Subject: Fed-up with Iraq war bickering

From: Jan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:20:20 -0400

For the record. I believe that the Iraq invasion was a colossal
political, diplomatic and military blunder.  It would have been far
better, in my estimation to complete the job in Afghanistan.
 If the resources now being wasted in Iraq had been deployed to
Afghanistan, that country may have looked better now than it does.
 America would have retained the world opinion it had achieved and
could grow in stature by assisting in the re-building that sorry land.
*That* would have been something for which to be proud.
 A free Afghanistan would also have been a far better beacon for the
world than the current Iraq situation.  However, it should also be
born in mind that Afghanistan has only been conquered once in its
entire history.
  It seems to me to be the height of stupidity to pursue another war
when the first one isn't brought to a successful conclusion.
Having said that. The Iraq war is now history. It happened. No amount
of rhetoric, back-stabbing, snide comments or slanderous insults is
going to change it.  Live with it, move on, and hope against hope that
*some* good will eventually emerge, bearing in mind that when Iraq was
first formed as a country it took something like 20 years to lick it
into shape, and even then was not 100% successful.
 To those who blather on about *peace* in the world, in my 67 years on
this sorry excuse for a civilized planet, I do not recall one year in
which there was peace throughout the world, there was always some spat
going on somewhere. 
 My brother made an interesting comment during my last visit to
England. He had spent over 20 years in the British army and said that
since the Battle of Waterloo, the British army has had one year in
that time-span when it has not been in action somewhere in the world .
If this is true, and frankly I don't have the time or inclination to
check it out, then the American record, which keeps cropping up, fades
into insignificance.

That's my rant for the day. Not that it will do any good.<g>

Jan

"If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined"

---

From: bforester <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:20:36 -0300

>That's my rant for the day. Not that it will do any good.<g>

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, Jan. But in my estimation
the bickering isn't over Iraq only .. it's the clash of two
irreconcilable ideologies. 

One is liberal, multilateral, internationalist,  the other is
conservative (in a harsher sense than what we are used to in Canada)
and unilateral and nationalistic. We thought the latter had seen its
day and were surprised to see it surface in such a virulent form.
Maybe 9/11 did it .. it's MY only explanation for the sudden eagerness
to solve all problems, no matter how complicated, by force.

Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Marian)
Date: 14 Oct 2003 22:04:35 GMT

>to solve all problems, no matter how complicated, by force.

Quite so, Paul

Sinclair has left for Oz. On Thursday I leave for France for a month. Should be
a respite in 'bickering' threads for a time...
Y'all will have to find your *own* articles. 

Marian<LOL>
************************************************
War is Hell, but business is Great... 
http://www.PictureTrail.com/gid1209821&pathID=1753
**********************************************

---

From: Gordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:45:26 +0100

Marian <[email-masked]> wrote
>>>
>Sinclair has left for Oz.

I've not read anything from Sea today, has she gone with him?
He's a sly dog......
-- 
Gordon

---

From: bforester <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:30:43 -0300

>Y'all will have to find your *own* articles. 

Have a great time in France, Marian, and enjoy those lovely baguettes
and pastry that no one here can imitate. 

Paul

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:00:19 +1000

> That's my rant for the day. Not that it will do any good.<g>
=============
I feel it's very important to keep abreast of what has happened, what
is happening. I agree with you about Afghanistan and not Iraq. Of
course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was essentially for
empire building and to usurp Iraq's oil and economy.

IMO, the situation in Iraq, the UN's decisions, etc are very
important for the world, which is why there is so much focus
on it. How it goes will make a difference between the Bush
regime attempting to gain dictatorial control of the world vs
the US being a part of the world and working in cooperation
with the world as they always have in the past. I appreciate
the articles which are posted here and appreciate debate,
but not personal attacks and abuse.

I don't feel that just because we're older we should
dissociate ourself from what is happening in the international
arena since it will affect all of us, and most especially our
children and our children's children.

Bobbie

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:03:50 +1000

> to solve all problems, no matter how complicated, by force.
=============
I agree with you Paul and am both surprised and shocked by the rise
in unilateral, nationalistic thinking and the focus on use of force to
solve all problems. In reality, this use of force is causing more
problems.

REVENGE BEGETS ONLY REVENGE
http://www.iht.com/articles/113475.html

Bobbie

---

From: Jan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:15:19 -0400

>to solve all problems, no matter how complicated, by force.

