Slashdot Mirror
Richard Clarke on Cyberterrorism and Iraq
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Clarke, former counter terrorism advisor to the US National Security Council, has revealed that before invading Iraq, the U.S. government used the Internet to communicate directly with Iraqi soldiers by sending them personalised messages saying, "We're about to invade. We're going to overwhelm you and if you resist us we're going to kill you. But we don't want to do that. So really the best thing for you to do when we invade is to go home." He said the soldiers got the message and most of them went home. Clarke, who many will remember for publicly criticizing the Bush administration, also emphasized the importance of cybersecurity. "Just because it doesn't create a lot of body bags, doesn't mean it's not important. It's vitally important for our economies," Clarke said."
dropping propaganda leaflets from an airplane.
I can't imagine too many of the Iraqi grunts with email or IM. Maybe the upper eschelon officers.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Or would they argue in the Hague that the personalized nature of the death threat made it okay?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"the U.S. government used the Internet to communicate directly with Iraqi soldiers by sending them personalised messages"
But were they able to get the "Darth Vader Boards The Rebel Cruiser" ringtone to work at the same time? Now THAT would've been cool.
Why does that not seem likely to me? I mean, I was under the impression that most of these guys were lucky to have water or guns that worked.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
teh Bush i5 c0m1ng, 4ll ur b453 r b3l0ng 2 U.S.!!!!!!
before invading Iraq, the U.S. government used the Internet to communicate directly with Iraqi soldiers by sending them personalised messages saying, "We're about to invade. We're going to overwhelm you and if you resist us we're going to kill you...."
Before we invade Iran and Syria, maybe they should send this instead.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
...and a 35% request for penis lengthening rate.
"Ok, you have us convinced, my pals and I are going home. But on the way, we're going to stop at the local Al-Kmart and do a little shopping, maybe stock up on RPGs and high explosives.
So have fun in Baghdad. Do some sightseeing. Check out Saddams palaces. And watch your backs, because we're going to be bombing and sniping and kidnapping your asses until hell freezes over. Your pal, an Iraqi soldier."
We @r3 7eet! i @m g01ng t0 sn1p3 j00! LOL!LOL! F@gg0t flag camp3rs! u r g@y, @nd u suxx0r at CS. J00 @re pr0bily us1ng @n @iming scr1pt f0r y0ur @rt1llery! LOL! W3 w1ll tk u unt1l u @re ded! LOL! F@ggotz! LOL!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
But the US is known for it's evilness and it's desire to kill as many people as possible. It can't possibly be true that they did anything that probably saved countless lives.</sarcasm>
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
A turned enemy is far more valuable than a dead one.
The war in Iraq will never be won because Bush is focused on kiling the enemy -- and not too worried about killing innocents. Every dead civilian is probably going to create 2-5 enemy insurgents (former friends and family of the dead)... The more people you kill the more enemies you end up with.
Unless he's willing to just Nuke the country then this is is gonna continue ad-infinitum.
The interesting thing is that all of those messages probably gave the baath party the idea of going home (with their weapons) and waiting until the US had moved in -- thus leading, in part, to the current dilemma.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
And that's because what the article fails to mention is that the message was SOLELY AIMED at people in charge for intimidation purposes. Few, if any, "soldiers in the Iraqi" army saw the message or were made aware of it.
The purpose of the mesaage (IMHO) was also to trace a few of these higher ups to see where they were.
Do you remember the deck of cards? Saddam was the Ace of Spades, etc etc. Well, I'm sure this email was sent to that whole "deck of people" - and I'm sure it served a minute amount to find those people.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
They e-mailed the iraqi army telling them to give up?
WTF?
That just reminds me so much trash-talking other script kiddies back when I discovered things like winnuke and mailbombing.
HAHA look say I am a stupid bitch NOW or I will *nuke your lame arse! LOL
Err. I never used those things. Just saying...
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Since when did Dick Clark stop shooting $100,000 Pyramid and get into politics??? :P
The truly unfortunate thing in my mind is that it apparently didn't occur to anyone to keep up this communication after the invasion when there was still a chance to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Maybe if we had continued to treat Iraqis with the same sort of basic level of respect we wouldn't be in this lovely guerilla warface mess we're faced with now.
