The Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs Euro

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

SH's intent since the end of GWI was to fuck the US up.

Wanting to and being able to are completely different and Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone nor is there any evidence that he wanted to "fuck the US up"

Quote

Bush was the only world leader with the guts to do something about it before any Americans suffered the same fate as the Kurds,

Saddam was never planning to attack the U.S

Quote

or worse. Remember them? The ones killed by SH's WMDs that he never proved he got rid of?

The chemical weapons you trained his scientists to make and the chemical weapons you gave him the ingredients for? Yes I think most of us remember them

Do you remember blowing up a water treatment plant and then imposing sanctions which estimates put at having killed between 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 Iraqi children?

Quote

But of course politically, it's easy to second guess someone who's trying to prevent a catastrophe, rather than respond to one.

There was no catastophe imminant from Saddam comming to anywhere or anyone.

Quote

The neo-cons are evil, as well as their intent to spread western democracies to places which don't want it, and can't handle it.

Can't handle it? so only white people in the west can "handle" democracy? Not Arabs right? Like the Arabs who have been fighting for democracy in Sadui Arabi for decades that you keep preventing by providing the millions of weapons to the monarchy to keep democracy suppressed?

Quote

But from a defensive preventative posture, holding SH accountable was the right thing to do in the long run.

By invading? No, that was the number one crime under all international laws.

[philh 0]

"SH's intent since the end of GWI was to fuck the US up."
Where is your evidence for this?

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

If you have evidence that trhe US government rigged the elections please present it and if it stands up I'll be the first to agree with you. As I understand it the elections were considered fair by the UN.

They don't need to "rig" the election, they setup the entire process. The outcomes were always going to be exactly what the U.S wanted; they have had a lot of practice at it.

Quote

Quote

The U.S are there to setup a client state to retain control of the oil, so its a democracy to the extent the outcome ends up how they want it, again much like all other democracies they have bought to the people of other countries in the past. "

If control of oil was their primary aim why did they invade Afghanistan which has no oil?

Afghanistan was invaded because it didn't toe the line.

The U.S government needed to both appease the U.S population and ensure what’s called the mafia complex.

The U.S asked the Afghans to hand over people the U.S suspected of 9/11 links, the Afghans had the audacity to ask for evidence, so the U.S sanctioned and then started bombing, almost killing millions of people

Quote

Why not invade Saudi Arabia which has more oil and more links with Aq?

The U.S and Saudi Arabia are best friends

[billvon 3,120]

>Why wouldn't Bush wait another 30 days?

Because there was a very real risk that inspectors would confirm he had disarmed per requirements. That would have made the war more difficult - and Bush very much wanted the war.

>Bush was the only world leader with the guts to do something about it
>before any Americans suffered the same fate as the Kurds, or worse.

SH wasn't targeting us.

>If the US fails, they win, so that's what they strive for.

Another way to put that is "I supported the war, even knowing some parts would be bad. But now people are saying that it was a bad idea overall, and indeed there are signs that it's not working. But that can't be - because I supported it, and I'm a good guy. So the people who are against the war must be bad guys, who want us to lose."

Here's a good overview on that sort of thinking:

---------------------------
Bush’s Mistake and Kennedy’s Error
MICHAEL SHERMER

The war in Iraq is now four years old. It has cost more than 3,000 American lives and has run up a tab of $200 million a day, or $73 billion a year, since it began. That’s a substantial investment. No wonder most members of Congress from both parties, along with President George W. Bush, believe that we have to “stay the course” and not just “cut and run.” As Bush explained in a speech delivered on July 4, 2006, at Fort Bragg, N.C.: “I’m not going to allow the sacrifice of 2,527 troops who have died in Iraq to be in vain by pulling out before the job is done.”

We all make similarly irrational arguments about decisions in our lives: we hang on to losing stocks, unprofitable investments, failing businesses and unsuccessful relationships. If we were rational, we would just compute the odds of succeeding from this point forward and then decide if the investment warrants the potential payoff. But we are not rational—not in love or war or business—and this particular irrationality is what economists call the “sunk-cost fallacy.”

