US to invade Iraq?

bonkey

Originally posted by American
My mistake. I was given the impression this was a "European" board that might want to discuss issues with an American. I'll only stick around as long as anyone is interested in an exchange of viewpoints. [/B]

European??? What - the .ie didnt give it away?

Seriously though, you're more than welcome to stick around - you've added some interesting stuff.

We Irish are just very touchy about foreigners (particularly from the American continent for some reason) not knowing the differences bewteen Ireland and Europe in general.

I mean, I'm sure a Canadian would be insulted if I referred to "your Yellowstone Park", and an American if I referred to "your CN tower in Toronto" because it happens to be in the same continent

gandalf

Originally posted by American


The decision to drop the bombs was President Truman's. I cannot say if revenge was an element in his decision. But my father saw the plans for the invasion of mainland Japan (he was in the Navy) and the estimated casualties were one million people.
The Japanese preferred death to the dishonor of defeat or surrender. The reason they treated our American POW's so bad in WWII was that their code called for a soldier to kill himself before allowing someone to take him prisoner, so they felt that our POW's by allowing themselves to be captured were dishonored and did not deserve decent treatment.
Our losses in taking Iwo Jima and Okinawa were in the tens of thousands of dead Marines and as many or more Japanese. Japan was not going to capitulate. The bombs actually spared them lives and gave them an honorable reason to surrender, which would not have been possible under continued conventional warfare.
Conventional warfare then was pretty horrific also, in case you are not familiar with the firestorm at Dresden and the sieges of Russian cities where millions starved to death.
As I say, the decision was Truman's. And he may have been thinking more about sparing the lives of so many more tens of thousands of Marines, rather than revenge.

Granted I can understand that reasoning with regards to the first bomb but dropping the 2nd one when the Japanese were preparred to surrender was going to far. You are right about a standard invasion of Japan that would have resulted in enormous casulties for the US and Japanese civilians.

Gandalf.

American

Originally posted by Hobbes
Yes the deeper cause. You think people just are born terrorists? Or that because a terrorist organization is related to a particular country that somehow all the people of that country are terrorists?

(funded by the Saudi monarchy in its Faustian bargain with the devil in its bosom trying to keep power)teaching every pilgrim and every child their Wahabi concept of life

Do you have linkage? The school I am aware of is the Al-Quaida one and then it isn't something that is publically available.

I read several articles over a month ago to begin to understand the role of Wahhabiism in current world problems, but so far have only located this bit for you, which was written by Stephen Schwartz, the author of Intellectuals and Assassins, published by Anthem Press..
***********************************************
For Westerners, it seems natural to look for answers in the distant past, beginning with the Crusades. But if you ask educated,pious, traditional but forward-looking Muslims what has driven their umma, or global community, in this direction, many of them will answer you with one word: Wahhabism. This is a strain of Islam that emerged not at the time of the Crusades, nor
even at the time of the anti-Turkish wars of the 17th century, but less than two centuries ago. It is violent, it is intolerant, and it is fanatical beyond measure. It originated in Arabia, and it is the official theology of the Gulf states. Wahhabism is the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism, and its followers are called Wahhabis.

Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are Wahhabis — except, perhaps, for some disciples of atheist leftists posing as Muslims in the interests of personal power, such as Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein. Wahhabism is the Islamic equivalent of the most extreme Protestant sectarianism. It is puritan, demanding punishment for those who enjoy any
form of music except the drum, and severe punishment up to death for drinking or sexual transgressions. It condemns as unbelievers those who do not pray, a view that never previously existed in mainstream Islam.

It is stripped-down Islam, calling for simple, short prayers, undecorated mosques, and the uprooting of gravestones (since decorated mosques and graveyards lend themselves to veneration, which is idolatry in the Wahhabi mind). Wahhabis do not even permit the name of the Prophet Mohammed to be inscribed in mosques, nor do they allow his birthday to be celebrated. Above all, they hate ostentatious spirituality, much as Protestants detest the veneration of miracles and saints in the Roman Church.

Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–92), the founder of this totalitarian Islamism, was born in Uyaynah, in the part of Arabia known as Nejd, where Riyadh is today, and which the Prophet himself notably warned would be a source of corruption and confusion. (Anti-Wahhabi Muslims refer to Wahhabism as fitna an Najdiyyah or ‘the trouble out of Nejd’.) From the beginning of Wahhab’s dispensation, in the late 18th century, his cult was associated with the mass murder of all who opposed it. For example, the Wahhabis fell upon the city of Qarbala in 1801 and killed 2,000 ordinary citizens in the streets and markets.

In the 19th century, Wahhabism took the form of Arab nationalism v. the Turks. The founder of the Saudi kingdom, Ibn Saud, established Wahhabism as its official creed. Much has been made of the role of the US in ‘creating’ Osama bin Laden through
subsidies to the Afghan mujahedin, but as much or more could be said in reproach of Britain which, three generations before, supported the Wahhabi Arabs in their revolt against the Ottomans. Arab hatred of the Turks fused with Wahhabi ranting
against the ‘decadence’ of Ottoman Islam. The truth is that the Ottoman khalifa reigned over a multinational Islamic umma in which vast differences in local culture and tradition were tolerated. No such tolerance exists in Wahhabism, which is why the concept of US troops on Saudi soil so inflames bin Laden.

Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his Egyptian allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at Luxor not many years ago, bathing in blood up to their elbows and emitting blasphemous cries of ecstasy.
So are the Algerian Islamist terrorists whose contribution to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people for such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So are the Taleban-style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus. The Iranians are not Wahhabis, which partially explains their slow but undeniable movement towards moderation and normality after a period of utopian and puritan revivalism. But the Taleban practise a variant of Wahhabism. In the Wahhabi fashion they employ ancient punishments — such as execution for moral offences — and they have a primitive and fearful view of women. The same is true of Saudi Arabia’s rulers. None of this extremism has been inspired by American fumblings in the world, and it has little to do with the tragedies that have beset Israelis and Palestinians.

But the Wahhabis have two weaknesses of which the West is largely unaware; an Achilles’ heel on each foot, so to speak. The first is that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful people who would prefer the installation of Western democracy in their own countries. They loathe Wahhabism for the same reason any patriarchal culture rejects a violent break
with tradition. And that is the point that must be understood: bin Laden and other Wahhabis are not defending Islamic tradition; they represent an ultra-radical break in the direction of a sectarian utopia. Thus, they are best described as Islamofascists, although they have much in common with Bolsheviks.

The Bengali Sufi writer Zeeshan Ali has described the situation touchingly: ‘Muslims from Bangladesh in the US, just like any other place in the world, uphold the traditional beliefs of Islam but, due to lack of instruction, keep quiet when their beliefs are attacked by Wahhabis in the US who all of a sudden become “better” Muslims than others. These Wahhabis go even further and accuse their own fathers of heresy, sin and unbelief. And the young children of the immigrants, when they grow up in this country, get exposed only to this one-sided version of Islam and are led to think that this is the only Islam. Naturally a big gap
is being created every day that silence is only widening.’ The young, divided between tradition and the call of the new, opt for ‘Islamic revolution’ and commit themselves to their self-destruction, combined with mass murder.

The same influences are brought to bear throughout the ten-million-strong Muslim community in America, as well as those in Europe. In the US, 80 per cent of mosques are estimated by the Sufi Hisham al-Kabbani, born in Lebanon and now living in the US, to be under the control of Wahhabi imams, who preach extremism, and this leads to the other point of vulnerability: Wahhabism is subsidised by Saudi Arabia, even though bin Laden has sworn to destroy the Saudi royal family. The Saudis have played a double game for years, more or less as Stalin did with the West during the second world war. They pretended to be allies in a common struggle against Saddam Hussein while they spread Wahhabi ideology everywhere Muslims are to be found, just as Stalin promoted an ‘antifascist’ coalition with the US while carrying out espionage and subversion on American territory. The motive was the same: the belief that the West was or is decadent and doomed.

One major question is never asked in American discussions of Arab terrorism: what is the role of Saudi Arabia? The question cannot be asked because American companies depend too much on the continued flow of Saudi oil, while American politicians have become too cosy with the Saudi rulers.

Another reason it is not asked is that to expose the extent of Saudi and Wahhabi influence on American Muslims would deeply compromise many Islamic clerics in the US. But it is the most significant question Americans should be asking themselves today. If we get rid of bin Laden, who do we then have to deal with? The answer was eloquently put by Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego, and author of an authoritative volume on Islamic extremism in Pakistan, when he said: ‘If the US wants to do something about radical Islam, it has to deal with Saudi Arabia. The “rogue states” [Iraq, Libya, etc.] are less important in the radicalisation of Islam than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the single most important cause and supporter of radicalisation, ideologisation, and the general fanaticisation of Islam.’

From what we now know, it appears not a single one of the suicide pilots in New York and Washington was Palestinian. They all seem to have been Saudis, citizens of the Gulf states, Egyptian or Algerian. Two are reported to have been the sons of the former second secretary of the Saudi embassy in Washington. They were planted in America long before the outbreak of the latest Palestinian intifada; in fact, they seem to have begun their conspiracy while the Middle East peace process was in full, if short, bloom. Anti-terror experts and politicians in the West must now consider the Saudi connection.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

We Irish are just very touchy about foreigners (particularly from the American continent for some reason) not knowing the differences bewteen Ireland and Europe in general.

I'm pretty touchy myself about how little is taught in our public school system and how ignorant Americans in general are about the world, as exemplified by a regular late night television skit called Jay Walking, on Jay Leno's The Tonight Show.
Many Americans do not know where the Pacific Ocean is or that they share a border with Canada. If your feelings are hurt, imagine how the Canadians feel?

You're that island to the west of the U.K., the green one?

Sorry, sometimes I show a demented or wry sense of humor, as evidenced in the comment below, which I am posting because I am curious as to your evaluation.

I doubt I have anything particularly intelligent to say about your local situations, except I'm sorry you don't seem to have located your Martin Luther King, Jr. or your Mohandas Gandhi. Perhaps you have too much Celtic blood to throw up such pacifist champions as these.

Excuse me while I duck for cover.

American

Originally posted by gandalf

Granted I can understand that reasoning with regards to the first bomb but dropping the 2nd one when the Japanese were preparred to surrender was going to far. You are right about a standard invasion of Japan that would have resulted in enormous casulties for the US and Japanese civilians.

There was criticism of this, but it was possibly more likely to be blamed on the slowness of bureaucratic thinking to shift and the slowness of Japan to scream "We give up!"

The strategy in creating the bomb had been that we couldn't deploy it till we had two, to prove that the first one wasn't a one shot deal, that we could follow up and deliver more if the desired surrender wasn't forthcoming. It was a one-two punch thinking that ossified in the military thinking about it over the couple of years it took to develop it.
So, the second one (a more sophisticated atomic bomb that denotated in air rather than on impact) was readied to go on the heels of the other one and the shipment of the two bombs to the Pacific in dead secret and training of pilots in secret and convergence of all the elements became a giant "?slouching towards Bethehem to be born?".

If the Japanese had fallen to their knees instantly and screamed for mercy, then the second one. planned for three days later, could proably have been stopped. But it wasn't their nature. And it wasn't the nature of a large preplanned operation to screech to a halt on a maybe... such are the natures of military and political bureaucracies.

bonkey

Originally posted by American
Many Americans do not know where the Pacific Ocean is or that they share a border with Canada. If your feelings are hurt, imagine how the Canadians feel?

Absolutely....

anyway, it was just a misunderstanding, so lets get back on topic...I refuse to rise to your humour/trolling

Concerning Wahabi and its influence in the Islamic world, the article you posted is a bit one-sided IMHO. Wahabism, in its purest form, basically teaches that all modifications or additions to the Islamic faith after the 3rd century of the Muslim era should be disregarded. It is fundamentally a return to "pure" Islam.

Wahabism is the official religion of Saudi - which is where the notion of "Saudi-funded schools" comes from.

It is also true that Wahabism is the professed religion of most Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. This is partly because of the structure of their education, but also because of the extremist and intoleratn nature of the religious sect.

However, their cause is not necessarily a "crusade" against the west. They are as much (if not more) against traditional Islam as they are against the Western powers. In fact, it is more probable that the west is being attacked because of its influence on ME society than for any other reason. The Wahhabi's see the west, embodied by the US, as the corrupter of Islamic principles in the Middle East, and also as the biggest problem standing in teh way of large-scale reforms across the region - which to be fair is mostly true.

At the end of the day, we must remember that the royal family of Saudi Arabia - the people attributed with funding all of this - have had a fatwah declared against them for aiding the US. Its a bit simplistic to say that they are behind it all.

Wahhabism is a return to a religious system which is just over a millenium old. Take any of the Christian religions old enough, and return to that era. Exactly how civilised were they? Can you spell Crusade? Inquisition?

What I am trying to say is this. Yes, Wahhabism is "behind" the terrorists, but that is not the same as saying that Wahhabism itself is bad. Islam was always supposed to be a peaceful religion....how returning to its original form can allow people to pervert that is beyond me.

Just as there were good Catholics in the dark ages, there are good Wahhabis today. We should not more tar them with one brush than we should tar all Muslims.

By the way, a search on Wahabi or Wahhabi under goodle will turn up a plethora of links. Easiest one is

[URL=http:///www.wahhabi.info]www.wahhabi.info[/URL]

jc

American

Originally posted by joev

So, you would teach your kids that if some other kid hits them with a stone or some such, and that they were unsure of who, that it is right to wait a few days, pick a suspiciuos kid, and kick the crap out of them, their family, burn down their house.... you get the picture I'm sure.


Picture doesn't fit. Our kid saw the kid who threw a boulder at him, and is now picking up another one. Should we wait for this to be adjudicated in a world court and get slammed by another boulder before doing anything?
We tried that the first time the WTC was bombed.

You may have doubts about who did it, but we don't.

And we won't go after the next perp till we're sure about him, too. Right now we're sure Hussein has violated the terms of the ceasefire signed by his government with the U.N. Alliance in 1991 in regard to many things, including inspections. And we're sure he's trying to build weapons of mass destruction, which is a no-no. Even if he didn't have anything to do with the anthrax, he still is in violation of allowing inspections.

bonkey

Originally posted by American
Picture doesn't fit. Our kid saw the kid who threw a boulder at him, and is now picking up another one. [/B]

Incorrect. Your kid didnt see who threw the boulder, but after thinking about it in hindsight believes he has figured out who did throw it, and believes that it is probable another boulder will be thrown.

You may have doubts about who did it, but we don't.

Of course you dont. You cant have doubts. If you had doubts, you wouldnt be bombing a foreign nation.

This doesnt mean that you are correct, nor does it mean that your response is the correct one.

Look at it this way. Legal systems are there to try and ensure that an innocent man (or woman) does not suffer for a crime they have not comitted. America, like many European court systems, has a "scale" of courts, offering a safety net to try and ensure that justice is done. Can you honestly say that in all of this system an innocent man has never been condemned? I didnt think so.

Unfortunately, said legal system also makes it somewhat easier for the guilty to be set free.

However, that said, the legal system is still a better bet than being able to say "I know he did it, so punish him".

I am not saying that bin Laden should be given a civilian trial if captured. What I am trying to say is that it has not been proven that it was bin Laden. At best, the only proof which exists is a government telling us "of course we can prove it, but we just cant tell you how cause its classified. Trust us". This is exactly the same as "I know he did it. Trust me. Punish him".

And we won't go after the next perp till we're sure about him, too. Right now we're sure Hussein has violated the terms of the ceasefire signed by his government with the U.N. Alliance in 1991 in regard to many things, including inspections. And we're sure he's trying to build weapons of mass destruction, which is a no-no. Even if he didn't have anything to do with the anthrax, he still is in violation of allowing inspections.

Yes, Hussein has violated some terms of the ceasefire. However, you are most definitely not sure that he is trying to build weapons of mass destruction. Again - where is the proof?

Last time America was "sure" of one of these factories of Saddam's, I recall a pharmaceutical factory with no military connections whatsoever got reduced to rubble, with significant loss of innocent human life.

Oh - look at that - a building of innocent civilians killed in non-war-time. Normally, that would be considered an act of terrorism, or an act of war. What would the US do if a European nation bombed a US pharmaceutical company, claiming that the company was a front for the US to produce weapons of mass destruction which are banned under the Geneva convention? I'm sure the US would take it well enough, as long as we said "but we were sure, only we cant show you the proof".

Events like this are what have people like me insisting that you are not sure, and you are not providing proof of that surity. Your nation is acting on best guesses. When the lives of millions are at stake, that is not acceptable, but it seems to be acceptable to the US, as long as those lives are not American.

At best, your government may be sure about Hussein and his weapons, and may indeed have proof, but you, as a civilian are simply blindly accepting their word. Unless, of course, you are in the government, and reasonably placed at that

Interestingly, it was you who told us that the people are the government, and your job as a citizen (and true American) is to make sure that they are kept in line. Tell me - exactly how can you do this when your government can simply say "trust us, this is the truth" and you blindly accept it?????

jc

JustHalf

Originally posted by American
But to do that we will have to drill and use our own oil reserves, and coal reserves, and whatever else we can develop or dream up. And this will require a head on fight with our environmental extremists and with the Democratic party because they have thrown their lot in with them.

I would say something more along the lines of reducing the consumption, and using these resources more efficiently, than destroying one of the most beautiful places on Earth.

Typedef

Originally posted by American


The decision to drop the bombs was President Truman's. I cannot say if revenge was an element in his decision. But my father saw the plans for the invasion of mainland Japan (he was in the Navy) and the estimated casualties were one million people.
The Japanese preferred death to the dishonor of defeat or surrender. The reason they treated our American POW's so bad in WWII was that their code called for a soldier to kill himself before allowing someone to take him prisoner, so they felt that our POW's by allowing themselves to be captured were dishonored and did not deserve decent treatment.
Our losses in taking Iwo Jima and Okinawa were in the tens of thousands of dead Marines and as many or more Japanese. Japan was not going to capitulate. The bombs actually spared them lives and gave them an honorable reason to surrender, which would not have been possible under continued conventional warfare.
Conventional warfare then was pretty horrific also, in case you are not familiar with the firestorm at Dresden and the sieges of Russian cities where millions starved to death.
As I say, the decision was Truman's. And he may have been thinking more about sparing the lives of so many more tens of thousands of Marines, rather than revenge.

Wow guy, the dicotomy in your logic is glaring do you know that? In previous posts you have claimed that the US is justafied in bombing Afghanistan as an affiliate of people who have killed American non-combatants on American soil? Just above however you have rationalised the decision to incinerate & irradiate hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatants because of the projected causalites that "conventional" warfare would have incurred.

By that same logic, Al-Queda could say that by bombing the WTC Al-Queda has spared the USA many thousands more civilian causalties when Al-Queda (assuming it was Al-Queda - no trial no evidence ergo all military action is based on is accusation) could have used crop dusters to spread Anthrax or Sarin or some other toxin, so that Al-Queda has the force of fortitude on it's side.

I find it absurd in the extreme that the USA can exist in a state of denial which pertains to the fact that the USA has given upwards of 50 billion dollars to Israel, 50 billion which has ostensibly been military aid, and with this military aid and US support in the UN by way of US sponsored veto, Israel has flouted over 36 seperate UN resolutions which attempt to deal with the annexation, occupation and subjegation of militarily enfeebled peoples by Israel.

Face facts if the US did not support Israeli expansionism in Palestine then no-one would care enough about the US' to go bombing US targets and affiliates. In which bubble are you people living? The same bubble where you believe that fossil fuels are not causing global warming? The same bubble where you believe George Bush Jr the man who put arsenic into your drinking water is looking out for the US' best interests? Get a grip mate, politicians are a corrupt bunch of leeches, George Bush is no different and if you believe otherwise then you have swallowed the propagandist clap-trap that politicians have their mate's in the media spin for them come election time.

So, far-right religous groups who believe god intends Israel to own Palestinian land and the Zionist lobbies in the US have in effect created the rampant Anti-Americanism that is sweeping the world and created people who are willing to bomb themselves to death for a cause said people feel will be advanced by hurting the US. I have news for you, there are plenty of other democracies around the world which have not been targeted by suicide bombers, so the idea that the US is hated for being a democracy is I'm afraid to say, more propaganda, realise this and move on.

The reality is there is no set of circumstances in which the gift of over 3.5 billion dollars in military aid in late October to Israel was in the interests of the ordinary US citizen walking down the street, it was in the interests of the politicians who sanctioned it I'm sure but, in the interests of the ordinary US citizen? I think not.
Also don't even attempt to say that the US is supporting democracy in the ME by supporting Israel. Israel is not a democracy, it is a state based around religious segregation and annexation of land by force, the law of return proves that Israel is a sectarian state and the occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land proves the latter.

Just like the politicians in this country are attempting to shaft the Irish citizens with the Nice treaty, the politicians in the US are shafting US citizens with the military aid to Israel. In both cases the support comes from an ulterior motive that is benificial to the said politicians not the citizens of the countries the politicians are meant to represent.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Just to address a few points that have been raised.

Firstly, I would agree with JC and my compatriot American that our public school system has a long way to go in terms of general knowledge. Just last summer I saw an edition of Jaywalking where a rather well-dressed suited & tied individual was queried about the last planet in our Solar system. After a 10 second interval, Leno proferred a clue: "Think of Mickey Mouse's dog..." To which the reply was "Errr...Goofy?!". After the long string of expletives had escaped my lips, I was rolling around on the living room floor laughing uncontrollably...but anyway

On the point briefly addressed in this thread about 'when world war two started' I believe the defining event can be argued extensively. "The history books" broadly agree on the point at which Germany invaded Poland, but let us remember that it is the victors who write history. I wouldn't be suprised if there are several German history books that cite the point at which WWII effectively was precipated at, as the signing of the Versaillestreaty. The scathing international humiliation of Versailles it can be convincingly argued, is where WWII really began.

As far as the question of OBL's guilt and due process is concerned, no one can appreciate that more than I, having studied the law myself. However, the same argument of jurisprudence can be reversed on its head in this way: We know OBL to be behind the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and elsewhere in central Africa, as well as bombing US soldiers in Saudi. Evidence has been presented to and accepted by neutral governments. In the light of this information, regardless of his guilt in the events of 9/11, Osama has a case to answer. Seeing how embassies are effectively US soil, the we were directly attacked, and any nation thus attacked has the right to defend itself. To use an analogy of civil jurisprudence: if it is known that 'X' has committed several past crimes, and sub judice investigation reveals possible guilt in further crimes, he/she can still be prosecuted for initial offences. That makes perfect sense, too. Now the manner of this 'self-defense' is one I question very deeply, I agree with the principles behind this 'war on terror' but I reject its methods utterly.

It has essentially become a war to remove the Taleban from power, and while that in itself is a noble goal, it shies away from those stated at the start of this action. Furthermore, in allying ourself with the Northern Alliance and deliberately participating in the collective punishment of all for a prisoner revolt in Mazari-i-Sharif, we have renounced any claim to the moral high ground in all of this. Leaving aside our huge intelligence failings in all of this, prosecuting a war without effectively knowing where the enemy is, in what strength and a knowledge of assets questionable at best is the wrong decision to make. I firmly believe that the investigation into Al-Qaeda is nowhere near its completion, this is an organization spanning several nations, with assets hidden in over a dozen countries. Acting with incomplete or dubious intelligence will in the end, do more harm than good.

I further stand by my view that our consistent and open support for Sharon's bloodthirsty regime in Israel can only lead to more such attacks and increased hatred directed at our nation. Not only have the Palestinians been denied of their homeland, but they have been mercilessly persecuted by a succession of governments that view them as enemies rather than neighbors. Our government's excuse for its support of Israel is that it is the only democracy in the Middle East(though we always seem to forget Egypt). That's a rather pathetic policy groundline, especially considering our unbridled support for totalitarian regimes in the area. We funded Saddam Hussein, and helped effect his rise to power to counter the perceived threat of the revolution in Iran, we also helped arm him in the Iran/Iraq war. Hell, we armed both sides, gotta keep those defense contracters happy dontchaknow. We've supported Saudi Arabia by the provision of investment, trade guarantees and a regional spokesperson. We've backed the non-communist regime in half of Yemen, the royal family in Kuwait, practically every OPS in the region. Let's not forget Pakistan an oh-so-democratic regime whose help we've enlisted with the problem in Afghanistan. And all this to ensure the steady flow of crude oil into our nation's refineries. At the same time, we've consistently turned our back on injustices perpetrated by our so-called allies, and rather drop them like a hot potatoe, we simply turn a blind eye. Consider the brutal massacres in Sabra and Chatila in Lebanon, the ignorance of the plight of Palestinians having their land eaten away by unlawful Israeli occupation/settlement, disregard for ethnic minorities constantly suppressed throughout the region with the aid of US arms...it all paints a rather disturbing picture.

We'd better wake up to the fact that such terrorist attacks will not cease if we destroy Al-Qaeda, not even if we eliminate Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and every single radical group in the region(which is by no means likely). Only when we stop supporting totalitarian states, and give the people of the Middle East a chance to solve their own problems, when we decide to stop putting our fingers in, and just buy our oil like everybody else, then perhaps we will be moving in the right direction. The destruction of terrorism is a lofty goal, but remove the object of terror, and you pull the fangs on terrorists everywhere. If no one can be convinced to fund them, no more young martyrs can be won over to a violent cause, if injustice is no longer so stark that people strap bombs to themselves in order to combat it- then we will see a dramatic fall in terrorism. If we pursue our current course, 10 young men will spring into the place of each Al-Qaeda member we butcher. We will in effect, be trapped in a cycle of violence much in the same way Sharon has trapped himself.

A complete overhaul of US foreign policy in the Middle East is needed, I just hope and pray it is achieved in my lifetime, for the sake of future generations. Or they will pay the bloodprice for our failings.

Occy

American

Originally posted by bonkey

In fact, it is more probable that the west is being attacked because of its influence on ME society than for any other reason. The Wahhabi's see the west, embodied by the US, as the corrupter of Islamic principles in the Middle East, and also as the biggest problem standing in the way of large-scale reforms across the region - which to be fair is mostly true.
"Reforms" in their mold, that is the problem. And I agree that the problem the U.S. has is a cultural clash with the culture of the Wahhabis.

It is why the U.S. almost went to civil war to resolve our 2000 Presidential election. Red Country and Blue Country are having a tremendous cultural war in the U.S., a war that has simply been postponed because we have turned toward a common external enemy.

Many in Red Country are as revulsed by what they consider the immorality of Blue Country as are the Wahhabis. It is ironic for many of them that we are now fighting a war to make the world safe for immorality.

Its a bit simplistic to say that they (the Saudi royal family) are behind it all.
Not behind it, enablers of it. It is a complex interaction.

Wahhabism is a return to a religious system which is just over a millenium old. Take any of the Christian religions old enough, and return to that era. Exactly how civilised were they? Can you spell Crusade? Inquisition?
Who was civilized back then? Why single out Christians? Precious few people, let alone nations, are civilized now. But I'm not letting anyone get off the hook who wants to turn civilization back a millennium or more....and that means I don't let the Wahhabis off the hook because some of them have wandered into it accidentally without realizing how fundamentally intolerant it is, and thus uncivilized and inherently prone to violence.

What I am trying to say is this. Yes, Wahhabism is "behind" the terrorists, but that is not the same as saying that Wahhabism itself is bad.
Should make you very skeptical, however, about your following assumptions.

Islam was always supposed to be a peaceful religion....how returning to its original form can allow people to pervert that is beyond me.

And there we disagree. I do not believe that Islam was always supposed to be a peaceful religion. Someone with some really good bona fides will have to convince me of that.

I'm tied up with some obligations for the next couple of days, but will check your link out this weekend.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Look at it this way. Legal systems are there to try...
We don't look at it the way you do. And we're not going to. We believe the lives of too many people are at stake to do it the nicey, nicey way you want. Because we are not dealing with nicey, nicey people.


I recall a pharmaceutical factory with no military connections whatsoever got reduced to rubble, with significant loss of innocent human life.
Yeah, we remember the corrupt Clintons bombing an aspirin factory and killing some janitors. And that is among many reasons why we impeached him and tried to remove him from office. And why we rose up and put Bush in instead of Clinton's lapdog Gore. Clinton goes beyond being an embarrassment to our country; he misused the military and misused the awesome power of the United States and dishonored us.

In view of this history I do not blame your for your skepticism.

BTW, I am not a government employee. I am a private citizen who cares about my country.

American

Originally posted by JustHalf
I would say something more along the lines of reducing the consumption, and using these resources more efficiently, than destroying one of the most beautiful places on Earth.

ROTFL! Have you seen this frozen wasteland of ANWR? And besides, the polar bears like the transAlaska pipeline and the caribou herds near it are thriving.
"Destroying" is an ignorant term. Ignorant of the advanced technology of drilling and the actual reality of the current pipeline.
And, no, I am not an employee of "Big Oil."
If you wish to go over the environmental issues, maybe you should start another thread and invite me on.

And the United States has been increasingly been using energy more efficiently, and beyond that has done research into fusion (a machine called z, our next Manhattan project) and solar power satellites.
The American Way is not to retreat but to rise to a technological challenge.
But no, we are not going to huddle in caves, and yes, idiot liberals have been buying stupid SUV's for suburban use. My eyes are rolling at their hypocrisy, but it is a free country.

American

Originally posted by Typedef

So, far-right religous groups who believe god intends Israel to own Palestinian land and the Zionist lobbies in the US have in effect created the rampant Anti-Americanism that is sweeping the world and created people who are willing to bomb themselves to death for a cause said people feel will be advanced by hurting the US.
The Wahhabi sect that is causing all the problems predated the establishment of the State of Israel by the United Nations by about 150 years....and predated a serious Zionist movement by a 100 years. Wahhabis were killing 10,000 at a crack before Israel existed or America had a policy toward Israel, so neither Israel nor America is the cause of Wahhabi violence...we merely make them madder, but they are already mad.

And I have to take a pass on the rest of your rant, interesting though it is, as I have too much to do right now.

Be back tomorrow and see if I can pick up some pieces.

bonkey

Originally posted by American

If you wish to go over the environmental issues, maybe you should start another thread and invite me on.

If people do wish to take American up on US environmental policy, please do go to a new thread.

In fact, I would suggest that any issue on this thread other than the US possibly invading Iraq be taken up in a new thread, in an attempt to keep relevancy with the topics.

American - I'm sure you're aware, but you dont need to be "invited on". If there's a thread and you wish to comment, you are free to do so.

jc

American

Here's the latest speculation on the anthrax. Thought you might be interested.

John J. Fialka and Gary Fields
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
(Mark Schoofs contributed to this article)

03 December, 2001

Washington-Investigators say the person behind the anthrax attacks got many details right but may have missed a crucial one.

They suspect the perpetrator failed to remove static electricity from the powder containing the deadly spores.

According to scientists who have made anthrax for use in weapons in the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, the presence of an electrostatic charge may have saved American lives. While some of the charged particles can still become airborne-
where they are the most deadly- much of the material tends to cling to surfaces.

Investigators going through 600 plastic garbage bags loaded with congressional mail found about 23,000 microscopic anthrax spores clinging to the inside of the bag containing an anthrax-filled letter sent to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy. The sticking tendency may have made cross-contamination of mail more likely, according to one senior Federal Bureau of Investigation official involved in the investigation, because the spores would have been prone to attach themselves to envelopes and surfaces.

However, the spores would be less likely to float. "Electrostatically charged materials are very hard to disseminate." explained Bill Patrick, a scientist who helped develop anthrax-loaded weapons for the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s.
While Mr. Patrick said he hasn’t personally seen samples of anthrax sent in a letter to another senator, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a scientist working on the investigation, he said, has described it to him.

"It’s purified like our material and it has a small particle size, just as we did, but it has an electrostatic charge," he said.

The charge must be removed with a secret combination of chemicals, he said, to make effective biological weapons. Otherwise, "some of it can still get up in the air," he said, "but it’s not predictable."

Some scientists cautioned that the electrostatic charge in the powder could have grown as it was handled. Richard Flagan, a professor of chemical engineering at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, whose specialty is aerosols, said the mail-sorter machines could conceivably have transferred an electric charge by jostling the letters containing the powder.

An FBI official said agents have been checking the backgrounds and histories of people working at military-level labs who might have the capability of producing the kind of anthrax found in the letter. The probe includes private labs that might work with the military. Investigators are looking at the backgrounds of current employees and the whereabouts and backgrounds of past employees. They are also asking research facilities and universities about security and whether any of their anthrax has been stolen in recent weeks and months.

The U.S. biological-weapons program was disbanded by President Nixon in 1969, but it became an issue last month as investigators discovered that the Ames strain of anthrax- the strain found in most of the recent cases- later used by the U.S. in defensive military experiments, was held in a few government and university laboratories. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist who heads a biological-weapons working group for the Federation of American Scientists, asserted the anthrax used in the letters "was almost certainly derived from the U.S. weapons program." That, she said, would narrow the search down to a few individuals.

"She is flat wrong," Mr. Patrick said.

David R. Franz, who headed the defense-related biological-research program for the Army at Fort Detrick, Md., between 1987 and 1998, said the defensive experiments the Army conducted with the Ames anthrax used the bacteria in a liquid slurry and not in the powdered form. During that period, he said, the U.S. obtained information from a British military research laboratory that did experiments with Ames anthrax in the powdered form.

bonkey

From American Source 1 (AS1) in that article :

"It’s purified like our material and it has a small particle size, just as we did, but it has an electrostatic charge," he said.

From AS2 :

the defensive experiments the Army conducted with the Ames anthrax used the bacteria in a liquid slurry and not in the powdered form.

Errr - hang one. One guy says "like we did" and the other guy says "we never did that".

I notice that the second quote only mentions "defensive experiments". This is both a politically motivated statement - we would only ever use it for defense , and compeletely irrelevant - after all nuclear weapons are a defensive armament - they are only supposed to be used in defense of the nation, right...

In either case, the fact is that we have the guy who was in charge of that type of experiment saying "no way could it be ours". Well, what do you expect him to say? "It could be ours, cause we lost some while I was in charge" perhaps? I dont think so.

It is irrelevant where the stuff came from originally - whether it was stolen from a military or medical location, or manufactured from scratch.

What is relevant is :

1) Nations still stock and investigate the use of biological weapons
2) The results of past experiments have now been used (poorly) by an unknown aggressor against the US.

America can point fingers at Saddam or whoever it likes, but without proof being offered, this is just finger-pointing. As was the case with Afghanistan, I never expect to see proof of guilt in the public domain on this case, but I do expect that someone will be found guilty. This is a worrying trend for me.

America developed a lot of this tech. Now it comes crying that someone else has done so, and used it? Weapons were not invented to sit on shelves. Learn your lessons and learn em well. You cant uninvent these weapons. Once you create them, they exist, and sooner or later someone else will also have them, and be willing to use them.

jc

American

Originally posted by bonkey
From American Source 1 (AS1) in that article :
You cant uninvent these weapons. Once you create them, they exist, and sooner or later someone else will also have them, and be willing to use them.
jc

Once man was created with curiosity, it was just a matter of time to this day.
Take cloning. You think laws will make any difference now that the genie is out of the bottle? Take abortion. We kill millions of the unborn every year and never turn a hair to the silent holocaust.

We cannot save ourselves from ourselves because we are born in sin. We have met the enemy and he is us.

We need a Saviour.

Mercifully He came.

bonkey

Originally posted by American
We cannot save ourselves from ourselves because we are born in sin. We have met the enemy and he is us.

We need a Saviour.

Mercifully He came.

I'm sorry, I seem to have gotten the politics board confused with the religion board.

If you actually want me to take you seriously on this.....how can you mention the evil of abortion in one paragraph, and then talk about our Saviour coming and having saved us (cause if he didnt, then he wasnt really a saviour then was he).

if he saved us, what the hell is all this evil doing still about.

This is pure hokum. You argument, defending the research into WoMD (after discarding the irrelevant religious preaching) is that "if we didnt invent them, someone else would have".

Well - here's a parallel argument. The people in the WTC would have died anyway, due to the mortality of humankind. Therefore, Al Qaeda did nothing wrong by taking their lives.

Get a grip.

My point was that these weapons exist. They exist because of huge resaerch put into them by the US. Only one man on the Manhattan project had themoral fibre to resign from the project once he learned that the Germans wouldnt have nuclear capability before the end of the war. He was honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize. My argument is that we need to think more like this man. Your argument appears to be that because we're not all like him, there is no point in trying to be like him.

And if you insist on being religious about it, exactly which part of "Love thy Neighbour" involves research into weapons of mass destruction?

jc

Victor

OK I don't really want to get too involved here but:

The start of World War 2: the direct cause to the start of WW2 was the German invasion of Poland, perhaps Germany was unfairly treated at Versailles and many countries sopped to German aggressiveness in Czechoslovakia, perhaps it was the British ultimatum to Germany and their subsequent declaration of war, but ultimately it was about the greed of the German government in invading Poland. Also note that Japan had been at war since c. 1936, as had many 'international brigades' been in Spain. I don't know when the title "World War 2" was coined, but it must be said and much of the world was involved prior to December 1941 (Germany and it's European allies, the UK and it's European allies, Russia, China, French North Africa and elsewhere, the Dutch East Indies, Italian possessions in North Africa, the British Empire - in particular South Africa, Australia, Canada), as well as most of Europe. The general consensus is that it started in September 1939, whether it was one particular day of the month or another does not matter.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Tens of thousands of Marines did not die in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, yes many did died, but not tens of thousands. Estimates of American casualties for invading the Japanese home islands were in the order of 60,000 American (or Allied?) dead. While Japan was suffering severe defeats, it still had something like 17,000,000 (many militia) under arms. The reasons these 2 cities were chosen were (a) they had Japanese army headquarters in them and (b) they were 2 of the few cities left sufficiently intact to make 'meaningful' attacks against with nuclear weapons (most has been nearly totally destroyed in firebombing). The main reason there was no Japanese response to the first attack was because communications were so badly disrupted by the attack that the Japanese government was unable to get sufficient information to form a response.

Dresden: Dresden was totally destroyed in a single night by the USAAF. The city was completely undefended and unprepared. 30,000 people died in a massive firestorm. While many cites had evacuated children and other non-essential personnel, Dresden would not have, people would not have been in their shelters, there were few if any anti-aircraft guns. There had been a “gentleman’s” agreement between the British and Germans that Dresden and (I think) Cambridge would not be bombed due to their architectural merits. Apparently, the USAAF did not feel they were bound by the agreement.

Iraq: I don’t think the will exists to start a ‘full’ (not ‘new’) war in Iraq. However, the US army is actively preparing to send heavy units overseas (tanks aren’t very good in the mountains of Afghanistan). If the Iraqis have developed WMDs, the idea would be to not attack them, there is relative peace, there is no need to kick a hornets nest. More likely targets are parts of Somalia or other areas with a lack of government control.

God

Originally posted by American

We cannot save ourselves from ourselves because we are born in sin. We have met the enemy and he is us.

We need a Saviour.

Mercifully He came.

Yes, sorry I'm late I was watching Ally McBeal.

American

Originally posted by Victor
Tens of thousands of Marines did not die in Iwo Jima and Okinawa,

I tried to post this a couple nights ago but my local server/browser was down.

Iwo Jima:
U.S. personnel: 6,821 Killed, 19,217 Wounded, 2,648 Combat Fatigue = Total 28,686
Marine Casualties: 23,573
Japanese Troops: 1,083 POW and 20,000 est. Killed

Okinawa:
Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed [including nearly 5,000 Navy dead and almost 8,000 Marine and Army dead] and 36,000 wounded.
Japanese human losses were enormous: 107,539 soldiers killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves;
US Army figures for the 82 day campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

You argument, defending the research into WoMD (after discarding the irrelevant religious preaching) is that "if we didnt invent them, someone else would have".

My point was that these weapons exist. They exist because of huge resaerch put into them by the US.

And if you insist on being religious about it, exactly which part of "Love thy Neighbour" involves research into weapons of mass destruction?
jc

Some updated information from the Washington Post:

"Genetic fingerprinting studies indicate that the anthrax spores mailed to Capitol Hill are identical to stocks of the deadly bacteria maintained by the U.S. Army since 1980, according to scientists familiar with the most recent tests.

"Although many laboratories possess the Ames strain of anthrax involved in this fall's bioterrorist attacks, only five laboratories so far have been found to have spores with perfect genetic matches to those in the Senate letters, the scientists said. And all those labs can trace back their samples to a single U.S. military source: the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Md.

"Those matching samples are at Fort Detrick; the Dugway Proving Ground military research facility in Utah; a British military lab called Porton Down; and microbial depositories at Louisiana State University (LSU) and Northern Arizona University."

NAU got its sample from LSU which got its sample from Porton Down. Dugway and Porton Down got their samples directly from Fort Detrick.
There was a British report that security at Porton Down was lax. Indeed, an inventory revealed that a vial of foot & mouth disease went missing and they had no idea for how long.
This shortly before the foot & mouth epidemic in British livestock last year...
However, Dugway is getting the most attention from the FBI as it is the only facility known in recent years to have processed the spores into a powdery form.
One caveat: the FBI is still checking the genetics of anthrax held at several other labs, including one in Canada.

***
Answers to questions:
I said man is curious and information will out as a result.
The weapons exist because of the Cold War; both sides did research into biological weapons. The Soviets' anthrax got out and killed a bunch of people in a nearby town. Each side justified their development as "defensive", to learn how to counteract an agent that the other was developing, or stalemate the other, and prevent deployment by threatening retaliation.
Can't say I can justify research with the intent of aggression, but I suppose that research with the intent of defense or prevention due to threatening MAD may be justifiable. But it isn't the Christian way, and I doubt Heather or Dayna would be happy about this activity.
Supposedly this program was shut down. However, the FBI keeps turning over interesting rocks as it pursues the perp(s).

JustHalf

I personally think mutually-assured destruction was a great way of keeping either side from launching nukes. Just think about it. If you launch one nuke, your going to get wiped off the face of the Earth.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

What is relevant is :

1) Nations still stock and investigate the use of biological weapons
2) The results of past experiments have now been used (poorly) by an unknown aggressor against the US.
jc

In support of your relevant points is an article I can't copy but you can access. Basically, it says that the FBI is thinking now that one of 200 U.S. scientists that did work on anthrax in the last decade for our Army, ostensibly to research defense against an attack, is the nut/terrorist who sent it.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/US_ANTHRAX.html