they compare to the current situation instead of just saying "Well, we're making people mad, and we're making allies that will be enemies. We should be making people happy and not making alliances with countries that might turn on us." What are the examples, and how do they relate?

I think you're misreading what I was saying. I was saying that there are few circumstances where a country was considered an ally/friend and eventually became an enemy that we engaged in warfare with. I can't think of any off the top of my head right now actually.

[Ranger]

I prefer to take the hypocrisy argument.

We still have Cold War-era trade sanctions on Cuba. Yet we have Saudi Arabia as one of our oil sources.

Just compare the people. SA (not everybody, ok?) is largely pro-Bin Laden while Cuba is not.

Edit: Ah, I forgot, we also even have Gitmo right by Cuba.

[hahn]

Meh. Hahn, I'm not denying that oil was a component of the 2nd Iraq war, but I don't see it as the main component. Getting rid of Saddam was always on the back burner and the administration struck while the iron was hot and American sentiment for revenge and a general state of fear allowed them to take the offensive against Iraq. I think changing the political structure of the ME and creating a permanent military base in the heart of the terrorist world were the main objectives.

We already have military bases in the Middle East. Check Saudi Arabia.

Also, how does setting up a military base in the middle of "terrorist world" (A reminder to you that here are terrorists all over the world. The Muslim ones just happened to have attacked us twice. And Iraq is not the middle, unless you're excluding all the Far East Islamic nations.) help us do ANYTHING against terrorism? You "fight" terrorism by helping people understand and siding with you. You cannot fight terrorism by killing people. A terrorist is a dynamic label. One cannot be a terrorist until one has committed or plans to commit an act of terrorism. If a group of people hate you, they are ALL potential terrorists. The only way to get them to NOT be terrorists is to make them not hate you, because there is no way you can kill them all unless you're going to carry out mass genocide. Someone's tried before. It didn't work.

Mild sarcasm aside, I think greed and ego comes into play before benevolence here. Power corrupts and very few people are immune. I'm under no delusion that ANY administration has been free from corruption (yes, including Clinton). However, this one bothers me because of the new heights of aggression, arrogance, and imperialism they have reached. To tell you the truth, GW Bush was never really on my mind until Mar 2003. Politics was just not my thing. None of the national issues have ever stirred me enough to make me care, until we went to war against Iraq without clear evidence of "imminent threat" (Rumsfeld's words).

Again, I'm going to mention "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" #1 because it was an awesome movie and still has me thinking about it 24 hours later, and #2 because it shows you how power, ego, and money can corrupt even very well intentioned and intelligent people, who never drew a line anywhere. One day they just woke up to the realization that it was too late to go back, so they just continued to do what they did and compounded lies upon lies, almost as if they could believe they weren't lies if they convinced the public they were true. These people fooled themselves, the employees, AND the shareholders that they were making money AND not doing anything evil. The banks knew it was wrong and they went along, just because they were going to get fat and rich off of other people's lack of ethics. That's my opinion of what true evil is. Evil isn't people being conscious of doing something evil. Evil is apathy. It's people not knowing and/or not caring what happens to other people as a result of their own actions. Look out for yourself only and may the cleverest/smartest/luckiest person win. As one of the ex-traders of Enron interviewed in the movie, put it succinctly, "These people wouldn't hesitate to slit your throat if it meant getting to the trough first." And it's not because they want to slit your throat. It's because they don't care about your throat if it means they get to reach their ambitions or goals.

[X]

We already have military bases in the Middle East. Check Saudi Arabia.A few current references supporting that would be nice.

[hahn]

A few current references supporting that would be nice.

I lived there and have visited two of them.

[X]

I lived there and have visited two of them."Current" is the operative word. Relating to "have".

[Ranger]

I think we moved our bases out of Saudi Arabia. That certainly was one of the smarter things Bush did.

[hahn]

"Current" is the operative word. Relating to "have".

