The US, UN & Iraq II

Good point BillW, good point. Abbas sure wasn't listening to the way the wind was blowing, by all appearances. I too would have expected him to have cleared out of Dodge on first hearing that Marshall Dillon was getting upset. Seriously, I expect he had a command function in the Iraqi Military, and his arrogance allowed him, as so many others, simply to be overtaken by events. I'm sure his plans did not include coming into the custody of The US ... a fate he often maintained he was too blessed and clever to encounter. There's a lot of that going around over in that neighborhood right now. Fate seems no freind of The Fedayeen and their freinds.

BillW, He did listen to the informatin minister. "We are winning this war." c.i.

[quote]Seriously, I expect he had a command function in the Iraqi Military, and his arrogance allowed him, as so many others, simply to[/quote]

timber, why would you think this? Could he not have been hunkered down low profile just existing, these past years? Do you think my scenario unlikely because Iraqi security would have know he was there and thus was accepting of his presence, so we have to see him as hidden by the regime? Why would they have done this? Is it an Arab v. The Rest of the World thing?

That was a scattered post. Trying to do too many things at once.

I heard that he had tried to flee out of Iraq and was caught trying to go back in. Curious.

Kara, in Abbas' mind at least, I believe it is indeed an "Arab Vs The Rest of The World Thing". And, given the tightly controlled, purpose driven Regime formerly in place in Iraq, Abbas and others of his ilk were highly unlikely to have been mere uninvolved guests. Saddam and his cronies were not the sorts given to idly inviting freinds and acquaintances just to hang around and enjoy themselves. I am convinced Abu had a job, his employer appreciated his efforts, and Abu enjoyed the benefits thereon resultant. This is just a flyer here, but look for Salman Pak to play a part in the unfolding story of Abu Abbas and his activities in Pre-Attack Iraq. I have no hard info on that, just a suspicion.

Dafdaf wrote:

The notion of invading Iraq for a regimee change to reduce the threat of further terrorist attacks is cakc-handed. If anything, the US is more exposed than ever, and with international relations at an all time low. Personally I love the US and hate what he's doing to the place. If someone doesn't get rid of him soon he's going to have every armed man, woman and child in the world taking pot shots.

Congrats---you will fit right in here.

You further wrote:

If he handles the Israel issue properly though, there is still some chance things will go back the way they were, but the truth is that the guy has left deep, itchy scars that'll take decades to heal.

Another all knowing crystal ball----question ----did you buy yours the same place Steve 4100 bought his? Two Brits on this forum and you both know everything there is to know about US foreign policy past, present and future. Simply AAAmmaazing. I'm looking forward to feasting my eyes on some of the facts you boast of later on in the next couple of pages.

Yep---I'm one of the 70% that believe he's doing just fine except that he hasn't nailed Chirac to the wall yet. Chirac must think Putin will save him................?

.

perc, there are more than two Brits here. A lot of them share a concern and dismay at their perception of the current US course. They're entitled to that. I happen to think they misperceive the situation, but I see also that without dissent there is no liberty. We all have a part to play. As long as we all play nice, we can play here. Saddam, having shown a determined disinclination to play nice, now plays nowhere. He wasn't fond of dissent. Many of his International Freinds currently are reassessing their own playbooks, with an eye to staying in the game. The choices they make will determine the future, if any, of their participation. The recent pointed reminder of Iraq's fate demonstrates to them that it ain't wise to tug on Superman's cape.

Timber:

You know that I am tolerant and very understanding of the opinions of others as long as those opinions are identified as such. What I do find difficult to tolerate is an absolutist assertion of the future consequences of present actions by anyone including, and especially the past and present actions of the President of the US. Dafdaf has not revealed the "studies" that he actively engaged in and he may be on the verge of being awarded a PHD in American foreign relations but even a PHD cannot accurately forcast the consequences of current actions.

BTW---who are the other Brits?

timber, yes, I know about Salman Pak. We, too , have secret facilities. I think ours are probably better hid and less easily discoverable. Is it that you see what we do as benign, and what they do as malignant?

Iraq is (was) a sovereign state. They had agendas that we might have had ourselves: amongst them, defense of the realm. We cannot dismiss them as non-people -- even their second-level leader/functionaries -- because of their tyrannical leader. They may have feelings as Iraqi nationals that we cannot comprehend. We have never been invaded. Iraq -- a construct at best, in its earliest beginnings -- has been at war for decades. I cannot comprehend being invaded in our cities and rural towns and seeing soldiers with guns ordering our everyday lives. And these are not people who speak our language.

perception, I haven't run across you much, but when I have it has seemed to be overwhelmingly in the politics forum. You realize that there are many, many other, non-political discussions going on at A2K? And many, many Brits (and Aussies, and Canadians, and Germans, etc., etc., though I think Brits are the most numerous non-American continegent) are taking part in those discussions.

