Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ssssh,
Don't give Bush any fancy ideas. There are too many implications already.

We got the oil, we got a religious leader as head of goverment (a priest) and we don't show anyone any WMD's so we must be hiding them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

GP:
Don't worry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I think Rex makes a good point that the French didn't give the award. Of course, as I allow for American "private agendas", I will allow for the fact that foreign countries voted for this film in order to further their private agenda...make America look bad. Obviously, it's a political film and votes could surely be cast accordingly.

I'm not here to say America is perfect and other countries are full of faults. I believe all countries spin things the way they want them based (in part) on how it helps themselves.

I think, and I'm glad I'm in a country where I am allowed to, that enough of the movie is based on fact to allow the rest of the movie to draw conclusions and make "suggestions".

As to the war? The US public was "bombarded" with B&W photos of all the places where WMDs were located...yet, when we got there, nothing could be found. I wonder, being of a free mind, if I was lied to (to gain public support) or if Iraq was really great at hiding all of them.

Problem is, a lot of people in the US haven't had the opportunity to work in the classified areas I have worked in. Even working in the government is enough to give one a glimpse of how facts get distorted.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I say it again. Moore is a jerk who feeds off of causing controversy with half truths, speculation, and out right lies. He bends the truth, fact, and situations to his own twisted view. I do not believe him. Moore is leech and he always will be!

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

The eternal wonder of the closed mind: When one makes up one's mind about something beforehand, why consult data?

Here is list of all the films that have been awarded a Palme d'Or since 1946:

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/...Film_Festival/

I haven't seen all of the american ones, and certainly not many of the foreign ones, but the only one I have seen that might be said to have an "anti-US" bias would be Apocalypse Now in 1979. But, really, that's a stretch - it's more of an anti-war/"how nasty is human nature" movie. The Lars von Trier one (Dancer in the Dark) might also qualify as "anti-american" but from what I know he's more of a commentator on human nature too.

Elephant (2003)
Pianist, The (2002)
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Underground (1995)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Piano, The (1993)
Barton Fink (1991)
Wild at Heart (1990)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Mission, The (1986)
Paris, Texas (1984)
All That Jazz (1979)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Conversation, The (1974)
MASH (1970)

etc....

Now, as an admitted amateur and not running the statistics, I would hazard a guess to say that when the french pick english language movies for a golden palm they pick ones that get at human nature, the nature of violence or relationships, and...pianos. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But that's just me. Perhaps I;m wrong. But in any case, making up one's mind before looking at data is only useful if one is not willing to have one;s mind changed. In which case, conversation or debate is likewise pointless.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a statement that is unsupportable.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Rant to follow read at own risk. No offense intended so if you take offense, I am sorry.

Moore uses film as if it were a weapon. He yeilds it against those whom he does not like and he does this with dilibrate deception in mind.

I place no faith in any of his work as it is one sided and without counter point. So much so that even Disney decided after seening it to say enough is enough and ordered the distributer of the movie to pull it. Moore cries political involvment, but the truth is, his movie is simply not a documentary but rather a weapon designed to harm.

ONLY the French and those who love to hate America would consider this movie and the manusha that it shovels to be worthy of an award. That says a hell of a lot about them.

If Moore were a true film maker he would have made a documentary and not a one sided film designed to promote his own political agenda.

Shame on you Mr. Moore, shame on you!

I do not like the man, I do not like the mans movies, and I do not like the mans politics. He has done nothing in my opinion to redeem himself as a movie maker, and he has only promoted his movies as a tool to stir controversy and cause harm. He is a jerk, and I do sincerely hope that on the way home he decides to not come home.

EDIT:

The only reason Moore received the Palme d'Or was because his movie attacked Bush. I could give a rats arse about the other movies that have been given the Palme d'Or. Moores movie only received it because the French who chose to give the award did so as a political statement and for that they can take their award and sit on it as far as I am concerned!

They cheapend the award in my opinion, for little more than to make a political statement. Shame on the French!

[ May 23, 2004, 23:55: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

The thing about Moore is he is so single-mindedly one-sided in his philosophy that it probably isn't that he is intentionally presenting only one side of the argument, he just simply can't accept any reasonable counter opinion to his own as being worthy of even consideration, much less give it time in one of hsi mockumentaries. He's the other side of the coin that is Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wing infotainment types. It's all free speech though. It doesn't have to be intelligent.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

What's funny is most of the people who attack Moore attack his politics but conveniently ignore the content.

From what I've read (especially in this thread) - the tone of some anti-Moore people is so strong that it suggests to me that they are more afraid that he might be telling the truth than that he might be lying.

[ May 24, 2004, 07:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually that's another mistruth.

The jury committee (the ones who choose the winner) is made up of 3 Americans, 1 Brit, 1 Chinese, 1 Finn, 1 Haitian and only 1 French person. 1 French Jury Member does not constitute as the "French" giving Moore an award. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

I suppose it's a credit - and a lack of bigotry -on the French to choose mostly foreigners. I can't imagine an American organization allowing mostly foreigners to pick an award for anything much less the most prestigious film award. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Moreover, the Jury president is Quentin Tarantino, a typical french film maker... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"french" have not given Moore the price. The Jury did, but most of them are not french people, and they are completly free of their choices.

Most of french people admire American way of life, wealth and Culture, and remember all European countries have a debt of gratitude to pay to the USA since WWII.

What many people in europe (and the rest of world) dislike when dealing with American politics is war operations for business, lack of interest about pollution issues, business around weapons (including personal mines) , industrial spying (Echelon and so on), and journalists forced "blindness" about all things that the US shouldn't be proud of.

[ May 24, 2004, 07:45: Message edited by: trooper ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Thanks for the info Trooper. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Rex you make a good point, but the truth is simply that we all know Mr. Moores tactics so well that we don't have to see his documentary to know the man. We already know the man, and there is nothing in his documentary that scares us except that people might believe his one sided - no room for counter point - political views.

Relying on his documentary and him as a source of factual evidence is like trusting Hitler when he says that the Jews are being well cared for. Now I am not comparing Mr. Moore to Hitler so please don't shoot me. I am just saying that his truth should be taken with skeptasism.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

MICAHEL MOORE'S NEW MOVIE THAT EXPOSES BUSH FOR THE SHAM HE REALLY IS
IS ALREADY GAINING ALOT OF MOMENTUM BEFORE IT'S RELEASE.


Truth wins at Cannes, says Moore

GEOFF PEVERE

Michael Moore's feature length documentary attack on the administration of President George W. Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11, took the top prize of the 57th annual Cannes Film Festival Last night.

"What have you done?," said an overwhelmed Moore when he took the stage to accept the award that culminated a typically awkward and unpredictable, but atypically politicized, four-minute ceremony. At the announcement of the major prize, the Palme d'Or, the tuxedo and evening-gown studded crowd stood on its feet and cheered.

Looking to jury president Quentin Tarantino, Moore joked, "You did that just to mess with me," before moving on to more serious matters.

Admitting that the Last six months, during which Fahrenheit 9/11 has been at the centre of a highly publicized dispute with The Walt Disney
Company over its distribution future, Moore said, "I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done will ensure that the American people
will see this movie. I can't thank you enough for this.

"Many people want the truth put away, put in a closet," he said, "and you have taken it out of the closet."

Quoting President Abraham Lincoln, whom he described as "a different kind of Republican president," Moore said, "`Give the people the truth and the republic will be saved.'"

Alluding to the U.S. election in November, Moore concluded by saying he wanted to dedicate the next six months to "making sure that those
who have died in Iraq have not died in vain."

As predicted, the awards granted by Tarantino's jury — which also included the American actress Kathleen Turner, British actress Tilda
Swinton, Hong Kong filmmaker Tsui Hark and others — was eccentric in its choices.

After providing special Jury Prizes to Irma P. Hall's performance in Joel and Ethan Coen's The Ladykillers and the Thailand-made Tropical
Malady, Tarantino's jury awarded the best scenario prize to Agnes Jaoui and Jean-Pierre Bacri for Jaoui's Look At Me, best director to
Tony Gatlif for Exiles, best male performance to 14-year-old Yagria Yuuya for the Japanese-made Nobody Knows and best actress to Maggie
Cheung's performance in the French-Canadian-U.K. co-production Clean.

[...]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Agreed. And I don't have a problem with that. I'd rather he used film and media as a weapon than, say... an actual weapon. You are using your words as a weapon against him, so you can't criticise him for doing the same against Bush.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Disagreed. I think he presents the truth as he sees it. Whether that's the absolute truth or not I can't say, but I don't doubt for a second that he believes every word of what he says/ writes, and that makes him nothing more nor less than honest. If all he wanted was to make a quick buck out of cheap, emotional non-content, he could do it a lot quicker and with a lot less research by making "support our troops abroad" and "tribute to the fallen heroes of 9/11" films.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ONLY the French would give an award to an anti-bush movie eh? I reckon i could probably list a few other nations that might consider it. Iraq for one.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">*Yawn*
Atrocities, look again at the post on this thread which lists the nationalities of the people who gave the award. THEY WERE NOT FRENCH. OK, one of them was, but three of the eight were american for crying out loud. And if you still persist that it's all some rabid anti-american conspiracy, then I think you need to ask yourself what america is doing wrong to generate so much hatred.

