An Israeli airstrike on Gaza A rocket attack on Israel A warning to the US from Iran Russia to place missiles on the border of the EU and The stock market drops 500 points
Bush was very decisive. One can disagree with how he waged the war on terror but no one can argue that we haven't been hit again since 9/11.
We'll very soon get to see some actual decisions not just armchair quarterbacking. I hope to God he's as tough as Bush or these guys will eat him alive. And we will personally suffer.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not blaming these things on Obama. It's just that being the guy who makes the decisions and has to take the blame is a lot different than being an observer.
Bush always had the safety of this country in mind and took all kinds of abuse to keep us safe. He was treated very unfairly.
After 9/11 the whole world was behind us going as we after the Taliban in Afghanistan and supported our fight with Al Qaeda. There was a common enemy not just the vague shadowy figure named 'Terror'. Villians need a face.
In 2004 Bush seemed to be the better of two candidates. Not by his oratory skills but because he held to his convictions. He had negotiated the US into two wars and I felt he needed to stay and finish the job. I voted with my gut then and chose him over Gore.
In Iraq he had no clear evidence of anything but a grudge before we took over --and very little since. Bush was decisive, but was wrong and sold us a $600 Billion dollar war (so far). It will be more dangerous if we cut and run so we must stay to finish.
What's that saying, "fool me once...you can't get fooled again".
Cut to: Present day
Like all untested things, I'm also cautiously optimistic about Obama. Those who voted, for or against, now have the privilege to praise or criticize equally starting Day One.
Whether you're in the 53 or 46 percent it's time for a fresh slate. I don't believe we have, at any other time in history, had so many balls in the air. And, I'm proud to finally have a fresh perspective in the White House.
I don't have much confidence in "the world being behind us" because to be honest the world is generally a bunch of people who will run at the first sign of trouble. Moral support, but not much more. And talk is very cheap.
Democracies have a chronic weakness. They are very fickle. Historically, our enemies aren't.
I have to disagree on your statement J. "In Iraq he had no clear evidence of anything but a grudge before we took over --and very little since."
There were U.N. resolutions 687, 688, 707, 715, 1441 which were all considered to be in non-compliance. There was corruption running amuck in the Oil for Food program, with U.N. countries and official involved. The U.N. had stated "extremely grave" human rights violations in reports in 2001, including 2 U.N. officials shot to death in 2000 with 8 others wounded. 223 execution in a 6 month period between Oct. '99 - Mar. '00, including around 50 members of the political opposition. And to top it off, a violation of U.N. resolution 1373 which was past after 9/11, which states "Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists" and "Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens".
Here is part of a report on State-Sponsored Terrorism for the year 2000 that was published on April 30, 2001 by the U.S. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
"Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000. Although Baghdad focused on antidissident activity overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist groups.
The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme.
While the origins of the FAO attack and the hijacking were unclear, the Iraqi regime readily exploited these terrorist acts to further its policy objectives.
Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group."
Just added this to show that the Bush administration didn't just make up the idea of the Iraqi government allowing terrorist organizations to move freely through their country.
We can debate all of the things wrong with Iraq, things that we all seem to just accept, but that's not what was sold to the American people in 2002/3. We were sold on the human rights violations (which there were) and on the larger security issue of weapons of mass destruction, which there were not.
Pure and simple, we were sold a lie.
The entire Bush White House pushed to provide as many scare tactics as possible to promote a war. A war without reasonable cause and, perhaps worse of all, a war without a clear definition of success and withdrawl.
Colin Powell couldn't convince the UN that Iraq had any nuclear or biological weapons. (I can chalk that up to France, Germany and Russia not being fond of us) http://tinyurl.com/powellwmd
But, UNMOVIC Exec Hans Blix couldn't corroborate it: http://tinyurl.com/6bmb98
And, the Duelfer report couldn't prove it: http://tinyurl.com/6napw3
There's even a good report from the Carnegie Endowment on the charges still not proved about WMD in Iraq: http://tinyurl.com/55zltl
Even on your much-beloved Fox News, when Sen. Santorum held his big PR about the finding of 500 WMD over several years it was noted by a senior defense department official that they were made 'before 1991' and 'not in any useable condition'. http://tinyurl.com/rxgu8
As an administration, if you have this information why not use it to your political advantage? The only explanation is that it doesn't matter now, now that regime change has happened, now that we're all in. It means that the whole reason for going to war was a red herring.
Look, I voted for Bush twice. I feel he is a good man who did an acceptable job with what he was handed on 9/11. But, the grudge I wrote about still stands.
We had no real reason, other than wanting to control a part of the middle east that doesn't care for America. Whether for oil, military bases or just manifest destiny or, likely, all three - we jumped in with both feet. These are exactly the reasons people don't trust their government.
