Kerry wins again

[Dutch]

We didn't need them on board. All we needed was for them to disagree less forcefully. The French, Germans, etc, were adamant and vocal in their opposition because of the way we were going about it. If we worked through diplomatic channels and were symphatic to their ideas and didn't treat them like the red-headed stepchild, they may have disagreed, but not so loudly, and their citizens wouldn't have had mass protests in the street.

First of all, if you think for one second that the French, Germans, Russians, and their vocal supporters in North Korea, China, and Cuba were all for invading Iraq on humanitarian reasons, you have been S-P-U-N. Badly.

Secondly, while the USA is under credible threat of WMD attack, Germany, France and Russia were and are not. So outside of protecting their own people, the next bit of business is providing for those people. Germany, France, and Russia did do a large ammount of business with Saddam Hussein. Russia even had contracts set up in place that paved the way for massive military purchases to Saddam Hussein when and if UN sanctions were lifted. Germany and France were already tied up in multi-billion dollar contracts and were prepared to move in first when and if UN sanctions were lifted.

And France, Germany, and Russia are looking out for the best interest of the world?

The argument is that money and defense had nothing to do with their decisions to oppose the USA. The picture that is being painted is that they opposed the USA because President Bush is a "meanie"? Wow. And this is not in retaliation to points here in this thread, this is a world-wide justification for wishing Saddam Hussein was still in power. It's truly fascinating to see the truth be steamrolled.

As for treating them like red-headed stepchildren. Iraq was a threat to the USA. Not to Germany or France. We all know that. But Germany and France demanded that the USA ask for their permission to handle our own problems through the UN. And what did the US do? We obeyed their demands and went to the UN. We laid down the facts. The facts were that Iraq failed to comply with the 1991 cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam Hussein and failed to obey 18 UN Resolutions.

And what was the UN's response (particularly France and to a somewhat qualifying degree Germany and Russia)? That's right, they told the newspapers that any such movement by the US towards war with Iraq would be veto'ed. They allowed a 15-0 Security Council Resolution that allowed 300 UN inspectors search for hiding places while 250,000 US Soldiers breathed down Saddam's neck in massive mobilizations.

The Europeans were fine with that. 300 people searching for hidden items all the while the USA was spending enormous ammounts of money and resources to keep a quarter million men and women on high alert. It was all a game. It was originally spun by Saddam Hussein, but it was played by France, Germany, and the Russians even better.

And the massive protests? Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands, and more if you include those who died in the Iran-Iraq war and the Kurdish revolutions. And how many people protested for the world to do something about that? Who are these people who care only about who's doing the killing and not who's being killed?

[ISiddiqui]

First of all, if you think for one second that the French, Germans, Russians, and their vocal supporters in North Korea, China, and Cuba were all for invading Iraq on humanitarian reasons, you have been S-P-U-N. Badly.

Where did I ever say they'd go to war? I said they'd be less adamant and vocal. I do wish you would read my posts.

Secondly, while the USA is under credible threat of WMD attack, Germany, France and Russia were and are not.

From Iraq? No one was under credible threat of WMD attack from them. Have we found any yet?

The picture that is being painted is that they opposed the USA because President Bush is a "meanie"?

The diplomatic world is a close-knit one with definite rules. Bush II did not follow them, while his father definetly did. That was the main difference between the two US-Iraq wars. Even the USSR did not veto the action in 1991... THAT is some diplomacy.

Iraq was a threat to the USA.

How?

We obeyed their demands and went to the UN.

Only because Powell MADE Bush go. And the rest of the world knew it. They knew that Bush was only going because his SecState said he had to and had no intention of giving a damn what the UN said.

Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands, and more if you include those who died in the Iran-Iraq war and the Kurdish revolutions. And how many people protested for the world to do something about that? Who are these people who care only about who's doing the killing and not who's being killed?

How many people are protesting (and going into) even worse humanitarian cases? Where are US troops in Burma, where were we when Rwanda was going on, why did we wait so long to enter Liberia? They were protesting because the way Bush totally bungled the justification, it looked like naked aggression.

He NEVER stressed the humanitarian reason for war. He stressed WMD... which aren't there. Oops.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Where did I ever say they'd go to war? I said they'd be less adamant and vocal. I do wish you would read my posts.

Fair enough.

From Iraq? No one was under credible threat of WMD attack from them. Have we found any yet?

We have recovered quite a bit of documentation about WMD in Iraq. Some of which shows activity in trying to build nuclear weapons, perhaps as early as 2007 they could have had one. There is still the missing stockpiles the UN accounted for in 1991 but can't now. The Iraqi's were very capable and disciplined in inventoring their stash then, but the paper trail suddenly died when it came time for destruction? What's up with that?

