[quote]No. Actually, he has not. He concluded that the invasion of Iraq was “the least worst option.” quote]
And that is different from supporting the war how?
[quote]Quote:
c) That is some very selective parsing of the report.
No. They are the KEY findings of the reports as listed on page No. 1. Want to try again?[/quote][/quote]
No, it’s your ‘feelings’, that lead you to gloss over the fact that the WMDs were destroyed and that while there was intent to re-build, that had not taken place yet due to a lack of capability. This is why it is unlikley that WMDs will be found. Also, when you read the report, you realize that his persuit of WMDs was more about self-preservation than anything else.
Essentially, your arguement is that we were right to have gone to war because Saddam was going to convince the rest of the world (Europe) to lift or relax sanctions so he could get on with business with WMDs. A much different bill of goods than was sold in 2003.
Sigh. Because the least worst option means that it was the best of a bunch of bad choices. The other choices included maintaining sanctions and other such non-invasion/non-war options.
Can you read? This is not the point that the two reports were making. They stated that while Saddam had no wmds that he had every intention of developing them when the sanctions collapsed. The existence of wmds or nonexistence of wmds was a moot point in determining whether Saddam was a threat. Both studies found him a threat.
To some extent, but with wmds, he presented an entirely different security threat. The US was not going to wait until that threat was imminent. Pollack cited Saddam’s statements in which he concluded that the invasion of Kuwait was not the mistake that he made but not waiting until he developed a nuclear weapon that would have made him untouchable. What do you have to say about that?
I believe the word is “argument.”
The two reports found that Saddam had no wmds.
The two reports found that no one knew this at the time and that there was no effort to mislead the publics in either the US or the UK. Given that everyone believed that he had the wmds, why would anyone have made the case that he did not have them but was still a threat that needed to be neutralized?
The two reports found that he had every intention of seeing sanctions collapse by playing on the corrupt and venal interests that were involved in the UN Oil for Food Program. This would then allow him to develop wmds again.
[quote]Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in an April 9 speech that “Iran is among the countries which produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.” But this claim was met with widespread skepticism, given that Iran has only recently installed 1,312 centrifuge machines, far fewer than commercial enrichment facilities in other states.
Russia’s Atomic Energy Agency head Sergei Kiriyenko told the press that Russian government experts say Iran cannot yet produce fuel on an “industrial level,” RIA Novosti reported April 12. Kiriyenko pointed out that centrifuge cascades need to be linked together properly in order to enrich uranium on a large scale. Whether Iran is able to do this is unclear, a European diplomat told Arms Control Today April 30.
Iran’s technical claims may be aimed at bolstering Tehran’s diplomatic leverage. Indeed, Iranian officials have previously argued that it should use its technological achievements for that purpose. (See ACT, June 2006.) Similarly, Aghazadeh argued in an April 9 television interview that the success of Iran’s enrichment program has demonstrated the futility of Security Council pressure.
Iranian nuclear officials have not publicly specified the number of centrifuges that the country is operating. But in his letter, Heinonen said that Iran reports it has “put into operation” eight 164-centrifuge cascades at the commercial facility.
Iran is feeding an unspecified amount of uranium hexafluoride into the cascades, according to the letter. Tehran is not actually enriching uranium, a knowledgeable source told Arms Control Today April 18. Instead, Iran is injecting small amounts of feedstock into the centrifuges to ready them for operation. This process produces trace amount of uranium enriched to very low levels. The European diplomat said that Iran is being “cautious” by introducing small amounts of feedstock. Previously, the centrifuges would spin properly but would break when uranium hexafluoride was introduced into them, the diplomat explained.[/quote]
So, yes, Iran is making progress, but, no, it hasn’t reached any major breakthroughs.
The reason that Iran is not taking the European initiatives seriously is that Europe is not the one that Iran regards as a serious threat. Like North Korea, they believe their problem is with America, and they want to sit down and talk to America.