Buy hey, there's always next time, right?
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
[snip]if you believe how he tells it, he was involved in every national security crisis in the past 30 years and if it wasn't for him, by golly, we'd all be doomed. He almost single-handedly saves the day every time![/snip]
Ok, stop bashing on the guy just because he disagreed with Bush and was asked to leave. I see alot of this, if your not with us, your against us posts about people who disagree with Bush.
This is still America and you can disagree, for now...
But anyways, Richard Clarke has been around for over 30 years fighting terrorism. I'm sure he has seen a little more than the average slashdot poster, his experience shouldn't be disregarded with such disrespect.
Check out Wikipeida on Richard Clarke.
Aside from that, Clarke is a smart guy with some awfully impressive credentials. Regardless of what the GOP Smear Machine(tm) tried to do with him after he dared to testify that Iraq wasn't involved with 9-11, his input should not be disregarded lightly.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
(emphasis mine)
Unfortunately, it's the soldiers who went home who're now shooting at the coalition soldiers.
The vast majority of Iraqis would like us to just leave - even if it means that we don't spend another dime on reconstruction and there is no western investment in the country. Every single poll I've seen has more than 95% of iraqis wanting this.
Why should we be there fighting the desires of the Iraqi people? If our goal was to get rid of Sadam, we've already done that, so why stick around?
Oh, the real reason is so we can steal their oil. And I do mean steal.
Plus, most iraqis I've heard interviewed prefer Sadaam to the US. They say things like "at least Sadaam was an Iraqi."
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Attention leftist activists and intelligentsia! The solidification of our power is imminent. Although you could stay and fight, it would really be much better if you just left. Please accept these Novia Scotia brochures and a complimentary copy of Hockey for Dummies! Remember, if it's not Right, it's Wrong!
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Here's a blog http://cbftw.blogspot.com/ by a solder serving over there. He talks about what it's like to be there, and what he hears from Iraqis he talks to. The ones he mentions don't seem to be that unhappy with us. It might just be that he's reporting what he sees, not just what fits his preconceptions.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"Clarke, who many will remember for publicly critisizing the Bush administration..."
It truly is memorable that this official publicly criticized the Bush administration. That's scary. A healthy democracy requires broad criticism and debate about those in power.
You know what else was memorable? The administration's ferocious character assasination that began as soon as Clarke spoke out.
Four more years.
Every single poll I've seen has more than 95% of iraqis wanting this.
I'd like to see your source for these polls. This isn't a troll, it's an honest question. You've seen one thing, I've seen something completely different.
Who am I? Why, I'm a Marine who got back from Iraq not long ago. The folks we met were nice and seemed very thankful we were there, the kids especially. The only place we weren't really welcome was in the Sunni Triangle area which is full of old Saddam loyalists who had everything to lose a nothing to gain with Saddam being kicked out.
Why should we be there fighting the desires of the Iraqi people?
Speaking as someone who's been in country and not just reading what CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC is reporting, I find it hard to believe you can ask such a question. The vast majority of the country was tired of being ruled by Saddam and his religious minority. The only way he stayed in power was by intimidation, and the people he intimidated are very happy he's gone. They're doubly happy we're there to prevent his lieutenants from trying to re-establish Ba'athist strongholds and continue his "reign."
If our goal was to get rid of Sadam, we've already done that, so why stick around?
See last two sentences in previous paragraph.
Oh, the real reason is so we can steal their oil. And I do mean steal.
If there's oil theft going on, it's not coming from the Americans. There aren't lines of Texaco supertankers sitting at port just greedily sucking the country dry all so Bush and Halliburton can make a buck. Iraqi oil is being sold to whoever wants it at market prices, the same as in Saudi, the same as in Russia and South America. If we're stealing their oil, precisely why are we paying for it? That kind of goes against the definition of stealing, don't you think?
Plus, most iraqis I've heard interviewed prefer Sadaam to the US. They say things like "at least Sadaam was an Iraqi."
