911 - a year later

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by cyk
I think it's wishful thinking from Bush and Rumsfeld to have to not get Congressional approval for an invasion, and to strengthen their somewhat weak case with the coalition governments. There could be a link, I don't deny it yet, but since no evidence of it has been produced and both Rumsfeld and Cheney both avoided or ignored the issue and rambled on about Evil this and that

If there is proof of iraq's support of al-queda congressional approval is not necessary, they(congress) authrorized action in the resolution they passed on sept 14th.

Concerning that proof, nytimes had an acticle dealing with the story of a training camp outside bagdad with a 707 used for staging a terrorist take over. UNSCOM ispectors actually verified the existance of the facility. As have others. I would think the U.S. should have a sattalite photo as well.

I don't think any of the evidence will be revealed (for obvious reasons) until the invasion begins. If the invasion begins without evidence, well then thats bad.

[cyk]

-thats why they are so desperate to find the links between Saddam and Al Queda- they want it to fall under the same Congressional approval when it really does not- and it seems that many agree-

http://salon.com/news/wire/2002/08/29/iraq/index.html

I've heard several Republicans also say they want it put to a vote as well.

I've heard and seen the sats of the 707- It seems more likely that its just a piece of airplane refuse - but whatever- fantasy or legitimate concern- who knows

I'll say one thing I would expect the general US public to have many mis conceptions and fears over the Middle East, but its inexcusable for our leadership to be so in the dark.

Having been there I would say that we are consumed by a rediculous amount of paranoia- I know that sounds crazy after 9/11 and all but realistically do you think Iraq really could launch a campaign against us?
Scott Ritter testified they couldn't even invade their neighbors in the state their in.

There are a few wack-jobs thoough Al Queda is not in any position to do a thing and we need to stay vigilant particularly about border crossings and people entering this country - not just from the mid east but everywhere (see Richard Reed) which is where we should be investing our resources-protecting our borders i

- do we need to force inspectors back in- Yes because its part of the agreement Saddam signed but that can be acheived without full on military invasion- it just needs to be a more pressing concern to the UN and the Security council to pursue through diplomatic means.
Further more to fight terrorism we need inside help and we're not going to get that if we invade Iraq and destabliize the moderate Arab nations- S.A. Jordan Pakistan- all have turned over more terrorists than we could have ever hoped to bomb -

[aversion]

off topic slightly, I didn't want to start a new thread for this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2222205.stm

the threat of an attack from within America had been considered so small that the entire US mainland was being defended by only 14 planes...

...US pilots were forced to take to the skies without any weapons and might have had to deliberately crash into a hijacked plane to prevent casualties on the ground.

crazy, I bet things have changed now.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

I think those advocating a violent solution to this very complex situation are missing one important point. All sources are biased. All "evidence", articles and books are written from someone's perspective - there is truly no such thing as an "unbiased" view. That is impossible. Every single person carries with them a historical and social viewpoint. This viewpoint may change over time, but it will always influence what they see and how they perceive it.

A simple example - imagine a husband and wife giving evidence in their divorce case. They will each have different things to say about why their marriage broke down, with each view as accurate a history as the other (assuming no blatent lies of course - there is a difference).

So, if we can accept this bias of viewpoints, then we can accept that possibly all the ideas, links and views posted in this thread are correct in some way, then where does that leave us?

Well, it certainly shouldn't leave us with a mandate to continue a war, or to seek a solution through killing certain people. The soplution is obviously not so simple. Just the same as it should not leave us with the decision to do absolutely nothing and let everything run its "natural" course. These are basically the two extremes.

No, it requires true negotiation, investigation and MUTUAL consensus. The issue we are dealing with is not a US problem, it is a world problem. It is not simply a "western" problem, it is also an Arab one (and an Asian one, and...etc).

--> There is truth in the claim that Bin Laden is an evil man who took advantage of a social, economic and historical situation to further his own beliefs.

--> There is also truth, as much as some here have denied it, that US foreign policy has contributed to the very real ill feeling toward the United States in many parts of the world (just do a search on the web, or in any library, on American imperialism). To deny the validity of this view completely is niave in the least.

It is completely understandable why the American people - and even other non-Americans - would be scared and seeking the death of all they fear. But what is unfortunate is that those that should know better, those that are supposed to care about the long term good of not only a nation, but this world as a whole, and who should have enough information to have more of an understanding of the situation, still continue with the war and death rhetoric.

Unlike WW2, unlike previous wars of nation against nation (though that may be a totally new argummwent there) we are not fighting a country, or even a spcific group of people. This is a social, cultural, historical situation that has been growing for a hundred years or so, and finally exploded on Sep 11. There is more to reaching a successful resolution than killing a few murderers.

Unfortunately that is the rhetoric being sprouted by George Dubya, and believed by many who too easily accept what he and the Pentagon say. It is very scary when the self appointed "leader of the free world" is so narrow minded on such an important issue. Strong leadership is required, unfortunately he resorts to popular rhetoric. We can only hope that behind the scenes, away from the sway of public opinion and the polls, members of the Bush government actually understand the complexities involved, and are seeking a more enlightened long term solution...

But that may be hoping for too much...

[cyk]

Unfortunately that is the rhetoric being sprouted by George Dubya, and believed by many who too easily accept what he and the Pentagon say. It is very scary when the self appointed "leader of the free world" is so narrow minded on such an important issue. Strong leadership is required, unfortunately he resorts to popular rhetoric. We can only hope that behind the scenes, away from the sway of public opinion and the polls, members of the Bush government actually understand the complexities involved, and are seeking a more enlightened long term solution...

But that may be hoping for too much...

The most intelligent and well balanced man in his cabinet is easily Colin Powel(IMHO) and its a shame because he's totally ignored by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. And Ari Fleicher and Condoleeza Rice can't go one day without making some antagonistic remark. Its a ship of fools and the real captain is stuck in the crows nest. I think they stick him in the background because while he is a military man he's a rational man with a strong but compassionate personality that appeals to anyone and I think those 3 superhawks are actually scared of him- maybe politically, but he has already stated he had no interest in running for any other office. Powell supports the invasion into Iraq but I wonder how much is him backing the President.

2 things Im sure of though- Im glad he's in the position hes in now because his expertise in foreign affairs helps to ease the mistakes that come out of Bush's mouth
and after 9/11 I was glad he was there- he was a rock- strong and calm- the best leader this or any other country could ever have in my opinion.

[tonytryout]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I think with the comming invasion of Iraq it comes down to 2 things. His refusal to abide by the cease-fire agreement. His aiding al-queda terrorsits. The second has evidence coming to light, and when the invasion begins, i believe more evidence will be released.

Hate to say this but where is the evidence that Saddam supported Al-Quedia group? Yes GWB mentioned that Saddam did but I have not once seen a solid piece of evidence produced by anybody.

Slightly off-topic but interesting (and thought-provoking) http://www.viwuk.freeserve.co.uk/library/miles.html

[phacker]

Actually they can go back into Iraq under the 1991 Congressional agreement, siting the fact that they (Iraq) are not allowing inspections.

So the President doesn't need current Congressional Agreement.

On a side note I haven't seen evidence of Iraq's capabilities with weapons of mass destruction, quite the opposite. I think it's about oil and economics. If we gain control of the oil in this region, we can manipulate the price of imported oil, and take control over the pricing away from the Saudis. Just my view, and it also will make Republicans look better in the upcoming elections. I'd like to see full disclosure on who in the Executive Branch and Congress own stock in companies, that this sort of action would effect. Someone is going to profit. And, it probably won't be the little guy.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Economics over ideology - wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.

I think those that believe the current US administration(and I differentiate between the current government and the general public - most of my American friends have very grave doubts about the continuing violence, INCLUDING the parents of my friend that was killed) is being driven purely by a desire to do what's "good" for the world are being a little niave.

Don't get me wrong, not saying any of us have all the answers, but it is important that we acknowledge this and strive to follow a path to understanding. It is supposedly what seperates us humans from other animals, being able to see from another's viewpoint, though we seem to do our best to hide this virtue as best we can.

I see the same thing with the Australian refugee debate - whenever I ask someone who is against a more humane refugee solution what they would do if they were in the refugee's positon, they cannot fathom that - they cannot or refuse to try to fully understand the other side.

Be nice if those preaching war and violence could step back and put themselves in someone else's shows for a little while - we may actually get somewhere, and who knows, maybe even advance the human race a little. A pipe dream, I know, but one cannot stop hoping and striving...