Re: Bush Administration suckered?
At 07:33 AM 3/9/2004 -0800 Matt Grimaldi wrote: Has anyone considered that the U.S. wants to have the ability to project power in that region, and that the enironment for doing so from bases in Saudi Arabia is taking a turn for the worse. Regardless of how the Iraqi government shapes up, we will have to maintain forces in Iraq to help defend their borders for a long time to come. How convienent... Raises hand!Yes, in fact I have specifically cited the above as a reasonable justification for the war. JDG - But who also thinks that if once Iraq gets going their democratically elected Legislature asks us to leave that the US will oblige them especially since our bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Oman are ultimately sufficient for our needs. ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
Robert J. Chassell wrote: (snip) Presuming either that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Moslem countries, as I think, or to destroy dangerous weapons, or to enforce a mandatory UN resolution, or, as enemies of the Adminstration claim, in order to delay the pricing of oil in Euros and to gain contracts in Iraq for US companies -- presuming any or all of these reasons, the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has gained. This is the issue. Has anyone considered that the U.S. wants to have the ability to project power in that region, and that the enironment for doing so from bases in Saudi Arabia is taking a turn for the worse. Regardless of how the Iraqi government shapes up, we will have to maintain forces in Iraq to help defend their borders for a long time to come. How convienent... -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
At 01:08 AM 3/1/2004 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: A question at hand is whether Iran, ruled by Shi'ite Moslems, is gaining power amongst its co-religionists in Iraq? This strikes me as having vestiges of xenophobic racism. Shias are the majority religious denomination in Iraq. The US must consider a government dominated by Iraqi Shias to not necessarily be a bad thing.It is what our principles demand. If so, the second question is whether this is in part a consequence of an Iranian intelligence operation against the US government that succeeded for the Iranians? And this is a conspiracy theory worth of LBJ killing JFK, Elvis working a grocery store in Minneapolis, and NASA faking the moon landing. Let us consider the facts: 1) Saddam Hussein had WMD's, at least as of 1991. We saw him *use* them. We also had the IAEA uncover a highly advanced nuclear weapons program that was estimated to be a mere one year away from fruition. 2) Saddam Hussein signed a cease fire in 1991 requiring him to verifiably dismantle all of his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. 3) Saddam Hussein spent the next 12 years systemtatically frustrating all such efforts to dismantle those programs, and great cost and expense to himself. If believing that Iraq had WMD's was the product of an Iranian conspiracy, then this was surely the easiest conspiracy plot ever hatched. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:08 AM 3/1/2004 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: A question at hand is whether Iran, ruled by Shi'ite Moslems, is gaining power amongst its co-religionists in Iraq? This strikes me as having vestiges of xenophobic racism. Shias are the majority religious denomination in Iraq. The US must consider a government dominated by Iraqi Shias to not necessarily be a bad thing.It is what our principles demand. This fits your (JDG's) MO perfectly. Why not have a tyranny of the majority over the minorities? In fact why even give Sunni's, kurds or christians any rights at all? After all they are only minorities, and according you (JDG), any majority has the absolute right to tyrannize any minorities. And since you (JDG) also don't believe in equal rights (men vs women, heterosexual vs homosexuals, religious vs non-religious / wrong religion), why should there be equal rights in Iraq either? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
At 10:00 PM 3/1/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote: This fits your (JDG's) MO perfectly. Why not have a tyranny of the majority over the minorities? In fact why even give Sunni's, kurds or christians any rights at all? After all they are only minorities, and according you (JDG), any majority has the absolute right to tyrannize any minorities. And since you (JDG) also don't believe in equal rights (men vs women, heterosexual vs homosexuals, religious vs non-religious / wrong religion), why should there be equal rights in Iraq either? I know that you don't bother reading news that hasn't been released by one of your favorite propaganda outfits, but Iraq has a Constitution, Mac. But then again, you would disqualify Christians from holding office in the United States, so I should not be suprised that you would disqualify Muslims from holding office in Iraq. Tyranny of The Fools I guess. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Diseased Christian Mind wrote: This strikes me as having vestiges of xenophobic racism. Shias are the majority religious denomination in Iraq. The US must consider a government dominated by Iraqi Shias to not necessarily be a bad thing.It is what our principles demand. At 10:00 PM 3/1/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote: This fits your (JDG's) MO perfectly. Why not have a tyranny of the majority over the minorities? In fact why even give Sunni's, kurds or christians any rights at all? After all they are only minorities, and according you (JDG), any majority has the absolute right to tyrannize any minorities. And since you (JDG) also don't believe in equal rights (men vs women, heterosexual vs homosexuals, religious vs non-religious / wrong religion), why should there be equal rights in Iraq either? I know that you don't bother reading news that hasn't been released by one of your favorite propaganda outfits, but Iraq has a Constitution, Mac. You mean CNN? or MSNBC? or AP? or AFP? or Ananova? or Slashdot? or the Drudge Distort? or Weblogs? or Brin-L? or C-SPAN? or C-SPAN2? or Moreover? or Yahoo News? or Google News? or Newsgroups? or Alternet? or Wired? or The Register? or C|Net? or Kuro5hin? or... I wasn't talking about the _interim_ Constitution. I _was_ talking about your position. But then again, you would disqualify Christians from holding office in the United States, so I should not be suprised that you would disqualify Muslims from holding office in Iraq. Tyranny of The Fools I guess. No I wouldn't. Yet another JDG distortion. tm But _you_ would deny equal rights to women and minorities, which you have stated previously. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote The question is whether a year or more ago, he and/or the Iraqi National Council provided the US with `intelligence' that was designed to influence the US to act against Saddam Hussein's government and do so in a way that benefited Iran more than the US, by causing senior US officials to misunderstand the situation before the US-Iraqi war began. If so, the Bush Administration got suckered. (Note that many have said that the Bush Administration were eager to go to war against Iraq; that is not the issue. The issue is the outcome, whether the outcome favors Iran more than the US government had planned a year ago. Put another way, over the next generation, who gains victory?) Does anyone know more about this than I? On 25 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm Where Chalabi says: We are heroes in error, he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. This does tell us that Chalabi is happy and suggests that he did not mind whether the intelligence was accurate. But the story does not go into the further question of whether the Bush Administration was influenced in order that the Iranians would benefit more than the Americans; or whether the Bush Administration was suckered by Iranian intelligence. The analyses I have seen suggest that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Moslem countries and that opposition to nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons was a `selling point', not a primary reason. In addition to intimidating other, the administration was also against dangerous weapons, but their destruction was to have been a happy side effect; it was not the main internal reason for the war.. (The Administration's failure to search `known sites' as soon as it had the change in the latter half of April 2003 is puzzling. That failure tends to diminish my claim that the the Administration was concerned about dangerous weapons.) Presuming either that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Moslem countries, as I think, or to destroy dangerous weapons, or to enforce a mandatory UN resolution, or, as enemies of the Adminstration claim, in order to delay the pricing of oil in Euros and to gain contracts in Iraq for US companies -- presuming any or all of these reasons, the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has gained. This is the issue. Moreover, the ill-planning for an extended guerilla war and for dealing with Iranian-organized Shi'ite groups makes more sense if one believes that senior members of the Bush Administration really did not expect such problems, even though others in the US government had warned of them. The outcome, so far not quite a year later, suggests that the Administration, a year ago, might well have been suckered by the intelligence operatives of an `Axis of Evil' country. Is this true? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
At 06:00 PM 2/29/2004 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: This does tell us that Chalabi is happy and suggests that he did not mind whether the intelligence was accurate. While that is n degrees to cavalier. The world is better off today than it was one year ago today. We should make no apologies for that. The analyses I have seen suggest that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Muslim countries 1) The DPRK is not a Muslim country. 2) Baathist Iraq in many ways was not a Muslim country either. and that opposition to nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons was a `selling point', not a primary reason. It was chosen as the primary selling point among a host of primary reasons, all of which were sufficient by themselves to justify the invasion. After all, Iraq's possession of these weapons was considered to be a certainty, as was the illegality of Iraq's continued possession of these weapons. It was a very simple open-and-shut case. the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has gained. This is the issue. I totally disagree: 1) The US has gained the peaceful strategic removal of its forces from Saudi Arabia 2) The US has gained the liberation of 38 million people from utter oppression 3) The US has gained the strategic security of knowing that Iraq will never again attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, as it has in the past. 4) The US has eliminated a key source of funding for Palestinian terrorists. 5) The US has eliminated a key potential source of transit of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, as well as of nuclear technology, to our various enemies. 6) The US has gained, by the end of this year, the largest free elections among Arabs, *ever.* Meanwhile, Iran has: - been forced to come clean regarding three separate nuclear programs, about which the outside world has been unaware.This information was revealed by an Iranian dissident who only came forward after the war in Iraq.Coincidence?Perhaps, but I think not. -Iran has lost substanital democratic legitimacy after its abysmal recent Parliamentary elections. The establishment of free elections in neighboring Iraq, will surely prove to be a direct threat to the Iranian regime. JDG - The Tale of the Tape, Maru ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
