The State of the War
December 31st, 2007 at 09:40am Mark Noonan
At the end of 2007, it is worthwhile to review where we’ve been and where we’re going - and Victor Davis Hanson expertly does that vis a vis the War on Terrorism over at NRO. Its a great article, and I recommend reading the whole thing - but this part really grabbed my attention:
There is no longer serious doubt that by any fair measure the situation in Iraq has radically improved by the end of 2007. All markers point to some degree of improvement — fewer civilian and military lives lost, violence lessened, essential services improving. It is difficult to know exactly why and how this change came about, as it is so often hard in military history to chart exactly when and why such frequent turnabouts occur.
Tens of thousands of now mostly unknown American soldiers took a frightful toll on insurgents and terrorists between 2003-2007, to such an extent that many enemy groups were increasingly incapable of continuing. (emphasis added)
It is symptomatic of the lousy reporting of the war as well as the entirely unrealistic view of the critics that this aspect of it is almost entirely left out of the debate. The critics shed crocadile tears for our dead troops and accuse us of killing anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis (entirely bogus numbers, by the way), but no one - not even supporters of the campaign - really notes that the most lethal warrior in Iraq is a young American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. The military does not publish totals of enemy dead because, wisely, the military wishes to avoid the sort of absurd arguments over body counts there was in Vietnam - no more will the debate of the day be over whether 20 or 25 enemy were killed on a particular day. But this does cut both ways - by not reporting the enemy dead, the military does allow the perception to grow that only Americans, Iraqi civilians and solo suicide bombers are dying in Iraq. Not so. Not at all.
The only advantage an irregular fighter has over his better trained and equipped regular enemy is his ability to fade into the background - the problem for the regular soldier is to try and differentiate between irregular fighter and non-combatant. This is even more pronounced when the regular soldier is an American who is under very strict orders to spare civilians as much as possible, even at great risk to himself and his comrades. Lost in all the political hullabaloo about the Iraq campaign is just how good our troops have become at this sort of thing - learning from early mistakes and adapting quickly to changing circumstances, our troops have now set up a situation where it is the irregular fighter who looks over his shoulder, wondering which of the locals might be sending a message to an American and/or Iraqi reaction force which will soon drop on him like a ton of bricks. We don’t know how many of the enemy have been killed but there is one thing we can rely on - there isn’t an endless supply of people who will want to tangle with the superbly trained and equipped American and Iraqi soldiery.
I know - one of the criticisms is that “we’re creating more terrorists”. This is true - but not in the really rather stupid sense that the critics mean. Think of it like this - when we went into World War Two, we created more German soldiers; in response to our entry, the Germans put more men in uniform, and so by 1943 we actually had a larger German military establishment to deal with than we had in 1941. But, of course, the Germans also created more American soldiers - our military in 1943 was vastly larger than the military in 1941. So, too, with the war on terrorism - both sides are drawing upon their reserves and putting ever more power into the fight. We’ve made more terrorists, they’ve made more American soldiers - and given the normal ratio of American to enemy dead in these sorts of wars, the enemy needs more American soldiers like they need a hole in the head (and, given that those soldiers give them the hole in the head, its a real lose/lose situation for them). The test in this type of war is primarily one of endurance - who will stick it out the longest. We have far more men, material and money than the enemy - as long as we don’t lose heart, we win.
We’re grinding them down - all along, their only hope is that we’d quit. Our magnificent men and women of the United States armed forces are more than equal to the task of defeating these ragged terrorists - and the results coming through in Iraq are proof of this. The question now before us is whether or not in 2008 we’ll elect a government committed to victory, or committed to handing victory to the terrorists.
Entry Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
114 Comments
1. js | December 31st, 2007 at 10:05 am
Whats so incredible about new service and war is that we dont get a non partisan reporting of what is really going on, but the politicised hogwash brought to us by politically affiliated billionairs trying to affect a change for thier personnal benefits by manipulating information.
What happened to the stories about Iraqi’s being slaughtered en mass, by radical terrorists whose sole intent is to enslave the mass of civilization under some pretext of Allah the merciful? Where did the core truth of it all go?
All they want us to think is that our sons and daughters who are wearing the same uniforms that we did are savage, brutal animals. I dont buy that for a minute.
The state of this war puts forward a fantastic and wonderful example of charity and compassion, but for some reason, they dont want to tell us about it.
2. Kahn | December 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
It seems that many people think life is a one hour TV drama. Everything should be able to be tied off in a short time. It doesn’t really work that way.
We jumped into the middle of an area rife with ignorance and hatred and intense rivalries. In many ways, Hussein was a stabilizing force in the region. His huge military and oil money held the Kurds and Iranians in check and he formed a buffer between the gulf Arabs and Iran. He also worked to keep Syria in check.
But in a larger sense, the region was sick. It was relatively stable. But that stability was founded on despot rule, corruption, and a never ending war and/or hostility towards Israel. Who, by the way are not the angels some people like to think they are. That stability led to increasing militancy in certain quarters of both the Sunni and Shiite worlds. This militancy is in many ways used by various governments ti justify draconian measures and to obscure their own covert actions both domestic and abroad.
I believe that this is what the administration thought they could overturn by going into Iraq. They did manage to get rid of a hostile player and to stop heretofore unknown atomic weapons programs in Iran and Libya. But they did not go in with enough force and power to replace the power vacuum they left by removing Sadaam.
To use the prison yard analogy I’ve used before - we kicked him off his chair and sat in it. But we didn’t reallt take over the prison yard.
WE can see the positive effect on the area that even a little bit more force like the surge can have. We should have used it and much more from the beginning. We should commit to at least this level if not more now. But as the liberal (translate to ignorant and short-sighted) posts that follow will demonstrate, we don’t have the will to go further. That means we leave it up to the ignorant, angry, corrupt, and crazy people in the area to shape their own future. We’ll see in the coming decades how THAT works out.
3. John Ryan | December 31st, 2007 at 10:50 am
So let’s see now we have killed 20,000 bad guys in 6 years. That works out to about 10 per day !!!
Wow !!!
and we have lost only 4000 !! Which is like only 2 per day !! Of course our WIA numbers are much higher than those of the insurgents.
For how long do you think the “insurgents” will be able to keep taking such a high loss ?
Will they be able to replace those 10 killed each day ?
If al Qaeda is destroyed can we then go home ? Please.
Or do we have to stay over there until Iraq is a “liberal” secular democracy ?
And why is it that we want them to be a liberal democracy ???
4. Kahn | December 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
John, what is your alternative. I actually understand your rant, er post. But what is your plan and what do you see it’s outcome being?
You can now either rant or discuss - your choice.
5. bagni | December 31st, 2007 at 11:18 am
markagrind:
interesting post
what i’m confused about? (as usual)
if this is a long haul
and the troops have made huge sacrifices
(big thanks to them)
how come no politician
either repub or dem
is willing to step up
and encourage americans to really sacrifice in their daily lives along with the courageous troops??
until a true leader of competency and character
convinces americans to do so?
well…..you might have a quagmire with no end
because if you want to grind them down
you’ll need controlled friction from both ends
the soldiers and the people
unfortunately there is not one candidate from either party that is capable of it?
do you think there is?
6. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am
…as long as we don’t lose heart, we win…
Didn’t you just have a post a couple days ago about “How we won the war”? Which is it? Did we already win or are we going to win if we don’t lose heart? I just want to make sure I have the story straight.
both sides are drawing upon their reserves and putting ever more power into the fight. We’ve made more terrorists, they’ve made more American soldiers
That is another funny one. What reserves is the enemy pulling from? The enemy isn’t a country. The enemy doesn’t have an army like the Germans did. They don’t have a draft. Terrorists are created because those joining the terrorists don’t like us occupying them. They don’t like the fact that their brothers and other family members are getting killed in the middle of this fight.
7. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 11:33 am
Kahn,
You understood Ryans drivel?
bagni and Ryan,
I love the smell of a defeated liberal? It appears your efforts to claim defeat in Iraq failed. So now we hear the incessant whining of “are we there yet” meme of a child.
Bush has taken your pathetic Congressional leadership to the woodshed at every turn and only your denial of reality has saved you from feeling the shame.
bagni, feel free to sacrifice. I am off to Walmart in my H2. Ciao.
8. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 11:35 am
>>They don’t like the fact that their brothers and other family members are getting killed in the middle of this fight.<<
Joey,
I am just real curious here. Whom do you suppose is doing the killing? And would you say more young Iraqis are joining AQ or the ISF?
9. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 11:40 am
neojerk,
I don’t know who they are joining since I’m not there. if you are there, then go ahead and tell me. If not, then you have no real clue what the answer is.
My point (that you so blatantly missed) is that terrorists don’t have “reserves” to call up to join the fight. If someone joins the terrorists, they have their own personal reason, whatever that may be.
10. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 11:49 am
But Joey,
You just stated the following:
>>Terrorists are created because those joining the terrorists don’t like us occupying them. They don’t like the fact that their brothers and other family members are getting killed in the middle of this fight.<<
That would dishonestly suggest that young Iraqis are joining the terrorists because of our indiscriminate killing. And then ten minutes later you backpeddle from that.
