Dick and Dub's excellent adventure!

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Oh, so you agree with Clarke that the 9/11 attack was our fault? "

Well, I don't really feel like getting into a flame fest, but I am curious as to the context of this statement. Would you define "our fault" as both you and Clarke mean, and are they the same in context?

Personally, I think it is unlikely we could have done much before 9/11 to prevent it with all that comes into the agencies. We were probably scheduled to be invaded by Martians too, and pre 9/11 that seemed just as likely. What I WOULD find disturbing is if due diligence was not exercised in that time period. It is one thing to try and fail, and another to miss a thing by being dismissive of it. I would like to know more. Further, if testimony is not under oath, then it is worth the paper it is written on.

Falwell says that that the 9/11 attack MAY have been caused by the seculaization of America, and the libs blast him. Clarke implies that it was caused by Reagan, and the libs give him a pass.

That's all.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Riprorin
He was the lesser evil. We supported him because of the fear that the Islamic revolution in Iran would sweep the area.

You provide no historical context.

america caused the revolution in iran, which was sponsored by iraq, then it got saddam to start a war, so it could guarantee a need for oil sales irregardless of opec quaotas, and to try and contain the mullahs, despite there being little chance of them exporting revolution to the gulf states. there only place iran successfully sponsored a takeover was in lebannon after years of war, a war exacerbated by the israelies.

you are picking one point out of a dozen! wake up kid.

Huh?

Kid????

I'd just leave zillatroll alone. It's obvious he/she just part of the blame america first crowd.

CkG

like many americans cad cant understand anybody else's view. thats good for a drone, but not when one takes over government.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Oh, so you agree with Clarke that the 9/11 attack was our fault? "

Well, I don't really feel like getting into a flame fest, but I am curious as to the context of this statement. Would you define "our fault" as both you and Clarke mean, and are they the same in context?

Personally, I think it is unlikely we could have done much before 9/11 to prevent it with all that comes into the agencies. We were probably scheduled to be invaded by Martians too, and pre 9/11 that seemed just as likely. What I WOULD find disturbing is if due diligence was not exercised in that time period. It is one thing to try and fail, and another to miss a thing by being dismissive of it. I would like to know more. Further, if testimony is not under oath, then it is worth the paper it is written on.

Falwell says that that the 9/11 attack MAY have been caused by the seculaization of America, and the libs blast him. Clarke implies that it was caused by Reagan, and the libs give him a pass.

That's all.

Hey it wasn't just the Libs who blasted him, Moderates like myself and many Conservatives also blasted him for it. Only the Religiously demented agreed with him.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
This is a recipie for fun:

Find a country where we

sponsored the dictator to take power

Where is that? We did not "sponsor" Saddam to take power.

supported both him and his enemy in a 10 year war,

We supported Iraq because Iran was seen as the greater threat. Iran for the most part has been contained. Would you like to speculate the world's situation if Iran had taken over Iraq?

fell out with him and destroyed the country,

That's an amazing choice of words, "fell out with him". That's a pretty disingenious way of saying that he invaded a neighboring country.

imposed 10 years of economic sanctions crippling the country and keeping him the only force in the country,

Are you referring to the U.N. sanctions?

intermittently bombed the country and humiliated the population by half supporting coup attempts, and watching them endure the retribution, and reducing the population to un food handouts,

While finding UN banned weapons programs, watching the leader commit the most despicable acts of torture on parts of his population, having the leader of that country put out a hit on one of our former presidents and so forth. Yeah, that's a leader that you want to be part of the world community.

invaded the country for our own reasons, not concern for the population,

We had many reasons. There was not firm evidance that the weapons programs had been halted. There was a despotic leader that was holding back the economic growth of the entire region. There was a leader that was supporting terrorists by paying their families blood money for people killed. There was a leader that was committing genocide upon the Marsh Arabs. Yes, there were reasons. What would you like to say our reasons were?

not organise a plan for taking over the country, well the state dept can organise one, but ill be damded if we read it!

I'll agree with you on this one. The aftermath of the war was not handeled as well as it should have been.

use shock troops with no awareness of the locals and frankly no concern,

There you go back into the BS department again.

fail to secure the infrastructure when we win, and basically oversee the collapse of the government

I think getting rid of the current government was the main idea.

let the population off paying tax and foot the entire bill ourselves, including rebuilding what we just bombed and when was run down by sanctions

Saddam had enough money, he chose not to spend it on his people. But yes, the US taxpayer is helping the people of Iraq to get back on their feet. It's an investment in the future. How well that investment will pan out will only be known in the future.

watch while young people get killed in a guerilla campaign where there are externals, locals, and former regime memebers acting loosely together

Yes, it is sad that there are still parts of Saddam's regime and other western haters that flocked to Iraq to fight a war. They make it harder to get the country on its feet. But what was started cannot be left hanging as that would be worse.

rely on local police for information, who hate our guts

Some may, many probably do not" hate our guts" Worthless statement.

hmmm, it should be excellent, as long as we execute the plan perfectly. Dick and me will be real ol' heroes for saving everyone from evil saddam.

I like the way you segue into first person. It makes you little bit of fiction just all the more perfectly clear as to what it is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Riprorin
He was the lesser evil. We supported him because of the fear that the Islamic revolution in Iran would sweep the area.

You provide no historical context.

america caused the revolution in iran, which was sponsored by iraq, then it got saddam to start a war, so it could guarantee a need for oil sales irregardless of opec quaotas, and to try and contain the mullahs, despite there being little chance of them exporting revolution to the gulf states. there only place iran successfully sponsored a takeover was in lebannon after years of war, a war exacerbated by the israelies.

you are picking one point out of a dozen! wake up kid.

Huh?

Kid????

I'd just leave zillatroll alone. It's obvious he/she just part of the blame america first crowd.

CkG

like many americans cad cant understand anybody else's view. thats good for a drone, but not when one takes over government.

Definately part of the "blame America first" crowd. Could also be part of the "open-minded except when it comes to Bush" crowd.

CkG

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Oh, so you agree with Clarke that the 9/11 attack was our fault? "

Well, I don't really feel like getting into a flame fest, but I am curious as to the context of this statement. Would you define "our fault" as both you and Clarke mean, and are they the same in context?

