George Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

[Tatar Khan]

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?

There is no possible way to defeat terrorism as it is an evolving phenomena and the definition of who is a terrorist could be very stretchy.

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.

This should be challenged under the sixth article of Bill of Rights of US. This is getting too much. I understand that there is a need for the security of the citizens but this is getting out of hand. If this is allowed to continue this could escalate to "witch hunts" or Stalin's NKVD where in the name of security of the state and its citizens people were arrested on smallest pretext.

[nemafakei]

"this could escalate to "witch hunts" or Stalin's NKVD where in the name of security of the state and its citizens people were arrested on smallest pretext."

Or indeed COINTELPRO Mk. II.

[gunner154]

Guys, that bomb is going to kill you! I'm serious! :O

[Andrew]

Don't forget to look in your closet for terrorists before you go to bed. They're everywhere and they are always planning to kill you and your family! They hate your freedoms! That is why the US gov is now in control of your freedoms, for your own protection.

The Daily Show last night was great. Really flamed Bush.

In 2000, a barrel of oil was $31, and gas was $1 a gallon. Then an oil company executive became president, and now oil is at $105 a barrel and almost $4 a gallon.

[gunner154]

That's a really sweet correlation. (no sarcasm intended this time)

[Sneakgab]

''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''

We are speaking about this from an American perspective. Of course Iraq and Iran may have to worry about things, but America doesn't have to. If the military balance is disrupted then they will be able to correct as far as one can see right now. It will be at least decades before this changes.

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

Thats not exactly what I said. I just said that amongst there oil bearing militaristic dictators who generally seem to ruthlessly desire power (Obviously a typical desire for militaristic dictators as that ruthless desire is generally needed to become a tyrant in the first place), trust is surely typically a commodity. It is akin to saying that you don't expect to find much trust in a criminal organization. Guaraantees and the like yes, but not actual trust.

''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.''

The fact that countries with good prospects have won before and that the mirror image has happened as well is irrelevant. Countries that are highly unlikely to emerge victorious go to war much more rarely. In the case of Iraq VS America and Iran, there is no way it could look to them like they might win.

''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.''

Well I don't know anything about this India-Pakistan war so I can't really comment. Maybe after I learn a bit about.

''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.''

Well, not exactly sure what ''that'' we are speaking of here, but I'm assuming you are (and I was, lol) reffering to nuclear attack by Iraq on another oil supplier. Yes this would be bad and yes Saddam could threaten but he would still removed by power by US invasion. So there is no reason for Saddam to do this. Just because oil becomes a bit scarcer doesn't mean that the economy is so ruined that countries cannot invade. If this were the case then Saddam should have threatened to destroy his own oil supplies. Besides, Saddam has no WMDs and invading just because they might come to gain WMDs and  might have a motive to use them is ridiculous. Maybe Zimbabwe is building WMDs, could probably use em. What about the Iranians and the Koreans and the... Following this logic requires the invasion of much of the world. After you're done with Iraq you are just as justified with this logic to continue onto Iran and then onto Korea, e.t.c. Obviously it is more logical to try and gain decent intelligence services or rely on countries with shared interests for intel.

''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.''

Well thats just nuts. Regardless America will always be able to prevent SUCCESFUL invasion by Iraq and will maintain similar or even less losses as technological gap widens.

I cannot respond to the rest right now as I am currently being assualted by others to give internet use to little brother... so later ;D :P

[Tatar Khan]

We are speaking about this from an American perspective. Of course Iraq and Iran may have to worry about things, but America doesn't have to. If the military balance is disrupted then they will be able to correct as far as one can see right now. It will be at least decades before this changes.

The idea is to remove the factor today that can cause problems in the future. US doesn't want to be constantly running around fixing the local balance of power. Neither it wants to sit in the Persian Gulf constantly either.

The fact that this was a rush decision, I would not dispute or the the fact that it was based on bad intelligence. There was no one to consult (plus US would never admit officially that CIA is not good enough intelligence service, thus it would never go out its way to consult other countries), MI6 was consulted since UK was involved, the fact that Blair was critical of Bush once the report on how CIA intelligence was inadequate came out means that MI6 had nothing there to dispute CIA. KGB (US would have to step over itself before they will ask Russians for help) doesn't exist since the break up of USSR pretty much destroyed the network that it had. Regaining it so far has been attempted but it did not look that it is any where at the level that it was before.

The fact that countries with good prospects have won before and that the mirror image has happened as well is irrelevant. Countries that are highly unlikely to emerge victorious go to war much more rarely. In the case of Iraq VS America and Iran, there is no way it could look to them like they might win.

The fact that during the first Gulf War, Iraq did not high tailed out of Kuwait when Coalition of the willing was planning to kick them out of there, means that that sometimes those countries think that they can get away with some things.

US can't stretch itself globally. Back in the day UK had to only worry mostly about Europe. So this would mean that while US is busy in some other part of the world the country in another part of the world can attempt things that would otherwise be impossible.

''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.

Well, not exactly sure what ''that'' we are speaking of here, but I'm assuming you are (and I was, lol) reffering to nuclear attack by Iraq on another oil supplier. Yes this would be bad and yes Saddam could threaten but he would still removed by power by US invasion. So there is no reason for Saddam to do this. Just because oil becomes a bit scarcer doesn't mean that the economy is so ruined that countries cannot invade.

yes it will be, you can consult different economists on this issue. This I can guarantee to you from the fact that I spent roughly 3 months trading future options on oil and even a small misplaced word can cause prices to fluctuate. Now imagine if two of the largest oil supplies were destroyed.