The psychology underneath this and other cognitive fallacies is brilliantly illuminated by psychologist Carol Tavris and University of California, Santa Cruz, psychology professor Elliot Aronson in their book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) (Harcourt, 2007). Tavris and Aronson focus on socalled self-justification, which “allows people to convince themselves that what they did was the best thing they could have done.” The passive voice of the telling phrase “mistakes were made” shows the rationalization process at work. “Mistakes were quite possibly made by the administrations in which I served,” confessed Henry Kissinger about Vietnam, Cambodia and South America.

The engine driving self-justification is cognitive dissonance: “a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent,” Tavris and Aronson explain. “Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don’t rest easy until they find a way to reduce it.” It is in that process of reducing dissonance
that the self-justification accelerator is throttled up.

Wrongly convicting people and sentencing them to death is a supreme source of cognitive dissonance. Since 1992 the Innocence Project has exonerated 192 people total, 14 from death row. “If we reviewed prison sentences with the same level of care that we devote to death sentences,” says University of Michigan law professor Samuel R. Gross, “there would have been over 28,500 non-death-row exonerations in the past 15 years. . . .” What is the self-justifi cation for reducing this form of dissonance? “You get in the system, and you become very cynical,” explains Northwestern University legal journalist Rob Warden. “People are lying to you all over the place. Then you develop a theory of the crime, and it leads to what we call tunnel vision. Years later overwhelming evidence comes out that the guy was innocent. And you’re sitting there thinking, ‘Wait a minute. Either this overwhelming evidence is wrong, or I was wrong—and I couldn’t have been wrong, because I’m a good guy.’ That’s a psychological phenomenon I have seen over and over.”

What happens in those rare instances when someone says, “I was wrong”? Surprisingly, forgiveness is granted and respect is elevated. Imagine what would happen if George W. Bush delivered the following speech:

This administration intends to be candid about its errors.
For as a wise man once said, “An error does not become
a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept
full responsibility for our errors. . . . We’re not going
to have any search for scapegoats. The final responsibilities
of any failure are mine, and mine alone.

Bush’s popularity would skyrocket, and respect for his ability as a thoughtful leader willing to change his mind in the teeth of new evidence would soar. That is precisely what happened to President John F. Kennedy after the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, when he spoke these very words.

[JackC 0]

Quote

"Only if you do it all at once."(on the negative effects on an expansion in the money supply)

No economic data is scrutinised by financial markets and other agents in tremendous detail. I dont think you could get away with a gradual increase in the money supply without increasing inflation and at the same time reducing the demand for Treasuries and other debt securities. it would be a disaster whether gradual or not.

Many (most) international banks hold dollars as their reserve currency. That money has to come from somewhere. As inflation increases prices, salaries rise in response. That money has to come from somewhere.

Usually, this is offset by economic growth which allows a gradual increase in the amount of money in circulation without unduly increasing inflation. If your market for dollars gradually increases beyond your own borders, this has a similar effect to an increase in your economy and you can increase the amount of money in circulation without increasing inflation.

Quote

The whole thesis assumes that US dont want the Euros to overtake fromt he dollars thus reducing the demand for US$.

The US can happily stand a mild fluctuation in the demand for dollars but it can't handle a massive decrease in demand without paying for it in terms of a devalued dollar.

Look, I've constantly said that this probably isn't the major factor in the decision to go to war. I don't even know if it was a factor at all. But the fact remains that Iraq started trading it's oil in Euros and as soon as the invasion was complete, the US changed it back to dollars. Venezuela have started trading for oil in Euros and the US seem quite keen to see the back of Chavez. Iran have started trading their oil in Euros and they're high on the US hit list too. Whether this is a conincidence or not I don't know.

If (and I stress the word if) the world suddenly started trading in euros instead of dollars over night, the effect would be a massive devaluation in the dollar and that would not be good for the US economy. All I'm saying is that there is a motive for the US to try to maintain the dollar as the primo currency in world trade.

[philh 0]

"They don't need to "rig" the election, they setup the entire process. The outcomes were always going to be exactly what the U.S wanted; they have had a lot of practice at it. "

So what you are saying is you have no evidence of election fraud.