Personally, I think it is unlikely we could have done much before 9/11 to prevent it with all that comes into the agencies. We were probably scheduled to be invaded by Martians too, and pre 9/11 that seemed just as likely. What I WOULD find disturbing is if due diligence was not exercised in that time period. It is one thing to try and fail, and another to miss a thing by being dismissive of it. I would like to know more. Further, if testimony is not under oath, then it is worth the paper it is written on.

Falwell says that that the 9/11 attack MAY have been caused by the seculaization of America, and the libs blast him. Clarke implies that it was caused by Reagan, and the libs give him a pass.

That's all.

Hey it wasn't just the Libs who blasted him, Moderates like myself and many Conservatives also blasted him for it. Only the Religiously demented agreed with him.

Uhm, why would the non-religious think that the secularization of America was bad? I don't agree or disagree with Falwell since God hasn't spoken with me about it. I think he's entitled to his opinion though.

Clarke has allegedly implied that we (specifically Reagan) caused the 9/11 attack. Where's the outrage?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Oh, so you agree with Clarke that the 9/11 attack was our fault? "

Well, I don't really feel like getting into a flame fest, but I am curious as to the context of this statement. Would you define "our fault" as both you and Clarke mean, and are they the same in context?

Personally, I think it is unlikely we could have done much before 9/11 to prevent it with all that comes into the agencies. We were probably scheduled to be invaded by Martians too, and pre 9/11 that seemed just as likely. What I WOULD find disturbing is if due diligence was not exercised in that time period. It is one thing to try and fail, and another to miss a thing by being dismissive of it. I would like to know more. Further, if testimony is not under oath, then it is worth the paper it is written on.

Falwell says that that the 9/11 attack MAY have been caused by the seculaization of America, and the libs blast him. Clarke implies that it was caused by Reagan, and the libs give him a pass.

That's all.

Understood.

OK, WinstonSmith's opinion on what caused 9/11...

Bin Laden wanted US and US influence out of the Middle East in order to have a "pure" form of Islam. Somewhere in his experience with the CIA he took a great dislike of us, and determined that his philosophy and ours were incompatable. Looking at 1953 in Iran, and in South America with Pinochet, he came to the conclusion that the US might use such means to topple Islamic fundamentalists. His hatred of the US grew, as did his fear. Having a Super Size ego, he felt it his personal mission to attack the US, and hoped to drag us into a conflict with the Islamic Nation. If he could polarize us against them, then there would be a war of huge proportions. Where to start? Well, flying a few planes into the WTC would be a rallying cry. Little did he dare to hope they would topple. Well they did. Where he miscalculated was in the Islamic desire to rise up en masse and strike. Simply, most people have enough trouble day in and out to have a jihad to worry about. The war in Iraq is exactly what was hoped for, and Bin Laden has said in the past that a goal was to involve the US in a war with an Islamic country. Unfortunately, Iraq wasnt Islamic enough. Saddam is and never has been a religious zealot. He was a petty dictator like Idi Amin. There was no real rallying cry that could be made by his elimination.

If the US "caused" 9/11 it was by our continual tinkering with the affairs of others. It could not be reasonably forseen however that a Bin Laden would arise. Who knows if it was a main contributing factor? It might have happened anyway, but religious fundamentalism in the region really occured as the result of our installation of the Shah. Playing with this kind of fire rarely works well.

I think Falwell incorrect, and in this case a line of causation between Ronnie R may be correct, however I have not paid much attention to Clarke and how he connects the dots.

In a more immediate time frame, I really do not believe that 9/11 could have REASONABLY prevented, unless it can be shown that gross negligence occured. Being no Bush fan, I certainly would have pointed it out if I had seen it.

Now after Afghanistan is another matter

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: zillafurby
This is a recipie for fun:

Find a country where we

sponsored the dictator to take power

Where is that? We did not "sponsor" Saddam to take power.

yeah you did, the cia helped the bathists in then gave saddam the nod when he took over.

supported both him and his enemy in a 10 year war,

We supported Iraq because Iran was seen as the greater threat. Iran for the most part has been contained. Would you like to speculate the world's situation if Iran had taken over Iraq?

you didnt want the friendly regimes getting toppled, or the socialists getting turned into islamists, but it was never going to happen anyway. the iran-iraq war was reasonless.

fell out with him and destroyed the country,

That's an amazing choice of words, "fell out with him". That's a pretty disingenious way of saying that he invaded a neighboring country.

he bankrupted his country after you got him into the war, then the kuwaities wouldnt help him out and neither would the americans. the kuwaities were pumping too much oil from a shared field and demanded their $20bn loan back immediately as a negotiating tactic. saddam though, well f*ck them, kuwait only came into existence in the 1850's because the british wanted a way of controlling access to iraq if they lost the country totally, so they set up a principality. the elite loot the country and the poor have the basics like all the gulf states, and remember saddamis a socialist. at the end of the day he was hood winked into a war of mutual interest and then left dangling.

imposed 10 years of economic sanctions crippling the country and keeping him the only force in the country,

Are you referring to the U.N. sanctions?

un? you could have got rid of him the first time round, i hardly think the average un state supports sanctions anywhere, and they have universally been seen as singular failures, and even america wanted out of the iraq sanctions.
un?!? why did clint late pay america's money, then dispose of ghali? because it wants to control the un.

intermittently bombed the country and humiliated the population by half supporting coup attempts, and watching them endure the retribution, and reducing the population to un food handouts,

While finding UN banned weapons programs, watching the leader commit the most despicable acts of torture on parts of his population, having the leader of that country put out a hit on one of our former presidents and so forth. Yeah, that's a leader that you want to be part of the world community.

like i said america and britain sat on their hands for 10 years. when did i say i wanted saddam in power? i never said i didnt support the war, just the way it was done.

invaded the country for our own reasons, not concern for the population,

We had many reasons. There was not firm evidance that the weapons programs had been halted. There was a despotic leader that was holding back the economic growth of the entire region. There was a leader that was supporting terrorists by paying their families blood money for people killed. There was a leader that was committing genocide upon the Marsh Arabs. Yes, there were reasons. What would you like to say our reasons were?

iraq was invaded inorder to beat alqaida politically. america needed to life sanctions and get settlement in palestine, and pressure the client regimes to become more democratic.
id like to say america did th einvastion for that and for human rights reasons, and international jurisdiction reasons, but its sadly its not the case, they did it to beat alqaida, and to secure non-opec oil as an added benefit.

not organise a plan for taking over the country, well the state dept can organise one, but ill be damded if we read it!

