George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Andrew]

Torture is illegal in the USA (although yes CIA etc do it).

The way they got around this was setting up torture places in foreign countries, and usually let the other countries torture the people.

The USA has also said it can kidnap foreign citizens (such as British people while they are in Britain), for extradition to the USA.

Or it can do what it did to a Canadian citizen and send him to Syria for a year to be tortured. Even though he wasn't a terrorist. He's still on a no fly list, and cannot sue or get anything from the USA gov. They are not accountable. The Canadian gov on the other hand apologized and payed him millions of dollars in reparations and people were fired and lots of inquiries held to make sure this does not happen again.

And when these people are sent to be tortured, and then released, if they tell anyone about this they can be kidnapped again and tortured some more.

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

So why doesn't he/she just sue the CIA?

[Andrew]

He did try to sue the US government. They ignored him.

Read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

If you want any more information.

[Tatar Khan]

He has no rights under the US laws and so US is not accountable to him because under US laws they did nothing wrong. It was Syrians who did the torture and again nowhere in US's laws does it say that torture of Canadian citizens by Syrians is illegal and US government carries the responsibility for that.

[Andrew]

Yes, but it is illegal under Canadian law.

The US can go to Britain and kidnap British citizens. This may not be illegal under US laws, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal under British laws. I would almost consider it an act of war when a government participates/sanctions the kidnapping and torture of foreign citizens.

[Tatar Khan]

So Britain can arrest and sue the CIA agents that did the kidnapping if they foot on British soil, but this is not an act of war to kidnap. Act of war is invasion by land or sea of foreign territory with military personal. CIA is officially civilian agency. There is even disputes whether aerial bombings and missile strikes are considered acts of war, since the Geneva convention never defined them as acts of war since back than they did not exist or were not expected to be as decisive. UN's Charter can be stretched to define few more things as an act of war but that would only involve kidnapping of foreign government leaders or the leaders of major opposition parties.

[Sneakgab]

''Yes, but it is illegal under Canadian law.

The US can go to Britain and kidnap British citizens. This may not be illegal under US laws, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal under British laws. I would almost consider it an act of war when a government participates/sanctions the kidnapping and torture of foreign citizens.''

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I was getting at. Stealing from a Russian bank may not be illegal in America, but it's surely illegal in Russia. This is why I was startled to hear about these foreighn kidnappings.

''So Britain can arrest and sue the CIA agents that did the kidnapping if they foot on British soil, but this is not an act of war to kidnap. Act of war is invasion by land or sea of foreign territory with military personal. CIA is officially civilian agency. There is even disputes whether aerial bombings and missile strikes are considered acts of war, since the Geneva convention never defined them as acts of war since back than they did not exist or were not expected to be as decisive. UN's Charter can be stretched to define few more things as an act of war but that would only involve kidnapping of foreign government leaders or the leaders of major opposition parties.''

Well, it doesn't really matter what the UN decides is an act of war. The UN decided America's invasion of Iraq was illegal but that was no detterent. Laws only make sense in so far as an authority that can enforce them exists (basically). Clearly this is not the case internationally speaking, as the UN is not really acknowledged as ''the law'' (to my knowledge) and regardless can't enforce most of it's rulings. Ie: there exist nothing internationally like the social contract that is binding nationally.

If a missile was fired upon the USA by Russia, or vice verse, this would probably result in a war. Basically, lines are drawn in the sand and if they are stepped over then there is war. If USA went to Britain and kidnapped people, Britain would only declare war if they saw that appeasing the USA by allowing this would not prevent the inevitable result of war or if they just weren't going to take it. You get the idea. Basically, they will declare war if the alternative of allowing the USA their desires is a worse alternative and they know the Americans will not stand down in the game of bluff (or based on America's situation). Well, thats if they're all logical.

Obviously, war with America is generally a very bad option and much of the time if you just do what the USA want you will be left alone. It's like the epic international version of being mugged lol, America points it's gun at you (a country) and said country's govterment says: Take whatever you want! Just don't hurt me. :D

Country's must unite or this will always be the state of affairs. The problem is that when CIA is caught trying to assasinate foreign leaders and assisting coup de tats that lead to dictatorships the world does nothing. Their victims cannot do anything by themselves so America does as it pleases. Without the villages uniting against the bandits the bandits will be as de facto kings via threat of force.

I guess this is what is surprising. Typically countries are restrained by threat of force as should America be restrained. Britain can't launch missiles at Denmark or try to assassinate their leader, because other's won't stand for it.

I guess it's also surprising just how ruthless the corrupt leaders of the USA government are along with their cronies/servants (the CIA). When a tool like the CIA exists that is so unrestricted by anything but the hands of their masters, who are unrestricted by any ethical concerns and are guided by avarice, then it is obvious that people will be left going  :O :O :O :O :O :O. A tool like the CIA might once have been intended by some honest man somewhere to be used to circumvent the letter of the law to serve it's spirit, or some spirit/ideal :D, such as democracy, freedom, security, e.t.c, but clearly such a tool/organization unrestricted by law is more likely to ruthlessly harm such ideals in pursuit of profit just as the unrestricted bandits of the past did. This is why the bandits were removed and law was put in place, because having groups of people who don't obey the law without any justification leads to madness or bandit like behaviour (modernized now of course... no open looting and pillaging, but in essence the same: Profit at all costs for some indivual). Either all must be under law and punishment, all must be free, or an honest trusted group be allowed to exist to transcend such laws. Such a group cannot have it's virtuosity guaranteed, so for one to exist a group of noble fellows must put that in their own hands and become outlaws for the greater good.

The surprise then lies at how something like the CIA can exist when clearly their guiding hands can be guaranteed of what is generally agreed to be villainous self-serving behavior rather than virtuous behavior, and how the level of corruption has come to allow it nationally (along with inability of people to exercise power over the affairs of the country) while the lack of action from other countries has allowed it internationally.

Basically, what we see here is something reaching a climax of unnacountability, unrestricted action, e.t.c (the rest of what I've mentioned).

