[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? Onwhatbasis?

[Robert Lindauer]

John Calvin wrote:

>On 7/13/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>...
> 
>  
>
>>I don't have enough information about Al quaeda and thier involvement in
>>the 9/11 attacks to say what I would have done.
>>    
>>
>
>Osama Bin Laden released a tape claiming responsibility for the 9/11
>attacks, and intelligence places clear links to the Al Qaeda
>organization for the planning and execution.  We knew that Osama Bin
>Laden was in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to turn him over
>thereby aiding and abetting terrorists.  What more information would
>you need?  If you are interested, there is a whole lot of info
>available from which you can draw your own conclusions.
>  
>
I agree, there's lots of information, but not ALL of the information.  
If I were president I assume there'd be more information, that's the 
only point I was making.  It's POSSIBLE that the official information is 
accurate and that Bin Laden really is the Anti-Christ.  I'm just 
unconvinced, I'd like to see the hard evidence for myself.  I'm sure 
lots of people would have liked to have taken responsibility for 9/11 
and the fact that Al Quaeda made the most convincing case is impressive 
but not definitive to me without seeing the hard evidence.  I'd like to 
see the official and secret FBI and CIA files on the matter before 
making any judgement on the matter.

>>How can we extract ourselves from these messes in Iraq and Afganistan?
>>Now that's a question worth asking.
>>    
>>
>
>I spent 11 months of 2004 in the Paktika province of Afghanistan, part
>of that in Lwara 2k from the Pakistani border.
>
>I can say from experience, that the Majority of the Afghani people
>with which I came into contact, wanted the U.S. to be there, and
>firmly believed that our presence was their best hope for a brighter
>future.  As a Psychological Operations soldier it was my job to go out
>and assess the attitudes of the local population.
>  
>
Maybe in Afganistan but Afganistan is not Iraq.  In Iraq, they're 
killing us daily for being there.

>  
>
>>1)  Impeach our president, admit we were wrong.
>>    
>>
>
>I for one don't believe we were wrong for invading Afghanistan. 
>  
>
I'm just not sure, we the public were never given enough information to 
make a rational decision.  Again the problem with sheep-democracy is 
that we are asked to trust our leaders.  F-that.

>I am also not sorry to see Saddam gone, I did a fair amount of
>research on Saddam after the first gulf war, and he was a monster.
>
Did you do the same research on Bush Sr.?

>  I
>would hope that for the sake of all humanity we might be willing to
>get rid of and not coddle the omnsters of this world.
>  
>

You mean like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and Condoleeza?

>  
>
>>2)  Reach out to the UN for assistance in rebuilding Iraq on THEIR terms
>>- give it to them!
>>    
>>
>
>This I agree with.
>
>  
>
>>3)  Extract our troops as quickly as is reasonably possible.
>>    
>>
>
>The debate is, what is reasonable?  Is it reasonable to pull out our
>troops before a new government has had time to settle in and get its
>footing.  For we certainly do not want to leave and create a power
>vacuum which would most certainly be filled by the most violent
>factions.
>  
>

Reasonable is reasonable, I know it's a sticky situation.  Where we 
appear to disagree is that you think our presence is a stabilizing 
factor.  I think that the US presence there is likely only to 
disintegrate any legitimacy a newly formed government may have.  For 
this reason a coalition of Arab and UN forces would be the relevant 
people for helping the Iraqis form a new government.

>>4)  Reach out to the current "insurgency" and let them know that they'll
>>be getting their country back reasonably and peacefully as quickly as
>>possible and that they're invited to join in the formation of the new
>>government -and mean it-.  
>>    
>>
>
>This we do now.
>

FINALLY.  But why isn't this called "appeasement".  Funny how the 
propaganda goes.  Someone with a different attitude shares an opinion 
and it's wisdom, otherwise it's appeasement.

>  I know from experience in Afghanistan, and second
>hand from fellow soldiers who have served in Iraq that we extend every
>opportunity to all sides to join in the peaceful formation of a new
>government.  We even went so far as to offer amnesty to the taliban
>leadership if they would come and support the peaceful formation of a
>new government.
>  
>
Good!

>  
>
>Perhaps offer to make Iraq a shining example
>  
>
>>of a Libertarian utopia :)
>>    
>>
>
>Unfortunately, there are factions in both Afghanistan and Iraq who
>have a vested interest in rebuilding the old regime, many who simply
>held some power there and would like that power back.  These people
>are not at all interested in a libertarian utopia.
>

I know, you didn't sense the irony?

