Iraqis still ask if U.S. invasion was worth it

[wmrs2]

Great acknowledgment of the way things are Terry Pratchett. I wish everybody could see what you seel The whole debate reminds me of this passage. I think Terry captured the problem rather well:

you can't drive out one dictator and force people you never met to lead themselves. I think the envasion should never have happened, but since it has, you can't retreat now. Too late...

Now that things are the way they are, we have to deal with it from what we know about today. I think all respondents on this thread have correctly identified the mistakes America has made in the War. Isn't hindsight great? Now, we must try hard to not repeat the mistakes we have collectively pointed out.

It would have been super if President Bush had handled the invasion better by not dismantling the army of Iraq but rather having kept them together to help bring stability to the country. It would would have been better than starting from scratch in building a new army. Having failed to do this, it would have been better to have brought more soldiers to keep the peace strong in Iraq until the civilian population could recover. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

It took us too long to realize that the surge was necessary. I hope every citizen wants the surge to work. But, there is that group of citizens who seek political advantage by seeing our national interest fail in Iraq. That may have something to do with why the House in Congress refuses to vote on legislation related to the war effort. If the war was to wind down in Iraq because Al Queada was being pushed out of Iraq, it would hurt a lot of politicians' arguments.

Right or wrong, regardless of the mistakes we have made, it is costing us too much money to continue the war. However, we can not afford to pull out and leave Iraq to Al Queada or the Iranians, both of whom have said they would fill the vacuum with the departure of the Americans. I like what Obama said on NBC News that if Al Queada established a stronghold in Iraq that he would send the troops back in, if he were President.

There may not be a perfect option, but would it not be less expensive in the long run to pull together and make sure the job is done quickly and completely. Our enemies know no borders and to defeat them, we have to go where they are or else they will come to us. Our country can't just say we stop the war because it is too expensive. The enemy will not stop killing us regardless. Although we know that the enemy has a fall back tactic, which is to ruin our economy. This is another good reason to act quickly and decisively.

One more thing, without meaning insult to anybody, I do think it less than patriotic to use the war as an avenue to gain political advantage. When Al Queada kills our citizens around the world and in Iraq, they do not ask if you are a Democrat or Republican. They simply want to kill Americans. We need so badly to have a united effort against our enemies so much that Al Queada is not a cheerleader for whomever wins the election.

[mkemse]

When ever ANY President goes to War be they a Democrat or a Republican you must have an end plan, how do you pla nto end the War, NOT when but how

If anyone goes back to the time when GWB went on TV and annouced his plans for his shock and Awe bombing atthe beginnig ofthe Invaion, he said he pplans were to go into Iraq, get the job done and be out in 90 days, then 4 year ltaer he says "We misjudged our enemaies"
Well Mr. Bush, when you go inot ANY WAR you can't misjudge you enemay, you must know at all time who you are fighiting, why you are fighting them and how many of you enemay you are fighiting against, THIS WAS NEVErR DONE
When peole say he mis maganged thewar, they are saying,you went in, dropped bombs, had no lcue who you enemy was beyond Hussien, then say we misjudhed the enemey, the number in the enemy had ect
You have to have some calculated idea how many peole you are going to be figihitng against, their basic location, what there steengths are, weakenss are and plan that way and not just go in to complete a job the maybe Bush Sr. never dd but to go into ANY War with only a plan to invade and nothing else is like going Chrismtas shopping ghen half way throughthey day saying, "Gee we neevr planned or decided on how much money to spend on gifts"
If you go to War go in with a PLan or do not go in
The War currently costs the United States $1.2 Billlion Dollars a month that is ore then all our other war combines as I understand it, we have lost over 4,200 Men/Women and children
Al Quida will KILL anyone who does not believe in their distored views of the Koran, and even Muslim Clerks in this country has said that the Koran expresedly Forbids and Prohibits killing of anyone, in anyway for anyreason so the Terrorists rational of the Koran holds no water and theur view in interpret their own Religious Holy Book in a very distored way
Be you Canandian, American, Russian, Chinese, Viet Namese, Italian ect ect, if you do not believe what and supportwhat the Terrorists believe in, you are a Target for them
They Kill woh they kill simply because the have no respect for humanity, and because other do not agreee with their views on Islam
If we never Invaded Iraq, who si to say that Al Quida would ahve even go there, they were not their til we invaded, and if they were, they were in small numbers and hidingso well ,their precense would have made no difference
No the amswer is not to pull together to getthe job done not at $1.2 Billlion US Dollars everything 30 days, when we have Amercians who have no medical insurence, can'tafford gas, are loosing their homes to forclusre, that $1.2 milloin couuld go to help them
The smartest thing GWB could have done was not go into Iraq, unles he has undiniable proof and evidence that WMD's exsisted, people outside his admistration that would in fact veryify they really did exist, and show picutres of the WMD not pictures of where they MAY BE STORED but the actualy WMD's, and certainly not have lanaded on an Air Craft Carrier 3 years ago, jump out of a fighter jet in a Flight Suit, with a huge Banner acrsoo the site ofthe Air Craft Carrier that reads "Mission Accomplished" if it fact it was accomplished why are we still there, if it was NOT accompished then the President lied to the American People, very clear cut, we either didi our joband came home or did not do our job but are advertizing we did