The diplomatic world is a close-knit one with definite rules. Bush II did not follow them, while his father definetly did. That was the main difference between the two US-Iraq wars. Even the USSR did not veto the action in 1991... THAT is some diplomacy.

I would suggest that GW1 and GW2 had rules that were quite a bit different. GWI was a reactionary movement to liberate a internationally recognized nation in Kuwait. GW2 was a USA action to protect you and me from it and him.

Only because Powell MADE Bush go. And the rest of the world knew it. They knew that Bush was only going because his SecState said he had to and had no intention of giving a damn what the UN said.

Yes, Powell knew Bush was a meanie! That's what the papers said. He didn't care what the UN said, it wasn't their problem apparently. I think his speech to the UN and following work trying to bring the UN onboard was a solid level of effort to allow the UN to run things. We asked for the UN's help and they said, "No, thanks." But yet, we still had a problem to deal with.

He NEVER stressed the humanitarian reason for war. He stressed WMD... which aren't there. Oops.

Well, we had 300,000 troops in country for a long time now. We had that level of troops up until the capture of Saddam Hussein. We searched the residence where Saddam Hussein was found FIVE times before he was stumbled upon by an alert soldier. You can keep things hidden, in your own back yard, if you want to. It's not hard to hide well, but it's damn near impossible to find. Satellites can't see underground.

[ISiddiqui]

We have recovered quite a bit of documentation about WMD in Iraq. Some of which shows activity in trying to build nuclear weapons, perhaps as early as 2007 they could have had one. There is still the missing stockpiles the UN accounted for in 1991 but can't now. The Iraqi's were very capable and disciplined in inventoring their stash then, but the paper trail suddenly died when it came time for destruction? What's up with that?

Where are those missing stockpiles? Where are those WMD's? Where are those delivery systems which would make it a threat to us? You say the paper trial died when it came to destruction... if that is the case, we'd surely have found SOMETHING by now?

Well, we had 300,000 troops in country for a long time now. We had that level of troops up until the capture of Saddam Hussein. We searched the residence where Saddam Hussein was found FIVE times before he was stumbled upon by an alert soldier. You can keep things hidden, in your own back yard, if you want to. It's not hard to hide well, but it's damn near impossible to find. Satellites can't see underground.

But it was said that we knew where those WMD are. Where are they? If they are buried sooo far underground was it really an imminent threat, if they exist at all? I doubt it.

If this war was because of WMD it's been a failure. If it was for replacing a bloody dictator, we sold it dramatically wrong.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Where are those missing stockpiles? Where are those WMD's? Where are those delivery systems which would make it a threat to us? You say the paper trial died when it came to destruction... if that is the case, we'd surely have found SOMETHING by now?



But it was said that we knew where those WMD are. Where are they? If they are buried sooo far underground was it really an imminent threat, if they exist at all? I doubt it.

If this war was because of WMD it's been a failure. If it was for replacing a bloody dictator, we sold it dramatically wrong.

My thoughts exactly I wonder how anyone could still be buying the "WMD" reason.In fact, when you here the Bush administration talk about it thses days it doesn't even sound like they are buying it either!

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And you know, like Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Romania, the list goes on. But I guess it doesn't matter unless it's France and Germany. In general, I would rather do the right thing with few alongside me than look the other way because it is not popular.

Romania huh!The list goes on and on .....into obscurity.lol

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Galaril

My thoughts exactly I wonder how anyone could still be buying the "WMD" reason.In fact, when you here the Bush administration talk about it thses days it doesn't even sound like they are buying it either!

It's pretty obvious that the WMD dog doesn't hunt anymore. It looks now like it was all gone before hand. Don't try and sell that anyone knew that beforehand. For the past twelve years all we have heard was that Saddam was refusing to disarm. In '99 President Clinton declared that Saddam and his WMD stash was a threat. In 2002 A number of democrats echoed those sentiments, even some of those running for President now. While the US and Great Brittain were standing up at the UN sharing intelligence that showed Saddam had yet to disarm, no one stood up and said we were wrong. It wasn't just our intelligence agency that dropped the WMD ball in Iraq, it was all of the Intelligence agencies of the world.

I am beginning to wonder if Saddam himself wasn't actually spreading misinformation. Others have suggested that it was his science advisors that were "duping" Saddam while bilking his WMD program funds. I don't know what the scenario was, but when you factor in his generals all being confident that WMD would be used in the defense of Baghdad you have to at least consider it a possibility that Saddam was helping to perpetuate the thought that he had WMD while protesting loudly that he did not.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

[quote=Glengoyne]While the US and Great Brittain were standing up at the UN sharing intelligence that showed Saddam had yet to disarm, no one stood up and said we were wrong. It wasn't just our intelligence agency that dropped the WMD ball in Iraq, it was all of the Intelligence agencies of the world.
QUOTE]

I don't quite agree. The reasons the UN and many other countries didn't back the war was because they had a look at the info the US was relying on for proof of WMD, and were NOT convinced enough to back the war. Plus, it is doubtful many of those countries - like Canada and many western European countries- missed the ball because they simpy don't have a worldwide intelligence setup to investigate the WMD issue.