We can only look upon this situation and think to ourselves in disbelief: This is absurd! :O

[Andrew]

Act of war is invasion by land or sea of foreign territory with military personal.

Then why did the US government declare war against Afghanistan/terrorism?

It only took 10 guys to fly commercial airplanes into buildings. There was no military involvement.

;)

[Sneakgab]

It as I have said. Act of war is a term without much meaning, if it is to be defined as an act that results in war. War is not decided by the aggressor, it is randomly decided by who ever wishes it. Johannesburg could declare independence and declare was on the rest of SA if liked without SA doing anything. Ridiculous example, obviously, but just an example.

What is surprising is the lack of threat of force/will that would restrict the CIA by MAKING their acts acts of war (ie: If Britain say, do X and we declare war, then X is an act of war with Britain. The surprise lies in that no country has made anything an act of war for USA and the CIA, hence they do as they please because their are no potential ill consequences to detter them.

[Tatar Khan]

War on Terrorism is not real war, it was like Vietnam war is not real war. It just a title given to it. There is no real Congressional declaration.

The reason behind the attack on Afghanistan is because that was the area of chaos in the world. Originally most world powers did not give a damn about such areas because nobody saw them as problematic. However the chaos doesn't like to stay confined and it grows. Afghanistan started to spread chaos through sale of opium (there is only so much you can sell to your own poor people, but there is a rich market in the West). Terrorist found that inside the chaos they can stay safe and secure themselves. The attack on Afghanistan was not about the democracy for Afghanistan (that comes as a side effect). It was about removal of a place where terrorists can settle down without any real persecution. American diplomacy can be summarized this way:

If you want to be our ally you get our money, and our military bases

If you don't want to be an ally, we don't care

Unless you decide to sponsor terrorism activities or develop nuclear weapons, that we come and beat the crap out of you.

As for recent invasion of Iraq, I did not see any UN resolution that made it illegal for US to do it. US said that they are legally can invade Iraq on bases of all the UN resolutions on Iraq from 1991 that called on UN members to exercise needed force in order to prevent excessive abuses of regime as well as to get UN's inspectors inside. Since Iraq did not comply with all those resolutions US announced that following those resolutions (as a sum of them all) it will exercise a greater force than economic sanctions (since that did not work) and used military intervention. Yes, I know this is a stretch but a stretch that no nation was able to rebut in UN. So these makes the invasion legal. Also since according to US constitution any treaty it signs have effect of law, UN's charter and other treaties US signed in UN have effect of law for US government.

Finally, in terms of corruption of US and CIA. US governments job is to benefit its own citizens and if that means abusing rights of the people of the rest of the world than so be it and there is nothing corrupt about it. Other nations have the same capabilities unless their laws say otherwise. (ex. Canadian constitution grants full rights to anyone present on its soil thus any foreign national has the same rights as Canadian citizen on the soil of Canada, so thus Canada can not do same things as US government can). Britain doesn't declare CIA kidnappings acts of war because it never knows when their MI6 would need to do same thing somewhere else in the world, or any other nations secret service.

CIA and US government was created to promote liberty, freedoms and justice of its own people not for people in other nations. They don't give damn about those people.

Best example is that if tomorrow US president wakes up and finds that a greater amount of happiness could be achieved for American people by nuking Britain than he will do it and so would be fulfilling his job. Of course in reality that is impossible as such strike will cause response on the same level by Britain and may be other nuclear weapon holders as well as international backslash at USA.

[nemafakei]

"Afghanistan started to spread chaos through sale of opium"

Eh? That's only really sprung up again post-invasion. The Taliban were a damn sight better at keeping opium production down.

[Tatar Khan]

Yeah they were forbiding to sell it to their own people that is against Koran (their interpretation that is). But there was nothing against selling it to infidels. Ask Russians and former Soviet Union's Central Asian republics to see how much opium was making its way out of Afghanistan.

I am not saying that ISAF found way to fight opium production but at least there is no government that officially oks it.

[Sneakgab]

''War on Terrorism is not real war, it was like Vietnam war is not real war.''

How was the Vietnam war not a real war? That seemed to pretty much be you're standard all-out clearly defined war?

''Finally, in terms of corruption of US and CIA. US governments job is to benefit its own citizens and if that means abusing rights of the people of the rest of the world than so be it and there is nothing corrupt about it''

The corruption lies in the fact that they do NOT have the best interests of their citizenry in mind, but rather the interests of a rich few, which is not their job. Eg: Invasion of Iraq, costed much to USA budget for it's people, but weapons and oil companies' owners stood to make much profit. Of course, USA can cite that they wanted to promote freedom for Iraq, but by you're definition this would have nothing to do with THEIR job since that has nothing to do with THEIR citizens. So, MAYBE they did it to promote freedom in Iraq, it definetely promoted the profits of the fore-mentioned companies, but it did nothing for the betterment of the Americans. By you're definition this is not doing their job and is corrupt. Of course, it seems unlikely that they had the interests of the Iraqi's in mind eihter but anyway.

''Britain doesn't declare CIA kidnappings acts of war because it never knows when their MI6 would need to do same thing somewhere else in the world, or any other nations secret service.'' To them war would be a lesser alternative. It doesn't go so much for a country like Britain, which is on good terms with America and has no reason to fear them. I guess maybe it doesn't really go to much anymore at all. But countries who get bullied by America should unite to keep them at bay, if they can. You simply cannot have someone lording it over you with you as their complying/appeasing vassal forever.

I don't really know anything about opium in Afghanistan (:D) or the UN's laws so I can't really comment there. I was under the impression that the UN declared the invasion of Iraq illegal via some treaty. If that is not the case then nevermind.

[Tatar Khan]

The message of freedom for Iraqis are just some thing that will make it easier for the soldiers to die for. Human beings tend to like to die for ideals.

Iraq was more about removing Saddam Hussein, and not because of his oppressive regime. Domestic policies of a state are not a concern of the other states as long as it doesn't interfere with their domestic policy or foreign policy. Same goes for the foreign policy.