  Interesting concept Paul, however, I see the reactions as being
caused simply by fear.   Remember that until 9/11 any attacks on US
and other countries installations were in foreign lands. This could be
reported at supper time on CNN and be greeted with the expected
tut-tutting, in turn to be followed by the evening's 'entertainment'.
  9/11 on the other hand brought the reality of terror activities
right into the States which had some idea that this could never happen
to them. 
   Once this happened there was turmoil.  For those on the left it was
a case of "Why do they hate us so much, we must find out and make them
love us."  While for the right, it was a case of "Let's blow them
away."  Basically the pacifist side driven by the fear that anything
they do may upset someone and make things worse and the aggressive
side driven by the fear that if they don't  do something it will only
get worse. The fore-going is of course greatly simplified.
  When I mentioned this event to my brother who was in ignorance of it
as he happened to be in Portugal at the time. He had seen it on TV in
a bar, but not speaking the language sufficiently well to follow the
report assumed it was advertising a new movie.<g>  His comment to me
was, "Tough, we've lived  with that shit for 30 years."  Thinking
about this seemingly heartless comment, I realised he was right.  This
terrorism thing has been going on for years, but the US was in
isolation from it, so could ignore it.
  Now we come to the complicated bit. I don't believe the States has
the psyche, for want of a better word, for peace-keeping or
peace-making.  The whole attitude, even from the left is to attack,
using any excuse or ammunition available, hence the acrimony and name
calling.  The left attacks the right for doing something, the right
attacks the left and the perceived enemy.  Both going 'gung-ho' at it.
  I don't believe the concept of "Softly, softly, catchee monkey" has
any meaning for them. By them I am referring to the government and the
top military brass who seem incapable of learning from other's
mistakes. 
   As an example of the last. During the days of the Viet-nam war, my
BIL as a member of the SAS went, with a team to Viet-nam to advise the
American military on what to do to win.  This advice was based on
British knowledge, hard-won I might add, in Malaya.  The concept was
the one talked about a great deal now of winning the hearts and minds
of the locals.  The Brit approach in Malaya was one of going to a
village and talking to the head-man.  Telling him they were aware that
the bandits were taking their rice and leaving them hungry and did
they want this to continue, they were not blaming the village for
feeding the communists as the villagers had no choice.  If the village
head-man agreed that he would rather keep the rice for his own people,
then all he was advised to do was send someone, after the bandits had
left, to advise the Brits.  They then pursued the bandits, set up
ambushes and killed them.  Gradually, very gradually, they cleaned up
area after area by this method and had the local people on their side.
The American brass ignored this advice, stating they would do it their
way and promptly destroyed village after village, getting hate from
the villagers instead of assistance.  The bottom line was that the
Brits won in Malaya while the Americans were forced to leave Viet-nam.
  The same thing happened in Afghanistan. I read a report where some
US special forces, working with their Brit counter-parts had subdued
one of the northern areas.  They were on good terms with the locals,
respected their traditions regarding the women and didn't use much
force at all.   The locals then told them where the arms dumps were,
when the Al-quaida or the Taliban were in the area and where.  In
short, full co-operation in return for kindness, respect and medical
treatment for those who needed it.
Then some US paratroops were assigned to the area. The special forces
guys briefed them on what had been going on and that all was quiet,
they offered to accompany the paratroop patrols as they were known to
the locals.  I believe it was a captain in charge of the paras who
said, "I don't need your help, we'll do it my way."  His way was to
kick in doors to search for weapons, even into the women's quarters,
which was a definite no-no.  One of the special force men reported
that, "This arse-hole has undone 6 months of hard work in a few
hours."
  I read another report recently from Iraq which I refrained from
posting because quite frankly it made me sick to read it. (If you are
interested, let me know, I'll either post it here or  send it by
e-mail.)   It seems an American officer, deciding that some local
farmers had not been telling all they knew, ordered the fields and
date-palms bull-dozed in retaliation. (Does this sound familiar?)
 This is heartless and in direct  violation of the Geneva Convention
regarding the treatment of civilians in occupied territories. This
particular officer, if the report is true, should be hauled before the
world court and sentenced.  However, I don't see this happening, but
with this attitude, I can, unfortunately see nothing but disaster
ahead and hope that the British government will withdraw their troops
from this theatre.
  I too am glad that our government did not support this ill-advised
adventure other than the ships we already had in the area.  However, I
do feel that Cretien should have offered moral support and not got
into the Bush bashing that several of his members did.

Sorry this is so long, but one thing seemed to lead naturally to the
next.  

Jan

---

From: bforester <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:29:57 -0300

>> to solve all problems, no matter how complicated, by force.

A very disturbing article, so many innocent people killed! And the act
was in response of .... which was in response of .... which was in
response of .... which was in response of .. which was in response of
... and on an on. And the dummies on both sides sit and decide that if
only we get tough enough all this will stop! They haven't heard of
human nature or basic psychology .. !

