Failed State Watch

Who knew, thirteen years ago, that Somalia would become a front-line state in a war on terror?  From the Times:

U.N. Says Somalis Helped Hezbollah Fighters

by ROBERT F. WORTH

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 14 — More than 700 Islamic militants from Somalia traveled to Lebanon in July to fight alongside Hezbollah in its war against Israel, a United Nations report says. The militia in Lebanon returned the favor by providing training and — through its patrons Iran and Syria — weapons to the Islamic alliance struggling for control of Somalia, it adds.

The report, which was disclosed by Reuters on Monday, appears to be the first indication that foreign fighters assisted Hezbollah during the 34-day conflict, when Israel maintained a tight blockade on Lebanon.

The report also says Iran sought to trade arms for uranium from Somalia to further its nuclear ambitions, though it does not say whether Iran succeeded.

My goodness - Iran sought uranium in Africa, but not from Niger.  If you read that too quickly, you might almost wonder whether Iraq did that, too.

And why do we care?  The US left Mogadishu after the Black Hawk Down debacle in October 1993.  The UN attempt at nation building has not taken hold in the ensuing years, and now Somalia is supplying troops to Hezbollah.

Presumably, if Somalia can develop that way, a failed, divided Iraq can become something equally ghastly.  Take it from me - I'm not sure what success is, but failure is not an option.

The Telegraph had coverage today.

   

Comments

[Wilson's a liar]

Let's see, how can we blame this on George Bush's failed Iraq policy???

[TCO]

Failure is an option. Try thinking about it dispassionately. Do we really need to be the world's policeman? Is it more effective to go in and hang (literally) rulers that offend us and then get out or to stay indefinitely? Perhaps the Stephen Decatur approach is more efficient then the rule the world approach (even including the need for an occasional "redo"). At least consider it...thoughtfully.

[clarice]

Done. No. Thanks.

[cathyf]

Presumably, if Somalia can develop that way, a failed, divided Iraq can become something equally ghastly.

Equally? Equally?!? Equally?!?!? Think more along the lines of Somalia with the world's second largest reserves of oil. They could easily make Somalia look like pussycats....

[Enlightened]

How strange that this paragraph from the Times is eerily similar in content to this Butler Report paragraph - just the names have been changed to protect the innocent I guess:

Times:
"The report also says Iran sought to trade arms for uranium from Somalia to further its nuclear ambitions, though it does not say whether Iran succeeded."

BR:

"495. During 2002, the UK received further intelligence from additional sources which identified the purpose of the visit to Niger as having been to negotiate the purchase of uranium ore, though there was disagreement as to whether a sale had been agreed and uranium
shipped."

Iraq/Iran/Africa/Uranium
Joe Wilson/Iraq/Africa/Uranium

Merry-go-round the Uranium Deals Joe Wilson brokered.......imo of course.

[Pofarmer]

Well, when a bunch of Islamist's chased us out of there 15 years ago, you should have known it wouldn't turn out particularly well.

[topsecretk9]

...The report also says Iran sought to trade arms for uranium from Somalia to further its nuclear ambitions, though it does not say whether Iran succeeded.

I want congress to investigate the UN for twisting the intelligence...since sought = bought.

[Enlightened]

The uranium triumvirate - Iraq/Iran/Africa and brother Joe knee deep in the hoopla, due to extensive knowledge of the African continent.

And what of this?

"It states that Tanzania provided “limited data” on three other shipments of radioactive materials seized in Dar es Salaam over the past 10 years."

THREE other radioactive shipments in the past ten years? Who bought it and shipped it? Was Iraq involved???????

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2300772,00.html

[Enlightened]

Our New Leadership aided by their Leaker of Record NYT, tried to put the kibbosh on this by leaking it to the terrorists. Even though it works. Which is beside the point - get Waxman on it, no more stifling terrorism in it's tracks!

