Saddam Said No WMD so Iran Would Not Know

[a-train]

So I can't help but mention the involvement of the U.S. in that senseless war. That war solved nothing. It only hurt the two nations and allowed the breeding of radicalism and terrorism. The U.S. was funding that war.

-a-train

[NeuroTypical]

He also hoped we'd do what we've done in the past: have our usual short attention span and go home before the job was done.

Can you give us a reference for that? When did he say that?

From a Feb'07 Stratfor Intelligence Report:

Perceptions of American Resolve

Long before the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Osama bin Laden clearly stated that, in the jihadists' opinion, the United States was not prepared to fight a war of attrition.

Prior to 9/11, bin Laden's public statements conveyed his dim view of the U.S. military's capabilities and resolve, as well as of the willingness of the U.S. government (and to a larger extent, the American people) to take casualties in a sustained war. In a 1997 interview with Peter Arnett, bin Laden said, "We learned from those who fought [in Somalia] that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return."

It is widely believed that the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon, following the 1983 Marine barracks bombing, and from Somalia in 1993 were important precedents in driving the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The jihadists believed that if they killed enough Americans, U.S. forces would leave Saudi Arabia.

Bin Laden's opinion of U.S. resolve was not shaken by the "shock and awe" campaign that was unleashed in Afghanistan and, later, Iraq. In a February 2003 message, he said, "We can conclude that America is a superpower, with enormous military strength and vast economic power, but that all this is built on foundations of straw. So it is possible to target those foundations and focus on their weakest points which, even if you strike only one-tenth of them, then the whole edifice will totter and sway, and relinquish its unjust leadership of the world."

Bin Laden and other jihadist strategists often have stressed that the U.S. economy is one of the foundations to be attacked. However, another significant -- and in their view, vulnerable -- target is morale.

And if he did, now YOU are spreading his propaganda by your definition.

I didn't give any definition. But since you asked:

prop·a·gan·da - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

The difference between me and thee: You think bin Laden is right, and you use his statement, coupled with statements about the financial cost of the war, to argue your point. I quote bin Laden because you want a source to confirm that he believes what I claimed he believes.

Regardless, Question: Did the Soviet Union go bankrupt? Why? Did it have to do with the expense of their war in Afghanistan? Are we following a similar path?

Yes. Numerous reasons, but I believe a major factor was because the US forced them into an arms race they couldn't afford. Afghanistan was a part of that - how large a part, I do not know. I would assume the cost of developing, building deploying, and maintaining their nuclear weaponry dwarfed their Afghanistan spending. But I'm not an expert.

No, we are not following a similar path.

Two major differences:

We're not in an arms race.

Defense spending as a percentage of GNP has budged a little, but not nearly enough to justify all the sensational language people are using along the lines of "whirlpools of debt that will suck our kids to their doom".

PS, I meant trillion, it was a typo.

Oh, we have no argument about the astronomical size of the numbers we're talking about. However, I don't seem to have any emotional attachment to the impact of words like "billions" and "trillion", because I have a halfway-decent understanding of the size of the 13 trillion per year US economy.

LM

[PentiumInside]

A-train: You act like the US involvment in other nations and conflicts over the last 100 years was some sort of immoral thing. It is not. It was how world politics were played. We happened to play it better than most last century. Now however, that way of thinking and way of doing world business has changed. We dont operate that way anymore, or should I say to a smaller extent. The US has done some shady things int he past..just like every other nation. I make no apologies for them, and I enjoy the fruits of our efforts. So do you. So before you get too magnanimous about it, it's those very decisions and actions that are allowing us to whine to each other over the internet :)

[a-train]

'If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem.' — George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

So what you are saying is that we are not playing into the hands of our enemies, they are wrong about our resolve, they are wrong about our financial capacity, and the debt we are going into to fight them is no big deal. You believe that we will either ultimately wipe them out and build democracy in the middle east, or stay there indefinitely without ever running out of resolve or money or credit.

Is that right?