My parents CURRENTLY live there still, and see soldiers everywhere in the city, shopping. Unless, you're proposing that the soldiers just stepped off a flight, I'm going to argue that there are still military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Plus, I don't see your point. The argument was brought up that we needed to have military bases in the ME, which is why we invaded Iraq. My argument is that we already had military bases in Saudi Arabia. So whether that information is current or not (and it is), does not invalidate the logic of my argument.

[hahn]

I think we moved our bases out of Saudi Arabia. That certainly was one of the smarter things Bush did.

I don't think that's completely true. My parents still see American soldiers shopping in the city.

[X]

My parents CURRENTLY live there still, and see soldiers everywhere in the city, shopping. Unless, you're proposing that the soldiers just stepped off a flight, I'm going to argue that there are still military bases in Saudi Arabia.I'd do a little more checking.

[Ranger]

Well, I can't say for sure if ALL the American soldiers are out of SA, but I do know that we did move some to Qatar, where they built a base for us. But some are saying that Qatar base is not enough, and that permanent bases are needed in Iraq to maintain pressure on Iran and Syria. But I think that will just drag on the violence in the region.

[brizz]

I love it when people claim it was totally about the oil. :lol: Where the fuck is my cheap gas????? I'm paying nearly $3 fucking for a gallon.
uhm...the answer was a couple posts above...

Aug. 11, 2005 — As American consumers increasingly feel the pinch at the pump, oil companies have watched their profits soar.

The newest numbers from the second quarter of this year show Exxon Mobil with a 32 percent increase in earnings over this time last year — that's more than $7.6 billion.

BP saw a profit increase of 38 percent, totaling $6.7 billion, while Conoco Phillips — the third largest oil company in the country — recorded a 56 percent increase in profit, more than $3 billion.

[hahn]

I'd do a little more checking.
Yes why don't you go do that, since you seem to be trying to make a point. But I'm not a mind reader and you're acting coy, so I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

[nemein]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030430-psab01.htm


Chicago Tribune April 30, 2003
Military to leave Saudi Arabia
U.S. moving amid strained relations

In-Depth Coverage

By Stephen J. Hedges

Marking the end of an era, the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday.

Appearing at a press conference in Riyadh with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, Rumsfeld said the Pentagon was ordering the redeployment, which involves mostly members of the U.S. Air Force, because there no longer is a threat from deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The changes are to take place this summer.

The Persian Gulf, Rumsfeld said, "is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq." He also said U.S. planes no longer are needed to enforce a "no-fly" zone over Iraq. American military aircraft patrolling the southern half of Iraq did so in part from Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. also is likely to continue to use air bases in Iraq, increasing its military "footprint" in the region overall.

The decision to draw down forces in Saudi Arabia, though largely symbolic given the many U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, reflects a shift in the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which built military ties during the 1980s. Though the two countries were once close, dealings between them have become strained since the Sept. 11 attacks and the discovery of evidence linking Saudi citizens and charities to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for them.

Many Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and some--including Osama bin Laden--had used this as a justification for terrorism.

The pullout from Saudi Arabia also occurs as Pentagon strategists consider broader redeployments and reductions in troop levels overseas. The Army alone has 328,900 troops in 120 countries.

U.S. Gen. James Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said in Washington on Monday that a number of NATO's 499 military facilities in Europe will likely be closed. Some will be replaced by new, smaller bases in Eastern European countries that have recently joined the alliance.

Though a longtime U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia refused to allow U.S. planes to use its bases during the war with Iraq. The U.S. was allowed to direct air operations from its Combined Forces Air Command center at Prince Sultan Air Base in central Saudi Arabia.

The withdrawal, Rumsfeld said, would not diminish the U.S.-Saudi security relationship. About 400 U.S. military personnel are to remain to train Saudi troops.

Prince Sultan welcomed the U.S. decision but suggested that it was not a result of pressure from his government.

"Obviously, there is no need for them to remain," he said. "This does not mean that we requested them to remove their forces from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

Tuesday's decision will help ease an increasingly uncomfortable situation for the U.S. and Saudi governments.