if they could offer ground photos whic they did of the alleged storable places of WMD's why not go in andsee if they exisit
If a crime is committted, and the Police investigate it, they will never ever arrest anyone til the have enough evidence that a particular persaon commmited the crime evidence that shows the person did commmit it and not just "We though th e didso we arrested him" that rarely happens in this country so why should it happen in Iraq
A Disrect Attorney will not charge ayone with a crime til the evidenc the have is so over whelmng there is no wat that person did not commit the crime, why did GWB nottakethe same approach and tell histeam of Security Experts ect "I will aprroive the Invasion of Iraq, but before I do i want Indeputable evidencethat WMS' do exist, indepsutable evdience the Al Quida is hiding in Iraq and if this evidencecan not be presented, we do not invade and they say Ohsorry or info ou intellience was faulty, oyu makesure it is not faulty before you go in not after you are in

[mkemse]

Monday, March 10, 2008

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.

The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

It was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.

The issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.

"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."

[B]Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups [/B]such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.According to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism for 2002 — the last before the Iraq invasion — Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.

Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, although the Abu Nidal Organization was more active when he lived in Libya and he was murdered in Baghdad in August 2002, possibly on Saddam's orders.

An earlier study based on the captured Iraqi documents, released by the Joint Forces Command in March 2006, found that a militia Saddam formed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the Fedayeen Saddam, planned assassinations and bombings against his enemies. Those included Iraqi exiles and opponents in Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite communities.

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq. What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown, however, according to the earlier study.

The new Pentagon study isn't the first to refute earlier administration contentions about Saddam and al Qaida.

A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."

The Senate report, citing an FBI debriefing of a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi, said that Saddam turned down a request for assistance by bin Laden which he made at a 1995 meeting in Sudan with an Iraqi operative

[John56{vg}]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

[mkemse]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

Chenney going to the Mid East to negotiate for lower Oil Prices is like Eliot Spitzer going to the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas

[wmrs2]

A report that shows we were lied into the war came out from the Pentagon today. But, because Bush intervened and called the Pentagon, the report will not be distributed as originally planned, to reporters and the public.

Bush is now playing politics, while laughably accusing Congress of doing so, with the FISA Bill. He says the bill is necessary to save lives, However, he states that without giving corporations immunity from their illegal wiretaps he will veto the bill. SO, does that mean he will make it unsafe for Americans by vetoing the bill. His broken record tactics are a cowardly attempt to keep himself from prosecution for the crimes he has committed against Americans and the Nation.

He has just forced the resignation of a Haddon (that may not be spelled correctly), one of the COmmanders that he says he listens to, because Haddon said he thinks war with Iran would be disastrous.