I believe that Iran is so intent on getting a nuclear weapon that they won’t allow anything to get in their way, but I could be wrong.
Glad to see that (maybe) a little bit of sense is starting to break through.
[quote]The White House confirmed yesterday that the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad is likely to meet in the next several weeks with Iranian officials about stabilizing Iraq, as the administration embraces a tactic outsiders have long recommended as essential to reducing sectarian violence in Iraq.
…
Yesterday’s announcement highlighted a new phase in the Bush administration’s thinking about the advisability of talks with a country the president has called a member of an “axis of evil.” A year ago, the White House authorized discussions about Iraq with Iran, but talks never got off the ground. As recently as December, when the Iraq Study Group recommended diplomatic dialogue with Iran and Syria, administration officials indicated little interest in such talks.[/quote]
The West cannot push Iran on the nuclear issue because it needs Iran’s help with Iraq, a country that prior to the invasion posed almost no the threat to the US or any other country, but now hosts Al Qaeda. It’s incredible, isn’t it? just how badly one administration can screw up. One is tempted to call it, almost, ironic. I like the second definition given by Oxford: Apparent perversity of an event or circumstance in reversing human intentions. I don’t know what it means but I like it. Perhaps, professor, you take time form your busy schedule to explain it to us, the irony I mean of starting a war with the wrong country and increasing the threat of terrorism in the name of fighting terorrism. Perhaps we need a new word, the world having never observed a screw up on this dimension before has yet to invent suitable vocabulary.
Oh no. It has made a lot of breakthroughs. It just has not achieved a final bomb… yet…
According to Kenneth Pollack in Persian Puzzle, the US has made numerous attempts to achieve dialogue with Iran. All efforts came to naught. What makes you think that they really want to talk to America and what makes you think that talks will help if the two sides remain diametrically opposed?
I agree and I believe that this has been a goal since 1979 not since Bush took office and somehow named them an “axis of evil” member thus causing all our good relations that had previously existed to go out the window. Smirk Smirk.
How so? When have past effort to talk been greeted with anything other than renewed and ramped up aggression on Iran’s part?
Fuck Iran. It has absolutely no intention of helping us in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon or Palestine or the Persian Gulf. It is the No. 1 state sponsor of terror. You and others of your ilk might want to think about that every time you worry about some prisoner that the US is holding who suffers from sleep deprivation, leading to a hail of condemnation from the likes of yourself.
You can repeat this little mantra until the cows come home but every study prior and post has concluded that Saddam was a threat. You are confusing this with the fact that he did not have the wmds that he was believed to have. Big difference. He still remained a threat and that is the conclusion of both the Duelfer and Butler reports. Sorry but you are wrong.
Kenneth Pollack in the Threatening Storm points out that Iraq was a failed society by the time that the US led coalition invaded in 2003. He stated that it was entirely possible that al Qaeda would have moved into Iraq either in concert with Saddam to be used as a potential tool of retaliation by him or simply by moving their on their own to forward their aims and ambitions with or without Saddam’s permission.
Yes.
That is why no one really takes anyone on the left seriously. IF anyone here really believes that the Bush administration was the only one to view Saddam as a threat, they have a whole history of public statements by European officials, UN officials, IAEA officials and even Democrats on record as stating that he needed to be dealt with. All other options had been tried and failed. Sanctions were collapsing. Saddam was in control. Invasion was, as Pollack pointed out, the least bad option. We were right to remove him. We were right to remove him and try to put Iraq on a different path despite all the difficulties that have emerged. Also, these were fully known and understood by the administration as outlined in Pollack’s book, the Threatening Storm. Pollack was a Bush, Clinton and Bush administration official. Bush I did not invade Iraq because it was fully cognizant then that we would face the exact problems that we are now. Clinton tried to toughen sanctions. He failed because nations like China, France and Russia along with all the neighboring states acted in direct defiance of international law. Bush’s first reaction was also to stiffen sanctions. He failed. 911 changed the calculus and those who had long advocated that we overthrow Saddam once and for all came to the fore. Pollack briefed Bush administration officials in a number of areas. One of the reasons why fewer troops were sent was because he and others had briefed the Bush administration not to engage in too large a footprint lest this inflame Iraqi sensibilities. The Iraqis had a long history of resistance to perceived imperialist or colonialist forces.