Paul

---

From: Jan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:00:13 -0400

>> That's my rant for the day. Not that it will do any good.<g>
Bobbie, I've interspersed my responses to your post as you covered
>empire building and to usurp Iraq's oil and economy.

Other than stating, as I have, that I feel the whole adventure was
ill-advised and a blunder, I will not speculate further on the
reasons.  You, of course are entitled to your own opinions. I don't
hate the US, I just think a great mistake was made.  In fact I admire
President Bush for taking action against terrorism. I just question
his methods.

>with the world as they always have in the past.

Your faith in the UN is touching. I'm afraid I do not share your faith
in that body doing anything constructive.  Koffi Annan has shown
himself to be weak as far as I'm concerned and not suitable for the
post.   He permitted the genocide in Rwanda.  When he was advised by
the Canadian General on the spot what was happening, he ignored his
pleas for assistance and clearance to take action. As a result,
several Belgian peace-keepers lost their lives. Not to mention about a
million Africans.
   Again, during Gulf War 1, it was the 'glorious' UN that stopped the
pursuit of Saddam's army into Iraq.  That was the time to have ended
Husseins rule once and for all.  Therefor, in my opinion,
responsibility for the current Iraq debacle rests on the shoulders of
the UN, not the US.   
Those clowns at the UN do not seem to get it through their little
liberal heads that war is war and must be ended in one way or another.
A cease fire is not the end. Surely to God, WW1 ending in a cease-fire
and armistice should have taught them something, but obviously it
didn't which makes the blood-shed of that time all the more pathetic.

> I appreciate the articles which are posted here and appreciate debate,

You must be one of the few.<g>  Any article I've seen posted here has
been left-wing propaganda posted by Marian.  If Marian had posted her
own thoughts on the subjects that would have been different but she
gives the impression of never having had an original thought pass
through her head.  I agree with you about debate, but I've seen
precious little of it here.  The general tone which I can determine is
one of mud-slinging at the US and President Bush himself.  One cannot
debate a news-paper article either as the writer is not present to
defend their stance.

>children and our children's children.

With three wars, in which I have been a somewhat unwilling
participant, under my belt, I can't get too excited at what happens
elsewhere else in the world.  However, should some country decide to
invade or threaten Canada, I'll be first in line to be armed and I'll
certainly take a few of them with me.  If it's to affect my kids and
grand-kids, they will have to learn to deal with it as I had to.
Jan

---

From: [email-masked] (Marian)
Date: 15 Oct 2003 04:29:45 GMT

>From: Jan
[...]
>Any article I've seen posted here has
>defend their stance. [...]

When I post an article, the stance becomes mine own and I will defend it
against all comers. Why should I natter on with a personal, private opinion
when others say what I mean so much better?

Marian

---

From: [email-masked] (Marian)
Date: 15 Oct 2003 04:42:08 GMT

>> to solve all problems, no matter how complicated, by force.

Spiraling tragedy. Sharon with his penchant for military solutions certainly
finds boon companions in our Dubya-Cheney, doesn't he? But Sharon isn't only
about military solutions. He was the one who initiated the settler program, and
continues it to this day...   Marian
************************************************
War is Hell, but business is Great... 
http://www.PictureTrail.com/gid1209821&pathID=1753
**********************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Marian)
Date: 15 Oct 2003 04:46:25 GMT

>I've not read anything from Sea today, has she gone with him?

Trust you to put a chuckle into this thread, Gordon...

Marian<vbg>

---

From: [email-masked] (Marian)
Date: 15 Oct 2003 04:48:39 GMT

>and pastry that no one here can imitate. 

Thank you, Paul! I intend to, but will probably be here until Thursday noonish
when I have to present myself at the airport.

Marian<g>

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:58:33 +1000

> human nature or basic psychology .. !
==============
I agree with you 100%. I assume you heard about the peace
plan which Israeli opposition leaders and Palestinians have
been working on.

"Israeli opposition politicians, intellectuals and former Palestinian
ministers have united to propose a peace plan to put an end to years
of bloodshed in the region. Under the proposals, drawn up after two
and a half years of clandestine negotiations, the Palestinians would
give up the right of return for refugees who fled or were forced out
of what is now Israel in 1948. In exchange, a new Palestinian state
would have sovereignty over one of the most fought-over sites in the
world: the Haram al-Sharif, or Temple Mount, sacred to Jews and
Muslims."

I read a number of articles yesterday which discussed the entire plan,
which looks quite good. However, it won't happen as long as Sharon's in
power.
He immediately rejected the plan without even looking at it and said:
"By what right are left-wing people proposing moves that Israel can never
do,
nor will ever do?" Not while he's in power, certainly.