My thought on Saddam was that he needed the myth of WMD to remain powerful in the eyes of other Arab states and to AVOID a U.S. invasion because of the threat. However, he ultimately chose wrong. Actually, either choice was wrong because I am pretty sure when Bush got into the White House, he was intent on going into Iraq (even prior to 9/11).

[Peregrine]

In general, I would rather do the right thing with few alongside me than look the other way because it is not popular.

Well, this is a very ironic statement, given our stance of turning a blind eye to brutal authoritarian regimes that don't happen to have large amounts of oil. If we were truly interested in doing the right thing in Iraq, rather than settling a score from the President's father's administration, I would be more accepting of this argument. Where is the President's cry to "do the right thing" in Pakistan, a nation ruled by a military dictator who overthrew the democratically elected government, and which we now know has been selling nuclear technology to anyone who is interested? Seems to me they're looking pretty similar to the imaginary nation whose aggressive WMD programs and desire to spread such technology around had the word Iraq painted over it by the administrations spin doctors in the leadup to the war.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Two things: One is while Clinton spent he also did it when he could. You can't criticize the guy for spending in times of a surplus. Thus, although he spent, he did not run up deficits (I call that fiscal conservatism). Plus, you can't give the guy no credit for the economic times and pass it off as fluke. Did he have some luck -- for sure. But if the country's economic stability and growth has NOTHING to do with the President, then whey do we talk about it at election time?

Second, my point is more the fact that Bush has erased what was a big advantage for the Republicans at election time -- pointing to the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible and big spenders.

The amount of credit I give Clinton for the perceived economics boomtime is ZERO - just as I do any president, including Reagan and his sustained growth and Bush Jr for the largest economic jump (last October??) of all time.

The reason is that it is still the legislative branch that controls the pursestrings. The FY budgets submitted by the presidents have about 3/4 of their amounts already set in stone (mandatory spendings). Most of the remaining are discretionary pork. While the flavors of pork can change year to year, I believe they have about the same effect on the economy. Spending has remained constant all of these years, reagrdless of alledged growth or deficit in revenues. I believe no president can submit a balanced budget that reduces spending to the level of guesses-at income. It would be impossible and absolutely DOA in Congress. Presidents can submit major programs that would increase mandatory spendings but their effects usually don't show up economically until further down the road (like taxes as well).

You want fiscal responsibility? Change the attitudes of Congress and of most American people in demanding the Federal Govt be involved in every single facet of our lives (and the massive bureaucracies that it must entail) and to hold them accountable for every dollar being spent.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

If we were truly interested in doing the right thing in Iraq, rather than settling a score from the President's father's administration, I would be more accepting of this argument. Where is the President's cry to "do the right thing" in Pakistan, a nation ruled by a military dictator who overthrew the democratically elected government, and which we now know has been selling nuclear technology to anyone who is interested? Seems to me they're looking pretty similar to the imaginary nation whose aggressive WMD programs and desire to spread such technology around had the word Iraq painted over it by the administrations spin doctors in the leadup to the war.

hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110673,00.html

What they are hoping, according to American officials speaking on condition of anonymity, is that Khan's pardon becomes a plea bargain of sorts, with Pakistan trading leniency in exchange for Khan's information about the still-at-large members of the worldwide nuclear black market.

"We could beat our chests and be outraged," said Robert Oakley, a former ambassador to Pakistan who defended the Bush administration's low key response.

"The most important thing is to get as much information possible as to where the links (to accomplices) were," Oakley said. "We have to make sure it doesn't happen again."

More than anything, the U.S. response shows just how solicitous American officials remain toward Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf (search), that they're leery of any public criticism lest it destabilize this key ally in the war on terrorism.

Any push by Musharraf for a trial of Khan could have led to a political showdown with Islamist and opposition groups who regard the scientist as a hero for founding Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But it was said that we knew where those WMD are. Where are they? If they are buried sooo far underground was it really an imminent threat, if they exist at all? I doubt it.

If this war was because of WMD it's been a failure. If it was for replacing a bloody dictator, we sold it dramatically wrong.

You say Tomato, I say....Tomato.....(hmmm, doesn't translate well on a message board). However, the point is that we did what we had to do.

President Bush listed "bloody dictator" as one of many reasons for replacing Saddam. Are you saying he never did?

If he did sell the ousting of Saddam Hussein on the sole cause of being a "bloody dictator" and only a harm to his own people with no designs on fighting the US, would you have believed that story with everything we learned from President Clinton and Bush Sr's WMD evidence?