And Bush is sending Cheney to the Middle East to negotiate a Peace Treaty. Now who thinks that CHeney wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

Bush is a Patriot? He has done more in the last eight years to destroy America and American values than any enemy we have faced. He is setting up a strike on Iran I fear before he leaves office.

And regarding Iraq. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq until we moved in. Plus, Al Quaida In Iraq is not the Al Quaida that attacked us, the group took that name but have never been associated with Iraq.

These are some facts AND I am tired of the people who try to change this country back into a country we can ALL be proud of being called un-patriotic by the people supporting the men and women who attempt to politicize and destroy this country's values.

Play politics! I hate the game also but that is what politicians do.
When Obama, Hillary or Ralph takes over will they use wire taps? Will they have anything like the Patriot Act? I have been trying to find out their plans for national security. Have they released these and elaborated on these as yet?

I would not like anybody calling me unpatriotic also. Hillary said several times she was tired of people saying she was unpatriotic because she did not support the president but yet supported the troops. Several times she said this but I tried to think of a Republican that said that about her but I could not. I have not heard anybody say that about her. Who did it?

Haddon did not say he was forced out but if he disagreed sharply with the President, he should have retired, don't you think? I think Bush thought Haddon was a very important man and was probably sorry to see him go. I agree that war with Iran would be disastrous. Would it also be disastrous if Iran had the bomb? Perhaps we could trust them to not use it on Israel or one of their neighbors. Do you know whether Hillary or Obama has taken war with Iran off the table? I thought I heard both of them say that they did not favor Iran having a bomb but I could be wrong. You sure could not go to war with every country that developed the bomb because all these small countries will eventually have the bomb. Many of them do already.

You failed to mention which values Bush destroyed. Which ones did he destroy? He'll be gone soon. Do you think we can repair all this moral damage he has done? If we all work together, maybe!

God bless.

[mkemse]

Removed as per request from mkemse-- posted in error (wrong thread).

[wmrs2]

also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT

Nice spin.

[mkemse]

Nice spin.

my error, the other post was govrnement sponsored, my apologies for this, i got your reply here mixed up with another post i made

[mkemse]

my error, the other post was govrnement sponsored, my apologies for this, i got your reply here mixed up with another post i made

no as i mentioned that reply was for another thread not this one, i have requested that it be moved to the right thread, it was an post error by me i made a mistake when i posted the reply it was too late to delete it and move it to the correct thread, that answer goes to another question NOT THIS THREAD read my post about it

[wmrs2]

also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT

I just checked your source out. Did the report say Bush lied or is that just the spin you put on the report? Let's be honest now.

[mkemse]

And if Al Quida was in fact "hiding out" in Iraq before we invaded, as much distrust and dislike as Saddam had or Al Quida he would have had them rooted out by his military
Saddams main Terrorists intrestes were support those who wanted to attack Israel he supported Hamas, Hezbola (excuse me if my spelling is wrong on their names) and similar organizations who main enemey was Israel and their destruction

[wmrs2]

Let's say that all these things that John56 and mkemse say about President Bush are true and exactly like they infer these things to be. We are still left with a national problem that must be dealt with. My statement about Obama saying he would send the troops into Iraq was complimentary towards him. It took a lot of courage for him to admit that he would handle the war in the same manner as President Bush has. Our war is not with Iraq but with Al Quiede. It bothered me a lot to think that America would elect a President that would not defend our national interest. After hearing Obama state his real position on the war, I figured it would not be the end of the world if Obama won the election in 2008.

Patriots need to do the best we can to make things easier for Obama, if and when he is elected. We do not need to prolong the war, witness more of our precious youth wasted on the battle fields, and see our economy wreaked; weakening the support for our army is not the answer. Do you think our enemies enjoy the arguments between the Democrats and Republicans over the war? Is it to their advantage to see this contention among our citizens. Long after Bush is gone, we are still going to be forced to fight Al Queada. I urge all Americans to put the past in the past. Bush can not be re-elected and he can't hurt you anymore.

