Sexing Up Disasters

burma is low on the democracy totem pole for the neoconzix

they have enough on their hands with the iraqis and the feisty afghans

(would take them decades to learn that what they peddle is a new raj under the guise and their nakedness and greed reeks)

came across this title _The Next Countries to Invade_ in a bookshop....was too rushed (to get to DC!!), so did not have a chance to check whether it was a tongue-in-cheek affair or an answer to Chandra's (DC guy) prayers about the more such invasions to "fix up the world"

BTW, has anyone, including Winter, has read _Shock Therapy: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism_ by Naomi Klein? Is it any good or is she talking about stuff we already know about?? Anyone please?

"Now I am left scratching my head wondering how it is that America could invade Iraq on a raft of sexed up charges that were later proved to be false, can deny the truth of the suffering of the Burmese people?"

Yeah! They should have invaded...what's it called, "Myanmar" they way they did Iraq. Stupid Americans! They never help anyone...selfish bastards! The world would be much better off without that greedy lot.

Ciao, Guido

sorry for this delayed response guido...you asked me this on another board

neocon married with zionists = neoconzix

Wow, I just want to tell you it's been a hard day. And I've been thinking a lot about the Burmese poeple and U.S. policy.

I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing such an honest, in touch with reality, heartfelt post.

It is such a releif to know someone else cares, and isn't just "sexing" it up.

Thank You

Guido # 3,

reflexive nationalism, "my country can do no wrong", if only as a foil to stimulate discussion.

Guido # 3,

your reflexive nationalism, "my country can do no wrong", is useful here, if only as a foil to stimulate discussion.

Everyone is busy enough protecting themselves from imaginary troubles to worry about real ones.

"my country can do no wrong".

Are you quoting me CS? Please provide the context and quote. And if you're not citing me, please don't put words in my mouth.

Ciao, Guido

Temporal,

"neocon married with zionists = neoconzix"

I'm sure that's a useful definition...somewhere. Thanks for clarification.

Ciao, Guido

Guido,

You are right. not a direct quote, so I am putting words in your mouth. Just visualizing what your sarcasm could denote:

""Stupid Americans! They never help anyone...selfish bastards! The world would be much better off without that greedy lot."

my fault! you did not say the words I imputed to you....but it's a well-known quote, hence the scare quotes.

Forget about America, I think we (India) should bomb the Myanmar regime out of the planet. Hopeless fools!!
War is the only solution to many problems...bomb bomb bomb bomb..............

chandra, you sure seem to be in a vile mood today!

Dianne,

You start your article with:

Last week the US Navy ships, frustrated by the stonewalling of the military junta to bring aid to the estimated 2.5 million Burmese, slipped quietly out of the waters off cyclone ravaged Burma. Tailgating their ships were the British and the French fleets.

The Burmese dictators make their own people suffer, the foreigners with the aid get frustrated with the stonewalling of the Burmese dictators, and America is to blame? Something doesn't smell right here.

I'm no fan of the American State Department or its dumb administration, but it's the Burmese dictators who should be condemned, not the Americans. They were getting stonewalled, got tired of getting stonewalled, and walked away from an untenable situation.

The only effective way to force the Burmese dictators to give in would be to bomb the living daylights out of them. The only way these scum will do anything decent is if they are mouldering dead, and someone decent can act in their name.

If the Americans, British or French went to war over this, getting rid of the Burmese regime after the fashion of the European powers 175 years back, you'd be jumping up and down screaming imperialism and waving the Geneva Convention around.

What do you want, madame - toasted ice?

mark this in the history books.

ruvy and I are in agreement here.

sorry diane, but I am sensing a theme in your writing. maybe I am imagining it, but there seems to be an undercurrent (sometimes much more obvious and sometimes more subtly) of america-bashing in most of what you post here.

I think there is a very real need for criticism of american policies on a lot of fronts. but to me it seems like you're doing it to pander to readers, not to make a solid point.

one thing I have noticed since i was one myself, is that americans overseas have trouble finding the middle ground. we either become rabidly pro-american and cannot stand a word of criticism to be uttered about our beloved homeland, or we turn hyper-apologetic and hyper-critical.

America, as you charge, has not "denied the truth of the suffering of the Burmese people" What makes you think that? Where is your evidence?

You cannot have it both ways. You expect the US to fix the ills of the world, but then whine when it does. Yes, we go in ham-handed and bungle the whole thing when we do it. Yes, that should be criticized. But you're playing both sides against the middle here and it's not working.

If we were going to get the aid in we would have had to invade. it was and still is a very ugly situation.

SS:

""one thing I have noticed since i was one myself, is that americans overseas have trouble finding the middle ground. we either become rabidly pro-american and cannot stand a word of criticism to be uttered about our beloved homeland, or we turn hyper-apologetic and hyper-critical.""

You can say that again!!! It happens to desis abroad too, albeit as a minor infection....

America is among the largest importer of Chinese goods. So we can go the the grocery store and save $20.00

We buy enourmous amounts of goods from China, in return China is the largest arms supplier to Burma. Making Burma the 12th largest military in the world. So, we (I'm American) do indeed fund the regime in Burma, we fund their campaigns of genocide against the Karen, we fund thier systematic use of mass rape against women and children, we fund forced labor, we fund arbitrary imprisonment.

It was American plicy that was the reason China's economy grew at the fastest rate (and still growing) than any other nation in History.

That is a fact. Look it up. And it is American money that goes through China, so they can make the weapons that are then sold to the Burma junta.

We also help create the motivation for these killers. The miltary can not govern, so Burma is one of the poorest nations in the world, going into the military means steady pay and escape from miltary abuse for that individual and their family. And for many on the bottom, it is like prison and impossible to get out. For the Officers, they are making even more money through personal projects that they use their inferiors for.

America is a land of comfort - with a never ending desire for more. We are not willing to do without for the safety and security of others.

Yes, I understand we have helped the poor in China begin to rise out of poverty, but we have benifited as well. Every day Americans purchase Chinese goods that in the end help to supply the Burmese military with weapons of war and oppression.

Mean while we talk about democracy and have even made the occassional effort at the United Nations Security Council to push for more united action against the regime - KNOWING full and well that China will always VETO.

Furthermore, just how ugly do you think it will get if there is intervention? Where is your proof of this? From all that I have read all the ethnic "armies" are united against the junta and are for the NLD.

I contend that there are other ways of removing a regime. I contend China has such influence.

Maybe this sounds too simple, but free and fair elections were held once, and over 90% voted for Daw Suu Kyi. How are they not united?

The problem is that the junta would not go out without a fight. And that is where China comes in. If only China understood and a democratic Burma would be an economically prosperous Burma, and therefore in China's economic interest.

But in the mean time. Don't say that the United States doesn't look the other way. We are in fact active participants.

Richard... what are you suggesting? halting all trade to China? if so that is a very idealistic approach.

I agree that we should boycott chinese products, but mainly because: 1) they have little to no quality assurance and we suffer the consequences and 2) general human rights violations in china.

but if you think the US is going to do anything formally, you're nuts. it's a tangled web, and our rather shaky (at best) economy is too wrapped up in it for that to be a tenable option.

in an interconnected global world, you cannot just suddenly turn your back because a country's policies suck. if that were the case 1) no one would play in the sandbox with the US anymore and 2) we'd need to be whole hell of a lot smarter.. the whole lot of us.

Richard... what are you suggesting? halting all trade to China? if so that is a very idealistic approach.

I agree that we should boycott chinese products, but mainly because: 1) they have little to no quality assurance and we suffer the consequences and 2) general human rights violations in china.

but if you think the US is going to do anything formally, you're nuts. it's a tangled web, and our rather shaky (at best) economy is too wrapped up in it for that to be a tenable option.

in an interconnected global world, you cannot just suddenly turn your back because a country's policies suck. if that were the case 1) no one would play in the sandbox with the US anymore and 2) we'd need to be whole hell of a lot smarter.. the whole lot of us.

smallsquirrel,

No, I don't think it's idealistic. And no, I don't think it could ever happen. I'm just pointing out that we (the U.S.) play a very important role in the suffering of the people of Burma.

I'm not anti-capitalism. But I am anti-capitalist morality (or rather financial amorality)

I am well aware we are in far too deep to just get up and walk away from the table.

But I do believe strong multi-national diplomatic pressure to encourage China to change their approach on Burma. The problem there is even if such diplomatic efforts were made, I don't think we would have much leverage - nor do I think the "superpowers" of the world would make a serious effort.

And yes, I agree with you 100%, we need to be a lot SMARTER. Difficult problems call for inventive solutions. But I also beleive finding those inventive solutions is a Necessity for the good and the future of our country.

I know it sounds extreme, but I contend that that is the nationalist born American response and nothing more than turning a blind eye to the consequences of our actions and policies.

Are you saying just because something is going to be difficult, it isn't worth doing?

I know I sound crazy. But I also feel I'm right.

Take a smaller example; If your brother was calling you every week asking for money and always had a diffent excuse (phone bill, rent, car insurance), but you knew that his wife had a drug problem, and hence also knew that what money you gave him for "bills" was going to supprt his wifes drug habit, how long would you continue to give your brother money? I don't see any differnce.

But I am well aware, that I have grown to take a very "unconventional" view towards this problem.

I contend that in an ever-growing interconnected global economy, we are going to have to address these matters at some point.

How many generations of people have to suffer, die, be exploited and tortured in ways most Americans will never understand before we do find a inventive and effective way to deal with it?

I totally agree with Richard on one point: all governments/states pretend to be critical of Burma and other countries but in reality nobody really gives a shit as long as they are open for business. They make the right hypocritical noises as long as the media feeding frenzy is on, but their self-righteous whining is over when the spotlight has moved on to another catastrophe. It's all a big con-game to pressure other countries for more business concessions etc. The same with the so-called lists of the countries violating human rights etc. Of course they are violating human rights, but these lists and shrill denouncements are simply tactics to make them follow a particular command. As long as they do it, everything is fine as zillions of dollars are at stake. simple commonsense

If the Americans did not care about Myanmar, they would have established a strong diplomatic relationship instead of where they are now. Trying to link trade with China with Myanmar is immature.

Small squirrel it is not just the US who has ties with the junta in Burma, my own country has just signed a huge trade deal with China. Israel and Australia also help train Burma's security personnel. Please don't take this personally, after all it's not you that is living under this regime. Please try to see beyond what is personal to you and see the wider issue of humanity.
Chandra, Americas care about the oil and gas reserves in Burma to the tune of $2.7 million buks a year via Chevron and Total. The Haliburton company (whose former chief executive was Dick Cheney) backed the Yadana pipeline and even the good old BBC whose recent 75% buyout of the travelers 'bible' the Lonely Planet who defends breaking the tourist boycott of Burma.....
the list goes on but then you could just as easily inform yourself as I have done.

Speaking of Lonely Planet, I was once on a BBC program, they told me I would be talking about one thing but I found myself talking to a Monk and a Nun? And at the same time trying to raise issues about Burma. Such is live radio I guess. Anyways I tried to mention how much of the tourism dollars goes into the regimes pocket when the Monk and the Nun both said "No, It is o.k. to visit Burma", there was nothing I could say. I wasn't going to debate a Mon and Nun over the radion. It was strange.