And if Saddam Hussein did make up the whole WMD story, do you suggest that every rogue nation should be able to blackmail us by suggesting they have WMD? And the only way to get them to play more responsably in the world community is for us to "prove" they have it with satellite imagery?

[Peregrine]

The amount of credit I give Clinton for the perceived economics boomtime is ZERO - just as I do any president, including Reagan and his sustained growth and Bush Jr for the largest economic jump (last October??) of all time.

Definitely agree with you here Bucc. Presidential responsibility for the economy is more of an election year myth that's now accepted as truth, more perception than reality.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Definitely agree with you here Bucc. Presidential responsibility for the economy is more of an election year myth that's now accepted as truth, more perception than reality.

And as we continue to see, Perception is just as strong as Reality, if not stronger.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Where did I ever say they'd go to war? I said they'd be less adamant and vocal. I do wish you would read my posts.



From Iraq? No one was under credible threat of WMD attack from them. Have we found any yet?



The diplomatic world is a close-knit one with definite rules. Bush II did not follow them, while his father definetly did. That was the main difference between the two US-Iraq wars. Even the USSR did not veto the action in 1991... THAT is some diplomacy.



How?



Only because Powell MADE Bush go. And the rest of the world knew it. They knew that Bush was only going because his SecState said he had to and had no intention of giving a damn what the UN said.



How many people are protesting (and going into) even worse humanitarian cases? Where are US troops in Burma, where were we when Rwanda was going on, why did we wait so long to enter Liberia? They were protesting because the way Bush totally bungled the justification, it looked like naked aggression.

He NEVER stressed the humanitarian reason for war. He stressed WMD... which aren't there. Oops.

ISSIDIQUI, you are the most dangerous of dangerous to most, you are someone who actually reads, bases his opinions on facts, and are independent of the usual 'talking points' heads that parrot the lazy media. Good Job!!

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

ISSIDIQUI, you are the most dangerous of dangerous to most, you are someone who actually reads, bases his opinions on facts, and are independent of the usual 'talking points' heads that parrot the lazy media. Good Job!!

But it is still just statements and personal opinions based on perception, personal interpretations of past events and formed upon incomplete knowledge. But my long time and very good friend Imran has always presented himself very intelligently and well written. He and I used to team up quite well against eco-terrorists disguised as Greens.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Iraq was a threat to the USA.

Yes, thank goodness we averted a 6,000 mile attack from one of their unmanned drone airplanes.

[Buccaneer]

USA has interest in all parts of the world, from economics to humanitarian to political. We are not and should be isolationists.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Yes, thank goodness we averted a 6,000 mile attack from one of their unmanned drone airplanes.

From the Media darling, David Kay inquiry...

MCCAIN: When you answered a question from Reuters, "What happened to the stockpiles of chemical and bioweapons that everyone expected to be there?," your answer was simple: quote, "I don't think they existed."

So what needs to be established here is that when we -- at least, I believe is your view and certainly mine -- as you just stated, America, the world and Iraq is a far better and safer place with Saddam Hussein gone from power. And the sacrifice made by American citizens, and that are serving and sacrificing today was not only worth it, but very important to the future of the Middle East and to the world. Do you share that?

KAY: That's certainly true, Senator. I probably learned not to speak to wire reporters and even to watch out for senators who want one-word answers.

MCCAIN: Yes.

KAY: It tends to compress complex issues.

MCCAIN: But you agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?

KAY: Absolutely.

And here is Democratic Senator Kennedy,

KENNEDY: Well, do you see -- can you give us any explanation of why these agencies, in retrospect, appear to have had it right and the information that the administration used appeared to have it wrong?

KAY: Senator...

KENNEDY: What weight was given to these reports when you look at in retrospect and when you have a number of those that where involved in the reports believing that the information reports were used selectively to justify a policy decision to take the country to war?

KAY: Senator Kennedy, it's impossible in a short time I have to reply to take you through fully that. And in fact, that's my hope that Senator Roberts and his committee will have done that.

But let me just say that while it -- there's a selecting process that goes on both ways. There were people in the DOE who believed that those aluminum tubes were indeed for a centrifuge program. It's a lot easier after the fact and after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone through this a lot in my career.

All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD.

And I remind you, it was Secretary Cohen who stood, I think, in this very committee room with five pounds of flour and talked about anthrax.

MCCAIN: So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?

KAY: There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator.

Pretty damning conclusions I think our President had to work with. If you were President, and David Kay told you these things and Clintons Intel advisors told you these things, what would you do? Would you still consider yourself better off being a reactionary?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Well, this is a very ironic statement, given our stance of turning a blind eye to brutal authoritarian regimes that don't happen to have large amounts of oil.

Did I say I agree with the Bush's administrations foreign policy? I agreed with regard to Iraq but personally, I think we should go farther than we have in certain places. Regardless, Iraq was a step in the right direction.