If the proper way to weigh the bill for this war is to line it up against GDP, and if our current annual expenditure for this war is almost 4% of GDP and that is not too much, how much would you say IS too much?

Also, I understand we are not in an arms race, but the government we had for the arms race was not as large or as expensive as the government we have now. Some estimates say that the cost of the arms race was 10% over GDP in its highest year. However, this was at a time when the overall debt was lower over GDP than it is right now.

Plus, the 2/3 of GDP supported by consumer spending is supported by an America that has many times the consumer debt it had in the Cold War.

Now I agree that the American people could pay for all this, we can make sacrifices to pay for this war as we have in the past. We can at least for now, but at what point are we willing to go? And why are we going to that point? Just to prove ol' bin Laden wrong?

Sticks and stones, Right?

Now neither of us here are on his side. He mentioned the unjust rule that the U.S. has over the world. Understanding the mindset of our enemy is necessary. Middle-easterners, perhaps not all, and various people all over the planet perceive U.S. activities as imperialistic. It is difficult to erase that view as long as we are building bases there.

The big question becomes: What are we trying to accomplish long-term? Are we working to a worldwide network of bases and an enforcement of 'democracy'? Another question is: Who gets to decide what we are going to accomplish? Should we trust the suggestions of the Counsel on Foreign Relations and let them decide? Should the Congress decide? Should the American people decide?

-a-train

[a-train]

Before you get too magnanimous about it, it's those very decisions and actions that are allowing us to whine to each other over the internet :)

So, in your opinion, the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister and the funding of Saddam led to our freedom of speech?

And now, are you of the opinion that the Patriot Act is also providing us the freedom of speech?

Are you of the opinion that the LORD gave us the freedom we enjoy because we were better liars and murderers than other nations over the past 100 years?

-a-train

[PentiumInside]

So, in your opinion, the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister and the funding of Saddam led to our freedom of speech?

It was a good idea til he got it in his head he didn't need us anymore. I make no excuses or apologies for our political manipulation. Its just not how things get done in 2008. If it were I would back it 100% still....you preachin at the wrong part of the crowd Atrain :)

Find someone else to hate on the US with you, Ill have no part in it. Even though we have done some INCREDIBLY stupid things in the past lol.

Are you of the opinion that the LORD gave us the freedom we enjoy because we were better liars and murderers than other nations over the past 100 years?

That one Ill agree with! yes

[NeuroTypical]

So what you are saying is that we are not playing into the hands of our enemies, they are wrong about our resolve, they are wrong about our financial capacity, and the debt we are going into to fight them is no big deal. You believe that we will either ultimately wipe them out and build democracy in the middle east, or stay there indefinitely without ever running out of resolve or money or credit.

Is that right?

Not quite.

We are not playing into the hands of our enemies, in that our response to Bin Laden included countering his attempt to create popular uprisings and overthrow secular governments.

I sure hope they are wrong about our resolve. 2007 saw great gains in Iraq, quite a bit due to the surge, and the Iraqis take their lives into their own hands more and more every day. I would say, compared to pre-surge realities, we are winning the war in Iraq, and al-qaeda is losing in Iraq.

I can't say anything even remotely optimistic about Afghanistan.

They are wrong if they think they're bleeding the US dry, and will bankrupt us if they but fight longer.

Govt deficits and govt debt is a big deal and very important. I'm in favor of balanced budgets, and low debt. If I knew how to have a govt that could exercise self-discipline instead of incentivizing coalitions and voting blocks, I'd go campaign for it.

I do not believe we will wipe out militant islamists, and I'm not hugely hopeful for any sort of democratic revolution in the middle east. I am hopeful, at least in Iraq, that we can win the hearts of the people such that they chose not to side with Al Qaeda. I believe that many efforts to marginalize, destroy, counter, and bleed dry militant islam, are worth the price. I hope that we will grow into a strong presence in the middle east, and if we do so, it will serve our energy needs, as well as have a positive effect on the global economy.

