US/UK Downing St memo confirms war lies?

[ChadTower]

I have to respect a man who doesn't accept what we're spoon-fed by the media, makes up his own mind and presents his views without apology (and I am NOT implying that an apology is required).

There are too few folks who look beyond the veneer and, agree with them or not (and I'm not saying!), I certainly respect those who do.

Coolness!  Thanks for the words.

[ChadTower]

I'd agree with you that a huge military base in the Middle East makes sense, *if* we were fighting against a large standing army, but we are not. The more serious and immediate threat to our continued existence is small, highly mobile bands of religious extremists with broad-based support across a huge swath of the Middle East. Stamping out a large footprint, smack-dab in the center of their "crib", to me, doesn't seem like the best idea.

Then let me present another, tangential scenario.  All we've heard all along is that "we must get the terrorists".  Well, we really haven't, have we?  What we did do is stage ourselves permanently next to what could be a much larger threat:  a nuclear Iran.  The US military is not thinking about the loss of 3000 people here.  They are thinking about the loss of 3,000,000.  What this presence gives us is the credible capability of sending in special forces to remove ANYTHING in that region without notice.  That is what sets our capabilities apart from anyone in the world.  If our leaders felt it asbolutely necessary we could send in people who could seize every one of those facilities in the same day.  We'd only do that if we felt launch was imminent and immediate, but that is pretty much our only option short of the type of Star Wars defense system Reagan used to talk about.

The instability in Iraq really isn't part of this goal, but neither is it a hindrance.  It's like the neighbor's kid that messes with the stuff in your yard... he's a pain in the ass and you could slap him around, but you don't bother because you have more important things to worry about.

We ARE staging to fight a large standing enemy here, and it's not in Iraq.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent.  That's half the reason these people have always hated us, right?  Our support of Israel?

[CheffoJeffo]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent.  That's half the reason these people have always hated us, right?  Our support of Israel?

Now THAT is an interesting thought ...

Cheers.

[ChadTower]

Now THAT is an interesting thought ...

Now, imagine what would happen among the Jewish population of the US if we started to pull away from Israel... and also imagine the type of open season on Israel that Israel's enemies would declare.

I can see the giant Hollywood engine already jumping on the Save Israel bandwagon now... 

[fredster]

It's important to note that the Soviets controlled all the major cities of Afghanistan up to their withdrawal in 1988, and Kabul itself did not fall until 1992, four years after the last Soviet troops withdrew.

It's also important to note we did it Less than a month.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent

Totally against the stance the USA has taken since the creation of Israel.  This, like all of the things you dream up, shows just how naive and superficial your "world view" is.

[ChadTower]

Uh, dude, you quoted two separate people there without denoting it. 

Soviet comment - Mr C.

Israel comment - Me.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We ARE staging to fight a large standing enemy here, and it's not in Iraq.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if part of this is to cut our ties with Israel, now that we don't need to support them in return for a no questions asked ally on that continent.  That's half the reason these people have always hated us, right?  Our support of Israel?

Interesting theory indeed. I believe we should have cut ties w/ Israel a long time ago. They've shown, time and again, a complete abuse of power. Anyhow, sure, the Arab fundamentalist hate us, primarily, for our support of Israel, but it's much deeper than that, and goes back to a mistrust through vilification born out of the brutal 11th-13th century Crusades. So, ironically, the mere act of having a footprint in the Middle East would completely offset our pull-back from Israel. So it'd be a stalemate really. Moot. Quite possibly even more infuriating for the region.

In total, I really think you overestimate the potential success of U.S. capabilities. Sure, we've got a lot of power, but so did Goliath before he was clonked with the stone. Remember, these renegade fundamentalists brought our economy to it's knees with 19 men and a few box cutters.

Furthermore, you also seem to completely disregard the will of the American public, with support for the Iraq war below 50% and absolutely NO support for war against Iran, might we begin to factor in the potential for a Democratically elected president in 2008, acting on the will of the people to *not* support this goal of permanence in Iraq?

Are we talking complete and total 'black-ops' here? And/or do you know something about voting machines that you'd like to share? 

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's important to note that the Soviets controlled all the major cities of Afghanistan up to their withdrawal in 1988, and Kabul itself did not fall until 1992, four years after the last Soviet troops withdrew.

