That's it. My next car's a Citroen...

The Corinthian

Stuman134 wrote:

As far as Israel's "illegal occupation" lest us not forget Israel did not start that war, they just won it.

Are you suggesting that all nations should simply follow the base doctrine of “Might is Right”?

We support Israel so can Palestine fly planes over America and bomb us ?If Palestine gets its independence and declares war on the United States then by all means yes. They can legitimately bring the Palestine Air Force (after they form it of course ) and try to bomb our country. They had just better be ready to face the repurcussions of such an act.

Apparently the repercussions are to invade a country that played no part in the original bombing. So I’m sure they’ll survive.

Let me ask you something, does Ireland not recognize Israel as a country ? Is that all they are to the Irish, a terrorist state ?

Most Europeans realize that it’s not that simple. Israel has essentially carried out a program of ethnic cleansing in its own and the Palestinian Territories since its formation. The Palestinians have in turn become disenfranchised and oppressed. On the other hand, pretty much every Arab government is a basket case in comparison to Israel, which is the only functioning democracy in the region. And in both cases you have religiously fueled extremists that are convinced that God has given them the right to drive the other into the sea.

Oh where to start...How about the United Nations. This is the same United Nations that is facing a large rape scandal in the Congo right now right ? This is the same United Nations that was behind the oil for food scandal ? So be it. If you want to defer to their judgement, then by all means do, but it is a point we will never agree on no matter how many posts we put up.

The point is one of multilateralism versus unilateralism - either nation states can agree to abide within a legal and agreed framework or ‘Might is Right’. And it doesn’t matter if invading Iraq was the right thing to do or not but that it could be done and no one could stop the US. And so, while it may not happen in your lifetime, legitimizing such a principle may well come back to bite the US on the ass.

After all, no empire stands forever. Europeans knows that better than anyone.

Self Interest or National Security...What is the difference besides semantics ? Other than one word sounds nefarious, and the other one not so much.

National Security generally would imply defense, self interest is far less noble and is better equated to avarice.

Lemming

Stuman134 wrote:

Self Interest or National Security...What is the difference besides semantics ? Other than one word sounds nefarious, and the other one not so much.

You really don't know much then do you? One interpretation is actual defense against a threat. The other is self-centered rationale. You decide which is which.

The United States tries to do right by the world whenever it can...but sometimes we have to hurt people, sometimes we have to allow people to suffer, and sometimes we have to continue cordial dealings with those who bring harm to their own people.

Y'see, this is - I believe - the contention with so many people. The US says one thing and then does another. You stand up for human rights, and lambast others for non-adherence. Then when it suits, you simlpy "forget" about them. Democracy is championed until it suits. Hypocracy is the word I'm looking for.

That is good to know that you have read the patriot act.

Out of interest. Have you?

My next question is why do you care ? I live with the patriot act every day of my life, I'm still pretty happy with my freedom.

Why do I care?

1. Because if I ever want to go to the USA to visit relatives or conduct business or study I will be subjected to some extrordinarily racist policies upto and including "disappearing" me on US soil for no other reason than somebody doesn't like the colour of my shoes.... And there's no comeback. No appeals, No notification to next of kin. No nothing. I simlpy disappear and get my ass tortured for an indefinite period of time.

2. Because I happen to have believed in the dream that was America and I feel sick watching it get flushed down the toilet by a few idiots in power and the masses who see nothing wrong with letting them so long as "it doesn't affect me". What happens when it does affect you? It'll be too late to do anything.

3. I have friends & relatives living in the states and the thought that they can just be locked up without appeal, without outside notification and have all human rights denied is very very alarming.

Are these the policies of a democracy? They don't look like them to me.

Despite all our freedoms being taken away, we still have to commit a crime before we are convicted of one (errors not withstanding of course), not just look suspicious. So I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about me and my fellow Americans' freedoms...maybe you should take a look at your own.

Ha. That is one of the most naieve things I have ever read. Tell me ... ever heard the phrase

"if you're innocent, what do you have to fear?"

