THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Kara, I don't understand this part of your post. In any kind of problem solving in which I've been involved, we always first speculate on alternatives, and then systematically investigate the probable consequences of each alternative, before searching for better alternatives, or before selecting one to go forward with.

For example, this is in fact the very nature of the Scientific Method. Every scientific theory the scientific consensus holds to be true, is held to be true until proven false. No scientific theory is taken to be absolutely true, but rather is taken to be true relative to what is currently known or believed to be known.

Okay, but the problems that we are solving are, in my opinion, too complex to be able to seperate into a clearly defined set of alternatives.

For example, let's take the Iraq invasion.

We cannot say, with any certainty, what would have happened if we hadn't attacked Iraq. The most probable outcome would have been... ? We really move into the realm of pure speculation on that one in the absence of verifiable data.

Whereas, we can say for sure what HAS happened because we did attack Iraq; 15k+ civilians dead, 1k+ American troops dead, a country that is close to a civil war and a situation where we are going to have a hell of a time extricating ourselves intact.

That being said, should we focus on pure speculation, or on what we can see has happened? Also, both of these issues are far more complex than what we can see on the surface. While I do believe that discussion is in order, it's difficult to have meaningful comparisons of what we should be doing as a society re: Iraq, given that many of us believe that the solution would have been to not attack a soviergn country in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

To get the Public to clean up Bush's mess through American regime change, the public must first recognize that it is a mess.

My suspicion is that most of us with the exception of the media who are paid to agree with Bush and dyed in the wool republicans that most of us know that "the problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them." (Einstein).

Cycloptichorn,
I announce my fundamental belief in my signature:
I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action.

We cannot evaluate with certainty the actual current status of our efforts in Iraq. All we have is what has been reported to us by fallible human reporters. I can do no more than bet that our efforts in Iraq are failing. I do not know for certain that is the actual situation.

I do not know for certain that any respondent action proposed by anyone will make things better in Iraq for the Iraqi people.

I do not know for certain that the actions the US has taken in Iraq are or are not the best of the alternatives available to us for securing our own liberty.

It all comes down to a bet, a judgment, as to what is more likely to make things better. So how shall we pick the next alternative. Should we ask our leaders to examine the problems and their alternate solutions as analytically as they can with the facts available? Or should we take a poll? But if we take a poll, what questions shall we choose to ask? What would be the probability that the questions we choose to ask are the right questions.

We cannot with certainty determine:
-- the reality of our situation
-- the best response to our situation
-- the actual future consequences of our situation

We must nonetheless choose a future course of action.
Shall we do what Bush has announced he has decided to do?
Shall we do what Kerry is thinking he has decided to do?
Shall we do something else?

Like it or not we must decide to bet on that which we judge is the most probable best choice.

In my opinion, failure to accept that as our guiding principle is probably a failure to deal with our actual reality.

The problems we are facing were probably created by those who seek to solve their own problems by murdering or maiming innocent people.

Look at it this way. If the terrorist murderers and maimers stopped murdering and maiming innocents, we wouldn't have to face the problems they are creating by murdering and maiming innocents.

Ican, comparatively speaking, what is the ratio so far of innocent Iraqi lives lost to innocent westerners lives lost?

Also, US bombers attacked Iraq, not the other way round.

Also, Iraq is occupied by us, not the other way around. Consider for a moment, what it would be like if it were the other way round.

"A terrorist is a man with a bomb, but no air force." You seem to expect the occupied nation to behave like the Brady Bunch.

BUSH REJECTED PLANS TO GO AFTER TOP TERRORIST

In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security, President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[1] - the man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in
Iraq.[2] But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003 rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam Hussein.

As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes. The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003, the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the White House killed it.[3]

According to NBC, "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."[4]

Zarqawi is thought to be at least indirectly responsible for hundreds of U.S. casualties. Just yesterday, Zarqawi's terrorist group beheaded an American civilian in Baghdad.[5]

Sources:

1. "President's Remarks to the General Conference of the National Guard Association of the United States," The White House, 9/14/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56809.
2. "Going after Iraq's most wanted man," The Christian Science Monitor, 9/21/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56810.
3. "Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind," NBC News, 3/02/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56811.
4. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56811.
5. "Zarqawi Group Beheads U.S. Hostage Armstrong," Reuters, 9/20/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56812.

