Article

2003-12-15 Terror Networks

Sammy being jugged may scare Binny, but wonât effect al-Qaeda morale

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-12-15 12:22:47 AM|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Binny must be worried he'll have to share virgins with Sammy.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2003-12-15 12:33:53 AM|| 2003-12-15 12:33:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 any chance that sammy will be visited by his old mate donny rumsfeld to relive the good old days? or aren't I allowed to discuss the chummy relations between the US and sammy in the 80s?

Posted by Igs 2003-12-15 12:47:26 AM|| 2003-12-15 12:47:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Back in the 80s.... I did some crazy things too. So what.

al-Qaida and its adherents to stage a major attack to regain the initiative

I never knew they had the initiative in the first place. They came in, knocked down the towers, damaged the Pentagon, and then they got severely pounded in Afghanistan. So much for having an initiative. I'm not even convinced that Binny is still alive (he hasn't sent me a postcard in almost 2 years).

Posted by Rafael 2003-12-15 1:01:47 AM|| 2003-12-15 1:01:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "...exploded moments after Musharrafâs motorcade passed..." Clumsy. If jihadis in Iraq were able to remote-trigger IED's, could jihadis in Pakland not do likewise? As I conjectured yesterday, the boom may have been staged to justify Pervy thinning the crop. If not, then it really justifies Pervy thinning the crop.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-15 1:03:10 AM|| 2003-12-15 1:03:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 any chance that sammy will be visited by his old mate donny rumsfeld to relive the good old days? or aren't I allowed to discuss the chummy relations between the US and sammy in the 80s?

No. Please. By all means. Wallow in your dumb all you want. Implicit in your ignorant comment is the notion that just because we were stupid enough to work with him in the past, we can never wise up and remove a threat that you would argue we created. You contradict yourself in a most amusing way, so please continue with your spew.

Posted by Islam Sucks 2003-12-15 1:14:17 AM|| 2003-12-15 1:14:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 rofl, good one islam sucks, only one thing, you're doing it again just somewhere else

Posted by Igs 2003-12-15 1:19:12 AM|| 2003-12-15 1:19:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 any chance that sammy will be visited by his old mate donny rumsfeld to relive the good old days? or aren't I allowed to discuss the chummy relations between the US and sammy in the 80s?

If the US hadn't worked with Saddam to prevent Iran from fomenting Islamic revolution among the Shiite minorities in the Gulf region, the Foreign Service should have been all fired. (Just as if the US hadn't been working with Stalin to defeat Hitler during WWII, the State Department should have been shut down). Standing aside while Iran conquered Iraq and established Shiite theocracies throughout the region might have pleased the lefties, but would have led to an Iranian monopoly on the Gulf region's oil reserves, potentially strangling the world economy.

This is why everyone pitched in to prevent an Iranian victory - Russia, China, France, Britain and all of the Gulf states, with money and weaponry. Helping Saddam avoid losing wasn't the same as agreeing with all of his policies - we buy goods from China, which helps support a totalitarian government, but that doesn't mean we agree with the Chinese government's policies.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-15 1:43:35 AM|| 2003-12-15 1:43:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 This is from Strategypage:

"It is fortuitous that last week Iraqâs Governing Council announced its intention to create a war crimes tribunal. Several members of the council want public and open trials, preferably televised trials that demonstrate the thoroughness and fairness of the criminal investigations as well as the depravity of the crimes.

Unfortunately the usual defeatists in the US and Europe sneered and dismissed the proposal, but former Saddamite sidekick Tariq Aziz took that announcement seriously. One report has Aziz hiring French attorney Jacques Verges, who defended the Nazi Gestapo chief Klaus Barbie and the Marxist terrorist, Carlos.

Saddam should ask Verges for his card."

I guess the French will play a role in post-war Iraq after all.

Posted by Tibor 2003-12-15 2:07:59 AM|| 2003-12-15 2:07:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Zheng Fei, while I do agree that trying to reign in the Iranian revolution was one of the main reasons, it is important to note that it was Iraq that commenced the conflict, as sammy, being the opportunistic idiot that he was, thought that he could extend his influence. My concern with that conflict was the willingness of the US admistration to work with SH, knowing full well his reputation. With regards to Iran, while I don't have much sympathy for any theocracy, let alone one such as in Iran, I would think that the reason that the US was so keen to help Iraq was because of the hostage situation and the removal of a US backed regime, it was a slap in the face which did not look good on the international stage. Lets not forget that the former Iranian regime was not exactly a picture of human rights but the US was more than willing to support. Oh, one last thing, with regards to the containment of the islamic revolution, lets not forget the sale of weapons/military parts to Iran during the 80s. As Islam Sucks has pointed out, a mistake may have been made in those years but this does not mean that other mistakes are not being made now.

