The UN, US and Iraq IV

timberlandko wrote:

Gel, you presume much in your tail chasing. Some of what you presume is unwarranted, particularly as regards the value of life. Regardless the provence of the "justifications" for toppling the Ba'athists, that has been done. What is of immediate consequence is the rehabillitation of Iraq. I believe The US would be grateful for broader support and more substantive sharing of the load, and appreciative, but I also believe that if it comes to it, The US can and will do it alone. Should that be necessary, further global polarization is to be expected, a development which would serve no one's interest. I believe the US intention is a secure, prosperous, sovereign, autonomous Iraq as rapidly as is prudently acheivable. I believe The US has no desire to exploit Iraq as a vassal state, but rather intends a regional stabilization to ensue from demonstration of no ulterior motive. I believe that Iraq's internal security and human services capacity will improve exponentially over the next few weeks and months, with dramatic improvement by year end.
I believe it likely a "last gasp" effort will be mounted shortly by the insurgents, and I believe that effort will fail conclusively. Those all are merely my beliefs, based on my observation and assessment of the situation. Should those beliefs prove mistaken, of course I'd admit having been mistaken. I have never been pleased with the focus on physical WMD. I have never been pleased with the perception that the function of either UNSCOM or UNMOVIC was to discover WMD. I have never been pleased with with the implication of "existing imminent threat".
I have never been pleased with "Peace at any cost", either, or with what some people will tolerate or ignore in its pursuit. I believe it unacceptably imprudent to stand idly by while another madman "suddenly" presents an "imminent threat" to the entire planet. As I recall, a great deal of faith was placed in, and chillingly similar argument in support of, the misperception that Hitler was a safely contained and reliably restrained despot. I'm not pleased at all by the prospect of repeating that mistake.
I believe it. I could be wrong. I'm just calling it as I see it.

OK Timber you win .... in the name of Hitler lets go kill us some fukken Iwackis ..... it's the only thing they will listen to ...... the final argument that only a wraith could savor .... teach them not to want what we want .... death to the whole fukken planet .....

0 Replies

I agree with pretty much all you've written Gelis. And am troubled by the lack of empathy and even good sense -- by the lack of humanity. And calling upon supporters of the status quo for validation. But most of all the cool, proto-academic style of the language in which it's written. It's horrifying, disgusting, indefensible.

0 Replies

I believe also that what upsets the both of you the most is that I adamantly not only do not share the position the two of you hold to be the only possible "Correct" position, but that I challenge it, thereby aligning myself politically with those you perceive to be unworthy. I can live with that to.

0 Replies

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A recent CIA assessment of Iraq warns the security situation will worsen across the country, not just in Baghdad but in the north and south as well, a senior administration source told CNN Tuesday.

Seems, it's true:

At least 22 Italians and Iraquis killed

0 Replies

You're wrong there, Timber, at least in my case.

There's plenty to admire in a genuine conservative position (my father was a conservative -- both his attitudes and his work as a conservative were very respectable). What troubles me is your language -- the language of distance, of not taking chances, of lack of personal commitment and understanding -- and your inconsistencies. Inconsistencies? Yes. In earlier discussions you have conceded now and then that the administration has lied about this or that, and later revert to basing your arguments on those lies. It is these two elements in your presentation which have robbed your arguments of value... not to mention the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a hard-core "partisan."

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I believe also that what upsets the both of you the most is that I adamantly not only do not share the position the two of you hold to be the only possible "Correct" position, but that I challenge it, thereby aligning myself politically with those you perceive to be unworthy. I can live with that to.

Divisive propaganda .... us and them .... requires repetition and more subtlety to be effective. Laughing

0 Replies

nimh, I shed more than a few tears when I read those letters.

0 Replies

crumbles wrote:

As I recall, Army regulations forbid the killing of more than 10% of the population - because to do so causes long lasting psychological trauma upon the nation in quesiton.

But that may have been changed by the current Administration.

There is no such regulation in any military manual nor has there ever been (at least not in the US.).

0 Replies

I'm afraid I ignore most of what Timber writes. I know his position on most things, and I find his lofty style rather irritating. However occasionally something makes me smile...sorry Timber old boy, but you did actually write this

Quote:

The perception of chaos within Iraq is nothing more than a media event.

mctag wrote

Quote:

Lawyers are meeting now to decide whether Tony Blair should be prosecuted as a war criminal, and I believe that he should.

Even a short while ago I would not have agreed with you on that on Mctag, but I do now! In his defence I think I could make out a case why Blair thought he either had no choice, or genuinely thought he was doing the right thing by following Bush, but the fact is he drove a coach and horses through international law and as a lawyer himself, he knew exactly what he was doing. He deserves to take a rap and I think he probably knows it.

