One man's resistance: 'Why I turned against America'

Intel Officials Have Bleak View for Iraq

By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush this summer with several pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005.

In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that — at best — stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.

This latest assessment was performed by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials that provides long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community.

Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved the intelligence document, which runs about 50 pages.

The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...16/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq&cid=542&ncid=716

The full article from the NYT.

U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?hp

 

If you are saying that we have never done that in our history then you are wrong. If you just mean in a modern context, then OK.

 

I am primarily thinking of modern history-- in my "lifetime": WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Granada ( ), Gulf War I, et al.

What is our history of imperialism? Hawaii? The entire United States?

 

Giddy...you aren't being PURPOSEFULLY ignorant are you?? Surely you remeber..oh I don't know..almost the entire South Pacific--like, The Phillipines? Or closer to home with Cuba and Puerto Rico?

Ya know...the whole Spanish/American war thing where we took all of their colonies? Teddy R. and the "American Spehere of Influence" in the America's...Speak softly and carry a big stick??

 

Teddy wanted to give both Cuba and the Phillipines their independence, and he wanted to give them favored trade status as well, so please don't drag his name through the mud. In addition he stopped Germany from invading Venezuela over their debt issue resulting in an international reversal that stopped imperial powers from reacting militarily to debt issues across the globe.

Don't want you to appear PURPOSEFULLY ignorant.

 

The old ones have forgotten much ~ this is why we must be tolerant and continue to help them through their twilight years.

 

No.

What is the horror with any of those: The Phillipines? Cuba? Castro, okay, but what does that have to do with us? Puerto Rico? Candidate for statehood.

Imperialism! Give me GB and India or something on a par with that!

Speak softly and carry a big stick: an old slogan for a new time.

 

Please, stop being a pocket-historian while wearing your rose-colored glasses, it's tiresome.

FIRST, get of your patriotic high-horse about TR, he was a great president and sportsman who protected the natural beauty and thousands of acres of wildlife/land that this country has left today and I deeply respect if not agree with everything he did.

Unlike "W", TR was a man of honor and strength and forged ahead in protecting our land from timber barons and other gilded scallywags that "W" would gladly pander to and give away what we have left in our wildlife preserves and federal parks. That doesn't mean I can't critique him and our nation for doing the same thing in the Pacific and the America's that we bashed the imperial powers for doing with the rest of the world.

In the Philippines we BRUTALLY put down a rebellion of natives and Philippinos--where do think the .45 caliber govt issue side-arm came from? To stop mescal induced tribesmen who had their nuts in a literal bind because our puny .38 cal rounds only made them mad--they weren't so excited about our Occupation either.

Remember Panama? Remember the Sandanista's? The term Banana Republic didn't start as a clever bourgois clothing outlet, ask DOLE. How can you say we haven't used Central/South America, and the Pacific as our colonies? What, because we called it by a different name in "prosperity" it isn't the U.S. flexing it's colonial muscles and using those countries as an extension of the U.S.? A quip about Venezuelan military debt and Germans does NOTHING to prove your point...Purposefully ignorant indeed...

 

for the record--I wasn't calling you out for being ignorant, I thought you might be trying to slip past the facts, honestly, no offense.

Even if it isn't on par with GB, we can't as honest patriots and Americans, ignore what WE have done in the past. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then there is a good chance it IS a duck. The mistakes that WE have made as a country--admitting error does not make you weak as the "W" administration would have you beleive...

 

Do we even know who exactly was responsible for that? One of the points of this interview was to show that there are different groups fighting for different reasons. This guy says they don't try to kill Iraqi's. The attack on the police sounds like Baath Loyalists to me.

 

i hate teddy b/c he was the first prez to endorse a permanent income tax and estate tax

 

No we don't and I was deliberate not to accuse that guy of killing them; he's more interested in killing a disproportionate amount of black US GIs. That really earns my sympathy....

That there are different groups fighting for different reasons is the ultimate challenge-- much more challenging than the Republican Guard.

 

No problem. Accusing me of being deliberately obtuse is giving me credit for being more clever than I am. I'm a plodder here.