If this were the case then Saddam should have threatened to destroy his own oil supplies. Besides, Saddam has no WMDs and invading just because they might come to gain WMDs and  might have a motive to use them is ridiculous. Maybe Zimbabwe is building WMDs, could probably use em. What about the Iranians and the Koreans and the... Following this logic requires the invasion of much of the world. After you're done with Iraq you are just as justified with this logic to continue onto Iran and then onto Korea, e.t.c. Obviously it is more logical to try and gain decent intelligence services or rely on countries with shared interests for intel.

There is a lot of fuss made about Iran. But Iran also knows that US got too much trouble already. Iran could be building Nuclear weaponry as that will surely put it as a regional power. However it is also opening up to the UN inspectors and so far it has no uranium delivered to it. So Iran is playing a very nice political game between defiance and actually removing any legal grounds for invasion.

Korea already has nuclear weapons that is why the whole world backed off. US would not risk Korea launching its nuclear weapons at South Korea or Japan.

I cannot respond to the rest right now as I am currently being assualted by others to give internet use to little brother... so later ;D :P

Brings up memories except I was the little brother.

[Andrew]

Bush Vetoes Legislation Barring Waterboarding, Says It Preserves Tool in War on Terrorism

Now this is funny. Back in WWII USA said waterboarding was illegal when the Japansese used it on US soldiers. I'm pretty sure they would have said it was illegal during Vietnam war when it was used against US soliders. Or how about the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum when it was used against Americans. I doubt those Americans minded being water boarded, after all they were enemies of the Cambodia state, so that makes it ok.

But of course it is ok for the US to use it against their enemies. Because in order to defeat terrorists, they must act like terrorists themselves.

Abu-Ghraib and all those secret prisons in Europe are like mini terrorist camps. They are dehumanizeing these people. Sure the "terrorists" are a bit messed up, and have nothing better to do and want to kill al infidels, but when you dehumanize these terrorists, you are doing exactly what the terrorists are doing to justify their actions.

[Sneakgab]

''The idea is to remove the factor today that can cause problems in the future''

With the US's (justifed, perhaps) obsession with it's military, the POTENTIAL problem is equally bad today as the POTENTIAL problem tommorow. A pre-emptive strike removes a maybe problem of magnitude A whereas a strike after confirmation of such a problem would elimenate a problem of a magnitude not much greater than A. So why choose the former? Unless they fear nuclear buildup of Iraq. But then in that case they should now attack Iran and then Saudi, and then.... Attacking before confirmation would be reasonable with only 1 potential threat, but there are tens of potential threats around the world so clearly this strategy is unsound. Either one should wait to act on reasonable intelligence and info or shouldn't act at all. It is like the police scenario, you can't go around arresting everybody who MIGHT commit (or already have committed) a crime. It's simply impractical.

''US doesn't want to be constantly running around fixing the local balance of power''

Well, invading WAS actively ''running around'' fixing the balance of power. Now with Iraq gone they will probably have to do more to fix the balance of power. After all, they are paying with money and lives just keeping a lid on the Iraq situation. To not invade and passively maintain the balance of power through threat and politics would be the opposite of ''running around'' fixing the balance.

''Neither it wants to sit in the Persian Gulf constantly either'' Well that's basically what the navy is there for. Even if US preffered to keep it's navy docked they could probably get to places as required in a few weeks. Besides, they need their training exercises don't they? Doesn't seem like such a severe cost.

''MI6 had nothing there to dispute CIA''

This just becomes further unbelievable. So now both the MI6 AND the CIA were in agreement (this is what I take you mean by ''nothing there to dispute''). The MI6 at least are formidable intel gatherers are they not? The Iraqis must have been Naruto level ninjas to have deceived them both into thinking they were developing a formidable arsenal of WMDs when in fact they weren't even close to it. Maybe the Iraqis really defeated the Americans and this is all just a grand illusion! I guess you're probably right about the KGB.

''The fact that during the first Gulf War, Iraq did not high tailed out of Kuwait when Coalition of the willing was planning to kick them out of there, means that that sometimes those countries think that they can get away with some things.''

Yet they were kicked out anyway and with little cost to the US. Defending Kuwait costed them much less than invading and occupying Iraq, from what I've seen. Especially since their justification was on much firmer grounds back then. As compared to invading on intel that you know is not to be trusted (unless they don't even know their own intel organization). Clearly waiting for confirmation or the actual attack in such matters is better than making pre-emptive strikes based on poor intel. Might as well just attack randomly. If it were based on good intel, then that would be a different case entirely. If MI6 were really involved one could claim such a thing, but it seems ridiculously unlikely that they two would be unable to attain accurate info as the CIA were. Wouldn't the WMDs built by a nation like Iraq (ie: not to advanced) be large and requiring large and obvious manufacturing assemblies?

Even with a pre-occupied US, if the build-up of Iraq is truly such a terrible threat then other countries would surely check it as that would be in their best interests. As long as Iraq does not come to possess WMDs, it will be eternally checked because other nations would not allow something that would cause a global crisis.

''yes it will be, you can consult different economists on this issue. This I can guarantee to you from the fact that I spent roughly 3 months trading future options on oil and even a small misplaced word can cause prices to fluctuate. Now imagine if two of the largest oil supplies were destroyed.''

Woops sorry, just noticed I've basically already said everything that Iv'e got in the next paragraph. Will keep it there just in case anyway.