Tell me ... what good is it when the notion of innocent until proven guilty is removed? When you have no ability to appeal. When you aren't even being told of what you are to be charged with and for how lon gyou are going to be held?

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "Those who sacrifice freedom for the notion of security deserve neither security nor freedom". Or words to that effect.

Wise man.

The Corinthian

Stuman134 wrote:

Israeli Ethnic cleansing are you serious ? Before you continue this conversation with me, look up how Syria dealt with the Palestinians before Israel took over. Look up ethnic cleansing while you are at it too. If a killing machine like Israel practiced the policy of eradicating the Palestinians, do you really think there would be any Palestinians left after all these years ?

Ethnic cleansing does not imply killing an ethnic group, only that group’s eradication from a geographical location. I think the such first historically recorded ethnic cleansings were the Diaspora of the Jews by the Babylonians in 586 BC and again by the Romans is AD 135. And on this point, I think you’ll find that there are very few Palestinians left in the territory of Israel, or the Palestinian Territories for that matter.

As far as unilateralism goes I think you give the United States far too much territory around this globe. Poland is not part of the USA. Spain is not part of the USA. Japan is not part of the USA. The United Kingdom is not part of the USA. Yet all these countries have participated in our war on Iraq. Hardly Unilateral at all.

I think you’re missing the point of multilateralism. Just because you can convince a few nations to tag along does not suddenly make it a truly multilateral enterprise. The decision for invading Iraq was unilateral - the US was quite willing to do so even without any support from others.

Hairy Homer

Stuman134 wrote:

Since these posts are coming like three at a time for me. I'll address the Bill O'Rielly issue here too. How many people do you think watch Bill O'Rielly in this nation ? I checked his latest ratings and he is pulling in a solid 2.4 million viewer audience. A lot of people...almost 1% of the nations population. I don't think that 1% is quite enough to topple the government and install a hard line right wing regime in the white house...but they are getting there .

Well that's good to hear. And it doesn't surprise me. Some of my favourite people are American. But then they're not sitting in the White House right now. And I know they were not part of the majority (albeit wafer-thin majority) of Americans who supported Bush at the last election.

Heck, we know how this works here. Our history is full of hot-heads who attempt to force people's hands by playing the patriotic card, kicking off a fight and then demanding of people 'Well now the shooting's started, whose side are you on? Ours or theirs?'

In our case they're called terrorists. (Pearse, Connolly, Adams etc) At least at first. In America's case they're called 'Security Advisors'.

Stuman134 wrote:

As far as France and the U.S. being the same kind of terrorist state...First of all I don't think he ever purported that France was a terrorist state.

'France is helping world wide terrorism' Paragraph one here.

However I see my country called out by name, much more than I see my president. Show me the error in my thinking on this issue and I will glady apologize for that too.

There's what? 250 million of you? The law of averages dictates that a fair proportion of them will be assholes. It's just that a lot of them seem to infest the airwaves right now. Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity......why do they all have Irish names?

dahamsta

Lemming wrote:

Yes I have actually. And most alarmed that such an act could get passed with little or no debate.

Pffff, debate. By their own admission, the vast majority of congressmen (or their staff) didn't even read it before waving it through.

I wonder what O'Reilly's margin is on those bumper stickers...

adam

Lemming

Stuman134 wrote:

Finally, I want to address the Patriot Act as I do not like the allegations that are thrown out there. First off I too have read the Patriot Act. I don't agree with everything that it entails, but it is certainly not what you have made it out to be. I don't think you have to worry about dissapearring in America and being tortured. Despite what you might have been told that does not go on here.

I'd agree with you except that people have been "disappeared" only for the truth to come out later as to what happened them. From inside the US, to US citizens. Indeed I seem to recall one such poor guy being sent "overseas" to one of the US' ME allies who weren't so pushed to follow notions of human rights.

Indeed one of the most high profile cases was an Intel engineer. A senior one at that. There was a lot of media attention over that, much to the NeoCon's annoyance.