[mkemse]

Let's say that all these things that John56 and mkemse say about President Bush are true and exactly like they infer these things to be. We are still left with a national problem that must be dealt with. My statement about Obama saying he would send the troops into Iraq was complimentary towards him. It took a lot of courage for him to admit that he would handle the war in the same manner as President Bush has. Our war is not with Iraq but with Al Quiede. It bothered me a lot to think that America would elect a President that would not defend our national interest. After hearing Obama state his real position on the war, I figured it would not be the end of the world if Obama won the election in 2008.

Patriots need to do the best we can to make things easier for Obama, if and when he is elected. We do not need to prolong the war, witness more of our precious youth wasted on the battle fields, and see our economy wreaked; weakening the support for our army is not the answer. Do you think our enemies enjoy the arguments between the Democrats and Republicans over the war? Is it to their advantage to see this contention among our citizens. Long after Bush is gone, we are still going to be forced to fight Al Queada. I urge all Americans to put the past in the past. Bush can not be re-elected and he can't hurt you anymore.

Obamas statement right noe is hypothectical for 2 reasons

Obama has not been elected Prseident and 2 we have no KNOWN plan to invade Iran,
I am not as concerd about Iran as Iraq becaue within the last 2 weeks even Russian Prime Minster Putin told Iran to stop wha they were doing and Russia and Iran are allies, Putin told Iran to stop it's nuculear enrichment program

We are in Iraq we are not in Iran

Our War in Iraq turned into a war with Al Quisa, because they arrived in Iraq after we did, the war in Iraq id not longer a Military War, it can not and will not be won Militarily, Iraq needs all i's Religiou Factions to Unify behin 1 governement, and untillthat happens the War could go no for years
It is a Civil War not a Military War now

Yes I give Obmam credit fo his remarks, but i also feel he would use factual doumented evdicende befroe we went in ans would make 100% sure his efifdence was actualy and not "Faulty" he would demans and righlty so acutaly evidence that we need to go in and make sure it was verfied, he would also go in knowing who are eniies was there, how strong they are andwhat we would need to do to defeat them which BUSH has not done

[Moonraker]

And if Al Quida was in fact "hiding out" in Iraq before we invaded, as much distrust and dislike as Saddam had or Al Quida he would have had them rooted out by his military
Saddams main Terrorists intrestes were support those who wanted to attack Israel he supported Hamas, Hezbola (excuse me if my spelling is wrong on their names) and similar organizations who main enemey was Israel and their destruction

There is an arabic proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Given that the US is seen by many Iraqis to be an enemy it's no surprise Iraq is now a fertile recruiting field for Al Qaeda.

Saddam would never support Al Qaeda for the simple reason it promotes theocracy which would threaten Saddam's position as a secular leader.

[mkemse]

There is an arabic proverb "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Given that the US is seen by many Iraqis to be an enemy it's no surprise Iraq is now a fertile recruiting field for Al Qaeda.

Saddam would never support Al Qaeda for the simple reason it promotes theocracy which would threaten Saddam's position as a secular leader.

Thank you, that is why I posted to remark from an article on the Web, the "Aledged" links to Al Quida is just one of many reasons Bush used to invade Iraq and that as well as the supposed WMD's which were proven not to exist either, again a case of "Faulty Intelligence" and when you go to War you need to know who your enemey is and what thieir strengths and weakness are to fight a succefull War you do not invade a country on assumption you invade if you do based on documented fact, and most important you MUST verify your Intelliegence, not just assume it is correct, you have to know it is

"Well, they looked like portable weapons labs, so we assumed they were" not real good logic there

"Hey, it looks like rain or snow is comnig" well let's see if it does before we send salt rucks out and as the sky'sa get darker and snow starts to fluury down, then you start the salting, because then you know it is going to snow

And there are some who have said Bush would have ised any excuse in the world to Invade Iraq once he had his ind set on doing so whic he did, History now speaks for itself

[Moonraker]

Thank you, that is why I posted to remark from an article on the Web, the "Aledged" links to Al Quida is just one of many reasons Bush used to invade Iraq and that as well as the supposed WMD's which were proven not to exist either, again a case of "Faulty Intelligence" and when you go to War you need to know who your enemey is and what thieir strengths and weakness are to fight a succefull War you do not invade a country on assumption you invade if you do based on documented fact, and most important you MUST verify your Intelliegence, not just assume it is correct, you have to know it is

I am not disagreeing with you merely supporting your view. Everybody agrees that political decisions should be based on the available intelligence and that in this case the decision had already been made (according to reports well before 911) and intelligence was manipulated to justify that decision. Cart before horse if you will.