I will take you're word on it. However, I then ask why Saudi Arabia (or any oil bearing country) can't just threaten it's own oil fields to get what it wants, since destroying them would result in global crisis this would be a more effective detterent and bargaining chip than all the nukes of the cold war that should enable Iraq, Iran, e.t.c to war as they please even without WMD's as they would not need them to destroy their own oil supplies. Well, at least I imagine they wouldn't need them. Sure, nukes don't just take out the machinery they leave the area unusable due to radiation as well, but I imagine that it wouldn't be that hard to render under YOU'RE control permanently unusable without them. Oil is very flammable after all, surely an oil fountain (or whatever they're called) can be put of commision permanently like this. Even then, while large scale radiation clearing seems to be very difficult, only the ''oil fountains'' would have to be cleaned'' who cares about radioactive residential areas as this is about justifying US action based on good for American citizens. Hence, the others do not matter and I can see no indirect cost for US. Russia is also an important oil bearing region right? It should just aim it's nukes at it's self as it's threat and then go about annexing rescources as it pleases. Besides all this, it STILL seems unrealistic to think that the CIA and US really believed Saddam was developing nukes. As before, if they did and they acted on such unreliable info then that in itself is more than enough reason to criticize such a govt.

''There is a lot of fuss made about Iran. But Iran also knows that US got too much trouble already. Iran could be building Nuclear weaponry as that will surely put it as a regional power. However it is also opening up to the UN inspectors and so far it has no uranium delivered to it. So Iran is playing a very nice political game between defiance and actually removing any legal grounds for invasion.

Korea already has nuclear weapons that is why the whole world backed off. US would not risk Korea launching its nuclear weapons at South Korea or Japan.''

Are you saying that Iraq was the only country the US realistically considered might be developing nukes that could threaten the oil? If so then maybe THEN their actions weren't completely ridiculous. However, this doesn't seem likely. Iran was and is seemingly more capable of building a nuclear arsenal. Hence they should also now attack Iran just because they MIGHT build WMDs just as they did with Iraq (well, at least they claimed that was the reason). Iraq seemed to me to be one of the least countries least capable of developing a nuclear arsenal in the region.

So, in other words, a convential Iraqi military could be checked eternally at a cost little greater (if greater at all) than invading and occupying Iraq, while if striking them for possible WMD build up is justified then the US should rather have attacked those more capable of of building WMDs first. Many countries could develop WMDs and threaten the world with a global crisis.

[Tatar Khan]

''The idea is to remove the factor today that can cause problems in the future''

With the US's (justifed, perhaps) obsession with it's military, the POTENTIAL problem is equally bad today as the POTENTIAL problem tommorow. A pre-emptive strike removes a maybe problem of magnitude A whereas a strike after confirmation of such a problem would elimenate a problem of a magnitude not much greater than A. So why choose the former? Unless they fear nuclear buildup of Iraq. But then in that case they should now attack Iran and then Saudi, and then.... Attacking before confirmation would be reasonable with only 1 potential threat, but there are tens of potential threats around the world so clearly this strategy is unsound. Either one should wait to act on reasonable intelligence and info or shouldn't act at all. It is like the police scenario, you can't go around arresting everybody who MIGHT commit (or already have committed) a crime. It's simply impractical.

Well better intelligence could have helped, however with Iraq and the way it was sending signals it looked like it as a potential threat today could become a threat with potential tomorrow.

Iran is a danger to the region but due to the problems in Iraq undertaking any military invasion is too costly at this point. What could happen is that Israel will do the necessary air strikes to push Iran back 3 years in its nuclear technologies. Hopefully by than situation in Iraq would be better.

Saudi Arabia is not interested in nukes as it has a protection that it gets from having two of the world's most holiest cities (Mecca and Medina). It won't go and attack its neighbors out of fear of religious wars implications that such attacks cause as their participation sends a strong message. They do fly the green flag of Muhammad.

''US doesn't want to be constantly running around fixing the local balance of power''

Well, invading WAS actively ''running around'' fixing the balance of power. Now with Iraq gone they will probably have to do more to fix the balance of power. After all, they are paying with money and lives just keeping a lid on the Iraq situation. To not invade and passively maintain the balance of power through threat and politics would be the opposite of ''running around'' fixing the balance.

Threats did not work with Saddam Husein, he was not that kind of person. The idea is to fix the problem so there would not be any reason to comeback to refix it again.

''Neither it wants to sit in the Persian Gulf constantly either'' Well that's basically what the navy is there for. Even if US preffered to keep it's navy docked they could probably get to places as required in a few weeks. Besides, they need their training exercises don't they? Doesn't seem like such a severe cost.

US fleet arrived in Persian Gulf only during the Iraq-Iran to keep the two sides from sabotaging shipping in the region. Iraq kind of tried to torpedo/shell/bomb tankers living Kuwait when they were in international waters. They also tended to mine Kuwait's harbors. Iran participated less (actually statistically it could be said that those tankers that did get hit by Iranian mines were accidents). Iran actually got a bigger kick out of sending mines adrift to hit US ships by "accident".

''MI6 had nothing there to dispute CIA''

This just becomes further unbelievable. So now both the MI6 AND the CIA were in agreement (this is what I take you mean by ''nothing there to dispute''). The MI6 at least are formidable intel gatherers are they not? The Iraqis must have been Naruto level ninjas to have deceived them both into thinking they were developing a formidable arsenal of WMDs when in fact they weren't even close to it.

