0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 09:30 am
Jer wrote:
Ican,

I haven't been following this thread lately, but I just read your post with with many a "probably" and "implies" - I've never seen so many of occurrences of those two words in a post, ever. Were you kidding around there - or was that serious?


Serious!

I believe the old saying that the "only things certain in life are death and taxes" is probably true.

I don't question the certainty of death, but taxes may be avoidable, but probably not. Smile

I bet that all the postings in this forum including my own, regardless of source, are probabilistic. That is, none are certainly true, and some are more or less probably true than others. What's written implies consequents, or infers implicants. I bet none of those implicants or consequents are certainly true or certainly false.

From Merriam-Webster
www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: prob·a·bi·lism
Pronunciation: 'prä-b&-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French probabilisme, from Latin probabilis probable
1 : a theory that in disputed moral questions any solidly probable course may be followed even though an opposed course is or appears more probable
2 : a theory that certainty is impossible especially in the sciences and that probability suffices to govern belief and action
- prob·a·bi·list /-list/ adjective or noun


That's me! :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 09:47 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
In short, sport, if the game of sink their boat succeeds, you will discover your boat is sunk as well.


ican

The goal here is to PREVENT your boat from sinking.


Your method precludes the attainment of your goal.

Almost all criticism and almost no recommendation amounts to:

"Look at all those holes in your boat; better plug 'em before you sink us all; but don't ask me how to plug them or assist in plugging them. The intensifying, already developed storm is all your fault."

With that kind of help who needs enemies?

Yeah, good goals are nice but accomplishment of good goals is nicer.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 09:54 am
ican

But you have the other end adequately covered (rah rah...flags and apple pie all floating in pink clouds...John Wayne wth a huge penis that looks just like a missle).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 09:58 am
Anyone who thinks taxes are probably not avoidable is probably neither extremely wealthy, nor one of the Shrub's "Pioneers." We should cut Ican some slack . . .
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:12 am
blatham wrote:
ican

But you have the other end adequately covered (rah rah...flags and apple pie all floating in pink clouds...John Wayne wth a huge penis that looks just like a missle).


Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:19 am
We're all familiar with the "cut and run" policies of this administration even though they continue to use the words "stay the course." We have 135,000 troops that are fodder for this administration to use as they wish in Iraq, and the American people still don't get it. This government is calling up 5,600 former soldiers back to active duty, because they never made the correct assessment of this war. The San Jose Merc also has an article in today's paper titled "GAO's bleak assessment: Postwar Iraq is worse off." Yeah, they're talking about Iraqis being worse off today than prewar conditions in the areas of electricity, court system, sewer, and oil production. In other words, Iraq is in a big mess. What in heaven's name are we sacrificing our military and treasure for? It surely isn't to reduce terrorism around the world. And if it's for the Iraqi people, why are they worse off today than before the war?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:20 am
We should cut Ican some slack . . .

Never fully understood the derivation nor indeed the meaning of this expression. Is it painful?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:21 am
Quote:
"Look at all those holes in your boat; better plug 'em before you sink us all; but don't ask me how to plug them or assist in plugging them. The intensifying, already developed storm is all your fault."


A more accurate statement would be, "I told you, over and over, not to use a power drill on the floorboards. You f*cking idiots. Now we're all going to sink, thanks a lot, jerkwads."

And then, there is a brief struggle over who is captain of the boat. That will happen this november.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:34 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
We should cut Ican some slack . . .

Never fully understood the derivation nor indeed the meaning of this expression. Is it painful?


I don't think so, Boss . . .

On a day in which the irony is coming in hot and heavy, enought to meet the nutritional requirements of a dozen menstruating women, it appears to have a nautical origin.

You will find an explanation a the bulletin board of Phrase-dot-org-dot-uk . . .

(Nota Bene: i didn't write phrases.org.uk in the middle of that UBB code so as not to confuse the dancing electrons.)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:47 am
Thanks Set

First heard it on LA Confidential when Buzz Meeks gets his arm twisted up his back by Russel Crowe. That was quite a robust debate, similar to some A2K threads.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 06:15 pm
So.

Paul Bremer got the hell out of Dodge two days early, admittedly because of security concerns:

Quote:
Other than the handful of senior officials participating in the handover ceremony, which was not broadcast live on television, Iraqis had no knowledge of it as it was happening. The ceremony was so secretive that even members of Bremer's senior staff did not know about it until two hours before it began, the official said.


Two hours later, Bremer's ass is gone. Two heavily armed bodyguards escorted him right to the door of the plane.

Thank you Baghdad! We love yew! Good night!

Over 130,000 troops, of course, stayed behind.

So. Iraq is now a sovereign nation.

Yeh-huh. Confused

With a government nobody elected. Whose security is so fraglie it had to take power in secret because of fear of massive violence. Which is likely to declare martial law any minute. Which will be enforced by occupying troops, which aren't leaving.

Things are so bad that nobody could even guarantee the security of a single public event, which was, let us remember, supposedly the culmination of purpose for the whole invasion.

I cannot believe the media is reporting any of this with a straight face.

<begin digression>

I was fooling around doing the typical Las Vegas activities most of the day, but I did glimpse CNN's Christiane Amanpour -- whom I actually respect, since she's the one who admitted (to some brief controversy) that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq invasion -- chatting away. The conversation was mostly repetitions of the obvious, and I was about to change the channel. And then a large fly landed on her left cheek. Whop.

And Christiane didn't even blink. Shocked She just continued the interview, unflinching, with a fly crawling across her face for several seconds, before finally conceding the obvious -- that there was a large fly crawling across her face -- as she swatted it away. Her expression never changed, even slightly. And then she continued talking about the handover as if it was actually a palpable political change.

I laughed out loud, since this seemed a clear metaphor for how the media has reported everything lately. Deny the obvious with a straight face. Hope we don't notice and it goes away. When it doesn't, swat it off quickly. Then continue repeating the White House's latest bullshit.

<end digression>

What's going on right now is nothing but an attempt by the Bush administration to set up someone else to take the blame for the ongoing shitstorm. Remember that American domestic politics is the only reason June 30th was ever chosen in the first place -- the date was fixed before any plan for even forming the new "government" even existed, or we had the slightest clue whom we were handing power to.

The fly continues to crawl. The anchors continue to act like we can't see it.

But it's there.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
And this man is about to be re-elected as President of the United States of America?


Uh, no. And it won't be all that close.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 06:18 pm
The 14 permanent bases being build speaks volumes about the government's true aims in the Mid East.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 07:39 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
The 14 permanent bases being build speaks volumes about the government's true aims in the Mid East.


It was within the first month of the war (if I recall correctly, certainly within the second month) that one general let that bit of planning slip. It got very little or no coverage in North America.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 04:23 am
This one not about Iraq, but about the US and the UN (reproduced from the Sudan thread):

Today in the newspaper, front page story: the US is threatening it will suspend all financial support to the World Health Organisation and UNICEF.

Why? Endemic corruption? Incompetence? Nah ... its because they work together (obviously) with another UN agency, UNPFA (sp?) - to which the US already suspended its contributions earlier - because it doesnt implement an anti-abortion policy.

So two global health/aid organisations are cut off by the world's largest country because they work together with a sister organisation that doesn't implement the administration's anti-abortion policies. Never mind that UNICEF works on childrens' health, vaccines, education, etc - well, you can read above about the temporary classrooms UNICEF recently constructed in war-torn Sudan - all laudable goals that have nothing to do with abortion ... ideology rules.

I get so very mad at this stuff. I mean, each country is entitled to its own priorities and stances. Even if Bush doesnt want to fund any reproduction-related UN activities because of his ideological beliefs, I'd frown (imagine we were all to start deciding which parts of our taxes we wanted to pay and which ones not - hey, I dont like the Iraq war, I wont pay the part of my taxes that goes to defence, you hear?) -- but I could at least still see the argument. This is just vindictive.

They're not entirely alone in their battle against UNPFA policies - they're allying with the Vatican and orthodox Muslim countries Rolling Eyes . But they are pushing it the furthest.

UNICEF

WHO
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 05:01 am
"Uh, no. And it won't be all that close."

Did you mean it will be a landslide for Kerry?

I certainly hope so. Not that I'm any great fan, I just want justice for Bush, i.e. ignominy.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 06:15 am
Quote:
Hewitt: Let's get to the more important question. Victor Davis Hanson wrote yesterday that "the key, of course, will be the United States to stay engaged as it did in Korea and the Balkans - and not flee as it did in Vietnam circa 1974-5." Mr. Secretary, are we going to be sticking there?

Armitage: Damn right.

Hewitt: For as long as it takes?

Armitage: That's what the President says. He's got the courage, he's got the patience, we've got the will. [..]


June 29 -- Conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt posts the transcript of the interview he did with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on his blog.

Quote:
Hewitt: Now on Friday, the Vice President told Fox News' Neil Cavuto that the United States had once alerted Saddam to Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad, using a third country as an intermediary, meaning that Saddam knew that Zarqawi was there and did nothing to stop him. Do you agree with the Vice President's assessment of that?

Armitage: Well I remember that we did pass word. Whether it got to Saddam Hussein, I can't say. I have no knowledge of that. We passed word to the Iraqis.

Hewitt: Any doubt in your mind that Zarqawi is an associate of Al Qaeda?

Armitage: No.

Hewitt: And any doubt in your mind that he was operating in Baghdad prior to the war?

Armitage: Ah, whether he was in Baghdad or in the North up in the area of Ansar al-Islam inhabited [ie, where Saddam's rule did not reach - nimh], I couldn't be quite clear on. I know he was up North, I just can't say if he was in Baghdad. Personally, I don't know.


So lemme get this straight.

Cheney asserted that Saddam was told about Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad -- and this is supposed to mean that "Saddam knew that Zarqawi was there and did nothing to stop him".

But his colleague Armitage isn't actually "quite clear" on whether Zarqawi ever even was in Baghdad?

Hello?

The fact that Saddam "did nothing" against Zarqawi's presence when we warned him about it, is supposed to be proof of the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, **even though we dont actually know whether said presence even existed**?

More interesting answers from Armitage - you gotta give him that he's pretty honest about stuff, for someone of this administration - but that doesnt make some of these answers any less worrisome:

Quote:


Finally, a bit of interesting word choice in this one:

Quote:
Hewitt: Let's turn our attention to Iran where the other nuclear problem is unfolding. Is there a plan here for dealing with continued intransigence by the Iranians?

Armitage: For instance, without going into too much detail, Secretary Powell recently met with Dr. El Baradei of the IAEA. We're working very closely with the EU Ministers, primarily the three that we refer to as the EU3, the French, the Germans and the British. They were the ones who first brought forward an Iranian agreement to be forthcoming to the IAEA. And so we believe in the first instance that the burden is on them to work it out.


Nothing wrong with what he is actually saying here, but how he is saying it is intrigueing. Lessee - it was the EU3 which, unlike the US apparently, succeeded in "bringing forward an Iranian agreement to be forthcoming to the IAEA". Kudos to them, no? Reason to be grateful? But Armitage merely adds resentfully that this just puts "the burden on them" to solve the next step, too. Err - sour grapes here, anyone?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 06:23 am
nimh wrote:
So lemme get this straight.

Cheney asserted that Saddam was told about Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad -- and this is supposed to mean that "Saddam knew that Zarqawi was there and did nothing to stop him".

But his colleague Armitage isn't actually "quite clear" on whether Zarqawi ever even was in Baghdad?

Hello?

The fact that Saddam "did nothing" against Zarqawi's presence when we warned him about it, is supposed to be proof of the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, **even though we dont actually know whether said presence even existed**?


I would say it makes quite a difference whether Zarqawi was in Baghdad, or in the Ansar-al-Islam area in the Kurdish north, where Saddam's reign didn't reach ...

If he wasn't in Baghdad, but only up in the autonomous north, then there is no link here. The fact that Saddam didnt react to a warning of which we ourselves dont actually know whether it was right, doesnt mean much of anything. Cheney should be ashamed for peddling speculation as "facts".
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 07:37 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"Uh, no. And it won't be all that close."

Did you mean it will be a landslide for Kerry?

I certainly hope so. Not that I'm any great fan, I just want justice for Bush, i.e. ignominy.


It's too early to quantify, but it's not going to be as close as people are thinking. Methinks neither in the EC or by popular count.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:18 am
Yes but which way?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 08:43 am
nimh wrote:
nimh wrote:
So lemme get this straight.

Cheney asserted that Saddam was told about Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad -- and this is supposed to mean that "Saddam knew that Zarqawi was there and did nothing to stop him".

But his colleague Armitage isn't actually "quite clear" on whether Zarqawi ever even was in Baghdad?

Hello?

The fact that Saddam "did nothing" against Zarqawi's presence when we warned him about it, is supposed to be proof of the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, **even though we dont actually know whether said presence even existed**?


I would say it makes quite a difference whether Zarqawi was in Baghdad, or in the Ansar-al-Islam area in the Kurdish north, where Saddam's reign didn't reach ...

If he wasn't in Baghdad, but only up in the autonomous north, then there is no link here. The fact that Saddam didnt react to a warning of which we ourselves dont actually know whether it was right, doesnt mean much of anything. Cheney should be ashamed for peddling speculation as "facts".


The Bush administration had information before 9/11 that there were known terrorrist in America - yet they did nothing against them. Should Bush be declared a terrorrist and therefore bomb himself Shocked
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 12/16/2024 at 10:44:18