Slashdot Mirror
Open-Government Technique Used on Iraqi Documents
stalebread writes "MSNBC has an article looking at an internet-based 'many hands make light work' approach to data sifting. From the article: 'The federal government is making public a huge trove of documents seized during the invasion of Iraq, posting them on the Internet in a step that is at once a nod to the Web's power and an admission that U.S. intelligence resources are overloaded. Web surfers have begun posting translations and comments, digging through the documents with gusto.'"
We've been duped! Yet again!
Maybe many eyes would make all dupes shallow too...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/19/203723 2
See, the story last time was that the Boston Globe was reporting it. Now MSNBC is reporting it. That's news, baby.
Tomorrow's Headline: The Poughkeepsie Herald reports that the US Government is using Open Source techniques to...
You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
If you haven't noticed, Zonk, the signal to noise ratio for comments on your stories is very low; in other words, you really bring out the trolls. Remember Michael Sims? He had the same problem, and, uh, well - just ask Taco.
/. meme.
C'mon, man - I really don't want to create a ZONK IS A PYLON
dupe-e-dee-doo-daa!
dupe-e-dee-day!
my o my, two dupes in one day!
This is no test of "open government" or any such claptrap.
This is right wing blogger chow.
This is a daily drip of anticipation to keep the faithful fed.
This is pablum that lets right wing folks cloud the air with cries of "...but...but...tomorrow document X comes out, and it'll PROVE we're right!"
So, don't be fooled. This is not some wonderful egalitarian thought experiment. It's politics as usual.
Does anyone *really* think that there would be anything important in those documents? It's not like the location of Osams bin Laden or of Saddam's chemical weapons in Syria will be in these documents.
This particular arm of the government is not dumb enough to publicly release anything that has a remote chance of being important. After all, such documents likely show some of our wrongdoings too.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Some of that stuff may contain personal information. Such might end up backfiring worse than Abu Ghraib. I hope they black out names and addresses. However, that might make them harder to understand because you don't know if A is doing X to B in paragraph 1 and B is doing Y to A in parag 7, or if A does both X and Y to B. Perhaps they can pick out the names and assign them unique numbers over the blacked out name before making the docs public. However, it still might take a lot of labor just to identify the names.
Table-ized A.I.
Now all we need to do is get our government to stop hiding documents from us.
The article says "There are up to 55,000 boxes, with possibly millions of pages. The documents are being posted a few at a time -- so far, about 600".
This story simply does not add up.
The real story behind this story is that the American government is doing one of two things: (1) psy-ops (i.e. psychological warfare) against the enemy or (2) political games to improve support for the Iraqi war effort.
Washington knows that the Muslim fascists monitor worldwide news sources. Washington may be publicizing these documents in an effort to hint (to the fascists) that (1) these documents are just the tip of the iceberg and (2) there are additional documents (in our possession) that indicate where the fascists are hiding and what their next moves are.
Alternatively, Washington knows that some pro-war Republican/Democratic bloggers will scan these documents. Further, Washington knows that on, say, page 15 (of the documents), there is a tidbit or blatant statement asserting that Saddam Hussein had planned to create weapons of mass destruction all along. Washington hopes that the bloggers will find page 15 and will start hollering about how right we were to invade Iraq. In short, the bloggers are mindless automatons, and Washington has just skillfully manipulated public opinion.
P.S.
Another version of this story was already published by SlashDot on March 19.
In a week or two, iraqi 'insider' sends to the media 'well, when I worked for so and so, "3 large sandwiches" was a codeword for "3 ICBMs". Then all the bush-supports feel vindicated, all the anti-bush people either still don't care or maybe start to consider things were as advertised. Then say 3 months later, the smoking gun finds out that the 'insider' is actually a CIA insider, not an iraqi insider and all the anti-bush people are happy and the bush people will say the smoking gun is not a valid source... so ultimately everyones happy.
Can you feel the world changing? Can you feel time shifting?
For God's sake put the tinfoil hat conspiracies away. they arent needed and really only serve to turn this into a political crap flinging contest between the left and right.
Look at the facts:
The best translators the government has are probably at NSA, CIA and in the military services doing more important and urgent (real time) work, so thats why these "background" documents have been sitting for a few years. The shortage of these folks is well publicized, so they are a scarce resource and will not be allocated to a background task like this.
The simple truth is there are few Arabic translators that the government can hire permanently (and who would do this temporary?), and fewer still that can pass the background checks and get the requisite minimal security clearances needed for general employment in most of the usual places (Departments of Defense, State and the various Agencies). Not that they NEED the clearances and accesses (especially for documents that are now public domain apparently), but that such clearances have become almost ritual in nature and are part of the job requirements, usually at the DoD "Secret" level or above.
Add to that the general disinterest most people have in working for the government, then blend in the public law restrictions on the pay (GS scale precludes spending sprees on hiring), and you have a ready made "shortage", or at lesat an inaiblity fo the government to get the translators it thinks it needs.
And on top of that, add in the screwy contract rules and also consider that no congress-critter has a personal stake in a translation company, and you just about guarantee the inablity for much anything other than the titles to be looked at and a spot check done at random in almost all of these, they get scanned in to a PDF, then off to a box they go.
It doesn't take conspiracy, just the usual incompetence and common inability of big government agencies to get anything done quickly.
No political slant needed to left or right, just business as usual in the belly of the Leviathan.
I would guess that this is being used for several issues;
Now, as to this gov not releasing embarassing docs, well, see the movie on katrina, the investigation into the white house traitors, and of course, Sibel Edmunds site
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't quite get it.
Why would a person volunteer their time and energies into helping with this? As compared to something you (and possibly other people) would use with open-source software, I don't see anything gained by taking part in this. If a person is (a) fluent enough in both languages and (b) willing to do this sort of translation work, wouldn't they be able to find a job to pay them to do this? Or if they wouldn't want a full time job out of it, find something more people can use and translate that. There are doubtlessly scores of projects that would love someone to do a free translation for them.
Another related thought on this is how the government knows that the translations are accurate? Because of the relative anonymity provided through the internet, the government can't tell whether I really am an Arabic language teacher at a college or a disgruntled monoligual high-school dropout unless if I tell them. Which of these people is more likely to provide an accurate translation? And how can they tell whose translation is correct?
I dont see why it always has to be either an evil political move or an idealistically brilliant move. To me its just as possible that it was some decision made by someone with a mix of good intentions and laziness.
Oh yes ... GOD FORBID somebody take an active part in doing something for their country and possibly helping to make our useless government a little bit better.
Oh that's right I forgot. This is slashdot.
We are only allowed to criticize government, protest with drum circles and sit about doing nothing apart from bitch. Anything else is bad and not allowed because then you are with them.
I can't shake off that feeling that I've seen the same sort of excuse being used in the first episode of the first series of "Yes Minister" in regards to open Government:
Some choice quotes to give you an idea of what I'm talking about here:
Regardless, some on the Right WILL play this up as WMD proof. I'm telling you, they still claim Iraq used Sarin on US troops, or that another country took possession of the WMDs (yeah right).
3-5 years is nothing. 9/11 recordings are going to soon be released by New York City. Why the amazingly long delay?
A true open government technique would be putting all the documents on line, not just those selected by the Bushist thugs that invaded the country in hope that they might tell some favorable-to-US-war-criminals stories.
Do not be decieved.
