Chile Forum

I am home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I landed in Temuco last night, and boy does it feel good to be home. Next time however I am going to bring a bio hazard suit as I got every bug in America attacking me, and I have no immunity to any of them. They are really aggressive. I swear I could literally feel different bugs, and my body fighting them off one by one. Finally, one got me. I am barely standing today.

Some other observations:
I ultimately don't think the U.S. will just implode in one big show. I think it will slowly slowly decline like many other societies through time. It will be long gone by the time anyone can look back and say, "that was the day that America started to decline."

On the economic front, I did see a couple interesting things in the mall and on the way to the mall. In the mall, almost all the stores where chronically under staffed. Like one girl, to a floor in sears, JCpenny, macies, and so on. Thousands of square feet of store and one employee. If there where no security cameras (assuming they did not cut that staff), people could have walked out without paying.

On the bus, not once but twice, I overheard people asking others on the bus where they worked and if they where hiring. One guy responded that he worked in a fast food restaurant and that things had been a little slow. He then added, "how does fast food get slow".

As soon as my fever breaks, I will perhaps have some more thoughts.

Footnote: That State of the union address was lame even by Bush's speech standards. Hopefully the next one will have better delivery.

carlos wrote:

mlightheart wrote:Carlos,

I am curious: For those Canadians or others you have talked to about the US & Pres. Bush, what do you tell them were the reasons that the US got involved in Iraq? Thanks.

I tell them that the U.S. got involved in Iraq because it believed (along with many allies incidentally), although mistakenly, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction and as such the U.S. saw it as essential to stop that development.

In addition to that I believe the U.S. got involved to try and bring democracy to a country in the Middle East as a way of influencing the region to embrace democratic reform as a way of undermining the influence of radical Islam.

I'd say more...but I gots to go...am running out of gas and it's 30 below zero (got to keep the truck on to stay warm). I am accessing the Internet from my truck at a Safeway store hot spot.

Carlos

Carlos, if you believe the crapola you just wrote, I'm sorry. But the US knew, at least the powers that lead us into destruction knew, that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the rest of us believed it ( or most of us did) but the people who knew better, well, it's a wag the dog kinda situation. You are really off mark on the democratic thing, and any reference to humanitarian intervention is bull...i.e. Somalia, Darfur. The US powers that be are consistently duping the American Middle Class (and most other classes) with fear, mis-information and are aided by the mainstream US media.

Sorry, I disagree with you vehemently!


Vicki

I don't know. I kind of think everyone that believed there where any WMD's to begin with was asleep at the wheel. We leveled the country in Gulf War I, then had it under day and night sanctions and observations for 10+ years, with fighters over head day and night. If there where WMD in Iraq, someone just pissed away the cost of a war and ten years of military containment money.

Had they just said, "he is a bad man, that needs to be removed from power".

I would have been on board, so stick it to him. But, instead they had to try and get creative with a bunch of lies.

I believe the real mistake of Bush is that he is fighting a ground war, when he should be fighting a covert war. This should be similar to the cold war. A guy with a silencer in one hand, and aid package in the other hand. This is all for political show. We should never see anything ( I hope they really are doing it), this "war on terrorism". It should be small, strategic, covert, and cheap, cheap, cheap. Tanks don't stop terrorist. Israel know that, and we have seen in it in Iraq. The "surge" is working because we are paying what last year where A.K.A the "terrorist insurgents" $300+ a month to not shoot at each other. Now, that makes sense. The rest of this bs was just to put money in to the pockets of bunch of WWII era defense contractors that are Bush's buddies.

And to maintain a high oil price for his buddies in the petro industry.

$100/barrel - mission accomplished!!

I seen a 60 mins interview with the head of the FBI about the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam for the US. The head of the FBI mentioned that he only has 50 aribic speaking agents. 50? trillions of dollars spent, and we only have 50 arbic speaking agents?

How do you fight a war when you do not even have people that speak the enemies language? The only conclusion i can come to is that he was somehow conducting counter intelligence, because the alternative of it being true is too pathetic and scary to be believable.

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:$100/barrel - mission accomplished!!

That might be the only good to come out of the war.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:Carlos, if you believe the crapola you just wrote...

First off Vicki may I suggest that calling what someone has written "crapola" is no way to win friends and influence people .

It's akin to the kinds of responses I have seen countless times from persons who can't present a rational and logical argument to support their point(s). They just label what they disagree with as "crapola" or the like.