I think you are missing my point. There was more to the invasion than just WMDs. The media chose to sell the U.S. on WMD (chemical and biological) most likely because of the instant fear factor associated with them hitting U.S. targets. I don't believe Bush's speeches once singled out WMD as the sole reason, but the mention of them in speeches is what made prime time. Did we go into Afghanistan for WMD? No. We went into the country because they harbored terrorist that we deemed a threat after 9/11. Iraq was the next logical country because of the U.N. resolutions that were already in place, all in non-compliance. I believe your statement of no reasonable cause is disproven by my points and links in previous comments.
Also WMD refers to chemical, biological and long range missiles. Blix reported that missile programs were still going on with two missiles being built and distributed to the Iraqi military that broke the 150km restriction set by the resolution.
"In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid fuel missiles.
Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers."
Just to be technical for a second, there is "reasonable suspicion" & "probable cause". Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Where as, probable cause is a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true. Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence.
I think any reasonable person could look at the facts and find enough suspicious activity to warrant further action. So here lies the debate, does the U.N. have the power to remove a dictator of an armed state without force?
Really? You're using the "you should have read the fine print before agreeing to take over a country" argument?
If the UN felt their resolutions were truly worthwhile they should have put a coalition together. Are they likely to be ineffectual? Probably.
The notion that we, the US, should be the world police and follow the rabbit trail of 'probable cause' is asinine. Where does it stop? Isn't there probable cause in every country we want to see it in?
What's the difference between terrorist and intimidator? Money.
We are likely never going to agree on these topics. The apple has fallen too far from the tree.
That's always been my problem with the whole concept of the UN. It was supposed to head off problems like this. It may work fine for dealing with diseases but this kind of stuff that requires more than just research teams is beyond it's ability.
No country has a problem with sending in some doctors or supplies but who's willing to risk their life enforcing a resolution? Supposedly that was why there is a UN and a League of Nations before that. Mandating a solution with no one to enforce it is a waste of time and money which pretty much sums up the UN as a "peace keeping" body.
I think 9/11 was an act of terrorism using my definition from the previous comment. The leadership and members of Al Queda are few and disparate to wage a full scale war.
17 comments:
Aside from the stock market drop, nearly the same as the Gore/Bush indecision fiasco, none of this can be blamed on the election.
The world is a messy place. Welcome to the big leagues, indeed.
Bush was very decisive. One can disagree with how he waged the war on terror but no one can argue that we haven't been hit again since 9/11.
We'll very soon get to see some actual decisions not just armchair quarterbacking. I hope to God he's as tough as Bush or these guys will eat him alive. And we will personally suffer.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not blaming these things on Obama. It's just that being the guy who makes the decisions and has to take the blame is a lot different than being an observer.
Bush always had the safety of this country in mind and took all kinds of abuse to keep us safe. He was treated very unfairly.
After 9/11 the whole world was behind us going as we after the Taliban in Afghanistan and supported our fight with Al Qaeda. There was a common enemy not just the vague shadowy figure named 'Terror'. Villians need a face.
In 2004 Bush seemed to be the better of two candidates. Not by his oratory skills but because he held to his convictions. He had negotiated the US into two wars and I felt he needed to stay and finish the job. I voted with my gut then and chose him over Gore.
In Iraq he had no clear evidence of anything but a grudge before we took over --and very little since.
Bush was decisive, but was wrong and sold us a $600 Billion dollar war (so far). It will be more dangerous if we cut and run so we must stay to finish.
What's that saying, "fool me once...you can't get fooled again".
Cut to: Present day
Like all untested things, I'm also cautiously optimistic about Obama. Those who voted, for or against, now have the privilege to praise or criticize equally starting Day One.
Whether you're in the 53 or 46 percent it's time for a fresh slate. I don't believe we have, at any other time in history, had so many balls in the air. And, I'm proud to finally have a fresh perspective in the White House.
I don't have much confidence in "the world being behind us" because to be honest the world is generally a bunch of people who will run at the first sign of trouble. Moral support, but not much more. And talk is very cheap.
Democracies have a chronic weakness. They are very fickle. Historically, our enemies aren't.
Yeh, I hope Obama works out.
I have to disagree on your statement J. "In Iraq he had no clear evidence of anything but a grudge before we took over --and very little since."
There were U.N. resolutions 687, 688, 707, 715, 1441 which were all considered to be in non-compliance. There was corruption running amuck in the Oil for Food program, with U.N. countries and official involved. The U.N. had stated "extremely grave" human rights violations in reports in 2001, including 2 U.N. officials shot to death in 2000 with 8 others wounded. 223 execution in a 6 month period between Oct. '99 - Mar. '00, including around 50 members of the political opposition. And to top it off, a violation of U.N. resolution 1373 which was past after 9/11, which states "Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists" and "Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens".
Here is part of a report on State-Sponsored Terrorism for the year 2000 that was published on April 30, 2001 by the U.S. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
"Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000. Although Baghdad focused on antidissident activity overseas, the regime continued to support various terrorist groups.