I'll quote it again for your convenience:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">See... only 12.5% french. 37.5% American & 12.5% British- that puts at least half the votes in the "coalition of the willing." Stop blindly blaming everything on the French, it just makes you look ignorant.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think it's more that he doesn't see that as his job. There are more than enough people out there giving the other side of the argument, so he leaves that to them. He sees his views as under-represented, and so he just presents his side of the debate, and allows ppl like you to counterpoint what he has said.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually you are comparing him to Hitler, and I don't think it's a very fair comaprison:

Hitler: Totalitarian dictator with complete control over the press in his country.
Moore: Some guy with a film crew working within a (more or less) free-speech society.

Hitler saying Jews are well cared for: Lies to disguise Hitler's own evil behaviour.
Moore criticising Bush: Attempts to expose someone else's (alleged) evil behaviour.

Not the same thing at all.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yet the US seems quick to forget that it owes the French a debt of gratitude for the war of independence. Who do you think gave you the statue of liberty? If not for the French you yanks would all be speaking English...

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

"If not for the French you yanks would all be speaking English..."

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I also believe there is more to 9/11 that meets the eye but who doesn't. I agree with Fyron that said something along the lines (to lazy to look it up) of "It's not only the majority of the USA that's stupid also of your country" which was directed at freduk.

I can't agree more. The world is full of idiots.
And sometimes we act as idiots http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . To me, one of the things that pissed me of after the US & Britain attacked Iraq was that suddenly, a lot of Europeans (mainly) started thrashing on Bush. It became fashionable to trash "old yeller". Hey, i don't think he's smart enough either to be president, but all the "join us in protesting against bush" bandwagon stuff was over the top for me. The undertone that was spread was something like "If you are not against Bush and can't see he is evil, you're an idiot"
(a bit the same as Bush'es: "You are either with us or against us)
Well boohoo, i'll make up my own mind thank you.
A lot of people say the US sucks just to be "fashionable".

About bandwagon stuff: i'll never forget a story that my history teacher told us in class. Before WWII, a Doctor wanted to know what all the fuss was about with this ony guy, Hitler. He went over to a rally with the idea that Hitler was a complete cookoo & dangerous and that he manipulated people. At a certain time during the meeting, he caught himself clapping along with the masses. He was shocked.
A very illustrating story i think. When too many people start cheering, take a step backwards, start your brain and then decide what to do. Don't be a parrot.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OhHum.
I rank this statement at the same level as the "US is a country made up of idiot-NRA lovers-ignorant-fat cowboys" myth. I think I prefer you as a shipset designer Atrocities.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Trooper,

Well, Edwidge Danticat was born in Haiti - but if she is considered to be from the U.S. it emphasizes French open mindedness even more.

[ May 24, 2004, 16:10: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Forgive the rant, but I have an observation, a question, and, I guess, a plea.

There are a lot of things about America I don?t understand anymore.

We are SO polarized right now that I suspect many of us have had friendships destroyed where once they flourished. Ad Hominen attacks are commonplace. Rush Limbaugh and and Ann Coulter and Michael Moore and others of those ilk are the only voices heard because no one listens to reason or moderation anymore. One must shout radically to be heard by anyone ? how else can we explain the popularity of Coulter and Moore?

We have degenerated: I was a civilian analyst with the Marines on the ground in Iraq for the first 5 weeks of the war (nothing exciting, boring work actually, certainly not intel). About a week or two into the conflict, during that nasty week when things weren't going as expected, we heard rumors of actions by OGAs (that's "Other Governmental Agencies") engaging in non-Geneva Convention activity. I won?t go into details since I have a TS/SCI clearance and a job that I need to protect ? suffice it to say that it wasn?t torture, it was something much more benign and totally different, but still verboten under Geneva rules. At the time, I and all the Marine officers who talked about it were aghast. It was clear they felt that such activities were not permissible under the Laws of War and were appalling. The general perception at that time was something like "Man, if this ever gets out that this is true, some heads are gonna roll."

Ok, so, flash-forward to today. These events have, if you read between the
lines, become largely public. And, no, I?m not talking about the recent torture stuff. But, due to the recent revelations, the things we heard about while over there have taken a back seat. In other words, if I revealed today what we had heard about taking place over there during the war, NO ONE WOULD CARE. The telling point is this: over the space of a few short years after 9/11, we as a people seem to have become quite tolerant of what we would never have allowed before.

If someone got up nowadays and talked about the stuff we heard about over there, people would look at them funny and say "Hey, that's not so bad, nothing wrong with that." When, I can honestly tell you that, during the war itself, this action, even the rumor of it, caused us great consternation.

I found working with the Marines highly commendable and rewarding. Although I worked mainly with Majors and above, all officer and enlisted ranks were very diligent about obeying the laws of war and tried their damndest to avoid civilian casualties. I had friends there who came back after convoy ops where they were very upset because when they returned fire to protect their convoy they were afraid they shot a little girl, or an innocent bystander, or the like.

I guess my question then, in light of my above observations, is this: have we changed so much over the Last few years that what would seem unthinkable to us then is now acceptable? Sure, we're aghast, disgusted at the torture and abuse of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but then, we also have Rush calling it "some kids just letting off steam." I don?t even want to know what Coulter says.

I don?t understand how we came to a point this low. It disgusts me. If this is what it means to be an American, I am no longer proud to be one.

Did 9/11 affect us that much? Have we come so low, changed so much, in such a short time? If so...what hope is there for humanity and the "great experiment" that is America? Have we lost all hope of being forever a "City on a Hill" and holding forth the promise of a new world that is better and more ethical than the Old? (Heh, now I?m just waxing on, dramatically.)

I have been affected over the past three years as many of us no doubt have - I lost friends in the Navy Command Center at the Pentagon, and I saw it on the day it happened since we drove by it everyday. My wife worked the 'crime scene' at the World Trade Center and saw things that would make the most battle hardened vet queasy. I was abroad as a civilian analyst for Operation Enduring Freedom and in Iraq for the first five weeks of OIF. At the time I thought both wars were well justified. (It?s clear now only the first one was.)

After the Election of 2000 I kept hoping that Bush would be a ?uniter? not a divider and that we would come back from the brink of a permanently polarized America. Bush turned out to be the exact opposite. And the war was a great joke played upon the American people, who went along with it willingly, like lemmings. Sure, Saddam was Evil as heck, and it?s good he?s gone. But to take a nation to WAR and destroy treaties and alliances along with it all based on being MISLED is so atrocious a crime I can?t begin to describe it.

Am I the only one who thinks that, as far as I can tell, it looks like America has gone nearly mad? I almost don't recognize it anymore.

I have always been a moderate to conservative democrat. I almost voted for Reagan II, and probably would have voted for McCain in 2000 had he won the nomination (just don?t tell my wife).

But those were political decisions based, I would like to think, on the DATA available at the time.

To wit, I come to my plea: one should look at the facts when making one?s decisions.

We appear to not do that anymore in this country. There was a time when we based on decisions on rational, informed, polite debate. The Senate was a place for gentlemanly disagreements and consensus building. Now, it seems it is easier to believe what one wants than look at the facts to make an informed decision. We have not only lost the ability to be disgusted or to be honest when we screw up, but we seem to have lost the ability to even make informed decisions when they contradict our ideologies. The President, when asked what mistakes he feels he has made during his administration could not think of any! Such hubris is unthinkable, and it speaks volumes about how blind our leaders our.

So here is a FACT that a person can choose to ignore at their peril: There was NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The country was misled about the war. I believed what the administration said about WMDs, connection to Al Qaeda, etc? a lot of us believed it, but it was NOT true. That has been revealed repeatedly by multiple sources, and by the administration ITSELF which admits there was no connection to 9/11 and Saddam Hussein and that there were no WMDs. People can choose to ignore this fact to avoid cognitive dissonance and preserve your beliefs, or they can open their minds a bit and make decisions like humans, not animals. God gave us minds, use them to think critically.

And, here are some OPINIONS that are, to me at least, pretty well borne out by the evidence (these are NOT facts, so they can be ignored without risk of cognitive dissonance): The world is a LOT more dangerous now than before the war. We have invigorated an entire generation of the Arab world to become terrorists. We are in a LOT of trouble. We will be VERY hard pressed to prevail in Iraq in any meaningful way that makes the world safer. We have, in the process of screwing that all up, DESTROYED the entire postwar system of trust and multilateral alliances that kept the world prosperous and secure for the past five decades. No one loves America anymore, not really. We are no longer a leader of the free world, but a renegade giant. A resounding accomplishment, a terrible shame, and one that will come back to haunt our children and our children?s children.

My apologies for running off at the mouth, and so dramatically...sometimes I look around and get amazed at how barbaric and simpleminded we?ve become in a few short years?all I?m asking is that everyone out there should THINK -- not simply parrot the party line. These times demand that, else we are truly in a lot of trouble. ?Permanent, big-time, world changing for the worse? trouble. You want the end-times? Well, all they require is mindless obedience without any critical thinking. All Evil requires is for men to do nothing ? and that includes not thinking critically.

