How can this be acceptable?!?

But, honestly you are the first pro-Rebublican I've met who provides a good, although incorrect, arguement.

ESL Teacher - you should start watching The Daily Show on Comedy Central. You might just find a few more Reps that are almost believable. :-)

...and I agree with your commentary on the current Jewish condition where this specifically pertains to Israel's blatant disregard for the tenets of humanity in conflict.

'The suffering of Jews throughout the holocaust is possibly the most callous and disgusting display of inhumanity in human history..'

Any argument on who had it worse would quite simply be crass - I won't go there. Suffice to say though, I would be remiss if I didn't speak up and remind you of how African's were abducted and enslaved in global and industrial fashion, and I think many a reparations campaigner may have something to say about that comment.

On a separate tack, I can sympathise with the Palestinian cause because both countries that spawned my parents were once colonies, and both suffered under apartheid regimes. Palestine is the modern equivalent of apartheid South Africa, and pre-independence Zimbabwe...only.. dare I say it, arguably worse, given their unique circumstances.

I also empathise with Israel's sense of forboding at being the hated unwanted villager marked for death in the village. They absolutely have a right to exist. I find the notion that this is even a topic of heated debate, symptomatic of the depth of feelings that lie on either side of the divide.

Richard, you say the Israeli's should know better than to treat other human beings as they do, given their own shared experience at the hands of the Nazi's. You'd think so wouldn't you? Yet if there's one thing that unfortunately unites all humanity and has been proven over again since time immemorial, it is our shameful need to express and/or force our superiority over anybody we deem is different, and therefore inferior to ourselves; and ironically, this is regardless of we ourselves may have been treated historically. Put differently, oppressed people never miss an opportunity to do a little oppressing of their own when given half the chance. We just get cleverer at justifying it all. Still think Israeli behaviour is shocking??

Mullie,

Of course I did not expect Israel to hand out flowers to Lebanon, but I didn't expect them to bomb the shit out of a country whose government had nothing to do with Hezbollah, nor it had provocked Israel in any way!

Always a good idea to call an arugment 'emotional' to evade replying to it.

Amongst the grammatical errors, there were valid facts i.e. sonic booms over occupied territories, breaking international law by illegally occupying territories, confiscation of property without compensation etc.

Though, I don't expect explanations/justifications from Mulie or anyone, I live very comfortably in Qatar. For those affected by the above, explanations/justifications don't help.

@Helloqatar

What would it take to have peace between in this part of the world? If the arab world wanted peace, it would happen.

Sounds like you're blaming the Arabs here.

Cheers for wishing for peace though :o)

I would like to hear solutions, not blame. We are not going to change the past, can we change the future?

What would it take to have peace between in this part of the world? If the arab world wanted peace, it would happen.

the scourge of persecution, racism, intolerance, genocide and the denial of human rights.

This is beyond dispute. Jews have suffered terribly from persecution and genocide. They have been banned from owning property, from voting, from following many professions, have suffered from viscious pogroms in Europe. They have been reviled in literature, ridiculed by Shakespeare and victimised to a horrific degree.

The suffering of Jews throughout the holocaust is possibly the most callous and disgusting display of inhumanity in human history.

With millions of displaced Jews, homeless and stateless after the second world war it was necessary to find a homeland for the Jews and hence the state of Israel was created in 1948.

Most people would agree that what I have written above is true in an albeit very simplistic way. However, it is precisely because the Jews have suffered so much that I find Israel's actions so incomprehensible.

Israel denies Arabs in Palestine all but the most rudimentary of human rights. There is a huge worldwide diaspora of Palestinians who are stateless. They have no passports and their options in life are extremely limited. Palestinians are treated abysmally in Israel and in many cases they don't fare much better outside Israel because no one else wants them. Sound familiar?

When you have nothing to lose, you can afford to be desperate. If Israel treats them as non citizens with little or no rights it is hardly surprising that some of them will become suicide bombers. Israel's cluster bombing of civilians in Lebanon may not have been illegal under the terms of the Geneva Convention but it was certainly immoral and showed nothing but contempt for innocent human life. It puts Israel on the same immoral level as the suicide bombers.

Jews have been subjected to the evils of hatred, murder and genocide for many hundreds of years and Israel should know better and care more than to perpetuate it as they have done in Lebanon.

I believe I was discussing the topic, but ESL decided to respond with emotional drivel rather then an actual argument.

Israel was not created illegally. It was created after much thought and long discussion by the major powers of the time with major Zionist groups on where the best place to put the tens of thousands of displaced Jews was. Palestime wasa chosen because it was their ancestral homeland and there was already a large Jewish population there, and there always had been. Of course the Arab nations did not agree. But really, when it comes down to it, it was not Israel's fault. These people were refugees who had just lived through a mass holocaust and they had to be put somewhere. They didn't have a choice.

Also there is no evidence whatsoever that Israel broke UN sanctions in the war with Lebanon, if there was I would agree that they should be reprimanded for it. However, politically, the situation is not that simple. To reprimand them would be to show your displeasure, which is something the Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, etc would jump at, resulting in more suicide bombings in Israel, and more deaths.

71% of the population is Jewish. 52% of them were born in Israel, 23% are Arab.

Jews have been in the area and emmigrating to the area since the 1300's. The largest influx was in the 1800's, when anti-Semetism was at its height in Europe.

In 1914 there were 100,000 Jews living in Palestime. David Ben Gurion was leading a political party in the area as early as 1919. By the end of the 1930's there were almost half a million Jews in Palestine. Many of their families dating back hundreds of years.

Mulie and ESL,

You guys are funny. Stop all the back and forth name calling and discuss the topic. The arguments that ESL was coming with are correct a part of the problem was the illegal creation of Israel. Note I said illegal- meaning other nations established a nation within an already sovereign nation. I guess the Indians in America should petition to be recognized by the UN and other world governments.

As Person said if you are going to Sanction for breaking UN resolutions or for Nuclear weaponry it should be done equally.

A question for Mulie though what percentage of the population in Israel are actually of Arab or Semitic decent? A neighbor of mine in America said her family was leaving Israel because of the crazy politics. She is African American but is part of the Hebrew Israelites who migrated there in the 70's/80's. This is something that I have always wondered how much of the population actually had family living there over one hundred years ago.

Peace

Act your age not your shoe size

Hello all,

finally an interesting topic of discussion (even if I'm a bit late). It has been a pleasure to read the preceding conversation.

Personally, I would tend to side with ESL Teacher on this one.

It is detrimental to all the effort that continues to be spent to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East if Israel can act against international law with impunity, when other nations in the area face serious consequences in the form of economical sanctions and/or military intervention as a result of such actions.

Yes, Israel had made it clear that it would retaliate massively in the event of any transgression against it. But let's not forget that a major reason why Israel is facing potential aggression is its own forced expansion well beyond its borders as stated by the original UN agreement, into areas already populated with people many of whom were displaced by the establishment of the state in the first place.

To put it provocatively bluntly, Israel is a land-grabbing state that never had the right to exist, even if its conception was understandable. However, the idea some Arab nations have of abolishing it entirely is wholly ridiculous and unsupportable. This is now a fully-fledged nation whose citizens cannot be penalized for being thus. The only solution is to somehow forge a peace that sufficently recognizes the concerns of all parties and is irrevocably binding...but I doubt any such an agreement can exist even in principle.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Hizbollah was acting extremely unscrupulously and knowingly inviting massive fire on Lebanon and a people whom it does not officially represent, merely in order to influence the international opinion and raise antipathy for Israel using its military might exactly as it had warned it would; it was war as propaganda, never mind the destruction of lives.

This is a complex issue hard to untangle and I don't claim to be as well informed as I could be, but after following various media with varying slant on the turmoil in the Middle East for two decades I would conclude that Israel is certainly not a stabilizing influence; however, I don't think there would be stability either were Israel out of the picture. We are talking about an area where major religions and diverse geopolitical interests converge, and the mix is highly flammable. Conflict in this area has profound historical roots, and any solution unfortunately is likely to be short-lived.

Now if only in every country we could keep religion and government separate...

What are you talking about ESL Teacher? You don't make any sense at all. You aren't even siting facts anymore, you're just blathering on. You were the one who said the fighting had been going on for 65 years, you are the one who isn't making sense. First you talk about Israel causing all the problems, then you say there were problems before the state of Israel was there. Make up your mind.

I never said whether or not I agree that Israel went to far or not, I just said it's a political situation that is a lot more complicated then simply Israel is wrong and everyone else is right, which is the argument you were trying to make.

But I guess that's the problem with someone who teaches ESL for a living, can't handle a real job, can't handle a real argument.

On that note, I am now finished here. To all your comments and debates are welcome, but I think I am just repeating my self to the dumb and daft now.

Cheerios

You are right what a poorly constructed sentence it should be Wishfully I would...

Nothing else is worth responding to here.

Unfortunately Mulie you are just embarassing yourself now. However I do enjoy the entertainment.

Certainly not contesting the fact the Jews were around 3000 years ago, remember the crusification of Christ according to the bible. LOL!!! The present war hasn't even been happenining for 65 years you tart it was just a number I pulled out to show that it was not the Arabs picking on Israel first as there was no Israel yet. Israel was created in 1948 thus the occupation has been for 58 years.

Thus the issue of the PRESENT conflict.

LOL oh, what a pleasure, why don't you get some guts and resond to my previous post.

Emotional? Is that really the best you got?

I think it's pretty damned obvious ESL Teacher that you have no understanding of politics or the history of this area. Keep up the conjecture though.

"In my wishes I would like Israel to have sanctions imposed so they can't kill on a whim."

Yes cause no other countries in this area ever kill on a whim.

Are you honestly saying that the fighting in that region has been going on for only 65 years? Give me a break ESL Teacher. There have been Jews in that area for the last 3000 years. And the fighting for that area began then.

Seriously read a book you moron.

Thank you richard

You actually managed to stay on track. And see my point that Israel can and has been over-aggressive and should have penalities to pay. Funny everyone keeps suggesting war, meanwhile I was thinking sanctions.

HelloQatar

In my wishes I would like Israel to have sanctions imposed so they can't kill on a whim.

I think the reality in future years will prove to be much more grave. Remember all those children who actually survived in Lebanon...

Richard you definately hit the nail on the head.

Um, when did I say I wanted Israel to go away?? I was actually wondering how it is justified that Iran not have the right to defend itself and yet Israel can break international laws and not have any repricussions.

And when I do provide evidence as to other areas of Israeli injustice, people like Mulie (who have been trained to think linearly )will use whatever petty theme to dismiss it because they can not argue it.

I'm done, I think you people proved my point better than I could have.

Thanks! :o)

whether Israel's response was justified. In my opinion it wasn't. Israel held the moral high ground in that it was Hezbollah's actions in taking hostages and attacking Israel that strated this latest conflaguration.

Israel's actions were both inhumane and utterly out of proportion. The only outcome (apart from hundreds of innocent deaths)was to harden the resolve against Israel and to further unite Israel's enemies against her.

