The War In Iraq

[rmnunez]

Israel in the US electoral campaign:

>Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean drew fire from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and several Jewish lawmakers on Wednesday over his remarks concerning Israel.

>"This is not a time to be sending mixed messages," Dean's critics said in a letter circulated by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and signed by Pelosi and more than two dozen other Democratic House members who are supporting other candidates. "On the contrary, in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel's survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement."

>Last week at a rally in Santa Fe, N.M., Dean said an "enormous number" of Israeli settlements must go to make progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "It's not our place to take sides," he said.

>The former Vermont governor's comments drew criticism from some Jewish Democrats, a key party constituency. During a Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman accused Dean, the front-runner in the race, of turning his back on Israel.

>Pelosi, Berman - who is Jewish - and several others who signed the letter are supporting Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential candidacy, while others back Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

[RebelWithanAK]

While the death rate of American soldiers and related support personnel is well within expected range of any standing army in a hostile country, it's the perception of the people back home that matters. There was never a time in the Vietnam war where we were losing by any stretch of the imagination in terms of the body count, but it was the homefront view of the death rate being too costly for the lack of appreciable 'progress' that rallied public support against the war.

Greatwyrm: Wha?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

lol
I was answering Gary's earlier post in a sarcastic manner...

[RebelWithanAK]

It's more than sarcastic, it's bordering on unfounded rhetoric...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So was the assertion...

[RebelWithanAK]

Gary's idealistic, you're just cynical. =p

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@Sep 11 2003, 07:23 PM While the death rate of American soldiers and related support personnel is well within expected range of any standing army in a hostile country, it's the perception of the people back home that matters. There was never a time in the Vietnam war where we were losing by any stretch of the imagination in terms of the body count, but it was the homefront view of the death rate being too costly for the lack of appreciable 'progress' that rallied public support against the war. Greatwyrm: Wha?

Nowadays ppl expect to have wars with near zero casualities for their troops, obviously this is unrealistic,,,,

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Rebel
Look at the post you started this topic with and explain again that I am the cynical one???

[RebelWithanAK]

Yeah, so it takes one to know one. =P

Nowadays people wonder why we like to invade other countries on trumped-up pretenses. Is it realistic to assume we can get through one presidency without a war?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

It is the disadvantage of the approach, humanity polarizes as a rule. Anything other than strenght is seen as weakness. Anything but the purest of motives is seen as corruption. And power is automaticly associated with greed and violence. It really matters not if America actually was the way it is precieved to be, we would be treated exactly the same.

We were given one of those fantasic choices with 9/11, we could either strike back and be damned as a barbaric hostile threat by the world, or we could sit still and be damned as craven by our own people and possibly as a ripe target for other terrorists. It really did not matter what target we picked as the example, since the world would refuse any evidence we have, so we might as well pick a country that could beneifit from a regime change.

What would Europe had done if the target had been Big Ben, Eiffel Tower, or some other symbol of industrialization?

[RebelWithanAK]

Remember the Algerian plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower in 1995? France's intelligence was working. And they had agents who could speak Arabic, too.

Remember the Al Qaeda plot to fly a plane into the CIA headquarters in 1996? The best medicine is preventative, and I'm sorry to say that Clinton had a better anti-terrorist squad than Bush has now. The FBI's anti-terrorism squad's funding tripled under Clinton's reign. Republican pundits actually called him "obsessed" with getting Bin Laden and with terrorist acts in general, and complained to no end about his largely successful moray in Kosovo. The reasoning behind his failure in Somalia was because he didn't put enough troops on the ground. In fact, Samuel Berger's plan to root out Al Qaeda cells once and for all back in 2000 after the USS Cole bombing was given to the Condi and the Bush administration and sat on by them for 8 months until it was finally voted into practice - three days before Sept 11th.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

ER, how is that 'proof' that Clinton magiclly kept terrorists away? Or proof that it was Bush's fault because it happened on his watch? Since the attack took place 7 months after Bush took office, it was therefore likely planned on Clinton's watch anyway. NTM: That if Clinton's anti-terrorist squad was so good why did they fall apart the moment another POTUS took charge???

You may also want to remember that the overseas agents were at that time handicapped by Clinton's executive order not to hire covert agents of dubios character, exactly the type he employeed before suddenly making the practice illegal.

[RebelWithanAK]

Clinton's anti-terrorist system failed because Clinton's squad was largely replaced by Bush's choices. As most presidents do when they clean house of the last president's cronies. Sandy's plan cost $.7 billion, not much compared to Rumsfeld and Cheney's $128 billion missile defense system. (and isn't it ironic that the whole tragedy was caused by three slow intercontinental guided missiles.)

After all, take a look at his actions in his 1996 bill:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_f...heet_10_96.html
Check out his speech that year:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/au...speech_8-6.html

Clinton spent more money on anti-terrorism and went for more military reprisals than Reagan and Bush Sr combined, and that's saying a lot considering the shit going down in with terrorism in the 80's.

What with Bush on September 11th, the FBI gave him notes in August about suspicious Saudis in a flight school down in Florida who weren't interested in take-offs and landings, and notes about how planes can be used as flying bombs. Sandy Berger fought tooth and nail to get Clinton's anti-Al Qaeda plan on to Bush's desk, and himself gave a note to Condoleezza Rice about how important this task be. And the 1993 WTC bombers, caught and imprisoned, were absolutely adamant about how Al Qaeda would keep trying. Yeah, it was on his watch. He was given the tools. He sat on them.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So, in one post you complain that Bush spent too much money, and in the other you brag about how much money Clinton spent? So your proof goes like this:
Money spent by Clinton is good.
Money spent by Bush ids bad.