"November 13, 2006: Two months of American restrictions on Iranian access to U.S. banks has forced Iran to shift most of its foreign transactions to currencies other than the dollar. This is an inconvenience, and costs the Iranians some money. If other major currencies, like the Euro and Yen, also have restrictions placed on them, Iran would have some major economic problems."

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20061116.aspx

[topsecretk9]

Enlightened...

I remember this and remember Sue put us on alert to the other buzzwords in association with Africa:

...A senior Tanzanian customs official said the illicit uranium shipment was found hidden in a consignment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered via Bandar Abbas, Iran’s biggest port....

[Sue]

Top,

Those buzz words also come up when you look into Jefferson.

[TCO]

Clarice, that was a crappy piece of analysis. About the level, I'd expect from a junior highschooler. If that is the level of your thought process, then I'm afraid that your Plamegate analysis may also be skewed and silly as well.

Do you think we should stabilize every failed state in the world? Why are we not now occupying the Horn of Africa, then?

[Sue]

Off topic, but I am trying to get onto Jawa and I keep getting an error. Would someone try http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/>Jawa to see if you can get on?

[Enlightened]

Jeesh Clarice, Jason is very angry that you garner more attention for your factual reporting on Plamegate than he does for his "facts before the newscycle" reportage.

Waaahhhbulance time.

Jason - I mean TCO, or whatever puppet you are handling tonight - or whatever puppet is handling you - oh nevermind, Glennie's calling.

[Enlightened]

Sue I can't get into Jawa either -

[azredneck]

Clarice is right on, as usual!!

[topsecretk9]

Sue
I tried and can't get break in.

[Sue]

There is a video he posted that I wanted to link somewhere. I watched it earlier today. I hope he hasn't been hacked. Maybe he is just flooded.

[Enlightened]

Ace is down too -

[name and address withheld.]

It is a complete falsehood that I, or any other distinguished Diplomat, ever brokered deals which allowed a rogue regime to obtain materials in any way connected with nuclear weapons.Whilst the twins might glow a little,this has more to do with a high fibre diet than any connection with Africa.

[Pete]

Talking of failed states - there is a front page article in Washington Post: Sectarian Strife in Iraq Imperils Entire Region, Analysts Warn.

"We're not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups," growing into regional conflict, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, said by telephone from Amman, Jordan.

"The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body," Hiltermann said.

"All indications point to a current state of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state," Nawaf Obaid, an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an adviser to the Saudi government, said last week at a conference in Washington on U.S.-Arab relations.

A must read for those who have been wildly cheerleading the Iraq war.

[happyfeet]

Golly Pete, that's sobering. The "International Crisis Group" is anticipating a crisis, and the dude on the Saudi payroll thinks overthrowing autocratic governments is bad. Front page stuff indeed.

[lurker]

No, we are not cheerleading the war in Iraq, part of GWOT.

WaPo?

Nah!

[lurker]

WaPo has the tendency of blowing things out of proportion so don't believe them.

OT: Hotair says: Never mind about that Rumsfeld war-crimes suit

[Syl]

Pete

LOL!

Then I gather you realize our leaving Iraq would be a mistake, right?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. LOL Be careful what you post.

[SunnyDay]

Pete has no idea what he just posted.

[Pete]

To be honest Syl I have never advocated immediate withdrawal but I do not know what staying in Iraq would achieve - there are no good choices left. The Bush administration has been touting for years now the tremendous progress they have been making in Iraq, the number of Iraqis trained, etc. and yet we are no better off today than we were two years ago.

[PWT]

"and yet we are no better off today than we were two years ago."

And Germany and Japan were brought in line in much less time than two years. Pull your damn skirt up and stop living in a TV reality. Cleaning up Iraq, and by proxy the middle east, is going to be a long tough slog. So be prepared to break a lot of eggs.

[Pete]

We are longer in Iraq now than we were in Germany during WWII. Iraq today is no more clean than it was two years ago. And we've burnt hundreds of billions of dollars so we have no more money or troops to break some other countries in the middle east.

[happyfeet]

Gosh Pete, we're awfully lucky WWII didn't last day longer than it did huh?