That is why I am proud to now call myself a Liberal. One of the hallmarks of liberalism is the inclination to arrive at truth and decisions after informed debate that brings one to an understanding of multiple sides of an issue. There are plenty of knee-jerk liberals out there, but the real hallmark of conservatism and reactionaries is that they know the truth without having to bother with discourse, debate, or any sort of understanding of the issues in play. They even trumpet that as if it were a good thing. That?s just plain stupid.

All I?m saying is that if we, as Americans, don?t start acting rational, the entire world is in a lot of trouble. Everything America does affects the entire world ? for better or worse. So it?s time we started once acting like we at least try to make the right decisions with informed and honest and fact-based non-partisan debate.

I?m done. Forgive me for ranting, but someone had to say the Emperor has no clothes. I?m sure I?ll get a lot of hateful replies, but to hell with it. I?m done being quiet and hoping that sanity will prevail.

Thanks,

Alarik

EDIT: I just deleted my "final PS" since I had been feeling it came across (and probably was, to be honest) as a personal attack since it came right on the heels of another comment. I regret making a comment that could be interpreted as a personal attack...hence, deleted! hoo rah!

[ May 25, 2004, 20:21: Message edited by: alarikf ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OhHum.
I rank this statement at the same level as the "US is a country made up of idiot-NRA lovers-ignorant-fat cowboys" myth. I think I prefer you as a shipset designer Atrocities.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am sorry Unknown, you are NOT included in my redneck gun toating, ford pickup driving philosphie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Seriously, that comment was directed at ONLY the people who awarded Moore that award based on political views rather than merit. I am whole heartedly sorry if I offended you or any person in France. (Except those who like Jerry Lewis and Micheal Moore. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Trooper, I laughed at the Little Boy comment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Can we all agree to dissagree over this? I say Moore is a FB out to pollute the gene pool and currupt the people of other countries with his warped missleading films.

You say he is great and is the next best thing to Jesus the world has ever seen.

On this we should agree to disagree.

Peace is good. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 24, 2004, 17:03: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">apart from that there are long term economicaly harms coused by the actual goverment of the USA to your country: in Last years the number of scientific publications, awards and patent registration falls back (there are many reasons for this fact founded on failures in politics). if this trend won't broken in next few years USA are not longer the technological precursor as in Last decades. this fact combined with a HUGE military budget that grows in same time ...

think on Soviet Union collapse. i see parallels in long term.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Alarikf, today you've earned my respect. It is not worth much, but it is the most important thing I can give you via internet.

Atrocities, I agree to disagree ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
But well, surprisingly few people try to understand another country by reading their press or just looking at their side of the hill. I constantly fend off affirmations of the like "all americans are bush lovers who hate france", so when I find a generalisation such as "French and those who love to hate America" I find it a bit depressing.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To be more precise (no haitian in my list):

Quentin Tarantino (USA, film director),
Emmanuelle Beart (France, actress,
Jerry Schatzberg, USA, film director),
Tilda Swinton (UK, actress),
Tsui Hark (Honk-Kong, Film maker),
Edwidge Danticat ( USA, writer) ,
Benoit Poelvoorde (Belgium, actor & film writer ),
Kathleen Turner (USA, actress),
Peter Von Bagh ( Finland, film critic).

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Come on little boy, stop crying, all those people don't really hate you.

What makes people upset in France (and in many other countries) is Bush's foreign politic. But they don't hate the whole America.

Clinton, by example, has always been very popular in France, because he was open minded (or at least gave the impression he was) when dealing with middle east or environmental issues.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">full agreement to this statement.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Alarikf: hey, I can remember your first Posts, when you still was in Iraq!

Your post was the first one after many weeks reading here OT Posts about politics, that I felt moved to write something.

Although you lose friends during the terrorist attacks to the Pentagon, and you was in Iraq during the first weeks of the operation to remove Saddam, still you're cold enough to think using your mind and not your heart.
You're a good example to show that the cliches are just cliches (I'm so tired to hear here in Uruguay, the people saying that the Americans doesn't think and believe every lie the govern say).

Time in time (not very often, must say), I have the absurd feeling that the mankind has some hope. You offered to me one of these rare moments, then, just want to finish saying THANK YOU!

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Never told that, I've only repeated what I've read about those movies in the news, and thought it was a good opportunity to argue -hummm... discuss.

I still have to see "bowling for columbine" and of course "Farenheit 9/11" to have a personnal opinion about all that. Needless to say that I'll keep a critical eye on those documentaries, as many people say Moore's arguments are often weak.


Alarikf : Nothing more to add to your opinion, brilliant post...
PS : Have any news of Ragnarok ? We're waiting for his turns in SE 101 for quite a long time now...

[ May 25, 2004, 07:51: Message edited by: trooper ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

I was figuratively speaking when I said "You say."

Moores documentaries are not weak, they just lack honesty and leave no room for counter point or clarification of the actual facts he presents. He does this on purpose to cause controversay.

You can either buy into his propaganda or understand it for what it is, one mans attempt at making money off the backs of people who enjoy being fed a diet of BS.

There are two camps on this topic and frankly I will not budge on my opinion of the man or his work. I respect everyones opinion on the topic, and I know that I often make rash statements about topics that get under my skin such as this one has.

I don't hate the French, in fact I envy them. I hate the fact that Moore has fooled so many people, including here in the US, into believing that his Documentary is fair and unbyassed when it is not. I cannot help but feel helpless at the fact that so many people have bought into his propaganda and have even felt it warrented a distinguished award.

Politics should never play into the giving of an award and that too really angers me. If Moore had done a movie on Clinton I still would say what I am saying now, its all one sided and full of BS.

So if I have offended any french person, I am deeply sorry. I know now that many French folks think the same of Mr. Moore as many Americans do. He is just a film maker out to make a buck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As much as I dislike the man, he is at least doing what he likes to do. How many of us can say that?

[ May 25, 2004, 19:23: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Well said alarikf. Well said.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Hear, hear. Well said, alarikf, it would be hard to write it any better. *raises glass*

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Perhaps you should think about sending that little rant to your local newspaper's editorial section, Alarikf, eh?

Well said, well said indeed.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

M. Moore showed exactly what kind of person he is when everyone, and I mean everyone, had the brains or at least respect to NOT politicalize the Acadamy Awards...oh, except Mich who simply couldn't be bothered to be respectful.

Mich simply don't think his poop stinks.

Unfortunately, it do Micky..it do, almost as bad as these 'docudramas' he makes.

The biggest fear muttonchops has is that people will learn to snort at him and walk away. If you take a look at the history of his films they simply get more and more disrespectful, distasteful and over the top then the Last one. If it ain't "shock jock" approved and tested, it won't sell.

Sorry, but I got better things to do with my time then subsidize someone with a need for attention that puts a uber bratty 3 year old to shame.

Oh, can you tell I don't particularly care for muttonchops? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Maybe I am out dated and out of touch. Maybe I am just too old now to fit in with the more "enlightened" views of today but, I certainly don't see the war in Iraq as a BAD thing.

Maybe the reasons we went in were not the ones that we should have been using but, there were more then enough reasons to go in there and do what we did. We know that Saddam had WMD and used them in the past on the Kurds and the Sheites within his own country when the US lacked the guts to stand up and make the monster pay back in 1991 for his crimes due to "world opinion".

We know that the Al Q terrorists planned and executed the 9/11/01 attack on this country and we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq so that this group could continue to attack innocents across the world like the bombing in Bali after 9/11.

Yes, if the American people were knowingly lied to there should be an accounting. Yes, the mistreatment of captives needs to be dealt with openingly and fairly. Yes as American we should be a shining beacon to the world that there is a better way to live. We should lead by example.

But the eagle carries spears and arrows as well as the olive branch for a reason. Its time that the rest of the world understands that if you want that American military might to protect you and your interests..there is a price you have to pay. If you want American blood to be shed, America expects a HIGH return on that precious payment.

And if you make the mistake of thinking America is a paper tiger who is all growl and no fangs, you better understand that there is not a place on the face of the earth that we won't come and find you no matter the cost.

There are "rules of warfare" but, there are also times when those rules go out the window. War is war. It's not civilized. Its not supposed to be. I can't understand when the idea got started that war could ever be "clean". Even in the heyday of "civilized" warfare it was not clean. Sure, limit the death of innocents as much as possible but, take out your targets.

I am not saying anything goes here but, this watered down wring your hands and worry stuff gets to me. War is not something to be entered into lightly but once you enter into it, do what you have to do to win. Try to make it as civil as possible yeah but, don't worry so much about keeping it clean that you end up losing MORE of that precious American blood then you have to.

As a people, we should have killed or ended Saddam's rule in 1991-1992. Simply put, he should not have been in power today. If we had, more then likely the Towers would still be standing and the world would be a far better place. But for a FACT, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, men, women, children and babies would be alive today. Possible MILLIONS would be.

I don't understand why people seem to think the President has the political power in this country either. The President has very LITTLE political power. The true political power resides in 476 representatives and 100 senators that form the US Congress. Congress writes the checks. Congress makes the laws. Congress declares war. The President has one major power other then CinC and that is Persuasion. He can try to get Congress to do what he wants. So if you want to start pointing fingers, make sure you point them to the Hill as well as the White House. There is enough blame to go around to all those people up there Republican and Democrat.

