War on Iraq in general

Remove all ads!

The point is not so much you justifying anything but the administration officials in washington ... whenever something is found, like that botulinum (I mean, I have that in my fridge as well I fear ... time for cleaning and sorting out the older cans ), they point at it and say: "See, I've been right", even if that means to *bend* the facts to suit the claim.

Nowhere that becomes more evident and clear as in how the AEI and Cheney handled the results of the polling in Iraq, which I referred to in my Zogby thread.

 

Ragusa, I gave a careful read to the "Information Clearing House" you cited in an earlier post. I am apalled. I have never seen a more biased reporting of events. The number of inacuracies are too great to even list, let alone refute. I have come to view you as sort of a "Link Master", I know you must work very hard on every post, and I admire the care you take to try to back up every claim, but this site is pure, unbridled trash.

I don't dispute that Iraq is very much of a problem for the US, but to heap misinterpretations and misrepresentations onto the bonfire is counter-productive. To ascribe to the ICH is to accept the fact that Fox, CNN, AP, ABC, MSNBC, BBC, WFP and even Al Jazeerha are all liars. I have a hard time placing much credence on any website that is maintained by an individual. The Internet has been a blessing of information, but there sure is a lot of crap out there, too.

I have a very close friend who is a Lt. Col. in the US Army. We have been in contact since long before the invasion, although he is presently not actually in Iraq, he was there in a combat unit until just recently. He confides to me that there are some incidents of low morale, but they are mostly isolated, and not due to the fact that we are there as an occupying invasion force, but that the free world does not seem to appreciate the price that they are willing to pay every day. He has related to me isolated incidents of lawlessness on the part of American soldiers. He has also assured me that perpretators are in custody and will face full military court-martial when the situation stabilizes.

I don't really want to talk much more about what I have heard first hand, since it was told to me personally.

I have been unable to find anything that coroborates the falsified GI letters back home that were mentioned at this website. There is a real, legitimate opposition to the war here at home, and if there were any truth to some of those allegations, they would have been aired and disclosed over here, and not at some backwater internet site.

Ragusa, I hold your criticism in the highest esteem. I think that you ask questions that every flag-waving American needs to hear and have answers for, please don't discredit yourself by quoting an unsupportable garbage source.

 

All units, BRACE FOR IMAPCT!

RANT INBOUND!


Ok, so:

1. The little Media Game needs to end. It was fun with all the maps in the sand and stuff, but that time is over. You have to watch over the officials, but give the media their severance pay and put their stuff on the porch. Let them mingle with the common people, and semper fi, do or die, gung ho gung ho gung ho, see if they make the Darwin cut. You know, I've not heard ONE THING about the Kurds. And God Knows, they have been yelling for some kind of Kurdistan, much to the dismay of Turkey. How about CNN, and everyone else that was playing ball with Saddam and Company, take a little day/week/month trip up north and see if they get shot at or what.

2. Dry up the state. Back in the days of Pro Hibition, the governor of my Fine State shut down the borders so the state congress could dry up enough to repeal the bane of their existance. Grab a few Force Multipliers, and put some people on the borders of Iran and Syria. Tanks, B-52's, F-14's, and some of that really nifty artillery. Declare a 5 mile (or 10) buffer zone, and give instructions to "shoot anything that looked like it might move in the near future, and call in some napalm just to mark the spot". If it takes 1000 women/men to achieve an objective, it will take 10,000 to secure it.

3. Siege it. Japan had an Emperor; thank God for the Emperor and everyone that had some Common Sense and relayed that to Truman. Germany had British OSS Commandos operating for 3 or 4 years, and a whole lot of rubble and displaced people. Bagdhad needs a DMZ. Put all the known "good" people in one area, and spend $20 billion in food and water and Computer Role Playing Games, and give them a little 4 month vacation. Grab all the kids, teach them some how to roll their stats and which feats to choose, get them started on some Trivia Pursuit, and distribute toothbrushes. Dirty movies, water parks, rollerblades; I don't know what all they'll fancy. Then grab all the psychos that want to play; SAS, SBS, Seals, Airbornes, Recon, Delta Force, SWAT. Go forth and play in the areas that Disturb Me. Kill anything that moves, dip your bullets in pig fat, whatever. When it has been cleansed, open the gates, and start rebuilding.

