True, true its undeniable that some of the Mujahadeen we supported went on to form Al Qaeda, it just bugs me slightly how some seem almost to suggest that the former group just changed in its entirety to become the latter (you are far away from suggesting this as strongly as some people I've discussed this with though ). Ironically (well, it seems ironic to me ) its often those who are so quick to point out that the Mujahadeen was the precursor to Al Qaeda's formation, as though they were one and the same thing completely barring the name, who are also so critical of the present day western governments portrayal of Al Qaeda as a unitary actor with a solid struscture, suggesting that such a black and white portrayal is for propaganda purposes and to inspire fear.
Er, did anyone actually read my post? The U.S. did support Osama Bin Laden directly. Not inadvertently through the Mujahedin; directly.
OK, my bad. I should have said: they could have had... just don't slap me for putting it in past tense again. I did indeed suggest withdrawal. I think on the whole it would make no difference, but perhaps in having fewer Western targets to aim for, it may cause the local insurgensts to stop shooting a bit. Then again, local Western presence or absence doesn't seem to make a difference in Afghanistan, and in Palestine people have taken up shooting at each other as well as the Israelis... That's the thing with Check Mate. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So the dictator by the name of Saddam was right? Anyways, it's well established the reason for going into Iraq was because of suspicion of WMDs. That may have proven false (though personally I doubt that) but that does not change the reason for the attack. Intelligence show'd that Saddam had WMDs- Saddam was not allowed to have WMDs, therefore he was removed from office in the "Iraq War". The killing of civillians? If Saddam would have let inspectors in, there would have been no need for a war. Now back to oil- when the US made attempts to help Afghanistan, you keep bringing up the oil pipeline. So what is the problem there? Mujahideen were fighting off Russia, the US helped the Muahideen fight off the Russains. If, as you have led us to believe, the motive were oil, than what would be the problem? People, like Afghanistan and the US, need oil. So instead of sending something that Saddam needs to immeadetly remove from the country to his arch enemy, he's going to send truck-loads of "his retirement fund" - highly valuable items? If your running a drug house, and you find out theres going to be a raid tomorrow- do you spend the rest of the day packing up your money but not actually leaving the facility, or do you ship out the drugs? Saddam could send over valuable items, or he could send some WMDs. What does Saddam gain by loosing the WMDs- he embarasses the US which strengthens opponents of the US, and then in an Iraqi court he claims that he doesn't deserve to be in jail- the US had no reason for the attack. Now if Saddam sends truck loads of cash to Iran- those trucks are probbably going to get raided and Saddam has a problem- if Iran raids the shipment of WMDs, it's not as big a loss. If Saddam had WMDs and convoys went to another country (Iran) then I think it would make the most sense for those convoys to be carrying WMDs. See the "Despite the CIA's denials" part? I love that kind of infomation. So esseintally, the CIA supported the Mujahideen. Osama Bin Laden eventually became a member of the Mujahideen. Later, someone claimed that CIA shipped the sniper rifles. Even if thats true ('cause the CIA is denying it) I would barely consider that supporting Bin Laden. I imagine other people have probbably recieved much bigger toys. But I'd also like to point out, when your talking about the 90's, your talking about a dark period in the history fo the US, for during that time some idiot by the name of William Jefferson Clinton happened to be the President. . . He was a horrible embarrasment to the US and I'm glad he's no longer in office. The Middle East has a rough past, they have some pretty poor governments over there, and they also control a ton of oil. Will the US attack Iran, or will Iran build a nuke and attack the US? Do you want to wait and see where the next nuke blows up? Theres already good evidence Iran will probbably try to produce WMDS- and if Iran does not play fair, that particular country might just end up with an invasion. Now what is the problem? I see that it so happens that two of the top 5 oil producers- from the middle east with unstable governments- happen to dislike the US. Are you trying to suggest this is a war about oil? I'm sorry there happens to be a coincodince, but the conspiracy theory that Bush is going to get loaded by starting wars with Iraq and Iran is a bit far fetched. And that is why there is currently a problem. You know leaving Iraq right now would be a bad idea, so there is really no sense to complain about US troops being over in Iraq. If troops go in, take out the leader and then run away from the country- you've just caused a civil war. When troops go in and destroy the government, they have to remain so that whatever country that was invaded does not have severe problems in the future. If troops leave, insurgents will wreak havoc upon the current Iraqi government. Instead of acting like everything the US has done or is currently doing is bad, realize that the intentions have always been for a positive outcome. Sometimes things don't go as planned, everyone screws up- even countries other than the US. When there is a problem, the best thing to do is try to find a solution. Sometimes the solution fails, but I'm glad to say that the US- and other countries- have at least made attempts to help fix problems. L J