It's also important to note we did it Less than a month.

Yet, somehow, you didn't think to factor in the fact that 25 years of BRUTAL fighting against the Russians might have softened them up? Maybe just a little?

You might want to research that conflict a little before you comment again.

EDIT: PLUS, your comment totally belies the fact that the Taliban STILL exists and is STILL a threat in Afghanistan...and our "man in Afghanistan" Hamid Karzai is dodging bullets on an almost daily basis. Geez...a pretty skewed sense of "winning". We should have had 150,000 troops in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, rebuilding that country and establishing our presence where it would have been justified (as Al-Qaeda, who actually attacked us, is stationed there)

mrC

[ChadTower]

Interesting theory indeed. I believe we should have cut ties w/ Israel a long time ago. They've shown, time and again, a complete abuse of power. Anyhow, sure, the Arab fundamentalist hate us, primarily, for our support of Israel, but it's much deeper than that, and goes back to a mistrust through vilification born out of the brutal 11th-13th century Crusades. So, ironically, the mere act of having a footprint in the Middle East would completely offset our pull-back from Israel. So it'd be a stalemate really. Moot. Quite possibly even more infuriating for the region.

How is that a stalemate?

[fredster]

Chad, sorry. I was on a roll.

 MrC,

Yet, somehow, you didn't think to factor in the fact that 25 years of BRUTAL fighting against the Russians might have softened them up? Maybe just a little?

Did it occur to you that perhaps that the US led the best war campaign ever?  Did it occur to you that the people supported the US in this war because they needed us?  Give us credit.

The Nazi party still exists man.  Is it a big surprise we didn't kill every last one of them??

the mere act of having a footprint in the Middle East would completely offset our pull-back from Israel. So it'd be a stalemate really. Moot. Quite possibly even more infuriating for the region.

Looks like Lybia gave up arms and Syria pulled out of Lebannon just cuz they wanted to?  How about the palestinians electing a non arafat government?  Egypt is doing democratic elections.  This is progress, and this is what was needed to contain and change the middle east.

In total, I really think you overestimate the potential success of U.S. capabilities. Sure, we've got a lot of power, but so did Goliath before he was clonked with the stone.

You are quoting Biblical references?  Careful, you might go fundamentalist on us.

I'm not disregarding the will of the American public, I am basing my projections on actual documented election results rather than media polls

Wow, that's soooo smart.  Using numerology?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How is that a stalemate?  That's a major strategic victory for the US.  Let's see how it was before:

Doing nothing to address the hatred and mistrust, and in fact, inflamming it further, only serves to make those nukes a more imminent threat.

You = believe we could swoop in and control the plants.
I     = believe we could not, and a base would only serve to continue to inflame the region and anti-U.S. sentiment.

1)  They hate us.

More so now because we've justified their fear of our imperialism.

2)  We have dozens of permanent military installations centrally located on the continent from which we can launch major military offensives if we deem it necessary to preempt nuclear launches.

Why couldn't we have done this in Afghanistan, where the world agreed we should be? Morally and legally we had every right to do so, yet, we've got less than a handful of troops on the ground? I'd agree with your scenario, were it in Afghanistan, since my concerns would be addressed, the Arab world accepted our invasion of Afghanistan, hell, a few Arab nations even supported it!

Why Iraq over Afghanistan? - If it's not about oil, and only about military presence, how is Iraq that much more strategic than Afghanistan? I'd think Afghanistan would be ideal, we would have had total control of the land, limited population, not surrounded by anti-american Arab nations on multiple sides.

3)  We can tell Israel to go pound their sand and don't have to defend a tiny region on the other side of the planet as if it were Puerto Rico.

They've got nukes and extremists too...unfortunately, without U.S. support, they'd probably even act more brash and irresponsible. The U.S., by having forces station in the region would be forced to join any conflict, should it escalate out of control. So permanence means, welcome to the family! Our "unjust" occupation is only going to make it harder to deal with this kind of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---, which we're now going to have to deal with for the remainder of our nation's existence.

Seems like we're better off with the new way than the old way.