Since 1980, the two nations have had an agreement in which four American AWACS surveillance planes and three aerial tankers had operated from Riyadh, and successive U.S. administrations in the 1980s and 1990s sold Saudis arms, including AWACs.

Troops welcomed in '90

U.S. forces flooded into Saudi Arabia in fall 1990, after Hussein's troops invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia welcomed the troops, and its own forces fought to push Iraq out of Kuwait.

After the war, about 4,000 uniformed Americans--mostly Air Force members--stayed in Saudi Arabia as part of the no-fly patrol operations, and as a check against further Iraqi offensives. However, they became a rallying point for Muslim fundamentalists, who charged the U.S. was trying to increase its influence over the Saudi royal family and the nation's oil reserves.

"The presence of the U.S. forces gives a lot of fuel to the virulent, anti-American Islamic forces that certainly command an audience in Saudi, and in the broader Arab world," said Jamil Khoury, an Arab specialist and business consultant who teaches at the University of Chicago. "It's become a real sore point in our relationship with the royal family, because it has become too burdensome to them."

For the U.S., the presence in Saudi Arabia was also yielding diminishing returns, even before the host country refused to participate in the second war against Iraq. U.S. personnel were under constant threat of terrorist attack after the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex, which killed 19 service members.

U.S. forces an irritant

Increasingly, the U.S. presence had become a central irritant for those pressing to reform the royal family's strong-armed rule and the fundamentalists who want to replace that government with a religious regime.

"As a society, it is overdue for fundamental political change," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank. "And notwithstanding all the oil they're sitting on top of, we probably don't want to be there when that change occurs."

Leaving Saudi Arabia does not mean that U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region will decline. The Iraq war was directed largely from U.S. Central Command headquarters, which had been established in Qatar. U.S. forces also used expanded bases and runways in Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. A sizable U.S. force is expected to remain there while efforts to return order and establish a functioning government in Iraq are under way.

Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki has predicted that up to "several hundred thousand" U.S. troops may be needed to enforce the peace in postwar Iraq, though Rumsfeld's office has said that figure is high. More than 250,000 U.S. military personnel were in the region during the war, though many of those troops have begun to return home.

The U.S. is likely to keep using Iraqi air bases, analysts suggest, and those may be vital if the Bush administration intends to keep pressure on states that it has accused of supporting terrorism and that may now pose the next threat to U.S. interests in the region.

"If you're thinking about blowing up Syria or Iran, all those Iraqi bases are going to be far more useful than a base in Saudi Arabia would have been," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. "I think the governments of Iran and Syria are going to be very nervous with a large American military presence on their borders."

[Pharoh]

One last damn time, the United States did not arm saddam or supply him with chemical weapons. How much longer will people spout this silly myth?

For the record, again, the US supplied almost zero usable military weapons or vehicles to Iraq during the reign of terror of saddam. They were supplied with less than 100 light helicopters over a few years period. Undoubtedly some of these helicopters, such as the Hughes-300/TH-55 were converted from civilian operation, which is how they were delivered, into a basic military helicopter, but they were never any factor in any wars or acts of terror and murder committed by saddam. The US did not give weapons to Iraq. Hell, even the NYT accepts as fact the less than 2% figure. That is, the US supplied less than 2% total of saddam's military establishment.

Nor did the United States supply saddam with chemical weapons. A French company with an American subsidiary purchased raw materials for an Iraqi 'pesticide factory' in the mid 1970s. The American company in question pulled out of the deal less than a year later when it became aware of what France and saddam were doing.

After the pullout of the American firm, saddam turned to Germany and Switzerland to aid in the production of chemical facilities, not the United States. When in the early 1980s raw material were needed for the facilities, Iraq used a Dutch firm to source them from America, using two layers of middle-men. It was the West, but not America, that equipped the murderer with his tools.

The United States did arm Iran, but not Iraq. We supplied saddam with the necessary intelligence to help achieve a stalemate in a conflict that desparately required one.

[CRM114]

One last damn time, the United States did not arm saddam or supply him with chemical weapons. How much longer will people spout this silly myth?

