A new reason for attacking Iraq added to the US list

Ashie, Ashie, Ashie - if I may continue with the form of address which you have chosen to use - you say " U.S./British military bases need have no coercive effect on any Iraqi government that might be formed in the coming weeks and months. On the other hand, having those bases nearby will help to promote stability and support in the new Iraqi government."

I am unable to comprehend why you think that the presence of the military bases (should they be placed in Iraq) of countries which have just invaded the country could have anything other than a coercive effect on any possible Iraqi government! Do you seriously think that such a government would feel free to act against perceived American interests?

(Let us leave alone for a moment any argument about the rightness or wrongness of such bases - or about their acceptance and effect on Japan and Germany, which would be interesting discussions in themselves.)

I did not, in fact, say anything about puppet regimes - that term is yours - however, to consider any possible Iraqi regime string free is, I think, obviously ridiculous.

I am very surprised at your view that American bases on Iraqi soil in the long term would not be abhorrent to an Islamic nation - although, on consideration, I can see that it might not be so abhorrent to any government arising out of the current conditions, which will owe a lot to the USA. Even such a government will, eventually, especially if some sort of democracy is set up, be answerable to its people - how do you think the USA would react if the Iraqi people democratically demanded the removal of any foreign military presence?

As for the government's lying about the causes for the war - I saw few of the causes you mention raised as justification for the invasion - most particularly I saw no mention of possible military bases being established in the propaganda build up.

I believe lying to be achieved by omission as well as commission - and that omitting the kind of strategic actions now being discussed (although they were, I think, pretty obvious to most) while emphasising a whole range of emotive and ill-proven causes is an example of lying by governments.

I am interested to see oil mentioned on your list - however glancingly - since the accusation that the war had anything to do with oil has been so hotly denied by many war supporters.

I tried to download your lexicon - but it wouldn't open!!!!

Bunny,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make the rabbit rabid. If I did not hold you in some regard, I would not have taken the trouble to respond fully to your questions.



Sure. Why not? The U.S. has bases in countries all over the world, yet the local governments are free to be sometimes very anti-American. The host countries invariably benefit from our presence.



Alright, granted you didn't use the term "puppet". However, that was your clear meaning, and you've admitted it in the quotation cited above.



I expect that we would fold our tents, and relocate to some other more congenial spot. We left the finest naval base in the South Pacific, and now the government of the Philippine Islands would like us back. This is the United States we are talking about, not Nazi Germany, the USSR, the PRC, or France.



Not all reasons necessitating this, or any war, are likely to be made public. I, and others, believe that there were many reasons and justifications for this war ... not some single simple sound bite. The justification was made to the appropriate bodies (elected representatives and senators in Congress), the reasons given them must have been sufficient for they approved the Executives decision to utilize military force.

Do governments lie, either directly or by omission? Sure they do, and anyone who thinks otherwise is terribly naive. Of all the governments in the world, none are more truthful than the United States, Britain and the former Common Wealth nations. Some times what some might regard as a lie, or omission, is nothing more than an innocent mis-spoken comment delivered without due consideration. We hear personal biases pronounced as national policies when they are nothing of the sort, but only the belief of the speaker. Some programs, or information, would be compromised to the great determent of the nation if they were revealed to the world. Political leaders evade probing not by lying, but be misdirection, silence, or "spin". I know that many think that wrong, but the practical realities of living in a world of competing nations makes it necessary for survival. The Executives of the U.S., Britain, and the former Common Wealth countries DO tell the true as they believe it to be to the appropriate representatives of the People. That's enough, if you elect people who represent your own system of values.

Oil is one of many factors, that combined, made this war necessary. I don't think anyone in the administration said it was not. What they said repeatedly is that oil was not the overriding reason. The only reasons that were absolutely ruled out were the charges that we were invading an innocent little country to build some sort of Empire.

Asherman - I do not believe it is rabid to voice objection to being patronised.

"Tis way past time when I ought to be asleep if I am to work effectively tomorrow - so I shall not respond further to you rpost at this time.

What was patronizing? You asked a series of questions, and I answered them.

US concensus prior to Iraqi war?
Asherman wrote: "Not all reasons necessitating this, or any war, are likely to be made public. I, and others, believe that there were many reasons and justifications for this war ... not some single simple sound bite. The justification was made to the appropriate bodies (elected representatives and senators in Congress), the reasons given them must have been sufficient for they approved the Executives decision to utilize military force."

I suspect that there was more partisan-based support for the President's proposed Iraqi war than strong belief in the need for it. As for support by Congress for it's approval, I don't recall any discussion about changing historic US foreign policy re responding to an attack and taking unilateral action against a feared attack. So what was the basis of Congress's support? I've come to doubt that most of the Congress did not know they were voting to change the nature of US foreign policy. Had they known, I'm sure there would have been a long and passionate debate re the issue. Does anyone recall such a debate---or was I asleep?

----BumbleBeeBoogie

You have to install the program babylon, but it's not worth it (for my lexicon), I lost the larger one I had worked on and that one is little more than just a vocabulary list. Babylon thought it was nice and I gave it to them because they gave me a free pro version of their software.

Ash you do it all the time, you twist people's names into things like dreamer etc.

I have avoided interaction with you since you began doing this and that recruiter bit.

This in an outright lie (or memory dump). I'll give one example (because just one is needed to refute "invariably") Gitmo.



Heck, what's to discuss, those guys are always right huh?



That is my predominant qualm, I believe that those who delienated the "new American century" want precisely that. The modern empire.

I don't see Cuba being hurt by Guantanamo, they will someday have the option of declining to renew the lease. Apparantly, the Philippines felt that Clark AFB and Subic were not to their advantage at the existing lease rates. They increase the cost; we left. No problem. I would expect the same options to exist in Iraq if and when we or they accept an offer to establish bases.

Ash did not say hurt, he said "invariably benefit". Mighty big difference, in any case Gitmo can easily be argued to be a thorn in Cuba's side. It's hard to argue that it's somehow to their benefit.

Us intentions in Iraq pure?????
I find it extremely difficult, in fact, impossible to believe that US intentions are pure towards Iraq, for the following reasons: (When I say US, I mean the current Bush administration).

Why did the US defend the oil wells, instead of the hospitals. What's more important. Peoples lives or oil?

Why did the US army try to stop the press from reporting on an anti-US demonstration in Iraq.

Why did the US use cluster bombs.

Why is the US so quick to get oil contracts in Iraq, and why is it when I visit US news web sites, there's more news about Iraq's oil, than there is about the people still suffering in Iraq.

Why doesn't the US want UN weapon inspectors back in Iraq. And where are these 'so-called' weapons of mass destruction. Was this a fabrication? An excuse for the US to attack Iraq?


The majority of the Iraqi people want Iraq to be an Islamic state, the US doesn't. If US intentions were pure, and this war was only about WMD's and freeing Iraqi people, the US would not press their views on the Iraqi people about what type of government they should have.

If US intentions were pure, they would have at least had some sort of plan for the aftermath of this war. Did they really believe that Iraq would be pleased and everything would be fine, after removing all essential services from Iraq. The US has left Iraq in a mess. If they aren't going to help the Iraqi's restore some resemblance of organized society, why are the still there?

I could go on, but I can't be bothered.