4. There really is something to be said for firebombing. It changes your perspective when you glance around, and everyone you ever knew is gone, and you're surrounded by lions. Surgical wars are always nasty and really slow. It's more efficient to sweep the rubble into the corner, a new can of Playdough, and start over the right way.

5. It's always a Catch-22. You could pull a Clinton, and tell the CIA that you don't care what they do, so long as nothing ever makes the light of day and I can pick and choose what I want from it all. Let the bodies pile up high enough, and you won't have Peace Riots, you'll have War Riots. Save the Tree-Huggers and Whales. I would have taken the 30 yard penalty; 100 years from now, it would have been the better choice.

 

@ejsmith: I frankly can't tell if you are a genious or totally deranged. Hmmm...are you running for any office?

 

Robert Fisk, the man from informationclearinghouse, is someone special. Personally I hold his reportings in high value. He is actually a well reputed journalist and veteran foreign correspondent who actually reports what he sees. Nothing less.

When he has seen grenades impacting, then it was quite probably so. And I can understand someone travelling Iraq, seeing piles of death while hearing nothing about civilian casualties in Iraq from the officials, beeing appalled about it and writing it and you can expect him to be actually pretty accurate in what he writes. He sees it as his responsibility to report what he sees.
He's not a renegade "I hate the US" moron or doomsayer, to the contrary - he has probably seen more wars than every GI in Iraq younger than 45.
His often harsh criticism for example on the occupation of the palestinians has made him unpopular especially among right wing Israelis, and their US cohortes. So, for some reason, John Malkowich declared he wants to kill him ... Fisk clearly causes an emotional reaction. The "Shoot the Messenger" phenomenon ...

 

Ok look, I can see that little ground is going to be made here on either side.

Well first off, here's what I could find of some information I wrote down a year ago about the events in America on September 11th.

Thousands of stock options were purchased for United Amerian Airlines immediately proior to Sep 11, many well known rich American friends of Bush profited from this.

The Black-box recordings dissapeared (the passports of the alledged terrorists did not, they somehow survived a blast which vapourised people).

Calls were alledgedly made by passengers and crew on a hijacked flight - these never appeared on their bills or phone records - and who could make a call on a hijacked plane? Also, the altitude at which the plane was flying was out of range for most phones. This has been tested. All but one phone constantly automatically failed. One phone made contact once. Only static was heard, nothing else. All phones failed above 8000 ft, and as was seen, it was next to impossible below this (in a metal-skinned aircraft).

No air traffic controllers were interviewed. No statements were given.

Hijackers took luggage and flight instruction manuals with them, then left it all in a car. Why did they need luggage? Why not take it with them?

a note surviving their motives also miraculously survived the crash (along with their passports).

Flight 93 exploded before the crash. One engine and much debris were found before the crash site. Nothing else was found anywhere.

How can a handful of people with box-cutters overcome evryone on the plane?

At Defcon 3, no fighter planes were dispatched. They are supposed to be on alert and defending always. It is Standard Protocol to immediately intercept planes if not on course, and often to open fire. This has always happened before.

Hani Hanjour said to have flown a Boeing with immaculate skill. However, his instructors claimed he was a washout, let alone able to perform such manouevers.

None of the hijackers had any competent skill (if any) at flying a plane, they were all hopeless.

Who was in control of the planes?
Global Hawk pioletless plane technology can fly up to four at once. Flights from America (San Fransisco I think) to Melbourne and back have been achieved, distances like this have been accomplished repeatedly.

It is very likely the entire crew and passengers were gassed in flight, at which point the plane was auto-pioleted and the rest was all CIA smoke-screens.

Bush continued reading to children for 20 minutes after being told, he then claimed to have seen the first crash on TV.

A threat against air-force one was claimed, then withdrawn.