Again, we have to agree to disagree. You have a valid scenario, I just feel differently, that anything based on lies and subterfuge will not succeed in the long run.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Did it occur to you that perhaps that the US led the best war campaign ever?  Did it occur to you that the people supported the US in this war because they needed us?  Give us credit.

So, really, it doesn't factor in then, for you? 25 years of constant warfare? I'm suppose to be amazed that we walked over a scrap-yard? I would have given this administration credit had they *stayed* in Afghanistan, maintained a massive footprint and finished the job. Your Nazi party analogy makes no sense so I'm not going to address it other than to say it's absurd.

Looks like Lybia gave up arms and Syria pulled out of Lebannon just cuz they wanted to?  How about the palestinians electing a non arafat government?  Egypt is doing democratic elections.  This is progress, and this is what was needed to contain and change the middle east.

And all three of those examples have *nothing* to do with our presence in Iraq. Sorry. Not buying it. Lybia was already on the path to giving the weapons up, Arafat ---smurfin---' died, so your just crazy there, his party was nothing without him...and Eqypt has been moving toward democracy for a while. Yes, it is progress and very welcome progress at that. But to think that it has anything to do with Iraq shows a certain naivity and misunderstanding of history and current events. You might want to note that our continued plight in Iraq could possibly have the much ill-fated side-effect of actually destroying the embryonic demand for grassroots Democracy in Iran? Right? Read up on the student rebellion and how much is has cooled towards Iranian nationalism in the wake of our debacle in Iraq.

I'm not disregarding the will of the American public, I am basing my projections on actual documented election results rather than media polls

Wow, that's soooo smart.  Using numerology?

Uuuuuuhhh...Sorry, you're quoting Chad again. I wonder if half the time you are arguing with me you are confusing me with a bunch of people. I really have an effect on you, don't I? Makes me tingle! 

mrC

[fredster]

Again, Sorry Chad.

MrC,

So, really, it doesn't factor in then, for you? 25 years of constant warfare? I'm suppose to be amazed that we walked over a scrap-yard? I would have given this administration credit had they *stayed* in Afghanistan, maintained a massive footprint and finished the job. Your Nazi party analogy makes no sense so I'm not going to address it other than to say it's absurd.

No, they fought constantly for 25 years and had a break.  They were demoralized by the Taliban.  Extremeists are everywhere, they exist in every walk of life. there are still Nazis and whatever party you are from.  We still have the KKK. You can't kill'em all.  The comparison is valid.  Even small numbers of extermists cause big problems.  Remember Oklahoma city?  19 hijackers?

But to think that it has anything to do with Iraq shows a certain naivity and misunderstanding of history and current events.

I don't think so.  The presence of the US in Iraq and Afgahnistan caused free elections.  The idea of the elections and the motivation for the changes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc was driven from that example.  Lybia backed off because of fear of the US.  (fear = respect).

To say it isn't because of Iraq shows a man with blinders on trying anything he can to avoid giving credit where credit is due.

Read up on the student rebellion and how much is has cooled towards Iranian nationalism in the wake of our debacle in Iraq.

Read up on the events of 1979 and how Carter caused all this by not backing the Shaw.  I think we could make an historic argument on how all of this was caused by Carter's ineffective and destructive administration.  The Student rebellion hasn't stopped anything or changed anything to benifit US.

I wonder if half the time you are arguing with me you are confusing me with a bunch of people. I really have an effect on you, don't I? Makes me tingle!

Yeah, I gotta be more careful.  I gotta keep it smaller because I'm doing it in between meetings.  I'll love to make you tingle too sweetie.

[ChadTower]

Something I have to ask:

Why do we care at all who has free elections?  That's how we do things, what does it matter if 15 little places 10000 miles away do it differently?  Either these places pose a military threat or they do not...

[jbox]

Executive summary: People are people, and nations are simply big lumps of people. LCD theory means you will live with exactly the lowest form of average you can stomache. Feel free to skip the rest of this nonsense.

1) What would have been Blair's motivation for going to war with Iraq if he knew the intel was false?

Personally, I find that arguing over the Republicrat's motive is far more fertile ground. I've always assumed that Blair had the same reason that little Johnny did, which is that you get more scraps from the new Emperor's table by agreeing with whatever he says than trying (and failing) to be superior. Talking about the 'coalition' is a red herring, because it suggests that had the USA decided not to go the invasion still would have happened. It was a coalition in the same way that a company is a 'coalition', when the guy at the top of the food chain picks a target you either get on board or increase the odds that it will be you next time. 