I am not personally offended Vicki...God knows I have had much, much worse things said to me in the course of my interactions with others over the Internet but I think you are better than that Vicki. At least I would hope so...

...But the US knew, at least the powers that lead us into destruction knew, that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Alrighty...may I ask how you know that they knew Vicki? I have heard all kinds of statements made by all kinds of people and said in such a way that it must obviously be true but...that ain't necessarily so. How do you know that they knew Vicki?

Perhaps you were privy to some inside information as a former Marine that I never saw. I don't know.

You are really off mark on the democratic thing, and any reference to humanitarian intervention is bull...i.e. Somalia, Darfur.

Okay...may I ask why I am so off the mark? Can you elaborate some on that instead of just leaving me hanging with a comment that "I am really off the mark on the democratic thing"? How am I so off the mark Vicki?

As for Somalia and Darfur how exactly does that tie into Iraq?

The US powers that be are consistently duping the American Middle Class (and most other classes) with fear, mis-information and are aided by the mainstream US media.

Hmmm...which powers are those Vicki? The President? The Congress including the House of Representives and the Senate? The Judiciary branches of government? Are you saying that the mainstream media is in bed with the US powers (whoever those are)? Siding with those powers and otherwise aiding them in promoting fear and mis-information on the Middle Class?

If that is what you are saying Vicki may I say that your assertion is quite...well...a bit hard to believe. That the US powers of the President, Congress, the Judiciary - perhaps even the State Legislatures (all US centers of power) and the media all acting as one to foster fear and mis-information on the American middle class!

With all due respect Vicki do you have any proof of such an incredible conspiracy?

Carlos

Gloria wrote:Sorry to dissapoint you but it was never proven!.

No it was never proven as in absolutely, beyond any shadow of any doubt whatsoever but countries do not go to war or otherwise engage in actions to defend themselves only on the basis of such absolute proof. Not country in the world acts that way with respect to their intelligence.

If you hear that I have told some people that I want to beat you up and steal your car do you have absolute proof that I intend to do just that? No. You have hearsay evidence which indicates that I might want to do something bad to you. That is all. But you would be foolish to not prepare yourself for the possibility that what you heard might reflect my true intentions.

Likewise with countries. They act on the best intelligence they have. Intelligence that is not always foolproof and not always infallible.

Do we know for a fact that Iran is building or is acting on building weapons of mass destruction? No we do not. Not absolute proof. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Israel will act to prevent Iran from even getting close based on the best intelligence they have and based on public statements made by Iran's leaders that Israel should cease to exist and that imply a desire to be a nuclear power.

The US acted on bad intelligence. That is FACT. Anything else is OPINION, purely personal opinion, with respect to why they acted on bad intelligence and what if any hidden or ulterior motives they had. Personal opinion that is, unless you can point to President Bush or other high ranking official having point blank said that this or that was the real reason they went into Iraq.

Personal opinion is not equivalent to fact.

The CIA director lied.

Personal opinion unless he admitted this or others have proved this beyond any reasonable doubt based on memo's and other such documentation.

They never found any WMD's, it was only a "make believe" theory.

Personal opinion regarding "make believe" theory.

They don't care about WMD's, they want OIL, the black gold!

Personal opinion and one that is not backed up by any facts that I know of at all. We all want oil in our cars too. Does that mean that all of us likewise wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq? Because we all want oil?

And as far as the other countries joining, they didn't have a choice!

I think other countries would most vehemently disagree that they didn't have any choice. Again it's just your personal opinion which is all well and good but not backed up by any fact that I am aware of. Countries have choices just like we as individuals do. If they made a bad choice that is one thing but to say they had no choice is to make them out to be slaves. Slaves have no choice. Again I don't think any country in the world would agree with your characterization of them as having no choice.

They are in the same Legion of Solidarity!Nobody wants to lose face.It's just like the most dominant sheep guides the herd, the rest follow and in this case it took some convincing.

Again personal opinion. Not fact.

Carlos

now, now kids play nice.

Something that came out of that interview with Sadam after his capture was interesting. He was asked why if he did not have weapons of mass destruction, would he continue to pretend he did and thus bring about the invasion. He said that he was more afraid of Iran than he was of the United States. He needed the show to keep Iran in check. Well, that is what his interrogator said he said anyway.

admin wrote:now, now kids play nice.

Something that came out of that interview with Sadam after his capture was interesting. He was asked why if he did not have weapons of mass destruction, would he continue to pretend he did and thus bring about the invasion. He said that he was more afraid of Iran than he was of the United States. He needed the show to keep Iran in check. Well, that is what his interrogator said he said anyway.

