THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

McGentrix wrote:

Why don't the Iraqi's understand that it is not the US that blowing them up?

I read a quote the other day that basically stated that the guy thought it was the US setting off those bombs because we didn't want to leave Iraq. That it couldn't possibly be Iraqi's, because "Iraqi's don't kill other Iraqi's"

what the hell kind of reasoning is that and how do we get through to people like that?

Ever considered this
[quote="McGentrix]
No, we are supposed to be winning a war against international terrorism, not being moral elitists. The protection of America is goal #1.[/quote]
in that context?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why don't the Iraqi's understand that it is not the US that blowing them up?

They aren't thinking logically. They are thinking emotionally, and have been pumped up in this by leaders such as Al Sadr.

I guess some of them have gone through a whole river of sh*t, some are just young angry men, some are idiots.

There are some logical arguments to be made that people are dead who wouldn't be if the US never came to Iraq. You and I could counter those arguments easily but the typical young Iraqi male whose family is dead due to the fighting probably isn't willing to sit down and debate points.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This is not new and very predictable tactic with outcome. Just that we lack visionary leadership beyond the point of a gun <sad>

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I do not trust the competence of a commission that refuses to investigate the consequences of Jamie Gorelick's directive (Jamie Gorelick is a member of the commission, and she served in the Clinton Administration pre-9/11/2001). Her directive explicitly prohibited intelligence sharing among the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

And within two days of Ashcroft advancing this claim against Gorelick, it came to light that Ashcroft's office had reviewed and approved Gorelick's directive.

No! It was brought to light that Ashcroft reviewed Gorelick's directive. Ashcroft did not approve it. Gorelick's directive was already approved by the previous administration and required no additional approval. Ashcroft failed to attempt to get Bush to rescind it. Probably that failure of Ashcroft's occurred because 9/11/2001 hadn't occurred yet, leaving him at that time without a persuasive argument to rescind Gorelick's directive. It wasn't rescinded until the Homeland Security Bill was signed into law.

But that of course is beside the point. The so-called bipartisan intelligence commission did not review the causes or consequences of the Gorelick directive, yet dares come to conclusions regarding US intelligence failures, their consequences and what needs to be done to correct US intelligence gathering and processing. The real question is why was there no such investigation of Gorelick's directive, a clearly limiting if not outrignt crippling directive? Is it because Gorelick was herself a member of the commission? Bipartisan? Bipartisan in name only; but not bipartisan in conduct!

0 Replies

Hate to repeat the old saw again but fools rush in where mortals fear to tread.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Hate to repeat the old saw again but fools rush in where mortals fear to tread.

Hmmm! That old saw use to be "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." When was it changed and who changed it? Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

No! It was brought to light that Ashcroft reviewed Gorelick's directive. Ashcroft did not approve it. Gorelick's directive was already approved by the previous administration and required no additional approval. Ashcroft failed to attempt to get Bush to rescind it.

I'm perplexed as to how you know the above. But even so, if Ashcroft reviewed it, and it was found wanting, why did he not do something about that? That makes him as complicit in the policy (this was his responsibility now, after all) as was the author.

But I'll not weigh in on this any longer.

0 Replies

I've heard it both ways but angels is fine.

0 Replies

Bill, We used "smart bombs," remember? Talk about an oxymoron.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
No! It was brought to light that Ashcroft reviewed Gorelick's directive. Ashcroft did not approve it. Gorelick's directive was already approved by the previous administration and required no additional approval. Ashcroft failed to attempt to get Bush to rescind it.

I'm perplexed as to how you know the above.

That makes us even. I was perplexed about how you could believe Ashcroft had approved Gorelick's directive. The argument actually advanced at that time is the one you are now making.

blatham wrote:

But even so, if Ashcroft reviewed it, and it was found wanting, why did he not do something about that? That makes him as complicit in the policy (this was his responsibility now, after all) as was the author.

He failed to foresee the need to change it until 9/11/2001. Then they rescinded it by replacing it via an act of Congress: The Homeland Security Bill.

Perhaps Ashcroft is as dumb as Bush. But clearly not as dumb as Kerry. Ashcroft rectifies his mistakes.

But I'll not weigh in on this any longer unless you do.