If you did nothing but interview in the Sunni triangle, such reponses would be expected. I'd be shocked if it were otherwise. But outside the Sunni areas it's an entirely different story. You don't hear that story very much because the news organizations are fixated on where the problems are, not where things are going great. Blood and gore sells, but kids going to a newly-opened school don't sell. Roadside bombs boost ratings, but nobody cares whether a water treatment plant or a power plant is back online again. Insurgents shooting RPG's at our Bradley's get lots of airtime, but the kids in the streets giving soldiers and Marines food and water with smiles and thanks gets no screen time at all. You can claim it doesn't happen but I'm willing to bet you haven't been there. I have.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Mod me down as off topic, but I'd like to personally thank the parent poster for his service and his lucid post.
Contrary to the image seen on TV, some of the Iraqi units did stand and fight -- talk to anyone in the US units who were at the front line of the attack (of course, many of those are now back in Iraq for their second or third tour, but some are Stateside). The assault wasn't the advertised "cakewalk"; there was real fighting. Of course, those Iraqis who fought, often as not, died as a consequence.
As for most of the remainder -- who didn't want to be there in the first place, and had no love for Saddam and his cronies -- they did what men in any army in history would do in a similar set of circumstances: they deserted as soon as the opportunity arose to do so without risking punishment.
And finally, some percentage -- it is unclear how many -- disappeared, went into hiding for about six months, and then emerged to fight a classical guerrilla war. Which, unfortunately for the stability of the region, they are doing with considerable skill. Some folks that earlier deserted (particularly Sunnis; the Shi'a have decided to wait until they can win the election that the US is generously arranging for them) have joined them, as have an unknown number of outsiders.
This is a nice neat plausible story without the email, which probably had little if any effect. The Iraqi Army (as distinct from Baath apologists and lackies, plus their fearless leader) had no illusions about its chances against the US -- after all, this organization fought two major wars within the memory of its current officer corps. They probably found the emails a bit of comic relief prior to dealing with the inevitable.
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
Nor is this constrained to resistance forces. The evacuation at Dunkirk was probably Britain's finest hour in World War II, because the citizens took it on their own to sail in anything that could move on water, through the German bombers and artillery, to rescue escaping allied troops.
However, you'll notice something about both of these examples. No side had an overall advantage. In the case of Russia, the Germans used armor heavily, which is not a good tactic in urban warfare. Their tanks were built for high speeds, which is why they did well in Africa (being defeated largely by superior numbers) but that meant defensive capability and tight cornering were not part of the design.
In the case of Dunkirk, we see a similar situation. The German aircraft were designed to strike fast and run fast. Both the aircraft and artillery were designed to hit big, slow-moving targets. That made them utterly ineffective against something as tiny or as manoeverable as a sailing boat.
The fact, then, that the opponents in both cases were relatively puny was offset by the limitations of the attackers.
At Tora Bora, we got to see both sides. When the Afghan troops were used, the defenders had the advantage, because they had superior terrain. When the US carpet-bombed the entire region, though, relatively little escaped. (Carpet-bombing is frowned upon by the International community, precisely because very little tends to survive. You can't exactly aim to miss the guys who are too wounded to fight, have surrendered, etc. This puts it on the no-no side of the rules of engagement. On the other hand, most nations aren't stupid enough to argue the finer points with a country with 20,000 lb. MOABs.)
In Iraq, we're seeing a similar scenario panning out. Where the US uses Iraqi troops (or their own troops in small numbers), the resistance tends to do quite a bit of damage. However, when the US uses air strikes, missile-armed UAVs, the really heavy tanks (where an RPG just means someone has to go out and re-paint the star on the side) or very large numbers of troops, the US tends to walk right over the opposition.
Do I think the opposition is likely to last? Probably. There are a few too many "unfortunate incidents" which could push the undecided voters - sorry, undecided Arabs into opposing the US presence. There are some serious allegations that such incidents, far from being the product of "a few bad apples" were actually approved policy. If that pans out, I can imagine that we'll start seeing some serious fireworks.