Ha, so now that I have visited the territories my response is emotional...interesting.

Who started this? Show me where Israel was on a map 65 years ago and then you might have a clear indicator.

I pegged you correctly...a waste of time.

Very good HelloQatar. But you're asking Arabs to take part of the blame for the situation and that will never happen.

So I will contiue my argument. I lived in Israel for a time Sweetie, and I'm sure I've read more books on the subject then you've even seen in a book store. Stop being a overly emotional and look at the situation critically. If the Hezbollah were hiding in apartments then they were hiding in apartments. They started this, they pay the price, and unfortunatly some women and children are going to die too.

Have things gotten any better over the last 40 years for the occupied territory? Maybe there needs to be another way, what has happened by attacking Israel for the last 40 years. You can argue right or wrong but Israel is not going to go away, learn to deal with it. The groups that are going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth are causing the problems, they have to develop another plan besides killing woman and children with bombers in the markets. Every time a bomb goes off in Israel, it gets worst for the territories, maybe somebody should notice that killing people only causes more killing.

What do you want to happen, in the real world, not in your wishes?

Was that load of badly written emotional garbade supposed to be an argument ESL Teacher?

Was that load of badly written emotional garbade supposed to be an argument ESL Teacher?

What started the recent problems?

Hey Mulie where did Israel say Hezbollah was hiding???

Oh that's right in civilian areas? Remember the whole human shield argument. That may be why Israel is admitting it right now as opposed to when they were first accused.

but I guess your right if Israel want to bomb Hezbollah with phosporous bombs and the Hezbollah (as the claimed) are somehow hiding in apartment buildings...why not use them?

Brilliant! (rolling eyes)

And see there's no point discussing this with you because you claim Israel has her "right" according to Geneva convention. Right well how it then that they pick and choose their rights last I knew the occupied territories are against International law, but you know what we can probably find a way to justify that too. And hey as the point of discussion here was how come Iran has no rights to protect themselves, yet Israel does.

You're a silly girl who believes what CNN or Fox reports, I have actually been to both Israel and the occupied territories. And honestly if anyone who sees what the hell is going on there and thinks it is just...they really must turn off the television and read a book.

Hey the Sonic Boom attacks Israel is using which is causing pyschological trauma and severe anxietin infants and small children that was reported in International media. Another right?

How about the fact that Israelis went to peoples homes and confiscated them, tossing the people at the borders with a bag fruit? And put Europeans in them. For goodness sakes there is a professor we know personally in Canada that this happened to, and he still has his house, keys 40 years later, that spent his life saving for and building. And in the blink of an eye it was taken from him. But you're right Israel has the right. For goondess sakes in Canada we call that fraud!

Really I can go on and on. But, you are just a brain-washed victim that can't understand we are not anti-semitic (For goodness sakes I am semitic!) or anti-Israel we just want these Israei politicians to respect all life and consider all peoples' lives as equal and worthy as Jews.

Funny an American Rabbi said the same thing...what a proaganda machine!

"Using cluster bombs was both inhumane and arguably terrorism in action. There is a difference between self defense and aggressive and cruel targeting of civilians."

Using cluster bombs is ok according to the Geneva convention. Israel did nothing wrong.

As for self defence and the aggressive and cruel targeting of civilians, perhaps you should talk to the Arabs about that one, after all suicide bombers are there method of choice.

I'm sorry I was under the impression that war isn't supposed to be nice? Did you expect the Israeli's to hand out flowers?

War is war. Yes Israel used massive retaliation, but when have they ever said they wouldn't. I think they've always made it quite clear what their response to any action against their country would be. They've shown it time and time again.

When the Hezbollah took those soliders they knew what the outcome would be, but they did it because it was obviously their turn to supply CNN with pictures of dead women and children.

War sucks people. it's messy. Just because Israel uses cluster bombs doesn't make them any worse then any other nation currently fighting a war.

with you Butterfly. Using cluster bombs was both inhumane and arguably terrorism in action. There is a difference between self defense and aggressive and cruel targeting of civilians.

As a dual national (UK/US) I was deeply ashamed that neither the US or the UK condemned the nature of Israel's response from the outset. Whatever, the provocations (and there were many) that type of response can never be justified.

I uderstand that the Middle East should stop blaming all their demons on Israel, and I understand that Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself. But what it has done to Lebanon is just beyond defence.

Did you know that the cluster bombs were thrown agaist civilians two days before the war was due to end, when the cease fire had been already announced? Cluster bombs target mainly children and land workers. That's not defence, that's cruelty and the international community must ensure it doesn't happen again.

Goodness ESL Teacher! You should read your own article. Phosphorous is not a banned substance it's a controlled substance. It's only banned if used against civilians, Israel used it against the Hezbollah, which is in their right to do so according to the Geneva Convention.

I understand where you got confused though, because Israel used cluster bombs on civilian targets ( which, once again, are legal). Propaganda, of course, is the proliferation of misinformation, which is what you did here.

I don't believe I ever said you couldn't say what you want, I would just appreciate it if you got the facts right.

Oh, and the last time I checked, Israel has had nothing to do with the vast majority of instability in the Middle East, including civil wars in Lebanon, coups in Syria, Sunni/Shite violence, violence against the Kurds, the increase in Islamic terrorist organizations, the last two Iraq wars, the Iran government, contra and nuclear weapons situation. All of which are causing the vast majority of instability in the Middle East.

Maybe you should read more.

This chapter could go on and on....some of you have presented good arguments and some are just out of phase....maybe even a couple of Zionist-evangelist-dreaming-radical thoughts but let me tell you this: There is a power struggle between forces that you and I cannot see... Bush & Co or Osama & Co have puppet masters...yeah I know to some of you this is another conspiracy theory. That’s the way things have always been...needless to say always will be. The west fears Islam and the East fears loosing the latter. Israel fears everyone even itself... It’s a long chess game, the Middle East is just the table.

Oatar living will not let me change my user name, EI e-mail address so work with me here I'll change everything when I get to Doha So just look at it as a old phone # please, but I signed on to qatar living to learn a little about life there, or should I say the expate life there. So far I think Doha can be a small town when it comes to meeting new people I must be careful what I say.

That's very kind of you. I, and I am sure others appreciate it.

Theres other forums where a name like that doesn't bat an eyelid, but I don't think this forum is one of them :-)

I lost the plot when someone quoted a whole 'essay' written by an 'enlightened' soul.

Here is my take on I-raq war.

US started the campaign in Afghanistan. They had Osama to hunt for.

Why was Osama hunted? He was 'admittedly' responsible for 9/11.

Was there any substantial evidence that Osama was behind the 9/11 plot? NO! ( i know this wont go well with most of you guys)

Anywho, they went after Afghanistan 2 months after 9/11. They gave a 'running time' of 2 months to Osama. So, were they really after Osama? I doubt it. They wanted to overturn the taliban for some odd oil pipeline, which, if taliban were ruling, wouldn't have happened.

So Osama is living happily and Bush is getting kinda fidgety. American population asks for justification ... on Afghan war. Bush has none to give.

So he attacks I-raq under teh pretext of overturning a 'totalitarian- i-don't-understand-the-rest-of-diplomatic-verbal-circus' horseshit. Bush has another reason why they will need to attack their former ally I-raQ. The oil fields! And there was American military presence all over the Middle East but not Iraq. With Middle east's oil region already under the control of American Oil Giants, Corporate America had to look for a new market to source the oil. I suppose whoever reads this also remembers the hesitation that Russia and France had to join the 'Mother of all Battles'. But, when the precentages were generous enough, they joined the freak show led by Mr. George W Bush.

And then the reason for attacking I-raq came out. WMDs, potential ally to Osama, Totalitarian regime, Slayer of Democracy were some of them. Now, who believes in what American PR machine spews out? Not me!

I believe, if a nation wants to go the democratic way, the people there will decide and go for it.

Before US became the 'World Police', in the 18th and the 19 centuries, there were the British, the French, Portuguese, belgians and the rest of European tribes who went forth and spread their way of life. Its about time the 'great US' founded by deported criminals show their spots! But, when u do that, make sure u call a 'war' a 'war' instead of camouflaging it under the names like 'restoration of democracy' and the rest of the crap.

" WHY DONT US SHOW THE SAME INTEREST IN SUDAN? IN ETHIOPIA, IN the REST OF AFRICA? CUZ, MY FRIENDS, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO GIVE THE MIGHTY USA.

i JUST CANT UNDERSTAND Y PEOPLE CONFUSE THIS ISSUE FOR ANYTHING ELSE?!

It was just a bad joke from many years past, It used to be my old phone number I was asleep one night, and some kids made a crank call about it, I did not even know it at the time but it stuck, ( I even made it my old ATM # too) to me it was funny at the time. but understand it could be rude and unsulting to others, I'll change it right away, and I'll sorry to all. PS Western Maryland is not a culture center of the USA, they might be called Monkey hangers. next time you go to the states try New York.

that he comes from one oldest and New England families and when he visited China he talked

about visiting Great wall when his Father was the ambassador there. And at the G-8 Summit

he talked his party days, hanging out in London, and Paris ( I sure he did not remember too much he was also a drunk,) We yanks will vote in two weeks, and in less then two years, bush will be gone, and as of now the two front runners to replace him one is a Woman and the other is a Black man, by the way hows Tony doing,

Just like the President of France lived worked and got a masters degree from Harvard in English

when President of the Republic has a press conference he only speaks in French, the same in Germany, by the way for the guy that can’t believe Bush never live outside of the US till he became president Try goggle for the facts. Or be just think like a good old boy from Texas, And Yes there was another great leader from Canada, and the world could use him right now Perrier

Trudeau

Goodness Mulie, you have a lot of reading to do!

And can you please tell me what "propaganda" I am suggesting? I asked why Israel is allowed to used banned substances and not have boo-hoo said to them? Do you realize phosphorous burns individuals for goodness sakes, fine if Israel wants go in and kill hundreds of Lebanese in order to protect "their" freedom...but then why the hell do they have to torture them first.

Please Mulie, one of the main reasons there is no security or stability in the Middle East is because of Israel and their trusted ally America.

So yes if simply questioning Israel's war tactics is propoganda, then I am guilty as charged. Though I'd love to read your definition for freedom of expression.

Fukutoo, Bush doesn't speak any French at all which is obvious in all of his press conferences in Canada since he has to get the Canadian Prime Minister to translate questions in French to him.

As for Canada coming up with a roadmap for peace in the Middle East, well we really have nothing to do with the current situation and have no desire to get invloved in it. But in the past we have involved ourselves and in fact former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson won a Noble Peace Prize for solving the Suez problem (He also created peacekeeping).

Chbk the only person using the same argument over and over again is you. In fact your only tactic has been to criticize others arguments rather then come up with evidence yourself.