Well either MI6 had nothing on Iraq and so took CIA's information for granted or it had information that confirmed or did not dispute the CIA's information. Overall I don't think that anybody considered that part of the world to be too high of priority it kind of had its own things during the Cold War. Iranian Shah was the best friend of US and so spying on him was not as necessary as spying on Soviets. After that the Iranian and Iraqi regimes make it very hard to integrate a person there and keep him high enough due to mini purges. Getting a person into Iraq would be very hard. The person would need to know the customs, language (including the dialect and right accent, knowledge of Quaran (detailed knowledge if that person needs to be in high position). This could be trained to a person. Person needs to look Arabic, (that includes the right skin tone, body hair, circumsicion, etc.) a vary hard thing to do. The person needs to be integrated and to have a large family on the ground. This is the area of the world where family sticks together, they live in the same area (often in adjacent houses to each other), people keep strongly in touch with their families, they know their twice removed cousins not just from family get together but because they meet with them every day and they played with them when they were kids. To get this kind of integration you really need to be worried a lot about the region to decide to do this.

As for nuclear weapons, the production facilities would not be small, but I would not assume that the final product would not be significantly bigger than US's nuke. The reason is you have to fit it on the same delivery vehicle. But from the sky a lot of things could look like production facilities, the only way to confirm them is to have a person go and check it. If you don't have the person integrated to do that and the government won't let international inspectors to do that. The case ends up with 2 solutions, 1 - hope for the best, 2 - act now before what you hope doesn't happen happens.

Even with a pre-occupied US, if the build-up of Iraq is truly such a terrible threat then other countries would surely check it as that would be in their best interests. As long as Iraq does not come to possess WMDs, it will be eternally checked because other nations would not allow something that would cause a global crisis.

China doesn't have the fleet to do it. Russia doesn't have the military adequate to do it, and frankly would benefit from escalated oil prices as it is doing right now.

EU needs to get too many people to agree (more people the harder it becomes). Also EU's military is not as integrated (actually speaking frankly Robert Cooper, EU secretary of Defense says EU's forces are not integrated at all). They would need to have a large force to do same thing US can and also would incur extremely high costs. Also due to lack of presence in the region their response would be delayed in which case it would be too late. Retreating Iraq could threaten to make oil wells of the countries they occupied unusable.

I then ask why Saudi Arabia (or any oil bearing country) can't just threaten it's own oil fields to get what it wants, since destroying them would result in global crisis this would be a more effective detterent and bargaining chip than all the nukes of the cold war that should enable Iraq, Iran, e.t.c to war as they please even without WMD's as they would not need them to destroy their own oil supplies. Well, at least I imagine they wouldn't need them. Sure, nukes don't just take out the machinery they leave the area unusable due to radiation as well, but I imagine that it wouldn't be that hard to render under YOU'RE control permanently unusable without them. Oil is very flammable after all, surely an oil fountain (or whatever they're called) can be put of commision permanently like this. Even then, while large scale radiation clearing seems to be very difficult, only the ''oil fountains'' would have to be cleaned'' who cares about radioactive residential areas as this is about justifying US action based on good for American citizens. Hence, the others do not matter and I can see no indirect cost for US. Russia is also an important oil bearing region right? It should just aim it's nukes at it's self.

Russia doesn't need to do that since it has nukes. The answer to your question about Saudi Arabia or any other nations with large oil supplies lies in the same as answer why did not OPEC make the price of oil around $200 20 years ago or even earlier why is it that they never try to inflate more than the demand and world political situations do and sometimes use their powers to decrease the price. The high price of oil makes other oil fields development realistic. Canada's oil sands were know for decades but developing them was not cost effective until oil went  over $85 a barrel. Green technologies are getting more popular as they are getting more cost effective compared to older technologies. By raising prices you will be destroying your market int eh long run. If you start playing oil card all the times, governments will shift their sources of oil to other places thus decreasing their volatility from your actions. They will start looking harder at alternative fuel technologies. Eventually the oil card would be useless.

Imagine it as feeding a heroin addict constantly and having it constantly demanding it, or just overdosing him and killing him thus ending the demand.

''There is a lot of fuss made about Iran. But Iran also knows that US got too much trouble already. Iran could be building Nuclear weaponry as that will surely put it as a regional power. However it is also opening up to the UN inspectors and so far it has no uranium delivered to it. So Iran is playing a very nice political game between defiance and actually removing any legal grounds for invasion.

Korea already has nuclear weapons that is why the whole world backed off. US would not risk Korea launching its nuclear weapons at South Korea or Japan.''

Are you saying that Iraq was the only country the US realistically considered might be developing nukes that could threaten the oil? If so then maybe THEN their actions weren't completely ridiculous. However, this doesn't seem likely. Iran was and is seemingly more capable of building a nuclear arsenal. Hence they should also now attack Iran just because they MIGHT build WMDs just as they did with Iraq (well, at least they claimed that was the reason).

So, in other words, a convential Iraqi military could be checked eternally at a cost little greater (if greater at all) than invading and occupying Iraq, while if striking them for possible WMD build up is justified then the US should rather have attacked those more capable of of building WMDs first. Many countries could develop WMDs and threaten the world with a global crisis.

US can't attack Iran because it has no legal grounds to do so, it is cooperating with UN. Korea already has them. Attacking it before they got it is impossible as 1950s Korean War proved, China will support North Korea through volunteers that come in packages no less 10,000. Iraq was the only one that they had enough legal ground and realistic enough victory (assessment at the time).

Many countries could develop WMDs and threaten the world with a global crisis.

I'll be glad to receive the list.

[Andrew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Vietnam_War

During Vietnam war, waterboarding was made illegal. US soldiers waterboarded POW during the vietnam war. They were court-martialled.

Image of US soldiers happily waterboarding a POW.

Funny how it was illegal to waterboard during vietnam war, but now that the US has progressed over the years it is now acceptable and legal.

House Fails to Overturn Bush Veto of CIA Bill That Banned Waterboarding

[Tatar Khan]

Waterboarding was ilegalised by the Military but there was no law overall against it which allows US security services to use it except for soldiers, except when soldiers are placed under temporary command of the CIA officials.

