I know history is doomed to repeat, but quite this quickly?

[Tribesman]

There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda,

Really , so George Bush didn't stand up and say in a rather big speech that they had aided trained and harboured Al-Qaida ?
Would you like that speech or would you like one from rummy or cheney where they also didn't make those claims ?

[ShadeHonestus]

Really , so George Bush didn't stand up and say in a rather big speech that they had aided trained and harboured Al-Qaida ?
Would you like that speech or would you like one from rummy or cheney where they also didn't make those claims?

The over playing of this fact was never in question by those Americans who could look at fact and not grab and hang on sond bytes, that is to what I'm referring. The real information in and out of D.C. at the time proves this out. Cheney himself admitted to overplaying this in speeches as did the white house spokesman. The fact remains that there was a relationship.

It's also a fact beyond reproach that other countries have had far stronger links with anti-US terrorism than Iraq.

This is without question

However, Iraq, Iran and Syria are targeted because they've said bad things about Israel...

They've done more than "say bad things" about Israel, don't lessen your points by false injections. The fact is that Iran and Syria's backing of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah present a constant and long lasting threat. Hezbollah targets U.S. because of our support for Israel. It could be said that Hezbollah is the "best" terrorist organization in the world with Al-Qaeda being a very distant second.

...while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain US allies because they are guilty of far less heinous crimes, such as providing the majority of the crews, funding and training for the 9/11 attackers.

Not to mention that these two countries have been a constant breeding ground for radical muslim clerics. There is a very disctinct difference here which has to be understood. The regimes in Saudi and Pakistan have both pledged to crack down on the terrorists in their midsts and have done so accordingly to a degree and they do not represent "state funded" terrorism, at least in the present. However both of their reigns are not as stable as needed to go the whole 9 yards, but they do cooperate as far as they can. We would like to see Saudi and Pakistan to be able to make the policy changes necessary to be stronger allies. The terrorist activities by Syria and Iran are of an entire different cookie, these are states directly funding terrorism and yes Iraq and Saddam directly funded terrorism.

It always bedazzles me why American patriots are willing to overlook the culprits of attacks on their homeland, while justifying punitive action against countries that Israel isn't fond of.

Yep, thats right, Syria beat Israel in a soccer game and they've held a grudge ever since then. I'm sorry but the stakes go far beyond "fondness."

"For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?"

The CIA is currently building $20 hammers for $50,000 apiece to see what they can do.

[Tribesman]

The over playing of this fact was never in question by those Americans who could look at fact and not grab and hang on sond bytes, that is to what I'm referring. The real information in and out of D.C. at the time proves this out. Cheney himself admitted to overplaying this in speeches as did the white house spokesman.

Hold on didn't you just say ........There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I mean come on you could at least have let me give you quotes spanning the 2002-2005 period from Bush Cheney and Rummy before you folded .

The fact remains that there was a relationship.

Errrrrr...what was it the commitee decided was the actual fact ?

They decided it was bollox didn't they , so if they decided after reviewing all the available information that it was bollox then how on earth can you still claim it remains a fact ?

[ShadeHonestus]

Hold on didn't you just say ........There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I mean come on you could at least have let me give you quotes spanning the 2002-2005 period from Bush Cheney and Rummy before you folded .

Tell me what you define as link? I'm referring to 9/11 when i state they were overplayed, Bush retracted cheney's statements about al qaeda and Iraq cooperation on 9/11. However a relationship existed through communication, haven, and even medical treatment for al qaeda operatives. Zarqawi inside Iraq had cooperated with Al Qaeda although thought to be autonomous in targets and missions.

They decided it was bollox didn't they , so if they decided after reviewing all the available information that it was bollox then how on earth can you still claim it remains a fact ?

Committe? Are you talking about the Senate Armed Services Committee? They said there was a link. Are you talking about the 9/11 commission? lmao Have you read that? Have you read the public hearing minutes? Better yet did you read the minutes before you read the report? lol Did you bother to investigate the time Richard Clarke was given to the topic of Iraq? lol come on...

