How justified is this war?

[HindSight2020]

Governments are free to disagree with each other as long as they operate within certain guidelines. This is a small planet. It would only take a moron who releases some biologically engineered plague on his neighbor to destroy human life as we know it, and it would take another moron to unleash nuclear holocaust on the planet. There are enough morons on the planet. With the launching of the first SCUD missile by Iraqi forces, there was enough proof that Saddam was not complying with the agreement he made with the U.N. forces in 1991. Yesterday, the coalition forces found mobile biological labs buried near Bagdad. That is probably only the beginning. It will take months to find everything. I hate war, but it looks like Saddam was one moron who needed to be reigned in.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (starkhorn @ April 15 2003,05:24)]Red Harvest,

My point about the 80's and that nearly ALL of the western powers armed Iraq was to counter-claim your point that Russian and France were solely responsible. You made alot of mention of exocets, nuclear/chemical stuff, black berets and russian tanks. This is all true but ALL the western powers must share the blame for the arming of Iraq (including US and Britain)....and not just Russian and France. US sold helicopters to Iraq for example so you should mention them. (I believe those were the same helicopters the Iraqis used to put down the revolts in 91 after Gulf War I but I'm not 100%).

The below web-site is quite a good article site which discusses US government records as evidence on what was supplied from US to Iraq. I like this site as it uses senate hearings and government records as evidence and does not just makes paranoid claims for the sake of it. There is also several books to read which can further back some of the statements.

http://www.wf.org/iraq-west.htm

About the chemical weapons supplied to Iraq by the US, point 3 discusses that by examining the export licences and records from certain US firms to show that they shipped various components needed to make chemical and even nuclear weapons....quite surprising, it claims that US even provided nuclear detonation training to Iraqi scientist. I've cut and pasted the relevant portion at the end here for reference but please read the entire article to get the entire picture.

I've not stated once that US is solely responsible for arming Iraq....and if you agree with that statement then you must also agree with the statement then Russian or France are not also solely responsible. So if you are going to mention exocet missiles and russian tanks then you should also mention what everyone else sold to Iraq as well. ALL western nations must share the responsiblty for arming Iraq in the 80's....pure and simple.



Your final point below:-

I stand by my point that France and Russia are most responsible for this because they literally backed Saddam this time around rather than sending him unequivocal signals to disarm.

France and Russia
Also were are all these WMDs ? After 2 weeks of searching, the american and british forces can't find them. I find it strange that after not finding them in Iraq and after months of hearing about how Iraq must disarm, we suddenly find out that Iraq's WMD's have been in Syria the whole time. Strange that they only told us now......ain't it ?

You shouldn't get confused between who are anti-war and pro-Saddam positions. Nations and people who don't want war are by no means pro-saddam. I believe Chirac has already congratuled the US and Brits for getting rid of Saddam.

Anyway, it's been fun. Hope you enjoyed the posts and alternative view-points.

Cheers
Brendan

Several current and former government officials from the Department of Defense, the Commerce Department and the Customs service have testified during the past two years that U.S. firms enhanced Iraq's conventional and nonconventional military capability. (see Appendix)

Dozens of U.S. firms participated in Petrochemical Complex II, many with export licenses, which provided Iraq with the capability to produce ethylene oxide, a major ingredient in fuel air explosives bombs as well as being a precursor for certain chemical weapons. PC-2 was also a major front for the procurement of Super Gun components. (see Appendix)

The Commerce Department approved a license for Iraqi front company Matrix Churchill despite a plethora of CIA reports showing that the firm was part of Iraq's nuclear procurement network and despite ample evidence showing that the listed end user of the technology, a firm called Techcorp, was in charge of Iraq's ballistic missile an secret nuclear weapons program. (see Appendix)

The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of U.S. equipment to several Iraqi weapons complexes, the Condor II ballistic missile program, and Iraq's covert nuclear weapons program. The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of armored ambulances and communications equipment directly to the Iraqi military. (see Appendix)

In 1986 and 1987 two Iraqi scientists were permitted to visit the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a major U.S. nuclear weapons facility. Incredibly, in 1989 three employees of Iraq’s main explosives factory, called Al Qaqaa, were permitted to attend U.S. government sponsored seminar on nuclear weapons detonation. (See Appendix)

Starkhorn,

Nice try at putting words into my mouth, but I never said that the US was not involved in the '80's backing Iraq's efforts vs. Iran. The difference between the US and France/Russia is that our backing ended around the time of the Kuwait invasion... With the way the Iranian revolution was running in the '80's it was an understandable attempt at containment during a Cold War mess (let's see if you can remember who were the bad guys in the Cold War.) France and Russia were busy trying to sign big business deals with Iraq during the embargo of the past 12 years and the Russian GPS jammers are relatively new technology (post Gulf War) plus they were sharing intelligence with Iraq.