And Oddly enough, Lonely Planet was amont the top donors to the Mae Tao Clinic in their most recent report. - Just an odd fact I'm throwing in there.

Chandra,

It's all related. I follow the philosophy of Daw Suu Kyi and Vaclav Havel, we have to be Responsible for our actions, not just talk about the causes we believe in.

Correction: amont should have been among

And also to Chandra,

Let me reiterate that I am well aware that what I'm saying is unconventional and highly unpopular. But I believe it to be more in tune with the realities of the world we live in.

I also believe that I am just saying what others think as well, but can not say because they would become outcast of sorts among those who are in a position of influence - which would do no good. It's a catch-22.

I donot buy this logic that a relationship with China impact Myanmar. If one were to use this logic, there would be no world trade and mo movement of people. Tell me one country that is a saint on this planet? I think the US is doing enough as far as Myanmar is concerned. I am unhappy with India. We have been sucking up to this nation even though they continue to play games with us. Bomb that regime out of the planet!!!

"Now I am left scratching my head wondering how it is that America could invade Iraq on a raft of sexed up charges that were later proved to be false, can deny the truth of the suffering of the Burmese people?"

You know, this solution makes perfect sense. Instead of people dying slowly of starvation put them out of their misery and bomb 'em. The suffering is over in a second.

I believe the situation in Burma is way too complex , and with too long roots to be solved by cutting ties with China and possibly sending the world economy into a tailspin. In fact, that might lead to even more dire straits for the average Burmese, even more malnutrion, starvation and death.

If China doesn't believe democracy is good for itself, and holds on to Tibet despite world public opinion, what does it care about poor little Burma? This is a pipe dream that can never happen, and since it will never happen, we can conveniently forget other possible solutions, chasing after this idealistic fantasy.

Yes, no one cares about Burma. Despite its coup and its miliary junta it continues along, perhaps because the Burmese people can see no option for which to fight.

Change cannot (and should not) be imposed from the outside. Well meaning intervention often ends up being the bull in the china shop as we've seen in Iraq.

The world has a short memory. If Burma wasn't sexy enough in 1962 when Ne Win led his bloody coup,what are the odds now?

The change has to come from within, from the united Burmese people. The outside world can support the Burmese, they can write, agitate, and petition. But unless the Burmese themselves unite, keeping aside their ethnic and regional differences, no change can happen.

The world should continue sending aid even if the junta manipulates the news to make it seem like they are the ones helping. Even if part of that aid gets through, it's better than nothing. Tragedy is something the people of Burma have lived with for decades. They will survive, and hopefully something will make them finally demand a change, and to take action for themselves.

what really gets this old goat here is why is everyone uncritically criticising the united states government? they are already dealing with the enormously difficult task of establishing democracy and peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their forces for good and against evil are stretched way too thin. I believe it is evil for people to put up other worthy candidates for the do-good instincts of the american government, until the exising projects have been safely completed. As the cliche goes, one thing at a time....please give the american govt. a break, will you?

Winter:

"how it is that America could invade Iraq on a raft of sexed up charges that were later proved to be false"

I don't recall any reference to sex before the invasion....unless you mean those harrowing images from Abu Ghraib....that was hardly about sex, even though the men were naked.

however, how does it matter if the intelligence was fixed and twisted to pave the way for the invasion? In the end what matters is the the lofty goal of transforming the entire middle east into a beacon of democracy. Since that is happening in Iraq at a spectacular pace, everything else is besides the point.

I can't decide if you are being sarcastic commonsense or not. It matters because innocent lives are being lost every day, pardon me for having a human reaction to that! Obviously Richard is right I am being "unconventional" and it is making me unpopular.
"The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity."
George Bernard Shaw

can we get off this "unpopular" business? discussion and debate are not about being popular or not. I have no idea why you're being so defensive, diane. seriously. people agree and disagree all the time. that is the point of this forum!

but your charge of complete apathy is simply not founded. just because the US does not react the way you want it to, you cannot say no one cares. please read what jawahara has written above.

I just get tired of people saying "oh it's so easy, you just do XXX" and if XXX is not done you're a horrible, ugly monster. the world doesn't work that way. it's not that easy. I don't say that as an excuse, but as an explanation.

and again you cannot have it both ways. should the US be involved in everything or not?

d. sharma-winter,

since successive american governments have never ever done anything that was not aimed at making the world a safer, better and a happy place, how does the issue of sarcasm even reach the radar screen? and particularly since the power of the american government in the global theatre is no more (and admittedly no less)than any other government, why must we be forever suspicious of their sincere commitment and actions, through history, to save this wretched world from imminent disaster? I would rather not be such an obviously ungrateful wretch. At least in Iraq they had elections and the same too in Afghanistan. Those who cannot handle such breathtaking developments by pointing to such distractions as the loss of lives etc. forget the orgy of bloodletting that led to and followed the seige of Bastille and the birth of democracy. As Ms. Rice said, in reference to another conflict, we are witnessing the "birth pangs of democracy in the middle-east". Are we surprised that it's a bit painful? Do we really expect gain without pain? It pains me that for some people, and it is unfortunately a strong trend, despite the public relations officer hired by the current US govt. to put things in proper persepctive, people the world over are indulging in gratuitious americophobia. Sad how twisted minds can twist reality at whim. And imagine how many dollars were wasted on the salary of the public relations officer in chief before she had the good sense to resign? Pretty sad....

Well said, ss, and sometimes, caring comes not with an earnestly bleeding heart but with a sarcasm and causticness (is that a word?) that heightens the sense of tragedy in situations such as these.

And may I reiterate what ss said, about this being a forum, which means an exchange of ideas. Otherwise it might be called, You're Right or Let's All Agree or Let Us Count the Ways in Which the Writer was Right...a tad unwieldy but perhaps someone more creative than me can come up with something shorter and more catchy.

Jawahar:

""causticness (is that a word?)"'

caustic; causticity: cutting; the quality of cutting sarcasm

not to be confused with the hindi "paushtic" = nutritious.

"paushtic ahar": a thet hindi word, now under threat by eurocentrics who prefer english. means "nutritious diet"

"caustic ahar": cutting, sarcastic diet; an effective cure for constipation

winter:

""The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity."

thou confuseth "different" with "indifferent". "indifferent" folks do not engage with those to whom they are indifferent. this is different from indifferent; one hopes you are entirely indifferent to different ideas on different issues.

JawahrA:

"Change cannot (and should not) be imposed from the outside. Well meaning intervention often ends up being the bull in the china shop as we've seen in Iraq."

Yes indeed! Look at what happened in South Africa with all the sanctions and what not! Before apartheid was dismantled, combined internal uprising and external sanctions, whatever you might say in a fit of political correctness, at least there was law and order. Now? Rampant crime AND black on black violence. It's no longer black and white. So, since Burma is suspended in a vacuum (sp?) and has no ties with the outside world, it would be best not to pressure any govt. to cut of any external ties, since the do not exist. And if these non-existent ties are cut off, they would only hurt the poor and the starving in Burma. Just as Mrs. Thatcher used to say about the apartheid regime. In her coached, fake upper-class Enlgish accent "Noe, Noe, Noe!! Sanctions will only hurt the innocent people. I will not budge an inch". And she was right, that iron-lady, even though she is losing her marbles now and some inhuman people refer to her as the original mad cow.

Winter:

"There is no doubt," said Matt Fry, "that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world and especially in the Middle East is increasingly tied up with American military power."

I am still astounded that the questioning of American values and its value for the rest of is still legal! I mean, why can't the International Court at the Hague, simply make it illegal to question the unquestionable? Say what? The US does not recognize the International Court at the Hague? Not entirely accurate, as it does so, when it suits them as in, when they want to spread benevolence and non-dictatorships in the rest of the world, such as Saudi Arabia. I hope to live in a world when anyone who questioned American values would be hauled up in court and charged with global treason

Jawahra,

The above was a "well meaning intervention" although it did not come across as such. Of course direct intervention is always a problem but cutting off trade ties has always been advocated and it works to disabuse any regime of the delusions of limitless power.

"I hope to live in a world when anyone who questioned American values would be hauled up in court and charged with global treason"

you have gone waaaaaaaaaay off the deep end here.
way off.
so far off I cannot see you anymore.

you've become very obtuse in your latest comments. the combination of sarcasm and semi-lucid points are not working here.

SS,

I fear you are right! While cycling to work this morning (work would be posting on DC full-time, as everyone on DC well knows), I slid and my head hit the pavement. No helmet. Something nuts and bolds got maligned. Or is misaligned the word i'm looking for? anyways, i have this strange wacko-let - chest thumping worhisp thy naiton fascist bi-polar disorder. Alas, it seems to be beyond my control. Like the computer codes, i can think only in terms of polar opposites. However, i have found a way to blame you for this absurd predicament. Your comment:

"I have noticed since i was one myself, is that americans overseas have trouble finding the middle ground. we either become rabidly pro-american and cannot stand a word of criticism to be uttered about our beloved homeland, or we turn hyper-apologetic and hyper-critical."

laid the framework for my mental state and may even have contributed to my bike accident, even though I have no empirical proof for it. Strange situation to be in: a bit simultenously being forced to watch a horror movie in which I happen to be simultaneously acting in. As if i am possessed by both ends of manichean dichotomies. Yet, even this shall pass. Thanks for your concern though. If I sound like I'm off the deep end, it's because I am off the deep end. Although if I could actually write that, it wouldn't be entirely true.

Jawahara "instead of people dying slowly..bomb 'em instead" exactly what already happened in Iraq where ten years of sanctions left half a million children dead. These children were not born when the Gulf war began, they died for lack of medicine and from cancers caused in part to the uranium enriched weapons used by Britain and the US during the Gulf War. A bloody good reason to wear a burqa in this part of the world, I would say! Anyway no sooner do they lift the sanctions than they invade the country on a raft of sexed up charges of WMD. Since then more than half a million more children have died, which makes Ms Rice's comment of 'birthing pains" quite insulting. The next generation of children will not be born, this is a stillborn generation.
http://www.unicef.org/har08/index_iraq.php

The Burmese people rise and rise again but they are put down by weapons provided to the Burmese junta by India as well as other countries.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/07/india14778.htm

SS The US led coalition invaded Iraq fully aware that claims of WMD were false. These facts have been reported even in the most conservative media in the US and Britain.

Common, you are obviously too far away from the bombs exploding daily to see what a farce your idealistic view of democracy means to the average Iraqi.

My thoughts are this. If the Coalition of the willing could invade a nation of people already crippled by the previous ten years of sanctions, even though they knew there were no WMD and despite the calls of the U WHO? then what the hell stopped them from getting into Burma to help those people?
Maybe there is something to do with cyclone survivors in general? Anybody remember cyclone Katrina? My mother always said "charity begins at home."

winter:

""Common, you are obviously too far away from the bombs exploding daily to see what a farce your idealistic view of democracy means to the average Iraqi."