Do you work for the Clinton campaign? Or the Clelland-Kerry self inflicted wounds and war hero campaign?
11. Kahn | December 31st, 2007 at 11:55 am
So, Bangi thinks we should be made to sacrifgice. Thats the plan. Great.
The liberal posts are incoherent as usual. Attacks against us, the president, the country. But no actual vision or plan.
Amaze us with your huge liberal brains (heads that big must have big brains). Tell us your plan for eliminating threats to us from that whacked out region? Really, what is so hard about this?
You can’t give us anything. How about a suggested course of action backed by an explanation of expected outcome? Problem is, you are all in exact agreement with your party and candidates - they don’t have a plan either.
Here is your chance, win us over…
12. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Kahn:
According to THIS post, we already won the war.
http://blogsforvictory.com/2007/12/28/how-we-won-in-iraq/#comments
If that is the case, why do we need a new plan for victory that you are asking us to come up with? So which is it? Did we win or do we still need a plan for victory?
I say we push the Iraqis to the front-line and let them start to defend themselves. We can be standing in the wings, just not on the front-line. I’m not for immediate withdrawal either. I think we need to start drawing down, but that will take a while. Make a goal for this time next year to have a minimal force there for support only. Time to let them start to fend for themselves.
13. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Joe,
You really need to do more reading. The following should enlighten you some.
Iraqi Security Forces continue to surge
By DJ ElliottDecember 21, 2007 11:01 AM
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/measuring_security_a.php
14. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
good… then our guys can get off the front-line and we can start bringing them home.
You can’t have it both ways… did we win, or do we still need a plan?
If the iraqi forces are taking the lead, then we are not really needed and the troops can start coming home. If they aren’t taking the lead, then why not? Time to push them that way.
Wow neocon… I didn’t know you went both ways…….. jerk.
15. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Joe,
You’ve been wrong from the very beginning on this war, so why in world would you even begin to think that your opinions now matter.
Let the responsible people make those decisions and you get back to the drive through.
OK?
16. bagni | December 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
neo-kahn
a…..i’m not a liberal…i’m an alien
b…..sacrifice at the citizen level =completely supporting the troops + kicking enemy ass more efficiently
so i guess you don’t really support ‘em?
now …that should light it up….
17. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
neoass:
Good comeback. So are you still going both ways on this? Are you going to address the comment or just say my comments don’t mean anything.
18. SteaM | December 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Mark,
This offends me. Victory in this war will only happen when the American oil companies finally are legally allowed to place their hand securely in the Iraqi oil “cookie jar”.
But what happens when the Iraqi government tells us to leave? What if they refuse to pass the Iraq oil law that would give our oil companies access to their oil?
I really don’t think we will let that happen. I think we will go and remove the current leader and replace him again in hopes that we will be able to have a business deal with Iraq that enables cheap oil resources for our oil companies. Locking out China and Russia in the meantime.
19. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Did you say something Joey? Or were you just simply whining again?
Your question is akin to me asking: Is the sky blue or did the train go by too fast?
I ignore childish questions. Life’s too short.
20. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Another idiot comment from someone who has been wrong about this war effort for the very beginning. Thanks SteaM.
21. SteaM | December 31st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Furthermore, what happens if the Iraqi government’s mandate that we leave on Dec 31, 2008 comes and goes and we refuse to leave? What will the United Nations do?
Will we essentially be going against the United Nations and a sovereign democratic nation of Iraq?
22. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
of course… everyone who didn’t agree with Bush was wrong from the start, so their comments don’t mean squat.
neojerk, you are sounding a bit foolish. Keep crying… “I don’t want to talk to those mean liberals”.
23. SteaM | December 31st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
neocon,
Calling me an idiot is worthless. But it’s a free country, so if it makes you feel better go ahead.
24. Joe | December 31st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
SteaM, that is the only way neojerk can debate. You are either unamerican, an idiot or both. He never actually has anything to say to a discussion.
25. SteaM | December 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Yeah, I know, and thanks to him and the rest of his buddies (the estimated 30% of the country who still follow Bush) and the Republicans in Congress we are heading towards a total nose dive as a country in regards to our foreign affairs.
26. neocon | December 31st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Well currently SteaM, the mandate is that we stay and help secure the country. Then when the more stable Iraqi government asks us to leave, we’ll leave. OK? Does that answer your question dear?
And Joey,
The plan is, and always has been to develop and train and a strong Iraqi security force capable of defending their oen country. And when THEY, NOT YOU, feel confident about that, we’ll leave. Now does that answer your question dear?
Is recess over?
27. SteaM | December 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Neocon,
Did you not read what the Iraqi government actually said?
Let me post it again with emphasis:
28. SteaM | December 31st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
So if the Iraqi government tells us to leave because they feel that they have their own security under control. Will we leave and declare victory?
29. liberalT | December 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
my favorite bit about this post is the repeated claim that the number of dead Iraqi’s is a lie. However, there is absolutely no refutation of the various estimates done by the Iraqi government, the UN, and other international organizations. Its just a lie because Mark says its so. He also refuses to give any number or evidence for such a number. The delusional will believe whatever they want to justify there actions…
30. Retired Spook | December 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
So if the Iraqi government tells us to leave because they feel that they have their own security under control. Will we leave and declare victory?
First of all, as Mark said the other day; we’ve already achieved victory. If I were a betting man, I’d bet that we’ll phase out most combat forces within the next year, except for Special Forces and those involved in training and logistics, and our military profile in the eyes of the average Iraqi will be greatly reduced. The next phase, then, will involve our training the Iraqis to be self-sufficient in those areas as well. If I were in charge, that’s what I’d do.
BTW, if you think we’ll have fewer military personnel in Iraq anytime in the near future than we do in S. Korea, Germany and Japan, then you really are living in a parallel universe.
31. Retired Spook | December 31st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
LiberalT, did you say something? Why are you still here?
32. liberalT | December 31st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
spook - my point is that there are many valid criticisms of the war in Iraq (going in the first place, the continued presence, and the management of it) as well as the large amount of death and destruction caused by it. Mark and others on this blog refuse to defend against these criticisms only saying “thats stupid” or “you don’t understand the way the world works” without backing that up with any substantial evidence. It stinks to high hell of people who cannot defend their positions on substantive and evidential basis ..
33. SteaM | December 31st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
liberalT,
Why is it that we used the fact that Saddam had not complied with United Nations Securty Council resolutions, 16 of them, I think, to justify the Iraq war yet we are looking at a possibility of ignoring a UN Security Council mandate that we leave by Dec 31, 2008 if not before (if requested by Iraq)?
And, if the UN has given these numbers that show Iraqi deaths due to Bush’s war, and you disagree with this, then why would you also still say that we were deposing Saddam because of something UN said.
I’m just confused, you guys keep telling me that the UN is evil, stupid, corrup and useless. Which is it?
34. Mark Noonan | December 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
LiberalT,
No, its just that we’ve cleared up all the leftwing criticisms on those issues - we’re just not in any mood to continually re-do what we’ve already done because some lefty poster has got marching orders to keep hitting on the same talking points. We know you think that we lied our way into war and that we’re doing it for oil and we’re butchering Iraqi civilians far worse than Saddam ever did - we also, long ago, disposed of these leftwing myths.
Come up with something new.
35. NeoClown | December 31st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Stop whining about the MSM.
For those of you who are unhappy with the MSM reporting from Iraq,
You’re either for business or you’re not. You’re either for a free market or you’re in favor of more regulation of the market.
It doesn’t really matter what you call it; the drive by media, MSM, whatever. The “Media” is a for profit business. In this free and open market the media responds to the publics demand.
The public demands Britney Spears and Paris Hilton not good news from Iraq. The public considers Britney and Paris to be popular. The war in Iraq is unpopular.
If you are not happy with the Media being a “for profit” business and want to regulate them I suggest you contact your congressman.
If you are not in favor of more regulation of business and are happy with the current laws then I suggest you change public opinion.
If you can convince America that Iraq is more popular than Britney I guarantee you good news from Iraq will be on every channel every day.
36. phil | December 31st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Here’s a poem I wrote for you guys, to brighten your day. I just edited it a bit, hope you like it. I call it…
“Ode to Mitt”
The unfortunate state of Mitt nation
Is, based on his prevarication:
Between words that he speaks
And the trust that he seeks
There appears an inverse correlation
It’s deceit with superb elocution
By a handsome moral Lilliputian
For Mitt’s pimping the truth
You need no vice squad sleuth
To cite him for word prostitution
His dissembling seems un-presidential
I can’t fathom the near-reverential
Support or fixation
With a man whose relation
With the truth is at best tangential
Liberal once, now he seems to be curing
“I’m not lying” says Mitt, “I’m maturing”
Finds the current is swift
With his virtue adrift
Cast loose from its ethical mooring
Those past problems with Mitt’s speech and vision?
Words and sight, victims of imprecision?
Saw dad with MLK?
Pro-abortion, pro-gay?
Mitt’s a lawyer, he’ll use a rescission!
