"Crusader Wabbit" <Crusader@AtTheGates.net> wrote in message

I think you are missing my point.

I seem to be doing that a lot, apparantly.

Whether a security threat existed or not,
our legal system must remain inviolate. If the threat were from

Christina militiamen or leftie-commie student agitiators, the practice

using the threat of extra-legal interment without trial to get people to
force confessions within the legal ystem ould still be against every
principle of American justice.

Now we've shifted from whether or not Bush was lying to he American
people about the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq to whether the American
penal system should force confessions.

I'm not American but as far as
I know forced confessions are not recognised in any American court of
law (nor British). If you're referring to Guantanamo Bay, there are no
Americans there (though there should be one, IMO: Mr Walker Lindh),
and AFAIK no confessions are forced out of people there either (unless
you consider imprisonment without trial date - or maybe imprisonment
itself - as a kind of 'force'). None of this seems to me to be
strictly relevent. I don't think anyone has suggeste that the USA has
or should change its legal system, have they? I personally think the
US should outlaw the death penalty; is that the kind of change you're
against?

I'll go with the flow and repsond to your comments about the

for invaing Iraq, but it's not the subject I was discussing.

Hey, groovy.

So why don't we invade North Korea ?

Because a) they have nukes

(war is the art of the possible - was that
Clausewitz?

dangerous, not to mention too unpopular, at least while its present
dictator is alive) and b) because Kim Il Jong is not linked to a
worldwide ideology of terrorism,

and so isn't the threat, or the same
kind of threat, as Saddam potentially was.

China has human rights abuses.

As above. Plus they have a biiiiiiiiig, if pretty crappy, army.

Let's
kill two birds with one stone and invade China. What about what's

in Liberia ? Thast's deserves an invasion too.

I agree, and I think the US and Nigeria are due to parachute soldiers
into Monrovia on August 6th.

There are at least a dozen countries in the world with repressive

Hey, let's do them all and then all the world will be free and liberated

all that jazz.

I would have preferred the US to concentrate on the Pakistani frontier
provinces (where binLaden is holed up) before Iraq,

but I think they
calculated that since Israel/Palestine is the key to any long lasting
peace in the ME, and since Israel won't budge on the settlements while
Saddam was paying for Hamas,

Saddam had to go. The rest of the ME may
be dealt with in different ways - we al want to avoid war if possible.

Notice how Syria is keeping its head down - we haven't seen Assad
piping up about American aggression recently, have we? I dare say we
might see Hamas and Hezbollah expelled from Damascus before too long -
a few nicely put threats might do it.

The Iranian regime is suddenly
under extreme pressure - maybe that one will be forced out too without
us having to lift a finger.

Personally, I'd love to see Mugabe dragged through the streets by his
own people, and if we could arrange that for them, so much the better.
We need to get the Taliban out of the Pakistan/Afghan border area.

Then there's Burma... And finally, the big one: Saudi Arabia. I don't
think there are too many others.

In all these cases the regime is either hated by its own people, or in
the case of Syria and Libya, is amenable to western pressure. As long
as we are inclined to keep the pressure up.

The fact is that Amercia ( the bush Administration ) is hignly

its policy of Pre-emptive Liberation.

Yes, and I don't 100% agree with its choices, but I think I can see
the arguments in their favour. Iraq *is* a crucial ME country - for
its size, its position vis-a-vis Turkey, Kuwait and Israel; its oil,
its wealth, its western connections, its religious connections, its
ethnic diversity, and so on.

The anti-war people have no moral ground to stand on. Complaints about
the way the war was presented are irrelevent, and so much hot air - no
war is fought for reasons made entirely public, and those who opposed
it would always do so even if we had already found WMD,

I think that argument is entirely hypothetical. If American, or better

WMD inspectors had found an active nuclear weapons program or nuclear
weapons themselves, this would be a very different conversation.

If that had happened your argument would have been nullified, mine
would have been unchanged. Which means your argument is predictade on
the success or failure of a UN inspectorate under the control of a
dictator. Shurely shome mishtake.

But we didn't and there are clear indications that the Bush

deliberately manufactured the information used to justify the invasion.

hypothetical argument can evade the implications of that stark reality.