But never say that what we did in Iraq was wrong or bad. Millions of people live better today then they have in 30+ years in Iraq. Some live better now then they ever have and many more will have a far better life now. The vast majority of the children will now be able to learn freely many things, not just what their "masters" want them to know. Women will be able to be all they desire and finally have a say in the lives of thier children and men.

The biggest shame I see of America is that we didn't do this sooner and that we have so very many more countries where we should do it.

As for reasons, how can we say we are a beacon to the world when we know of horrors like toture camps in Syria for children as young as 5 years old?

We know that people are resorting to cannabalism in North Korea just to try to survive?

We know that women are killed for simply showing thier face or speaking thier mind in Iran?

There are hundreds...thousands of reasons to do what we did in Iraq elsewhere. The question is why should we do it.

And the answer is that we are looked upon as the world's police force, its time the cops started busting the criminals.

Not long after 9/11 an article was written in the Daily Mirror, an English newspaper that is normally rather left wing. I think it sums things up rather nicely.

**********************************************

A thoughtfully written piece in one of the most left wing newspapers in the UK. Just a word of background for those of you who aren't familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror. This is one of the most notorious Left wing, anti-American dailies in the UK. Hard to believe that the Daily Mirror actually published it, but it did.

Begin article:

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - the mass murder of thousands, live on television.

As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.

An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate.
Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance.
Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the Last year.

There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country- too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic.

And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.

America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood.

A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon?

And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognised them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives. And children.

Some unborn.

And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan.
The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.

Remember, remember. Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive. Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.
Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realise that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray?

Pass the Kleenex.

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.

That it didn't is a sign of strength.

American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11?

How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that -
and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that
9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell", if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.

The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.

But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand -assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic.

Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.

Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers.

Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper.

And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein.

Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange centre, oh mighty one!

Remember, remember, September 11. One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember. Never forget.

***********************************************

Sadly, from this old, out-dated, war mongering American's viewpoint, far to many are doing exactly that...forgeting.

Maybe Iraq didn't have direct ties to 9/11 and maybe they did. The FACT is, they had Al Q training camps in Northern Iraq. For all we know, some of the very people that crashed those plane into our cities were trained there before coming here. But the fact is, there were more of the same kind of people in those camps.

And the fact is it is high time the world's only remaining superpower let the rest of the world know that if you pull the tiger's tail you best hold on REAL tight because the other end with the fangs is going to be coming to get you.

Adm. Yamamoto said to an aide that told him of the great victory at Peral Harbor this...

"The attack may appear to have been a great victory. But the declaration of war was not yet given at the time of our attack. The American people are a proud people and will feel great insult at this feeling it was a sneak attack. I fear all that we have accomplished by this great victory is we have awoken a sleeping giant that will come to consume us all."

Sadly, it seems Bin Laden and the rest of the world forgot THAT lesson too.

So yes, we should be restrained in our response and as far as I can tell, from the fact there are still no mushroom clouds across the entire middle east nor large areas of wasteland from our wrath, we have been fairly true to that.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

The level of restraint not to kill innocents might, in that situation, be large, but it is no more than I beleive God expects of us.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I fully agree but remember, we as a people are taking God out of the government too.

Seperation of Church and State after all.

Which I find ever so amusing. We have prayer on the steps of the Capitol. Each and every offical in Washington is sworn in on a Bible or takes an oath "under God" yet the common person can't have a "moment of silence" at a football game. (rolls eyes)

Last time I checked God was not a conveinience. You either are on His side or not. But that is a "discussion" for another thread (the Passion one I think..hehe)

But you are correct, we should be restrained and have been, which is my point. THAT is why I think the current "problems" that people have alluded to are not looked upon as problems...much like putting the Japanese Americans in interment camps but not German or Italian Americans during WWII was more due to the Japanese attack on Peral Harbor then any danger of spies.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not to mention that GwB manages to mention God in just about every other speech he makes. He seems to think he's on some kind of crusade to the holy land- if it wasn't so scary it would remind me of the Blues Brothers ("we're on a mission from God, Ma'am") and be funny.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You said it, not me.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How is it a GOOD thing? It has acheived nothing positive.

Sure, Saddam is out of the picture but as soon as the US hands over power to the locals they will elect some religious zealout who will turn Iraq into another Iran and the whole bloody thing will kick off once again.
You're looking at a brutal, vicious civil war between a half-dozen factions in that country within the decade and the west has made such a hash of it this time that they will be reluctant to get involved again, leaving them to their own devices... even though it's our fault.

On the other hand, the war killed tens of thousands, obliterated a country's infrastructure, tore up international law and co-operation and has generated huge amounts of anti-western sentiment in the middle east that will fuel international terrorism for decades to come. Is that not a BAD thing?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh are you? And who told you that? You really *are* out of touch aren't you. I for one don't look upon the US as the world's police force, I see it more as some kind of rogue cowboy who, after running the sherrif out of town and stealing his badge, is now riding around, shooting his mouth off and firing his guns at random. And I think you'll find I'm not alone in this view.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Back in the seventies maybe. NOw it's just another reactionary right-wing, bandwagon-jumping media-conglomerate-owned rag that will print any old ****e that will sell. Your average leftie wouldn't wipe his arse on the mirror. There are no left wing tabloids in this country, and the closest we have to a left wing broadsheet is the independent or guardian.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really? What about what you said earlier in your post? I quote:
"we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq " and "If we had {got rid of Saddam 15 years ago} more then likely the Towers would still be standing"
Did they or didn't they? Are you sure or aren't you?

Please also read alarikf's post further down, and bear in mind his credentials. here's the relevent quote from his post: "here is a FACT that a person can choose to ignore at their peril: There was NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. "

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The FACT is, IIRC, those al-qaeda training camps were in Kurd-controlled territory, and had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Yes, he was a bastard, but he didn't bring down the twin towers. Saudi Arabians did.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">True
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
US feared to create a new bigger Liban. So the choice have been : better a powerless Saddam than a complete mess in the Gulf.
Nothing to do with balls.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
Saddam give money to family of Palestinian kamikaze. Which have nothing to do with Al Quada. Not a single link, even if it could now change due to actual political developpments between US/Israel/Palestinians.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Lie.
Saddam never trusted Al Quada and Bin Laden hated Saddam. Only one group had some camps in northern Iraq, in the part on which Saddam had no control.


Please read the following Stratfor analysis. And keep in mind that so far, they went on target for the whole Iraq story. So far, I'll stay with my opinion : Bush is a failure and a clear danger to US security.


Please feel free to send the Stratfor Weekly to a friend or colleague.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
11 May 2004

The Edge of the Razor

Summary
The strategy of the United States in its war with radical Islam is in a state of crisis. The global strategic framework is in much better shape than the tactical situation in the Iraq theater of operations -- but this is of only limited comfort to Washington because massive tactical failure in Iraq could lead to strategic collapse. The situation is balanced on the razor's edge. The United States could recover from its tactical failures, or suffer a massive defeat if it fails to do so. One thing is certain: The United States cannot remain balanced on the razor's edge indefinitely.

Analysis

Most wars reach a moment of crisis, when the outcome hangs in the balance and in which weakness and errors, military or political, can shape victory or put it permanently out of reach. Sometimes these moments of crisis come suddenly and are purely military, such as the Battle of Midway. Sometimes they are a long time brewing and are primarily political in nature, like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. These are moments when planning, judgment and luck can decide victors -- and when bad planning, lack of judgment and bad luck can undermine the best and brightest. It is the moment when history balances on the razor's edge. The U.S.-Islamist war is now, it seems to us, balanced on that edge.

There are some who argue that it is not reasonable to speak of the confrontation between the United States and al Qaeda as a war. It certainly does not, in any way, resemble World War II. It is nevertheless very much a war. It consists of two sides that are each making plans, using violence and attempting to shape the political future of a major region of the globe -- the Muslim world. One side masses large forces, the other side disperses much smaller forces throughout the globe. But the goals are the goals of any war: to shape the political future. And the means are the same as in any war: to kill sufficient numbers of the enemy in order to break his will to fight and resist. It might not look like wars the United States has fought in the past, but it is most certainly a war -- and it is a war whose outcome is in doubt.

On a strategic level, the United States has been the victor since the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet strategic victories can be undermined by massive tactical failures, and this is what the United States is facing now. Iraq is a single campaign in a much broader war. However, as frequently occurs in wars, unintended consequences dominate the battlefield. The United States intended to occupy Iraq and move on to other campaigns -- but failures in planning, underestimation of the enemy and command failures have turned strategic victory into a tactical nightmare. That tactical nightmare is now threatening to undermine not only the Iraqi theater of operations, but also the entire American war effort. It is threatening to reverse a series of al Qaeda defeats. If the current trend continues, the tactical situation will undermine U.S. strategy in Iraq, and the collapse of U.S. strategy in Iraq could unravel the entire U.S. strategy against al Qaeda and the Islamists. The question is whether the United States has the honesty to face the fact that it is a crisis, the imagination to craft a solution to the problems in Iraq and the luck that the enemy will give it the time it needs to regroup.

That is what war looks like on the razor's edge.