For the complete article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=453125

Bobbie

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:49:12 +1000

> Sorry this is so long, but one thing seemed to lead naturally to the
===========
Excellent analysis! As for the points you made:

* Terrorism has been going on for years, but the US was
 isolated from it, so could ignore it..............................
I feel the big difference was that it was a large terrorist
attack in their country. And the general American attitude
tends to be that they are so strong that nobody would
dare attack their country.

* Driven by fear.....................................................
Instead of calming the fear and encouraging resolution
of the trauma and PTS, the Bush regime used the fear
and shock to institute their propaganda program in order
to increase the fear, trauma and PTS, in order to put in
place the Neo-Con's NPAC plan for empire-building
and world domination by a fascist style dictatorship,
of the world, of the US. As far as I'm concerned,
using the trauma and fear for their mind control
of the US population was a moral crime.

* I don't believe the States has  the psyche for peace-keeping or
peace-making.............................................
I don't either. The psyche has developed into a penchant for
wars, power and control and violence as the answer for
anything. Violence is even the theme of the national anthem:
'rocket's red flare, bombs bursting in the air......' The
emphasis in dealing with other nations has always tended to
be attack, control, blackmail, threaten, coerce. However,
this is by far the worst I have ever seen it. I had hoped
that as the US matured it would drop the frontier mentality
and gain negotiation, diplomacy and as you say, 'Softly,
softly, catchee monkey' skills. But, I don't see any signs
of this happening, and it certainly won't happen while
the wild west cowboy is in office.

* Malaya & the Brits/ Vietnam & the Yanks.............
The differences in approach have been patently obvious
for half a century. The Brits way works, the Yank way
creates more angst, anger and retaliation. I've been
following the situation in Afghanistan closely and I agree
with your assessment there as well. And, as you say,
the same thing is happening in Iraq, and will keep getting
worse as long as the Yanks are determined to occupy
Iraq and usurp their oil and economy. The UN and the
more 'mature' nations are aware of this. Even the less
'mature' nations are aware of this.

* Yank bulldozing of Iraqi date palms in retaliation........
I read that article too and like you was so aghast that
it took me a day to even post it to my epals
around the world. Shades of Nazi Germany. I
evidently deleted it and couldn't find it again. If you
still have it, I think you should post it.

* Involvement in US Iraq war......................
I'm proud of the Canadian government's stand
as well, and ashamed of our participation there.
At least we've withdrawn our troops. I agree
that Britain should as well.

Bobbie

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:52:19 +1000

> grand-kids, they will have to learn to deal with it as I had to.
===========
I accept our different opinions. Thanks for the answering in a
rational debate style.

Bobbie

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:59:32 +1000

> continues it to this day...   Marian
==============
You're right there....all the opinions you expressed.
Bobbie

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:00:41 +1000

> when others say what I mean so much better?
=============
I thought I'd let you answer what I saw as a personal attack on you.
You answered it very well. Good on you!
Bobbie

---

From: Gordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:51:20 +0100

>Trust you to put a chuckle into this thread, Gordon...
I was staying on topic - I am fed up with the bickering. :-)
-- 
Gordon

---

From: Gordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:52:10 +0100

>when I have to present myself at the airport.
Flip-charts or audio-visual?
-- 
Gordon

---

From: Jan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:31:25 -0400

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:49:12 +1000, "Barbara Christian"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

<Hacked out original post>
>> Sorry this is so long, but one thing seemed to lead naturally to the

Thank you, we humble colonials do our best<g>

>dare attack their country.

Of course, this is what I meant.  Suddenly reality was thrust upon the
US, a reality that other countries had been experiencing for years.
>of the US population was a moral crime.

First I'm not too sure about this PTS and trauma stuff, I've never had
it and I've had plenty of trauma.  I admit I think of it in term of
yet another pseudo science to keep social workers in employment.
I don't really think the US is out for world domination in the usual
sense.  I think it was a reaction to a violent attack that started the
whole ball rolling.  Remember  that Afghanistan was the first target,
and the US had full co-operation for that adventure.
>the wild west cowboy is in office.

Once again I don't want to comment on President Bush. I believe he is
following the counsel of his advisors and had to do something. In
Afghanistan I think he was correct, in Iraq, no, he blew it.
>'mature' nations are aware of this.

I think there's something deeper than oil involved. The US got all the
oil it needed from the ME without going to war. To me, that just does
not make sense.
>still have it, I think you should post it.

I held off on that one as I have explained elsewhere.
>that Britain should as well.

I don't see Blair withdrawing the troops as yet, it would be an
admission of failure for him, and I don't think he likes failure.
Jan

---

From: "Barbara Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:52:59 +1000

> Jan
============
Have you read the NPAC papers and strategies? You
might change your mind about hegemonic agendas if
you do. If you're interested, I can send you some of
the documents.

Bobbie