Go ahead and call me naive, I really don't care. All I can say is come to America, visit your relatives, conduct your business, have all the fun you want. I am confident that no harm will come to you by the hand of the United States Government.

Except that they have demanded all credit card and medical records (among other information) from non-US airline passengers coming into or leaving the US. My c/c details will be on file for the next 80/90 years because of the PATRIOT act.

I *am* innocent and I fear these invasive procedures. I'm innocent, but what do I have to fear.

Coming from the same bunch of people who wouldn't allow an English businessman board a flight back to London with a toy actionman (GI Joe) figure for his son because the 2 inch long gun was a "replica" weapon and therefore a deadly weapon ....

If anyone came to me *wanting* such powers I wouldn't give it to them. People who *want* power shouldn't have it for the simple reason of their motives being incredibly suspect.

I know foreign national students at one of our universities who hold department of defense security clearances to allow them to conduct their research (not defense related research, they just need to use DoD computers to handle their computations).

Before or after 9/11 ?
It's *much* more difficult to get that clearance now. Pedantically so (even if it wasn't already before).

You can call me a mindless sheep if you like, and that I'm letting my own government pull the wool over my eyes. But ask yourself this. If I am so mindless and follow everything that my government tells me, do you think I would be the kind of person who would throw out a long winded rant in defense of my country to complete strangers.

In a word. Yes. Unfortunately so. I've seen the same from many other Americans on other boards.

Do you think I would choose a forum where I know I would be outnumbered at least 10 to 1.

Again, same as above. Yes. This isn't just you. I've encountered people who will argue the grass is really purple and will continue to do so until hell freezes over.

You and I will never agree upon what America really is to the world. But I do hope that someday you can believe that your dream of America isn't completely dead. We are still the land of the free.

Whilst I believe that you are sincere in your convictions, unfortunately your government may be talking the talk but it isn't walking the walk in that respect.

The Corinthian

Stuman134 wrote:

The desicion to invade Iraq wasn't made unilaterally and it wasn't made multilaterally, it was made bilaterally by the Brittish and the USA

There’s actually very little evidence that Britain had any real influence in the decision to invade other than to convince the US to attempt to get UN approval and most evidence points to the US wishing to invade long before the UK expressed a policy.

You and I Corinthian have a very different view of the UN. Can you honestly tell me that you believe Russia, France and Germany were not trying to look out for their own self-interests when they tried to block the United States request for action against Iraq.

Of course I’m not going to claim that Russia, France and Germany or the US were not trying to look out for their own self-interests, however that’s not the point of multilateral decision making. For better or worse, the UN is the only recognized multinational body for resolving such disputes - without it we are left with survival of the fittest under the justification that the ‘fittest’ claim to be the “good guys”.

Which brings me to the topic of self interest. I say that national defense and self-interest are one in the same. The interests of this nation and its defense are tied very closely together. Our national defense isn't just about protecting the borders of the United States from attack. Our national defense involves perserving our way of life, and perserving our country's affluence. I will freely admit it, greed does sometimes play an influence in our foreign policy affairs. As it does in all the industrialized nations. Our economy just happens to be on a larger scale than most others.

What you’re essentially saying there is that you’re looking after number one, but we should put our faith in that you won’t leave us hanging in the wind if it suits you.

Unfortunately that is precisely the price that the US paid in the ham-fisted diplomacy that surrounded the Iraq war - faith or trust. In short we don’t trust you any more. Even the British, Italians and Poles who supported (and continue to support) the war, don’t trust you any more. Now we’ll smile and do business and even like you on an individual basis, but now where mistrust was once the mantra of the loony-left, it has sadly become a mainstream. This is the tragedy that I don’t think Americans have realized.

Before I forget I want to clarify the palestinian population issue. As of 2003, there were 2.24 million palestinians living in territory claimed by Israel, and they have a 2.3% rate of population growth. If that is evidence of ethnic cleansing, then I must say the Israelis really suck at it.