One thing that concerns me more than anything, and to some extent I see this on this forum, is the belief that the current US (foreign)policy is infallible, it may very well be but I do think that in a democracy, I have the right to question it without being automatically labelled anti-american. I don't disagree with the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of SH but I'm sick of hearing that it was because of wmds or to liberate the iraqi people. If the liberation of a people was the main reason, other countries would have come a long way in front of Iraq, as for the wmds, still can't make up my mind, was the really intelligence that bad?

Posted by Igs 2003-12-15 2:32:29 AM|| 2003-12-15 2:32:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 My concern with that conflict was the willingness of the US admistration to work with SH, knowing full well his reputation.

We worked with Stalin during WWII, despite hearing about his reputation. Why should working with tyrants be an issue when national security interests are at stake and the alternatives are worse?

With regards to Iran, while I don't have much sympathy for any theocracy, let alone one such as in Iran, I would think that the reason that the US was so keen to help Iraq was because of the hostage situation and the removal of a US backed regime, it was a slap in the face which did not look good on the international stage.

Why is taking revenge for the hostage situation bad? And what about the Iranian-sponsored massacre of over 200 marines in Beirut? Are American marines just cannon fodder in your eyes? Retaliation for the removal of the Shah is also bad? Should we now reward countries for becoming our enemies and sponsoring terrorist acts against us, not to mention attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf?

Lets not forget that the former Iranian regime was not exactly a picture of human rights but the US was more than willing to support.

The Shah wasn't perfect, but he did not slaughter tens of thousands of his people. Whatever his faults, he was preferable to the Communist Mossadegh and his successor the Ayatollah Khomeini. More importantly, he was on our side in the Cold War, which had yet to be won.

Oh, one last thing, with regards to the containment of the islamic revolution, lets not forget the sale of weapons/military parts to Iran during the 80s.

Reagan tried to free the American hostages taken in Lebanon with this gesture. He succeeded, only at the expense of damaging the credibility of the US posture on hostage-taking which was previously to not negotiate on these matters. The deal was a one-off - a temporary truce and a plea for goodwill which was not reciprocated by the Iranians. The Iranian interpretation of Reagan's parley as more evidence of American weakness led to Iranian overreach later in the decade - US Navy ships sank a fair number of Iranian naval vessels later in the decade when they attacked oil tankers in the Gulf. The real paper tiger was revealed to be Iran.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-15 2:59:44 AM|| 2003-12-15 2:59:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 We worked with Stalin during WWII, despite hearing about his reputation. Why should working with tyrants be an issue when national security interests are at stake and the alternatives are worse?

...and I'd like to thank the US personally for Yalta and the years under Soviet occupation under which my parants, and to some extent myself, had to endure.

Retaliation for the removal of the Shah is also bad? Should we now reward countries for becoming our enemies and sponsoring terrorist acts against us

Retaliation for the removal of the Shah is bad. The US has(and has had) unparallel economic and military might to promote democratic institutions in many countries over the decades, it has failed to do so in many instances. Rather than support a regime such as that of the fromer Shah of Iran, it should have promoted/aided democratic alternatives. While the cold war can be used as an excuse, in the eyes of many countries, the US was viewed as the defender of freedom/democracy, the support of regimes purely for economic expediency has created a number of the current problems. Unfortunately while there are some discussions to this effect now, the US is still supporting a number of regimes with dubious human rights records. I dare to think what would have happened if the US (through the OSS) had continued to support Vietnam's quest for independance (from the French/China/Japan) and not pulled out to give the French the illusion of past glory in Indochina. Many of those movements were driven into Soviet hands purely because there was no alternative, before becoming totally corrupted and devoid of any human decency.

Posted by Igs 2003-12-15 3:34:21 AM|| 2003-12-15 3:34:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I am atonished at the lack of the basic honestity of First World journalists. I am atonished at their lack of basic human decency as they prefer millions to be raped, tortured and killed as long as that can piss the United States and give them a converstaion theme during their bourgeois parties in their bourgeois houses.

However, not all is lost. I have seen journalists who looked genuinely happy and smiling about the capture of Sadam Hussein, they showed images about the victims those people our plum bourgeois leftists never cared about. But those journalists don't work at CNN, or at the BBC. They work at Kurdistan TV.

Posted by JFM 2003-12-15 4:25:29 AM|| 2003-12-15 4:25:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I dare to think what would have happened if the US (through the OSS) had continued to support Vietnam's quest for independance (from the French/China/Japan) and not pulled out to give the French the illusion of past glory in Indochina.

Hold on here! The USA has a record of supporting national independance. And as a result was often in conflict with the old Europe powers. Suez was a good example.

Many of those movements were driven into Soviet hands purely because there was no alternative, before becoming totally corrupted and devoid of any human decency.

Simply not true! And your language reveals the truth. These are people who in a market place of ideas could not win. Their *only* alternative was to seek support from a patron (and ideology) who did not care whether people wanted it or not.

You want the USA as your patron then you need to show commitment to democracy, human rights and civil liberties. THIS IS THE REASON THAT THE NORTH VIETNAM REGIME AND OTHERS DID NOT SEEK USA SPONSORSHIP.

Anyone who can not see this is frankly a moron.

BTW, I am not an american.

Posted by phil_b 2003-12-15 4:27:15 AM|| 2003-12-15 4:27:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 phil_b, maybe not, but you should be (Your heart and mind are certainly American!).
Between you and Zhang Fei, you boys took care of old Igs and his dumb DNC talking points!

Posted by Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-15 4:43:45 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2003-12-15 4:43:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 ...and I'd like to thank the US personally for Yalta and the years under Soviet occupation under which my parants, and to some extent myself, had to endure.

Easy for you too say Igs. If we hadn't of supported Stalin, Hitler would have slaughtered your parents most likely. He would have been able to win the war ( All those armies moving to the western front would have hurt), and we could all be under NAZI rule. It's easy to look back and say " They should have done this, so it's their fault! "

However, were you actually there? Did you FEEL Stalins terror? Or maybe we should have started a war with Russia right after WW2? That way, we could nuke the USSR before they even had Nuclear Technology. Would have saved us alot of trouble to just nuke Moscow and Stalingrad( What was left of it ).

You judge us because we didn't act to save you from suffering that had yet to occur ( AKA Cold War ). However, in our situation, would you have freed us at the enormious cost of your peoples lives, or value our lives above yours?

I think everyone here knows what your answer is.

Posted by Charles 2003-12-15 4:51:04 AM|| 2003-12-15 4:51:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#16

#13 I dare to think what would have happened if the US (through the OSS) had continued to support Vietnam's quest for independance (from the French/China/Japan) and not pulled out to give the French the illusion of past glory in Indochina.

Hold on here! The USA has a record of supporting national independance. And as a result was often in conflict with the old Europe powers. Suez was a good example.

Guys, Vietnam was not that good an example. What it was an example of was US policy to heed the wishes of allies, juxtaposed with good-ol' Euroimperialism. We'd ~~foolishly~~ promised we'd restore colonies ante bellum. Otherwise we might've listened to our soldiers and sailors: New Caledonia was the one part of the South Pacific worth keeping. The French were very glad to see us defend it ~~but very bad hosts for COMSOPAC~~. The Brits have since mostly allowed Nature to take its course peacefully. Former French colonies had to fight Wars of Independence to break free. See also Algeria. Am I being partisan? Fie.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-15 5:53:52 AM|| 2003-12-15 5:53:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 --Lets not forget that the former Iranian regime was not exactly a picture of human rights but the US was more than willing to support. --

The Shah wasn't perfect, but he did not slaughter tens of thousands of his people. Whatever his faults, he was preferable to the Communist Mossadegh and his successor the Ayatollah Khomeini. More importantly, he was on our side in the Cold War, which had yet to be won.

The Shah was also a Westernizer, which is the real beef the Islamacists had with him. Equal schooling for girls, no veils, modern medicine, newspapers and TV in villages. Caused lots of cognitive dissonance in traditional places & provided the ground support for the Mullahs.

Posted by rkb 2003-12-15 6:49:02 AM|| 2003-12-15 6:49:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 We can expect trolls for several weeks to log onto rantburg and other blogs as well to jerk off about how evil the US is. They're shocked and awed that Bush got his trifecta.

Posted by badanov 2003-12-15 7:32:27 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-12-15 7:32:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 With respect to Stalin, there was an subversive element in the US government that sucessfully hid Stalin's brutality.

With respect to the US's quasi-war with Iran, the hostages weren't the issue. The issue was keeping the straits of Hormuz open to allow oil to flow into the world markets. The USN has been consistently protected trade routes since the Tripolitan War.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-12-15 8:47:47 AM|| 2003-12-15 8:47:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I know it's tough for you Igs...but don't despair; even though your grandchildren will surely be disappointed to discover that you were too weak to stand up for the millions raped, murdered and dumped in mass graves, you can always weasle your way out of it by telling them:

"I didn't disagree with the invasion of Iraq, but i just didn't like the way it was presented to me. I felt it was, like, more important to allow the killing, raping and torture to continue until a someone could verbalize the conflict in a manner more acceptable to me.

Your grandchildren will still think you puss, but at least it will give you a shred of dignity to delude yourself with.

Posted by anonymous 2003-12-15 9:08:26 AM|| 2003-12-15 9:08:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Exactly, Badanov: I think Old Patriot was the first to notice the relationship between Bush's progress in the War against Terror and the manifestation of Troll Activity.

Igs's memory is quite selective: Photos of Rummy shaking Sammy's hand are bandied about without noting that the handshake occurred in the EARLY 80's, LONG BEFORE the Gassing of the Kurds and the subsequent breakoff of military support of Sammy. It was after that breakoff that huge amounts of arms were purchased from the Soviets and the French. But that fact does not serve Igs's purposes, so he focusses on the tiny, and ancient, fraction of sales made by Americans so he can beat up on his fellow americans and shame them into doing what he wants them to do. He claims to have gotten pissed when we dealt with saddam then, and now tries to piss on the parade After we've dealt with him now.

Because congratulating people does not serve his purpose of manipulating them: A practice abusive spouses follow as avidly as do Igs and his trollish compatriots...

Go away, you manipulative little tyrannical wanna-be: Nobody was calling you unpatriotic: just stupid, unreasonable, and deliberately unpleasable. Do us all a favor, go buy The Sims, load it up on your computer, and relieve that desire to control REAL people.

Posted by Ptah 2003-12-15 9:15:27 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-12-15 9:15:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 What a classic line:
"I don't disagree with the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of SH but I'm sick of hearing that it was because of wmds or to liberate the iraqi people"

Discussion between IGS and his grandfather:
"gosh..grandpa...why didn't you do anything when they rounded up the jews..they were your neighbors, your friends, you knew what would happen to them!"

"Well, son...actually, I didn't disagree with those who risked their lives to prevent them from being sent to concentration camps, but I did nothing to help them becaue I was sick of hearing the say that they were doing it.... [scoff, roll eyes]... to liberate them." HA! All the smart people, like me, knew that the only reason anyone supposedly "stood tall" and risked their lives to help the Jews was because, they didn't want their favorite Jewish run shops to close. You see, grandson, the people who risked their lives to help the Jews, were actually very selfish individuals, unlike me."

"Gosh..grandpa...you're really neat".

Posted by anonymous 2003-12-15 9:32:30 AM|| 2003-12-15 9:32:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Tibor, your posting from Strategy Page, shows a fortuitous assembly of an Iraq Tribunal prior to the weekend story. One might almost say coincidental.

We have a reversal of roles going on here. Traditionally, the totalitarian states promote the "show trial" as a validation of the regime. Now, amazingly, we have the International Community demanding the "show trial". I sense that the Iraqi people "who are not ready to handle democracy" might give the world a real example of justice.

Posted by john 2003-12-15 9:52:04 AM|| 2003-12-15 9:52:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Would someone explain to me the purpose of a trial in the case of Saddam? I thought trials were conducted to examine the evidence with an eye towards establishing guilt.

Is there any doubt here? Saddam was the head of a tyrranical government; his face was everywhere. The rape squads and the torturers operated with his authority, even if he didn't sign off on every one of their victims.

Yeah, let's air the crimes his regime committed in his name. The lower-ranking members of his regime -- yeah, try them; there's a chance some of them may deserve life in prison instead of the death penalty -- but the upper ranks?

Their trials should consist of establishing their identities then determining the penalty.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-12-15 10:06:59 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-12-15 10:06:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 The US has(and has had) unparallel economic and military might to promote democratic institutions in many countries over the decades, it has failed to do so in many instances. ... Many of those movements were driven into Soviet hands purely because there was no alternative, before becoming totally corrupted and devoid of any human decency.

The myth of US omnipotence is all a bunch of wishful thinking. The Shah fell because (1) Carter indicated he wouldn't support the Shah's putting down of Khomeinist Revolution (with arms shipments and possibly US troops) and (2) Carter figured he could deal with the Ayatollahs, with whom he wanted to start off on the right footing. Instead of rewarding Carter for helping them gain power, the Ayatollahs convinced themselves that (1) they had succeeded entirely on their own and (2) allowing the Shah to fall was evidence of American weakness. This Khomeinist arrogance was what led to the hostage crisis and then the Marine barracks bombing. Two US presidents made significant conciliatory gestures towards Iran (Carter by not interfering in the Ayatollahs' ascension to power and Reagan by rewarding Iranian-sponsored hostage-taking in Lebanon with arms shipments) and were soundly rebuffed.

The US couldn't even get as staunch an ally as Singapore (which sent troops to Iraq) to avoid denouncing Bill Clinton as an adulterer and a liar for criticizing Singapore's decision to cane an American teenager. (And Singapore flogged the teenager despite strong American entreaties). What possibility is there of influencing other governments? The fact is that the US managed to push some countries towards democracy only when its leaders were ready for it.

Others who are not ready will resist with all their might, and nothing short of an American invasion will change that. The fact is that the US has had a very difficult time getting even its friends to go along with its policy objectives - the dictatorial regimes that were allied to the US had even less in common with America - they could switch over to the Soviet Union at the drop of a hat. Egypt, Iraq and Syria all aligned with the Soviets did this despite being fascist regimes at heart.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-15 10:37:19 AM|| 2003-12-15 10:37:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Mr lgs

The guy who was scheduled for the plastic shredder, whose relatives were to be butchered or his daughter/wife was to be raped DOESN'T care if the americans came because they disliked Saddam, because of the WMDs, because of the oil or to get more toys from Santa Claus. What he sees is that he and his beloved ones have been spared a horrible fate.

The ones who care about America's motivations (that they automatically suppose evil) are the leftist bourgeois in the comfort of the American and European campusses.

Posted by JFM 2003-12-15 10:56:43 AM|| 2003-12-15 10:56:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 campusses..hee hee.

Posted by B 2003-12-15 11:40:21 AM|| 2003-12-15 11:40:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 What it was an example of was US policy to heed the wishes of allies, juxtaposed with good-ol' Euroimperialism. We'd foolishly promised we'd restore colonies ante bellum.

American leaders played the cards they were dealt. They could have insisted on independence for the colonies, but well-organized Communist movements (trained and funded by the Soviets) stood ready to fill the vacuum. France could also have decided to make a separate peace with the Soviets - note that the Soviet Union preserved Russian empire after the 1917 Revolution, and acknowledged Chinese rule over Tibet and East Turkistan. The Soviets had no problem with imperialism, as long as its allies remained in the fold.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-15 12:59:54 PM|| 2003-12-15 12:59:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Igs:"I'd like to thank the US personally for Yalta and the years under Soviet occupation under which my parants, and to some extent myself, had to endure."

Yeah, it's our fault. We put Stalin in power, since we were such big backers of the Oktober Revolution, right?

Asshat.

Posted by mojo 2003-12-15 1:04:01 PM|| 2003-12-15 1:04:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Excellent dogpile. 7.9. We've got the mechanics down.... just need to work on the speed.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-15 2:02:38 PM|| 2003-12-15 2:02:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 "I'd like to thank the US personally for Yalta and the years under Soviet occupation under which my parants, and to some extent myself, had to endure."

You can take the boy out of Commie-land but...

Posted by Pappy 2003-12-15 2:32:25 PM|| 2003-12-15 2:32:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 ROFL....Annonymous you are too much....the IGS and grandfather dialogue....what a classic!!!!

Posted by TerrorHunter4Ever 2003-12-15 2:45:11 PM|| 2003-12-15 2:45:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 geez...you ppl are very touchy

badanov...what exactly is the trifecta?

anonymous...on a relativity scale, Iraq would have been a long way down the list if freeing the population was the primary reason

Zhange Fei - ty for a rational response

JFM - what about all those other guys in the situation now (in other countries, some supported by the US)? No one seems to be helping them

mojo - geez, that's a clever response duh

Posted by Igs 2003-12-15 8:26:18 PM|| 2003-12-15 8:26:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Igs says: "on a relativity scale, Iraq would have been a long way down the list if freeing the population was the primary reason"

Being gassed, shredded, tongue cut out... ok, for which place on that list of yours do Iraqis qualify, Igs?

What does it take to be first in line?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-12-15 8:58:46 PM|| 2003-12-15 8:58:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 true german ally..hmmm...let's see...Ivory coast, Liberia (were the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming just about), Sierra Leone - they just love skinning people in those countries, Congo, the good old Rwanda a few years back that no one gave a toss about. Then there's also Burundi, Sudan, Uganda...geez, I didn't realise, some of these are muslim, silly me. I'm just wondering, why did Iraq assume such greater importance than some poor african country?

Posted by Igs 2003-12-15 9:13:35 PM|| 2003-12-15 9:13:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Igs, my question was not "which countries deserve liberation" (many more on that list) but why is Iraq "rather low on the list"?

The thing is that all the countries you named should be free, yes. The difference: They don't pose a threat to the world community as Saddam's Iraq did.

But even without that threat I'd rank Iraq very high. And it was the only country under "UN-probation" (which it violated).

And Ruanda is exactly the example of what happens when you let the UN deal with these kind of "problems".

Posted by True German Ally 2003-12-15 10:08:59 PM|| 2003-12-15 10:08:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 True German Ally, granted that I should have put Iraq higher on the list, my argument is however, how come no real effort is being made to address similar issues in other countries (if the freeing of the Iraqi ppl argument is used), the US is not prepared to commit the same resources to go in and sort out Congo once and for all (then again neither is anyone else). As to being a threat to the world community, it's easy to argue either way and I will admit that the prevailing public perception before the war was that it was a threat (whether this perception was manipulated or not). The Iraqi army was well known to have been pretty much in shambles due to the UN sanctions (ie lack of spare parts/some weapons etc), it did break the embargo on many occasions but it just couldn't in the quantities that it needed to. As to the wmds, I was just as convinced as anyone else that SH had stacks of them, then again I have seen technical literature (prior to the war) indicating that even if he had manufactured any of the stuff (which he once did), alot of it would have been pretty much useless after a few years. Facts such as these were not picked up and analysed in the public forum to the same extent as statements such as "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.", which were clearly untrue or based on very selective use of intelligence.

Posted by Igs 2003-12-15 10:48:02 PM|| 2003-12-15 10:48:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 true german ally..hmmm...let's see...Ivory coast, Liberia (were the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming just about), Sierra Leone - they just love skinning people in those countries, Congo, the good old Rwanda a few years back that no one gave a toss about. Then there's also Burundi, Sudan, Uganda

The US got into Iraq mainly for a number of reasons: (1) Muslim states had to be deterred from using plausibly deniable mass killings of Americans as an instrument of state policy, potentially up to and including the use of nukes in American cities, (2) Iraq posed a long-term strategic threat to the independence of the Gulf states, which was a dagger pointed at the heart of the US, and the world economy,(3) Iraq was tying down US forces that may have had to be used elsewhere. WMD's and human rights were important, but probably not the critical decision points.

With regard to point Muslim state sponsorship, Muslim countries have been deploying terrorists against the US for decades*. Saddam and the PLO sponsored Abu Nidal's organization as a limited liability corporation that was responsible for dozens of American deaths, Libya's Gaddafi had his own goon squad that brought down the PanAm airliner over Lockerbie, among other projects, and Iran had Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad, which were responsible for the Marine barracks bombing that killed over 200 Marines in a single day. (The one thing these organizations had in common was that the state sponsors could plausibly deny that they were involved). With the thousands of deaths from 9/11, state-sponsored terrorism crossed a threshold, indicating that the next attack could involve the destruction of an entire American city. This is why the US reacted so vigorously.

Iraq was attacked because it had a variety of desirable attributes - (1) Saddam was essentially friendless in the region, (2) unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq had few holy places of universal interest to Sunni Muslims, (3) large ethnic (Kurds - 20%) and religious groups (Shiites - 60%, Christians - 5%) were being kept down by a small minority that monopolized the important positions, (4) Iraq offered the military easy access to most of the important countries in the region, providing the US with the means to intimidate any country even thinking of sponsoring anti-American terrorists.

A key aspect of the US response has been its insistence that it will not wait for the evidence to come in before attacking an Arab country. If the US believes a Muslim country was responsible for a terror attack, that Muslim country will face American retribution, no matter how well it has covered its tracks. The fact that there is only circumstantial evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 actually enhances deterrence with respect to Muslim countries (as well as countries such as China, which has contemplated alliances with these terror groups to advance Chinese policy goals)**. The US will not wait until evidence is available before striking at its enemies.*** This will compel Muslim and other enemy governments to be proactive in countering potential attacks against the US even before they occur, lest they become implicated and targeted.

Is this unfair to them, in the sense that they might be wrongly accused? Sure. If they were in the US's place, would they do the same? Absolutely, and probably worse, given what they do to their own people on a routine basis. This is the price the US has to pay for the failure of deterrence, for the withdrawals from Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia, each of which is routinely quoted as a reason that Americans can be attacked with impunity because it is felt to be too weak, cowardly or legalistic to mount a major military response.

* This problem is not unique to the US. Pakistan has deployed terrorists against India. Malaysia has supported Muslim separatists in Thailand and the Philippines. Indonesia has supported home-grown Islamic terrorists against Christians in the empire the Dutch built for them before leaving.

** Read Unrestricted Warfare for an indication of Chinese views on the utility of terrorist attacks as a tool of foreign policy.

*** In most terrorist attacks, like well-planned intelligence operations, this evidence connecting all the dots will never become available.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-12-15 11:30:19 PM|| 2003-12-15 11:30:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Zheng Fei, the reasons for invading Iraq which you have stated is what I was driving at and I agree with them, well, I would disagree with a couple of points but the general thrust is definitely there. I have always viewed the geographic location of Iraq as a main driver in re-establishig a new balance of power in the middle east. My concern was (and still is) the manipulation, either deliberate or not, of the whole issue in the public domain. This may be due to belief that majority of the public would simply not understand the intricacies of the situation, however personally, I do find it insulting (and somehow I think that I might be the only one on this forum) the way the US administration (and the same applies to the Australian gov over here) went about in building internal support for the action. I'm not proposing an alternative however. In many instances it was obviously clear (at least to me) that misleading/deceptive and in some cases clear lying was used to strengthen the case for the removal of SH (not in all instances). This has continued since the occupation. I'm not arguing that SH should not have been removed and never have been, but I'm not prepared to swallow everything that is presented to me without questioning it. I have been reading this forum for some time and regard this blog to be one of the better ones around. I'm a sucker for information and quite happily read anything from right wing to left wing stuff but always am prepared to question everything, find more information and then make up my own mind (always being receptive for alterantive views). Having said that I do find some things as being quite laughable on both sides. What scares me is some people's belief that they are unquestionably right. My main aim in posting comments (and I admit that I'm not always correct) is to at least confront people with a different view on issues. Some people obviously take offence, I can live with that, by having their beliefs questioned.

Posted by Igs 2003-12-16 1:24:21 AM|| 2003-12-16 1:24:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 just wanted the last word on this.

Posted by Igs is a loser 2003-12-16 12:15:39 PM|| 2003-12-16 12:15:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 geez...that's clever, it must have really aggravated your brain cells to come up with that

Posted by Igs 2003-12-16 8:32:31 PM|| 2003-12-16 8:32:31 PM|| Front Page Top

20:32 Igs
12:15 Igs is a loser
01:24 Igs
00:33 Les Nessman
23:52 Zhang Fei
23:49 Lucky
23:43 Rafael
23:39 Lucky
23:37 Lucky
23:30 Zhang Fei
23:22 Lucky
23:19 Fred
23:17 tu3031
23:10 Bomb-a-rama
23:07 Lucky
23:07 GKarp
23:05 GKarp
23:05 tu3031
23:01 mojo
22:59 tu3031
22:52 Alaska Paul
22:48 Igs
22:36 Hyper
22:34 Alaska Paul