[tyme]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html
(That's John le Carré aka David John Moore Cornwell.)

I may not agree with him, but he has more political experience and has certainly done more research into the right-wing policies of various countries than most of us. He bashes on Britain just as much as the U.S., so it's tough to argue bias or social conditioning.

[Sodbuster]

the Bush junta
As some of you may know, I would agree with that description.

[Hkmp5sd]

He all but claims that Bush STARTED the war in a Wag the Dog scenerio.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in Iraqi lives?

He needs to cut back on his Prozac a little and replace the tin foil in his hat.

[Waitone]

I'm sure glad the piece was labelled opinion.

This piece ought to be in the Guiness Book of World Records for the highest concentration of leftist, Euro-weenie bilge in a confined space.

I won't bother refuting it line by line. Wouldn't make any difference.

Reading it made remember something that Great American Philosopher (my father) told me when I was young. Dad said, "Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You waste your time, and you'll irritate the pig."

[rock jock]

Typical socialist drival.

[Felonious Monk]

This is right out of the Michael Parenti/Noam Chomski "America is Evil", 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' songbook. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and the FedGov is masterminding and perpetuating crack sales in the ghetto to keep the black man down.

Tinfoil pyramid, anyone? :D

[CMichael]

Opinions are like a-------, everyone has one :rolleyes:

[Sodbuster]

I knew the reaction to this piece would be immediate and severe, so I jumped in first. :D Makes for a lively board, eh?

[PATH]

I concur with CMichael!

[Destructo6]

I didn't know the Daily Worker was still around.

[Khornet]

It is of that which is found south of northbound camel.

[NewShooter78]

I don't know if I'll agree with every "opinion" in the article, but does anyone really think we should go to war with Iraq? I don't like S.H. anymore than any of you, but does anyone really think that this supposed planned war is for the good of the world. Bush would have been better off not saying anything and sending in some snipers to take him out quietly, now if anything were to happen to him we will be blamed. And the author is right how our attention has been turned from finding Osama, to war with Iraq and the deposing of S.H. Its pretty bad when we are threatening to go to war with Iraq and one of its own enemies, Iran, is supporting the Iraqi position. Do any of you even really like Bush? The one thing I call most into question is the 88% of Americans that supposedly support war with Iraq. I don't know anyone who thinks we should do that, and I know a wide variety of politically affiliated people. Guess that'll do for know. Flame on!

[CMichael]

Hi New Shooter :)

Saddam is far more dangerous to the US than OBL. Saddam controls vast resources in the form of large amounts of money due to oil.

Saddam supports and trains terrorist organizations that target the US. Then when an attack occurs like the WTC he just blames it on the "fringe" organizations.

The US needs to gain the respect of the state sponsored terrorist states. If they believe that their regime will be ousted if they support terrorism against the US they will be less likely to do so.

If terrorist organizations don't have the state sponsorship they can't function efficiently. Where will they train and organize from?

So yes I do support the war with Iraq. I think it's the right thing to do for the good of the US.

[Waitone]

We've been through the same kind of comments in the 1970's. Yes, we've had terrorism before. Yes, lots of it was Islamic and Palestinian. Yes, lots of fear and carnage. And yes, we had the same kind of attitudes. Somehow people still think terrorism is a nut with a gun. They think it is based in sociological reasons of poverty, etc.

We learned in the 70's and those who remember the lesson know terrorism would not exist without state sponsors. The US and the Soviet Union went nose to nose during the Cuban Missile Fiasco. The sovs blinked and the standoff was resolved without big bangs. One of the consequences was the sovs determined they would never again take the US on directly. They set about igniting worldwide terrorism. They supported anyone and anything that exercised terrorism all in an effort to destabilize the US (AKA The West). Go to any terrorist group in existence at the time and you will find the Sovs participation.

Shift to today. Terror groups gain their support from Islamic countries not the soviet union. Their tactics are to destabilize or destroy the US (Christian societies). They attack marginal countries. The fight an asymetric war against us. No different that the Cold War.

What is different is the general availability of what we now call WMD. So now instead of shooting up Lod Airport and murdering 30+ Israelies, we now sweat out a dirty bomb or an engineered eboli virus.

In other words, the punch these terrorist groups have is all out of proportion with their size. They must be shut down and the only way to do so is to shut down the state sponsors.

The war on Islamofascist terrorists is not like a world war as much as it is similar to the cold war with religiously motivated opponents.

[CMichael]

Excellent post Wait :)

[JohnBT]

Dern, I can't decide. The Bush administration is totally inept or the Bush Administration is the most successfully devious government I've ever heard of. Ooooh, and they can keep a secret too.

Nah. The guy's been reading his own books.

John

P.S. - Does anyone agree that we should go to war with Iraq?

This is simply the end of the Gulf War, much the same as WWI and WWII were really the same war with an intermission. We have been at war with him for more than ten years and we should have finished him off the first time and didn't.

[JerryN]

Its really irritating when one finds a twinkie-headed journalist who insists that he knows more than the combined intel of the NSA, CIA, FBI, and the combined allied intel of the European allied governments. Do you think we "just like wars"? Or, I propose that perhaps our government has a teensy little bit of scientific input that this tabloid gob-flapper doesn't have.

And here I just thought that most left-wing fanatical writers like this guy were lobotomized New Agers. Come to find out they are all-seeing geniuses and we should jolly well modify our view of the world to conform to the rantings found in trashy UK rags. :rolleyes:

[Admiral Thrawn]

"This is simply the end of the Gulf War, much the same as WWI and WWII were really the same war with an intermission. We have been at war with him for more than ten years and we should have finished him off the first time and didn't."

Exactly.

[Art Eatman]

While I agree with Waitone's analysis, I still think that we really and truly got into state-supported insanity in the U.S. with the emplacement of LBJ's Great Society programs--which have grown and grown and grown...Worse than Topsy.

I dunno. From my perspective, the whole derned world's gone totally nutzoidal.

Art

[Derek Zeanah]

A buddy sent me this this morning, titled Frodo Has Failed:

http://www.madhack.com/~madhack/frodo_has_failed.jpg

I've got to say I'm not buying into the hype. I don't particularly like Saddam Hussein, but I don't believe he had anything to do with the World Trade Center getting nailed. As far as I can tell, he's a standard petty dictator who happens to command a country rich in natural resources. I'd guess that Osama Bin Ladin would hate him more than he hates us, as Hussein claims to be a devout Moslem. :rolleyes:

I don't think Hussein wants to do anything to antagonize us, as he can hold on to power as long as he stays on our good side. Anyone think Hussein subscribes to any ideology other than personal (or maybe family) power? Anyone really believe he's helping terrorists? Any evidence other than the Executive branch making allegations? Anyone care to claim that taking out Hussein hasn't been on Bush's to-do list since before the election (wasn't that even something he admitted to during the campaign)?

Anyone think Iraq is a larger threat to our security than North Korea, or China?

Now, I do happen to believe that the best way to get WMD's into OBL's hands is to make SH think he has nothing less to lose.

As far as this article goes, I think the writer is a little off to the left. But it was a refreshing take on the subject.

[Art Eatman]

"I'd guess that Osama Bin Ladin would hate him more than he hates us, as Hussein claims to be a devout Moslem."

Were it anywhere but the Arab world, I could go along with this idea. Problem is, OBL by virtue of his dealings with us in Afghanistan in the late 1970s/early1980s showed he believes that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (The converse is also true; witness Israel.) There has been an unending history of shifting alliances throughout the Arab world.

There is indeed the issue of secular vs. religious, between Hussein and bin Laden. Much stronger and more meaningful, IMO, is the fact they are both Arabs.

For Hussein to make various materiel available to Al Quaida is very reminiscent of Russia's supplying the VC and the NVA. A small cost to the one can lead to great costs to the U.S. The relative cost of extending force is an important parameter in any war, in any type of war--whether conventional, guerrilla, or terroistic.

Art

[JerryN]

This sort of stuff is getting so tiring...

"Osama Bin Ladin would hate him more than he hates us, as Hussein claims to be a devout Moslem."

Neither one of these murderous bastards has the slightest clue what being a muslim entails. Hussein hires professional rapists to sully the female companions of his enemies IN FRONT OF HIS ENEMIES. Is that the muslim religion? Is whacking thousands of helpless civilians by burning them alive in jet fuel part of the muslim religion?

"No", to both questions. True muslims have nothing to do with these mutants. Your claims otherwise indicate either an apalling lack of awareness of this culture or a fatal and wasteing case of liberal facism. The latter is the most deadly.

[JerryN]

I thought I was done, but then I went back and read this drivel...

"Anyone really believe he's helping terrorists? Any evidence other than the Executive branch making allegations?"

Come now, laddie. Do you really know more than the combined forces of the NSA, CIA, FBI, Mossad and MI6? Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Libya agree with Mr. Bush. Do you really have more and better intel than these veryveryvery high tech and professional organizations? Please tell me you do have better intel than they do and that your opinion is better informed than their knowledge. Please tell me that. This is question number 1 (#1)

Are you so certain that this is all just the mere whim of a bored politician? George W. Bush is just having a good time? Thats a fascinating theory. Please educate us as to why you think that the leading political minds on the planet just "wanna have fun" by killing people and blowing up stuff. This is question number 2 (#2).

I, and others, eagerly await your insightful spewage.

To facilitate your responses, I have provided prompts for you:

Question #1:


Question #2:


Please answer them as best you can. We will analyze the answers and post your test results soon.

[Derek Zeanah]

True muslims have nothing to do with these mutants. Your claims otherwise indicate either an apalling lack of awareness of this culture or a fatal and wasteing case of liberal facism. The latter is the most deadly.Re-read the post. Where did I claim either were a good representation of Islam?
Question #1:
Re: "Better intel than all those guys that we all implicitly trust..."

I believe if the claims were based on solid intel, it would be a no-brainer to direct the UN inspection teams to the locations of the WMD's they've been looking for. Any evidence of their existence from a third-party (UN) would give bush the legitimacy to invade Iraq that he seems to have been looking for since this whole thing started.

Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and Libya agree with Mr. BushIs that "they agree with the legitimacy of Bush's mission and also believe Iraq possesses WMD's in violation of his agreement with the UN," or is that "yeah, his neighbors want him offed too? Likely for reasons having nothing to do with Bush?"

NSA, CIA, FBI, Mossad and MI6? ... these veryveryvery high tech and professional organizations?I'm assuming by the way you phrased this that there's nothing that any of these organizations have done in the last decade or so that you disapprove of, or that might cause you to believe they're nothing more than agencies that function at the whim of whoever's in charge at the moment? Or do you just question their actions and/or motives on issues you disagree with.

Question #2:I've got to say that this is a tough one, and the article referenced above gave the best hypothesis I've seen: "he tried to kill my daddy."

Maybe you can answer it better? You were pretty intent on getting answers out of me, but didn't answer any of mine. True of false: Bush said he wanted Hussein out of power while he was still campaigning. Why do you think that was? Could that serve as your own answer to your second question?

I, and others, eagerly await your insightful spewage.Thanks, dude. I appreciate your calm, collected, and polite manner. Way to take the high road. :rolleyes:

[JerryN]

You didn't ask any questions. You downloaded your Euro-trash style liberal complaints. I asked the questions, which, I note, you seemed to not be able to answer.

You seem to have more intel than the worlds best intel organizations. Where do you get your information? Please answer this. Don't ask me a question. Answer this. Damn, bud, there is an Oprah special edition waiting for you if you have such good intel!

Please answer the questions. They weren't that difficult. I purposely made them easy. Almost ebonic. Please answer them. Stop asking me questions in return. It was you, after all, making such grandiose statements.

I just want to know if I should believe you or the combined intelligence of the worlds foremost spy agencies.

[faustulus]

We learned in the 70's and those who remember the lesson know terrorism would not exist without state sponsors. The US and the Soviet Union went nose to nose during the Cuban Missile Fiasco. The sovs blinked and the standoff was resolved without big bangs. One of the consequences was the sovs determined they would never again take the US on directly. They set about igniting worldwide terrorism. They supported anyone and anything that exercised terrorism all in an effort to destabilize the US (AKA The West). Go to any terrorist group in existence at the time and you will find the Sovs participation.
No offense but that is a VERY one sided view of the world. The U.S. did the exact same thing. (Take Osama bin Laden as an example)

In other words, the punch these terrorist groups have is all out of proportion with their size. They must be shut down and the only way to do so is to shut down the state sponsors.

While it is true that state sponsored terrorism is dangerous and needs to be weeded out, it is almost impossible to link the nations conclusively to a terrorist act, (its called plausible deniablity). Iraq is the least of our worries. Iran is really more known for sponsoring terrorism as its government is fundamentally religious, Iraq on the other hand is a secular government, paying little more than lip serivce to Islam. There are several factors playing out in Herr Bush's desire for war, but the "Iraqi threat" isn't one of them.

Do you really know more than the combined forces of the NSA, CIA, FBI, Mossad and MI6?
Yeah weren't those the guys who forcast the fall of the soviets, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and Sept 11. Oh wait they didn't have any more of a clue than the rest of us.:rolleyes:

As far as threats to world security and weapons of mass destruction go, what about India and Pakistan? Here are two nuclear powers which have fought two wars in the last fifty years over a strech of contested land who shell each other every day and have both said they would use nukes agaisnt the other. Now throw in a third nuclear power (China) and bring to a boil. We know all three of these nations have nukes and have dilvery systems, no need for weapons inspectors. How about China's impending move to retake Tiwain? North Korea? Saddam is way down the lists of world problems. Lets face it if he wasn't sitting on oil he would be just like all the African dictators that none of us can name. Annoying but not really pressing.

[Derek Zeanah]

Originally posted by Derek Zeanah:
Anyone think Hussein subscribes to any ideology other than personal (or maybe family) power? Anyone really believe he's helping terrorists? Any evidence other than the Executive branch making allegations? Anyone care to claim that taking out Hussein hasn't been on Bush's to-do list since before the election (wasn't that even something he admitted to during the campaign)?

Anyone think Iraq is a larger threat to our security than North Korea, or China?

Re-read the post. Where did I claim either were a good representation of Islam?

Originally posted by JerryN
You didn't ask any questions. You downloaded your Euro-trash style liberal complaints. I asked the questions, which, I note, you seemed to not be able to answer.
Uhn. Yeah.

See my prior posts to this thread for references to each of your points. If the question marks in the statements quoted here don't identify them as "questions" in your mind though, you may end up having trouble finding my replies in the last post. Here are a few though, broken down to be easier to digest.

Question1:

Subanswer a) Your question seems to be rhetorical, as readers here will naturally assume that no single poster is an intelligence agency unto themselves, and no-one is able to compete with agencies with hundred-billion-dollar infrastructure.

Subanswer b) The intelligence agencies you seem to trust implicitly have been given the opportunity to prove their worth: they've claimed they have proof that Hussein has WMD's, and when asked to provide proof (or simply use their infallible intelligence to guide the UN teams to their locations), they've either refused or failed to do so. This suggests a lack of credible intelligence, does it not?

So, how good is that intelligence really? Is there any reason to accept its validity? Would you accept it if this was a Justice Department run by Janet Reno, and Louis Freeh running the FBI? Is it enough reason to spend $300,000,000,000 and risk the lives of US Soldiers? If you answer "yes," it's likely because you believe that it would be worth doing whether Hussein has WMD's or not, whether he's developing them or not, and whether he poses any real threat to the US or not. And at that point, the debate will turn on legitimacy.

Question2: <sigh> Did you read my post: I've got to say that this is a tough one, and the article referenced above gave the best hypothesis I've seen: "he tried to kill my daddy." Counter-question presented, which you refused to respond to. My point. :neener:

Look, there's reasoned debate, and there are emotion-filled arguments that refuse to answer to reason. It's not worth even trying to discuss the issue if all it's going to come down to is "my beliefs, and those leaders that I choose to trust, and my emotions on this issue are better than yours, you damn smarmy liberal."

BTW, if you're seriously calling me a liberal, you haven't read many of my posts. :evil:

[Chris Rhines]

Knowing more than the CIA, MI6, Mossad, et al., is simply a matter of reading more newspapers and watching more CNN than they do. ;)

- Chris

[JerryN]

I suppose it is all mostly rhetorical. Both points of view. The point is made, however, that we don't have the information that the government has.

And no, the intel community is not going to appear on CNN for your benefit and say stuff like "Our spy, whose name is Muhammad Bin Hidin, and whose address is 13 Bagdad Bunker Rd, and who is a close confidant of S.H., has fed us very damaging information regarding aforementioned dictator's WMDs"

The cloak 'n dagger boys aren't likely to tip their hand even if the press gets really, really irritated and pesters them mercilessly.

[Chris Rhines]

The real reason that the cloak n' dagger boys won't tip their hand is because... the hand is empty.

- Chris

[Art Eatman]

Chris, lemme disagree with you a bit about empty hands.

I guess the best example would be back when Libya was seriously considering the nerve gas business. They claimed the structures were for pesticide manufacture. Two questions immediately arose: One, why was the facility located way out in the middle of nowhere? Two, why were they largely underground and guarded by military? It's well know that the chemicals for pesticides are readily used in the manufacture of nerve gas.

Similar deal when large amounts of either are shipped to Colombia. You know danged well it's going to a cocaine lab, even if you don't know the lab's location.

So: It's public information, in the world press for years, about the purchases of nuclear material, precision machinery and chemicals by the Iraqi government. It is known that certain types of WMD scientists are employed there.

We know as fact that germ warfare production facilities can be hidden away in fairly small buildings. Your home would be adequately sized. How does a UN inspection team investiage every building in a country?

While I doubt there is much exact knowledge as to the exact location of some of Iraq's WMD efforts, I have no doubt whatsoever as to Iraq's efforts.

I have even less doubt :) as to Hussein's willingness to use WMD. Anybody who personally does his own killing to rise to and retain power is indeed ruthless. His only restraints involve HIS ideas of risk vs. reward. Not your ideas, nor my ideas, nor Dubya's ideas.

Art

[Coronach]

Gentlemen.

Please endevor to keep the discussion civil. Spirited debate an discourse is excellent...but always remember two general rules:

Think twice, post once.

Take the high road.

Thank you,
Mike

[faustulus]

Ok say we all agree that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
Why is he more dangerous than the others mentioned?
Really I think it has to boil down to two things, one the financial aspects -- Bush has already said the U.S. would consider using oil reveunes to pay for the clean up, and who knows what else. and two the personal attack on his father.

And I tend to agree with Chris the intelligence community has dropped to many balls recently for me to have much faith in them.