...the news at the time was that turkey was guaranteed to lose x-billions in lost tradewith irak when the war started. They wanted an iron clad guarantee we would pony up approx. the same money. I think it was ten bil, something like that. We refused so they refused access to the bases (most of it anyway).
... the government's puke spiel on the whole mideast is just...it's stupid man, stupid, it's an insult to people, it's worse than the sleaziest used car lemon seller's sales schtick. It's not even good quality lying like you normally can get from government or corporate weasels, it's amateur hour.
I would hardly call it some big secret when it was all over the net and news sites.
Give it up, this article is a dupe and YOU were duped by the combination of the AIPAC and PNAC axis of profits disinformation team, and you just can't handle thinking you got conned, so you fall into cognitive dissonance.
No one has ever denied saddam was a bad guy, no one, or that previously he had a lot of chemical weapons-most of which WE gave him and most of which got blown in the bunkers and sickened a lot of US soldiers during desert storm. I mean, have you failed to even see the pics taken? the big crates with US army stenciled on them? the huge bunkers big as football fields? so much they just packed it in and blew them, and downwind all sorts of dudes now are sick as mooses? Remember that stuff? Early 90s, ring a bell? Government telling them it was "psychological"?
Now, what the neocons do that annoys thinking people who can reason and parse different bits of news over a longer timeline than one day is they keep denying that the war is over oil, permanent bases in the middle east, and the USA and UK fighting a proxy war for israel, and domestically, so they can play the OMG TARRISTS! card to institute full bore big brother action. I mean, it is about as *blatant* as it gets those are the exact reasons, and what exactly is happening. War is a racket, it makes bigtime money, you can score bigtime political brownie points, and then make some money again.
This should be your default position looking at ANY war, because war is crime. So look for motive, means, opportunity, who profits, who bankrolls, etc. Flatfoot work, basic.
And they used that controlled demolition 9-11 scam attack as the fuse for the big push, in their words, they needed a "new pearl harbor". Again, about as blatant as it can get.
Open you eyes and your brain will follow. This isn't rocket surgery, this conjob is being pushed at the around 12 year old mental sophistication age/sub 100 IQ level to the mouth breathers, the same demographic they use for TV advertising mostly. And that is because it works the best for the most people. They just ignore everyone else.
It is *embarassing* to even think about swallowing the governments wild assed ever changing tin foil hat conspiracy theory. I would believe WWF wrestling is real before I believed those lying loons in DC and London. How many lies does it take to convince you anyway? How many times do they have to change their story? Can you not use google, man?
I am really not trying to flame, really, just a polite razz in the right direction
Everything they do is to benefit a few people at the expense of many, and here's a big hint, neither you nor I are on the receiving end of any of those benefits. All they are doing over there is creating a generation's long hate fest, making the nutjob mullahs jobs easy as pie.
And don't you think they know this? Don't you think they get "reports" from the scene? Of course they do, so we are left with-"this is on purpose, it is the response wanted" See wikipedia entry for heglian dialectic.
It's a big fat scam, deal with it. No harm in getting faked out, it's just human, happens to everyone, who cares, but STAYING faked out is just plain wrong and rather silly.
Err, shouldn't the Iraqi government have all these documents? You know, the democratically elected sovereign body which the US and its allies went to all that trouble of having installed, and who I gather has access to a large number of Arabic speakers.
If the Bush Administration doesn't destroy their records of the decisions that led up to the war, it'll be real interesting to some future researchers to find out what really happened and when. There's so much evidence that they were planning for the war from the first few weeks after Bush took office, but it wasn't until after 9/11 that they had a story they could successfully sell to the public. They're doing the best they can to lock up records and intimidate leakers, but at least reasonable shards of the truth will gradually leak out.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Bamford's book "A Pretense for War" does some really good analysis of the events and decision-making processes that led up to 9/11 and to the Iraqi invasion, and even with the evidence available back when he wrote it, it's obvious that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Bush and Cheney were all bleeding incompetents.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This is old news. A memo from July 2002 discovered by the Times (of London) last year shows that the desicion to go to war was already taken back then.
If the Bush Administration doesn't destroy their records of the decisions that led up to the war,
They may just classify them for a long time and hope they rot...
it'll be real interesting to some future researchers to find out what really happened and when.
Historians have more chance of getting hold of documents involving Tony Blair and co. AFAIK the US has nothing functionaly equivalent to the "Thirty Year Act".
There's so much evidence that they were planning for the war from the first few weeks after Bush took office, but it wasn't until after 9/11 that they had a story they could successfully sell to the public. They're doing the best they can to lock up records and intimidate leakers, but at least reasonable shards of the truth will gradually leak out.
It takes quite a bit of "leakage" before things will not just get dismissed as "wild Conspiracy Theory". Even though history shows that menbers of governments enguage in all sorts of questionable behaviour somehow most people manage to maintain faith that the people "now" are somehow better than those "then".
They're trusting the medium that spawned SomethingAwful, GNAA, goatse, tubgirl, etc.? That's... not very reassuring. :P
that exists in the alternative universe of ussr.com
But nice of slashdot to REJECT my article submission, about how journalists are being hounded
and freespeech SQUASHED. Kind of ironic, or are they scared RUmsfeld will do a cavity search on their
next plane trip to mexico?
Damn arse whoosie boys slash dot is. No balls!
Most articles here are becoming more and more like yahoo PC news for nerds.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Who cares about someone getting their balls zapped.
I want full disclosed info on aliens, inter galactic treaties, hyperdrive anti-gravity technology, and
everything of the real past put out.
If the govt wont, trust me, the aliens will one day, say, "screw you, we'll appear with 50,000 space ships and you cannot hide
that can you"
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
And INTERESTING stuff has come out. For example, ABC News found documents that seem to show that the Russian ambassador gave the US war plans to Iraq.
Individuals are looking too. Here is a link from an Iraq blogger who blogs from Baghdad. This document suggests that members of Al Qaeda met with Iraqi intelligence.
I just find it really cool that enterprising people can go in and look at ORIGINAL documents, and that we don't have to purely rely on what the government says they say. Pro-war, anti-war, historians, anyone can go in and look at what was going on inside Iraq.
To find some proof of the WMD's what were yet to be found in all those bureaucratic papers.
Kill'em! Kill'em all!
SO??? this memo still needs to be brought to the attention of as many people as possible... for some weird reason the entire existence of these memos is being ignored widely.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
If there is new information, if the story has new developments, if the context of the story has changed, then an article is not a dupe. It's a new article, with new information, on the same story.
It's great to have all these Iraqi documents, I'm just wondering when they'll post all the documents related to Iraq that were created by US and British officials. This includes all the notes from meetings where decisions were made about the need to go to war. Such as the recently revealed memo by David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time the decision to go to war was made. I know a young man who recently died in Iraq. He extended his enlistment because he was foolish enough to believe Bush's lies about the need to go to war against Sadaam. Bush lied, thousands died. It's a great bumper sticker, and it's true.
I have all but lost my patience with you Americans. The intent to invade Iraq was published BEFORE 2000 by The Project for A New American century, to which most of the current administration are members. They only got into politics to achieve this goal after appeals to existing politicians for an Iraqi war (e.g. Clinton) fell on deaf ears. There isn't "so much evidence", it's a cold hard documented FACT. And no one is complaining about this? The invasion of Iraq was one of the principle goals of the current administration. If I had lost friends/family in 9-11, I would screaming from the rooftops about how their death has been abused to cause more unjust death.