ESL Teacher, enough with the anti-Israeli propaganda please. The reason the US backs Israel is obvious, not just is there a large amount of Jews in the US but Israel is the only stable government in the Middle East. They need Israel as a foothold in an otherwise shaky region. Also the entire world knows that if Israel showed any weakness whatsoever Syria, Jordon, Iran and the rest would march in there and slaughter the whole lot. Sorry but we just aren't going to allow the Arab world to do that. Perhaps if some of the nations here could manage more then a feudal monoarchy or shaky dictatorship as a government the West would be more inclined to interfer when Israel goes too far.

.. I choose to read it 'phoo cue toe'. How do you read it??

Ya dirty minded @#$%$!! :-)

I'm an infant today and loving it!

Tendai ... I'm at work right now and my loud laugh turned heads...I don’t think that there is anything i can add to your comment i totally agree with you and I think people should get their facts straight. Bush is a disgrace to the US and I would be embarrassed if I had voted for him he's not fit to run a 1 man office let alone a world...I only thank god that the US does not have a Republican French style democracy where a president has full executive power. Its a good thing that the American system is the anti-thesis of democracy...if it weren't we'd enter the WW3 era.

that I find the username fukuto offensive and quite immature as I do being used in the subject line too.

Sorry mate but I think you've either got your George Bush's mistaken with somebody called Georgina Bushnell.. or you're quite simply talking bollocks.

The current US President never - repeat NEVER, owned a passport before he became American President. And oh my God, he speaks French?!!

Did you know that he's a MENSA certified genius too? Oh yeah, and he's an amateur music producer with a penchant hip hop fused with classical Bach and Mozart. I got these gems from the same book of facts you got yours.

Dude where is Canada coming from in all of this?

I never suggested America do anything about Israel in my original post I suggested the UN. Everyone natuarally shifted to blaming the US because they seem to be bombing or threatening other countries in the area (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran). So everyone is thinking why does the US not address Israel?

Canada hasn't waged any wars in the Middle East "against the axis of evil" so why would they all of sudden get involved. And they do support peace missions in the Middle East and have publicly condemned Israel.

But still what does canada have to do with any of this...why not pick Italy, Greece, Japan, etc.

The US plays a role (unfotunately) in the Middle East and that is why they were brought up.

oh canada....we stand on guard for thee...

canada is a blessing to this world...canada is not the US (thank god)...it's not canada's job to "work out a deal" and to solve world issues...canada is a peacekeeping country who's troops are only anywhere to keep peace, not wage war...

canadians live near the US border because of the climate, and it's still freezing cold (and we love it)...no canadian would prefer the US...in fact, it's the friggin americans who rush to canada...maybe because our dollar was weaker and it was a cheaper place to shop :)

as for israel (the 51st american state) and to get back to the topic, there is nothing that can stop israel from the war that it wages against the palestinians (primarily) and its destabilizing presence in the middle east...just as it is impossible to stop the US from starting war after war...

chbck...you are so ignorant (i mean arrogant) like the rest of the 51% of US citizens that voted for dubya...go read a history book...or try to be like the other 49% and say sorry here - http://www.sorryeverybody.com

someone please explain how the country with the biggest arsenal of weapons, the only one to use a nuke (twice against a civilian population), the one to start the most wars in recent memory, the one who starves (punishes) a whole population in palestine because they democratically elected their government, the one who stood there and watched as israel bombed the shift out of lebanon, the one who has used its veto the most at the UN, is in charge of policing the world and preserving world peace??

Canada is a very yuppie country but lets have their Government take some action, Lets let the Canadian PM come up with a road map for peace in the middle east, let Canada work out a deal that is fair to both sides with Iran, It is easy just to throw rocks even if they do live just like us yanks,

Canada is a very yuppie country but lets have their Government take some action, Lets let the Canadian PM come up with a road map for peace in the middle east, let Canada work out a deal that is fair to both sides with Iran, It is easy just to throw rocks even if they do live just like us yanks,

 Long before GW became president,, GB 1 was the first US ambassador to china, and yes GWB lived in China. The Bush family are well connected and the Family did Vacation in Europe, his whole life When GWB was a kid. In fact, GWB grow up in New England, he is not really from Texas. He just plays a good old boy red neck on TV. He speaks French and Spanish, Plus he did go to Yale, and Harvard, Now this does not make him a good leader, in Fact we yanks have a

election in less then two weeks for a chance in direction but lets get our facts right

 Long before GW became president,, GB 1 was the first US ambassador to china, and yes GWB lived in China. The Bush family are well connected and the Family did Vacation in Europe, his whole life When GWB was a kid. In fact, GWB grow up in New England, he is not really from Texas. He just plays a good old boy red neck on TV. He speaks French and Spanish, Plus he did go to Yale, and Harvard, Now this does not make him a good leader, in Fact we yanks have a

election in less then two weeks for a chance in direction but lets get our facts right

Tendai, since you are obviously going to focus only on this one argument and refuse to see things in any other light except for yours, I will go ahead and end my part here. I'm glad you had fun. I'm glad that you find such great pleasure in beating this dead horse indefinitely.

Just because you have such a vast knowledge of other cultures you can't sit on your throne and look down on everyone that doesn't. My participation in this thread started out defending the involvement of the United States in Iraq. All this silliness about Bush never leaving the country wasn't my idea, but since it has pretty much derailed the thread I will let you run with it.

have a good one...

What Arthur Hoppe wrote in The Mightiest Nation might explain my sadness and what things have come to.

Once upon a time there was a country that was very small and, on the whole, very good.

Its citizens were proud and independent and self-reliant and generally prosperous. They believed in freedom and justice and equality. But, above all, they had faith. They had faith in their religion, their leaders, their country and themselves.

And, of course, they were ambitious. Being proud of their country, they wanted to make it bigger. First they conquered the savage tribes that hemmed them in. Then they fought innumerable wars on land and sea with foreign powers to the east and west and south. They won almost all the battles they fought and conquered foreign lands.

It took many generations, but at last the good, little country was the richest, mightiest nation in the whole, wide world -- admired, respected, envied and feared by one and all.

``We must remain the mightiest nation,'' said its leaders, ``so that we can insure universal peace and make everyone as prosperous and decent and civilized as we are.''

At first, the mightiest nation was as good as its word. It constructed highways and buildings and pipelines and hygienic facilities all over the world. And for awhile, it even kept the peace.

But being the mightiest nation in the world, its leader was the mightiest man in the world. And, naturally, he acted like it.

He surrounded himself with a palace guard of men chosen solely for their personal loyalty. He usurped the powers of the Senate, signing treaties, waging wars and spending public funds as he saw fit.

When little countries far away rebelled, he sent troops without so much as a by-your-leave. And the mightiest nation became engaged in a series of long, costly, inconclusive campaigns in far away lands. So some disillusioned soldiers refused to obey orders and some sailors mutinied, even though the leader raised their pay. And in some places the mightiest nation hired mercenaries to do its fighting.

And because it was the richest nation, it worshiped wealth and the things wealth bought. But the rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer through unfair tax laws. And in the capital 1 in 5 were idle and on welfare.

When the poor grumbled, they were entertained by highly paid athletes and the firing of expensive rockets into the air which sometimes fizzled. But the poor often rioted and looted and burned in their frustrated rage.

Many citizens lost faith in their old religion and turned to Oriental mysticism. And the young, wearing long hair and sandals, became Jesus freaks. Bare-breasted dancers, lewd shows and sex orgies were increasingly common. And the currency was debased again and again to meet the mounting debts.

Worst of all, the citizens came to learn their leaders were corrupt -- that the respected palace guard was selling favors to the rich and sending spies among the people, creating fear and distrust.

So it was that the people lost faith. They lost faith in their leaders, their currency, their rockets, their postal system, their armies, their religion, their laws, their moral values, their country and, eventually, themselves.

And, thus, in 476 A.D., Rome fell to the barbarians and the Dark Ages settled over Western civilization.

Moral. For what is a nation profited if it shall gain the whole world and lose its own soul.

I was actually surprised to find out Bush never left America before becoming President of the WORLD'S super power. How could the Americans elect such a fruit. Truly, it does explain quite a bit ie. his lack of empathy for human beings who are not white Americans.

Honestly, chbck you are probably smarter than your country's president...c'mon that has to scare you. I am still waiting to here Mr. Bush compose a coherent sentence. Really the man is a simple fool with too much power. The world was a much safer place before that clown came to power.

But, honestly you are the first pro-Rebublican I've met who provides a good, although incorrect, arguement.

And e46 where are you?

LOL!!! It's because of the climate that's why they are near to the border. What does that have to do with this discussion.

This has been fun reading, just one comment, I lived and worked in Canada a long time ago. and I agree with the Movie south park It's really not a country anyway, but facts over 70% of Canadians live within 30 miles of the border with the US. So lets make you happy, Lets open up the border between the US and Canada, maybe 2 weeks later most Canadians will move to LA or Florida as fast as they can. then lets make Canada Israel, PS 7 of the 10 most richest people in the world are Canadian.

The puerility of your arguments is beginning to resemble those of a toddler in a sand pit whose responses to everything are.. 'because!'.

Please.. we both know that correcting my spelling doesn't get you any nearer your argumentative goal posts, any more than my simply telling you your argument is crap, no matter how right we both are. That cleared, lets get pithy shall we?

You seem fairly intelligent so I'll assume that you can actually see my point when I say your president could've used a little worldly exposure. To then extend Pythagoras and say that '..George W. Bush is not old enough to have "immersed" himself in enough foreign cultures to possibly possess this "worldly understanding" that you speak of..' smacks of smack... and precisely the same playground debative tactic as the aforementioned toddler. I think most reasonable people would summise that of course I'm not suggesting you understand absolutely everything about absolutely every culture. But if you have ever travelled around the world, you begin to understand certain truths about humanity. Now I'm no Sir Attenborough, but I can tell even you chbck that there are common running threads that unite even the most disparate and diverse cultures.

For instance... I'm a black, Catholic, British man, born of an Anglican, Zulu South African woman, and an aetheist Shona Zimbabwean man. Both are academics and both have made it their mission in life to give my siblings and I the best of planet earth's education as they could muster. I have therefore been fortunate to live in a number of countries, so if I may, I'll call on my life experience with a little authority. It is all too easy to look down your nose at other cultures when you think your existence is better than, or is superior to other peoples. Americans are constantly fed a diet of fantastic rhethoric, yet most of them barely know what to compare it to because they are ignorant of what else is out there. They are uneducated, have low expectations of their leaders (which they, funnily enough, think are high!), and will pretty much buy any tripe they're fed by the government. Hell, even televised news covers nothing but local American stuff. Most of these people don't even know where their brothers, sisters, and friends in the army are on the map when they say they've gone to Iraq or Afghanistan!! They think the best of whats about is in America. It IS America. This strata of person also quite unfortunately represents the lowest and largest common denominator of voter, and thats who supports Bush. So when Bush says after 9/11 I'm going after the perpetrators.. and then links Saddam to 9/11... of course they follow. They don't question the link. How on earth is Iraq linked to 9/11?? Who cares.. Bush says so. When Bush refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement, hardly any of American even knew anything about it, let alone spell it (did i get it right Chbck?)!!