I'll agree with you on this one. The aftermath of the war was not handeled as well as it should have been.

blame cheney and rummy for this turf fighting that costs lives and intensified resistance.

use shock troops with no awareness of the locals and frankly no concern,

There you go back into the BS department again.

the us troops are completely unaware and out of touch.

fail to secure the infrastructure when we win, and basically oversee the collapse of the government

I think getting rid of the current government was the main idea.

no it was to get rid of the baathists leaders, and keep the government. think america, you change the council leaders, you dont sack all the council staff and ransack the buildings each election.

let the population off paying tax and foot the entire bill ourselves, including rebuilding what we just bombed and when was run down by sanctions

Saddam had enough money, he chose not to spend it on his people. But yes, the US taxpayer is helping the people of Iraq to get back on their feet. It's an investment in the future. How well that investment will pan out will only be known in the future.

youll have a client regime. which if seen as elitist will have an alqaida problem for years, possibly culminating in a coup.

watch while young people get killed in a guerilla campaign where there are externals, locals, and former regime memebers acting loosely together

Yes, it is sad that there are still parts of Saddam's regime and other western haters that flocked to Iraq to fight a war. They make it harder to get the country on its feet. But what was started cannot be left hanging as that would be worse.

you missed the disgruntled locals, like in fallujah. a few days before this weeks attacks, did you kow that your troops had killed people during a raid?

rely on local police for information, who hate our guts

Some may, many probably do not" hate our guts" Worthless statement.

dont kid yourself, arabs hate america, for very legitimate reasons. just because they are picking up your check doesnt mean a thing. at the very least these pople have to go home at night. how much the the south vietnamese help you in nam?

hmmm, it should be excellent, as long as we execute the plan perfectly. Dick and me will be real ol' heroes for saving everyone from evil saddam.

I like the way you segue into first person. It makes you little bit of fiction just all the more perfectly clear as to what it is.

fiction, you are certainly imagining things.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: zillafurby
This is a recipie for fun:

Find a country where we

sponsored the dictator to take power

Where is that? We did not "sponsor" Saddam to take power.

[ ... ]

hmmm, it should be excellent, as long as we execute the plan perfectly. Dick and me will be real ol' heroes for saving everyone from evil saddam.

I like the way you segue into first person. It makes you little bit of fiction just all the more perfectly clear as to what it is.

"That's a nice long post, I hope your wife didn't miss you while you were slaving over it." Who said that, I wonder?



Nice to see you supporting your position for a change. I don't agree with parts of it, but it has substance for discussion. That's so much more productive than hit-and-run personal attacks or the mindless bleating we get from many of the Bushies. Kudos.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Oh, so you agree with Clarke that the 9/11 attack was our fault? "

Well, I don't really feel like getting into a flame fest, but I am curious as to the context of this statement. Would you define "our fault" as both you and Clarke mean, and are they the same in context?

Personally, I think it is unlikely we could have done much before 9/11 to prevent it with all that comes into the agencies. We were probably scheduled to be invaded by Martians too, and pre 9/11 that seemed just as likely. What I WOULD find disturbing is if due diligence was not exercised in that time period. It is one thing to try and fail, and another to miss a thing by being dismissive of it. I would like to know more. Further, if testimony is not under oath, then it is worth the paper it is written on.

Falwell says that that the 9/11 attack MAY have been caused by the seculaization of America, and the libs blast him. Clarke implies that it was caused by Reagan, and the libs give him a pass.

That's all.

Understood.

OK, WinstonSmith's opinion on what caused 9/11...

Bin Laden wanted US and US influence out of the Middle East in order to have a "pure" form of Islam. Somewhere in his experience with the CIA he took a great dislike of us, and determined that his philosophy and ours were incompatable. Looking at 1953 in Iran, and in South America with Pinochet, he came to the conclusion that the US might use such means to topple Islamic fundamentalists. His hatred of the US grew, as did his fear. Having a Super Size ego, he felt it his personal mission to attack the US, and hoped to drag us into a conflict with the Islamic Nation. If he could polarize us against them, then there would be a war of huge proportions. Where to start? Well, flying a few planes into the WTC would be a rallying cry. Little did he dare to hope they would topple. Well they did. Where he miscalculated was in the Islamic desire to rise up en masse and strike. Simply, most people have enough trouble day in and out to have a jihad to worry about. The war in Iraq is exactly what was hoped for, and Bin Laden has said in the past that a goal was to involve the US in a war with an Islamic country. Unfortunately, Iraq wasnt Islamic enough. Saddam is and never has been a religious zealot. He was a petty dictator like Idi Amin. There was no real rallying cry that could be made by his elimination.

If the US "caused" 9/11 it was by our continual tinkering with the affairs of others. It could not be reasonably forseen however that a Bin Laden would arise. Who knows if it was a main contributing factor? It might have happened anyway, but religious fundamentalism in the region really occured as the result of our installation of the Shah. Playing with this kind of fire rarely works well.

I think Falwell incorrect, and in this case a line of causation between Ronnie R may be correct, however I have not paid much attention to Clarke and how he connects the dots.

In a more immediate time frame, I really do not believe that 9/11 could have REASONABLY prevented, unless it can be shown that gross negligence occured. Being no Bush fan, I certainly would have pointed it out if I had seen it.

Now after Afghanistan is another matter

Good analysis. I don't think that you can ignore cultural differences:

Islamic Views on Western Culture

by The Gallup Poll Editorial Staff

Majorities of residents in all nine countries surveyed in Gallup's Poll of the Islamic World say Western nations do not care about poorer nations, nor are they willing to share their technological knowledge with them. Residents also think that Western nations do not treat the minorities in their own countries fairly, and that Westerners have immoral lifestyles and weak family values.

 

[conjur]

From Against All Enemies

The U.S. did, however, make four mistakes during the Reagan administration that affect us today.