Loves all stem cells (except for the gay ones)
All religions (though best Latter Day ones)
Fond of war (though it’s hell)
Sees direct parallel
“Tween our boys in Iraq and his brave sons
Though he comes from the upper of classes
Finds a way to appeal to the masses
Says “My pappy done raised us
On NASCAR and Jaysus.”
One of y’all, through redneck colored glasses
Though his handicaps mainly are moral
His supporters, reluctant to quarrel
Also morally blind
Follow meekly behind
Like a sheep, or like sheep (sheep is plural)
Of course Bush raised the lie to an art
Mitt’s supporters just playing their part
In the vast self deception
(Call it GOPerception)
George and Mitt have their interests at heart
Sorry if its still a little rough, I don’t have much time for writing poetry, especially after I get off my long shift down at the embryonic stem cell factory. I hope to clean it up a bit, perhaps add a few verses, as we get closer to the big day (Joseph Smith’s birthday)
Have a great day!
Phil
37. plainjane | December 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Bin Laden you killed all those innocent Americans on 200, come 1/20/09 your days are numbered. These fools will be gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38. plainjane | December 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
oops 2001
39. Diana Powe | December 31st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
phil,
Excellent! I especially liked these lines:
Liberal once, now he seems to be curing
“I’m not lying” says Mitt, “I’m maturing”
If he’d gone from his current “convictions” to his former “convictions” commenters here would be excoriating him regularly, but since his views are now more pleasing to them, then he’s just grown, not acted as an opportunistic chameleon. What matters is whether you can mouth the correct pieties today, regardless of any amount of personal history to the contrary.
40. Almiranta | December 31st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The only reason I don’t laugh out loud at the Loony Lefties we have emoting here is because I was taught it’s not nice to make fun of the people on the short bus. But Lordy, it is so hard sometimes to not just crack up at their lunacy.
Take this gem from the face on the liberal T: “…there is absolutely no refutation of the various estimates done by the Iraqi government, the UN, and other international organizations.”
?????????????????
That’s because there is no way to “refute” blatant fantasies. Each group comes up with its own number, yet each group refuses to, or at the very least, fails to explain where the number came from.
And WHICH ” Iraqi government” and WHICH “UN”—(the entire UN or which committee or organization within the UN) and WHICH “other international organizations”? See, when you come up with these vague and ephemeral psuedo-identities of what you seem to accept as rational, objective, fair and accurate ‘counters’ and then don’t pin them down, they mean absolutely nothing.
Al Queda is an “international organization”—would you accept THEIR body count?
And who gets to decide, once the actual number of bodies is determined (which, by the way, has never happened…) which of them were ‘civilians’? How can you tell? Is this body, that of a man not wearing a uniform, that of an innocent bystander or of a terrorist killed as he tried to murder real innocent bystanders? What is the identifier here? Do the terrorists wear secret decoder rings?
What if a woman is a dedicated terrorist who agrees to use her house to shelter terrorists, and her children as human shields? If their house is blown up, is she to be considered a ‘civilian “victim”‘ just because of her gender? And who is held accoutable for the presence of her children in what SHE contributed to making a target building?
You see, reasonable people see the irrationality of the claims we see here. Even anti-Bushites can be reasonable enough to see the problems in identifying, much less counting, the dead in a conflict such as this.
And I think you are also willing to count those killed by radical Islamists as being part of the toll of alleged American-caused deaths.
The real issue to you is to find, invent, or just pretend to have “information” which you can use to try to justify your inherent passion for wallowing in blind hatred and loathing for your own country.
……………………
Diana the Red, of course, has to see absolutely EVERYTHING through the prism of radical socialism.
I was once a liberal. Not necessarily a Liberal—I had too much common sense and personal dignity to go THAT far—but a liberal. A Haight-Ashbury, SDS-convention, war protester hippie chick liberal. And I saw the light. I started to notice that liberals could never answer hard questions but ducked them, asking questions to evade having to give answers. I started to notice that liberalism was way too dependent on emotion and too lacking in common sense. I was really offended by so-called “feminists” when they savagely turned on a woman who accused a man of molesting her, instead trashing her, quoting or inventing a sexual history to try to discredit her, and even taunting that she was just “trailer trash” and “too ugly to rape”—just because the accused was a favorite son of the radical Left.
In other words, I finally made a close and honest examination of my political stances, found them wanting, and discovered that once I really looked into my convictions I was not a liberal after all, but had just gone along with my peers—that I was, in fact, a conservative.
And I never changed back.
So I not only admire and respect those who have the moral and intellectual courage to do what I did—and it was NOT easy, demanding brutal honesty, dedication to truth rather than to ideology, and a willingness to admit that I had been wrong—-I have total contempt for those who try to denigrate this kind of moral and intellectual evolution in the ways I see here.
D the R would be a far better person if she had such dedication to the truth instead of to her dogma.
41. Kahn | December 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
You liberals (and aliens, bangi) make a strong case. You obviously are unhappy and you hate us. We get it.
But that’s it. Criticism, name calling, anger. Thats all we get from you.
But none of you offer a course of action and outline expected results. So, are you stupid or un patriotic or something? I don’t know. But you don’t have a plan you can put into words.
Reading your rants gets old. None of you seem to have anything actually useful to add to the debate.
Do you really expect to be taken seriously, or are you just here to disrupt? What good parrots you are.
42. bagni | December 31st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
kahnaparrot
contrary to your rants….
i don’t remember calling you names or getting angry
i’m not unhappy and i don’t hate you
i realize i’m not taken seriously…and it’s ok
but
if you’d allow me to share
once i learned something from a true master
he said
when there’s something that bothers you about another person you should look hard at yourself and realize that what bothers you about them is really deep inside of you
kahn…you could think about that if you want to
and please remember….
i’m not bothered by you
or your predictable earthly behavior
now…let’s forget about it all for a few hours
and i’d like to wish you, markalicious and all the other superfreaks at bfv
a happy new year
43. Tractatus | December 31st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
moral and intellectual evolution
Don’t you mean moral and intellectual intelligent design, you Jesus-hater?
It has been quite well established that when you go on rants about “liberals” and “leftists” and “neorads” and whatnot, you are, in actuality, talking about yourself. That’s plain as day to everyone, and I know you have no intention of addressing that little issue of yours, but could you please stop trying to put IMAX out of business? I really enjoy IMAX movies, but your massive projection threatens to destroy that fine company.
Nice to see you threw your “I was an ex-hippie” spiel back into your rant boilerplate, though.
44. rubbersoul | December 31st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
this superfreak says happy new year right back at ya!
Cheers!
45. Casper | December 31st, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Almiranta,
What is your definition of socialism You call a lot of people socialists. How are you defining it?
46. Diana Powe | December 31st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Almiranta,
Let us stop for a moment here and breathe in the complete inanity of what you’ve written here. Now, your personal change of political identification through whatever process is certainly of some interest. However, the notion that you are some brutally honest and dedicated pursuer of truth over ideology, with a willingness to admit that you are wrong, laid alongside your claim that I see “EVERYTHING through the prism of radical socialism” is pure farce. Your beliefs are, you claim, apparently only evidence-driven and yet here you are characterizing my complete set of political views based on what?
You’ve made a very large claim. So large, in fact, that you’ve demonstrated your commitment to it by assigning me a juvenile nickname. Now I know, based on the evidence of reading your other comments, that you have an aversion to citing evidence and, as a result, your postings almost exclusively consist of your issuing decrees as to what is true and what is not. However, I’m willing to confidently predict that you can’t cite both a definition of “radical socialism” and what I’ve ever written that would justify your claim that it is a “prism” through which I see “absolutely EVERYTHING”. (your emphasis)
I predict you’ll either remain silent or write something to dismiss the effort as being an unworthy use of your time and either instance will demonstrate that your “dedication to truth” is actually just your “dedication” to pure ideology and nothing else.
47. Kahn | December 31st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
bagni, is it New Years on your planet? What a coincidence. But no, your just insane and haven’t expressed anger.
48. Christian Wright | January 1st, 2008 at 4:42 am
There is no Global War on Terror. This fake war is a money laundry operation to transfer tax dollars in the treasury to Republican corporations. It is what the Mafia calls a bust out.
49. Christian Wright | January 1st, 2008 at 5:26 am
“After the United States has spent more than $5 billion in a largely failed effort to bolster the Pakistani military effort against militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, some American officials now acknowledge that there were too few controls over how the money was spent, and that the strategy to improve the Pakistani military needs to be completely revamped.”
That 5b lost right there. Nobody knows how that money was spent because there were no controls and no audits. How much of that 5b was kicked back to Bush/Chaney’s secret Dubia bank account?
50. Kahn | January 1st, 2008 at 10:38 am
CW - thanks for that idiocy. Is that the position of your party?
What party would that be? The Idiot Loon Party?
51. Almiranta | January 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
You are right, Diana—-I should have been more clear, and said that from what I have read of your writings, everything you have expressed here on this blog has been viewed through the prism of radical Leftism. It is correct to point out that I have no personal knowledge of how you view other things in other venues.