If we were truly interested in doing the right thing in Iraq, rather than settling a score from the President's father's administration, I would be more accepting of this argument. Where is the President's cry to "do the right thing" in Pakistan, a nation ruled by a military dictator who overthrew the democratically elected government, and which we now know has been selling nuclear technology to anyone who is interested? Seems to me they're looking pretty similar to the imaginary nation whose aggressive WMD programs and desire to spread such technology around had the word Iraq painted over it by the administrations spin doctors in the leadup to the war.

Considering I supported the war in Iraq for the humanitarian reasons and not the WMD angle, I don't see how that is relevant. I can't recall hearing about any children's prisons or genocide committed by Musharraf. This doesn't mean I support him, but there are much worse dictators and governments I think we should deal with first.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Two things: One is while Clinton spent he also did it when he could. You can't criticize the guy for spending in times of a surplus. Thus, although he spent, he did not run up deficits (I call that fiscal conservatism). Plus, you can't give the guy no credit for the economic times and pass it off as fluke. Did he have some luck -- for sure. But if the country's economic stability and growth has NOTHING to do with the President, then whey do we talk about it at election time?

Second, my point is more the fact that Bush has erased what was a big advantage for the Republicans at election time -- pointing to the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible and big spenders.

We talk about it because the president is a figurehead and represents our hopes and our disapointments. The country's financial stability and growth has little to do with the President. It has more to do with the Federal Reserve's management of the money supply than anything else as long as tax rates remain within a certain parameter. But that's boring stuff, people want someone to praise or blame.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Well, this is a very ironic statement, given our stance of turning a blind eye to brutal authoritarian regimes that don't happen to have large amounts of oil. If we were truly interested in doing the right thing in Iraq, rather than settling a score from the President's father's administration, I would be more accepting of this argument. Where is the President's cry to "do the right thing" in Pakistan, a nation ruled by a military dictator who overthrew the democratically elected government, and which we now know has been selling nuclear technology to anyone who is interested? Seems to me they're looking pretty similar to the imaginary nation whose aggressive WMD programs and desire to spread such technology around had the word Iraq painted over it by the administrations spin doctors in the leadup to the war.

The last time I checked, Afghanistan doesn't have huge oil reserves. We can't be everywhere at once. You have to pick your battles. Based on your statement, we should invoke military action in a large portion of countries around the world, including China, since brutal dictatorships are far more common than democracies. The current focus is on stamping out countries that actively support terrorist attacks against the US. I don't believe Pakistan meets that objective.

On an aside:

As for the French government, they can burn in hell. Instead of being grateful for our assistance in the past two world wars they resent needing our help. If Vietnam had been a success, I think the French government's collective head would have exploded. They have been a second rate power since the fall of Napolean. Their government's actions have never deserved any respect.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The last time I checked, Afghanistan doesn't have huge oil reserves.

True, but it is a hell of a place to build a pipeline from the Casbian Sea, which explains why the Taleban was invited to Texas even though they were harboring the Osama bin Laden and the rest of the evildoers.

[Peregrine]

The last time I checked, Afghanistan doesn't have huge oil reserves.

A specious argument, in my opinion. Clearly Afghanistan was attacked because it harbored terrorists, not because of concern over its governmental style. I support our attack against Afghanistan.

Based on your statement, we should invoke military action in a large portion of countries around the world, including China, since brutal dictatorships are far more common than democracies.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're getting this from. The government is the one that has been justifying its actions in Iraq as removing a brutal dictator. I wouldn't support using that same standard carried out around the world, we already have plenty of work to do in the war against terrorism. We have a long history with Iraq, and various baggage from the previous war, possible WMDs, national interest in the country's oil, etc. Saying that this war is simply to remove a brutal dictator insults the intelligence of the American people. The government should be clear and honest about its reasons for doing things.

The current focus is on stamping out countries that actively support terrorist attacks against the US. I don't believe Pakistan meets that objective.

Many would argue Iraq is simply a sideshow taking us away from our "focus."

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Clearly Afghanistan was attacked because it harbored terrorists, not because of concern over its governmental style.

Afghanistan harbored terrorists when they were invited to Texas to discuss an oil pipeline for Unocal.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Afghanistan harbored terrorists when they were invited to Texas to discuss an oil pipeline for Unocal.

And then summarily rejected because they harbored said terrorists. Funny thing is that I haven't really noticed any pipeline built from the Caspian Sea yet. You'd think that since Halliburton controls the US Governments foreign policy we would have built that pipeline by now, instead of wasting our efforts killing/capturing terrorists and setting up a Democratic government.

[Desnudo]

Peregrine
A specious argument, in my opinion. Clearly Afghanistan was attacked because it harbored terrorists, not because of concern over its governmental style. I support our attack against Afghanistan.