First, the fact that the CIA became dependent upon the Pakistani intelligence service to aid the Afghans meant that we developed fewer ties and loyalties among the Afghans that we should have been able to generate for our multibillion-dollar effort. (Later, in the 1990s, CIA would also make a simliar mistake, failing to put U.S. operatives into the country to kill bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership, relying on hired Afghans instead.)

Second, when the U.S. engaged the Saudis, Egyptians, and other Arab states in the fighting against the Soviets, America sought (or acquiesced in) the importation into Afghanistan and Pakistan of an army of "Arabs" without considering who they were or what would happen to them after the Soviets left. The Saudis took the lead in assembling the group of volunteers. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki, relied upon a man from a wealthy construction family that was close to the Saudi royal family. Turki empowered a son of that family, one Usama bin Laden, to recruit, move, train and indoctrinate the Arab volunteers in Afghanistan. Many of those recruited were misfits in their own societies...Many of these volunteers later became the al Qaeda network of affiliated terrorist groups, staging campaigns in Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Third, America's quick pull-out of assets and resources following the Soviet defeat left us with little influence over, or understanding of, what happened next. The [U.S.] sought to reduce the burden of Afghanistan on our foreign policy and our intelligence budget, largely abandoning the country to its own fate...Pakistani intelligence, whom we had empowered in Afghanistan, used its power and influence to bring order out of the chaos through a new religious faction, the Taliban. The Pakistanis also facilitated the Taliban's use of the Arab Afghan War veterans, al Qaeda, to fight for the Taliban.

Fourth, the U.S. did little to help Pakistan understand or deal with the corrosive effects on its society caused by the mix of millions of Afghan refugees and the wealthy, fanatic, misfit Arabs who came and stayed. Instead, concerned with Pakistan's nuclear program, the U.S. cut aid to the country. The aid cutoff did not, of course, end the nuclear program. Rather, it insured that the country that was deploying nuclear weapons was politically unstable and threatened with a takeover by fanatics.
:
:
As they sat together in Kabul, Kandahar, and Jalalabad, they mused on what was now happening to the Soviet Union. Among them were the Saudi Usama bin Laden, the Pakistani Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the Indonesian known as Hambali, and others we did not know then. In the wake of their Afghan defeat (and, the Arabs believed, because of that defeat), the Soviet Union was now unraveling. Some Afghans and some Arab fighters pondered what you could do with money, Korans, and a few good weapons. You could overthrow an infidel government. More important, you could destroy a superpower. They just had. It was now 1990.

A bit later:

In the months that followed, President [George H. W.] Bush and Secretary Baker engaged in a diplomatic tour de force. They created a consensus coalition of over one hundred nations, many of which agreed to send forces to defend Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states [from Saddam Hussein]. My job was to coordinate the solicitations for military units and to find space for the immense Tower of Babel military force that was heading to the Gulf...At one point when I told Cheney that the Australians had made a decision to send F-111 aircraft, he threw up his hands in frustration, "Dick, we do not have room for any more allies. Stop asking them." Cheney's attitude then foreshadowed his attitude twelve years later: we can deal with Iraq militarily by ourselves and everybody else is just more trouble than they are worth.

By contrast, Bush and Baker knew that the thought of an American army going to war with an Arab nation could be enormously damaging to America's image in the Muslim world. They believed that the only way to inoculate against that damage was by extraordinary, unprecedented diplomatic effort and coalition building...Their historic efforts are in marked contrast to the go-it-alone, hell-bent-for-war policy pursued by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney twelve years later.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"Oh, so you agree with Clarke that the 9/11 attack was our fault? "

Well, I don't really feel like getting into a flame fest, but I am curious as to the context of this statement. Would you define "our fault" as both you and Clarke mean, and are they the same in context?

Personally, I think it is unlikely we could have done much before 9/11 to prevent it with all that comes into the agencies. We were probably scheduled to be invaded by Martians too, and pre 9/11 that seemed just as likely. What I WOULD find disturbing is if due diligence was not exercised in that time period. It is one thing to try and fail, and another to miss a thing by being dismissive of it. I would like to know more. Further, if testimony is not under oath, then it is worth the paper it is written on.

Falwell says that that the 9/11 attack MAY have been caused by the seculaization of America, and the libs blast him. Clarke implies that it was caused by Reagan, and the libs give him a pass.

That's all.

Understood.

OK, WinstonSmith's opinion on what caused 9/11...

Bin Laden wanted US and US influence out of the Middle East in order to have a "pure" form of Islam. Somewhere in his experience with the CIA he took a great dislike of us, and determined that his philosophy and ours were incompatable. Looking at 1953 in Iran, and in South America with Pinochet, he came to the conclusion that the US might use such means to topple Islamic fundamentalists. His hatred of the US grew, as did his fear. Having a Super Size ego, he felt it his personal mission to attack the US, and hoped to drag us into a conflict with the Islamic Nation. If he could polarize us against them, then there would be a war of huge proportions. Where to start? Well, flying a few planes into the WTC would be a rallying cry. Little did he dare to hope they would topple. Well they did. Where he miscalculated was in the Islamic desire to rise up en masse and strike. Simply, most people have enough trouble day in and out to have a jihad to worry about. The war in Iraq is exactly what was hoped for, and Bin Laden has said in the past that a goal was to involve the US in a war with an Islamic country. Unfortunately, Iraq wasnt Islamic enough. Saddam is and never has been a religious zealot. He was a petty dictator like Idi Amin. There was no real rallying cry that could be made by his elimination.

If the US "caused" 9/11 it was by our continual tinkering with the affairs of others. It could not be reasonably forseen however that a Bin Laden would arise. Who knows if it was a main contributing factor? It might have happened anyway, but religious fundamentalism in the region really occured as the result of our installation of the Shah. Playing with this kind of fire rarely works well.

I think Falwell incorrect, and in this case a line of causation between Ronnie R may be correct, however I have not paid much attention to Clarke and how he connects the dots.

In a more immediate time frame, I really do not believe that 9/11 could have REASONABLY prevented, unless it can be shown that gross negligence occured. Being no Bush fan, I certainly would have pointed it out if I had seen it.

Now after Afghanistan is another matter

I don't think that you can ignore cultural differences.