Do you guys get lobotomised early on in school, or is your news media really so corrupt that you have no idea what's going on? How can you people not know this stuff? It's all out in the open; the link above is their offical website for fecks sake!! I really have no hope for the future of the world now, so long as you guys have the big guns.
Godwin be dammed; at least now I understand a lot more about how the Germans allowed some of the WW2 nastiness to happen. They were completely oblivious the truth and frankly don't care enough to find out. It's the same story here.
"I have all but lost my patience with you Americans." Good thing none of us give a shit.
Because the truth hurts...
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/ 000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp?pg=1
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=d efine:WMD&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title until today I always thought of WMD as being nuclear weapons or biologicals that got out of hand, and figured I would have heard/remembered if any had gone off/been used on populaces in my lifetime. Turns out the definition is more expansive than I knew, but I also can not find a reliable assertion for your claim the we KNOW they were used in the gulf war. Do you have a citation?
m ass_destruction#Documented_uses_of_WMD says The british were the first to use WMD in iraq
Now, wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_
it says that iraq used them against iran
it says iraq used them against kurdistan
but it does not say anything about them USED during the 91 gulf war
do you have a rebuttal cite?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
the US is still spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on it and shows no sign of having an exit strategy.
There *is* no workable exit strategy. The US can't leave, and won't be able to leave for many years yet. Compare this to the occupations of Germany and Japan. Those were very successful, and in the end produced stable, prosperous, democratic countries, but Allied forces (primarily US) were there for decades. Iraq will be the same, and leaving too soon will compound the initial error of the invasion with massive irresponsibility. Leaving too soon will create a civil war, and it will be 100% our fault.
No, the only reasonable course of action with Iraq is the present. The US needs to stay, and perhaps even increase our presence, not only until the Iraqi government is in place, and not only until Iraqi police forces are trained and capable, but until the Iraqi people gain confidence in democratic processes and their new government. Creating democracy where it didn't exist before takes at least a generation, probably two. Unless the new Iraqi government does a really stupid thing and asks US forces to leave, I expect we'll have a significant troop presence in Iraq in 2020.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Sure, like I'm really gonna do free work for the bloody uncle Sam!
The arrogance simply amazes me...
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Why? Terrorists have been killing people for the past 3 decades and you're confused as to how Bush can have decided to actually do something about it? We didn't need 9/11 to make us see that dropping a few bombs and acting like French pussies doesn't do jack shit to protect us from terrorism. Unfortunately even something as huge as 9/11 still can't convince some people that terrorists killing americans is wrong and that you can't pussy-foot around them and expect anything to be solved. Your way gives power and control to terrorists because they know we won't fight back.
I suggest you go back to school and retake some history classes, specifically ones covering the Barbary Pirates.
"so long as you guys have the big guns"
What country do you live in again?
This guy is way out there
You are one Sick Puppy!
1) I've been blown up and shot at by the IRA
2) I've walked the fields of Lockerbie the morning after finding and marking bodies
don't talk to me about terrorism mate... I've been living with it on a daily basis and been a victim of it... What I can't stand though is being lied to by our leaders and dragged into an illegal conflict on false pretences. It blows our entire moral case OUT OF THE WATER... the Ends DO NOT justify the Means, ever, period.
Guantanamo and "Extraordinary Rendition" are an abhorrence and they really, really don't do our public image any good at all.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
It's really easy to "open" another government's secret documents, much harder to "open" one's own. It would be much more interesting, and much more unlikely, to see entire U.S. government documents that have only previously been released full of blank-outs. Or that have not been released at all.
Allied forces (primarily US) were there for decades.
I'm sorry, "were"? We still have bases in Japan and Germany, we never left.
Leaving too soon will create a civil war, and it will be 100% our fault.
Crack open a newspaper man, the civil war has already started. Their former prime minister, Iyad Allawi, said it best "We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more - if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
The US needs to stay, and perhaps even increase our presence, not only until the Iraqi government is in place, and not only until Iraqi police forces are trained and capable, but until the Iraqi people gain confidence in democratic processes and their new government.
The Iraqi people will not gain confidence in their government until there is stability. We cannot provide stability (the last 3 years are proof). If anything, our very presence is making the country more unstable (with the exception of Kurdish Iraq and a few southern provinces). Our training of military forces is also not providing stability, we're only training half of Iraq (the Shiites), the Sunnis will not join the armed forces in significant numbers. This will make the situation worse. We are incapable of making Iraq better than it is now. We need to leave before we waste more lives of some of the best America has to offer.
I'm not saying democracy is not desired in Iraq. I'm saying we're incapable of providing it.
What planet are you from? NO ONE would ever describe Eric Honecker's German Democratic Republic as stable, prosperous, and democratic. Sure part of Germany got there (and it is no cooincidence that it is the part where U.S. troops were based) but about a third of the country was under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship for more than 40 years after the war ended.
Because grey is boring.
And, it makes you have to think. It's so much easier to work in binary.
And, if you're really clever, you can score points with your social group by restating what they already believe in some humorous or new way.
Or, you can come up with some faux insight that seems to show that your in group were the smart and good ones, and that the evil Group Y people were really the stupid bad ones all along.
Black and white are exciting and give your heart a work out by raising your blood pressure over even the smallest trifle that can be entertainingly misconstrued.
Jumping to conclusions, straining at gnats, and swallowing camels seem to be the main athletic sports of the political side of the internet.
We still have bases in Japan and Germany, we never left.
Sort of. We have massively reduced our presence in both countries over the last 15 years. Though we still have bases, they do not constitute a significant US military presence. The difference is that we're in no position to tell them what to do, and are there at their sufferance. Note that I'm more familiar with the situation in Germany than in Japan.
"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more - if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Civil war is massed armies of thousands of troops engaging in open conflict, and it will kill many, many more than the current insurgency does.
Our training of military forces is also not providing stability, we're only training half of Iraq (the Shiites), the Sunnis will not join the armed forces in significant numbers.
Which will not change if we leave, except perhaps to reverse (swap Sunnis and Shiites). Even if we're not being very successful as a neutral third party standing between the opposing sects, I'm afraid that without any third party, and without a strong government to restrain them, the result would be open warfare. There is deep, deep distrust between the two sides. The Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein was very hard on Shiites, which is why the Sunnis expect the new regime to be very hard on them, and why they're afraid to lend any support to it. I think the only solution is to demonstrate over time that the rule of law can and will be fairly applied, without regard to religious persuasion. That will take a generation.
We are incapable of making Iraq better than it is now.
Perhaps. But I'm still afraid that leaving will make it much *worse* than it is. We're damned either way, but I think staying is the lesser evil.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
When you say someone has a memo, i'm thinking a signed piece of paper with a date and a clear header of it's purpose and intended audience. Isn't that what a memo is? I read that Article and also another apparently found in 2002. It's absolutely BS. The Prime Minister of England and The US President had a private meeting. The article then quotes exerpts from notes taken by one of the PM's advisors. Was that advisor in the private meeting? It doesn't say. The actually memo itself was some sorf of handout to the PM's aides. If there was a memo out there with Bush saying "Let's assassinate Mr. Hussein", I'd very much like to see it. Even bigger than that would be a memo from the PM dated July 2002 saying "The US wants to go to war and that 'intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'."
I don't doubt the US president had desires to invade Iraq early in his term. Whether he had reason to or fabricated that reason is truely important. Enough here say, bring out the memos already.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Leaving too soon will create a civil war, and it will be 100% our fault.