For example, at the time of the formation of the state of Israel an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from what is now Israel. Amongst the tactics used were massacres to panic the local population into fleeing; one such example was the massacre at Deir Yassin where up to 240 Palestinians were killed by Jewish militias.

Of course, as I’ve already pointed out, the Palestinians have hardly exonerated themselves, but nonetheless you would have to admit that the Israelis have not exactly been all that nice either.

Sand

To get back to Stus original point - which devolved into a discussion of a wide variety of mini-issues - Id agree that the US is overall no better or worse than any other country, and no better or worse than any other hegemon throughout history. Certainly it has been beneficial to have the US around for Ireland and Europe in general, certainly more so than the USSR or China. It is unfortunate that it is probably the most dominant culture in the western world at least, and thus it has become the whipping boy for the sins of the western world.

All you can do is turn the other cheek. If you think the few threads here now have been bad then you should have checked this place out a few months ago.

Hairy Homer

Stuman134 wrote:

BTW We back the Republic of Ireland in matter of foreign policy too. That is what allies do.

Actually, I don't think we are an ally. We're a 'most friendly nation', but because we are not members of NATO and have no military treaty with the US, we are not strictly an ally.

A consequence of this is that the Irish Army has, I believe, no American made military hardware at all. Even during the peace dividend days at the end of the Cold War, we were not allowed purchase second-hand American hardware because of our lack of a military alliance with the US.

This contrasts starkly with the armoury of a certain, ahem, terrorist army on this island which has loads of M60 machine guns, Armalites etc etc etc

Bought the same way your average NRA member gets his artillery.

Stuman134 wrote:

Israeli Ethnic cleansing are you serious ? Before you continue this conversation with me, look up how Syria dealt with the Palestinians before Israel took over. Look up ethnic cleansing while you are at it too. If a killing machine like Israel practiced the policy of eradicating the Palestinians, do you really think there would be any Palestinians left after all these years ?

Well of course it wasn't called ethnic cleansing back in 1948, but objectively, that's pretty much what it boiled down to. The Israelis are just better at selling their story to the American market than the Arabs are.

And as for that ' the Israelis didn't start the war, they just won it' not strictly true either. The Jewish forces (the fighting in 48 actually started before the creation of Israel) were actively involved in a concerted campaign to clear the indigenous Arabs out of much of their area of Palestine. Especially from around the main roads linking Jerusalem with the coast. Look up Deir Yassin. Look up the date when it happened. Look up the dates on which the neighbouring Arab countries declared war on Israel. Which came first?

All this is historic water under the bridge now. But if you make untrue statements about the Nazi's treatment of the Jews in Germany today, you get locked up.

Hairy Homer

Stuman134 wrote:

ROFL...I never noticed that those were all Irish names. If it makes you feel any better, President Bush's opponent in the last election was John Kerry, an Irishman (by ancestory I mean of course) from Boston, MA.

Wah Uh. No he ain't. He's of Czech origin I believe and assumed the name Kerry (which I've never heard here as a surname, only a place name) on the most arbitrary grounds.

stuman134 wrote:

Btw if any of you know much about American political parties it might surprise you to know that I'm a registered democrat

No surprise at all. How do you feel when the likes of Coulter say YOU'RE all anti-American, traitors, fools, lickspittles, pantywaists etc etc etc?

stuman wrote:

P.S. To address this post directly...Don't buy a french car they suck!

In French the word for car, la voiture, is a feminine noun. And if you'd ever been sucked by a French female, you'd perhaps know that it's no bad thing...:-)

Uh-Oh. Skating on thin ice again.


PS Hurry Back Stuman. We'll miss you.

sceptre

Hairy Homer wrote:

Wah Uh. No he ain't. He's of Czech origin I believe and assumed the name Kerry (which I've never heard here as a surname, only a place name) on the most arbitrary grounds.

A pencil, a map and a blindfold back at the end of the 19th century AFAIK. Otto Kohn became Otto Kerry and his brother Fritz (later Fred) decided to take the same name. The Kohns were indeed from what is now the Czech republic.

