PeterDavid.net

But PAD, where has it been established that the Iraqis hate us? I've seen polls where many are afraid of us leaving. Judging from who is being killed by the Iraqis, they hate each other far more than they hate us.

I think it would be interesting to have a referendum in Iraq on whether or not we should stay. I doubt it will happen because both sides of the argument here in this country are afraid of what the resuly could be.

Unfortunately, polls coming out of Iraq vary wildly, giving seemingly contradictory results depending on the day of the week, phase of the moon, the tides, how many American soldiers happen to be standing within earshot, etc...

Sadly, the bombs seem to be a lot more consistant.

-Rex Hondo-

Be very, very leery of Polls. All of them. A poll is almost always a very small sample of opinion, and the numbers (which you rarely know; could be 20, could be 200) can be manipulated to make you believe anything the pollsters want.

"But PAD, where has it been established that the Iraqis hate us? I've seen polls where many are afraid of us leaving."

I have to think the fact that they keep killing us and that their religious leaders are encouraging Iraqis to kill American soldiers leads me in the "They hate us" direction. That said, it's not mutually exclusive. They can hate our living guts but be afraid of our leaving because they're concerned it will get even worse. But they can still hate us for bringing about this constant state of siege in the first place.

PAD

I play online a lot one of the people I ended up meeting thru a game I play lives in Qatar. We would end up talking about Iraq. He often would say the same thing to me " Before you all got here Sunnis and Shiites where fighting, after you all leave they will continue to do so. Nothing you can do will ever change that."

There have also been polls that say the majority of Iraqis feel attacks on America are justified. I can't see how any of them are reliable, but PAD is right, the bombings on Americans will continue so long as we are there. And the fighting between the Shia and Sunnis will continue until their either exhausted or another strongman takes control.

Oh, and PAD, you forgot: (d) Violent music lyrics and video games. And I saw at least one person blame it on atheism and the teaching of evolution.

I have to think the fact that they keep killing us and that their religious leaders are encouraging Iraqis to kill American soldiers leads me in the "They hate us" direction.

But "they" aren't killing "us". The killers are a presumably small segment of the population and their victims are overwhelmingly Iraqi.

233 people were killed wednesday. None, to my knowledge, were Americans. If the killings are to lead us in any direction it would seem that it would not necesarily be to the conclusion that the hatred is mostly directed at Americans. There does not even seem to be much of an attempt to maximize the number of Americans who might be killed in these bombings. The targets seem to be intended to be Iraqis.

One other thing. You ask who is left. How about the ones who ordered the bombings? When the Towers were hit all of the hijackers were killed but it did not stop us from directing anger at the ones who planned and ordered it. The bombings in Iraq may well foment anti-american hatered but I'm going to guess that average Iraqi would rather see Al Qaeda leaders strung up than the US servicemen. Again, considering the victims, it stands to reason that if every US servicemen were gone the killings would continue (at best) and accelerate (at worst)

Posted by: Den at April 19, 2007 09:14 AM
And I saw at least one person blame it on atheism and the teaching of evolution.

Hey, don't forget the Pagans and the Gays. I wonder if there's some way we can work Global Warming in there too...

-Rex Hondo-

PAD, you should listen to Glorious Leader Bush; they have to keep hating and killing us there, so they don't follow us home and hate and kill us here.

Given the amounts of disinformation - or at least misinformation - from all sides, it is risky to rely on any set of 'facts', but I was under the impression that many of the lunatics causing the mounting death count were from outside Iraq? How do imported terrorists translate to "Iraq hates the US"?

Hey, don't forget the Pagans and the Gays. I wonder if there's some way we can work Global Warming in there too...

Considering how peaceful, nice, and well-adjusted most gay persons I've ever met personally are, it boggles the mind how so many crazies somehow blame homosexuality for violent tragedies. I'd even say the average gay man may be less prone to violence than the average straigth one.

I've read in the papers that Iraqs are throwing stones at American soldiers now, on account of Americans' failure to protect them. So yes, I suspect they don't love you guys very much. The Sunni feel you disenfranchised them, the Shi'ite feel you failed to protect them from the Sunni's backlash. I've read of polls saying only the Kurds still support American occupation.

Heck I saw someone on CNN blame the rules that don't allow students to carry guns at the school. He said if students were allowed to carry guns then someone would have got the killer before he had killed all those people.
What a scary thought, a university filled with armed students, just waiting to 'protect themselves'.
Tom Dakers

PAD, I do not know if they hate US or not, but I completely agree with what you have written. And if only a 10% hate the US, that is enough to keep alive an endless cycle of violence, until they feel that what THEY have there is what THEY decided the want to have there (be it Saddam, the US, communists, the Pope or John Byrne).

I dunno, PAD.

I think that any hatred that some Iraqis have for Americans is very minor now in light of the far greater hatred going back and forth between Sunni and Shiia factions who have been at war for centuries.

But of course, as Bush his neo-con cabal were dreaming in 2003 of a post-Saddam Iraq flowering into a model of Jeffersonian democracy, they failed to read their history on the country's old grudges.

It's the arrogance of Bush and his cronies that brought Iraq to its current state of chaos today, and IMO, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

There are a number of Iraqis that seem to hate us, but many of them likely hated us before we invaded. We've not had the history of making friends over there.

I'm sure that the constant deaths and the post Shock and Awe living conditions are used to try and foment hatred towards Americans. I've seen Iraqis on TV news broadcasts saying that the Americans have messed things up and that they wished we would go home. I've seen the calls for death to Americans by the various religious leaders as well. But how many of those people hated Americans to begin with?

See, another factor of human nature in times like this is to look for someone to protect us or to make sense of the senseless for us. Part of that making sense out of the senseless is sometimes having peoples' beliefs or prejudices confirmed for them. People cling to that person as a leader and then that leader goes after targets that they, and those that follow them, already didn't like.

You're not going to have a fan of Marilyn Manson or Rammstein suddenly screaming for a ban of their works. You're not going to have rabid fans of GTA suddenly claiming that playing that game makes you a psychotic killer. You're not going to have fans of King, Bolen, McNabb or others claiming that love of violent fiction is a sign of a violent person. You're not going to have the posters on this board demanding that Marvel pay for this because it was the shock and trauma of their depiction of Captain America's death that drove someone over the edge. No, you'll have the leaders and the people who follow those leaders who already were indifferent to, disliked or down right hated Manson, Rammstein, GTA, certain authors or Marvel demanding public hearings and lynching.

Same with the Iraqis and us. Maybe the death rate in Iraq is a tool to focus or intensify the hate, but the hatred was likely already, at least partly, there with many. The factors created by our presence there are likely just the latest excuse for some to hate us.

Rene: "Considering how peaceful, nice, and well-adjusted most gay persons I've ever met personally are, it boggles the mind how so many crazies somehow blame homosexuality for violent tragedies."

It's not the gays themselves, it's our acceptance of them. That's the concept spewed by some (Savage, Robertson, etc.) hate mongers on the Right. We're either causing the fundamentalist Muslims to fight us to prevent our casual acceptance of "perversion" from infecting their countries or whatever deaths happen are God's judgment on us for allowing homosexuals to be members of our society rather then shunned outcasts.

Yeah, makes total sense. (rolls eyes)

I think this is the closest we've come to a political truth in quite a while. I agree wholeheartedly.

Peter,

You left out video games. I am sure they will end up listed as a cause of this, too.

I was waiting for Rosie O'Donnell to draw the comparison between Va Tech and Iraq, but she wasn't stepping up to the plate. Thanks for pinch-hitting there, PAD.

Now, if they hadn't hated the U.S. *before* we went into Iraq, you might have a point. I can't help but recall posts online when 9/11 hit from people saying, "Well, it's about time the U.S. had something happen to them like what happens to us every day."

Please allow me to over simplify...

The suni's want us to stay to keep the shiites from killing them, they want us to leave so they can more easily kill the shiites....

The shiites want us to stay to keep the sunnis occupied while they kill them. They want to us to leave so that the new military that we trained can more easily kill the sunnis.

The kurds want us to leave so they can tell the rest of iraq to piss off... They want us to stay so that the turks will not cross the border and wipe them off the face of the earth....

The iranins want us to leave so they can help the shiites that we put in power wipe out the sunnis that we took out of power (that also lead 2 wars against the iranians under sadams rule)

so after that please address any questions to the as yet named war zsar... (my money is on michael brown)

John

>>>I was waiting for Rosie O'Donnell to draw the comparison between Va Tech and Iraq, but she wasn't stepping up to the plate.

Christ Almighty, why does anyone care a fig (to put it as G-rated as possible) what the hell Rosie O'Donnell thinks about anything?

Her mouth is a black hole from which no logic can escape.

Y'know, last night, I was watching The Daily Show, and there was a brief bit on the search for a "war czar." And it hit me, out of the blue:

Why the hell do we need a "war czar?" Don't we have a Secretary of Defense and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to handle the issues that would be covered by whoever ends up in this newly-created position?

And then I remembered what administration we were talking about...

You know, it's my experience that all "Czars" typically do not die of natural causes. However, I wholheartedly volunteer to be the War Czar so that I can make a change in policy--we all need to sit around and sing "All You Need is Love" to solve this problem. Then, someone will shoot me dead and this will start all over again.*wink wink*

Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs? Let them blow themselves to hell, they obviously want to. Religious wars are a sticky business that we cannot hope to end. Any high schooler could have told the GW that--did he skip class that day or something?

Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?

Because they made the mistake of living on top of our oil supply.

Paul1963:

Agreed 100%.

I frankly think what's going thru Bush's mind is he's applying his coursework from his old MBA days to how he manages the White House.