I'm really sorry if you're a genuinely intelligent American who thinks his President is fine not knowing even a little about dealing with foreigners. Its a sad indictment of any American intelligentsia you might represent. This argument was over a while ago. I'm just having fun now. Hopefully not entirely at your expense I hope! I feel like that man talking to Little Johnny in the sandpit who's response to everything is.. yeah, you guessed it.. go figure?!

e46 where are you? I am sure you have something to say.

Umm... chbck no one really seems to know where you are going here. Can you please lay it out for us. What exactly is the point you are trying to make apart from ''my country right or wrong''? And now that it is definately 'wrong' all you seem to do is blame every one else.

I know we were in bed with Saddam during the Iran\Iraq war. How silly of the United States to put themselves in such a position. I mean, really...what could we have possibly been thinking? We should have just fired up the ol' TIME MACHINE, gone into the future a few years, and witnessed first hand what kind of trouble Saddam would end up causing. GOSH we are such failures. I guess another one of President Bush's shortcomings, next to the sinful trespass of not having a *gasp* passport, is never being able to go back in time and explain to Reagan that Saddam was going to be the enemy one day. Man that Bush sure has a lot to learn.

If that one comment sums up everything you have to say about US world policies then you have quite a bit to learn as well.

"Also, You seem to be versed in the english language thus it is surprising that you think that being a bully, by definition, means being arrogant? Bullies are those who intimidates and persecutes the weaker and that's exactly what USA foreign policy is all about."

ummm....let's look at it this way.

What is the opposite of arrogant? I say the opposite of "arrogant" is "humble". How many humble bullies do you know? It sort of takes away the authoritative element that makes a bully a bully, does it not?

But let’s assume I am wrong, and your definition (above) is exactly the definition of a bully. How many people do you know who "intimidate and persecute" the weak but aren't arrogant?

See where I am going here??

"America is consistently conspicuous by her gaping absence when crimes against humanity are committed on any scale and there is no national interest to be considered." - Tendai

That pretty much sums up all I'd ever want to say about US' world policies.

The US has nurtured considerably more "evil dictators" than it has tried to eliminate. Who was Saddams sugar daddy during the Iran Iraq tension? Any guesses chbck ?

"It’s the international exposure that one would hope both would represent. You can't begin to understand other peoples till you've immersed yourself in their existsnce. Don't you think an american president NEEDS a worldly understanding of humanity??"

- Define "worldly understanding of humanity" please. George W. Bush is not old enough to have "immersed" himself in enough foreign cultures to possibly possess this "worldly understanding" that you speak of. No American President lived enough years to do that. No human being has lived enough years to do that. It is unreasonable to expect that of anyone; least of all a politician who has been quite busy throughout his political career and has not had the free time to "immerse" himself in other cultures. AGAIN...this whole argument is weak and speculative at best.

"To be clear, I have not at any time cited his lack of pre-presidential international experience as the singular reason for his flawed foreign policy (in my opinion). But it doesn't take a CSI episode to see the link."

--I never said you did. I simply said that I failed to see how it could be cited as A reason (not THE reason; A reason; meaning there could be more) for his flawed foreign policy. These things are much simpler to discuss when you don't take things out of context, agree?

"GWB's credibility is questioned much more because the man is more intrinsically flawed. He's a dilletante. Lack of a passport was one of the least of his problems... but certainly one of them!!"

--Now you're starting to see things my way. Lack of a passport is certainly ONE of the LEAST of his problems. Now, if something is only ONE of the LEAST of something else, that makes it pretty darn insignificant now doesn't it? I'm glad we're getting somewhere. Oh, and it's spelled "dilettante". Please don't misspell words when you're questioning someone else's intelligence.

"Give Clinton his due - Bush inherited a booming economy. As for Bushes problems.. please... he said it himself.. 'I'm a President with war on my mind..'. Nice. What's he going to leave the next president??"

--Again...taken out of context. Of course Bush is a man with war on his mind...our country has been at war for most of his presidency. What would you rather him say? "I'm a President with baseball on my mind!" Then he gets crucified because he isn't focusing on the war.

Anything else?

Its the international exposure that one would hope both would represent. You can't begin to understand other peoples till you've immersed yourself in their existsnce. Don't you think an american president NEEDS a worldly understanding of humanity??

To be clear, I have not at any time cited his lack of pre-presidential international experience as the singular reason for his flawed foreign policy (in my opinion). But it doesn't take a CSI episode to see the link.

GWB's credibility is questioned much more because the man is more intrinsically flawed. He's a dilletante. Lack of a passport was one of the least of his problems... but certainly one of them!!

Give Clinton his due - Bush inherited a booming economy. As for Bushes problems.. please... he said it himself.. 'I'm a President with war on my mind..'. Nice. What's he going to leave the next president??

I fully understand your reasons for not supporting GWB, but I strongly doubt that his lack of pre-presidency international travel can be cited as a reason for his weak performance in office. AS I SAID...why don't we focus on the US Presidents that had no political experience as opposed to the ones that simply did not travel to countries that required a passport? Thanks for the laugh in bringing up Bill Clinton too...half the reason that GWB is facing the issues that he is today is because Clinton failed to act when he had the chance(s). I really don't see the point of addressing this any further. The whole idea of GWB's credibility being questioned because he didn't have a passport prior to being elected is pretty weak in itself.

'Oh...and I didn't realize it was mandatory for an American President to have a passport before becoming President.'

If it isn't yet then it bloody well should be!! In this day and age when the concept of the global village has never been truer and more apt, the US President who should be the local example of order and leadership, is often instead the village idiot precisely because he is as insular as many of his conservative electorate. Does the job require a man (or woman!) with worldly experience? Absolutely! Should an American President-elect have seen the world a little to do the job of being THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL STATESMAN effectively? Definitely. Of course! Without question! The idea that the CEO of USA Inc, who also happens to be commander-in-chief of the worlds most powerful military.. and at once, is America's first diplomat.. 'doesn't need to have a passport before becoming president' is like saying women shouldn't need to like kids or even want them to physically produce them. Sound silly? Of course! Just as ridiculus as the notion that Bush didn't need a little international exposure to do the job well. Snap assessment - how well is he doing on the international scene compared to his well travelled predecessor?? I rest my case.

By the way, the states that makeup the American union are each independently able to (and do!) canvas and invite foreign (international) investment. Goveners of states actually do travel extensively, all in pursuance of furthering local objectives and initiatives such as knowledge and technology transfer, encouraging inward and external investment to secure local jobs, securing international contracts etc.

In short sir, while well articulated, I think your eloquence was wasted on a really bad and weak argument.

Zana,

I wasn't dismissing your post simply because it opposed my opinion. If you read my response again you will see that I chose not to read it, and questioned its relevance, because I believe that someone should use their own views when debating a point. If you have a stance on some issue you should be able to back it up without citing anyone else's speeches or writings. Tell me what you know, not what someone else knows. Like I said, I could easily quote every GWB speech ever to support the war in Iraq but that won't do anyone any good because I don't want to know your rebuttal based on what THEY said; I want to know it based on what I said. You won't get me to see the error of my ways very easily; but you're facing an even longer road if you simply use other people's reasoning to support your views.

Tendai,

I respect your argument 1000x more than Zana's because you actually took the time to put it in your own words. You are totally right about the humanitarian hypocrisy that the US practices regularly. You are also right that oil did have something to do with the invasion and that it wasn't all a valiant rescue to save the poor ol' Iraqi people. However, I think it's unfair to say that it was 100% oil greed and nothing else. There were many reasons for us to go to Iraq and you can be fairly certain that there are some reasons that we will never know about. Keep in mind though; we cannot possibly come to the aid of everyone in the world that needs it. The United States is prosperous and strong but we would be more in debt than we already are, and the public outcry would be even greater if we decided to deploy to every trouble spot in the world. If Bush addressed every crisis that you addressed in your post he wouldn't be able to justify it. Take the defense of the Iraq war and multiply it a few hundred times...

Oh...and I didn't realize it was mandatory for an American President to have a passport before becoming President. You had a good point going until you resorted to that sort of tabloid finger pointing. I would think that actual political experience would be a little more expected of a prospective President (Ronald Reagan, anyone?) than would a passport. So he never left the country...big deal. He was the governor of Texas...since when does that require international travel?

.. for validating my humble opinions.

I was in Frederick city, Maryland (US) a coupla mouths ago and one evening I was sat in a bar enjoying idle football banter with one Arsenal supporting local. Something pricked the ears of another bar fly (I'm guessing my rather polished, Etonian English accent LMAO) and so this gigantor of a man asks me in his southern drawl if I was from England. I responded in the affirmitive. He then asks if we have a 4th of July in England. A little perplexed but happy to play along, I said yeah sure.. every year. And we have a 5th of July, and a 6th, and 7th... My attempt at mirth was either unfunny, or he didn't get it. Anyway, his next question was.. 'do you celebrate independence day?'

He was both sober and serious.

Having lived around the world a little, I've found that unless they are educated and travelled, Americans can be some of the dumbest most insular people on Earth. Did you know that GWB didn't even have a passport till he became president? The man had never left America!!

I'm impressed. You are so right.

Thats a pretty sad excuse for a response 'chbck'. So you cant be bothered to respond to reason because you dont "see how it should serve to change your viewpoint". You are welcome to post any speeches you want from Bush, Rice, Cheney, and I look forward to personally responding to any thing they have said. However to ignore an intelligent reasoned viewpoint because it is "againt the war" is ridiculous.

If you would bother to read them you would realize that the articles are not just liberal fantasy, which is why I posted them in the first place. The first article is written by true American conservatives (not of the neo-con variety) who wish the best for the US...and who are providing a detailed analyis of the errors in the 'tactics' you seem to favor so much. I know its difficult to change course and see the error of your ways (and that of your country) but at least don't close yourself off to all who are against war.

No point arguing.. Even the Israeli media exposes their governments lies and deception..

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778767.html

Can we believe anything coming out from IDF?

You would honestly consider that the WMD were moved to another country.. and that Sadam had lots of 'notice' of an impending invasion? You've got to be kidding. Do you forget that for years preceding 'Bush's invasion', America presided over the no-fly zone idea that was meant precisely to curtail Saddam's ability to function militarily? Bottom line - Bush and his cronies invaded Iraq in pursuance of a wider doctrine or political ideology. They needed to secure the US's strategic oil reserves (and geopolitical influence) and ensure they could not be held to ransom by an evil despot. The fact that Saddam was an evil dictator with a penchant for killing Kurds has absolutely nothing to do with it. Its the worlds biggest political red herring. Bright red. To even suggest it was relevant smacks of a naivety on par with Little Bo Peep at a Mardi Gras! America is consistently conspicuous by her gaping absence when crimes against humanity are committed on any scale.. and there is no national interest to be considered. Remember Rwanda? They have no oil, so screw them. Let them kill each other.. and then we'll wave a sorrowful flag of peace and regret after it all. 1 million people died. Where was America's conscience then?Remember Angola? Mozambique? What about Apartheid South Africa? Do we remember when Thatcher called Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Reagan didn't issue a distancing statement then did he? In fact, his silence was tacit agreement with his good friend Maggie. What about Dafur today? Where is America's hand in solving that problem?? Frankly, she could care less. If the dying and displaced are African... well...whats for dinner Laura? If two Israeli soldiers are kidnapped in a war zone.. send in the F16's. When another Palestinian child dies of dysentry, and her body is counted amongst the other 9 who've died already today, not only does this not make the news, but Bush could care less. 10 Palestinian children die PER DAY because of preventable desease, all due to their occupation. We're grown intelligent folks here.. don't tell me America policy has a conscience.