SpabSFW

sovtek wrote:

I think it's an anti-O'rielly post rather than an anti-american one. I rarely see anything on here I would term anti-American.

That's because I haven't really gotten around to posting much here yet.

O'Reilly does bite, by the way. Whoever posted the bit on the vibrator, I hadn't seen that before and I about laughed my ass off.

SpabSFW

Stuman134 wrote:

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The desicion to invade Iraq wasn't made unilaterally and it wasn't made multilaterally, it was made bilaterally by the Brittish and the USA...based on intelligence that ended up being faulty. Though that is being brought into question again (By a U.N. Inspector not the U.S. Government). Personally, I think that the intelligence was wrong, that Husseins own people were lieing to him about Iraq's WMD capability. I don't believe it was a US and UK conspiracy to doctor evidence and have an excuse to invade Iraq...

blah blah blah

I say that national defense and self-interest are one in the same. The interests of this nation and its defense are tied very closely together. Our national defense isn't just about protecting the borders of the United States from attack. Our national defense involves perserving our way of life, and perserving our country's affluence. I will freely admit it, greed does sometimes play an influence in our foreign policy affairs. As it does in all the industrialized nations. Our economy just happens to be on a larger scale than most others.

I don't know what you are, but you're not a Democrat. One of the few places I agree with you is here:

Stuman134 wrote:

Not to mention American girls go crazy for Irish accents

SpabSFW

Hairy Homer wrote:

PS Hurry Back Stuman. We'll miss you.

He'll probably be back after he finishes his Freedom fries.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Stuman134 wrote:

We certainly did nothing...President Clinton authorizing U.S. troops to go into Haiti and restore Aristide to power in October of 1994 is nothing at all

That was after Bush' CIA helped topple him and their "rebels" were going around killing everyone that supported him (which was basically everyone) and then Clinton got tired of the boat people and sent in the military to restore Aristide....that's after he was forced to agree to our version of democracy....ie neo-liberal economic policies.
Then he (Clinton) almost immediately put sanctions on Haiti.

sovtek

Stuman134 wrote:

Personally, I think that the intelligence was wrong, that Husseins own people were lieing to him about Iraq's WMD capability. I don't believe it was a US and UK conspiracy to doctor evidence and have an excuse to invade Iraq.

No it was a Bush conspiracy to ignore any evidence that would thwart their goals of controlling Iraq.

You and I Corinthian have a very different view of the UN. Can you honestly tell me that you believe Russia, France and Germany were not trying to look out for their own self-interests when they tried to block the United States request for action against Iraq. Do you think that the lucrative oil contracts those countries had in place with Sadaam Hussein had nothing to do with them trying to block our actions (funny how those countrys' involvement with a brutal regime to serve their own "self-interests" never seems to be of world concern.

France and such were looking out for their self interest AND trying to stop a friend who was making an obvious mistake...one which would kill alot of people and last for years.
Do you think the Bush' regimes actions had nothing to do with strategic control of oil and the ME?
Do you think that Cheney and Halliburton had some designs as well...considering that they were both dealing with Saddam up until about 2000

Jimboo_Jones

I say that national defense and self-interest are one in the same. The interests of this nation and its defense are tied very closely together. Our national defense isn't just about protecting the borders of the United States from attack. Our national defense involves perserving our way of life, and perserving our country's affluence. I will freely admit it, greed does sometimes play an influence in our foreign policy affairs.

If you believe this, and I do find it an astonishing admital, then you can not moan when other countries do not support you in invading another country to satisfy your greed, as you put it.

And how do you feel that innocent people may have to suffer or die for your countries greed?

ambro25

I'm of Mediterranean origin, non-Arabic might I add, so not 'pasty white', if you get my drift. I also happen to be French. And I visited Iraq in the summer of '87, building prefab' hospitals & colleges for a French sub-contractor, who got the erecting contract from the US prefab' buildings manufacturer. That's for context - just to say that 'it' used to work, and maybe prompt some temporization about the whole Iraq thing.