For the record, again, the US supplied almost zero usable military weapons or vehicles to Iraq during the reign of terror of saddam. They were supplied with less than 100 light helicopters over a few years period. Undoubtedly some of these helicopters, such as the Hughes-300/TH-55 were converted from civilian operation, which is how they were delivered, into a basic military helicopter, but they were never any factor in any wars or acts of terror and murder committed by saddam. The US did not give weapons to Iraq. Hell, even the NYT accepts as fact the less than 2% figure. That is, the US supplied less than 2% total of saddam's military establishment.

Nor did the United States supply saddam with chemical weapons. A French company with an American subsidiary purchased raw materials for an Iraqi 'pesticide factory' in the mid 1970s. The American company in question pulled out of the deal less than a year later when it became aware of what France and saddam were doing.

After the pullout of the American firm, saddam turned to Germany and Switzerland to aid in the production of chemical facilities, not the United States. When in the early 1980s raw material were needed for the facilities, Iraq used a Dutch firm to source them from America, using two layers of middle-men. It was the West, but not America, that equipped the murderer with his tools.

The United States did arm Iran, but not Iraq. We supplied saddam with the necessary intelligence to help achieve a stalemate in a conflict that desparately required one.

Pharoh - The documents have been posted here numerous times which showed US corporations supplied Iraq with "dual-use" items used to make chemical and biological weapons.

No matter how you slice it with middle men, the US supplied Hussein. Why do you make excuses for these scoundrels? The US government gave a wink and nod to the whole affair.

[VinVega]

We already have military bases in the Middle East. Check Saudi Arabia.

Also, how does setting up a military base in the middle of "terrorist world" (A reminder to you that here are terrorists all over the world. The Muslim ones just happened to have attacked us twice. And Iraq is not the middle, unless you're excluding all the Far East Islamic nations.) help us do ANYTHING against terrorism? You "fight" terrorism by helping people understand and siding with you. You cannot fight terrorism by killing people. A terrorist is a dynamic label. One cannot be a terrorist until one has committed or plans to commit an act of terrorism. If a group of people hate you, they are ALL potential terrorists. The only way to get them to NOT be terrorists is to make them not hate you, because there is no way you can kill them all unless you're going to carry out mass genocide. Someone's tried before. It didn't work.
Yes, you have to try to win the hearts and minds of potential terrorist fodder. You also have to be prepared to jail them/shoot them if they don't respond to political/diplomatic campaigning. Personally, I don't think the best way to physically fight terrorism is not with a large scale conventional military like the plans call for in the future fortress Iraq (which may not happen now, given the conditions on the ground), but you have to put the troops somewhere. As bad as any antagonism is for American troops in Iraq, it would be 10 times worse if we threw 140,000 troops in Afghanistan. The zenophobia in that country is much stronger than Iraq. I'm a believer in a small footprint, at least in certain countries.

So to respond to your post, yes, you have to try to win over the support of the "potential" terrorists (ie. civilians) as best you can, but there's a military aspect in this fight that you can't ignore.

[Goldblum]

Yes why don't you go do that, since you seem to be trying to make a point. But I'm not a mind reader and you're acting coy, so I really have no idea what you're trying to say.
:eek:

[Pharoh]

Pharoh - The documents have been posted here numerous times which showed US corporations supplied Iraq with "dual-use" items used to make chemical and biological weapons.

No matter how you slice it with middle men, the US supplied Hussein. Why do you make excuses for these scoundrels? The US government gave a wink and nod to the whole affair.


Sorry, but that is not correct. Even before you were actively posting in this forum, I posted multiple times the exact list of items exported to Iraq. It was inconsequential compared to what came from Europe and Russia.

Further, as I indicated above, concerning actual materials used for chemical weapons, there were two known instances of materials coming from United States firms, and both cases involved Western European companies either using a subsidiary or acting as fronts. The United States simply did not arm saddam, it is not true. Western Europe, Russia, and after 1984, Warsaw Pact nations did.

Go check the New York Times piece that I referenced. By their assessment, even counting all dual-use items, the US supplied less than 2% of saddam's military machine. Or you can look to northern Europe for some more independent confirmation.