"The U.S asked the Afghans to hand over people the U.S suspected of 9/11 links, the Afghans had the audacity to ask for evidence, so the U.S sanctioned and then started bombing, almost killing millions of people "
France did not toe the party line , did the US invade France?
The Afghans governemnt and AQ were joined at the hip, Aq attacked the USA and they responded, thats entirley justified in my opinion. What do you think they should have done?

Almost a million casualties , hhhm this from Wikipedia:
According to Marc W. Herold's Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing at least 3,700 and probably closer to 5,000 civilians were killed as a result of U.S. bombing. [22] Herold's study omitted those killed indirectly, when air strikes cut off their access to hospitals, food or electricity. Also exempt were bomb victims who later died of their injuries. When there were different casualty figures from the same incident, in 90% of cases Professor Herold chose a lower figure.

Some people, however, dispute Herold's estimates. Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute and Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives question Herold's heavy use of the Afghan Islamic Press (the Taliban's official mouthpiece) and claim tallies provided them were suspicious. Conetta also claims statistical errors in Herold's study[23] [24]. Conetta's study puts total civilian casualties between 1,000 and 1,300 [25]. A Los Angeles Times study put the number of collateral dead between 1,067 and 1,201.

On the issue of the Euro, I think we all agreed there is not a shred of evidecen that this was a motivation at all.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

"They don't need to "rig" the election, they setup the entire process. The outcomes were always going to be exactly what the U.S wanted; they have had a lot of practice at it. "

So what you are saying is you have no evidence of election fraud.

It isn't fraud because it isn't a real democracy. All of the candidates answer to the occupying army, its setup to be a client state. It is self evident in every action that have taken including those in every other country they have ever setup "democracy". It is "democracy" is so much as it gives the results the U.S want.

I'm going to bed and might be bothered looking up an article on it later on, although it would be easier if you did it yourself but off the top of my head some recent examples would be…

Palestine voting in 2006 in a free election, the people don't vote the way the U.S want them to, sanction time.

Venezuela vote in free election, the people don’t vote the way the U.S want them to, coup time, coup fails – vilification and slander time.

Quote

France did not toe the party line , did the US invade France?

In regards to what? No the U.S didn't invade France and if you have to ask why I am not even going to answer.

Quote

The Afghans governemnt and AQ were joined at the hip

They were not joined at the hip. There may have been some support amongst elements of the Taliban but Afghanistan as a sovereign nation and the Taliban, brutal and oppressive as their regime may be, are not AQ

Quote

Aq attacked the USA and they responded, thats entirley justified in my opinion.

A terrorist group attack a country and it is justifiable to seek revenge on a country that had nothing to do with it.

Quote

What do you think they should have done?

Present evidence like they were asked

Quote

Almost a million casualties , hhhm this from Wikipedia:
According to Marc W. Herold's Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing at least 3,700 and probably closer to 5,000 civilians were killed as a result of U.S. bombing. [22] Herold's study omitted those killed indirectly, when air strikes cut off their access to hospitals, food or electricity. Also exempt were bomb victims who later died of their injuries. When there were different casualty figures from the same incident, in 90% of cases Professor Herold chose a lower figure.

Some people, however, dispute Herold's estimates. Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute and Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives question Herold's heavy use of the Afghan Islamic Press (the Taliban's official mouthpiece) and claim tallies provided them were suspicious. Conetta also claims statistical errors in Herold's study[23] [24]. Conetta's study puts total civilian casualties between 1,000 and 1,300 [25]. A Los Angeles Times study put the number of collateral dead between 1,067 and 1,201.

1. The U.S demanded Pakistan cut off supply convoys that provided much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population, the numbers at risk of starvation were estimated to have risen by 50% a month later, to 7.5 million.

2. The threat of bombing forced the world for food program to reduce food supplies to 15% of what was needed and when the bombing started pull out entirely. Resulting in warnings by major relief agencies of a likely "humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in Afghanistan"

3. Harvard's leading Afghan specialist wrote that the bombing was leaving "millions of Afghans...at grave risk of starvation"

The U.S not only ran the risk but willingly accepted that their actions may have had these effects.

As for your own research you bring up numbers of 5000 and say that attacking Afghanistan was justifiable?

