lulldapull

Published on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
The War on Terror is Being Lost
The Greatest Obstacle to Reducing the Threat is the US Administration
by Richard Norton-Taylor


Forget all the arguments about Iraq, we are told. We have had Hutton and Butler, Tony Blair won't apologise for misleading the public and parliament, and it is time to move on. But how can we possibly move on? The invasion of Iraq has cost the lives of more than 1,000 American and more than 60 British soldiers. Put on one side the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction and the fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed less of a threat to its neighbours - let alone the west - last year than when western governments were supplying his regime with WMD precursors right up to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

For Blair, as well as Bush and his neocons, an invasion of Iraq would topple a vicious dictator, help the "war on terror" by preventing nasty weapons getting into the hands of al-Qaida sympathisers and promote democracy in the Middle East and neighbouring central Asia.

We have just witnessed the latest manifestation of the so-called war on terror in the Caucasus. Further east, across the oil-rich Caspian, lies Uzbekistan, where the US turns a blind eye to serious human rights abuses in return for military bases for the same war on terror. They were initially used to attack the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, where elections are due next month - an event the US has done little to prepare for, wary of upsetting warlords, while leaving responsibility for security to its European Nato allies, which are unwilling or unable to provide.

In Iraq - described with out irony by the Bush administration as the new "front line" in the war on terror - the US has installed a government of placemen. As the respected Iraq expert Toby Dodge observes in Survival, the International Institute for Strategic Studies journal, it has "a high proportion of formerly exiled politicians in the cabinet and a prime minister closely associated with the intelligence arms of both the British and American governments".

The insurgency, he writes, is a home-grown phenomenon, springing from the political and security failures of the occupation. Foreign troops, he suggests, will be needed "for many years to come if anarchy is to be avoided". Dodge adds pointedly: "In the 20s and 30s, the hegemonic power seeking to recreate Iraq was Britain. The 1920 revolt made the occupation extremely unpopular with the British people and led to a change in government in London. The result was that state-building in Iraq was sacrificed at the altar of British domestic politics."

Blair insists his government will not walk away from countries it has helped occupy. The bigger question is how he will achieve his stated objectives of promoting democracy and human rights in the Middle East (as well as the road map to a peace deal between Israel and Palestine), fighting poverty, and giving a much-needed boost to a UN-focused internationalism. All this would help, much more than military occupation, in the fight against terrorism.

In a telling comment last week, Mai Yamani, of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, described the annual get-together at Oxford University of the Project for Democracy Studies in Arab Countries. The participants, she wrote in the International Herald Tribune, represented the "lost resources of an Arab world that is fast becoming isolated by illiteracy, ignorance, and repression".

A new generation "denied the opportunity to participate in a range of democratic institutions or other vehicles for public self-expression, is finding more dangerous outlets for its passions". Yamani quoted a Saudi researcher at an English university as remarking: "It's easier for a young Arab to blow himself up than sweep outside his house. He doesn't feel he belongs to anything."

It is hard not to conclude that one of the greatest obstacles to the kind of better world Blair says he wants - one with less cause for terrorism, even if terrorists will always be around - is the Bush administration, and notably the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. They have consistently dismissed British interests and embarrassed a prime minister who has attached himself so closely to the president with such little reward.

What did Blair think when delegates at last week's Republican convention booed speakers who mentioned the UN? How much longer can Blair, or his ministers, accept to be led by a US administration that denigrates everything they say they stand for? Asked at his press conference yesterday whether the war on terror can be won, Blair replied: "We can win it and I believe ultimately we will win it. But it is going to require emphasis not only on security, but tackling other issues as well." There is absolutely no sign he is succeeding in tackling them, not least because his closest ally, the US president, is simply not interested.

· Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor.

Leader

No it's bleeding hearts like you.

__________________

Confed999

Could call him a mouth piece of the conspiracy theists too.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Leader

LOL

Leader

Lul,

I want you to tell us how many of these questions you'd answer "yes" to.

source

I'm putting the over-under at 30.

lulldapull

And here are my answers:

1) Do you think a significant percentage of prominent Republicans would secretly like to see the US become a theocracy?