And a while back, the neocons too believed so. Flashback to the smiling Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam. Also when US occupation forces discovered old caches of chem weapons, turns out they were from the USA/allies.

One should not be surprised when extremist accusations backed by zero facts (President lied to enrich oil moguls and the like) elicit a rather spirited response.

I do agree that Sadaam rationale was more focused on Iran - it does not change the fact that he acted like he had WMD and degraded our ability to prove otherwise. Intel failures are common in history (e.g., Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Bulge, Korean Invasion) and will become more common givin defanging of CIA in 1970's, increasing reliance by same on tech instead of people on the ground (HUMINT) & CIA transformation into politically-correct, partisan (Valerie Plame sends hubby on anti-Bush mission) bureacracy governed by civil service and union rules administered by career-focused desk-jockeys. Actions have consequences, gutting CIA has come home to roost, little wars (e.g. Pinochet) will become big wars (e.g. Iraq). Thank you, post-Watergate Congress and fellow travelers.

John Hyre

Gloria wrote:"that Saddam Hussein possessed or was on the verge of possessing WMDs, including nuclear weaponry."

Sorry to dissapoint you but it was never proven!.The CIA director lied. . . .

Because Carlos has already replied quite thoroughly, I scarcely need to write anything; but I will, in part because Gloria's apparent misunderstanding of what I wrote does point up a concern of mine.

First, to what I wrote: I wrote that certain folk had reached a certain conclusion. At no point did I state that the conclusion was accurate, and I deliberately did not. People constantly come to mistaken conclusions, often through processes which to them seem rational and accurate: "there is no God"; "Americans are fools"; "the stock market will rise to fourteen thousand on the Dow"; "it will rain before nightfall". That the conclusion is mistaken or that additional or properly conclusory evidence is never produced does not indicate that the mistaken concluder was either a fool or a scoundrel: simply that he was mistaken.

Do I believe that the conclusion was reached in good faith? Yes.

Do I think that other considerations influenced -- at least subconsciously -- the reaching of the conclusion? Of course! What human being consistently divorces emotion and desire from his reasoning? None.

(You may ask whether I regret that the Iraqi War was begun, and I likely would answer you. But my personal beliefs have -- or should have -- no effect upon how I, if I am honest, try to report history.)

My other consideration? I think I'll let that go.

mlightheart wrote:RWS, I came across an interesting article in the SF Journal that touches on the subject of Intelligence gathering about WMDs.

It is titled:

What Happened to Iraq's WMD
How politics corrupts intelligence

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... F5U1L1.DTL

Here is a small snippet of the piece:

The intelligence services of everyone else were not proclaiming Iraq to be in possession of WMD. Rather, the intelligence services of France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain and Israel were noting that Iraq had failed to properly account for the totality of its past proscribed weapons programs, and in doing so left open the possibility that Iraq might retain an undetermined amount of WMD. . . .

Thanks, mlight; I'll try to read it over the weekend.

Quickly, I'll note (from a former career as an historian, a stint of service in the White House -- no, not in the oval office! -- and a current career in law) that no intelligence service has ever existed that is infallible; that their fallibility increases as populations grow and societies become more complex; that, regrettably, the CIA and others of the "twelve apostles" (the American intelligence agencies, now more numerous but probably no more capable) might never have been the world's best; and, after their teeth were drawn in the late 1970s, the American intelligence agencies became even less effective in either intelligence gathering or otherwise operating.

JHyre wrote:... Thank you ... fellow travelers.

Your welcome. Believe me if I really gave a damn, I wouldn't be here. Voted neocon many years then saw the light; then Libertarian for two elections till I again saw more light. Stopped voting in 2004. Diebold rules!

ASFAI give a damn, the neocons have been great for my investments and speculations. So I say keep up the great work!

Thanks neocons (not my fellows BTW).

Carry on folks ... I'm too busy monitoring the markets ...

Gloria wrote:Carlos, it's not that chileans themselves as individuals cannot be understood, is Chile as a whole, as a society. . . .

I do hope, Gloria, that you really don't believe this. As Carlos has indicated, basic human nature is the same the world over and throughout time. Cultural overlays are not impenetrable. It would be a rather obtuse observer who could not grasp the essence of a culture (or of another subculture, in this case, as both Chile and the United States are Western countries) after careful study, especially through immersion.