I wrote the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has gained. This is the issue. and John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded I totally disagree: 1) The US has gained the peaceful strategic removal of its forces from Saudi Arabia That is true. However, unfortunately that is also a score for Al Qaeda, for which a key goal was to get the US to pull out. 2) The US has gained the liberation of 38 million people from utter oppression That is true, at least for the moment, and I think this is a good reason for the US invasion. (I have recommended this since I first learned about Saddam Hussein round about 1969, before he gained full power in Iraq.) 3) The US has gained the strategic security of knowing that Iraq will never again attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, as it has in the past. This is true for the moment. The question at hand, however, is whether we think it will be true in 10 or 20 years. The point about the success of an Iranian intelligence operation against the US is that the Iranians -- and not those we favor -- may be gaining power in Iraq. 4) The US has eliminated a key source of funding for Palestinian terrorists. Again, this is true for the moment, but also again, the question is whether Iranian influence will mean that a different set of terrorists receive funding. Please remember, the Iranians have backed Shi'ite terrorists. 5) The US has eliminated a key potential source of transit of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, as well as of nuclear technology, to our various enemies. Yes. One question is whether a country that has admitted it violated its treaty obligations regarding nuclear technology has or is gaining power in Iraq. A second question is whether the UN inspections that the Bush Administration now favors will do the job. 6) The US has gained, by the end of this year, the largest free elections among Arabs, *ever.* Yes, this is good. Especially if the US makes sure that the voters are not bought and that they have good choices, and that the choices have enough funding to overcome the funding of various other candidates. I presume you have looked into what happened when women first gained the vote in Spain (in the 1930s, if I remember my dates rightly). (Many women voted for candidates who hurt their gender, because the new voters took advice from existing leaders, and the opposition did not have the funds to convey an alternate view.) Meanwhile, Iran has: - been forced to come clean regarding three separate nuclear programs, about which the outside world has been unaware.This information was revealed by an Iranian dissident who only came forward after the war in Iraq.Coincidence?Perhaps, but I think not. Yes, I agree, this is good. It is like the Libyan agreement. It means that the policy of intimidation worked, either to intimidate Libya and Iran or to increase the confidence of the Bush Administration, so the Bush Administration could come out in favor of UN action. I think this is a good outcome. But the main question still stands: to gain this, did the US give a great deal to Iran? -Iran has lost substanital democratic legitimacy after its abysmal recent Parliamentary elections. The establishment of free elections in neighboring Iraq, will surely prove to be a direct threat to the Iranian regime. That is only the case if the elections in Iraq are seen by everyone in the area as permanently free and as a good way to solve disputes among clans and religious groups. An unfortunate alternative possibility is that the elections will be seen as a way to increase Shi'ite and Kurdish power, over the Sunnis. An even worse alternative possibility is that Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere will see this as a `one man, one vote, once' type of election in which their enemies, the Shi'ites, gain power. (They may see this and subsequent elections as being like the elections in the old Soviet Union or in old Iraq -- as a tribute to virtue that does not act either as a way to change the people who make up the government, or as a peaceful dispute resolution mechanism.) I hope the elections are run well, especially the choice of and funding for various candidates, the opportunity for them to convey a message, and everything else that goes with elections. Elections are a mechanism for political change that does not require conspiracy -- they, when done right, are a big deal in a region that historically has either had fake elections in which actual changes of government either required conspiracy or external military intervention, or did not have elections. Coming back to the point, you have not said anything about Chalabi, excepting that what he said is `n degrees to cavalier', with which I agree. Also you have not argued against the claim that currently the Iranians are in a better position (over the
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