Saddam Hussein was removed because he had ambitions, he had dreams and hopes. He wanted to see a strong united arabic state, with himself at its helm (naturally). A single arabic state in the middle east or regional power in middle east would make that state powerful enough to dictate world's oil price and to whom it goes. Right now it is hard for Middle East to turn the tap off for US. Too many countries must agree that they want to sacrifice their relations with US and face its wrath. When it is one country and one leader there is no such problem. A global power in the region could spark local arms race as each nation will feel threatened. The more weapons there are the higher the magnitude of probability they will go into use, whether nuclear, biological, or chemical or conventional.

And conflicts in the region also endanger oil supply. And why is it so important to have that oil supply, well because without oil your military can not move and protect your interests. The high price of oil will benefit oil companies as they will make a bundle selling their oil. Yet than why care? Because average American Joe won't be able to afford it. Because the consumer goods from one side of the country do not telleport to another side. You need ships, truck, trains and airplanes to carry them there and with the price of oil so will go up the price of products and again average Joe will suffer paying this. Economy will go into recession and unemployment will put average Joe on the street, high executives are too valuable to fire. And because there is a president to oil being cut off. 1970s oil crisis. Big enough enough to bring down the whole dollar based fixed exchange system of the global economy and plunge US into nightmare of high inflation and high unemployment at the same time. So what the decision was made, remove the guy with the ambitions and divert the problem, mess in the short run for happiness in the long run (and it is not Iraqis happiness, who cares about them? they actually are getting screwed over as united arab state would be beneficial to them).

I am not saying that they had a huge success or any success, they screwed it up. Now Iran has potential of becoming regional power. Before Iran and Iraq used to check each other keeping some what of balance. Now Iraq is gone and wont come back for a while. Iran is no longer needs to fear the military attack by Iraq and so much free to pursue long term objectives. And those for Iran were always those of regional power with its fleet in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Than there is also their Islamic Revolution which goal is to fight foreign influence in Middle East.

But this is game of balance of power and the only way to play it is through trial and error. There is no equation that will guarantee the optimal result.

Here a good example of the corruption, trade barriers that increase price of sugar in US, so that US sugar farmers (located mostly in Florida) don't go out of business due to cheap sugar from Jamaica and other Caribbean countries. Thus 13 large companies (since they control 85% of production of sugar in US are able to grow rich at the expense of 300 million US consumers. And why those trade barriers exist, because those 13 companies make campaign contributions to democratic and republican parties. Try to remove those tariffs and those companies will come crying about lost jobs, no mention of the jobs created in the sugar using industries in US that will be able to expand their production due to cheaper input cost.

[Edric O]

He has no rights under the US laws and so US is not accountable to him because under US laws they did nothing wrong. It was Syrians who did the torture and again nowhere in US's laws does it say that torture of Canadian citizens by Syrians is illegal and US government carries the responsibility for that.

That's right, non-US citizens have no rights under US law. And therefore US law is unjust in that regard. There is a difference between law and justice; the ultimate purpose of law is to achieve justice, but most existing laws fall short of that goal.

You seem to be implying that the law should be the sole arbiter of morality; that whatever is legal is good and whatever is illegal is bad. In that case, you are saying that there can be no such thing as an unjust law. Whatever the law says is always right - whether it's Roman law or Sharia law or British law or Soviet law or Chinese law or Nazi law or American law. Under your definition of right and wrong, the Nazis did nothing wrong, since the Holocaust was legal under their law. In fact, no government can ever do anything wrong, since only illegal things are wrong and the government gets to decide what is illegal.

That's a very strange way to look at the world...

[Sneakgab]

''Saddam Hussein was removed because he had ambitions, he had dreams and hopes. He wanted to see a strong united arabic state, with himself at its helm (naturally). A single arabic state in the middle east or regional power in middle east would make that state powerful enough to dictate world's oil price and to whom it goes''

Is that really realistic? Last time Saddam tried to conquer something, USA prevented this by defending their target rather than through a ''pre-emptive'' invasion. I could understand if Iraq was a huge military power; You can't afford to wait for such a foe to attack, you have to make the first move. But this was clearly not the case as the invasion proved; USA lost more forces from freindly fire than from Iraqis. Many used this fact to humiliate the USA's military, to make them seem like fools, but the truth is not that that their freindly fire was particularly high, but rather that the loss to the enemy was so low that the freindly fire losses surpassed them anyway. Clearly, Iraq was a small enough threat that any move to create a united Arab state via conquering could easily have been defended against AFTER Iraq attempted any such invasions. With the power difference between the two militaries being as is, USA could easily sit back and repulse any military moves from Iraq indefinetly. They could foreseeably have taken less losses here as the actual occupation of Iraq has been much more expensive than the invasion in monetary, military, PR and FR (foreign relation) terms. Even if they waited for Iraq to make some kind towards a unified Arab state (not necessarily a military one), military build up, deal making, e.t.c and THEN invaded them that would be somewhat reasonable. Instead, they invaded before any signs of moving towards such ambitions could be seen.

It seems to me then that you cannot realistically claim that USA govt invaded Iraq to prevent the realization of a unified Arab state that would be detrimental to their citizens.

''And conflicts in the region also endanger oil supply''

Before you claim this as the reason why USA govt could not wait for Iraq just in case they began a conflict. Well, invading Iraq is a conflict is is not? Either way there would have been 1 conflict ultimately between Iraq and USA.

Do you think the oil companies who come to control Iraq's oil will be more generous to the ''average Joe'' than the Iraqi dictatorship, I doubt it. Their scenarios with some big wigs (Saddam and CEO) are remarkably similar. They will sell oil to the average Joe at the price they find most profitable. You may have noticed, after all, that oil prices in America hit a record high recently. Clearly invading Iraq and handing their oil to companies did nothing to better the ''average Joe'', and clearly the USA govt should have expected this, lest they are not fit for their positions (which they probably aren't anyway, but I digress). This action was taken to benefit arms and oil companies and not for the interests of the American citizens, hence the corruption via you're apparent definition lest you can show that they had the interests of said citizenry in mind.