Until we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers is and always will be our fault. Once again, we have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam. And we are hearing precisely the same arguments for staying in Iraq.
Creating democracy...
!? You mean like we did in Syria in 1949 and Chile in 1973? Of all our interests in the region, democracy is not one of them. We will stay in Iraq until we can place a new Saddam, just like the old one. And when he turns on us, just repeat. The "democracy" we put into Iraq is pure show. Only American/British approved candidates can run.
There is a viable exit strategy. Just walk away. Don't look back. We can come back when they ask. However, that would put a huge crimp into a certain party's/company's/people's cash flow. And that's what this war(and many others) is about.
What?
Wiqi project?
What?
Alan Friedman, in his 1993 book Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq describes and documents how US taxpayer dollars paid for, designed and shipped components for those WMD's you keep hearing about. That's why Bush kept thinking there were WMD's -- his fambly'd bought 'em, gol dang it! (With my money, in part, and without my permission, might I add.)
The most shocking and disgusting things are not how Bush Sr. helped Saddam Hussain build a nuclear arsenal that has somehow disappeared -- but how he helped Saddam Hussain purchase cluster Bombs --with US taxpayer dollars --that are being used to kill those very same taxpayers today, by the insurgents who captured those arsenals. Thanks, Dad!
There are a series of document facsimiles in the back, including receipts for cluster bombs purchased with USDA-guaranteed loans. Cluster bombs that were previously only built in the US -- but when the UN started asking difficult questions, the machine tools to build them were moved wholesale (also documented) for manufacture in Chile.
Bush Sr. helping Pinochet to build cluster bombs for Saddam Hussain. Isn't it nice how these people just help each other out all the time?
It's a fucking dupe, MOD PARENT UP or pull this article
Yeah, we know that reporters never make up documents to discredit politicians. Those quotes that you presented here are so unbelieveable that they are most certainly made up. Painting a spy plane with UN colors to provoke an attack? Put your tinfoil hat back on, geeezus.
I appreciate your need to vent at the stoopeed Americains, really, I do.
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
FWIW, criticisms of the Project for a New American Century, investigations into its history and of its members, and so forth can be found in various conservative (or perhaps "classic liberal") magazines, for example, Culture Wars (their layout on the Trotskyite foundations of neoconservativism is particularly illuminating). Periodicals such as these are considered fringe, typically reserved for that slice of America which is somewhat religious, conservative or libertarian, and thoughtful. They are almost all associated with the conservative Roman Catholic revival in the states, and so are ignored by the majority (either fundamentalist Christian or secular) of people.
So, yeah, there are a lot of morons over here, but that's not everyone.
Until we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers is and always will be our fault.
And after we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers will be our fault, for quite some time. The difference lies in the type of misfortune that can be expected.
Once again, we have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam.
Vietnam was an entirely different situation. For starters, in Vietnam we never actually removed the North Vietnamese government. The differences vastly outnumber the similarities.
And we are hearing precisely the same arguments for staying in Iraq.
We are? Who was arguing that we had to ensure a peaceful transition of power to a stable government before we could leave Vietnam?
You mean like we did in Syria in 1949
Yet another invalid comparison. What we did in Syria in 1949 wasn't to invade and (attempt to) establish a democratic government, what we did was semi-covertly support a military coup as a preparatory step to forcing Syria to absorb the Palestinians. Exactly where is the parallel with Iraq?
Chile in 1973
And yet another. Again, the US covertly supported Pinochet's coup, overthrowing democratically-elected Allende because Nixon didn't like his Socialist politics. Chile is exactly the sort of thing the US is known for due to our "anything-is-better-than-communism" policy of the Cold War, and that's the reputation we have to live down by ensuring that we *don't* leave Iraq (and Afghanistan!) worse off than before we stuck our nose in.
I even think that the Cold War policy made sense at the time, but it has created problems for us now around the world and we won't fix those problems by doing it again.
There is a viable exit strategy. Just walk away. Don't look back.
That is certainly what we've done in the past, and it's created much of the ill will we deal with now. I'm not in favor of going around the world and pushing our form of government on others, but the US has a 30-year history of destroying governments and leaving a horrible mess caused by the resulting vacuum of power.
Since the US toppled the old regime, we have a responsibility to ensure that something viable is in place before we walk away.
However, that would put a huge crimp into a certain party's/company's/people's cash flow. And that's what this war(and many others) is about.
I think this supposition fails Hanlon's Razor.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
As always, the politically committed will see what they want to see, rather than what's really there. It's hard to have an open mind.
I18N == Intergalacticization
...now how 'bout opening up Cheney's energy meeting papers, and the Iran/Contra/BCCI records that Bush locked up to protect his Daddy's legacy, and the list of people who were illegally wiretapped by the NSA?
Hypocrites.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/I raq/Released-20060317/CMPC-2003-012666-Translation .pdf
This document I found is an executive order from Saddam telling the army to put Kuwaiti POW's in buildings that will be targets of US air strikes. This is Dated March 14, 2003.
1) I've been blown up and shot at by the IRA
2) I've walked the fields of Lockerbie the morning after finding and marking bodies
don't talk to me about terrorism mate... I've been living with it on a daily basis and been a victim of it... What I can't stand though is being lied to by our leaders and dragged into an illegal conflict on false pretences. It blows our entire moral case OUT OF THE WATER... the Ends DO NOT justify the Means, ever, period.
Guantanamo and "Extraordinary Rendition" are an abhorrence and they really, really don't do our public image any good at
Mods, please rank this as "+1 - Amen, brother"
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
If our civil servants were as patriotic and upstanding as Sibel, 9-11 would never have happened. The continued support for the fascist ruling family of Saudia Arabia would have never happened.
In the election for 2008, write (on the ballot) Bill O'Reilly and Tammy Bruce for president and vice-president, respectively.
I have long thought this is a great idea. I am however shocked that the current US administration would agree to an idea like this.
Wired did an article last year on how this type of idea has helped in finding missing persons.
Think Deeply.
Nothing personal, and no, I don't have some view that Americans are in some way different from everyone else on the planet. Are they putting something in the water in some states or something? ;-)
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
Because it made it sound like there was some doubt. Yes, we seem to be agreeing on the point here, but the language in which people express themselves is important. The way you said it came across as "it might have a grain of truth" when essentially the worlds largest armed robbery is taking place right now. It's like you expected disagreement and were testing the water. We should screaming this from the tallest buildings!
FWIW, criticisms of the Project for a New American Century, investigations into its history and of its members, and so forth can be found in various conservative (or perhaps "classic liberal") magazines
Interesting. I'm in no way suggesting that the information is hidden away or anything, but it honestly terrifies me that the vast majority of Americans have a 9-11 -> Iraq relationship in their minds. Even though many know there is no smoking gun, they still believe that the war was valid due to the "post-9/11 world" we need to be reminded of anytime a neocon gets near a public address system. The plan to invade Iraq is so publicly nothing to do with our supposed "changed world" and no one in mainstream media seems to care. Why is this not on CNN? ABC? I understand FOX, but what about PBS? Surely ONE mainstream media organisation has started to veer from the official party line? What the hell is going on over there? Is someone so wrapped up in patriotism that no one is willing to point out the obvious? Weren't we critizing Saddam for having the exact same "bubble" leadership problem, where everyone was too scared to speak out?
What am I saying; things aren't much better here either. And that's the truth.