Winter, you have obviously decided that serious issues brook no sarcasm and witless irony

diane, I think I will just come back when you've come down from your soapbox, entertain a larger scope of reality than just your own, decide to have a real discussion, and stop treating me (and others)like some moron who just crawled out from under a rock. most of us here have traveled the world and seen much of what you describe. we're not a bunch of school kids.

I think what gets me the most is that you are trying to convince us that you have the most right perspective because you are the most emotional. that does not fly with me.

PS, if you think the burqa is so excellent, how bout you wear one for the next 5 years and get back to us all about it.

Actually ss i was merely stating the facts. The first thing I did already when the sand storms began here was rush out and buy a burqa. I am sure you will correct me (as you have done before and no doubt will do again) but I thought I set out to write about how the media reports on disasters and responding to what I thought was sarcasm!!! You mean you are serious????
so does this mean that ss does stand for secret squirrel and not the secret service???

cs #2;

For my money, Steve Horwitz, an economics professor at St Lawrence University, has the beefiest reply yet, largely contained in the two (long) questions, excerpted here, he would ask Ms Klein if provided the chance:

1. ... How do you reconcile the main thesis of your book with the historical evidence that government has grown and markets have been made less free in almost every crisis of the 20th century? Moreover, wasn't FDR's attempt to pack the court and his signing legislation that was later found to be unconstitutional evidence that he tried to force policies on the country by subverting the democratic process?

2. ... How do you reconcile the left's claim that [the] Bush Administration has [post-9/11] engaged in a fascist expansion of government power hitherto unseen in US history with the claim that crises lead to undemocratic free market reforms? Those would seem to be utterly at odds with each other. ... It certainly seems like crises produce a lot more government and a lot less free market reform.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/10/naomi_klein_smackdown_roundup.cfm

winter,

re: sarcasm, you are confusing ss with cs. could you take off that burqa for sec?

now you're confusing people. I haven't used sarcasm. you accused common of that.

and nice personal dig, there, but it doesn't ring true. how very mature of you to call me names because I do not agree with you. are you going to blacklist me now?

and good for you with the novelty burqa. quite different than being made to wear one from puberty. do you want brownie points for it? yikes.

done. bored. annoyed.

ss (#15)

you in agreement with this?

The only effective way to force the Burmese dictators to give in would be to bomb the living daylights out of them. The only way these scum will do anything decent is if they are mouldering dead, and someone decent can act in their name. #14


somehow i don't believe you

;)

thanks temporal. good points re: horowitz on klein.

on the other hand, the ideology of "free markets" need not be necessarily at odds with a beefy and expanded state. as in "free markets" or no bid contracts (ie. "free" ride for some companies, free for their taking while others are shut out from even bidding and have to wait for the crumbs) for companies that have retired govt or about to retire govt. officials as their board of directors. it would be hard to find any american secretary who was not either never linked to any company or is not going to be linked as soon as they resign. nothing peculiar to the US though (before Guido clobbers me with his nationalism!)....in various degrees, the logic of the modern state....

it is not just the US who has ties with the junta in Burma, my own country has just signed a huge trade deal with China. Israel and Australia also help train Burma's security personnel.

Dianne, now you're talking very differently from the way you did in your article. It appears that your issue is that all the western "civilized" countries support the Burmese dictatorship - and that the way the western "civilized" media report events in Burma reflects this.

You should just come out and say that right up front. Then, your article would not have sounded like an anti-American rant blaming them - and nobody else.

Assuming that all your assertions are true (I'm not inclined to doubt you), plenty of people have lots of blood on their hands because of the way they have helped the Burmese dictatorship oppress its people.

If you complain about the Americans in Iraq - or even how the Americans may be planning to nuke Iran's nuclear facilities - you're just joining a loud whining crowd.

But taking on the Burmese dictatorship - and all the scum who aid it (yes, including Israel's Shaba"k) puts you alone out front of the "whine and jeez" crowd of the chattering class - a good place to be.

cs:

heheh

(i was in the midst of commenting on something richard said - and guess that would be relevant to 49 as well)

so richard # 25:

Let me reiterate that I am well aware that what I'm saying is unconventional and highly unpopular. But I believe it to be more in tune with the realities of the world we live in.


:)

let me add my unconventional take also


ike called it mic (military-industrial-complex)

over the years different names ... including in some measure ...big brother, big business, conglomerates, the "commission"....but in essence the mic...

their interest worldwid is cutu ("commotion" - "upheavel" - "turmoil" and "unrest")

cutu is good for business

chechenya, kashmir, iraq, afghanistan, us-russia, china-india, arab-palestine-israel ... you get the big picture?

with cutu they can sell ...armaments and related services and add to their coffers

sorry for being tangential - and hope you get the picture

the term military-industrial complex indeed was indeed coined by the late american prez himself. this complex has ballooned to an extent unimaginable. apart from the many scholarly analyses of this, a couple of decades ago david letterman had on his show a number of ex-military contractors gleefully showing off how they used to sell screws available in K-mart for a dime, for as much as a hundred dollars a piece. national security you see. talk of screwing! of course, all this talk is labeled is conveniently labeled as "leftist rant" or worse, as paranoia, "conspiracy theory" etc., and honest journalists such as Seymor Hersh of the New Yorker are maligned, Chomsky is dismissed as a dangerous cunning linguist (sorry could not resist!)while the pillage continues, abetted by us folks as we enthusiastically endorse yet another adventure that retools politicans as defense contractors and vice versa. And there are enough journalists whose job it is produce the smokescreens (remember the fired Judith Miller of NYTimes who kept repeating lies) regular folks are warned about the dangers of not grasping the complexities of this world, of not having enough dharma, of the sins of not being vegetarians etc. etc....a whole litany of "change the subject" and pretend the world is just fine.

SS, I do not presume that you are clueless about these issues. I am just reiterating them, simply to keep them in view....not intended as "breaking news" for innocents abroad or at home. I know this is not news, but that does not necessarily make it non-news.

temp... um, well, I did not say in lock-step. LOL.
I guess I should have been more clear.

CS

The American MI complex is its greatest gift to mankind. So much freedom - Europe, Japan, Iraq etc has been achieved through the MI. Every patriotic American should be proud of the MI.

"These children were not born when the Gulf war began, they died for lack of medicine and from cancers caused in part to the uranium enriched weapons used by Britain and the US during the Gulf War. A bloody good reason to wear a burqa in this part of the world, I would say!"

OMG, this is brilliant...I didn't know that the burqa can protect people from cancers and uranium-enriched weapons. We really should alert disaster-relief agencies. In fact, I'm going to get myself a burqa right now just to be on the safe side. Phew!

As far as Burma is concerned, I'm sorry (okay, maybe I'm not but I *am* trying to be a polite hijacker) but I find more than a tinge of Western paternalism in your article and your discussion points. "Let us fix it for you, you little brown people. Go eat your rice now."

As a matter of fact, non-Western aid agencies (primarily Asian NGOs) are getting some access into Burma. Perhaps these are agencies that ones that the junta (as evil as they are) and the people feel that they can trust. The Economist reports about an aid mission from Taiwan run by a Burma-born Buddhist monk. Malaysia has also sent aid. Has some aid been turned down? Absolutely. The junta has not been transformed overnight, and during disasters of this magnitude awful tragedies do happen. That is an unavoidably sad fact. But some people are being helped.

And, thanks ss, for your remark about not treating DC readers like a bunch of ignorant schoolkids. The reason we are engaging in this discussion at all is because we are interested and aware of our world.

And, as far as Burma is concerned perhaps some of us might know as much, or even a bit more *gasp* than you. In my case for instance, my mother is from Burma, and her uncle was the labor minister under U Thant and was imprisoned by the junta for many years until his death in the late 70's. One of my uncles is part of the the Burmese people's delegation to the UN.

We have a long connection with Burma and just because some of us look at the ground realities and not at some idealistic pie in the sky vision, does not mean that we are indifferent or disinterested.

Burma (like all knotty problems) in the world needs more than well-intentioned do-gooders. It needs aid...yes...not necessarily Western aid. The junta is evil, yes, but no one (no matter if you bomb 'em back to the stone age) can do anything without killing countless millions. You might be willing to pay that price on their behalf...but would an average Burmese be willing to pay for this imposed freedom with the blood of his family?

Yes, there have been many movements in Burma and they have failed. And, eventually, there will be one that will prevail.

d.sharma.winter #41

"The US led coalition invaded Iraq fully aware that claims of WMD were false. These facts have been reported even in the most conservative media in the US and Britain." Please provide your source(s).

The fact Dianne, is that all the rational players in this scenario believed (with good reason) that Saddam possessed and would use WMD. There is credible evidence that he did have them:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

http://sunnyeside.blogspot.com/2006/02/so-there-were-wmd-in-iraq-after-all.html

Ninety-eight percent of the US congress...both sides of the house and senate supported the Iraq invasion:

The argument that President Bush lied about the WMD doesn't hold water and has been repeatedly debunked. The same people that interrupt political rallies, by shouting this nonsense ignore the intelligence failure on a global scale...a fact accepted by the CIA, FBI, and British Intelligence.

Regardless of the accuracy or lack thereof concerning the WMD finds, UNSCR 1441, the enforcement of which is not reliant on the discovery of WMDs. Even Hans Blix said before the invasion that, according to Iraq's own paperwork, the Hussein regime was in violation of the ceasefire terms in over a dozen different ways. Since all the ceasefire terms held equal weight and validity under UNSCR 687, with no single category being listed as having priority, it does not ultimately matter which term he broke. The fact is, you can take your pick.

Concerning US led aggression that started the war; France, China and Russia all had economic motives to protect Iraq from enforcement of the UN Resolutions...it was not the US that violated half a dozen of UN687's ceasefire terms...that was Iraq, from refusing to repay Kuwait for looting damages all the way down to building brand-new missiles they were prohibited from having. Hussein started the war by invading Kuwait, got thrown out of Kuwait, agreed to a ceasefire, broke it, and got removed from power. What part of this amounts to "US-led aggression?"

Sanctions could not longer be legally applied. 1441 stated specifically that Iraq had received (and lost, after the deadline) its last chance to comply with the UN Resolutions. Sanctions require compliance to be successful. Therefore sanctions could not be applied since it would violate 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq any further opportunities for compliance.

UNSCOM was not under the Bush Administration, it was the inheritor of UNMOVIC's mission and as such was a United Nations operation. Iraq was prohibited not only from having WMDs but also from having any programs, parts, equipment or materials for making them. Having the capacity to churn out lethal biological agents, whether they kill one person at a time or a thousand, means a simple retooling gets you WMDs. Iraq wasn't even allowed to have this kind of dual-use equipment in the manufacture of NORMAL things.

The simple fact is that one cannot read 1441 and come away with the conclusion that "last chance to comply" means anything more or less than what it says. It is the commanding language, and personal opinions, either for or against, do not trump it. Regardless of whether the UNSC "remained seized of the matter", its choices remain strictly limited to: 1) go to war to enforce the ceasefire (France would vote against), 2) declare Iraq to be in compliance regardless of the fact that Blix says it's not (US/UK, and probably others would vote against), or 3) repudiate 1441 entirely in an attempt to put something else on the table (US at the very least would vote against).