>  As well, while
>many of the Afghani nationals that I spoke to were interested in the
>idea of democracy, and excited about the prospect of power
>distribution, telecommunuications, education and medical care, there
>is likely a fair amount of western culture that they will not want or
>may not be ready for.
>  
>
>>(as long as I'm at it...)
>>
>>5)  Rebuild our economy by financing a massive alternative energy
>>conversion on the same debt we were going to use to pay for the rest of
>>the war obviating the percieved need for more exploratory missions to
>>the middle east.
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
>>(and now to the soapbox version of attempting to answer your question,
>>I'm sure you were looking forward to it)
>>
>> Hopefully I'd have been a better diplomat (yeah right!, me a
>>diplomat... I still piss off my wife's cat for fun) BEFORE 9/11 and
>>avoided the whole confounded incident. 
>>    
>>
>
>Don't be fooled, proper diplomacy is not always "Playing Nice",
>sometimes a show of force is the best of diplomacy.
>

Yes, and sometimes pretending to show force is enough.  There's a long 
spectrum of options, none of which were exhausted before we went to war.

>   In fact, I met a
>fair number of Afghani Men who simply had no respect for you unless
>you demonstrated a show of force.
>  
>
I live in Hawaii, it's cultural to fight with someone upon meeting them 
to figure out where you fit in the pecking order.  But wise peaceful 
people manage to avoid this kind of baloney and are respected for it.

>You sometimes have too piss on the cat in order to get things done.
>(my wife would definately show some force if I ever pissed on the cat)
>  
>
Ah, how many times I've wanted to piss on my wife's cat!  Look, I know 
that SOMETIMES force is the only solution.  I don't see that anyone has 
even started to make a convincing argument that it was in either the 
case for Afghanistan or Iraq (although intuitively I see the case could 
be made more obvious for Afghanistan).  BUT I don't see, in the light of 
my own utopian goals, how any violence at all will ever achieve anything 
-in the long run-.

>While I am not a huge fan of the current admistration, for numerous
>reasons, I would hardly count them capable of orchestrating 9/11 for
>any reason, and the presidency was still fairly new and not flailing
>so horribly as to require a 9/11 size event in order to save it.
>  
>
You don't remember the less than 30% approval ratings and inability to 
move any bill at all through congress?  I remember it vividly.  I know 
I've got coverage of it from the AP on thetip somehwere.  9/11 certainly 
greased the wheels for the pres.  And the only motivation isn't fixing a 
flailing presidency, it's also the economic rewards for the energy and 
military community to which Bush is connected by blood on all sides.

Remember we're not talking about Bush the Chimp doing it, we're talking 
about him having the help of some genuinely experienced CIA ops people 
like Papa Bush and Cheney and Rummy, et. al. 

But the fact is, I just don't know how it went down, not having seen the 
actual files of the FBI and CIA.  I DO know that the they informed the 
president that Al Quaeda was going to use planes to attack some US 
targets and that the FBI and CIA had seperately identified many of the 
targets and that the FBI had made a formal request first to the CIA and 
then to the white house for intelligence on several of the attackers 
before the case and the white house refused their relatively routine 
request.  Again, if this is simply complete idiocy or malfeasance is a 
matter of conjecture, but it's the kind of thing that an independant 
investigative committee would be appropriate for.  When these things 
came out in the official Commission (during the Rice testimony which I 
found hilarious, didn't you?) I was genuinely suprised they didn't get a 
rope and hang her and then head over to the white house.  "We really 
didn't take it seriously" she said.  Well what the fuck -does- she take 
seriously?   I mean shouldn't SOMEONE in the administration take 
terrorism and the recommendations of the FBI and CIA seriously?

>>In which case, because I'd be such a good president there'd be no need to hire
>>terrorists to give me something to do and so the whole event would have
>>been avoided.  But this possible-world day-dreaming is always so
>>ridiculous after the fact.  The possibilities to explore are the ones
>>moving forward.
>>
>>I know that the Taliban had terrible treatment of women and that might
>>be grounds for war all by itself, but then the Taliban wouldn't be the
>>first target if we were starting a war on sexism.  Perhaps to solve that
>>problem I'd try something definitively diplomatic (lap dances all
>>around?  - just a joke, lighten up people!) 
>>    
>>
>
>One particularly rough day in Afghanistan, two patrols had been
>ambushed (fortunately only minor injuries on our side) an old Sgt
>Major suddenly say, "we could solve this whole thing if we just passed
>out Beer, Porn and X-Boxes.
>
>
>This whole thing is a mess, and it may well get worse before it gets better.
>I am confident that it will get better, but only if we engage the
>whole world in the rebuilding efforts, and stop supporting tyrants of
>any stripe.
>

Who could disagree with that sentiment?  Will you turn your skepticism 
of tyranny on the US leadership? 

"You hypocrite, before you try to take the splinter out of your 
neighbor's eye, first remove the log from your own."


Robbie