[And how ironic that clever Blair might get punished, but the leader of the dastardly duo somehow forgot to sign up for the International Criminal Court...perhaps Bush is not so dumb after all]

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'm afraid I ignore most of what Timber writes. I know his position on most things, and I find his lofty style rather irritating.

Alas, so dead-on.

poor timber wrote:

The perception of chaos within Iraq is nothing more than a media event.

and the New York Times wrote:

A truck crashed into the entrance of an Italian military police center in Nasiriya, Iraq, today, followed by a car that blew up, leaving at least 15 Italians dead, military police officials in Rome said today.

A number of Italians and Iraqis were wounded, a British military spokesman said by telephone from Basra today.

The bomb threw up a huge plume of dust and smoke and shattered windows hundreds of yards away, Reuters reported. Several houses around the base were badly damaged.

The blast is part of a widening pattern of daily attacks by insurgents against coalition forces. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the American commander in Iraq, said on Tuesday that attacks on United States troops averaged six a day when he took command five months ago. In the last 30 days attacks had risen to 30 to 35 a day, he said.

That damned liberal media...

0 Replies

Tart wrote:

In earlier discussions you have conceded now and then that the administration has lied about this or that,

Really? Got a link? I have criticized The Current Administration, and pointed out what I have thought to be blunders, or misstatements, but I don't recall having "Conceded" that The Current Administraion has lied. Of course, I could be wrong, perhaps I did and just don't remember. Show me, and I'll believe it. I suspect such will not prove the case.

Quote:

and later revert to basing your arguments on those lies. It is these two elements in your presentation which have robbed your arguments of value... not to mention the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a hard-core "partisan."

As for the first part of this statement, I await confirmation that I indeed "Conceded a lie". As I said, I don't think that is the case, but I'm certainly willing to be shown to be wrong. To the second part, I'll say I certainly disagree with those who take a hardcore leftist partisan stance. I challenge you to demonstrate that I consider "Anyone" who disagrees with me a "hardcore partisan". I do consider you, among several others, to be a hardcore partisan, but then, the sentiment obviously is reciprocated. It seems to me that you more frequently attack my style than substantively and effectively address my arguments. I have the impression much if not most of what you present as counter argument consists of opinion as opposed to "Hard News" and documented, independently verifiable facts and figures. I get the sense that you believe yourself to be correct because you find yourself to be in agreemnet with those who agree with you. Again, that's just my perception, and I've done no statistical research. I await your findings.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

poor timber wrote:
The perception of chaos within Iraq is nothing more than a media event.

and the New York Times wrote:
A truck crashed into the entrance of an Italian military police center in Nasiriya, Iraq, today, followed by a car that blew up, leaving at least 15 Italians dead, military police officials in Rome said today ...

The blast is part of a widening pattern of daily attacks by insurgents against coalition forces.

That damned liberal media...

Are you ignoring, or just overlooking, that I said

Quote:

I believe it likely a "last gasp" effort will be mounted shortly by the insurgents, and I believe that effort will fail conclusively.

I believe that "Last Gasp Effort" I mentioned is underway, may be expected to further insensify, and to subsequently fail, over the course of the next several weeks. I anticipate the security situation will be much improved by year-end, though lingering threat certainly will remain. I'll note too that I am critical of the security lapse that enabled this relatively successful attack on a facillity essentially in the charge of the Italians. I perceive that to have been at best imprudent of them, if not in fact irresponsible bordering on negligent. Obviously, a relatively "Soft" target was seen and exploited by the insurgents. I am very much against making the bad guy's job any easier. High-Value targets should not be accessible, "Soft" targets.

0 Replies

timber, how can you say that -- and how could you possibly know, anyway? -- after what happened to the Italians. I think they lost 20 soldiers out of what? 2000 Italian troops in Iraq?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Tart wrote:
In earlier discussions you have conceded now and then that the administration has lied about this or that,

Really? Got a link? I have criticized The Current Administration, and pointed out what I have thought to be blunders, or misstatements, but I don't recall having "Conceded" that The Current Administraion has lied. Of course, I could be wrong, perhaps I did and just don't remember. Show me, and I'll believe it. I suspect such will not prove the case.

Quote:
and later revert to basing your arguments on those lies. It is these two elements in your presentation which have robbed your arguments of value... not to mention the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a hard-core "partisan."

As for the first part of this statement, I await confirmation that I indeed "Conceded a lie". As I said, I don't think that is the case, but I'm certainly willing to be shown to be wrong. To the second part, I'll say I certainly disagree with those who take a hardcore leftist partisan stance. I challenge you to demonstrate that I consider "Anyone" who disagrees with me a "hardcore partisan". I do consider you, among several others, to be a hardcore partisan, but then, the sentiment obviously is reciprocated. It seems to me that you more frequently attack my style than substantively and effectively address my arguments. I have the impression much if not most of what you present as counter argument consists of opinion as opposed to "Hard News" and documented, independently verifiable facts and figures. I get the sense that you believe yourself to be correct because you find yourself to be in agreemnet with those who agree with you. Again, that's just my perception, and I've done no statistical research. I await your findings.