He did let inspectors in for gods sake. The US rushed them, and Hans Blix got rather upset at the time because he said that they'd been given not nearly enough time to investigate what they'd been told to investigate. In the end the weapons inspectors didn't get to finish the job they started because the US was impatient and wanted to start the war. The arrogance! Do you ever wonder why people would want to make war on America, why terrorists would want to blow up buildings, and people around the world hate the US? Well, statements like the above are the exact reason! You have no right to dictate what Iran does on its own turf. Unless it does something on your turf, you don't have any right to be telling them what to do. There is no evidence Iran will try to produce nukes, all there is is evidence that they're proceeding with a nuclear power plan. What is this "fair" you talk of? One rule for us and another for them? That is not fair, that's childlike hypocracy at best! The problem is, you and your country have no right to tell Iran whether they can or cannot have a civil nuclear power program. You also have no right to tell them whether they can or can not have nuclear weaponry, so long as you have it, then it is logical that they should be allowed to have it. If you and your countrymen ever want to see the end to the long war, as the war on terror is now being called, you'll need to reform simplistic hypocritical thought like that, and start to not consider it a case of America above everyone else.
OK then. Apparently it is alright to force your neighbour to sell you his car, as long as he is a bad person. I'm not even going to try and argue against such emotive reasoning. Saddam is about to lose his country. He knows he cannot win, he knows the game is up no matter what. WMD would be useless. Too hard to sell, too hard to hide. He needs liquid assets. this only mistake was to hang on too long -he never could quite let go. your reasoning is, for one. Iran nuke the US?!? I cannot be bothered to argue with you anymore, to be honest. I mean: lf you cannot see how, I can't be asked to explain. No offence, but your logic is spurious, your reasoning emotive and selective, and you appear to lack important background information. Let's just agree to disagree.
If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to go in when they needed to go in, as was agreed- there would not have been a problem. The weapons inspectors didn't finsih the job because they were kicked out. Simple fact is that if Iran is not a trust worthy country, we can either let them build nuclear weapons and/or other WMDs or stop the problem before it develops. Also, despite the fact that I only listed the US as being opposed to Iran's nuclear "energy" program- there are quite a few other countries who dislike what Iran is doing. So where is the problem? But the situation is not that simple. We have a man running one of the top oil producing countries, which gives him quite a bit of power. I think we can both agree the purpose of the war was not for oil. Yes, oil is a factor- Saddam stays - he damages the US economy. Saddam goes, Iraqi citizens are happy that he is out of there, and really the global economy becomes more stable. Is maintaining a supply of oil good? Iraqi citizens want to sell the oil- they need the money, but a tyrant is mad at the US and wants to prohibit the sale of oil. Not as simple as a neighbor selling a car. "WMD would be useless"- that statement is almost true. What I'm sure of is weapons inspectors and the CIA found enough evidence there to make them very suspicios- suspicious enough to start an invasion. If Saddam keeps WMDs on his land- he has made the US heroes. If Saddam removes the WMDs, he embarasses the US. The WMDs were worthless to Saddam. Why would Saddam need to make money? He was already rich. Why would he sent liquidatable assets to his no. 1 enemy? Iran- the country is participating in activities which other countries- including the US dislike- that is a problem for Iran. Lets not try to make what Iran is doing into "the US is evil". L J
It's hard not to make this into a "the US is evil" when they're ordering other sovereign nations to do what they want, in the name of a fair and free world, but are using double standards. Personally I fear the US far more then I fear Iran. Iran is just another middle eastern country, oil rich, crappy government, fast growing economy. The US seems to be on a mission do do something, I don't know what that something is, but it's obvious that a lot of innocent people are going to have to die before your government are happy. Personally I hope Iran get the bomb, I hope they do it quickly and quietly. I would like them to have it, because I see no reason why they should be invaded, and I know for certain the US will back off if they have the bomb a la North Korea. The arrogance of the US government(and many of its citizens) has really shown through with Iran. Double standards, childish allegations that are strongly disputed by experts in whichever fields the allegations are made in, the impression that the US has the right to decide what people can and cannot do, all this comes together to make many people feel very much that, the US is evil.