Now, US readers/posters (stuman 134, is it?)

1) The above is stacking up to an awful lot for me to dare venture onto your shores for visiting my wife's cousin in new England (as I'm sure your security services already have all of this information in some database somewhere - and jumping at then from the screen in big red letters once my passport gets onto a plane manifest)

2) if I have nothing to fear of your current policies, tell me why, when I board a US-bound plane (as I have a few times since 9/11 but pre-Patriot), I am often the only person taken aside 2 or 3 times by muscle-types for a full search (incl. asked to remove shoes)? Is it because of my passport? Or (God forbid) my looks? Is it because I'm boarding the plane in a different country than my country of birth?

Not to mention the 'humiliation' for my (Brit) wife standing by me whilst I'm being very nearly strip-searched at the boarding gate when everybody else just walks by ogling (you're lucky, for French guy I'm not so proud to kick a fuss).

The few times I have visited America, I have enjoyed the place and the people tremendously. But what has been posted herein before, in respect of mistrust, is totally appropriate - at least in my (humble) case: I do not dislike America, or Americans (despite the Freedom Fries and all that - you're all just so puerile still ), but I have grown over the past few years to totally mistrust your government, their policies and the motives behind both. Which is a crying shame...

ambro25

Stuman134 wrote:

P.S. To Hairy Homer: I use to date a French Canadian girl, and yes was very happy with that aspect of our relationship so to speak (also trying to not cross any lines) but I'm still not going to buy a Fiat! Germany pissed us off to over our war in Iraq so buy a Volkswagon instead! (The new hybrid one is pretty cool).

Erm... FIAT's Italian, by the way, not French - and Italian cars are much worse than French ones, let it be said

sovtek

ambro25 wrote:

Erm... FIAT's Italian, by the way, not French - and Italian cars are much worse than French ones, let it be said

In general European cars are rated better than an American cars. Japanese I think are rated best

ambro25

I've driven them all (manner of speech...well...writing ) and have found (IMHO) that:
Italians were, faithful to the stereotype, fun to drive but totally and unpredictably unreliable (driven Fiat, Lancia)
French were comfortable, economical and badly finished (driven Citroen, Renault, Peugeot)
Japs (currently have 2, Subaru & Mazda) are not very comfortable, below-average equipped, not particularly frugal, but a most enjoyable drive and build quality,
American were, faithful to the stereotype, large, overly-equipped (if there can be such a thing), extremely comfortable and seemingly engineered for driving in straight lines - and surprisingly economical (for V6s) (driven Lincoln, Chevrolet, Ford)

But that belongs in the Motors Forum - in the context of this here debate, totally irrelevant. Don't buy a Citroën, just insist on French fries (which denomination is -to me- problematic, since we French ave held the Belgians as the inventors of the culinary variant for centuries - go figure!)

sovtek

Stuman134 wrote:

We tried to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Many of our own soldiers have died because of that policy. We are not by nature an evil people.

So do you think it's ok to project American interest when it:

1. Violates international law.
2. Goes against the wishes of the respective countries people.
3. Kills approx 100,000 of those people.
4. Topples the leader of a sovereign nation

And would it be ok for any other country in the world to do that to America?

sovtek

Stuman134 wrote:

We really don't have a lot of french auto dealers here in the states.

I'm not exactly sure why but I think all French car makers pulled out in the 80's. I can still remember Opel and Renaults when I was a kid. They weren't too great back then but are quite good now.

If you will note earlier I do not drive an American car, so at no time did I say American cars were rated the best in the world. I have no idea why you brought that up.

I wasn't replying to your post.

Jimboo_Jones

Stuman134 wrote:

I'm very happy about it. Me and my fellow Americans throw a party everytime an innocent civilian dies. I'm being sarcastic. How do you think I feel ? When an Israeli child is killed by a bomb, do you say "Oh well, one less christ killer to deal with ?"

I guess I am not getting the question across as I would like to, but I am quite a 'newb' at this..