''Before Iran and Iraq used to check each other keeping some what of balance. Now Iraq is gone and wont come back for a while. Iran is no longer needs to fear the military attack by Iraq and so much free to pursue long term objectives''

Surely this would have been known by the USA govt, unless, once again, they are unfit. If Iran and Iraq want a unified state, then the way to stop them is to destroy them both or keep them both in check. The latter is probably easier and cheaper so if the USA is planning the former then once again they are probably unfit. The alternative is that preventing such a state was not their interest in the first place, which leads to them being corrupt again as the only other motive is benefiting the companies. Well, I say only other motive, but that is not necessarily the case though I can't see any other motive; if you can provide an alternative possible non-corrupt motive, then this line no longer leads to American govt = corrupt.

Of course one might say that only Iraq had unified Arab state in mind, so USA only needed to defeat them to prevent this, but this also seems unrealistic. If such a thing were possible, surely Iran would seek it too, considering that (to my knowledge) the Iran govt is tyrannical and militaristic (as tyrannical govts tend to be)

''There is no equation that will guarantee the optimal result.''

Yes, but if this objective was the USA's govt's true interest, they surely could do better than making such ridiculously poor (in terms of achieving the objective) decisions.

''Here a good example of the corruption, trade barriers that increase price of sugar in US, so that US sugar farmers (located mostly in Florida) don't go out of business due to cheap sugar from Jamaica and other Caribbean countries. Thus 13 large companies (since they control 85% of production of sugar in US are able to grow rich at the expense of 300 million US consumers. And why those trade barriers exist, because those 13 companies make campaign contributions to democratic and republican parties. Try to remove those tariffs and those companies will come crying about lost jobs, no mention of the jobs created in the sugar using industries in US that will be able to expand their production due to cheaper input cost.''

So you provide an example of said corruption. Then, are you trying to argue that the American government isn't THAT corrupt?

[Tatar Khan]

That's right, non-US citizens have no rights under US law. And therefore US law is unjust in that regard. There is a difference between law and justice; the ultimate purpose of law is to achieve justice, but most existing laws fall short of that goal.In fact, no government can ever do anything wrong, since only illegal things are wrong and the government gets to decide what is illegal.

If the law doesn't suit the public than the government must change the law. But even if the US passes laws against torture of non-US citizens, its actions before the passing of the law are still legal since laws do not apply backwards.

You are free to criticize the other nation on its actions if those actions are against your system of values however that nation is doing nothing wrong as long as it is following its own laws. Thus the West can criticize Cuba or China for lack of freedom of expression, but they are not doing anything criminal as they are following their definition of freedom of expression. Because what makes you believe that they got it wrong and you got it right, only the value system with which you were brought up and it is no better or worse than the one the other ones. All of them are grounded in years and generations of experiences, philosophy and thought. So what right you have to enforce your value system on the other people?

[Tatar Khan]

Last time Saddam tried to conquer something, USA prevented this by defending their target rather than through a ''pre-emptive'' invasion. I could understand if Iraq was a huge military power; You can't afford to wait for such a foe to attack, you have to make the first move.

Why do you think USA bothered to defend Kuwait last time? Large amount of oil supply concentrated under one man. If Kuwait sold bagels nobody would have given a damn. Nobody would give a damn in India tomorrow absorbs Nepal. Customary notes would be issued to India and 5 minutes later everybody will get on with their life.

I don't believe that Saddam was planning to sit on his hands for the rest of the life and not arm up. And than it is stupid to wait for countries to become military threats and disbalancing local regional balance before moving in. That would be also costly on the soldier lives. If one nation in that region starts to arm up, other will scratch their heads and start to do the same and than we got a mini arms race going on and more weapons the higher the chance of their usage. To command the region sometimes conquering it is not needed all that is needed is large enough military and potential to do it. After that you move politically to save lives of your people and your future people.

There is always a possibility that the current administration truly believed that Saddam was building WMDs. With Bush in charge and the fact that CIA is not great in field work of collecting intelligence, I can see the possibility.

Before you claim this as the reason why USA govt could not wait for Iraq just in case they began a conflict. Well, invading Iraq is a conflict is is not? Either way there would have been 1 conflict ultimately between Iraq and USA.

Do you think the oil companies who come to control Iraq's oil will be more generous to the ''average Joe'' than the Iraqi dictatorship, I doubt it. Their scenarios with some big wigs (Saddam and CEO) are remarkably similar. They will sell oil to the average Joe at the price they find most profitable. You may have noticed, after all, that oil prices in America hit a record high recently. Clearly invading Iraq and handing their oil to companies did nothing to better the ''average Joe'', and clearly the USA govt should have expected this, lest they are not fit for their positions (which they probably aren't anyway, but I digress). This action was taken to benefit arms and oil companies and not for the interests of the American citizens, hence the corruption via you're apparent definition let you can show that they had the interests of said citizenry in mind.

OPEC can control oil supply because the governments hold majority holding shares in their energy companies. Thus US oil companies would have no real control over oil. And even if they do have control over Iraq oil that still leaves the rest of Middle East free to decide how much to supply.

US government thought that being as big as they are, they can handle two military actions at the same time, Why they did that? Pride clouded judgment (people in the government are human). In Iraq they were actually expecting something along the lines of parade through liberated Paris. (US has no experience in occupation tactics). Yeah I know funny but CIA never was really good outside the gadgets part. MI6 and KGB always out done it in the field work.

With expectations of all the chaos to be over quickly US expected for Iraq to restart balancing Iran again. (Since 1991 Iraq was doing a poor job of that, sanctions did not help). Iran wants to influence the region through military power. It is not arabic and so has no pan-arabic dreams. 

So did the government serve the interests of the people, no. It had good intentions but as the usual good intentions did not got realized. They tried to do too many things at once, also something very human. Here is Gorbachev quote for such occasion: "we wanted to do things thing for better but ended up with usual results". But that the fault of US citizens for allowing such government to represent them. They reelected the guy did not they.

[Sneakgab]

''And than it is stupid to wait for countries to become military threats and disbalancing local regional balance before moving in.''