The Strategic Situation

In the midst of the noise over Iraq, it is essential to grasp the strategic balance and to understand that on that level, the United States has done relatively well. To be more precise, al Qaeda has done quite poorly. It is one of the paradoxes of American war-fighting that, having failed to articulate coherent goals, the Bush administration is incapable of pointing to its real successes. But this is an excruciatingly great failure on the part of the administration. It was Napoleon who said, "The moral is to the physical as 3-1," by which he meant that how a nation or army views its successes is more important than what its capabilities are. The failure to tend to the morale of the nation, to articulate a strategy and demonstrate progress, is not a marginal failure. It is the greatest possible failure of political leadership in wartime.

Nevertheless al Qaeda has failed in its most fundamental goal. There has been no mass rising in the Islamic world, nor has a single Muslim government fallen. Nor, for that matter, has a single Islamic government shifted its position in support of al Qaeda. To the contrary, a series of Muslim governments -- the most important of which is Saudi Arabia -- have shifted their positions toward active and effective opposition to al Qaeda. The current attacks by al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia are a reflection of the shift in Saudi policy that has occurred since just before the invasion of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is far from the only country to have shifted its strategy. Iran -- for all of its bombast -- has, through complex back-channel negotiations with the United States as well as a complex re-evaluation of its strategic position, changed its behavior since January 2002. Syria, while still not fully in control, has certainly become more circumspect in its behavior. Prior to the Iraq war, these governments ranged from hostile to uncooperative; they since have shifted to a spectrum ranging from minimally cooperative to fully cooperative.

Since the United States could not hunt down al Qaeda, cell by cell and individual by individual, it devised an alternative strategy that is less effective in the short run but more effective in the long run -- and the only strategy available. Washington sought to change the behavior of enabling countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, by making the potential threat from the United States greater than the potential threat from al Qaeda. By occupying Iraq and surrounding Saudi Arabia with military forces, the United States compelled a reluctant and truculent Riyadh to comply with American wishes.

In the long run, changes in the behavior of these governments -- and of other Muslim governments, from Islamabad to Tripoli -- represent the only way to defeat al Qaeda. To the simplistic American question of, "Are we safer today than we were a year ago?" the answer is, "Probably not." To the question of whether the United States is on a path that might make it safer in five years, the answer is "Probably yes," assuming the U.S. effort doesn't collapse under the weight of its pyramiding mistakes in Iraq.

We would argue that the political shifts in the Muslim world that have helped the United States were aided significantly by the invasion of Iraq. We would certainly agree that Islamic opposition to the United States solidified -- we doubt that there was much room for intensification -- but we would also argue that opinion is significant to the extent to which it turns into war-fighting capability. The Poles despised the Germans and the Japanese were not fond of the Americans, but neither could expel the occupier simply on the strength of public opinion. It is the shifts in government policy that contained radical Islamist tendencies that should be the focal point, and the invasion of Iraq served that purpose.

Tactical Failures?

It is at that point that things started to go wrong -- not with the grand strategy of the United States, but with the Iraq strategy itself. A string of intelligence failures, errors in judgment and command failures have conspired to undermine the U.S. position in Iraq and reverse the strategic benefits. These failures included:

* A failure to detect that preparations were under way for a guerrilla war in the event that Baghdad fell.

* A failure to quickly recognize that a guerrilla war was under way in Iraq, and a delay of months before the reality was recognized and a strategy
developed for dealing with it.

* A failure to understand that the United States did not have the resources to govern Iraq if all Baathist personnel were excluded.

* A failure to understand the nature of the people the United States was installing in the Iraqi Governing Council -- and in particular, the complex loyalties of Ahmed Chalabi and his relationship to Iraq's Shia and the Iranian government. The United States became highly dependent on individuals about whom it lacked sufficient intelligence.

* A failure to recognize that the Sunni guerrillas were regrouping in February and March 2004, after their defeat in the Ramadan offensive.

* Completely underestimating the number of forces needed for the occupation of Iraq, and cavalierly dismissing accurate Army estimates in favor of lower estimates that rapidly became unsupportable.

* Failing to step up military recruiting in order to increase the total number of U.S. ground forces available on a worldwide basis. Failing to understand that the difference between defeating an army and occupying a country had to be made up with ground forces.

These are the particular failures. The general failures are a compendium of every imaginable military failing:

* Failing to focus on the objective. Rather than remembering why U.S. forces were in Iraq and focusing on that, the Bush administration wandered off into irrelevancies and impossibilities, such as building democracy and eliminating Baath party members. The administration forgot its mission.

* Underestimating the enemy and overestimating U.S. power. The enemy was intelligent, dedicated and brave. He was defending his country and his home. The United States was enormously powerful but not omnipotent. The casual dismissal of the Iraqi guerrillas led directly to the failure to anticipate and counter enemy action.

* Failure to rapidly identify errors and rectify them through changes of plans, strategies and personnel. Error is common in war. The measure of a military force is how honestly errors are addressed and rectified. When a command structure begins denying that self- evident problems are facing them, all is lost. The administration's insistence over the past year that no fundamental errors were committed in Iraq has been a cancer eating through all layers of the command structure -- from the squad to the office of the president.

* Failing to understand the political dimension of the war and permitting political support for the war in the United States to erode by failing to
express a clear, coherent war plan on the broadest level. Because of this failure, other major failures -- ranging from the failure to find weapons of mass destruction to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners -- have filled the space that strategy should have occupied. The persistent failure of the president to explain the linkage between Iraq and the broader war has been symptomatic of this systemic failure.

Remember the objective; respect the enemy; be your own worst critic; exercise leadership at all levels -- these are fundamental principles of warfare. They have all been violated during the Iraq campaign.

The strategic situation, as of March 2004, was rapidly improving for the United States. There was serious, reasonable discussion of a final push into Pakistan to liquidate al Qaeda's leadership. Al Qaeda began a global counterattack -- as in Spain -- that was neither unexpected nor as effective as it might have been. However, the counterattack in Iraq was both unexpected and destabilizing -- causing military and political processes in Iraq to separate out, and forcing the United States into negotiations with the Sunni guerrillas while simultaneously trying to manage a crisis in the Shiite areas. At the same time that the United States was struggling to stabilize its position in Iraq, the prison abuse issue emerged. It was devastating not only in its own right, but also because of the timing. It generated a sense
that U.S. operations in Iraq were out of control. From Al Fallujah to An Najaf to Abu Ghraib, the question was whether anyone had the slightest idea
what they were trying to achieve in Iraq.

Which brings us back to the razor's edge. If the United States rapidly adjusts its Iraq operations to take realities in that country into account, rather than engaging on ongoing wishful thinking, the situation in Iraq can be saved and with it the gains made in the war on al Qaeda. On the other hand, if the United States continues its unbalanced and ineffective prosecution of the war against the guerrillas and continues to allow its relations with the Shia to deteriorate, the United States will find itself in an untenable position. If it is forced to withdraw from Iraq, or to so limit its operations there as to be effectively withdrawn, the entire dynamic that the United States has worked to create since the Sept. 11 attacks will reverse itself, and the U.S. position in the Muslim world -- which was fairly strong in January 2004 -- will deteriorate, and al Qaeda's influence will increase dramatically.

The Political Crisis

It is not clear that the Bush administration understands the crisis it is facing. The prison abuse pictures are symptomatic -- not only of persistent command failure, but also of the administration's loss of credibility with the public. Since no one really knows what the administration is doing, it is not unreasonable to fill in the blanks with the least generous assumptions. The issue is this: Iraq has not gone as planned by any stretch of the imagination. If the failures of Iraq are not rectified quickly, the entire U.S. strategic position could unravel. Speed is of the essence. There is no longer time left.

The issue is one of responsibility. Who is responsible for the failures in Iraq? The president appears to have assumed that if anyone were fired, it would be admitting that something went wrong. At this point, there is no one who doesn't know that many things have gone wrong. If the president insists on retaining all of his senior staff, Cabinet members and field commanders, no one is going to draw the conclusion that everything is under control; rather they will conclude that it is the president himself who is responsible for the failures, and they will act accordingly.

The issue facing Bush is not merely the prison pictures. It is the series of failures in the Iraq campaign that have revealed serious errors of judgment and temperament among senior cabinet-level officials. We suspect that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is finished, and with him Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Vice President Dick Cheney said over the weekend that everyone should get off of Rumsfeld's case. What Cheney doesn't seem to grasp is that there is a war on and that at this moment, it isn't going very well. If the secretary of defense doesn't bear the burden of failures and misjudgments, who does? Or does the vice president suggest a no-fault policy when it comes to war? Or does he think that things are going well?

This is not asked polemically. It is our job to identify emerging trends, and we have, frequently, been accused of everything from being owned by the Republicans to being Iraq campaign apologists. In fact, we are making a non-partisan point: The administration is painting itself into a corner that will cost Bush the presidency if it does not deal with the fact that there is no one who doesn't know that Iraq has been mismanaged. The administration's only option for survival is to start managing it effectively, if that can be done at this point.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a huge mistruth that you hear from conservative pundits and believed by the people who listen to them but abandoned by everyone else. Even GW has backed of the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection.

The Northern "training bases" everyone refers to were in the Kurd no fly zone and run by a group called Ansar Al-Islam - they were not in a Saddam controlled area - and this group was commited to the overthrow of Saddam and were dedicated to bringing an Islamist state to Iraq: Fanatics yes Al Qaeda no.