[Pete]

And we are even luckier that the shoe bomber decided not to be an underwear bomber.

[Syl]

Pete

To be honest Syl I have never advocated immediate withdrawal but I do not know what staying in Iraq would achieve - there are no good choices left.

Look, I know the situation is frustrating to ALL of us. But all the doom and gloom about Iraq is not necessarily what's happening in Iraq--that's an ongoing situation that almost by definition needs time to resolve--it's more that we just had an election in America and everyone is fighting about Iraq as if the world should conform to our beliefs about the special nature of November in America.

Why is the situation in Iraq as of November 2006 the benchmark to judge by? It's just an arbitrary date.

I mean you could look at Iraq at almost ANY point and say 'what is our staying there going to accomplish' if you're so inclined to think that way.

I think the BIG mistake the Dems made was to promise a 'new direction' when they have nothing to offer. All that did was to make people angry when they realize we either keep fighting or we quit. There's really nothing else. There's no magic bullet, just tough hard work.

[Ranger]

"there are no good choices left."

Pete

The problem is, that this statement has been true since some time in the mid 90s. I have time for people who compaline about Iraq being a mess, when they were compalining in the months after 9/11 that we hadn't addressed the Iraq problem yet. Take a look at the the leading Dems were saying then, and you will see that they were planning and setting up running to the right of Bush in 2004 for notdealing effectivly with Iraq. Bush surprised them by actually taking action. It was a surprise because it was a huge risk (the kind of thing that career politicians hate) but he did it and koncked them on their heels for 4 years. Now, they are all running to the left of him on Iraq.

And just to remind you, WWII was the clean up for not finishing WWI well, so, in effect, the war in Europe lasted from 1914 to 1945, with a break int he middle that was still very violent and chaotic at times (Spanish Civil War for example). Also, we avoided the kind of problems we are having now in Iraq with Japan by dropping a couple of Nukes on them before we occupied. Is that what you think we should have done in Iraq?

[davod]

Ranger:

Your statement "WWII was the clean up for not finishing WWI well" has become conventional wisdom. However I would suggest that this is an overly simplistic view of the lead up to WWII.

Remember, Japan was on our side in WWI. Italy was on our side, and the Russians came in on our side until they sued for peace.

I would say lack of willpower and resolve especially on the part of France and England is what started WWII in Europe.

There were a number of opportunities to stop Hitler before he got established in Germany. Taking the Rhineland was one that comes to mind. If the French had resisted, and they had much superior army, Hitler could have been defeated as a viable political candidate. Giving away Checkoslovakia (sp) as part of peace in our time was another aggregious mistake. Far better to have the Checks (sp) fight as the Poles did than have outsiders give away part of another country.

Steadfastness early on could have stopped the war in Europe. The war in Asia is another issue. However, firmness in Europe may have given the Japanese pause with regard to a direct attack on the US.

It is easy to say these things in hindsight. With the spectre of WWI in the recent past I can understand why negotiation was considered the only option. But this doesn't change the fact that Hitler could have been stopped if action was taken early.

[Ranger]

davod,

I don’t disagree with your analysis of the failure of British and French resolve in the inter-war period, but, I think the issues involved go back to how the Allies chose to attempt to resolve the conflict in 1919, that set up the entire inter war period. Machiavelli points out in the Discourses that there are basically three ways to deal with conquered polities.

1) The “soft” approach: Leave the local elite in power and co-op them. Make them full partners in the dominant power structure and leave them with sovereignty over their own territory.

2) The “middle” approach: Leave the local elite in power, but restrict their sovereignty to ensure your own security. Deny them the means (primarily weapons) to enforce their will within the territory but use their existing power structure to administer the territory.

3) The “hard” approach: Kill the local elite and replace them with your own people from your home territory.

Machiavelli said either 1 or 3 will usually work, but 2 never does because it hardens the resentment of the conquered elite while leaving them in position to foment revolt, which they eventually and inevitably will.