So the terrorist organization kills 3000 and a justifiable reaction is to revenge bomb MORE civilians of a country with a small element of the society having possible links to the terrorist group

[Zenister 0]

Quote

As Bush explained in a speech delivered on July 4, 2006, at Fort Bragg, N.C.: “I’m not going to allow the sacrifice of 2,527 troops who have died in Iraq to be in vain by pulling out before the job is done.”

in poker this is called being 'on tilt' (failing to recognize that the situation has changed and playing as if it hasnt)and usually precedes a MAJOR miscalculation and loss of chips...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[skinnyflyer 0]

there is no need to argue people, everything is explained clearly right here with a little british comedy;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=The+End+of+Suburbia&hl=en

friggin hilarious

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>
Bush’s Mistake and Kennedy’s Error
MICHAEL SHERMER

.

Hey, I was going to post that.

An EXCELLENT analysis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

Quote

On the issue of the Euro, I think we all agreed there is not a shred of evidecen that this was a motivation at all.

Maybe so. This makes interesting reading though.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

[misaltas 0]

>Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone
UN resolutions to disarm aren't typically imposed on countries who aren't a threat to anyone.

>Saddam was never planning to attack the U.S
The only threat you see is the potential for a frontal military assault? Iraq has been a terror supporter for many many years.

>The chemical weapons you trained his scientists to make
Yes those. He was directed by the world to not have them anymore.

>imposing sanctions
SH had the power all along to cause the sanctions to be removed. What did SH do to help his people? Keep building palaces? Keep interfering with UN inspections? Send a few more tractor trailer loads of $100s to Syria?

>There was no catastophe imminant
The only time to act is when a catastrophe is imminent?

>Can't handle it? white people in the west can "handle" democracy? Not Arabs right?
That racist tone is unnecessary, sir. Those who can best handle democracy are those who rise up and fight for it themselves, regardless of who they are. I've personally never accepted "freeing the Iraqis" as a legitimate reason for our invasion. And now we have proof since all groups there seem to hate us now to some degree. So much for liberation.

>By invading? No, that was the number one crime under all international laws.
Invasion to enforce the will of the world to protect itself was the defensive action of last resort.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

>Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone
UN resolutions to disarm aren't typically imposed on countries who aren't a threat to anyone.

He wasn't a threat to anyone, what don't you get about this? UN disarm requests don't override global intelligence assessments of him being no danger to anyone outside of Iraq

Quote

>Saddam was never planning to attack the U.S
The only threat you see is the potential for a frontal military assault? Iraq has been a terror supporter for many many years.

In fantasy land or in a land that requires proof?

Quote

>imposing sanctions
SH had the power all along to cause the sanctions to be removed. What did SH do to help his people? Keep building palaces? Keep interfering with UN inspections? Send a few more tractor trailer loads of $100s to Syria?

So you justify the U.S, the beacon of freedom and democracy, blowing up a water treatment plant and putting sanctions down that killed 1 million to 2 million children ok because their leader wasn't a nice guy?

Quote

>There was no catastophe imminant
The only time to act is when a catastrophe is imminent?

Ok so by your reasoning Japan are fully justified in attacking pearl harbour

Quote

>Can't handle it? white people in the west can "handle" democracy? Not Arabs right?
That racist tone is unnecessary, sir. Those who can best handle democracy are those who rise up and fight for it themselves, regardless of who they are. I've personally never accepted "freeing the Iraqis" as a legitimate reason for our invasion. And now we have proof since all groups there seem to hate us now to some degree. So much for liberation.

Those who can best handle democracy are usually repressed by the U.S

Quote

>By invading? No, that was the number one crime under all international laws.
Invasion to enforce the will of the world to protect itself was the defensive action of last resort.

The will of the world? It wasn't the will of the world, maybe you missed the part where everyone was against your war and you can't protect something that isn't in danger in the first place.

Its funny how for Americans supreme crimes of aggression and international laws don't exist when they are the ones breaking them.