It isn't a stark reality, it's a gross exaggeration - no, I can't say
that because I don't know what Bush said, but as far as Blair is
concerned, it would be a ludicrous overstatement. He stands accused of
exaggerating the threat to *us* (but not to the Iraqis, who have
turned out to have suffered far more than we ever thought).

If no WMD are found ready to fire then it can't be true that they
would have been ready to fire 'witin 45 minutes'. It looks like Saddam
probably didn't buy any yellowcake from Niger in the last few years
after all. In these two regards, Blair appears to have exaggerated his
case somewhat.

At the height of the protests against the invasion, Bush and Blair
were regularly compared to dictators - to Saddam himself (responsible,
remember, for 300,000 dead bodies found in mass graves outside
Baghdad) - by the protestors. Those protestors have never ceased to
exaggerate, obfuscate and change tack in their case against the war.
That is their right - they aren't in power (well some are, but most
aren't), but for them to complain of exaggeration is incredible
hypocrisy.

I want to remind you that Americans make up less than 5% of the world's
population. The image of the world that many Americans hold in their

is one of grinding poverty and ignorance from sea to shining sea, but

image is false. There are at least one billion intelligent, educated

outside the geographical boundaries of the United States who are closely
following and debating our actions in Iraq. These people may not have
stealth bombers and MOABs but they are the future. They will make

about who they do business with and how their national resources are
utilized. At the moment, Americans may not care what 'the foreigners'
think, but those foreigners are the future of their countries and will

a position to make decisions that effect the future of the United

We ignore them at our peril.

I tend to agree (and I'm one of the 95% living in grinding poverty). I
also think the USA is one of the most admired countries in the world -

even though most people around the world have no desire to become
American. They want their own countries to become like America, or
like a western country - democratic, free and wealthy.

Most Iraqis supported the invasion - 85% in the first opinion poll,
70% in the second more accurate one (10% against in both cases).

Most
Iraqis want democracy - they want Islam to be respected and preserved,
but they want democracy and freedom and they recognise that these
things cannot be while Saddam was in power.

In the middle east and 'Islamic world' as a whole I believe there is a
deep sense of shame that the Arab armies are so hopeless at fighting
they can't even take out little Israel (which IMO has a pretty
hopeless army itself), let alone put up a fight against mighty
America. there is humiliation - but there is also, IMO, a belief that
the toppling of Saddam is for the best; that it will enhance peace in
the ME, not hinder it, and that at least one country now has a chance
to emulate the west, and become a model for the rest (so that perhaps
the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who flee their countries for the
west every year may slow to a trickle).

I don't think the USA is
trusted, because of its support for Israel and apparant support for
the incredible mess Israel is making of its occupation,

but I think
the USA is respected and if it gets this right in Iraq, it may be
trusted again in the future.

The world is divided over this issue, it's true, but IMO the most
powerful opposition to the invasion is coming from the west itself,
and as far as I can tell it is due to a genuine fear of what it may
provoke. I think that's fair enough, but (touche) it misses the point.
We no longer live in a divided world - there is no longer a
specifically 'western' civilisation, and 'eastern', and 'middle
eastern'. We live in one world, shrunk by cheap travel, mass
immigration and new communication technology. There is less and less
an 'us' and 'them' to fear and mistrust one another. 'They' - the
'Islamic world' especially - want what 'we' in the 'west' have: our
democracy, security and all the rest.

Only a small minority of Muslims
are fighting a rear guard battle to preserve the integrity of their
Islamist culture - by seeking to impose it on other Muslims, and
eventually (they dream) all of us - and the failure of the Muslim
majority to repudiate their ideology is a sign of ambivalence - they
don't know how the cards will fall, whether the west will reject them
or embrace them, or whether the Islamists will succeed and build their
hopeless 'caliphate'. We have no real need to fear such people: deep
down, most of them want democracy to win.

I have spent years of my life abroad and have many friends from around

world. I have never heard, even in the worst days of Vietnam, anything

what I am hearing today.

Because the cold war is over.

The damage that has been done will take many
years, perhaps generations, to repair. America is no longer seen as the
leader in the world, unless you restrict the term 'leader' to mean the
country with greatest military capability and willingness to use it.

we are no longer seen as a beacon of freedom.