Thus, Bush is managing the war like a classic bureaucrat, delegating and spinning off authority to new positions whenever needed (or in his mind, anyhow) as opposed to handling it himself as, y'know, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The beauty of hiring a "war czar" from Bush's perspective is that 1) He can create the illusion that he's taking action in order to correct a problem with no risk to himself and 2) the poor sucker who is dumb enough to take that job will have no authority, but will take all of the blame for the next disaster off of Bush's shoulders.

Come to think of it, that is a classic MBA move.

"For Iraq, death, anger, blame and revenge IS the state of normalcy."

That really bugs me. It's been stuck in my head since this morning. Is there any way to show the Iraqi people that there could be another state? I've never understood the jihad mentality really. If you want to believe something different than I do, hey, more power to ya. But IS what's happening there really all religion-based? Is that the (pardon the phrase, I just can't think of another right now)stumbling block? Can they do anything about all this, with or without our help? (Personally, I'd like to see it done with our help, since we started all of it, but there have to be limits.) Or do the Muslims have one central authority that could be appealed to, a Pope-like figure?

Bill Mulligan:
One other thing. You ask who is left. How about the ones who ordered the bombings?

That's something I also asked.

It occurs to me that hatred against the ones who ordered the bombings is undoubtedly contributing to the sectarian violence.

But can they get at the people who actually gave the orders? Probably not, those people are hidden somewhere. If a bunch of Shi'a are killed by a Sunni suicide bomber, the Shi'a who are left will likely retaliate against any Sunnis they can find, violently or otherwise. Much the same as, after 9/11, Muslims and those of Middle Eastern descent became pariahs and suspected criminals in America, and were hated.

Here's the other thing that occurred to me:

Imagine you are standing around in the aftermath of such a bombing. You've lost family members, there is crying and screaming and carnage everywhere you look.

At some point you flash back to the pre-invasion days and think "even then it was never this bad...I never lost anybody I loved before this!"

Your grief and shock slowly turns to anger. You look for somebody to blame. You look around but don't see anybody you know to be responsible for this. You may also look around not not see anybody whose religious beliefs are the same as the bomber. But you see American troops....and you think "you bastards! If it weren't for you, this never would've happened, it never would've gotten this bad!"

Perhaps you won't want to kill them...yet. But you may very well hate them. And perhaps, when you hear of the American death toll going up, you will bitterly say "good, I hope they suffered."

I'm just guessing here, of course. I may very well be wrong.

Or do the Muslims have one central authority that could be appealed to, a Pope-like figure?

Heh...not even Christians have something like that, Sean. All of the violence in Ireland couldn't have been solved by anything the Pope said, since in all likelihood the Protestants there would've heard the Pope telling them how to act and said "fuck 'im."

The divide between Sunni and Shi'a, as I understand it, comes from a disagreement over whose word really matters. So no, far as I know there is no one person whose word both sides respect equally.

Well-put. And after all - the West *is* to blame for a lot of the terror and bloodshed in Iraq. I'm not just talking about this war - let's not forget that Iraq was being bombed and boycotted for years before 9/11.

That the population of the U.S. or Europe is not to blame for these atrocities is obvious - but it's difficult, *really* difficult to see that if you've lost family and friends to bombs or soldiers or chemical weapons and spend every day thinking this might be your last.

And so, ultimately, everyone is fucked except for the people in power (on both sides) - who love this wonderful cycle that keeps everyone else down.

Thanks Jonas...I forgot, another reason Iraqis may not like the Americans there too much is because not all Americans, when they search for terrorists or criminals, have been what you would call gentle or respectful.

There was a picture in a recent issue of "Time" where American troops were writing numbers on the skin of Iraqi men and women in order to better keep track of them. Not only does this kind of thing remind people of some pretty bad periods in history, but apparently in that culture men are not supposed to touch women with whom they have no relationship. So I can certainly see how that would stick in people's craw.

heartnut asked:
"Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?"
-----
Manifest Destiny.

The belief that we are superior because we are white and Christian and that we have to remake the entire world in our image.

Yes its me, Im going to try this again

Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?

Well in the case of Iraq, The first time because Saddam invaded Kuwait and we were asked.
The second time because after refusing to comply with 20 some U.N. resolutions to disarm.
And best of all To stop his continued genocide of the Kurds.
Which is why we are going to end up in Darfur.

Because they made the mistake of living on top of our oil supply.

Actually we get less then 25% of our oil from the middle east. The Americas supply most of our imports. It would not take much drilling of our own to completly eliminate our need for oil from the middle east

Your grief and shock slowly turns to anger. You look for somebody to blame. You look around but don't see anybody you know to be responsible for this. You may also look around not not see anybody whose religious beliefs are the same as
the bomber. But you see American troops....and you think "you bastards! If it weren't for you, this never would've happened, it never would've gotten this bad!"

Yes, just think before us bad Americans showed
up all they had to worry about was a despot leader wiping out whole villages with sarin gas, but it never would have gotten this bad.

"Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?

Well in the case of Iraq, The first time because Saddam invaded Kuwait and we were asked."

That's true.

"The second time because after refusing to comply with 20 some U.N. resolutions to disarm."

Unfortunatly you couldn't get the UN to sanction the invasion, so you can't invoke it's authority.

"And best of all To stop his continued genocide of the Kurds."

A nice sentiment, but Saddam attacked the Kurds in the late 80s. At 2003 they were not attacked or suffering genocide. They were safe, partially because of the no-fly zone the US provided. In any case, you can't justify an invasion in 2003 to prevent a genocide more than a decade earlier.

"Which is why we are going to end up in Darfur."

I doubt you can now muster the miltary power, internal political support or diplomatic support on this stage to come to the aid of the people in Darfur. It's a shame you decided to waste your energy and political power on an unnecessary war in Iraq.

"Yes, just think before us bad Americans showed
up all they had to worry about was a despot leader wiping out whole villages with sarin gas, but it never would have gotten this bad."

Again , the attacks in Sarin gas occured way prior to 2003, and to the Kurds. At 2003 the not Kurdish Iraqis were living a harsh life under a dictator (as well as under UN sanctions). But now they are living a harsher life in a state of anarchy. This is not an improvement.

Unfortunatly you couldn't get the UN to sanction the invasion, so you can't invoke it's authority.

Exactly... and we would be on resolution 50
today if we followed the U.N. We took matters
in our own hands because the U.N.
Saddam was on resolution 18 to comply with U.N.
resolutions. He was given 12 years to comply
peacefully to these U.N. (Not U.S.) resolutions
and apparently the U.N. had not the balls to
back them up.

"And best of all To stop his continued genocide of the Kurds."

A nice sentiment, but Saddam attacked the Kurds in the late 80s. At 2003 they were not attacked or suffering genocide. They were safe, partially because of the no-fly zone the US provided. In any case, you can't justify an invasion in 2003 to prevent a genocide more than a decade earlier.

So theres a time limit on genocide. Should we
have continued with the no-fly zones, which he
continuously violated, indefinitely? You cannot
believe that he wasnt also working on more WMD's
at this time. He didnt quit using them on the
Kurds and Shi'a because he ran out, it was
because coalition forces were keeping him busy.

"Which is why we are going to end up in Darfur."

I doubt you can now muster the miltary power, internal political support or diplomatic support on this stage to come to the aid of the people in Darfur. It's a shame you decided to waste your energy and political power on an unnecessary war in Iraq.

I dont believe the war was/is unnecessary but
find it puzzling that the same people (Clooney,
Saranden, Robbins) who are
screaming about a unjust war in Iraq but want
us to go to Darfur to stop what I believe is
the same reason (minus the WMDs) Which I believe
the U.S. should do.
I do agree with your point about not being
able to muster the miltary power, internal
political support or diplomatic support but I
Blame that on bipartisan politics.

"Yes, just think before us bad Americans showed
up all they had to worry about was a despot leader wiping out whole villages with sarin gas, but it never would have gotten this bad."

Again , the attacks in Sarin gas occured way prior to 2003, and to the Kurds. At 2003 the not Kurdish Iraqis were living a harsh life under a dictator (as well as under UN sanctions). But now they are living a harsher life in a state of anarchy. This is not an improvement.

And again theres a time limit on genocide? Did
you think the minute Saddams government was
toppled that everyone would hug and it would be
Ok? Keep in mind who is causing most of this
anarchy. Outside forces (Iran, Syria and god
knows who else) When the people of Iraq can
defend themselves without help is when the
anarchy will stop.

The Americas supply most of our imports.

True, but because there is one single global price for oil, any disruption in the supply, regardless if that particular source reaches us or not, affects what we pay.

It would not take much drilling of our own to completly eliminate our need for oil from the middle east

Actually, it would take a lot because we don't nearly have enough domestic reserves to make up for what we import, even if we open up ANWR.

And of course, one of our major suppliers in the Americas, Venzuela, doesn't seem to like us much either.

Actually, it would take a lot because we don't nearly have enough domestic reserves to make up for what we import, even if we open up ANWR.

Couldn't we at least try and see whats up
there?

And of course, one of our major suppliers in the Americas, Venzuela, doesn't seem to like us much either.

Yeah. That one puzzles me. Im surprised Chevas
hasn't made more of an issue out of that.
Another reason to see whats in ANWR

He's already vowed to reduce his shipments to the US.

pat nolan:
I dont believe the war was/is unnecessary but
find it puzzling that the same people (Clooney,
Saranden, Robbins) who are
screaming about a unjust war in Iraq but want
us to go to Darfur to stop what I believe is
the same reason

That's because Darfur is A LOT WORSE, pat.

I find your logic, if it can be called that, puzzling.

When Micha points out that you are mistaken about there being a "continual genocide" of the Kurds, you shoot back "so there's a time limit on genocide?"

Look pal, nobody's condoning what Saddam did against the Kurds, but do you have ANY IDEA how many guys like Saddam are out there? It is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of them all with the limited military resources at the disposal of the United States!