[philh 0]

"It isn't fraud because it isn't a real democracy. All of the candidates answer to the occupying army, its setup to be a client state. It is self evident in every action that have taken including those in every other country they have ever setup "democracy". It is "democracy" is so much as it gives the results the U.S want. "

Again you present not a shred of evidence to back up your claims, simply saying it is "self evident". I would ask for an independent recognised body like the UN to say the US rigged the elections, you cant provide that, you just assume it. Thats the same silly thinking that GWB used in the first place. No evidence for WMD's, he didnt need evidence for his claims. Nor does it seem do you. Those of us who are against the war in Iraq would be better served by using higher standards of belief than those who support it.

"Palestine voting in 2006 in a free election, the people don't vote the way the U.S want them to, sanction time. "

The people voted for a terrorist orginasation, the US governments position is not to aid terrorists. That is also the position of the EU as well, they also cut off Aid. If you were providing aid to the Weimar regime in Germany in the early 30's, would you continue to do so after the Nazi goverment came to power?

"Venezuela vote in free election, the people don’t vote the way the U.S want them to, coup time, coup fails – vilification and slander time. "

I am no to going to defend this action. I am strong opponenet of GWB , this is a legitmate criticism and that is what we should focus on. Criticising the war in Iraq becuase they were not linked to AQ and had no WMD's is a legitimate criticism. Saying stuff like its all for US$ hegemenony makes us critics of GWB sound like paranoid conspiracy nutters and I will oppose that.

"They were not joined at the hip. There may have been some support amongst elements of the Taliban but Afghanistan as a sovereign nation and the Taliban, brutal and oppressive as their regime may be, are not AQ


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Aq attacked the USA and they responded, thats entirley justified in my opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A terrorist group attack a country and it is justifiable to seek revenge on a country that had nothing to do with it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What do you think they should have done?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Present evidence like they were asked "

-----------------

Mullah Omar was interviewed on why he would not give up OBL b4 the US invasion, did he say not enough evidence? No he did not, this is what he actually said:

Voice of America interviewer: Why don't you expel Osama bin Laden?

Omar: This is not an issue of Osama bin Laden. It is an issue of Islam. Islam's prestige is at stake. So is Afghanistan's tradition..

VOA: So you won't give Osama bin Laden up?

Omar: No. We cannot do that. If we did, it means we are not Muslims... that Islam is finished. If we were afraid of attack, we could have surrendered him the last time we were threatened and attacked. So America can hit us again, and this time we don't even have a friend. "

You can see then that presenting evidence for any kind of Afghan trial of OBl would have been a waste of time. Wasting time would have given OBl the chance to escape. Of course OBL did escape that I think was more to do with with GWB not sending the army to clsoe the borders with Pakistanm, he was holding them back for his idiotic war in Iraq.

So it was the policy of the head of state of Afghanistan to support and harbour terrorists that had declared war on the USA. Note also Mullah Omar was married to OBL's daughter. The Taliban also claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the East Africa emabssy bombings. We now know they were lying to cover OBL. Or do you believe them?
THE US had warned Mullah Omar in a declassified document you can find here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/index2.htm
the State Department reiterates "that the U.S. reserves the right to take military action concerning bin Ladin and will hold the Taliban directly responsible for any terrorist activities bin Ladin engages in." .
The Taliban were warned, they harboured and protected Aq and they were also one of the worst abusers fo human rights in the world. Human rights Watch claim the TAliban practiced ethnic cleansing killing thousands of civilians due to their Hazara origin, Taliban troops killed those that refused to protest "Death to America"before the US invasion (Source The Indepent Newspaper 11/9/01), and that is on top of a policy of bruning schools with women in it (often with them literally inside) and of course the obvious horrenodous opporession of women.

Most importantly I would refer you to the discovery (and Ill show you the refernce in a well know left wing British newspaper The Guardian and its Sunday version The Observer :http://observer.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,596988,00.html):
Other documents seen by Observer reporters make clear the scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions for a global jihad, including a notebook detailing plans to assassinate Western leaders. Other evidence uncovered at al-Qaeda sites indicates that major power plants in the US and Europe - some of them nuclear - were being targeted for attack.