I don't think America was ever seen as a beacon of freedom exactly -
everyone has heard of slavery, prohibition, McCartheyism,
anti-abortionism, creationism and 'three strikes and you're out' laws.
But the USA is seen as *more* free by those who live in unfree
societies - and such people are not found in western Europe, except
for Britain (that's why support for the US came from the east - from
the ex-communist countries, like Poland and the Czech Republic, who in
recent memory have reason to thank the USA).

We are seen as a force of
military occupation, not just by the leftie-commies and all the

boogiemen of the American right-wingers, but by *everybody*.

Well, I'm part of that 'everybody' and I can tell you you're wrong.
Anyone who understands the issues knows that Saddam's removal is a
good thing. Few people would say that Bush & co. went about things the
right way -

they were obstructive to the UN, they almost hanged their
allies out to dry, they were scornful of the allies they now so badly
need, and few people would say their armies have behaved at all times
impeccably - but the very fact that the US is accused of hypocrisy
means that peoples' expectations of it are higher than of most other
countries, which is a sign of underlying respect.

As you've said yourself, if WMD are found in Iraq the argument changes
again. But that is absurd: if an objection to a policy is dependent on
a contingency beyond its control that objection has no moral force. If
Iraq is left a better place than it was under Saddam, the US will be
remembered as a force for good - not unequivocally, but on balance,
for good.

Ba'athist guerillas now killing American soldiers are deserving of
support from democrats,

Wow. Really throwing the wild left punches, aren't we.

Here in Europe, the people killing US (and UK) soldiers are often
referred to as a 'resistance', deliberately recalling the French
resistance. Not wild.

All we get from the protestors - all they have left - is complaints
about 'presentation' - and this from people who simultaenously
complain about political spin doctoring. Who cares? A couple of
exaggerations, possibly deliberate, probably thoughtless, made by
politicians among the millions of words spoken do not a conspiracy
make. If you want to find Bush and Blair guilty of conspiracy you have
to prove that 9/11 was committed by the CIA, or Saddam and binLaden
are sharing a Park Lane hotel suite.

An entirely specuoius argument. I'm having to read these statement a

times to even understansd what they are saying. We aren't talking about
conspiracy, we are talking about deliberate exageration to the point of
falsehood.

Talking of speciousness, does 'point of falsehood' mean falsehood or
not quite falsehood? Is Bush lying or not?

We are talking about conspiracy because if Bush lied he was acting for
reasons other than those stated. Therefore he was involved in a
conspiracy.

As an aside, you and I can debate this, but there is very little debate
about the isssue of 'did-he-or-didn't-he-lie' the world press. Whatever

may consider the merits of the case here in the U.S., as far the the
'feringies' are concerned, Bush intentionally lied and that's that.

said. Case closed.

So he is lying. OK. I can only take your word for that. Being British
I'm only aware of the 'lies' Blair is being accused of having made - I
remember hearing that Bush had explicitly stated there was a direct
connection between Saddam and 9/11 and that is probably false
(although there certainly is a direct connection between Saddam and
terrorists who share the same ideology and aims as al-Qaida). Blair is
accused of having sexed up two dossiers which were published for the
British people before the invasion, reputedly containing the entire
case against Saddam. Among other things they included a PHd thesis by
an Iraqi-American, since assumed to be conjectural (I've seen no proof
either way); the claim that Saddam had continued buying uranium from
Niger based (in part, we're told, and in part on sources not available
to the CIA - ie France) on documents since found to be Italian
forgeries; and the claim that if Saddam's weapons were ready for
firing they would only take 45 minutes to be fired. For these three
claims Blair has been ridiculed and accused of lying.

The presence of the first two claims, IMO, have Blair bang to rights -
he should have checked, and he should have known better. However they
do not invalidate anything else in the dossier. Most journalists in
the UK seem to have fixated on the third claim, which seems to me
perfectly fair - IF they were ready, why, surely they *would* only
take 45 minutes to fire.

I don't believe any deliberate lies were told; therefore, no
conspiracy.

Incidentally, I wouldn't be so absolutist about public lying. There is
good reason to believe that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbour
was about to take place but declined to warn anyone, on the grounds
that only such an assault would give America the kick up the ***** it
needed to wake up to what was happening in Europe and join in the war
against Nazism. In retrospect - if Pearl Harbour had been evacuated
and the US had never entered the war - would that have been a good
thing?

Maybe I should ask that question in German...