I think I will not bother to argue this new type of accounting with you, you seem content with this new religion...

[RebelWithanAK]

Bush spent money before September 11th on his Star Wars II silliness. And after Sept 11th on bombing countries outright. Bush has, however, been very hesitant in spending actual money on domestic security, like putting air wardens on planes, or keeping the NYPD's anti-terrorist squads well-trained and supplied. He instead started two full-fledged wars with no end in sight. Clinton's Kosovo bombing had a set time line and it ended for the US with blue helmets taking over and Milosevic heading to international criminal court, but Clinton has also spend billions on increasing our intelligence, in our state department and in the FBI. Bush loves to spend money, just on the wrong things. I fail to see how our large supply of tanks has anything to do with stopping domestic terrorism.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

First, we have to assume that money equals results, which is something I have trouble buying. Second, we have to swallow that the POTUS is responsible for all legislation, which is not true. Third, we have to swallow that the POTUS has his hands in every decision, while that was true of Clinton, Bush is much more willing to delegate those decisions to people that have actual expertise.

[RebelWithanAK]

Who? Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld? The smartest person in his cabinet was Colin Powell - who would make a fine president, by the way - and he had him spewing lie after lie in the UN hearings.

The perpetrators for the 1993 WTC bombing were caught, tried and are languishing in an American prison. The people responsible for the Pan Am 103 incident were caught. The people responsible for the 1995 and 1996 bombings in Saudi Arabia were caught by the CIA and beheaded by the Saudi authorities. And while there were plans to bomb the Holland and Lincoln tunnels in NYC, the LAX airport, two bombs planned for the millenium, the CIA headquarters plot and an attempt on the Pope's life, none of these came to fruit.

Funny thing is, whenever Clinton promised to find and catch the perpetrators responsible, he did. The reason we knew immediately who was responsible for 9/11 was because Clinton's been trying to get him for three years at that point - after the 1998 bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 2000 bombing in Yemen. I still say it was Bush who dropped the ball.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by indierockboy+09-08-2003 11:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (indierockboy @ 09-08-2003 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Eddie@Sep 8 2003, 10:24 PM whose to say that the UN wont send any troops? If you didn't notice, some of the countries, such as France, have changed their tune to the whole war with Iraq. Even though there still is fighting here and there, it is fair to say that the war is pretty much won, and only time can fix the problems at hand. It is only a matter of wanting to share that piece of pie with other countries, in exchange for military support. So the government must either share the pie, pull in more troops, or save-face by thinking the problem will be dealt with before re-election time. your #2 doesn't make any sense to me, why pull out and take the political fallout for sake of re-election? That will just show that this war was a big waste of time, money, reputation, and most importantly, life. This will kill his re-election.

france didn't change it's tune to the whole war with iraq. france, back in 1999, was heavily in favour of doing something about saddam's flagrant disregard to un resolutions. france did not support the invasion of iraq, but it did want something to be done. and when it comes to rebuilding iraq, france is showing the same interest it did; in being a part of aiding the iraq people.

secondly, the war is not pretty much won. the actual offensive battles against iraqs army are over, but jihadis and militant organizations are only starting to surface. if you think this will be over anytime soon, you're deluding yourself.

thirdly, the only "pie" to share is the cost of rebuilding iraq's infrastructure. if the us holds true to it's orginal statements, the "pie" will belong entirely to the iraqis, who will do with it what they see fit.

and you're misinterpreting his #2. he said election fallout. fallout is bad. [/b][/quote]
Unfortunately, France does what is best for France, and their UN support for sanctions against Iraq was little more than agreeing to the U.N. call for inspections of WMD at no risk to themselves, even though the inspectors were repeatedly thrown out of Iraq. Unfortunately, it turned out the U.N. was reduced to playing the ineffective cop (yelling "STOP, or I'll yell STOP again!"). I think Iraq was less than worried about the U.N. because basically talk is cheap and they didn't have anything to back up their words.

[Geoff332]

France does what is best for France

And how does this make them even slightly different from every other nation on the face of the earth?

[rmnunez]

How reliable a source is the “Sunday Mirror”?

Hussein has been in secret negotiations with US forces in Iraq for the past nine days, we can reveal. The Iraqi dictator is demanding safe passage to the former Soviet republic of Belarus. In exchange, he has vowed to provide information on weapons of mass destruction and disclose bank accounts where he siphoned off tens of millions of dollars in plundered cash. President Bush is being kept abreast of the extraordinary talks by his National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice. She is co-ordinating negotiations in Baghdad which are led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of American forces in Iraq.

Saddam's English-speaking representative walked into the US HQ at Tikrit - the dictator's home town - on September 12 and asked to talk to senior officers. He then led a group of US troops to a nearby suburb where one of Saddam's loyal security chiefs was waiting. The US officers were handed a hand-written note, purportedly from Saddam himself. The security boss had a British-made Racal military radio set which he claimed gave him direct contact with people in the same room as the dictator. The radio is notoriously difficult to monitor. He was immediately taken into custody, but the US has continued to exchange messages with Saddam using the radio and other means.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/co...-name_page.html

I think this is good news if true. It certainly is interesting. Belarus sounds like a plausible choice, the promise to reveal information on WMDs suggests Saddam has indeed been withholding something. I doubt the disclosure of secret bank accounts is of any great concern. The paper suggests the Americans will just “string him along” until they can draw a bead on Saddam and then take him down.