I'm not impressed with the website or your quotes from it. You really are stretching already rather tenuous connections. Particularly humorous to me personally is the quote about a petrochemical complex producing ethylene oxide...ooh, scarey I've designed equipment for an ethylene oxide plant in the US but I hardly would consider it evidence of chemical weapons support, LOL. It's a basic building block chemical intermediate and you can do many things with it. We make ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) from it. EO is quite unstable and has a tendency to blow up your reactor or distillation columns unless you know what your are doing, but that reactivity is what makes it a good building block. It is one of a variety of compounds that petrochem complexes might convert their light hydrocarbon gases into. Companies build what they can to consume these gases since they are not easily transported like crude. Simple chemical weapons are not that difficult to make, the technology is old. The difficult part is in handling and delivering what you make.

I hardly consider allowing a couple of Iraqi scientists to attend one seminar much in the way of evidence. I've been to a few engineering and science seminars and there is rarely that much depth.

Hmm so they are responsible for war because they didn't want to go to war against Iraq ? Doesn't that make them the least responsible for war because they didn't want it ?Aren't the US and Britain more responsible for this war for actually invading Iraq and refusing to allow the UN enough time to find a peaceful resolution ?

LOL. The UN had 12 years and they failed. Given another 12 years they would have failed again. Why? Because Saddam would only do things when pressured by actual airstrikes by the US. In MOST conflicts the UN is helpless unless the US shoulders the burden for it. France and Russia could talk themselves silly and nothing would happen, if you believe otherwise then you are seriously deluded. France and Russia signalled in Nov. that the would prevent any forceful resolution diplomatically. That started the build up to war since diplomacy was no longer a viable option. Once the build up started the only way to stop it was for Saddam to leave. France and Russia definitely sent the WRONG MESSAGE. The US spent twelve years waiting for resolution. It didn't happen and asking us to wait another year was definitely unreasonable based on the track record (since attacking later in the year would have been more difficult--costing more lives on both sides through prolonged conflict). We decided to finish the job so that eventually we will be able to leave. The Imperialist name calling won't stick, because unlike European powers of yore, we just want to get out as soon as the mess is cleaned up.

Here is an easy one for you: wouldn't Iraq be better off today if we had ignored the limits of the UN mandate 12 years ago and had toppled Saddam when many of his army units, the Kurds, and Shiites revolted? How many Iraqi lives would have been saved or enriched by it? You can debate all you want, but that is what it will ultimately come down to, and how we will be judged by history. All that really matters is whether or not the world will become better as a result of actions like dismantling the Taliban and Baath parties. Left to France/Russia nothing positive would ever get done.

You shouldn't get confused between who are anti-war and pro-Saddam positions. Nations and people who don't want war are by no means pro-saddam. I believe Chirac has already congratuled the US and Brits for getting rid of Saddam.

We're not confused about it. It is pretty clear to the majority in the US that France and Russia alligned themselves with Saddam, since they did everything they could to oppose us (short of war.) Chirac's congratulations is merely further evidence of his hypocrisy. (Really enjoyed his threats against new EU nations for signing a petition supporting some binding resolutions. One of the funniest statements I've read in a long time and utterly destroyed his credibility.) Incidentally, nations and people who don't want war at any costs are exactly the kinds that Stalin, Hitler, Milosovic, and Hussein have counted on throughout the years. Doing nothing is often far worse than doing something. It's like sitting around and watching an assault or rape rather than trying to stop it. I refer to it as contemptable pascifism. The US was guilty of it in WWII until Pearl Harbor. It was guilty again when Bush senior failed to do anything to halt the Serbs early on (while Europe fiddled and the UN decided an arms embargo would help, that way the groups being attacked could not even defend themselves--military geniuses those diplomats.)

As for WMD's, we will see. It's going to take some time before we know what is really there (per your new UN rules we get at least 12 years, correct?) Some things were found by arms inspectors before the war and there is no doubt about one time existence of his nuke and chem programs (since used gas on Iranians and Kurds.) The question is were they still active? Saddam failed to provide documentation of their dismantlement so we went in. He had years to hide things with no inspectors around (or to prove his compliance which he did not seriously try to do), so it could take some time to uncover the truth. I doubt some of the noise about Syria. However, it is not implausible. Syria has been a rat hole for terrorism anyway; and Iraq flew their jets to their enemy Iran during the first Gulf War to prevent their destruction, so it is not inconceivable that Saddam would share a bit to hide things. If Bush was wrong about the Iraq WMD issue, then he will pay the price at home next election cycle.

[MrNiceGuy]

On a personal level I may profit from this war when the reconstruction phase hits the industrial level. Once an interim government is formed, recognition gained and contracts offered there will be a number of foreign companies sending in workers at all levels.

I believe that a majority of early contracts will go to US and UK corporations. Beyond the oil, only bread and circuses are likely for Iraq and the rest of the world, or at least my experiences working in Khazakstan would lead me to believe.