But they need to post them faster. At this rate it will take longer for the documents to be posted than it took to overthrow Saddam, hold elections, and install a democratic Iraqi gov't. On the other hand, I'm not sure why anyone cares. The liberal case for removing Saddam was always the strongest case. And we did bring a measure of freedom to Iraqis. As messy as things are, remember: every day that fewer than 100 Iraqis die, it's a better day than the average day under Saddam, even before you consider the political freedoms and free press they have now.
Which book is this? I'm not finding it on amazon or google books; what is the ISBN?
There is only one way to leave Iraq better off than we found it. It's by repeating what we did in WW2 to the Japanes and the Germans. By completely carpet bombing them almost to oblivion and rebuilding from scratch. Anything less will just leave the horrible mess you describe. Anything less will simply result in us being chased out like the other outsiders before us. It's better if we leave voluntarily. And of course there's Israel. That little hot button will keep the war going indefinitely. We will be "stuck" there as long as we continue to unconditionally support them. I repeat, promoting democracy is not the reason we are there, and if it wasn't for their natual resources that we are so addicted to, we would just walk away. Actually, we never would have invaded in the first place. If we actually had good intentions, we would be trying help places like Africa. If it wasn't for our lost credibility from Vietnam, we could have assured that Pol Pot would never had reached the status he recieved. When people can believe that we actually do represent freedom, they will accept our help. Instead we are a pariah, and now we are in a never ending war. Walking away from the middle east can only shorten the misery. What ever misfortunes they suffer won't be on our conscious.
What we did in Syria in 1949 wasn't to invade and (attempt to) establish a democratic government...
That's right. And the same applies to Iraq. Only this time we had to put a spin on the situation to get the rest of us to go along. We don't want democracy when it could so easily backfire. It's best to provide an illusion. The problem now is that so many are seeing through that lie. There are too many other places that are much worse off that aren't being "liberated" by any coalition to believe any stated goal of the gov't.
You seem to go along with the belief that people can't take care of themselves without our input. That is dead wrong. What we have now is a really big(and getting bigger) group of people that hate us. And this situation will guarantee that we will have to deal with this for many generations. Some people carry a grudge for a very long time. Just ask them what they think of the Mongols. And staying there will only assure that the hate continues. We can walk away, and we should stay away until such time that they actually invite us. As it is, people are dying for nothing. Worse, they're dying for somebody else's money. You can put all the expensive philosophy behind our actions you want. The fact is, war is about money and power. What we have are two(or more) pirates fighting for just that. Everything else is quite secondary.
What?
Wow, google tries to put a couple pages from books on the web, and they get sued http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citin g.htm, then the government put images of documents on the web and its OK?
Funding an Al Qaeda arm would seem to be relevant information.
I'm not sure why the press is making this about WMD; strikes me as a strawman. I haven't seen much on righty blogs indicating they expect to find proof of WMDs, even with some Iraqi regime members claiming they were flown to Syria. Besides, even if they did, what difference would it make? It's not like anyone was claiming Saddam didn't have WMD before the war. Sure, it would deflate the "BUSH LIED!!" crowd a bit, but their case has never held any water anyway.
The big info has so far been about the Russians leaking (amusingly, inaccurate) battle information to the Hussein regime during the invasion.
I'm guessing the stuff gleaned will be that type of thing: mostly embarassing info, nothing earthshaking.
Yeah, we should have enough faith in our president Bush to know in our hearts without question that the documents are political lies.
if it wasn't for their natual resources that we are so addicted to, we would just walk away. Actually, we never would have invaded in the first place. If we actually had good intentions, we would be trying help places like Africa
I never claimed we invaded for good reasons. Honestly, I think the biggest reason we went to war was Bush's personal animus against Hussein for attempting to assassinate his father.
Whatever the reason we invaded, we're there now and having created a vacuum of power that invites civil war, we'll be responsibled for hundreds of thousands more deaths if we leave too soon.
You seem to go along with the belief that people can't take care of themselves without our input.
You're putting words in my mouth. Don't do that. Especially when they're wrong.
People can and will take care of themselves, aggressively so. And in the absence of any existing power structure, the most ruthless and violent will end up on top, after destroying the not quite as ruthless and violent, and wiping out lots of others in the process. This is particularly true when you have a builtin division based on religious and/or ethnic differences. And even more true when one of the sides has exercised control over the other, brutally, in the recent past. There's a lot of builtup distrust and resentment there.
And of course there's Israel. That little hot button will keep the war going indefinitely. We will be "stuck" there as long as we continue to unconditionally support them.
Agreed. The US needs to back way off on the Israeli issue. The Israelis are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
What we have now is a really big(and getting bigger) group of people that hate us.
Obviously. The question is which expands the group faster: staying or leaving? The vast bulk of the Iraqi people appreciate our presence, and don't want us to leave yet. You won't see that in the news reports (because it's not exciting or interesting enough), but spend some time talking to people who have been there and you'll get a more accurate picture. The radicals who are angered by our presence already hate us; leaving is just going to convince them that not only are we despicable, dangerous infidels, but that we're also weak-willed. Leaving too soon and dropping the country into a civil war, on the other hand, will convince the *rest* of the Iraqis and other middle-eastern moderates, that we really didn't want anything but their oil, and sacrificed them to get it.
Addressing the oil question head-on: If the purpose of the invasion was to get the Iraqi oil... (a) why hasn't the US done a good job of maintaining oil production in Iraq (oil production is well below what it was in pre-war Iraq) and (b) why isn't the US taking the oil revenues (the oil revenues are going to the Iraqi government, and the US is actually investing more US taxpayer dollars into Iraq's reconstruction than Iraq is bringing in with oil sales).
The "blood for oil" argument doesn't hold water. That's not to say Bush didn't think it would, but it doesn't work as a reason for staying.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He was telling the world he had no WMDs while telling his own country he did. Why? Because the only way he could rule the seperate factions was to make it appear suicidal to oppose him. Gas attacks were how he had put down previous rebellions. If the people of Iraq, specifically the Kurds, didn't believe he had WMDs there'd have been a bloody revolution.
b.) Well said. It never ceases to amaze me that people want the US to leave Iraq. Invading Iraq was an enormously evil and stupid mistake, but abandoning Iraq now would be even worse -- it would leave the Iraqi people in a much, much worse situation than they were in before the invasion. And that would be a real breeding ground for terrorism AT BEST; at worst, it could breed a monstrous empire-building dictatorship that absorbs the entire middle east and turns it into our new best enemy.
Leaving too soon and dropping the country into a civil war, on the other hand, will convince the *rest* of the Iraqis and other middle-eastern moderates, that we really didn't want anything but their oil, and sacrificed them to get it. Emphasis mine
...(a) why hasn't the US done a good job of maintaining oil production in Iraq (oil production is well below what it was in pre-war Iraq) and (b) why isn't the US taking the oil revenues (the oil revenues are going to the Iraqi government, and the US is actually investing more US taxpayer dollars into Iraq's reconstruction than Iraq is bringing in with oil sales).
Pretty much what we did do while we were playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. We fed them just enough weapons to maintain a "balance". Kinda funny (sad) that we didn't invade Iraq when they invaded Iran. So I guess we will stay for the propaganda value...to "convince" them we are there for their benefit.
You did notice that the petrol companies are enjoying record profits, right? Allowing production to fall allowed the prices to jump to over...what?...70 dollars a barrel? Not that this was specifically the cause of that, but you should be able to see my point.