However, everything I have read of yours has had a very distinct red tinge, a strong orientation to the far left, and furthermore your rhetoric has veered off into the hyper-emotional negativity of real radicalism.
Socialism is, in very general terms, the concept that society (the State) has both control and responsibility for those within it. Socialism is a method by which private property is confiscated by the State for redistribution, according to the dictates of the State.
Obviously, there are degrees of Socialism, ranging from a situation which provides some support to its poorest citizens to full-blown Socialism in which, for example, all citizens are required to participate in State-run programs funded by the more productive, such as universal health care.
A Socialist State tends to want more and more control over its citizens, which of course means control over how their children are educated (programming them into a belief in the superiority of the Socialist system) and control over business (such as unions, which sacrifice the individual for the good of the collective).
The heart of Socialism IS collectivism—-the good of the collective over and above the individual. The contrast between Socialism and conservatism is clear—conservatives are dedicated to the rights of the individual, to personal responsiblity, and to the abilty to have control over ones’ own destiny.
Radical Socialism moves beyond economic goals into a more total political control, and is more dependent on emotional manipulation than on simple economics. You see symptoms of radical Socialism when you see organized attempts to gain power by emotional means, such as the maniacal full-blown attack on George W. Bush as a person.
It is easy to study the history or Socialism, radical or not. I have already referenced “USA” by John Dos Passos—by the way, a former Red himself—and of course there are the writings of another former Red, David Horowitz. The path of Socialism is not a secret one—-anyone can study it, study its tactics and techniques, and of course its unwavering history of failure.
You can sneer all you want because I don’t depend on a lot of cut-and-paste “arguments” but merely present my opinions. But you see that’s what you get when you talk with someone who has carefully-thought-out opinions and ideas.
I am in discussions here. This is not my job. Unlike some, I actually HAVE a job, other than blogging for my movement, and just drop in here now and then to see what’s happening and offer my two cents’ worth. I happen to think that my life experience, my extensive reading and other studies, my travels, and what I have learned from talking to a lot of really smart people all give me something to contribute to a rational discussion.
You can certainly pretend that a lack of “links” to the writings of other people automatically discounts anything I have to say. This is, by the way, a standard tactic of the radical Left—-just listen to Airhead America, the nasal and long-winded Ranty Rhodes in particular, for examples of that. On the other hand, people who process information and make it part of their own core of values and ideas don’t depend on a library of other peoples’ ideas to bolster their arguments.
When someone claims to have actual figures, facts, and statistics, it is fair to ask for support for such claims. But my opinions are my opinions.
As for “Diana the Red”, my you seem sensitive to that appellation. I thought that those who lean far to the Left are PROUD of their stances. It was not meant to be an insult, but merely an identifier. I’m proud to be a conservative, and don’t think I would object to being labeled as such.
No, I don’t intend to be drawn into a catfight with a Lefty organizer. Like what I say or don’t like it—it’s just how I see you and what you write.
52. Almiranta | January 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Thank you, Tractatus, for your pithy illustration of both the vapidity and the viciousness of the radical Left.
Your torturous effort to try to make a point is reassuring to those of us who dread the thought of a truly intelligent Lefty surfacing, one who can actually make a coherent point without a spittle-flying hysterical rant. But so far there hasn’t been anything to worry about.
So my references to rabid radical Leftism and its many many MANY defects are really just a projection of my own dedication to such a losing cause? Hmmmmmmmmm.
And it’s a pleasure to see how easy it is get under your very thin skin.
There are times I suspect a conservative of posting under your name, just to make the rabid Left look even nastier. Or stupider. And then I think, naaaahhhh—-no need.
53. Diana Powe | January 1st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Almiranta,
Apparently I’m quite the threat to the status quo here at Blogs For Victo(r)y or you wouldn’t seem to spend so much of your non-work time in long comments featuring your efforts to characterize me and my views. Interesting. In any case, indulge me as I point out something salient for everyone who reads my comments and yours.
You say:
Fair enough. Most of what appears in comments here would certainly count as opinion rather than true debate points. However, you also say this:
Again, fair enough. So, lets consider part of another long take of yours in which you complain about my pointing out the failure of either of the GOP’s current standard bearers to volunteer to serve in Vietnam as did Senator Kerry:
Now, I would submit that it is entirely reasonable for I or any reader to take that last statement as being one of a factual nature rather than your opinion. In fact, you emphasized what certainly appears to be a “fact” that you considered quite important.
So, did President George W. Bush “volunteer for duty in Viet Nam” as you wrote? I assume that you are referring to the statements made by President Bush’s friend, Fred Bradley, that they inquired about the Palace Alert program and they were told that they didn’t qualify because they didn’t have sufficient flight hours. Well, we do know that Senator Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam in a memo dated February 10, 1968:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rqstswiftboat.pdf
So, what about President Bush? An examination of his Application For Extended Active Duty With The United States Air Force dated May 28, 1968 and bearing his signature shows that he answered “DO NOT VOLUNTEER FOR OVERSEAS” to the section entitled “AREA ASSIGNMENT PREFERENCES”:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/3-Grade_Determination.pdf
Well, that was the official documentation. What about the statement about his inquiry into the Palace Alert program? Let’s ask the President, shall we:
So, were you offering your opinion that President Bush “DID volunteer for duty in Viet Nam” or were you trying to assert that as fact, as any reasonable reader, in my opinion, would conclude? Unfortunately, those pesky facts in the real world seem to be a problem here. If you were asserting a fact that you felt it was necessary to emphasize, you got it completely wrong. If you were bizarrely emphasizing an opinion that President Bush “DID volunteer for duty in Viet Nam” then this emphatic opinion of yours is completely without grounding in reality. So, tell us. Which is it and how are we to judge all the others of your snidely offered “opinions” if one that you think is so important is so lacking in substance?
P.S. If it somehow pleases you to dub me “Diana the Red” I have no objection. Despite your (ahem) opinions, I’m not a socialist and I leave it to others to make judgments about the maturity level exhibited by resorting to little names like that and “Ranty Rhodes” (someone you seem quite anxious about given how often you mention her). Quite odd, really.
54. Canadian Observer | January 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Unlike some, I actually HAVE a job, other than blogging for my movement, and just drop in here now and then to see what’s happening and offer my two cents’ worth. I happen to think that my life experience, my extensive reading and other studies, my travels, and what I have learned from talking to a lot of really smart people all give me something to contribute to a rational discussion.
51. Almiranta | January 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
Wow!! Should we all cower in the shadow of your vast knowledge and superior intellect, Almiranta?
I see you still have not considered using a little humility in your rants. Contrary to what you may think, your opinions are no better than anyone else’s so don’t expect us mere mortals to embrace them as holy gospel.
Pretentious spewed dogma, Almiranta, turns the reader off. You can do better.
55. liberalT | January 1st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Mark -
the simple fact of the matter is that despite the fact that you don’t want them to be true (and I don’t want them to be true either) the are true.
(1) Oil was a motivation for the war in Iraq. Was it the only motivation? Almost assuredly not - Saddam was a very bad guy. However, people who were in the very administration that invaded Iraq were also supporting him during his worst period - when he gassed the Kurds, etc in the 80s. The point is not that the left view s the Bush administration as only profiteering for oil - it is that if they were at all truthful they would admit that US monetary interests were. I simply cannot understand how you do not see this as a valid point. Sure you can disagree with it - but to dismiss it as “just a stupid myth” is at complete odds with basic historical fact. If it were just trying to establish democracy then why continue to be so close to the LEAST democratic and most corrupt regime in the middle east - Saudi Arabia. The answer is painfully clear - again Oil.
Its not that there aren’t other reasons - for sure there were - but to deny that oil has anything to do with our actions in the middle east is just purely asinine.
(2) assuredly Saddam killed a lot of people and caused a lot of suffering. Nobody denies this. None the less - 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands are dead because of the war in Iraq. Is this more or less than Saddam would have caused in the same time? I don’t know - nobody does Mark. But what we do know is 10s of thousands to 100s of Iraqis are dead and there are millions of refugees living in horrible squalid conditions. Saying that Saddam was also very bad is like defending a murder you committed by saying that you aren’t as bad as Jeffery Dalmer - perhaps true - but completely irrelevant.
(3) “talking points” - despite what you think saying something is a taking point doesn’t mean it doesn’t need refutation. That is simply a convient excuse for you. True - the point is not original - but either if i call a murderer a murderer the excuse cannot be that someone else has already pointed that out.
No Mark - sadly sadly no - you are really embarrassing yourself these days quite frankly
56. Jones | January 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
LiberalT,
I just read your response to Mark and I had to address several of your remarks:
1) Oil was a motivation for the Iraq war - If this was the case as liberals continually state, why did the Bush administration not cut a deal with Saddam? Cutting a deal with him would have given us easy access to his oil and been a lot cheaper. Plus, Cheney and Haliburton could have profited from some of those oil bribes that Sadaam gave to our most vocal opponents (i.e. George Galloway, Shaker al-Kaffaji, etc.)