I would class a countries interest quite differently from a countries security, if its security is under attacked then I would expect that its 'allies' would help it. If it is just looking out for its own interests, well then I would expect it to go on its own, or at least not be too botherd if a country decided not to help.

Now you have hinted that you think the reason we (Im a british citizen by the way) went to war is to protect your (and possibly Britians) national interest, so why is there animosity to nations that decided it wasnt in their national interest to go to war?

PH01

French Fries = Freedom Fries;
Fox News = Fake News;

ur go...

The Corinthian

Stuman134 wrote:

1. Yes in some cases I do belive it is okay for America to violate international law. This is a situational basis of course. The only situation I'm going to tackle here is the Iraqi war. At the time that we decided to go to war with Iraq. We were under the assumption that Iraq had developed WMDs and was harboring enemies of the state. As it stands I know both these pretenses are false (though still under international investigation as well as American investigation). For this case I'm not going to involve the conspiracy theory that the intelligence was purposely made up, because that has not been proven regardless of your feelings on the matter. We felt that Iraq was a direct threat to our allies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, and a couple others whos name escapes me. Not to mention the safty of the Kurds who were an internal ally of ours in Iraq (I'm well aware that we screwed them over hard in the first gulf war...no need to throw that in my face since I'm already throwing it in my own face). Under these circumstances I think it is our right and duty to protect our interests and those of our allies. If the conspiracy theory were ever to be proven true that the evidence was doctored to make it look like Iraq had WMD when clearly there were none, then I would of course say no, America would have had absolutely no right or reason to invade Iraq.

Some of that information has already been shown to be intentionally misleading (bare in mind, you don’t need to doctor anything to lie, only show what you want to show and hide the rest) - such as the supposed attempted Niger uranium purchase.

Also I would point to your rather telling choice of words; that you “were under the assumption that Iraq had developed WMDs and was harbouring enemies of the state”. You do know that an assumption is a premise from which you start an argument, but which is not based upon any proof? Shoot first, ask questions after? Is this a rational basis on which to base foreign policy, let alone begin a war?

3. Just what exactly do you think war involves ? Large numbers of people die in war. That is the main reason it is such an awful thing. Russia killed thousands of Germans during WWII. America killed thousands of Germans and Russians during WWII. The Celts killed thousands of Romans back in the time of Boudicca (sorry if I misspelled her name). Killing comes with war. I'm sorry it has to be that way.

Err... I would hope that America would not have killed thousands of Russians during WWII, seeing as they were allies.

4. Absolutely yes. This has some precedence too. Remeber a guy named Adolf Hitler. He ultimately killed himself, but if he had not, do you think the rest of Europe would have left him in power ?

Probably not. It was, after all, the Russians and not the Americans that took Berlin in the end.

The final question is answered by the above 4 questions. Those beliefs apply to every nation on earth. Though if America itself was ever attacked, don't expect me to lie down and not take arms because they met the conditions of those 4 questions. Just as I do not expect any nation we go to war with to not take up arms.

Yet by your admission, the first condition was based upon an assumption, the second and third are simply commentaries on war and occupation and not reasons for either war or occupation and the last is another assumption; that it is America’s role is to act as judge, jury and executioner to all of the World’s ills (seemingly based upon the myth of America winning WWII single-handedly).

And you wonder why us ‘old Europeans’ were a little sceptical?

Jimboo_Jones

Hey, glad we can agree on something  I’m sure that there is more though.

Interesting read, I wonder what they are saying now that the search for WMD has stopped without finding any.

Allegations about the quality of the US intelligence performance and the need to confront these charges have forced senior intelligence officials throughout US Intelligence to spend much of their time looking backwards. I worry about the opportunity costs of this sort of preoccupation, but I also worry that analysts laboring under a barrage of allegations will become more and more disinclined to make judgments that go beyond ironclad evidence—a scarce commodity in our business.

I would have thought that the quality of the information would have to be of the highest quality in the first place. After all the reports will be used to help make some very serious decisions and the people making those decisions should have the up most confidence in the quality of the data within the reports.