Islamic Views on Western Culture

by The Gallup Poll Editorial Staff

Majorities of residents in all nine countries surveyed in Gallup's Poll of the Islamic World say Western nations do not care about poorer nations, nor are they willing to share their technological knowledge with them. Residents also think that Western nations do not treat the minorities in their own countries fairly, and that Westerners have immoral lifestyles and weak family values.

Certainly there are cultural differences. Consider their opportunity to view the US though. Most of it comes by way of television programming. Based on the level of violence, adultery, homelessness, abandonment, and general criminal tendencies, would you not form a similar opinion? Every American is a lecherous millionare who is also an axe murderer. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but the principle applies, and frankly the little I have seen recently on TV reinforces my negative opinion of it on the whole.

Regardless, people may dislike another, and for reasons good or false. It is another thing to let that dislike rise to the point where shooting or bombing is a result.

Watching the language here, I do not fear that one day we may be forced to bow down to Allah, but that in retaliation to some as yet to occur disaster, innocents may be hunted to death or rounded up put into concentration camps no better than in Nazi Germany. I could oppose the first by simply eviscerating the one who tried, yet opposing a nation with blood in their eyes and willing to do the second is much harder. You can not convince me otherwise. Until recently the idea of locking US citizens away without charge or trial would be justly looked at with dismay. Now it finds favor in the eyes of many.

Look at the number of "carpet bomb X" in retaliation for actions against us posts there are. Yes what happened a few days ago was reprehensible, but to blow babies up in retribution as some have effectively suggested is more appauling yet. There is a potential contingent of Einsatzgruppen in every nation.

The answer? To not have engaged in this adventure, but that option does not really exist. I do not believe there is a good resolution to this. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Gaard]

Could also be part of the "open-minded except when it comes to Bush" crowd.

I hope you're not trying to pin this on just left-leaning members. I think it's safe to say that it's not uncommon at all to find members from both sides of the fence who fit this criteria.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Could also be part of the "open-minded except when it comes to Bush" crowd.

I hope you're not trying to pin this on just left-leaning members. I think it's safe to say that it's not uncommon at all to find members from both sides of the fence who fit this criteria.

You can "hope" whatever you wish. I think we are still allowed to "hope" here in America right? I mean we haven't become a gov't controlled society yet - no? Is there still something called personal responsibility here in America? ....I sure "hope" so

CkG

 

[conjur]

More from Clarke re:the Gulf War in 1991:

It can and has been well argued as to whether the United States should have continued the war for a day or a week to destroy the Republican Guard as had been originally intended. To me it was obvious then and now that another seventy-two hours of combat was needed...What I cannot understand is how anyone can defend the Bush Administration's decision to stand by and let the Republican Guard mass-murder the Shi'a and the Kurds. We had it within our power to resume the bombing of the Republican Guard and regime targets. Our Arab colaition partners and the world in general would have had to respect an American decision to rewnew hostilities for the limited purpose of stopping the slaughter. If we had bombed the Republican Guard and defended the Shi'a and Kurds, the Bush calculus that Saddam Hussein would fall without our occupying Baghdad might have proved true. Since we did not, a moral outrage was committed and Saddam Hussein stayed in power, and the U.S. had to keep forces in Saudi Arabia to defend against a renewed strike on Kuwait by a reconstituted Republican Guard.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: conjur
From Against All Enemies

The U.S. did, however, make four mistakes during the Reagan administration that affect us today. First, the fact that the CIA became dependent upon the Pakistani intelligence service to aid the Afghans meant that we developed fewer ties and loyalties among the Afghans that we should have been able to generate for our multibillion-dollar effort. (Later, in the 1990s, CIA would also make a simliar mistake, failing to put U.S. operatives into the country to kill bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership, relying on hired Afghans instead.) Second, when the U.S. engaged the Saudis, Egyptians, and other Arab states in the fighting against the Soviets, America sought (or acquiesced in) the importation into Afghanistan and Pakistan of an army of "Arabs" without considering who they were or what would happen to them after the Soviets left. The Saudis took the lead in assembling the group of volunteers. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki, relied upon a man from a wealthy construction family that was close to the Saudi royal family. Turki empowered a son of that family, one Usama bin Laden, to recruit, move, train and indoctrinate the Arab volunteers in Afghanistan. Many of those recruited were misfits in their own societies...Many of these volunteers later became the al Qaeda network of affiliated terrorist groups, staging campaigns in Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere. Third, America's quick pull-out of assets and resources following the Soviet defeat left us with little influence over, or understanding of, what happened next. The [U.S.] sought to reduce the burden of Afghanistan on our foreign policy and our intelligence budget, largely abandoning the country to its own fate...Pakistani intelligence, whom we had empowered in Afghanistan, used its power and influence to bring order out of the chaos through a new religious faction, the Taliban. The Pakistanis also facilitated the Taliban's use of the Arab Afghan War veterans, al Qaeda, to fight for the Taliban. Fourth, the U.S. did little to help Pakistan understand or deal with the corrosive effects on its society caused by the mix of millions of Afghan refugees and the wealthy, fanatic, misfit Arabs who came and stayed. Instead, concerned with Pakistan's nuclear program, the U.S. cut aid to the country. The aid cutoff did not, of course, end the nuclear program. Rather, it insured that the country that was deploying nuclear weapons was politically unstable and threatened with a takeover by fanatics. : : As they sat together in Kabul, Kandahar, and Jalalabad, they mused on what was now happening to the Soviet Union. Among them were the Saudi Usama bin Laden, the Pakistani Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the Indonesian known as Hambali, and others we did not know then. In the wake of their Afghan defeat (and, the Arabs believed, because of that defeat), the Soviet Union was now unraveling. Some Afghans and some Arab fighters pondered what you could do with money, Korans, and a few good weapons. You could overthrow an infidel government. More important, you could destroy a superpower. They just had. It was now 1990.