I do not believe that such a strong presence without ever drain us of money or credit - any more than our presence in Japan and Europe has. After the bases are built and the shooting and shouting stops, it's not a matter of resolve any more.

at what point are we willing to go? And why are we going to that point? Just to prove ol' bin Laden wrong?

...

The big question becomes: What are we trying to accomplish long-term?

The USA 'winning' means the following:

* Stable supply of oil flowing from that region at market prices.

* Soveriegn nations that don't tolerate, support, fund, or house terrorist elements.

* Fewer and/or weaker state enemies.

Now neither of us here are on his side.

...

Understanding the mindset of our enemy is necessary.

These two statements are very different than when I pointed out you were providing Al Qaeda propaganda, and you said "Refreshing isn't it?". I'm glad to hear you clarify.

LM

[a-train]

Find someone else to hate on the US with you

Nobody is hating on the U.S. here. Why do you want to turn this into something it is not? The states, the people, we didn't seek to overthrow a foreign government. This was the work of corrupt government answering the wishes of corporate interests. All we need to do is acknowledge the situation and do what is right.

-a-train

[a-train]

The USA 'winning' means the following:

* Stable supply of oil flowing from that region at market prices.

* Soveriegn nations that don't tolerate, support, fund, or house terrorist elements.

* Fewer and/or weaker state enemies.

Couldn't we just buy the oil from the nations over there at market prices. There is no need for any war or regime change to get that. What are they going to do with it if we don't buy it, drink it?

Terrorism is about the most vague and ridiculous purpose for invasion thinkable. If we invaded every country with a citizen or group of citizens that committed a crime against Americans, we would be in every nation on earth.

If by some unprecedented miracle our occupation actually lowers the number of enemy states or their strength, it would certainly be a first. The Soviet Union certainly didn't get that. What is the basis for the notion that invasions, regime changes, and occupations will create allies or at a minimum weaken enemies? Also, what real threat do these 3rd world nations pose anyway? So what if some roaches a world away are our enemies?

-a-train

[NeuroTypical]

* Stable supply of oil flowing from that region at market prices.

Couldn't we just buy the oil from the nations over there at market prices. There is no need for any war or regime change to get that. What are they going to do with it if we don't buy it, drink it?

That's a bit naive. The corrupt UN Oil for food program, what Saadam did to the Kuait oil fields when retreating, Iran's various threats to mine the strait of Hormuz, the terrorist attacks Saudi Arabia have experienced on their oil facilities, the occasionally semi-effective OPEC power plays - all of these are things that tinker with the economic situation. Are you saying that Bin Laden's caliphate would happily do business with the west? You should do more thinking on that subject.

* Soveriegn nations that don't tolerate, support, fund, or house terrorist elements.

Terrorism is about the most vague and ridiculous purpose for invasion thinkable. If we invaded every country with a citizen or group of citizens that committed a crime against Americans, we would be in every nation on earth.

Reread my statement. "Terrorism" isn't what I'm talking about. State-sponsors of terrorism is. We're not talking about attacking countries with terrorist cells that have entered a country and set themselves up. We're talking about attacking Iraq because Zarqawi was there under Saadam. Abu Nidal, the most wanted terrorist in the world, used to work out of an Iraqi office, as an arm of the Iraqi state. The guy who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat was protected by Saadam's Iraq. The guy who mixed the chemicals to blow up the twin towers in 1993 was sheltered by Saadam. These guys don't get sheltered and supported and aided in too many places of the world.

Invading a sovereign nation in order to kill the terrorists in it, is certainly unjustifiable and counterproductive in most cases. But there was a very good case for regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq.

* Fewer and/or weaker state enemies.

If by some unprecedented miracle our occupation actually lowers the number of enemy states or their strength, it would certainly be a first. What is the basis for the notion that invasions, regime changes, and occupations will create allies or at a minimum weaken enemies?

What is Iraq, if not a clear, unambiguous example? And again, I think you may need to read up on history a bit more. A former member of the Soviet Union let us stage forces out of their country when going into Afghanistan. The Pakistani ISI, and the Saudian Arabian intelligence services went from working against us to working with us. And again, Libya gave up their WMD program and kicked terrorists out largely due to our actions in Iraq.

