Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[AMF]

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.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

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"

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.

Maybe I am out dated and out of touch

You said it, not me.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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. "

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

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.

---

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.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simeron:

We know that Saddam had WMD and used them in the past on the Kurds and the Sheites within his own country

True

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".

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Simeron:

providing training bases within Iraq

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.

---

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.

[rextorres]

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 ]

[Atrocities]

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

[Mephisto]

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

[AMF]

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...

Originally posted by Simeron:

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?
...
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.

[Simeron]

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.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by alarikf:
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...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simeron:

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?
...
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.

---

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.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
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?

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.