I mean really people, what is this, Disney Land? In other words, I would damn well *expect* that every government in the world (and probably a couple of the larger militant groups too) had a meeting whose agenda was in effect: "Well, the USA is going to war, here are the Pro/Con analysis studies of joining them." I highly doubt any particular senior intelligence briefing was significantly different than any of the others (including the low probability of *actual* WMDs), but it was simply a question of what weighting they applied to each variable in the equation (eg. international standing, tensions with arab nations, relations with the USA, chance to get $$$/oil, etc...). Some countries helped, some interfered, some did both and some did neither presumably because that's what they thought was the right thing for *their* country to do. Ergo, as these different minutes get 'leaked' we already know which way the meetings ended based on whether or not they went already. I mean forget the UK, I bet Pakistan's briefing was far more interesting! 

All the people sticking to the notion of independant states must surely see that this goes hand-in-hand with the notion that those states are essentially self-serving, otherwise when would they ever disagree? We're not some kind of global family, we're competitors. How do you go from independant states to global unity in any reality that is still pre-Matrix? Don't get me wrong, I dislike Johnny's bigoted, greed-oriented agenda as much as the next 'wimp', not to mention this pathetically under-armed country simultaneously contains the largest uranium deposits in the world while sitting next to one of the largest Muslim nations, but surely this is all just International Politics 101 stuff? 

Look, if you really hate chewing through academic reports as much as I do, try reading any of the novels about the Discworld for some good layman's explanations of what "good government" is really going to look like. Contented people are just not going to care because people themselves are in the vast majority self-serving, which (surprise, surprise) is why they continue to elect *known* liers and cheats in the hope that it works out slightly better for them. I've not met a single person who voted for the hate-mongers in our latest election because they enjoyed hate-mongering (although some of them supported it), by far and away priority number one was the hope that their tax cut and/or mortgage would be slightly better off than under the other guys. This is where the real turf war for power is, the people who just don't give a rat's ass, and the Republicrats all over the world know it too.   

Mathematically it's very simple: even the biggest magnitude scandal multiplied by a care factor of zero will come out to zero. And if shouting at people ever actually worked, then we'd be in even more trouble then we are now. The Republicrats didn't break your electoral system, because these guys are the advanced evolution of "representative government" (aka mob rule), some people just don't like the fact that their compassion puts them in the minority. If smear campaigns didn't work, why are they still used?   

[jbox]

Ugh, that was far too long. And somehow I *still* forgot to slip xenophobia and ego in there too, which are the two ajoining pillars to greed and revenge. Doh! 

[fredster]

Ah, sure.

xenophobia

sure.

Had to follow the crowd, needed to make money, kill the man who tried to kill his daddy.

You don't work do you jbox?

[jbox]

You don't work do you jbox?

Tsk, tsk. All that whaffle and that's the best attempt you can come up with? How about I pretend that was somehow insightful and give you marks for effort instead. 

I work. I vote. I pay my taxes. I obey the road rules. Hey, I even have savings! Maybe you can accuse me of kicking puppies instead if you think that will help rebut my argument. 

[DrewKaree]

You don't work do you jbox?

Tsk, tsk. All that whaffle and that's the best attempt you can come up with? How about I pretend that was somehow insightful and give you marks for effort instead. 

I work. I vote. I pay my taxes. I obey the road rules. Hey, I even have savings! Maybe you can accuse me of kicking puppies instead if you think that will help rebut my argument. 

You kick PUPPIES?!?!?

Do you tie Rottweiler's up in the back yard with goats for "play dates" and feign shock when the ASPCA (or your version over up yonder down under der hey is) comes a'knockin?

[jbox]

You kick PUPPIES?!?!?

Do you tie Rottweiler's up in the back yard with goats for "play dates" and feign shock when the ASPCA (or your version over up yonder down under der hey is) comes a'knockin?

Bah! I et a BABY once. That's right, the other other white meat! Ya can keep ya damn capitalism, and ya waw too, if I get ta et ya BABY!