So, if you go back and look at Germany in 1919 and Iraq in the 90s, you see that we tried the “middle” approach, and, as predicted, it failed. Germany re-armed in the 30s and attempted to break out of the box the Allies had put her in. Likewise, Saddam continually blocked implementation of the Gulf War Ceasefire, subverted the Oil for Food program, and had it not been for 9/11, would have completely broken out of the sanctions regime at some point.

Also, and this is a minor point, Italy switched sides in both wars. In 1914 Italy was part of the central powers, but refused to join the war because the alliance was defensive, and since Germany and Austria had started the war by imposing an ultimatum on Serbia, Italy opted out, arguing that the central powers had not been directly attacked. Italy also switched sides near the end of WWII by overthrowing the Fascist government and then surrendering and co-operating with the Allies with the hope of avoiding a long and debilitating occupation (which they did).

My problem with people like Pete is that these same people would have been screaming their head off about Bush not doing enought to protect us from Terrorism in 2004 if Saddam had still been in power (just like Clinton ran to the right of Bush 41 on Bosnia in 92).

[name and address withheld.]

"We are longer in Iraq now than we were in Germany during WWII".

You are still in Germany Pete,WWII ended in 1945,it is now nearly 2007.I'll leave you to do the mathematics.

[lurker]

name and address withheld,

Actually, according to Bernard Lewis, mr. re-pete lives in pre-WWII times so add those years to his mathematics.

Enjoyed davod and ranger's posts! A nice change.

[Pete]

My problem with people like Ranger is that they make false statements about people whom they know nothing about.

Before we get into some major revisionism, let us be honest and admit that the push for the Iraq war came from Bush, Cheney and the neocons.

[lurker]

Ranger has been observing your posts for quite some time and he is right.

As for the "push", the majority of America and Congress agreed with Bush, Cheney, and the neocons. The push also came from the democrats, especially during the Clinton years. It's NOT limited to Bush, Cheney, and the necons.

And it was the right push by the majority.

[Pofarmer]

How did Bush and Cheney Push the Dim's in '98? Man, that Rove is tricky.

[PeterUK]

"Before we get into some major revisionism, let us be honest and admit that the push for the Iraq war came from Bush, Cheney and the neocons".

Yes it is much easier to opportion blame than solve the problem,which is why liberals can never solve problems.

[lurker]

PUK, don't forget the negativity coming from the liberals as well as their deliberate deceptions.

[PeterUK]

Lurker,
The technique is a nold one,shout loudly that a certain course of action will fail,then make damn sure that it does.Makes the naysayers look good and their opponents look bad.The Iraq war has been a classic of this genre,politics of the gutter,but what can one expect.

[lurker]

Aye, PUK, then we find out that they have no alternate plans and that there is no consensus among themselves towards an alternative plan.

After all, if they did have an alternate plan, what would be the outcome of their alternate plan?

[clarice]

Taheri who does know what he's talking about says there are only three option:
Win, Surrender or run away. And who do we surrender to? And how many of our troops will die in the running away? We've no one to even negotiate a withdrawal.

All the other commissions, hearings, etc. are just so much blather.

And if you want to win, who do you listen to? Carl Levin or the generals?

********

Instapundit cites this fine piece from IBD:
"
A nation that's defended Europe from aggression in the 60 years since World War II is asking why Iraq can't defend itself. The fact is, Iraqis risk their lives for their country every day.

Clearly the days when Democrats warned of a long twilight struggle and pledged to pay any price and bear any burden to ensure the success and survival of liberty are over, judging from remarks by Carl Levin, incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee.

"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves," Levin opined Wednesday at a Capitol Hill press conference. "The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."

"We cannot be their security blanket," he added. But why not, if it's in our best long-term security interest?

Yes, we should demand more of the Iraqis. But those who ask whether we can or should stop Iraqis from killing themselves forget that we're in this to stop others from killing us and using Iraq as a base camp from which to do it.