They took out a brutal authoritarian regime that doesn't happen to have large amounts of oil. Terrorism or not, it had nothing to do with oil. Which was my point. If you had said oil or terrorism, then I wouldn't have argued the point. I believe the general point you were trying to make with the oil comment is that we don't get involved unless it serves our national interests. Oil being a national interest. I agree with that.


I'm not sure what part of my post you're getting this from. The government is the one that has been justifying its actions in Iraq as removing a brutal dictator. I wouldn't support using that same standard carried out around the world, we already have plenty of work to do in the war against terrorism. We have a long history with Iraq, and various baggage from the previous war, possible WMDs, national interest in the country's oil, etc. Saying that this war is simply to remove a brutal dictator insults the intelligence of the American people. The government should be clear and honest about its reasons for doing things.

Originally Posted by Peregrine
Well, this is a very ironic statement, given our stance of turning a blind eye to brutal authoritarian regimes that don't happen to have large amounts of oil.

The tone of this statement implies that we are doing wrong by not taking action based on humanitarian, rather than economic or security, interests.


"Many would argue Iraq is simply a sideshow taking us away from our 'focus.'"

Many would argue that Iraq is an essential linchpin to Middle East stability and without a stable Iraq, you have no chance of influencing terrorist supporters Syria and Iran.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And then summarily rejected because they harbored said terrorists. Funny thing is that I haven't really noticed any pipeline built from the Caspian Sea yet. You'd think that since Halliburton controls the US Governments foreign policy we would have built that pipeline by now, instead of wasting our efforts killing/capturing terrorists and setting up a Democratic government.

lol, maybe you should pay closer attention to world events. Then again, cheerleaders always do have trouble following what's going on in the game.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by yabanci

lol, maybe you should pay closer attention to world events. Then again, cheerleaders always do have trouble following what's going on in the game.

Linky? Or maybe I can just stay in the dark about _____.

EDIT - Here is a link to UNOCAL's press release from early 1999 and their withdrawal from any project - http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/99news/021699.htm

And here is an analysis (from 10/02 but I couldn't quickly find anything more recent) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html which concludes

Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turmenistan to Pakistan in the mid-1990s, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The new Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the pipeline plan, and talks have been held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan in 2002 on the issue, but a signing ceremony for a framework agreement between the governments has been delayed until at least December 2002.
Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan is one obvious major risk, and the tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India, which unlike Pakistan has sufficient immediate demand for imported natural gas to justify a project of such magnitude. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Linky? Or maybe I can just stay in the dark about _____.

The deal was done in December 2002, back when everyone was soiling their pants over Iraq's WMD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The deal was done in December 2002, back when everyone was soiling their pants over Iraq's WMD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

Yes, there was a deal signed, but has it actually been built yet? And is Halliburton/UNOCAL involved with the project?

[Dutch]

Wouldn't an oil pipeline be beneficial to the people of Afghanistan? Would it require Afghanistan to provide some workers to the project and keep those people to maintain it and couldn't Afghanistan reap some sort of benefit from the pipeline in their country?

Seems like a positive step in the right direction if it ever unfolds. The Afghan's are hurting for some kind of business/industry interest.

[yabanci]

of course it hasn't been built yet. Are you so naive to think a transnational pipeline in one of the most unstable and geopolitically competitive places in the world just pops up overnight??? lol Of course Unocal is involved with it. I don't know about Halliburton's involvement and never mentioned them -- you did. We'll have to wait until the details are finalized and made public.

[Bubba Wheels]

Kerry will never be able to stand up to the scrutiny of the general campaign. Already I'm hearing that people/large corporations were granted large favors right after campaign donations were given to Kerry. If true, it makes him a crook, period. People just don't know Kerry right now, but his sleeze factor appears to be pretty high, and his personality is not "likable' like Bush's is. If Edwards can win a couple, he may be the dark horse.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The deal was done in December 2002, back when everyone was soiling their pants over Iraq's WMD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

For those paying attention, the Taliban had been overthrown for over a year when this deal was penned. But somehow the argument that the Taliban were harbouring terrorists persists. Interesting.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Kerry will never be able to stand up to the scrutiny of the general campaign. Already I'm hearing that people/large corporations were granted large favors right after campaign donations were given to Kerry. If true, it makes him a crook, period. People just don't know Kerry right now, but his sleeze factor appears to be pretty high, and his personality is not "likable' like Bush's is. If Edwards can win a couple, he may be the dark horse.

Kerry is a true (Ted) Kennedy protoge. What in the world did you expect??

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For those paying attention, the Taliban had been overthrown for over a year when this deal was penned. But somehow the argument that the Taliban were harbouring terrorists persists. Interesting.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. You get a smley face.

[ISiddiqui]

The reason is that it is still the legislative branch that controls the pursestrings.

Of course... which is I prefer a Republican Congress and Kerry.