Specofdust- I could see your argument better if it were not for the fact that the US is not the only country that opposes Iran's nuclear energy program. If Iran plays fair, there shall not be a problem, and I really doubt that playing fair would really be damaging to Iran. If Iran does not play fair, then it could easily turn into a bad situation. To some extent, I dislike how the US has nuclear weapons but Iran is not allowed to have 'em. However, I don't believe the US should loose the weapons we have, and I don't feel that just any country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I hope there is not an invasion of Iran, but if it is justified, than it is justified. L J
And really, that's all Irn is asking for. They are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty which states that as long as they do not build nuclear weapons and don't help other people build nuclear weapons, they are gaurenteed access to nuclear power technology for peaceful purposes. So far no one, especially the IAEA, has found any evidence that they are working on anything but energy generation. Iran's position, and I tend to agree with them, is that they are being denied their rights under the NPT. There are plenty of ways that compliance with the NPT could be verified. The IAEA could station monitors at Nataz to check the output of the centrifuges to verify enrichment levels. They could track incoming and outgoing shipments of mteria to verfy qantity. THe IAEA is very good at what they do, if they are left alone to do it. Historically, they have a very good track record of being right about who's doing what with nuclear materials. The problem arises when a country, usually the US, starts trying to influence the agency or spin their results to further our own (misguided) foriegn policy ends. I say let the IAEA do their job and get out of their way. If they encounter somthing they can't handle, let them ask for enforcement. I had a thought on Iranian enrichment the other day, specifically on methodology. The US and I believe the UK use gaseous diffusion to enrich uranium, which is extreemly expensive and takes up an incrediable amount of space and electricity. For example, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant in Kentucky is somthing like 3/4 of a square mile under one roof. Only the Boeing factory here in Everett is larger. Iran is working on centrifuge techology based on designs and some machinery they got from Pakistan. Both of these technologies allow the natural uranium feedstock to be enriched all the way to high (95% ish) enrichment or only to a few percent for power generation by changing the number of steps n the cycle. There is a third procss for uranium enrichment called gaseous thermal diffusion which was used in the Manhatten Project days, but hasn't seen the light of day since. I'll skip the description of how it works unless someone is interested, but the key point is that it cannot enrich Uranium past somewhere around 40%. A gaseous thermal diffusion plant could be used to produce reactor fuel, even fairly rich stuff for research and naval reactors, but not weaposn grade HEU. If the US / EU were to assist Iran to build such a plant they culd easily meet their power production needs without having the capability to build nucear weapons, at least at this time. As more an more nations begin to feel a worldwide energy crunch some are going to look to nuclear energy as a part of the solution. Given that, I think that it may be time to take another look at Gaseous thermal as a way to provide nations with the technolog required under the NPT without the proliferation risks.
I'm not picking over grammer, but meaning. And the whole point is that they voted for parties that don't want the americans to pull out now which givent he near-genocidal sectarian attitudes of Al-Queda and the like is hardly surprision Given that their targets are largely Iraquis, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Well there seemed to be an election which seemed to elect a goverment that though weak appears to be trying to put the country on the right path. Certainly looks a lot better than the government in 2001 and has some hope if the west gives them enough support. I can't really blame the Americans for that and it's hardly a new development.