The Iraqi people may see some benefit from the early reconstruction, but only until the resources become the focus of foreign businesses. But I doubt that they will fare any better than they have under any other foreign invader settling on their land and replacing the entire regime.

At least it has once again become stylish to declare victory when the opponent disappears from sight. Might we once again suffer the prince pretender popping up in backwater areas claiming an old throne or will we just get more spam from cheap Iraqi servers?

[SmokWawelski]

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi people may see some benefit from the early reconstruction, but only until the resources become the focus of foreign businesses. But I doubt that they will fare any better than they have under any other foreign invader settling on their land and replacing the entire regime.

I am afraid that you are right, and that the US/UK will focus on getting their war investments back, and if there are any leftovers, rebuilding a hospital or two. Already some Iraqis would like to send the liberators away. Will the Afghanistan repeat itslef?

[Portuguese Rebel]

Some americans seem to think that this war is against terrorism

I equate this situation to having a wasp hive in your backyard. You are afraid of wasps and they may hurt you (well, they hurt but don't do all that much damage). So what do you do? you go beat their hive with a stick, of course...

What is wrong with this picture? you want to end terrorist atacks so you go to war and kill people from normal a family? What will the sons of a slain father do? It's real easy to guess. You americans can expect a big load of terrorism in the coming years.

Can't you see through the propaganda? Iraqys don't like you, how could they? Have you noticed how CNN makes good close up shots to fill the screen with people giving grace to US soldiers? If you count them they are not that many... Remember, Bagdad has millions of inhabitants. If two dozens are giving thanks (and even so, after they are given something to eat, the poor bastards), that is not a victory.
Why doesn't CNN show dead people? It's a war, there are dead people all over the place. AL jazz have no problems in finding them. Children crying in hospitals with some limbs amputated.

The american goverment has learned it's lesson well from vietnam. They are hidding and doing propaganda.

Next there will be more terrorist atacks, and you will atack another country because they have training camps...

What is a terrorist training camp? If they were that easy to trace and identify the israelits would have stoped palestinian freedom fighters (in my mind it's how i see them), long ago...

American society sets worlds fashions in entertainment but when it comes to culture and information they lack the most basic freedoms. You can flame me but i wouldn't have my CD covers censored if i could help it, but when it comes to my news, it is a much more serious matter.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ April 16 2003,14:07)]

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi people may see some benefit from the early reconstruction, but only until the resources become the focus of foreign businesses. But I doubt that they will fare any better than they have under any other foreign invader settling on their land and replacing the entire regime.

I am afraid that you are right, and that the US/UK will focus on getting their war investments back, and if there are any leftovers, rebuilding a hospital or two. Already some Iraqis would like to send the liberators away. Will the Afghanistan repeat itslef?

Some folks really could use a reality check. So you think the average Afghan has not benefitted from the end of Taliban rule? I'm sure they were better off (particularly the 50+% that are female) under medieval religious law...NOT. The country had very little education for its citizens and the soviets had reduced it to near stone age status with regards to infrastructure. It was run by war lords and foreign terrorists. Its GNP was a trickle and it had a couple of total miles of paved rodes. The Taliban routinely slaughtered non-Pashtun villagers and men of military age. They had even destroyed much of the agriculture of non-Pashtun villages. They destroyed antiquities in a misguided attempt to protect Islam.

Roughly a year later education has resumed and small businesses are now able to function. Entertainment is now legal. There is considerable work being done to improve the infrastructure and allow trade and supplies with neighboring countries. Efforts are underway to develop some central rule so that warlords no longer run the place. There are still nutcases crossing from Pakistan and elsewhere, but at least the Afghans have some opportunity to run their own affairs. Eventually they should have all of their autonomy restored.

In summary, under the Taliban you had a society that was regressing and making it more difficult for average folk to feed themselves and just survive. Now, you have a society that is working to improve itself. There is hope, whereas before there was none. No, there are no miracles. You can't rebuild a country in a year that was systematically destroyed over 20 years.

The Iraq situation is much easier by comparison. It has oil wealth and the country will be able to use it for rebuilding. For the past 20+ years all that wealth was spent on Saddam's wars and personal enrichment. Iraqi's are better educated on average than Afghans and Iraq's infrastructure is damaged, not destroyed. Still it is going some time to reverse the damage that was done by Hussein over two decades.

[MrNiceGuy]

Quote[/b] ]In summary, under the Taliban you had a society that was regressing and making it more difficult for average folk to feed themselves and just survive. Now, you have a society that is working to improve itself. There is hope, whereas before there was none. No, there are no miracles. You can't rebuild a country in a year that was systematically destroyed over 20 years.

I suppose that the improvements in afghanistan include this:

Quote[/b] ]Though Western reporting emphasizes the liberation of private enterprise in post-Taliban Afghanistan, not all of it is savory. With lawlessness rising, the farmers are finding it more and more attractive to sow poppy all over the country. That means Afghanistan is re-emerging as a major exporter of heroin and opium. This correspondent saw poppy fields spread all over eastern Afghanistan - and a number of farmers revealed that those who have not sown poppy this winter are only weighing the situation. Many intend to get into the business during the next season if there [is] no crackdown by the next government.