Assertion.
Assertions are positive statements presented as fact. They imply that what is stated is self-evident and needs no further proof. Assertions may or may not be true.

Bandwagon and Inevitable Victory.
Bandwagon-and-inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take a course of action "everyone else is taking." "Join the crowd." This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their interest to join. "Inevitable victory" invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already, or partially, on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is the best course of action.

0 Replies

KAra, I'm not pleased at all by what happened to the Italians, and in particular I am displeased by what I see as an operational planning failure on the part of the Italian decision makers responsible for the security of the Italian contingent. I expect to see much the sort of negatively critical assessment of Italian security as was leveled against, and acknowledged by, The UN as a result of the horrific bombing of their Baghdad facillity. I am outraged that laxness enabled the conditions which resulted in the deaths of Italian soldiers. I don't fault the troops a bit; I fault their direct superiors.

And Gel, I submit that your latest response is argument by implication, and in no way either substantiates your assertions nor refutes my own.

0 Replies

There is an article in today's NYTimes about Blair expressing support for Bush in anticipation of GWB's visit next week. I find myself wondering why I can listen to Tony Blair say things that I don't agree with and still like and respect him. I cannot do that with George Bush. It could be that Blair is articulate, but I think the reason lies elsewhere. Blair talks to you as if he is sitting in your drawing room having a chat. He speaks specifically of what he thinks you are thinking, why you are criticizing him or his policy, and then he comes back with his own opinion, sounding as if he thinks reasonable people can differ. He shows respect for the person or his collective countrymen, whichever he is talking to, rather than making arrogant pronouncements from the high throne of power.

Here is one quote from that piece (Blair speaking):

"Try not to believe that myself or President Bush are sort of badly motivated people who want to do the worst. Just try and look at it from the perspective that we are taking on, and recognize that were it not for the conflict, those people in Iraq qould still be under the lash of Saddam and his sons and their henchmen."

"Is America, as I think these critics believe, simply exercising its powers in a selfish way without regard to the interests of the wider world, to do whatever it wills because it is the most powerful nation? Or is American correctly identifying on behalf of the world the key security threats of the 21st century and dealing with it in a balanced, measured and just way, so that advantages that countries like America and Britain have are extended to other countries in the world?"

He said the following in response to complaints in Britain that he appeared to give unquestioning support to Mr Bush and that he did not stand up to him more in public:

"I don't believe it is very sensible when you are in a coalition and you are fighting a war and then fighting a peace in very difficult circumstances to be mouthing off every so often. And actually I don't believe the essential strategy of the Americans is wrong. I believe it is right."

0 Replies

Quote:

I'll note too that I am critical of the security lapse that enabled this relatively successful attack on a facillity essentially in the charge of the Italians. I perceive that to have been at best imprudent of them, if not in fact irresponsible bordering on negligent.

Having said earlier that I ignore most of what you write Timber, I find I can't ignore this. Are you really saying it was the Italians' lack of professionalism that resulted in them getting blown up and therefore the Italians themselves are to blame for the loss of a coalition asset?

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't fault the troops a bit; I fault their direct superiors.

Timber, the immediate cause of any deaths by terrorism is lack of adequate security. The same is true for all of the US soldiers who are being killed by rockets and IED's. The only way we can improve the security situation (aside from playing catch-up in seeking better intelligence, finally, finally, at last...) is with more troops on the ground, be they ours or the old Iraqi army (the disbanding of which is one of the issues, it seems, in Bremer's sudden trip to Washington.)

0 Replies

Here's the headline in today's San Jose Mercury News; "CIA: Iraq outlook bleak." The essence of the article is that the US is at a crisis point in Iraq, "that the country as a democracy could collapse." Things in Iraq are just dandy.......... Who do we believe?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

KAra, I'm not pleased at all by what happened to the Italians, and in particular I am displeased by what I see as an operational planning failure on the part of the Italian decision makers responsible for the security of the Italian contingent. I expect to see much the sort of negatively critical assessment of Italian security as was leveled against, and acknowledged by, The UN as a result of the horrific bombing of their Baghdad facillity. I am outraged that laxness enabled the conditions which resulted in the deaths of Italian soldiers. I don't fault the troops a bit; I fault their direct superiors.

And Gel, I submit that your latest response is argument by implication, and in no way either substantiates your assertions nor refutes my own.

No argument .... analysis of propaganda. Not what you say but how you say it ... and it's intended impact by recognizing my reaction.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know