Right now in Iraq, we got rid of Saddam and now we have Muqtada in his place, who may be capable causing just as much death and suffering. If something happens to al-Sadr, somebody else will show up to fill the void. And so it goes.

The other difference between Darfur and Iraq is that I don't think anybody who is upset about Darfur is suggesting the U.S. go in there and fix everything ALL BY ITSELF, as the U.S. insisted on doing with Iraq. You can go on all you want to about the "coalition," but we both know it was pretty much just the U.S. and Britain along with a bunch of other countries that contributed little or nothing. And no, Poland doesn't count for very much because they only had 2,460 troops there in 2004 compared to the 130,000 the U.S. had and the 9,000 the UK had. In 2004 only seven coalition members had more than 1000 troops committed. Only two coalition members (the aforementioned UK and US) had more than 5000 troops committed. As you must certainly know, many of the members committed no troops whatsoever.

Plus, I very much doubt that a U.N. task force, composed of the pooled military resources of many of its member nations and sent to Darfur, would be ordered to effect regime change. We've all seen how well THAT works, and some human beings learn from the mistakes of the past.

The bottom line is that Saddam was a threat to NOBODY outside of the people in Iraq, and he hadn't done anything on the scale of the 1988 gassing of the Kurds in a long frickin' time. Do you honestly think that it's worth hundreds of billions of dollars...thousands of dead U.S. troops....and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis...to bring ONE SINGLE MAN to justice, when that man wasn't even a threat? Please. You've gotta be smarter than that.

Another reason to see whats in ANWR

If a place is a WILDLIFE REFUGE....you don't DRILL there! It should be off-limits.

It amazes me that there are people who say "oh, fuck the animals, fuck the endangered species, all that matters is oil. Let's not devote all our resources to finding alternative energy sources, instead let's just punch a lot of holes in the ground of the Alaskan wilderness and continue to guzzle gas like it was gonna evaporate if we didn't use it quick enough. And if the planet goes to hell, so what?"

Ok, Pat...

What do you see as success in Iraq. None of this Bush garbage of us standing down when they stand up or that Iraq will be safe once it can defend itself. Before I waste any more time on arguing the stupidity of this venture with yet another person, I wanna know what you see as the actual outcome of victory in Iraq. What's going to happen? Tell me what the outcome is going to be that's going to make the next ten years of hell over there worth it in the end. What's the end result. And don't tell me the Bush pipe dream, tell me what you see happining in Iraq and why you think it's more likely to happen then us ending up with yet another Iran type country that hates us and funds those who wish to harm us.

"Another reason to see whats in ANWR"

The Federal Governments own stats say that America uses 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day. That works out to about 7,300,000,000 barrels per freaking year.

The USGS made the following estimates of technically recoverable oil and natural gas liquids from the ANWR Coastal Plain:

There is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.

There is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that at least 16 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.

The mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

What that means is that you're looking at, at best, two years of recoverable oil and, at worst, less then one year's supply from the Coastal Plain. Estimates vary on the inland areas of ANWR, but most experts see it as, at best, ten years worth of oil at present day consumption rates. Since our consumption rate is likely to go up, you can't even count on the best projection holding up by the time the first barrel is pumped from ANWR's stock.

Not really worth the effort I'm afraid. Far better I think to look into ways to reduce or overall oil use and start looking at how to get off the habit as much as possible.

Posted by The StarWolf

Given the amounts of disinformation - or at least misinformation - from all sides, it is risky to rely on any set of 'facts', but I was under the impression that many of the lunatics causing the mounting death count were from outside Iraq? How do imported terrorists translate to "Iraq hates the US"?

You mean like the imported terrorists who destroyed the not-that-much-worse-than-average-for-the-area local government and most of the infrastructure when they invaded the country on a pretext slightly less plausible than Germany's pretext for invading Czechoslovakia?

Posted by: CHV

But of course, as Bush his neo-con cabal were dreaming in 2003 of a post-Saddam Iraq flowering into a model of Jeffersonian democracy, they failed to read their history on the country's old grudges.

As the late John W. Campbell Jr said in a story blurb in Astounding/Analog:

History doesn't always repeat itself.

Sometimes it just screams "Why don't you listen to what I'm telling you?!?" and lets fly with a club.

Posted by: Micha

The second time because after refusing to comply with 20 some U.N. resolutions to disarm.

Unfortunatly you couldn't get the UN to sanction the invasion, so you can't invoke it's authority.

Well, yes and no - there were UN resolutions in effect that said in effect that any nation who was part of the coalition that were involved in Guof 1 could unilaterally deal with Iraq if it ignored the sanctions.

Which is, howver, irrelevant because, no matter how hard Bush the Smaller clicked his heels and wished for a pretext, there were no WMDS or other illegal arms in Iraq.

Even worse, the hate will be for generations as the current adults, teenagers, and children teach the next few their experiences. There will be many who will try not to, but there will be just as many who will.

I think the hope is "free" Iraq will result in a massive victory against terrorism. Even if victory is achieved (whatever that may be since it continues to remain undefined) it will not do a thing to global terrorism. They will simply shrug and continue to look for targets.

The damage of the Bush admin probably will not be completely known for 20+ years. Look at us now, Osama and Saddamn are a direct result of Reagan policies in the early 80s. He put them in power, giving them ability to become massive headaches 20 years later. Shoot the tactics being used against our soldiers now are probably techniques taught to then to help in the cold war.

Even worse, the hate will be for generations as the current adults, teenagers, and children teach the next few their experiences. There will be many who will try not to, but there will be just as many who will.

I think the hope is "free" Iraq will result in a massive victory against terrorism. Even if victory is achieved (whatever that may be since it continues to remain undefined) it will not do a thing to global terrorism. They will simply shrug and continue to look for targets.

The damage of the Bush admin probably will not be completely known for 20+ years. Look at us now, Osama and Saddamn are a direct result of Reagan policies in the early 80s. He put them in power, giving them ability to become massive headaches 20 years later. Shoot the tactics being used against our soldiers now are probably techniques taught to then to help in the cold war.

Um, maybe I've got my history screwed up, but weren't WE the ones who originally supplied Saddam with the materials to gas the Kurds, under the 'leadership' of Big Daddy Bush, because the Kurds were allied with Afghanistan which still had a strong Soviet influence at the time? When the US was digging up drums of "WMD" in 2003, weren't those drums shown on the news labeled in ENGLISH? Our memory of Middle-East History seems to end in 2001.

Posted by: pat nolan at April 19, 2007 09:24 PM:

"Exactly... and we would be on resolution 50
today if we followed the U.N. We took matters
in our own hands because the U.N.
Saddam was on resolution 18 to comply with U.N.
resolutions. He was given 12 years to comply
peacefully to these U.N. (Not U.S.) resolutions
and apparently the U.N. had not the balls to
back them up."

I am not a bog fan of the UN. But to justify an attack on UN resolutions but then disregard the authority of the UN ridiculous, even if you were smart enough to include in the original resolution allowing you to act on your own.

"So theres a time limit on genocide."

So, you didn't invade Iraq to save the Kurds from Genocide, but to punish Saddam for a massacre that was not prevented 15 years ago? So the invasion cannot be justified by an immediate danger to the kurds. Is your justification for the invasion is that US should act as a police force punishing genocides years after the event? If so, thtere's really no rush in Darfur. If you wait a few more years you can go to Rowanda.

"Should we have continued with the no-fly zones, which he continuously violated, indefinitely?"

It seems that he no fly zone was working quite well protecting the kurds from Saddam. Considering the results of your new method, I think this was the preferable strategy, if the goal was to prevent harm to the Kurds.

"You cannot believe that he wasnt also working on more WMD's at this time."

If he did, you were unable to proove it. Meanwhiile, the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons.

"He didnt quit using them on the
Kurds and Shi'a because he ran out, it was
because coalition forces were keeping him busy."

Yes. At 2003, prior to the invasion, the Kurds and Shia were not attacked by Saddam. Had an attack occured, you could perhaps had done something about it, especially with the good wil after 9/11. But now you can't do anything about the massacre actually taking place at present in Darfur, or the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. And the Shia and Sunni are coming close to a mutual genocide. If you invaded Iraq to preemptively prevent a genocide that you believe could have happened (but was so far prevented by the fly-zone), that's not a very good reason.

"I dont believe the war was/is unnecessary,"

Clearly. But so far, I don't find your justifications for Iraq convincing. I did find the justification for a war in Afghanistan and kosovo convincing, so you cannot accuse me of opposing any war, just this one.

"find it puzzling that the same people (Clooney,
Saranden, Robbins) who are screaming about a unjust war in Iraq but want us to go to Darfur to stop what I believe is the same reason."

Except that in Darfur people are dying now, and in Iraq, people died 15 years prior to the invasion and were not dying at the time of the invasion. Now, after the invasion, they are dying. So things are really backwards.

"I do agree with your point about not being
able to muster the miltary power, internal
political support or diplomatic support but I
Blame that on bipartisan politics."

I believe that's called democracy. It would be ironic if you went to Iraq to bring democracy and came back wanting a one party system.

"Did you think the minute Saddams government was
toppled that everyone would hug and it would be
Ok?"

I believe that's what Bush thought, since he did not prepare for this eventuality. I can't say that I forsaw the emount of inter secterian violence that erupted. but I was aware of the possibility that the people of Iraq would turn on thteir 'liberators' and on each other, and that democracy would be a hard fit. I was actually hoping Saddam crushed their souls enough so that they would not react violently when the americans came. I also did not forsee that the US wil do such a bad job dealing with the situation after the Iraqi army was defeated.

"Keep in mind who is causing most of this
anarchy. Outside forces (Iran, Syria and god
knows who else)."

I am not certain that is true. Some of the violence is caused by outsiders, some by Iraqis supported by outside forces, and some by Iraqis. Furthermore, complaining about these outside forces is pointless. The minute you decided to step into Iraq, you've stepped into the whole middle east, with all the problems involved.