I'm not inherently anti-American because I also know that there is also much unheralded good work that the US has, and continues to support all over the world. But lets not get things twisted.. America's foreign policy has zip to do with any moralistic notions of benevolence, charity and good will. If it had just an ounce of this, then Bush would not let Israel piss all over UN resolutions ad infinitum and burn civilian Lebanese and Palestinians because 1 or 2 soldiers were kidnapped! US double standards are the chief reason why a large contingent of the world are pissed at them. Of course, the US must do all she can to defend and secure herself... but I would have thought that might include learning how NOT to make enemies in the first place!

how you girls doing, this time i shall not enter this serious thread, but i agree with you and am enjoying this line of expressions, moreoever i came upon this post pretty late (busy with eid), and most of the views have been posted, so enjoy, and its really nice that all of you are chatting on in a very civil manner, like esl said earlier, this kind of subject can get ugly.

have a nice day....

Consider this: The US owes the world about 9 Trillion in external debt, (american spend more than they earn).. And they use the money to threat the world, either we are with them or against them?

And of all the money they owe us, they give about 3 billion annually to Israel.. the funny part is, these zionist Israel in turn use the money they get from the american to lobby the US congress for more power and influence..

Can we end these vicious cycle?

thanks butterfly, I wrote my post just before yours was went up.

the issue is Israel here not war in Iraq...although the two show evidence of the US's double standard. But just to re-iterate, we were discussing how Israel can somehow get away with breaking international laws (ie. occupied territories, phosphorous bombs in Lebanon and goodness knows what else) and yet other countries which seem to be merely a threat--all of sudden you have a war of allies. Meanwhile Israel is in full action for the past fifty years and nobody says boo. Well bush tried once, and Ariel Sharon just ignored him and shoved him off.

BRAVO America!

You just have to wonder what the nelly is going on and how that can be justified?

Undeniably Iraq is a far worse place today that it was before the war. Sure, Sadam had commited crimes against its own people and the qurds, but so have many other dictators and Usa don't go around bringing justice and democracy around the world.

It's up to the people of the country, when they are ready, to fight against oppresion.

We all have seen the intelligence reports pre-war that claimed that they were no WMD nor any link to terrorism in Iraq, so what was the real reason for the invasion?

On the other hand, I really dislike the idea of NKorea and Iran having nuclear weapons. But what makes USA so special, that they can have weapons and these countries can't?

Also, You seem to be versed in the english language thus it is surprising that you think that being a bully, by definition, means being arrogant? Bullies are those who intimidates and persecutes the weaker and that's exactly what USA foreign policy is all about.

But this debate was about how Israel was allowed to murder civilians in Lebanon. And yes, USA allowed it, just as the rest of the international community...which is very sad.

I understand the need to sometimes use other people's views to support your argument but this... is too much. Besides, they're just views.

The invasion happened, Iraq was occupied and Saddam toppled.

If Saddam had been a half-decent president and built a strong nation (strong not as in weaponry but social fabric, enlightenment, opportunity, etc.) I doubt Iraq would be falliing apart as it is today with the Iraqis at each other's throats.

...with all due respect, I am engaging in this debate using my own ideas and my own words with the only exception being when I quote another poster. Everyone on this board can copy and paste volumes of text that can support their opinion and weaken the opinions of others. I do appreciate the time you took to bring those articles to my attention, but I don't see how it should serve to change my viewpoint. Those articles are, at the highest and most general levels, against the war and against US tactics. By the same example, I could simply copy and paste speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc... that will all support the war and support the US tactics in the war. I respectfully decline to take the time out to completely read those articles because I would rather the other side of this argument come from what someone knows, not what someone knows how to find.

Sorry about the length of these articles but another one for 'chbck' and his ilk.

They Lied About the Reasons for Going to War

by Jacob G. Hornberger, October 23, 2006

In determining whether someone has lied, circumstantial evidence can oftentimes be as critical as direct evidence. For example, suppose someone says, “I was outside all last night and it did not rain.� A person who was inside might be tempted to conclude, “Well, since I wasn’t outside, I must assume that he is telling the truth.� However, if the person on the inside looks outside and sees that everything — the houses, yards, driveways, and cars — are wet and that streams of water are running in the streets, his conclusion might be different. Using such circumstantial evidence, he might well conclude that the person who is claiming that it did not rain is lying.

The circumstantial evidence with respect to the invasion of Iraq leads inexorably to but one conclusion: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other U.S. officials lied about their reasons for invading Iraq. Those lies have profound consequences not only for the Iraqi people, who have borne the brunt of the invasion and subsequent occupation of their country, but also for the American people, including U.S. soldiers who have killed and maimed people whose government never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so.

Among the many justifications that the administration relied upon in the months leading up to invading Iraq were:

(1) To protect the American people from an urgent and imminent threat of a WMD attack by Saddam Hussein;

(2) To enforce UN resolutions requiring Saddam to disarm; and

(3) To liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny.

The first justification was the one on which most Americans relied. In the critical months leading up to the invasion, which we here at FFF were ardently opposing, we were being inundated every day with critical emails taking us to task for not trusting our public officials, who obviously had access to secret information that they could not share with the public. There was no doubt that the senders of those critical emails were convinced that the United States was under an urgent threat of an impending WMD attack. “What would you do?� they nervously asked. “Wait until the nuclear bomb goes off?�

Most of the fear revolved around a nuclear attack, which was not surprising, given the statements that federal officials were feeding their minds.

In his speech to the United Nations, President Bush tried to shut down the political speculation. This is a life-and-death matter, the President insisted. “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year,� he told the U.N. General Assembly in New York Thursday.

To those who say, we want more evidence that there’s a real threat, the Administration says, we can’t wait for a smoking gun to turn up. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,� National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN’s Late Edition recently. (CNN.com, September 12, 2002)

Some people suggest that President Bush and Vice President Cheney just made an honest mistake in relying on faulty intelligence reports about the threat posed by Saddam’s WMDs. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that that the mistake was not an honest one — that they “cherry-picked� the parts of the intelligence reports to support what they wanted to believe.

However, while most of the postwar debate has revolved around whether Bush and others lied about or intentionally exaggerated the WMD threat posed by Saddam, the circumstantial evidence leads to but one conclusion on something much more important — that Bush, Cheney, and other U.S. officials were knowingly and intentionally lying with respect to the real reason that they were invading Iraq.

Let’s review that circumstantial evidence.

1. Prior to the actual invasion, President Bush spent months lobbying the UN Security Council to unanimously grant him authority to invade Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions that required Saddam to rid himself of his WMDs. Ultimately, once Bush realized that he was going to be unable to secure the votes of all the permanent members of the Security Council, he decided to invade anyway, with the assistance of a “coalition of the willing� — a coalition of nations that were willing to participate in the enforcement of the UN resolutions requiring Saddam to “disarm.�

Now ask yourself: If a foreign nation was really about to attack the United States, especially with WMDs, would any president spend any time whatever going to the UN to seek permission to attack that nation first or spend time to round up a group of countries to participate in a “coalition of the willing�? That is beyond the realm of reasonable probability. In a real-life situation in which America was about to come under a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack the president would strike hard immediately to defend the nation against such an attack without first seeking anyone’s consent or approval.

Indeed, if an enemy nation was really about to attack the United States, would the president even be talking about the importance of enforcing UN resolutions? Who in his right mind would care about the importance of enforcing UN resolutions if another nation was about to fire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons at our country? All that would matter would be taking out attacking missiles immediately.

Yet even while feeding the fears of the American people by suggesting extreme urgency because of Saddam’s WMD threat, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell were lobbying UN officials — that is, officials of other nations — for a new resolution authorizing them to enforce previous UN resolutions that required Saddam to “disarm.� Indeed, recall that when Powell made a famous speech with charts detailing Saddam’s WMDs that he would soon be firing at the United States, Powell was at the UN seeking a resolution, not at the Congress of the United States seeking a declaration of war against a nation that supposedly was about to attack the United States with WMDs.

Then, once it became clear to Bush that the UN was not going to give him the resolution he sought, the situation became “Hurry, hurry, hurry.� We can’t let those hapless UN inspectors continue searching for Saddam’s WMDs, Americans were told, because the situation is too dire and urgent. We’ve go to invade now because otherwise we might well see a mushroom cloud tomorrow. And there is no doubt that most Americans who supported the invasion believed it.

2. Among the alternative rationales that Bush, Cheney, and other U.S. officials relied on to justify their invasion of Iraq was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam’s tyranny. Granted, that wasn’t the primary justification — that is, it wasn’t the one that resonated deep within American people, like the threat of a nuclear attack did — but it certainly was one of reasons given for invading. Ask yourself: If our nation was really about to be attacked by an enemy nation, especially with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, what is the likelihood that U.S. officials would be justifying their preemptive strike to take out those missiles by arguing that a collateral benefit of a preemptive strike would be to free the people of the enemy nation from tyranny? Would U.S. officials, including those in the military, really be thinking about such benefits? Not a chance. If our nation was really about to be attacked by an enemy nation, U.S. officials would strike them hard, without considering how this would help the people of the targeted nation.

In fact, the use of alternative and secondary rationales for invading Iraq is itself strong circumstantial evidence that the primary rationale given for invading — the dire threat of an imminent WMD attack — was bogus, because if such a threat really existed no one would be bothering to come up with alternative and secondary reasons for attacking.

3. On September 7, 2002 — that is, on the eve of the 2002 congressional elections — White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., provided an additional piece of circumstantial proof that U.S. officials were lying about the urgent threat of an imminent WMD attack on the United States by Saddam Hussein. Card said, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.�

What was Card referring to? He was referring to the methods by which the Bush administration was selling the necessity of a war against Iraq. Keep in mind that this was the period of time when Democratic congressional candidates in the 2002 election were terrified that Bush and the Republicans would accuse them of being soft on terrorism and of being unpatriotic. Thus, Bush and his people knew that the best time for getting a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to declare war on Iraq was before, not after, the November 2002 election.

So what Card was suggesting was that in August people are on vacation and their minds are on the summer, fun, and their families. Therefore, the best time to produce the arguments for going to war on Iraq would be in September, when people were once again focused on politics and business, which would still provide plenty of time to terrify people before the November election into thinking that a WMD attack could come at any time.

Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort? Would they be thinking that August would not be a good month for telling people about the fact that an enemy nation was preparing a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack and that September would be better? How likely is that? Not likely at all. If an enemy nation was truly preparing to strike the United States with WMDs, there would be no marketing strategy at all — U.S. officials would immediately begin preparing the preemptive strike, whether in June, July, or August, and would gravely inform the American people of what has happening. There would be no reason to try to develop a marketing strategy to sell the necessity of going to war — or to come up with alternative and secondary rationales for attacking.

4. Recently, Vice President Cheney stated that given what he now knows — that is, that the United States was not under an urgent threat of a WMD attack by Saddam — that there was no threat that Saddam would explode mushroom clouds over American cities — that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no connections to al- Qaeda — the United States would have invaded Iraq anyway.

Let that sink in for a moment. What Cheney is saying is that the United States would have invaded Iraq regardless. In other words, in the minds of Bush and Cheney, the imminent threat of a WMD attack on our country by Saddam was not a determining factor in invading Iraq. That is, even if Bush and Cheney knew beforehand that Saddam had “disarmed,� they would have attacked anyway.

5. A few months after the invasion of Iraq, when it was clear that no WMDs were going to be discovered, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair, “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.�

Ask yourself: If the United States were truly under the threat of an imminent WMD attack by a foreign nation, would federal bureaucrats be trying to figure out which issue everyone could agree on to justify an attack on that nation? Aren’t Wolfwitz’s words more consistent with the notion that U.S. officials were more concerned with coming up with the best excuses to justify an attack on Iraq rather than the notion that they were acting under the genuine threat of an imminent WMD attack on the United States?

Those pieces of circumstantial evidence inexorably lead but to one conclusion — that from the start, the threat of an imminent WMD attack on the United States was a bogus reason for going to war against Iraq. But U.S. officials knew that it was most effective marketing tool to get the American people and the members of Congress to become sufficiently trusting and fearful to cause them to immediately support the coming invasion.

So if the urgent WMD threat wasn’t the real reason for going to war, what was? For that answer, we must look, once again, to circumstantial evidence.

For more than 10 years after the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government, operating in conjunction with the UN, imposed and enforced some of the most brutal and effective sanctions against Iraq that have ever been enforced against another country. For a good collection of articles on the devastating effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people — especially with respect to the high death rate among Iraqi children from infectious diseases — click here.

Suffice it to say (1) that the sanctions contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; (2) that U.S. Ambassador the UN Madeleine Albright expressed the sentiments of other U.S. officials when she said that the deaths were “worth it�; and (3) that high UN officials resigned in protest against the massive number of Iraqi children who were dying every year.

What was the purpose of the sanctions? The ostensible purpose was to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions requiring him to disarm himself of WMDs. Yet, even though Saddam continued to steadfastly maintain, year after year of rising deaths among the Iraqi populace, that he had complied with the UN resolutions, he was hit with the same response by U.S. officials — “He’s lying, and the only reason that the UN inspectors are unable to locate the WMDs is that they are incompetent.� Year after year, U.S. officials continued to maintain that Saddam had the burden of showing that he no longer had WMDs as a condition of lifting the sanctions, ignoring the obvious difficulty that anyone would have in trying to prove such a negative.

Ultimately, Saddam stopped cooperating with the UN inspectors not because he was trying to hide his WMDs, which is what U.S. officials steadfastly continued claiming, but rather because it finally became clear that U.S. officials would never permit the sanctions to be lifted, no matter whether Saddam could prove he had disarmed or not. They made it clear that the sanctions would be lifted only if Saddam Hussein left office and was replaced by a U.S.-approved substitute.

Thus, the real purpose of the sanctions was what has become known as “regime change� — the idea of squeezing a nation and its regime economically so hard that either the ruler abdicates or his own people oust him from office and replace him with a U.S.-approved substitute (such as Ahmed Chalabi), at which point the sanctions would be lifted and U.S. foreign aid would flow into the country to “rebuild it.�

Thus, given that “regime change� was the purpose of the sanctions throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, it stands to reason that “regime change� continued to be a major driving force behind the plans to invade Iraq in 2003.

That had to be why Cheney announced that they would have invaded Iraq even if they had known that there were no WMDs. They were going into Iraq to do what more than a decade of brutal and deadly sanctions had not done — oust Saddam from power and replace him with a U.S. substitute.

At the time he made that statement, Cheney suggested that it would have been necessary to remove Saddam anyway because he was a dangerous ruler, a postinvasion point that Bush has also used. That justification rings hollow as well. Of course Saddam was a dangerous ruler, but there are lots of dangerous rulers in the world, many of whom the U.S. government has ardently supported. Pervez Musharraf, the military general who took power in a coup in Pakistan, who won’t permit democratic elections, and who has nuclear weapons, is a good example. Another example would be Saddam Hussein himself, whom U.S. officials supported during the 1980s when they delivered to him the very WMDs that they later used as their primary pretext for invading Iraq. Click here for a collection of articles detailing where Saddam, a dangerous ruler, got his WMDs. (Thus, it’s not surprising that Bush and Cheney would market the war with the WMD rationale: in their minds it was inconceivable that Saddam would have actually destroyed the WMDs that the United States had delivered to him during the Reagan-Bush years.)

Another important piece of circumstantial evidence that inexorably leads to regime change, not the imminent threat of a WMD attack, as the real reason for invading Iraq is the famous (and previously secret) Downing Street Memo, in which British officials stated, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.�

Defenders of the war might argue, “By relying on faulty intelligence, the president and vice president just made an honest mistake, and therefore, U.S. officials are not morally responsible for the massive death and destruction in Iraq.� But that’s just not true: even if the WMD intelligence reports had been faulty, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly establishes that President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their associates were being dishonest with respect to the real reason they were sending the nation into war against Iraq. As Vice President Cheney pointed out, even if the president and vice president had known that the intelligence reports were false, they would have ordered an invasion anyway.

Is the WMD lie important? Yes, because it led an untold number of Americans to support a war and an occupation that have unleased forces that have resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands, on both sides. Thus, while it is entirely possible that Bush and Cheney would have invaded Iraq anyway if the American people had known the truth about why they were invading, at least the war and occupation would not have received the moral sanction of a deceived people.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He will be among the 22 speakers at FFF’s upcoming conference on June 1-4 in Reston, Virginia: “Restoring the Constitution: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties.�

Dear 'chbck', the following article responds far better to your view point on the American occupation of Iraq than I can hope to do. Its a bit long but please stick with it... and please give us your considered response to it.

Nine Paradoxes of a Lost War

by Michael Schwartz and Tom Engelhardt

Here's how the president described the enemy in Iraq at his press conference last week. "The violence is being caused by a combination of terrorists, elements of former regime criminals, and sectarian militias." "Elements of former regime criminals," AKA "bitter-enders," AKA "Saddamists." The "sectarian militias" may have been a relatively recent add-on, but this is essentially the same list, the same sort of terminology the president has been using for years.

In the last two weeks, however, rumblings of discontent, the urge for a change of course (or at least a mid-course correction) in Iraq have been persistently bubbling to the surface of already roiling Washington. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner recently returned from Iraq to rattle the Bush administration by saying that policy there was "drifting sideways" and if it didn't improve, "all options" should be on the table not long after the midterm elections.

Suggestions are rife for dumping the president's goal of "democracy" in Iraq and swallowing a little of the hard stuff. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, for instance, reported last week (as did Middle Eastern expert Robert Dreyfuss at TomPaine.com a week earlier) that in two desperate capitals, Washington and Baghdad, rumors about possible future Iraqi coups are spinning wildly. People of import are evidently talking about the possibility of a new five-man "ruling commission," a "government of national salvation" there that would "suspend parliament, declare martial law, and call back some officers of the old Iraqi army." Even the name of that CIA war-horse (and anti-neocon candidate) Iyad Allawi, who couldn't get his party elected dogcatcher in the new Iraq, is coming up again in the context of the need for a "strongman."

This was, of course, the desire of the elder George Bush and his advisers back at the end of Gulf War I, when they hoped just such a Sunni strongman – one who could work with them – would topple a weakened Saddam Hussein. Dreams, it seems, die hard. And, as if on cue, who should appear but former secretary of state and Bush family handler James A. Baker III, a Bush Elder kind of guy. While on the talk-show circuit for his new book, he also spent last week plugging (but not revealing) the future findings of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission he co-heads whose aim is to suggest to a reluctant president new policy possibilities in Iraq. They too are putting "all" options on the table (as long as those options involve "continuing the mission in Iraq"). The group, according to a leak to the New York Sun, has, however, ruled out the president's favorite option, "victory." One option it is considering, according the Sun, involves skipping "democracy," minimizing American casualties, and focusing "on stabilizing Baghdad, while the American embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents."

A political accommodation with the insurgents? Curious how word gets around. Sometimes a small change in terminology speaks volumes for future mid-course corrections. The other day, Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, gave a press briefing with Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. As part of his prepared introductory remarks (not in answer to some random question), he offered this list of "groups that are working to affect [the situation in Iraq] negatively":

"The first, the Sunni extremists, al-Qaeda, and the Iraqis that are supporting them. Second, the Shi'a extremists, the death squads, and the more militant militias. In my view, those represent the greatest current threats in Iraq. The third group is the resistance, the Sunni insurgency that sees themselves as an honorable resistance against foreign occupation in Iraq."

"The resistance"? "An honorable resistance against foreign occupation in Iraq"? Where did those bitter-enders, those Anti-Iraq Forces go? Take it as a small signal – noticed, as far as I could tell, by not a single reporter or pundit – of things to come.

Of course, all of this has brought to the surface a lot of hopeful "withdrawal" talk in the media (and the online world), in part because the Baker group seems to have been floating "phased withdrawal" rumors. Before you think about genuine withdrawal possibilities though, note the announcement by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker last week that he was now planning for the possibility of maintaining present force levels in Iraq (140,000+ troops) through 2010; that Casey at that press briefing left the door wide open to ask the president for even more troops after the election; and that the buildup on the ground of permanent bases (not called that) and our vast, nearly billion-dollar embassy in the heart of Baghdad is ongoing.

Below, Michael Schwartz considers the latest in military mid-course corrections and explains why such corrections can no longer hope to plug the gaping holes in Iraq's political dikes. Similarly, Warner, Baker, Casey, Sen. Joe Biden (with his "three-state solution"), and so many others can all promote their own mid-course corrections, suggest them to the president, bring them to the new Congress, promote them among military figures, but as long as that embassy goes up and those bases keep getting hardened and improved, as long as the "mission continues" (in Baker's phrase), changing troop levels, tactics, even governments in Baghdad's Green Zone, not to speak of "policy options" in Washington, will solve nothing. Wherever that "table" is sooner or later all options will really have to be displayed on it. Tom

The More Force You Use, the Less Effective You Are

by Michael Schwartz

Recently, the New York Times broke a story suggesting that the U.S. Army and the Marines were about to turn the conceptual tide of war in Iraq. The two services, reported correspondent Michael R. Gordon, "were finishing work on a new counterinsurgency doctrine" that would, according to retired Lt. Gen. Jack Keane, "change [the military's] entire culture as it transitions to irregular warfare."