Well you don't have to wait for them to be ARMED UP already, you can strike when they ARE STARTING to arm up. That is much more reasonable and I don't see why US couldn't do this. It would take a years of secret military development (if the CIA could not catch this considering the time that would be given to them then it is time for new intel department for US) by the Iraqis to obtain a military that could do any real damage. It's not just a matter of numbers, it's a matter of tech too, with no real air force or AA defences Iraq could have had twice as many tanks as they did to little effects. It would just another 2 weeks or so for US air force to destroy everything. If you're going to go around invading places on SUSPICION of these countries wanting to arm up just because they could have something to gain from it then there will be wars everywhere until no opponents remain. It would be madness. Look, (insert oil bearing country here) could have monopoly on (insert oil bearing region here) if it armed up and took over (insert oil bearing region here)... We better go destroy that government along with any others in similar circumstances just in case.

''If one nation in that region starts to arm up, other will scratch their heads and start to do the same and than we got a mini arms race going on''

But the balance will still be held as both nations become more powerful. Balance will still be held relative to USA as well, as they are also arming up. If Iraq, Iran and USA continue to arm, situation will be relatively same as before. As a matter of fact, Iraq and Iran will become weaker as compared to USA over time, because USA is obsessed about army tech while Iraq and Iran clearly do little to progress this. Situation can only change worse if Iraq and Iran tech up along with America and the change in tech status quo becomes relatively worse ie: gunpowder to sword is a bigger difference than rifle to gunpowder even if investment to go btw these techs in terms of time and money is the same. Ie: If Iraq and Iran make military tech breakthrough while USA does not.

Even in this situation, USA can balance things by selling arms for oil to weaker power, hence benefitting American citizens and keeping the status quo for all eternity. No reason for pre-emptive invasion. It's not like were speaking about some WW2 situation here with serious threats that need to be striked pre-emptively and annexed completely. We are speaking about foe's whose military may as well be sticks and stones.

''more weapons the higher the chance of their usage''

I don't see what makes you think this. Cold war had rather tremendous ever increasing amount of weapons but they were never used. We are not speaking about lotto tickets here. One might even say that as the number and power of the weapons possessed by the Iraqis and Iranians increases they will both be less likely to go to war as these more powerful weapons can damage both of their countries economy and infrastructure further. Fight with sticks and stones and you don't have to worry about you're opponent destroying the oil drill behind you, fight with scuds and the like and then you have to be worried about that, making fighting less desirable as even if you win there is less left to conquer after the ''collateral'' damage.

''After that you move politically to save lives of your people and your future people.''

Exactly. No reason for US to invade, they needed only to threaten. Saddam would be FORCED to sit on his hands for the rest of his life (as you put it) and not arm up because doing so would mean the end of the dictatorship. It's like a card game with 4 players where if you do A, you lose as someone else will obviously do B meaning the end of you. Therefore doing A is the indirect equivalent of losing. No one does something that will OBVIOUSLY turn out badly for them.

''There is always a possibility that the current administration truly believed that Saddam was building WMDs. With Bush in charge and the fact that CIA is not great in field work of collecting intelligence, I can see the possibility.''

''Discovering'' what isn't there is a much harder mistake to make than not discovering what is there. Do you think the Iraqis would leave false decoy information to lead the Americans into believing that they were developing or had WMDs? Of course not, because this would be suicidal unless they could trick them into believing they somehow had an epic cold war WMD arsenal (which would be impossible). If anything, you would imagine the Iraqis would leak as much as possible to reveal what is almost certainly the case: that they had no WMDs. For CIA to make such an error seems beyond believability unless their own government was tricking them. If the CIA are so incompetent in intel gathering, then the govt should have taken this into account and ignored their intel.

I will respond to the rest once I have regained the required energy :D

[Tatar Khan]

Well you don't have to wait for them to be ARMED UP already, you can strike when they ARE STARTING to arm up. That is much more reasonable and I don't see why US couldn't do this. It would take a years of secret military development by the Iraqis to obtain a military that could do any real damage. It's not just a matter of numbers, it's a matter of tech too, with no real air force or AA defences Iraq could have had twice as many tanks as they did to little effects. It would just another 2 weeks or so for US air force to destroy everything. If you're going to go around invading places on SUSPICION of these countries wanting to arm up just because they could have something to gain from it then there will be wars everywhere until no opponents remain. It would be madness. Look, (insert oil bearing country here) could have monopoly on (insert oil bearing region here) if it armed up and took over (insert oil bearing region here)... We better go destroy that government along with any others in similar circumstances just in case.

Are we talking about military that can challenge US or military that can challenge its neighbors. Right now not nation on Earth can stand to US military even in conventional war. That is what any country that held mantle of keeper of balance of power had before. Britain kept its navy following this equation British Navy = (Sum of two second largest navies in the world)x2 back when it was keeper of balance of power. I would bet that if the whole world would try to attack US they would still not succeed. In most military tech US is 2 to 3 decades ahead of other nations. (China has been however catching up lately.)

But US is not going to Iraq because it has army to challenge them. It goes there because it has the army to challenge its oil rich neighbors. During the liberation of Kuwait, US did not destroy Iraqi military because it was needed to balance Iran. The Iraq's military truly was strong compared to the countries in the region. Iraq had air force however it was ordered to desert to Iran in hopes that Iran will help Iraq. Iran was not stupid so they did not. During 1980s there was no need to worry about those two balancing each other since they did that by keeping each other busy through war. When they stopped Iraq decided to invade Kuwait. So now you seriously think that when Iraq will start arming up to balance Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Syria will just sit and look at it and say or Iraq will not attack us. They will respond the same way by getting stronger military (mini multi-front arms race is going on in the region). Mutual miltiary build up creates distrust and so diplomacy becomes harder. Now what guarantees that either Iran or Iraq or even Saudi Arabia will wake up one day and decide that they tired of this problems with each other and decide that because to them their military looks stronger than the other countries they would not want to go to war. We have a region ready to blow. Iran always supported Kurds in Iraq to keep its Kurds happy. Iraq always saw Kuwait as one of its provinces that went renegade. Kuwait doesn't want to be part of Iraq. Saudi Arabia has oil fields close to the Kuwait. And also is not liked by Iran and Iraq for its strong say in OPEC due to their large oil supplies. Finally when the countries go to war there shipping in the Gulf becomes harder as the countries like to use mines. And due to different factor endowments one of those countries will be able to develop stronger military than another.