"When the people of Iraq can
defend themselves without help is when the
anarchy will stop."

Part of the reason for the anarchy is that the Shia are 'defending themselves' against the Sunna, the Sunna against the Shia, the religious against the secular, the bandits against the citizens, the tribes against the cities, the outsiders against the insiders, and the insiders against the outsiders. the Iraqi army is just another gang, whose members are as associated with the various tribes, sects and ideologies as the rest of the people. That's anarchy. Things like that can end in one of four ways.

1) some internal force becomes strong enough to subdue all the others, and they submit to his authority.

2) An external force subdues everybody.

3) The different factions come to a sort of deal among themselves, and reach an uneasy truce (see Lebanon and Gaza).

4) They continue fighting for years (see Somalia and other parts of Africa).

"Posted by: campchaos at April 20, 2007 07:23 AM
Um, maybe I've got my history screwed up, but weren't WE the ones who originally supplied Saddam with the materials to gas the Kurds, under the 'leadership' of Big Daddy Bush, because the Kurds were allied with Afghanistan which still had a strong Soviet influence at the time?"
I don't know if there is any proof the the Americans supplied Saddam with WMDs, but there is no connection between the Kurds and Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge the US has nothing against the Kurds.

I don't know if there is any proof the the Americans supplied Saddam with WMDs, but there is no connection between the Kurds and Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge the US has nothing against the Kurds.

The Kurds were giving support to Iran, which at the time was at war with Iraq. That was Saddam's justification for gassing them. Yes, the US did sell many weapons and materials that could be used to make WMDs to Saddam in the 1980s. The people that brokered the deal: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

I always find it amazing that republicans in particular pull out the gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s as a justification for the Iraqi invasion in 2003. Under Reagan and Bush 41 (until Saddam invaded Kuwait), Saddam's brutality of his own people was completely overlooked because they found him a useful counter to Iran's influence in the region. Then of course, after the first Gulf War, Bush 41 first encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam and then abandoned them when it was clear that he had no international support for direct military intervention in Iraq by his coalition. I believe the word for using something you ignored while it was going on to justify an action 15 years later is "chutzpah".

The No-Fly Zone actually worked out pretty well for the Kurds. Yes, Saddam repeatedly violated it, but we also repeatedly shot down his planes and the Kurds were largely autonomous in Iraq from 1991 until 2003.

As for using UN resolutions to justify the invasion, again, it seems like many of Bush 43's supporters want it both ways. They want the authority of the UN when it suits them, but also the right to ignore it when it doesn't.

As for Darfur, the most sickening thing I read about it came from everyone's favorite hatefilled harpy from hell, Ann Coulter, who posted a rambling and incoherent blog last week attacking those who support intervention to stop ongoing genocide (as opposed to using past genocide to justify an invasion). In it, she actually complained that the people committing genocide weren't killing off people fast enough and compared them to FEMA.

Please, someone tell me what redeeming qualities this "person" could possibly have.

You don't have to look at Iraq - take a look at, say, Baltimore City. Nine VTechs over the course of last year, but where's the national outcry? Hell, there's barely a state outcry. We tolerate this stuff when it happens a few people here, a couple there. We get shocked when it suddenly happens to one group of people in a couple of hours in places where we could conceivably find ourselves - in shopping malls, at universities and colleges - but other than that, it's not that we're numb to it, we just plumb ignore it.

Please, someone tell me what redeeming qualities this "person" could possibly have.

I think what those theorectical redeeming features are would depend on your point of view. From the Conservative point of view, she's blond, tall, thin, and tirelessly attacks their political enemies.

From my point of view...to the best of my knowledge she has no children, so her genes will not be passed on to future generations

But, when with the conservatives come to realize that her bile is doing more harm to their movement than good?

I think what is disturbing about the V-Tech killings is how the killer is always labeled a "South Korean". yes, he is, but how it's said is like trying to point out " he wasn't an AMERICAN". Almost like trying to justify that it had to be a crazy foreignore. His place of origin seemed so prominate in the news. It really does give excuse for people to take their outrage and direct it at a group and not an individual.

I think what is disturbing about the V-Tech killings is how the killer is always labeled a "South Korean". yes, he is, but how it's said is like trying to point out " he wasn't an AMERICAN". Almost like trying to justify that it had to be a crazy foreignore. His place of origin seemed so prominate in the news. It really does give excuse for people to take their outrage and direct it at a group and not an individual.

Meh.

I'm a professional minority in real life (that's sarcasm, boys and girls), and I'm afraid that I'm not particularly worked up over that. Majority of the other mass killers like that have been white (and there've been jokes about that, as a negative stereotype on whites). And that's a difference that's noteworthy from other similar killers.

And if they're going to go over his background (as we, as a society, inevitably do), you can hardly miss the fact of his immigration.

On the other hand, I can certain condemn this sort of mass media/Internet identification.

"All Orientals look alike to me" indeed.

Yeah, gee, I can't see any reason why people would suspect Schlussel of hatemongering. /sarcasm.

From a Canadian.

Why people hate you:

You're too homophobic.
You're too open and accepting of gay culture.

You're too Christian.
You;re not Christian enough .

You're too religous.
You are too hedonistic.

You're too fat
You're too obsessed with body image.

You are so hung up on gun rights
You are so hung up on freedom of speech rights.

You are too multicultural.
You are so anti - illegal immigrant.

You invade other countries.
Your military leaves countries.

I hope you get my point.

Maybe the question PAD should ask and other citizens of the west shpuld ask is.....

Why do we hate ourselves??

PS. I don't hate Americans or Westerners. We are the shining light for the rest of the world.

Why is everybody having a point-by-point discussion with Pat Nolan when he doesn't have any points?

"Why do we hate ourselves??

PS. I don't hate Americans or Westerners. We are the shining light for the rest of the world."

Why are the only two options self hatred or narcissism?

"Couldn't we at least try and see whats up
there?"

If I were president, I'd have clear Presidential Statement to answer this. As it is, I'm just a video guy, but my answer's the same.

No.

Gods, me as President...maybe I should write THAT into my horror script.

Um, maybe I've got my history screwed up, but weren't WE the ones who originally supplied Saddam with the materials to gas the Kurds, under the 'leadership' of Big Daddy Bush, because the Kurds were allied with Afghanistan which still had a strong Soviet influence at the time? When the US was digging up drums of "WMD" in 2003, weren't those drums shown on the news labeled in ENGLISH? Our memory of Middle-East History seems to end in 2001.

If by "we" you mean the United States, no. If you mean our allies in Europe, yes.

The vast majority of gas and biological warefare material was shipped from Europe. In fairness, many of these were probably illegal, so the blame cannot be always placed on the governments of those countries.

Posted by Alan Coil at April 20, 2007 05:57 PM
Why is everybody having a point-by-point discussion with Pat Nolan when he doesn't have any points?

I dont know, why dont you ask Pat Nolan.

"But PAD, where has it been established that the Iraqis hate us?"

I does not matter if all or even most do, it can be a small minority. In the end if even that small few feel that way and act on it the cycle will continue.

I think PAD's observation here is 100% on the money. Right or wrong, he nailed human nature.

They hate you - OK, us - because you are 'the super power'.

Because you interfere, because you side with those they consider their enemies, because historically they've been exploited, manipulated and condescended to at pretty much every turn.

They hate you for everything you have done and for everything you haven't done that in any way affects them.

Because hate doesn't care about right or wrong, or good intentions, or logic, or common sense.

A better question is why does it keep surprising you that they feel that way?

Cheers.

Good point Peter J. Poole. You should also add that the hatred toward the US from te Islamic world is also the result of their own sense of impotence and frustration over life in the Islamic world.

There are some similarities between the state of mind of the murderer on Virginia and some of the Islamic radicals.

Hey, don't forget the Pagans and the Gays. I wonder if there's some way we can work Global Warming in there too...

-Rex Hondo-

Sorry, Rex. Us Pagans already took a bum rap for bad crops wierd acting kids and the sudden mystery pregnancy of the minister's housemaid. Didn't work out to well for us.

>Because you interfere, because you side with those they consider their enemies, because historically they've been exploited, manipulated and condescended to at pretty much every turn.

Funny you should type that. Because, though I generally despised former Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien, there was ONE time when I was actually proud of him.

Ironically, it was for doing something which set off a storm of protests - both here and, to a lesser degree, in the US - due to a [there's that phrase again] knee-jerk, emotional response to a logically thought-out comment.

Many people interpreted the comment as saying that the victims of the 2001 attacks had been asking for it.

Not at all.

What he DID say - and I salute him for having the spine to stand up and do so - was if the US keeps sticking its nose in other peoples' affairs, they shouldn't be surprised if someone takes a poke at it. Look at Russia and its problems with the Chechnyans.

The only reason it didn't happen to Britain in its colonial days was that communications and other technologies didn't exist to allow the third world countries to organize the means to strike back.

What he DID say - and I salute him for having the spine to stand up and do so - was if the US keeps sticking its nose in other peoples' affairs, they shouldn't be surprised if someone takes a poke at it. Look at Russia and its problems with the Chechnyans.

Which is maybe another reason he is the former
Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien.
I would like to know which affairs we should
have stayed out of to call for a spineless
attack such as 9/11

Posted by Joe Morgante

From a Canadian.

Many years ago, the National Lampoon published a "White Person's Guide to Foreigners".

Under "Canadian", it said "Often mistaken for a particularly boring white person."

Posted by Pat Nolan

I would like to know which affairs we should
have stayed out of to call for a spineless
attack such as 9/11.

Decoding, as best i can, the semi-literate syntax of that:

The whole flippin' Middle East would be a good start as a good place to stay the hell out of.