Such strategic eureka moments have been fairly common since the Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003, and this one – news coverage of it died away in less than a week – will probably drop into the dustbin of history along with other times when the tactical or strategic tide of war was supposed to change. These would include the November 2004 assault on the city of Fallujah, various elections, the "standing up" of the Iraqi army, and the trench that, it was briefly reported, the Iraqis were planning to dig around their vast capital, Baghdad.

But this plan had one ingenious section, derived from an article by four military experts published in the quasi-official Military Review and entitled "The Paradoxes of Counterinsurgency." The nine paradoxes the experts lay out are eye-catching, to say the least, and so make vivid reading; but they are more than so many titillating puzzles of counterinsurgency warfare. Each of them contains an implied criticism of American strategy in Iraq. Seen in this light, they become an instructive lesson from insiders in why the American presence in that country has been such a disaster, and why this (or any other) new counterinsurgency strategy has little chance of ameliorating it.

Paradox 1: The More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You Are

The military experts offer this explanation: "[The] counterinsurgent gains ultimate success by protecting the populace, not himself." It may seem like a bland comment, but don't be fooled. It conceals a devastating criticism of the cardinal principle of the American military in Iraq: that above all else they must minimize the risk to American troops by setting rules of engagement that essentially boil down to "shoot first, make excuses later." Applications of this principle are found in the by-now familiar policies of annihilating any car that passes the restraint line at checkpoints (because it might be a car bomber); shooting at pedestrians who get in the path of any American convoy (because they might be trying to stop the vehicles to activate an ambush); and calling in artillery or air power against any house that might be an insurgent hiding place (because the insurgents might otherwise escape and/or snipe at an American patrol).

This "shoot first" policy has guaranteed that large numbers of civilians (including a remarkable number of children) have been killed, maimed, or left homeless. For most of us, killing this many innocent people would be reason enough to abandon a policy, but from a military point of view it is not in itself sufficient. These tactics only become anathema when you can no longer ignore the way they have made it ever more difficult for the occupying army to "maintain contact" with the local population in order "to obtain the intelligence to drive operations and to reinforce the connections with the people who establish legitimacy."

Paradox 2: The More Force You Use, the Less Effective You Are

Times reporter Gordon summarizes the logic here nicely: "Substantial force increases the risk of collateral damage and mistakes, and increases the opportunity for insurgent propaganda." Considering the levels of devastation achieved in the Sunni city of Fallujah (where 70 percent of structures were estimated to be damaged and close to 50 percent destroyed in the U.S. assault of November 2004) and in other Sunni cities (where whole neighborhoods have been devastated), or even in Shi'ite Najaf (where entire neighborhoods and major parts of its old city were destroyed in 2004), the word "substantial" has to be considered a euphemism. And the use of the word "propaganda" betrays the bias of the military authors, since many people would consider such levels of devastation a legitimate reason for joining groups that aim to expel the occupiers.

Here again, the striking logic of the American military is at work. These levels of destruction are not, in themselves, considered a problem – at least not until someone realizes that they are facilitating recruitment by the opposition.

Paradox 3: The More Successful Counterinsurgency Is, the Less Force That Can Be Used and the More Risk That Must Be Accepted

Though not presented this way, this paradox is actually a direct criticism of the American military strategy in the months after the fall of the Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. In those early days, active resistance to the occupation was modest indeed, an average of only six violent engagements each day (compared to 90 three years later.) But American military policy in the country was still based on overwhelming force. American commanders sought to deter a larger insurgency by ferociously repressing any signs of resistance. This strategy included house-to-house searches witnessed by embedded reporter Nir Rosen and described in his vivid book, In the Belly of the Green Bird. These missions, repeated hundreds of times each day across Iraq, included home invasions of suspected insurgents, brutal treatment of their families and often their property, and the indefinite detention of men found in just about any house searched, even when U.S. troops knew that their intelligence was unreliable. Relatively peaceful demonstrations were forcibly suppressed, most agonizingly when, in late April 2003, American troops killed 13 demonstrators in Fallujah who were demanding that the U.S. military vacate a school commandeered as a local headquarters. This incident became a cause célèbre around which Fallujans organized themselves into a central role in the insurgency that soon was born.

The new counterinsurgency strategy acknowledges that the very idea of overwhelming demonstrations of force producing respectful obedience has backfired, producing instead an explosion of rebellion. And now that a significant majority of Iraqis are determined to expel the Americans, promises of more humane treatment next time will not get the genie of the insurgency back in the bottle.

Paradox 4: Sometimes Doing Nothing Is the Best Reaction

This paradox is, in fact, a criticism of another cardinal principle of the occupation: the application of overwhelming force in order to teach insurgents (and prospective insurgents) that opposition of any sort will not be tolerated and, in any case, is hopeless. A typical illustration of this principle in practice was a January 2006 U.S. military report that went in part: "An unmanned U.S. drone detected three men digging a hole in a road in the area. Insurgents regularly bury bombs along roads in the area to target U.S. or Iraqi convoys. The three men were tracked to a building, which U.S. forces then hit with precision-guided munitions." As it turned out, the attack killed 12 members of a family living in that house, severely damaged six neighboring houses, and consolidated local opposition to the American presence.

This example (multiplied many times over) makes it clear why, in so many instances over these last years, doing nothing might have been better: fewer enemies in the "hood." But the developers of the new military strategy have a more cold-blooded view of the issue, preferring to characterize the principle in this way: "If a careful analysis of the effects of a response reveals that more negatives than positives might result, soldiers should consider an alternative." That is, while this incident might well be an example of a time when "doing nothing is the best reaction," the multiple civilian deaths that resulted could, under at least some circumstances, be outweighed by the "positives." Take, for a counter example, the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia, in an air strike that also caused multiple civilian deaths.

Paradox 5: The Best Weapons for Counterinsurgency Do Not Shoot

The Times' Gordon offers the following translation of this paradox: "Often dollars and ballots have more impact than bombs and bullets." Given the $18 billion U.S. reconstruction budget for Iraq and the three well-attended elections since January 2005, it might seem that, in this one area, Bush administration efforts actually anticipated the new counterinsurgency doctrine.

But in their original article the military strategists were actually far more precise in describing what they meant by this – and that precision makes it clear how far from effective American "reconstruction" was. Money and elections, they claim, are not enough: "Lasting victory will come from a vibrant economy, political participation, and restored hope." As it happened, the American officials responsible for Iraq policy were only willing to deliver that vibrant economy, along with political participation and restored hope, under quite precise and narrow conditions that suited the larger fantasies of the Bush administration. Iraq's new government was to be an American ally, hostile to that axis-of-evil regional power Iran, and it was to embrace the "opening" of the Iraqi economy to American multinationals. Given Iraqi realities and this hopeless list of priorities (or inside-the-Beltway daydreams), it is not surprising that the country's economy has sunk ever deeper into depression, that elected officials have neither the power nor the inclination to deliver on their campaign promises, and that the principle hopes of the majority of Iraqis are focused on the departure of American troops because of, as one pollster concluded, "the American failure to do basically anything for Iraqis."

Paradox 6: The Host Nation Doing Something Tolerably Is Sometimes Better Than Our Doing It Well

Here is a paradoxical principle that the occupation has sought to apply fully. The presidential slogan, "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," has been an expression of Bush administration determination to transfer the front-line struggle against the insurgents – the patrols, the convoys, the home invasions, any house-to-house fighting – to Iraqi units, even if their job performance proved even less than "tolerable" compared to the rigorous execution of American troops.

It is this effort that has also proved the administration's most consistent and glaring failure. In a country where 80 percent of the people want the Americans to leave, it is very difficult to find soldiers willing to fight against the insurgents who are seeking to expel them. This was evident when the first group of American-trained soldiers and police deserted the field of battle during the fights for Fallujah, Najaf, Mosul, and Tal Afar back in 2004. This led eventually to the current American strategy of using Shia soldiers against Sunni insurgents, and utilizing Kurds against both Shia and Sunni rebels. (Sunnis, by and large, have refused to fight with the Americans.) This policy, in turn, has contributed substantially to the still-escalating sectarian violence within Iraq.

Even today, after the infusion of enormous amounts of money and years of effort, a substantial proportion of newly recruited soldiers desert or mutiny when faced with the prospect of fighting against anti-American insurgents. According to Solomon Moore and Louise Roug of the Los Angeles Times, in Anbar province, the scene of the heaviest fighting, "half the Iraqi soldiers are on leave at any given time, and many don't return to duty. In May, desertion rates in some Iraqi units reached 40 percent." In September, fully three-quarters of the 4,000 Iraqi troops ordered to Baghdad to help in the American operation to reclaim the capital and suppress internecine violence there, refused deployment. American officials told the L.A. Times that such refusals were based on an unwillingness to fight outside their home regions and a reluctance to "be thrust into uncomfortable sectarian confrontations."

As the failed attempts to "stand up" Iraqi forces suggest, the goal of getting Iraqis to fight "tolerably" well depends upon giving them a reason to fight that they actually support. As long as Iraqis are asked to fight on the side of occupation troops whose presence they despise, we cannot expect the quality of their performance to be "tolerable" from the Bush administration point of view.

Paradox 7: If a Tactic Works This Week, It Will Not Work Next Week; If It Works in This Province, It Will Not Work in the Next

The clearest expression of this principle lies in the history of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the anti-occupation weapon of choice among Iraqi resistance fighters. Throughout the war, the occupation military has conducted hundreds of armed patrols each week designed to capture suspected insurgents through house-to-house searches. The insurgency, in turn, has focused on deterring and derailing these patrols, using sniper attacks, rocket propelled grenades, and IEDs. At first, sniper attacks were the favored weapon of the insurgents, but the typical American response – artillery and air attacks – proved effective enough to set them looking for other ways to respond. IEDs then gained in popularity, since they could be detonated from a relatively safe distance. When the Americans developed devices to detect the electronic detonators, the insurgents developed a variety of non-electronic trigger devices. When the Americans upgraded their armor to resist the typical IED, the insurgents developed "shaped" charges that could pierce American armor.

And so it goes in all aspects of the war. Each move by one side triggers a response by the other. The military experts developing the new strategy can point to this dilemma, but they cannot solve it. The underlying problem for the American military is that the resistance has already reached the sort of critical mass that ensures an endless back-and-forth tactical battle.

One solution not under consideration might work very well: abandoning the military patrols themselves. But such a tactic would also require abandoning counterinsurgency and ultimately leaving Iraq.

Paradox 8: Tactical Success Guarantees Nothing

This point is summarized by Gordon of the Times this way: "Military actions by themselves cannot achieve success." But this is the smallest part of the paradox. It is true enough that the insurgency in Iraq hopes to win "politically," by waiting for the American people to force our government to withdraw, or for the cost of the war to outweigh its potential benefits, or for world pressure to make the war diplomatically unviable.