This "certainly would be a first" attitude baffles me. Japan is our ally, because we gained their unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild - and we continue to occupy them to this day. Germany and Italy aren't out trying to take over the world any more, because we won wars against them and occupied them.

Also, what real threat do these 3rd world nations pose anyway? So what if some roaches a world away are our enemies?

You should ask friends and family of 9/11 victims - they can give you a much better answer than I can. You should ask the friends and relatives of the 270 people killed over Locherbie, or everyone Abu Nidal ever killed, or survivors of acts of the Provisional IRA, the Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Umkhonto We Sizwe, the Polisario Front, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Moro National Liberation Front.

Ask the survivors of these groups' actions. "Hi there, I know your sibling/child/friend/spouse was murdered by terrorists trained in/armed by/paid by various podunk nothing 3rd world countries. I just don't see the threat these nations pose - would you care to explain it to me?"

LM

[a-train]

That's a bit naive. The corrupt UN Oil for food program, what Saadam did to the Kuait oil fields when retreating, Iran's various threats to mine the strait of Hormuz, the terrorist attacks Saudi Arabia have experienced on their oil facilities, the occasionally semi-effective OPEC power plays - all of these are things that tinker with the economic situation. Are you saying that Bin Laden's caliphate would happily do business with the west? You should do more thinking on that subject.

I don't understand. Did bin Laden's caliphate take over the middle east oil supply? Wasn't the lowest oil production rate in recent history for Iran and/or Iraq when Iraq (funded by the U.S.) invaded Iran? Even the Iranian revolution which spooked the market so much didn't lower their production rate substantially enough to really matter. Price movements and concerns at the time were panics that turned out to be unwarranted as the Saudis more than made up for the so-called 'shortage'. We have been able to buy oil from Iraq and Iran for a hundred years no matter what their political situation.

Besides, so what if they totally shut us off? Iraq and Iran don't even supply 10% of the planet's oil. Canada has more reserves than Iran now. The bigger question is whether we should be over there fighting the terrorists for those countries. Why don't we just let THEM handle their own terrorist problems?

Reread my statement. "Terrorism" isn't what I'm talking about. State-sponsors of terrorism is. We're not talking about attacking countries with terrorist cells that have entered a country and set themselves up. We're talking about attacking Iraq because Zarqawi was there under Saadam. Abu Nidal, the most wanted terrorist in the world, used to work out of an Iraqi office, as an arm of the Iraqi state. The guy who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat was protected by Saadam's Iraq. The guy who mixed the chemicals to blow up the twin towers in 1993 was sheltered by Saadam. These guys don't get sheltered and supported and aided in too many places of the world.

Now I certainly agree that an attack on the U.S. by a foreign country is an act of war and should be treated as such, regardless of whether they used an open army or some covert operation. But with regard to our current situation, we must have conflicting information.

The CIA reported that they did NOT believe Zarqawi (who was not an Iraqi) was acting for Saddam. However, they didn't say they had proof he wasn't connect to Saddam either. Nidal was not Iraqi at all and if I understand correctly he was either killed by Saddam's people or committed suicide as they tried to arrest him (apparently there is a dispute about whether they shot him or he shot himself).

In short, as far as I can tell, the connection of Saddam to terrorism was loose at best. It is clear that he was an enemy to and did kill many terrorists. Plus, the bulk of those we see some tie to didn't attack the U.S. did they?

Invading a sovereign nation in order to kill the terrorists in it, is certainly unjustifiable and counterproductive in most cases. But there was a very good case for regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I cannot see this case. Where is the smoking gun? When did Iraq strike the U.S.?

What is Iraq, if not a clear, unambiguous example? And again, I think you may need to read up on history a bit more. A former member of the Soviet Union let us stage forces out of their country when going into Afghanistan. The Pakistani ISI, and the Saudian Arabian intelligence services went from working against us to working with us. And again, Libya gave up their WMD program and kicked terrorists out largely due to our actions in Iraq.