"if the US keeps sticking its nose in other peoples' affairs, they shouldn't be surprised if someone takes a poke at it."

Like a lot of statements on this thread, this is only true up to a point.

Look, in the world we live in today, with international trade, diplomacy, communication, environment, crime, and immigration, isolationism is no longer an option, no matter how much you'd like it, and noses are going to get poked one way or the other, not only the US's. Other countries are economically and diplomatically involved in affairs in other parts of the world, and other countries are having problems as a result of friction between the west and Islamic radicalism.

Secondly, you can't undue the past. The US got involved in world affairs a long time ago, especially during the cold war. The west has been interacting with the rest of the world since evern before that. In both cases the interaction has not always been done wisely.

Thirdly, the US is not the cause for all the ills plaguing the Muslim world. And Radical Islamism is a reaction against problems in the Islamic world.

So, whather you like it or not the xcollective noses of the US, Europe, China, india, Russia, and the Muslim World are already stick deep into each other's business, and the only thing you can do is to try to behave as wisely as possible in this given situation. Invading Iraq, by the way, was unwise.

"Look at Russia and its problems with the Chechnyans.

The only reason it didn't happen to Britain in its colonial days was that communications and other technologies didn't exist to allow the third world countries to organize the means to strike back."

1) Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. Not a distant country. To expect Russia not to be involved in it's affairs will be like saying the US shouldn't be involved in the affairs of Mexico (if not Texas).

2) The British Empire fought its share of uprisings in the Third World. The only difference is that no fighting in these wars occured in Britain itself (except with relation to Ireland). In 9/11 it was possible for a foreign group waging a war on the US to make an attack in the US itself, against American civilians. But this is not exactly a common occurance. I believe Canada almost had an attack. Meanwhile in Europe and Australia there seem to be more problems as a result of interaction with Muslim immigrants.

Lastly, the Canadian prime minister was correct if he was trying to say that the US should act more wisely with its interaction with the rest of the world. But it seems to be tasteless to say something like that shortly after the attack.

Posted by mike weber at April 21, 2007 07:06 PM
Posted by Joe Morgante

From a Canadian.

Many years ago, the National Lampoon published a "White Person's Guide to Foreigners".

Under "Canadian", it said "Often mistaken for a particularly boring white person."

Posted by Pat Nolan

I would like to know which affairs we should
have stayed out of to call for a spineless
attack such as 9/11.

Decoding, as best i can, the semi-literate syntax of that:

The whole flippin' Middle East would be a good start as a good place to stay the hell out of.

You's still not answered question though jus
attacked mines grammer.
I'll give you semi-literate....

> I would like to know which affairs we should have stayed out of to call for a spineless attack such as 9/11

Oh, I don't know. Ask the relatives of all the Brasilians who disappeared after the CIA-backed military junta overthrew the democratically elected government of Brasil in the 70s. A good starting point. A long time ago you say? True. But some people have long memories. Can we blame them?

No, no, no, no. You guys have it all wrong.

Why the Islamic world hates the U.S.:

*We've lured away their best and brightest taxi drivers.

*The dirty little secret behind "The Beverly Hillbillies:" Jed Clampett actually siphoned all of that crude from Saudi Arabian oil fields.

*A cultural misunderstanding triggered by Camel cigarettes: "smoking camels" is both a sexual reference and a grave insult in the Middle East.

*Hard-working opium farmers in Afghanistan simply cannot compete with low-cost bathtub crystal meth operations in the U.S.

*The CIA tricked Saddam Hussein into using a deoderant strong enough for a man... but made for a woman!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Bill Mulligan. Enough said.

Posted by: The StarWolf at April 21, 2007 09:22 PM:

"> I would like to know which affairs we should have stayed out of to call for a spineless attack such as 9/11

Oh, I don't know. Ask the relatives of all the Brasilians who disappeared after the CIA-backed military junta overthrew the democratically elected government of Brasil in the 70s. A good starting point. A long time ago you say? True. But some people have long memories. Can we blame them?"

Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers. US has done many regretable things over the years, although they are not unique in that sense. But to boil down 9/11 to Ametica sticking its nose where it doesn't belong is a mark of one dimensional thinking exactly at a time when what we need is multi-dimensional thinking.

*The CIA tricked Saddam Hussein into using a deoderant strong enough for a man... but made for a woman!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Bill Mulligan. Enough said.

Nice, very nice. Nobody should tinker with this
list. Its priceless

Yeah, well....when I find a clever comeback somewhere on the web you're gonna be in big trouble.

Pat, I'm not sure if there's a particular reason why you keyed in on the last bullet. But I want it on record that I like Bill Mulligan, respect him, and am his friend. That's the only reason I felt comfortable poking fun at him like that.

If you have some other agenda, please don't use my words to advance it. Thanks.

Posted by Bill Myers at April 21, 2007 09:57 PM
Pat, I'm not sure if there's a particular reason why you keyed in on the last bullet. But I want it on record that I like Bill Mulligan, respect him, and am his friend. That's the only reason I felt comfortable poking fun at him like that.

If you have some other agenda, please don't use my words to advance it. Thanks.

um.. No I just seemed to like that last
deoderant bit. Bill Mulligan got added
in the copy/paste by mistake. I dont know
Bill. Wow even when you completely agree you
cant win. No agenda. Nothing sneaky.

Pat... please note the words "I don't know" and "if" in my prior post. I didn't assume you had a hidden agenda... but given all of the shit that goes on in blogs, can you blame me for at least entertaining the possibility that you had one?

I am happy to take you at your word that you meant your response to be complimentary, and I thank you for the compliment.

I am happy to take you at your word that you meant your response to be complimentary, and I thank you for the compliment.

Your welcome and point taken about the shit
that goes on in blogs.

A pox on both of you. A pox, I say!

>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.

It's not a part of their culture. Doesn't mean there isn't smoldering resentment. And when you have that in a culture where it IS a part, well ...

Micha: "Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers."

Different religious beliefs? Brazil has had a large Catholic population for generations now. Extreme Catholicism may occasional result in a lone nut job going after abortion clinics, but it doesn't really seem to grow the same kind of suicidal fanatics as extreme Islamic Fundamentalism does.

Not that the Catholic Church hasn't had it's less then stellar moments in history......

I have a thought. Maybe even a couple of thoughts.

I'm throwing them out here, maybe only half baked, maybe badly expressed, but not deliberately intending to offend anyone.

I think we all have an inate tendency to expect other people to react to events the way we think/hope/suspect we would in their place.

That's natural, we usually start to work on things within the boundaries of our own cultural expectations, within the familiar.

So it surprises us when 'the other fella' does something we'd never think of doing...

Someone earlier referred to 9/11 as a 'spineless attack'. The people responsible - I'm assuming - felt they had no other recourse with which to express their hatred, anger, frustration, whatever. (What were they 'meant' to do? Formally declare war and launch a gun boat invasion of the continental US, because that would have been the correct and 'fair fight' way to proceed?).

Is there a simile here with what just happened in Virginia?

That people can feel - rightly or wrongly - so backed into a corner that only suicidal acts of evil and insane violence can express what they feel?

Cheers.

"Posted by: The StarWolf at April 22, 2007 02:29 AM
>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.

It's not a part of their culture. Doesn't mean there isn't smoldering resentment. And when you have that in a culture where it IS a part, well ..."

Suicide bombings is not part of Muslim culture either. It is something that developed in Muslim culture and out of Muslim culture recently.

My point remains the same. Yes there is resentment toward the US in many places, but 9/11 is a more complex event than 'the US stuck its nose wher it doesn't belong.' Among other things it is also connected to complex processes happening in the Muslim world right now.

"Someone earlier referred to 9/11 as a 'spineless attack'. The people responsible - I'm assuming - felt they had no other recourse with which to express their hatred, anger, frustration, whatever."

I think we can all agree that freedom of expression does not include the right to express your anger and frustration by killing people.

"(What were they 'meant' to do? Formally declare war and launch a gun boat invasion of the continental US, because that would have been the correct and 'fair fight' way to proceed?)."

I don't have much sympathy to terrorism as a miilitary tactic in general or this kind in particular. You attack in order to conquer land, disable an army, set rules of engagement. If someone attacks in order to vent frustration it indicates more there own personal or collective psychological problems.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 22, 2007 07:00 AM

I think we all have an inate tendency to expect other people to react to events the way we think/hope/suspect we would in their place.

That's natural, we usually start to work on things within the boundaries of our own cultural expectations, within the familiar.

That's a very important point. In fact, it's the root of all of the U.S. failures in Iraq: we didn't take the time to understand their culture, their history, and their politics, and therefore all of our suppositions about how they'd react to us toppling Saddam's regime were wildly incorrect.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 22, 2007 07:00 AM

Someone earlier referred to 9/11 as a 'spineless attack'. The people responsible - I'm assuming - felt they had no other recourse with which to express their hatred, anger, frustration, whatever.

I'm taking your comments in the spirit in which they were offered -- sharing thoughts to spark a discussion. Given our history of rubbing each other the wrong way, I think it behooves me to make clear that I am offering my response in exactly that same spirit, and hope you will take it that way.

I think you are probably dead on about what drove the attackers who perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11. At the same time, I believe we must draw a line between understanding... and condoning.

Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 22, 2007 07:00 AM

Is there a simile here with what just happened in Virginia?

Actually... I think an analogy might be valid, although it would be particularly damning of the terrorists.

Cho Seung-Hui apparently believed he was making a noble sacrifice similar to the one made by Jesus Christ. In reality he perpetrated an obscene act of unimaginable violence against innocent people.
The attackers who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 similarly believed they were making a noble sacrifice when in fact they were doing nothing of the sort.