Source

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has an ally on the Conservative Benches.
I heard the interview myself. I am not sure that my recollection—of course we can both consider the transcript—is quite the same as that of my hon. Friend. General Wesley Clark certainly suggested that pressure was best brought to bear on states rather than on what he described as shadowy terrorist groups. Indeed, Afghanistan demonstrates that we have made very good progress, not just on behalf of the international community, but of the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women, who now have a prospect of a better and more decent life than if we had not done so.


Source

This is the general opinion found in most transcripts of political debate. The tendencies to talk about improvements are focused on women's issues and abstracts along the lines of 'experts agree - everything is fine'. Although there are some debates that touch on the realities of post-Taliban life for the afghan people, but this is usually reserved for budget debates, as in the following:

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, I appreciate that, and because this came out in California, I've had a lot of people very deeply concerned about. As a matter of fact, they know much more about this than they do about our approval of judges, which happens to be another resounding call. And there is really deep concern. And I think -- I think if it's wrong, the record has to be corrected.
But I'd like to go on, before my time expires, to one other quick thing, General. I'm very concerned about the deterioration in Afghanistan. I'm concerned about the reports that there is deterioration in the stability of the establishment of a new government. I'm concerned by the skirmishes that are now taking place, which indicate to me a real resiliency on the part of the Taliban and al Qaeda, that they will in fact try to come back if in fact they can come back. And I'm concerned that this budget may not reflect our best interests in terms of maintaining a long-term peaceful stability to enable a new government to develop, to enable a new military to develop, and to enable a country decimated to get on its feet economically. And, you know, this goes into something -- Senator (Joseph) Biden (D-DE) made comments about this in additional funds that he sought, and that I think there's a very strong feeling among many of us that it is to our interests to see that the country remains stable and that we have a peacekeeping force there to ensure it.

Source

Then there is the liberal media spin on Afghani life, which tends to be more a foreboding doom in nature.


What of the American troops and the bow-bows — the nickname the Afghans have given the mighty B-52s and the awesome destructiveness of their bombs?
Washington says it will stay until its objectives are achieved, namely, the death or capture of Bin Laden and the annihilation of his Al Qaeda network.
But if the B-52S do depart, will there be civil war once again? many Afghans think only the US military presence is keeping the peace.
If they go, we’ll start fighting one another again, said a taxi driver.
And if the US forces stay on, what then?
A former Taliban commander, now working for the new Government’s secret police, said he thought the Americans had a grace period of about six months.
We all need a rest, he said. But if they’re still here after six months, well...
He didn’t complete the sentence, but the soviets would have known exactly what he meant.


Source

More recently, March 14th 2003, a few articles mention facts and figures in relation to changes in Afghani life. The prognosis remains dark even from this usually cheerful source:

With winter in Afghanistan coming to an end, hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees are returning home from Pakistan, according the UN High Commissioner for Refugees earlier this week. The agency expects roughly 600,000 refugees to return this year, down from 1.5 million last year. However, the outlook in Afghanistan remains bleak. According to the Times, student enrollment at madrasas, or Islamic religious schools, are anticipating growth, recruiting children refugees—many of whom have resorted to collecting recyclables in garbage. The Times reports that roughly 60 percent of an estimated 10,000 madrasas are operated by the radical sect Deobandi that created the Taliban.

Source

To reiterate: with the current change of regimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq I doubt that the average citizen will see anything more than a new hand controlling the same yoke on their backs.
Just because these 'liberated and newly democratic' people will soon be able to sip espresso in Starbucks™ and read the 'NY times, Afghanistan edition'(or Iraq edition) doesn't mean that they will be any better off watching foreign corporations and governments leech and rape their country's resources, knowing that a government focused on the well-being of the people would prevent rampant pollution or relief from being dragged out their homes at night by black ops/criminal gangs and a trifle of the outgoing profits could give them their own 'New Deal' .

[Red Harvest]

MrNiceGuy,

I suppose those 2 million plus Afghans returning are doing so because things have gotten worse? They are returning because they believe they can eke out a living in their resource poor homeland. Lays your theory to waste, thanks for posting the info.

I don't doubt that US presence is what is preventing civil war in Afghanistan. You have plenty of vultures waiting should such a weak divided country have its protector removed. Pakistan and Iran would be busy fighting proxy battles for control of sections through warlords same as before. The extremists would return from around the islamic world. It will take some time to develop a sense of identity and something less than your traditional rule of the tyrant/fanatics.