I'm not understanding exactly what your point or agenda is here.
Everything American is bad unless it fits your world view? If thats the case I'm afraid we disagree.

America shouldn't have gone into Iraq? Well on that point we would agree, but I believe we came about that view differently.

If your point is that our dealings with the Iraq situation should make our foreign policies and intelligences null and moot, well that sounds like somebody looking to take a stab at the U.S. given any opportunity. From what motivation I have no idea.

[Pannonian]

They've done more than "say bad things" about Israel, don't lessen your points by false injections. The fact is that Iran and Syria's backing of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah present a constant and long lasting threat. Hezbollah targets U.S. because of our support for Israel. It could be said that Hezbollah is the "best" terrorist organization in the world with Al-Qaeda being a very distant second.

And how does that affect US interests? As has been shown with the IRA in the past, the US has historically turned a blind eye to or even supported terrorist organisations that only attack its allies, not itself. So what's different about Hezbollah? When did Hezbollah target the US?

Not to mention that these two countries have been a constant breeding ground for radical muslim clerics. There is a very disctinct difference here which has to be understood. The regimes in Saudi and Pakistan have both pledged to crack down on the terrorists in their midsts and have done so accordingly to a degree and they do not represent "state funded" terrorism, at least in the present. However both of their reigns are not as stable as needed to go the whole 9 yards, but they do cooperate as far as they can. We would like to see Saudi and Pakistan to be able to make the policy changes necessary to be stronger allies. The terrorist activities by Syria and Iran are of an entire different cookie, these are states directly funding terrorism and yes Iraq and Saddam directly funded terrorism.

And yet the Saudis continue to fund people who attack Americans (they're the main backers of the Sunnis who commit some 75-80% of the violence against US troops in Iraq), while Pakistan continues to be the leading school of radical clerics, would be terrorists, and assorted Muslim nasties. I find it baffling that Americans keep trying to excuse these two countries, while looking for any reason at all to go to war with the Clean Break targets.

Why not be honest about it and admit, you want to bomb some Muslim countries because Israel considers them a threat, while you're afraid of upsetting Saudi and Pakistan because of their oil (not to mention ties to the US ruling class) and their nukes, respectively. Come out of the closet and admit it. At least I'd respect your honesty and openness then.

Yep, thats right, Syria beat Israel in a soccer game and they've held a grudge ever since then. I'm sorry but the stakes go far beyond "fondness."

And how is that any business of the US? You're not committing the sin of identifying yourself with a foreign country, are you? If you are that much more concerned about the security of Israel than of the US, why don't you go and become a citizen there? It would certainly be what Washington would have recommended. Why are modern "patriotic" Americans so loathe to listen to the parting advice of Presidents Washington and Eisenhower?

"For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?"

The CIA is currently building $20 hammers for $50,000 apiece to see what they can do.

What does that mean in practice?

[ShadeHonestus]

So what's different about Hezbollah? When did Hezbollah target the US?

The 1983 Marine Barracks bombing was carried out by Hezbollah and directly funded and approved by Iran.


The rest of your post goes on about some dark conspiracy of Israel and the U.S. wanting to kill Muslims because they are Muslims and the only ones we don't care about killing are those that have oil we want. You go on to claim some generalizations about patriotic Americans and Isolationist ideals. You also ask questions of citizens to admit for the supposed governmental dark conspiracies.

