Canada dodged a bullet

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by scandium

Skybird, the US has a population of about 300 million to Canada's 30 million and we are similarly ethnically diverse with about the same rate of population growth. How do you see the US being overrun from Canada?

It doesn't matter what the population is; the problem is the border that you said shouldn't be militarized. I'm not saying it should be, but the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico have traditionally been very lightly guarded, and that makes it easier for "evil-doers" (as El Jefe refers to them) to slip through.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by scandium

9/11 was before the Iraq war. And Iraq was not connected to it. And, lastly, this is not Al Qaeda (according to the Toronto Star). Beyond that, the reason looks - in part - to be one of convenience: most of those arrested were Canadian citizens or residents so I suppose attacking the country they were already in served whatever statement they were hoping to make.

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

[Skybird]

You are wrong, LoBlo.The Iraq qar had been set on the agenda many years before 9/11, and described by Wolfowitz in written papers. It dissapeared from the table under Clinton, but laready then it was planned for. It's execution was decided the day Bush was elected (or any other conservative administration). 9/11 caused Afghanistan going first, and Iraq following soon after. - Of course, the whole match already was lost on day 4 of the war in 91 - when the premature cease-fire was declared. That was the day the US policy on Iraq was defeated. Since then, 1991, it was only about preventing that fact from becoming realized by the public.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There is a structure called Al Quaeda. but it is more important to realize it's mental presence inside heads, it's character of it's deeds being an example for others. Al Quaeda greatest threat potential is that now it is an idea, a motivation, a thinking pattern, a way of gaining superindividual identity: the feeling of being part of something bigger. And that is attractive for quite some people. You could wipe out Al Quaeda organisations and sub-cells militarily, but Al Quaeda still would be there. You must also find a way to deterr those who potentially might share it'S way of thinking from doing so. How? I do not know. Mayby only brute force would work here. What will not work is a soft, psychological approach: Al Quaeda founds it's acting on an aggressive warrior-religion and a faith of rightful demanding all world, and being individually superior.

You have it right. Kinda contradicts your anti war anti Bush messages though.

The Western world 'has' also grown soft. As an example - notice how it tries and treats all negatives with a positive approach. Take our youth - Doesn't seem to be working well on our youth because our youth seem to be getting more violent and dangerous. Is this because human nature requires a negative side to balance the positive? Or is this because the youth do not realize just how negative they are being or how hurtfull they are being because they have never suffered a negative themselves?

Here is another example of positives making a negative - how about saftey equipment. Know why kids do the most stupid stuff on their skateboards? Because we gave them so much saftey equpiment form pads to helmets that they will try even more dagerous stunts because we have enabled them to do so because we have protected them from getting hurt on the smaller stunts. In this case, the injuries just get horribly worse just because when enabled them! This translates into adults too. An example - make the car safer and the driver will drive more unsafe with it.

Its all negatives coming from positives. Is this human nature??

These are the same physc people that are trying to correct a mentallity based on this: Take a guy who has nothing to lose and tell him he will get 72 vigins and palace and get to sit on the right hand of Allah for doing this deed. The tell him if he doesn't that he will have a hard time going to heaven in the first place since he will have to do more good deeds in his lifetime than bad. And then you tell him that he has already done a lifetime of bad and it is going to take him the rest of his life to make up with good - and that he may never make it! Then you go back to him and tell him that if he does this one great act for Islam as a whole, all his negatives will be wiped away and that he will go to heaven and if he believes this, the phych guys will have lost a thousand battles and never get through to him, nor the people we are trying to fight.

The only possible solution - destroy them or be destroyed, no matter where they are. This is all they will unerstand. You can't fight this from a phyc standpoint since you can only do more harm than good by offending people who are looking for a reason to be offended. This is an unwinnable war from a soft standpoint.

From a hard standpoint as well though, it will only get worse. These people don't have what we have and they relate that to the Western world holding them back. This hard fight is also fight that we won't be able to get away from. This is escalating to a war against Islam with no way out, no matter how much they backpedal on the idea - this is just a stalling tactic while they try and deal with the situation, hoping it goes away. The problem is, no matter how much the Western world wants to avoid or stop this war, they will fail. It will be interesting to see how the Western world deals with a catch 22 situation like this that they can't resolve. All I know is this - don't let the phych guys run it.