Other documents, apparently prepared by Pakistani diplomats and intelligence officers, make it absolutely clear that the Taliban, far from simply hosting bin Laden's network, was involved in every stage of the plan for global jihad against Western interests and had repeatedly ignored warnings before the 11 September attacks that it faced bombing by the US or Russia if it continued to support terrorists.
The most damning documents were discovered at two sites in the former diplomatic district of Kabul, both of which were scattered with forms labelled 'al-Qaeda Ammunition Warehouse'. The presence of al-Qaeda documents in the first - a Taliban Defence Ministry building - is compelling evidence of the inseparable links between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "



Did you also forget that Al Queda called a press conference to declare war on the US in Afghanistan and Mullah Omar and the TAliban were the host of Al Queda.

The US did not carry out revenge attacks in Afghanistan, it used military force to remove a government that was aiding and harbouring terrorists that had declared war on it. The US even gave the TAliban a last chance to avoid war by handing over OBL, they refused. If you are opposed to the war in Afghanistan I wonder would you also have been opposed to the US fighting Nazi germany? Whats the difference? Nazi germany did not attack thhe US, its allies did. Just as The Taliban did not attack the US, its allies did.

[Scoop 0]

Quote

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/mango/

LMAO, your contributions to the discussion are always worthwhile

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

"It isn't fraud because it isn't a real democracy. All of the candidates answer to the occupying army, its setup to be a client state. It is self evident in every action that have taken including those in every other country they have ever setup "democracy". It is "democracy" is so much as it gives the results the U.S want. "

Again you present not a shred of evidence to back up your claims, simply saying it is "self evident". I would ask for an independent recognised body like the UN to say the US rigged the elections, you cant provide that, you just assume it. Thats the same silly thinking that GWB used in the first place. No evidence for WMD's, he didnt need evidence for his claims. Nor does it seem do you. Those of us who are against the war in Iraq would be better served by using higher standards of belief than those who support it.

The UN have about as much independence as the US allow them.

They are not real elections that represent the people of Iraq, it is self-evident everywhere you look. Historically at U.S actions in other countries, present in the fact the majority of the population completely disregard any legitimacy claimed by the government.

The entire process, from the parties to voting day is setup by the U.S, like they have done before. That is not democracy that is a client regime.

Quote

"Palestine voting in 2006 in a free election, the people don't vote the way the U.S want them to, sanction time. "

The people voted for a terrorist orginasation, the US governments position is not to aid terrorists. That is also the position of the EU as well, they also cut off Aid. If you were providing aid to the Weimar regime in Germany in the early 30's, would you continue to do so after the Nazi goverment came to power?

The US position is irrelevant and is only used as a shallow justification. Hamas were voted in by the people in a free election so the US (Israel) punished them.

And for an example of irrelevance the U.S flooded Turkey in the late 90s with hundreds of millions of dollars in military equipment to carry out brutal repression against the Kurdish population and then in a later published document on terrorism praised Turkey as a liberal progressive nation.

The “US don’t aid or negotiate” is completely hollow, it means they don’t aid or negotiate with people they don’t like and people they do, regardless of gross crimes against humanity, they will still aid.

Quote

"Venezuela vote in free election, the people don’t vote the way the U.S want them to, coup time, coup fails – vilification and slander time. "

I am no to going to defend this action. I am strong opponenet of GWB , this is a legitmate criticism and that is what we should focus on. Criticising the war in Iraq becuase they were not linked to AQ and had no WMD's is a legitimate criticism. Saying stuff like its all for US$ hegemenony makes us critics of GWB sound like paranoid conspiracy nutters and I will oppose that.

You seem, like others, to think this global hegemony is limited to Bush and it never has been. There is nothing paranoid or conspiracy in the global domination the US exert over everyone constatly regardless of party and president in power because its all on the record.

Quote

Mullah Omar was interviewed on why he would not give up OBL b4 the US invasion, did he say not enough evidence? No he did not, this is what he actually said:

Voice of America interviewer: Why don't you expel Osama bin Laden?

Omar: This is not an issue of Osama bin Laden. It is an issue of Islam. Islam's prestige is at stake. So is Afghanistan's tradition..

VOA: So you won't give Osama bin Laden up?

Omar: No. We cannot do that. If we did, it means we are not Muslims... that Islam is finished. If we were afraid of attack, we could have surrendered him the last time we were threatened and attacked. So America can hit us again, and this time we don't even have a friend. "

You can see then that presenting evidence for any kind of Afghan trial of OBl would have been a waste of time. Wasting time would have given OBl the chance to escape. Of course OBL did escape that I think was more to do with with GWB not sending the army to clsoe the borders with Pakistanm, he was holding them back for his idiotic war in Iraq.

So it was the policy of the head of state of Afghanistan to support and harbour terrorists that had declared war on the USA. Note also Mullah Omar was married to OBL's daughter. The Taliban also claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the East Africa emabssy bombings. We now know they were lying to cover OBL. Or do you believe them?
THE US had warned Mullah Omar in a declassified document you can find here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/index2.htm
the State Department reiterates "that the U.S. reserves the right to take military action concerning bin Ladin and will hold the Taliban directly responsible for any terrorist activities bin Ladin engages in." .
The Taliban were warned, they harboured and protected Aq and they were also one of the worst abusers fo human rights in the world. Human rights Watch claim the TAliban practiced ethnic cleansing killing thousands of civilians due to their Hazara origin, Taliban troops killed those that refused to protest "Death to America"before the US invasion (Source The Indepent Newspaper 11/9/01), and that is on top of a policy of bruning schools with women in it (often with them literally inside) and of course the obvious horrenodous opporession of women.

So bombing 5000 civilians in an initial attack solves this?

Quote

Most importantly I would refer you to the discovery (and Ill show you the refernce in a well know left wing British newspaper The Guardian and its Sunday version The Observer:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,596988,00.html):
Other documents seen by Observer reporters make clear the scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions for a global jihad, including a notebook detailing plans to assassinate Western leaders. Other evidence uncovered at al-Qaeda sites indicates that major power plants in the US and Europe - some of them nuclear - were being targeted for attack.

"left wing"

Again so what? AQ were going to bomb more things, this justifies bombing civilians and invasion of a country, the #1 international crime (above terrorism), how?

Quote

Other documents, apparently prepared by Pakistani diplomats and intelligence officers, make it absolutely clear that the Taliban, far from simply hosting bin Laden's network, was involved in every stage of the plan for global jihad against Western interests and had repeatedly ignored warnings before the 11 September attacks that it faced bombing by the US or Russia if it continued to support terrorists.
The most damning documents were discovered at two sites in the former diplomatic district of Kabul, both of which were scattered with forms labelled 'al-Qaeda Ammunition Warehouse'. The presence of al-Qaeda documents in the first - a Taliban Defence Ministry building - is compelling evidence of the inseparable links between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "

Did you also forget that Al Queda called a press conference to declare war on the US in Afghanistan and Mullah Omar and the TAliban were the host of Al Queda.

I will look into this but even so

Mullah Omar and Osama could have made out on television. The U.S under all laws still have no right to invade the country to get him because he wasn't handed over. Beyond that they also have no right to occupy the country once its been established he has skipped town.

Quote

The US did not carry out revenge attacks in Afghanistan, it used military force to remove a government that was aiding and harbouring terrorists that had declared war on it. The US even gave the TAliban a last chance to avoid war by handing over OBL, they refused. If you are opposed to the war in Afghanistan I wonder would you also have been opposed to the US fighting Nazi germany? Whats the difference? Nazi germany did not attack thhe US, its allies did. Just as The Taliban did not attack the US, its allies did.

The difference? Nazi Germany started a war with invasion, U.S started a war with invasion... actually pretty similar

[nigel99 619]

I think the point of the elections in Iraq not being "free & fair" is that first and foremost the US does NOT want an Islamic fundamentalist state, which they fear the Iraqis want and therefore the political landscape was deliberately tilted against the religous community - through the Iraq constitution and military endevours.

While separation of religion and politics is standard in the West it is not in other parts of the world and I think it is less than honest not to admit that we generally "manipulated" the situation so that a Iran friendly Shia fundamentalist regime was not elected in Iraq. It does not mean that the elections were not free and fair - but rather that the candidates and political landscape had been established in accordance with the wishes of the US. As the US has such a large military presence people who see the US as the enemy and an occuping force are unlikely to be co-operating in elections but rather out laying road side bombs, sniping and generally trying to use whatever military/freedom fighting/terrorist means to obtain "freedom" from what they see as unwelcome guests.