Will the resistance defeat the US? Probably not. At least, not directly. It's currently a war of attrition, and the US can afford the current casualty ratio. Now, if the insurgents were to scatter in the desert and wait it out, then re-invade Iraq once the US left, they'd probably win and the US would be unlikely to go back. (Well, provided the oil stayed flowing.)
The current tactic, though, seems to be geared more to draining the US of the financial resources needed to maintain any presence in the Middle East. That might work. Indirect wars have been fought before. (Napoleon's famous remark of armies marching on their stomach was in reference to the fact that you can destroy an army far more effectively by eliminating the supplies than by direct confrontation.)
Certainly, the US is heavily in debt, inflation is becoming a problem and consumer confidence is very low. However, the war would have to continue at current levels for several more years to destabilize the US economy enough to cause severe problems. The insurgents would also need t
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The coalition, however, has thrown lots of people in jail and tortured some of them, sometimes tortured them to death- which is probably a worse way to go than having your head hacked off, which isn't pretty but at least it's quick. American soldiers have also executed unarmed prisoners.
I'm not saying that the rather amateur torture exploits of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib compare to the professional job done by Hussein, who institutionalized it, or that the occasional summary execution of an insurgent is comparable to Saddam's mass graves. But when we do imprison, torture, and execute people it sort of reduces our moral superiority argument to "Well, you see, but we don't imprison, torture, and execute people nearly as much as Saddam did," which somehow doesn't exactly fill my heart with patriotic pride. If we really want to convince the world that our intentions are decent, and if we really want to convince the world that we're better than the thugs we took out, there should be zero tolerance of this kind of shit- and the accountability should run to the top of the chain of command, where it belongs.
Well, you get what you ask for. How about a poll conducted by the CPA itself?
e k/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newswe
If you don't believe that the US has been privatizing (i.e., selling to foreign interests) Iraq's industries, well, you're allowed to deny reality all you want. We've privatized everything from the ports at Umm Qasr to Kimadia (Iraq's pharmaceutical industry which provided the country with cheap drugs). Read Bremer's Order 39, which privatized over 200 state-run companies by selling them off to the highest bidder (most of the bidders being US firms)
The *special* hell.
I call bullshit. Just because you supposedly went over to Iraq doesn't mean you know shit about what's going on. In a previous post of yours, you dismissed the Abu Gharib atrocities as not really atrocities, saying:
"Wearing panties on your head and being forced to pose nude for photographs is not an attrocity -- except in your morally twisted mind."
Forgetting that there was at least one Iraqi prisoner beaten to death and then posed with, as well as numerous instances of proven sexual abuse and many allegations of rape and torture. You don't think that's an atrocity? I don't think your opinion is very valid.
"The only place we weren't really welcome was in the Sunni Triangle area which is full of old Saddam loyalists who had everything to lose a nothing to gain with Saddam being kicked out."
That's funny. I was pretty sure al-Sistani and al-Sadr, who have nothing to do with the Sunnis or the Sunni triangle area were pretty pissed at the continued American presence. Oh, I'm sure they're just an exception too, right? Or maybe you'll claim they're all foreign al Qaeda fighters, even though most media reports say otherwise.
In past posts, you've also made the claim that the sarin gas that was fired at troops constitutes weapons of mass destruction. You also dismiss the idea of globalization entirely ("This globalization stuff is something non-U.S. nationals have come up with as an excuse to damage the U.S. economically and politically because they can't do so militarily."), and then you go on to tell all those who oppose you "Go burn a flag and worship Stalin or something."
How are you different than every other republican card-carrying asshole, other than the fact that you claim you served in Iraq under the Marines? Even if that were true, that doesn't mean the things you say are right. The testimony of an anti-war military personnel (like the ones in the commercials of operation truth) doesn't necessarily mean his viewpoint is correct.
But you keep trying to feed your viewpoint of the Iraqi population being basically thankful children for American invasion. Forget the fact that over 15,000 civilians have died as a result of the American attacks and no end to such conflict is in sight. Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, but they're not happy the United States is there. It's the facts. And no amount of bullshit from you could prove otherwise.