Here is the problem - you can't reason with them, since if you try, it makes them stronger. You also can't use force on them because if you do it will only make them stronger. Catch 22. One possible solution - ignore them. This would work but we have such a screwed up media that like to oversensationalize things that it could never work. This is our weekness - once our one strength - freedom of press. Here is what happened - the press got greedy and figured out they could oversensationalize things and get more viewers and hence, more money, and terrorist organizations just love this mentallity. I could go on and write a book, but I'll quit.

Just my 2 cents on it.

-S

[scandium]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

So you are saying that the US committed 170,000 odd troops to an invasion of Iraq, spending $200 billion and the lives of over 2,400 of its own troops (so far), because Iraq fired on US planes during their patrols of the no-fly zones? Interesting theory.

The problem with your theory is that it proclaims that the US government makes no distinction between capability and intent, as though capability was of no imporantance. Iraq firing on US aircraft patroling no-fly zones in Iraq is not even proof that Iraq had ill intentions toward "US Sovereignty" (it only proves that it had ill intentions toward aircraft within its own airspace), let alone the capability to project that ill-intent beyond Iraq. It also ignores North Korea's stance toward the US at that time, and its capability which included an established nuclear threat with the capability and intention to build more of these weapons. If invading Iraq was done to protect "US Sovereignty", why not invade say North Korea instead? Why expend 200,000 troops and $200 billion on a country already contained by UN sanctions? If it was out of concerns following 9/11, why invade Iraq rather than Pakistan where the person who had master-minded 9/11 (Osama Bin Laden, remember that guy?) was said to be hiding? Why not put more troops into Afghanistan which has, in recent years, seen a revival of Al Qaeda and Taliban elements? You remember Al Qaeda right, the organization that had trained and sent the guys on 9/11 who destroyed the WTC.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

In looking at this from another angle, this house of cards comes toppling down in the face of facts:

a: The cease-fire accord permitted Iraq to fly all types of aircraft and imposed no restrictions on their use;

b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;

c: Iraq's attempts to defend its skies were therefore justified under international law.

Your position therefore boils down to this: the US invaded Iraq because Iraq exercised its legitimate right, under international law, to defend its skies. Not a good case to base the invasion and occupation of a country on, which is perhaps why it was never made.

By the way here is the source for my own assertions on the NFZs:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/dreyfuss-r.html

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by scandium

So you are saying that the US committed 170,000 odd troops to an invasion of Iraq, spending $200 billion and the lives of over 2,400 of its own troops (so far), because Iraq fired on US planes during their patrols of the no-fly zones? Interesting theory.

Yep, but not that simplistically. Everyone on this thread, myself included, is using overly simplistic notions for the sake of brevity. Otherwise we would be having essay lenght post. ...
...but if I were to try to reply in a nutshell... the short answer is yes. The difference between the countries you listed is that Iraq has openly attacked US assets, so will bare brunt to its response (which is the doctrine that the US is proporting for at least the time being), while N. Korea has not openly attacked US assets. Pakistan's government is complying with full cooperation with US and UK forces. Other subtle differences apply as well, including economic and historical factors, but aren't worth discussing here.

As far as Iraq's legitimate right to defend its skies. After the first Gulf War Iraq it was decided by US policy makers that Iraq had no rights, for reasons that should be obvious, or if they are not, require too lengthy a history lesson to dileneate here.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are wrong, LoBlo.The Iraq qar had been set on the agenda many years before 9/11, and described by Wolfowitz in written papers. It dissapeared from the table under Clinton, but laready then it was planned for. It's execution was decided the day Bush was elected (or any other conservative administration). 9/11 caused Afghanistan going first, and Iraq following soon after. - Of course, the whole match already was lost on day 4 of the war in 91 - when the premature cease-fire was declared. That was the day the US policy on Iraq was defeated. Since then, 1991, it was only about preventing that fact from becoming realized by the public.