We've been Europe's security blanket for six decades. We are Japan's security blanket. We are South Korea's. It's been said that were it not for us, the French would be speaking German and the Germans would be speaking Russian. In 1938, the West decided it couldn't be Czechoslovakia's security blanket and sold out that country in Munich, Germany. The rest, as they say, is history."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=248572720653408&view=1>How long

[PeterUK]

A great power begins its decline when the ruling elite lose confidence in the ability of that nation to fulfill the attributes neccessary to maintain great power status.
If you can't do Iraq,then you can't do Iran,North Korea and you certainly can't do China.Somebody should tell Senator Levin that it doesn't take lomg before he ends up tugging his forelock to some thug.

[Pete]

We live in a democracy, not a country ruled by elites (the ruling elite sounds like a marxist/socialist slogan).

The confidence level exhibited by people is not irrational. It is based on the things that they experience. And as more time goes on and as more facts come to light, the confidence level gets more rooted to the reality.

Things like "we are making progress" are very subjective. On the other hand things like "we are spending so much", or "so many people got killed" are quantifiable. And as time goes on, the subjective measures become suspect if they are not backed up by the objective measures.

The problem is not what the confidence of the elites is. The problem is that Bush has been BSing for so long that few believe his spin of the alternate reality.

By attacking Iraq and doing nothing about North Korea, Bush already acknowledged a long time ago that we cannot do North Korea. And today we have neither the troops nor the money to do Iran, and Iran knows it.

[Ranger]

Pete,

"Doing" North Korea or Iran means using Nukes. If you are going after a big problem it makes sense to take on the smallest part of that big problem first. We haven't had the force levels to "Do" Iran or North Korea like we took on Iraq since the late 80s, and even then, our only invasion plan for Iran was an intervention in the event of a Soviet invation. We have never had a plan to invade North Korea. Our contingency plan there has always been to destroy their army if it came south.

The leaverage we have on Iran is the fact that we can sink their navy and close down their oil terminals in the Gulf if we choose to. Of course that would shoot the cost of oil on the world market through the roof. With North Korea, unless they come south of the DMZ, it has alway come down to using Nukes. That is why these problems are dificult. If they were easy, Clinton would have solved them.

Iraq was the only one of the "big three" we ever really had a military option with.

[Ranger]

Oh, and one more thing Pete. Let's remember that the "big lie" of the left is that we were "at peace" with Iraq in 2003 and Bush "chose war." In fact, we were at war with Iraq from the moment Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 until we took Baghdad in 2003. Most of that war was a war of attrition, but it was a war none the less. Only in the left wing fantasy land does dropping bombs 2 or 3 times a week and imposing a naval blockade (both acts of war under international law) not count as war because they are being carried out by a Democratic president. By 1999 UN sanctions were killing 5,000 Iraqis a month, but that's ok, since no white, Europeans were dieing, that number is irrelivent. But maybe you wanted to lift sanctions and let Saddam out of the "box" he was in. That would have solved all of our problems, right?

[Cecil Turner]

Iraq was the only one of the "big three" we ever really had a military option with.

The only winge I have is that post-9/11, the "big three" should refer to "Iran, Iraq, and Syria." Your point stands either way.

[Pete]

Ranger - I agree that Iraq was the smaller of the three.

I disgree vehemently that we were at war with Iraq on Jan 2003. Bush had many other options but had already decided on war by then. Infact the inspectors were on Iraqi soil (for which I do give credit to Bush) and were asking for a couple of more months when Bush pulled the plug on them.

On the issue of Iraqi sanctions and the lives lost, I am simply not convinced that today we are losing less lives in Iraq. The lives lost by sanctions were overstated to help end the sanctions, and there is no corresponding study to see what the effect of war is today.

[Sue]

The lives lost by sanctions were overstated

If this doesn't show that you will never win an argument with a liberal, I don't know what would.

[Pete]

Cecil Turner: "The only winge I have is that post-9/11, the "big three" should refer to "Iran, Iraq, and Syria." Your point stands either way."

That to me sounds like a position that Israel and not the US should take. If we could decouple our interests from the interests of Israel, why would Syria, Iran and Iraq be the top three in Oct 2001?

[boris]

I disgree vehemently that we were at war with Iraq on Jan 2003

Gulf War 1 ended in a cease fire. Iraq was and had been in violation of the cease fire all along, hence the mostly symbolic "attacks" from president BJ. After Afghanistan Saddam was given the chance to comply with US demands with the US military massed on the Iraq border.

Saddam chose defiance to the US demands and provided limited access to the UN. Not good enough. Once the US military shows up, compliance with US demands is required.

[lurker]

"Bush had many other options but had already decided on war by then."

Bush excerised ALL options, especially after 12 years since 1991 with Saddam violating a good number of UN resolutions. We gave Saddam a choice, which is to comply with the UN 1442 (1441?) resolution or we will go after him.

Saddam failed to comply with the UN resolution.

Sigh, the number of Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam is higher (in terms of millions and millions) than the number of Iraqi civilians killed after the invasion of Iraqi.

"The lives lost by sanctions were overstated to help end the sanctions, and there is no corresponding study to see what the effect of war is today."

Huh? I have yet to read anything regarding the lives lost by sanctions being overstated to help end the sanctions. What a bizarre statement, especially when Saddam murdered millions of the Iraqi civilians.

Saddam pushed hard to get the UN sanctions lifted so that he can resume his nuclear and bioweapon factories and build his nuclear weapons to inflict on the West.

There have always been studies on the effect of war since the beginning of history.

[lurker]

"That to me sounds like a position that Israel and not the US should take. If we could decouple our interests from the interests of Israel, why would Syria, Iran and Iraq be the top three in Oct 2001?"

These 3 countries, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, would stay as top three in Oct. 2001. Why? Because they supported and financed terrorists and harbored terrorists. They were seen as dangerous threats to the Western World.

[Cecil Turner]

If we could decouple our interests from the interests of Israel, why would Syria, Iran and Iraq be the top three in Oct 2001?

Top three state sponsors of MidEast terrorism. Syria and Iraq have (had) the added bonus of having WMD programs capable of providing weapons-grade bio agent (esp. anthrax), Iran is the greater longer-term nuclear threat, and the “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Not sure what countries you'd suggest, but these are the ones that leap out to the casual perusal.

[PeterUK]

"We live in a democracy, not a country ruled by elites (the ruling elite sounds like a marxist/socialist slogan)".

"The confidence level exhibited by people is not irrational. It is based on the things that they experience".

Pete you have a ruling elite,how much does it cost to run for Senator let alone President.When did your party ever ask for your opinion,rather than tell you what to think via the MSM.How many politicians do you know on a social level,even the poor ones who are not multi-millionaires?

What "experience" have you got of Iraq at all,just to pick one example?

Power without the political will to use it,as evinced by the pitiful display of pre-emptive cringing by the Democrat party,will simply create more pressure the boundaries of your determination by the competition.I call it competition because liberals believe they don't have enemies.
This is born out by USBs conclusion drawn from Vietnam and Somalia.
Cutting and running in Iraq will confirm this belief,undoubtedly Saddam Hussein believed that no one could intervene when he invaded Kuwait.It is down to perceptions,if you are thought too weak kneed to act some dictator will act out his fantasies.

[Ranger]

Pete,

At what point does commiting "acts of war" become a "war" for you?

Yes, the effect of sanctions were over stated by some. The opponents of snactions claimed that sanctions were killing 5,000 children a month. In fact, it was only 5,000 people total. But what if that were over stated? How many innocent Iraqi civilians a month would you have been willing to kill just to maintian the status quo? 2,500? 1,000?

If innocent people are going to die, I would rather see it done in the name of progress towards a better future rather than just "keeping Saddam in his box."

[PeterUK]

"nfact the inspectors were on Iraqi soil (for which I do give credit to Bush) and were asking for a couple of more months when Bush pulled the plug on them".