For all the talk about incompetence, Iraq was going to be a tough nut to crack regardless of what we did including doing nothing. I am convinced (by Pollack) that despite the difficulties of the invasion and really the occupation that it is far better to have Saddam out of the picture. His psychological study of Saddam indicated that the man was immune to reason. He had no qualms about setting off a worldwide economic depression by nuking the Saudi oilfields as long as he gained power. He could have threatened and very likely engaged in actions that would have resulted in a worldwide depression. At the very minimum, the Gulf states had approached the Bush administration following various half attempts by the Clinton administration to deal with him mostly notably in 1996 and 1998 to either really deal with him or their cooperation with us was off. The treat of having our forces kicked out of the entire Persian Gulf arena while these states “accommodated” Saddam was a real issue as presented to us by the leaderships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Oman not to mention Jordan. The only state that continued to support US military forces would have been Kuwait. We also desperately needed to remove our forces from Saudi Arabia as they were inflaming Muslim sensibilities to a huge degree. Ironic then that no one seems to understand why a smaller force than “was needed” was sent to Iraq. We have 20,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and this is considered way too much but we should have sent 500,000 to Iraq where they would have been posted on every street corner? in every town? or was it better to have an Iraqi face on the occupation and in the security and police forces?
Let’s face it. These variables were studied with great effort prior to the invasion. To suggest otherwise is patently false. Those who are making the biggest fuss are incorrect to suggest that there was no foreplan. They simply disagree with what the plan involved. It was not the willy nilly affair that either the media or posters here have made it seem. The simple fact is that Iraq was a no win but a potentially huge loss prospect. Invading and attempting to establish a democratic government or at least one that was less psychotic was deemed to be the best of a bunch of bad options.
Sigh. Because the least worst option means that it was the best of a bunch of bad choices. The other choices included maintaining sanctions and other such non-invasion/non-war options.
Can you read? This is not the point that the two reports were making. They stated that while Saddam had no wmds that he had every intention of developing them when the sanctions collapsed. The existence of wmds or nonexistence of wmds was a moot point in determining whether Saddam was a threat. Both studies found him a threat.
To some extent, but with wmds, he presented an entirely different security threat. The US was not going to wait until that threat was imminent. Pollack cited Saddam’s statements in which he concluded that the invasion of Kuwait was not the mistake that he made but not waiting until he developed a nuclear weapon that would have made him untouchable. What do you have to say about that?
I believe the word is “argument.”
The two reports found that Saddam had no wmds.
The two reports found that no one knew this at the time and that there was no effort to mislead the publics in either the US or the UK. Given that everyone believed that he had the wmds, why would anyone have made the case that he did not have them but was still a threat that needed to be neutralized?
The two reports found that he had every intention of seeing sanctions collapse by playing on the corrupt and venal interests that were involved in the UN Oil for Food Program. This would then allow him to develop wmds again.[/quote]
I wonder how good your critical reading skills are as you seem to be writing back to me what I wrote. Also, you seem to have put quite a spin on the contents of the report…
I see nothing in the “duelfer” report that makes any comment on whether there was any misleading of the public by the US administration, but it does hint that the US (either willfully or stupidly) could not see through Saddam’s obfuscation on WMDs and does hint that Saddam was/would have been reluctant to use them on parties that could retaliate. The report does make painfully clear that Iraq had no capabilties in 2003. So much for the ‘clear & present danger’.
Now, if you want to talk about European complicity, and " The two reports found that he had every intention of seeing sanctions collapse by playing on the corrupt and venal interests that were involved in the UN Oil for Food Program. ", this is much more fertile gound. You could easily make a case that this behavior is the case for both Iraq & Iran.
