[mojo2]

Has the Iraq War Made Us Safer?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.4229d6d.html

Has the Iraq War Made Us Safer?
Gary Schmitt
Dallas Morning News
September 11, 2005


Are we as a nation safer for having invaded Iraq? Was the decision to remove Saddam from power after 9-11 a step forward in the war on terror, or not? The answer is yes.

Is the answer absolutely, yes? Of course not. Wars don't work that way. Did the decision by the country to wage war on both Japan and Germany in the wake of Pearl Harbor make the U.S. safer at first? No. Even after critical successes at Midway, in North Africa and Italy, thousands of Americans still lost their lives. The war had to be won, and the cost was high precisely because our enemies knew it was going to be a fight to the death. And Americans understood that security could not be had in a piecemeal fashion given the nature of the enemies we faced.

I think it has moved us in the right direction.

[Goldfinger]

No, it didn't.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

No, it didn't.

Ok. I'll play.

Yes, it did.

Your turn, now.

[Goldfinger]

Do you really believe that you can win from terrorists ? You're fighting an invisible enemy. It's a waste of time. The comparison with world war 2 is ridiculous.

[chabig]

Are you suggesting that when fighting terrorists the best course of action is to just roll over and let them kill us? Of course you can fight terrorists, by going after them where they live, where they get their funding, their supporters, their safe houses, etc.

[christ]

Originally Posted by chabig

Are you suggesting that when fighting terrorists the best course of action is to just roll over and let them kill us? Of course you can fight terrorists, by going after them where they live, where they get their funding, their supporters, their safe houses, etc.

... and this has what, precisely, to do with Iraq?

[OldManMac]

We are no safer today than before the war, period. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of unprotected chemical plants, our railways are wide open, our borders (for the most part) are wide open, etc. Short of living in a police state (which GWB no doubt wouldn't mind), we can't make ourselves "safe." Life offers no gaurantees, and the sad fact that you're more likely to get killed by someone you know, or by a car accident, or by an industrial accident, or by a drunk driver, etc., clearly shows that. Some people, however, need something to fix on to divert their attention from the real problems in life, so they choose "terrorists," while ignoring reality.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by chabig

Are you suggesting that when fighting terrorists the best course of action is to just roll over and let them kill us?

No but the way they're doing it right now is not how they should do it.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by KarlG

We are no safer today than before the war, period. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of unprotected chemical plants, our railways are wide open, our borders (for the most part) are wide open, etc. Short of living in a police state (which GWB no doubt wouldn't mind), we can't make ourselves "safe." Life offers no gaurantees, and the sad fact that you're more likely to get killed by someone you know, or by a car accident, or by an industrial accident, or by a drunk driver, etc., clearly shows that. Some people, however, need something to fix on to divert their attention from the real problems in life, so they choose "terrorists," while ignoring reality.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by chabig

Are you suggesting that when fighting terrorists the best course of action is to just roll over and let them kill us? Of course you can fight terrorists, by going after them where they live, where they get their funding, their supporters, their safe houses, etc.

Thank you!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by christ

... and this has what, precisely, to do with Iraq?

You LOVE asking that question in just that manner, don't you?

I can see why you would. You wouldn't have to do anything but sit there and poke holes in the arguments that might make sense to you if you'd shift your brain out of neutral and entertain the information and evidence that is just on the current menu of P/L thread topics.

For example, why not explain why YOU, christ, aren't partly responsible for the invasion.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Hahaha!!!

Yes, you could have!

In fact, so could KarlG! And I'll give him a do-over if he wants it. He started out on point and then got lost along the way and what was looking like a hard comment to refute ended up a philosophical cliche!

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You LOVE asking that question in just that manner, don't you?

I can see why you would. You wouldn't have to do anything but sit there and poke holes in the arguments that might make sense to you if you'd shift your brain out of neutral and entertain the information and evidence that is just on the current menu of P/L thread topics.

For example, why not explain why YOU, christ, aren't partly responsible for the invasion.

There is no evidence on this board. There is a bunch of opinions and google links.

I enjoy the forum, the debates, the arguments, etc. But, in the long run it is nothing but a bunch of peoples opinions. People who essentially sit back and armchair quarterback the political arena.

It's a lot of fun, but I don't know if I would call any of it evidence!

[James L]

Originally Posted by chabig

Of course you can fight terrorists, by going after them where they live, where they get their funding, their supporters, their safe houses, etc.

Good post. This is exactly what we did in Afghanistan.

I do not see a correlation between the Iraq invasion and your post, however.

Sure, there are many insurgents in Iraq NOW, but they are comprised of people fighting to get an oppressor out of their country, and terrorists who have flocked to Iraq as a result of the US led invasion.

Then, we have mojo's oil theory, which still doesn't really tie in with what you said.

My question, which I have asked before, is why it appears that the US kisses Saudi Arabia's ass when SA has direct links to Osama (he is from SA), when 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were from SA, and when there are known SA links to the Al Qaeda?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hahaha!!!

Yes, you could have!

In fact, so could KarlG! And I'll give him a do-over if he wants it. He started out on point and then got lost along the way and what was looking like a hard comment to refute ended up a philosophical cliche!

I know it's hard for you to deal with basic facts, but please try.

[BRussell]

Terrorism has increased significantly in the past several years. But mojo, I think you're asking the wrong question. I doubt anyone would think we're genuine safer right now. How can you be safer in the middle of a war? The question remains for the future - will we ultimately be safer as a result of the war? I doubt it, because I don't think you can impose peace, especially in a region with the history that the Middle East has. But it remains to be seen - maybe it will work to moderate the region in a kind of domino effect. I'd definitely be willing to say it's possible.

How about looking at it like this: What are the odds that the war will make us safer, what are the odds that it will make us less safe, and what are the odds that it won't change. Then, what odds are you willing to accept in order to go to war?

Just to throw out some numbers, I'd say I'd be willing to go to war if the odds of success were 90%, and I think the odds that it will be successful were 50%. Therefore, I wouldn't have gone to war. What are your numbers mojo?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Terrorism has increased significantly in the past several years. But mojo, I think you're asking the wrong question. I doubt anyone would think we're genuine safer right now. How can you be safer in the middle of a war? The question remains for the future - will we ultimately be safer as a result of the war? I doubt it, because I don't think you can impose peace, especially in a region with the history that the Middle East has. But it remains to be seen - maybe it will work to moderate the region in a kind of domino effect. I'd definitely be willing to say it's possible.