The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudis who had hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad, but did return promptly the passengers and the aircraft. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and gave them ample opportunity to ventilate in the Iraqi Government-controlled and international media their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme.
While the origins of the FAO attack and the hijacking were unclear, the Iraqi regime readily exploited these terrorist acts to further its policy objectives.
Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group."
Just added this to show that the Bush administration didn't just make up the idea of the Iraqi government allowing terrorist organizations to move freely through their country.
A couple more interesting pieces to add.
FBI Indictment of Bin Laden November '98 (item 4, page 3).
www.globalsecurity.org/intell/
library/news/1998/11/indict1.pdf
Article Oct. 2000, USS Cole Bombing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
2000/oct/19/alqaida.iraq
We can debate all of the things wrong with Iraq, things that we all seem to just accept, but that's not what was sold to the American people in 2002/3. We were sold on the human rights violations (which there were) and on the larger security issue of weapons of mass destruction, which there were not.
Pure and simple, we were sold a lie.
The entire Bush White House pushed to provide as many scare tactics as possible to promote a war. A war without reasonable cause and, perhaps worse of all, a war without a clear definition of success and withdrawl.
Colin Powell couldn't convince the UN that Iraq had any nuclear or biological weapons. (I can chalk that up to France, Germany and Russia not being fond of us) http://tinyurl.com/powellwmd
But, UNMOVIC Exec Hans Blix couldn't corroborate it: http://tinyurl.com/6bmb98
And, the Duelfer report couldn't prove it: http://tinyurl.com/6napw3
There's even a good report from the Carnegie Endowment on the charges still not proved about WMD in Iraq: http://tinyurl.com/55zltl
Even on your much-beloved Fox News, when Sen. Santorum held his big PR about the finding of 500 WMD over several years it was noted by a senior defense department official that they were made 'before 1991' and 'not in any useable condition'. http://tinyurl.com/rxgu8
As an administration, if you have this information why not use it to your political advantage? The only explanation is that it doesn't matter now, now that regime change has happened, now that we're all in. It means that the whole reason for going to war was a red herring.
Look, I voted for Bush twice. I feel he is a good man who did an acceptable job with what he was handed on 9/11. But, the grudge I wrote about still stands.
We had no real reason, other than wanting to control a part of the middle east that doesn't care for America. Whether for oil, military bases or just manifest destiny or, likely, all three - we jumped in with both feet. These are exactly the reasons people don't trust their government.
I think you are missing my point. There was more to the invasion than just WMDs. The media chose to sell the U.S. on WMD (chemical and biological) most likely because of the instant fear factor associated with them hitting U.S. targets. I don't believe Bush's speeches once singled out WMD as the sole reason, but the mention of them in speeches is what made prime time. Did we go into Afghanistan for WMD? No. We went into the country because they harbored terrorist that we deemed a threat after 9/11. Iraq was the next logical country because of the U.N. resolutions that were already in place, all in non-compliance. I believe your statement of no reasonable cause is disproven by my points and links in previous comments.
Also WMD refers to chemical, biological and long range missiles. Blix reported that missile programs were still going on with two missiles being built and distributed to the Iraqi military that broke the 150km restriction set by the resolution.
"In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid fuel missiles.
Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers."
Just to be technical for a second, there is "reasonable suspicion" & "probable cause". Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Where as, probable cause is a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true. Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence.
I think any reasonable person could look at the facts and find enough suspicious activity to warrant further action. So here lies the debate, does the U.N. have the power to remove a dictator of an armed state without force?
Really? You're using the "you should have read the fine print before agreeing to take over a country" argument?
If the UN felt their resolutions were truly worthwhile they should have put a coalition together. Are they likely to be ineffectual? Probably.
The notion that we, the US, should be the world police and follow the rabbit trail of 'probable cause' is asinine. Where does it stop? Isn't there probable cause in every country we want to see it in?
What's the difference between terrorist and intimidator? Money.
We are likely never going to agree on these topics. The apple has fallen too far from the tree.
J. Do you believe the events of 9/11 were an act of war?
That's always been my problem with the whole concept of the UN. It was supposed to head off problems like this. It may work fine for dealing with diseases but this kind of stuff that requires more than just research teams is beyond it's ability.
No country has a problem with sending in some doctors or supplies but who's willing to risk their life enforcing a resolution? Supposedly that was why there is a UN and a League of Nations before that. Mandating a solution with no one to enforce it is a waste of time and money which pretty much sums up the UN as a "peace keeping" body.
I think 9/11 was an act of terrorism using my definition from the previous comment. The leadership and members of Al Queda are few and disparate to wage a full scale war.
Then that is where our disagreement is. You believe no leaders of middle eastern countries are involved and I believe the opposite.
Post a Comment