I don't see what makes you think this. Cold war had rather tremendous ever increasing amount of weapons but they were never used. We are not speaking about lotto tickets here. One might even say that as the number and power of the weapons possessed by the Iraqis and Iranians increases they will both be less likely to go to war as these more powerful weapons can damage both of their countries economy and infrastructure further.

Well that is why in 1990s we had Pakistan and India just two steps away from nuclear exchange. I remember watching Russian news as they were marking the areas that could be affected by the fallout. And both Russia and China were getting emergency response teams ready to deal with potential fallout that could drift towards them. That is why US, EU and UN officials were going to those countries like relatives to rich man funeral.

Mao few times during 1950s wanted to strike US with its nuclear arsenal only the fact that Soviet Union warned that if that will keep up it will point some of its arsenal at Beijing made him stop.

Castro few times asked Khrushchev to launch missiles in Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis.

And during Iran-Iraq war both sides used uranium depleted shells, latest fighters supplied by US, France, USSR. And the fact they possessed all this technology really made them stop fighting each other.

No reason for US to invade, they needed only to threaten. Saddam would be FORCED to sit on his hands for the rest of his life (as you put it) and not arm up because doing so would mean the end of the dictatorship. It's like a card game with 4 players where if you do A, you lose as someone else will obviously do B meaning the end of you. Therefore doing A is the indirect equivalent of losing. No one does something that will OBVIOUSLY turn out badly for them.

Yeah US fighters were flying over Iraq daily since 1991 and that made Saddam so scared that he immediately let the UN inspectors in. Opened the door and screamed come come.

NATO threats of intervention made Serbia so scared that it immediately bowed to the world demands.

The fact that US military sits two steps away from Iran makes it so scared that it baits US at every occasion it can.

And the Western Hemisphere defense treaty (analogy of NATO, with extra clause which allows US to go into any country in Western Hemisphere to defend its interests) is making Venezuela so scared that it stopped trowing dirt at US, or did it decide to buy new military equipment from China and Russia.

''Discovering'' what isn't there is a much harder mistake to make than not discovering what is there. Do you think the Iraqis would leave false decoy information to lead the Americans into believing that they were developing or had WMDs? Of course not, because this would be suicidal unless they could trick them into believing they somehow had an epic cold war WMD arsenal (which would be impossible). If anything, you would imagine the Iraqis would leak as much as possible to reveal what is almost certainly the case: that they had no WMDs. For CIA to make such an error seems beyond believability unless their own government was tricking them. If the CIA are so incompetent in intel gathering, then the govt should have taken this into account and ignored their intel.

If you look through the cold war history CIA always lacked penetration by its personnel into high positions in the other countries. It was more reliant on the intelligence form defectors (same intelligence that lead to bay of pigs disaster, where Cubans that defected promised that Cuban population will rise up against Castro as soon as CIA will land its operatives with Cuban defector militia  on the island). CIA has been relying heavily on spy planes and spy satellites.

It would take just few nuclear missiles to stop US invasion. The fact that Iraq can target Kuwait's or Saudi oil with that missile and potentially destroy the usability of it for next 100 years would be enough. Neither countries have effective ABM systems.

As for US attacking any of the other large oil holders, well lets go through them:

China, eats up most of its own supply without any going for Export, has nuclear arsenal with second strike capabilities

Russia, relatively friendly and has nuclear arsenal, with second strike capabilities

Canada, NAFTA blocks any shut off supply, very friendly

North Sea oil, controlled by friendly EU

Mexico, NAFTA blocks oil shut off capability, friendly

Venezuela, can shut of its oil supply but can't do jack about the rest of the Carrebean. Has no pan-careabean state ambitions. Run away inflation makes oil export essential for country's survival

Saudi Arabia, friendly, very friendly

Iraq, currently has no say in the matter

Syria, low supplies, any growth in military strength would be countered by Israel.

United Arabic Emirates, too small to have effective military, friendly

Somalia, busy with its internal problems and Chinese are already there

Nigeria, busy with its rebels, have no close oil rich countries, currently friendly

Iran, hostile, currently US is trying to organize Arabic League countries to effectively balance against it.

Tell me if I missed some important players.

[Dunenewt]

I wouldn't say China has much of a second strike capability at all to be honest!

[Sneakgab]

''Are we talking about military that can challenge US or military that can challenge its neighbors''

Both actually. If Iraq wants to annex Saudi Arabia (for example), then Iraq military > US mil + Saudi mil because US would obviously not let something that catastrophic happen. The growth rate of the armies of the various countries in the region is probably similar and America obviously invests much in it's military. By the time one of these countries gains enough of an military advantage to conquer it's neighbours AND whatever other allies join the fray there won't be any oil left to fight over, as it would probably have run out in the half a century to a century that that would take.

If country X wants to challenge oil rich country Y, then country X will have to challenge anybody whose interests this clashes with. Ie: USA, other middle eastern countries and probably most western countries interested in oil. I can't see Iraq ever having become a real threat. Unless, it WAS building WMDs, but seeing as how the US are yet to find any evidence of this both the claim of their existence along with the claim of believing they existed seems preposterous.

''Iraq will start arming up to balance Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Syria will just sit and look at it and say or Iraq will not attack us. They will respond the same way by getting stronger military (mini multi-front arms race is going on in the region). Mutual miltiary build up creates distrust and so diplomacy becomes harder.''

Their build up will only increase the amount of military that any one side would need to procure to conquer another. With these oil bearing countries ruled by dictatorship, it seems there isn't much trust left to lose.

''Now what guarantees that either Iran or Iraq or even Saudi Arabia will wake up one day and decide that they tired of this problems with each other and decide that because to them their military looks stronger than the other countries they would not want to go to war''

The fact that they could never win, and such action would be pointless.

