America's Relationship with the World

[Mr Spinkles]

Oh boy....the Bush bashing has commenced. Whenever the 'other guy' is in power, EVERYTHING that goes wrong is suddenly the President's fault it. Sigh...

At any rate, I am enjoying this discussion also.

1)

The reason America initially went into war was that Bush indicated a connection with Saddam and terrorism against the US and that his so-called WMD's in his possession (but never found) was an immediate threat tio the US.

Bush said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11? I don't remember him saying that...could you please provide quotes?

Let's look at the WMD issue for a moment: A war has taken place. Lots of Iraqi military sites have been destroyed. Fighting continues one year later, and most of our troops are worried about security--not searching every ammunition dump (and there are many of them the size of Manhatten). For those who aid our forces, their lives and the lives of their families are threatened by those still loyal to Saddam. In fact, we have been having a hard time getting Iraqis to come forward and testify against Saddam for his war crimes, because there is so much danger.

So is it really a surprise that all of Saddam's predicted stockpiles of Sarin gas--thought to occupy the volume of a swimming pool--have not yet been found? Did you know that Iraqi forces are thought to have hidden and destroyed WMD even as our troops were entering Baghdad as part of Saddam's final orders? If Saddam had no WMD, what happened to all the WMD he had after the Gulf War...did he export them to other countries/groups (uh-oh), or destroy them without telling anyone? Why would he continue to obstruct the work of the U.N. inspectors if he had no WMD? As I said in an earlier post, what are these-- http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ants/index.html --ice cream trucks?

Bush did not say Saddam was an immediate threat, he said Saddam was an imminent threat. Be careful with word choice.

This was absolutely false. Mr. Bush used the emotional state of this country and knowingly provided unconfirmed information to incite the country resulting in the US declaring war for for the wrong reasons.....This to me is very relevant.

I'd like to avoid a debate about Bush and stick to a non-partisan discussion of American foreign policy, if possible. At any rate, in foriegn policy, other countries are not on trial--they are not innocent until proven guilty. The only way to confirm anything was with Saddam's full cooperation. "Unconfirmed information"? There was overwhelming evidence that Saddam had WMD--even France's intelligence agencies will tell you that--and it was impossible to know for certain without Saddam's full cooperation.

Earlier, you provided a list of reasons you think we should not have invaded Iraq. One of the reasons was that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, either--but that is irrelevant.

2. There have been no WMD found in Iraq by either UN inspectors or by US inspectors.
Hans Blix indicated that he did not think the WMD's Hussein had at one time even still existed but he had to make a thorough search. Mr. Scott, a US inspector has come to the same conclusion. Yes, Saddam was not cooperative and making it difficult for the inspectors. The fact remains, despite the slow going and obstacles put up by Saddam, the inspections were continuing. There was no need for force at that time.

So, even though Hans Blix couldn't prove, sans Iraqi cooperation, that Saddam had WMD's any more, we should have taken his word for it? When would there have been a need for force--when Saddam finally used WMD, or when he started fully cooperating? Let's face it--after 11 years of deception, Saddam NEVER had any intention of cooperating, and we could NEVER be sure he didn't have WMD without his cooperation.

3. Some of the evidence cited by the US, such as Colin Powell's address to the UN, stated that the US had knowledge of WMD's and some of their locations. It ended up the information cited was from a 4 yr. old doctoral thesis writtin by a British student and passed on to the US by British Intelligence. It was never confirmed by our Intelligence.

Was this the same speech in which Colin Powell showed diagrams of flatbed trucks that were being used as mobile WMD labs? The CIA has confirmed this--refer to the link above about ice cream trucks.

In fact, during this time, our Intelligence community kept telling the Bush administration that the information regarding these weapons were NOT able to be confirmed and may not be accurate but Bush continued to use them as if the information was fact.

civilcynic, this is unabashed political rhetoric....I thought you were better than this kind of misleading propoganda. The intelligence community stood firmly behind their assessments on Iraq. Here are the Key Judgements made by the CIA in October of 2002:

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.


Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled.

Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.


If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.

Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade.

from http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

And here is what the National Intelligence Council has to say:

Let me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of intelligence services—friendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in Baghdad. Moreover, in those cases where US intelligence agencies disagreed, particularly regarding whether Iraq was reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for its nuclear weapons program, the alternative views were spelled out in detail.

from http://www.odci.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm

I also think this is relevant, from the same article:

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. 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.

3. Re: evidence I could provide that would indicate that the US was involved in Saddam's build-up of WMD's: I cannot provde the exact document that I had read at the time (it was a long time ago), however, there are a number of sources if one does a search for "Iraqgate". In the early 80's, Pres. Reagan and his administration (many of which are in the current Bush administration) assisted Saddam in building his military might. We provided funding, weaponry

I concede this.

and our American companies shipped biological and chemical material to Saddam for his war against Iran. We even were able to override that UN who opposed providing ths material and wanted to place sanctions on this type of material.

So these were American companies, and not the federal government....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, Iran was definitely our enemy but for the US government to knowingly to provide such devasting material and weaponry to another untrustworthy dictator known to have killed thousands of his own people is inexcusable and indefensible.

First of all, Saddam was not known to have killed thousands of his own people at that time. Secondly, what would you have done differently? It's all well and good to criticize, but what alternative plan of action can you offer that would have been better? Would you have allowed Iran to conquer Iraq? Please tell me what you would have done instead, otherwise your criticism is meaningless.

Finally, even if the government did supply WMD to Saddam (which I definitely think is wrong), you're talking about something that happened over 20 years ago--it has no relevance to whether or not we should have used force on Saddam today. If anything, your comments support the recent removal of Saddam to make up for the mistakes we made 20 years ago.

4. RE: Afghanistan: We jumped from Afghanistan right into Iraq leaving a much smaller force to deal with the chaos in that country. Since we left, the warlords ahve gained increasing control, there is rampant corruption in Karzhan's government and the opium trade (virtually non-existent under Taliban rule) is now the top income producer in that country. that's not exactly a success story!

Our military leaders have not chosen the strategy of 'reduce the chaos by filling it with American soldiers'. Instead, they bribe local tribal leaders and train a national Afghan army, with a large (but not gigantic) American military presence in support. Afghans are not as enthusiastic about a unified, democratic Afghanistan as Iraqis are about a unified democratic Iraq. You don't characterize it as a successs story because you have an unrealistic timetable for success. Maybe in 30 years (not three) we will be able to judge whether or not Afghan democracy is a success story. At any rate, our primary objective was not to rid Afghanistan of all of its problems but to topple the Taliban and destroy Al Quaida infrastructure and leadership.

In going to Iraq, we pulled a number of special forces who were searching for bin Laden from Afghanistan to put in Iraq limiting, our effectiveness in finding Osama.

That's because the trail has gone cold, and we aren't going to find Osama now by combing the endless mountain ranges of Afghanistan. We'll find him when he gets careless and comes out of hiding, or when someone is bribed or threatened into revealing his location. Our military leaders are pursuing this strategy, and frankly I don't have the credentials to question their judgement.

Bush, himself, admitted that this was the case and had the audacity to note he didn't think about Bin Laden much or cared much about his location or what he was up to.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember him saying this--could you provide a quote?

5. President Bush sent our brave young men and women into Iraq without proper equipment.

First of all, our forces used some of the most advanced equipment and weapons the world has ever seen-- including Unmanned Areal Vehicles and satellite technology that can tell special forces units which door to enter to find their man...the way you characterize it, it would be as if our forces were hopelessly underequipped and suffered massive casualties. Secondly, the military carried out its mission brilliantly with astonishingly few casualties, given its task. Third: even if this be considered a failure, it was a failure on the part of military logistics and/or Congress dispensing the appropriate funds just as much as it was a failure Bush. Finally, this is totally irrelevant to our discussion, which is supposed to be about whether or not the use of force was justified with Saddam.