A bit later:

In the months that followed, President [George H. W.] Bush and Secretary Baker engaged in a diplomatic tour de force. They created a consensus coalition of over one hundred nations, many of which agreed to send forces to defend Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states [from Saddam Hussein]. My job was to coordinate the solicitations for military units and to find space for the immense Tower of Babel military force that was heading to the Gulf...At one point when I told Cheney that the Australians had made a decision to send F-111 aircraft, he threw up his hands in frustration, "Dick, we do not have room for any more allies. Stop asking them." Cheney's attitude then foreshadowed his attitude twelve years later: we can deal with Iraq militarily by ourselves and everybody else is just more trouble than they are worth. By contrast, Bush and Baker knew that the thought of an American army going to war with an Arab nation could be enormously damaging to America's image in the Muslim world. They believed that the only way to inoculate against that damage was by extraordinary, unprecedented diplomatic effort and coalition building...Their historic efforts are in marked contrast to the go-it-alone, hell-bent-for-war policy pursued by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney twelve years later.

Brilliant, concise, and damning. Makes me glad I forked over my $20 for the book Thursday (haven't had time to start it yet, though, so, thanks, conjur).

Would any of the loyal right opposition care to rebut these Clarke quotes? CkG, you there?

 

[etech]

zillafurby

yeah you did, the cia helped the bathists in then gave saddam the nod when he took over

No, we didn't put "Saddam" into power. Yes, as far as I know, the CIA helped the bathists. Saddam was a member of that party, but it is a stretch of the imagination to say the CIA put "Saddam" into power.

you didnt want the friendly regimes getting toppled, or the socialists getting turned into islamists, but it was never going to happen anyway. the iran-iraq war was reasonless.

I said what I meant the first time. The fundementilists Iraqis were seen as a threat, a threat that could conceivably affect the entire middle east. Saddam was helped to contain that threat.

he bankrupted his country after you got him into the war, then the kuwaities wouldnt help him out and neither would the americans. the kuwaities were pumping too much oil from a shared field and demanded their $20bn loan back immediately as a negotiating tactic. saddam though, well f*ck them, kuwait only came into existence in the 1850's because the british wanted a way of controlling access to iraq if they lost the country totally, so they set up a principality. the elite loot the country and the poor have the basics like all the gulf states, and remember saddamis a socialist. at the end of the day he was hood winked into a war of mutual interest and then left dangling.

I don't believe the US got Saddam into the war. He did that all by himself. If you have solid proof otherwise, please present it. I love how you twist and squirm and somehow poor "hood winked" Saddam comes out as the victim. I'm not buying it.

un? you could have got rid of him the first time round, i hardly think the average un state supports sanctions anywhere, and they have universally been seen as singular failures, and even america wanted out of the iraq sanctions.

Yes, the UN placed the sanctions on Iraq. You said and I quote "imposed 10 years of economic sanctions crippling the country and keeping him the only force in the country, " implying that it was the US that placed the sanctions, now you say the US and every country in the UN doesn't support sanctions. Please stick to one made up story at a time.

like i said america and britain sat on their hands for 10 years. when did i say i wanted saddam in power? i never said i didnt support the war, just the way it was done.

If you will study a little history you will learn that wars rarely are pretty and safe for innocents. But I agree, Saddam should have been dealt with long ago. The neighboring Arab states should have done something but were content to let the US do it and than stir up anti-American sentiment because of it.

Are you saying that you supported the war? Yes or no?

iraq was invaded inorder to beat alqaida politically. america needed to life sanctions and get settlement in palestine, and pressure the client regimes to become more democratic.

I'll agree, those reasons all factor in to the equation. The sanctions could not be lifted while Saddam or his sons were in power. The Israel/ Palestine was tied to Iraq. The problems of the middle east are many and quite complex. The current governments with their repression of their people all play a part in the big picture which many people do not want to admit exists.

...

you missed the disgruntled locals, like in fallujah. a few days before this weeks attacks, did you kow that your troops had killed people during a raid?

The people of Fallujah benifited from Saddam being in power, now they will have to survive without his special favors, of course they're pissed off at the people that took that away from them.

dont kid yourself, arabs hate america, for very legitimate reasons. just because they are picking up your check doesnt mean a thing. at the very least these pople have to go home at night. how much the the south vietnamese help you in nam?

The Arabs are bombarded by anti-American propaganda by their media. Many of the Arab governments use the US and Israel as an excuse for their failures to lead. For many reasons their society lags the western world at this current time. The US is a whipping boy for their problems. Do they hate us or what they have been told about us?


Bowfinger, too bad, you are still making worthless posts. Try harder.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Perknose


Brilliant, concise, and damning. Makes me glad I forked over my $20 for the book Thursday (haven't had time to start it yet, though, so, thanks, <STRONG>conjur</STRONG>).

Would any of the loyal right opposition care to rebut these Clarke quotes? CkG, you there?

I'm now into the first section discussing Clinton. There seems to be more of a running theme from Clarke that the CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon are the ones mostly to blame. The FBI, being solely a domestic law-enforcement agency, had much reluctance to share data with "civilians" and the CIA was kept out of domestic issues. The Pentagon gave very bad advice and used improper tactics in Somalia that led to "Black Hawk Down".

 

[CaptnKirk]

Flag as an Avatar -

Very few on this forum, in my opinion, have earned the right to us the symbol of the U.S. Flag for their Avatar.

Ultra Quiet, Etech, Mastertech, Eaglekeeper, Tripleshot, are a few that come to mind that rightfully may,
Vetrans of Military service or on active duty, and there are many more, just can't think offhand to list them now.

Other Vetrans that could if they wanted to - Burnedout, Chess9, HappyPuppy, Winston Smith, LunarRay, xxGaltxx, Shad0wHawk,
and a bunch of others that were in or are still in chose NOT to use the Flag Symbol, I suspect out of their respect for what is stands for.

Brothers, if I missed listing you, I appologize - too many flames and too few matches,
but those who just wrap themselves in the flag amd taunt the others are immature and arrogant.

If you served and choose to use, or not use the Flag avatar - let us know your point of view.

 

[Riprorin]

I don't think that you can ignore cultural differences.

Islamic Views on Western Culture

by The Gallup Poll Editorial Staff

Majorities of residents in all nine countries surveyed in Gallup's Poll of the Islamic World say Western nations do not care about poorer nations, nor are they willing to share their technological knowledge with them. Residents also think that Western nations do not treat the minorities in their own countries fairly, and that Westerners have immoral lifestyles and weak family values.