Paraphrased from Wikipedia: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

You may or may not agree with invading Iraq. Good arguments can and have been made to support both sides. However, repeating unsupportable politically motivated mantra, then calling it fact, does not lend credibility to your cause.

Guido

Hans Blix did not find anything and the Americans called him back. Except Americans, nobody believed this fantastic assertion that Iraq was a threat. Anyway, invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Hopefully George W invades or bombs Iran soon. Else, this Obama guy will talk peace and nonsense and we poor folks in Asia will suffer.

Chandra:

""Every patriotic American should be proud of the MI.""

As you can well see, I am proud of it. As was Dwight David Eisenhower who was a five star general before becoming prez. When he coined the term, he was not issuing a warning from an insider's perspective; rather he was proudly proclaiming the birth of the best mechanism for spreading freedom and democracy, and the unimaginable lining of pockets of all those whose only goal in life is to spread freedom and democracy. you bet i am proud of it, just is Ike was.

As is Guido. Keep up the good work Guido. Sooner of later, the whole world will be free from delusional rants of those who have nothing better to do than biting that hand that feeds them - food and freedom.

Chandra:

""Anyway, invading Iraq was the right thing to do.""

if i were a part of the iranian govt, i would say the same. iraq is now, for all practical purposes, an almost province of iran. the ancient community of baghadi jews numbers something like 11 or so. all the liquor vendors, who happened to be christians have been elminated. to veil or not to veil is not even an issue. and i don't even mention the lives lost....a madame rice put it, "birthing pains" so, who lost the battle but won the iraq-iran war that started over a couple of decades ago...

All this talk of war is making me really hot. When are we invading and whom? My stars *and* my stripes are just dying for some action. Please let's bomb someone...anyone. I don't even care who we bomb. Please, Mr. President!

(Editors, feel free to edit/delete, but we need some comic relief. The passage below however is does have something to do with "sex" and "disasters", albeit not on a grand scale)

A passage for Umberto Eco's book _How to Travel with a Salmon_. From the Chapter "How to Buy Gadgets", comment on duty-free gadgets available on a flight)

"I am struck (but I hope not literally shocked) by Omniblanket, which costs all of $150. At the simplest level, it is an electric blanket, but it can be programmed so that the temperature varies from one part of your body to another. In other words, if during the night your back feels cold but your groin tends to sweat, you adjust the program accordingly. Omniblanket will keep your back warm and your groin cool. If you are nervous and toss and turn in your sleep, then you are just out of luck. You will roast your testicles or whatever you have in that area, depending on your sex. I doubt the inventor can be asked to make improvemnts, because it seems he was burnt to a cinder some time ago"

"It is well known that, to reduce cholesterol levels, the Americans have long since taken up jogging: they run for hours and hours until they drop dead of a heart attack. Pulse trainer ($59.95), worn on the wrist, is attached by a wire to a little rubber sheath slipped over your index finger. When your cardiovascular system is on the brink of collapse, an alarm goes off, apparently. A real achievment, if you consider that in underdeveloped countries a person stops running only when he is out of breath - a highly primitive criterion...."

"If you want to give that special person a present for his or her birthday, a mere thirty dollars is enough to have him/her sent a copy of the New York Times of the date of his/her birth. If he/she was born on the day of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, or the day of the Messina earthquake, that's just too bad. This gift can also be useful in humiliating people you dislike, if they happen to have been born on a day when nothing occurred."

Guido:

""However, repeating unsupportable politically motivated mantra, then calling it fact"

That fount of incorrigible factual knowledge, the wikipedia itself, has all the evidence to prove that Ike himself, as he grew old, as all of us eventually do, was in fact under the influence of the loony left and kept repeating politically motivated mantras such as "the military-industrial-complex". But we should not be too harsh on him as he was a distinguished five star general.

hey does anyone else has a copy of Eco's _How to Travel with a Salmon"?? Buy it! It will sex up any impending disaster....with side-splitting chapters such as "How to Recognize a Porn Movie", "How to Use the Coffee Pot from Hell" and yes indeed (to avoid this post from being deleted as "irrelevant" rather than "irreverent"), to take up the point raised by Jawahar, about stars and stripes, a chapter even titled, "Stars and Stripes".

editors, a thought:

how come no comment is edited/deleted for being "irreverent"?? why only for being irrelevant?

Jawahar:

""All this talk of war is making me really hot. When are we invading and whom?"'

I believe Chandra has a (tongue-in-cheek) list of the enthusiasitc invadees who have lined up to welcome the invasion. Regardless of the silly models of developmental economists that have no bearing on reality, the only model that stands the test of time is that of American lead (metal). Any country that gets bombed to the stone-age, eventually becomes an economic superpower; the more fire-power, the better results; nukes sex it up even further: Germany, Japan etc. But it takes a while thought. Vietnam is on the right track, and Iraq and Afghanistan are on the fast track to economic boomtimes.

The problem though is this: so many countries, having observed first hand, the results in Germany and Japan, are lining up, pleading to be invaded and bombed for their own good. One idea would be to ignore their pathetic, self-interested please and proceed in an alphabetical order. But which alphabet? Eurocentric or some non European language? Hmmmm, another can of worms...

"As is Guido. Keep up the good work Guido. Sooner of later, the whole world will be free from delusional rants of those who have nothing better to do than biting that hand that feeds them - food and freedom."

Thank you for the encouragement CS. We should pray that pathetic dribble, i.e. failed attempts at satire will also be eliminated along with the delusional rants.

One can only hope.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""We should pray that pathetic dribble, i.e. failed attempts at satire will also be eliminated along with the delusional rants."'

Thanks Guido. I know you have nothing but the benefit of DC readers in mind, but please don't think that I have any effect on them. Don't anoint me with effects that I don't have. As well, given my mental make-up, that will be quite unlikely. I mean sure, the "failed attempts" might succeed in the future, although don't hold your breath, but until then, the pathetic dribble will continue, drip, drip, drip....count them drops!

Guido:

""One can only hope. [the cessation of pathetic dribble....]

Ciao, Guido"

Yessir! the "audacity of hope" is indeed the flavor of the year....

Guido writes,

The argument that President Bush lied about the WMD doesn't hold water and has been repeatedly debunked. The same people that interrupt political rallies, by shouting this nonsense ignore the intelligence failure on a global scale...a fact accepted by the CIA, FBI, and British Intelligence.

Here, you and I agree, Guido. The Iraqis had WMD's and shipped them to Syria about six weeks before the United States invaded the country. The missiles and launchers were carried on trucks at night to attempt to avoid detection. They were stored in the Beka'a in Lebanon, and will be used - probably against us in Israel.

Looking at this strictly from "what is best for America" I'd say that the mere fact that Saddam Hussein saw fit to rid himself of his missiles was reason not to invade the country. It's really important to remember that Saddam Hussein was backed up by the United States as an "ally" in the 1980's simply because he was willing to invade Iran and fight for a whole long time there over comparatively nothing. If there was a reason to get rid of the bum, it was the possibility he represented as a challenge to countries like Arabia, that hold a huge amount of American debt, or the Gulf countries, particularly the ones that sit on loads of oil.

What has me mystified in the whole Iraq thing was why George H.W. Bush was willing to double-cross him in 1990 by allowing the American ambassador to give a vague enough answer to his request for a green light to invade Quwait - and then go after him like a mean aggressor. Saddam Hussein was an evil SOB, but he thought the American government was his ally.

I might add that it was George H.W, Bush who arranged the double-cross of Saddam Hussein. Satellite photos were taken of Iraqi positions in southern Quwait showing tanks facing latrines and barracks, but facing south. Someone at NSA was ordered to erase the barracks and the latrines from the photos so that it looked as if the Iraqis were planning to move and invade Arabia. Dick Cheney was sent, not knowing the pictures had been doctored, to sell American occupation of parts of Arabia in preparation for an invasion of Quwait. (source: The Gold of Exodus, by Howard Blum).

Guido #61,

It's quite possible, probably true, that the White House ex-spokesman Scott McClellan has written a tell-all account of the spin leading upto the invasion because he is disgruntled at being eased out when he was no longer needed. However, the fact that his account is a consequence of him being pisssed-off, has no bearing on the account itself.

Guido:

""However, repeating unsupportable politically motivated mantra, then calling it fact, does not lend credibility to your cause.""

Coming from somebody who is pretending not to, but is in fact defending the Bush administration line and the incredible credibility that adminsration has, Diane can use the above accusation of lack of credibility as a singular badge of credibility.

As another famous but American put it about governments in general:

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
~ Mark Twain

and yes, the learned man also said this:

""Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.""
- Mark Twain,

on credibility:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
~ Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair Interview, 2003-05-28


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And ... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
~ Tommy Franks, General, Press Conference, 2003-03-22

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
~ Ken Adelman, Defense Policy Board member, Washington Post, 2003-03-23

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
~ Patricia Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

~ Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Washington Post, op-ed, 2003-04-09

CS #70

"Coming from somebody who is pretending not to, but is in fact defending the Bush administration line and the incredible credibility that adminsration has..."

How about we set some ground rules? You assume to know me and my thoughts, but you don't! You can't know me anymore than I you. So do us both a favor and desists with the characterizations. If you disagree with the content, then please say so. But do it without assuming my thought processes or who you think I am. I'll return the courtesy.

There is no pretense in my comments. I spent most of my adult life defending my nation, so perhaps its second nature to stand up for my former CINC. However, I'll speak up for anyone when it's apparent that the criticism is blatantly false, demonizing, or tired anti-western rhetoric. I also try to provide reasonable supporting opinions and facts to back my assertions. Likewise, when I disagree with the administration I will say so...such as with the current immigration and energy policies.

I am not adverse to warranted criticism. Pres. Bush has erred...as have all past administrations and congresses. Based on the evidence, it seems clear that he and 98% of congress elected to invade Iraq based on what we now understand as bad intelligence. However, reread post #41...if you can step out of the political arena long enough to view the facts in their context (the current environment at the time) when the rational action was to respond to the perceived immediate threat. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

It is only after the fact, that armchair quarterbacks with a clear political agenda point to the faulty Intel, ignoring all the other mitigating factors and scream, "Bush lied people died". That is dishonest. And the people who readily jump on that train, are either too consumed with hate to see the facts, or just don't care.

There is a faction in America and abroad that truly want to see the US efforts fail in Iraq just to prove Bush wrong. That is how consuming the hate has become. Who would invite more death and destruction and further destabilization to prove their point? It appears many. Or do you ascribe that peace will reign in our absence?

"It's quite possible, probably true, that the White House ex-spokesman Scott McClellan has written a tell-all account of the spin leading upto the invasion because he is disgruntled at being eased out when he was no longer needed. However, the fact that his account is a consequence of him being pisssed-off, has no bearing on the account itself."