5. Re; North Korea. North Korea has directly and openly threatened to use nuclear weapons against us and we have done nothing about it. We are not pursuing any diplomatic relations with North Korea to try to resolve this. We are also not threatening to attack as we did to Saddam. Why?

This is political rhetoric, plain and simple--we aren't trying to resolve this? Gimme a break! The government is trying to solve this, along with the governments of Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia. We are not openly threatening to attack North Korea yet, but we have a very convenient, threatening garrison of troops on the border with South Korea. In fact, the government of North Korea is increasingly looking at reform as a result of our efforts. See: http://www.odci.gov/nic/confreports_northkorea.html

Why? Personally, I think its because Bush believed: 1) that Saddam was an easier target militarily 2) he would be able to persuade the American people to declare war by using 9/11 as an excuse 3)oil

1) That Saddam was an easier military target than North Korea isn't Bush's belief--it's a fact. 2) Few Presidents would go to war if they couldn't get support for it 3) What do you mean, "oil"? Did Bush steal Iraqi oil? Was invading Iraq supposed to somehow lower gas prices? Please clarify.

6. We are now eyeing Iran and making threatening gestures regarding their nuclear program....

What's your point--should we encourage Iran's nuclear program?

Again, why not N. Korea who has repeatedly directly threatened the US and we KNOW has the capability to reach us?

We don't know N. Korea has the capability to reach us yet, please get your facts straight. Here is what the CIA has to say:

The multiple-stage Taepo Dong-2—capable of reaching parts of the United States with a nuclear weapon-sized payload—may be ready for flight-testing.

from http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm#5 [emphasis added]. As far as I'm aware, no new information was ever realeased that these missiles are battle-ready yet--though there are some new ones North Korea is allegedly close to developing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3531956.stm

7. Other Countries: The African continent has been racked with internal violence. Millions of people have been killed by either their own government or by rebels yet we do nothing. Even before the 9/11 incident, the Bush administration remained silent and demonstrated no interest in the plight of Africans....why?

Because it is not the President of the United States' job to solve every problem, in every country, in the entire world. A President can only do so much in four years, and his agenda has to be focused. Bush has, in fact, proposed a large amount of new funding to fight AIDS in Africa.....but anyway, I don't really see what this has to do with whether or not force should have been used in Iraq.

8. President Bush maintains the Iraq war was necessary to protect America. We have spent billions in Iraq while our homeland security is floundering. The Coast Guard has requested 1.5 billion $$ immediately with 1.1 billion $$ over the next 11 yrs. to be prepared. Bush offers them a few million.

The beareaucracy rarely asks only for what it needs, and rarely gets what it asks. America is not a police state, we are an open democracy. We can't have the government spy on every citizen, or inspect everything that enters the country on every ship, plane, and car, with 100% accuracy. The best defense, in our situation, is a good offense--attack terrorism at its roots, reverse its causes. It won't be easy, and it won't happen overnight--it's a long term strategy. I predict that within the next, say, 70 years, the Middle East will undergo sweeping democratic reform, and no longer be a breeding ground for terrorists. At any rate, Congress--not the President--decides which government agencies get money, and how much.

I'm proud to be an American too.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Gerani-- Your comments on American culture sound a bit closed-minded. Whatever happened to appreciating the culture of others? Or are the only 'good' cultures non-American cultures?

 

[Melody]

<<why does the normal US citizen supports this? <snip> Why does the American taxpayer support America's international mischief?>>

Who said the "normal" US citizen does support it? Not all of us are running around in pickup trucks with a shotgun in the back window and a dog hanging its head out the window yelling "Yeehaw, let's go over there and kick some ***!"

