Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Simeron, please, cut your quotes down to the required parts. Please! Thank you!

Will do my very best..and sorry. Was more worried about cutting out something relavent then leaving chaff in there.

Will do better oh lord of the 8th plane of hell *wink*

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Good God, info poop overload. Chocking chocking....h e l p m -

I agree...yeesh. And to think originally I was going to avoid OT stuff here...lol.

[Atrocities]

Hey I have said it before and I will say it again, discussion over differing points of view regarding a world topic is good for all of us. Sure we might get mand, frustrated, and hot, but at least we are talking and learning, I hope, from one another.

OT discussion are the hidden black market that keeps this forum alive.

[dogscoff]

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?

Like I say, another Saddam will rise up to take his place as soon as the Americans pull out. Or, more likely, a dozen mini-saddams all fighting it out.

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.

Agreed, there has always been tension, although in recent times it's mainly been down to ex-colonial tensions and the whole Isreali issue rather than the crusades. However that's no reason to just say "sod it, it's bad, let's make it worse."

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.

Which just goes to show how poorly the US understands the mentality out there. Many of the Iraqi attacks on on US troops right now are not Al Qaeda operastives or Saddam's guerilla's, they are regular people repaying blood debts incurred during or shortly after the war. Many Iraqis- particularly in Bhagdad *had* nice homes, families, lives and so on before the war. What are those people doing now? Blowing **** up in Baghdad. What about those brits and americans who went over to afghanistan to risk their lives fighting the americans?

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 still goes on, only now it's the so called "liberators" doing it. FOr as long as they've been in control of Iraq the US has been scooping people up in the dead of night - men, women and children- and whisking them off to camp X-Ray and more local destinations for torture and- sometimes- death. All without trial.

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.

Hundreds of thousands? I assume those figures are based on the deaths caused by international sanctions in the Last 15 years.

I don't see it happening in Iraq

Don't you? What do you see? Are you sure you're watching the news and not the Cosby Show?

took out the Taliban in Afganistan. I don't see this happening there so somehow

Last I heard all was not rosy in Afghanistan. We just don't hear about it because of the press' short attention span. Anyone know the latest on what's going on out there?

The world economy is based on the US Dollar.

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

Hooray. Whoopee. Let's throw a party. I don't quite see the relevance, or how that's supposed to endear the US to me.

{Supposed Al Qaeda camps & US aid overseas}

Addressed by others before I wrote this...

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.

If you go back to my original post you;ll see that I didn't include the definite article. I said "Saudi Arabians", not "THE Saudi Arabians".

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.

I think we're well on the way. The PNAC seems to lean more toward the former than the latter.

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.

Wow, that makes me really happy.

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.

Again, what channel are you watching? As soon as the twin towers dropped, Bush gave in to the howls for heads and invaded Afghanistan. Then he tried to stir up even more bloodlust so he could take on Iraq and started positioning himself for the grand tour.

And I'll say once again, even if you disagree with all this, you need to appreciate that much (most?) of the world seems to feel the same. ANd you can't just brush me off for being "part of a crowd of people that don't have a clue". If the US is as wonderful as you say it is and so many ppl don't have a clue, you need to ask yourself why? Why are we so misinformed? What are you doing wrong with your PR that your image is so badly misaligned with reality? Or could we actually be right about some or all of this?

[AMF]

Just to clarify, I am basing everything I said in my post on unclassified sources! Holy Cow, I would NEVER make any classified claims. The FACT that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda has been widely reported, verified, and bandied about in the press. Even the administration agrees now that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not friends, ever. Heck, even after the war, captured documents reported in the media showed that Saddam *still* urged his followers to not cooperate with AQ, even when he was living in a dirt bunker and moving from safe house to safe house. Anyone who thinks that there was a connection between AQ and Saddam is engaging in wqillful ignorance and has made a conscious decision to avoid the unpleasant truth (and, I would say, the cognitive dissonance that comes with it).

EDIT: just to clarify re: "my credentials" - My work is boring. I'm an operational analyst, very boring stuff, not intel related *at all* And all my Posts have nothing to do with my work (as far as I recall). I merely stated those things about myself because in today's political environment, everyone is all about ad hominen attacks and I wanted to avoid the inevitable "we'll you're just a liberal so of course you'd say that" phenomenon.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB] 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. "

[ May 26, 2004, 12:41: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

My sources are various, I would say "Le Monde Diplomatique",some other newspaper (on the web, mostly US ones) and Stratfor.

www.stratfor.com
it is a private intelligence service dealing with geopolitical policies. I have a basic subscription there. But your are allowed to publish only certain analysis, of course not all of them. However, you can suscribe for their weekly newsletter for free.