FBI and CIA claimed no prior knowledge. Israelis and Russians both claimed to have warned them (Since the time I wrote this I have also found numerous other sources of information about this knowledge being passed on to the FBI esspecially. A decorated officer was demoted and re-located to South Africa when he warned about these attacks, also, a man jailed in Toronto wrote a precise warning, claimed as intelligence, which was ignored.).

None of the names of the terrorists were found on the passenger list.

The FBI and CIA had 19 named and photographed in 2 days (I think we have all heard anough about the inadequac of CIA intelligence in recent days).

No transcript of conversations between piolets or controllers released.

The WTC collapsed neatly, like a controlled demolition implosion, all was dust, no slabs of concrete of furniture.

Steel melted at 800*, the melting point of steel is 1300*.

Bin Laden and George Bush Snr. are both the major shareholders in a company building oil pipelines which benefitted by six trillion dollars.

Massive explosion in heroin production after the bombing of the Taliban, which was not stopped.

There are approximately 500 insurance questions over the doubt of the claim. The buildings were insured for 70 billion dollars (that may actually be 700 billion).

The supposed terrorists were claimed to be fundamentalists, but they are recorded getting drunk in bars and getting lap-dances. A copy of the Koran was found in one of these bars. Why would a fundamentalist (who can't drink) take his holy book into a bar, and then leave it behind?

Carreat Air owned by the CIA (whose boss is also involved in the oil business). This is where the men were supposed to have recieved their training.

A Black Box is destroyed only at a decelleration of ~800 000 feet s-2. The Crash only contributed to 17% of this max crush.

The twin towers are built to withstand the temperatures of the fires purported (of course, the explosions were much hotter than what could have been caused by this crash, as the steel was melted and the concrete vapourised).

(Oh and by the way Rastor, in the first gulf war 150 000 civilians were killed, and the total infrastructure was destroyed. Only 7% of this bombing was reported in the news.

I wonder what this means for present day Iraq?

 

Manus where have you gotten these things if I might ask? It is always nice to get some backup of claims, especially such wild ones.

 

Occam's Razor.

 

Really? UAA stock plummeted after 9/11. There is no way they could have profited by losing money.

Airplanes have phones built in. It hasn't been proven what altitude they were at when the calls were made, and microwave signals (what most good phones use) can go through windows and metal pretty easily. Ever heard of satellite phones? I have a hard time buying that the tests disproved that those wouldn't work.

Um, the hijackers knew what they were going to do.

People are cowards. One of the planes went down before reaching its destination.

Where did you find this? It's wrong, but where did you find it?

Manouevers? He crashed a plane into a building. Anyone with eyesight and a steady hand can do that.

I have yet to see any evidence that the hijackers were flying the plane instead of forcing the pilots to. Besides, it's not that hard to fly a plane straight.

In test flights. Very few planes are equipped with that technology, and it can be disabled.

That's proof that you're spouting nonsense right there. Prove that it's likely.

American schools have TVs in every room. Besides, he made no such claim in his initial speech. He may have in the one later in the day, but every American channel was airing the footage that he may very well have seen replays of the crash (he did not ever say that he saw it live).

The PLO claimed to be responsible for the hijacking. This supports nothing.

That is true. It is also true that the CIA warned president Clinton about it back during his term. They admitted that.

Ever heard of stowaways? It was pretty easy to sneak onto a plane before the new security emplacements.

No they did not. It took a week. American inteligence is among the best in the world, at least, after Bush lifted all the regulations that they had hampering their performance. It's quite possible for that to have happened.

Wrong. It was being put on news sites and broadcast pretty shortly after the event happened.

Um, I've seen the crash site. It took out 19 city blocks, there were concrete slabs.

There was steel present at Ground Zero. It did not melt.

What company? That means that one company made 150% of Germany's entire yearly output in a matter of a few days. What's the yearly income of that company? There isn't enough money in the world to support that figure.

The Taliban provided drug enforcement. The drug war cannot be stopped, we've seen that in Columbia. This fact is meaningless.

If you had to pay 700 billion dollars after something like this, I'll be damned if you don't ask questions.

1. They think that's what Americans do, so they were trying to fit in.
2. It's against the Koran to attack civilians, even in a jihad. I don't see that being followed, in the terrorist attacks, Israel, or elsewhere.