Cho Seung-Hui could have sought help for the clinical depression from which he was said to suffer (and having suffered from and sought treatment for clinical depression myself, I know whereof I speak). The terrorist group known as Al Qaeda could have turned to non-violent means, like those successfully used by Mohandas Gandhi to throw off the yoke of British oppression in India. Or at the very least could have limited their terrorist attacks to U.S. military targets in Saudi Arabia.

My point? There are always alternatives. And one must be cautious of crossing the line between understanding what motivates acts of evil and condoning them.

By the way... had Al Qaeda not attacked us on 9/11 we'd likely not have invaded Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. is not the only nation that needs to brush up on other cultures.

Posted by: The StarWolf at April 22, 2007 02:29 AM
>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.

It's not a part of their culture. Doesn't mean there isn't smoldering resentment. And when you have that in a culture where it IS a part, well ..."

There is a lot of resentment against the US here, but there is also a lot of admiration. You can say Brazilians have a love-hate thing for Americans. We love to say how evil and Imperialist Americans are, while we eagerly consume American movies, TV, comic books, food, clothes, culture, and everything we can get a hold of...

I suppose it's like this in many other places, but Brazil must hold some world record, I don't think even 10% of the movies released here are Brazilian-made, and this because Brazilian cinema is having a renaissance of sorts, when I was younger, it must have been 5% or less.

There were some fanatical left-wing terrorist organizations here in the 1960s and 1970s, but they were very small, they died out fast, and they never had much popular support. For good and for ill, it's just not in our culture to take things so seriously as to take our own lifes for a cause.

I can imagine the average Brazilian persuading a would-be terrorist to just go drink a beer and relax in a beautiful beach somewhere and forget about killing.

A monkey wrench: The identities of the culprits of 9/11 have only--so far--been alleged.

The ethnicity of the hijackers is based on the alleged content of one cell phone call. It is not proven that they were muslims or Al Qaida. For all we know, they were modern Liberty Boys in Muslim drag.

There is a mountain of evidence unexplained by the 9/11 Commission Report that points to alternative explanations. (Check out the documentary "In Plane Sight" for starters.)

My point is: Maybe "they" hate us because they believe they are wrongly accused. If 9/11 is the cause of their misery, they probably would want a better factual basis than the mere assertions of a US administration that has behaved almost pathological in its deceits. (Many of Bush's lies have been exposed. So why would they believe ANYTHING "America" has to say about anything?)

Why does the American point of view seem to always begin with the notion that no one else knows anything except what the U.S. tells them?

Posted by dan at April 22, 2007 10:39 AM
Why does the American point of view seem to always begin with the notion that no one else knows anything except what the U.S. tells them?
-----
This goes right back to my first post, the belief in Manifest Destiny. We are the best and nobody else knows anything. We rule the world.

Not true, of course, but a large precentage of Americans believe it.

(Check out the documentary "In Plane Sight" for starters.)

Please, just tell us all that you are joking with that line. No, really. The only unanswered question about this "documentary" is whether or not the writer and director are going to refund the money of all the people who bought the thing. They've had so much of their film debunked so bad that it isn't even funny anymore. I mean, you can only get away with being forced to admit that yet another "fact" in your film is a "mistake" before you're a complete joke. They hit that point ten or twenty "mistakes" ago.

Either that or admit that you're actually Rosie O'Donnell posting under a fake name while tryig to convince others that there are actually people out there who do believe her wild 9/11 ravings.

Dan: A monkey wrench: The identities of the culprits of 9/11 have only--so far--been alleged.
Luigi Novi: No, they've been established. There is videotape evidence showing them at the airport boarding the planes, their movements prior to that day have been tracked, and witnesses and acquaitances have corroborated their actions. Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility for the attacks, which you can see at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms

Dan: they probably would want a better factual basis than the mere assertions of a US administration that has behaved almost pathological in its deceits. (Many of Bush's lies have been exposed. So why would they believe ANYTHING "America" has to say about anything?)
Luigi Novi: So because Bush lied about some things means that therefore, he has lied about everything, including Al Quaeda being responsible for 9/11? And when Clinton says he did everything he could to go after bin Laden, is he lying because, after all, he lied about Monica Lewinsky?

Sorry, Dan, but you're gonna have to trim the logical fallacy fat from your arguments before you get to any empirical meat.

Either that or admit that you're actually Rosie O'Donnell posting under a fake name while tryig to convince others that there are actually people out there who do believe her wild 9/11 ravings.

I remember reading about a poll late last years that says 60% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration knew of 9/11 beforehand. So, yes, a lot of Americans think there is far more about it than the official version (though I suppose only the real paranoid fringe believes the US or Israel staged the attacks).

Of course, the poll doesn't say a lot about 9/11 by itself, but rather about how little credibility Bush and co. currently have.

I remember reading about a poll late last years that says 60% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration knew of 9/11 beforehand. So, yes, a lot of Americans think there is far more about it than the official version...

Yeah, but 9/11 In Plane Sight goes well beyond that. The "documentary" presents a number of out of context interview snippets and laughably bad video footage to try and convince the extremely gullible that not only did Bush know about 9/11, but we planned it and did it to ourselves, the news reports post 9/11 lied to us and yada, yada, yada.

I saw it one time and laughed myself silly when not wanting to throw something at the TV. Some of the best bits involved stuff like pulling quotes out of context to "prove" that a missile was launched at the Pentagon. They play an out of context quote with someone saying that it looked like a big missile with wings hit the building. Thing is, the full statement was from someone talking about the plane hitting the building and then describing how the how the plane looked when it hit the building.

There was one bit that was laugh out loud funny. There is an extremely slim chance that it's legitimate video footage, but the odds of it being a real video with a bad overdub is much more likely. The video shows the impact of the second plane into the towers. Lots of sound, lots of panic and lots of screaming. Then, not sounding quite like it belongs on the footage, a screaming voice yells out that the plain that just hit, and I mean just hit, the towers isn't an American Airlines' plane.

Uhm, ok. That's certainly the first thing that would come to my mind during an event like 9/11. Why, I'm sure that just about every Average Joe out there would have stopped and screamed that the second plane crashing into the towers wasn't an American Airlines' plane.

Plus, like I said before, the guys behind this have been spanked on so many interviews over the "facts" in their piece of crap. Anybody that's buying the garbage that they're selling in an age where you can fact check so much stuff so easily is someone wanting to believe the bizarrely stupid over the truth.

Posted by: pat nolan at April 19, 2007 09:24 PM:

"Exactly... and we would be on resolution 50
today if we followed the U.N. We took matters
in our own hands because the U.N.
Saddam was on resolution 18 to comply with U.N.
resolutions. He was given 12 years to comply
peacefully to these U.N. (Not U.S.) resolutions
and apparently the U.N. had not the balls to
back them up."

And with hindsight we now know that Saddam had (rather to our surprise) complied with them, and presented evidence to the UN demonstating that he had complied with them that was disbeleived by the US. Not that any compliance would have convinced Dubya. PNAC wanted to show what it could do, and God help us, now we know.

Not that any compliance would have convinced Dubya. PNAC wanted to show what it could do, and God help us, now we know.

Hell, the White House was making it clear that compliance meant nothing before we even went in to Iraq.

Bushes Pre-War (by days) speach:
George W. Bush, March 17:

"Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."

March 18, New York Times:
"Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out" by Michael Gordon.

"Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today."

Bush wanted to go into Iraq and was going in no matter what.

Posted by Bill Myers at April 22, 2007 09:09 AM

My point? There are always alternatives. And one must be cautious of crossing the line between understanding what motivates acts of evil and condoning them.

By the way... had Al Qaeda not attacked us on 9/11 we'd likely not have invaded Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. is not the only nation that needs to brush up on other cultures.

Definitely agree on para one. Doesn't matter how cute a puppy it was, if the dog has rabies you put it down.

Para two... Not so sure. I think you (we) would not have invaded so fast and with so much public support, but the Iraq invasion was always on the cards. The concensus certainly seems to be that any Iraq / Al Qaeda links are extremely dubyous...

It's tempting again to equate the actions of nations to the actions of individuals. Your man George is convinced that Saddam is beating his kids and stockpiling Kalashnikovs, he goes to the cops, who say 'sorry, not enough evidence' so George goes vigilante, kicks in the guys door, shoots his the neighbour and his brothers and then finds no guns... Meanwhile, our man Tony, instead of saying 'Whoa, hang on a sec, pal' is right in there with him...

Couple of random numbers to toss in; ignoring for a second the practicalities.

Should there be the equivalent of a World Police Force, backed by a multi-national standing army, that can intervene in the affairs of other nations?

Or should there be - in effect - a Prime Directive that no nation can ever interfere in the affairs of another country?

Cheers.

Posted by: Micha at April 22, 2007 08:03 AM

I don't have much sympathy to terrorism as a miilitary tactic in general or this kind in particular. You attack in order to conquer land, disable an army, set rules of engagement. If someone attacks in order to vent frustration it indicates more there own personal or collective psychological problems.

Hmmm.. I'd tend to class terrorism as more of a political tactic than a military one. The whole point is that in a traditional military conflict the US would be extremely hard to defeat (Note; that's 'defeat', not 'destroy')

By inspiring terror in the general populace though, you can - arguably, theoretically - exert pressure to make a nation change its policies and its behaviour.

Cheers.

"Posted by: Peter J Poole at April 23, 2007 03:12 PM
Posted by: Micha at April 22, 2007 08:03 AM

"Hmmm.. I'd tend to class terrorism as more of a political tactic than a military one."

That's a little like describing the mafia as a family business.

Most military onflicts,, which are not intended to achieve the complete surrender or conquest of the opponent are intended to acheive political goals like getting a country to change its policies or its behavior.

I personaly don't feel that terrorism as used by Al-Quaida is a very good method to achieve these goals, but that's just me.

"The whole point is that in a traditional military conflict the US would be extremely hard to defeat (Note; that's 'defeat', not 'destroy')"

I feel really bad for them, it's so unfair.