And in the absence of any existing power structure, the most ruthless and violent will end up on top, after destroying the not quite as ruthless and violent, and wiping out lots of others in the process.
We won't care how ruthless their next leaders will be. We will let them stay in power as long as they are pro American. This is how it went down with Saddam himself. And this is how it will happen with the next guy. And the next. And so on. The majority may appreciate the removal of Saddam now, but that will all disappear with the "new" Saddam. To paraphrase, "When you lock a person up in a room with a madman for 25 years, just how should he react when you finally let him out?"
If we want to win this we will seal the borders, empty, then flatten the cities, and then rebuild. This is the only way to assure that all weapons are disabled, and that no more can get in. We have to remove their will to fight. Not just their ability. At this point we are doing exactly the opposite. But I don't believe we want to really resolve this. The simple fact is that war is very profitable.
The Israelis are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
I'll believe that when we stop selling weapons to them. As far as Israel is concerned, anything less than complete surrender of all territories taken in 1967 is just plain meaningless. Only then will we know if the Palestinians are willing to talk peace. Contrary to popular belief, their hatred is not unprovoked. I don't know exactly what happened in 1947-48, but I do know that I would be mighty pissed if some jerk came and took my prime Meditterrenean beach front property. I do know that there will be no peace until at least that territory(from the '67 war) is given back. The fact that we didn't demand this tells me that we don't want peace. I do know that our presence will be used to keep the wars going. If we leave (completely) the violence may or may not end. We won't know until we try. So far everybody that has meddled in the region only made things worse. Both Israel and Iraq are British creations. They are both oddities that cannot survive on their own any better than the goofy borders and countries they set up in Africa. There is nothing happening now that could convince me that this time it will not end up exactly as it has before. This is not the last chapter in this book.
The "blood for oil" argument doesn't hold water.
I call it "blood for money". And most corps/governments are more than happy to shed plenty of other people's blood for it. And the huge profits generated from this give them plenty of reasons for staying. Or it really could be that we are incompetent. That, to me would be really sad. That we can't elect and maintain a competent gov't in the states anymore.
What?
"It's not like anyone was claiming Saddam didn't have WMD before the war." (previous post)
Well, in March of 2003 I sat in a college gym and listened to Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and one-time head of the UN WMD inspection team in Iraq, explain in detail why he was sure that Iraq had no remaining chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons and no ability to reconstitute them either. He went over the Bush administration's argument that the weapons might be there systematically, point by point, and debunked the whole myth. The fucker had searched everywhere. I tell you what, if you had something you were hiding and this guy was trying to find it, I bet he would.
I followed the press pretty closely about the supposed Iraqi capability, and I found Ritter fully convincing. I left persuaded that Saddam was about to get his ass kicked, and that no trace of WMD of any kind would be found in the rubble of his regime.
I've met a few Marines before, and Ritter is true to type -- kind of stubborn, but not dumb or easy to bullshit. On the one hand, here's a trained officer who was on the ground in Iraq trying his best to find any WMD that might be there; on the other hand, we had all that Nigerian yellowcake noise and other transparently artificial "clues," Chalabi's flim-flams, and some cobbled-together ad-hoc conjectures. I'm gonna believe the Marine. But it's a judgment call... I think it just turns out that our frat-boy slacker President just has crappy judgment. Duh.
Man, stifle that crap about "everybody thought the WMDs were there." Hans Blix did not think they were, and neither did Scott Ritter. People who wanted to believe they were there convinced themselves they were there, and screened out the "evidence of absence". The problem was never a lack of intelligence. This war involved a willful misinterpretation of intelligence within the Oval Office -- but only to justify an already-made decision. Hey -- as we now know, Bush was contemplating the complete fabrication of an entire incident: flying a plane with UN markings over Iraq in order to draw fire. This was a war Bush planned on his own initiative, for reasons that made sense to him -- but not based on any particular information or insight. 9/11, WMD, and all the rest of it were just pretexts for a policy he was set on the day he took office. He asked his higher power.
I wonder what Spurious George calls his higher power? Probably Dick.
You wouldn't be refering to Petey Hoekstra, who just last July participated in a secret Parisian ménage à trois with Congressman Curt '007' Weldon, and an agent of known prevaricator, and conman to the reagancomics, Manucher Ghorbanifar?
The same Hoekstra who was part of the GOP House leadership that greenlighted LtCol Anthony Shaffer's motor mouth?
That's right citizens, move along...nothing to see here...Congressman Hoekstra is on it...
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Ever since Nixon was run out of the White House, the GOP has searched for the perfect Republican President. Reagan came close, but his perfection was the result of organic processes. Mr. Bush epitomizes the Republican ideal. With GW, all denials seem quite plausible.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
If you or the author of the book is to achieve any real support for your claims and conclusions among the people that ultimately matter you need to start understanding that the word "war" has completely different meaning and use depending on context. Please read this reply to the end.
A lack of peace isn't neccessarily war. Terrorism, insurgency and armed groups fighting one or more military forces isn't neccessarily war. Even if one has the armed forces of (at least) two nations involved it is not neccessarily a war if the scope is severely limited (Kosovo). Yes it can easily be described as war, both by grunts and civilians, but do realize that the word war has specific implications and presumptions at higher levels of tactical and strategic analyzis. This is why it is militarily technically correct to say that the war in Iraq ended after a few months, and why the word insurgency is used to differentiate.
The example of the differing uses and meanings of the word war has clear parallels to for example the differing uses and meanings of the word theory in general context and in scientific context.
Would you waste much time on someone who didn't grasp the difference in use of the word theory? If so perhaps it should become understandable why most of those clamouring about the "war" in Iraq are irrelevant to those who actually know what they're talking about (which excludes almost all politicians & journalists, but hey that applies for science too...).
As a soldier stationed in Germany, deployed to Iraq I have to ask.. If our presence in German is not "significant" that what makes our presence in Iraq significant?
"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more - if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
So is the 'war on crime' we face in the United States a civil war then? It's hard to compare the situation in Iraq with a civil war, on many levels.. and much easier to attribute it to France turning their water hoses on rioters throwing bricks at policemen for not giving them guaranteed employment. I hardly consider France in the throes of civil war. Even when rioters were lighting cars on fire a few months ago."Our training of military forces is also not providing stability, we're only training half of Iraq (the Shiites), the Sunnis will not join the armed forces in significant numbers."
Really? That's a surprising statistic to me, considering the Sunni participation I've seen, especially in the police forces. The only glaring discrepency in religious factions comes from the Interior Ministry. There most certainly are Sunnis in the military, I've met them and talked with them.
We are incapable of making Iraq better than it is now.
So if that's the foundation of your ideological inspiration, "I can't think of how we can make it better so noone will be able to" Why in the world would I want to seriously consider your advice. It's clearly been misinformed, short-sighted, and self-serving.
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
Time to wake up, the alarm has been sounding for years. Recently people far removed from president Bush have also begun sounding it as loud as they can.
i e-ayaan-hirsi-ali-et-al-slam-islamic-totalitariani sm/
Read http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/02/28/salman-rushd
Only the delusional worry about rainy days with a knife at their throat.
Only a typical reader of The New York Times could claim that this is:
1. in any way news (start listening directly to the persons involved at unedited coverage of press meetings, live statements, open proceedings at international legislative bodies and similar)
2. in any way sensitive (as above)
3. in any way incriminating (with the above your rationale disappears)
4. a reason to be against the war (as above)
You obviously belong to a rather large minority of people with a combination of poor reading comprehension and valueless "information". You understand words but not meaning, slander but not facts.