Ans. NO

2) Do you believe it was a mistake to go to war in Afghanistan?

Ans. NO

3) In your opinion, is it a myth that American soldiers were spit on when they returned from Vietnam?

Ans. Its not a myth! They were called baby killers and spat on!

4) Michael Moore's distribution group, Front Row Entertainment, received help marketing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Lebanon from the terrorist group Hezbollah. Do you believe that was appropriate?

Ans. Apropriate or not, Hezbollah is a reaction to the brutal invasion and massacres of civilians caught in the cross fire by the Israeli terrorists. As a side note, Hezbollah had every right to expel occupying israeli forces from Lebanon. And that it did


5) Do you think you can be a patriotic American and support Iraq's anti-occupation resistance?

Ans. No Ironman, You cannot! Until and unless you lift bush boys wrinkled balls. Until that is done, you can only be a "defeatist" or a an enemy sympathiser who ought to be thrown in Camp X-ray

6) Do you think there is a significant chance that the capture of Saddam Hussein was timed to help George Bush politically?

Ans. Perhaps. Nothing can be far fetched now that we know that these Neo-con thugs and their sponsoring thugs (republicans) lied to the American ppl about each and every single reason to go to war against Iraq!

7) In your opinion, is there a significant chance that Diebold is rigging elections in order to help the GOP?

Ans. No....but the majority of the American public is the good old jahil 'Hill-jack'..who is essentially an uneducated peasant, and thus prone to being manipulated using simple/ humble patriotic rhetoric and propaganda.

8) Is George Bush more "evil" than Saddam Hussein?

Ans. No!

9) In your opinion, is there a significant chance that Republicans rigged some of the Senate races in 2002?

Ans. No. But it doesn't matter. Whether Bush or Kerry in the house, policy remains the same. Just with Republicans we get the more "jahil" and embarrassing bible bigot crowd in the house. A disgrace to this world considering that its the year 2005!

10) Was Ingrid Newkirk right when she said, "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals"?

Ans. Thats an absurd question, but tio a fundo influenced by middle eastern theology...it becomes relevant.

11) Is there any nation in the world that's more of a force for good than the United States?

yes...the non aligned EU nations! Trust me........a good lesson in life is to stay out of other ppl's business. Despite your Allah or God so vehemently advising you to the contrary....and fiddle that finger in your buddies fun-hole.

12) In your opinion, is the US a "stingy" country?

Ans. Abolutely No! It is the most generous!

13) Is there a significant chance that America will become a fascist state in let's say the next 10 years?

Ans. Actually, with the impending debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will hopefully once again revert to the good ol days of introversion.

14) Do you think there's a significant possibility that liberals will be rounded up and put into some sort of camps in let's say the next 10 years?

Ans. Comeon man.....

15) Is America an imperialist nation in your opinion?

Ans. Unfortunately from time to time, it has leaned towards that. you have to remember that when we were not involved with this "dirty business" of playing king maker/ global cop......ours was an innocent country.

16) Do you think "losing" in Vietnam was good for America?

Ans. I hate to say it, but yes! Someone had to knock some sense into jahil fundo armageddonist/ apocalyptic bible bigots. A disgerace to this whole planet...just like their jahil islamic mouzlum cousins.

17) Are you sometimes ashamed to be an American?

As soon I see 'that' buffon's face on TV, or some one in the world pouring scorn on him and his thugs...and also on us ( indirectly), yeah I do!

18) Do you think it's wrong for the President to put the welfare of Americans ahead of the welfare of people in other countries?

Ans. Absolutely. I am sure you have seen the rabid increase in the bum population in your city......How about spending a billion a week on them???? yeah???

19) Do you see significant, noteworthy, parallels between America and Nazi Germany?

Ans. Comeon dude, thats ludicrous.

20) In your opinion, was Iraq primarily a "war for oil"?

Ans. Yes! And getting rid of a former fello thug.....for insubordination.

21) What about Afghanistan? Was that primarily a "war for oil" as well?