The ones that FoxNews et. al. reported west of Baghdad were simply Iraqi military bases (you don't hear about these much anymore) not terrorist training camps.

Anyway the more likely culprits would be the Saudis but nothing will ever happen to them because we know the connection that GW has with those people.

[ May 26, 2004, 09:42: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's kind of what I was aiming at, that and the fact that you said your opinions about being misled into war have changed. I wasn't trying to make you out to be James Bond, leaking secret information to the shrapnel forum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Sorry if that;s how it came across.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heh. James Bond indeed. Trust me, my work right now is capital-B Boring.

But, really, people with clearances just need to be *absolutely* careful with talking about their work, what they say, etc...and for good reason. Secrets exist for a reason, even if they are seemingly unimportant to those involved. True, we sometimes classify things for no discernible reason, and sometimes its even done for the wrong reasons (cover ups, etc...) but, in general, secrets are there for a reason.

But the lack of a link between Saddam and AQ is no secret, that's for sure!

EDIT: spelling, word changes.

[ May 26, 2004, 13:26: Message edited by: alarikf ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...224075,00.html

You knew it was coming... Almost summer...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Making predictions is almost always gaurenteed to make the predictor look like a fool. Nonetheless, I can't resist making one today.

Here is a quote regarding the pledge to transfer Sovt'y to Iraq on June 30th (from Online Time magazine at http://www.time.com/time/world/artic....html?cnn=yes)

"Bush vowed both to transfer "full sovereignty" to an Iraqi provisional government on June 30, and to maintain 138,000 U.S. troops (or, possibly, more) in Iraq "under American command." U.S. officials have also insisted, up to now, that American officers will have command responsibility for the Iraqi security forces. But sovereignty is like pregnancy ? you either are or you aren't, because sovereignty means nothing less than final decision-making authority over all matters of state and the maintenance of security within the borders of a given nation state. If sovereignty is indeed to be transferred on June 30, then any U.S. or other foreign military formations in the country will have to submit to the political will of the sovereign Iraqi government."

My prediction is this: at some point, there will be a crisis wherein an Iraqi politician who is part of the governing body of Iraq will call for all US forces to leave Iraq. He will do this irregardless of prior stances becuase it will gaurentee him prestige and popularity in Iraq, and it will set up a clear crisis between the US and the Iraq "government." How this might turn out, I don't know.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not to mention that GwB manages to mention God in just about every other speech he makes. He seems to think he's on some kind of crusade to the holy land- if it wasn't so scary it would remind me of the Blues Brothers ("we're on a mission from God, Ma'am") and be funny.

Quote:

Maybe I am out dated and out of touch

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You said it, not me.

Quote:

I certainly don't see the war in Iraq as a BAD thing.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How is it a GOOD thing? It has acheived nothing positive.

Sure, Saddam is out of the picture but as soon as the US hands over power to the locals they will elect some religious zealout who will turn Iraq into another Iran and the whole bloody thing will kick off once again.
You're looking at a brutal, vicious civil war between a half-dozen factions in that country within the decade and the west has made such a hash of it this time that they will be reluctant to get involved again, leaving them to their own devices... even though it's our fault.

On the other hand, the war killed tens of thousands, obliterated a country's infrastructure, tore up international law and co-operation and has generated huge amounts of anti-western sentiment in the middle east that will fuel international terrorism for decades to come. Is that not a BAD thing?

Quote:

And the answer is that we are looked upon as the world's police force,

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh are you? And who told you that? You really *are* out of touch aren't you. I for one don't look upon the US as the world's police force, I see it more as some kind of rogue cowboy who, after running the sherrif out of town and stealing his badge, is now riding around, shooting his mouth off and firing his guns at random. And I think you'll find I'm not alone in this view.

Quote:

the Daily Mirror, an English newspaper that is normally rather left wing

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Back in the seventies maybe. NOw it's just another reactionary right-wing, bandwagon-jumping media-conglomerate-owned rag that will print any old ****e that will sell. Your average leftie wouldn't wipe his arse on the mirror. There are no left wing tabloids in this country, and the closest we have to a left wing broadsheet is the independent or guardian.

Quote:

Maybe Iraq didn't have direct ties to 9/11 and maybe they did.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really? What about what you said earlier in your post? I quote:
"we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq " and "If we had {got rid of Saddam 15 years ago} more then likely the Towers would still be standing"
Did they or didn't they? Are you sure or aren't you?

Please also read alarikf's post further down, and bear in mind his credentials. here's the relevent quote from his post: "here is a FACT that a person can choose to ignore at their peril: There was NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. "

Quote:

The FACT is, they had Al Q training camps in Northern Iraq.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The FACT is, IIRC, those al-qaeda training camps were in Kurd-controlled territory, and had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Yes, he was a bastard, but he didn't bring down the twin towers. Saudi Arabians did. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, first of all the contention that nothing positive has come from the war in Iraq is just plain wrong. Frankly, I can't believe you said that.

Saddam gone, millions free of a brutal dictator that had 5 year olds imprisoned, and you can't see anything positive that has come from the war?

As far as "anti western" sentiment in the middle east..geez, take your head out. Since WHEN did the middle east ever NOT have that? The "anti west" sentiment has been there since the CRUSADES, hell, even BEFORE as they came into Europe and sacked ROME.

Fuel terrorism? Poverty is a far better fuel then political retoric my friend. Its hard as hell to get someone to blow themselves up when they got a nice family, home and life to live for. But make it where they see nothing to live for and they will strap that bomb on thier back and nuke themselves.

Give the people a good education, a good shot at living rather then existing and you will do more to stop terrorism then a billion zealots can start.

As far as infrastructure...

Before the war 30% of the Iraqi people had running water in thier homes, now some 70% have it.

64% had electricity that was on MOST of the time, now 94% have it.

The roads were unsafe in the majority of the country, they are no longer save in "Hot Spots" that are cleared as quickly as possible.

Men, women and children were taken from their homes in the dead of night to be tortured, raped and killed in prisons by thugs on a routine basis, this is now the exception and there are forces that seek out these thugs and try to stop them by arrest or death.

HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS were being killed by the government of Saddam EACH YEAR. In the ENTIRE WAR EFFORT TO DATE we have not come CLOSE to that number if you add up ALL CASUALTIES on ALL SIDES.

And as for the government, I am so glad you are able to see the future. I seem to remember the same cow dung being flung when we took out the Taliban in Afganistan. I don't see this happening there so somehow, I don't see it happening in Iraq. Well, not unless the American forces are pulled out too soon due to "world opinion".

No..nothing good has come of it as you see.

Course, guess you're blind.../shrug.

As far as America being the world's policeman...

Who does everyone come to for money, military help, humanitarian aid? What country is the first to offer such things? The old USA. And when has the world ever come to help US?

WHO came to help us when we have natural disasters? Who sent help when we had the California earthquakes? The Mid West Floods? The Twin Towers being destroyed? Who sent help?

Nobody.

But when there was earthquakes in Turkey...America was there.

In Iran...there was the US helping within 24 hours.

Who dropped more FOOD and HUMANITARIAN supplies in Afganistan then bombs? Who made sure fresh food, water and other basic needs were there for the Iraqis? Who is still sending supplies to North Korea and other countries that have OPENLY STATED they hate the US?

No, I don't know WHERE I got the idea the US was the world's policeman. But let some hot spot flare up and the first military troops sent in from outside will have an AMERICAN flag on thier shoulders.

You may not be alone, hell, I sure know you aren't. But that just means you're in a crowd of people that don't have a clue, not that you're right.

Tell you what, let's see the US pull out its support from the world and find out just how long the old world can Last. And I mean the whole shebang baby...military, economic..the works.

The world economy is based on the US Dollar.

The US green back is accepted damn near everywhere, no other currency is.

As for the Al Q camps...we know for a fact Saddam was funding the camps. They were NOT in Kurd controlled territories. In fact, the imbedded reporter with the Kurds have HOURS of footage showing the camps well inside Iraqi controlled territory NEAR the Kurdish areas. Please at least get the facts right or close enough that its not blatantly obvious that you don't know what you are saying.

The camps were funded by AL Q and Saddam within the country. That's fact. As far as me saying "Maybe" that was a statement that even if you DON'T BELIEVE that fact, that it remains a fact.

As for MY background, suffice it to say I have Ultra clearance to this day. I have more information on what has been going on in Afganistan and Iraq then I really ever want from comrades on the ground in many, many different areas.

I am not saying alarikf's post is wrong. It is probably far more right then he is even leading people to believe in some areas but, I know for a fact that Saddam was helping Al Q with more then money.

As for who brought down the towers and killed thousands of innocents..it wasn't the Saudi Arabians..it was Al Q operatives who happen to be FROM that country.

But, I do blame SA for allowing the fundamentalist to grow in such power as to enable AL Q to continually get funding from people within thier country as well as more recruits because they refuse to use the billions of dollars they earn each year to help the average Saudi get a better life through a GOOD education (not a filtered one with blinders put on it by zealots).

Do I think the US should tell Saudi Arabia to either put up or take a hike? You betcha. Do I think the average Middle Eastern person hates the US...nope..not really. I think they are listening to the trash spouted on the controlled news outlets and are only given the information that would make any normal, sane person hate a country painted as bad as the US is continually painted.