The article is mindnumbingly stupid to anyone who has done 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. What's more; blatant revisionism, highly partisan editing of choice quotes, not providing the full text of the memo (or even better; clear photographs), the inclusion of highly illogical quotes... ah yes, it's The New York Times all right.
The New York Times quote them as saying "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,". Well the UN has never had such aircraft painted in their colors and if they did it would be documented at the UN. Such a plot, moronic as it is, blatantly false as it is, would result in a massive outcry both inside and outside the UN. Any top-level official in any country on Earth would instantly know and recognize this for what it would have been and none of them would try such a childish ploy. The only ones stupid enough to even entertain the possibility of such a thing are gutter-journalists desperately trying to create and sell more "news".
There is one circumstance in which the above does not hold true; if it was the case that a UN coalition was formed and approved it could include such measuers as repainting planes with UN insignia (it has happened before, mostly choppers and land vehicles). But such a circumstance (UN approved forces under UN command) would make the whole scheme moot... *sound of NYT journalists shooting themselves in the feet*.
And as to other dubious or at least severly mangled quotes; people seldom talk about themself in third person, least of all Bush.
I pity you for your stupidity and me for having to share the world with people like you. Please don't have children.
Pretty much what we did do while we were playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. We fed them just enough weapons to maintain a "balance".
The situation at the time arguably justified such actions. Present circumstances do not. You have to keep in mind that different situations motivate different responses, and it's not reasonable to believe that just because one group of people did something for one set of reasons at one time, a different group of people must be doing the same thing at a different time, since both groups happen to be employed by an organization with the same name.
The fact that the situations are different doesn't imply the actions aren't the same, but it does mean that you can't use surface similarities to imply that they are the same. Having once seen a man pick up a gun to shoot an intruder menacing a child doesn't mean that every time you see a man pick up a gun he's going to shoot someone. He could be putting the gun away.
So I guess we will stay for the propaganda value...to "convince" them we are there for their benefit.
No, we should stay for their benefit. Full stop. The fact that we've pulled all kinds of terrible crap in the past is exactly what we need to fix by doing right by the Iraqis now (and the Afghanis! I'm more worried about that situation, actually, because we seem to be ignoring it).
Allowing production to fall allowed the prices to jump to over...what?...70 dollars a barrel? Not that this was specifically the cause of that, but you should be able to see my point.
What is your point? Are you or are you not claiming that Bush & Co. reduced Iraqi oil production in order to create/exacerbate a worldwide production shortfall to boost oil prices to boost oil company profits? If you have a point, spit it out rather than trying to imply that I'm stupid if I can't see it.
I'll believe [the Israelis can take care of themselves] when we stop selling weapons to them.
What, you don't think they could buy them from France, Germany, Russia, China or the UK? I guarantee you it would be no problem, especially if they offered to provide the sorts of electronics upgrade to the seller that they give to us. The biggest problem they'd have is that they'd no longer get the big chunks of cash from us to give back to our defense contractors, which would reduce their buying power. They have the economy to buy what they need even without the discounts, though.
I call it "blood for money".
Which money, exactly? If it's not the oil money, the other major sources of war income are the reconstruction efforts and production of military supplies. So your theory is that the war is a boondoggle to create military and reconstruction expenses? Even if it were, as unbelievable as it is, it doesn't change the reasons why we need to stay. It just means we need to take a harder look at where the money is going -- which is a good idea in any case.
And most corps/governments are more than happy to shed plenty of other people's blood for it.
Governments and corporations aren't "happy" to do or not do anything. Individual decisionmakers in those organizations may be, but the entities have no emotions and no thoughts. This may seem like an obvious point, but it's one that many conspiracy theorists seem to forget constantly: Organizations are collections of people, and organizational decisions are made by people, and there are as many sets of motivations as there are decisionmakers. Generally, those decisionmakers are reasonably moral people. Most evil organizational actions arise from the conjunction of multiple fairly reasonable decisions driven by reasoning that is moral at least with the context of the assumptions.
It's certainly *possible* that the current administration is completely amoral, that dozens or hundreds of decisionmakers in the present US government are colluding to steal billions from the taxpayers, regardless of how many thousand
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Thank you for posting this. I had seen some of these documents on another blog site, and confirmed many of the same things that some people have been chucking out here today.
The truth is out there, and I believe that it will be found utilizing ALL of the information resources we have. And if that means the Internet, GREAT!
What I think is being overlooked by the OSS community is the ability to analyze the documents and possibly pull together a filtering program and software to look through it for patterns, key words, etc. It would have to be Arabic aware, including the many tongues of Arabic, so it would be a *huge* challenge. But I know that there are such brilliant people out there, it could happen!
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
As a soldier stationed in Germany, deployed to Iraq I have to ask.. If our presence in German is not "significant" that what makes our presence in Iraq significant?
The US forces in Germany are insufficient to defeat the German forces and order the German government around. This is obviously not the case in Iraq. BTW, I was in the USAF and spent time at Ramstein during Gulf War I. I very nearly ended up in Iraq for that war. I respect the men and women who are there and the job that they're doing. *I* think it will ultimately be great for the Iraqi people, as long as we don't screw it up by leaving before they're ready. I think that goal, plus the goal of proving our good will, is worth a few more american lives, and I say that as someone who has relatives serving there presently and more relatives, including a brother, who very well may be there before it's over with.
So is the 'war on crime' we face in the United States a civil war then?
Umm, it's not my quote, I didn't bring it up and I don't believe the situation in Iraq is anything like a civil war.
Really? That's a surprising statistic to me, considering the Sunni participation I've seen, especially in the police forces. The only glaring discrepency in religious factions comes from the Interior Ministry. There most certainly are Sunnis in the military, I've met them and talked with them.
Again, not my quote. You're responding to the wrong person. You should repost your comments as a response to this post. My understanding, BTW, is that Sunni participation in the military forces is good, but that the police forces are very Shiite-dominated. This is based on BBC and NPR news reports.
So if that's the foundation of your ideological inspiration, "I can't think of how we can make it better so noone will be able to" Why in the world would I want to seriously consider your advice. It's clearly been misinformed, short-sighted, and self-serving.
Yet again, not my quote. I do believe that we can and we *must* leave Iraq better than we found it, if we're to break the cycle of violence and prove to the world that we aren't just random predators.
Again, you should direct your responses to to the AC I was responding to. Just to be clear, the portions of my comments that are in italics are quotes from the previous poster.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No, we should stay for their benefit.
...but it's vastly more *likely* that the actions are well-intentioned, but misguided and occasionally stupid.
You are right. We should stay for their benefit. I guess I'll never get through that we are not there for their benefit. We are there for ours. We are "protecting" American interests, not Middle Eastern interests. I would like to think that American interests would include peace in the region. Our actions say otherwise. We seem to have trouble seeing that looking out for their interests might also benefit ours. Such is the nature of pirates.
The situation at the time arguably justified such actions.
Wrong! There is nothing justifiable about those actions. Absolutley nothing. It was and is pure piracy. There is nothing justifiable about trying to "correct" one blunder with another. And calling these atrocities "blunders" is really giving them the benefit of a doubt. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
What is your point? Are you or are you not claiming that Bush & Co. reduced Iraqi oil production in order to create/exacerbate a worldwide production shortfall to boost oil prices to boost oil company profits?