I wrote The analyses I have seen suggest that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Muslim countries and John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded 1) The DPRK is not a Muslim country. That is true, North Korea is not Muslem. Good point. If, as I think, the main purpose of the invasion was to intimidate others, it was to intimidate more than the Muslem countries. 2) Baathist Iraq in many ways was not a Muslim country either. This is less likely. Certainly, the early Baathist dictatorship was for secular modernization, but it does not look that they succeeded all that well. Currently, the three major groups in Iraq are the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia. The Sunnis and the Shia are two religious groups. They are divided into various clans. From what I read, a major issue at the moment is whether the next government will be required to, and be able to, enforce actions to prevent one religious group, the Shi'ites, from taking (mostly justified, as far as I can see, but unpolitic) revenge against a second religious group, the Sunnis. The Sunni clan heads have to decide * whether to support the guerilla war against the US and what is expected to be a Shi'ite government (on account that the Shi'ite are the majority), and discourage Shi'ite actions against them this way, or * whether to cooperate with the US and the Shi'ite so as to discourage Shi'ite actions against them in a different way. (Under the Ottomans, the Sunni ruled the three major Ottoman provinces that make up modern Iraq. More recently, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni also ruled. As far as I know, the desire for revenge against them by the Kurds and the Shi'ites is fully justified. However, acts of revenge would not necessarily be any more politic or conducive to a tolerant civil society than the acts of revenge would have been that the South African `Truth and Reconciliation Commission' defused.) The point is, whether or not the early Baathists wanted secular modernization, the country is now, in good part, Moslem, albeit enemies. A question at hand is whether Iran, ruled by Shi'ite Moslems, is gaining power amongst its co-religionists in Iraq? If so, the second question is whether this is in part a consequence of an Iranian intelligence operation against the US government that succeeded for the Iranians? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush Administration suckered?
Much of the intelligence used by the Bush Administration in planning its attack on Iraq came from Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Council. That information was wrong in various ways: * No nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons readily found during the most active part of the fighting. * Failure to estimate accurately the degree to which Iranian intelligence had organized its Shia co-religionists. * Failure to estimate accurately the extent of the guerilla war. Other intelligence was, or should have been, available. One question is, was the intelligence from Chalabi and the INC crafted to harm the US? A second question is, did the Bush Administration come to trust the Chalabi-provided intelligence more than other intelligence? If both are true, then (1) Bush Administration policies before and during the most active part of the fighting make more sense than otherwise (although I am still bothered by the failure of the US to search widely for WMD in the latter half of April 2003); (2) the US government suffered from a classic intelligence operation against it. Currently, the situation in Iraq is strongly favorable to the Iranian government. It looks as if the Shia in Iraq will come out on top. It appears that minorities will lack as much protection from (often justified) revenge than many in the Bush Administration had said would be the case a year ago. It seems that schools and legal systems will be based on Shia policies rather than the those advocated last year by the Bush Administration. Moreover, since both Iraq and Iran are major oil producers, the situation gives the impression that Shia ruling groups in Iran and Iraq will become important in world energy councils. All this looks to be the consequence of a deal between the US and Iran that the US felt forced to accept in November 2003. Rather than fight a guerilla war against both Sunni and Shia, the US is fighting only Sunni guerillas. Put another way, rather than the US acting as it decides, the US is accepting that in the next generation, Iraq will follow Shi'ite plans. Chalabi is an Iraqi Shi'ite. Obviously, in years past, he would have tried to obtain help against Saddam Hussein however he could. Moreover, I have heard it said that in the recent past, he helped the US in its negotiations with Iran. This is all fine. The question is whether a year or more ago, he and/or the Iraqi National Council provided the US with `intelligence' that was designed to influence the US to act against Saddam Hussein's government and do so in a way that benefited Iran more than the US, by causing senior US officials to misunderstand the situation before the US-Iraqi war began. If so, the Bush Administration got suckered. (Note that many have said that the Bush Administration were eager to go to war against Iraq; that is not the issue. The issue is the outcome, whether the outcome favors Iran more than the US government had planned a year ago. Put another way, over the next generation, who gains victory?) Does anyone know more about this than I? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] The question is whether a year or more ago, he and/or the Iraqi National Council provided the US with `intelligence' that was designed to influence the US to act against Saddam Hussein's government and do so in a way that benefited Iran more than the US, by causing senior US officials to misunderstand the situation before the US-Iraqi war began. If so, the Bush Administration got suckered. (Note that many have said that the Bush Administration were eager to go to war against Iraq; that is not the issue. The issue is the outcome, whether the outcome favors Iran more than the US government had planned a year ago. Put another way, over the next generation, who gains victory?) Does anyone know more about this than I? http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm Where Chalabi says: We are heroes in error, he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