I estimate 15 to 1 killed since 9/11/2001.

How about innocent Iraqis killed by militant Iraqis vs. total Iraqis killed. I estimate 80% killed by militant Iraqis since US invaded Iraq.



We attacked Iraq to remove Saddam. We removed Saddam to prevent him from helping al Qaeda. We occupy Iraq to help the Iraqis build a government that won't help al Qaeda in future. Thankfully, we were never ruled by Saddam. I'm sure we would have appreciated his removal if we had. A terrorist is a person who kills innocent people with anything she/he can, including but not limited to hijacked airliners. "Live and let live" and we will let you live. Murder some of us and you will make us, with our bombers et cetera, your enemy.

... "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

..."the terrorist camp in Iraq"...

So now that NBC has come up with different way to bash Bush than did CBS, they finally admit what has been long known by many, that Saddam sheltered al Qaeda in Iraq before the US invaded Iraq in March 2003.

I doubt that NBC understands the real reason why Bush feared destroying the Zarqawi terrorist camp in Iraq before he had made up his mind to invade Iraq. I bet that one camp wasn't the only camp and Bush wanted to try and get 'em all.

But let's suppose NBC is right for once. In hindsight it looks like Bush bungled. I wonder if under the same circumstances whether Kerry would have bungled too. Well sure Kerry would have bungled too. Kerry has already stated off and on he wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place let alone kill al Qaeda in Iraq -- Kerry has said there weren't any al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq. So isn't it probable Kerry would have not done anything about Saddam's sheltering of Zarqawi and al Qaeda?

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

Published: 2004/07/01 09:49:33 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - a man notorious for his alleged ruthlessness - has been linked to al-Qaeda and is the prime suspect in some of the deadliest attacks around the world.

Washington has accused the 37-year-old Jordanian radical of masterminding a string of spectacular suicide bombings in Iraq.

Mr Zarqawi is also said to have been involved in the beheading of an American contractor, Nick Berg, shown on a video released on 11 May.

The website broadcasting the killing said Mr Zarqawi was the man who cut off Berg's head - and the statement in the video was signed off with the militant's name.

Mr Zarqawi was sentenced to death in absentia by a Jordanian court on charges of plotting attacks against US and Israeli targets in the kingdom.

And Spanish officials are also reported to be looking into allegations that he may have been behind the Madrid bombings on 11 March 2004, which killed 191 people.

Little else is known about him - least of all his present whereabouts.


Elusive

Analysts say the fugitive has no shortage of friends - he is of Bedouin stock, and his tribe, the Beni Hassan, straddles many borders in the modern Middle East.

The US is now offering a $25m reward for the capture of Mr Zarqawi - the "wild card" in its pack of wanted men - more than doubling the previous figure of $10m.

The original bounty on his head - $5m - was doubled after American authorities intercepted a letter which, they claimed, confirmed he was working with al-Qaeda to drive the US out of Iraq.

But it is not the first time Mr Zarqawi has been linked to al-Qaeda.

Rival or ally?

In the run-up to the Iraq war in February 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Mr Zarqawi was an associate of Osama Bin Laden who had sought refuge in Iraq.


Intelligence reports indicated he was in Baghdad and - according to Mr Powell - this was a sure sign that Saddam Hussein was courting al-Qaeda, which, in turn, justified an attack on Iraq.

But some analysts contested the claim, pointing to Mr Zarqawi's historical rivalry with Bin Laden.

Both men rose to prominence as "Afghan Arabs" - leading foreign fighters in the "jihad" against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

After the Soviets were defeated, Mr Zarqawi went back to Jordan.

He spent seven years in prison there, accused of conspiring to overthrow the monarchy and establish an Islamic caliphate.

Not long after his release, he fled the country.

Jordan tried him in absentia and sentenced him to death for allegedly plotting attacks on American and Israeli tourists.

Western intelligence indicated Mr Zarqawi had sought refuge in Europe.

German security forces later uncovered a militant cell which claimed Mr Zarqawi was its leader.

The cell-members also told their German interrogators their group was "especially for Jordanians who did not want to join al-Qaeda".

According to the German intelligence report, this "conflicts with... information" from America.