 

You can ignore me if you don't like it, but I don't have a problem calling you out for making inaccurate statements.

Then why should I 'get off my high horse.' You not only were critical of him but asked if someone was being 'purposefully ignorant' in reference to supposed imperialism during his historical period. And the examples you used were incorrect historically for such a comparison, and your rhetoric was demeaning to TR specifically with you 'big stick' reference. You criticize a poster and allude to them being like TR, then blast them, then say you love TR.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

TR's conservation record vs Bush's is completely irrelevant to a discussion of historical american imperialism.

You don't seem to really know too much about TR or his policies. Calling him an imperialist in the mold of a Soviet or Great Britain or any other large expansionist power is simply incorrect.

The general in charge was courtmartialed for going over the top. However, that's also irrelevant. As pointed out earlier, there was a significant movement by TR to grant their independence, something btw they didn't have before (as they were 'owned' by Spain). Self governance was ALWAYS an integral part of the policy in the Phillipines.

Sure. What's your point? It was an ignored part of Bolivia until the canal enabled the independence/self-determination movement. They have a canal we paid for that we gave to them (surely a core sign of imperialism, lol. Jimmy Carter the imperialist!)Or maybe you mean Noriega who was a thug and a tyrant, not a man of the people.

Yep. Not any better than Somoza. And to be historically accurate you'd have to put the Contra/Sandinista conflict in the context of the cold war, not in a context of US imperialism. That's absurd.

Well, I didn't say that we hadn't exerted control in Central and South America. I merely pointed out that your condecending version of history is wrong, and hence more heinous that someone's possible mistake. Ignoring the Cold War, for example, skews your view of these interventions. In a global conflict between an expansionist and imperialist totalitarian regime the actions taken are more in defense than proactive. Hardly the harbinger of imperialist thought.

Try reading some history. The Venezuelan example is extremely important in the way international relations between 'super/major' powers and smaller countries have interacted in the last 100+ years. But getting history lessons from a crackerjack box wouldn't tell you that I guess.

 

Note I never said "propped up" I said supported and think others including Hayesstreet have backed up that assertion.

We're not supporting North Korea, we might be getting blackmailed into giving them oil and wheat but not supporting. We definately were supporting Iraq in 1988 by providing them with intel, aid, and materials. In addition to that we indirectly supported him tacticly by taking out Iranian gunboats and coastal stations.

The question still stands is if your argument that it was right to remove Saddam because he gassed his own people, and the Iranians too, in 1988 why didn't we do something about him then?

 

I agree but then why are we in Iraq if apparently these people, rational or not, don't want us there and are doing there utmost to drive us out?

 

Racism is not a problem or anything in the Middle East. Ofcourse, there are the exceptions though.

I've noticed that Iranians and people from the area around Palestine in particular are really racist towards blacks (I hope that's not an offensive term). Ha, I actually just realized that I'm not a big fan of these 2 countries' general attitude. Nice coincidence.

Phrases like "I'm going to pay to watch a black guy sing??"

come to mind.

To be fair though, everyone goes through it and it's just that Middle Eastern countries are JUST coming out of the time when blacks were enslaved.


The Gulf area in general has no problem.

Islam definitely has no race issues, but I don't think that's what's being discussed is it? The prophet made that clear in his final speech, it's not even a debate.

 

How throwing a war upon a nation, temporary occupying it, outing it's leader, under the assumption that the ousting and the war would be better for the said nation and the world -- as GWB often cited as reasons for the war -- not imperialist?

Please explain.

Not saying the war is wrong or right, but you can't deny the facts.

 

I think you are generalizing too much. You've taken one guy's complaint and made it into the complaint for "these people."

I know there are other Iraqi critics... just as there are Iraqis who celebrate that we ousted Saddam. Where the plurality lies is very muddled and changing due to circumstance-- when maybe it shouldn't be changing due to circumstance that is temporary.

I think that too many Iraqis have some mystifying notion that if the US leaves, the violence will end. I don't think that would be the case.