I can't comment on the book because I haven't read it; nor will I because this much is clear...he sold out his trusted friends, plain and simple. You can form your opinions from there. His "facts" of events are his views and nothing more. They are disputed by others at the White House. I might give him more credence had he donated the entire proceeds of the book.

If he had all these grave concerns, why not raise them sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration and in the heat of a presidential campaign; a perfect environment to sell his book. Yeah...he's a credible source.

"Diane can use the above accusation of lack of credibility as a singular badge of credibility."

Are you trying to make a point or just being insulting? The statement is nonsensical.

The author says she has conservative sources supporting her claims that Pres. Bush had foreknowledge that there was no WMD...and that he took us to war on false pretenses. I'm still waiting for the references.

Your Twain quotes are very clever.

Ciao, Guido

CS #71

Thanks for making my point CS. Everyone you quoted believed there was WMD. Let me add a few more:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Or maybe they were all duped by the Great Satan himself, Pres. Bush.

Ciao, Guido

Guido,

Thanks for the detailed response. Unfortunately (convenient huh??!), I have sworn off DC for a while. Just wanted to add, that despite my assinine and self-righteous tone, I don't for a moment doubt your sincerety in serving your country.

That there were enough doubts and contradictions between different intelligence estimates, that were then papered over during the rush to create a consensus of imminent threat and therefore invasion, is outlined here, in the long awaited report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is my point. If one is to undertake such an enormous step with such huge implications, any hint of "sexing" even a part of the intelligence to rush to invade, is quite incredible. And then of course there was the deliberate inclusion, knowingly, of false intelligence about alumunium tubes being procured from Niger etc. One simply has to connect the dots for the big picture of what really happened. Of course there will never be any memo that says "hey let's sex up the intelligence report". Mark Twain notwithstanding, govts. are not that stupid. Just because everyone seemed to believe the intelligence reports, does not mean that they were true. There were enough inconsistencies and internal disagreements, for the administration to take a deep breath and pause for a moment. But, the decision was made to invade, and now it was a question of justifying it. The investigation in Britain also point to this conclusion. The point is that there was no black and white consensus on the facts. This may not make a difference if it's a question of quelling a riot that is already underway. But to undertake such an enormous invasion with such serious repercussions, one really has to have no shred of doubt. And this, as the reports released less than a week ago, linked below, show clearly not to be the case.

Brief summaries here from the NYT, Washington Post and the Internatinoal Herald Tribune, all "liberal" papers to be sure, but not part of the loonie left. I hope you will trust the report of your own Senate Intelligence Committee. It took them 5 years to put it together, after much stonewalling from the administration over certain key documents; of course the crucial emails that were supposed to be archived were mysteriously "deleted" etc. etc. Even then, this is quite a damning report, yet, without the "smoking gun". In such a complex situtation, it is enough for intelligent people, to connect the dots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html?hp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/05/america/05cndintel.php

I do not doubt your sincerety, nor your "patriotïsm". However, sometimes, the best form of patriotism sometimes is informed skepticism. We are not part of the govt nor its spokespersons. There is no reason why we cannot think outside the box provided by any administration, be it republican, democrat or even vegetarian.

I really am taking a break for a few weeks, so will be unable to repond!!

Ciao!

Best wishes,

CS

PS:

Guido:

""There is a faction in America and abroad that truly want to see the US efforts fail in Iraq just to prove Bush wrong.""

You may be right, but I have trouble believing it. Maybe abroad, but not in America surely, except for the truly looney left.

As for a failure, there are very few Americans who still believe that the Iraq misadventure is a success, even a partial one....it is a tragic failure....just read the letters in any of the American newspapers to get a snapshot of the views of regular people.

Guido

All your posts are comments from Americans.

Inspections are producing results. ... The option of inspections has not been taken to the end," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said. "The use of force would be so fraught with risk for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort."

De Villepin called for a meeting March 14 to hear again from the inspectors.

ElBaradei told CNN he would probably need six months to complete inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs. He also said additional inspectors would enable him to freeze certain sites, conduct simultaneous inspections of various sites and monitor imports of certain materials.

He told the council that the inspections can succeed even without complete cooperation from Baghdad -- contradicting what U.S., British and other officials have said. He said Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations and that four Iraqi scientists have been interviewed in private.

but Baghdad has begun to provide more information that could help lead to answers, Blix added.

Dominique de Villepin, foreign minister: "No one today can claim the path of war will be shorter than the path of inspections. No one can claim that it would lead to a safer, more just, more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time? So let us give the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed."

Igor Ivanov, foreign minister: "Must the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors continue their work in Iraq in the interest of a political settlement? Have all the necessary conditions to that end been met? Russia answers yes to that question. The conditions are there. The inspectors must continue their inspections. And this is a position shared by the overwhelming majority of states in the world, including within the Security Council of the United Nations."

Tang Jiaxuan, foreign minister: "The Iraqi issue is at the most critical moment. It is the universal hope of the international community to see a political resolution of this issue within the U.N. framework. ...We urge the Iraqi side to recognize fully the importance and urgency of the instructions and provide more cooperation in a more proactive way. ...The Iraqi side has made some commitments. We request Iraq to make good on those promises as soon as possible."





The fact is that the US/UK and Spain were war mongering. That simple.

Chandra,

The usual apologetic answer to your post above (I am not implicating Guido here) is usually that France, Russia have economic interests in Iraq (as if the US does not). China is taken to be anti-American anyway, so its comments do not count.

However, even though the above logic is an insult to intelligence (no, not american intelligence on the WMD, since it need not be insulted by others), the above explanation does not account for Canada and Mexico, the allies of the US on almost everything, saying "Thanks but no thanks on this one". Why only the US, its my-friend-right-or-wrong Blair, Spain (until the elections kicked Adnar out) and Australia (also a case of my friend-right-or-wrong) until Howard was kicked out too by an electorate irate over the same Iraq blunder.

So the question: what was the clear and imminent danger that forced the US and its so-called allies to call off the inspections? Was Iraq's hand on the non-existent trigger? The commonsensical answer is that six more months of inspections would have proven that there were no WMD's and would have frustrated the architects of the invasion who, knowingly, insisted that they were not just there, but even pointed to the precise locations! So the other commonsensical riposte to this would be: well, if american intelligence officers were do damn sure, why don't they let the inspectors go those exact places BEFORE the disastrous invasion? Well, of course, the answer is, surprise, surprise, then there would have been no pretext for the invasion, nor millions to be made out of it. It is nice to see shades of grey in most situtations, but this seems like such a clear case of weapons of mass deception.

Ruvy:

"Here, you and I agree, Guido. The Iraqis had WMD's and shipped them to Syria about six weeks before the United States invaded the country"

History is made again. I respectfully disagree with Ruvy (as opposed to disrespectfully diagreeing with him).

The Iraqis did NOT ship the WMD's to Syria. They didn't have to since Syria, like Iraq alread has them. The WMD's are right there and the inspectors cannot notice it because it's right there under their noses: SAND. Unconfirmed intelligence reports suggest that they are planning to dump tons of sand on the free world. Much of the free world has no experience of dealing with sand, so they will splutter and sneeze for years, disrupting work and sex life. Israel fortunately does not have to worry since it has plenty of experience with sand. However that does not address the issue of the WMD's or the nukes Israel denies that it has and jailed the person who blew the whistle on it. On that issue, there are no ambiguities about whether Israel does or does not possess WMD's. But given Israel's impeccable and umimpeachable adherence to Gandhian norms of non-violence, nobody should worry.

Guido,

It's funny that you have one quote from Scott Ritter, the strongest critic of the current administration in mis-using intellgence for the rush to the invasion. He was surely the most recognizable talking head on this issue, arguing that Iraq DID NOT possess the WMD's. This was, to be sure, after 1998, when Ritter had finished his work of inspections. Why did you pick a quote light years away from the second invasion? Why not these, from the same person? Was it cherry-picking, like the contradictory intelligence reports or an honest mistake? Note Ritter's role as a weapons inspector ended in 1998. The quotes are from Ritter's book:

""There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)""

""We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)""

""If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)""

""[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[7]""

In the Pitt interview, Ritter also remarked on several examples of members of the Bush or Clinton administration making statements he knew to be misleading or false with regard to Iraqi WMD's


""The United States needed to find a vehicle to continue to contain Saddam because the CIA said all we have to do is wait six months and Saddam is going to collapse on his own volition. That vehicle is sanctions. They needed a justification; the justification was disarmament. They drafted a Chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq and saying in Paragraph 14 that if Iraq complies, sanctions will be lifted. Within months of this resolution being passed--and the United States drafted and voted in favor of this resolution--within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, are saying publicly, not privately, publicly that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

That is proof positive that disarmament was only useful insofar as it contained through the maintenance of sanctions and facilitated regime change. It was never about disarmament, it was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It started with George Herbert Walker Bush, and it was a policy continued through eight years of the Clinton presidency, and then brought us to this current disastrous course of action under the current Bush Administration.[9]""

In March 2007, in Calling Out Idiot America, Ritter posted a quiz on Iraq to be taken by citizens:

If the reader can fully answer the question raised, then he or she qualifies as one capable of pointing an accusatory finger at Congress as its members dither over what to do in Iraq. If the reader fails the quiz, then there should be an honest appraisal of the reality that we are in way over our heads regarding this war, and that it is irresponsible for anyone to make sweeping judgments about the ramifications of policy courses of action yet to be agreed upon. Claiming to be able to divine a solution to a problem improperly defined is not only ignorant but dangerously delusional.

""From January 1993 until my resignation from the United Nations in August 1998, I witnessed first hand the duplicitous Iraq policies of the administration of Bill Clinton, the implementation of which saw a President lie to the American people about a threat he knew was hyped, lie to Congress about his support of a disarmament process his administration wanted nothing to do with, and lie to the world about American intent, which turned its back on the very multilateral embrace of diplomacy as reflected in the resolutions of the Security Council Hillary Clinton so piously refers to in her speech, and instead pursued a policy defined by the unilateral interests of the Clinton administration to remove Saddam Hussein from power.""

(END OF QUOTES)

He may be wrong or right. I do not claim to agree with Ritter. But by posting a quote form him BEFORE the inspections of which he was a part of, is clearly disingenous, even if untintentionally so....

and of course, misplaced patriotism and nationalism are prime targets for manipulation.

Not for nothing is the latest stab at civil liberties called the "Patriot Act". And the committee during the McCarthy era, responsible for finding a commy hiding under each bed and closet was called the committee for investigating "Unamerican activities".

cs:

sand?

wmd was in saddam's pants

pity he could only use it sporadically

which brings us to lame-duck dubya........

;)

CS #74

That was a short sabbatical.

The three sources you cite make "Wikipedia" look staunchly conservative. That's saying allot. To call them liberal rags is a compliment. True they're not in the Huffington Post or KOS category, but all three are dedicated liberal publications and present "news" in a light that promotes their leftist agenda. In my opinion, you're on thin ice using them as a reference.

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was motivated by a desire to identify and fix pre-war intelligence failures. The initial conclusions were generally accepted by both parties. "Phase II" was motivated by the desire to discredit the current administration.