In my view the WMD should have never been the basis of the argument for going to war against Iraq, I know that practically any other reason would have been a harder sell and probably against international law, but I think the case probably could have been made.

If this is allowed to happen, the Nation will be poorly served by its Intelligence Community and ultimately much less secure. Fundamentally, the Intelligence Community increasingly will be in danger of not connecting the dots until the dots have become a straight line.

In other words, ‘we will make mistakes, that may have disastrous consequences of people of other nations, but if you hinder with checks on the quality of the data we may miss another terrorist attack on our country’… I really do not like this line of thought, it seems like a nice, handy excuse for sloppy work to me.

The worrying thing about the article is that he writer indicates that there where no errors made, so I guess no lessons learned. But this was from before the search had stopped, maybe that’s changed now.

The Corinthian

Stuman134 wrote:

I use the word assumption, becuase as it stands now it certainly is not a fact about Iraq's WMD program. At the time they had proof, which was later proved faulty, from both American and British intelligence agencies that Iraq had become a threat to our interests. I lay the burden of proof upon you to show that America's highest leaders and specifically President Bush conspired to make up the WMD crisis. If you can find legitimate documentation (i.e. legitimate news agency) that proves the above mentioned accusation I'll listen to that side of the argument.

It is unlikely that one would find any smoking gun in the matter of the evidence of Iraqi WMD or 9-11 links. However, even so, the evidence that was presented was woefully incompetent to the point that even if there was no intentional deception, criminal negligence would still reasonably apply, at the very least.

As for pointing the finger at Bush directly, I would not make such a claim. I simply don’t think there is either the evidence or that he would be of a temperament to carry out such a deception. Were I to point the finger at anyone in the US administration it would probably be at one of the Likud / NeoCon figures such as Paul Wolfowitz or Douglas Feith, as they would have motive to encourage a war that would benefit Israel at the US’s expense - but I stress that this would simply be speculation upon my part.

Nonetheless, the question arises how information so poorly researched and biased could slip through the net, not through one coalition country but several. Also, it must be asked why evidence, doubts and recommendations to the contrary view by the UN head of weapons inspections, Hans Blix, or even within the CIA itself, were ignored or dismissed without consideration. The weight of all this regrettably does point to form compelling proof that there was a conscious move to favour one interpretation the reality of the alleged Iraqi threat over another.

A few sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2978666.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3172505.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3079271.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3100089.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3730540.stm

As it stands, your argument against my answer to number 1 is purely a semantic one, hinging on my use of the word assumption.

I was simply pointing out what an assumption is. If you assume someone is guilty and then proceed to collect and present evidence that will back up only this assumption then this ‘proof’ is flawed. So my criticism was not as semantic as it was logical.

I know it was Russia who ultimately reached Berlin first, I don't believe I have ever stated otherwise. As far as the myth that America single-handedly won world war II, I'm sure there is some of that belief out there. I personally think it is a stupid belief and one I know not to be true.

Then why did you ask whether “the rest of Europe would have left him in power?” It is evident that “the rest of Europe” did not.

pete

Stuman134 wrote:

As for Hans Blix, the guys is just a beaurucratic weiner. He has very little credibility and the IAEA has long been thought of as a toothless organization. Here are some quotes about Mr. Blix:

"unsurpassed record of failure in dealing with Saddam Hussein"
-Wall Street Journal

"ran a toothless agency."
-Former weapons inspector David Albright

Sweden's former deputy prime minister Per Ahlmark in the Washington Times, who wrote that Blix was "weak and easily fooled," "easily misled," and "a wimp." "I can think of few European officials less suitable for a showdown with Saddam,"

"turned a bit of a blind eye to some things that maybe he shouldn't have."
Weapons Inspector Richard Butler on CNN

I got all this from the website: http://slate.msn.com/id/2074629/

Uhhh you seem to have left one rather important thing out there, boss.

Hans Blix was right.