Iraq is a clear unambiguous example that a military occupation will only bring global support to record lows. Have you been seeing some indication that the world is loving us right now? That's not what I'm hearing.

Are we on good terms with the Soviet Union because of this conflict or because we have made progress with them in general? I guess we can hope the Saudis and Pakistanis are working with us, time will tell. Do we really trust that things are all good in Libya? These are some very optimistic views.

This "certainly would be a first" attitude baffles me. Japan is our ally, because we gained their unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild - and we continue to occupy them to this day. Germany and Italy aren't out trying to take over the world any more, because we won wars against them and occupied them.

But we cannot prove that Saddam ever struck us at all, much less tried to take over the world. Plus, the west didn't fund and promote the invasion of Poland (at least that I know of), but it did fund and promote Iraq in invading Iran. The world celebrated the fall of the NAZIs because they clearly struck first, there is no happy dance on this current occupation. And our 'occupations' of Germany, Japan, and elsewhere (which we should remove BTW) aren't anything like Iraq. Our troops aren't enforcing German law or patroling German streets. Or are they?

You should ask friends and family of 9/11 victims - they can give you a much better answer than I can. You should ask the friends and relatives of the 270 people killed over Locherbie, or everyone Abu Nidal ever killed, or survivors of acts of the Provisional IRA, the Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Umkhonto We Sizwe, the Polisario Front, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Moro National Liberation Front.

Ask the survivors of these groups' actions. "Hi there, I know your sibling/child/friend/spouse was murdered by terrorists trained in/armed by/paid by various podunk nothing 3rd world countries. I just don't see the threat these nations pose - would you care to explain it to me?"

These are the victims of terrorists, not 3rd world nations. We have terrorists from the U.S., should we be afraid of the U.S.?

Our current administration is trying to blur the line between actions of states and private actions. If a terrorist perpetrates a crime on his own, he is a terrorist to be treated as such. If he is engaging in an attack under the direction of a state, then it is an act of war from that state. The great bulk of the middle-eastern terrorists are operating in many countries for special interests, not states. Why should the west police the problem? Why not let those states involved do it? In fact, how do we even have any jurisdiction in crimes perpetrated by non-Americans outside the U.S.?

My dad was murdered by an American. Was it the U.S. that posed the threat? There are millions of Mexicans illegally in this country, some of them have murdered Americans. Some of them are smuggling drugs and guns into the country. Should we start bombing Mexico? Is the Mexican state a threat?

-a-train

[Elphaba]

Hi Loudmouth,

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I realize you are having two conversations, and it's possible I may be duplicating A. So, if you don't want to respond to this post, I'll understand. But, of course, if you do, go for it.

My general response: If the 'fanatic Muslim world' has wanted us dead for this many decades, why on earth should we worry about whether our attempts to destroy them makes them 'furious' or not? We should be trying to make them so furious, they'll come to Iraq and get a bullet in their furious hides.

First I never said every fanatic has wanted us dead for decades. It’s much more complicated than that, and I’m sure you know that.

My point is we will never make any headway with moderate Muslims as long as we continue to fuel the fury by charging into war with other Muslims for no reason whatsoever.

As far as them going to Iraq, I’m sure you know this has and is already happening. And it wouldn’t be if we hadn’t gone into this war in the first place. Many of these terrorists would not BE terrorists, killing our soldiers, if we hadn’t gone to war. But they are terrorists now, and they have killed almost 4,000 of our soldiers so far.

But let's look at your claim a minute. I do not believe the entire Muslim population of the ME are fanatics - do you agree? For example, are the Muslims in Turkey fanatics? Are the Muslims living and working in the Jewish areas of Israel fanatics? Are the governments of Qatar and Kuwait full of fanatics? I guess it comes down to how you define the term. I hear the discussion going on in the other thread, about how there is no such thing as a 'moderate Muslim' that lives in an Islamic country. Is there such a thing as a non-moderate, non-fanatic Muslim? Seems like a little clarity on how we each use these words might be in order.