Iran is, as pointed out, a member of the non-proliferation treaty. They are thus accorded certain rights as well as obligations. The U.S. is accusing them of transgression of those obligations before they had a chance to do so; accusation based on character, so to speak: they're a totalitarian regime, they are aggressive, they are anti-Western... how can they not use nuclear tech to make weapons (like: how can Saddam not have WMD)? This is flawed reasoning. How trustworthy for instance is the U.S. with nuclear technology? - Historically, the only country to have used nukes in anger is the U.S. - We know that it will readily attack and invade countries in order to "protect its economy" or other interests, and in that will ignore the UN in such matters. - We know that it will sell its weapons technology to dictators such as Saddam Hussein, sell nuclear secrets to China and unstable regimes like Pakistan (who tried to sell them to Saddam in turn, but wasn't buying that day). So we have a real loose cannon here: a country that will use aggression to suit its own interests, ignore the UN, and has used nukes before. You know, I think the U.S. should have nuclear technology taken away from it... But we don't. Give me a compelling reason why we should trust the U.S. more than Iran? Why not? "Iran is an untrustworty country" was a simple enough equation for you (bit like: "The U.S. is evil" for others). Actually, I don't agree that the war was not for oil. It is very much about oil. The U.S. economy will last about 30 years on its own oil resources; with unrestricted access to Middle Eastern supplies it lasts two centuries more. But there are other emerging industrial economies competing as customers, notably China. So the U.S. has to work hard to control access. That the global economy is more stable is another fallacy. As a factor in the rising oil price, the war has created concerns of a return to the "stagflation" of the 1970s. For instance, the world's major airlines are expecting an increase in costs of $1 billion or more per month. Same with the U.S. economy: U.S. crude oil prices spiked at $48 per barrel on August 19, 2004, the highest level since 1983. According to a mid-May CBS survey, 85 percent of Americans said they had been affected measurably by higher gas prices. According to one estimate, if crude oil prices stay around $40 a barrel for a year, U.S. gross domestic product will decline by more than $50 billion. So the only people to benefit are the oil companies. And I'll leave it to you to look at the many, many connections between the Bush administration and oil companies. Another oversimplified fallacy is that "Saddam stays --> Iraq doesn't sell oil --> citizens suffer, but Saddam goes --> Iraq sells oil --> citizens thrive". First, Saddam would have sold the oil one way or another, if not to the U.S., then to China or any of the emerging industrial nations. Sanctions would not stop him. It's his income, see? However, at the moment oil has to be paid for in U.S. dollars. It is the only currency OPEC accepts, and it keeps the U.S. dollar strong. However Saddam was about to accept Euros, and the OPEC has been reconsidering its policy too, and it was feared that it might follow suit. That made the U.S. nervous --that, and the fact that they have to secure a supply for the future. It is true that the citizens of Iraq saw little of the oil profits (although with sanctions in place, they saw even less. I could expand on how the child death rate doubled during the sanctions for instance, and people suffered in many other ways, but I'd digress. In any case it didn't hurt Saddam; it hurt his people. Sanctions were another bullsh*t attempt at controlling the oil). However they see little of it now. Ask any Iraqi and you'll find that the economical situation has got much worse since the invasion. In fact the UN and World Bank estimate that the economy has fallen by half since the end of Gulf War v2.0. Although the oil fields are pumping, utilities have not been restored. After more than a decade of crippling sanctions, Iraq's health facilities were further damaged during the war and post-invasion looting, and Iraq's hospitals continue to suffer from lack of supplies and an overwhelming number of patients. UNICEF estimates that more than 200 schools were destroyed in the conflict and thousands more were looted in the chaos following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Housing has become unaffordable. Iraqi joblessness doubled from 30 percent before the war to 60 percent in the summer of 2003. And we don't have to talk about security, do we? As chief executive of Iraq, Paul Bremer issued a series of orders designed to restructure Iraq's broadly socialist economy in line with neo-liberal thinking. Order 39 laid out the framework for full privatization in Iraq, except for "primary extraction and initial processing" of oil, and permitted 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets. Other orders established a flat tax of 15% and permitted foreign corporations to repatriate all profits earned in Iraq. Privatization of the oil industry is opposed by the Federation of Oil Unions in Iraq (consisting of Iraqi oil workers). The interim government did not get the authority to reverse the nearly 100 orders by Paul Bremer that, among other things, allow for the privatization of Iraq's state-owned enterprises and prohibit preferences for domestic Iraqi firms in reconstruction. In short, Iraq is milked for its oil and asset-stripped by foreign companies for foreign profit. The Iraqi don't see a dime of it. It was never about the Iraqi people. Never. They don't even "win" as a side-effect of Saddam's overthrow, as you suggest. They are the consistent losers throughout and nobody gives a damn as long as we get the oil to keep our Western livestyles going. Saddam had major worries about the WMD inspections and obstructed them where he could. But not because he had WMD --because he hadn't. Dictators rule by fear and intimidation. The