There are many of us who are appalled at the invasion of Iraq and our government's heavy handed, arrogant attitude towards other countries. We, like you, are at the mercy of our government and our only option is to try and vote these people out the next time around.

Melody

 

[Yerda]

Only there isn't anyone one else to vote for..

 

[Ardhanariswar]

Gerani-- Your comments on American culture sound a bit closed-minded. Whatever happened to appreciating the culture of others? Or are the only 'good' cultures non-American cultures?

sorry. i do appriciate cultures, they are in thier own way facination. but im irked about taking us history and american lit this year. it really irked me. cuz last year we learned nothing about asian things in lit or history, it was just america and europe. why? because, i see so much richness and diversity in culture in asia and when they dont focus on it, it just gets me soo MAD. bah. sorry. lol.

i dont mean to say one culture is better than the other. the american culture is certainly good for its reasons. its a nice mix, we are all facing each other and looking forward, facing problems, especially racism and such. its good, a very educating experience, just to live in the US.

but i was talking about how the US's relationship with the world. some people think that the US are so good in everything, therefore they are heavily influenced by western culture and they loose thier own, especially in asia. as i mentioned, there are many japanese who think geisha were invented by foreigners. when i travel to india, i cringe to see movie posters everywhere (indians are BIG movie goers). pop music has got certainly affected it.

you have got to admit all that violence, sexuality, and drugs you may see is prevalent in US shows or movies or music now appears in India. this new range of pop is masking over traditional indian arts. its soo sad to see the tradition of geisha disappear because there is no more an appriciation for such beauty.

im just pissed off and sad. i dont want to see traditional arts and geisha fall. but whattodo? this is reality.

 

[painted wolf]

mr. spinkles

the quotes you asked for in which Bush liked Iraq with 9/11 or at least with Al Qaeda:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

"The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Iraqpolitics020926.html

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." -- State of the Union Address (1/28/2003).

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I said:

Bush said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11? I don't remember him saying that...could you please provide quotes?

In the quotes you provided, Bush says that Saddam aids and protects terrorists, including some terrorists who are members of Al-Qa'eda. He doesn't even mention 9/11.

 

[civilcynic]

I said: In the quotes you provided, Bush says that Saddam aids and protects terrorists, including some terrorists who are members of Al-Qa'eda. He doesn't even mention 9/11.

Did Mr. Bush say that Saddam was directly involved or responsible for 9/11?
No, I don't think he ever used that exact term....however what he did do is consistently and repeatedly bring up Saddam Hussein during speeches about 9/11. He linked Iraq to 9/11 by association. Why do you think that so many Americans initially (and sadly some still do) believed that Iraq had some sort of connection with the 9/11 attack? The American people certainly did not come up with this idea on their own.

 

[painted wolf]

the inferance is certainly there... al Qa'eda was responcible for 9/11, Saddam helped al Qaeda therefore Saddam helped 9/11 happin.

I do not think that Bush made those remarks without knowing the effect that they would have on the national psyche at the time... I give the man credit for being a very clever politican, wich he certenly is.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The question that now needs answering is did Saddam protect and aid terrorists, some of whom were members of Al-Qa'eda? If he did, I think Bush had every right to tell us so.

 

[Fra.Morelia]

Okay, here I go,

America can do nothing right. If we let people massacre each other then other powers will look at us and sob 'why don't you dooooo something?!' If we do something before THEY ask us to ( another bunch of meddling outsiders... UN anyone?) then we are not minding our own business. Basically they want us to wait until something threatens THEIR interests before we send OUR troops to fight and die. In any UN action we supply the vast majority of the troops regardless of whether we have any interests. As for protecting our own interests.... are we really gonna trust Europe to look out for our interests? I would sooner lobotomize myself with an icepick, bottle of rubbing alcohol, and a ball peen hammer.
Are we to big for our britches? Yea. Will we over extend ourselves? Yea. Are we doing what every other meddling no good country with power does? Yea. The amusing thing is all of the jack legs telling us to fix our back yard first.... whilst they go about and meddle. Ah, the sickly sweet stench of hypocrisy. How I love it.