Kurdish connection

The next stop on his itinerary was his old stamping ground - Afghanistan.

He is believed to have set up a training camp in the western city of Herat, near the border with Iran.

Students at his camp supposedly became experts in the manufacture and use of poison gases.

It is during this period that Mr Zarqawi is thought to have renewed his acquaintance with al-Qaeda.

He is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001 after losing a leg in a US missile strike on his Afghan base.

US officials argue that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists from the north of the country.

He is thought to have remained with them for a while - feeling at home in mountainous northern Iraq.

When US aid official Laurence Foley was gunned down in Amman in October 2002, the Jordanian authorities claimed he had masterminded and financed the attack.

If the intelligence agencies are to be believed, it was just the beginning of a busy year for Mr Zarqawi.

Sectarian strategy

In 2003, he was named as the brains behind a series of lethal bombings - from Casablanca in Morocco to Istanbul in Turkey.

It is in Iraq, though, that he appears to be most active.

The assassination of the Shia cleric, Ayatollah al-Hakim, at a shrine in the town of Najaf, was one of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq last year - over 50 Shia worshippers died.

US authorities pinned the blame on Mr Zarqawi.

The intercepted "Zarqawi" letter released by the Americans in February 2004 seems to support their claim.

In it, the author appeared to share his plans for igniting sectarian conflict in Iraq as a means of undermining the US presence there. And he claims to have already undertaken 25 successful attacks against the enemy.

Within days of the letter's release, bomb attacks on recruiting centres for the Iraqi security forces had killed nearly 100 people.

In some of the latest violence, a group linked to Mr Zarqawi is suspected of carrying out a wave of attacks in late June that killed more than 100 people and injured hundreds more in attacks in five Iraqi cities.

His followers claimed responsibility for the attacks in a statement on an Islamic website.

Three statements, all of them wrong.

BBC wrote



Although the BBC is normally impeccable in its reporting, I have had to ammend the above statement for clarity.

Actually McTag, I think Ican's first statement is true. (One out of three, something of a record eh?)

We did attack Iraq to oust Saddam. But we were told it was to disarm him of weapons that posed an "imminent" threat to the USA and which he could launch against UK interests "in 45 minutes".

Such lies of course inspired people to support an illegal war. (And yes if you detect a change in my position from guarded support to out right condemnation, you're right).

I remember people stocking up on bottled water and tinned food. I think it was an absolute disgrace that Blair allowed people to be deliberately frightened in this way. I used to think that he really believed the wmd issue posed a real threat. Its now out in the open that he knew it was never a threat to this country and that the real issue was regime change in Iraq, and to suck up to G W Bush.

[/QUOTE]He is believed to have hopped to Iraq in 2001...

Ican wrote



Still at it Ican? Selective response. The entire article condemns the Bush administration and you pick up something you think you can hang your hat on. I should remind you that northern Iraq was at that time practically an autonomous region controlled by the Kurds. Which would have been better to have delivered the missile strike or create the quagmire we now have in Iraq?

Kara

I think my hopping quip was probably in bad taste, however I'll leave it there for the while.

Regarding wmd I thought myself that coalition forces would find something when or soon after they invaded.

I now think it was a complete red herring. The invasion only went ahead because Bush and Blair knew Saddam could not use wmd against invading forces, because he had nothing, or virtually nothing.

There is a difference between intelligence as fed to Tony Blair, and the same material as fed to the public after it has been digested and passed through the alimentary canal of government.

Intelligence test

Intelligence is to food
As propaganda is to .......


a. weapons of mass destruction
b. anthrax
c. sh1t
d. recipe


or should that be

Much more importantly, I heard this morning on the BBC that the Iraqi authorities were going to release the two baathist women scientists. That was 5 hours ago. As originally reported by al Arabia news.

That might save the life of the British hostage.

BUT NOW the Americans are saying they will not be released. That condemns the man to the same fate as the American hostages doesn't it?

One statement, all of it vacuous!

Seems, this is a 'developing story':
1rst update: the US Embassy in Iraq will not release two "high-value" Iraqi women detainees immediately as announced by the Iraqi Jusice Ministry
2nd update: Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has said that no detainees will be released immediately, although the status of some detainees is under review

So, it's the US turn now again, and a third update ...