hobitbob wrote:I'm not going to waste my time searching for the quote, but it was when you were on your "pernicious coveting" binge.
I'm still on it, but now I call it my
destroy pernicious envy cultures binge.
The important thing is to say whatever it takes to achieve your own objectives. This is the reality of the Middle East. There is no such thing as a lie as long you get what you want.
These are the people we have partnered with.
ojoy
Joe
Joe Nation wrote:The important thing is to say whatever it takes to achieve your own objectives. This is the reality of the Middle East. There is no such thing as a lie as long you get what you want.
These are the people we have partnered with.
ojoy
Joe
This is reality here in the US, too. Consider the liottle toad who gets mail addressed "Occupant, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. "
hobitbob wrote: This is reality here in the US, too. Consider the liottle toad who gets mail addressed "Occupant, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. "
"There you go again."
So if Saddam didn't have or wasn't developing any weapons of mass destruction we should have left him alone, right?
What's a few thousand dead Iraqies from time to time got to do with us?
What's Sadam's widely advertised payments to the families of suicidal Palestinian terrorists got to do with us?
What's the slaughter of several thousand Muslim's in Bosnia by serbs got to do with us?
ican711nm wrote:hobitbob wrote: This is reality here in the US, too. Consider the liottle toad who gets mail addressed "Occupant, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. "
"There you go again."
So if Saddam didn't have or wasn't developing any weapons of mass destruction we should have left him alone, right?
What's a few thousand dead Iraqies from time to time got to do with us?
What's Sadam's widely advertised payments to the families of suicidal Palestinian terrorists got to do with us?
What's the slaughter of several thousand Muslim's in Bosnia by serbs got to do with us?
You seem to have conveniently forgoten that the inspectors were allowed in. they were finding that he had fulfilled his side of the bargain. Maybe this would have led to increased aid, and to closer scruitiny on his practices by the world. We will never know, will we?
BTW, what about the victims of dictatorial regimes we support, like Azerbaijan, Pakistan, etc... Do they not matter, since their leaders support US policy? Your hypocrisy is showing.
Don't forget China in this mix.
hobitbob wrote: You seem to have conveniently forgoten that the inspectors were allowed in.
Only after he was surrounded by the US military, again.
hobitbob wrote: they were finding that he had fulfilled his side of the bargain.
They never said that. Attempts to purchase Rodong missile technology was a violation, and not disclosed. Al Samoud II was designed and built with and illegal engine diameter, on purpose.
hobitbob wrote:Maybe this would have led to increased aid, and to closer scruitiny on his practices by the world. We will never know, will we?
Perhaps if we left him surrounded forever.
hobitbob wrote: BTW, what about the victims of dictatorial regimes we support, like Azerbaijan, Pakistan, etc... Do they not matter, since their leaders support US policy?
Immaterial. That's like attempting to show a murderer is less guilty by pointing out other unpunished murderers.
hobitbob wrote:
Your hypocrisy is showing.
So is yours.
Chalibi
chalibi is a criminal and a con artist. He fits right in with the Neo Fascists and the Bush Crime Family.
OCCOM BILL wrote:hobitbob wrote: You seem to have conveniently forgoten that the inspectors were allowed in.
Only after he was surrounded by the US military, again.
Indeed, I will grant you that.
Quote: they were finding that he had fulfilled his side of the bargain.They never said that. Attempts to purchase Rodong missile technology was a violation, and not disclosed. Al Samoud II was designed and built with and illegal engine diameter, on purpose.
In which case the UN should have acted, not the US unilaterally.
Quote:Maybe this would have led to increased aid, and to closer scruitiny on his practices by the world. We will never know, will we?Perhaps if we left him surrounded forever.
And what would ahev been wrong with that?
Quote: BTW, what about the victims of dictatorial regimes we support, like Azerbaijan, Pakistan, etc... Do they not matter, since their leaders support US policy? Immaterial. That's like attempting to show a murderer is less guilty by pointing out other unpunished murderers.
No, it isn't. It is pointing out that the so called "humanitarian" reason for invading Iraq is a fallacy. Humanitarian reasons have no bearing in US policy, especially under Bush and Co. those who believe that it does are showing themselves to be simple minded.
Humanitarian = Bush? He's killed over 15,000 Iraqis. We've lost over 500 American soldiers. We've spent over 180 billion dollars in Iraq that accomplished very little in the way of "humanatarian" goals to oust one tyrant. We are now in a war with "real" terrorists in Iraq, and our country is paying the price. Humanitarian = Bush? That's convoluted logic if I ever saw one.
hobitbob wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:hobitbob wrote: they were finding that he had fulfilled his side of the bargain.
They never said that. Attempts to purchase Rodong missile technology was a violation, and not disclosed. Al Samoud II was designed and built with and illegal engine diameter, on purpose.
In which case the UN should have acted, not the US unilaterally.
Agreed. The UN simply cried wolf for too long. When the cops don't respond, the complaintent is forced to either ignore the situation or act on it themselves. We chose to act.
hobitbob wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:hobitbob wrote:Maybe this would have led to increased aid, and to closer scruitiny on his practices by the world. We will never know, will we?
Perhaps if we left him surrounded forever.
And what would ahev been wrong with that?