This is all very odd when all I have done is defend fact and not given any political views or patriotic stances. I grew up with many friends from around the world, all of my 5 siblings travelled throughout the middle east. The only country not visited was Iran I believe. They all travelled Europe and South America. Every year we would have new guests from all walks of life and of all religions. A small town (1200 pop) house in the north of Iowa hosted at one time quests who were Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christian (with our family being Lutheran), just because we enjoyed each others company. I also remember joining the Marine Corps at the age of 17 with all kinds of ideas of our country and how our military might would be best put to use defending the U.S. proper, but also defending its principle by standing up for those that could not stand up for themselves due to brutal and tyrannical regimes (I was an idealist). I remember the day our unit was put on stand by to go to Kuwait because Saddam had once again violated the no fly zone and had positioned troops in the south to basically be an annoyance. I had been following the news closely and had picked up an Issue of Time where they were detailing the horrors in Rwanda. I remember saying to my fire team, "this is where we should be going." The fact we didn't go to do what we could in that region, and later on other regions, while we had a preoccupation on Iraq and partisan politics at home, not to mention a concern over what quasi allies would say, directly made the decision for me not to reenlist.

As far as the relationship between Israel and U.S. is concerned you need to look at the U.N. records and the voting record of the U.S. when concerning Israel. I do not believe there has been a member of the Security Council with a record like ours against Israel. This dates back to 1949 and arms embargo. The progression of the cold war post '62 did see our economic and military aid increase and the reasons are opaque. We voted a number of times against Israel in the UN to this day. I will admit that our language has been much milder since the al-Aqsa intifada which resulted in the most violent period for the region since all out war between Israel and their neighbors.

Now domestically speaking the language in the U.S. is very pro-Israel for the simple reason that a president could not be elected here with a stance of direct opposition to Israel. This is mainly due to the nature of many Christian faiths over here and their relationships to Israel, most notably the fundamental Christians.

And how is that any business of the US? You're not committing the sin of identifying yourself with a foreign country, are you? If you are that much more concerned about the security of Israel than of the US, why don't you go and become a citizen there?

I don't know, most people didn't become citizens of the U.K. or France because we opposed secular fascism. Do we need to become Israeli citizens because we oppose Islamic fascism?

As has been shown with the IRA in the past, the US has historically turned a blind eye to or even supported terrorist organizations that only attack its allies, not itself.

I would genuinely like you to expand on this regarding the IRA and the US, especially genuine views of anyone from GB during that period. Preferably in an open and candid manner and not inflammatory.

What does that mean in practice?

We won't know until we know.


P.S. I'm not of the ruling class despite having a Saudi in my house growing up and I've never received care packages of oil.

[Pannonian]

The 1983 Marine Barracks bombing was carried out by Hezbollah and directly funded and approved by Iran.

1983? Lockerbie took place more recently than that, yet we've made up with the Libyans (even the families of the dead). You really are trolling for excuses if you look to an event more than 20 years ago to justify current policy. It's the kind of activity the old European monarchs used to indulge in to justify their interminable wars, and the kind of thing early US presidents were rightly wary of.

The rest of your post goes on about some dark conspiracy of Israel and the U.S. wanting to kill Muslims because they are Muslims and the only ones we don't care about killing are those that have oil we want. You go on to claim some generalizations about patriotic Americans and Isolationist ideals. You also ask questions of citizens to admit for the supposed governmental dark conspiracies.

I didn't talk of a dark US-Israeli conspiracy, I talked of the bizarre symbiosis many Americans have with Israel. You may have difficulty understanding the difference between the two, but difference there is, though you may wish to ignore it in favour of accusing people of standard political ciphers. The closest thing to a conspiracy is the Clean Breakers, and they've been open about their aims of using American power to further Israeli aims, so they're not exactly a conspiracy. Traitors they may be, but I at least respect them for their honesty.

This is all very odd when all I have done is defend fact and not given any political views or patriotic stances.

Selection is a political stance - that has been drummed into me through my readings on history. I've noted some of your selection, and commented on it. To claim that you are unbiased, as you do above, is disingenuous at best.

