[OT]Hanoi Jane rides again

Chris,
There are clear ties from Iraq to various terrorist groups, some are shown here: http://www.husseinandterror.com /
Regardless, all three reasons were used as justification for attacking Iraq. Two of the three items are being supported by the evidence found in Iraq; Saddam's government did murder Iraqi citizens and they have been providing money, safe haven and training to various terrorist organizations.
Mario
Chris Lewis wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is hardly unbiased, but I do accept the tie-in to palestinian groups - it was well known prior to the war. But, neither that web site, nor any other provides evidence to tie-in with other groups. Especially not Al Queda. In contrast to US Administration claims prior to the war.

Yes, all three were used as justification. The first (WMD) has been proven to be bogus (and there was ample indication prior to war that it would turn out to be bogus, including many warning signs from government agencies themselves).
The second (terror support) was far less than was claimed, and far less than other countries (ie: Libya, some other middle eastern/african countries), none of whom got invaded.
These are called "pretexts". Both Germany and Japan used similar pretexts for their initial invasions that led to WWII.
The US Administration is making this a bit of a habit - like the supposed "proof" that Libya was behind the bombing of a bar in Germany (resulting in the death of US serviceman), which led to US military strikes into Libya against Khadafi directly. Shortly afterwards, George Schultz himself said that the claims were unfounded.
Don't get me wrong - much as I dislike the Bush administration, I _really_ wanted them to find WMD or the smoking gun with Bin Laden. Better that the invasion as pushed for by Bush turn out to be legitimate (regardless of how idiotic makes the UN look) than having US foreign policy embarrassed, generate yet more terrorism, and get mired in something that looks remarkably like Vietnam.
But, as now seems obvious, it would have been better to have waited for the UN to act (as they would have _eventually_), and the global legitimacy would have avoided most of the mess the US has gotten themselves into.
I just hope they manage to disentangle themselves from Iraq, without turning it into a rerun of the last days of South Vietnam.
[Afghanistan is looking promising. But the final outcome of that depends heavily on what happens to Iraq.]
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Lewis wrote:

Of course it's biased, most any site that presents an idea is biased. However, it is a good place to start to investigate the claims made by both sides.
I suppose it doesn't really matter why we went in at this point; the fact is that we're there. Hopefully it will be wrapped up reasonably soon so we can bring our guys (and girls) home. Hopefully the next administration won't be so hell bent on sending our military into harms way.
Mario
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's what the "bring the troops home NOW" protestors are missing. Because the result would be MUCH worse than it is now, despite the short term benefit. The long term downside is vastly worse than anything we've seen before. Bad as Saddam was, full scale war between the Sunnis and Shias would be worse, and eventually draw in many of the neighbors and affect the whole world.
I'm a firm believer in the "you break it, you fix it" philosophy.

At least in the way they did. Clearly a US-led initiative, with considerable pressure and coercion on much of the "allies". More joint efforts, even if by NATO rather than the UN, work considerably better.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some known WMD did "disappear", probably to Syria.
Also say what you will about W but he did CAMPAIGN on Iraq regeime change. He was elected (by the narrowest margin in history) and simply did what he said he would do.
Actually he was DUSTRACTED from doing it sooner by 911.
Kinda makes you wonder what the linkage is THERE or if the intentional market crash by the FED in 1999/2000 pissed off the terrorists supporters when their portfolios crashed.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We seem to be very good at standing by while such things go on. We haven't invaded any of the African nations that are commiting genocide yet, have we?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the principles of a democratic society, accountable government and international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

My own personal opinion? It's due to political correctness. Since the African-American community isn't incensed about these genocides, if we were to go in without a 'public mandate', we would be vilified by our own African-American community for 'targeting Africans for murder'. I think our politicians are absolutely afraid of such a scenario -- they're only glad that Iraq wasn't in Africa.
Would it be different if we had greater strategic interests there? Sure, the calculus of events would definitely have changed. But that's not reality -- since we have no economic interests driving us, the sole rationale is the political/humanitarian interests -- and our population just doesn't care enough to do anything there.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

I think our intervention in Somalia may qualify. And although we (the U.S.) have not personally intervened on a large scale, other Western powers have intervened in Liberia.
--

Greg Heilers
Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Irrelevant. Had he not denied the inspectors access to all the sites they wanted to go to, there would have been no suspicion placed upon him. As it is, we'll never know if he did indeed have them, and shunted them off to Syria, or Lebanon, or some other country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It shouldn't be surprising they haven't found any wmd's, they're still looking for Jimmy Hoffa.
Randy http://vernarockets.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote:

Heck, They're still haven't found all the "conventional" weapons lying around Iraq.
I'm sure there's lots of stuff We just haven't gotten around to discovering yet.
Who knows, maybe They'll find Jimmy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Honorably fulfilling the commitment one has made is not the same as enthusiastic participation.