Ans. ridiculous question. NO!

22) Do you think it's likely a draft will be declared by the end of George Bush's term?

Ans. No! I think these misadventures will end sooner. Its a lesson for all of us to keep thugs and fundos in check! no matter what the provocation. Iraq was not a threat!...

23) Do you think Iraq was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place?

Ans. Woodwards/ Scheuer's book 'the plan of attack' and ' thru our enemies eyes/ why the west is losing the war on terror' contradict that assertion. it however took prominance in the 'Fog of war' and hysteria that followed the 9-11 attacks.

24) In your opinion, is sleep deprivation a form of torture?

Ask that from the thousands the U.S. military is experimenting with. It is a disgrace that our intelligence agencies have to resort to such means to extort info. And that too 99.99% of the time from the wrong subjects. the vast majority of the detainees have been released after tortyre lasting years, in some cases.

25) Would you prefer that we lose in Iraq?

Ans. I want the U.S. out of there. The sooner the better. We can't win buddy!.... wake up!

26) Do you believe anyone who goes to Afghanistan or Iraq as a soldier is fighting for an evil cause under an evil commander in chief?

Ans.childish question........fit for your old buddy.....norman terror boy!

27) Was Michael Moore correct when he said, "There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie?"

Ans. I don't care what he said. ofcourse there is a threat! But it doesnot emanate from Iraq!

28) Is there in your opinion a significant chance that the Bush administration either was behind 9/11 or knew it was coming and allowed it to happened?

Ans. Another one for the christian broadcast network. A totaly jahil question.

29) Do you think there is a significant possibility that the Bush administration had a hand in Paul Wellstone's death?

Ans. No.

30) Do you believe that somebody rigged the vote in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election?

Ans. Ohio...Being a fello Ohioan myself...am well aware of the rural/ hillbilly peasant folk of that pathetic state. But I doubt it! That shiit hole was about as republican s you can get......left the downtown Cleveland area....an Cincinnatti. Columbus god-damn sucked pretty bad too!

31) In your opinion, do you think there is a significant chance that the Bush administration was behind the anthrax letters that were mailed out to some members of the media and US Senate?

Ans. no actually some of our very 'esteemed' fellow citizens.... christian fundo right
apocalyptic/ armaggeddonist thugs from the 'Army of God" our own fricken Hezbollah were behind it. ......and once again a pretty forceful and pathetic reminder that a large chunk of our country is still very very jahil!

32) Had George Bush lost the election, do you believe there was a significant chance Republicans would have thrown a coup?

Ans. No man!

33) Do you believe there's a significant chance that Karl Rove or someone else in the Bush administration had something to do with the last minute appearance of the Bin Laden tape right before the Nov. 2nd election?

Ans. No.

34) Do you believe comparisons of George Bush to Hitler are appropriate?

Ans. No! but hat doesbn't absolve that buffoon! He is a disgrace to our nation. Hated....literally hated world wide. And a symbol of that world wide scorn now.

35) Do you think Communism could work if the right people were running it?

Ans. Who cares?....I like their weapons....sluts! and ofcourse vaadka!

36) Do you believe that black Americans who support and vote Republican are betraying their race?

Ans. Once again, Who cares?

37) Do you think people who say Al-Qaeda doesn't exist are right?

Ans. No those ppl are jahil also. if there is a threat to the U.S. then it is Al-qaeda.

38) Are the insurgents in Iraq roughly comparable to Americans who fought against the British in your opinion?

Ans. Aaaaaaahhhh Different era....absurd comparison...once again who cares man.

39) Do you believe Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur was correct when she said, "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown"?

Ans. Marcy or Darcy! The point here is that when you play.....you gotto pay man. Now we gotto pay....if we implement the Neo-con doctrine, then we have to cough up money. one billion a week is not sustainable by any superpower...let alone our current broke ass economy.

40) Do you believe there's a significant chance that the US Government knows where Bin Laden is and is deliberately allowing him to remain free?

Ans. No. thats ridiculous.

Julie

You believe that? That's why they are pushing to lift the Arms Embargo on China? To start an arms race with Taiwan? Come on.