Certainly there are cultural differences. Consider their opportunity to view the US though. Most of it comes by way of television programming. Based on the level of violence, adultery, homelessness, abandonment, and general criminal tendencies, would you not form a similar opinion? Every American is a lecherous millionare who is also an axe murderer. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but the principle applies, and frankly the little I have seen recently on TV reinforces my negative opinion of it on the whole...[/quote]

So, true. They might get the same idea if they hung out at the AT Forums

Consider this:

Big Brother flops, as Muslims reject western culture
March 09, 2004 www.1924.org
The Arabic satellite TV channel MBC announced it had suspended its version of the reality TV show, Big Brother last week. The show, which began in February, has caused a public outcry in Bahrain where it is being filmed. Last week 1,000 people protested against the show and a group of Bahraini MPs threatened to question the information minister on the issue. A spokeswoman for the station said the show was unlikely to be put back on air.

Several Bahraini women's groups held a protest against the show outside the information ministry. One interviewed protester said, "Our religion has strong values which say boys and girls should not mix together," and "This programme is a threat to Islam. This is entertainment for animals."

Originally the producers (who are European and not Muslim) had confidently predicted a ground-breaking effect that the show would have on Arab culture, they had even modified the show's concept to "suit Arab and Muslim traditions", citing the separation of girls and boys dormitories and rooms for prayer and reading the Koran. The two sexes would only mingle in "open places" such as the living room and the courtyard.

However, the contestants were deliberately chosen from those who espoused western liberal values, and who were willing to rock the boat. A backlash inevitably occurred after an episode showed the contestants kissing each other while the girls wore scandalous clothes. "The show's concept is alien to our culture," said Mohammed Khalid, a Bahraini MP. Likewise similar shows such as Star academy, a copy of the western ?Pop Idol? received a similar reaction. The dean of Islamic studies at Kuwait University, Mohamad Al Tabtabai, issued a Fatwa prohibiting viewing or voting for a contestant in Star Academy, deeming it a threat to Islamic values and a cheap imitation of immoral Western programs in pursuit of profit. He even called on the Arab governments to prevent such shows from being broadcast.

A few Capitalist minded columnists and businessmen tried to defend the show on an economic basis, and accused the MPs of hurting the local economy. The show would pump more than $15 million into Bahrain's economy and the network in Bahrain has hired 200 nationals, Businessman Farouq Al Moayyad told a newspaper. Columnist Ahmed Jumaa, of Al Ayam, accused the Islamist MPs of "blackmail." "What the MPs are doing will only discourage potential investors," he said, "MBC can easily take its show elsewhere."

The outcry against the TV show by womens groups and others cleary highlights the conflicting tastes and values between Islam and the western way of life. Big Brother and their clones are popular in western societies due to the peoples decadent acceptance of frivolous and obscene behaviour. Participants smoke, drink alcohol and ?entertain? each other by socialising and wearing as little as possible. Participants are encouraged to behave outrageously in order to win the most favour with the public. This behaviour is not compatible with Islam and neither is the invasion of privacy, in which the viewing audience are nothing more than ?peeping toms?.

This event clearly demonstrates how the West aims to spread its culture through the media in order to completely dominate the Muslim worlds thinking, tastes and concepts. The program makers had boasted that the TV show would be revolutionary for the Muslims, but the volatile reaction to it demonstrates that for many Muslims, Islamic concepts and inclinations are very deeply rooted. Only those corrupted by the lure of money or western decadence have defended the show. Thus no one in the Muslim world has any deep conviction or commitment for the western ideals or lifestyle. For the Muslims, Islam remains the only way of life that is acceptable. This is consistent with the Verse in the Quran:

&Ccedil;&aacute;&uacute;&iacute;&oacute;&aelig;&uacute;&atilde;&oacute; &Atilde;&oacute;&szlig;&uacute;&atilde;&oacute;&aacute;&uacute;&Ecirc;&otilde; &aacute;&oacute;&szlig;&otilde;&atilde;&uacute; &Iuml;&ouml;&iacute;&auml;&oacute;&szlig;&otilde;&atilde;&uacute; &aelig;&oacute;&Atilde;&oacute;&Ecirc;&uacute;&atilde;&oacute;&atilde;&uacute;&Ecirc;&otilde; &Uacute;&oacute;&aacute;&oacute;&iacute;&uacute;&szlig;&otilde;&atilde;&uacute; &auml;&ouml;&Uacute;&uacute;&atilde;&oacute;&Ecirc;&ouml;&iacute; &aelig;&oacute;&Ntilde;&oacute;&Ouml;&ouml;&iacute;&Ecirc;&otilde; &aacute;&oacute;&szlig;&otilde;&atilde;&otilde; &Ccedil;&aacute;&Aring;&ouml;&Oacute;&uacute;&aacute;&Ccedil;&oacute;&atilde;&oacute; &Iuml;&ouml;&iacute;&auml;&eth;&Ccedil;
&oacute;
?This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen (religion)? [TMQ 5:3]

Last weeks events have undoubtedly proven that standing up to the western ideological onslaught is the only way to maintain the Islamic way of life. Consistently enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong according to Islam is the only way to achieve this. Allah (SWT) also tells us,

&szlig;&otilde;&auml;&Ecirc;&otilde;&atilde;&uacute; &Icirc;&oacute;&iacute;&uacute;&Ntilde;&oacute; &Atilde;&otilde;&atilde;&oslash;&oacute;&Eacute;&ograve; &Atilde;&otilde;&Icirc;&uacute;&Ntilde;&ouml;&Igrave;&oacute;&Ecirc;&uacute; &aacute;&ouml;&aacute;&auml;&oslash;&oacute;&Ccedil;&Oacute;&ouml; &Ecirc;&oacute;&Atilde;&uacute;&atilde;&otilde;&Ntilde;&otilde;&aelig;&auml;&oacute; &Egrave;&ouml;&Ccedil;&aacute;&uacute;&atilde;&oacute;&Uacute;&uacute;&Ntilde;&otilde;&aelig;&Yacute;&ouml; &aelig;&oacute;&Ecirc;&oacute;&auml;&uacute;&aring;&oacute;&aelig;&uacute;&auml;&oacute; &Uacute;&oacute;&auml;&ouml; &Ccedil;&aacute;&uacute;&atilde;&otilde;&auml;&szlig;&oacute;&Ntilde;&ouml; &aelig;&oacute;&Ecirc;&otilde;&Auml;&uacute;&atilde;&ouml;&auml;&otilde;&aelig;&auml;&oacute; &Egrave;&ouml;&Ccedil;&aacute;&aacute;&oslash;&aring;&ouml;

?You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin the Good (ma'roof) and forbid the Evil (munkar), and you believe in Allah...? [TMQ 3:110]

Today this action is being undertaken by individuals, because the governments of our lands have failed to stand for Islam and have sold themselves to the western powers. It is therefore a duty on every Muslim, whether in the East or West, to work to change this political reality, by calling for the re-establishment of the Islamic ruling system. By doing so, they would protect themselves and the rest of society from those who would allow the western pollution to even enter our lands.