"By inspiring terror in the general populace though, you can - arguably, theoretically - exert pressure to make a nation change its policies and its behaviour."

So does carpet bombing. I don's support that either.

"Para two... Not so sure. I think you (we) would not have invaded so fast and with so much public support, but the Iraq invasion was always on the cards. The concensus certainly seems to be that any Iraq / Al Qaeda links are extremely dubyous..."

I don't think Bill meant that 9/11 caused Ira because Iraq was connected to Al-Quaida, but rather that it made it possible for Bush to get the American people to support such an extensive plan. Prior to 9/11 I doubt if he could have gotten support for an invasion if Afghanistan.

"Should there be the equivalent of a World Police Force."

Such a force will usually be controled by the cynical interests of different, often competeing, countries, or by emotion. The world is far from ready for a unified force.

You also have to ask yourself by what laws will such a police force work? Inside democratic states the police upholds the laws legislated by elected representatives. Where does the international law derive its authority?

"backed by a multi-national standing army, that can intervene in the affairs of other nations?"

Usually other nations would not be willing to take real risks to the lives of their soldiers in order to solve the affairs of other nations. When they are tempted to do it, they often do a bad job and/or regret it very quickly.

"Or should there be - in effect - a Prime Directive that no nation can ever interfere in the affairs of another country?"

I've read a liberterian that suggested that this would be more moral. But in the real world countries will be motivated to interfere in the affairs of other countries for their own interest or because of emotional reasons, and so long as the risk is not too great.

Posted by: The StarWolf at April 22, 2007 02:29 AM
>Yet no Brasilian suicide bombers.

All it would take is some reasonably charismatic Roman Catholic leader "re-imagining" the New Testament to read there is some great reward for waging Holy War against the "heretics".
(All together now)

"The Inquisition what a show!!"

History's recipe for jihads, crusades, and holocausts:
Take one part downtrodden population, add a dash of deep, probably misplaced, cultural resentment, add one charismatic speaker with easy answers (sanity not required). Mix well. Cook to boiling.

Micha:

"So does carpet bombing. I don't support that either."

There's - hopefully - a difference between understanding something as a concept and supporting it.

For me, if anyone has adopted terrorism as a means of advancing their objectives they should be prevented from doing so, as forcefully as is necessary, up to and including lethal intervention.

I do disagree with your interpretations of 'military tactics' and 'political tactics' within the context of our conversation, but there's no great harm in our disagreeing.

Cheers.

Peter J. Poole: Micha is correct that I do not believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, nor between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I merely believe that the fear and anger fostered by 9/11 gave Bush the pretext he needed to invade Iraq. Had Al Qaeda not perpetrated 9/11, I don't think Bush could've gotten the support he needed for going to war against Iraq.

A "Prime Directive" sounds wonderful but is, I believe, impractical. It's a small, small world and we are growing increasingly interdependent. I do, however, wish that the U.S. would exercise more care and intervene in other nations' affairs when it is justified. Invading Afghanistan, for example, was justified. Invading Iraq was not.

Micha: I know that terrorism is a sensitive issue for Israelis, who live with it on a daily basis, but there are times when terrorism is justified. Some African nations owe their independence to terrorism. When you are being occupied by an oppressive and militarily superior force, and all other alternatives have failed or are denied to you, I believe it is justifiable to use terrorist tactics against the occupiers on your home soil.

To be clear, I do not believe the Israeli-Palestinian situation is similar to that of African nations that had been colonized. Europeans in Africa had a homeland to which they could retreat. Israel is the Jewish homeland. I do not want my words to be interpreted as a defense of groups like Hamas and Hizbollah.

Micha, I'm curious...if terrorism is defined...maybe too narrowly on my part...as military action directed and taken against primarily civilian targets, do you still feel that any situation can support such tactics?

Posted by: Bill Myers at April 24, 2007 03:33 PM:

"Micha: I know that terrorism is a sensitive issue for Israelis, who live with it on a daily basis."

Unlike the Iraqis we do not live with terrorism on a daily basis. This is one of our successes: th ability to have a pretty normal life and vibrant life most of the time. We are more aware of the possibility of terrorism occuring and take daily measures to prevent it.

"But there are times when terrorism is justified."

I think it is necessary to distinguish between terrorism and guerrila warfare. They are not the same. And I don't believe terrorism, as in trying to terrorize civilians by random attacks in their cities in order to get them to submit, is a very respectable tactic, military or politically. (who was the guy that said that war is the continuation of politics with different means, or something to that effect?). I also think there's a need to distinguish between different kinds of terrorism and guerilla. I am especially against the kind of terrorism that is mostly vintinctive, killing for the sake of killing, without any real thinking or realistic strategy behind it.

"Some African nations owe their independence to terrorism."

Like I said, I don't consider fighting a guerilla war against an army (even the Israeli) as terrorism. But whenever Africans used terrorism in the sense of deliberatly slaughtering civilians, I have no sympathy for them, even if those tactics were successful. Furthermore, I believe that countries that relied on terrorism to gain independence often end up with the violence staying with them after independence in the form of chaos and tyranny. And Africa is a good example of that.

"To be clear, I do not believe the Israeli-Palestinian situation is similar to that of African nations that had been colonized. Europeans in Africa had a homeland to which they could retreat. Israel is the Jewish homeland."

I don't believe that this is relevant to the discussion of terrorism in general. It is relevant in one sense. The Palestinians used terrorism partially because of its success in Africa. They perceived Israel as another European colony, and assumed that the same tactic would work. They did not understand the difference between Israel and those colonies. (I don't want to get into the question about whetther Jews had a right to Israel and so forth, but there is no doubt that the attitude of Israelis toward their country is different than that of European colonizers toward their colonies).

"I do not want my words to be interpreted as a defense of groups like Hamas and Hizbollah."

I don't consider the Hizbolla as a terrorist group at present. It is a guerilla army. Although it does not even try to distinguish between soldiers and civilians on both sides of the border. However, although it is not a terrorist force, it is a force with a bad ideology that is waging war against Israel. And if there is one rule that is true for the US, Israel, guerilla groups and terrorist groups, it's that war has consequences, so don't start it for the wrong reasons. And their reasons were wrong.

The Hamas is a terrorist group. They were the ones who brought suicide bombing into vogue. Whenever there's a suicide bombing anywhere, in New York, London or Bahgdad, remember to send a thanku note to them. They are the ones that said: "wel isn't this a wonderful way to promote our goals." What goals this method had gained them except being popular, I do not know.

Micha, my apologies: I'd thought Bill was quoting you when he was instead addressing you. Darn this pesky internet thing.

In any case, I still thank you for providing your more detailed thoughts on terrorist tactics.

And of course call to Bill's attention my question...when do you feel terrorist tactics are called for?

In my mind, the only time they are acceptable is when there's no possibility of compromise with your opponent, and you'd rather die than share oxygen with them. If we differentiate beween terrorist tactics...actions directed primarily against civilian/non-combatant... and guerilla tactics...hit and run as opposed to direct confrontation of military targets...are there any other conditions where terrorist tactics would be considered acceptable?

Micha: It has been said, however, that when you lead a successful revolt you are called a "General," but when you lead a failed revolt you are called a "terrorist." While that statement is something of a generalization, I believe it contains a kernel of truth and is worth thinking about.

That said, I want to make something clear: I neither support nor condone acts of violence deliberately carried out against civilian targets. I revile Al Qaeda and its ilk and want to see them brought to their knees or utterly destroyed.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at April 24, 2007 04:37 PM

In my mind, the only time they are acceptable is when there's no possibility of compromise with your opponent, and you'd rather die than share oxygen with them.

Bobb, I think the problem with the above definition is that, frankly, it describes Al Qaeda: they don't want to compromise with us and would sooner die than coexist.

I believe terrorist actions may -- and I emphasize the word may -- be defensible when a nation has been occupied without justification by another nation, when the occupier is vastly stronger than the nation being occupied, and when hit-and-run tactics are limited to the occupied nation's own soil.

Is it wrong to target civilians under those circumstances? I don't think the answer is simple. If the civilians are citizens of the occupying nation, then you could argue that by their very presence in an occupied country they are complicit with the injustice being committed.

I think the "occupying without justification" part is one of the most important tests. After World War II, for example, I think the U.S. occupation of Germany was justifiable. The Israeli occupation of lands it won in conflict with its Arab nations is a gray area; there are those who argue that Israel is acting as the oppressor, but I believe one must take into account that Israel acquired those territories as the result of wars started by its Arab neighbors. Colonizing a foreign land merely because it has resources you want, however, is reprehensible in the extreme. (One could argue, by the way, that that's exactly what European colonists did when they came to North America.)

Do they really hate us????

I guess so many of you forgot what a dictator Saddam was to his people. Things of such unspeakable nature happend to thousands of Iraqi people at the hands of this despot. Do they really hate us? Or, is this what the liberal media would like us to believe?

I'm not going to say that everything is going as planned in Iraq, I know many of you will say what plan? I think it is time for the Iraqi people to step up and fight for their freedom. Many people in that region, want turmoil, want struggle and they want us to fail!!! We can't let that happen!!

To this very day, they are still digging up mass graves, where many people that opposed a brutal dictator met their demise. I guess, it's easier to complain about the way things are in Iraq rather than look at the way it was over there before we liberated the country.

I work with two people from Iraq and both of them have visited the country since Saddam's removal. Both of them tell me that the country is better off and that we shouldn't listen to everything in the news.

I'm sorry to say this, Mr. David, but your negative comments continue to fuel the liberal agenda and belittle what our troops have accomplished...

How quickly we forget how united we all were after 9/11? All it takes, is a couple of loud mouth liberals to stir pot and once again the country is divided!