But, don’t mistake that as a case for war in Iraq.
Sorry Elequa… I am simply not interested in pursuing this conversation with you. Feel free to have all the esoteric views that you want. They are never going to be the ones that are actually implemented as policy. Even the Democrats understand this and while there is a lot of pandering to public opinion prior to the presidential elections, this is not really going to have an effect on actual policies. That is precisely why, despite the midterm election results, nothing appreciably changed despite all the public pronouncements by the left. In fact, there was a surge. Ironic no?
All parties involved viewed Saddam as a threat.
Nearly everyone believed that Saddam had actual wmds.
Without wmds, Saddam remained a threat and this was determined by both reports.
Invasion was the least bad option.
Had Saddam remained in power, he would have developed wmds eventually.
The question of to whether and how he would use them is up in the air. Few, however, wanted to take that risk. You sound as if you would have. That’s great. But that is also why you are not a policy-maker.
Also, the Butler report determined that Blair had not misled the public. The Duelfer report determined that Saddam was a credible threat with or without wmds. The intent was determined to be the same. The Butler report also determined that Iraq’s attempts to buy yellowcake were credible and therefore we should not have removed this from Bush’s 16-word comment in the state of the union address.
[quote=“fred smith”]Sorry Elequa… I am simply not interested in pursuing this conversation with you. Feel free to have all the esoteric views that you want. They are never going to be the ones that are actually implemented as policy. quote]
Too true! Unlike you, not all of us can work for a public charity!
And this is the first we hear about it? It has been a few years now people have been questioning the Bush administrations handling of the war. I dunno fred, I may be a dumbo but I don’t think I’m gonna buy that one.
After 911 it became painfully obvious that the west and especially the US had very real, immediate, problems. Not hypothetical, pie in the sky, maybe problems but real problems. Five years later Osama Bin Laden has not even been captured. Radical Islam is spreading. Your country is bogged down in a conflict it has no idea how to end and it’s power to influence world affairs seriously undermined.
You should have gone into Afghanistan with a realistic plan for success. That would have involved more military force and a plan for replacing the opium trade with something that did not involve enriching the Taliban. If had had success with that (and it is still what needs to be done) and if you had urged Israel to show more retraint in relation to it’s neighbours you would have gained credibility to influence world opinion, perhaps even gained more support in your move to remove Saddam. In any event you would have been in a much stronger position to act, both in Iraq, and now, in Iran. Curious isn’t it that with all the foresight and planning you say your administration did in relation to the war on terror, the Afghainistan, Iraqi invasions etc. it didn’t foresee the check mate it has now put itself in. Or did it want a war with Iran from the beginning?
The longer you pretend that the Islamic world has no legitimate grievance over the Israel issue, and the longer you view the drug problem as a legal problem rather than a medical one, the worse this is going to get.
I have only been talking about how the plan all along was to reduce our troop levels to 35k to 50k to keep a minimal footprint in Iraq since 2002. Where have you been?
Seriously undermined? No. I don’t think so. In fact, most of the opposing governments have now moved to cooperate with us in almost all areas. The day when Europe, Canada and others actually step up to the plate to do some real fighting with some real troops and some real funding however will be most appreciated but I am not holding my breath. Let them stick to the “soft power” stuff except I hope that they realize that this has come to a disastrous failure in Iran. Our hard power had limitations. Now we have seen the equal limitations of endless negotiations while being deliberately strung out by a nation that has no intention of complying with any sort of international law.
Yeah. We should have a realistic plan in the US to reduce drug use. Gosh. How’s that worked out for us? And given that we had the support of all our allies in Afghanistan… where are they? and why is this only the US responsiblity?