I don't think it is realistic or good policy for the US to dedicate such a huge portion of its military to contain Saddam rather than remove him. History will reveal whether or not our "meddling" works or not. I respect your historical resume Bob, but not enough to accept your predictions as fact.
hobitbob wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:hobitbob wrote: BTW, what about the victims of dictatorial regimes we support, like Azerbaijan, Pakistan, etc... Do they not matter, since their leaders support US policy?
Immaterial. That's like attempting to show a murderer is less guilty by pointing out other unpunished murderers.
No, it isn't. It is pointing out that the so called "humanitarian" reason for invading Iraq is a fallacy. Humanitarian reasons have no bearing in US policy, especially under Bush and Co. those who believe that it does are showing themselves to be simple minded.
That is the first mention of a ""humanitarian" reason" in this exchange. Nice try at misdirection.
blatham wrote:This could get ugly, and it is difficult to imagine how that's going to be avoided.
Sistani may be bargaining - taking a position that X must be delivered, but actually willing to settle for somewhat less. He knows there is a US election coming, we'll assume. If he's making bottom line demands, then the two sides will not reconcile well.
The US will not want to leave Iraq soil, certainly not the neocon contingent, their vision for middle east presence/control being central to why the US is there in the first place. Nor will this White House, so concerned with appearances and electibility, want to deal with events and commentary which promote the notion of failure continuing, and certainly they won't want instability and deaths increasing - it's probably their great vulnerability as it will continue to highlight their serious midjudgment and continue to point towards their deceits or exaggerations.
One suspects that the Pentagon too would wish to maintain a significant military footprint there (various military people have stated this to be so) for obvious strategic reasons.
Assassination of Sistani would have potentially distastrous consequences, even if it were portrayed and propaganized to appear the work of internal groups, as is predictable. So that seems quite unlikely.
One could conclude that the US will draw out, as long as they can manage, negotiations and interim steps, at least until the election. If they succeed at this, many White House hearts will be at ease, regardles of what might follow.
Excellent synopsis Blatham ..... I might add that Sistani has democracy on his side.
Occy:
1) Containment ahd effectively been maintained since 1991. This obviously did not require US troops sitting in Kuwait sweating.
2) The only reason most of you on the far right bring up the subject of Iraqi suffering is to support the "humanitarian war" fallacy. I assumed this was your intention as well. I seem to recall your wilingness on other threads to sacrifice as many innocents as possible in the name of "freedom." Is this situation different?
blatham, That sounds like too smooth sailing for Bush. I think there's gonna be more bumps on the road until November.
More than a year
No caucuses but Bremmer says it will be perhaps 15 months before actual elections in Iraq. Will Americans put up with body bags and maimings of their troops for 15 more months?
hobitbob wrote: Occy:
1) Containment ahd effectively been maintained since 1991. This obviously did not require US troops sitting in Kuwait sweating.
We had no way of knowing whether he was "effectively contained" after he kicked out the first inspectors. The Al Samoud's were a clear violation, that we wouldn't have known about, if not for the build up. Perhaps, Kim wouldn't have screwed him on the Rodong Tech. if not for the build up. When he kicked out the UN inspectors; he eliminated our opportunity to
know he was in compliance. Left unchecked; there is little doubt in my mind he would have eventually done more damage.
hobitbob wrote:2) The only reason most of you on the far right bring up the subject of Iraqi suffering is to support the "humanitarian war" fallacy. I assumed this was your intention as well. I seem to recall your wilingness on other threads to sacrifice as many innocents as possible in the name of "freedom." Is this situation different?
For starters; I am not on the far right... This is my independent opinion. All too often you confuse my own views on what helps Iraqi's with this administrations lies and excuses. I object to your convoluting the topic with other offenders because I believe they should be "helped" too. I realize we disagree whether or not our actions will prove beneficial to Iraqi's but that in no way excuses obscuring the point of whether Saddam was a monster. I find it rather silly that you elude the topic of Saddam's crimes against humanity whenever it is brought up. You are obviously passionate in your concern for the people in the region, so why do you circumvent the issue of Saddam's mass murders of same?
Reading, with interest, but with no comment.
I have never "circumvented the issue" of the Hussein regime's human rights violations. I think you may have me confused with someone else, like yourself, perhaps! I have been active in pushing for diplomatic intervention in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and other places. I cheered when the Taliban fell, and have wept with its resurgence. You seem to have fallen into the rhetorical trap that anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq supports the idea of Hussein's tortures. This is simply not true. It represents the sort of lazy thinking popular with many Americans, and it disappoints me that you, or anyone, subscribes to this ridiculous theory. I read many of the same news sources you so, and I am continually appalled by the situation in Iraq, which has improved only marginally under the US from its position under Hussein. In many ways the condition of the Iraqi people has worsened. Had the US followed plans layed out by the State Department to immediately implement control of civil order, and maintain utilities, I would not be as vocal in my opposition as I am. Trading one tyrant (Hussein) for another (The US and likely next Chalabi) is not any sort of progress. Do you really see much difference between the fate of the average Iraqi under Hussein and their lot now? I don't. I see a change in who is implementing the tortures, from the state to private individuals. I also see no shift in the form of government, since I have few doubts that another autocrat will be installed (Chalabi). I don't think we have done the people of Iraq any favour. They were likely better off, in the long run, before we invaded. Gods help them now.
People forget very quickly that we intervened in Haiti, and look how many more deaths and misery were wrought?