Your pollution and evil foreign industry rant is hilarious. I suppose you think a gov't that used poison gas on their own people, pumped their oil to pay for military expansion, set the Kuwaiti wells on fire, etc. was a better neighbor? LMAO. The petro chem industry was pretty bad back in the 60's and 70's. Most of that has been cleaned up, but the stigma won't ever go away. Industry definitely was irresponsible back then and deserved the black eye they got. I'm actually an environmentalist, and am proud of what my company does and what I have done personally to reduce emissions and energy use. It is too bad individuals don't realize how badly they personally pollute. I've also worked at one of our asian sites and it was quite clean and built to the same standards we use in the US. But we aren't petrochem, and definitely wouldn't be building in Iraq.

[MrNiceGuy]

Quote[/b] ]The petro chem industry was pretty bad back in the 60's and 70's. Most of that has been cleaned up, but the stigma won't ever go away. Industry definitely was irresponsible back then and deserved the black eye they got

So when you're checking out that cat cracker or coke drum you don't notice all those wonderful, sweet light end aromas or delight in the small colorful clouds of coke dust you kick up when walking through a refinery unit.

As an inspector I've seen refineries up close and way too personal. After a job in a Hersheys factory it was over a year before I ate chocolate. In South American and Asian (excepting Japan) countries with little or no environmental laws you'll see petrochem industries more than 50 miles away from the flares burning off the parts of hydrocarbons they can't use. My favorite quote was from a brit showing me around one worksite when you see the number four flare burn green you should get indoors, that means the acid from the desulferization unit is out of whack. I can't vouch for any spot in Africa as I've never been and don't want to go.

So that evil foreign industry is also my main bread and butter as well as yours. The only truly clean and friendly company I've ever seen was every manned Air Products plant, but they only deal with gasses.

The refugees are returning for better opportunities, true, but most are going back because they're more likely to die if they stay where they are.

Link

Link

Link

Hmmm... things look rosy when all you have to look forward to is the choice of waiting for an aid package to arrive in the middle of an unfriendly territory or a long ardous walk back home with small hope of anything other than a chance at seeing your original home in somewhat decent shape.

Every regime in the region of Iraq has been bad for the majority of people, from the Sumerians on up. Well the early period of the Akkadian reign may be the exception here, but they made up for it towards their demise.

Holding my breath for a better coalition government in Iraq than what the Afghanis got, or maybe it's from that H2S leak from a poorly designed tail gas scrubber.

[SmokWawelski]

As to the chemical discussion: most chem factories/plants migrate out of this country to escape the harsh healh regulations, get cheap labor (both ethicaly questionable).

As my last post on any war-related topic let me only say this: No government created on the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power will be stable and fully recognized by its own people. It fails on the principle of people being able to decide for themselfs, and forcefully replaces one regime with another one, supposedly democratic. I stay correct: No to War

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ April 17 2003,19:19)]As to the chemical discussion: most chem factories/plants migrate out of this country to escape the harsh healh regulations, get cheap labor (both ethicaly questionable).

As my last post on any war-related topic let me only say this: No government created on the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power will be stable and fully recognized by its own people. It fails on the principle of people being able to decide for themselfs, and forcefully replaces one regime with another one, supposedly democratic. I stay correct: No to War

Japan. A government and constitution created upon the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power. It has been stable and fully recognized by its own people. Germany has also been stable as a result of the war. Both were tired of war as are most Afghans and Iraqi's.

As for chem plants. Yep, the labor is cheap overseas and some of the regulations weaker (depends very much on locale.) That does not mean a company has to hold itself to a lower standard (and in my own case I know that it is possible to maintain high standards in a foreign plant.) It's not just the operating labor so much as the reduced capital cost that drives some of this investment. Additionally, reduced shipping cost for bulk chemicals is a huge factor since the chemical plants are largely selling to downstream producers in the region and shipping costs can be a killer. Additionally, some regional industries won't buy your goods if they are not produced locally. The only way the US can stay ahead is by ceding commodity production to other regions, and continue producing innovative new products. We can't compete with the likes of China and India on labor cost. Personally, I would like to keep as much chemical production as possible in the US, but that is largely a money producing proposition. We've used much of the cheapest-to-extract feedstocks in our own backyard, and one way to reduce cost is to get closer to the cheap supply.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (MrNiceGuy @ April 17 2003,19:00)]So when you're checking out that cat cracker or coke drum you don't notice all those wonderful, sweet light end aromas or delight in the small colorful clouds of coke dust you kick up when walking through a refinery unit.

As an inspector I've seen refineries up close and way too personal. After a job in a Hersheys factory it was over a year before I ate chocolate. In South American and Asian (excepting Japan) countries with little or no environmental laws you'll see petrochem industries more than 50 miles away from the flares burning off the parts of hydrocarbons they can't use. My favorite quote was from a brit showing me around one worksite when you see the number four flare burn green you should get indoors, that means the acid from the desulferization unit is out of whack. I can't vouch for any spot in Africa as I've never been and don't want to go.

So that evil foreign industry is also my main bread and butter as well as yours. The only truly clean and friendly company I've ever seen was every manned Air Products plant, but they only deal with gasses.