Funny then that you have no comment about the Iranian and Syrian funding, arming and support for Hizbollah in Lebanon which destabilized a democratically elected government and attacked a sovereign nation Israel. Funny then that you have nothing to say about the same two actors and their support for terrorism throughout Israel despite the presence of a peace plan that would have given them 97 percent of the territory pre-1967 immediately with negotiations to follow for the remaining 3 percent. You are a fool and you don’t know what you are talking about.
You should read. I strongly urge you to get Kenneth Pollack’s Persian Puzzle and Threatening Storm. They are both 400 pages long. I think that these two books are a bare minimum for any kind of sensible discussion of these topics. Obviously, you have read neither. Do so. Then we will talk.
As to Iran… Pollack thinks that there is nothing militarily that we can do. The best solution is tough sanctions. At present, Europe is Iran’s No. 1 trading partner (Germany No. 1 of these) while France was Saddam’s key trading partner for arms and other highly sophisticated communications equipment prior to his overthrow. So, given that these two nations have often placed themselves at the forefront of the talk brigade, why then no effort to even comply minimally with their own talking points. Don’t get me wrong. Both the German and French administrations have tacked completely the other way. I value both as valued allies and I look forward to Sarkozy’s tenure. But let’s face it. IF nations such as these are not willing to play ball with something that the national security administrations of both recognize as a credible and serious threat, what would you have us do. THIS is precisely why Pollack stated in 2002 that we had to invade Iraq and take out Saddam. Alot of it was due to European fecklessness and blatant corruption. He outlined all the problems that we are facing now as realistic threats but stated that despite them it would still be the best option.
Well, I have always believed that we need to up the ante and no longer play the game of the Muslim world. Why is Israel the only issue on the table? Let’s put Cyprus there. Let’s put Lebanon there. Let’s put rights for Christians and Jews throughout the Middle East there. Let’s put Kashmir there. Let’s put violence in southern Thailand there. Why are we allowing the Muslim world to set the agenda on all of this. We have a list of grievances from their side. They start numerous wars, lose them all and then get to go back to square one with no losses or there are more grievances. Fuck that. Time to grow up. If Israel is to dictate our policy with each and every nation then Cyprus should also dictate each and every policy between Arab and European governments. Kashmir should dictate India’s relationship with the Muslim world. If American support for Israel is on the table then all governments in question should also put the substantial European and American financial and humanitarian support (and in some cases military) to the Arab world on the table as well, right? This is an issue that has resonance in the Middle East but to a degree that is only possible because we conflate it as an issue of strategic importance in our relationships with ALL Muslim and Arab nations. This issue is one that really only affects Palestine and Israel. Any other nations that wish to make this an issue of key importance need to have similar peripheral issues slapped on the table to balance this.
OK so the military plan was to bomb the crap out of the country and then leave a small footprint. Never mind that there was no realistic plan for a government with any control. As a consequence of this war effort the rest of the world now co-operates much more closely with US policy in the region. The US war on drugs is the equivalent of moving drug abuse from the legal system to the medical system. This seriously limits the flow of money to terrorsits and other criminals. The rest of the world should follow this model precisely. The brutal, illegal occupation of Palastinian land is not an issue and even if it were the Palastinians would be entirely to blame for whatever conflicts have occured there. It is possible to defeat a world wide enemy without ever admitting where they have a point. Things are becoming clearer. Thanks professor.
What are you talking about? Pollack had advised the administration among many others. His view on such criticism is that those who oppose the POLICIES (not nonpolicies) generally criticize administrations as not having plans. According to him, the American government regardless of who is president has a number of contingency plans for forward-looking actions well in advance. You again are talking about something that you know little to nothing about. In this case, more toward the nothing.
Well, actually, they already did. 21 of the 25 EU nations supported the US effort in Iraq as did most of the NATO allies. But we are the unilateral actor because the powers that be (media, leftwing nutjobs) agree with the 4 EU nations that did not.