And as for being old and out dated...

As the saying goes..if its not broke..don't fix it.

And if the US was really the "wild and wooly cowboy" you say, the world would be either a member of the US commonwealth or a smoking ruin.

Understand that there is only ONE superpower left in the world. The US has the ability to project its power where ever it desires. No other country can do that nor even come close.

As I said before, when the towers fell, the majority of the American people wanted blood for blood. It is a testament to the strength of this nation that instead of dropping the hammer on the entire Middle and Near East like the wrath of Almighty God we instead had leaders that remained calm and have slowly, painfully worked to seek out those that would do such horrible acts and stop them.

And it is also a sign of strength that our leaders were willing to do it regardless of the sudden loss of courage on the part of some of our so called "allies" when it became evident that we would find out about thier ILLEGAL dealings with the Iraqi regime.

Have American troops done things that they should feel saddened about...you bet. That is why war should be avoided.

Should they be ashamed...not in my book.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">True

Quote:

Originally posted by Simeron: when the US lacked the guts to stand up and make the monster pay back in 1991 for his crimes due to "world opinion".

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
US feared to create a new bigger Liban. So the choice have been : better a powerless Saddam than a complete mess in the Gulf.
Nothing to do with balls.

Quote:

Originally posted by Simeron: we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq so that this group could continue to attack innocents across the world like the bombing in Bali after 9/11.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
Saddam give money to family of Palestinian kamikaze. Which have nothing to do with Al Quada. Not a single link, even if it could now change due to actual political developpments between US/Israel/Palestinians.

Quote:

Originally posted by Simeron: providing training bases within Iraq

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Lie.
Saddam never trusted Al Quada and Bin Laden hated Saddam. Only one group had some camps in northern Iraq, in the part on which Saddam had no control.


Please read the following Stratfor analysis. And keep in mind that so far, they went on target for the whole Iraq story. So far, I'll stay with my opinion : Bush is a failure and a clear danger to US security.


Please feel free to send the Stratfor Weekly to a friend or colleague.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
11 May 2004

The Edge of the Razor

Summary
The strategy of the United States in its war with radical Islam is in a state of crisis. The global strategic framework is in much better shape than the tactical situation in the Iraq theater of operations -- but this is of only limited comfort to Washington because massive tactical failure in Iraq could lead to strategic collapse. The situation is balanced on the razor's edge. The United States could recover from its tactical failures, or suffer a massive defeat if it fails to do so. One thing is certain: The United States cannot remain balanced on the razor's edge indefinitely.

Analysis

Most wars reach a moment of crisis, when the outcome hangs in the balance and in which weakness and errors, military or political, can shape victory or put it permanently out of reach. Sometimes these moments of crisis come suddenly and are purely military, such as the Battle of Midway. Sometimes they are a long time brewing and are primarily political in nature, like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. These are moments when planning, judgment and luck can decide victors -- and when bad planning, lack of judgment and bad luck can undermine the best and brightest. It is the moment when history balances on the razor's edge. The U.S.-Islamist war is now, it seems to us, balanced on that edge.

There are some who argue that it is not reasonable to speak of the confrontation between the United States and al Qaeda as a war. It certainly does not, in any way, resemble World War II. It is nevertheless very much a war. It consists of two sides that are each making plans, using violence and attempting to shape the political future of a major region of the globe -- the Muslim world. One side masses large forces, the other side disperses much smaller forces throughout the globe. But the goals are the goals of any war: to shape the political future. And the means are the same as in any war: to kill sufficient numbers of the enemy in order to break his will to fight and resist. It might not look like wars the United States has fought in the past, but it is most certainly a war -- and it is a war whose outcome is in doubt.

On a strategic level, the United States has been the victor since the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet strategic victories can be undermined by massive tactical failures, and this is what the United States is facing now. Iraq is a single campaign in a much broader war. However, as frequently occurs in wars, unintended consequences dominate the battlefield. The United States intended to occupy Iraq and move on to other campaigns -- but failures in planning, underestimation of the enemy and command failures have turned strategic victory into a tactical nightmare. That tactical nightmare is now threatening to undermine not only the Iraqi theater of operations, but also the entire American war effort. It is threatening to reverse a series of al Qaeda defeats. If the current trend continues, the tactical situation will undermine U.S. strategy in Iraq, and the collapse of U.S. strategy in Iraq could unravel the entire U.S. strategy against al Qaeda and the Islamists. The question is whether the United States has the honesty to face the fact that it is a crisis, the imagination to craft a solution to the problems in Iraq and the luck that the enemy will give it the time it needs to regroup.

That is what war looks like on the razor's edge.

The Strategic Situation

In the midst of the noise over Iraq, it is essential to grasp the strategic balance and to understand that on that level, the United States has done relatively well. To be more precise, al Qaeda has done quite poorly. It is one of the paradoxes of American war-fighting that, having failed to articulate coherent goals, the Bush administration is incapable of pointing to its real successes. But this is an excruciatingly great failure on the part of the administration. It was Napoleon who said, "The moral is to the physical as 3-1," by which he meant that how a nation or army views its successes is more important than what its capabilities are. The failure to tend to the morale of the nation, to articulate a strategy and demonstrate progress, is not a marginal failure. It is the greatest possible failure of political leadership in wartime.

Nevertheless al Qaeda has failed in its most fundamental goal. There has been no mass rising in the Islamic world, nor has a single Muslim government fallen. Nor, for that matter, has a single Islamic government shifted its position in support of al Qaeda. To the contrary, a series of Muslim governments -- the most important of which is Saudi Arabia -- have shifted their positions toward active and effective opposition to al Qaeda. The current attacks by al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia are a reflection of the shift in Saudi policy that has occurred since just before the invasion of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is far from the only country to have shifted its strategy. Iran -- for all of its bombast -- has, through complex back-channel negotiations with the United States as well as a complex re-evaluation of its strategic position, changed its behavior since January 2002. Syria, while still not fully in control, has certainly become more circumspect in its behavior. Prior to the Iraq war, these governments ranged from hostile to uncooperative; they since have shifted to a spectrum ranging from minimally cooperative to fully cooperative.

Since the United States could not hunt down al Qaeda, cell by cell and individual by individual, it devised an alternative strategy that is less effective in the short run but more effective in the long run -- and the only strategy available. Washington sought to change the behavior of enabling countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, by making the potential threat from the United States greater than the potential threat from al Qaeda. By occupying Iraq and surrounding Saudi Arabia with military forces, the United States compelled a reluctant and truculent Riyadh to comply with American wishes.

In the long run, changes in the behavior of these governments -- and of other Muslim governments, from Islamabad to Tripoli -- represent the only way to defeat al Qaeda. To the simplistic American question of, "Are we safer today than we were a year ago?" the answer is, "Probably not." To the question of whether the United States is on a path that might make it safer in five years, the answer is "Probably yes," assuming the U.S. effort doesn't collapse under the weight of its pyramiding mistakes in Iraq.

We would argue that the political shifts in the Muslim world that have helped the United States were aided significantly by the invasion of Iraq. We would certainly agree that Islamic opposition to the United States solidified -- we doubt that there was much room for intensification -- but we would also argue that opinion is significant to the extent to which it turns into war-fighting capability. The Poles despised the Germans and the Japanese were not fond of the Americans, but neither could expel the occupier simply on the strength of public opinion. It is the shifts in government policy that contained radical Islamist tendencies that should be the focal point, and the invasion of Iraq served that purpose.

Tactical Failures?

It is at that point that things started to go wrong -- not with the grand strategy of the United States, but with the Iraq strategy itself. A string of intelligence failures, errors in judgment and command failures have conspired to undermine the U.S. position in Iraq and reverse the strategic benefits. These failures included:

* A failure to detect that preparations were under way for a guerrilla war in the event that Baghdad fell.

* A failure to quickly recognize that a guerrilla war was under way in Iraq, and a delay of months before the reality was recognized and a strategy
developed for dealing with it.

* A failure to understand that the United States did not have the resources to govern Iraq if all Baathist personnel were excluded.

* A failure to understand the nature of the people the United States was installing in the Iraqi Governing Council -- and in particular, the complex loyalties of Ahmed Chalabi and his relationship to Iraq's Shia and the Iranian government. The United States became highly dependent on individuals about whom it lacked sufficient intelligence.

* A failure to recognize that the Sunni guerrillas were regrouping in February and March 2004, after their defeat in the Ramadan offensive.

* Completely underestimating the number of forces needed for the occupation of Iraq, and cavalierly dismissing accurate Army estimates in favor of lower estimates that rapidly became unsupportable.

* Failing to step up military recruiting in order to increase the total number of U.S. ground forces available on a worldwide basis. Failing to understand that the difference between defeating an army and occupying a country had to be made up with ground forces.

These are the particular failures. The general failures are a compendium of every imaginable military failing:

* Failing to focus on the objective. Rather than remembering why U.S. forces were in Iraq and focusing on that, the Bush administration wandered off into irrelevancies and impossibilities, such as building democracy and eliminating Baath party members. The administration forgot its mission.

* Underestimating the enemy and overestimating U.S. power. The enemy was intelligent, dedicated and brave. He was defending his country and his home. The United States was enormously powerful but not omnipotent. The casual dismissal of the Iraqi guerrillas led directly to the failure to anticipate and counter enemy action.