[CRM114]

Are you saying these Western Europe countries did this without the knowledge of US intelligence? US corporations have ways of circumventing the rules for profit. Its the way things work.

[Aldarion]

Are you saying these Western Europe countries did this without the knowledge of US intelligence? US corporations have ways of circumventing the rules for profit. Its the way things work.

I'm sure that US intelligence knew at least some of what was going on. There is a difference though between supplying and not actively opposing others supplying. The US wouldn't be able to do much about the Warsaw Pact suppliers either. Plus, Iraq was acting as a counter to Iran, so it wasn't in the US's best interests to do much to stop the flow of weapons to Iraq.

[chowderhead]

If it was the country itself that was officially supporting him I would agree. I don't believe that is the case here... maybe I missed something though. Is there a theory Pakistan is supporting ObL/AQ?
What about Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the "father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program." passing nuclear information to N. Korea, Iran, Libya (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3460685.stm). Our "friend" Masharraf PARDONS him:
Mr Khan, it is alleged, also secretly travelled abroad to explain to Iranian, Libyan and North Korean scientists how to make nuclear bombs.

WTF, Mr. Bush invades Iraq which cannot even control the Kurds in the north but DOES next to NOTHING when Pakistan passes nuclear secrets to the "axis of evil."

What's this?? 20 years ago?
CIA told Dutch not to prosecute Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan, former premier says (http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/31067.html)

The Netherlands abandoned plans to prosecute Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in 1975 and 1986 at the CIA's insistence, former Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers told Dutch radio Tuesday.

Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, acknowledged last year having sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

It's called a full circle!

[Fokker's Feint]

Meh. Hahn, I'm not denying that oil was a component of the 2nd Iraq war, but I don't see it as the main component. Getting rid of Saddam was always on the back burner and the administration struck while the iron was hot and American sentiment for revenge and a general state of fear allowed them to take the offensive against Iraq. I think changing the political structure of the ME and creating a permanent military base in the heart of the terrorist world were the main objectives.

I know this already got some props earlier but I wanted to give it a big :thumbsup: as well. So often people forget to look at the big picture and would rather boil the invasion of Iraq down to either WMD or oil when in my mind these were secondary concerns.

[DVD Polizei]

And we have thousands more terrorists too, stirring up a nest worldwide--London Bombing sound familiar? But of course, the administration does not like to talk about such results of being in Iraq.

[Ketamine]

And we have thousands more terrorists too, stirring up a nest worldwide--London Bombing sound familiar? But of course, the administration does not like to talk about such results of being in Iraq.

The way I look at it (in simple terms) is terrorists are like a bunch of wasps (using your nest analogy). If you try to get rid of that nest by your door, you are going to rile them up and they are going to try to sting you. In fact, for a while the situation is going to more dangerous for you compared to if you just left them alone and hoped they wouldn't bother your family. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to get rid of them. They will not become your friends if you play nice with them or if you leave them alone. They will sting you if you give them the chance. Only way to really deal with them is to kill them, even if that makes things more dangerous for you in the short term. Only time will tell who is on the right side on this issue.

I find it hard to believe that being nice to these extremists would change the situation. They have no room in their world for infidels and want us dead because we have different beliefs. Evil does exist in this world and sitting back and being passive will not make it go away.

[DVD Polizei]

Currently, more drunk drivers have killed Americans than all terrorist attacks against all Americans worldwide.

Think about it.

Decide who is the real enemy here if you're thinking about Americans in danger.

Fighting terrorism is essential, and I'm the last person to say it isn't. However, you need to pick your fights tactfully, and initiate them swiftly. Silent, unconditional fighting, and deadly is the key here, and the US is just the opposite: Loud, wishy-washy, and threatening.

Also, you need to understand we are fighting the wasps on the wrong continent. We should be fortifying our borders, and increasing our technology of scanning for rogue nuclear weapons. Currently, the US is doing neither because it doesn't demonstrate actual progress on the War on Terror. This is sad. And we are going to lose millions in the near future.