My experience is not in petro chem although I've toured a few refineries. My work has been in chemical intermediates and cracking plants associated with them. Some of the derivatives we make intentionally or as byproducts make those refinery chemicals sound mild. Then again, we handle our stuff very carefully so that we don't expose ourselves or our workers. Accidents do happen, but my plant's safety record is better than any other plants or industries I've had the opportunity to compare with. I'm hands on and never ask anyone to do anything I won't do myself (and frequently assist.) I don't accept chemical odors or leaks in my units so when I catch a whiff of something I start hunting.

Air Products, yeah, pretty easy to be clean when you are working primarily with air as your feedstock...LOL.

[MrNiceGuy]

Good point about Japan. Perhaps a regime change in societies that have long caste-like tendencies are easier to assume control without much civilian unrest.

I respect your opinion Red and accept that in some areas we ' agree to disagree' but this topic now seems to be pretty much a moot point now.

I look forward to meeting you on the battlefield (and most likely have my n00b arse schooled) sometime soon

[The_Emperor]

Well the war is over... But America now has to win the peace, and that is where the real challenge lies.

Sadly the USA does not have a good record with nation building and Japan and Germany seem to be the only nations that they did a good job on (Yeah and that was over half a century ago)

As to if it is justified or not, in my view it was not and I voted in the 0-10% area

[Maedhros]

Despite all the glorious imagery and biased reporting, I am still unconvinced this was all necessary.

Is Saddam bad? No doubt, but he is still a small time thug on the global arena. Besides being a thug has never been a problem for US security planning or any previous presidents.

If we really cared about the people we would someplace where people are dieing on a huge scale. Like the Congo in Africa.

WMD? The technology behind some of those is now nearly a century old. Acquiring or developing them is inevitable for most of the countries in the world.

Does Iraq pose a threat to us? NO. They have no deep water navy, no airforce worthy of the name, and no advanced missile tech. No contacts with terrorist groups. (They give some cash to Arafat, but Hesbollah et al don't look further than the holy land.)

Iraq, despite what most americans think had nothing to do with 9/11.

What was then the real motivation behindthe invasion? Revenge, and control of oil. Control gained by replacing our old currenlty misbehaving puppet with new puppet who will do as he is told.

China will be the biggest global competitor to the US during the next century. The growing industrialization of China will push their oil requirements up substantially in the future. Where will that oil come from? They are getting oil in large part from the Middle East. We are getting our oil more and more from places other than the ME like Venezuala.

In part to counter any increase in the power of OPEC, and due the instability in the region. Also having the ability to squeeze China's throat with a mere phone call will be hugely important as the US and China begin their game of chess.

Control of strategic resources and the preemptive war theory (which dates back to Bush ptI) is the reasoning behind rummies push for war. I think the prez is a simple man with simple motives. I think he wants to avenge what he views as his daddies disgrace. He made his motives clear at a University speech during the presidential campaign.

Repect and support for the troops should not include using them like pawn or sending them out on personal vendettas.

[Puzz3D]

Maedhros,

I wholeheartedly agree with you, and the brushing aside of the UN along with the extra powers Congress has given Bush is frightening. I had to laugh when he said to the POWs in Texas, Thank god you're safe.. They wouldn't have been captured in the first place if not for Bush, and the dead and injured Americans wouldn't be dead and injured not to mention all the other people dead or injured. If Iraq had used chemical or biological weapons, the casualties would have been enormous. You can use the concept of preemtive strike to justify all kinds of military operations. The US people have been lied to before to justify military operations and escalations. Is Bush going to deal with North Korea the way he has dealt with Iraq? Think China will just stand by? Don't other countries have weapons of mass destruction that should be eliminated? Has Bush justified a preemtive strike using nuclear weapons in his own mind? He has certainly justified preemtive killing of men, women and children to himself.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ April 21 2003,12:06)]

Quote[/b] ]I wholeheartedly agree with you, and the brushing aside of the UN along with the extra powers Congress has given Bush is frightening.

OH GOD someone ingnoring the UN, wait no thats right. THe UN is a biast anti semitic organization that has iraq as head of disarming and libya as head of human rights. The sooner UN dies and stops teaching palestinian children with maps that do not include israel the sooner peace in the middle east will come.

And these terrifying measures they don't come in till 2005. Which do you think is better, dealing with rogue states with womd one at a time or letting them become stronger by the month until they start a nuculaer holocaust.

[Maedhros]

I have no argument the UN needs some revising. I wouldn't hesitate to say a complete rebuild.

However I can't say I can agree with antisemitic. They have never enforced resolutions against Israel, and have never pressured them on their human rights record.

Frankly, I can't say either sides hands are bloodless in that wonderful little quandry. Radically new leadership on both sides and a very extended incremental peace process which gives all sides security and equal treatment. It may also require the holy city itself be governed jointly.

maybe the city could be transformed into a theocracy with an appointed council? and a buddhist as head of state (no vested interest).