No, they are not. And there was a time when that probably mattered--but that time is long gone thanks to Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Is every single Muslim there a fanatic? No.

However, two things happened when Bush invaded. First he unleashed the rage between the Sunnis and Shi’ias that frankly, Saddam kept checked. I am not praising Saddam. It is just a face that he kept the Shi’ia oppressed and therefore there was not this civil war that is going on now that those in support of the war seem to want to deny.

The second thing is, and I’ve mentioned it before, America’s misunderstanding of Islam has created fury in the Muslim community every time they see an American walking in their holy cities, such as Karbala.

Again, it is not the soldiers’ faults--they have no way of knowing that even the very streets of Karbala are holy. But Bush should have known, and he is responsible for the deaths of those soldiers who died because no one knew.

This absolute ignorance of Islam proved to be a such an insipid mistake--even though there were people telling Bush they had the expertise and would help him.

So when you ask me are there moderate Muslims there now, I would have to say yes. But are they going to help us? Are you kidding? If they did that, they would be killed, their wives kidnapped, or some other horror I don’t want to even think about, at the hands of fanatics.

So it doesn’t really matter that not all of them are fanatics.

I guess my response, assuming there are non-fanatic Muslims in the ME, is "let's look at how they've responded to our actions". The intelligence services of many countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been working with us more closely.

I think it is absurd to say Saudi Arabia is providing accurate and helpful intelligence. Without going into another long post, SA has proved it provides information that benefits SA, and that is it.

Pakistan’s cooperation is not out of any love for the US, but because we gave it money. So Pakistan also cannot be counted as an ally in my opinion. It is difficult to tell if its information is accurate, and I would be very surprised if Musharaf lives through 2008. Everyone knows he probably knows where bin Laden is, but that if he were to give him over he would be assassinated. What kind of information can he give us that’s really helpful. For proof, look at Afghanistan.

Many former allies, or neutral parties to Al Qaeda have become their enemies.

Many former allies? Such as whom? I’m not sure what you mean here. I’m not saying you’re wrong--I just don’t understand the statement.

Terrorists have one fewer rich state to give them safe haven

What terrorists? The only one that has been proven is Abu Nidal, and Saddam ended up murdering him. If you’re talking about Zarqawi, it has been proven he was not in Iraq prior to the war. Who else are you talking about? And so what? What did that have to do with us having to invade Iraq NOW?

Lybia gave up it's WMD program, and has been cooperating with the UN to let the world watch it get dismantled.

Yes, and his son is sponsoring a terrorist group in Northern Iraq called the Seifaddin Regiment. The group is responsible for recent attacks in Mosul and killed and wounded hundreds.

Additionally, US military officials believe 19 percent of foreign terrorists in Iraq come from Libya.

Freedom House ranks Libya as the most oppressive of all Arab countries. It may have given up its WMDs, but it is not out of the terrorist business, and it is doubtful it is completely cooperating with the U.N.

I do not believe we will wipe out militant islamists, and I'm not hugely hopeful for any sort of democratic revolution in the middle east. I am hopeful, at least in Iraq, that we can win the hearts of the people such that they chose not to side with Al Qaeda. I believe that many efforts to marginalize, destroy, counter, and bleed dry militant islam, are worth the price. I hope that we will grow into a strong presence in the middle east, and if we do so, it will serve our energy needs, as well as have a positive effect on the global economy.

You seriously think we are going to win the hearts of the people? I don’t think you have a clue as to how much America is hated over there. It’s astonishing to me.

I realize the hatred is not manifest everywhere. Just as in everything in life, it is not black and white. But we would do well to listen to the Sunni who had just been given a gun by a US soldier so he could fight Al Qaeda in his neighborhood. The soldier asked the Sunni if he would kill an American with the gun. The Sunni replied, "Yes, but not today."

The Iraqis don‘t “like“ us. They know our presence, to many of them, means security. It would be a mistake, however, to confuse this with us winning their hearts.

There are many, many good things that have come as a result of our actions in that area of the world.

What good things?