2) Saddam’s murders vs. deaths in Iraq. I will grant you that poor post war planning has made the situation worse. However, I think the key to keep in mind here is that terrorists are the one’s behind the majority of these killings. After the invasion of Iraq, Bin Laden urged Jihadists worldwide to enter Iraq and defeat us. These terrorist thugs as well as Iran sponsored Shiite militias and Sadaam loyalists specifically targeted civilians. The United States did not murder these people.
3) Talking points - Your analogy to Jeffery Dahmer to defend your talking points really sums up everything. Your basis is “Bush Derangement Syndrome”. From there, your supporting arguments are flimsy because they are based off this Bush is evil yet stupid, Dick Cheney is the anti-Christ, and the US military is bad view point. The fact that your Dahmer analogy is based off the US being the murderer and not the terrorists sums up the “accuracy” of your arguments.
57. liberalT | January 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Jones -
1) Oil was a motivation for the Iraq war - If this was the case as liberals continually state, why did the Bush administration not cut a deal with Saddam?
But that is precisely the point. They did have deal with him in the 80s and he broke the deal with the invasion of Kuwaitt. It was not that there first option - but because he stopped playing nice they went to plan B
(2)The United States did not murder these people.
Fair enough - however it was the most likely scenario given the horrible post-war planning. They knew full well what could and most likely would happen. Intent isn’t the point - the deaths resulted as a consequence of the poor actions. Period
(3) I really don’t know what you are talking about. My only point was that simply because something has been brought up before doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
58. Jones | January 1st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
LiberalT,
1) I think you have missed something on why we supported Sadaam during the ’80’s. I guess you missed that entire thing called the Iran-Iraq war. That was not an oil thing. The US was supporting the enemy of Iran. Unfortunately, that was typical of the entire cold war time frame (supporting a murderous thug because he is the enemy of the other guy’s murderous thug).
2) Intent is not the issue here. Terrorists are doing the killings. Intent would imply that we knew that all of this would happen and we were glad of it. The deaths resulted as a consequence of jihadists targeting civilians. We made mistakes, but the use of the word intent means that they were not mistakes but purposeful actions (i.e. we were looking forward to thousands of civilian deaths).
Plus, how do you respond to the fact that terrorists worldwide as well as aid from Iran poured into Iraq with the purpose of killing civilians/US troops and disrupting the stabilization of Iraq?
3) My point should have been painfully obvious. You used talking points as Mark correctly points out. From there, you used flimsy arguments to support them. These flimsy arguments are based off incorrect assumptions in the first place. Thus, you may not realize they are talking points, but your defense of them is not helping.
59. Timothy Horrigan | January 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I am baffled by a few aspects of Benazir’s Bhutto’s death…
1. If it was just an accident, how come al-Qaeda caused it? How did al-Qaeda make her inadvertently conk her head on a sunroof lever?
2. Why would al-Qaeda choose to cause Ms Bhutto’s accidental death, when she is on the same side they are (i.e., anti-Bush and hence liberal, anti-freedom and pro-evil)?
3. How did the terrorists who caused Ms Bhutto’s accidental death even get out of Iraq in the first place? If I am not mistaken, the world’s terrorists, especially al-Qaeda, are holed up in the Baghdad area. These few remaining terrorists are completely surrounded by Coalition of the Willing forces who are hitting the bad guys hard with a Surge!
60. liberalT | January 1st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Jones
(1) I think you have missed something on why we supported Sadaam during the ’80’s.
No I didn’t miss that - it was certainly a substantial part of the issue and for our support. But the simple fact of the matter is that there are conflicts all over the world which the US plays absolutely no role on one way or the other. Why do you think this one we did? There are many instances of where there was an absolute clear aggressor (not in this case where both Iran and Iraq were crazy) - but take for instance Darfur or east timor. If that was the only motivation then why not make such missions there. No - I am not saying it was the only thing but it is clearly a large part of our reasoning. The US only gets involved if there is strategic or economic interest - to deny that is just stupid
(2)the “terrorists” did not kill everyone in Iraq who has died. It is a complex issue - you have direct war deaths (bombings,e tc), indirect war deaths ( people not getting food, supplies, and medical treatment, water sanitation ) , you have sectarian violence, and you have terrorism. The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot wash your hands off all of it. To be sure there are terrorists and deaths caused by AQ or other terrorist organizations but that is not all. The consequences of the war are the responsibility of those who took it..
(3) That is exactly my point. You don’t actually ever counter the argument when you say “thats flimsy”. You have to actually come up with reasons why and defend them. Which is why I don’t accept the “talking point” argument. Sure - argue or point out flaws with the reasoning - but that is not what Mark does. He literally just says “thats a talking point” or “thats stupid” - and thats the point that should be painfully obvious to you Jonesy..
buh bye - try again won’t you
61. Christian Wright | January 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
We all know who killed Bhutto, and it was not al-Quada.
62. Jeremiah | January 1st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
All you ever do LiberalT, is call Mark stupid.
You never say anything worth reading. It’s basically the same on every thread. You are such a troll, and by all means should not be here…should have never been here in the first place.
~ Jeremiah
63. Kahn | January 1st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
You know that eh CW? What else do the voices tell you?
64. Christian Wright | January 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I am a dedicated muslim. I pray five times a day, I fast, I read the quran. I do all this living in Montreal. To make claims as you have, saying ‘Islamists’ don’t want this and that, is outrageous. Do i refer to Catholic extremists in Northern Ireland as Catholics? Do I refer to Hindu extremists in India as Hindus? So refering to ‘Islamic’ religous fundamentalists as ‘Islamists’ is an insult. These people use the name of Islam to preach awefull ideas for political gains. Islam stresses equity and equality for all people, male and female. Let me tell you why, in my opinion, it was not Al-Qaeda. Every attack Al-Qaeda has made in the past 15 years, they have immidietaly taken responsibility for. Massoud says it wasn’t Al-Qaeda. Study the past before commenting on the present.
Tanoli Sahib, Montreal, Canada.
Kahn: apparently about a billion people in Pakistan and India beleive the same thing.
65. liberalT | January 1st, 2008 at 8:40 pm
well Jerry I thought we had a nice discussion on the thread of evolution for 20 or so posts. So - no - that is not all I say
66. Jones | January 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
LiberalT,
Interesting how this conversation has went. We started with you using an analogy that compares the United States actions in Iraq to Jeffery Dahmer. As we have had an actual good discussion of the points, it appears that we have gone all they way down to “consequences of war” and our responsibility for it. That is a major shift in tone since we started with murder.
Also, in regards to United States only getting involved for strategic or economic purposes, that is 100% correct. I would hate to think we invade anyone for the heck of it. However, keep in mind that strategic importance and oil are not always the same. If oil was the only driving force, why not invade Sudan to “stabilize” the situation in Darfur? There is a lot of oil in Sudan. China who has a lot of oil investments in Sudan just happens to object the most to any resolutions about Sudan at the UN. Sounds a lot like countries with “strategic” oil investments in Iraq objecting prior to the Iraq war (France, China, Russia).
Finally, I would love a good explanation of the monetary interests in Iraq that you initially referred to in your reply to Mark. For example, I would love a simple explanation of how the US was supposed to profit from an Iraq invasion. Also, why would the invasion be preferable to cutting a deal with Saddam to lift the sanctions?
67. Kahn | January 1st, 2008 at 10:01 pm
CW, well you know what/who could have saved her?
Blackwater.
68. liberalT | January 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Ok Jones - first of all I never said that the US actions in Iraq are equivalent in any way to that of Dahlmer. What I said was that just because someone’s actions are NOT as bad as Dalhmer - doesn’t mean they aren’t bad. That is to say - just because the US actions are not as bad as Saddam doesn’t mean that they are good. Are we straight there?
Secondly - So we agree now that the US only gets involved in things for strategic or economic reasons. Now as to Darfur - the fact of the matter is that there certainly is oil there - but nothing on the scale or accessibility of the middle east. And I completely agree with you that the politicians in France, China , and Russia also are motivated by strategic and economic reasons - generally speaking governments don’t do things (unfortunately) with the concern of people in mind but money and power.
Finally - as to the interest in Iraq I think it is pretty clear. Some of the worlds largest oil reserves in the world lie under Iraq. Part of the reason that they invaded (though obviously not the only reason) was that they wanted control of that oil. Now - as is clear from the pre-invasion rhetoric - Cheney and the rest of them thought that we would be “greeted as liberators” and really thought things would go a lot better for them. I don’t think they really thought it would ever go this badly in their wildest dreams. This is one of the main reasons that they pushed for such a small invasion force. They intended it to be a relatively cheap (well - cheap on international invasion standards) of a few billion dollars. The oil and control of the oil under Iraq is worth trillions and trillions of dollars.
The other reason - as you allude to - is strategic. But not for the reasons you think ( at least if I understand what you are saying). I don’t think any one in the Bush Administration seriously thought Iraq was going to be a serious threat to the US - i.e. Iraq was not planning to attack the US anytime soon or invade it. What they thought - at best - was that they could destabilize the middle east . I just don’t buy the argument that anyone seriously thought Iraq - whose military was destroyed, was under lock and key by the US airforce, CIA, etc and the UN inspections thought that there was a serious threat to attacking the US.