It's illegal for a public entity to own a private business.

Ever considered the possibility of two 110 story buildings landing on it? Besides, the Black Box was recovered.

Bull. I've been there, I've seen the concrete and the steel.

Iraq still sets up civilian centers as military targets. I want proof that the entire infrastructure was destroyed.

I challenge you to back up any of this information with data from a reputable site.

 

Rastor, the US took out 19 city blocks in ONE attack, do not forget the US also used cluster bombs in civilian areas etc. The deaths in Iraq are more than triple the deaths in 9/11.

 

@Manus:

Unless you are a structural engineer, do not attempt to discuss the failure mode in the Twin Towers. In a nutshell, at the impact site the local temperatures exceeded 2000C. This was more than adequate to melt the structural steel. This blast zone extended into the actual floor that the aircraft impacted as well as at least one above or below. The structural loss of the supporting steel members in such a large area caused the floors above the blast zone to collapse downward into the still sound areas beneath. Unfortunately, the weight now far exceeded the load capacity of the steel members, and floor by floor the building folded upon itself like a stack of pancakes.

Everything else you say was bull, too, this just was the easiest and quickest to refute. Everything that Rastor said can be verified by numerous reputable sources. A short search will show that you are only rattling off the worst kind of unsupportable conspiracy theory. Why is it so hard for the world to believe that the US was attacked...I'd almost rather believe that it wasn't true...that it really was some dastardly plot...unfortunately, there is no hole in the ground deep enough for me to stick my head into and hold on to that belief.

 

This is what is called cognitive dissonance. Someone refuses to accept what is right in front of them because they don't want to.

Ok, I didn't want to get into this, but I'll play it your way.

First off, go look into any of the records, you will see that they did make money. I don't know if the stocks did crash, but this doesn't mean that the traders didn't profit beforehand, or even afterwards somehow. I'm no share-trader so I don't know how, only that they did.

Look, the tests proved that the phones involved didn't work, at all altitudes of flight, I don't care about any other type of phone as that is obviously irrelevant. If you want to do your own tests, that's fine.

All I'm saying here is that it is suspicious, any number of things could have been the reason, but a lot of suspicious things added together paint a pretty good picture.

Not all people are cowards, especially not in a life-or-death situation. With those sort of numbers, against such poor weapons, it would have been next to impossible for them not to win.

I could ask you the same question. Where did you find it was wrong? As I said, this is all from notes I took nearly a year ago, as such, I doubt my sources would still be undoctored. I could say the same for yours.

Have you ever flown a plane? It's a lot harder than it looks, and they were flown for quite a distance before they even had to begin weaving between buildings.

Any plane can be equipped with auto-pilot technology if it is done deliberately.

Ha! Prove that it's not. You can't prove that it's not likely, but it allready is likely by the suspicious cirumstances.

Why would someone who had just heard of an attack on his city continue to calmy read for 20 minutes? Why would school-children do the same (if they did indeed see it on TV in their classroom)? We all know how much of a hot-head Bush is. It is all very unusual.

Look, these things don't necessairly prove anything specific, they only suggest extremely doubtful circumstances.

Even if I was to accept the fact that the CIA knew of a real terroist attack, and bungled it, that would in no way support your claim to their abilities - and why demote and re-locate the man who had brought this to their attention before the event took place? Not even afterwards as a scape-goat, but before.

Have you tried to sneak on board a plane? You will die in the luggage compartment, that is absolutely certain. I meant this in reference to the fact that there was no way of knowing who they were.

How would they possibly trace these other people without knowing who they were beforehand? We have all seen the failings of American intelligence in recent days.

No that is not true. The recorded conversations between the pilots were never found, because the black-box was missing. No actual controllers involved were interviewed, (allthough this may have happened, and probably did, at a later date).

I'm reffering to the part of the WTC which exploded, not the bottom floors, this applies to your next comment as well, and the one further down. You have very deftly avoided the actual point, that the blast should not have destroyed any of the steel.

As I said, these notes are old. That may have been, and more than likely is, billion, not trillion, but could have even been trillion when all factors involved are considered, and not in a few days, but a few months.

Ummm, the CIA was in control of all the old wharehouses and facilities. If you ask me someone turned a blind eye.

Yes, I would ask questions, and I have. 500 is a lot of things to doubt however, in any claim.

I am aware of the huge discrepencies between the Koran and the fundamentalism which is preached to the illiterate masses. These men were neither. They were well educated and had all at times been accepted into the CIA for training. It is well known that Carreat Air is owned, has has been used, by the CIA on numerous occasions. You cannot possibly be trying to say that no-one in the governments employ can own stocks or be a member of a board, because most of them do.

Also, I doubt that that building crashed on top of the black box at 800 000 feet s-2. Also, not all of the black boxes were found, and the recordings were far from intact. Why would all the recordings somehow be missing, and the black-boxes so damaged?

Look the proof is there if you are wiling to look for it, as I have. I'm not going to spend all my time doing this. I'm sure you can find some sort of old newsreels, and some commentaries on the actual damage, if you won't believe what anyone else says.

I see you have avoided commenting on the facts that the passports and notes somehow survived when not even the black-boxes remained intact,
(and why the hell would someone bring their passports and a note describing what they were going to do on board with them anyway, especially if they were going to sneak on board and not bring their luggage. Which they brought. Especially if they were going to blow everything up anyway. None of this makes sense at all. If they truly wanted to be identified they would have left those things with their luggage or something), and that one of the aircraft exploded before it crashed, along with skimming over the main points in many of the minutae I brought up, only focusing on something I said in relation to that fact.

I understand your reluctance to accept that the government was behind all this, but you cannot tell me that it is not suspicious.

Look, Ok I don't want to get into a mud-slinging match with anyone, and I'm not really concerned if people don't believe me. I'm an honest man, and I value the truth, and that includes being true to your morals, but if you want to call me a liar or an idiot or a psycho, I understand, and I can see the possibilities for all these things to be explained away. But alltogether this, and a lot of suspicious data, coupled with the fact that this is not an isolated incident, and these things are very common with cover-ups and covert ops that have occured in the past, make me very hesitant to trust what the US government tells me, and has convinced a lot of people of their guilt.

All I wanted to do was show that the administration cares little for any people, whether they are foreigners or even their own. This is obvious in all of its dealings, from things like this down to the constant legal wrangling to the misinformation of simple things like genetically modified foods. I just want people to start caring more about the important things in their lives, and to abbandon that which fills the lives of men like these. Please understand I am not critisizing all of America, but you must realise the downward spiral that has absorbed so many. Self-governance is the first step towards dissolution of this sort of society, and the quicker immorality no longer has a stranglehold the better. I admire those who would object to me for their determination, and their loyalty, but this could be applied in so many better ways. It is only when you remove yourself from something that you can begin to truly understand it.


Edit: I have just seen the previous two posts.
@Hacken Slash, are you serious that you would rather believe that your own government did this than it was the work of another country who had repeatedly suffered at the hands of said government? I sure as hell wouldn't. And Erebus is totally correct in what he says. The actions of America are in no way justified because of this, and they have repeatedly done considerably more damage, which has had considerably further reaching and longer lasting implications than any act by another country against America.

As I doubt that you are a Civil Engineer, or have studied the impact, can you tell me why you believe the testimony of one while not of those who reported the evidence I cited? This is the only report I have ever come across from an actual source, so the 2000 degree heat is new news to me. As such, I will leave debate on this temperature alone for now, but I ask You to admit, or at least consider, that the situation was very irregular, and that it was considrably more intense then would be expected. I have seen the photos of this and of other sites, and this one seems specifically peculiar in the amount and type of damage.

[ October 30, 2003, 17:56: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

Again, Occam's Razor.

I'm not sure why people are going to argue about this. You can't convince someone who really believes that there weren't alien landings at Roswell that they didn't occur. You can't convince someone who really believes that the Holocaust was made up that it really happened. If someone really believes that the moon landing was fake, then you aren't going to convince them otherwise.

That's the nature of a conspiracy theory. If someone wants to believe in a massive global and brilliant (ironically involving Bush) conspiracy rather than believe the simpler explanation then nobody will change that opinion.

Conspiracy theories are dogmatic in their nature. Trying to convince someone to abandon their dogma isn't possible. All we can do is note their belief and always keep it in mind when they're discussing that and similar subjects when we evaluate their views.

 

I am not trying to sling mud either (I am not sure if that remark was directed at myself or Rastor). I have only shown, and if necessary will provide documentation by Professional Engineers who have examined the failure, that you are clearly wrong in one of your allegations. If one is proven wrong, then all of the others need to be viewed with a more critical eye. Indeed, if a few more can be disproven, your entire argument will topple like a line of dominos (or a high rise tower)

Edit: I just caught your edit, Manus. A bit like a cat chasing it's tail. In answer to your question, yes I am an Engineer, not structural but in a closely related field, and I work for a large firm that was involved along with a sister company in the structural failure analysis as well as other items such environmental monitoring. We had teams at ground zero within 48 hours of the disaster. The reports and studies were very technical, and I don't pretend to understand all of them, but they do exist. Very watered down versions were released to the media, but some more complete coverage was provided in tech journals such ENR.

To tell the truth, I don't remember if 2000C was the exact temp cited, but that was ballpark. I may have seen it list as almost 3000F and I am converting in my head. Regardless, the temps encountered at the blast zone didn't even have to liquify the steel, only soften it to a point were the load capacity was compromised.

[ October 30, 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

Edit: Most of this may sound a little arrogant, as I had not read the previously edited post before responding, but I left it as I originally wrote it because I think that is the right thing to do (edit the second: especially after critisizing the governement for doing that very thing in another topic)- so for clarification please see the Edit at the bottom of this one. I hope I don't end up eating my foot, as I started to waver in my steadfast conviction even as I responded to Rastor.

I better go put on new socks.

End Edit.

Hey, I'm not steadfast in these views, nor am I accusing anyone else of being so in theirs. I'm just saying this is what I have heard or found, or have been told by people I respect and trust who do a lot of research into these things, and that we must take all of the spin we hear with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying anything is certain, only that based on what I know that it seems to me very likely that this was orchestrated by the government (and not particularly Bush himself either), and that it was indeed possible for it do have been so.

Perhaps we can all come to agreement on some points more closely related to the topic at hand, and I suggest these for discussion.

1.The American Government (and I'm not saying that any other is better, my own is just as bad, as I'm sure most are) is selfish and destructive in at least some of its actions.

2.The actions towards Iraq are some of these, and more harm than good has come from it, as it currently stands.

3.Agreements between countries or other large or small bodies mean little to the majority (over-all) of those in dominant control of the US, unless they can gain some sort of benefit by using some part of it.

[As a side note to this, and as a distantly related issue, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are many citizens of foreign countries (some allied to the US, in these events and others) who are being held in government facilities without the rights usually granted to either civil prisoners or prisoners of war, despite the requests on behalf of the countries they belong too. They were not detained within America, and are not subject to American Law. Even a Prisoner of War would have been released a long time ago.]

I know these are all negative, but they are in relation to the topic at hand. If anyone disagrees, feel free, and please also post any other statements which you feel we all may also come to agreement upon.

I am sorry for diverting this in such a manner, but I want to nip this conversation in the bud before it gets blown out of proportion, as I don't see it as vitally important to this topic, I only ever brought it up in such detail because I was asked too. In this, I am willing to agree to disagree, and everyone can make up their own minds on the evidence they are privvy to.

Edit: A cat chasing it's tail indeed. Hacken Slash, you obviously know a lot more about this subject than I do, so I agree I must then be incorrect. I know this does not bode well for the rest of my statements, but here the very nature of these circumstances is favourable, as I am merely trying to draw a picture of suspiscion - and little of them involve verifiable numbers. Some of these were tested independantly, and others are simply the conspicuous presence, or lack thereof of something in particular, or of the behaviour of parties involved. I admit I am far less sure of this than I was originally, but I am still certain that it is not unlikely, nor unheard-of.

Sorry for continuing to bring this up while I say I will not, but I feel every thing that is said by you "dis-believers" deserves a fair response.

[ October 30, 2003, 18:40: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

@Manus: I have been told that I am so stuborn that I would argue with a rock. The exchange of all ideas is appreciated. I have found a couple of sites that are excellent for all matters dealing with the WTC. The first is a complilation of all official documents:
Columbia University

and this second deals extensively on the structural failure investigation, which actually should reach it's completion in December.

NIST

these might be a good source to obtain accurate information. The NTSB site also has information on the recovery of the Flight Data Recorders and the Voice Data Recorders.

You questioned me about my unwillingness to believe that an outside source could orchestrate these attacks

The statement that I had made was mostly tongue in cheek, but I think that it is a little frightening to any American, seemingly secure in Fortress America, that a terrorist group could ever penetrate our defenses. That make sense? Easier almost to accept a domestic source, hell we could just vote the creeps out of office! That's the emotion I was going for.

I have stated in previous posts that I do not believe that the US has been lily white in it's rush to go to war with Iraq. There are legitimate areas for criticism, but we miss them when our best Liberal minds are involved in Snipe hunts.

I find it rather amusing that all of the Bush bashers could so openly belittle his intelligence in one thread, then ascribe an impossible to achieve devious plot to he and his cronnies. I guess he's sorta like Dr. Evil...just from Texas.

edit: Looks like I got my degrees F and degrees C mixed up in that earlier post, so the claims I made were applicable to F but not to C.

[ October 30, 2003, 23:06: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

That may have been true in the beginning, but things are changing. The current war in Iraq is looking more like another Vietnam with each passing day. The government lied its way into it, and is having to resort to spin and propaganda to keep up the morale, not only in the field, but at home as well. This war could yet be Bush's undoing.

Remember that Americans will only go along with these guys so far before they demand results: Where is Bin Laden? Where is Saddam? How long are we going to be there? How many more Americans are going to die in Iraq? How much will this cost us in dollars and resources which are needed at home? The final question will be: Why are we fighting this anyway, and who got us into this mess? Accountability is a sure thing, especially when the war is broadcast every night on TV.

If things don't improve before too long there will be a reckoning come next November. President Dean - it has sort of a nice ring - doesn't it?

[ October 31, 2003, 06:02: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos I agree with you, the emergence of these guerilla wariors are going to lead to worse things.

 

The emergence of the guerrilla warriors wasn't really a surprise. The military said so. The ISIS said so. And Washington's ruling elite didn't care, because they, having never even served the military, let alone fought in a war, knew better than their generals.

Actually it's amazing that the develoment in Iraq and Afganistan has run that similar.

Faced with an overwhelming US firepower and the notice that exposure to it means certain death the Taleban decided for a tactical withdrawal. They took some beating, gave up pre-industrial cities they didn't need except for presige and went underground to reform. And they succeeded. Their leader is still on the loose, and they already retook one province of Afganistan. Yet Bush has for long declared Afganistan a victory.

Saddam has learned this lesson from Afganistan and from his own experience, the defeat of his army in the open desert, massacred by US standoff weapons and aerial bombardment: He decided for tactical withdrawal as well, took some heavy beating, but withdrew his forces, aided by foolish US administration officials who aided him by dissolving the iraqi army, releasing hundrets of thousands iraqis without a purpose, without job and a growing frustration. Better still, the non-soldiers join the fray as well, and fighting will of a population with some 60% young (under 30) and angry has been aroused in the region.
And all what counts is the feeling of the iraqis they are to be controlled and ruled by washington, it doesn't need more. Yet Bush has declared victory by landing on an aircraft carrier.

Neither the conquest of Baghdad or Tikrit nor the conquest of Kabul have been a victory. They are just tactical successes. They didn't break the fighting will of the opponent, and that is a necessity for victory. I agree with Rumsfeld: This will be a long hard slug. With one exception: It doesn't need to be so.

[ October 31, 2003, 16:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The Iraqis can keep war going as long as they want, this is an unessesary(sp?) conflict.