Where in Iraq did you serve? What unit? The "Sunni Triangle" contains about 4 million people. And it excludes the equally-if-not-more dangerous Sadr City, of ~3 million people.
e k/
h tm
.. is back online again
f m? story_id=3352814
What sort of selection bias did you have? I.e., if you served in the Green Zone, you're not exactly going to be encountering those hostile to you very much, just as diplomats in Saigon didn't exactly find most people there to express hatred to their face. In fact, when the US began evacuating from Vietnam, the helicopters were swarmed with US supporters trying to escape the country.
> There aren't lines of Texaco supertankers
> sitting at port
Read Order 36 by Bremer.
> I'd be shocked if it were otherwise
Be shocked.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newswe
> kids going to a newly-opened school
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0628/p01s02-woiq.
Lovely school job there.
> water treatment plant
You mean, like the one that we opened that was immediately hit by a suicide bomber trying to kill the US troops on site?
> power plant
Like how the country's energy is far *lower* than before the war? I can get you graphs if you want. It's especially bad right now.
In short, you need to quit spinning and look at the numbers. Another number you might be interested in: 98,000
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.c
Please discuss the methodology if you wish to complain about it; note that if you find fault in its methodology, you also need to fault pretty much every third world epidemiology study out there.
The *special* hell.
Your post looked interesting until i felt on that :
being ruled by Saddam and his religious minority
Saddam was everything you want but a religious dictator. Actually he was hated by other Arab nations because he wasn't religious. Some of his top trusted lieutenant were christians damn it. Ever heard of Tarek Aziz ? He's christian.
So, I fear you either are making all this "testimony" up or you lack the critical thinking allowing you to understand that only a thin minority of people came to talk to you. And if they came, of course they were friendly, else they wouldn't have come.
Either you're a troll, or you're way over your head by expanding a few anecdotial encounters to a global view of Iraq. If you think that most iraqis have forgotten the fact that US did back up Saddam, you're a dreamer.
and I've pointed it out before. Define "terrorism" in this context. How you can hold up Titus' genocide against the Jews -- he ordered the complete destruction of Judea -- as an example of stopping terrorism is beyond me. It was an attempt to steal gold and, of course, put down Jewish resistance to the Roman empire. Perhaps the morons modding this crap up every time you post it would stop to think if they knew you were advocating genocide based on an example of the near extermination of Jews that was actually an influence on Hitler's strategy of annihilation during WWII.
Richard Clarke made repeated attempts at trying to show Condoleeza Rice and Bush that Al-Qaeda was a major threat; the April 2001 date was one of the times where he brought up the topic with the Bush administration, only to be ignored and brushed aside.
m ission/
... We could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance. "
After the book came out (and I'm not doubting some things were stretched to sell more copies), numerous news agencies asked Condoleeza Rice about whether Richard Clarke had pleaded with the Bush administration; she can't seem to recall any of those NSC meetings - odd considering her position has National Security Adviser to the president.
See CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.com
Slate has a great op-ed piece too:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
"To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop."
Another great tidbit:
"The Principals meeting, which Clarke urgently requested during Bush's first week in office, did not take place until one week before 9/11. In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke spelled out the significance of this delay. He contrasted July 2001 with December 1999, when the Clinton White House got word of an impending al-Qaida attack on Los Angeles International Airport and Principals meetings were called instantly and repeatedly:
In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew [but] never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI.
You didn't even address his character assassination by the Bushistas after his testimony to the 911 Commission. Your comment that he thought "cyberterrorism" was a bigger threat than bin Laden just shows how uninformed you are. Clarke publicly admitted being partially to blame for 911, but his book makes very clear that if anything, people thought he took the OBL threat too seriously prior to 911. And of course the biggest problem is that the Bush Admin stopped listening to him entirely until 911. "Cyberterrorism" was a subset of his concerns, but for him, al Qaeda was the biggest threat America faced since the Cold War, and he made that eminently clear.