In the UK it was the same (coincidence we ask) we had the "Dodgy Dossier" which built the case for war on dubious facts and outright lies such that intelligence officers refused to put their names to it and one even commited suicide as a result. (sceptics think how convenient for the government)

[mkemse]

I am not disagreeing with you merely supporting your view. Everybody agrees that political decisions should be based on the available intelligence and that in this case the decision had already been made (according to reports well before 911) and intelligence was manipulated to justify that decision. Cart before horse if you will.

In the UK it was the same (coincidence we ask) we had the "Dodgy Dossier" which built the case for war on dubious facts and outright lies such that intelligence officers refused to put their names to it and one even commited suicide as a result. (sceptics think how convenient for the government)

thanks

[mkemse]

before we invaded Iraq we had satitlite photos of "allged" mobil weapons labs, everyone assumed they were loaded with weapns, nobody bothetred to verify if they were infact mobil labs or just models of ones
Maybe all they were, where railcars made ro look liki mobil labs because mobil labs looked like that, when inspectors went in, they said they look like mobil labs but no weapons were found
Your neighbor is outside in fronr of your jouse smoking what looks like a joint, maybe in reality if you got closer you couldtell by the dmell if it was in fact pot, or maybe all it was , was a filterless cigarette i know lots of peole who roll there own smokes they sue no filters and yes they look like joints, but that does not mean they are joins
Never assume or accuse if there is no prooof, ifi call the plice on my neigbor overthis or that, and he says did you see him do it or hearhim do it, no i did not i just assumed he did, the offier will not asrrest his as he has no solid evidence of what i said only my word
The actual Blame ofr not taking out BinLaden falss on Bill Clinton who himself addmitted he has avarious chances to take him out and neer did, if Clinton has taken out BinLaden when the chace was there, is it possible that 9/11 ma not have happened, no way to know since Osama is stil alive, but yes, I blame Clintom for not taking bin laden out when he has the chance but Clinton at least acknowleldge that yes, he blew it and should have done it, that is called taking responsiilty, taking ownership for what you should have done and didn't do

[mkemse]

Clinton has taken ownership and responsisbility for what he should have done and didn't do, BUSH will never do that

[mkemse]

also, this past week 10 of the World Top Economists including Waren Buffet have all said The United States in now in a Recession, Bush says we are not, it seems to me that 10 Of The Worlds Most Renowned Econinists are far more qualified to say we are then Bush is to say we are not

[mkemse]

Thorne,

thanks for your reply and post

[mkemse]

i have sent a pm to tan ADm. explaining that i repleid to the wrong post and would they move it to the correct thread

[mkemse]

"also keep in mind that the above study was FUNDED BY THE UNITES STATES GOVERNMENT"

this reply goe to another post and thread not this one

[Moonraker]

To get back to the original question and away from WW2, I would say that the invasion definitely wasn't worth it to anybody, other than oil companies and military contractors. At the time of Abu Ghraib scandal the joke doing the rounds in Iraq was the prison is doing business as usual, just under new management. That perhaps gives the man on the street view of the American liberation.

For all that is written about Iraq I'm shocked how little is about the suffering of the Iraqi people. They suffered in the Iran War, they suffered through 13 years of crippling sanctions, they suffered in the Iraq invasion, they suffered after the invasion and are facing the prospect of 10+ years more suffering. Suffering for 27 years and no end in sight. And now the focus of US attention is on how much Iraq is costing America and the 4,000 US fatalities. How many Iraqis have died?