(FYI: RSPCA - remember, we've got nob heads on our coins still)

[fredster]

Picking up quarters in a parking lot doesn't count for "working".

I obey road rules too when I'm on my bicycle....

[mr.Curmudgeon]

ChadTower,

You never answered my question in this thread regarding why, if the war in Iraq *wasn't* all about the oil (as you allege), and it was instead about establishing a U.S. base of operations in the Middle East, why pre-emptively attack (without the broad support of our allies) one of the most secular nations in the Middle East, at the ultimate risk of being dragged into urban guerilla warfare, ad infinitum? (and *please* don't say to "liberate" the Iraqi people from Saddam's oppressive clutches, as we all know that isn't why we are there, and it certainly wasn't the reason used to justify the war. Nor can you say WMD, because by your very own theory...that isn't the reason either)

Why not establish our base of operations in a much less "densely" populated and less modernized environment, like Afghanistan, that isn't surrounded by hostile nations on all sides, where we *HAD* a broad base of support from the local inhabitants and our global allies, where, with the amount of troops and money we have so far spent in Iraq we could have maintained total control over the entire country, rebuilt the region in our image and had our presence be complete justified (ie: harbored Al-Qaeda)?

In short, why Iraq over Afghanistan?


I'm just really curious about your answer...if you don't want to start a debate, feel free to PM your theory.
mrC

[ChadTower]

Why not establish our base of operations in a much less "densely" populated and less modernized environment, like Afghanistan, that isn't surrounded by hostile nations on all sides, where we *HAD* a broad base of support from the local inhabitants and our global allies, where, with the amount of troops and money we have so far spent in Iraq we could have maintained total control over the entire country, rebuilt the region in our image and had our presence be complete justified (ie: harbored Al-Qaeda)?

In short, why Iraq over Afghanistan?

The most likely answer, strategically, is right there in your text.  It's within immediate striking distance, both ground and air, of every one of the likely targets.  No more paying Turkey hundreds of millions just to fly over their country, no more coddling Israel like they actually mean anything to us.  Afghanistan simply wasn't suitable because we need a region we OWN, not just stage in.  Right now, for better or worse, Iraq is the 51st state.  We don't have to ask permission to build anything in any location, we just do it.  We don't have to cooperate with anyone because the gov't we are establishing there is ours to manipulate.  We have total reign there and no oversight.

How could we have achieved that type of freedom in Afghanistan?

[Dexter]

Afghanistan simply wasn't suitable because we need a region we OWN, not just stage in.

[ChadTower]

Oh, don't get me wrong... I firmly believe that there were and still are WMDs in the region.  If you can tell me that you could find a crate of mason jars in a desert region of thousands of square miles, you are a liar.  Every intelligence agency on Earth agreed that they were there... lack of proof is not disproof.  We just didn't find them.

[Grasshopper]

Oh, don't get me wrong... I firmly believe that there were and still are WMDs in the region.  If you can tell me that you could find a crate of mason jars in a desert region of thousands of square miles, you are a liar.  Every intelligence agency on Earth agreed that they were there... lack of proof is not disproof.  We just didn't find them.

I don't think the issue is whether there were/are chemicals or not. The issue is whether Saddam's weapons posed a credible threat to the west. I think the answer is clearly no.

Yes, if you keep looking for long enough and hard enough you might, just might, find some decayed chemicals buried somewhere in the desert. But so what? These chemicals have a limited shelf life and have to be stored carefully. You also need weapons to deliver them. All of this requires sophisticated infrastructure that is difficult to hide.

Most of Saddam's henchmen have been captured and interrogated for a couple of years now. Yet as far as we know, not one of them has spilled the beans about where Saddam hid his (alleged) WMDs. Don't you think that's a little odd? If one of them had spilt the beans, I'm sure Bush would be crowing about it.

The only country in the middle east that we definitely know has (nuclear) WMDs is Israel. Israel has also ignored countless UN resolutions but despite this still receives unconditional support from the US. It's no wonder that arabs complain about western hypocrisy and double standards.

[ChadTower]

You also need weapons to deliver them. All of this requires sophisticated infrastructure that is difficult to hide.

Chemical, yes.  Biological, you need no delivery mechanism.  All you need is a syringe and a host.