If he did sell the ousting of Saddam Hussein on the sole cause of being a "bloody dictator" and only a harm to his own people with no designs on fighting the US, would you have believed that story with everything we learned from President Clinton and Bush Sr's WMD evidence?

Yep, of course. I didn't really believe that going after Saddam simply because he had WMD is not a good idea. I'm a Neo-Conservative, so I'd rather we went after Saddam because he was an murdering asshole.

He and I used to team up quite well against eco-terrorists disguised as Greens.

Fooking Eco-terrorists .

Already I'm hearing that people/large corporations were granted large favors right after campaign donations were given to Kerry. If true, it makes him a crook, period.

So what you are saying is that he is a politician... like everyone in Congress and President Bush himself? Brilliant deduction .

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. You get a smley face.

Hey, don't sweat it, we all make mistakes.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Hey, don't sweat it, we all make mistakes.

If you're suggesting I made a mistake, you need to work on your reading comprehension, because you got it all wrong.

edit - to clarify, as I read your posts you are suggesting that I said the Taleban were in power in December 2002 and/or they were harboring terrorists at that time. Of course, if you look at what I wrote I said the Taleban were harboring terrorists when they were invited to Texas in 1997, which is correct and well documented whether you knew about it or not.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by yabanci

If you're suggesting I made a mistake, you need to work on your reading comprehension, because you got it all wrong.

edit - to clarify, as I read your posts you are suggesting that I said the Taleban were in power in December 2002 and/or they were harboring terrorists at that time. Of course, if you look at what I wrote I said the Taleban were harboring terrorists when they were invited to Texas in 1997, which is correct and well documented whether you knew about it or not.

Okay Yabanci, you got me, I did not know a US Oil Company was talking with the Taliban back in 1997, but I'll take your word on it. I will also get on the phone and ask President Clinton why we were dealing with the Taliban back in '97. I am pretty sure Clinton didn't quite know what the Taliban were all about in '97 other than "just another extreme Islamic fundamental group". As for the terrorist that were being harboured, was Bin Laden even in Afghanistan in '97 or was he still running around Somalia and other parts of that region then? Can't remember. What was Clinton's policy on Afghanistan other than not recognizing the Government (an international viewpoint)?

But the bottom line remains, is building up the infrastructure of Afghanistan with US companies making a profit really that evil? Are there other oil companies out there that do this kind of work for free? I guess I just don't get the connection between US companies overseas and George Bush as evil, but any connections between US companies overseas and say....Bill Clinton as good.

[ISiddiqui]

I am pretty sure Clinton didn't quite know what the Taliban were all about in '97 other than "just another extreme Islamic fundamental group".

Still no reason to deal with them.

was Bin Laden even in Afghanistan in '97 or was he still running around Somalia and other parts of that region then?

We can't be sure, but Al Queda was pulling off embassy bombings around that time in East Central Africa.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Kerry will never be able to stand up to the scrutiny of the general campaign. Already I'm hearing that people/large corporations were granted large favors right after campaign donations were given to Kerry. If true, it makes him a crook, period. People just don't know Kerry right now, but his sleeze factor appears to be pretty high, and his personality is not "likable' like Bush's is. If Edwards can win a couple, he may be the dark horse.

Sources???? Or does this come from your intimate knowledge of the Kerry campaign.

Large favors to contributors, a crook?? You've just identified almost all politicians, including Bush. To think otherwise is ridiculous. I am pretty sure your accusations of criminal activity will either come out (and you will be happy because Kerry will go to jail) or more likely won't. It really doesn't matter anyways, the voters will be swayed on what they think the Prez will do for them, and Bush's message is lost on the average person at this point.

Tax cuts (in the form of check for $600 on summer) doesn't cut it.

My favorite expression coined this winter by the white house is "jobless economic growth." Good for investors, not good for the average American.

By the way I am neither Republican or Democrat, but I am a realist looking for someone who will do the best job. Bush has been terrible so far, can't see how anything will get worse with Kerry in there.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay Yabanci, you got me, I did not know a US Oil Company was talking with the Taliban back in 1997, but I'll take your word on it. I will also get on the phone and ask President Clinton why we were dealing with the Taliban back in '97. I am pretty sure Clinton didn't quite know what the Taliban were all about in '97 other than "just another extreme Islamic fundamental group". As for the terrorist that were being harboured, was Bin Laden even in Afghanistan in '97 or was he still running around Somalia and other parts of that region then? Can't remember. What was Clinton's policy on Afghanistan other than not recognizing the Government (an international viewpoint)?

But the bottom line remains, is building up the infrastructure of Afghanistan with US companies making a profit really that evil? Are there other oil companies out there that do this kind of work for free? I guess I just don't get the connection between US companies overseas and George Bush as evil, but any connections between US companies overseas and say....Bill Clinton as good.