last thing he needed is for the U.N. to prove to all his enemies, especially his neighbour, Iran, that the lion had no teeth or claws. So he was stuck in a tricky dance of proving to the UN that he had no WMD while at the same time leaving enough doubt with his enemies to convince them that he might. But such psychology is obviously too complicated for U.S. strategists to grasp. When the U.S. was marching for Iraq, Saddam was not concerned about embarrasing the U.S. He was worried about escaping. He had wealth, sure, but like all dictators, he liked to keep it close to him. Now he had to get all his liquid assets abroad and find a safe place to hide himself. I think he got greedy --tried to ship too much and hung on for too long. And I don't think there were any convoys to Iran. I'd have to see proof. And so far, the U.S. hasn't come up with the goods. No WMD, no trace of WMD manufacturing, no convoys (and if he wouldn't send liquid assets, why would he send WMD?). Another fallacy. The U.S. is not more evil than most other countries out there; being bigger and/or stronger than other countries, it can simply indulge in its selfish interests more, and on a larger scale. But it is not that good either; don't kid yourself that it is. However although the U.S. appears only too prepared to criticise other countries (e.g. Iran) but not others (Israel) according to its own economic and political interests, it is interesting how it does not like the favour returned: any criticism of U.S. policy at all is immediately interpreted as an undeserved accusation of the U.S. as "evil" and met with great offence (funny how we expect Iran to receive similar criticism with deep and humble introspection, though) . If you're not with us, you're against us, right? So we can have Guantanamo Bay, erosion of civil liberties, and asset stripping of entire countries and nobody is allowed to breathe a word. Because that would undermine the "War against Terror" and make you "unpatriotic" and a "terrorist sympathiser" (with added "twisted mind"). As you yourself said: "But the situation is not that simple."
Fair enough. I do agree with you that we need to respect their wishes there --even if I think we cannot deliver what we promised. I guess we dragged them to hell, now we'll burn together... Possibly so. Civilians get caught in the crossfire, but insurgents also target Iraqi institutions (e.g. police). To what extent that is because they are seen as colluding with, or working for Western interests I'm not sure. I do think that many insurgents believe the current government really is just a Western puppet government, but I also think that, being fundamentalists, they'll shoot at anybody who does not agree with them. Only if they seriously change Paul Bremer's orders... However we've still got a stalemate. Iraq is now the battleground for people who want control back (Saddam's supporters) and those who want fundamentalist rule, Taliban style (insurgents) with people who want a fairly reasonable, stable democracy (most Iraqi) caught in the middle. Saddam was certainly was bad, but his presence at least kept things from deteriorating into yet another of the many eternal battlefields in the Middle East, such as Beirut, Palestine, Afghanistan. People argue that we were so concerned with removing evil from Iraq, but instead we have given it free reign. And there is no going back, and no going forward. We'll burn in hell together... Until the next U.S. elections, of course. Withdrawal of U.S. troops is already becoming an electioneering point. Chances are that the next President will pull out the troops. And then we'll really see how much Iraq has been freed.
Seriously, though western troops do get killed their largely protected and much of the casulaties are from bombing where no western troops were present. This is simply becasue it's mostly too difficult to attack them and in terms of their objectives (promoting sectarian strife, bringing down the government) it's just as good if not better to blow up a bus stop rather a tricy attack on the troops. I'm not sure on the distinction of civilians from police. I can't see that the death of a police recruit is any less tragic or more justified than the man in the bus queue next to him. Or that of those killed in bombing in Europe or America for that matter. I was taking about Afganistan which you seem to think is going wrong, though to me looks a more viable place than 2001, if the government there continues to get support. Hmm, not too many in favour of immediate pull out other than at the fringes.
I never made that distinction. Sorry, I'm not following you. Hmmm... you have to read up about what is going on in the East, near the Pakistan border. We'll see next election...
Nexxo, arguably youre more in touch with reality than a lot of people - but I dont think the American people are exactly completely in favor of jumping ship and leaving the country to disintigrate.
Not living in the U.S. myself, I'm happy to take your word for it. Risky also made some good points (thanks for that) --I am changing my mind that leaving probably is worse, on balance, than staying (see, it does happen, if the arguments are compelling enough ) --provided the approach to rebuilding the county changes (notably, Paul Bremer's 100 orders). Risky asked about what alternatives there are: I think here is one that is very much worth considering.
Thought you guys might want to read a little squib that gives ya an insight to this Zarqawi guy's thinkin'... a bit before that F-16 flew over... Seems he wasn't such a happy camper...
I can heavily recomend you all read The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East by Robert Fisk. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/184115007X/qid=1150795857/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/026-8998364-8399643 He is an excellent writer and has actualy been to all of the events you are discribing and has met and interviewed most of the players you are talking about.
