onetime2

It is not the only way to deal with them but when dealing with them you need to have something to bargain with. As stated for the hundredth time, states don't fear international sanctions. If that's the worst you can threaten them with then you're out of luck when you step to the bargaining table.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

You are right that sanctions do not always have the desired effect. Military action is always in the background as an option during negotiations with tyrants, a la Serbia, but preemptively striking a country without any sort of global support or credible justification is dangerous and reckless.

onetime2

But no country with a significant military force took the threat of military force seriously. The UN certainly has no stomach for a real fight as they barely show up to keep the peace in places already committed, in some form, to decreasing violence.

Additionally, the threat of sanctions is almost completely ineffective because states know the process that such approvals need to go through. It can be years between the threat of sanctions to the first implementation of them. And the process can be delayed by any number of simple concessions on the part of the to be sanctioned country or back room deals with UN member countries.

Now the US has proven that there could be a real militaristic threat. We can debate whether this is a good or bad thing but the invasion of Iraq has underlined that our strategy for dealing with "rogue" nations may run the gamut from international sanctions to more "unilateral" (if you consider Great Britain, Australia, Turkey, et al all pawns of the US) action that doesn't follow the same old easily manipulated process of approval through the UN.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

To say that "no country with a significant military force took the threat of military force seriously" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. How, exactly, do you know this? It could easily be argued that the US actions in Serbia prove that UN sanctions can result in significant military pressure.

Yes, America has shown that we are willing to back up our threats with actions regardless of global opinion (and I would bet that the citizens of GB, Austrailia and Turkey aren't quite as supportive of our actions as their governments are) but we have yet to see any real rewards for this shift in policy. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm not aware of any lessening of state supported terror or any increase in global stability. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have yet to be corrected.

Mojo_PeiPei

Because when it comes to our national security, what other nations think is most important.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

onetime2

Serbia was a "peacekeeping" mission not an invasion. They did not have to fight to gain ground and the situation was far different from what would happen in the case of a country dedicated to defending its borders.

Libya has disclosed and disbanded their attempts at building nuclear capabilities. Iran for a time, before they clamped down on reformists and it became more apparent that the US would not open another front in Iran anytime soon, became more open with disclosures about their arms building. Pakistan is helping us in more ways than ever before. The Phillipines are cracking down on terrorist groups (with the help of US forces) more than before. The Indonesian government is more committed to rooting out terrorists in their midst.

I absolutely see a link between these actions and the US change to a more aggressive stance with regards to terrorists and "rogue" nations.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

Huh? I don't understand this comment.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

The difference is not so apparent to me. Although the original UN peacekeeping mission generally involved no armed conflict, the US bombings there, as well as on the ground enforcement of UN regulations, were harsh and immediate. The situation is not exactly the same, but it does illustrate that UN actions can involve significant military actions.

Pakistan, Indonesia and the Phillipines are all allies of ours and have been for quite some time. The governments of Indonesia and the Phillipines would like nothing better than for their extremists to disappear, so they can hardly be considered state sponsors of terrorism. Iran is a country in flux, but it is far too soon to say that our actions have had a positive effect there.

Mojo_PeiPei

I was pointing out how a large criticism of the pre-emption doctrine, something that concerns American sovereignity and security, is labeled bad or wrong because of what other nations think about it.

Iraq is a perfect example.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

onetime2

"Involving significant military action" and invading a country to enforce international law are very different. The force level commitments are vastly different and the likely number of dead and wounded substantially higher. Something like 38,000 UN forces were deployed for the peace keeping mission versus about 150,000 US forces for Iraq.

Pakistan was hardly helpful to us prior to our plans to invade Afghanistan. The Phillipines and Indonesia were not committing very many resources toward shutting down their terrorist groups. It wasn't until the US increased pressur on all governments with terrorist groups operating and training within their borders that they upped the search.

I agree with you about Iran. It's far too soon and they seem to now have taken the tack of developing nukes to help insure that they won't face military invasion. It's purely a gamble on their part. They hope that they can develop nuclear capabilities in the next few years while we are tied up in Iraq because they are convinced (by the well documented force constraints on our military and the political opposition stateside) that we do not have the will or ability to open another front until we are either out of Iraq or Iraq is well on its way toward self rule.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

Musharraf has proven to be a very willing ally in our "war on terror"...whether this is a product of fear or a desire to align itself with us is not very clear to me.
Indonesia and the Phillipines may have stepped up efforts to reduce terrorism, but they are our allies and did not require threats to do so. I don't think that they fear American invasion very much.

Major_PeiPei,

I disagree with the preemption doctrine, as do most of it's opponents, not because of it's international popularity but because I consider it reckless, dangerous and strategically flawed.

Mojo_PeiPei

Most aren't as well informed and articulate as you though, thats my only problem.

Also Pakistan is siding with America because Musharraf is trying to retain power in light of growing cultural and religious "radicalism". The same people we are fighting in Afganistan are the same people Musharraf is fighting in the Pushtan region, the same people that have attempted 3 assassination attempts in a year.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

host

You declare that "There's no secret conspiracy here", as if it was fact.
Then....you write as if it is also accepted fact that 9-11 "occurred",
apparently with no pre-knowledge, approval, collaboration, co-operation,
or conspiracy on the part of the Bush executive branch, the neocons, or our military.
Note that the attack on the pentagon was on the least populated section
of that complex, all of the airliners involved seemed to have fewer than average <br>passengers aboard, and the twin towers were attacked at a time of
day when terrorists were certainly aware that they would not be populated <br>with anywhere near the maximum number of workers and visitors.
Compared to a peak number of 50,000 in the WTC, only about 2450 of
the 2711 total WTC dead were not the 43 police or 340 firemen killed !
All coincidences, or, especially when coupled with Rumsfeld's alteration
of the standing airliner shoot-down order/procedure to military pilots in
June, 2001, and Ashcroft's sudden personal avoidance of commercial flights,
should we ignore noting who gained the most in terms of authority, prestige,
and reputation in the days and months after the 9-11 attack ?

<a href="http://liberty.hypermart.net/voices/2003/When_Democracy_Failed_The_Warnings_of_History.htm">Was 9-11 America's "Reichstag
Fire"?</a>

cthulu23

Wow, that may be the greatest run-on sentence that I've ever read. Heroic lack of sentence terminators aside, I give absolutely zero credence to the idea tha Bush somehow set up or allowed 9-11 to occur. Conspiracy theories like this, never backed up with any kind of evidence, do much harm to those who are trying to use legitimate arguments to discredit Bush. Could a conspiracy that immense really stay secret for very long? If you have some evidence, I'd love to see it.

host

I did not realize that I actually posted that version. I scrubbed it in the
final version that I thought I was posting for the first time.
Anyway....this is more fact laced food for thought than "evidence":
(Link is a .pdf file)
<a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf">
From: ADDRESS OF MICHAEL C. RUPPERT
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB – SAN FRANCISCO
TUESDAY AUGUST 31, 2004</a>
<i>
TO DATE, THE CASE THAT 9/11 WAS PERPETRATED SOLELY BY OSAMA
BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED, EVEN TO THE
MOST RUDIMENTARY STANDARDS. IN FACT, SOME 35 MONTHS AFTER
THE ATTACKS THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE SUCCESSFUL 9/11
PROSECUTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. THE ONLY CONVICTION
THAT HAD BEEN SECURED, A GERMAN PROSECUTION AGAINST MOUNIR
EL MOTASSADEQ, CHARGED WITH AIDING THE SO CALLED HAMBURG
CELL OF MOHAMMED ATTA, WAS OVERTURNED IN 2004 BECAUSE THE
US GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO PRODUCE KEY WITNESSES SUCH AS
KHALID SHAIKH MUHAMMAD OR RAMZI BIN AL-SHIBH AND OTHER
EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE CHARGES. EVERY DEFENDANT IN A
WESTERN CRIMINAL CASE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE
USED AGAINST HIM AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL AS TO THE 9/11 RESEARCH
COMMUNITY, THE MYSTERIOUS AND INEXPLICABLE FAILURE OF THE
NATION’S AIR DEFENSES THAT DAY REMAINS THE MOST GLARING AND
GAPING HOLE IN THE KEAN COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT AND IN THE
GOVERNMENT’S VERSION OF EVENTS. SCRAMBLING FIGHTER
AIRCRAFT WAS A ROUTINE OCCURRENCE FOR YEARS BEFORE 9/11.
30
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAS TOLD US THAT FIGHTER AIRCRAFT WERE
SCRAMBLED AND FLYING BESIDE ERRANT COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE
AIR TRAFFIC WITHIN MINUTES OF THE SLIGHTEST DEVIATION SOME 67
TIMES IN THE CALENDAR YEAR PRECEDING JUNE 1 2001. THIS IS ONE
OF MANY AREAS WHERE THE KEAN COMMISSION NOT ONLY FAILED TO
LOOK BUT ACTUALLY ALTERED EVIDENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF ITS
FINAL REPORT.
FOR ME, THE PIVOTAL EVIDENCE ABSOLUTELY DEMONSTRATING
DIRECT GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN, AND MANAGEMENT OF, THE
ATTACKS WAS FOUND IN A NUMBER OF UNDISPUTED, YET VIRTUALLY
UNADDRESSED WARGAMES THAT I WILL SHOW WERE BEING
CONDUCTED, COORDINATED AND/OR CONTROLLED BY VICE PRESIDENT
DICK CHENEY OR HIS IMMEDIATE STAFF ON THE MORNING OF
SEPTEMBER 11TH. THE NAMES OF THOSE WARGAMES ARE KNOWN TO
INCLUDE: VIGILANT GUARDIAN, VIGILANT WARRIOR, NORTHERN
GUARDIAN, NORTHERN VIGILANCE, AND TRIPOD II. ALL HAVE BEEN
REPORTED ON BY MAJOR PRESS ORGANIZATIONS RELYING ON
UNDISPUTED QUOTES FROM PARTICIPATING MILITARY PERSONNEL.
THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY NORAD PRESS RELEASES. ALL,
EXCEPT FOR NORTHERN VIGILANCE AND TRIPOD II HAD TO DO WITH
HIJACKED AIRLINERS INSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE NORTHEAST AIR DEFENSE SECTOR WHERE
ALL FOUR 9/11 HIJACKINGS OCCURRED.
ACCORDING TO A CLEAR RECORD SOME OF THESE EXERCISES
INVOLVED COMMERCIAL AIRLINE HIJACKINGS. IN SOME CASES FALSE
BLIPS WERE DELIBERATELY INSERTED ONTO FAA AND MILITARY RADAR
SCREENS AND THEY WERE PRESENT DURING (AT LEAST) THE FIRST
ATTACKS. THIS EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FIGHTER RESPONSE
BECAUSE, WITH ONLY EIGHT FIGHTERS AVAILABLE IN THE REGION,
31
THERE WERE AS MANY AS 22 POSSIBLE HIJACKINGS TAKING PLACE.
OTHER EXERCISES, SPECIFICALLY NORTHERN VIGILANCE HAD PULLED
SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE NORTHEAST U.S.
– JUST BEFORE 9/11 – INTO NORTHERN CANADA AND ALASKA. IN
ADDITION, A CLOSE READING OF KEY NEWS STORIES PUBLISHED IN THE
SPRING OF 2004 REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT SOME OF THESE
DRILLS WERE “LIVE-FLY” EXERCISES WHERE ACTUAL AIRCRAFT, LIKELY
FLOWN BY REMOTE CONTROL – WERE SIMULATING THE BEHAVIOR OF
HIJACKED AIRLINERS IN REAL LIFE. ALL OF THIS AS THE REAL ATTACKS
BEGAN. THE FACT THAT THESE EXERCISES HAD NEVER BEEN
SYSTEMATICALLY AND THOROUGHLY EXPLORED IN THE MAINSTREAM
PRESS, OR PUBLICLY BY CONGRESS, OR AT LEAST PUBLICLY IN ANY
DETAIL BY THE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION MADE ME
THINK THAT THEY MIGHT BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF 9/11.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY TURNED OUT TO BE.
ONLY ONE WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN, WAS MENTIONED
IN A FOOTNOTE TO THE KEAN COMMISSION REPORT AND THEN IT WAS
DELIBERATELY MISLABELED AS AN EXERCISE INTENDED TO INTERCEPT
RUSSIAN BOMBERS INSTEAD OF A HIJACK EXERCISE IN THE
NORTHEAST SECTOR. EVEN THEN, A DELIBERATE LIE WAS TOLD TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS NORAD COMMANDER RALPH EBERHART
TESTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE EXERCISE ACTUALLY
EXPEDITED US AIR FORCE RESPONSE DURING THE ATTACKS.
WHEN MICHAEL KANE, A BRILLIANT YOUNG NEW YORK ACTIVIST AND
BUDDING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER APPROACHED GENERAL
EBERHART ON AN FTW ASSIGNMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COMMISSION’S LAST PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION
32
ON THE OTHER EXERCISES, EBERHART’S ONLY RESPONSE WAS, “NO
COMMENT.”
AND AN ADDITIONAL NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE CALLED
TRIPOD II, BEING “SET UP” IN MANHATTAN ON SEPTEMBER 11TH WAS
UNDER THE DIRECT COORDINATION OF FEMA AND – BY WHITE HOUSE
DIRECTIVE – THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. THE
SET UP FOR THAT EXERCISE CONVENIENTLY PLACED A FULLY STAFFED
FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMAND POST
ON MANHATTAN’S PIER 29 IN TIME FOR IT TO BE CONVENIENTLY USED
AS THE COMMAND POST AFTER THE TWIN TOWERS HAD COLLAPSED.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY AREAS WHERE THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT AND
THE FINDINGS OF THE KEAN COMMISSION ARE CONTRADICTED BY
HARD EVIDENCE, OFFICIAL RECORDS, MAINSTREAM NEWS
INVESTIGATIONS AND EVEN SWORN TESTIMONY. BOTH THE LOS
ANGELES TIMES AND THE NEW YORK TIMES HAVE NOTED SOME OF THE
LESSER, BUT NO LESS GLARING, INCONSISTENCIES. IN MY BOOK I WILL
PROVIDE YOU WITH MANY MORE.
IN MY BOOK I WILL MAKE SEVERAL KEY POINTS:
1. I WILL NAME RICHARD CHENEY AS THE PRIME SUSPECT IN THE MASS
MURDERS OF 9/11 AND WILL ESTABLISH THAT, NOT ONLY WAS HE A
PLANNER IN THE ATTACKS, BUT ALSO THAT ON THE DAY OF THE
ATTACKS HE WAS RUNNING A COMPLETELY SEPARATE COMMAND,
CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WHICH WAS SUPERCEDING
ANY ORDERS BEING ISSUED BY THE NMCC, OR THE WHITE HOUSE
SITUATION ROOM. TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END HE RELIED ON A
REDUNDANT AND SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM MAINTAINED
BY THE US SECRET SERVICE IN OR NEAR THE PRESIDENTIAL
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER – THE BUNKER TO WHICH HE AND
33
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE WERE REPORTEDLY
“RUSHED” AFTER FLIGHT 175 STRUCK THE WTC’S SOUTH TOWER. I WILL
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE POSSESSED RADAR
SCREENS WHICH GAVE THEM, AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHOSE SIDE
THE NEVER LEFT, WITH REAL-TIME INFORMATION AS GOOD AS OR
BETTER THAN THAT AVAILABLE TO THE PENTAGON;
2. I WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT IN WHAT ARE CALLED NATIONAL SPECIAL
SECURITY EVENTS THE US SECRET SERVICE IS THE SUPREME US
AGENCY FOR OPERATIONAL CONTROL WITH COMPLETE AUTHORITY
OVER THE MILITARY AND ALL CIVILIAN AGENCIES.
3. I WILL ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THAT IN MAY OF 2001, BY
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER, RICHARD CHENEY WAS PUT IN DIRECT
COMMAND AND CONTROL OF ALL WARGAME AND FIELD EXERCISE
TRAINING AND SCHEDULING THROUGH SEVERAL AGENCIES,
ESPECIALLY FEMA. THIS ALSO EXTENDED TO ALL OF THE CONFLICTING
AND OVERLAPPING NORAD DRILLS ON THAT DAY.
4. I WILL ALSO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TRIPOD II EXERCISE BEING
SET UP ON SEPT. 10TH IN MANHATTAN WAS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO
CHENEY'S ROLE IN NUMBER 3 ABOVE.</i>
*********************************
Stanley Hilton was formerly Senator Bob Dole's Chief of Staff -
<center><font size=3>
<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1536">Stanley Hilton Sues Bush Cabal for 9-11 Conspiracy</a> <i> by SURFINGTHEAPOCALYPSE.COM</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1459">FBI Conspiracy Cover Up by 9/11 Commission</a> <i> by SIBEL EDMONDS</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1424">9/11 Commission: Making World Safe for Conspiracy</a> <i> by URI DOWBENKO</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1406">Dov Zakheim: The Mastermind Behind 9/11?</a> <i> by STEPHEN ST. JOHN</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1288">What? And Why? The 9/ 11 Conspiracy Continues...</a> <i> by JOHN KAMINSKI</i><br>
</font></font></center>

cthulu23

Hmmm, well the lack of trials could have something to do with the facts that all of the hijackers died and any individuals involved with the plot that have been captured are undoubtedly rotting in Guantanamo. No trials for "enemy combatants," right?

Most everything in the piece is filled with conjecture that will be proven at a later point. War games! 22 hijackings! Inactive fighter jets! Of course, there are no sources for any of these stories. Conspiracy theories are like the white rabbit...they will lead you on a chase without ever giving anything back. Why not focus on what we already know that can be proved? It's pretty damning stuff in and of itself.

Edit: It also doesn't help that the article is written in all caps, the internet equivalent of violently shouting on street corners.

trickyy

the bureaucracy of our gov't makes such a sweeping conspiracy nearly impossible to pull off. and in general, i think conspiracy theorists give our leaders too much credit. being so crafty and evil takes more time and effort than you'd think, especially when you're trying to do your "regular" job simultaneously. but come to your own conclusions. the 911 report answered the few nagging issues that i had with the attacks.


back to the original poster's comments, i'd like to add that PBS Frontline covered the neo-con ideas before the war started. it was great to have some perspective on the motivation of the war, although people sometimes looked at me strange when i tried to explain it to them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/iraq/view/

i originally watched this back in march of 2003, but i think the information is still relevant. this is a pretty good news show...i think i'll check through some of the recent archived episodes.

bigcid420

sweet sweet

host

<a href="http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php">http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php</a>

Ustwo

Moonbats.

Gotta love them.

Oh btw I have a related story at home bookmarked knowing some day this moonbat theory would come up again. The rescue dogs used at the 9/11 site, have shown NO negative effects to the exposure. If there were problems you would expect to see it in the dogs first.

Why did you post that host, it is related to Iraq how, this really belongs in tilted parinoia.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

abscondo

This is a sarcastic comment along the lines of George Bush's preposterous assertion -- which too many people fell for -- that John Kerry would've given other countries veto power over our ability to defend ourselves.

Or, to rephrase it, he doesn't give a damn what any other countries think.

Clearer now?

__________________
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

zen_tom

I'm not sure that's right - I'd say it was a serious comment on the lines that if other nations have no quarrel with you, then your nation is likely to be pretty secure, while if they think 'we' are a threat, then our security is going to be damaged. Quite simple really.

e.g. How many times has Switzerland been invaded in the last 150 years?

KMA-628

Re: Switzerland

Would be a credible argument if they hadn't been in collusion with the Axis powers (our enemy at the time).

From Switzerland's website:

LINKY

The Swiss had to deal with many fallouts after the war. The concept of "Swiss neutrality" is a misnomer.

What if the quarrel you have is with someone that has no country? How do you then defend yourself?

Mojo_PeiPei

My original comment was sarcasm.

I've said it before, am saying it again. America or any country has the right to do whatever it deems necessary to protect it's population.

When was Switzerland a super power and the sole hyper power?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

zen_tom

When did Switzerland have a crippling balance of payments deficit coupled with an increasingly overstretched military?

But I accept your point. Any country does have the right to protect its population. Even if its being invaded by a global hyper-power. And that protection might take the form of guerrilla action directed at the hyper-power's population either in order to cause discontent in that population and so divert its government away from foreign policy and back to home matters, or by forcing the hand of that hyper-power to crystallise disparate nations into forming an alternative power-block and so to form an effective opposition.

If your quarrel is with a group that has no country (do you mean the Palestinians, or Al Quaida?) then invading 2 countries isn't necessarily going to make you any friends.

Sometimes might is not the best way. Switzerland has certainly benefited from its neutral status, and global hyper-power's might benefit from a more softly-softly approach too.

dksuddeth

Then you deal with the countries that supply them safe haven.

abscondo

Well, duh.

However, it would smarter for us in the long run if we convinced a chunk of the world -- or at least our allies -- that a particular course of action was both necessary and the best way to do it.

We chose to act pretty much unilaterally in Iraq (please spare us the "coalition" argument, because this one was primarily composed of tiny countries). We ignored the countries that tried to dissuade us. And now we're demanding that they help us.

Ignoring the advice of your friends and customers and then demanding their help just isn't smart.

__________________
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

KMA-628

Switzerland hasn't been a global target of terrorism since 1978, we have. Do I need to remind everyone of the mess Carter got us into? The mess that has progressively gotten worse since 1978?

Zen, I can appreciate your position, but it just isn't plausible. There is nothing we can do to appease our enemy. They don't want peace. They don't want compromise. They want all of our deaths and they have made this fact public on many, many occasions.

You can only compromise with someone that is willing. Radical Muslim's do not want any form of compromise. There is absolutely nothing we can do, except take them out.

Anyway, we tried to appease them in the 90's and it didn't work. The attacks just increased in quantity and quality.

Sometimes you just have to fight. And, when there isn't an official "front" to fight at, then you make one. Wherever and whenever you can. We are fighting Al Qaeda right now in Iraq and that is a good thing, in my opinion. Let our soldiers fight them rather than worry about civilians dealing with terrorists on a plan. This is what they are trained to do and what they want to do. Take it from an old salt, training and training and training only make you drool for the real thing. Made up scenarios get old real quick.

Did you happen to catch the article about the Al Qaeda HQ found in Iraq? The damn thing even had a sign.

abscondo

Even though invading Iraq has inflamed the Islamic world and encouraged more of them to become terrorists?

Can you say "counterproductive"?

Osama bin Laden claimed we were going to invade a country in that region. It was a preposterous idea -- until George Bush decided to invade Iraq. We gave bin Laden's arguments credibility that they didn't have.

__________________
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

KMA-628

they have been "inflamed" for quite some time now. I dealt with this personally, back when most of the people here were still in grade school and high school.

So they are more inflamed now, I don't care. They were a viable threat to us even before 9/11. This was going to escalate whether we invaded Iraq or not. All invading Iraq did was given us a second, real front to fight on.

Hell, we were at high-alert anytime we were anywhere near the middle-east. And that was well over a decade ago.

I guess I see it this way. They choose us as an enemy. They chose to attack us numerous times over the last 2 1/2 decades. Now, we are taking the battle to them, wherever we can. It is not as clear cut as battles past, but we are doing our best. I would be much happier if Al Qaeda was a 'real' country, with 'real' troops and a 'real' border, but they aren't. We are just gonna have to go after them wherever we can, and we are.

dksuddeth

Those 'allies' were offered the opportunity to join us, however, they declined and vetoed ANY action because they had direct, and potentially illegal' financial interests in Iraq that went against the sanctions in place.

dksuddeth

when did OBL state that we would invade a country in the middle east? before or after 9/11?

abscondo

I'm not sure about the timing, in all honesty.

Look, everyone understood when we went into Afghanistan after 9/11. It was clear what had to be done and why. Almost everyone was on our side. Then, before we finished the necessary work in Afghanistan, our esteemed president decided we had to invade Iraq ... where it wasn't at all clear why we wanted to invade. Nobody found our WMD arguments convincing, and for good reason, as it turned out.

As to your other point ... yes, it's true that some of our traditional allies were making money off the Iraq sanctions. But guess what -- so were American companies. Only gosh darn it, the law doesn't allow them to reveal which ones. Isn't that convenient?

__________________
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

dksuddeth

we've already acknowledged bad intelligence, this bad intelligence even went back as far as clinton so why are you only jumping the bush administration?

I would hope that there are conservatives/republicans who are just as displeased and disconcerted about that as I am.

The bottom line is this - Regime change has been US policy for over 10 years, thats back when clinton was president also, and it wasn't going to be done by continuing UN sanctions. All that would have done was allow Hussein to gather with his new european allies (france, germany) and restart his weapons programs again. It would only have been a matter of time before Israel would have had to nuke the weapons sites for their own national security and then there'd be a lot of hell to pay. I'd say we nipped that in the bud pretty well now.

abscondo

Look, I agree about the importance of going after the bad guys. My argument is with how we're doing it.

They would say that we chose them as an enemy. I'm not saying that they're right, you understand -- but I think it's important to understand the enemy's motivations.

Michael Scheuer, the CIA analyst who just resigned, makes the same arguments:
To sum up, I'd argue that brute force alone will not win this struggle for us. We need to reach out and convince the Muslim world that we are not warring against them, but against the minority within their ranks who wish to do us harm.

__________________
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

dksuddeth

Thats been done many times also. I think that their majority should reach out and bitchslap the minority of their religion who wish to do us harm.

fuzyfuzer

This whole war was far more political than any one admits oil for food was not the only reason for France and Germany to oppose us. It was also jockeying for position inside the EU Britain had joined us on an administrative level and they did it first. This put two other major factors in the EU in a strange position that was convenient to blame on America. This war has very little to do with terrorism or human rights it was about our economy. The people that bankrolled GWB presidency needed to make the money back a strong economy does this for the big heads and easily available oil makes a strong economy. Oil creates jobs makes people money and lets people fill up there SUV’s with nice available gas keeping the middle happy. Politics, politics, politics it all came down to reelection unfortunately there were some minor backfires.

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

Locobot

Regime change was not US policy until GWBush saw his approval rating in the toilet in 2002. Regime change was not the policy of his father GHWBush, he understood that although Hussein was a contemptible tyrant but also better than almost any feasible alternative. France and Germany were not "allies" with Iraq, they wanted to open their markets to trade--just like many American businesses. Europeans had sympathy for the Iraqis living under the U.N. trade sanctions, which we now know were completely effective in keeping Hussein from producing weapons. The sanctions were also very effective at keeping things like baby formula and medicine out of Iraq. Israel has showed no signs of attacking Iraq since 1981 when they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facilities. You honestly believe that after the 1991 gulf war in which Israel didn't retaliate for scud missle attacks that it would've unilaterally attacked Iraq without our permission?

KMA-628

I think you meant to insert a "in Iraq" in between 'US policy' and 'until'.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few regimes we changed in the last decade, two decades, etc.

dksuddeth

Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq.

Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress.