Well, they finally did it

So, Sadam is dead. Fianlly someone had the guts to do what most of the world has wanted done for so many years.

The only question I have is: Will this stop the violence?

Personally, I don't think so. I believe it mattered not what happened to Sadam as far as the big picture goes, he was just a reason for the West to oust a militant Muslim leader, and a reason for Al Queda to openly wage war on everything Western/Christian.

Did you see that AQ has now got involved in the Somalia conflict as well, calling on all muslims to go there and fight? Just another excuse.

 

No... it wont matter a lot in the short term.

your reasoning on why Al Quaeda does what they do is a little weird... unless I read it wrong.

The operative term for them is 'excuse' not a 'reason'

 

No, it will only add fuel to the fire and that is what Bush and friends want. More war means more money.

 

Wag the Dog?

.. I , personally, haven't been over there, and so could this all be another Wag the Dog movie?

 

Re: RE: Well, they finally did it

Oh, COME ON! You cant put fact to that. And if you're going on generalities, and going to invoke Halliburton and Carlyle, then you have to look at ALL politicians that way and there will be no end to it.

Do you want to REALLY get into that with me? I can out-conspiracy-theory you!

 

RE: Re: RE: Well, they finally did it

Personally, I firmly believe that the Bush administration wanted/needed this so-called war for a number of reasons.

1. The economy was already beginning to slump. They had no answers, and it's a been a well-known political fact that the best way to get a public on the governments side is to have a war. Thatcher gained from the '82 conflict in exactly the same way and it gave her the political muscle to then take on the unions in the 84 union strikes.

2. Bush still had the (apparent) failure of his father's administration in the '92 campaign pressuring him. All he needed was an excuse to finish up what 'daddy' started.

3. Bush, especially when he came into office, was very naive, and governed by the facets of his own administration, especially the Military Hawks. He took bad advice as good.

4. The attack on 9-11 gave the administration the excuse to expand their 'make America great' campaign, by creating a VERY false climate of imminant terrorist attacks on the mainland. This was further borne out by the unrealistic measures taken to 'protect' the american citizen and the total lack, on the administrations part, to actually educate the public about what terrorism actually is (please, someone, explain to me why the hand gun sales rocketed after 9-11 and made it 'safer' here?)

5. As with any administration, they want some legacy to be remembered for. Bush, in his naivety, inexperience and 'gung-ho' mentality, decided to start something he could never have finished in his maximum two terms of office. His speeches containing 'Job Done' and 'Bring it On' will be remembered as his legacy long after he is gone and the 'war on terror' is declared a draw as being unwinnable.

You must remember that the so-called terrorist organization list that was drawn up AFTER 9-11 included NorAid. For those that know nothing of this organization, it collects monies in the US in support of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (P-IRA) who had been bombing civilians in London and the UK for almost 30 years prior to 9-11. Why did it take this attack for the Bush (or ANY) administration to outlaw it as a terrorist front? Everybody knew it, but nobody wanted to do anything about it, until it became useful for the administration to use in their 'war on terror'.

yes, this war DOES mean more money, for some. The military has got astronomical funding, the private companies that some senators et al are involved in have been given special provisions on contracts. Funding has been made available for 'Homeland Security' and the FBI has received further funding for projects to support the new HS office.

It has meant a lot less for others: Public spending diverted from Social programs to security. It has also eroded the civil rights of the ordinary american, so some extent, and allowed an administration the leverage to commit a number projects to secrecy under the National Security banner.

At no time, will you see, have I given any opinion on the war itself, that is nothing to do with this thread. Neither will I state that any other administration might not have taken some of the same course as this administration has.

Personally, although I fully support the US Government in it's entirity, I don't like the Bush administration for what it has done. That does not mean I am unpatriotic or a subversive, it makes me an opinionated person, and that's all.

 

RE: Re: RE: Well, they finally did it

That's reasonable, Tony... wrong in many cases, but a reasonable view.

Now.. HERE is the CRUX of the Iraqi issue...

1 the evidence that Saddam was gaming the UN and the 13 resolutions is well established. Anyone who claims Saddam WAS cooperating cannot be convinced, no matter the evidence.. so they might as well run off and read their Leftist rags and not bother with this

2. The Prime Security Council Roadblocks were ... ta-dum! .. France and Russia. And guess why.... Oil Contracts, Oil Development contracts and Weapons/infrastructure contracts. Germany? Who knows what and why but Germany is in between, arent they.

3. There have been releases of document after document that showed Saddam was ready to restart his WMD program immediately after sanctions were lifted. Saddams own chief AF advisor emeritus SAID there was a LOT of the materiel for WMD moved through Syria.

4. Saddam did indeed destroy many stocks of WMD, it turns out... yet he didnt turn those events into the UN team. Why?
Could it be that he realized that ALL those WMD's distributed out among so many were in fact a danger to himself, as well?
Then why NOT report them.... maybe because he wanted the Shia, Kurds and Iranians to THINK he still had them?
- Could that explain why the US troops found that every OTHER Republican Guard unit had brand spanking new chem suits? Not EVERY unit, every SECOND UNIT!

5. No WMD found... ummm.. if Bush trumped up those charges, then why didnt we find any? I'm so tired of saying that... but whenever I use that in a debate, the opponents' eyes glaze over and the subject gets changed.

Never mind we HAVE found WMD... over 500 weapons, in fact.. but they dated back to the mid-eighties to early nineties. STILL it is those that the sanctions and resolutions were about, isnt it. The answer... they were PROBABLY misplaced and forgotten. Now extrapolate from THAT.. do you get my meaning?

Never mind, that EVERY single grandstanding pol spoke about how dangerous Saddam was and how he needed to be removed..,. until it came time for action, that is. Now where have we seen THAT happen before?

I wrote at the beginning that the Iraq invasion was as much strategic as it was reactive and tactical. I stand by that. Despite the many military and bureaucratic blunders made, AFTER formal hostilities ended, the fact remains, two of the strategic goals were met: Libya out as a regional danger, and message sent to Saudi Arabia and the 'little fascist fiefdoms' of the Gulf region.

 

RE: Re: RE: Well, they finally did it

Most wars are political rather than ideoligical (The crusades are the last ideological war I can think of and even then politics was much involved!). Thatcher re-took the Falklands in the 80's to win an election. Gulf War I was fought over oil, and the sequal was over regime change and oil(neither of which are acceptable reasons to go to war in my mind).

The other reason sometimes given is the human rights record of Iraq - if genocide are reasons to go to war then why has China/Iran/North Korea not been invaded? Simply because it would be stratigically a big mistake resulting in either nuclear war or a casualty rate unacceptable to the US public.

Iraq was weak and vunerable - and Bush (and Blair) grasped the opportunity without thinking through the process.

The current action will not bring stability to the middle east, the best we can hope for is that Iraq disintergrated into a set of small self governing fueding nations that fight each other and leaves the rest of the middle east alone.

I am less than convinced that the war on terror in Iraq is in the best interests of the UK and question why we are there? The only conclusion I can come to is that the relationship was called upon to provide political support to the US course of action, otherwise they would have been totally isolated in world political oppinion.

As a side note, I am concerned at the media coverage of Saddam's execution. I dislike the death penalty (but accept it in this case) but feel it should have been carried out without cameras - it was in poor taste.

I am thinking of having some Saddam soap on a roap's made to sell to the troops though

 

Biggest Blunder?

The biggest blunder was two-fold....

Firstly the British and American Administration entering into a war they had NO IDEA how to fight (Ulster and Vietnam revisted methinks)

and ...

the American voters being hoodwinked into believing that after the initial invasion, and up until the next election, that America was winning the war on terror. I left the Brits out of this one as it became obvious prior to the last election that the policy had failed, but as the States had the greatest commitment, the public let it ride.

BOTH of those issues were fabricated, totally fabricated. Notwithstanding the reason for entering into the conflict, and that issue will be debated ad infinitum, or until the correct documents are released (or maybe never), the fact that this started as a war on terror, then a war to remove a dictator, then back to a war on terror, then into a war of liberation, and now back to a war on terror, the reason for fighting this conflict appears to waver as the public opinion sways one way or the other and has now been lost in the realms of time.

In last years State of the Union speech, Bush claimed 'we are winning the war' and his policies were the right ones and they didn't need to change course and we would "stay the course until the job is done", during the late summer he wavered, just a little, and then, suprisingly after he discovered that the American voters had discovered his little deception in the November election, he decided that we were not now winning the war, but we weren't losing and that we needed to change course! The guy has been caught out in either telling a lie, or not knowing what the true state of the war was a year ago (please do not even attempt to claim the course of this conflict has changed since last year, please), in either case, he has proven he either is not up to the job because of lying (like Nixon) or he has no control over those advisers he has chosen and cannot see what everyone else in the country could see (No particulr President comes to mind for that one).