How about looking at it like this: What are the odds that the war will make us safer, what are the odds that it will make us less safe, and what are the odds that it won't change. Then, what odds are you willing to accept in order to go to war?

Just to throw out some numbers, I'd say I'd be willing to go to war if the odds of success were 90%, and I think the odds that it will be successful were 50%. Therefore, I wouldn't have gone to war. What are your numbers mojo?

Very very intelligent post, I must say.

There is no way that America can be safer as a country during a war, simply because if you are to include the military as part of America... well they are in significant danger.

At any rate, it is my belief that after the war we will probably be a bit safer. Not a whole lot though. I do not think that the key in this war is to make us safer, but to make the terrorists less safe. If a western-style democracy is accepted and established in the ME, terrorists will have a much harder time finding a place to stay, as many dictators will not want to lose power and will deny terrorists refuge, fearing US action.

I think that the war on terror relies on the democratization of the ME. Iraq should be considered an early step.

========

Re: odds, I do not think that the probablility of something happening should determine the course of action as much as the magnitude of the negative consequence. If we didn't go to war, we would be running the risk that Saddam indeed had WMDs. Now, not considering the chances of that intel being accurate and Saddam actually having WMDs, the magnitude of what would happen if he did far exceeds the magnitude of what is happening now.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by loki74

Very very intelligent post, I must say.

There is no way that America can be safer as a country during a war, simply because if you are to include the military as part of America... well they are in significant danger.

At any rate, it is my belief that after the war we will probably be a bit safer. Not a whole lot though. I do not think that the key in this war is to make us safer, but to make the terrorists less safe. If a western-style democracy is accepted and established in the ME, terrorists will have a much harder time finding a place to stay, as many dictators will not want to lose power and will deny terrorists refuge, fearing US action.

I think that the war on terror relies on the democratization of the ME. Iraq should be considered an early step.

========

Re: odds, I do not think that the probablility of something happening should determine the course of action as much as the magnitude of the negative consequence. If we didn't go to war, we would be running the risk that Saddam indeed had WMDs. Now, not considering the chances of that intel being accurate and Saddam actually having WMDs, the magnitude of what would happen if he did far exceeds the magnitude of what is happening now.

Still don't get it do ya?

WE

HAD

NO

[mojo2]

This is all still an elective assignment as far as you see it, huh?

Tell me, have you accepted your share of the responsibility for the invasion yet?

[loki74]

im confused!

edit:

wait wait wait.. you mean, we had no choice??

Yeah, I know. Well I guess technically speaking we "always have a choice." But to ignore the wmd intel (regardless of whether or not it turned out to be accurate) is a risk one would have to be very very very dumb to take.

As far as my personal responsibility for the war in Iraq... thats where I'm even more confused.

Mojo, youre usually good at making things clearer for me... whats up?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by loki74

im confused!

I doubt it.

Ooops. I didn't see your post was there. I THOUGHT I was responding to BRussell.

Sorry to both of you.

loki74, disregard the last three of my posts.

I was talking to BRussell.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Terrorism has increased significantly in the past several years. But mojo, I think you're asking the wrong question. I doubt anyone would think we're genuine safer right now. How can you be safer in the middle of a war? The question remains for the future - will we ultimately be safer as a result of the war? I doubt it, because I don't think you can impose peace, especially in a region with the history that the Middle East has. But it remains to be seen - maybe it will work to moderate the region in a kind of domino effect. I'd definitely be willing to say it's possible.

How about looking at it like this: What are the odds that the war will make us safer, what are the odds that it will make us less safe, and what are the odds that it won't change. Then, what odds are you willing to accept in order to go to war?

Just to throw out some numbers, I'd say I'd be willing to go to war if the odds of success were 90%, and I think the odds that it will be successful were 50%. Therefore, I wouldn't have gone to war. What are your numbers mojo?

Ahem, as I was saying (mistakenly) to loki74...

BRussell, you still don't get it, do ya?

We had no choice.

Yes, I know...woulda...coul...sh...

But there is NO DOUBT that Osama had warned us about stuff before and we ignored him at our risk and POW. We found out he wasn't playin.

So W T F do you think W SHOULD HAVE DONE after OSAMA literally...yes literally tells us he is going to Fuxx us up? THREE MONTHS AFTER 9/11???

You would be the FIRST one screamin and yellin how the MF needs to be impeached for incompetence and negligence...

Meanwhile, (flash forward to today) you've got your percentages well, yes, I'd say this percent was here and THAT percent was then and bull crap!

How much oil did you burn today, huh?

Look around the room and tell me what of all those things did you buy since 9/11?

Well, GWB made those things possible.

And the terrorists who are dead now means we are those many MF's safer than we were when they were breathin.

The only way I see our being less safe is if Osama blows nukes. And he was gonna do THAT ANYWAY!!!!

So, we are fighting for our lives and it's about frickin time you all woke the Fuxx up to that fact and thank Bush for your ability to sit there in your comfy surroundings and crack wise.

There some of you I would wrap around a pole if I could. Suck asses.

Not all of you, but SOME!

[BRussell]

Bush had no choice? Why do you say that?

Let's play a game. What if Bush hadn't invaded? What would things be like there right now?

I think it's pretty clear that Iraq would be capable of producing more oil, there would be less terrorism there, and the country would be more stable. It would of course still be a dictatorship, but if your goal is more oil and less terrorism, which yours seems to be, then a stable strong-arm dictatorship is certainly preferable to what's going on there now.

[edit] Hopefully it's obvious that there's more terrorism and less stability in Iraq now, but in case you doubt that there's less oil production too, check this out, from an article a couple days ago.

Iraq's oil production has fallen below prewar levels to its lowest point in a decade, depriving the country's fledgling government of badly needed income and preventing the United States from achieving one of its main reconstruction goals.

Iraq's oil wells — beset by equipment problems and saboteurs — are producing about 1.9 million barrels a day in net production, lower than the 2.6 million it was producing just before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to the London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES).

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Good post. This is exactly what we did in Afghanistan.