I grew up with many friends from around the world, all of my 5 siblings travelled throughout the middle east. The only country not visited was Iran I believe. They all travelled Europe and South America. Every year we would have new guests from all walks of life and of all religions. A small town (1200 pop) house in the north of Iowa hosted at one time quests who were Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christian (with our family being Lutheran), just because we enjoyed each others company. I also remember joining the Marine Corps at the age of 17 with all kinds of ideas of our country and how our military might would be best put to use defending the U.S. proper, but also defending its principle by standing up for those that could not stand up for themselves due to brutal and tyrannical regimes (I was an idealist). I remember the day our unit was put on stand by to go to Kuwait because Saddam had once again violated the no fly zone and had positioned troops in the south to basically be an annoyance. I had been following the news closely and had picked up an Issue of Time where they were detailing the horrors in Rwanda. I remember saying to my fire team, "this is where we should be going." The fact we didn't go to do what we could in that region, and later on other regions, while we had a preoccupation on Iraq and partisan politics at home, not to mention a concern over what quasi allies would say, directly made the decision for me not to reenlist.

Good for you. My main experience of Muslims comes from my Pakistani friends, and I have every respect for Islam. But I loathe that country for its support of extreme Islamism in countries incluing Britain, and I think, as do most experts on the matter, that Pakistan is the greatest source of Muslim terrorism in the world. The Saudis fund it, but the networks run through Pakistan. Iran and the others don't target the west, so I don't care what they do.

As far as the relationship between Israel and U.S. is concerned you need to look at the U.N. records and the voting record of the U.S. when concerning Israel. I do not believe there has been a member of the Security Council with a record like ours against Israel. This dates back to 1949 and arms embargo. The progression of the cold war post '62 did see our economic and military aid increase and the reasons are opaque. We voted a number of times against Israel in the UN to this day. I will admit that our language has been much milder since the al-Aqsa intifada which resulted in the most violent period for the region since all out war between Israel and their neighbors.

Now domestically speaking the language in the U.S. is very pro-Israel for the simple reason that a president could not be elected here with a stance of direct opposition to Israel. This is mainly due to the nature of many Christian faiths over here and their relationships to Israel, most notably the fundamental Christians.

But many ordnary Americans, not just politicains, identify with Israel to the extent that Israeli interests automatically become American interests. Over here, we despise Tony Blair because we feel he has put the US ahead of British interests in many areas. As a British citizen, Britain comes first for me, followed perhaps by the EU as I am also an EU citizen. Other countries may come into the picture as it befits us, but certainly not to the extent that I should identify with them.

I don't know, most people didn't become citizens of the U.K. or France because we opposed secular fascism. Do we need to become Israeli citizens because we oppose Islamic fascism?

You didn't have much of a choice in opposing secular fascism, as Germany declared war on you, not vice versa. As opposed to Britain and France, who declared war on Germany.

I would genuinely like you to expand on this regarding the IRA and the US, especially genuine views of anyone from GB during that period. Preferably in an open and candid manner and not inflammatory.

Look up the history of Noraid.

We won't know until we know.

We do know that your President has called Osama an irrelevance. I've not seen much since that has indicated the administration has changed its mind on this.

P.S. I'm not of the ruling class despite having a Saudi in my house growing up and I've never received care packages of oil.

How much money does the Saudi ruling class contribute to the US ruling class? IIRC the Bin Laden family figures pretty highly.

[ShadeHonestus]

1983? Lockerbie took place more recently than that, yet we've made up with the Libyans (even the families of the dead). You really are trolling for excuses if you look to an event more than 20 years ago to justify current policy. It's the kind of activity the old European monarchs used to indulge in to justify their interminable wars, and the kind of thing early US presidents were rightly wary of.

You are saying that Hezbollah has not acted in any way against the U.S. or encouraged, funded, or allied with any that have since then. Wow that is off the mark by more than a light year. How old are the grievances between Arab nations and Israel? BTW the UK signed the same mandate which called for an independant and free Jewish state in Palestine. However nobody who signed the same mandate has been as tough on Israel as the U.S.. Some have been indifferent, but thats neglectful of the issues.