Officer of Engineers

Can someone explain to me why China is being painted as the new Evil Empire. While the Evil part can be debated, the Empire part definetely is overstated. The People's Republic of China is NOT the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and they have no desire to be, seeing how the USSR was bankrupted from being a superpower.

Even taking the most optimistic (or pessimestic) view of the PLA, they would not be anything close to even half the strength of the former Soviet military juggernaut. The USSR made their own weapons, have a complete understanding of doctrine, and the knowhow to design weapons that fit their ideas of warfighting. The best machines the Chinese have are imported or modified foreign designs. That tells me that they still have not grasp the full fundamentals of modern warfare.

At its height, the USSR fielded two ocean going fleets, an air force that can cross the Artic Circle into the US, over 1000 MIRVed ICBMs/SLBMs to melt the world, and command over 200 divisions to grind both NATO and China into a bloody pulp.

What would China be in the foreseeable future? A land force restricted to its borders, an AF that is litterally rusting apart, some 20 ICBMs and no SLBMs, and a brown water navy.

Am I supposed to be scared of that?

__________________
Chimo

Julie

The EU countries do not need to pull a rival pawn out of the doldrums you described, support and arm it, and give it light to grow either. We have enough nuclear festers in the world to be worried about, not trying to create more as the EU is clearly attempting to do. Why are they, is my question.

Officer of Engineers

A bit overstated if I read things right.

1st, the EU has not lifted the arms embargo and there are no plans to do so anytime soon. There are talks but that's about it. The conditions for the lifting of the arms embargo are not exactly thrilling Beijing with joy. In fact, the Israelis are doing far more with China than all of Europe combined.

2nd, the Chinese are not exactly salavating with anticipation at the prospect of European arms. They've already committed their capital budgets to Russian and Chinese systems for the next decade or so. They simply have no money nor the desire to disrupt their procurement and modernization programs that is well underway. Simply stated, the Europeans (and Americans) are way too late in the current procurement cycle.

lulldapull

Taiwan WILL "GO" SOONER OR LATER! its inevitable. We have already submitted to the Chinese demand of a "one China" policy. With significantly diminished U.S. economic and military power, in the next 2 decades, Taiwan will become a political liability.....specially keeping into consideration the growing trade deficit with China, and our involuntary move towards becoming a consumer nation like the U.K. Relations with China take precedence over Taiwan.
i wouldn't be surprised at all if and when Taiwan becomes incorporated into China just like H.K. and many other islands have in the near past.

The other reality is that a new and assertive EU is just starting to flex its muscles. New geo-political/ strategic realities are emerging. This is another factor. like I have said before that its getting increasingly difficult fr us to have the cake and eat it too.

Case in point being.......this war in Iraq was exactly about this very scenario. We could have invaded Iraq any time in the last decade or so, but the urgency was not there. 9-11 became the catalyst

lulldapull

Aptly put pal! that will be the day when the EU has something better to offer the Ching Chongs than the Su-30MKK or the Sovremeny or the S-300 series...... if they do have something better to offer...then I will be scared too from the lifting of this bogus arms embargo

Julie

The EU embargo on arms exports to China is likely to be lifted in the next six months despite US objections, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4167693.stm

"I have long understood China's argument, that to lump them in with, say, Burma and Zimbabwe is not appropriate and I don't think it is," he told the joint committee on Strategic Export Controls.

I never mentioned "European Arms." Arms from anyone in general. If Beijing is not over-joyed with the arms ban lifting, why have they been arguing about having it lifted?

Officer of Engineers

Again, I have no seen any work towards that end. The statement of intent is not a statement of fact. There's alot of paperwork to be done for the embargo to end. Thus far, no one has lifted a pen.

So, they can start their spying again. The embargo has denied the Chinese a large source of foreign weapons examination.

Julie

There is the answer that justifies that for me. Now, if that would have been mentioned in that article, or others I have been reading, I wouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape about it. Thanks OoE. I stand corrected. Sorry Lull for questioning your view on this issue.