Why is the occupation “illegal?” Did the Palestinians lose the war of aggression against Israel in 1967? Had the Israelis ethnically cleansed the area in 1967, we would not be having this debate as we clearly are not about the ethnic cleansing of Jews from throughout the Middle East from 1949 onward. But that would not be brutal, I suppose… No, the problem with your argument is that their POINT becomes the only POINT of reference. IF Iran wants to make Israel a bone of contention in its relations with the West, then the West can be equally as firm in making northern Cyprus, Kashmir and other places a bone of contention with Iran. The fact that this ridiculous posturing has been allowed to go unprotested merely underlines the more benevolent motives of the West and the cynical posturing of the governments of the Middle East. The fact that you have bought into this does not suprise me. Numerous studies have been released documenting the effect of Marxism on the weakened mind.
Wow, that is fascinating. What is your position on dragons? Did you know that in Chinese a dragon is a long. No, of course you didn’t know that. Your Chinese is so crappy. Sorry, I forgot.
Anyway, my wifes name is long and I have a long story to tell. It may be the effect of the mind expansion excercises but I think I see a pattern emerging…
Brutality leads to further brutality until someone shows restraint. Israelis, at a fifteen million dollar per day subsidy from the US, could perhaps afford to show more of it. That won’t happen though will it? Certain elements of Hamas will poot fertilizer bombs over the border and Israel will respond, on cue, with a tank invasion, financed by the US. With the tricks they learned in Lebanon Hezbollah, Hamas, it’s all the same bunch, will put on a valiant show but eventually succumb to superior fire power. The only question is how many innocent people will need to die first, how much more hatred will be generated and, of course, how much more money the military contractors will make. Sorry sots like myself will be left scratching our bald heads and wondering if there is any sanity remaining.
Thanks Fred. We had some fun back in the day. Then I realized that all this time on the computer was ruining my eyes and killing my back. I’m looking forward to consolidating my gas tax theory but other than that I can’t imagine I’ll be much of a contributor to this forum in the near future, aside from the odd abstract nonsensical piece or travel update of course. I’ve got Canada coming up, Japan, and finally China. All in the next five months. Sheesh.
What’s the big fuss about a chickpea based pate ? And how is Iraqi hubris different from Iranian hubris ? It comes from the Arabic word for chickpea, but Iranians are Persian not Arabic, so do they even have hubris in Iran ?
[quote]America has undertaken all the peacemaking opportunities available and done so at a huge cost in both treasury and good will. In the 1970s and '80s, America accomplished two Herculean tasks, landing peace treaties between Israel and Jordan, and between Israel and Egypt. The bill came in at more than $140 billion — and counting — and garnered few thank-you notes. When compared to what it did for Europe after World War II, the breadth of America’s commitment to the Middle East is breathtaking. According to a president of the George C. Marshall Foundation, Albert Beveridge III, postwar expenditures “to reduce hunger, homelessness, sickness, unemployment, and political restlessness” for 270 million Europeans living in 16 nations totaled a modest $13.3 billion — about $88.2 billion in today’s dollars. The Marshall Plan aid lasted just four years. By contrast, America has been actively working on peace in the Middle East for 28 years, during which it has paid Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Arabs more than $150 billion to kiss and make up. America’s aid funding in the region is so head and shoulders above that in Africa, the former Soviet republics, and other truly poor countries of the world, it is absurd.
And what has been the result? Since the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was penned on October 26, 1994, American taxpayers have supported Jordan’s 6 million people — half of whom are Palestinian Arabs — to the tune of $350 million a year, a total of $4.5 billion to date. Still, Jordanian public opinion is fiercely hostile to America. Since Egypt and Israel signed on the dotted line on March 26, 1979, Israel has received some $80 billion, and Egypt has collected $60 billion, according to congressional statistics. If American spending on Egypt is far from over, so are the insults heaped on it daily in the Egyptian press. Even the quarrelsome Palestinian Arabs who routinely burn American flags have received well over $20 billion in food and humanitarian aid from Uncle Sam. [/quote]