"The report, which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public.

The Committee's Republican majority and Democratic minority agreed on the report's major conclusions and unanimously endorsed its findings. They disagreed, though, on the impact that statements on Iraq by senior members of the Bush administration had on the intelligence process. The second phase of the investigation, addressing the way senior policymakers used the intelligence, was published on May 25, 2007. Portions of the phase II report not released at that time include the review of public statements by U.S. government leaders prior to the war, and the assessment of the activities of Douglas Feith and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

The "Phase II" effort was initiated and maintained by a Democrat controlled congress. Its findings (surprise) support the left's smear Bush agenda...and were endorsed by all the Dems and two blue state Republicans. Another surprise! And surprise number three...the final portion of "phase II" (phase III?) is released during a general election year.

There is a noticeable absence of Iraqi news these days from the mainstream media (surprise #4). Yet there's plenty of news to report if one removes their liberal goggles for a moment:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

The environment in Iraq is improving. The Democrat base is invested in failure and is trying to divert attention away from any improvement. They're attempting to put the GOP on the defensive and get discussion focused on past events (like you and I are debating now) rather than on Iraq's future.


CS #75

The Iraq war will only be a failure if we allow it. The overwhelming majority people who have actually been in Iraq...those you have lost friends and sometimes parts of their bodies, request to return. Think about this profound statement...those you have lost, and who have the most to loose believe in and support the effort.


Chandra #76

Slight correction...there were 49 countries supporting the coalition effort. Some with as few as two people, some with more than a 1000:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

How can I argue your keen intellect and insightful wisdom? And I must now confess that since I spent 2 years as a Marine and 20 in the USAF...and was on active duty during both invasions...I also am forced to join this war mongering list.


CS #77

"So the question: what was the clear and imminent danger that forced the US and its so-called allies to call off the inspections? Was Iraq's hand on the non-existent trigger? The commonsensical answer is that six more months of inspections would have proven that there were no WMD's and would have frustrated the architects of the invasion who, knowingly, insisted that they were not just there, but even pointed to the precise locations!"

This fits right in with the conspiracy theory.

Yes CS, the administration new there weren't weapons of mass destruction, so they kept Saddam on the hook for over ten years, then when they noticed the UN inspectors getting to close to the truth...BAM! They went to war. That's meshes nicely with the war mongering posit.


CS #79

You pull one quote out of thirty-one and then claim I'm cherry-picking and being disingenuous. Or to be more accurate: "...is clearly disingenous, even if untintentionally so...." I'm unintentionally disingenuous. Is that like accidentally on purpose?

The premise of my post is clear and unchanged...nearly everyone involved in the process thought Saddam possessed WMD. Whether that individual believed it in 1998, 2003, or anytime in between is irrelevant. Go back and read post # 56.


CS #80

"and of course, misplaced patriotism and nationalism are prime targets for manipulation.

Not for nothing is the latest stab at civil liberties called the "Patriot Act". And the committee during the McCarthy era, responsible for finding a commy hiding under each bed and closet was called the committee for investigating "Unamerican activities"."

We're talking about WMD CS...try to stay focused.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""That was a short sabbatical.""

Yes indeed!

AND:

Guido:

""The three sources you cite make "Wikipedia" look staunchly conservative. That's saying allot. To call them liberal rags is a compliment. True they're not in the Huffington Post or KOS category, but all three are dedicated liberal publications and present "news" in a light that promotes their leftist agenda. In my opinion, you're on thin ice using them as a reference"""

This, for the Washington Post, New York Times, and the International Herald Tribune. I get your drift and the perspective you come from. As in, I am, to borrow somebody else's words on DC, not particularly interested in engaging pointless drivel, (unless it comes to Ruvy.) I'd used the term "liberal rag" sarcastically, and Guido apparently thinks this paying too much respect to the NYT and Washington Post!

For others who might be reading this: the New York Times and the Washington Post are REPORTING on and providing a SUMMARY of the final report, of the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE that was set up, after much kicking and streaming, by the current administration itself. The senate committee is promoting a leftist agenda?

Thanks Guido! You are certainly one of those innocents abroad who constantly scratches his head and wonders "why do they hate us so, after all the unrelenting good we keep doing for this world"?""

Nothing more to be said to you.

Ciao,

CS

And yes, this was really a shorter "nothing more to be said to you"! These issues have been discussed ad nauseum in the media, books etc. Most people with average intelligence have a pretty good grasp of what led to the disaster that is now Iraq. And they do have some sense of the enormous amount of money being minted by interested parties (war profiteering it's called!), and the enormous destablization of the middle-east, not to mention the loss of lives etc. etc. To re-hash these arguments with you is pure masochism on my part, albeit a bit painful sans the pleasure.

However (there's always a however)

However, ""fact check"":

Guido:

""The premise of my post is clear and unchanged...nearly everyone involved in the process thought Saddam possessed WMD. Whether that individual believed it in 1998, 2003, or anytime in between is irrelevant.""

1. Absurd, since 1998 is a KEY, not an irrelevant date! 1998 is when the multinational team of weapons inspectors completed their inspection. Scott Ritter was part of this team. What he wrote in 1998 refers to his judgement during the inspection he carried out. Since you quote him, I brougt up quote from his book where he clearly says: YES, there were WMD's, but in 1998 there weren't any left, due to the inspections. So, 1998 is not irrelevant.

2. ""This fits right in with the conspiracy theory""

Conspiracy theory is another of those slogans, like the "loony left"! After what we know now of the working of this administration, with or without Rove, Wolfowitz and Perle, it is heartening to know that there is at least one American like Guido who believes that they never conspired to anything at all....apparently they just sat back and took care of things, as the events unfolded, without doing anything whatsoever on their part. Apparently the "key" speech that Colin Powell made to the UN, with doctored images that in any case were not what they were purported to be, was all an honest mistake on the part of the administration. The same with the prez's speech about tubes and some yellow material bought from africa. All these things simply happened, without any intentions without any thought!

Conspiracy theory: when the outcome of an event is explained by the original intentions.

The invasion of Iraq is not a conspiracy theory because the outcomes, as they were expected are not at all panning out (ie. Iraq as a beacon of secular democracy, its oil paying for its own re-builiding, Iran kept at bay etc. etc.) has not panned out.

Conspiracies do happen (only an imbecile would imagine that they don't). But "conspiracy theories" are different keetle of fish from "conspiracy". But, I waste my time on you my friend Guido.

So I end my quote from another great American, who was yet another victim of the lunatic left, no doubt about it! (talking of conspiracy theories!)

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
~ Mark Twain


""Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.""
- Mark Twain,

Good luck with living in your own govt. sponsored fantasy world.

Ciao.

CS

Guido:

""The Iraq war will only be a failure if we allow it. The overwhelming majority people who have actually been in Iraq...those you have lost friends and sometimes parts of their bodies, request to return. Think about this profound statement...those you have lost, and who have the most to loose believe in and support the effort.""

Amen! Anyone remember Vietnam and the never ending promises of that light at the end of the tunnel? History, as the cliche goes....

Guido,

At least you have a good sense of humour! As in below:

""Chandra #76

Slight correction...there were 49 countries supporting the coalition effort. Some with as few as two people, some with more than a 1000:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary""

And you appreciate the words of Mark Twain, although a member of the looney left he was.

Guido:

""CS #71

Thanks for making my point CS. Everyone you quoted believed there was WMD. Let me add a few more:""

You missed the point completely. All of those quoted firmly BELIEVED in WMD's and they were WRONG.

Why must you believe their assertions now?? As in what "credibility" do these folks have now? A rhetorical question, so please don't inflict more quotes from politicians, whose job and game it is, to "play politics".

sharma-winter,

no comment??

CS #83,

For the record, subject report is a congressional product (not from the administration) conceived, initiated and maintained by the senate...hence the name. The particular report from that group up for debate was initially requested and published by the Vice Chairman. But don't take my word:

"Today's reports are the culmination of efforts that began in March 2003, when, as Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller initially requested an investigation into the origin of the fraudulent Niger documents. In June 2003, he was joined by all Democrats on the Committee in pushing for a full investigation into prewar intelligence, which was eventually expanded by the Committee in February 2004 to include the five phase II tasks."

http://intelligence.senate.gov/

Nope! No partisan politics here.

As for the aforementioned "liberal rags":

"The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

"A Rasmussen Reports survey on perceptions of media bias found that Americans tend to believe that the New York Times, Washington Post, and their local newspaper all show a bias in favor of liberals."

Source "Rasmussen reports"

As of 2007, the IHT [International Harold Tribune] is completely owned by The New York Times Company, after that firm purchased the 50% stake owned by the Washington Post Company on December 30, 2002. The takeover ended a 35-year partnership between the two domestic competitors. The Post was forced to sell when the Times threatened to pull out and start a competing paper."

Source "Wikipedia"

And now this:

"You are certainly one of those innocents abroad who constantly scratches his head and wonders "why do they hate us so, after all the unrelenting good we keep doing for this world"?""

and

"...it is heartening to know that there is at least one American like Guido who believes that they never conspired to anything at all...."

and

"Conspiracies do happen (only an imbecile would imagine that they don't). But "conspiracy theories" are different keetle of fish from "conspiracy". But, I waste my time on you my friend Guido"

and

"Good luck with living in your own govt. sponsored fantasy world."

I thought we were going to respect the ROE CS. Or should I lump these little gems in the same category as:

"Nothing more to be said to you."

And

"I really am taking a break for a few weeks, so will be unable to repond!!"

Ciao, Guido

ciao

The Iraqis did NOT ship the WMD's to Syria. They didn't have to since Syria, like Iraq already has them. The WMD's are right there and the inspectors cannot notice it because it's right there under their noses: SAND.

Commonsense, your comment would be funny, if it weren't so tragic. Thousands will die because of the rockets and missiles filled with poison chemicals that the Iraqis shipped to the Beka'a in early 2003.

Thousands more will die because of the thousands of missiles shipped to Syria and south Lebanon by Iran.

To put it bluntly, the threat is great enough that Israel has every reason to pre-emptively strike Iran and Syria with its nukes, and to bomb south Lebanon back to the Stone Age. And if I were sitting in the prime minister's office, that would have happened already.

Then you, and the rest of you righteous foreigners could scream genocide - you would be right. And, having saved our (and your) asses once again, like we did in 1981, we wouldn't have to give a damn.

Ruvy,

Ciao.

Ruvy:

""To put it bluntly, the threat is great enough that Israel has every reason to pre-emptively strike Iran and Syria with its nukes, and to bomb south Lebanon back to the Stone Age. And if I were sitting in the prime minister's office, that would have happened already.""

I'm afraid, but with all undue respect, I have no choice but to renege on my promise of voting for you in the next general erections (or was it elections? help me with the spelling) in Israel. Maybe it's just me, but micro-waving humans, even Arabs could ruin my entire first half of the afternoon.