As for the threat facing the USA, it is obviously real. If the
ideology exists, whose intention is to make Europe and America
outposts in a worldwide theocracy ruled from Mecca or Medina - and it
does, however small its community of adherents relative to the overall
Muslim population, then the threat exists.

The 'Islamists', in a very loose defintion of the word, have very little
chance of imposing a worldwide theocracy or even a theocracy limited to
Muslim nations.

I can give you a very exact definition for the term Islamist if you
like, and you're right, they have almost nil chance of imposing
shariah law on any country in the ME, let alone Europe, let alone the
USA. But that won't stop them trying - which means more 9/11s, more
Balis, more suicide bombeings, more Kashmirs, more Tunisias, more
Riyadhs, more Kenyas etc. etc.

Actually, one positive side effect of the Amercian occupation of Iraq is
that the threat of the Islamist challenge to secular ( or semi-secular

whatever ) governments in the Middle East is considerably less than it

year ago.

Funnily enough, a report just published here in the UK has found that
the threat of Islamist terrorism hasn't been altered either way by the
invasion - it's done no good, but done no harm either.

The secular governments that were supporting the U.S. are now
strongly opposed to us, removing a major issue that the Islamists were

against the secular governments.

Most ME governments supported the US/UK invasion, IMO - even despite
what they may have said in public. They all desperately wanted rid of
Saddam beacuse he threatened them. In fact, the two governments made
most uncomfortable by it were Syria's and Iran's, because they both
thought they'd be next. Murbarak was critical, but I wouldn't assume
too much about that - he is under constant pressure from Egypt's own
Islamists and has to make anti-American noises accordingly. You could
argue that the invasion has confirmed the pro-American governments in
their belief that being pro-American isn't such a bad idea.

To complain that because no terrorist attack has occurred in three
years that therefore all the measures put in place to prevent such an
attack should be rescinded is palpably absurd.

No one is making that argument, least of all me. There will be

terrorists attacks against the United States in the future. We can stop
them without stealth bombers and MOABs. The secret ingredient is a
combination good intelligence to identify them and muscle from
specially-trained local police to apprehend the suckers. If we had had
those two ingredients, we could have stopped the 9-11 atrocity in its
tracks.

I won't argue with that. America's big problem, IMO, is isolationism -
always has been, probably will be for a long time to come.

I guess it
goes with the territory, literally - if you believe your country is a
haven from wars and pogroms overseas you won't feel inclined to
involve yourself with the troubles of the Old World.

As an Old Worlder I think this attitude stinks; as a liberal (in your
terms) I'm amazed that for the first time in my adult memory the
American Republican Right, or the non-Buchananite part of it, has
become the principle engine for American involvement in the world
instead of the Democrat Left, which still seem uncertain of how to act
(two puny missfired bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan under Clinton;
two full scale invasions under Bush - I know which I prefer, and I
think Bush is a geek).

You seme to me to be arguing in favour of that uncertainty - should
America act in the world, or should it stay at home and fret. You seem
to me to be contradicting yourself -

you know the world out there, or
part of it, is just as free and democratic as the USA (which many
Americans appear not to) but you still want to rely on domestic policy
- good intelligence and 'local police' work - to solve your problems.
It won't work. America has to become fully engaged in the world and
its problems - not just in stopping terrorist attacks on the USA
istelf, but on ameliorating the poverty and anger of the third world
which gives rise to the terrorism in the first place.

Which is partly
caused by the injustices in Israel, but is far more caused by the
injustices of undemocratic government - fascism and theocracy,
ignorance and fear. And that's not all: the US should rejoin the
discussions on halting global warming, proetcting the rainforests and
halting whaling. It should be concerned with AIDs in Africa and
poverty in India - and all thse other impeccably 'liberal' causes.

I
see no difference between them and halting the spread of an insane
religious ideology, which brings with it only ignorance and suffering,
or of deposing a fascist tyranny in Iraq. It's America's damn *job* to
do these things - you have the power: use it.

FWIW, to my mind, the war against Saddam was of the same order as the
war against Franco, or Mussolini - something any self-respecting
leftie should support.

That in the USA only the Republicans can
articulate a moral case for American involvement of this kind -
however hypocritical or larded with ***** you think it to be -
seems to me to indicate a pretty serious intellectual malaise in the
Democrat party.

I wish more Americans were concerned about maintaining our traditional
values of justice and liberty.