At best - you might be able to convince me that they thought that Saddam was going to cause more local instability in the middle east. Anyway you cut it - it was not a serious millitary threat to the US. It may have been a minor threat to its neighbors - but that threat was 10 times worse in the 80s when we supported them against Iran. But they weren’t going to pull a Pearl Harbor - that much is obvious
So if I understand your position - we attacked Iraq to better our strategic or economic interests and that is a good thing?
69. Kahn | January 1st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
And we thought they were working on nukes.
And they were violating the cease-fire by constantly shooting at our planes.
And they were corrupting the UN and abusing the oil-for-food program.
And, just after we invaded Iran stopped working on nukes and so did Libya.
Just in the interest of fair and balanced. OK?
70. liberalT | January 1st, 2008 at 10:28 pm
And we thought they were working on nukes.
–
umm - no - remember we knew that they weren’t because the UN was inspecting the country constantly. Indeed - we have no evidence that they have any development. Of course they could have been - who knows - but we had no (credible) evidence that they had been - and we have no evidence post invasion that they were
—
And they were violating the cease-fire by constantly shooting at our planes.
umm- we had aircraft flying over their country for 10 years -
and they never hit one or planes and surely you cannot be saying that would justify a full scale invasion? That somones shot at - but didn’t hit - planes that were flying over their country for 10 years?
—
And they were corrupting the UN and abusing the oil-for-food program.
could be - still a full scale invasion with an ultimatium that they Saddam leave Iraq within 48 hours is the right response to this? Not brining this up to the UN and world court and stopping the program and just shipping food into the country for the poor. The correct response is bombs?
—
And, just after we invaded Iran stopped working on nukes and so did Libya.
wait so I am confused about this - did Iran or didn’t they stop. Because your position seems to be both depending on what is convenient. Again - you are seriously defending the deaths of 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands based as a message to others ?
–
Just in the interest of fair and balanced. OK?
ah you must work for Fox news like everyone else in the white house. Look - you keep on changing the reasons for invading Iraq - post invasion - in a continued attempt to be an apologist for it
71. Uncommon | January 1st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Kahn -
So if the US “thinks” a sovereign country is working on nukes we can/should invade and overthrow them?
You can’t really have a one-sided cease-fire - we were constantly bombing Iraq throughout the 90’s so of course they are going to shot at our planes.
Corrupting the UN?… and no one really cared that they were abusing the program because we had access to their oil through it. If we were really concerned about the abuse there were other ways to address the problem other than through invasion - though it was effective.
Iran and Libya stopped working on nukes because we invaded Iraq? Are you serious?
In any event none of these issues other than the first were even used as a reason for the invasion. I’m not quite sure I agree with creating reasons after the fact but what ever it takes to make you guys sleep better at night. And LiberlT akwardly makes a good point in that while the majority of deaths in Iraq are not directly caused by us, we are still responsible for the situation that caused those deaths. The truth of the matter is these things were not occuring pre-invasion on the scale they are now. However we never intended for this to happen nor expected it so I guess there really is no point in trying to make the case that it is exclusively our fault. We make poor decisions but I would never accuse the US government of murdering civilians and innocent people.
72. Kahn | January 1st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Um, er yes we did think so. And he had kicked out the inspectors.
They couldn’t hit our planes, so shooting at them was OK? Asshole.
Find a post where I said they didn’t. What are you guys a committee or something? YOU say they stopped. I simply agree. You really are an idiot aren’t you. Find a post where I (KAHN) said anything otherwise. Jeeezzzzz
I’m not apologizing for anything. But I would say that acting on a suspected developer of nuclear weapons who is hostile to us IS sending a message. Only an idiot couldn’t see that. Apparently you’re not even qualified to lead Libya or Iran.
73. ChenZhen | January 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 am
I can’t help but think how much worse things would be if Iraq actually had those WMD’s.
74. Kahn | January 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 am
CZ, well yes. If they had used them.
I know the military believed he had the chemical weapons and that they were deployable. No-one would have made our people wear that ridiculous protective gear otherwise. It is heavy, uncomfortable, and it makes the simplest things damn near impossible.
There are some people who believe that Sadaam spirited his nuke program away to Syria. I don’t know about that. Part of me thinks it could be possible. But mostly I think that Sadaam was all about Sadaam. And he would have kept secrets or let them be destroyed rather than share. Don’t suppose we’ll ever know.
75. Mark Noonan | January 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 am
LiberalT,
Thats all pretty good - shows your starting to think. But you’re also quite wrong.
The basic flaw of your analysis vis a vis oil as a war-motivator is that you’re proceding from a conclusion and then looking for data which confirms your notion. Try, instead, looking at the data.
We didn’t support Saddam in the 80’s - I know this is a bedrock belief on the left, but its simply not true (in this I have personal knowledge - I was in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war with access to highly classified information in addition to the day-to-day knowledge that as part of the US military, I was to consider Iraq hostile). But even supposing, for the sake of argument, that we did support Saddam, does such support really square with your reasoning on why (or, at least, partially) why we went into Iraq in 2003?
You are aware that the United States imports more oil from Canada than from any other nation, aren’t you? If oil is a motivator, why not invade Canada? You are aware that the United States imports more oil from Saudi Arabia than from Iraq, aren’t you? If oil is a motivator, why not invade Saudi Arabia? You are aware that the United States imports more oil from Mexico than from Iraq, aren’t you? If oil is a motivator, why not invade Mexico? You are aware that the United States imports more oil from Venezuela than from Iraq, aren’t you? If oil is a motivator, why not invade Venezuela? You are aware that the United States imports more oil from Nigeria than we do from Iraq, aren’t you? If oil is a motivator, why not invade Nigeria? You are aware that the United States imports nearly as much oil from Angola as we do from Iraq, aren’t you? If oil is a motivator, why not invade Angola?
With the exception of Canada, the US could point to all manner of political, military and economic crisis which could be used to justify invasions of all the nations which export more oil to the United States than Iraq - and with the added benefit that invading these other countries would be invading nations which don’t abut strong nations with long-standing antagonisms towards the United States. If we’re going to go to war for oil, shouldn’t our greedy Oil Barons have picked an easier target? And as far as maknig proven reserves the criteria - sure, Iraq has the second largest proven reserves in the world - but Nigeria has nearly as much oil as Iraq, and is a much easier target.
This information makes it pretty clear, if you are fair minded at all, that oil simply cannot be the motivator - there’s plenty of oil in the world, and plenty of it elsewhere besides Iraq; and plenty of it elsewhere much easier for us to get at. But lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that oil was the motivator - that the Oil Barons of the United States decided that they just had to have control of Iraq’s oil reserves. What is more cost effective - a war, or cutting a deal with Saddam…or even cutting a deal with some other Iraqi who would be amenable to Big Oil’s commands? If Big Oil is powerful enough to engineer a four-year long war in Iraq, then they must be powerful enough to engineer a coup d’etat, right?
If we went into Iraq even partially for your reasons, then we went into the more difficult area, the more difficult way to obtain something we could easily have obtained elsewhere. Its just absurd - and when you then factor in the absolute certain fact that Saddam was never a client of the United States (ie, no reason for us to want to punish him for turning on us because you can’t turn on your enemies), the whole notion of a war for oil becomes not just absurd, but stupid.
So, then, why go into Iraq? Here’s were you’re really going to need to start thinking - and your first step in this process will be to work it into your mind that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, former SecDef Rumsfeld, SecState Rice, etc, etc, etc are human beings, just like you. The hardest thing for a liberal is to be a bit humble - to leave aside the liberal presumption of moral superiority over all and sundry who disagree with said liberal. It could just be that the men and women of the Administration are, on average, no better and no worse than the average run of people you know. This means that there is just a possibility that they acted upon pure motivations.
This is what I mean about your need to set aside your Bush-hatred; in order for you to mature and become an adult in these discussions, you’re going to have to stop hating. Just go with what you know, not with what you’ve been told must be the character of a person because that person disagrees with liberalism. I’m a fairly nice guy, LiberalT - I’ve got a wife, step-kids, step-grandkids, my old man living with me, two dogs, friends who love me…I’m not an ogre plotting evil because I’m stupid…and neither is President Bush.
You just think about that for a bit.
76. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
A Democrat and a Republican use an ugly word in reference to the Administration:
Ouch.
77. SteaM | January 2nd, 2008 at 11:24 am
LiberalT, that’s exactly what I wish more people would realize. The total reality of this mess.
78. SteaM | January 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Yeah, liberalT, just stop hating Bush so much. Then everything will be fine. Come on, Mark. Are you serious? Do you think us scary “liberals” just hate Bush and all conservatives and that we are so full of hate for all of these people that we just make up stuff?
There’s a really good reason to be dissapointed with our president and there are very important reasons for us to hold him accountable for his past mistakes.
Someone continues to make mistakes or his/her “gut feeling” continues to be incorrect yet we are to blindly continue following this leader. Is that what you want from me and the other scary “liberals” on here? That’s asking me to be ignorant and just deal with it. To me that sounds more like the death of a democracy and the birth of a fascist police state constantly afraid of terrorism and weilding the largest military in the world at the same time.