Life under Saddam was not so bad; livings standard were good (until the Iranian war), religious freedom, women rights etc. Compare that to our friend and ally Saudi Arabia where Christians are arrested for worshipping and women aren't allowed to even drive a car. True Saddam had his secret police/torture chamber and came down hard on any who threatened his rule. Isn’t that's the same under any dictator. Saudi Arabia has is secret police (not to mention religious police) and its torture is so effective the US "renders" its prisoners there. When I lived in Saudi people would look with envy at the freedoms and lifestyle enjoyed by Iraqis under Saddam. Saddam at least held the country together, which is not easy as the US is finding out and yes he did that by "whatever means necessary".

Iraqis may wonder where it all went wrong and Saddam must have wondered how he went from hero to zero so fast. When Iraq went to war with Iran the USA lavished praise on him and armed his military. But the Kuwait invasion was to change all that. After the war Kuwait demanded repayment of war loans, lowered oil prices thus reducing Iraqi revenues and even stole Iraqi oil by slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Not to mention Iraq had historic territorial claims on Kuwait. Iraq was in a difficult position and Saddam wanted to improve the welfare of his people, unlike many dictators who impoverish their own people to enrich their Swiss Bank accounts.

The US ambassador April Galaspie gave Saddam the infamous green light by saying "we (the USA) have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait" which indicated the USA would not get involved. (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html) Then the shit hits the fan for Iraq. Incidentally, it’s no surprise Saddam with a weak army and impoverished nation wanted the Iranians to believe he had WMD. What is a surprise is that CIA agents were on “independent” UN weapons inspections.

I cannot help but see oil and US Presidents, from an oil state and with extensive oil interests and connections, at work behind the scenes here. I would say most Iraqis would prefer life under Saddam to life now and think that had sanctions been lifted then life could have been back to normal and no worse than under any Arab state.

Saddam ordered a reprisal against a village whose people tried to assassinate him. Saddam was executed for the reprisals. Bush ordered a reprisal against a country whose president tried to assassinate his father. Bush was re-elected for the invasion.

It's a strange world we live in.

[Moonraker]

Crazy does not necessarily equate with stupid. It's crazy to strap a bomb to your chest and explode it, knowing you are going to die. It's crazy to fly an airplane into a building, knowing you are killing hundreds of people, including yourself. It does take some intelligence to learn to fly that plane, even marginally, well enough to crash it. And it takes a lot of intelligence to plan and coordinate all the intricate elements of such a plan.

But I don't care how smart they are, I doubt very much that any of the planners truly expected the towers to fall as they did. I don't think anyone could have predicted that. It's only in hindsight, after much analysis, that we understand just how that happened.

I agree crazy and stupid are not the same but I still think it unwise to underestimate or misrepresent your foe. You say the suicide bomber is crazy because he is going to a certain death. Does this mean the americans, military and civilians, who have willingly sacrificed their lives for a cause were also crazy. As regards 'no regard for human life' (mkemse) muslims ask the same question in regard to the countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of sanctions or bombs (90+% of which weren't smart). Portraying terrorists as crazy is bound to invite comparison with the actions of western countries. Were the IRA crazy terrorists when they bombed shopping malls. The USA didn't seem to think so, the IRA were openly raising funds in the US and weren't a proscribed organisation. Terrorist or freedom fighter is well covered debate topic, the IRA, ANC, PLO and Zionist Haganah have all been described as terrorists.

Until such time as you look at the cause of terrorism and address grievances there is no military solution. Many muslims accuse the west of having double standards and by simply writing isalmic terrorists off as crazies only confirms that belief and make it easier for the terrorists to convince potential recruits that he West is anti-Islam and the only thing it understands is the use of force.

PS - Yes nobody expected the Towers to collapse but the planes carried maximum fuel and hit where maximum damage would result.

[mkemse]

thanks

[Moonraker]

i was reading an opinion poll of Iraqis at the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6983027.stm and then somehow stumbled across this site which has various polls http://www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/55.

[mkemse]

Moonraker,

Thanks for your post, I appreciate your controbution to the thread