 

[painted wolf]

That question was answered by the 9/11 commission... No, there is no relyable evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Unless the government is witholding vital information from the commission.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

painted wolf-- This is what the 9/11 commission said:

We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States

Bush did not say Iraq and Al-Qa'eda cooperated on attacks against the United States, he said

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida

The question is not whether or not the Iraq government was involved in 9/11, the question is did Saddam aid terrorists including members of Al-Qa'eda?

 

[civilcynic]

[QUOTE The question is not whether or not the Iraq government was involved in 9/11, the question is did Saddam aid terrorists including members of Al-Qa'eda?[/QUOTE]

Can you show me the definitive evidence that shows that Saddam was aiding Al-quaeda and that these actions have a direct forebearance on the attacks on America?

If the real question is determining what countries were harboring, aiding and/or abetting terrorists, then I am afraid that the Saddam connection should have been the weakest link. How about Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon..just to name a few?
Why didn't we topple Momar Khadafi and invade his country after the Lockerbie Scotland incident?

If we were going after a country because of their connections with terrorist groups, there are plenty of countries far more involved in terrorism that were direct threats to our country than Saddam was. Why did President Bush always bring up Iraq and the Saddam subject everytime he spoke about the US Terrorist attacks. Why not bring up the Saudi Arabia connections which were more directly linked from the very beginning than Iraq was?

Lastly, speaking of those countries who consort with terrorists, isn't it
interesting that we condemn nations who deal with terrorist groups but our own country has on-going governmental communication with Chechen rebels?

 

[Melody]

What percentage of the population would be living from pay packet to pay packet in the USA?

Within the last year I heard or read somewhere that 80% (conservatively) of American citizens are one paycheck away from being homeless. This means that if they miss one paycheck they can never got got up again. Yes that is partly due to the fact that so many people insist on living above their means but there is a growing gap between the haves and the have nots.

Many companies are downsizing which translates to getting rid of many of their full time people who cost them in benefits and hiring part-time replacements who are not eligible for benefits. Sorry but I can't direct you to the actual report although you might try searching through NPR's special reports as this was one of them.

 

[Melody]

I'm not sure as to your specific question...however, according to the U.S. census of 2002, about 12.1% of Americans live in poverty (according to money income excluding capital gains) see http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/r&dtable5.html

I think these figures are off considerably. I'm not sure how they came up with their figures, but I know if you go out and count every homeless person in a shelter, every street person who doesn't bother even with the shelters, every person on welfare, every person classifed as working poor (minimum wage earners fit this category) and every person unable to even find a job and who have now fallen off the unemployment rolls because they ran out of benefits, I think you'll find it's a helluva lot higher than 12.1%

 

[Melody]

isn't it
interesting that we condemn nations who deal with terrorist groups but our own country has on-going governmental communication with Chechen rebels?

What about Israel? We have pretty strong ties with this country and yet by all definition they are terrorists who prey on their neighbors. Look at the initial land that was given to them after World War II. They were given land that already belonged to someone else! Oh...ooops...wait...I forgot. They're just Pakistanis anyway and they don't count.

Since that time they've been gradually encroaching...and not even subtly...on their neighbors with some pretty horrific military tactics. The Israelis aren't considered terrorists but when the Pakistanis fight back to protect *their* land, they are called terrorists.

Someone earlier said something about hypocrisy....I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[civilcynic]

Yes, I forgot to mention Israel.....I agree, Melody

 

[anders]

I agree with your views on how the Palestinians are treated, Melody. I sure see them as freedom fighters, like the people in Iraq who also want to get rid of the occupying forces by all possible means.

The Pakistanis have problems of their own in the Kashmir conflict with India, but there is no oil in Kashmir, so we won't see any US interference there.