More like "reputed to be sharpening a stick you've never (and will never) see." No one attacked us or even made credible threats. We just didn't like the politics of those sitting on so much oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ALL YOUR WELLS ARE BELONG TO US!
Randy http://vernarockets.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a good point.
But it's an era in history that should pass; if the French get that fusion reactor going, we're going to look pretty stupid.
Still, we have more than enough oil right here for our needs; it's just easier to get at in the middle east and therefore cheaper for the oil companies that apparently control Washington.
And as I've said elsewhere, I'd be a lot happier if we just said we were there for the oil and gave up this "Make the world safe for Deomocracy / stop terrorism / save the poor Iraqi citizens" (pick one) nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Schuckert wrote:

Wow, that would be great! You mean the French are building a nuclear fusion reactor?
Oh, wait, you're talking about the international consortium that is attempting to build one, where France won the contest for PLACEMENT of the reactor, aren't you?
Tell you what, as soon as nuclear fusion as reliable and cheap power becomes reality, you'll have a point. But right now, oil is the most easily transportable/usable energy source.

Umm, yes. You apparently flunked Economics 101. If it is easier/cheaper to get it in the middle east, then that is what is going to occur. If you don't believe that, then the next time that you would like a car, please go mine the ore, smelt the steel, fabricate the assemblies, and build it yourself.

The original 'point' of going in to search for WMD was, and remains, a valid reason; especially post 9/11. The failure of the intelligence community to actually 'know' where/what/how in regards to the WMD is the problem -- not the reaction of going in to Iraq under the belief that Saddam had the WMD.
Further, you're ignoring the 'iceberg' of the situation -- the search of WMDs was the visible tip that was put forth because (frankly, given the level of intelligence of most folks) is about the only thing that is understood by the masses. But there were many, many, other reasons that we went in, and after putting all of those things together, the overall need was to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.
BTW, it's not that the other reasons were 'hidden', but the media picks up on what it believes will sell. If that weren't true, magazines such as 'The Economist' would be outselling 'People' and 'The Enquirer'. The stories of WMD fed the same fears as those in the 60s/70s/80s who felt that nuclear armageddon was imminent, and went out to build survivalist cabins in Montana -- it's a "sexier" story.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:16:43 -0700, David Erbas-White

Was Jane in the "Pepsi Syndrome". (Lame attempt to relate message to subject.)

Gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene are nearly ideal transportation fuels. Since the supply of crude oil is finite and rapidly diminishing, it should be conserved and limited to that use. Fixed home and plant heating, and electricity production can use other energy sources. Eventually we will want to produce synthetic gasoline, diesel an kerosine at any cost for transportation systems. As long as the world oil price is below the cost of synthesizing fuels from renewable sources, we should buy as much oil as we can, while we can. Of course bulk transportation and storage of oil is expensive. Ideally, we should buy foreign oil "in the well" and simply take delivery as needed. For example, we could buy all of Iraq's oil now, maybe financing the purchase over 20 years, and Iraq could use the money for reconstruction, security, and defense.

Not for long. We are already scraping the bottom of the barrel. Some US operations consume more energy than that of the oil they yield.

But that is just economics and capitalism. It makes our balance of trade look bad, but it is the smart thing to do.

Sure, but I am more concerned out the imbalance of trade in manufactured and renewable goods, and "labor". The US is hemorrhaging money.

Yes, especially if it was actually true.

BS. If a clear and present threat of WMD is the valid reason for going to war, we would have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq.

The bottom line is that we invaded Iraq simply because Bush wanted to, presumably to finish what his father had started. Everything else is just making up reasons to sell his agenda to the US citizens and the world. Of course everything was not entirely made up, and some of the reasons are valid. Bush still has not figured out how to pay for his war, especially with huge tax cuts for the richest americans.

I though Johannesburg or Jonestown was the place? ;)

Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's hope they don't. The first thing they'll do is sell the plans to Iran, Syria and China.
Randy http://vernarockets.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote:

I noticed Iraq was not on your "short" list. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And those who ran away from their commitment are less than comtemptible, IMO.

Nope. Every time he barred inspectors from sites, he WAS poking us with that metaphorical stick. He thought he could get away with it, because he'd gotten away with it so often in the past. This time, you just happened to have somebody in a position of doing something about it... who DID.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip
I don't remember which country it was but I recent heard on Fox that either Pakistan or India could have handed Bin Laden to Clinton on a platter and the idiot turned them down.
Randy http://vernarockets.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.