I talked of the bizarre symbiosis many Americans have with Israel. You may have difficulty understanding the difference between the two, but difference there is, though you may wish to ignore it in favour of accusing people of standard political ciphers.

If thats all you asked for than this would be asked and answered.

But many ordnary Americans, not just politicains, identify with Israel to the extent that Israeli interests automatically become American interests. Over here, we despise Tony Blair because we feel he has put the US ahead of British interests in many areas. As a British citizen, Britain comes first for me, followed perhaps by the EU as I am also an EU citizen. Other countries may come into the picture as it befits us, but certainly not to the extent that I should identify with them.

Its those ordinary Americans who put those politicians in power, hence the power base and the issue.

You didn't have much of a choice in opposing secular fascism, as Germany declared war on you, not vice versa. As opposed to Britain and France, who declared war on Germany.

We were in a de facto state of war with Germany long before, we chose to go that path when we could have taken the advice of Washington. In fact, according to that arguement, we should have taken his advice in WWI at least there probably wouldn't have been a WW2.

Look up the history of Noraid.

I will. Any particular writings you suggest?

We do know that your President has called Osama an irrelevance. I've not seen much since that has indicated the administration has changed its mind on this.

This has been largely a political move and he has been called on it in the media repeatedly. There is another side to it, I believe, in hoping to embolden UBL and his high command.

How much money does the Saudi ruling class contribute to the US ruling class? IIRC the Bin Laden family figures pretty highly.

Is there a list of U.S. Royal families with numbers available? Or is this money funneled through Saudi purchases of Heinz catsup? Which Bin Laden family? From what I've read UBL, isn't the most popular guy among Bin Ladens. Wasn't his niece or cousin going to pose for Penthouse? That apple fell from the tree and ran down the hill into the river and washed out to sea. I'm not denying that there are ties, but lets not overstate them.

[Fisherking]

Re: I know history is doomed to repeat, but quite this quickly?

I have stayed away from this question about as long as I can stand. Iraq is only an example of what this question begs.

Of course the bad guys are conspiring to hurt the coalition, and they are using the same reasons to do something that they used before. Since when did a politician stop using something that worked? Or didn't work for that matter….

The military leadership look like a bunch of nitwits, because they are political appointees for all practical purposes. The only place you will find a bigger bunch of dweebs is in the halls of Elected Government.

The original plan was a masterpiece of over optimistic thinking…well you are trying to tell the boss how good you are…and he wants to believe you…see above!
The military axiom no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy obviously applies.


There have been huge mistakes made in Iraq, mostly for political reasons and I see no end to mistakes for political reasons, no matter what political party is making those decisions.

I do think that if the coalition pulls out that it will be much worse for all parties involved…and ignoring it is not going to make it go away. It certainly is now what they claimed it was when they went in…a training ground for terrorists. The war is to western advantage only in that it keeps the terrorists somewhat concentrated in a limited locale.

There you are, another mess brought to you by (arguable) good political intentions.

My big question is, why do people keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. (i.e. electing well intentioned jerks based on political motives) There just must be a better way.

Or maybe we should all just get an early start and bone up on Sharia.

[Tribesman]

BTW the UK signed the same mandate which called for an independant and free Jewish state in Palestine. However nobody who signed the same mandate has been as tough on Israel as the U.S.. Some have been indifferent, but thats neglectful of the issues.

Thats not what the mandate says is it , you are talking about the mandate are you not ?
Or are you talking about the Partition resolution which Britain abstained from and Truman approved despite State Dept objections , his earleir rejection of calls for its creation and his statements that it was a silly idea that would require excessive amounts of US money and military resources for a long time to maintain such a creation .