''Well that is why in 1990s we had Pakistan and India just two steps away from nuclear exchange. I remember watching Russian news as they were marking the areas that could be affected by the fallout. And both Russia and China were getting emergency response teams ready to deal with potential fallout that could drift towards them. That is why US, EU and UN officials were going to those countries like relatives to rich man funeral.

Mao few times during 1950s wanted to strike US with its nuclear arsenal only the fact that Soviet Union warned that if that will keep up it will point some of its arsenal at Beijing made him stop.

Castro few times asked Khrushchev to launch missiles in Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis.

And during Iran-Iraq war both sides used uranium depleted shells, latest fighters supplied by US, France, USSR. And the fact they possessed all this technology really made them stop fighting each other.''

Nations always seem to be ''two steps'' away from a nuclear exchange. This was just neccessary Cold war diplomatic posturing. If you think about, without the nukes a REAL war may have broken out. Not to downplay the violence through proxies and what not that DID occur during the cold war, but this war would have made that looked a picnic. Of course Mao would not be able to launch, no one hands weapons to a madman without standing behind them pointing a gun to their head. And of course Kruschev would not cause horrible destruction to the world just for Castro and Cuba. Well, I don't really know anything about the Iran-Iraq war so I can't comment there. I actually had no idea those two had gone war in recent history.

''Yeah US fighters were flying over Iraq daily since 1991 and that made Saddam so scared that he immediately let the UN inspectors in. Opened the door and screamed come come.

NATO threats of intervention made Serbia so scared that it immediately bowed to the world demands.

The fact that US military sits two steps away from Iran makes it so scared that it baits US at every occasion it can.

And the Western Hemisphere defense treaty (analogy of NATO, with extra clause which allows US to go into any country in Western Hemisphere to defend its interests) is making Venezuela so scared that it stopped trowing dirt at US, or did it decide to buy new military equipment from China and Russia.''

The US is different to the UN and NATO. Unlike them when it doesn't like something it doesn't stop with threats and sanctions as we all know. Saddam could carry out a little posturing on small matters like inspectors (we know this is all it was last time at least, as he almost certainly had no WMDs and therefore had no reason not to let the inspectors in. It was just him trying to show that he was boss). Opening the door and screaming come in is what that fool SHOULD have done. Every now and then you get crazies but as long as they don't have WMDs it's ok. If you can't rely on CIA and then why not ask KGB or MI6, they don't want madmen with nukes either. Baiting, throwing dirt, generally being rude. This is all these countries can do as this is all that they do do because they know that doing anything sufficiently against American interests that would bring war upon them would only bring them senseless destruction.

''If you look through the cold war history CIA always lacked penetration by its personnel into high positions in the other countries.''

Then the govt is at fault for relying on unreliable intel. They could have asked Russians and British for some help from the KGB and MI6. Helping the US with this info would be in their best interests and lying would just be foolish. Also, the documentaries I have seen indicate that the CIA KNEW it did not have real proof of WMDs in Iraq but that the govt ignored them when convenient. You needn't respond to this new issue if you want because neither of us know if thats true or not and both of us would require much evidence to fully convinced so perhaps we should just forget about that.

''It would take just few nuclear missiles to stop US invasion. The fact that Iraq can target Kuwait's or Saudi oil with that missile and potentially destroy the usability of it for next 100 years would be enough. Neither countries have effective ABM systems.''

If Iraq did that, then it would have no oil there to conquer right? The only possible positive for them would be that 1 less oil supplier would mean they could raise their prices. This would just give America the perfect excuse to take them over completely with no hassle and do as it pleases with their oil. The same excuse would be extended to other countries but America has the biggest guns so there would likely be no problem there. Even if war did erupt, Iraq govt would still be gone so yes it might be bad for America if Iraq did this but Iraq would not do it because it makes no sense. I suppose you can say that mad men like to do things which make no sense but that's why you TRY to obtain real intel or just ignore the matter. You can't go around invading who ever you think MIGHT have WMDs and intent to use them just in case since you don't have the intel and therefore have to gamble. It doesn't make sense with the world as it is. In such cases you wait for who does have intel to come to you or to do something about it themselves. Bleh, do you think Russia would have been against the Iraq war if KGB told them Iraq was making or already had WMDs? Wouldn't Britain have come forth with some evidence to that effect from the MI6? Is it really in doubt whether or not the US govt actually believed that Iraq has WMDs? It seems difficult to believe that they could think this.

''As for US attacking any of the other large oil holders, well lets go through them:

China, eats up most of its own supply without any going for Export, has nuclear arsenal with second strike capabilities

Russia, relatively friendly and has nuclear arsenal, with second strike capabilities

Canada, NAFTA blocks any shut off supply, very friendly

North Sea oil, controlled by friendly EU

Mexico, NAFTA blocks oil shut off capability, friendly

Venezuela, can shut of its oil supply but can't do jack about the rest of the Carrebean. Has no pan-careabean state ambitions. Run away inflation makes oil export essential for country's survival

Saudi Arabia, friendly, very friendly

Iraq, currently has no say in the matter

Syria, low supplies, any growth in military strength would be countered by Israel.

United Arabic Emirates, too small to have effective military, friendly

Somalia, busy with its internal problems and Chinese are already there

Nigeria, busy with its rebels, have no close oil rich countries, currently friendly

Iran, hostile, currently US is trying to organize Arabic League countries to effectively balance against it.''

I actually do not why you have provided this list. Are you trying to say that Iraq was the only place left for America to obtain oil? I suppose you could say America gained oil for it's citizens, but then there is no need to discuss these matters of war and politics. I would respond by saying that oil prices have reached an all time high in America recently, and that if the oil was now truly in the hands of the US govt for public use that would not be the case and that the only other forseeable hands it could be in would be the hands of oil companies in Iraq who have no reason to sell their oil  cheaper than Iraq and hence that this move was not in the interests of the American citizenry.