FYI - here is a link to the story on the Taleban's visit, originally published in the London Telegraph. http://www.mideastfacts.com/oilbaron...tlbn_1997.html

Bin Laden was expelled from Sudan in 1996 at the urging of the US and Saudi governments and he returned to Afghanistan, which was (mostly) under Taleban rule. It was also in 1996 that bin Laden declared jihad on United States forces and was indicted for being involved in the training of people involved in the 1993 attacks on US forces in Somolia. Clinton was fully aware of who the Taleban were and their invovlement with bin Laden. Clinton's policy in Afghanistan was similar to Bush's: stability in order to build the pipeline.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by yabanci

It was also in 1996 that bin Laden declared jihad on United States forces and was indicted for being involved in the training of people involved in the 1993 attacks on US forces in Somolia. Clinton was fully aware of who the Taleban were and their invovlement with bin Laden.

And yet he turned down Sudan's offer to turn over Bin Laden. Interesting.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And yet he turned down Sudan's offer to turn over Bin Laden. Interesting.

The Sudanese were not in a position to "turn over" bin Laden. Immediately after bin Laden left, however, they offered to show the US their intelligence files, which they claimed contained lists of Al Queda members and details of the network. There were disagreements inside the Clinton White House as to the true intentions of the Sudanese. The FBI wanted the files, but the State Department regarded Sudan's government as a terrorist regime and insisted that there be no cooperation between the two governments. It was a huge blunder.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by yabanci

The Sudanese were not in a position to "turn over" bin Laden..

I have always gotten the impression that they had him in custody.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I have always gotten the impression that they had him in custody.

Sudan made back channel offers to take him into custody and turn him over to the Saudis, but nobody really believed Sudan had the ability or even the will to do this. Think about it -- it's not like you just show up and arrest Osama bin Laden, as events in Afghanistan have demonstrated. And Sudan isn't exactly a superpower and its government wasn't exactly trustworthy (in fact, the Americans believed Sudan had plotted to assisinate the US NSA and many thought the bin Laden offer was just a ruse to take the heat off Sudan for the alleged assasination plot). The bigger problem, according to the Americans, was what to do with him even if Sudan could take him into custody. These events were happening in the Spring of 1996, but there were no indictments then (the Jihad wasn't declared until August 1996 and the grand jury investigation didn't even start until August 1996). So, it was argued, the US did not have grounds to take him into custody at the time (this was before the US had concentration camps in Cuba). The proposal was to give him to the Saudis where the rule of law is not an issue, but the Saudis refused to take him.

[Dutch]

And there lies the big dilemna. US Intelligence said Bin Laden was bad news. We needed to stop him way back in 1996. He was rich, he was motivated, he was suspected of multiple bombings in Saudi Arabia including the Khobar Towers that killed some 30 US soldiers, an Army Liaison Office in Riyahd that killed a score of US Army Officers, the WTC bombing in 93, and preparing to cause even more problems as he threatened he would to the Saudi Royal Family who eventually revoked his citizenship.

BUT...

Because Bin Laden hadn't actually been involved in causing a major catastrophe with thousdands dead or with using WMD, there was major arguments over how to handle him. President Clinton chose to be reactionary. "Let's wait and see what he does."

And I don't blame President Clinton for that. Nobody outside of Intelligence circles really consider the idea of mass murder the magnitude of the WTC. Hell, even after the failed bombing in 93 nobody considered it. Not really, anyway.

But then, we saw what a 250 million dollar operation called Al Qaeda could do on the 11th of September, 2001. And if a large operation such as Al Qaeda could do that, imagine what a rogue nation with hundreds of billions of dollars could achive? That was the nightmare we all started to envision. That was the nightmare that Saddam Hussein had to have envisioned. If his enemy Al Qaeda could cause that much damage to the USA, where was his support going to come from if he couldn't act in an even more devastating capacity? His support infrastructure could quickly turn to investing in Al Qaeda instead of Iraq.

He had plans to have his first Nuclear Bomb by 2007. A grave and gathering danger. This isn't made up by President Bush. We chose to be proactive instead of reactive based on the history with dealing with Al Qaeda.

I honestly think we chose correctly in this instance.

[Vegas Vic]

President Bush and Vice President Cheney had vested interest in the Caspian Pipeline long before Sept. 11. There's no question that the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil.

The western part of Afghanistan, the area of the proposed Caspian pipeline, is now occupied by the US. Of course, the Bush Administration says its war goals have been clear and do not involve oil. Since this oil initiative began well before Sept. 11, with meetings between the Taliban and the US Government, as well as close ties between the interim government with the Bush administration and UNOCAL, and the fact that the military troops were already in Afghanistan on Sept. 11, it appears evident that the war goals are clear and in fact very much involve the construction of the Caspian Pipeline.