I do not see a correlation between the Iraq invasion and your post, however.

Sure, there are many insurgents in Iraq NOW, but they are comprised of people fighting to get an oppressor out of their country, and terrorists who have flocked to Iraq as a result of the US led invasion.

Then, we have mojo's oil theory, which still doesn't really tie in with what you said.

My question, which I have asked before, is why it appears that the US kisses Saudi Arabia's ass when SA has direct links to Osama (he is from SA), when 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were from SA, and when there are known SA links to the Al Qaeda?

mojo's theory?

MOJO'S THEORY???

Until you frickin make it JamesL's theory you are gonna be behind the stinkin curve, pal!

I'm gonna indulge in a little interesting challenge for myself...I'm going to see how many different times I can find that say what I'm sayin. Then, maybe I can take credit for all of THOSE articles and newspapers and magazines and TV networks. And you can call CBS News MOJO'S NEWS. The Wall Street Journal will become The Mojo Journal.

No, James it would be DOPEY to think this was MY theory. I mean someone would have to be a real ...nevermind...

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

National Guard Should Protect People, Not Oil

Highlighted Documents

Oil Companies in Iraq: A Century of Rivalry and War (November 2003)
James A. Paul analyzes the power and influence of US and UK oil companies. He discusses their century-long interest in Iraqi oil and the likelihood that control of Iraq's huge oil reserves drove seven wars, including the 2003 conflict. (Global Policy Forum)

Iraq: the Struggle for Oil (August, 2002)
James A. Paul analyzes the influence of Iraq's oil on UN sanctions policy. Behind the threatened war on Iraq, there is a US drive for "free access" to Iraqi oil and control by US and UK companies over Iraq's vast riches in oil and gas resources. (Global Policy Forum)

Oil in Iraq: the Heart of the Crisis (December, 2002)
International oil companies stand to profit enormously from control over Iraq's high-quality, plentiful oil supply and lucrative gas reserves. James A. Paul argues that a US-dominated Iraq would support US and UK oil companies' claims on Iraq's state-owned oil and nullify Iraqi contracts with France and Russia. (Global Policy Forum)

The Iraq Oil Bonanza: Estimating Future Profits (January 28, 2004)
This short paper estimates potential long-term profits by private oil companies in Iraq. By using different estimates for four key variables, including price and company/government share out of oil rents, the paper arrives at total profit estimates ranging from approximately $600 billion to $9 trillion. The “most probable” estimate yields annual profits from Iraq production of $95 billion per year for 50 years, a rate three times greater than the 2002 worldwide profits of the five largest international companies.(Global Policy Forum)

The Byzantine Beginnings: The Quest for Oil (April 25, 2003)
Since the discovery of oil in the Middle East in 1908, western powers have sought dominance over the region’s resources. Dr. Ferruh Demirmen examines western influence in Iraq’s oil industry, from the creation of the Turkish Petroleum Company in 1911 by the UK, the Netherlands and Germany to the entry of US oil giants after World War I. (Global Policy Forum)

The Byzantine Beginnings: The Reign of a Monopoly (April 26, 2003)
The Turkish Petroleum Company’s (TPC) creation by the UK aimed at seeking concessions to explore for Iraqi oil, to eliminate rivalry among TPC’s partners and to compete with US oil companies. This paper examines the history of Iraq’s oil industry from World War I to 1972 and assesses the “winners and losers” of the Iraq oil game. (Global Policy Forum)

Great Power Conflict over Iraqi Oil: the World War I Era (October, 2002)
Western interests in and conflicts over Iraqi oil predate World War I. This article by James A. Paul describes how major international powers have combined military force and private and government pressure to control Iraq’s oil. (Global Policy Forum)

Oil in Iraqi History
On this page we post many materials on the history of Iraq’s oil and the international struggles to control it. Of special interest is information on the control of Iraq oil in the World War I era, the role of the international companies in Iraq and the Middle East, and the disputes leading up to Iraq’s oil nationalization in 1972.

The Observer | International | US buys up Iraqi oil to stave off ...
... places the emphasis on 'protection' of Iraq's oil for Iraq's people. ...
If US and UK forces have victory in Iraq, the battle for its oil will have only ...
observer.guardian.co.uk/international/ story/0,6903,882512,00.html - 52k - Cached - Similar pages

Military Families Speak Out : National Guard sent to protect oil ...
National Guard sent to protect oil, not people (by MFSO Member Stacy Bannerman)
... More than a third of the US soldiers based in Iraq belong to the ...
www.mfso.org/article.php?id=390 - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Foreign Policy In Focus | Op-Ed | National Guard Sent to Protect ...
National Guard Sent to Protect Oil, not People ... More than a third of the US
soldiers based in Iraq belong to the Reserves or National Guard. ...
www.fpif.org/fpifoped/1282 - 10k - Oct 13, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
Lacking sufficient troops to protect the oil facilities and all the other
infrastructure ... Even if US companies later were to gain access to Iraqi fields, ...
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI22Ak01.html - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

Protecting US Oil Interests in Iraq.
Protecting US Oil Interests in Iraq. Instead of bailing-out the Iraqi people,
new debt for Iraq’s people will formally accrue through the program that ...
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4264.htm - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war: Protect Oil - Independent Media TV
Top Stories Ignored By US Media. Bush gives new reason for Iraq war: Protect Oil
... continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, ...
http://www.independent-media.tv/item..._id=11794& fcategory_desc=Top%20Stories%20Ignored%20By%20U.S. %... - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war: Protect Oil - Independent Media TV
Iraq. Bush gives new reason for Iraq war: Protect Oil. August 31, 2005 ...
with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the ...
www.independent-media.tv/item. cfm?fmedia_id=11794&fcategory_desc=Iraq - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.independent-media.tv ]

TomDispatch - Tomgram: Michael Klare on Iraq's Missing Sea of Oil
More Blood, Less Oil. The Failed US Mission to Capture Iraqi Petroleum ...
These oil-protection operations have proved extremely hazardous. ...
www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=22859 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush: US Must Protect Iraq From Terror
Bush: US Must Protect Iraq From Terror. ... While Bush has avoided making links
between the war and Iraq's oil reserves, the soaring cost of gasoline has ...
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/ n/a/2005/08/30/national/w124551D09.DTL - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Earthrights International - News: Outrageous Bush Executive Order ...
The title of the EO, “Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain ...
This EO may be about Iraq, but it’s also about the oil industry exclusively. ...
www.earthrights.org/news/eo13303.shtml - 17k - Oct 13, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