I don't need to claim anything. The numbers speak for themselves.
They have the economy to buy what they need even without the discounts, though.
They have to import almost everything they have. Where do they get their raw materials? Not within Israel. This is a country that cannot exist without outside support.
That old cliche about "...good intentions" couldn't apply more.
Preventing the influence of Communism from growing justified all kinds of horrible actions.
Really? Incñuding acting just like them evidently. Good way to win converts, eh? Many countries turned communist or attempted to(with democratic elections, no less) because of our "good intentions". We actually pushed them away. I find it to be pretty weird to corner a dog and beat on it until it bites back, and to call it "justifiable" to continue to beat up on it for biting back. Leading by example seems to be out of the question. I got news for you. We are now seeing the results of the examples we have set...and continue to set.
I think you suffer from an peculiar form of naivete: the naivete of unbounded cynicism.
Not so much cynicism as a recognition that we are animals and continue to act like animals. I don't see anything unatural in what we are doing. No conspiracy needed. We have the power to see, but choose to ignore that we are acting like talking chimps in every way. The only difference being that we know what we see in the mirror. This is what saddens me.
What?
Wrong! There is nothing justifiable about those actions. Absolutley nothing. It was and is pure piracy. There is nothing justifiable about trying to "correct" one blunder with another. And calling these atrocities "blunders" is really giving them the benefit of a doubt. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
I completely disagree. Whether or not all of our actions to prevent the spread of Communism were necessary, the people at the time fully believed they were necessary, and that it was better to support dictators than allow Communism to take hold. You grew up after the Cold War was over, didn't you?
I don't need to claim anything. The numbers speak for themselves.
Look, man, if you have a point to make, spit it out. This "you must be stupid if you can't guess what I'm thinking" routine is a cop-out because you don't actually have a supportable point. If the numbers really do speak, why don't you explain what they're saying -- precisely, without innuendo or implication?
You're claiming that, somehow, the spike in oil prices was a planned result of the invasion. There are huge gaps in there. Connect the dots. Assume I'm stupid if it helps, but there's no way I'm buying your claim if you can't even articulate it.
They have to import almost everything they have. Where do they get their raw materials? Not within Israel.
Ditto for Japan, yet we don't have to subsidize them. A few years ago, we were more worried about them buying America.
Really? Incñuding acting just like them evidently. Good way to win converts, eh? Many countries turned communist or attempted to(with democratic elections, no less) because of our "good intentions". We actually pushed them away.
Is that right? Got an example? Show me a communist state that exists today because of US actions. Not that I'd try to claim that our Cold War activities were completely successful, and it's pointless to argue about whether or not they were right or necessary, but, overall, they achieved their primary goal -- at the expense of scattering bodies all over the world and generating lots of ill will for us, but those were considered lesser evils.
I don't see anything unatural in what we are doing. No conspiracy needed
No conspiracy needed??? Umm, you need to think through your theory here and take a hard look at just how many people have to be involved for it to work. A significant conspiracy is required to pull off the massive scam you're arguing for.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"Hans Blix did not think they were"
m ass_destruction
However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm." [19]. He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_
So you have the world's intel agencies vs. Scott Ritter:
More details are emerging on the arrest of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The Delmar resident was arrested by Colonie police in June of 2001 on a misdemeanor charge. And Channel 6 News has learned that Ritter had been issued a warning after being caught by police once before. Colonie police will not confirm any of this, but Channel 6 News learned that Ritter was caught in a sex sting early in 2001. He was issued a warning then, but eventually arrested for the same thing three months later. Ritter, who has made national headlines for speaking out against going to war with Iraq is keeping silent on this issue. He has been unavailable for comment since details of his arrest were made public. In June of 2001, Ritter was accused of engaging in a sexual discussion, on the Internet with a person who he thought, was a 14 year old girl. It was actually an undercover investigator who agreed to meet with Ritter. When Ritter arrived at the location, expecting to meet the girl, police warned him that he had been set up. Three months later Ritter allegedly fell into the same trap, only this time he was arrested.
Yeah, Ritter sounds credible. Or, maybe he conned some gullible people (like yourself) into giving him speaking fees.
Sigh... so sad to see victims of BDS flailing about this way. Perhaps you could follow Sean Penn's lead and torment a Bush doll for comfort. Really, I'm concerned about your sanity.
Communist pirates...capitalist pirates...Doesn't matter they're still pirates. You prefer capitalist pirates because you derive benfits from them. Capitalist pirates are a bit more pragmatic. Life is good inside the empire while those outside the walls suffer. If we lead by good example instead of simple, straight up thievery, Communism wouldn't have a chance to to take hold without a war. But when other people see our example, communism is just another alternative. Both Cuba and Vietnam would most likely have been allies if we could only accept the conditions they put forth. They would accepted our help if we had actually offered help instead of ultimatums. If we had done our part to put an end to aparthied in S. Africa. Mandela would have been an ally. Instead, we accused him of being a Communist. It may have been true. He may have been under the impression that Russia would help to end aparthied. Of course that would never have happened. But considering how the west treated him, what other option would he have? Let's go back to Chile. They voted for socialism because the capitalists were robbing the counrty blind. We are seeing resurgance of anti-Americanism in South America for the same reasons as before. Our actions during the cold war(which I did live through since Eisenhower's first term) has cost us so much credibility, and it's still costing us now. My fingers are sore. The thing is that we are doing the exact same thing we have always been doing. Why would anybody expect the result to be any different? The reasons are irrelevent. Nobody cares about the reasons. They only see the actions, which hasn't changed throughout our history. If you want different results, then you simply must act differently. Our present actions will insure perpetual war. Amierca is the most powerful counrty on the planet at this time. If they want the rest of the world to see things their way, then they need to set a proper example. Preaching one thing and doing just the opposite will get them nowhere fast. That's another point that shouldn't have to be spelled out.
What?
2 million people killed by SH is pretty conservative, given the below. Over 24 years, that works out to 228 people killed by Saddam per day. How many days have 228 people been killed in this war/occupation?
The bloody eight-year war ended in a stalemate. There were hundreds of thousands of casualties. Perhaps upwards of 1.7 million died on both sides. Both economies, previously healthy and expanding, were left in ruins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein
UN organizations (such as UNICEF and the WHO) have estimated between 500,000 and 1.2 million deaths were caused by the sanctions, mostly in the under-5 age group [15]. Skeptics have estimated that only 350,000 excess deaths occurred between 1991 and 2000 [16], and that many deaths were actually due to the bombing of Iraqi infrastructure. Some object to the accusation that these deaths were caused by the sanctions. They argue that Saddam's hoarding his country's resources was the true cause of the crisis [either way, the war ended the sanctions]
Preaching one thing and doing just the opposite will get them nowhere fast.
Exactly. Which is why we need to stay the course in Iraq and prove that we are doing what we say we're doing.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"None are so blind as those who refuse to see..."
What?
Funny, I've been thinking the same thing for a couple of days now.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Heh, kinda figured you'd get it backwards. "Stay the course..." Pay no attention to that iceberg straight ahead. But hey, Look at the bright side. Things are going your way. You'll be able to watch the war on the TV for many years to come. It might even be on the air as long as "General Hospital" has been on. And Ollie can keep his job at FOX. You win. The war will continue as you wish. And I can watch history repeat itself again while munching on my chips and salsa and gulping down the beer and enjoying another "crappy" day in paradise. Whatever you do, please make sure the wrong lizard doesn't get in.
What?