79. Tractatus | January 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
So my references to rabid radical Leftism and its many many MANY defects are really just a projection of my own dedication to such a losing cause?
Almost, Almiranta. You’re close to getting it, but you’re pointing at the wrong aspects. No, your projection is that when you invent caricatures of your opponents (overly emotional, factually unsupported, blindly partisan, unable to process new information, reciting talking points, etc.), what you are rather blatantly doing is taking your own shortcomings and projecting them onto others. It’s much easier to hate those characteristics when they’re external versus when they’re internal. You’re basically a textbook example of how projection works, and that’s why I find you so amusing.
But you can take heart in the fact that you’re not alone in this. Hell, Mark Noonan just wrote this jewel:
you’re proceding [sic] from a conclusion and then looking for data which confirms your notion. Try, instead, looking at the data.
Mark is clearly talking about himself here–most of his world view has been formed by starting with the conclusion and then trying to find supporting data–but he levels that charge against others. It’s a funny little game.
80. SteaM | January 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Tractatus,
Wow, I’ve never heard of projection. That’s a very interesting psychological subject that I am aware of it’s existence as I know people who do that all the time… I didn’t know it had a name.
My father was projecting when he went on a rant at the Christmas dinner table about how rediculious global warming is and how fat Al Gore is (like that has anything to do with anything). What’s ironic is my dad just got done cutting down a 20 year old tree in his front yard that had had all of it’s limb taken off by over an inch of ice from a freak ice storm that seems to be moving from “freak” status to “normal” status since it’s happening more each year as we warm up ever so slightly enough to knock us slightly over freezing but still stay cold enough for freezing rain. It may be normal in the denier’s mind but tells the forest that sometime. They know it’s not normal otherwise 20 year old trees wouldn’t be obliterated by one storm.
81. SteaM | January 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/02/iraq-government-civilian_n_79277.html
82. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
(Ed. Note: Deleted. Off topic)
83. Kahn | January 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Diana, you must be so happy. More beauracrats and patriots with families can watch their careers disipate and worry about jail time. Oh glee.
84. steam | January 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Kahn,
It’s not Diana’s fault if they broke a law and someone is calling them on it.
85. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Kahn,
Not at all. However, if a criminal case is ultimately presented to a grand jury, which there is no guarantee that there will be, then it will be a web of someone’s own weaving. The question can fairly be asked, in light of the charge of “obstruction” put forward today by the co-chairs of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission - what was on the tapes that was so damning that even the 9-11 commissioners could not be allowed to see them? Was it torture? The President has stated many times that “this country doesn’t torture”. Was someone afraid that those words might ring rather hollow if too many saw for themselves what was being done, rather than just being lulled to sleep with the euphemism of enhanced interrogation techniques?
86. Casper | January 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Diana,
This could be very interesting. Although you should know that if anyone very high in the Bush Administration is charged with a crime, there will be dozens of posts about the crimes of Sandy Berger and Clintons.
87. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Casper,
Oh, I’m sure those posts won’t wait for any indictment or indictments. Of course, the equivalence of them to a child being confronted with misbehavior and saying, “Well, Johnny did it and his parents didn’t punish him” really ought to rule them out. However, it won’t.
As this gets media attention, I don’t see it doing anything but driving President Bush’s dismal numbers even lower. Even the minimally attentive person can get:
- CIA hid stuff from 9-11 Commission.
- CIA destroyed same stuff.
- Stuff may have shown torture.
- White House had some kind of connection to it.
It has the feel of a clear enough scandal that it could mushroom quite unexpectedly as Watergate did or just hang around and make the White House an even less enjoyable place to work as the Administration winds down.
88. Kahn | January 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Whether they broke the law or not MAY play a part.
But people’s lives will be dragged through the mud whether they violated any law or not. Every question and answer will be scrutinized and any discrepancy will be jumped upon by viscous partisans whether significant or not, whether an honest mistake or not.
And for what? A judge says he wanted any tapes of interrogation in Guantanamo. These weren’t in Guantanamo. Oh, well that’s what I meant and you’re in trouble.
If I was CIA (and I know several people who are), I’d claim the 5th Amendment on every question. Expect these working men and women to do that. Simple government workers with wives, husbands, kids, and mortgages. That should make them even more ineffective than they have been.
Let the witch-hunt begin!
89. Casper | January 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Kahn,
“Let the witch-hunt begin!”
I’m sorry you have so little faith in our system.
90. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Kahn,
Leaving aside your apologetics for disregarding orders from a U.S. District judge, the fact is that someone also withheld these items from the 9-11 Commission which was appointed by President Bush. Please elaborate on this notion that there should be no investigation because you’re worried that innocent “simple government workers with wives, husbands, kids, and mortgages” will have to explain their actions? Police officers have to commit public explanations and legal justifications for their actions as public servants to writing and under oath in courtrooms on a daily basis.
Aside from the fact that the destruction of these tapes did not happen based on the decision of some “simple government worker”, your sudden anxiety about innocent bystanders and third-parties has never seemed to manifest itself when commenters here routinely defending waterboarding “terrorists” who are routinely assumed to be such solely because they are in custody. Frankly, I believe that the people who work at the CIA are a whole lot better than you’re trying to give them credit for. No file clerk or adminstrative assistant needs to be concerned. No case officer need to be concerned. The fact that the CIA apparently had multiple meetings at the White House over whether to destroy the tapes or not shows that those who need to be concerned are at or near the top of their respective organizations.
I suspect that fact is what’s really got you worried.
91. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
In fact, the investigation, while being headed by a U.S. Attorney with a reputation for getting convictions for government corruption, is one where it is still controlled by the Bush Administration Justice Department instead of having a truly independent special counsel. “Witch hunt”? I doubt it. I’m sure that a lot of people over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are hoping it’s actually a snipe hunt.
92. liberalT | January 2nd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Ok Mark - that is a long post. Thanks for taking the time for actually responding.
So here goes. I think you are missing the basic point. Surely we import more oil from Canada from anywhere else, there is oil in Venezuela, and Mexico - but that doesn’t at all diminish the greed angle. Again - I am not claiming that it is the only motivation - just that it is a big part of th e motivation. The case for invading Canada would be hard to make - even for the Bush administration. In the case of Iraq you did have a real honest to god tyrant and murderer so it was a convenient excuse. Same thing for Mexico. More over, Canada and Mexico already play ball with us - while Saddam stopped listening to the US at all with the invasion of Kuwait. As for Argentina - well the US and the CIA have a long long history of interfering with south America. Up until recently they had a government that the US supported. IF things had worked out better for Bush in Iraq I wouldn’t put it beyond them…
As for support during the 80s - I am sorry but the fact that you were in the Persian gulf doesn’t hold much water with me. Were they our best friends - absolutely not. It was the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” game. Regardless of what they may or may not have told you - the historical record is that we gave Saddam support/money and sold arms to him. That is just a matter of historical record. You can argue and shout all you want but its a simple matter of historical record.
Finally - while human - Bush and Chenney are nothing like me. I did not spend the first 40 years of my life going to prep schools, getting into Ivy leauge schools due to my father, or drinking whiskey and snorting coke. Nor did I arrange for Haliburton - which I served on the board of - to make billions in post-war contracts because I was vice president. Nor did I tell my child that she was unacceptable because she was gay.
Yes - they are human and have flaws that much is obvious.But no - nothing like me at all
93. liberalT | January 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion
ouch - now you have Thomas Kean - a republican representative - calling the white house and the cia guilty of obstruction of a congregational inquiry. Thats gotta hurt
94. Jones | January 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
LiberalT,
After reading your responses as to why oil was a motivation for invading Iraq, I have yet to see any actual proof that we invaded for oil. I have only seen several descriptions of how much oil is there and why we would not invade other countries to get their oil.
The key flaw in your argument is that you are blinded by your liberal ideology and desire to see Bush/Cheney/Haliburton as greedy and evil. There are no facts to support your argument about invading for oil. You have outlined the motives for why they would invade for oil but not the actual facts proving it.
To be honest, it sounds a lot like the republicans during the Clinton administration when the US Military fired some cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan. A lot of republication conspiracy theorists immediately said that President Clinton was deflecting attention away from Monica Lewinski. No proof to back up the claim; it just fit their world view and person opinion of Bill Clinton.
It appears that you are guilty of the same thing. You have details on why we wanted the oil, but no proof that we actually did it for the oil.
Just think….I just compared you to republicans. Can’t wait to see the response to this one.
95. liberalT | January 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
No - I am not blinded by hatred. The proof is in the pudding Jones.