I said when this conflict started (and was shouted down by those 'patriotic' people) that this was another Vietnam, and it's strange, but in the past 2 months commentators have been looking at similarities and saying the same thing.

I have no solution as to how to extract our troops from this failure, but then again, I wouldn't have gone in there in the same fashion either. The conflict in Afghanistan wasn't even finished (and still isn't) before this endeavour was taken on.

Remember, in the next 3 months or so, the number of US Troops killed in the middle east will top the number of civilians killed on 9-11. Sobering thought for a 'turkey shoot' of a war, one that has, apparently, been completed some 3 years ago, or one where we would entice the enemy to 'Bring it on'.

When will the "job be Done"? It seems that neither the Us Administration or the Blair administration can say the same thing as each other at all. They even manage to change what they each say from month to month.
It almost laughable, but, unfortunately I cannot laugh, not when almost 3000 (THREE THOUSAND) American Troops are buried because of these politicians playing with peoples lives, and somewhere between 80,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians are dead (most of which aren't buried, because all the bits of their blown up bodies couldn't be found).

Both Blair and Bush have blood on their hands. I defend British and American people against that label because the ordinary American and Brit has little control over the policies of this nature. As I sais before, it's only Blair and Bush in name, in reality, it's all the people involved in the decision-making process of both Administrations, but, in the true sense of the ship at sea, the Captain has to take the fall for his crews failings.

As I said, it matter not WHY we entered into this war, the execution of it was wrong. The fields of battle are littered with the good intentions of the politicans making the decisions and the bodies of the troops and civilians trying to implement those decisions.

In another 5 years' time, when we are still attempting to extract the last of the troops out (Blair has already stated in setptember 2006 that the troops will need to remain in the country for at least 4 years after the Iraqi Government takes over) we will hold a remebnerance parade for those that died, and the names of the Administrations that caused this grief will be spoken of in derogatory terms. That is the legacy they leave behind.

And what of the war on terror? Well, look at the capitulation by the Blair Government to the PIRA in Northern Ireland. THAT is what the American and Iraqi governments have to look forward to.

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

I can't agree with that sentiment. As far as I can tell there has been little shift in position over the sovereignty of Northern Ireland.

Blair has lied to the British public on several occasions and has still been voted back into power. The British voting public (of which I am one) are responsible.

Neither knows what the hell is going on. The UK is to involved in too many theatres around the world and the cracks are begining to show.

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

It a fact that Chaney has said something like "We need another Pearl Harbor to convince the American people to go to war". I cant find the exact quote right now.

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

Highly reflexive, reactionary and frustrated response deleted in favor of...NUTS!

:roll:

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

You call it an insane conspiracy, but you cant laugh it off when it happens.

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

I could be like a liberal and ignore anything.. meaning REAL FACT, not SLOGAN.. I dont like.

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

... Answer this first..WERE WE SAFER following the Clinton Administration's policies?

No, you arent... but what you are is a full tilt boogie 'kool-Aid' drinker.

I seldom see any of your outrage against ANYTHING but Bush and the Republicans.... I'm sorry I have to judge you guys as much by what you DONT say as what you say.

You dont have a clue that you can offer about what can be done, or could have been done differently.

You dont have ANY opinion about the failure of the UN in this... you NEVER address the issues... only regurgitate the Dem campaign talking points... well the freakin election is OVER.

Rush today told the Repubs in Washington to quit whining that they werent gonna get 'bipartisanship', because they arent in power! And he's right.

THAT is why I've been opptimistic about what the Dems have done and will do... becuase the DEMS WON!

And now is the time for YOU guys to quit bashing Bush.. YOU FREAKIN WON.

Aint NOTHIN gonna happen without Congress' approval!

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

Did the fact that we stopped the Gulf War after teaching Saddam a lesson, work?

All he had to do was follow the Security Council Resolutions... WHY THE HELL DIDNT HE?

Did the Sanctions work... or what should we have done, instead?

Was the US at fault for the Lebanese Barrack bombings?

.... and before you answer any of that... would you be satisfied if we just nuked Tel Aviv and saved Iran the trouble?

 

RE: Biggest Blunder?

But don.... it's amazing that you dont realize there hasnt been a SINGLE workable alternative proposed... and you STILL havent.

So WHO is dodging issues and counterattacking?

I cant believe this!