Plus the political factors during the Cold War also played a large factor. In the end only one soldier got penalised for the practise the rest who did it (I am sure he was not acting alone) got away.

[Andrew]

Kinda like the soldiers at Abu-ghraib.

Because the pictures were leaked, someone had to take the fall for it to satisfy the population (politics), yet I bet Abu-ghraib type situations are still occuring all over Iraq. As long as no pictures are leaked, then no one is getting hurt. :)

[Sneakgab]

''Well better intelligence could have helped, however with Iraq and the way it was sending signals it looked like it as a potential threat today could become a threat with potential tomorrow.

Iran is a danger to the region but due to the problems in Iraq undertaking any military invasion is too costly at this point. What could happen is that Israel will do the necessary air strikes to push Iran back 3 years in its nuclear technologies. Hopefully by than situation in Iraq would be better.

Saudi Arabia is not interested in nukes as it has a protection that it gets from having two of the world's most holiest cities (Mecca and Medina). It won't go and attack its neighbors out of fear of religious wars implications that such attacks cause as their participation sends a strong message. They do fly the green flag of Muhammad.''

You seem to be suggesting that Iraq is/was the ONLY possible threat to world stability and that if there were other POSSIBLE threats it would be fully justified and logical for USA to invade all these threats to remove them. Iraq was not a MAJOR or EVEN likely threat. Removing all threats no matter how unlikely or minor via invasion is madness, even if there is but one as you seem to claim.

''Iran is a danger to the region but due to the problems in Iraq undertaking any military invasion is too costly at this point''

A greater danger than the Gulf-war pummeled Iraq one might say. See, this is where the madness lies. If attacking Iraq for being a possible threat is justified then it cannot stop there. In that case attacking Iran is also justified with this nip it in the bud logic of you'res that seems to only be halted by countries with a nuclear arsenal. There are oil producing regions in Africa as well and that region is full of dictators and war and the possibility of one day developing WMDs. What if North Korea, e.t.c did not have WMDs (the ability to defend themselves really) but had the potential to build them. Would this make attacking them a good idea? I can understand an invasion based on REASONABLE SUSPICION. But I am not convinced that this was the case with Iraq.

''Threats did not work with Saddam Husein, he was not that kind of person. The idea is to fix the problem so there would not be any reason to comeback to refix it again.''

It wouldn't be a ''refix'', as it would be the ''first fix''. Not much difference. As I have said, with tech and military gap widening due to USA obsession with military (not unjustified perhaps), there is no reason to fix what you can today instead of tommorow as it were, to turn a proverb on its head. However, with the costs of occupation and the fact that was hardly a guarantee (quite the opposite I'd say) that Iraq would be a problem, there was definitely a reason to fix tommorrow what could be fixed today. IE: They should have waited for REASONABLE EVIDENCE AND SUSPICION before invading. Now, the fact that there no WMDs were found shows that the invasion was a waste. Basically, it was a foolish gamble, an un-calculated risk.

''US fleet arrived in Persian Gulf only during the Iraq-Iran to keep the two sides from sabotaging shipping in the region. Iraq kind of tried to torpedo/shell/bomb tankers living Kuwait when they were in international waters. They also tended to mine Kuwait's harbors. Iran participated less (actually statistically it could be said that those tankers that did get hit by Iranian mines were accidents). Iran actually got a bigger kick out of sending mines adrift to hit US ships by "accident".''

Then that provides all the more reason why the US fleet MIGHT AS WELL stay in the region. Therefore there it cannot be argued that this was a major burden.

''Well either MI6 had nothing on Iraq and so took CIA's information for granted or it had information that confirmed or did not dispute the CIA's information.''

An intelligence failure of this magnitude (for the latter case) is simply unbelievable. As for the former, if MI6 has nothing on Iraq, then US govt was at fault for relying on the CIA which they should have known was unreliable. After all, you know this, and you are not head of CIA (or maybe you are, and I should fear for my safety lol. j/k of course. If the spying job was so hard (as you dedicate a paragraph towards saying) and the CIA so inept in intel, then the govt should not have acted on intel that would so obviously be wrong or unreliable.

It is true that they were given two choices: Hope that they don't have nukes or make sure by attacking.

Yet, we all have these choices. I can hope that I don't get struck by lightning or I can make sure that I don't by locking myself in my house. Of course during a heavy thunderstorm maybe the former is more reasonable. This is the issue, I don't view Iraq as having been a ''heavy thunderstorm''. To me they seemed like a decrepit gulf war pummeled nation with no realistic chance of having WMDs. Certainly no greater a chance than some other threatening nations. You have elimenated many possibly threatenign nations but I'm sure there have to be some other than Iraq lol.

''China doesn't have the fleet to do it. Russia doesn't have the military adequate to do it, and frankly would benefit from escalated oil prices as it is doing right now.

EU needs to get too many people to agree (more people the harder it becomes). Also EU's military is not as integrated (actually speaking frankly Robert Cooper, EU secretary of Defense says EU's forces are not integrated at all). They would need to have a large force to do same thing US can and also would incur extremely high costs. Also due to lack of presence in the region their response would be delayed in which case it would be too late. Retreating Iraq could threaten to make oil wells of the countries they occupied unusable.''

Well what about Britain, Germany, France and even all the other dictatorship ruled countries that would also be harmed. Can you rule out every other interested party with a capable force? I know that the first three are prob in the EU, but that doesn't mean they cannot act independently. After all, Britain was part of the coalition whilst the EU probably was against Iraq invasion when it came to their majority. Britain DID send forces after all. I think that just Britain alone could easily defeat Iraq with little loss, but they would also have assistance of intended target of Iraq invasion. Waiting for such an invasion (and stopping it in the unlikely event that it does come) would be far cheaper than occupying Iraq and wouldn't be a gamble, unlike attacking IN CASE they want to invade.