[tesco samoa]

rextorres
i think that based on the track record of inteligence that having an inside scoop is a bag of beans , of the non magical nature.

Simeron. You fail to release the most of the world does not think of America as saviours. Based on the track record of the actions of USA since the end of WW2 I agree with them.

I am looking forward to when this mess can be cleared up. From the two contrieved invasions to the stupid security procedures that are slowly closing off our shared open border.

[freduk]

Simeron the Foxnews article gives an excellent example of how the Americans are misled by the media (the government) into believing their country is succeeding at the goals set.

Hamas never had any power towards the US, it's a group of terrorists that operate solely on Israelian/palestian (to me unlike for Americans this still isn't decided yet) soil.
The fact they back off their earlier threats, is because of the US is for the first time CONSIDERING to review their unconditional support towards the Israelians who have been greatly misgoverning the situation there. This has nothing to do with the military actions of the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Fox just makes it look as if "fear" (can you seriously frighten a deeply religious civilization with only death???) will make the terrorists comply to US demands/rules/utopia.

Second: Invading Iraq of course was a big mistake. Yes, Saddam=cruel dictator, but not as fundamentalistic as Al-quade and I guarantee you far too intelligent to even to go into jihad against USA.
It is a fact he had WMD's: USA sold a LOT of WMD's to Iraq in the late 80's, especially chemicals and nerve agents which was for the USA an excellent opportunity to monitor the fatality rate amongst the kurds, dispergation at various circumstances etc. That is a fact. Monitoring this, they knew how much was used and thus would remain.
Yes Iraq had, and maybe still has WMD's but no way to deliver them to the US since scuds don't get past the 150 miles mark IIRC.

Saddam hated Al-quada and vice-versa. Now saddam is down. The people of Iraq are regrouping, they have their differences and can be considered as eachothers enemies but they share one common thing: they HATE America. So they start working together now, and this is where Al-Q (who NEVER would have gotten into Iraq earlier) comes in. They organise stuff, and help them to work together, construct bombs and other evil stuff.

In the end USA will have to leave, as they already starting to talk about that now. It's already out of control.
USA media will make it look nice to the USA-pop but I know it will be a monstrosity. A fundamentalistic country, in full support of Al-Q and its terror.

[Slynky]

Ya know, I'm proud to be an American. I'm also ashamed to be an American. Why? Because America has given me the chance to have an open and objective mind. It's this freedom that allows me to dislike (and be ashamed) of some of the things it has done. A dichotomy of sorts.

But I'm not here to represent the "band" of Americans who love to trash their country. Nor am I here to spew forth "blind" pablum about how great America is. I call it as I see it.

EVERY country dabbles in controlling the information (and "spin") delivered to its citizens. Everyone needs to understand that. I'm sure it has the appropriate "twist" to make each citizen think their country is great while others fail to measure up. It's just a fact of what a country does.

America has done some great things and it has done some terrible things. It has done right and done wrong. It's likely we (Americans) are more in the limelight when we do it than other countries. But all countries are the same in that they have made similar mistakes.

I have had the opportunity to visit over 20 other countries, speak with many, many of those people, and listen. It gives me, I think, a bit of perspective that other Americans who have never left our borders don't have.

Now, in the present discussion, I think the US did wrong. The "facts" that were presented to the US public, IMO, were distorted to generate support. I don't know the real reason we went to Iraq. Maybe will never know. I'm cynical enough to even consider it was a "payoff" for campaign support to the big defense manufacturers.

History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?).

I'll close with a quote from "The Devil's Dictionary" written (a compilation) by Ambrose Bierce (that has some application here):

REVOLUTION, n. In politics, an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment. Specifically, in American history, the substitution of the rule of an Administration for that of a Ministry, whereby the welfare and happiness of the people were advanced a full half-inch. Revolutions are usually accompanied by a considerable effusion of blood, but are accounted worth it--this appraisment being made by the beneficiaries whose blood had not the mischance to be shed."

[Fyron]

History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?).

Actually, the track record is overall pretty neutral. Consider nations such as Japan and Germany after WWII. Definitely new governments were set up after "walking into" these nations.