The UN, US and Iraq IV

There is a kind of repetitious cant infecting conservatives. One of the worst examples is Rush Limbaugh (may he disappear into permanent rehab!) attaching the phrase "French-looking" to every mention of John Kerry's name. The repetition and the xenophobia inherent in Limbaugh's (sh)tic(k) are part of the conservative modus operandi now - appealing to the lowest denonimator salaciously and unethically.

Timber, I think you have been doing the same thing, perhaps at a slightly higher level, perhaps not! Each of these arguments has been stated, fought, and (if memory serves) effectively refuted by NIMH and others, over and over again.

Why must they be refought in discussion after discussion? Have Republicans -- the decent ones, I mean -- developed their own form of Tourette's syndrome? Or selective memory loss? Is there a real belief among conservatives that if you say something often enough it becomes true?

Should all Republicans perhaps be in rehab?

Wouldn't it be better, Timber, to declare the administration is a disaster but the party is not, then do something to remove its canker?

0 Replies

Tartar, It's more like "remove it's cancer."

0 Replies

Canker is the old-fashioned, less threatening, more humorous term, CI!

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Is there a real belief among conservatives that if you say something often enough it becomes true?

Well, the sad thing of course is that it actually does work like that, in politics of whichever colour, and politicians know only too well.

Most people dont go digging in archives - and if their president, prime minister, random official-looking sources in suits on TV, repeat over and over again that x and y is the case - or even suggest so - they will internalise it. And exploiting that seems to be deliberate policy.

0 Replies

Oddly enough, not all people ascribe to The US a hegomonistic venality, corruupt Administration, and thoroughly surrilous world view. Asserting an argument has been refuted, no matter how often that assertion is made, does not refute the argument. Some folks persist in criticizing and laying allegations against The Current Administration, and in predicting doom and gloom for it and its prospects. Everything presented or accomplished by The Americasn Right is criticized and dismissed by The American Left. That is wholly unsurprising. It is worth noting, as regards refutation of argument, The Left of late has been characterized neither by judicial nor electoral achievement of any significance, something not characteristic of superior argument.
Somehow, I see The US, on the geopolitical stage, as a sort of parallel with The American Right on the domestic political stage. Its resolution, planning and execution prove consistently capable of overcoming the challenges presented. This infuriates some folks, and alarms others. That too is perfectly understandable. None the less, I, and many, many others, see no reason to expect, nor justification for, any lessening of the established momentum. That too is a matter of dismay for some.

0 Replies

You can say that again
(but it still won't be true)

0 Replies

What of my foregoing do you contest, Gel? Do you argue with my therein stated assertions? If any are untrue, refute them. I fail to see error in any of them.

On the other hand, if you have contrary opinion, that is cetainly your prerogative. That we might differ neither validates nor invalidates our respective opinions. Validation proceeds from the comparative evaluation of observed phenomena and established fact only. Never the less, I obviously think it is you who is "wrong" Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Quote:

"timberlandko"]What the CIA Actually Said Aboiut Iraq's Weapons Programs.......

What is this article supposed to prove? Seriously.

0 Replies

PRESIDENT RELEASES NEWLY RECOVERED WARZONE DOCUMENTS OFFERING INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF OF IRAQI ACQUISITION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Statement by the President

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today, I'm taking just a few minutes off from scarfing down pork rinds at my daddy's 79th birthday party to bring glorious news to the American people. After months and months of fruitlessly scouring the charred carcass of Iraq for some shred of evidence to justify my killing more innocent civilians than died on 9/11, I'm pleased to say that documents newly recovered from Saddam bin Hussein's safe prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this nefarious evildoer was actively scheming with rogue regimes to acquire vast quantities of WMDs. And while I have not had an opportunity to examine the papers myself, I have the utmost faith in the competence of those persons in the Central Intelligence Agency to whom I delegated the task of covering my ass. Therefore, I have ordered these documents to be released immediately. I trust that they will appease the crybaby liberal news media, and effectively debunk any absurd speculation about my Administration and the DoD's Constitutionally suspect Intelligence Office having bullied Georgie Peorgie Tenet and his chubby office jockeys into falsifying reports of Iraqi WMDs just so I could settle a family score. Thank you.
EXHIBIT A

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/images/wmd-receipt1.jpg

EXHIBIT B

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/images/wmd-receipt2.jpg

Timber, repetitive rhetoric does not a WMD make.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Somehow, I see The US, on the geopolitical stage, as a sort of parallel with The American Right on the domestic political stage. Its resolution, planning and execution prove consistently capable of overcoming the challenges presented.

With little regard for law and due process (See the Ashcroft Justice Department, the ideological linkage of Hussein and al-Quaeda despite the lack of evidence, the determination to go to war with Iraq regardless of what anyone, foreign or domestic thought,and the infamous "With us or against us" comment.)

Quote:

None the less, I, and many, many others, see no reason to expect, nor justification for, any lessening of the established momentum. That too is a matter of dismay for some.

Mainly those of us who abhor being citizens of a nation that has been hijacked by folks who worship power for its own sake, and see their duty and role in life to be the establishment of an imperialistic hegemony that will enrich them and their cronies.

0 Replies

timber's quote, " Everything presented or accomplished by The Americasn Right is criticized and dismissed by The American Left." I guess it never happens the other way around. And "everything?"

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Oddly enough, not all people ascribe to The US a hegomonistic venality, corruupt Administration, and thoroughly surrilous world view. Asserting an argument has been refuted, no matter how often that assertion is made, does not refute the argument.

How true. Take comfort in the fact that you are not alone in your blind patriotism, contentment with the status quo, and inability to think outside of what your leaders feed you. This sentiment is common to the majority of people in most places and times throughout history.

As to your remarks about assertions being refuted - the fact remains that we went to war against a figment of the Bush administrations imagination. Posting a rambling article that amounts to saying 'we have some information that Iraq may have been thinking about aquiring weapons of mass destruction, and since Hussien is unwilling to prove these imaginary weapons don't exist, we are going to operate on the assumption that they do exist and invade him' doesn't prove anything, bring anything new to the table, address any of the relevent questions, or help your cause.

Quote:

It is worth noting, as regards refutation of argument, The Left of late has been characterized neither by judicial nor electoral achievement of any significance, something not characteristic of superior argument.

'Judicial and electoral achievement' is gained through the support of the voting public. In a nation where most people are completly ignorant of world affairs (70% of Americans believing Hussiens directly connected to Sept 11th etc) I don't see how the opinion of the voting public is any indication of a 'superior argument.' If anything, it supports the opposite.

0 Replies

"Everything" was perhaps overstatement. Nothing was said of exclusivity, merely a comment pertinent to current obesrvation. The Left Will Rise Again; politics by their nature are cyclical, particularly in a democracy.

Hbob, again, not all share your assessment of the values, methods, aims, and accomplishments of either the US or of The American Right. Others perceive differently than do you. That those others may be of political persuasion other than yours, and apparently or effectively of relatively greater current influence than those of your political persuasion, is incontrivertable. It is not necessarilly, nor even likely, an immutable state of affairs; it merey is the current state of affairs.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

"Everything" was perhaps overstatement. Nothing was said of exclusivity, merely a comment pertinent to current obesrvation. The Left Will Rise Again; politics by their nature are cyclical, particularly in a democracy.

Hbob, again, not all share your assessment of the values, methods, aims, and accomplishments of either the US or of The American Right. Others perceive differently than do you. That those others may be of political persuasion other than yours, and apparently or effectively of relatively greater current influence than those of your political persuasion, is incontrivertable. It is not necessarilly, nor even likely, an immutable state of affairs; it merey is the current state of affairs.

A state of affairs that badly needs to be changed! Mad

0 Replies

Now, IronLionZion, (welcome to A2K, BTW ... hope you enjoy it here - please feel free to poke around, and just holler if you want help figuring out any of the local bells and whistles), I believe we can agree that we each take issue with the other's position. I submit, however, that one of us displays a more partisan style of exppression, if not sentiment. In the matter to which you responded, I believe I offered relatively unprejudicial observation, whereas your counter was more opinion, and rather heavy with perjoration and buzzwords. I could be wrong, even if I greatly doubt it in this instance, though.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Now, IronLionZion, (welcome to A2K, BTW ... hope you enjoy it here - please feel free to poke around, and just holler if you want help figuring out any of the local bells and whistles), I believe we can agree that we each take issue with the other's position. I submit, however, that one of us displays a more partisan style of exppression, if not sentiment. In the matter to which you responded, I believe I offered relatively unprejudicial observation, whereas your counter was more opinion, and rather heavy with perjoration and buzzwords. I could be wrong, even if I greatly doubt it in this instance, though.

Fair enough. Without launching into some complicated argument that will only recycle points that have already been raised in this thread, the relevent facts:

We justified the war on the basis of protecting America from Iraq's WMD's - which have turned out to be imaginary. Even the combined might and resources of the worlds sole remaing superpower haven't been able to turn these fantasies into reality. Even Bush's skilled speechwriters are hard pressed to explain this little problem away, opting instead to extend the illusion for as many months as possible.

We also justified the war under the umbrella of the 'war on terrorism.' Through the skilled phrasing of Bush's speechwriters and his administrations vague implications, he convinced most Americans that there was some direct connection between Saddam and Sept 11th. They also lead us to believe that Saddam sponsored terrorism and shared some common ideology with Islamic Fundamentalists. Unfortunatly, it is painfully obvious to all by now that Saddam had no connection to Sept 11th (Bush eventually forced to admit this). Saddam does not support terrorism, and whatever vague connections can be made, it is obvious that they don't come close to the terrorism connections of at least a dozen other Arab states, including our allies in Saudi Arabia.

Another justification was that Iraq had to be punished for going against the wishes of the UN. So adament were we in this belief that we went against the wishes of the UN to punish them for going against the wishes of the UN. I think the idiocy of the argument is self evident.

We also managed to set a dangerous precedent of unilateralism (yes, it qualifies as unilaterialism) and stir up more of the anti-Americanism that led to Sept 11th in the first place.

The bottom line is that the only way to justify a war in Iraq is to a) ignore the facts, b) to justify it based on a criteria so broad that we would be fighting dozens of 'pre-emptive' wars.

Although the war was clearly unjustified, I still held out hope that it could end on a high note if the occupation was handled properly. If the Iraqi public welcomed us with open arms, accepted temporary rule, and were able to establish democracy and get out fast enough, it could work. Indeed, America could have vindicated itself in the eyes of the Arab public. Sadly, the increasing frequency of attacks against our troops, our alienating policies, slow pace, and refusal to internationalize the effort is killing what hope I had.

0 Replies

yup, looks like we're gonna agree to disagree, there partner ... which don't make either of us all bad ... or all good, for that matter. I just don't accept a number of your postulates. You're new here, so you may not be aware that I consider the "WMD Branding" of the action against Iraq a marketing blunder without parallel. I do not however, consider the idea of threat from Iraqi interest, capability, and activity in regard to WMD at all spurious. I also hold the CIA directly accountable for the abysmal intelligence gathering and analysis largely responsible for enabling and encouraging the previously alluded marketing blunder that is at the core of the acrimonious and partisan dispute currently distracting us from the larger War on Terrorism, of which both Iraq and Afghanistan are but components, individual episodes among many past, present, and future.
I feel The UN, by act of piling binding-on-pain-of-force resoltions one atop the other, each essentially repeating the demands of its predecessors while Iraq remained defiantly and flagrantly in material breach of the first of them, over more than a decade. abdicated its responsibility and violated the basic precepts of its Charter. I maintain that resumption of hostilities with Iraq was both fully justified and long overdue, and that the necessity of the US to undertake that justified resumption of hostilities outside of UN channels exemplifies the UN's divorcement from recognition of and relevance in contemporary geopolitical affairs. I contebd that the regime-toppling intervention in Iraq was a military success unparalleled in history for speed, effect, and sparing of life, suffering, and unnescessary destruction. I submit that more "reconstruction" and "movement toward indigenous rule" have been accomplished in six months in Iraq than were achieved in Germany or Japan in the first six years following WWII, despite there having been no formal instrument of Iraqi surrender or ceremonial trabsfer of authority, and despite the fact Iraq's population is far less heterogenious and much more p-artisanly factional than the populations of either Germany or Japan. I contend that astounding progress has been made in remarkably short time, while not dismissing the obvious need for yet more improvement and long term commitment. Its late, and I'm tired, so I'll wrap this up by saying it is absurd to pursue a consistently unsuccessful course of action in hope of improved result. Only a fool would stand by idley while an avowed and active enemy assembled, loaded, armed, and aimed a devastating weapon before taking action to prevent that enemy from causing clearly intended harm.

0 Replies

Nimh

Can I persuade you to join Labour rather than the LibDems? (!) You're certainly well qualified, especially with your use of English which is much better than most over here...

ILZ
You made make two statements one I agree with entirely, one not

Quote:

Although the war was clearly unjustified, I still held out hope that it could end on a high note if the occupation was handled properly. If the Iraqi public welcomed us with open arms, accepted temporary rule, and were able to establish democracy and get out fast enough, it could work. Indeed, America could have vindicated itself in the eyes of the Arab public. Sadly, the increasing frequency of attacks against our troops, our alienating policies, slow pace, and refusal to internationalize the effort is killing what hope I had.

Many people who opposed starting the war at least hoped it would have a decent ending. A classic case of the ends justifying the means. But sadly its not working out that way because of the incompetence of American policy makers such as Rumsfeld. Which brings me nicely onto this comment by timber

Quote:

I contebd that the regime-toppling intervention in Iraq was a military success unparalleled in history...

What better than Napoleon at Austerlitz? Or Hitler's conquest of France?

Anyway the battle is not over, Saddam is still around, resistance is more organised and more determined, American and British troops are exhausted and there is nowhere near enough international support. Further it was supposed to be a WMD -toppling intervention, not Saddam toppling. Blair is on record as saying that Saddam could stay in power with conventional forces providing he gave up his WMD. (Which, with hindsight was never going to be very easy seeing as he had none).

It might have been a military success, but all wars are political, and it has not yet succeeded in its political objectives. Furthermore it seems clear that Iraqi tactics were always to make token resistance to the invasion, to shrink from the battle field and fight a guerilla war against US occupation. Are we winning that?

Which finally brings me to the statement form ILZ that I do not agree with..

Quote:

Saddam does not support terrorism

He does now!

0 Replies

Hundreds of Iraqis have taken to the streets in support of the parallel government that Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has announced for the country.

A day after al-Sadr announced the formation of his "Iraqi government" in defiance of the US-led occupation, a large crowd gathered in the city of Najaf, pledging their whole-hearted support.

"We are ready to sacrifice our souls for you, Sadr," chanted the demonstrators as they roamed the streets of the city.

A firebrand cleric, al-Sadr had announced the formation of the government during his weekly sermon in the town of Kufa.

Announcement

"I have decided and I have formed a government made up of several ministries, including ministries of justice, finance, information, interior, foreign affairs, endowments and the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice," the young cleric had said.

"If you agree, I ask you to demonstrate peacefully in order to express you support," al-Sadr had exhorted.

Responding to his call, the crowd in Najaf registered their noisy support.

"...I have formed a government made up of several ministries, including ministries of justice, finance, information, interior, foreign affairs, endowments and the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice"

Moqtada al-Sadr,
Shia cleric

"We are against the American occupation forces and we back everything that Moqtada al-Sadr says," one of the demonstrators said.

More Attacks

The day's show of solidarity for al-Sadr coincided with more resistance attacks in the troubled country.

An Iraqi police officer was killed and six policemen wounded in a hand grenade attack near the town of Karbala, south of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, thousands of Iraqi Shias have begun to converge on the city of Karbala to celebrate the birthday of the 12th Imam.

They travelled from across the country to participate in the celebration of the birth of the ninth-century Imam al-Mahdi.

The authorities expected as many as five million Shias to make their way into the city for the occasion.
Agencies

Anti-US mood is sweeping Iraqi streets

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/62D93B71-232E-414F-B111-D8BF9511A34E/13445/B011007C58B94F129B18269340320BE5.jpg

0 Replies

Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Tuesday, October 14, 2003

'Shadow Government'
Why is no one covering this: Parallel Government Finds Support?! I don't read about it anywhere except on Al-Jazeera- we only hear about on our Arab media networks... It's a big deal because Moqtada Al-Sadr has A LOT of support with fundamentalist Shi'a Muslims.

Moqtada Al-Sadr is one of the more powerful Shi'a clerics currently in the south. He has a huge backing and his followers are very angry that he wasn't included in the power grab. For the last few months he has been building an armed militia known as the "Imam Mahdi's Army". The majority of this militia are young, and very angry. I think they were meant to be a sort of antidote to "Badr's Brigade"- SCIRI's armed militia.

We've been hearing all sorts of strange things about the happenings in Najaf. One report said that Al-Sadr's followers have been abducting some prominent Shi'a sheikhs that aren't supporting him. One thing is certain- a couple of nights ago, the Spanish troops in Najaf went to detain Al-Sadr and disarm his militia (many were guarding his house) and hundreds of supporters flocked about his house, pushing the troops back and threatening that things would get very ugly if Al-Sadr was detained... the Spanish troops had to pull out of the area.

Very recently, Al-Sadr announced a 'hikoomet dhill' or 'shadow government' as a parallel government to the one selected in Baghdad by Bremer. The Shadow Government includes 13 different ministries (including an information ministry)...

Al-Sadr announced the following:
"...I have formed a government made up of several ministries, including ministries of justice, finance, information, interior, foreign affairs, endowments and the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice"

So what if this new 'shadow government' has orders or laws that differ with the Governing Council? What happens when the hundreds of thousands (some say millions) of Sadr supporters decide that Al-Sadr's word is law?

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know