[Ketamine]

Swimming pools are more deadly for the kids of the United States than terrorists have ever been. I guess it is swimming pools and drunks that we should be worried about, not a group of people who want us dead.

Think about it.

I understand that we need to secure our borders, find ways to detect bombs, etc. I agree that we are not doing enough on that front. Bush is really dropping the ball on the borders and I just don't understand it (actually I do but that problem is for another discussion). Still, I think we need to do both, protect ourselves at home and take the fight to the enemy. Sitting back forever trying to "catch" everything thrown at us will only end in tragedy. I would rather fight the war on foreign soil than at home (though again, I know that both are important).

It would be nice if we could use your tactics in the war on terror. "Unconditional and deadly" would be great, but I think it would end up with a lot more countries pissed at us and end up with more loss of innocent life. I agree that this is ideal, but the military right now has been hampered by having to fight a politically correct war. I also think silent, unconditional, and deadly is much easier said than done (but I agree it would be effective if it were possible).

[Thor Simpson]

This is sad. And we are going to lose millions in the near future.
I'm starting to think you know too much. :helpme:

[DVD Polizei]

I also predict you will sneeze at some point in the future...:eek:

[nemein]

What about Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the "father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program."

Well you got me on that one. First I have to admit I didn't follow the story all the closely so I don't know all the details. I do think the admin, if they didn't, should have pushed harder for some sort of punishment. The only reason I can think of not to is if he turned "state's evidence" and even then I personally wouldn't let him completely off the hook. Back to the point though, was his network sponsored/sanctioned by the Gov't?

WRT to things that happened 20+ years ago, the world was significantly different then (different "players", different problems, different motivations) so I think it's inappropriate to judge actions then based on what we know now. Hindsight is 20/20 and while maybe we should have had more foresight that's something nobody/no nation has ever really been good at.

[chowderhead]

Well you got me on that one. First I have to admit I didn't follow the story all the closely so I don't know all the details. I do think the admin, if they didn't, should have pushed harder for some sort of punishment. The only reason I can think of not to is if he turned "state's evidence" and even then I personally wouldn't let him completely off the hook. Back to the point though, was his network sponsored/sanctioned by the Gov't?

WRT to things that happened 20+ years ago, the world was significantly different then (different "players", different problems, different motivations) so I think it's inappropriate to judge actions then based on what we know now. Hindsight is 20/20 and while maybe we should have had more foresight that's something nobody/no nation has ever really been good at.

I have no idea if his network was sponsored or sanctioned by the Pakastani government. I do know that after he was exposed for passing nuclear information to N. Korea, Iran and Libya, our "friend" Pres. Masharraf PARDONED him! I know we issued a stern memo expressing our deepest disappointment but nothing was done about this!
Look, this thread had posters speculating about different countries turning on us 20 years from now. CRM114 posed the point that we armed Iraq and Afghanistan because the enemy of our enemy is our friend. We turn a blind eye to everything because of that. I was merely pointing to something that happened 20 years ago with the CIA asking the Dutch government not to go after Dr. Kahn and how it is turning around and biting us in the a** today.

[raven56706]

rotfl..... i hope this is wrong

[nemein]

I know we issued a stern memo expressing our deepest disappointment but nothing was done about this!

As I said I agree more should have been done.


Look, this thread had posters speculating about different countries turning on us 20 years from now.

And noone has a crystal ball so it's hard to determine how things are going to go. The thing I was trying to point out is that 20 years ago was still the cold war and everything was completely different then. Maybe over the next 20 years another change of that maginitude will happen, at this point it seems unlikely though so our actions have to be based on what we know/can extrapolate about the future (just like their actions were then).

[Thor Simpson]

Oh. My. Goodness. I just sneezed. I'm calling the FBI. -eek-

[Jeremy517]

Did they ever figure out what exactly they found?

[hahn]

Did they ever figure out what exactly they found?

:lol:

[monkeyboy]

Did they ever figure out what exactly they found?

Damn liberal media covering up another news item. :rolleyes: