BS: The War

Subject: BS: The War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:44 AM

I'm glad the war is over. I've got a couple of questions:

How many Iraqi citizens died?
Where are the WMD?
Where is Saddam?
What was our actual objective?

I'm confused.

Peace, ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: GUEST,boab
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:09 AM

Thomas---that looks more like a couple of couple of questions!!
1)Thousands during this wonderful "coalition" effort, many thousands more during the ten-year preamble.
2)Mainly in the USA.
3)Probably still in Iraq, dead or alive; but who cares other than the Iraqis thrmselves.
4) That's not quite as easy. Could be oil or Israel's "security" ---or both in combination. One thing is certain, "freedom" as an objective was never even in the queue.

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Sorcha
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 03:28 AM

What war?? (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:54 AM

Actually the Washington Post had a pretty good recap in their Sunday issue (that is if you really want the first brush of history). As we all know, there will be many updates through the next couple of years, as various agencies and commands conduct their "lessons learned" studies, and then the news media seek to validate them.

Contrary to what the liberals think, the US military is actually real thorough in these assessments, though many are not made public less for the conspriatorial reasons, than for not exposing weaknesses while "work-arounds" are being done. In addition, if a potential enemy thinks it has found a weakness, which we have already corrected, when the action starts and they operate under those assumptions, we catch them flat-footed. Thats why those Russian Generals who helped the Iragis set up their typical Slavic "defense in depth" are being laughed at today.

You'll also notice it's the reason that the North Koreans are screaming to come to the table... They have suddenly realized that the 11,000 artillery pieces they have massed north of Seoul are what the Americans now call a "target-rich environment"...

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:56 AM

Thomas:

The administration really wanted this war, and in order to have it, they launched rationalizations for it. These were stood up and knocked down in order:

1. Weapons of mass destruction were an immediate potential threat to the US. Unfortunately, none were found.

2. Intimate connections with 9-11. This one didn't last very long.

3. Intimate connections with Al-Queada. We liked this one, despite the fact that the differences between Wahhabbi, and the secular socialism and other kinds of Muslim belief as practiced in Iraq made it highly improbable. It didn't really pan out as a basis for starting a war.

4. Weapons of mass destruction could be handed off to terrorists, thus facilitating another 9-11 type incident. This one didn't really pan out either.

5. Well, anyway, he is a bad, bad person and he is causing suffering with his despotic rule and torturing people and murdering people, and his son is even worse.

This is the only one that carried any freight, really, in the actual event. While it is perfectly true, it is difficult to explain as a sole justification for premeditated attack against one country and not others. You will notice that once we started the war, this is the one that got all the air time. "Liberating" Iraq became the phrase du jour. And it was unassailably virtuous, so it shut a lot of people up. There are probably 5,000 Iraqis who might disagree with this virtue idea, but they're dead now.

6. We need to stabilize the region so as to keep feeding our oil habit and making lotsa dough for the top levels of management in the large oil companies.   This one never got particularly articulated by the administration but a lot of folks kinda feel it was the real rationale all along. I'm not party to the decision making process, but it does kind of explain why they really wanted to have a war.

7. The WMD are deeply buried in the huge desert lands in the south. It will take years to track them down. Noone knows where they have been buried, but they must have been.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 10:41 AM

An interesting exposition on the expensive, dedicated spin management which reached heights of professionalism in the Iraq war never before seen.

Of interest is how much importance and attention the administration placed on the perceived truth, as distinguished from substance. The media really is the massage these days!

A

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:20 AM

Camus, the psychology of liberation, the quandaries of success and the schizophrenia of opposing a successful war, are all treated in interesting and articulate fashion in this essay.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: DougR
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:35 AM

I think you "aginers" are rushing to judgement. Unless you believe the Iraqi people were better off having Saddam as leader, it is difficult for me to believe you don't think they are better off now than they were before the war.

Claymore is right. A lot more information will be coming out after the dust (sand) has settled. Agreed, however, that unless the new information is critical of the Bush administration, most of you will question it of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:48 AM

Well, the Bushies are coming clean as to the real reasons this war was brought about: read here. Here's a bit of an excerpt:

The White House may have had a reason to go to war with Iraq that had nothing to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. (Larry Downing/Reuters)

and,

Putting on a bully show.... — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war.

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: DougR
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:08 PM

kat: so?
You still believe the Iraqis were better off before the war?
DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:13 PM

America was better off, Doug! As to the Iraqis: who knows? It's not done playing out, yet, is it? It sure doesn't look as though it's going to play out the way shrub wants it to.

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:49 PM

Given the fact that the real opponent of the USA in this long-running, largely secret war between Muslim fundamentalism and oil-control versus USA neoconservative fundamentalism and oil-control is....

(drum roll)

*** Saudi Arabia ***

Which is the source of the oil money which has funded Al Queda. Which is the home of the Wahabbis, the most militant fundamentalist sect of Islam. Which supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers on 911, and undoubtedly funded and prepared that effort over long period of time. Which utterly hated Saddam's secular Sunni administration, and has hoped for its destruction for some time. Which is the home of Osama Bin Laden and the wealthy family from which he comes. Which funded the Taliban in Afghanistan, and is busy attempting to subvert and takeover more moderate Muslim administrations in numerous countries, using its oil money and its clerics and its terrorist-training squads.

Given those factors...it is very peculiar indeed that the USA has taken a course where it attacks Iraq, and threatens Syria...both rather secularly-minded Muslim administrations disliked by the Wahabbis.

Absolutely bizarre in fact, except for this:

The Saudis also are cooperating fullscale with western oil companies, and are providing the largest source of oil to the western world ("business as usual"), which makes them very valuable to the West. And they are buying more expensive high tech arms from the USA than any other Arab customer at the present time (and have built some amazing state-of-the-art airbases with underground hangars that rival the best American facilities of that type...this observed by American military personnel who've flown from those bases recently.)

This argues strongly against any attack on Saudi Arabia. Don't shoot the goose that lays the golden eggs, even if that goose does secretely dispatch suicide bombers to knock down your skyscrapers.

Another reason not to attack the Saudis: They are the home to Mecca and Medina, and the holiest shrines of Islam. To attack them would probably start a 3rd World War with all Muslims on the planet fighting the USA. This is not deemed advisable by anyone, except possibly Osama and a few Wahabbi fanatics, certainly not by the Saudi monarchy, who are playing both sides of the game, and staying rich in the process.

So, what you do is instead attack one of their surrogates, the Taliban, which will do them some indirect damage, and send a message ("don't mess with us").

Then you have the problem of worrying about a possible uprising in Saudi Arabia, which could knock off the corrupt monarchy which plays ball with your oil industry at any time, and replace it with a Wahabbi religious government of the most extreme sort. Ouch! That could be a catastrophe, and might deny the USA its primary base of operations and source of oil in the Middle East.

What to do?

Well, invade Iraq, that's what. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or Al Queda, but it doesn't matter. What does matter is that Iraq has the 2nd largest oil deposits, and can provide a potential base of operations in the strategic area...in case there is a regime change in Saudi Arabia! And it sends another strong message to the Saudis ("See this, pal? We can bring in 300,000 men any time we want, and a whole fleet of aircraft carriers, and we can CONQUER a whole country any time we want to with them...so DON'T get carried away, okay? Just keep shipping that oil, and don't do anything stupid.)

And that, I submit is what lies behind the War on Iraq. It's strategic maneuvering, aimed at the future of the American presence in the Middle East.

As for the Saudis, they have been playing a very devious game, playing both ends against the middle, and it is a secret war. The Wahabbis are like the neo-cons who counseled Bush and Reagan...they are capable of anything in their search for ultimate victory.

***(Now the above is a theory. I may be right, I may be only partially right, I may be wrong...but I think it's a strong possibility.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 12:59 PM

Kisses and hugs! Embrace with thorns deactivated! DougR, isn't it about time for you to take a nice nap and dream some peaceful thoughts.

George, you got your war, and now you've got one hell of a mess to clean up... put your toys away when you are done killing people!

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:08 PM

That's some serious backpedaling in that ABCNews article. Looks like the folks at the White House are feeling a bit nervous about something.

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:16 PM

Doug, you'll never get any kind of definitive answer to the " are the Iraqis better off now or not" question. The best you will get is a slippery "it's too early to tell" sidestep.
So I will answer the question for you.
The only way the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam Hussein was still in power is if Pol Pot was his replacement.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 01:25 PM

I just hope Garner is as effective at facilitating the construction of civilization as Bushie's Boys were at deconstructing one.

Garner said one very interesting thing: "The Iraqis are going to be founding fathers....."

Great idea, if true -- I mean a truly great idea. Because there aren't too many ways to do it, if you take the job seriously. You _have_ to think seriously about what workable social schemes would look like, what principles are lasting and important, how to balance the ebbs and flows of power, and so on. I would love to see what a Muslim culture can produce as a better way.

The Franco-American version had one blessing in it which will be tough for them - our FFs were capable of stepping outside the constraints of religous beliefs and asserting that they had no business in the design of the state. They were drawing on centuries of hard experience in reaching this conclusion -- it isn't something they just popped up with. Let us pray the Muslim scholars have enough hutzpah to make a similar stand.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: TIA
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:15 PM

Troll, if the "let's wait and see" answer is slippery when applied to whether the Iraqis are better off now, then it sure is slippery when applied to the "did Iraq actually have WMD" question.

I'll wait and see if you will.

BTW, do we actually know yet who will be Saddam's replacement, and whether he will be better than Pol Pot? Us "aginers" are with you "forers" in hoping so.

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: SeanM
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 02:49 PM

If the people claiming to speak for the majority of the folks in the country (and whom are fairly likely to be doing so) have anything to say about it, Iraq will be an Islamic theocracy.

However, Rummykins has directly stated we won't let this happen.

Too bad if that's what the actual, real, democratic majority wants then, eh?

Power to the people, as long as they do what we want them to! That's the George Bush marching soooooong...

M

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 04:29 PM

As to whether the Iraquis are better off...that would depend on each individual Iraqui to provide an answer.

The Shiites are potentially better off in a general sense, depending on a number of variable factors...they may now get to run the country.

The Sunnis are worse off.

The Kurds may be better off...and they may not. We'll see. I doubt that the Shiites will be generous to the Kurds.

The people who got killed and severely injured are worse off.

The people who lost property and jobs are worse off.

The Iraqui national museum staff is worse off.

The hospitals and medical staff are worse off.

The infrastructure is worse off.

The average citizen, for the time being, is worse off...since there is a great deal of chaos, looting, breakdown of law and order, etc...

Wars usually have that effect on people.

It is a bit naive, I think, to even ask the question "Are the Iraquis better off without Saddam?"...but people will scramble around trying to justify aggression, so such questions will be asked.

This war was not fought to better the conditions of Iraquis, it was fought for much larger geopolitical concerns.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Allan Dennehy
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 05:54 PM

Seing as they are in the neighbourhood anyhow, lets see if they can sort anyone else out.
Now let me see..........

Ahhhh! Israel.
Weapons of mass destruction? I have a feeling that atomic bombs are in that category.
Cruel and repressive regime? If you're an Arab they certainly are.

OK. Sounds good to me.

Shit! Forgot how much influence they have in Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: SeanM
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 05:57 PM

Shhhhhh...

Start expecting the administration to live up to the claims of why the war was needed, and we'll be occupying at least 40-50 nations. We just don't have the troops.

Thus, we attack the ones that we can profit most from "rebuilding".

M

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 07:42 PM

And the Saudis continue to ship oil, cash in, fund fanaticism, and buy the latest American jet fighters. What a sweet deal.

Kind of like the 40 year Cold War with Russia. The main protagonists never actually fight each other directly...they just do it by proxy on other people's land, and the other people die.

Relatively safe, and very profitable.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 09:24 PM

Thanks LH! You have the best analysis I've yet heard... What readings would you suggest? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 03 - 11:17 PM

For readings, I'm not sure, Thomas. I'd suggest a general search for articles on Saudi Arabia. What got me thinking this was watching a lengthy documentary on Saudi Arabia and the Wahabbi movement. It had quite a few interviews with a Saudi prince who is the ambassador to the USA, and he naturally tried to put everything the Saudis are doing in a good light...but I started to get this really creepy feeling. They have the most amazing airbase facilities. They also have a country that is as potentially dangerous as a box of gunpowder with a lit fuse. Then the whole thing just came to me...maybe Bin Laden is NOT a "black sheep" who went renegade at all...maybe he's a trusted agent of the Saudis with full (but secret) backing. When I realized from the film what a crucial role they are performing in funding the Wahabbi movement all over the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, wherever they can find poor and desperate people to convert, then I started to see the picture.

I have not heard anyone on the TV suggest this theory. It's my own at this point, I guess.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 12:14 AM

Could someone please explain to me how the words "market economy" and the word "democracy" are synonymous?

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: kendall
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 07:47 AM

I still say he is a lying draft dodging rat bastard, and the truth is just now coming out.

How many more times are we going to bet on the wrong horse with our habit of setting up puppet governments that the people hate? " Oh, when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn."

My experience in law enforcement helped me to read a person's face, and, when one looks away and stumbles, HE IS LYING!

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 10:23 AM

"Democracy" and "market economy" are in no way synonymous. The Nazis and Mussolini both ran systems with lively market economies, as do most of the dictatorships in Latin America.

The linking of democracy inextricably with free market economics is a mythology touted by those who are profiting most from the monopolies that largely control the so-called "free market" economies.

Many Americans are gullible enough to believe such mythology, since they hear it from the time they are toddlers. It's actually a form of money-based religion, and is accepted as blithely and thoughtlessly by its adherents as are most fundamentalist religions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 10:35 AM

And the other old rationale for war, helping to explain why our country has such a huge deficit? No way the Bush Administration has run our economy into the bottom of the barrel. Or is it "tank" these days?

Just the other day in responding to questions about the desirability of his proposed massive tax cuts for the nation's top 10% of taxpayers, Bush was observing that "Of course, we are running big deficits; we've been engaged in a major war!"

You know, he may be on to something! Maybe the current $800 billion deficit was generated by this $100 billion war and just maybe a new $800 million tax cut will solve the problem! Well, borrow your money today, folks. There may not be any left to borrow tomorrow.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 11:12 AM

So, if Little is right,we just spent a hundred billion dollars in order to; overwhelm everyone with fear, kill thousands of decent civilians, fundimentaly and violently disrupt hundreds of thousands of lives, destroy art and artifacts, teach the young people of the world that catestrophic violence is a natural and ordinary way to accomplish one's goals, and that that moving the goalpoasts to achieve personal satisfaction is sanctifiable.

That is disgusting! ttr

PS... did we get Saddam?

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: DougR
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 02:56 PM

I think it is a legitimate, straight-forward question, L. H.. What is frustrating is there is ample evidence that the Iraqi people ARE better off as seen on TV daily, but some folks just won't admit it. If they do, they will have to admit that in some instances war is the only way some conflicts can be settled. How you like them apples?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 03:11 PM

seen on TV daily

Seen on TV daily in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 03:22 PM

I doubt you'd feel better off, Doug, if it had been your sons or your business that had been reduced to small bits. And I notice, as seen on TV daily, that there are a lot of Arabs saying "Thanks for getting Saddam outta here -- please leave!". I have no way of assessing how wide spread this is, or how wide spread the sense of benefit is, or the sense of resentment.

I believe the society in Iraq will be improved over time, but I think it is naive to say it is better today except for those who were in immediate peril and in prison.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Hrothgar
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 08:45 PM

Didn't destroy everything in Iraq. The oil ministry building was carefully protected.

Wonder why?

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: kendall
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 10:41 PM

Doug, are the innocent women and children who were killed better off? Wanna swap places with them?

Subject: RE: BS: The War
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 03 - 10:47 PM

Well, Doug, like I said...it's naive to make a blanket statement either way about it. Obviously certian Iraquis are better off in one respect or another (and perhaps simultaneously worse off in some respect or another), while others are just worse off period, and still others are just better off period.

So, any blanket statement that someone makes about it is just a way they have of beating their favourite drum, and ignoring the rest of the picture.

The USA fought this war for a variety of reasons, and I would suggest that betterment of the Iraqui people was way, way down near the very bottom of that list, although I don't doubt that many supporters of the war DO hope to better things for the Iraqui people.

Well, let's see what the Iraquis have to say about it as the next few weeks and months unfold...I believe they will want US soldiers out very soon.

It's a complicated situation, to say the least.

By the way, I doubt that they had any "weapons of mass destruction" worth worrying about...or they would have used them. When you are being completely overrun by a foreign invasion you do not hold back...you use everything you've got. The USA would. Russia would. Canada would. North Korea would. Anybody would.

They do not appear to have had anything more than tanks, artillery pieces, soldiers, small arms, and airplanes which they did not dare to even fly...they were totally outmatched in every way except raw manpower.

This indicates to me that the WMD issue was almost certainly a red herring, but the Bush administration had to publicly justify what it was doing somehow, because the World does not consider it legal for anyone to unilaterally invade a country when that country has not attacked them first.

It was a case of realpolitik, that's all. Public relations. And it was primarily aimed at getting domestic support in the USA, I think, because the World in general did not buy it.

Now, if you think there were strong and pressing reasons for attacking Iraq that justified taking such an action, then you can argue that if a phony WMD accusation is needed to do it, well then, lying is the best policy...and will be seen as having been necessary in the long run.

I could understand it if you truly believed that. I don't believe it, but that's because I don't believe Iraq was a real threat to the USA, period. They weren't strong enough really to threaten anybody, after the First Gulf War in '91 was concluded.

I think this war was launched for larger strategic reasons...having to do with: oil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and the whole Middle East region. Saddam was a mere convenient scapegoat, and it was all the the advantage of the USA that he was such an obviously "bad guy". It made the war much easier to sell to the American public. There is only one opinion crucial to the US State Department...that of the American voters. The rest of the World can clearly go screw itself, to use the common expression.

This is what has the rest of the World nervous.

- LH