But there is a much more encompassing element to this dictum: that guerrilla fighters do not expect to win any military battles with the occupation. In the military strategists' article, they quote an interchange between American Col. Harry Summers and his North Vietnamese counterpart after the U.S. had withdrawn from Vietnam. When Summers said, "You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," his adversary replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

A tactical victory occurs when the enemy is killed or retreats, leaving the battlefield to the victor. In guerrilla war, therefore, the guerrillas never win since they always melt away and leave their adversary in charge.

But in Iraq, as in other successful guerrilla wars, the occupation army cannot remain indefinitely at the scene of its tactical victories – in each community, town, or city that it conquers. It must move on to quell the rebellion elsewhere. And when it does, if the guerrillas have successfully melted away, they will reoccupy the community, town, or city, thus winning a strategic victory and ruling the local area until their next tactical defeat.

If they keep this up long enough and do it in enough places, they will eventually make the war too costly to pursue – and thus conceivably win the war without winning a battle.

Paradox 9: Most of the Important Decisions Are Not Made by Generals

Because guerrilla war is decentralized, with local bands deciding where to place IEDs, when to use snipers, and which patrols or bases to attack, the struggle in different communities, provinces, or regions takes very different forms. Many insurgents in Fallujah chose to stand and fight, while those in Tal Afar, near the Syrian border, decided to evacuate the city with its civilian population when the American military approached in strength. In Shia areas, members of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army chose to join the local police and turn it to their purposes; but Sunni insurgents have tried, instead, to disarm the local police and then disband the force. In every city and town, the strategy of the resistance has been different.

The latest American military strategists are arguing that what they call the "mosaic nature of an insurgency" implies the necessity of giving autonomy to local American commanders to "adapt as quickly as the insurgents." But such decentralization cannot work if the local population supports the insurgent goal of expelling the occupiers. Given autonomy under such circumstances, lower-level U.S. military officers may decide that annihilating a home suspected of sheltering an insurgent is indeed counterproductive; such decisions, however humane, would now come far too late to convince a local population that it should abandon its support of a campaign seen as essential to national independence.

There may have been a time, back when the invasion began, that the U.S. could have adopted a strategy that would have made it welcome – for a time, anyway – in Iraq. Such a strategy, as the military theorists flatly state, would have had to deliver a "vibrant economy, political participation, and restored hope." Instead, the occupation delivered economic stagnation or degradation, a powerless government, and the promise of endless violence. Given this reality, no new military strategy – however humane, canny, or well designed – could reverse the occupation's terminal unpopularity. Only a U.S. departure might do that.

Paradoxically, the policies these military strategists are now trying to reform have ensured that, however much most Iraqis may want such a departure, it would be, at best, bittersweet. The legacy of sectarian violence and the near-irreversible destruction wrought by the American presence make it unlikely that they would have the time or inclination to take much satisfaction in the end of the American occupation.

Money can't buy everything. Yes we spend a lot of money on surveillance, but we also spend a lot of money on intelligence but rampant hesitation and bureaucracy during the Clinton years failed to eliminate Bin Laden and we all know why that was a grave mistake. It's a very large planet and the US is interested in watching a lot of people and places. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that things could have just been missed. I will concede that it's possible that the WMDs weren't moved out of the country, but the fact remains that Iraq had plenty of notice before we rolled in. In that time they could have disposed of their weapons in many different ways that the US would have no knowledge of.

Pothole Research, you haven't even addressed my entire stance on this subject. If there were truly never any WMDs in Iraq, then where did Saddam get them from to attack the Kurds? Did he just place an order for a few rounds, launch them, and then decide that he didn't want to mess with them anymore? I doubt it.

You also proved my point by saying that WMDs were what the war was all about. Americans like to find one little talking point and cling to it furiously regardless of the opposition. WMDs were only part of the equation. A fanatical dictator who kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed at will is another side of that story. You forget that some Iraqis are very happy that Saddam is gone. Why don't you ask them if it was all about WMDs?

And just because I can't end this without disputing all your points, I will say that "Shock and Awe" was anything but a "miserable failure". What was "Shock and Awe"? It was the initial bombing campaign designed to take out Iraq's military infrastructure to allow for coalition forces to enter the country and begin the ground work. Did "Shock and Awe" accomplish that mission? Yes it did. The violence in Iraq is an insurgency, not an organized military utilizing their normal command and control resources to fight an enemy. It's an ad-hoc militia that isn't based anywhere and controlled by a complicated series of roaming leaders. "Shock and Awe" could have never prevented that from happening unless we just used it to kill everyone in the region.

Don't you think Bush and gang would be the FIRST to say that the WMD were moved to another country...of course not because they know they were fabricated items to get in and secure a three trillion dollar oil field. I think it's naive to say that Bush was going to war for any other reason. You send the lower ghetto american class to war, so the politicians can secure these massive oil contracts, we all know about Dick Cheney's oil industries. Give me a break Clinton really improved the American economy which is now down in the Mud (we feel the effecs of Bush's lack of economic knowledge everyday in Canada). He was a not weak a president, he just simply didn't detonate bombs routinely to prove he was a "strong" president.

But, to be honest the issue is not America here. It's Israel, and how America will just for some odd reason let them spiral out of control and be the superior war lords over the Middle East.

Btw. Kudos to you for being able to carry on a civilized conversation! Normally any such politcal coversation moves on to petty name-calling and swearing.

"How is it not possible that Iraq's WMD stockpile wasn't moved to another country during the political debate preceding the war?? I don't understand why people simply will not entertain that thought."

So now you say the Iraqis moved their stuff and nobody knows about it. This despite the fact that US spends $22.5 billion per year on military spy satellite and space programs.

LOL, you made my day.

"Please, please, please be a little more creative and not use the WMD angle to criticize the war"

WMDs are just an "angle" in an argument now? I thought WMDs were what the whole war was about.

I knew Bush's "Shock and Awe" campaign (Gulf War 2, Iraq) was a miserable failure within a week of it being launched. I'm waiting for his "Cut and Run" campaign (and eventual political suicide)

Please, please, please be a little more creative and not use the WMD angle to criticize the war in Iraq. The WMD argument is right up there with the "no war for oil" crowd that scurries to make the weakest and easiest argument possible because they don't bother to research the real reasons for what is going on. You know...the same people who still think the Civil War was about slavery.

Anyway...Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds on more than one occasion. That is a documented fact that nobody but himself will deny. How can you possibly think that he used chemical weapons then, only to turn around and totally get rid of all of them? But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that he did do exactly that. Supposed he did destroy every ounce of WMD weaponry; what would he have to hide from UN inspectors? If there were no weapons of mass destruction in that country then the UN inspectors should have been allowed to search wherever they wanted but they were not given that opportunity. Years and years of those roadblocks, coupled with a weak and distracted President, let the Iraq situation get out of control during Clinton's years in office. George W. Bush took over a ticking time bomb. So, GWB becomes President and immediately there is speculation about whether or not we will go to war with Iraq. Saddam and Bush engage in a media war of words for a while, then it all hits the fan and we invade. How is it not possible that Iraq's WMD stockpile wasn't moved to another country during the political debate preceding the war?? I don't understand why people simply will not entertain that thought. Saddam knew we were coming sooner or later and he knew that he would be taken out of power and probably captured in the process. What better way to make us look like a bunch of uncoordinated, uninformed, trigger happy fools than to move everything out of the country and let us waltz right in and come up empty handed?

Of course "American Diplomats" are saying it's all messed up now...it's been 5 years and it's a huge mess so everyone even remotely connected to American politics is making sure to cover their butts because the last 5 years are going echo through American history for a very, very long time. Anyone associated with this situation will be held accountable for it when they try to advance their careers. These people are willing to say anything at this point to distance themselves from "Bush's war".

Please realize that we live in a much more complex world than can possibly be explained, defended, or criticized with an argument as weak as WMDs. You are old enough to form your own opinions based on information that you research and process, not only what you see in the media.

UN and US with Israel ah, one is ally and other is a weak watcher to Israel crimes every day. I heard one of the American diplomats blames the UN because they are not fair enough toward poor Israel!!!! And issuing so many Security Council resolutions angst it, they are blaming the law not the criminals. the ugly Israeli frog is riding the huge American elephant to do there demands in the area , you saw how was the UN and western countries doing to send troops to protect Israel from Hezbollah ?where they had been since 30 years ? When Israel is doing what ever the want in Lebanon and now when there is limited threat to Israel every body running to help , please get out of here and give a break ,both are partner to Israel ( the biggest mafia gang in the world ) in its crimes

hello Iraq "seemed" to pose a threat, Cheney said he himself knew where the WMD were and yet...none to be found. Also, Israel has invaded and attacked Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. So yeah, maybe the US is not in danger, but those of us in the Middle East, like yourself, are!

BTW, this is what your own American Diplomats are saying about the Iraq war:

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=114229&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

So the U.S. is the bully because Iran is uncooperative and arrogant? By definition bullies are typically the arrogant ones. Nuclear "technology" can very easily become nuclear weaponry. The United States is a massive target right now, and it is our inherent right to protect ourselves. If that means getting in the face of nations who seem to pose a threat...so be it. Nobody is saying that Iran can't build nuclear POWER plants. Iran is just being pressured to do so under some supervision, that's all.

Remember the Clinton years when UN inspectors were sent into Iraq time and time again and were given the run-around every time they tried to do their jobs? Iraq is in the shape it's in now because its leader only wanted to flex his muscles and defy the more sensible people of the world who didn't want to let him run around dropping nerve gas on people anymore. Iran is heading down the same road.

Absolutely, Teacher.

But the UN is trying to make things easier for Lebanon now that it's over. Men are searching for cluster bombs and demining, which is not an easy job. There are also measures being taken, as cluster bombs use will be banned. As for Phosforous, I can only hope Israel will be punished accordingly for its illegal use. I whish there was a paceful way to stop Israel from murdering civilians.

Iran... I do understand they are in the spotlight, because they are being very arrogant to all the diplomatic effords from the western world to stop them from developing nuclear...technology?

First off, nobody is "allowing" it to happen. I think the UN and the US are so bogged down with other conflicts and/or potential conflicts that they just plan don't have time to bother with Israel. There are basically three tiers to this whole thing the way I see it.

The first is comprised of the places were we are actually at war: Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes I know we conduct operations in other places, but this is where the vast majority of our attention is focused right now.

The second is comprised of places we regularly engage in rather heated and passionate exchanges with and are coming very close to armed conflict the longer we go on. I see these places being Iran and North Korea.

The third are places that are getting a decent amount of attention but don't really pose an immediate danger of armed conflict. I stick Pakistan and Syria in this group.

Israeli issues are pretty far removed from anything I mentioned above on the global scale. God forbid Bush tries to do something about this and gets even more criticism from a largely uneducated and uninformed public about his "war-like" ways.

Oh, and please don't rely on CNN for factual reporting when it comes to death tolls or damage reports. I'm not a die hard conservative, but it doesn't take one to see CNN's liberal slant.