Yes the proponents of a "strike first ask questions later" response have been in government for years, proponents of Iraqi war have been inplace ever since the first war was concluded. However, these proponents (including GWB) would have met too much resistence to enact their plans if 9/11 had not taken place. The 9/11 incident allowed them just enough impetus to achieve their plans. The way for a "strike them before they strike us" policy was laid with the bombing and plans to conduct an Iraqi war were legitimized under this policy. It was just enough to allow them to conduct their agena. Had 9/11 not taken place, then too much opposition would have prevented any full military conflict, IMHO. Their are those like to fancy conspiracy theories, insisting that GWB would have gone dictator and been able to achieve a war anyway, but the reality is that he would not have had enough support IMHO to proceed.

As far as the first Gulf War and GHWB Sr. He states in his autobiography his reasons for not removing Sadam Hussein from power and stopping the war when he did, reasons that basically say in a nutshell that he was attempting to prevent the exact situation that the US currently is in... that full scale Iraqi invasion would be without an exit plan and with no clear end strategy in site. If you remember... well, perhaps you don't since you don't live in the US... but during the build up toward the first Gulf War the most pressing concerns were that Iraq was going to become another Vietnam. The bitter, bloodly, and embarassing incident of Vietnam was the most vivid military experience still in public memory and the public (appropriately) looked upoon any conflict with fear and foreboding believing Iraq will become a repeat of Vietnam (contrary to popular belief most Americans are not war mongerers and hate military conflict). The fear was strong enough that GHWB had to emphatically and publicly pronounce on several occasions that he would not allow the conflict to linger and become a repeat Vietnam. This was his motivation for ending the conflict, to prevent a situation like the one currently.

...but for some reason his son was not as wise as the father... even more apparent when you compare their track records. GWB Jr. stumbled right into the mess that his father was smart enough to avoid, IMHO. Though there may be some unforseen benifits to the current situation... though not readily realized.

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by scandium

...b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;
....

You may disagree with the interpretation and application of the following, but there was a U.N. Security Council Resolution (688) on this:

"The Security Council... 1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region; 2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression... 5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population; 6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts; 7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends"

[edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_688]

That's the resolution the U.S., Britain, France (originally; subsequently I think they withdrew), and others agreed to in April 1991, and the legal grounds on which the NFZs were based. That is a fact, notwithstanding that there is room to interpret it differently. It isn't quite fair to say that the U.N. was not involved. It might be more accurate to say that current political forces have taken advantage of the U.N.'s involvement, but the U.N. was involved.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

As far as Iraq's legitimate right to defend its skies. After the first Gulf War Iraq had no rights, so reasons that should be obvious, or if they are not, require too lengthy a history lesson to dileneate here.

That is simply not so. You are confusing a ceasefire agreement with an unconditional surrender (and even then, under international law the defeated party still maintains certain rights) and they are not the same. There is no basis for your claim. None. The NFZs were imposed upon Iraq only because Iraq had no power with which to dispute them, militarily or otherwise, and that any resolution introduced into the UN opposing them could be vetoed by the US. Iraq's only means to dispute them was to fire upon aircraft violating its airspace, in vain, and from this proof of just how impotent Iraq was you conclude that it actually meant they posed a threat to US sovereignty? Do you not see how circular and black-is-white this reasoning is? Naturally you don't offer a single shred of evidence to support your claims.

As an aside, its interesting to look back and see what then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had to say about the decision not to push on into Baghdad:

" I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

And GHW Bush had this to say on why they chose not to push on into Baghdad:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

Prophetic isn't it?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

You may disagree with the interpretation and application of the following, but there was a U.N. Security Council Resolution (688) on this:



[edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_688]

That's the resolution the U.S., Britain, France (originally; subsequently I think they withdrew), and others agreed to in April 1991, and the legal grounds on which the NFZs were based. That is a fact, notwithstanding that there is room to interpret it differently. It isn't quite fair to say that the U.N. was not involved. It might be more accurate to say that current political forces have taken advantage of the U.N.'s involvement, but the U.N. was involved.