''Russia doesn't need to do that since it has nukes'' Not even Russia or N.Korea get's it's way though. Evidence that the ability to forgo the threat of MAD to initiate MAD does not neccesarily grant a ''do whatever you want'' card.

''he answer to your question about Saudi Arabia or any other nations with large oil supplies lies in the same as answer why did not OPEC make the price of oil around $200 20 years ago or even earlier why is it that they never try to inflate more than the demand and world political situations do and sometimes use their powers to decrease the price. The high price of oil makes other oil fields development realistic. Canada's oil sands were know for decades but developing them was not cost effective until oil went  over $85 a barrel. Green technologies are getting more popular as they are getting more cost effective compared to older technologies. By raising prices you will be destroying your market int eh long run. If you start playing oil card all the times, governments will shift their sources of oil to other places thus decreasing their volatility from your actions. They will start looking harder at alternative fuel technologies. Eventually the oil card would be useless.

Imagine it as feeding a heroin addict constantly and having it constantly demanding it, or just overdosing him and killing him thus ending the demand.''

So If Iraq destroyed it's own fields or another countries fields with a nuke (equivalent situation so long as you are not Iraq or nuked country, either way one country will raise oil prices) then other countries would SEEK CHEAPER MARKETS OR METHODS rather than the world economy going into ruin. You cannot have it both ways. Either the world would go into ruin which would be bad for Iraq so they therefore would not to do this or the world could recover so Iraq cannot threaten like this. The latter is not to say that no damage would be done, though I am of the opinion that switching to non-oil sources for fuel would be cheaper in the LONG RUN and better for all of us EXCEPT the oil company CEOs. Imagine the stability that would be enjoyed by a market not dependent on oil which we all know is very unstable (held mostly by unstable dictator ruled countries). So avoiding the damage IS a motive for a pre-emptive attack, but not a logical motive because Saddam would NOT DO SOMETHING SO SELF-DESTRUCTIVE. Such an action doesn't make sense. Sure he could threatened, but that is what MAD is for. Russia can threated world with nuclear arsenal but it does not get what it wants anyway because of MAD. Were this not the case Russia would be a prosperous super power instead of a decrepit poor state. Nuking Iran and thus demanding higher oil prices would effectively be ''overdosing the heroin addict and killing him''.

''US can't attack Iran because it has no legal grounds to do so'' What legal grounds? You have said many times that in US, US law over rides international law so that means that US can declare invasion if it wants. Iran seems similar to Iraq. As a matter of fact, if they were invaded instead this discussion would be pretty similar. If they were BOTH invaded though, then maybe we could agree that America went after all WMD threats... Maybe. As it stands America is inconsistent.

''''Many countries could develop WMDs and threaten the world with a global crisis.''

I'll be glad to receive the list.''

So you are saying that ONLY Iraq posed this thread with America able to do something about it. I ASSUME otherwise, and it seems safe to make an assumption without a thorough investigation of other countries. There are so many aggresive dictatorship ruled countries out there. Surely SOME have the potential to build WMDs. However, I think I shall eventually actually investigate this rather than speaking on assumption, though, frankly, I am lazy and would much prefer someone else do it.

BTW: I will not be able to post actively for a while. My cap has depleted and will only refill at end of month.

[Tatar Khan]

You seem to be suggesting that Iraq is/was the ONLY possible threat to world stability and that if there were other POSSIBLE threats it would be fully justified and logical for USA to invade all these threats to remove them. Iraq was not a MAJOR or EVEN likely threat. Removing all threats no matter how unlikely or minor via invasion is madness, even if there is but one as you seem to claim.

Well the country that feels invaded feels crappy about it but US sees its invasion as all fine and nice.

As for threats to global stability there are others:

Iran and its Islamic Revolution ideals and dreams

China growing too big for regional balance of power. Actually it will make a pass at the mantle of keeper of balance of power soon, it is preparing the ground for that if not already doing it.

India also growing too big but not faster than China, will be the second one to go for the mantle of keeper of balance of power after China if things will keep up.

A greater danger than the Gulf-war pummeled Iraq one might say. See, this is where the madness lies. If attacking Iraq for being a possible threat is justified then it cannot stop there. In that case attacking Iran is also justified with this nip it in the bud logic of you'res that seems to only be halted by countries with a nuclear arsenal. There are oil producing regions in Africa as well and that region is full of dictators and war and the possibility of one day developing WMDs. What if North Korea, e.t.c did not have WMDs (the ability to defend themselves really) but had the potential to build them. Would this make attacking them a good idea? I can understand an invasion based on REASONABLE SUSPICION. But I am not convinced that this was the case with Iraq.

Iran is greater threat now than Iraq was, before it was balanced by Iraq. But US got nothing on Iran plus it got too many problems already so it just can't deal with it even if it found a way. As I already mentioned North Korea has China as its protection. China will send over "volnteers" whose numbers will overwhelm any US force.

In Africa the dictators are too preoccupied with their internal problems to have any dreams about nuclear weapons any time soon.

It wouldn't be a ''refix'', as it would be the ''first fix''. Not much difference. As I have said, with tech and military gap widening due to USA obsession with military (not unjustified perhaps), there is no reason to fix what you can today instead of tomorrow as it were, to turn a proverb on its head. However, with the costs of occupation and the fact that was hardly a guarantee (quite the opposite I'd say) that Iraq would be a problem, there was definitely a reason to fix tommorrow what could be fixed today. IE: They should have waited for REASONABLE EVIDENCE AND SUSPICION before invading. Now, the fact that there no WMDs were found shows that the invasion was a waste. Basically, it was a foolish gamble, an un-calculated risk.