As soon as the rhetoric for going in began to accumulate. I told a professor I worked with at the time that going in would be a terrible mistake as our goals were defined and even taking into account goals which had not yet been defined. Militarily objectives as facilitated by the strategy were not feasible in our political climate and that of Iraq. They weren't impossible, they just aren't feasible without all the problems we are seeing now. You don't go to war unless you can unleash hell on clearly defined enemies in which defeating them grants you completed objectives. In short if you don't have the moral authority to wage all out war the moral authority to go to war will take more fire than the troops on the ground.

Good , now do you think the same about Iran .
The rhetoric , the objectives and feasability ?

[Tribesman]

Oh I see when you say they never purported a direct link you mean well one bloke made a link but some others said that was rubbish , riggght .So now you have other links by the same people which are not links , but you come up with one link that was put forward which was true ......yep thats when they said some bloke had his leg cut off in Iraq that was a bit of a bugger when they was searching for a one legged nutter who happened to have two legs

Committe? Are you talking about the Senate Armed Services Committee? They said there was a link.

Ummmmmmmm .....how do the words possible ,tenuous , and of doubtful credibility strike you ?

I'm not understanding exactly what your point or agenda is here.

Well that is quite simple isn't it ,the topic is claims being made by the US regarding terrorism and the middle-east , the point is (in case you hadn't noticed ) that there is a big history of bullmanure regarding the credibility of Americas claims in that field .

Everything American is bad unless it fits your world view? If thats the case I'm afraid we disagree.

Errrrrrr....thats rather pathetic isn't it , you really must try harder .

America shouldn't have gone into Iraq? Well on that point we would agree, but I believe we came about that view differently.

Well that depends , when did you realise it was a mistake and how did you form that view ?

If your point is that our dealings with the Iraq situation should make our foreign policies and intelligences null and moot, well that sounds like somebody looking to take a stab at the U.S. given any opportunity.

Nope , it doesn't make it null , it just makes it very questionable and worthy of very close examination , but some people have once again swallowed it without a second thought .
Who knows maybe the boy crying wolf really is under lupine threat this time , but the villagers are rightly sceptical about the cries .
There's an old saying down in Texas ...or was it Florida ...fool me once ........shame on .....ummmmm....fool me twice.......errrr we won't get fooled again

But hey one quick additional question regarding......

It's 2007 and can you guess what is just around the corner?

....Bush isn't up for re-election , so that doesn't explain his backtracking on some of what the experts put forward does it .

[ShadeHonestus]

Well that depends , when did you realize it was a mistake and how did you form that view ?

As soon as the rhetoric for going in began to accumulate. I told a professor I worked with at the time that going in would be a terrible mistake as our goals were defined and even taking into account goals which had not yet been defined. Militarily objectives as facilitated by the strategy were not feasible in our political climate and that of Iraq. They weren't impossible, they just aren't feasible without all the problems we are seeing now. You don't go to war unless you can unleash hell on clearly defined enemies in which defeating them grants you completed objectives. In short if you don't have the moral authority to wage all out war the moral authority to go to war will take more fire than the troops on the ground.

How many coalition casualties to date? I think its close to 3128 over almost 4 years, 130 British, and 150ish belonging to the rest. D-Day casualties, one day alone, 2500 total for the allies. Over 400,000 total for WW2 concerning the U.S. alone. Iraqi civilian deaths between 60,000-80,000. Germany Civilian deaths during WW2 1.Mil, USSR, Mil, UK 68,000ish, French Indo China alone over 1,000,000. The point? See above.

But hey one quick additional question regarding..........Bush isn't up for re-election , so that doesn't explain his backtracking on some of what the experts put forward does it .

It doesn't matter if Bush is up for re-election. He currently represents the Republican party and his actions are going to directly reflect upon the candidates in 08 and vice versa, the noise going back and forth is going to be like a screeching AM radio with people looking to embrace and distance themselves from not only individuals but from ideas, intelligence, actions and inactions. The political animal over here when lacking backbone would put the Hydra out of Guinness' book.