Excuse me while I dash to the window, I hear oinking in the sky.

[Carrick1973]

People like to bring up Japan and Germany as examples of nations that we successfully 'built', but one thing that is not mentioned is how much it cost us. Here is a quote from the Marshall Foundation Organization's website: Marshall Foundation.org

Quote[/b] ]Over its four-year life, the Marshall Plan cost the U.S. 2.5 to 5 times the percent of national income as current foreign aid programs. One would need to multiply the program's $13.3 billion cost by 10 or perhaps even 20 times to have the same impact on the U.S. economy now as the Marshall Plan had between 1948 and 1952. (Most of the money was spend between 1948 and the beginning of the Korean War (June 25, 1950); after June 30, 1951, the remaining aid was folded into the Mutual Defense Assistance Program.)

How much have we (the United States) spent in Afghanistan on rebuilding efforts? Only $290 Million in 2002, as opposed to the $10 billion that we spent on the destruction of Afghanistan. (Information from
The International Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan and from The Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

So before we bring up nations that we rebuilt properly, let's get it straight that 1) our economy cannot handle the expense of a 'proper' reconstruction effort and 2) the political environment in the U.S. would not attempt a 'proper' reconstruction in any nations that we 'rebuild'.

Don't get me wrong, I thought that kicking the crap out of Osama (does anyone remember who that is??) and the Taliban was certainly within our right after 9/11, but the lame arguments that the current administration made trying to link Saddam to 9/11 and to purchasing nuke material from Nigeria were inexcusable. There is a thing in this world called sovereignty, and a little law passed by Ford that prevents assassination attempts on foreign leaders. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush slept through those classes in junior high. Unfortunately, the repercussions from this invasion will be widespread and it will be hard to connect to future events - meaning if another terrorist attack occurs on our soil, the administration and all neo-cons will say 'Just think about how bad it would have been and how many attacks we prevented by taking out Saddam...' when it is just as likely (or more likely according to the CIA) that future attacks will occur because of the attack on Iraq.

Anyway, enough rambling, but I guess you can imagine that I voted in the 1-10% range...

Oh BTW - What is this excuse that Rummie makes about not being able to find WMD's? Can't they just use those nifty satellite images that Secratary Powell flaunted at the U.N. to find all those 'Mobile Chemical Factories'? Seems to me that if the U.N. inspectors were so bad, and we know exactly where all the chem's are, we should be able to just saunter in and find them...

Steve

[Red Harvest]

Carrick,

I agree with you on the rebuilding part. While the Afghans are better off than they were not long ago, we should be putting more money into rebuilding efforts. I do see it as a responsibility after a war. It's also a wise political and economic investment in the long term. Additionally, subsidizing some US based rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan can also be a stimulus for our US economy. Unfortunately, Bush is rather short sighted and has very limited understanding of economics. Witness his tax cuts and the ballooning budget deficit. His solution right now is to pass on a tremendous debt to my children. Terrific, we had this deficit thing licked until he got into office. Not only has he resumed massive deficit spending, but he's determined to make it worse. He cut taxes at an economic peak, and many of us were screaming it was a bad idea for that very reason. The surpluses were part of the up cycle/unsustainable boom, rather than a long term trend. Of course, if you promise every one a pot of gold, you find it easier to get elected...or selected by the Supreme Court in his case. He lost the popular vote and his electoral win was only the result of voter error caused by a fluke of outdated technology and demographics.

[Efrem Da King]

The republican party is carrying a hit against colon powell with this stuff about how the US state department hasn't pavved 1 mile of road in 2 and half years. WHich of cousres coloon leads.I think it was pat buchananan. But the person after him on fox said that it was a hit and there is no way he would have done that without rumsfields permission.

[Popeye]

Just to weigh in with a my personal view of how we got to war in Iraq, this time. Conventional wisdom is that it's a choice between blaming the United States for the failure of diplomacy, or blaming Saddam for being stupid. I see it a little differently.

Bear in mind that I'm not judging right and wrong or international law here. Those concepts don't mean much in the context of war, and are usually decided by the one that writes History afterward.

Obviously the objective of diplomacy was to convince Saddam to do something he didn't want to do. How did diplomacy fail?

The nature of diplomacy is trade-off. The US wanted assurance that Saddam didn't have WMD. Maybe he had them, maybe he didn't, they wanted certainty. If he didn't have them, he certainly took great pains to prevent the US from being sure of that. That certainty was the goal. The question was how to get it.

One method is that Saddam could have allowed full and open inspections. That didn't happen, and even Hans Blix speaks in terms of ongoing negotiations to convince the Iraqis to be forthcoming. They were not forthcoming, and the question is why not. Well, it's clear enough that giving away the one thing we wanted held no advantage for Iraq, they'd rather go to the second method.

The second method is by diplomatic trading. They let us see enough to be certain he's unarmed, we give something they want. Don't ask what, it really doesn't matter.