The evidence is right in front of you but you don’t want to see it and has been documented over and over and over again:
for example:
From The Observer (UK): “Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East. To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies. But, in the run-up to war, the US oil majors will this week report a big leap in profits. ChevronTexaco is to report a 300 per cent rise. Chevron used to employ the hawkish Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s National Security Adviser, as a member of its board. Five years ago the then Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: ‘Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.’ ”
From The Age (Australia): “Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the exiled opposition Iraqi National Congress, which is financed in part by US oil companies, has said he would not feel bound by contracts signed by Saddam and that “American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil” under a new regime. The stakes are beyond imagination. According to a report for the Global Policy Forum, a think tank with consultative status at the UN, based on conservative assumptions of oil prices of $US25 a barrel and reserves of 250 billion barrels and a 50-50 profit split, yearly profits for the oil companies would run to $US29 billion a year - which is two-thirds of the $44 billion profits earned by the world’s five major oil companies combined in 2001. The costs are also beyond comprehension, but trivial compared to the prize, which is control of prospective oil fields capable of producing more than $3 trillion of oil.
From The Independent (U.K.) : “Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world’s total reserves….The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, “US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-OPEC fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region.” No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves are in the Middle East.”
From the Indo-Asian News Service: “Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels. Analysts said Iraq — with proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, next only to Saudi Arabia — could throw the global oil market into a tailspin by resuming full-fledged production if U.N. sanctions against it were lifted. ….Iraq is permitted to produce 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil a day under a U.N. oil-for-food programme, but actual production is about 1.5 to 2 million barrels. This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies, a source said. “If prices fall, it could jeopardise their deep water exploration, as it would not be viable due to the high costs involved. “By keeping Iraqi supplies disrupted, the U.S. is able to ensure that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are benefited, as they are able to raise their production to meet the shortfall and earn more revenue.” The source noted that U.S. President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have strong links with the oil industry and alleged that the threat to attack Iraq was aimed at helping American oil companies. In 1973, Iraq nationalised all oil companies. By displacing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime, U.S. and British companies would be able to re-enter the country and get a major share of its oil industry.”
From Mother Jones magazine: “To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world’s energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration “believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them,” says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. …. Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska’s frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq’s crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza…. “Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel,” says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. “Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It’s having our hand on the spigot.”….It is “highly possible” that the United States will maintain military bases in Iraq, Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative strategist, recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time,” he said. “When we have economic problems, it’s been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.”
Form Counterpunch: “The Washington, D.C. Council on Foreign Relations, whose members include Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy prepared the report, Strategic Energy Policy, Challenges for the 21st Century. Key executives in the energy industry helped prepare the report, including former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay……Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield has been asked numerous times whether the U.S. is after Iraq’s oil supplies and if that’s what is driving this war. Rumsfield’s most recent response to the question was “absolutely not.” Yet the Baker report suggests that the U.S. should explore the possibility of a regime change in Iraq, line up “key allies” in Europe and Asia and “target (Iraq’s) ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction” as the reasons behind attacking the country all in an effort to import oil into the U.S.”
From Time magazine: “For more than a half-century, American foreign policy dealing with oil has typically been manipulative and misguided, often both at the same time. The pattern of intrigue has ranged from U.S. officials’ secretly writing tax laws in the 1950s (so the Saudi royal family could collect more money from the sale of its oil and American companies could write off the added payments on their tax returns) to overthrowing a government that showed too much independence in handling its oil sales. To illustrate the dark side of American oil policy, we offer two tales, stitched together from declassified government documents and oil-industry memos, involving a pair of Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Afghanistan. The first one begins with the rise of a member of Iran’s parliament, Mohammed Mossadegh, an impassioned speaker and popular politician who had long chafed at British domination over his country’s oil…. In 1951 Mossadegh successfully pushed to nationalize Anglo-Iranian, became Iran’s Premier and established the National Iranian Oil Co…..On Aug. 19, 1953, after the deaths of about 300 people in street riots, the 71-year-old Premier was overthrown…..The American-friendly Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had earlier fled the country, returned triumphantly, resumed the throne and reasserted his control….The CIA’s fingerprints were everywhere.”
96. Mark Noonan | January 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
LiberalT,
Once again, you are not paying attention to facts.
The Iraqi army under Saddam was equipped thusly:
Tanks:
T72, T62 and T54 tanks from Russia
Type59, Type69 tank from China
Armoured Vehicles:
AML250, AML60, AML90 from France
BMP1 from Russia
BRDM2 from Russia
EE9 from Brazil
EE3, EE11, EE17 from Brazil
PT76 from Russia
Armoured Personnel Carriers:
BTR50, BTR60, BTR152 from Russia
M3 from France
MTLB from Russia
Type63 from China
Towed Artillery:
122mm howitzers from Russia and China
130mm field guns from Russia and China
152mm field guns from Russia
155mm field guns from South Africa
Self-propelled artillery:
122mm from Russia
152mm from Russia
155mm from France and South Africa
Multiple Rocket Launchers:
122mm BM21 from Egypt
127mm Sajil60 from Brazil
132mm BM13 from Russia
262mm Ababeel50 from Yugoslavia
Surface to Surface Missiles
FROG-7 from Russia
SCUD-B from Russia
Al-Abbas from Iraq
Husayn from Iraq
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons
AT3, AT4 from Russia
Milan from France and Germany
HOT from France and Germany
Helicopters:
Mi24, Mi25, Mi35 from Russia
PAH1 from France
SA316, SA319 from France
SA321 from China
SA342 from France
Transport Helicopters:
A109 from Italy
Mi4, Mi6, Mi8, Mi17 from Russia
SA330 from France and Germany
Bombers:
TU16, TU22 from Russia
Fighter/Attack:
MiG19, MiG23, Su7, Su20/22, Su24, Su25 from Russia
Mirage F1 from France
Fighter:
J7 from China
MiG21, MiG25, MiG29 from Russia
Air to Air Missiles:
R550 from France
AA2, 6, 7, 8, 10 from Russia
Missiles:
Exocet from France
Kh22 from Russia
Do you see a lot of military hardware from the United States in there? True enough, if you search diligently you’ll find that, once upon a time, a very few American and/or British tanks and artillery pieces as well as a few transport helicopters made it into the Iraqi military inventory, but the fact of the matter is that Saddam was armed by pretty much everyone BUT us, with Russia being the prime supplier of military equipment.
These facts completely explode your notion that we supported Saddam at any time in the past - and given this, plus the fact that I’ve already demonstrated how far-fetched it is to think that oil is a motivator, your entire view of the Iraq matter is based upon entirely false assumptions.
Finally, your assertions of why President Bush isn’t like you - with you believing yourself to be his moral superior - are based upon unsubstantiated allegations. You don’t know any of it - and for you to spread such stories is a gross injustice to President Bush…who is, after all, a human being with the same right to be respected as you have.
97. liberalT | January 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
ah Mark so naive
US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.
you know why - because it is a matter of public record. Just keep denying it though - it just shows how silly you are:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#docs
they are a matter of public record
98. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
My brother, Col. Marc B. Powe, USA (ret.) was a military attache attached to our embassy in Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq War and knows we were aiding the Iraqis because he was part of it. We wanted the Iraqis to check the Iranians, simple as that.
99. Diana Powe | January 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Darn, those pesky fact, and it was when President Reagan was in the White House, too.
100. Mark Noonan | January 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
Diana,
Yep, those pesky facts…
Document 1 - details large shipments of military equipment to Iraq via Turkey from Israel as well as Soviet-bloc nations.
Document 2 - details desire of Iranian government to recieve spare parts via Israel for American-made euipment and how this might play into negotiations to release Americans held hostage in Tehran (ie, this was during the Carter Administration).
Document 3 - Memo from SecState Haig stating that the US Government will not approve licenses to export arms to Iran or Iraq.
Document 4 - Memo about bi-lateral relations between Iraq and the US, noting that Iraq will not back of its hardline, anti-Israel position, nor will Iraq want to have any US military presence in the Persian Gulf.
Document 5 - Memo to the Iraqi Foreign Minister from SecState Haig stating that we’d like to send a StateDept official to Baghdad.
Document 6 - Memo about talks held between StateDept official and Iraqi foreign minister, noting that Iraq will not break alliance with USSR and that while US supports Israel, Iraqi and American relations cannot be fully normalised.
Document 7 - Note from Iraqi foreign minister thanking US SecState for visit of StateDept official.
Document 8 - Covering note for note from above-referenced Iraqi foreign minister.
Document 9 - Memo from SecState noting meeting with Iraqi intel chief. Notes that, perhaps, we can help with Iraq metro project (ie, sell them city busses).
Document 10 - Memo about talks with Tariq Aziz where US representative reiterated a desire for better relations with Iraq, once against stated US neutrality in Iran/Iraq war and stated firmly that the US would not sell - or permit the sale - of arms to either side. Aziz brought up Iraqi accusation that Iran was getting US arms, US representative requested details for further investigation.
Docment 11 - Memo from SecState Haig ordering that Iraqi government be advised firmly that the US will not provide arms to either side, and asking that the prospect of private firms acting outside US control not be taken as an indication of US policy.
Document 12 - Memo regarding observations of Iraqi Parlaiment.
Document 13 - Press guidance memo stating that while Iraq, per US law, is not on the list of State sponsors of terrorism, the US will not export arms to Iraq.
Document 14 - National Security Study Directive; order by President Reagan for a study of US security, political and economic intertests