""Then you, and the rest of you righteous foreigners could scream genocide""

Have you rec'd your Israel citizenship yet? Seven years there right? via Brooklyn, Burger King, Ukraine etc. I guess you are no longer a righeous fake Israel, but a garden variety fake Israeli right?

Keeping a tally here:

We have:

1. Guido, who urges us to keep the faith by reading some blogspot on Iraq rather than the New York Times, Washington Post etc. if we need to know about the "successes" in Iraq.

2. Ruvy, the ex-burger king manager, who would not hesitate to use nukes in a so-called ""pre-emptive"" strikes. Meanwhile he has his M16 (and who knows what else) well-oiled and is ready to kill whenever he interacts with non-Jews (his words, paraphrased, but ever-so-slightly!)

3. Waiting for other worthy citizens of the brand new nation called Absurdistan.

[Attention seeking drivel edited]

Editors, I admit I baited Ruvy and he fell for it. However, is there a comment policy for such kinds of genocidal threats, especially the last sentence, as appended below? I am not saying there should be...just wondering though.

Ruvy:

""To put it bluntly, the threat is great enough that Israel has every reason to pre-emptively strike Iran and Syria with its nukes, and to bomb south Lebanon back to the Stone Age. And if I were sitting in the prime minister's office, that would have happened already.""

Good morning CS.

"Guido, who urges us to keep the faith by reading some blogspot on Iraq rather than the New York Times, Washington Post etc. if we need to know about the "successes" in Iraq."

Concur!

Did you read any of the articles? "Iraq the Model" is maintained and written by Iraqis in Iraq. What a concept? Reading news from people who actually live there. The other site is run by a small group of young former US combat vets (Iraq and Afghanistan), who got sick of the one-sided stories generated by the msm and have imbedded themselves with their former colleagues. All of them risk their lives daily.

No information source is without bias; perceived, intended, or otherwise. The authors of these websites want to win. They want to defeat the insurgents and terrorist. They want peace and stability more than anyone...possibly more than you, I, or any syndicated publication. They have the most to lose. With so much at stake, you would expect them to produce propaganda vice objective reporting. However, I have found their reports much more informative and less opinionated than anything produced by the msm. I challenge you to read some of the essays contained at these sites with a critical (but unbiased) eye and then form your opinions.

I have presented evidence reflecting the obvious liberal bias of the NYT, IHT, and WP. You have offered nothing to the contrary, other than to attack me.

If you wish to engage in debate, then do so without accusations and false characterizations. However, if your looking for a name-calling contest (keep tally) then take-up your cause with someone likeminded who'll engage you in that forum.

Ciao, Guido

Guido:

""If you wish to engage in debate, then do so without accusations and false characterizations""

I will cease and desist.

""I have presented evidence reflecting the obvious liberal bias of the NYT, IHT, and WP. You have offered nothing to the contrary, other than to attack me""

My point in sarcastically referring to NYT, WP, IHT as "liberal rags" was really to question such labels. I couldn't care less whether newspapers have a liberal or arch-conservative bias. We, I assume, can read between the lines and make up our own minds.

RE: your point about the Senate Intelligence Committee, not being part of "the administration", I agree with you. I should not have characterized it as such.

However (there is always a however!), despite all the problems that all states have, not just America, I for once do trust the system of checks and balances that are present in the American system. Instead of questioning the motives of the senate intelligence committee members (ie. they are democrats, they want the prez to fail, they are playing politics etc), I welcome their shedding light on issues that are at variance with the official line. Despite all the failures and shennanigans, these institutional checks and balances are important. Otherwise politics becomes ONLY about "cheques and balances" in the FINANCIAL rather than in the political sense it was meant to be! One way of being ""patriotic"" is to welcome these checks and balances, rather than seeing them as irritating hindrances to an imperial "stay the course", "Ï cannot ever be wrong" imperial presidency. Just commonsense, I should think.

Guido:

""No information source is without bias; perceived, intended, or otherwise.""

I totally agree! But the reports I was referring to in NYT, WP and IHT, were NOT editorials. They were reporting on the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I really don't have a problem with a liberal, lefists, rightists, conservative bias! Indeed it's best to get reports from as many "biased" sources as possible.


""The authors of these websites want to win. They want to defeat the insurgents and terrorist.""

I looked at them; unfortunately what they are presenting is a wishlist of wishful thinking. I am not sure what exactly they mean by "win". This is an unwinnable situation. I will not call it "war" because it is an invasion and occupation, not a war. The Iraqi government is not peopled with fools. They know what they are doing. The Iranians are taking full advantage of it too. The whole country is in a mess in every sense of the term - human, infrastructure, religous fundamentalism etc. etc. Against this backdrop, it's nice to know that some embedded bloggers can see something positive. The expression "head in the sand" comes to mind. Nobody in the current administration, despite it's constant repetition of the mantra, really believes that one day they will be able to, to use your words "defeat the insurgents and terrorists." Just re-read the history of Vietnam, the Algerian war etc. to understand what I mean. If these, possibly well-meaning reporters for the blog really believe that regular Iraqis will just roll over and one day everything will be just fine....well, they really are kidding themselves. As in Vietnam, the promised turnaround was always just around the corner. Key issues such as nationalism, sovereignity, people's pride in their own nation, öccupation etc. etc. are of course always forgotten in cold-hearted calculations of how much force is required to subdue how many bodies of insurgents and terrorists. The real world of passions, emotions, calculations, rationnality etc. does not work like this. There is no shortage of example from history. A tiny country like Vietnam prevailed in the end, not because it rec'd help from the "other side" in the cold war, but because the focus of the Amricans was entirely on rational calculation (how much fire-power we have versus them) ignoring completely the human factors. Robots never fight wars, regardless of which side you root for. Humans do. Banal commonsense, but this point needs to be reiterated, especially for any side that supports occupation or invasion and then is surprised when the occupied/invadees are not grateful, not welcoming the occupiers with garlands and exotic home made sweets. Just commonsense, but I repeat myself!

Now that I know which perspective you are coming from, and I say this with all respect, without a trace of sarcasm, I do feel it is best not to continue this conversation. We are talking past each other.

Ciao.

No response required:

Ruvy:

""To put it bluntly, the threat is great enough that Israel has every reason to pre-emptively strike Iran and Syria with its nukes, and to bomb south Lebanon back to the Stone Age. And if I were sitting in the prime minister's office, that would have happened already.

Then you, and the rest of you righteous foreigners could scream genocide - you would be right. And, having saved our (and your) asses once again, like we did in 1981, we wouldn't have to give a damn.""

Editors, I admit I baited Ruvy

So when the hell are you "objective" editors going to delete the reams and reams of baiting from the virtual pen of "commonsense"? Or is that beyond the ken of "desi" culture?

Ruvy: A statement about "desi culture" extrapolated from editorial policies? Wow, never thought I would see such a wild leap in logic from a commentator I've always thought to be a rational one.

It is sad that adults would need supervision during a discussion with people they have never met and don't have anything against.

A discourse is one of the most basic forms of human interaction and if people lack the civility or basic responsibility to keep it going in a peaceful and respectful manner, the editors are not to be blamed (we are not sniff dogs) and most certainly not the culture (!).

My first question stands unanswered Aditi. I'm used to a certain level of objectivity in editing policies - this is a daughter site of Blogcritics, and that is what is found there. What I see here is anything but. I'm sorry if I get disgusted, but I can only call it as I see it.

And bear in mind, I asked questions - I did not make assertions.

Now if I'm wrong about desi culture, I'd like to see evidence. If I see evidence that contradicts my words, that fairness and objectivity are well within the ken of desi culture, I'll be glad to apologize. At the moment, looking over this comment column and others, I see no such evidence.

To begin with, if the comments policy forbids "baiting" and if someone openly admits to doing so, then that person's comments should be looked at closely - because that person is spitting you and your standards in the face.

The ball is in your court, madame.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

huh? i don't see a word about "baiting" in the comments policy. must be going blind...

as for "personal attacks", plenty of blame to be shared...those living in glass houses....

Aditi:

""Wow, never thought I would see such a wild leap in logic from a commentator I've always thought to be a rational one.""

Wow! On my part, I'm still waiting to see some rationality emanating from the keyboard of my friend Ruvy.

Some quotes from him, taken from BC (editors feel free to delete if this is irrelevant to the discussion of rationality - not that my permission is needed):

Ruvy: (19 June 2007)

"THE ARABS HAVE WANTED WAR FOR ALL THIS TIME! LET THEM HAVE THEIR WISH! LET THEM DIE, EXTERMINATED AS THEY DESIRE US TO BE; LET THEM STARVE AND FLEE AND BEG, AS THEY WOULD HAVE US DO! IF THERE MUST BE A BLOODBATH, LET THERE BE A BLOODBATH. BUT LET'S BE RID OF THE BASTARDS - FROM THE LIBYAN DESERT TO THE PERSIAN GULF.

If the stinking camel fuckers want peace,. let them bend over and make the concessions, let them come on their hands and knees and beg!

Then we can think about reconciliation."

Ruvy: (19 June 2007, in response to somebody quoting a prophecy from Isaiah):

""In either event, the prophecy you quote from Isaiah WILL occur - only after a bloodbath and purification.""


Ruvy: (June 18, 2007):

""Peace, Liam? Peace is bullshit. At least the peace you keep talking about. No, we do not need peace at all. We need victory. The Arabs have to suffer so badly from war that they will beg for peace. If they don't beg for peace - well, then they will have made their own beds: and they'll die in them.""

And now, the official BC comment policy:

""we reserve the right to edit/delete comments that are some combination of pointlessly vulgar, vile, cruel, without redeeming qualities, and an embarrassment to the site.""

I submit that Ruvy's comments (on BC) do make me wonder if they contain any redeeming qualities. They also make me sad and despondent, but that's just me I guess.

here is the link from where i got the quotes. just in case anybody suspects i have edited them. i am embarrassed to be a human when i come across such views....

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/18/171624.php

CS

The simple fact is that Ruvy is a racist guy. His last comment about desis confirms what he has been thinking all along.

Guido

It does not matter how many years you worked as a Marine or wherever, the comments I posted are from a UN debate before the unilateral American invasion. I support the Invasion but WMD being the reason for the invasion is bull shit. If WMD was such a big issue you guys should be invading Pakistan. They are the biggest proliferators, islamic, unstable and source of most terrorist activities on this planet.

huh? i don't see a word about "baiting" in the comments policy. must be going blind....

You are right, CS. The comments policy as written does not forbid "baiting" My words in comment 103 ought to have read, "To begin with, if the comments policy as enforced at this site forbids 'baiting' and if someone openly admits to doing so, then that person's comments should be looked at closely - because that person is spitting you and your standards in the face."

My questions still remain unanswered.

Chandra:

""The simple fact is that Ruvy is a racist guy. His last comment about desis confirms what he has been thinking all along."""

And not surprisingly, coloured with the attitude of a colonialist, since both attitudes usually come in tandem, and since he literally happens to be a colonialist settler:: editing our english, issuing instructions to editors, exploding in an irrational tantrum when his minor inrrational comments make people either laugh or sad etc. etc. etc. His default attitude is looking down at desis; makes one wonder why he hangs around here so much.