Of course refixing, because las time the fix was attempted in first Gulf War. Nobody really thought that Saddam would be that defiant.

As for US fleet it would not have to be there and US bases would not need to be staffed so heavily if there is no threat to oil shipments tat were imposed by Iraq and partially Iran.

An intelligence failure of this magnitude (for the latter case) is simply unbelievable. As for the former, if MI6 has nothing on Iraq, then US govt was at fault for relying on the CIA which they should have known was unreliable. After all, you know this, and you are not head of CIA (or maybe you are, and I should fear for my safety lol. j/k of course. If the spying job was so hard (as you dedicate a paragraph towards saying) and the CIA so inept in intel, then the govt should not have acted on intel that would so obviously be wrong or unreliable.

Well we know that in hindsight. If we could always have a hindsight before making decisions we would never have any errors in judgment. I learned that US did not improve on its spying capabilities after the whole inquiry into the CIA's WMD claims in Iraq were examined and the evidence was based on from air and space photos and testimonies of defectors. I was optimistic that they actually done something to improve on themselves from example of KGB (how many of retired KGB generals live now on Brighton Beach, NY now).

It is true that they were given two choices: Hope that they don't have nukes or make sure by attacking. Yet, we all have these choices. I can hope that I don't get struck by lightning or I can make sure that I don't by locking myself in my house. Of course during a heavy thunderstorm maybe the former is more reasonable. This is the issue, I don't view Iraq as having been a ''heavy thunderstorm''. To me they seemed like a decrepit gulf war pummeled nation with no realistic chance of having WMDs. Certainly no greater a chance than some other threatening nations. You have elimenated many possibly threatenign nations but I'm sure there have to be some other than Iraq lol.

True we all have those choices but for some of them consequences are harder to fix than others.

Well what about Britain, Germany, France and even all the other dictatorship ruled countries that would also be harmed. Can you rule out every other interested party with a capable force? I know that the first three are prob in the EU, but that doesn't mean they cannot act independently. After all, Britain was part of the coalition whilst the EU probably was against Iraq invasion when it came to their majority. Britain DID send forces after all. I think that just Britain alone could easily defeat Iraq with little loss, but they would also have assistance of intended target of Iraq invasion. Waiting for such an invasion (and stopping it in the unlikely event that it does come) would be far cheaper than occupying Iraq and wouldn't be a gamble, unlike attacking IN CASE they want to invade.

There are no interested parties that were able to go to Iraq to do it. European countries have military but it is more defensive than offensive and they do not have that much in capabilities to spread themselves as far as Iraq unless they do it together and that is complicated to them right now due to need for political consensus and lack of matching equipment.

''Russia doesn't need to do that since it has nukes'' Not even Russia or N.Korea get's it's way though. Evidence that the ability to forgo the threat of MAD to initiate MAD does not neccesarily grant a ''do whatever you want'' card.

North Korea got a lot its way now. Remember how quickly all the negotiations settled after it tested its nuclear bombs. It gets oil, aid and lots of other things now.

Russia doesn't exercise its ability to scare others through nuclear exchange due to limited capabilities (different treaties forbid Russia from having nuclear weapons in mass in European Continent). Than there are also the American guarantee to EU and China in Asia so it is nicely checked.

''he answer to your question about Saudi Arabia or any other nations with large oil supplies lies in the same as answer why did not OPEC make the price of oil around $200 20 years ago or even earlier why is it that they never try to inflate more than the demand and world political situations do and sometimes use their powers to decrease the price. The high price of oil makes other oil fields development realistic. Canada's oil sands were know for decades but developing them was not cost effective until oil went  over $85 a barrel. Green technologies are getting more popular as they are getting more cost effective compared to older technologies. By raising prices you will be destroying your market int eh long run. If you start playing oil card all the times, governments will shift their sources of oil to other places thus decreasing their volatility from your actions. They will start looking harder at alternative fuel technologies. Eventually the oil card would be useless.

Imagine it as feeding a heroin addict constantly and having it constantly demanding it, or just overdosing him and killing him thus ending the demand.''

So If Iraq destroyed it's own fields or another countries fields with a nuke (equivalent situation so long as you are not Iraq or nuked country, either way one country will raise oil prices) then other countries would SEEK CHEAPER MARKETS OR METHODS rather than the world economy going into ruin. You cannot have it both ways. Either the world would go into ruin which would be bad for Iraq so they therefore would not to do this or the world could recover so Iraq cannot threaten like this. The latter is not to say that no damage would be done, though I am of the opinion that switching to non-oil sources for fuel would be cheaper in the LONG RUN and better for all of us EXCEPT the oil company CEOs. Imagine the stability that would be enjoyed by a market not dependent on oil which we all know is very unstable (held mostly by unstable dictator ruled countries). So avoiding the damage IS a motive for a pre-emptive attack, but not a logical motive because Saddam would NOT DO SOMETHING SO SELF-DESTRUCTIVE. Such an action doesn't make sense. Sure he could threatened, but that is what MAD is for. Russia can threated world with nuclear arsenal but it does not get what it wants anyway because of MAD. Were this not the case Russia would be a prosperous super power instead of a decrepit poor state. Nuking Iran and thus demanding higher oil prices would effectively be ''overdosing the heroin addict and killing him''.

Nicely put, but the havoc (hangover) that will be caused by the destruction of oil fields at first would be tremendous so the options would not be just finding alternative fuels but recovering from a possible depression and than trying to find alternative fuels. And while the world is trying to recover and rebuild oil still would be the fuel. R&D costs a lot of money.