The third method is we could just go in by force.

Those are the choices; One side wants something, the other can give it away, trade it, or we're down to naked force.

Now, in order for the diplomatic trading to work, the demands of both sides would have to be reasonable, and more attractive than using force. That's where the diplomatic process got into trouble this time.

It's fairly obvious that Saddam didn't really expect force to be used. This would lead him to expect to be able to make more demands in exchange for the certainty bargained for. As long as force was off the table, the price could go ever higher, or maybe the thing the US wanted was simply not offered at any price.

The problem was that the demands, whatever they were, got too high. Force was perceived as the better option. The US said that force was a better option, but Saddam simply didn't believe it was an option at all. If he took the possibility of a full scale invastion seriously, everything he's done looks totally irrational. You don't survive 20 years as a dictator by being irrational. He was simply mistaken about the likelihood of force.

Now, the question is, WHY did he not believe the US would use force? They said they would if it became necessary. They moved troops. They mobilized reserves, they did all kinds of pre-invasion things. He knew he had not the means to stop the invasion if it happened. He wasn't even able to hold Kuwait ten years ago, and hadn't repaired his army from that. Why was he apparently so certain that the US would not invade?

Because the French said they couldn't. He thought that was enough to prevent it. By trying to take force out of the equation, the French encouraged Saddam to be unreasonable (at least as perceived by the US) in the diplomatic negotiations, and basically garunteed the invasion.

Diplomacy is a great thing. I'm all for it. Preventing war is why we have diplomats. Diplomats that refuse to acknowledge the possibility of war would be like a priest that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of eternal damnation. You can't help people avoid what you won't talk about.

The bottom line is that this war is the fault of the French for trying to take war out of the diplomatic equation, and the fault of Iraq for believing the French had that power.

I doubt the UN will recognize this, so look for it to happen again, not necessarily with the same issues or parties. The UN will fail because they don't understand the reality is that violence is always an option, even when parties agree that it isn't.

[KukriKhan]

Well thought-out piece, Popeye. I only have a bit of trouble with laying the fault at the feet of the French, alone. In my view, there's plenty of blame to spread around. However, your posit of France's obstruction leading to Saddam's miscalculation makes good sense. I guess we'll only know if Saddam shows up 5 years from now on some TV interview show.

[Popeye]

I think it's a theme that has repeated itself throughout history though.

People and nations have a tendency to ignore the possibility of violence, and press their demands on the assumption that they will not be forced to drop them. The American Civil War is a classic example. The Federalists wanted their way, and did not expect the South to resist by force. The Confederacy wanted their way, and did not expect the Federalists to oppose by force. By the time both sides realized how wrong they were in these assumptions, it was too late.

Argentina annexed the Falkland Islands, in the assumption that Britain would not argue over something that far from London.

Iraq annexed Kuwait in the belief that no one would object after the fact.

Hitler was baffled that the Americans cared enough about Europe to get involved, and underestimated British resistance to Nazi plans.

Even look at criminals in any given society. It doesn't matter what crime you talk about, and it generally doesn't matter how light the punishment for those convicted. If criminals didn't expect to get away with the crime, they would not commit the crime. They don't expect to get caught, they don't expect force to be used.

Carry this down to the even more basic school bullies. They don't expect anyone to fight, that's why they get away with whatever it is they do.

It is the same thing with Iraq. Saddam didn't expect force to be used. The blame for the war, in my view, lies with those that made him believe that. It isn't a question of whether the force was justified, it's a question of whether or not it was foreseeable.

[Maedhros]

Video and witness testimony just prior to the invasion showed Saddam making people treat him as a prophet gives an insight I believe into why he resisted.

People who argued or delivered bad news were summarily executed. Sometimes even by Saddam personally just outside the meedting room where the offense took place.

He may not have been aware of how dire his armys morale problems were. Or the general condition of his military. He may have assumed he could engage in delaying tactics to stall and cause mounting casualites in American forces.

Demonstrations around the world, especially London and several major US cities was evidence that Bush and his puppeteers were an island alone. If the war went on long enough, and cost enough lives he may have assumed we would stop short and negotiate.

Remember who Saddams idol was? Stalin who made famous the battle of Stalingrad. Sacrificed millions of civilians, and much of his military dragging the Germans into a battle he knew the nazis could not win. The winter ultimately did more to defeat what was a better trained, and equiped army.

Remember the rush to invade? Summer was coming to the Iraqi desert. I believe Saddam thought it would do for him what the winter did for Stalin. His city would ultimately be destroyed, but he would be remembered in history alongside the greatest Islamic generals. Maybe even build yet another mosque dedicated to great victory, and ever growing god complex.

I don't believe it occured to Saddam that he was fallible. Even if he had all the relevant information to make a reasonable can I pull this off? judgement. Which I don't believe he did.

[Efrem Da King]

I'm just happy hes out of power.