Let's say a large military power (China?) decided that OUR (U.S.'s) leader was a dangerous crazy with access to WMDs. They invade, depose and occupy for a period of time. Would YOU sit by and wave to the invading troops, bringing them hot Starbuck's and wishing them well, satisfied they were only here for YOUR benefit? I wouldn't. I might even decide to be a giant pain in their ass.
I like my women like I like my coffee. In a burlap bag tied to a donkey.
Selection bias. The Iraqis that don't want you or any other foreign military presence in their country will not walk up to you and tell you that. You might shoot them.
I could claim the same with the news media, and if you were thinking on this objectively you'd have figured that out yourself. As I said, with the news guys, if it bleeds, it leads. Nobody gives a damn what good stuff is going on, they want to show you the bodies, the beheadings, and the smoldering car bombs. No wonder everybody over here thinks the place is a mess, you've been fed nothing but a steady diet of bad news.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
If there's oil theft going on, it's not coming from the Americans. There aren't lines of Texaco supertankers sitting at port just greedily sucking the country dry all so Bush and Halliburton can make a buck. Iraqi oil is being sold to whoever wants it at market prices
With the profits going where?
The news reports I've heard say that the profits will go to the US to pay for the cost of occupying the country. Sounds like theft to me!
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
My mistake; it was Order 39. Sorry about that - it's been a while since I read over it, and I was typing from memory.
2 0_ CPAORD_39_Foreign_Investment_.pdf
3 1Publ ication\PDFUpload208\8907\Iraq SEP 2003.pdfT L_Guides/g uide-iraq.pdf
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/200312
Here are two analyses of it:
http://www.pillsburywinthrop.com/files/tbl_s
http://www.lexmundi.com/publications/IN
The *special* hell.
First, thanks for putting your life on the line for this country. It's a noble effort, and I admire that.
Thank you. It was no chore for me (and many of my fellow devil dogs). We want to serve. It's as simple as that.
And it's not the 'war on terror,' Rove, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld had plans to invade Iraq well before 9/11, and even before the 2000 election. Google for "New American Century," if they haven't removed the documents already.
If I may be so bold, "regime change" for Saddam has been standard American policy since Bush #1 failed to properly finish what he started. Clinton's team had war plans on hand during his entire tenure. The fact that Bush #2 had such plans is not an indication of some sort of pre-9/11 plot, it's standard U.S. policy. We have plans on hand at all times to invade just about any country we're not on completely friendly terms with. This isn't hyper-aggressiveness, this is called "being ready." Saddam's non-compliance with the 1991 cease fire agreement (not a peace treaty, mind you) gave us ample authority to resume the war with or without U.N. approval. Granted it would've been nicer to do it with the full Security Council, but after fourteen years of making pointless resolutions, I don't think the U.N. was interested in enforcing its own declarations. We were.
However, I do not think you can spread democracy with the barrel of a gun; you can't enforce freedom. And violence certainly isn't the answer for places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Violence just makes Americans the bad guys, even if it's not warranted.
I agree with you -- partially. Democracy doesn't easily evolve from the barrel of a gun. However, you cannot reasonably expect a multi-decade dictatorship to fall and be replaced with smiling, happy, peaceful, productive citizens overnight. Changes in governments always create at least some chaos. The more drastic the change, the more chaos. Going from a dictatorship to anything else is a drastic change. I think we're all being too quick to judge Iraq here. Look more to what happened with Germany and Japan following WWII. The Marshall plan took more than a decade to evolve, and many of the same problems we're now having in Iraq were present in both postwar Germany and Japan. We're being too impatient here.
Osama bin Laden isn't a political leader; he isn't some James Bond supervillain. He's a petty thug. We don't send Marines to hunt drug lords, we send cops to bring them to justice. We don't give them the chance that their religion is right and they do get those virgins.