Ole' Greenskin

Bill, my apologies for setting you up for an "ah ha, gotchya" moment. Which isn't really very much of such a moment, because I know you don't condone terrorist tactics.

First off, "hit and run" tactics are not terrorist tactics...they are potentially sound military tactics that are most often associated with so-called guerilla style warfare. The daring infiltration and destruction of a bridge held and guarded by enemy forces is an example of hit and run...but not terrorist...tactics.

Suicide bombing of a crowded market square isn't hit and run. It's terrorist. The goal of the military operation isn't tactical, it's political. Scare someone to the point they go away.

But you're absolutely right...my "accepted" condition for terrorist tactics does indeed describe Al Qaeda. It probably describes any group employing modern terrorist tactics today. Their viewpoint is such that only the total destruction of those not like them can be considered a win.

Note, I think this is the only condition under which you can actually get a group of people to adopt terrorist tactics. However, I don't think such tactics themselves are every truly acceptable. Not to a so-called civilized society that recognizes and accepts the sovereign authority of other nations and Peoples.

Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM

I guess so many of you forgot what a dictator Saddam was to his people. Things of such unspeakable nature happend to thousands of Iraqi people at the hands of this despot. Do they really hate us? Or, is this what the liberal media would like us to believe?

A lot of them are trying to kill us. Many others publicly mourned Saddam after he was executed. So, yeah, I'd say a lot of them hate us.

Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM

To this very day, they are still digging up mass graves, where many people that opposed a brutal dictator met their demise. I guess, it's easier to complain about the way things are in Iraq rather than look at the way it was over there before we liberated the country.

Saddam's regime was brutal and terrible. No argument there. But more people are being killed in Iraq now than before we toppled Saddam. We've taken things from bad to worse.

Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM

I work with two people from Iraq and both of them have visited the country since Saddam's removal. Both of them tell me that the country is better off and that we shouldn't listen to everything in the news.

I give less weight to the anecdotes of two people than I do to the resounding message sent by the one million-plus Iraqis that have fled that war-torn nation.

Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM

I'm sorry to say this, Mr. David, but your negative comments continue to fuel the liberal agenda and belittle what our troops have accomplished...

Those one-million plus refugees fleeing Iraq are not doing so because they are reading the New York Times or watching CNN. The "liberal agenda" is not the problem here. The reality on the ground in Iraq is the problem, and all of the complaints in the world about the "liberal media" will not change that.

Posted by: Harold Kayser at April 24, 2007 05:03 PM

How quickly we forget how united we all were after 9/11? All it takes, is a couple of loud mouth liberals to stir pot and once again the country is divided!

You have a rather skewed view of recent history. Yes, we were united after 9/11. Then George W. Bush distorted intelligence reports in order to justify an invasion of Iraq, a nation with no ties to those responsible for 9/11. The invasion was poorly planned, and relied on bad assumptions rather than a sober assessment of what was going on in Iraq. We've paid dearly for those mistakes, which is why more than half the country is now opposed to the war.

Bush divided this nation by squandering a vast stockpile of political capital that no other president in recent memory has enjoyed. Blaming the "liberal media" makes about as much sense as blaming gremlins or the tooth fairy. Bush made mistakes and is paying for them.

Posted by: Bill Myers at April 24, 2007 05:21 PM

Saddam's regime was brutal and terrible. No argument there. But more people are being killed in Iraq now than before we toppled Saddam. We've taken things from bad to worse.

*** Where do you get your facts? That just might be the most absurd statement you've made. The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentations on over 600,000 civilian executions. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal Campaign, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqi's. (Source: http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html).

How's that for facts?

Ole' Greenskin

Here's a another link for you Bill...

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Granted the article is from 2003 however, it does not seem to support your statements.

Ole' Greenskin

Posted by Peter J Poole at April 23, 2007 03:04 PM

By the way... had Al Qaeda not attacked us on 9/11 we'd likely not have invaded Iraq.

Yes we would have, just as if the Japanese hadn't bombed Paerl harbor, we'd still have gone to war in the Pacgrowind ific eventually.

Just as FDR and his cabal wanted to combat Japanese influence in the Pacific, so Bush Minor was determined to go to war against Saddam's Iraq as soon as he could find an excuse from the beginning of his Administration.

Harold Kayser: "How's that for facts?"

Uh.... Hows listing a group from Iran as a source and posting a link that doesn't really go anywhere as facts? Kinda funny really.

But, if you want to talk about what Human Rights Watch reports, how's this for facts?

hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/12/sudan15471.htm

Iraq
The ongoing armed conflict and violence in Iraq has meant that the vast majority of Iraqis today live in virtually complete insecurity. The conflict has become increasingly sectarian in nature and Sunni and Shi’a armed groups target civilians from each other’s communities. Fighting between United States and Iraqi armed forces and insurgent forces has resulted in an unknown number of civilian deaths and injuries. In October 2006, a Johns Hopkins-MIT mortality study estimated that since 2003, 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war—600,000 of them in violent deaths; this figure was far higher than previous estimates. While the Iraqi government and the United States have announced several security plans to curb the violence and bring armed militias under control, including a decree imposing virtual martial law in Baghdad and a surge in US troops, respectively, little has been done to curb the abuses emanating from forces affiliated with the government. Evidence continues to implicate Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense personnel in systematically torturing and sometimes killing detainees in their custody; government investigations have failed to prosecute those allegedly responsible. In addition, new martial law provisions give military commanders authority to conduct warrantless arrests, monitor private communications, and restrict civil society groups in Baghdad.
______________________________________________

hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/17/iraq15720.htm

(Geneva, April 17, 2007) – Iraq’s neighbors are closing off escape routes to Iraqi asylum seekers, just as the international community has begun to respond to the 2 million refugees from the war, Human Rights Watch said in a briefing paper released today.

_______________________________________________

That's just the numbers from the last four years. That also doesn't include additions for the deaths from this year that happened after they compiled their stats.

Saddam was a bastard, but this war has already topped his decades long body count.

Harold Kayser: "Where do you get your facts?"

Same place as you it seems, but we can actually read.

"How quickly we forget how united we all were after 9/11?"

I don't think anyone's forgotten that. Indeed, it is the horrific waste *of* that unity that is George W. Bush's greatest failure as a president...that and running up the deficit.

"All it takes, is a couple of loud mouth liberals to stir pot and once again the country is divided!"

Nooo, all it takes is a president falsely presenting (a) himself as a uniter when he is in fact a divider, (b) a bogus invasion of Iraq over WMDs that never were, and (c) an increasingly dwindling, blindly loyal section of the American population to be oblivious to (a) and (b).

PAD

Wow, Harold... Your jokes just get better and better.

Gulf 2 started on March 20, 2003. Yet you feel that a write up from April of 2003 backs a point that you're really not making very well now? I don't know aboutyou, but I tend to think one month or less of observations on Iraq and the war don't really stand up well to four plus years of observations on the war in Iraq.

But that's just me.

I got the following e-mail from Harold Kayser today:

"Mr. Meyers,

"You should really check you facts before you make ridicules statements like you made on the board.

"I'm not going to go back and forth on whether Bush made the right decision on going into Iraq. However, you should at least take the time to research your statements rather than just talking out your *blank.

"This is a link that has tons of information about Iraq and it is from a reputable source, Stanford University.

"Thanks for your opinions and thoughts, that's what makes our country the greatest in the world. We can all speak our minds and not get locked away for our views."

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

First of all, my last name is spelled "Myers."

Second, the link you provided merely cites the number of people killed during Saddam's 24-year regime, which is estimated to be 600,000. What it doesn't mention -- primarily because the information is from April of 2003 (look at the date at the bottom of the Web page you cited) -- is that approximately 650,000 Iraqis have died in the four years since Saddam was toppled. That means the sheer number of deaths since the fall of Saddam has exceeded the total during his reign. More meaningful, however, is the fact that it only took four years to create a death toll that exceeds what was created under Saddam in six times that timespan.

I had my facts straight. You didn't. But that didn't stop you from sending me a shitty little e-mail showcasing both your ignorance and your lack of manners, now, did it?

Time to man up and apologize.

By the way, it was pretty stupid of you to include your business contact information with that e-mail. Admittedly, it's highly unlikely that I'd ever have need of services such as those your company offers. If I did, however, as a result of your rudeness, I'd be sure to send my business to your competitors.

I got the following e-mail from Harold Kayser today:

"Mr. Meyers,

"You should really check you facts before you make ridicules statements like you made on the board.

"I'm not going to go back and forth on whether Bush made the right decision on going into Iraq. However, you should at least take the time to research your statements rather than just talking out your *blank.

"This is a link that has tons of information about Iraq and it is from a reputable source, Stanford University.

"Thanks for your opinions and thoughts, that's what makes our country the greatest in the world. We can all speak our minds and not get locked away for our views."

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

First of all, my last name is spelled "Myers."

Second, the link you provided merely cites the number of people killed during Saddam's 24-year regime, which is estimated to be 600,000. What it doesn't mention -- primarily because the information is from April of 2003 (look at the date at the bottom of the Web page you cited) -- is that approximately 650,000 Iraqis have died in the four years since Saddam was toppled. That means the sheer number of deaths since the fall of Saddam has exceeded the total during his reign. More meaningful, however, is the fact that it only took four years to create a death toll that exceeds what was created under Saddam in six times that timespan.

I had my facts straight. You didn't. But that didn't stop you from sending me a shitty little e-mail showcasing both your ignorance and your lack of manners, now, did it?

Time to man up and apologize.

By the way, it was pretty stupid of you to include your business contact information with that e-mail. Admittedly, it's highly unlikely that I'd ever have need of services such as those your company offers. If I did, however, as a result of your rudeness, I'd be sure to send my business to your competitors.

PAD,

Let me ask you a question. Can you please clarify something for me about your statement, "(b) a bogus invasion of Iraq over WMDs that never were." ? Bush misle