[Tatar Khan]

Both actually. If Iraq wants to annex Saudi Arabia (for example), then Iraq military > US mil + Saudi mil because US would obviously not let something that catastrophic happen. The growth rate of the armies of the various countries in the region is probably similar and America obviously invests much in it's military.

Not too many countries would feel just fine by having to rely on the foreign countries to protect them. Today they could be interested in protecting you tomorrow they might turn the blind to you. Recently, US has been actively trying to divert its source of oil from Middle East to the North America and Africa sources. So those countries never know whether US would be there for them. Also reliance on foreign military protection puts you in the relationship where what that protector says goes. Since if protector doesn't like it will withdraw the protection. And if you are vital for resources well than maybe he will let your government fall before rescuing the country and allowing the government of his choice to sit in your place.

Lets also remember when Iraq and Iran went to war nobody really cared to intervene on either behalf. So are you willing to suffer casualties and losses in hopes that the Western countries will come to your aid.

Their build up will only increase the amount of military that any one side would need to procure to conquer another. With these oil bearing countries ruled by dictatorship, it seems there isn't much trust left to lose.

Explain how you come to the conclusion that there could not be any good diplomatic relations between dictators or even dictators and democracies.

The fact that they could never win, and such action would be pointless.

And how do they know that they can't win to them it looks like the can. So far all the countries that went to wars were sure they were going to win. Too bad that half of them always lost.

When Pakistan was fighting Bangladeshes attempts to go independent it was sure it will win.

So were Chinese and Indians when they went to war against each other

So far Hitler and the Japanese

So was US in Vietnam

USSR in Afghanistan

Argentina in Falkland Islands

etc.

Nations always seem to be ''two steps'' away from a nuclear exchange. This was just neccessary Cold war diplomatic posturing. If you think about, without the nukes a REAL war may have broken out. Not to downplay the violence through proxies and what not that DID occur during the cold war, but this war would have made that looked a picnic. Of course Mao would not be able to launch, no one hands weapons to a madman without standing behind them pointing a gun to their head. And of course Kruschev would not cause horrible destruction to the world just for Castro and Cuba.

If that was the case during that escalation between India and Pakistan that they were just same way as all nations with nuclear arsenals nobody would have cared to run to pacify them. They were really going to do it. That was the scare. And the real war started they were already shooting each other and civilians in border provinces.

If Iraq did that

than the prices would have shot up through the roof all over the world. Markets would seize trading. The governments would be too concerned with the damage control to the economy through price controls and etc. to even contemplate any type of invasion, since the money won't be there to pay to soldiers who are in shooting conflict. Nuclear missiles are deterrent and they would be because their use would put any country unable to do anything against Iraq without screwing up their and whole worlds economy.

But the Saddam than can tell Kuwait and other countries in the region what he thinks they should do unless they want their source of income and political power obliterated.

Ok here is another example of a country that knowing that its opponent is as strong as it is and more technologically advanced, but still going to war with it:

China attacks USSR over a small island on Amur river during the Cold War era.

[Tatar Khan]

You asked why I gave you the list. It is the answer to your proposal to invade other oil supplier that could have impact on the world oil supply. And as you can see Iraq is not the only place to get oil.

In terms of Mao and Castro they both were willing to launch despite knowing that the enemy had higher tech level and what are the chances that they would have had they control over the missiles. Mao did and would have launched if Soviets did not intervene.

So Saddam decided to not let the UN inspectors in, raised suspicion that he might have WMDs. The logic if you have nothing to hide you would let them in. So final result where did it get him. Let UN inspectors in and US just lost any legal grounds for invasion.

As for your argument that US never stops at sanctions. Well what about Cuba. It has been 17 years since its guarantor of Castor's regime has disappeared. Yet US has not done a military invasion to take it over. And wait there is oil and oil refineries in Cuba that were owned by American oil companies before nationalization. If US wanted to benefit its oil companies why not just move in into Cuba as well.

The higher oil price is not only to be blamed on US screw up in Iraq. Nobody anticipated that Iran will become so hostile, or Venezuela will become negative towards US. Actually Bush's administration response to Venezuela was stupid, half of current hostility is due to US bad mouthing Venezuela back. Neither the fact that Lebanon refineries will get destroyed with huge amount of oil in them was anticipated. Neither anyone anticipated the sub-prime crisis either. Neither anyone thought that getting things up and running In Canada's oil sands is going to be so hard either.

Right now the high oil prices are not only allowing oil companies to make profit but the same goes for Iran and Russia. And man US wanted to help those two countries to get their economies in better order so they can play a bigger role in the global politics.

Here is a better scenario that US should have followed if it wanted to gets its weapons manufacturers and oil companies rich. Let the Saddam arm up. Let the local arms race start. Those countries than would turn towards US weapons makers  (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for sure, Iraq and Iran will still purchase but not directly, even Israel might decide that it becoming unsafe with all this arab nations that arming up). Meanwhile start reducing troop contingents in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia so that those countries feel less secure and want to buy even more weapons (reason for withdrawal could always be found, and hey less money to pay to the soldiers as soldiers stationed in foreign countries get paid more). The greater tensions brought about by the arms race in Middle East would also bump up the oil price quite high and even higher. Allowing US oil companies to sell their inventories for more. At the same time get rid of strategic oil reserve so that it won't be able to bring price down in US. Voila! You got the arms and oil companies rich and no troops dieing and no criticism at home over a war.

[Andrew]

Bush: America still not safe from terrorist attack

President George W. Bush, marking five years since the Department of Homeland Security was created, said the United States was not safe from terrorists who were plotting another attack as he spoke.

What a douchebag. After a trillion dollars and invading two countries there has been no progress? There is still the immanent threat of a terrorist attack?

Does anyone think the USA will defeat terrorism? Is it technically possible to defeat terrorism?

Also congress is allowing retroactive immunity for telcos so they can give American information to CIA etc without a warrant. The USA government is spying on all of its citizens.

I think it is safe to say there is an equal to or greater amount of terrorists as there were before 9/11.

Canada is now in debate about when to leave Afghanistan, which could topple the minority government. Currently if NATO sends 1000 more troops by 2009, Canada will stay until 2011.