Actually, we have sent U.S. armed forces to go after drug lords (or, more correctly, their production areas), but that's beside the point. The problem here is Osama's operation in countries outside the U.S. with the tacit approval of those governments. We faced similar problems in the Korean war, with insurgents dashing back and forth across an imaginary line on the map, knowing we wouldn't pursue. As long as combatants like Osama have a safe haven, we're hamstrung. By showing the U.S. has the will (we already had the firepower) to go after these thugs no matter where they operate, we both disrupt Osama's operations while simultaneously we put pressure on governments not to cooperate him -- or face "serious consequences" like Iraq. The Syrians don't want that. The Iranians don't want that. If they think we're serious (and we are), they're going to stop playing ball with the terrorists. If not, they're not going to be in power for much longer, and believe me, the like being in power.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Deceptive. Not surprising, coming from USAID. Here's a running graph from the CPA:
r 9. pdf
_ it em&itemid=345
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/ES/consolidated/Ap
It goes up to the last day that they made CPA graphs like this (April 9th).
Furthermore, the "prewar" numbers don't mention that this is discussing "immediately before we invaded". Before we flattened Iraq's power infrastructure in the first gulf war, they produced 9500 MW. On Thursday, Iraq's acting minister of Electricity stated that current electricity production ranges between 3,600 and 4,000 MW:
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show
It's particularly bad right now because several oil installations have been hit, both power and gasoline are in short supply.
The *special* hell.
I call bullshit. Just because you supposedly went over to Iraq doesn't mean you know shit about what's going on. In a previous post of yours, you dismissed the Abu Gharib atrocities as not really atrocities, saying:
"Wearing panties on your head and being forced to pose nude for photographs is not an attrocity -- except in your morally twisted mind."
Forgetting that there was at least one Iraqi prisoner beaten to death and then posed with, as well as numerous instances of proven sexual abuse and many allegations of rape and torture. You don't think that's an atrocity? I don't think your opinion is very valid.
You're taking the opportunity to quote me out of context, so I'll take the time to correct you where you're wrong. The fact that you actually quoted one thing but then said I said something else ought to have been evidence enough of the innaccuracy of your post. I stated exactly as you quoted: wearing panties on your head and being forced to pose nude is not an attrocity, and I still stand by that. Being beaten to death is an attrocity and should be punished as such. I never once said or indicated anything otherwise, and I am angered that you would portray my feelings otherwise.
That's funny. I was pretty sure al-Sistani and al-Sadr, who have nothing to do with the Sunnis or the Sunni triangle area were pretty pissed at the continued American presence. Oh, I'm sure they're just an exception too, right? Or maybe you'll claim they're all foreign al Qaeda fighters, even though most media reports say otherwise.
Al-Qaeda is taking advantage of the unrest in an attempt to push its agenda, much like you're taking advantage of misquoting me to serve yours.
In past posts, you've also made the claim that the sarin gas that was fired at troops constitutes weapons of mass destruction.
Sarin gas is a WMD, and you don't need a supertanker full of it for it to be a threat. A single vial the size of your index finger of this stuff can kill hundreds of people. Is that not enough to qualify it as a WMD? If not, what's the lowest limit of deaths you'd accept for a WMD? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? How many people have to be dead before you'd consider it to actually be a threat? What if it was just one person, but that person was you? As you lay there dying, I'm sure you'd think it was a WMD.
Oh, by the way, USA Today has an article up right now showing actual photographs of a cache of sarin. Forty vials of the stuff, enough to kill several thousand people if properly dispersed. Doesn't that qualify as a WMD? If not, what does? Or are you arbitrarily setting the bar just a little bit above whatever it is we're finding in Iraq so as to discredit what's going on?
I'm just glad they found the stuff (a) before it could be used on any Marines and (b) after I left.
You also dismiss the idea of globalization entirely
I'm not a fan of this "global test" stuff, if that's what you mean, and I'm unapologetic about it. The United States is a sovereign nation. We have no obligation to get anyone's permission to do anything. If we can get others on board for things like Iraq, great. If we can't, we're going to do what we think is right regardless. Too many other countries have agendas that are in conflict with ours for me to feel comfortable submitting our policy to their approval mechanisms.
and then you go on to tell all those who oppose you "Go burn a flag and worship Stalin or something."