US INTENTIONS
A Sobering Look at the Oil Numbers Behind the US Panic to Invade Iraq ... plan is
to take the oil fields as quickly as possible, supposedly to protect them ...
www.fromthewilderness.com/ free/ww3/030703_us_intentions.html - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

Aljazeera.Net - Iraq oil - the target for years
US policy towards Iraq has always been shaped by the country’s rich oil ...
and the US hurried to protect and preserve its interests in the oil-rich region. ...
english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ E07D937C-456F-48C9-90FF-A2C87F2DB724.htm - 60k - Oct 13, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Immunity for Iraqi Oil Dealings Raises Alarm
... and production of Iraqi oil to advertising and sales at US gas pumps. ...
Treasury Department officials said the order would not protect an oil company ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-03.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

Iraq Country Analysis Brief
... $40 million contract to train 6500 armed guard to protect Iraqi oil wells,
... US Oil Imports from Iraq (2004E): 652000 bbl/d (January-February 2005E): ...
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

Ambassador Baker explains US Iraq policy on Japanese TV
Ambassador Baker explains US Iraq policy on Japanese TV ... But this is not a
war by the United States to protect oil for the United States. ...
japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20030303c3.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

Coalition Maritime Forces Revise Iraqi Oil Terminal Protection ...
A US Marine stands security watch on the deck of the Al Basrah Oil Terminal (
... Coalition Maritime Forces Revise Iraqi Oil Terminal Protection Procedures ...
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/disp...story_id=13177 - 17k - Oct 13, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Environment News Service ENS Latest Environmental Information ...
Tribes Accused of Iraq Oil Protection Racket. By Samah Samad. KIRKUK, Iraq, June
10, 2005 (ENS) - A main oil pipeline in northern Iraq was blown up by ...
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2...5-06-10-03.asp - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Think Progress » Bush: We Need To Stay In Iraq to Protect Oil Fields
If we’re there to protect the oil fields we are doing a horrible job of it. ...
Now Marblex, if we bring the National Guard back to the US from Iraq, ...
thinkprogress.org/2005/08/31/bush-oil/ - 64k - Cached - Similar pages

Democracy Now! | Operation Oily Immunity: Bush Quietly Moves to ...
Operation Oily Immunity: Bush Quietly Moves to Protect US Oil Interests in Iraq
... Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable ...
http://www.democracynow.org/article....3/08/04/151238 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

The New US-British Oil Imperialism
5/25/03: Iraq's New US-Appointed Oil "Minister" Cancels Former Contracts with
Russia and ... 12/21/02: US Bases in Afghanistan to Protect Oil Pipelines ...
www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

Neela Banerjee, "Russia Sends Message to US About Iraqi Oil ...
Neela Banerjee, "Russia Sends Message to US About Iraqi Oil Contracts," New ...
in Iraq if the Bush administration moved to protect Russian oil interests in ...
www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/lukoil.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Tell the US and UK: oil revenues must be used to secure rights of ...
In the wake of the conflict in Iraq, there has been a scramble among ... Tell the
US and UK: oil revenues must be used to secure rights of all Iraqis ...
web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-actnow-eng - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

DoD News: US Plans To Preserve Iraq's Oil For Iraqi People
US plans are first to prevent the destruction of Iraq's oil fields and ...
US military forces would be responsible for securing and protecting the oil sites ...
www.defenselink.mil/releases/ 2003/b03062003_bt100-03.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

The US War on Iraq: Yet Another Battle To Protect Israeli Interests?
The US War on Iraq: Yet Another Battle To Protect Israeli Interests? ...
"The pipeline [of Iraqi oil] to Haifa is considered a 'bonus' the US will give to ...
www.wrmea.com/archives/October_2003/0310006.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

ZNet |Iraq | More Blood, Less Oil
More Blood, Less Oil. The Failed US Mission to Capture Iraqi Petroleum ...
Lacking sufficient troops to protect the oil facilities and all the other ...
www.zmag.org/content/showarticle. cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8779 - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Sigh. I'm bored. I know what is happening and if jameL. still doesn't recognize the truth then he can xxx my xxx.

If you will recall, BEFORE the president came out and admitted we were there to protect the oil, where did you hear it first?

Not you, JamesL. You still haven't heard the news.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by loki74

Very very intelligent post, I must say.

Wow thank you. You're right that you need to take into account not just the probability of things happening, but also the badness/goodness of the things themselves.

[mojo2]

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Version



June 02, 2004, 8:35 a.m.
Is Saudi Oil Worth the Trouble?
Al Qaeda wants us to stop buying KSA’s oil. It’s not a bad idea.


The May 29 al Qaeda attack in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, was intended to get one important point across. Al Qaeda wants us to stop buying Saudi oil. I think they are onto something.

The attacks were carried out by followers of Abdulaziz al-Muqrin, leader of the al Qaeda organization in the Arabian Peninsula. Muqrin has a familiar pedigree, having cut his teeth in Afghanistan, then fighting Serbs in Bosnia in the 1990s, conspiring to kill Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during a visit to Ethiopia in 1996, spending two years in Saudi jails under torture, and seeking revenge ever since. Murqin is said to have taken the leadership role of the organization after Saudi security forces gunned down Yemeni Khaled Ali Haj on March 15. Muqrin has shown himself an aggressive commander, and his group has been on an offensive since he took over. In April, he stated that the "Crusaders and Jews" were going to have a "harder and harsher" year in the region, and in the last two months there have been six terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia. Americans are not their only targets; the terrorists bragged about "slaughtering" Japanese, Swedish, Italian, and Indian hostages in Khobar. Muqrin's group was also behind the May 1 terror attack at Yanbu in western Saudi Arabia that killed one policeman and five Western oil workers, one of whom, an American, was dragged through the streets. In a statement praising the Yanbu attackers, Muqrin said the target was chosen because "it was the site of many Western oil firms occupying our land economically and stealing its wealth."

To be fair, al Qaeda doesn't really want us to stop buying Saudi oil, just to stop stealing it. Osama bin Laden has argued that the price of petroleum — even at $40 barrel — is so low as to constitute extortion. It is kept at this artificially deflated price through U.S. coercion and Saudi complicity. Osama argues that the fair price of oil is somewhere above $200/barrel. How he determined this is anyone's guess, but he has a propensity to view the world in medieval terms, so he may have derived this from the Dark Age notion of intrinsic value. (One wonders if oil was intrinsically worth the equivalent of $200/barrel during the Caliphate, and if so why?)

By attacking energy sources al Qaeda is hitting two targets. First, they are attempting to damage our economy. Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is a form of flank attack. This is not to say that they might not also target the homeland — note the recent threat alert directed to U.S. oil and natural-gas terminals, processing facilities, and pipelines. However, attacks on the global energy infrastructure are likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and are easier to pull off. The physical damage they can inflict is less important than the fear they can promote in the marketplace — which leads to higher prices without keeping a single barrel of oil off the market. Furthermore, they not only hope to send our economy into recession (though no sign of a slowdown yet) but create a crisis of confidence in the political leadership.

The second and more immediate target is the House of Saud. The Saudi state is in a deepening systemic crisis. They face budget deficits, and a declining share of the global energy market. There are internal opposition movements, of which al Qaeda is only one manifestation. For example, there is a growing tribal-based separatist movement in the Hijaz region, in the western half of the country, which includes the two holy places of Mecca and Medina. The discontent is fueled by a growing, young population with no future prospects that has been radicalized by their own state-run religion. Saudi clerics had been preaching the merits of terrorism for years, and even after 9/11 would not denounce terrorist violence. This changed only last November when the terrorists reached Mecca. The Grand Mufti began — for the first time — denouncing suicide bombing and terrorism, particularly against Muslims. But it is late in the game to begin preaching nonviolence. Saudi Arabia is in a serious pre-revolutionary state, and it is no wonder that members of the Saudi elite have been busy buying up choice exile properties in southern France, Switzerland, and on the Lebanese coast.

Two years ago the Saudis were grumbling that the source of their problems was the U.S. presence in their country. We obligingly pulled out of our multimillion-dollar complex at Prince Sultan air base and moved operations to Qatar, a friendlier country with tighter security and a more liberal social scene. But matters have not improved for the Saudis since we left, and in fact have grown worse. Ironically, in Osama bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War he lists the departure of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia as the first step in bringing down the entire kingdom. Of course, we were not driven out by al Qaeda, and the U.S. is stronger in the region militarily than it ever has been. But Saudi Arabia grows less stable every week. We have sought to buttress the kingdom because it is the world's largest exporter of petroleum, and has shown a willingness — occasionally, and with much fretting — to help "stabilize" oil markets. Would that the Saudis could stabilize their own country as easily. But the petrodollars that have gone to that country, as well as Iran and others, have been exported back in the form of terrorism, a hostile anti-Western ideology, and weapons programs and proliferation. We should ask ourselves if it is worth the trouble.

The challenge for the United States is preparing for the coming crisis. Contingency planning for securing the oilfields if the terrorists manage to topple the Saudi regime would be prudent, as Michael Ledeen suggests. The United States should also, as I argued recently, put in place an energy-security strategy that weighs the demand for various forms of energy against the consequences of drawing it from areas that translate profits into threats. There are (comparatively) pro-Western countries like Kuwait and Qatar and the Emirates we can do more business with. There is also liberated Iraq, which is currently producing only two-thirds the oil that Saddam did in 2000 under the sanctions regime. And there are numerous suppliers elsewhere, particularly in the Western Hemisphere and the Gulf of Guinea on the west coast of Africa, which is about to experience an oil-production boom. We can get ahead of the situation if we plan for it now. And even if Saudi oil does not go offline, doesn't it make sense to encourage the development of the energy industry in parts of the world that are not spawning groups of religious fanatics and their state sponsors who are making it their business to end our way of life?

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbin...0406020835.asp

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Bush had no choice? Why do you say that?

Let's play a game. What if Bush hadn't invaded? What would things be like there right now?

I think it's pretty clear that Iraq would be capable of producing more oil, there would be less terrorism there, and the country would be more stable. It would of course still be a dictatorship, but if your goal is more oil and less terrorism, which yours seems to be, then a stable strong-arm dictatorship is certainly preferable to what's going on there now.

[edit] Hopefully it's obvious that there's more terrorism and less stability in Iraq now, but in case you doubt that there's less oil production too, check this out, from an article a couple days ago.

Why list links if nobody read them?

Similarly, we should remember that the war on terror is not just about defeating terrorists. The larger meaning of 9-11 was the recognition that the mix of terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction with dictatorial regimes who gave them support, and who themselves had or were seeking such weapons, was potentially too dangerous a brew for the United States to take a reactive stance toward. As such, the war to be waged requires not only taking on the terrorists themselves, but also the states that give them support or, through their governance, are spawning new cadres of jihadists.

On that broad front, America's record of success has been substantial, and we are the safer for it. Both the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and Saddam's Baathist rule in Iraq are history.

Two of the most brutal regimes in recent times can no longer call us their prime enemy. Libya's Moammar Gadhafi turned over his entire nuclear weapons program, while Pakistan's A.Q. Khan, once the world's leading purveyor of illicit nuclear technology, is no longer in business.

And while far from complete, the salve of political reform has begun to take hold in the region, with real elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, a dramatic reassertion of self-rule in Lebanon and even small but potentially significant changes taking place in the political systems of Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

For those who think that invading Iraq was a distraction, the question they have to answer is whether – with the exception of the progress made in Afghanistan – the record outlined above would have been conceivable absent removing Saddam and his henchmen from power. How power is used matters perhaps more in the Middle East than in any other region of the world.
Toppling Saddam wiped out a decade's worth of pan-Muslim hubris about America's weakness after the retreat from Somalia and, conversely, helped set the table for the progress that's been made so far.

Moreover, the war in Iraq has not stopped us from reforming the CIA and the FBI to better enable them to wage the war on terror or, for that matter, disrupting al-Qaeda cells in South and Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Nor have the disagreements with key allies over Iraq prevented them from fighting alongside us in Afghanistan, sharing intelligence on terrorism, joining the administration's Proliferation Security Initiative and, increasingly, taking the lead in challenging Iran on its nuclear program.

Iraq was not some sideshow when it comes to the broader war on terror. The fact that no WMD stockpiles were found – and the occupation poorly executed at times – does not mean that it was the wrong war at the wrong time. As both David Kay and Charles Duelfer, the heads of the post-war inspection team concluded, Saddam Hussein was still committed to acquiring those weapons. He had had them in the past and the evidence indicates he wanted them again.

Complicating matters further was the judgment that, as Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, stated, a policy of containing Iraq was not "sustainable over the long run." Given Saddam's own ambitions, his history of creating confrontations and the fact that the international consensus supporting the tough sanctions regime against Iraq was crumbling, the real issue is not whether we should have gone to war with Iraq but rather at whose time of choosing would we do so – Saddam's or ours.

Nor was removing Saddam from power tangential to the war on terror more narrowly defined. Of course, Saddam's Iraq had always been a home for and supporter of various terrorists, including a key participant in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. But what the mainstream media have largely ignored is the evidence of contacts and an evolving relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam in the 1990s.

Focused on the narrow question of whether Saddam had any hand in the attacks of 9-11, they have ignored the reports coming from prisoner debriefs, uncovered internal Iraqi intelligence documents and, for that matter, declassified Clinton-era National Security Council memos pointing toward a budding "marriage of convenience" between Saddam and bin Laden. As Thomas Kean, the co-chairman of the 9-11 Commission, put it: "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Indeed, given those growing ties, it's no surprise that the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were free to travel to Iraq and set up shop there in the wake of al-Qaeda's expulsion from Afghanistan.

And it is in Iraq – and not the U.S. – that the terrorists are now doing battle with us. If Iraq was a diversion, someone forgot to tell the jihadists whom we have killed or captured by the thousands there.

Whether it is a question of WMDs or support for terrorism, Saddam's Iraq was a ticking time bomb, and we are safer for having gotten rid of him.

In fact, despite the very substantial difficulties we face today in Iraq, the question to be asked is not simply whether we are safer today for having removed Saddam Hussein from power, but just how safe would we have been in the future if we hadn't?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Why list links if nobody read them?

Great, it's easy to find op-eds both ways on the Iraq war. How about dealing with some facts rather than opinions. Do you agree or disagree that the following are true:

1. Terrorism has massively increased in Iraq since we invaded, from probably none before the war to, well, every single day in 2004-2005).
2. Iraqi oil production has decreased since we invaded, largely due to terrorism.
3. Iraq is less stable since we invaded and its future is more uncertain.

Are these true or not? If not, please provide some evidence. If they are true, how do you reconcile them with your contention that our invasion would protect oil and reduce terrorism?

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

mojo's theory?

MOJO'S THEORY???

Until you frickin make it JamesL's theory you are gonna be behind the stinkin curve, pal!

I'm gonna indulge in a little interesting challenge for myself...

Well, to be fair, you indulge yourself daily like this place is your own blog, so today really shouldn't be any different!

There is a question waiting for you here:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/272651/curious/

[Busemann]

The war has not made the world safer. There is more global terrorism today than before the war, and Iraq has become a breeding ground for new terrorists. Although we're only two and a half years in, the war in Iraq seems to be the biggest mistake in the war against terror.

The libbies were right on this one, dude

[Athens]

Originally Posted by chabig

Are you suggesting that when fighting terrorists the best course of action is to just roll over and let them kill us? Of course you can fight terrorists, by going after them where they live, where they get their funding, their supporters, their safe houses, etc.

No but it doesn’t help to do things that will create more terrorists and give the terrorists a more valid cause. Afghanistan became a terrorist hot bed because of the Russian Invasion in the 80's. When they where done the country was totally unstable and the desperation of the ppl where right to follow radical ideas. The same thing is going on in Iraq now. Just creating a entirely new generation of terrorists with vivid memories and a cause.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

No but it doesn’t help to do things that will create more terrorists and give the terrorists a more valid cause. Afghanistan became a terrorist hot bed because of the Russian Invasion in the 80's. When they where done the country was totally unstable and the desperation of the ppl where right to follow radical ideas. The same thing is going on in Iraq now. Just creating a entirely new generation of terrorists with vivid memories and a cause.

But what do you say to the fact that WE HAVE eliminated the Taliban and al Qaeda is in hiding, there is a democratic Afghan government and that millions of people have endured hardship and risked their lives to vote for the first time in their lives?

If we hadn't gone after the terrorists none of this would have been.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by James L

Good post. This is exactly what we did in Afghanistan.

I do not see a correlation between the Iraq invasion and your post, however.

Sure, there are many insurgents in Iraq NOW, but they are comprised of people fighting to get an oppressor out of their country, and terrorists who have flocked to Iraq as a result of the US led invasion.

Then, we have mojo's oil theory, which still doesn't really tie in with what you said.

My question, which I have asked before, is why it appears that the US kisses Saudi Arabia's ass when SA has direct links to Osama (he is from SA), when 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were from SA, and when there are known SA links to the Al Qaeda?

Correction, thats exactly what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, the job isnt finished yet.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But what do you say to the fact that WE HAVE eliminated the Taliban and al Qaeda is in hiding, there is a democratic Afghan government and that millions of people have endured hardship and risked their lives to vote for the first time in their lives?

If we hadn't gone after the terrorists none of this would have been.

The Taliban is not eliminated, Canadian and American forces are still engaging them in Afghanistan. And CNN did a report about Americans forgotten war a couple week ago and a couple US solders who are in Afghanistan now who also served in Iraq would rather be fighting in Iraq, it was safer then there current operations in Afghanistan now. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the training camps where there, the leadership and bulk of OBL forces where there. Just to bad the job wasent finished properly and a new breeding ground was created to fuel terror.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Busemann

The war has not made the world safer. There is more global terrorism today than before the war, and Iraq has become a breeding ground for new terrorists. Although we're only two and a half years in, the war in Iraq seems to be the biggest mistake in the war against terror.

The libbies were right on this one, dude

Here are some SHOCKING upsets to conventional wisdom - or what often passes for CV here on THESE pages but the real world seems to understand and accept pretty well.

(Sometimes I feel like I'm responsible for modifying and debugging and upgrading woefully deficient units that came from the factory and that if I didn't do it all these inferior units would just go out and continue to infect the world with sub-par thoughts.)

Vegetables are still crisp until they are steamed for a long enough time. Before a cake is fully baked it is still wet. A case of the clap requires you to take ALL the medicine over the two weeks until you run out of medicine. A crappy job ain't over til the paperwork is done. It's a good thing nature prevents our meddling in the gestation of life itself or someone would be pokin at it and saying, "well, this OBVIOUSLY isn't working. Look, it's all mushy and gooey. It can't even cry or breathe or anything!"

EDIT: I just saw Athens' succinct post and hope some of you can better understand his statement if not mine.

And literally, there you've got the long and the short of it.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Here are some SHOCKING upsets to conventional wisdom - or what often passes for CV here on THESE pages but the real world seems to understand and accept pretty well.

(Sometimes I feel like I'm responsible for modifying and debugging and upgrading woefully deficient units that came from the factory and that if I didn't do it all these inferior units would just go out and continue to infect the world with sub-par thoughts.)

Vegetables are still crisp until they are steamed for a long enough time. Before a cake is fully baked it is still wet. A case of the clap requires you to take ALL the medicine over the two weeks until you run out of medicine. A crappy job ain't over til the paperwork is done. It's a good thing nature prevents our meddling in the gestation of life itself or someone would be pokin at it and saying, "well, this OBVIOUSLY isn't working. Look, it's all mushy and gooey. It can't even cry or breathe or anything!"

EDIT: I just saw Athens' succinct post and hope some of you can better understand his statement if not mine.

And literally, there you've got the long and the short of it.

So you're saying all failed wars are really successful wars in the making? I don't buy that. And your attitude sickens me

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Bush had no choice? Why do you say that?

Let's play a game. What if Bush hadn't invaded? What would things be like there right now?

I think it's pretty clear that Iraq would be capable of producing more oil, there would be less terrorism there, and the country would be more stable. It would of course still be a dictatorship, but if your goal is more oil and less terrorism, which yours seems to be, then a stable strong-arm dictatorship is certainly preferable to what's going on there now.

[edit] Hopefully it's obvious that there's more terrorism and less stability in Iraq now, but in case you doubt that there's less oil production too, check this out, from an article a couple days ago.

Interesting point. But consider this: there was NO terrorism and very little domestic crime in Germany after about 1934...and the trains ran on time too! But was the world as a whole safer letting Hitler do his thing? After all, he was only messing with his own people...

Seriously, although "major combat operations" are over, the war in Iraq is certainly not over. And there are a number of factions intent on keeping any real progress from happening there-which seems to be backfiring on them, as people don't like it when bad guys blow up kids, when they spout quotes from the Quran and then kill their fellow Muslims, etc. The "terrorism" we currently see, both in and outside Iraq, is all part of that war (for the most part-the bombings in Bali and elsewhere in Indonesia, the train bombings in Spain and the attacks in London certainly were part of it), so you really can't say that terrorism independent of the war has increased.

Far too many people are looking at the current situation as if it's supposed to be resolved by the time the next TV program starts. Infrastructure takes time to build and rebuild, people need time to shuck off the mental bonds living under a dictator for 20 or 30 years puts on them, and fanatics seem to need to prove something by dying in the act of killing other people. It's not like we could say "Ok, we've done this one small thing and now we're all safe." The situation had been deteriorating for a long time before Sadam even invaded Kuwait, and we in the West were far too slow in recognizing what was happening and why. We're doing better now, and changes for the good are indeed being made.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Here are some SHOCKING upsets to conventional wisdom - or what often passes for CV here on THESE pages but the real world seems to understand and accept pretty well.

(Sometimes I feel like I'm responsible for modifying and debugging and upgrading woefully deficient units that came from the factory and that if I didn't do it all these inferior units would just go out and continue to infect the world with sub-par thoughts.)

Vegetables are still crisp until they are steamed for a long enough time. Before a cake is fully baked it is still wet. A case of the clap requires you to take ALL the medicine over the two weeks until you run out of medicine. A crappy job ain't over til the paperwork is done. It's a good thing nature prevents our meddling in the gestation of life itself or someone would be pokin at it and saying, "well, this OBVIOUSLY isn't working. Look, it's all mushy and gooey. It can't even cry or breathe or anything!"

EDIT: I just saw Athens' succinct post and hope some of you can better understand his statement if not mine.

And literally, there you've got the long and the short of it.

It may SHOCK you, but the REAL WORLD (at least, 80% of it) seemed to me quite adamant from way before Day One that invading Iraq was an intensely stupid idea.

What you are saying is just a lame platitude that amounts to "The world keeps spinning DESPITE our major ****-ups", even if you're desperately trying to flog it as pithy revelation on the wisdom of Your Leader.

-ch.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Do you really believe that you can win from terrorists ? You're fighting an invisible enemy. It's a waste of time. The comparison with world war 2 is ridiculous.

Actually, it's quite relevant. Many said the same things about the Nazis. Now, they are rendered nothing more than small bands of thugs and criminals. Eventually, Al Qaeda et al. will be rendered the same.

[von Wrangell]

I quite frankly don't care if it has made "you" safer or not because tens of thousands of civilians have been killed by "you" and you have made every day life in Iraq a living hell. And that will probably continue to be the case for years to come. So your imagined "security" is irrelevant. The safety of the victims of your actions is what matters.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Sometimes I feel like I'm responsible for modifying and debugging and upgrading woefully deficient units that came from the factory and that if I didn't do it all these inferior units would just go out and continue to infect the world with sub-par thoughts.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Has the Iraq War Made Us Safer?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.4229d6d.html



I think it has moved us in the right direction.

1) it is making the military busy overseas, especially at a time when these guys could have turned jobless at some point during the Bush II administration which would have been bad for the economy (safer)
2) it makes the media relatively useful while Hollywood produces its crappiest movies in a long time, which is good for the economy and keeps people from asking real questions (i.e. safer)
3) it removes some dangerous american individuals from performing abuse on Americans, while exposing some at home, which makes America safer (safer)
4) it makes the humanity's blood flow faster as everyone is wondering where Bin Laden is (although this is turning old since no active search appears to be under way), which keeps people warmer (big savings on heating bills, therefore, yes, safer)
5) it improves weaponry sales accross the world, which is good for the economy (safer)
6) while it increases the sales of weapons across the world, it generates more opportunity for terrorism, which incidentally, accentuates fear in America (and denial of fear, which is also counterbalanced by a need to prevent "hypothetical dangers" from becoming "real") which motivates further investments in weaponry AND creates more arguments for more invasions of dictatorial and famished regimes like Iraq (safer)
7) it justifies invasions of apparently threatening regimes that are actually weak to the extreme and makes a President look good (always, really, coz there is nothing like invading a country to make you feel good in the morning) for the coming elections (safer)
8) it allows to blame past democrat Presidents which appears to undermine them to the public (especially when they have these strange smoking habits which are not really-Christian) (safer)
9) it relieves the load from the neo-conservative pressure who feel they should inherit the world make it at their own image (safer)
10) as long as someone else can take the blame it is good (safer)

So yes, it made Bush safer.

What was the question again?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I quite frankly don't care if it has made "you" safer or not because tens of thousands of civilians have been killed by "you" and you have made every day life in Iraq a living hell. And that will probably continue to be the case for years to come. So your imagined "security" is irrelevant. The safety of the victims of your actions is what matters.

A living hell, is it?

I think you're in error. A living hell was prior to Saddam's removal from power.

Now is reconstruction. Now is Iraqis having a say in their future. Now is schools being built, free voting, Iraqi police and military taking the lead in enforcement. Now is Iraqis ditching foolish conspiracy theories about America deciding the future of Iraq. Now is the Iraqis rejecting the failed Arab League approach to leadership and taking charge of democracy.

http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?s...=1&id=1466

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/200...-problems.html

Are there setbacks? Sure. The positive must outweigh the negative, and Iraqis see it this way. Pity that you do not.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

A living hell, is it?

I think you're in error. A living hell was prior to Saddam's removal from power.

Now is reconstruction. Now is Iraqis having a say in their future. Now is schools being built, free voting, Iraqi police and military taking the lead in enforcement. Now is Iraqis ditching foolish conspiracy theories about America deciding the future of Iraq. Now is the Iraqis rejecting the failed Arab League approach to leadership and taking charge of democracy.

http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?s...=1&id=1466

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/200...-problems.html

Are there setbacks? Sure. The positive must outweigh the negative, and Iraqis see it this way. Pity that you do not.

I'm sure the families of the tens of thousands of dead agree with you...........

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Actually, it's quite relevant. Many said the same things about the Nazis. Now, they are rendered nothing more than small bands of thugs and criminals. Eventually, Al Qaeda et al. will be rendered the same.

The Nazis were readily identifiable by their uniforms, and fought in easily discernible units. Comparing the Nazis to modern terrorists is impossible, and pointless. History 101.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Here are some SHOCKING upsets to conventional wisdom - or what often passes for CV here on THESE pages but the real world seems to understand and accept pretty well.

(Sometimes I feel like I'm responsible for modifying and debugging and upgrading woefully deficient units that came from the factory and that if I didn't do it all these inferior units would just go out and continue to infect the world with sub-par thoughts.)

Vegetables are still crisp until they are steamed for a long enough time. Before a cake is fully baked it is still wet. A case of the clap requires you to take ALL the medicine over the two weeks until you run out of medicine. A crappy job ain't over til the paperwork is done. It's a good thing nature prevents our meddling in the gestation of life itself or someone would be pokin at it and saying, "well, this OBVIOUSLY isn't working. Look, it's all mushy and gooey. It can't even cry or breathe or anything!"

EDIT: I just saw Athens' succinct post and hope some of you can better understand his statement if not mine.

And literally, there you've got the long and the short of it.

Thanks, aberdeenwriter. Where would we be without your wisdom?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Now is Iraqis ditching foolish conspiracy theories about America deciding the future of Iraq. Now is the Iraqis rejecting the failed Arab League approach to leadership and taking charge of democracy.

Can you support these 2 assertions without a doubt? And how?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'm sure the families of the tens of thousands of dead agree with you...........

This is not the first time you've been wrong on history, both ancient and recent. What surprises me is that you actively choose to do so.

http://friendsofdemocracy.org/itm/oo2.wmv

Iraqia TV -- celebrating the vote.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Can you support these 2 assertions without a doubt? And how?

1) the abandonment of conspiracies that Iraq will turn out how America decides.

If those conspiracies held sway, then there would have been no motivation to turn out and cast a perceived-worthless vote. We know this is not the case, that these conspiracies have been abandoned by the high turnout numbers, higher than the vote held in January.

These are the turnout levels recorded in the 18 provinces in Iraq according to the electoral commission in the latest press conference:

High= more than 66%
Moderate= 33% - 66%
Low= less than 33%

Duhok: moderate.
Erbil: moderate.
Sulaymania: high.
Mosul: high.
Kirkuk: high.
Diyala: high.
Anbar: unknown.
Baghdad: high.
Babil: high.
Kerbala: high.
Wasit: moderate.
Salahiddin: high.
Al-Muthana: moderate.
Al-Qadisiya: low.
Najaf: high.
Thi Qar: moderate.
Maysan: moderate.
Basra: moderate.

We also have anecdotal evidence:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/200...esupdated.html

"I met one friend on the way and when I asked him what would his vote be he said that he hasn’t decided yet “if I voted yes I would be approving some articles that I don’t agree with and if I voted no we would go back to where we started from…” he said and that was really refreshing because this guy who used to believe in conspiracy theories and stuff like “what America wants is what’s going to happen” now feels that his vote can make a difference."

2) Iraqis rejecting the failed Arab League approach to leadership and taking charge of their democracy.

Again, the voting turnout. Again, choosing leaders in parliament rather than a tyrant who desires 100% backing in 'referendum'. Choosing a constitution to be the law of the land rather than a dictator or king. The Arab League is about Pan-Arabism, and Iraq is choosing self-government. "since April 2003 and even long time before that, all Arab regimes (except for Kuwait) stood against toppling Saddam, of course not out of care for the Iraqi people but out of fear from seeing the same scenario happen again in their countries."

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by vmarks

speculations

I see.