* Failure to rapidly identify errors and rectify them through changes of plans, strategies and personnel. Error is common in war. The measure of a military force is how honestly errors are addressed and rectified. When a command structure begins denying that self- evident problems are facing them, all is lost. The administration's insistence over the past year that no fundamental errors were committed in Iraq has been a cancer eating through all layers of the command structure -- from the squad to the office of the president.

* Failing to understand the political dimension of the war and permitting political support for the war in the United States to erode by failing to
express a clear, coherent war plan on the broadest level. Because of this failure, other major failures -- ranging from the failure to find weapons of mass destruction to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners -- have filled the space that strategy should have occupied. The persistent failure of the president to explain the linkage between Iraq and the broader war has been symptomatic of this systemic failure.

Remember the objective; respect the enemy; be your own worst critic; exercise leadership at all levels -- these are fundamental principles of warfare. They have all been violated during the Iraq campaign.

The strategic situation, as of March 2004, was rapidly improving for the United States. There was serious, reasonable discussion of a final push into Pakistan to liquidate al Qaeda's leadership. Al Qaeda began a global counterattack -- as in Spain -- that was neither unexpected nor as effective as it might have been. However, the counterattack in Iraq was both unexpected and destabilizing -- causing military and political processes in Iraq to separate out, and forcing the United States into negotiations with the Sunni guerrillas while simultaneously trying to manage a crisis in the Shiite areas. At the same time that the United States was struggling to stabilize its position in Iraq, the prison abuse issue emerged. It was devastating not only in its own right, but also because of the timing. It generated a sense
that U.S. operations in Iraq were out of control. From Al Fallujah to An Najaf to Abu Ghraib, the question was whether anyone had the slightest idea
what they were trying to achieve in Iraq.

Which brings us back to the razor's edge. If the United States rapidly adjusts its Iraq operations to take realities in that country into account, rather than engaging on ongoing wishful thinking, the situation in Iraq can be saved and with it the gains made in the war on al Qaeda. On the other hand, if the United States continues its unbalanced and ineffective prosecution of the war against the guerrillas and continues to allow its relations with the Shia to deteriorate, the United States will find itself in an untenable position. If it is forced to withdraw from Iraq, or to so limit its operations there as to be effectively withdrawn, the entire dynamic that the United States has worked to create since the Sept. 11 attacks will reverse itself, and the U.S. position in the Muslim world -- which was fairly strong in January 2004 -- will deteriorate, and al Qaeda's influence will increase dramatically.

The Political Crisis

It is not clear that the Bush administration understands the crisis it is facing. The prison abuse pictures are symptomatic -- not only of persistent command failure, but also of the administration's loss of credibility with the public. Since no one really knows what the administration is doing, it is not unreasonable to fill in the blanks with the least generous assumptions. The issue is this: Iraq has not gone as planned by any stretch of the imagination. If the failures of Iraq are not rectified quickly, the entire U.S. strategic position could unravel. Speed is of the essence. There is no longer time left.

The issue is one of responsibility. Who is responsible for the failures in Iraq? The president appears to have assumed that if anyone were fired, it would be admitting that something went wrong. At this point, there is no one who doesn't know that many things have gone wrong. If the president insists on retaining all of his senior staff, Cabinet members and field commanders, no one is going to draw the conclusion that everything is under control; rather they will conclude that it is the president himself who is responsible for the failures, and they will act accordingly.

The issue facing Bush is not merely the prison pictures. It is the series of failures in the Iraq campaign that have revealed serious errors of judgment and temperament among senior cabinet-level officials. We suspect that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is finished, and with him Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Vice President Dick Cheney said over the weekend that everyone should get off of Rumsfeld's case. What Cheney doesn't seem to grasp is that there is a war on and that at this moment, it isn't going very well. If the secretary of defense doesn't bear the burden of failures and misjudgments, who does? Or does the vice president suggest a no-fault policy when it comes to war? Or does he think that things are going well?

This is not asked polemically. It is our job to identify emerging trends, and we have, frequently, been accused of everything from being owned by the Republicans to being Iraq campaign apologists. In fact, we are making a non-partisan point: The administration is painting itself into a corner that will cost Bush the presidency if it does not deal with the fact that there is no one who doesn't know that Iraq has been mismanaged. The administration's only option for survival is to start managing it effectively, if that can be done at this point. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First off, thanks for the very nice info dump. Lots of things in there I have not read before. Can you give me a source on the info so I can check them out?

I still believe that the bases were Al Q though, I have asked some of my buddies and they are saying that may indeed be old hack. I am not active mil anymore (I'm pushing 40 now) but still have my clearance due to inactive reserve status till I am freakin dead..(not sure how I feel about that but hey, what is done is done.)

Also, I want to clarify as alarikf did that nothing I have said or will say here is anything remotely like a "secret". Training still kicks in there not to mention I don't like Kansas (bet all the US mil types understand that quote..heh).

For the moment, let's say Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with AL Q or 9/11. I'll give in on that until I get more information one way or the other.

The fact still remains that the average Iraqi is better off today then they were before the war. They are free, they have a fighting chance to have a true democracy, a first in the Middle East. The average Joe Iraqi's future is brighter now because of the war.

Now, the true test comes to the US...not the beating and ousting of a tyrant but, being able to leave a government in power that will survive.

Personally, I come down on the side of the planners that say 20 years of US presence will be needed in some fashion and here is why.

The old guard will be hard pressed to change thier stripes. It will take teaching, educating and helping the current CHILDREN of Iraq to become the leaders of tomorrow. This means that the kids that are 12 and under are the key. So, in 20 or so years, they will be in a position to take over the leadership (hopefully).

One thing is for certain, what is going to happen, will happen. The die is already cast and the wheels are in motion. All anyone can do now is hope to guide the boulder one way or the other as it goes crashing down the mountain.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Simeron:

You may be right about the reconstruction - were did you get your figures?

Anyway since when was nation building the reason we went into Iraq? I would have preferred that the ~$200B being spent was used for nation building here at home.

As far as the Al Qaeda link - all I can say is that if what you say were true then GW would be claiming it as well - I guess with your "ultra clearance" you may have some insider information.

BTW: Did anyone notice that there was no mention of WMD?

[ May 26, 2004, 19:45: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Good God, info poop overload. Chocking chocking....h e l p m -

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Simeron, please, cut your quotes down to the required parts. Please! Thank you!

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

Oog. Too much to respond to at once. For now, wanted to respond to the part about foriegn aid with simply a quote from the CFR:

"How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks Last among the world?s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world?s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001?almost a third of what America contributed."

This can be found at:
http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid_print.html

More to come...maybe tomorrow...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115046,00.html

If anyone of you has any illusions still about why the war in Iraq had to happen and why further such actions will need to be taken in the future, here is a good news article to demonstrate it.

Due to the current military efforts terrorist Groups are not only having problems getting hardware delivered and finding new, willing victims to blow themselves up but, their leaders are either in hiding or getting killed.

The fact is, fear works, sad but true. And its time the terrorists felt fear instead of the rest of us.

And right now, they are.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Look forward to it and yes, percentage wise, the US ain't first I know.

But when can you take percentage to the bank and deposit it? *wink*

The fact remains that American are the first to go and help, even in countries where the leaders "hate" Americans yet, America never seems to recieve the same gestures.

This is my point.

Re: Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Checking with my buds on the Al Q links. Might be dated info as I really have not kept up to the minute with things. The WMD dropped off the radar and I think the Iraqis were working on it but, were nowhere NEAR where we thought they were. We know they had it and used it but, I personally think they honestly did destroy much of it (or hid it REAL good).

My own gut feeling is that any and all WMD headed to Syria when the war started and is still sitting somewhere within it.

On the reconstruction figures those come from US Military status reports from Iraq and similar areas. Part of the US military mission there is to make sure the infrastructure is rebuilt to higher standards then before. A good example is the port of Um Kasar (thing I mispelt that) that is currently at 4 full offloading areas whereas before the war, it was only operating 2. The other 2 are needed for the offloading of supplies both military and humanitarian.

I do want to say that I am not a "100% Bush fan" and think there is alot of things the administration could be doing better but, I also think that they could be doing alot of things worse too. I'll leave the final judgement on that to history.

The cost of the war in $$$...well, yeah, I'd prefer to see that spend elsewhere. But, I also think that its money well invested if for no other reason, its put the "bad guys" in a hunker down mode. Terror pundits are on the defensive and two major backers of such people are off the board now.

Add to this that the other major backers are either scared (Syria, Iran, North Korea to a small extent) or rolling over (Lybia and numerous small cells in the far east) and I personally think the purchase price, at least for now, looks reasonable.

I should warn people that I, quite frankly, think the US should either draw some really hard lines in the Mid East for our so called "allies" or find new ones.

And unless I miss my guess, the second is exactly what we are doing.

I agree that the government should just go ahead and tell us that is the plan in the first place or at least not use smoke and mirrors to cover that fact up but, perhaps, they really were suckered into this with some rather nice misinformation on Iran and/or others parts. My Ultra clearance won't get me anywhere near that info at all.

In all truth, it really only lets me talk with people still in the services I know and get some info I am still allowed to know.