All true. Were you expecting me to be sorry? Oh, but you forgot to post the other side of that conversation where the guy was being a complete jerk. Perhaps you were that jerk, and you're just trying to get back at me now. Since you posted AC, we'll never know. Me? I don't hide behind AC. You should try it sometime.
How are you dif
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
It's when you fail to welcome your New Overlords that you might be considered a terrorist
That's what they said shortly after the invasion. We're still waiting.
And how long did it take for us to fully restore Germany, Italy, and Japan to their pre-war electrification and production levels? I'll give you a hint: it was a lot longer than two years. You're being too impatient, not understanding the size and scope of what's required to change a country that's been mired in dictatorship and sanctions for decades.
This isn't some quick in-and-out intervention here, Iraq is a long-term project. It's not going to be a nice and tidy, wrapped up in between commercial breaks. The President never said it would be and neither did the generals or the Pentagon. In fact, both parties said the exact opposite. You should give people time to do their jobs before condemning their efforts as failures.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Is that so?
"You're taking the opportunity to quote me out of context, so I'll take the time to correct you where you're wrong. The fact that you actually quoted one thing but then said I said something else ought to have been evidence enough of the innaccuracy of your post. I stated exactly as you quoted: wearing panties on your head and being forced to pose nude is not an attrocity, and I still stand by that. Being beaten to death is an attrocity and should be punished as such. I never once said or indicated anything otherwise, and I am angered that you would portray my feelings otherwise."
That's funny. Even if I take a look at your whole comment, you not only say Abu Gharib wasn't an atrocity, but go on to say that just because the soldiers posed with a badly beaten body, doesn't mean it's bad, because perhaps they didn't do it (forget the fact that it's now been largely accepted that they did beat that man to death). It's not out of context. It's right in context and consistent with your views.
"Al-Qaeda is taking advantage of the unrest in an attempt to push its agenda, much like you're taking advantage of misquoting me to serve yours."
Here's a great manuveour. I mention al-Sistani and al-Sadr, neither of them al Qaeda, neither Sunni, though you just claimed that only those from the Sunni triangle give American soldiers trouble, so rather than account for that inconsistency in your claim, you just give me some line about al Qaeda that could have been taken straight from George W's campaign website. You don't bother to address what I actually said.
"Sarin gas is a WMD, and you don't need a supertanker full of it for it to be a threat."
Great, except we didn't invade because of sarin gas. If you remember what the President, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and all the others were saying it was primarily that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program already in the works and also that we'd find "tons" of WMD. All of a sudden, you found what you claim to be 40 vials of sarin, and that's enough? Even though I'd claim it's not, let's go ahead and investigate your claims. NPR was one of the news sources that broke the 40 vials of sarin being found in Fallujah. If you follow your own link, the caption under the photo says "40 vials of suuspected sarin". Why is this important?
I'll tell you why. Because, it turns out, they weren't vials of sarin at all. Oh, that must burn a little. Go to that link, upper left hand corner. Yep, click right up there where it says "Troops' Discovery Found Not to be Sarin Gas". What that is, my friend, is vials of a chemical used to test for sarin gas. Not exactly the stuff that a single vial of "can kill hundreds of people". But don't let that get in the way of your dleusions. I'm glad that they found that stuff after you left though!
So, with your WMD argument thoroughly thrown aside, what else do you have to offer?
"I'm not a fan of this "global test" stuff, if that's what you mean, and I'm unapologetic about it."
No, I was using the word you used: "globalization". Globalization has nothing to do with the "global test stuff" made so popular by John Kerry. If you have no idea what glboalization means, which it's clear you don't, maybe you shouldn't dismiss it so quickly like you have.
"All true. Were you expecting me to be sorry? Oh, but you forgot to post the other side of that conversation where the guy was being a complete jerk."
Ah, the "he did it first" argument. I didn't know they allow four year olds to enlist in the Marines.
"No doubt you're basing your numbers on the Lancet report, which has been widely discredited."
Finally, no I'm not. What I'm sure happened here is that you read another user's comment that said the Lancet document was discredited and thought he was responding to me. Not so. The Lancet document, which I doubt you