0 Replies

According to the logic extended by McG, it's okay for Bush to continue his rhetoric that Saddam had "relations" with al Qaeda, and used that justification to bomb the $hit out of Iraq. Didn't we see Rummie shaking hands with Saddam? What should be the consequence of that "relationship?" I say bomb the $hit out of him.

0 Replies

Walter...

0 Replies

:wink:

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

According to the logic extended by McG, it's okay for Bush to continue his rhetoric that Saddam had "relations" with al Qaeda, and used that justification to bomb the $hit out of Iraq. Didn't we see Rummie shaking hands with Saddam? What should be the consequence of that "relationship?" I say bomb the $hit out of him.

LOGIC

Saddam had "relations" with Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda bombed the "$hit" out of the US's World Trade Center.
The US military bombed the "$hit" out of Iraq.

Saddam had "relations" with Rummie.
Rummie did not bomb the "$hit" out of the US's World Trade Center.
The US military should thank Rummie. Smile

0 Replies

aw
I guess the question is now who had most substantive relations with Al-Qaeda, the Iraqis under Saddam or present members of the power elite of Saudi society?

Osama kept calling the Iraqis to get help, money and space to train. Those calls, according to the best US intelligence, went unanswered. It is those unanswered calls that Bush and his cadre continue to cite as an Iraq-Qaeda relationship. If I call a girl for a date and she doesn't answer, I don't get to claim we had once had a relationship, only Bush can do that.

The report will say there was no substantive relationship. I apologize to anyone who was mislead by my saying no relationship and it was me, not the wonderful joefromchicago.

Meanwhile, wait till you get to read about the Saudis- Al-Qaeda.

Or go see fahrenheit 9-11.

These liars must go, they have no credibility left. They're wrong on so many things from stem cell research to the ABM treaty, from taxes to WMDs, from economic policy to assisting America's schools, from how to fight terror at home to whether to amend the US Constitution with a variety of things including, incredibly, a definition of marriage. ! It's the Constitution, fellas.

This short list leave out their complete mis-handling of America's role in the world. They have brought us no new friends, they have opened no new doors, they have created, in a very short time, vast fertile grounds for breeding hatred towards this nation and it's people.

They must go.

Our freedom depends on it.

Joe Nation

0 Replies

Here is a lovely quote from Alexander Hamilton...

Quote:

Writing in 1797, Alexander Hamilton charged that France under the influence of the Jacobins had "betrayed a spirit of universal domination; an opinion that she had a right to be the legislatrix of nations; that they are all bound to submit to her mandates, to take from her their moral, political, and religious creeds; that her plastic and regenerating hand is to mould them into whatever shape she thinks fit; and that her interest is to be the sole measure of the rights of the rest of the world."

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-1/hendrickson.html

0 Replies

What diatribe?

I've merely been directly addressing your posts, ican, and providing references. All you can do is backtrack and call my posts bullshit. It is you who, for lack of a reasonable argument, resort to diatribes. Bullshit indeed. You betray your own ignorance of the matter in Palestine in the early part of the 20th century by referring to the immigrant Ashkenazim as "native populations," and "Palestinian Jews," even after I drew your attention to the petition signed in 1920 by the actual Palestinian Jews--the Arab Jews born and living in Palestine--rejecting Ashkenazi rule. What utter bullshit indeed.

Your explicit agreement with my expressed desire that all of Palestine be governed by one government is well taken, ican. But I don't agree that that should happen or be effected if and only if the Palestinians end the "TMM" of the minority who perpetrate it. I repeat:

There will always be fanatical zealots willing to spill blood in Palestine on both sides. That is not bullshit, ican, that is reality.

The state of Israel had better start dealing with that reality and its implications, and stop using the actions of that minority as a pretext for stalemate and the maintenance of the status quo.

I offered steissd's posts as an example of the mentality which was the basis of what the Palestinian Jews opposed in the petition they signed back in 1920. The petition is not bullshit, the bigoted chauvinism of the Ashkenazim that the Arab Jews opposed was not bullshit, and steissd's bigoted chauvinism is not bullshit. Uncork your head from that hole in the ground and go read his posts. Put YOUR "mindless resentments, mythologies, desires, feelings," and emotions aside and deal with it. Humbug indeed.

0 Replies

Re: aw

Joe Nation wrote:

I guess the question is now who had most substantive relations with Al-Qaeda, the Iraqis under Saddam or present members of the power elite of Saudi society?

No, the question is whether or not Saddam helped finance and equip Al Qaeda before, and after 9/11/2001?

Joe Nation wrote:

Osama kept calling the Iraqis to get help, money and space to train. Those calls, according to the best US intelligence, went unanswered.

"according to the best US intelligence"???

I thought we all agreed that the "best US intelligence" at that time and subsequently up to at least 2003 was incompetent. One cannot have it both ways. Cite US intelligence as authoritative when it suits ones argument and castigate it when it doesn't.

According to my best intelligence (which you are of course also free to question) the following is true:
1. Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian terrorists;
2. Osama declared Saddam an infidel prior to 9/11/2001 but did not terrorize Saddam (or any member of his government or any Iraqi citizen) as a consequence.
3. A Boeing 727 fuselage and training site was discovered in northern Iraq;
4. Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and distributed $billions of Iraqi oil revenue to both secret and non-secret accounts all around the world;
5. Some members of Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan after the US entry into Afghanistan, and through Iran entered Iraq to join up with other Al Qaeda in Iraq who were there prior to the US entry into Afghanistan and Iraq;
6. More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq;
7. Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001;
8. Osama and Saddam hated Americans and did not willingly share intelligence with the US -- In other words, they tried to keep secrets from the US (we too late learned of when they succeeded).

With the aid of a little probabilistic inference, one can rationally infer that Saddam was secretly financing and equipping some terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, around the world. One can argue that such evidence is not convincing. Well that depends on the competence of the individual who interprets that evidence. Does anyone have convincing evidence that one will survive the next 24 hours? Does one have convincing evidence that one will not survive the next 24 hours? Personal health and domestic accidents aside, what are the odds that any of us will be terrorist victims or, if you like, not be terrorist victims in the next 24 hours? Whose intelligence data are you willing to trust in answering that question?

The naive notion that our intelligence about the occurrence of so-called unanswered calls is valid, but at the same time the whole intelligence operation was incompetent "must go". Make up your mind. Either you think US intelligence is all bogus or partially bogus or partially valid or all valid. If you think it partially valid, then please share your intelligence about how you tell what is and is not valid intelligence.

My freedom depends on it!

0 Replies

<sigh> blinded by the right....... Tomorrow belongs to me :sad:

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

You betray your own ignorance of the matter in Palestine in the early part of the 20th century by referring to the immigrant Ashkenazim as "native populations," and "Palestinian Jews," even after I drew your attention to the petition signed in 1920 by the actual Palestinian Jews--the Arab Jews born and living in Palestine--rejecting Ashkenazi rule. What utter bullshit indeed.

You reveal your ignorance quite forthrightly. First, please find for me where in any previous post of mine in this forum I wrote the word: "Ashkenazim". This time in this post is the first time. Any other occurrence of that word in my previous posts came from my quote of various articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Second, not all the "Arab Jews born and living in Palestine" signed that petition. Third, being born in Palestine does not convey any greater ownership of Palestine than that of naturalized/immigrant citizens. Similarly, being born an American does not convey a greater ownership of America than that of naturalized/immigrant citizens.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your explicit agreement with my expressed desire that all of Palestine be governed by one government is well taken, ican. But I don't agree that that should happen or be effected if and only if the Palestinians end the "TMM" of the minority who perpetrate it. I repeat:
There will always be fanatical zealots willing to spill blood in Palestine on both sides. That is not bullshit, ican, that is reality.

Your point here is valid. So I change my mind and seek only earnest and sincere effort to eradicate homicidal maniacs on bot sides as a prerequisite.

InfraBlue wrote:

I offered steissd's posts as an example of the mentality which was the basis of what the Palestinian Jews opposed in the petition they signed back in 1920.

I agree that part was not BS. (i.e., Bunkum Slop). But it is nonetheless true that both sides claim their ancestoral conqueror to be supreme, when in fact neither is. I offered a proposal for how to achieve the goal you articulated with regard to achieving a one-government of Palestine. What do you think of it now?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know