I would imagine that in a war torn country emotions run high and the mentality of "for us or against us" runs deep - look how easily these traits come out in SC Inevitably the presense of the US had an effect on the elections - even if there was no intent...

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[philh 0]

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair. Nor do you suggest any alternative course of action for Afghanistan. Perhaps you would do nothing and let AQ plan their next (possibly more deadly) attack in the West, that is not an option for any responislbe leader that is why every Western nation (including those who quite rightly opposed the war in Iraq) supported the military ousting of the Taliban.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair. .

How fair do you think it would be if, say, Iran set out the parameters for elections in the UK, and armed Iranian troops were standing around in the streets of London during the elections?

I submit that no election can be considered "free and fair" in a country occupied by a foreign invading army.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair. .

How fair do you think it would be if, say, Iran set out the parameters for elections in the UK, and armed Iranian troops were standing around in the streets of London during the elections?

If voters in the UK were intimidated from voting with threats of violence, and the presence of Iranian troops was a viable way to protect those voters, I'd support it.


Of course, that's pretty silly....


as is your analogy.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair. .

How fair do you think it would be if, say, Iran set out the parameters for elections in the UK, and armed Iranian troops were standing around in the streets of London during the elections?

If voters in the UK were intimidated from voting with threats of violence, and the presence of Iranian troops was a viable way to protect those voters, I'd support it.


Of course, that's pretty silly....


as is your analogy.

Right, I forgot to add that the Iranians were an uninvited invading force.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair. .

How fair do you think it would be if, say, Iran set out the parameters for elections in the UK, and armed Iranian troops were standing around in the streets of London during the elections?

If voters in the UK were intimidated from voting with threats of violence, and the presence of Iranian troops was a viable way to protect those voters, I'd support it.


Of course, that's pretty silly....


as is your analogy.

Right, I forgot to add that the Iranians were an uninvited invading force.

Which takes back to...

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair

LOL

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair. .

How fair do you think it would be if, say, Iran set out the parameters for elections in the UK, and armed Iranian troops were standing around in the streets of London during the elections?

If voters in the UK were intimidated from voting with threats of violence, and the presence of Iranian troops was a viable way to protect those voters, I'd support it.


Of course, that's pretty silly....


as is your analogy.

Right, I forgot to add that the Iranians were an uninvited invading force.

Which takes back to...

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair

LOL

Which takes us back to:

I submit that no election can be considered "free and fair" in a country occupied by a foreign invading army.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[misaltas 0]

I'm not going to restate my points you continue to ignore. It would have been people like you pointing fingers "why didn't anyone do something to stop SH" after it was too late. I can no longer debate with someone who emotionally ignores logic.

I have my position, you have yours. Let's leave it at that, champ.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[misaltas 0]

Bill:

Good article, thanks. Yes, I get the point.

But I'm not talking about those who honestly assess now it was a mistake and need to acknowledge and admit it, or those against it from the beginning. I respect and disagree with both. The despicables are those who's position moves quicker than a windsock or grabs the most simplistic political opportunities, or against Bush to be against Bush. Out of conciseness, my previous brush was perhaps too broad I'll admit, and there are politics on both sides no doubt.

Our enemies know our nation is divided on this. That's a big part of their strength. Oh if we had remained united, as the world (UN) was, as both US parties were on this issue just a few years ago. Alas, all united talk, little united action...

Invading Iraq was a mistake? If so, then maybe not because it was the wrong thing to do, but perhaps because modern American society has lost the stomach for doing the right thing, if it ends up taking more time, effort, and cost than our shrinking attention spans can handle, or if politicians can exploit it to their advantage. If that's what made it "a bad idea overall" then so be it.

When will be the next threat that we won't defend ourselves against? I'm afraid we only have the will to unite after innocents die. Case in point, Al Qaeda was a growing threat we all pretty much ignored and are now all united against. Too bad it took them hitting us hard to create that unity in us. Looks like that's what it'll take again.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts