Kay Steps Down No Wmd Found

[Rasputin]

According to Reuters, Jan 24 2004, Kay will no longer head the Iraqi Survey Group - citing lack of resources and changed focus. He stated:

I don't think they [WMD] existed.....I don't think there was a large scale production program in the Nineties..

Fair enough. But in his own report he cites Botulism vials being found and botulism is a banned chemical agent. Kay in various pre war books and articles stated that WMD existed [you can site Miniter's book, or Pollacks the Threatening Storm].

So Kay, the Conservatives, the UNO and all Western foreign intelligence sources were wrong - they all declared that Hussein had or wanted to have WMD.

This does not make the War illegal or wrong. It does however point out that better intelligence is needed. Does this mean pre-emption should only be based on irrefutable intelligence on WMD ?

[righturnonred]

Great post Rasputin. If Saddam didn't have WMDs, he sure as hell wanted his neighbors and rest of world to believe that he did. His previous history of using the weapons, threatening others in the region, outspoken moral, financial, and logistical support for terrorism, and his elaborate aparatus of deception employed to hide his so called weapons from inspectors all point to a reasonable conclusion, that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.

As this point, opponents of the war are forced to conclude as of now, based on all available information, excluding purely paranoid delusions or vitriolic Bush hatred, that the Adminstration has not lied about but was simply wrong on WMDs based on inaccurate or inconclusive intellegence. No one, not Hans Blix or Jock Iraq or anyone, had any doubt pre-war that Saddam had weapons.

With that said, WMDs were only one part of what this war was about. It is first and foremost a monumentous attempt to modernize and reshape that region,not to remake it in the image of American, but to bring their culture from the 6th century into the 21st. In addition, this war was about helping the Iraqi people from out under the boot of Saddam where he held them hostage for a generation.

And yes, oil was part of it as well. The United States has a compelling interest in protecting the stablility of world oil supplies. Currrently the US imports about 55% of it's oil from foreign countries. Roughly 30% of that comes from the Gulf region. While the US continues to import a greater percentage of it's oil from abroad, imports from the middle east are actually shrinking in accordance with out strategy to be less dependent on oil from that unstable region. Instead, other countries are picking up the slack, countries such as Mexico, Venezuala, Russia, Canada, and others.

Our dependence on foreign sources of oil could be further reduced by opening portions of ANWR to domestic oil exploration, a mere 6% of that reserve. This initiative has repeatedly been block by Democrats in Congress who are willing to the put the lives of caribou, which incidently wouldn't be harmed in the slightest by such an operation, above the security of the American people. A grand example of liberal perversion at work.

Bushmustgo or others, don't bother replying with your take on Bush's "real" war agenda, that being domestic political advantage, stealing oil, benefaction of corporate cronies, campaign of global imperialism, or simply for him [bush] to satisfy his overwhelming urge to slaugher "hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians" because he's an evil evil man, or whatever else ridiculas tripe the left has forced down your throat.

[Michael Hardner]

I have a question about what you have posted.

But in his own report he cites Botulism vials being found and botulism is a banned chemical agent.

Doesn't this count as a biological of mass destruction ? ie. Doesn't this prove that Iraq DID have WMD ? What does and doesn't consitute a WMD anyway ?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Doesn't this count as a biological of mass destruction ? ie. Doesn't this prove that Iraq DID have WMD ? What does and doesn't consitute a WMD anyway ?

There was only 1 vial of botulin found. In a scientist's fridge at home. It was not 'weaponized', meaning it was about as dangerous as a WMD as expired sandwich meat. Hence it is only referred to by very few as 'evidence'.

[Rasputin]

Well flea actually in Kay's report he mentions more than 1 vial. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN.

Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced.

This discovery -- hidden in the home of a BW scientist -- illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons.

The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.

There is no update yet as far as i know on the other vials. So we don't know how many there are.

In Kay's Oct 2nd report he also made mention of other serious issues;

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

· Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information -- including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and

Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited investigation with pathogenic agents.

Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt) with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin.

In a similar vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents.

Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons.

For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined.

So yes technically WMD have been found but not the smoking gun the US was looking for.

However enough has been found to justify its suspicions. I agree with RTR that:

Our dependence on foreign sources of oil could be further reduced by opening portions of ANWR to domestic oil exploration, a mere 6% of that reserve. This initiative has repeatedly been block by Democrats in Congress who are willing to the put the lives of caribou, which incidently wouldn't be harmed in the slightest by such an operation, above the security of the American people. A grand example of liberal perversion at work

Energy gurantees and especially destroying OPEC is another good reason for the war, however, i think most objective people would recognise that setting up a police station in a bad neighbourhood is a very very good idea.

Iraq's Al Ansar which is an Al Qaeda affiliate, Hussein's funding of everything from WMD production to Egyptian newspapers denouncing the US and his support of terror against Israel was intolerable. [Economist Jan 17th article makes these same points].

The war is justified - especially if you happen to be an Iraqi. Regardless of the problems there, pre-emption is probably the only strategy in a world of WMD and terror.

I just wonder how the world's 'intelligence' networks were so mislead and how they can be recreated to be a little more intelligent.

[SirRiff]

anyone who has worked in a biology lab knows that simple bacteria are easy to cultivate by any high school student. to say that a nation in 2003 is preparing for war by having university level bacterial strains is insane. by that logic almost all nations have massive stockpiles.

because the US was completely wrong about WMD stockpiles, its obvious their views on saddams intentions or future actions are worthless. they have already proved they lie to the world to attain thier goals. a few old white men with bush have been the ones striking fear into ameircans by citing intelligence showing these massive stockpiles. thus its obvious nothing left is sacred to the american gov, even lying to its own peole about national securiety issues. anybody to believes what they say about iraq anymore is lacking adult cognitive skills. there is no proof of anything they have ever said being true.

in truth, the war was about 9/11 fear, slumping domestic economy, influence of oil stabililty, and neo-con strategic military philosophy. nothing more, nothing less. WMD and human rights are not even on the radar screen.

its obvious the US has become a rouge nation with no problem lying to teh world and its own people. thus it cannot be trusted by anyone on anything.

colin powell yesterday said its possible no WMDs ever existed and he doesnt know how this would have goten past US intelligence. this is the guy who made the presentation to the US citing rock hard evidence.

its all disgusting, bush and his war mongers should be drug into the street and shot like the other violent leaders of the last 50 years. they point out the violent dictators of other nations yet do the very same thing under teh guise of self defence. lies, all lies.

[Rasputin]

Riff you said:

in truth, the war was about 9/11 fear, slumping domestic economy, influence of oil stabililty, and neo-con strategic military philosophy. nothing more, nothing less. WMD and human rights are not even on the radar screen

Neo con military strategy ? Please list the sources for this. Slumping domestic economy ? Please list the % of the recent economic growth attributable to the war in Iraq. Hint; it is less than 10 %.

Sustained turnarounds in capital spending and in hiring are crucial to ensuring that the economic resurgence moves ahead. Economists said business wants profits to improve and is looking for certainty about the recovery's vigor before going on a spending and hiring spree.

The housing market, powered by low mortgage rates, also contributed to the strong showing on third quarter GDP. Investment on residential projects grew at a 20.4 percent rate, the fastest since the second quarter of 1996.

Federal spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat.

sces; China Business Daily, Wells Fargo.

Oil stability ? Iraq only produces 2 mbpd Canada is more important to the US in this regard does that mean the US will invade Canada ?

On Security you are on firmer ground.

You said:

colin powell yesterday said its possible no WMDs ever existed and he doesnt know how this would have goten past US intelligence. this is the guy who made the presentation to the US citing rock hard evidence

List sources for this.

I found no reports that Powell yesterday said anything about Iraq - Jan 24th 2004. Was it on Tv ? If so which show ?

If you read Kay's report Powell's evidence was largely backed up. I posted the link so read it, many of Powell's arguments pre war are supported.

[Communist_boy]

Powell: Iraq May Not Have Possessed WMD

Thats the article he was refering to.

WMD must be removed from all nations no matter the nation. There is no logical reason for them to exist, MAD no longer exists. The USSR has colapsed. They will certanly not Nuke a country just because someone detonates a stick of TNT, i should hope.

The americans are in effect one of the largest hypocrits to be found, besides Russuia they have one of the largest if not the largest supply of WMD.

[righturnonred]

The americans are in effect one of the largest hypocrits to be found, besides Russuia they have one of the largest if not the largest supply of WMD.

The obvious difference is that the US, contrary to what you may believe, is not a rouge nation and can infact be relied upon not to use WMD or hand it over to terrorist organizations. The same cannot be said for rogue nations. In a post 9/11 world, rouge nations will not be allowed to possess WMD, period.

You are wrong about MAD. Although Russia is technically no longer an adversary, that country is slowly but surely slipping back into the reigns of totalitarianism. In addition, China possesses a small by significant intercontenental capability and IMO they are most certainly an emerging adversary to the US. MAD has deminished since the Cod War, but it is not gone and probably won't be for a long time.

Bottom line, the US will not use Nuclear weapons unless we are struck with such weapons. In contrast, it's not possible to assume this with rouge nations, i.e. Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, Syria, Lybia.

I agree that the elimination of nukes from the planet is a noble and worthy endevour, however it's completely illogical to expect the US to "set the example".

[Communist_boy]

A rogue state. Let us look at the definition of the world rogue, To defraud. Let us remeber that concreate evidence that said Iraq had these major stockpiles of WMD, however in recent news they have this shocking revalation that there might not be those weapons after all.

Large, destructive, and anomalous. In this case lets compare this definition to the US, they certainly are large, very destructive, lets just look at Iraq X2, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Europe from both wars, plus those numerous little countries that they helped to destroy secretly.

So they certainly qualify as being "rogue". They attack a nation with the possibility of wanting to think about maybe getting WMD, with little international support. And in the process avoid the real source of problems.

If they wanted to fix the terrorism problem in the Mideast they may want to look at Suadia Arabia (SA). After all something like 7 out of 15 highjakers were Saudi's. Bin Ladens funding comes from SA.

Or maybe deal with NK, they avoid a major instability, because there is a possibility of loosing, and Bush knows that he must avoid that, so he picks a fight with someone who is far less a threat to world peace and stability. Hussien may not be a nice guy but lets look at who is a problem to world stability.

[Rasputin]

Right you mentioned correctly:

You are wrong about MAD. Although Russia is technically no longer an adversary, that country is slowly but surely slipping back into the reigns of totalitarianism. In addition, China possesses a small by significant intercontenental capability and IMO they are most certainly an emerging adversary to the US. MAD has deminished since the Cod War, but it is not gone and probably won't be for a long time.

Russia is certainly undemocratic with Putin and the KGB now running affairs. No free press, little political opposition and Putin now wants to control most of the oil revenues [hence he jailed Khordokovsky who would not obey Putin the Great's dictates].

Russia has 1000 or so missiles according to various agencies still pointed at the US. Russia has a valuable role in the world, but it is still a poor, mangled country, with an unstable gov't and few real meaningful laws.

I don't believe China is a threat but a potential ally. China has a smaller economy than California and is still a poor country with major problems in banking, finance, unemployment and rural poverty. The size of the dragon is more impressive than its strength.

As for US rogue status, how do left wingers explain the following:

-US support of the UNO [by far it pays the most]

-US support of NATO

-US support for Turkey to join the EU

-US defence of the Muslims in Kosovo vs. Serbia

-US attempt to defend the Muslims and others in Somalia

-US defence of Israel against terror

-US aid to Bali and Muslim Indonesia

-US aid and support to Hindu/Muslim India

-US protection of South Korea

-US invasion and reconstitution of Afghanistan spending 1 billion dollars per month of US tax payer money in rebuilding Afgh.

Some of the anti-US posts are illogical, false and unintelligible. They are made by people who believe that UNO inactivity, French hypocrisy and arrogance are better mandates for the world, then trade, security and democracy.

They are just simply deranged.

[Communist_boy]

The US pays the most really, interesting statement,

outstanding contributions by the United States, with $373 million relating to the current period and $316.9 to prior periods

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2002

Country ($amount)

Luxembourg  2.15

Liechtenstein  2.13

Japan  1.74

Norway  1.65 

Denmark  1.60

Monaco  1.38

Iceland  1.35

Germany  1.34 

Austria  1.31

Sweden  1.30

Theres the top ten countries in order of who contributes the most.

Beginning in 1974, the Assembly fixed a maximum rate of 25 per cent for any contributor – later reduced to 22 per cent from 2001. So far, this ceiling has benefited only the United States, whose share of total membership GNP is approximately 27 per cent. Without this ceiling, its share would be even higher since, like other countries with high per capita income, it would have been required to contribute to the cost of reductions for the countries with low per capita income. The rates of other Member States are raised to make up for the difference.

Another beautiful idea which helps only america.

Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2002

  Assessment rates Amount

Country (per cent) ($millions)

United States 22.000  283.1

Japan  19.669 218.4

Germany  9.845 109.3

France  6.516 72.4

United Kingdom  5.579 62.0

Italy  5.104 56.7

Canada  2.579 28.6

Spain  2.539 28.2

Brazil  2.093 23.2 

Republic of Korea  1.866  20.7

Sure they are SUPPOSED to may more than anyone else but, as was quoted before they still have outstanding dues. BTW if you look its not much higher than Japan.

All of this can be found at CHAPTER 5: IS THE UNITED NATIONS GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY?

[Rasputin]

First of all this has little to do with the post.

2nd your analysis as usual is all mixed up. The US pays the most in absolute terms for the UN - so what is your point ? Add in all the extra costs the US pays for peace keeping and the numbers are higher. As for 'past dues' these were resolved under Clinton and the US is paying them off. The dues were withheld because as i stated Annan and the UN never bothered to initiate needed reform.

Read today's NP editorial on UN reform. It is a gigantic, bloated bureaucracy that has little in the way of accomplishments.

As well other posts on this site, cite sources that clearly demonstrate the anti-US anti Israeli tenor of UN policy and pronouncements.

So your post is irrelevant.

This post was on WMD and foreign policy implications not on the uselessness of the UNO which is documented elsewhere.

[Communist_boy]

YOU began the conversation on the UN. YOU stated that the US pays in the most. YOU accused the UN of not doing enough. Therefore YOU strayed from the topic.

-US support of the UNO [by far it pays the most]

-US support of NATO

-US support for Turkey to join the EU

-US defence of the Muslims in Kosovo vs. Serbia

-US attempt to defend the Muslims and others in Somalia

-US defence of Israel against terror

-US aid to Bali and Muslim Indonesia

-US aid and support to Hindu/Muslim India

-US protection of South Korea

-US invasion and reconstitution of Afghanistan spending 1 billion dollars per month of US tax payer money in rebuilding Afgh.

YOU provide this list and request an answer to these things.

how do left wingers explain the following

When I attempt to explain one part to you, YOU accuse ME of straying, perhaps you should look at who I was responding to in my post, you may get a better idea of who to attack.

[Rasputin]

Commie boy, on WMD and the original post it is clear that some intelligence work was missing. The Questions from this would include; was there WMD and if so where is it now ? is national security subservient to the UN in an age of subnational terror groups and clandestine terror ops ? is the UN pure enough or is it controlled by too many interests and second rate regimes that makes collective security impossible ? Is NATO or the PSI a better venue for collective security ?

The US supports multi-lateralism as given by money paid, the new Bush Aids relief for Africa [$15 billion] and the list of countries the US has rushed to defend, including as you can see, many Muslim states.

I don't think the media fascination with US unilateralism is entirely correct nor supported by facts. The US is acting when its security is threatened and well it should. Clearing the world of odious Muslim extremism and failed regimes is a blessing - the UN after all sponsors terror in Palestine and was making money in Iraq. Hardly the gang you want to call when your house is burning.

[Communist_boy]

The US is acting when its security is threatened and well it should. Clearing the world of odious Muslim extremism and failed regimes is a blessing

Ah yes because people who want their own nation, much like the Americans themselves wanted, will begin attacking America as they did on Sept 11. Ridding the world of terorism is a noble cause but, perhaps we should listen to what the terrorists have to say before we kill them to.

What US security is being upset by the supposed WMDs in Iraq. They still have found nothing. Members of his government have come forward saying that Bush was in a trance and obsessed with Iraq until 9/11. That raises the question, did he have physic powers that know one else in his cabine had. Perhaps he did, he foresaw an invasion that push america deeper into debt.

The US should have let the organization "that they put SO much into" do its job, people complain that the UN doesnt do anything. Oddly enough these people are the same people who wouldnt give them a chance. Obviously they did a pretty good job in Iraq before as there are none to be found.

[Communist_boy]

O and BTW this is a little off topic, so rasputin I already know im "off topic" talk so there is no point in telling me or anyone here about me being off topic.

For those of you who would support the war baised on humanitarian reasons, check this out:

Human Rights Watch decries Iraq war

Heres another good article:

Ex US-Treasury Chief: Saw No Evidence of Iraq WMDs

Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Before Sept. 11-Report

The greater threat, we know they have weapons, yet we do little to stop them:

N.Korea Shows U.S. Delegation 'Nuclear Deterrent'

[KrustyKidd]

Riff

david kay has said he doesnt think wmd exists in iraq. he says in his opinion stockpiles will never be found and they have not existed post 1991

LOL, this is the "CIA" puppet of the Bush administration. But only when you don't like his news, when you like, he is the 'Word Of God.'

HE ALSO SAYS THIS RIFF:

An article in London's Sunday Telegraph quoted David Kay, the outgoing leader of a U.S. weapons search team in Iraq, as saying that part of Iraq's secret weapons program had been hidden in Syria.

And, forgive me for not going back to his report from last year, but he stated that he found all sorts of wicked material and equipment that were contrary to Res 687 and 1441. What the heck is your point? Bush is exonnerated, Saddam had the means, reason, and did nothing to disuade the world from thinking he had them. Where is your proof that they did not and do not exist? LOL, you have none, nor did you ever have any. Even that fool Michael Moore said they existed.

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2002

Country ($amount)

Luxembourg  2.15

Liechtenstein  2.13

Japan  1.74

Norway  1.65 

Denmark  1.60

Monaco  1.38

Iceland  1.35

Germany  1.34 

Austria  1.31

Sweden  1.30

Per capita. Now, let's move to the different types of foreign aid the US gives. Loans that have little chance of being repaid, Military assistance, Nation building, AIDs relief, Space Exploration and such. There is more to generoustity than the UN or food.

What US security is being upset by the supposed WMDs in Iraq. They still have found nothing.

None. Have you been living in a cave? Saddam was a threat to it's nieghbors, and hence, US and the world's intrests. Have you seen many "Bring back Saddam!" rallys in Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Jordan? No, they were shit scared of him. And, they all did much business with the US and the west.

It had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam. It had everything to do with preventing terror. The whole Middle East is a mismanaged political hole. Kings and Tyrants lord it over people with little or no means of feeding, educating or providing for their needs. Dissent is often met with imprisonment, torture or death. It is a dead end place for the normal person. Frustrated, many turn to the only place that gives them hope - Religion. Not the religion that keeps them calm, cool and promotes peace but religion that invokes change, points to an enemy and provides a reason to attack that enemy. The West.

The theory is simple. Provide a democracy, provide a means of empowerment to the people and give it a push and hope for the best. If it works, there will be a powerful light in the center of the middle east for all that think there is only hopelessness. If it fails, be prepared to be at war with terror for a long time to come. All the West, not just the US.

WMD and Saddam were a dream come true. A perfect excuse to get rid of a dictatorship and replace it with democracy. Nobody liked him, the population would welcome the change, Irq had the means to perpetuate it's own renewal, Saddam provided an excuse. This wasn't planned last year, it was probably in the works scince the mid eighties.

As for WMD themselves, heck, did Saddam ever provide an open door policy to allow inspections like he was supposed to? Even in the end when he started to Blix kept on finding stuff that wasn't supposed to be there. He had every intention of resuming production once the US left the region.

As for ties with Al Queda, here is a report to the Intelligence Sub Committee.

OSAMA SADDAM LINK

Quick Summary of report

Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for Al Qaeda - perhaps even for Mohamed Atta - according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by The Weekly Standard.

This isn't a game CB, if we fail in Iraq that means that Militent Islam will take over. Not just the country of Iraq but the entire region. Our former 'Thug' buddies, whom we supported in the past for the wrong reasons are on the way out. The world has changed, we have a region wide religion that has a militent wing that is embraced by desperate people who have no choices. They are angry and controlled by people who feel that the Infidel must be destroyed or submit. If we can't give them an alternative then we and our children are doomed to fight them everywhere for years. If Iraq can become a sucess then that will be one anchor in the ME that will help spread democracy. Democracy, an idea that has had a sucessful history of feeding people better than any other form of government.

If it does not work we will be screwed. What is happening here is not a war on Iraq. It was a removal of a dictator so that democracy could be placed in a country that had everything going for it to enable it to work. This is a bold move to show the people of the middle east that there is a hope for them and that millitant islam is not the way to go. If this fails, Militent Islam will become the way for them to go. America and the West will probably retreat from the Middle East altogether and wait for them to attack us here. When they attack we will then carry out a real war against whoever attacked us and those that harbored them. I know you don't see it this way but this is relative peace compared to what may happen if Iraq fails.

Oh, one last point; Rockerfeller, the Vice on the Senate Intelligence Sub Committee, has, with all the intelligence agencies that America has to offer tried to implicate Bush and the Adm for lying, falsifying intelligence and such yet cannot make anything stick. On the contrary, he has implicated himself as working against the Administration and his postition is in jeapardy. If Bush is full of it, there are millions of Dems who are far better able to provide proof than you who continually fail.

[SirRiff]

if the US is such a respectfull nation, why did they secretly funnel $3 Billion worth of violence to afganistan in the 80s?

that is exactly the actions of a rouge nation.

why did the US support saddam while he wa gassing iranians and brutalizing his own country? american companies even sold him chemical precursors for his weapons program. that was during the cheney/rumy days way back in the day.

why did the US secretly give weapons to iran to kill iraqis?

why did the US secretly assist in the sept 11,1973 bloody coup in chile? thousands disappeared while the US said nothing,

the US has supported dozens of the worth dictators over the last 20 years, in latin america and the middle east. there is no "royal" family in suadi arabia or kuwait. just tyrants who the US supports and protects at all costs to keep the oil coming.

the US is a bitch to stable oil flow and everything it does centers around that. there is no morality or concern about human suffering when american interests are at stake. that point has been demonstrated dozens of times in the last 50 years.

if you want to claim teh US is just another country, fine. but lets not pretend its anythign but what it is, certainly not selfless and benevolent.

if Bush had kept the troops in afganistan, and poured billions in there to help the people, THAT would be an act of kindness (and also international security, seeing as 9/11 only happened because afganistan was left in violence for 20 years). THen america with an act of kindness under its belt, could go to teh UN and make a humanitarian/regional stabillity argument for saddams refusal. none of this saddam-osama-9/11-WMd crap which was obviously hyped war mongering.

[Communist_boy]

Ok with all that said. If Iraq is a success, will the US be willing to continueally commit until the entire world is a democracy, I highly doubt that they will, even have the reserve to continue with the fight.

They may not have started the ball roling, but they didnt exactly stop, or even slow it down. The situation in the Middle East was seriously disturbed by us, especially after WW2. If we hadn't of assumed we knew exactly what they wanted then, we wouldnt be here now.

Everyone always says they want democracy. But to my knowledge no terrorist group has asked the US to give them it, I don't even recall any group asking for democracy.

And alot of those groups are angered by the Western Ideals, one of which being democracy.

People assume to much about that area. The world leaders need to listen to what the groups are saying. Then they can calm them peacefully. No one sits down with the people that they are trying to "help" and asked them how they can help.

There are however a few assumtions that can be made:

1) The war on terrorism will last for an extremly long time, possibly, until the end of mankind

2) The US can not just win people over to western ideas by "liberating" the middle east.

[KrustyKidd]

Riff

why did the US secretly give weapons to iran to kill iraqis?

etc, etc ....

What did I just say Riff? They were wrong, now they are trying to do it right. Like stop living in the past dude. This is a new game. Hang ten and surf with the new wave Daddy O. Now instead of aiding dictators they are trying to spread democracy. Guess you didn't get the news flash.

Like I said:

Our former 'Thug' buddies, whom we supported in the past for the wrong reasons are on the way out.

Riff

if Bush had kept the troops in afganistan, and poured billions in there to help the people, THAT would be an act of kindness

Oh, so freeing them from the Taliban was not enough? The billions spent was not enough? The thousands of US soldiers there actively seeking out the remanents of Al Queda and the Taliban are not enough? So where is the world Riff? The 'oh so concerned world?'

Next point, as I said the US is in the process of democracy seeding. It will work on Iraq because there is oil to help it. In Afganistan, it needs the help of the world. Go slap the face of the UN here, not the US. They did their part in spades as far as Afganistan is concerned. Canada guards Kabul??????? Wow, 2,000 troops. What a commitment to the people of Afganistan. Go talk to the troops and cheapskate Governments of every nation on earth who havn't moved an inch off their base to help Aftganistan. Talk to France and Germany, talk to those who are so concerned. The US spends 500 Billin, Canada should be spending 50 Billion if they are so concerned. You are blaming the only country doing anything of merit here. Where is the 200 Billion from France or Germany Riff?

CC

Ok with all that said. If Iraq is a success, will the US be willing to continueally commit until the entire world is a democracy, I highly doubt that they will, even have the reserve to continue with the fight.