MAD principal applies but not exactly because if it was exactly as you put it than US should have tried to go conventional war with Soviet Union. Soviet union can't launch because if they do we will too and there you go we can go in conventional war than. With nukes it is potential havoc that will be wrought by the exchange that is being tried to avoid, so threating havoc is a good enough. Plus nuking Iraq in return would destroy even more oil supply.

As for the long-run it is hard to evaluate the long-run plus we are all dead in the long run (some Keynes here for you).

''US can't attack Iran because it has no legal grounds to do so'' What legal grounds? You have said many times that in US, US law over rides international law so that means that US can declare invasion if it wants. Iran seems similar to Iraq. As a matter of fact, if they were invaded instead this discussion would be pretty similar. If they were BOTH invaded though, then maybe we could agree that America went after all WMD threats... Maybe. As it stands America is inconsistent.

I never said US law overrides international law. The treaties that US enters automatically become law in US according to US constitution. With Iran so far it is admitted UN inspectors so no legal grounds for war. Yet.

''''Many countries could develop WMDs and threaten the world with a global crisis.''

I'll be glad to receive the list.''

So you are saying that ONLY Iraq posed this thread with America able to do something about it. I ASSUME otherwise, and it seems safe to make an assumption without a thorough investigation of other countries. There are so many aggresive dictatorship ruled countries out there. Surely SOME have the potential to build WMDs. However, I think I shall eventually actually investigate this rather than speaking on assumption, though, frankly, I am lazy and would much prefer someone else do it.

I don't have resources to closely investigate every single country but I don't see any that are sending such signals currently many have too many other problems too worry about other will be dettered by the fate of Iraq.

[Andrew]

The Lies That Led To War

Fifth Estate episode explaining how the US invaded Iraq. The entire video is available online.

It's great watching old Bush videos. Says Saudi Arabia financed and provided logistics for Osama Bin Laden and the bombings. But since Saudi Arabia is friends with USA and Bush family, they were not targeted.

LOL, during the Iraq-Iran war, the USA supplied Iraq with military/cash (billions), all the while knowing Saddam was gassing Iranians and had WMD. After Iraq gassed its own citizens, USA increased aid money to Iraq.

EDIT:

Exclusive: Cheney Cites 'Major Success' in Iraq, Says U.S. Has Hit 'Rough Patch'

On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War's start, Vice President Dick Cheney hails "major success" and insists that although the U.S. economy has hit a "rough patch" it is not in a recession.

Funny, on May 1, 2003 Bush announced mission accomplished. Since then 3815 US soldiers have died.

March 16, 2003 Cheney says: We Will, In Fact, Be Greeted As Liberators

If he was correct then, he must be correct now!

[Tatar Khan]

That is a good video as it shows exactly where in their thinking US went wrong. Also it shows that the war in Iraq was not about the freedoms, justice and liberty.

With Saudi Arabia it was not the government that was financing directly Osama but it was his family and friends that held positions in the government.

[Andrew]

White House Says It Destroyed Hard Drives

Seriously. The white house deletes its emails, and makes sure to delete its hard drives.

You know something important has to be in those emails if they are making sure to have them destroyed. The emails go missing, then they destroy hard drives, then say it is too costly to get the backups. That's ok, emails between 2003 and 2005 are unimportant.

[gunner154]

That makes him the best president in 100 years. He covers his tracks very obviously.

[Tatar Khan]

What is the general rule for White House in terms of emails. How long do they keep them backed up?

[Andrew]

I presume as long as possible (forever). They sometimes release documents from the 1970s that are no longer classified.

Found the wikipedia link on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_e-mail_controversy

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

Federal Records Act

Federal records may not be destroyed-except in accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 33 of Title 44, United States Code.

So it is illegal for the emails to be destroyed or to "go missing" in the short term.

[Tatar Khan]

It seems to me that they sidestepped the laws by using non governmental server.

[Andrew]

22-Year-Old Efraim Diveroli, Awarded $300 Million Defense Contract To Arm Afghan Forces, Supplied Them With Aging, Defective Arms

And the VP of this company is a licensed masseur. They bought >40 year old munitions from Albania, China and other countries (illegal arms dealers).

Does the government do any checking when giving $300 million contracts??

A U.S. government agency uses foreign firms to make new e-passports and is reportedly overcharging for them, The Washington Times found.

The blank passports travel to Europe where a microchip is inserted in the back cover and then onto Thailand where they are fitted with a radio antenna. The Netherlands company that makes the covers for the passport said in October that China stole the technology for the microchips, the Times said.

Seriously. US passports are manufactured in Thailand...

[Wolf]

This may be very off-topic at the moment for this thread, but though I do think Bush may be one of the worst since 1908, he's definitely not as bad as President James Buchanan. Not only did Buchanan tell Chief Justice Taney, through correspondence, that he should rule not just on Dred Scott, but on the entire slavery issue as a whole on a pro-slavery line, but he also allowed the first wave of secessionist states to raid Federal armories without reprisal, thereby arming the Confederacy and allowing it to exist. No offense, but almost no matter what Bush does, it can't be as bad as that.

[Edric O]

Of course - which is why the title of this thread limits itself to the last 100 years. I'd argue that any president who allowed slavery to exist without using every political resource at his disposal to end it (meaning nearly all presidents before Lincoln) was worse than Bush. More recently, I believe that Reagan was worse than Bush, because he did a lot more harm worldwide, he led an unprecedented attack on the welfare state domestically, and he created the neoconservative ideology that Bush follows.