Kara, Always a good idea to put their shoes on your own feet to see how you will respond to the same circumstances. Bravo! c.i.

I cannot believe that this is your view of the world. Then, again, perhaps I do believe it completely. I see it and hear it every day all around me.

Is it all about what we, as the Superman of the world, want and need and command?. In the view of us as bullies, what is it that the rest of the world is to like? Do they view our world philosophy -- which seems to be I Have More Weapons Than You -- as a moral dictum? This is now the pragmatic reality. There is no ethical statement here. The statement is We beat you. We are right.

Now, the rest of the world knows how to deal. Get weapons. Get nuclear power.

And they are threatening just to do exactly that. c.i.

I need to expand; the Middle East countries are saying that only Israel is allowed to have nukes, and that is wrong. They also wish to have nukes for "defensive" use. What's the problem with that? c.i.

Mutual Assured Destruction=MAD

dys, This world is way past that point. Too many countries already have nukes, and the potential for MAD have existed for over half a century. c.i.

Kara wrote:

<I cannot comprehend being invaded in our cities and rural towns and seeing soldiers with guns ordering our everyday lives. >

Kara please forgive me for breaking in on your conversation with Timber but I am honestly trying to understand the conceptual basis for your viewpoint.

You also wrote:

<Is it that you see what we do as benign, and what they do as malignant? >

Both of your statements above remind me of the following quote(author unknown to me)

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

You do not question Timbers logic but instead voice an emotional appeal which implies that in the case of Saddam you ignore his historical sadistic oppressive dictatorship and somehow compare his actions to ours. In your other statement you also make an emotional appeal ignoring the fact that you have never known anything but freedom but yet somehow you would deny the Iragi people the same chance because there will be some violence.

You and all participants on this forum seem to forget that our history is probably the most violent of any nation in the world but yet we have that freedom which everyone values so highly.

You and I will probably never agree on anything but I will continue searching for the key that will unlock the basis for our divergence of opinion.

You said once that you did not want to deal with my anger----well I'm not angry anymore ------ merely seeking understanding.

Posts fly fast here and I'm expecting to missquite a few, especially over the next few days when my laptop is being mended.

I'm very pleased to have found a forum with those backing Bush because although it's reassuring to speak with those similarly minded to me, I like to hear two sides of any story told passionately so that the truth may emerge.

Perc, you say:
"You know that I am tolerant and very understanding of the opinions of others as long as those opinions are identified as such."
and follow with:
"Dafdaf has not revealed the "studies" that he actively engaged in and he may be on the verge of being awarded a PHD in American foreign relations but even a PHD cannot accurately forcast the consequences of current actions."

I wasn't aware that I had to state that a prediction of the future was opinion over fact. Unless you know something I don't, I cannot see how one is ever to be able to describe the future factually before the event has happened?

My opinion is that Bush is isolating America (and consequently the UK) and creating vast rifts in world diplomacy. It's also my opinion that were this present trend to continue, we will ultimately reach a third world war. I don't feel that this will happen though, as I have faith that Bush will finally acknowledge his mistake and stop conquoring.

A private question directed to you - Why do you believe Bush did invade?

This post wasn't directed at me, but it's reminded me of a point i've felt the urge of raising for quite some time. I apologise for butting in though.

There is a very frustrating myth that has been passed around the pro-war side that has helped keep those with views at each extreme, ignorant of each other's logic. The sides of the argument are apparently split to: those that dislike Saddam; and those who support him. This is wrong. It has nothing to do with supporting the guy or not, it's to do with the method in which we choose to remove him.

The impression i've picked up is that you (prec) are pro-war, anti-Saddam. I am anti-war, anti-Saddam. But the evils and cruelty the guy has spread is entirely irrelevent to how we choose to remove him.

I am against the war as I knew beforehand (yes, crystal ball time) that thousands of lives would be ended, and countless more shattered with dead family members, injuries, poverty, fear, homelesssness and so on. And being the smart person i'm sure you are, you no doubt realised the same results. The only actual difference between our views is that you feel end justified the means whereas I do not.

Had we gone dimplomatically (at least at first) then these means needn't have happened.

dafdaf wrote:

<I wasn't aware that I had to state that a prediction of the future was opinion over fact. >

Correct me if I'm wrong but the wording implied that you have an omniscient assertion that President Bushs actions have "left itchy scars that will take decades to heal" Really........... this seems more than a mere prediction or opinion?

As for your question to me ----Why did Bush invade? Why don't you ask me when I intend to stop beating my wife? You remind me of one of the Al Jazeera questioners at the CENTCOM daily briefing. If you would like to rephrase your question I will attempt to answer it .