I doubt it too. The idea is to make a few places self sufficient then hope it will spread. If they have to babysit then it is not democracy is it? It is occupation. I certainly do not wish for US troops to be in Iraq any longer than it takes for the place to become strong enough inside and out to withstand the forces working against democracy to win.

CC

Everyone always says they want democracy. But to my knowledge no terrorist group has asked the US to give them it, I don't even recall any group asking for democracy.

My God, you probably have a PHD or something and I drive a frickin' truck, yet you sound like a Michael Moore parrot or a Sean Pencilhead Jack in The Box. Scince when do those in power, actively engaged in the brutal oppression of a people and the blatent hatred of a third group to deflect attention from their own faults and inability to feed those people ask to have a vote on the subject?

CC

People assume to much about that area. The world leaders need to listen to what the groups are saying.

The groups?????

Oh, the thugs in control you mean. Duh on me. The Mullahs, the Warlords, Brutal Dictators and such. The ones who stand to lose their monopoly of total control over the masses if the people can decide for themselves. Yes, I can see where that would be a problem for them.

CC

There are however a few assumtions that can be made:

1) The war on terrorism will last for an extremly long time, possibly, until the end of mankind

2) The US can not just win people over to western ideas by "liberating" the middle east.

As for 1: We will be dead by then if it does. Once one of these groups gets hold of nukes then it's game over. The US will not allow a group from anywhere to detonate a nuke and then play 'Nation Building.' It will be 'lets make a glass parking lot' time as we are under fire.

As for 2: Having a vote and deciding one's fate is not a western idea. It is as old as mankind. Oppression, slavery, control as demonstrated by ME leaders both Military and Religious are the opposition and are just as old.

Outside intervention is new.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

the US. They did their part in spades as far as Afganistan is concerned. Canada guards Kabul??????? Wow, 2,000 troops. What a commitment to the people of Afganistan. Go talk to the troops and cheapskate Governments of every nation on earth who havn't moved an inch off their base to help Aftganistan.

Actually, the warlords and Mullahs are still very friendly with the US. One of the reasons why the west only controls Kabul. If it were 'democractized' and modernized, heroin production would stop. Can't have that. It would also not be 'money well spent' if someone else got control of the heroin trade. Would you give a billion a year away?

I refer you to the article someone posted here, from Gwynne Dyer. The US is trying to make it look like they are helping Afghanistan, without actually doing anything. When this ploy is used in the west, (such as building multi-million dollar homeless shelters and rehab centers without addressing the problems) it is called "conscience-salve".

[KrustyKidd]

One of the reasons why the west only controls Kabul. If it were 'democractized' and modernized, heroin production would stop.

Hmmm. Yes. Hmmm, of course. Yes, serious problem here. Might be time to get the world involved. Yes, the world, hmmmm. Somebody make a note of that. Help Afganistan, now safe for military troops to help aid convoys. Hmmmm.

Oh yes, of course. Blame America for making it safe for other countries to be able to send their miltiary to do so. They are at fault. Yes, hmmmm. Indeed. Make a note

I refer you to the article someone posted here, from Gwynne Dyer. The US is trying to make it look like they are helping Afghanistan, without actually doing anything.

"Making it look like?" Gee, and what is the rest of the world doing? Not even going through the motions.

[Rasputin]

What nonsense. The US invaded Afgh. to control opium production - according to Riff and Fleabag.

List all sources that support this along with some common sense explanation of why a nation would spend $1 billion per week to rebuild a country formerly the base of the Taliban, terror training camps, and terror fund raising. [$1 billion per week comes from this week's Economist].

Such insipid allegations do nothing to stimulate debate but override reality - 9-11 did happen and the US had every right to react and invade with allies, the home of the Taliban. Besides the fact that the Afghan people have a chance at a real life, destroying Al Qaeda's base has obvious security benefits. According to Bush 2/3 of its leadership has been 'dealt with.'

Canada's contribution while large for an country with only 17000 able bodied fighters pales in comparison with the men and money other nations are pouring into the country. The Cdn media would do better to instil some objectivity into their analysis instead of telling their readers or viewers that the world revolves around Canada.

[SirRiff]

What nonsense. The US invaded Afgh. to control opium production - according to Riff and Fleabag.

speaking of "insipid allegations" Rasputin, where exactly did i say the US war was based on a desire to control opium production?