The inspectors were admitted ONLY because there was a large invasion force on the border.This force could not be left sweltering in the desert indefinitely.

The inspection was NOT simply about locating WMD,it was to ascertain that Saddam Hussein had given up all ambitions to acquire them,Hans Blix said he had not.
There is more than ample evidence that Saddam Hussein intended renewing his WMD progammes as soon as was opportune.The sanctions and overflights were under severe pressure,as we know know,by several major countries and organisation,sanctions could not be maintained permanently.
Iraq's air defences had locked on and fired on aircraft in the "No Fly Zone",this in itself was in contravention of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement.It is also an act of war.
Essentially what the cutters and runners propose to do,is return the situation to pre 2003,if they hurry they can re-install Saddam Hussein before he swings.
All the lives lost and the pain will have been for nothing.

[lurker]

Came back to ask this question regarding the following comment:

Bush had many other options but had already decided on war by then.

So what other options did you see that Bush should have exercised before invading Iraq?

Bush did indeed gave Saddam time and ultimately a deadline. Saddam ignored it.

[PeterUK]

There is one question that the liberal "Back to the Future" brigade never answers,"Why did Bush want the Iraq war"?
Saddam Hussein is a crook with billions of dollars in Oil For Food money at his disposal,the Haliburton angle simply will not work,all Bush had to do was cut a deal,like the French and the Russians,peace and tranquility with money in the bank.

[Pete]

We didn't lose a single aircraft or a single serviceman flying over the no fly zone.

Now routinely our choppers are shot at in Iraq, several have been shot down, several of our servicemen have been shot down and killed.

The "cure" is worse than the "disease".

[Ranger]

We didn't lose a single aircraft or a single serviceman flying over the no fly zone.

Now routinely our choppers are shot at in Iraq, several have been shot down, several of our servicemen have been shot down and killed.

The "cure" is worse than the "disease".

Posted by: Pete | November 17, 2006 at 03:50 PM

Which just proves my point, the only lives you care about are white, European ones. Who cares how many Iraqis die? Obviously not you.

And once again, I have to point out, that before 2003 Iraqis were dieing to maintain the status quo, now they are dieing for the chance of a better future. In the eyes of a "progressive" which is a more nobel death?

And, once again I will ask the question you have not answer: At what point to acts of war committed on a daily basis become a war?

[PeterUK]

It would have happened Pete,when it did,what do you do then?Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq than Bush.
Sorry Pete,globalisation includes war,you can't just stick your head up your arse and hope it will pass you by.
Sanctions and No Fly Zone could not be kept up forever,the latter by the way were to stop Saddam Hussein slaughtering the Kurds,when these were lifted,the genie would be out of the bottle.

[lurker]

We didn't lose a single aircraft or a single serviceman flying over the no fly zone.

Now routinely our choppers are shot at in Iraq, several have been shot down, several of our servicemen have been shot down and killed.

The "cure" is worse than the "disease".

This is a bizarre comment, which makes absolutely no sense at all. If re-pete was alive 250 years ago, would he be defending USA?

[sbw]

Pete, does the fact you left the discussion when your conventional wisdoms were put at risk mean that comfort is more important to you than understanding?

[Pete]

Ranger - My position is simply that we are not the policemen of the world, and race has nothing to do with it (and I am not white).

Civil war does not sound to me as a better future.

Meanwhile Kissinger himself declares: Iraq Military Win Impossible.

On the issue of acts of war, we had complete control of the no fly zones and we did not lose a single aircraft. While not the ideal situation, I would prefer that any day to where we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars and where thousands are dying, including both our own and innocent Iraqis.

[Pete]

sbw - I have barely had time to skim through one of your link (http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/stories/storyReader$515), which really did not put any of my conventional wisdom at risk.

Infact what I have said is that it is the pro-war side which has been consistently wrong and which has never harbored any doubt about their positions, EVEN when their positions have turned out to be wrong time and again.

And yet you continue to critique only those who oppose the war.