Are these “good things” worth the horrors inflicted on innocent human beings who have been obliterated,, including children dying in unspeakable ways, or traumatized for life, or young boys embittered against the US, and turned into an Islamic fanatics. Are they worth the almost 4,000 American soldiers who have been killed, many also in unspeakable ways, and for what?

Ultimately, though, none of the above matters. None of the above was a good reason for Bush’s rampage to invade Iraq despite numerous advisors telling him not to, despite his lying about the reasons, despite his arrogant belief that the Iraqis were going to welcome us with open arms. Rather than get real and reliable information, he and Cheney instead listened to that shill Chalabi. Even I could tell he was a liar. And amazingly, he is still working with the administration.

People who knew the reality of the situation told Bush not to invade! And not only would he not listen, but he flew right by them and put on a show of “shock and awe."

What does it matter that Saddam hid terrorists? Bush could have taken his time, talked with strategists who knew about Islam, who knew about the Iraqis, and who knew what to expect. He could have taken the time to make sure his soldiers had all of the equipment they needed to prevent any unnecessary deaths. He could have taken the time to let the inspectors continue doing their job, as when they were interviewed they said the Iraqis were cooperating.

Bush could have taken the time. He had it, and he didn’t.

When you speak of the dead on 9/11, do you also think of the innocent Iraqi children who have been murdered in this war? Or do you value an American life more than an Iraqi’s?

I do not.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Sunday Times Online

December 16, 2007

I felt a new terror on Basra's streets

As one of the first journalists to visit Basra without military protection in recent years, Marie Colvin finds Islamic militias are waging a brutal campaign for control in Iraq’s second city

There are two photographs in every police file. One is a long shot of a woman’s discarded body, the other a close-up of her last expression.

All the women fell foul of the unwritten rules of the new Basra – they dressed wrongly, they left the home to work, or perhaps they were merely rumoured to have a boyfriend.

Forty-eight manila files have been opened in the past six months. Not one case has been solved. The bare number cannot begin to conjure the horror of these deaths at the hands of Islamic extremists who have the port city in a tightening grip of fear.

In one folder at the Basra police station, the young woman in the autopsy photograph seems to be straining upward in agony, her eyes popping in terror. She is “female unknown identity, found in Hayer Hussein neighbourhood, behind the electric station. 24/8/2007”.

In another, a woman’s nose has been crushed. Trails of blood run from her closed right eye like lines of tears. She is “female unknown identity, found in Al-Mishraq al-Jaid neighbourhood, behind the car dealer. 7/11/2007”.

Their autopsies revealed painful deaths. One woman found in “a red dress” had a 9mm bullet wound in her left hand, three in her right hand, three in her right upper arm, and three in her back. Two of the women were beheaded, one with a saw.

Residents say police have not been investigating. “Everyone knows the militias are doing this, but the police live in fear of them. We all do,” said a middle-aged businessman who was too afraid to give his name

The walls of Basra would be a good place to start looking for the killers.

One graffito on a wall bordering the main Al-Dijari road reads: “We warn all women of Basra, especially those who are not wearing abbaya [a long, loose black cloak worn over everyday clothes], that we will kill you.” It is signed in the name of an offshoot of the Mahdi Army, the strongest militia in Basra.

It is not just women who live in fear. Professionals such as engineers, doctors and scientists have been dragged from their homes and murdered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The article goes on to explain the stronghold of the Mahdi army on the region; the regression back to the oppressive and fanatic Islamic, as evidenced by its treatment of women; the corruption in the Iraqi police forces;, and its military strength, enough to control Iraq’s only port and the outlet for most of Iraq’s oil.

With Muslim fanatics controlling Basrah, there will be no “negotiating” with the West.

So, again, what has this war accomplished? How is Basrah any different than it was before the invasion? If anything, it is worse.

Elphaba

I felt a new terror on Basra's streets - Times Online

[a-train]

They knew it was going to be a quagmire. Cheney called it from day one and then pushed the project knowingly:

YouTube - Cheney Knew Iraq Would Be Mistake - 1994

-a-train