Its accurate to say that this resolution doesn't mandate the creation of NFZs, as it doesn't even mention NFZs anywhere in it. Nor does any other UN resolution. Those are the facts. Your so called "facts" seem to consist of assumptions supporting your beliefs that have been manufactured out of whole cloth.

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

The picture looks funny, but the whole plot is not. ANFO is extremely easy to make, a 5 year old could do it on a budget of 20 bucks.

Fortunately, it'd be useless. ANFO, on its own, is useless if you do not have a booster charge, and primary explosives to initiate that booster charge. For reliable effect, it is also preferable to have low density AN (much fertilizer grade AN is high density). ANNM is better, but more expensive. And even ANFO would cost more than $20 if you wanted a large quantity. (just 100kg of AN fertilizer would cost more)

Of course, all of these problems can be overcome (McVeigh trial documents if you're looking for some practical guidance to make your own truck bomb), but it's a little bit more complicated than you seem to think.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by scandium

That is simply not so. You are confusing a ceasefire agreement with an unconditional surrender (and even then, under international law the defeated party still maintains certain rights) and they are not the same. There is no basis for your claim. None. The NFZs were imposed upon Iraq only because Iraq had no power with which to dispute them, militarily or otherwise, and that any resolution introduced into the UN opposing them could be vetoed by the US. Iraq's only means to dispute them was to fire upon aircraft violating its airspace, in vain, and from this proof of just how impotent Iraq was you conclude that it actually meant they posed a threat to US sovereignty? Do you not see how circular and black-is-white this reasoning is? Naturally you don't offer a single shred of evidence to support your claims.

As an aside, its interesting to look back and see what then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had to say about the decision not to push on into Baghdad:

" I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

And GHW Bush had this to say on why they chose not to push on into Baghdad:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

Prophetic isn't it?

I have to go to work now. I'll respond to you later... ...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You have it right. Kinda contradicts your anti war anti Bush messages though.

You think so? I do not. i insist on the true reasons being given for going to war. And these reasons being given BEFORE a war. If they are given afterwards, they are no reasons, but foul excuses. I do not trust Bush, and I call im a liar. I do not want such bizarre figures taking the lead in such important fights, I do not want them in my rear or at my side, because I never know when they will turn against me to protect their own interests. As I see it, if you are propagating actions against the expansion of Islam, one must be against types like Bush and others who have personal interests in business with Muslim countries as well.

Concerning Iraq, another argument I have: the war has been inadequately planned from the beginning (mybe the plan by the pentagon was alright, I do not know, but Rumsfeld, as we all know, has overruled that plan and made them running it his way - which obviously was wrong). Not to mention the counterproductive longterm-perspective of this special war. Not mentioning the vital vulnerability due to the dependence on Muslim oil. One thing you learn in all martial arts at the very begi8nning: you must have a right stand before starting a fight, else you easily get deflected by your own effort. But the West is balancing on jugs of clay, and even cannot do it blindly.

You maybe say it makes no difference for what reasons a war against Iraq or a Muslim country is being fought. Well, maybe not for them, it is the same bombs hitting them. But it certainly makes a difference for us. I want such things properly named - but still they tell us lies about what the intention was.

They try to hide the grim nature of war. And this is a crime that I do not forgive. Pull the trigger, or don't. but if you pull it, don't spend time painting a smiley on the bullet, but aim for the head. Or as my teacher and mentor in swordfightign taught me years ago: "Don't be afraid to get killed, and always strike to kill with all effort, with your first strike." That'S how it is done, and not differently. I only laugh at Rumsfeld and his superior strategies. Murderous idiot he is, a threat to his own army. i wonder why he is still allowed to enter the pentagon.

[tycho102]

I agree.

This "hearts and minds" **** is the problem. When you go in, you go in like the Great Khan. You massacre an entire 300,000 person city, and poor molten silver into the eyesockets and mouths of your enemies.

Conquer and subjugate. Then, rebuild better than it was before. Require engineering degrees and medical degrees.