Ruvy:

""Or is that beyond the ken of "desi" culture?"

Ken said and did nothing. Besides, he is not even one of the editor. Not to mention that he is not even desi. Please refrain from dragging him into this mess.

CS #99

1. "I looked at them [Iraq bloggers]; unfortunately what they are presenting is a wishlist of wishful thinking. I am not sure what exactly they mean by "win". This is an unwinnable situation."

And your qualifications to make such statements are?

Perhaps, just perhaps the people actually on the ground are in a better position to make such assertions. Maybe they possess a more realistic view of events, i.e. they live there. It is quite possible they believe their own eyes vise foreign "news" to evaluate the situation and their chances for success.

The reason "The Long War Journal" exist, is because vets returned to Afghanistan and Iraq and put themselves back in harms way, due to the distorted stories feeding the US and world from the aforementioned "news" sources. These men could be back in the US with their families living comfortably, but instead are enduring hardships, begging for money, and risking their lives for something bigger than themselves.

But you dismiss their reporting as "wishful thinking" and base your personal opinion on information from what? The NYT, IHT, WP? Banal commonsense?


2. "I am not sure what exactly they mean by "win"."

All the things that you and I enjoy and something generations of Iraqis have never known, but are just beginning to understand.

Iraqi Bill of Rights:

"20. a. Freedom of religion, belief, and performance of religious rites are guaranteed in accordance with the law.
b. The state shall provide for the defense of the Iraqi citizen from intellectual, political, and religious compulsion.
[Elsewhere in this document, I have translated similar phrasing as "Iraqi citizens" rather than the more literal but stilted English phrase "The Iraqi citizen." I have not done so here in order to make clear that the draft bill of rights here places the freedoms on an individual basis, not on a communal basis as is frequently done in other constitutions in the region.]
c. Postal, electronic, telegraphic, and telephonic messages are protected. Inspecting them and placing them under surveillance is forbidden except for legal necessity and defense of security in accordance with law.
d. Compulsory service (the corvee), slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, or any work that is imposed on the Iraq citizen not in accordance with the provisions of the constitution or the law are forbidden.

21. Freedom of opinion, expression, organization, publishing, printing, the press, media, advertising, meetings, peaceful demonstration, and parties is guaranteed in accordance with the law and insofar as public security and morals are not harmed.
[The words "organization" and "parties" are written in by hand. Article 26 seems to overlap with Article 21.]

22. The idea of the dissolved Ba'th party and all thought based on racism, sectarianism, accusations of apostasy, and terrorism are forbidden and are not permitted to be a part of political pluralism in the state. [The term "accusations of apostasy" (takfir) refers to a trend among some radical Sunni groups to declare self-proclaimed Muslims as apostates if they reject certain doctrines. Historically accusations of apostasy are fairly rare in Muslim societies.]

23. In addition to the rights stipulated in this constitution Iraqi citizens enjoy the rights stipulated in international treaties, agreements, and international legal documents that Iraq has signed or joined or that are considered binding according to the provisions of international law, so long as these do not contradict Islam. [The provision on international human rights instruments is very strong. The only qualification has to do with the Islam. Notably, this draft refers simply to "Islam" rather than "Islamic law." Nowhere in this bill of rights is any guidance given for authoritative determination of what constitutes Islam; if such guidance is given (and it may not be) it would have to be in other sections of the constitution.]

24. The state shall provide for the care of relatives of martyrs, prisoners, politicians, and those harmed by the practices of the fallen regime. This shall be organized by law.

25. Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security, education in all its stages, health care, and social insurance. The Iraqi state and its governmental units including he regions, provinces, municipalities, and local authorities shall ensure these rights within the limits of their resources, taking into consideration that the state shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities for all members of the Iraqi people.

26. Freedom of the press, printing, publishing, media, and advertising are guaranteed and the law regulates the exercise of these freedoms.

27. There shall be no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, media, and advertising except by law."



3. "I will not call it "war" because it is an invasion and occupation, not a war."

It is a war...preceded by invasion (the second) and initial occupation. The invasion is long past as is the occupation. The US would leave tomorrow if the Iraqi government so wished.

I'm happy to discuss military terminology ad nauseum.


4. "The Iraqi government is not peopled with fools. They know what they are doing."

Concur...they are not fools. By reading your definitive statements, you seem to be the expert on Iraq. So what are they doing?


5. "The Iranians are taking full advantage of it too."

They're making their intentions known, but I doubt anyone is surprised. The last thing they want is a US ally on their border...especially a democratic one.


6. "The whole country is in a mess in every sense of the term - human, infrastructure, religous fundamentalism etc. etc. Against this backdrop, it's nice to know that some embedded bloggers can see something positive. The expression "head in the sand" comes to mind."

That little thing called war (or whatever you choose to name it) has a tendency to foul up things and rebuilding takes time. Especially when some very bad actors are blowing you up in the reconstruction effort. However, there has been tremendous progress despite the unbelievable odds. But you won't find these stories in the msm. Why do you suppose that is? Because they have a better sense of the environment 5000 miles away than those bloggers with and their buried craniums? Or maybe the msm follows events and chooses not to report them; or shoves the stories back to page nine next to the "Eat Healthy" article. But they wouldn't do that, because they're only liberally biased in their editorial section.

Who's got their "head in sand"?


7. "Nobody in the current administration, despite it's constant repetition of the mantra, really believes that one day they will be able to, to use your words "defeat the insurgents and terrorists.""

I'm happy you can speak for the administration.


8. "Just re-read the history of Vietnam, the Algerian war etc. to understand what I mean. If these, possibly well-meaning reporters for the blog really believe that regular Iraqis will just roll over and one day everything will be just fine....well, they really are kidding themselves."

"...Iraqis will just roll over". What? Are you referring to the Iraqi insurgents or foreign terrorist? I'll assume you're implying both. Who (besides you) said they would roll over and things would be fine? I missed that. Please provide the quote and link.

9. "As in Vietnam, the promised turnaround was always just around the corner. Key issues such as nationalism, sovereignity, people's pride in their own nation, öccupation etc. etc. are of course always forgotten in cold-hearted calculations of how much force is required to subdue how many bodies of insurgents and terrorists. The real world of passions, emotions, calculations, rationnality etc. does not work like this. There is no shortage of example from history.'

I'll assume you're presenting Vietnam as an illustration that an insurgency can't be defeated by brute force, but must include hearts and minds. And that failure in Vietnam equals failure in Iraq.

I'll keep this short because it can tangent.

First and foremost, I am no expert on counter-insurgency. But I do know that the vast majority of American military pre 9/11 was invested in meeting the conventional threat. In fact, applying our conventional forces against like forces proved our investment in that strategy. No time in past history (with the possible exception of the Israeli Six Day War) has an opposing force been so thoroughly dominated on the battlefield. I'm referring to the initial phases of the first and second Iraq wars.

But you may be correct concerning the US transition from conventional to asymmetrical warfare. It appears that our manning, equipment, and tactics (to include hearts and minds) were not up to the task, and therefore some of the Vietnam lessons lost.

Another mistake we seem doom to commit is support...or lack thereof. We know 33 years after the fact, how critical domestic opposition to the Vietnam War was to the success of our enemies. The following is an excerpt from Mr. Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's Army:

"Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us." http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm

It's not the anti-war opposition that undermines efforts in Iraq...it's the anti-win crowd. Unfortunately as we now know, they're one in the same. Motives are irrelevant because their actions serve the enemy and jeopardize our troops and the mission. You cannot say I support the troops, then turn around and demand withdrawal. The latter contradicts the former.


10. "A tiny country like Vietnam prevailed in the end, not because it rec'd help from the "other side" in the cold war, but because the focus of the Amricans was entirely on rational calculation (how much fire-power we have versus them) ignoring completely the human factors."

The former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea supplied Vietnam with millions of dollars worth of material, technical training, and manpower. Furthermore, Vietnam had a large standing conventional army (and still does) when they declared victory in 1975. Finally, there are a multitude of mitigating factors contributing to the US defeat in the Second Indo-China war. Your statement is over-simplified and erroneous.


11. "Robots never fight wars, regardless of which side you root for. Humans do. Banal commonsense, but this point needs to be reiterated, especially for any side that supports occupation or invasion and then is surprised when the occupied/invadees are not grateful, not welcoming the occupiers with garlands and exotic home made sweets. Just commonsense, but I repeat myself!"

I don't know where to start with this one. I'll just let it stand on its own merit.


12. "Now that I know which perspective you are coming from, and I say this with all respect, without a trace of sarcasm, I do feel it is best not to continue this conversation. We are talking past each other."

Concur. Although, if recent history is any indication...

Ciao, Guido

Guido,

I acknowledge your long post as a prime example of what I mean by "wishful thinking" .

Other than that, believe it or not, I have no more brilliant and earth-shattering insights to offer you.

Ciao

BS (Banal Sense / Bullshit)

Temporal,

You asked for the link on the thread you'd started which is now closed.

I put the links in my comment # 106 above. But, here it is again:

""here is the link from where i got the quotes. just in case anybody suspects i have edited them. i am embarrassed to be a human when i come across such views....

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/06/18/171624.php""

still shaking my head in disbelief; but, such is life!

Aaman, while closing the thread wrote "no agreement has been reached". Fair enough. [EDITED]

[EDITED]

[EDITED]

Is it possible to practice forbearance? Incase people want to carry on the discussion which was ongoing on the closed thread please make it private.

Deepti,

I sent an e-mail concerning the edited comment. Let it stand that what is in the e-mail is sufficient explanation. I have no desire to communicate further with the named individuals in the edited comment. There is a limit to forbearance that has been passed when defamation or slander is written on a public forum. At that point, one communicates through attorneys.

I'll say no more on the matter.

Amen! Although won't wait with bated breath...

yeh sab tel ka khel hai (to be crude about it, "it's the crude, dude"); plus of course other stuff:

NYT June 18, 2008 (news, not editorial)

""BAGHDAD -- Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

A Peculiar Deal for Some of Iraq's Oil
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company -- along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India.""

sexing up disasters indeed:

NYT, 18 June 2008

""There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry.

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.""

CS

You deserve a special reward for ridding us of the fundamentalist Mr. Reuven. Hopefully he will find the blogs of Afghanistan and their Afridis more welcoming to his rhetoric. Apparently Shahid Afridi is a long lost fellow from Israel and will now relocate to Israel to Captain the cricket team there.

Chandra,

Thanks. I did not see your message until now.

But really, it had nothing to do with me. I just think that in the end, commonsense prevailed ;)

Re: true patriots (ie. hardly the enemies of the nation) so to speak are distressed about the sexing up of disasters. A letter in today's NYT, from a retired senior officer:

""Restoring the draft will have another beneficial effect. Never again would Congress and the American people permit a president to use the military on an unprovoked foolhardy venture to invade and occupy a foreign country under false pretenses while squandering the national treasure.

James F. Brodie Jr.

Burlington, Vt., June 23, 2008

The writer is a retired senior military officer who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War and on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.""