Allah (SWT) reminds us,

&aelig;&oacute;&Ccedil;&aacute;&aacute;&oslash;&oacute;&aring;&otilde; &atilde;&oacute;&Uacute;&oacute;&szlig;&otilde;&atilde;&uacute; &aelig;&oacute;&aacute;&oacute;&auml; &iacute;&oacute;&Ecirc;&ouml;&Ntilde;&oacute;&szlig;&otilde;&atilde;&uacute; &Atilde;&oacute;&Uacute;&uacute;&atilde;&oacute;&Ccedil;&aacute;&oacute;&szlig;&otilde;&atilde;&uacute;

?Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.? [TMQ 47:35].

Asim Khan

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Bowfinger, too bad, you are still making worthless posts. Try harder.

Whatever. Try to say something positive about you, but you're still a humorless jerk.

BTW, the quote was yours. Not surprised you found it worthless. They're the words you used to dodge my question again. Guess that's what you do best.

 

[zillafurby]

etech - im not debating any more points. think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?

lets just wait and see. im not going to get wasted, and the poeple who are, are the people who caused half of the problems.

i think you will see a steady increase in popular violence, possibly including some of the shiites, and america will be forced to withdraw with her tail between her legs. basically they wont get the level of control and manipulation they want, but will spin it as a successful regime change. what a joke. all for the cost of $100bn and two battalions of body bags.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
etech - im not debating any more points. think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?

lets just wait and see. im not going to get wasted, and the poeple who are, are the people who caused half of the problems.

i think you will see a steady increase in popular violence, possibly including some of the shiites, and america will be forced to withdraw with her tail between her legs. basically they wont get the level of control and manipulation they want, but will spin it as a successful regime change. what a joke. all for the cost of $100bn and two battalions of body bags.

" think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?"

It's possible that a miscalculation of the Arab culture is part of the problem. There were problems in the Axis countries after WWII but for the main the population accepted the loss of the war and wanted to move on to a better life and did their best to do so. I believe that a large majority of the Iraqis want the same thing but have been under the fear of Saddam for so long that they are having difficulty in helping the coalition. There are also the outside influences that have come into play.

The US has already said it would withdraw. What the Iraqis do with their country at that point is up to them. If they wish to stay in the dark ages and continue their tribal violence it is their choice. It would be a shame, but they had the chance for a better life. That cannot be forced upon them. That would not be a failure of the US but a failure of the Iraqis , the Arab culture and the "peaceful and tolerant" Muslim religion.

Bowfinger, you've made two worthless posts so far, you're on a roll. As for you using my words, they applied to you, not to me. Can't you do something other than plagarize others posts?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

" think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?"

It's possible that a miscalculation of the Arab culture is part of the problem. There were problems in the Axis countries after WWII but for the main the population accepted the loss of the war and wanted to move on to a better life and did their best to do so. I believe that a large majority of the Iraqis want the same thing but have been under the fear of Saddam for so long that they are having difficulty in helping the coalition. There are also the outside influences that have come into play.

The US has already said it would withdraw. What the Iraqis do with their country at that point is up to them. If they wish to stay in the dark ages and continue their tribal violence it is their choice. It would be a shame, but they had the chance for a better life. That cannot be forced upon them. That would not be a failure of the US but a failure of the Iraqis , the Arab culture and the "peaceful and tolerant" Muslim religion.

But the U.S. hasn't said when they would withdraw nor under what specific conditions. The only thing we have is that Iraq becomes a sovereign nation after June 30.

U.S. officials want to make sure U.S. forces are free to continue to kill insurgents, interrogate prisoners and command Iraq's new security forces.

But the rules that troops follow after the June 30 hand over have yet to be written, and Iraq's government will have a say.

Iraq's transitional government is expected to "invite" the U.S. military to stay in control of Iraq's security, technically ending America's status as occupier. U.S. and British leaders say they expect few practical aspects of the occupation to change right away.

You can bet that the insurgents won't appreciate that technicality.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

" think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?"

It's possible that a miscalculation of the Arab culture is part of the problem. There were problems in the Axis countries after WWII but for the main the population accepted the loss of the war and wanted to move on to a better life and did their best to do so. I believe that a large majority of the Iraqis want the same thing but have been under the fear of Saddam for so long that they are having difficulty in helping the coalition. There are also the outside influences that have come into play.

The US has already said it would withdraw. What the Iraqis do with their country at that point is up to them. If they wish to stay in the dark ages and continue their tribal violence it is their choice. It would be a shame, but they had the chance for a better life. That cannot be forced upon them. That would not be a failure of the US but a failure of the Iraqis , the Arab culture and the "peaceful and tolerant" Muslim religion.

But the U.S. hasn't said when they would withdraw nor under what specific conditions. The only thing we have is that Iraq becomes a sovereign nation after June 30.

U.S. officials want to make sure U.S. forces are free to continue to kill insurgents, interrogate prisoners and command Iraq's new security forces.

But the rules that troops follow after the June 30 hand over have yet to be written, and Iraq's government will have a say.

Iraq's transitional government is expected to "invite" the U.S. military to stay in control of Iraq's security, technically ending America's status as occupier. U.S. and British leaders say they expect few practical aspects of the occupation to change right away.

You can bet that the insurgents won't appreciate that technicality.

Fsck the insurgents, we need to clean up our mess before we leave or Bushes mistake will haunt us for decades to come!