THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Scrat wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Can anyone offer me evidence that the US has any proficiency in managing a situation like the one in Iraq?

Well, how about the BEEB survey results, for starters. (But good comeback!)

How does that work? The same survey says that 51 percent of Iraqis opposes the presence of coalition forces and only 39 percent supports it.

If you don't count the Kurds, it's 60% that wants the Americans out and only 30% that wants them to stay.

If you leave out the Kurds, a plurality of Iraqis think the invasion was wrong - and only 33% consider it to have been a "liberation".

62% of all Iraqis has little or no trust in the CPA, and 66% has little or no trust in the US/UK occupation forces.

Thats all in your survey. I've posted it in your thread about it and here, and yet you keep crowing about the survey as if it were the proof that the US is doing a great job.

What that survey tells you is that people think life now is better than under Saddam - even that life is "good" (70%). But all the questions that refer specifically to how the US is doing in "managing the situation", have negative answers.

Looks to me like life is "good", now Saddam has gone, despite of how the US is doing its job of managing the situation.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Too much spin there

Let's try it without that spin:

Quote:
Perhaps you should ask yourself why unilateral actions in response to ongoing ethnic genocide were deemed "legitimate" by the world community, while invasion and overthrow of a government run by a despot who was doing the same thing was not.

"Ongoing ethnic genocide"? In Iraq, in 2003? How do you define genocide?

There was no "genocide" in Kosovo either, as we now know, but they were being chased out of their country, their houses, collectively, by the tens of thousands, in one big acute violent war-like action by the Serbian army and paramilitaries.

Where's the parallel to Iraq in 2003?

Saddam was guilty of attempting something akin to genocide. Back in 1988, against the Kurds. (Bush Sr blocked formal condemnation of that and gave Saddam new massive loans after it). But the Kurds were safe in their own autonomous state by 2003. He also bombed the Shiítes (thats not ethnic, but anyway) back in 1992, but he couldnt that anymore because of the no-fly zones either. Saddam still ruled over his own nasty dictatorship, but ongoing genocide?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Blatham, ONE MORE TIME!

Please provide specific references or links to the article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging any one or more of the following:
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and the Taliban, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.

A connection between Saddam and Indonesian terrorists? Really? Do you have any specific references or links showing such a connection, or perhaps even providing evidence?

0 Replies

nimh - Yes, I happen to think that people feeling optimistic is a good indicator of how the coalition is doing on the ground. You are entitled to disagree. I would note that by your standard the German government has shown no proficiency in governing Germany as evidenced by the recent elections there. I'm not saying that's an unreasonable view, but sometimes people blame leaders for the things they are unhappy about, which is a different thing than saying that the leaders did a poor job of managing the nation.

But I think we can just agree to disagree on this one. Or we could agree that the coalition could be doing a better job, but could being doing a worse one.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I would note that by your standard the German government has shown no proficiency in governing Germany as evidenced by the recent elections there.

Well, those elections were local, but yes, if a government is voted out in a landslide defeat, I would definitely submit that it has apparently not proven itself very proficient in governing the country. And judging purely on this survey (hardly a sound criterium, but the best we got), the CPA and the US troops would currently be voted out in a landslide defeat in Iraq.

Scrat wrote:

Or we could agree that the coalition could be doing a better job, but could being doing a worse one.

Yes - agreed, absolutely.

0 Replies

Quote:

I would note that by your standard the German government has shown no proficiency in governing Germany as evidenced by the recent elections there. I'm not saying that's an unreasonable view, but sometimes people blame leaders for the things they are unhappy about, which is a different thing than saying that the leaders did a poor job of managing the nation.

You see, Scrat, there are states in Germany, counties and municipalities - all with elected parliaments.
Some of those happened in the last months, some will happen, the EU-election to be the next one.

Howver, the elections for the Federal parliament (which elects the chancellor is leader of the government) are being held in 2006 (this government being elected in 2002).

I agree, however, that their 'management' isn't good at all!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

"Ongoing ethnic genocide"? In Iraq, in 2003? How do you define genocide?

==========================
from: www.m-w.com
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective
==========================

nimh wrote:

There was no "genocide" in Kosovo either, as we now know, but they were being chased out of their country, their houses, collectively, by the tens of thousands, in one big acute violent war-like action by the Serbian army and paramilitaries.

YES, there was systematic destruction of groups of people; there was mass murder.

nimh wrote:

Where's the parallel to Iraq in 2003?

There was systematic destruction of groups of people; there was mass murder.

nimh wrote:

Saddam was guilty of attempting something akin to genocide. Back in 1988, against the Kurds. (Bush Sr blocked formal condemnation of that and gave Saddam new massive loans after it). But the Kurds were safe in their own autonomous state by 2003. He also bombed the Shiítes (thats not ethnic, but anyway) back in 1992, but he couldnt that anymore because of the no-fly zones either. Saddam still ruled over his own nasty dictatorship, but ongoing genocide?

All that was systematic destruction of groups of people; All that was mass murder.

nimh wrote:

Saddam still ruled over his own nasty dictatorship, but ongoing genocide?

Yes, there was on going genocide. The threat of regime change (i.e., removal of Saddam) reduced it but did not eliminate ongoing mass murder. The fresh graves of hundreds constitutes sufficient evidence.

0 Replies

Nimh,
Please provide specific references or links to the article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging any one or more of the following:
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and the Taliban, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.[/quote]

nimh wrote:

A connection between Saddam and Indonesian terrorists? Really? Do you have any specific references or links showing such a connection, or perhaps even providing evidence?

I have no such links or references.

However, I respectfully submit that you are having a problem with logic. This statement of yours has nothing to do with my request. All you need do to comply with my respect is:

provide specific references or links to the article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging any one or more of the following:
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and the Taliban, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.[/quote]

0 Replies

If this goes on, it really will be a great discussion! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican711nm,

Mass murder is not genocide.

Genocide, as you quote already, involves the "systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group".

If I go out and kill ten of my fellow inhabitants of Utrecht, I am not "systematically destroying the Utrechters", even though I am murdering them in scores.

Genocide involves the intent ("deliberate") to kill off ("destroy") everyone of a certain race, culture ... and a serious measure of success in going about it ("systemic").

Now, in Kosovo, it sure looked like genocide. Here the soldiers and paramilitaries - Serbian soldiers and paramilitaries - were, systematically going from town to town to destroy, maim and kill - kill Kosovars - and chase whomever they couldnt kill out of the country.

In the end, it turned out the casualty level was relatively low - some 8-10,000. Not genocide thus, because it hardly amounted to the systematic destruction of the Kosovar people - there's 100,000s of them left. But there was sure reason to think a genocide was going on.

So was there back in 1988 when Saddam was using chemical weapons to eradicate entire Kurdish villages. Thats pretty systemic. (Of course, back then, he was left alone.)

But the Argentine junta, for example, or Pinochet's regime in Chile (or the Hungarian communist regime of the fifties), did commit mass murder - but they werent trying to systematically destroy a race or culture.

Now segue to Iraq in 2003. Which "racial, political or cultural group" was Saddam trying to destroy? What ongoing genocide?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I have no such links or references.

However, I respectfully submit that you are having a problem with logic. This statement of yours has nothing to do with my request. All you need do to comply with my respect is:

provide specific references or links to the article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging any one or more of the following:
[..] they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.

I see. So you want me to find a quote by a famous politician, in which he says that a link that I haven't heard anyone suggest yet, and for which even you cant find any specific link or reference, doesnt exist?

I'm starting to see Blatham's point about Saddam and the boy scouts now ...

Only reason I asked was just that I've read a lot of what Bush supporters here post about the details of Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda - what, that someone who was shown to at a later point in time, in any case, be an Al-Qaeda leader, once had an operation in an Iraqi hospital and all that - but I'd never seen Saddam asscoiated with the Indonesian bombings, so I wondered if I'd been missing something. Apparently not.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Mass murder is not genocide.

If mass murder produces the destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group, then mass murder is a form of genocide (e.g., Pol Pot's directed mass murder of 2 million of the educated class of his fellow Laotians).

========================
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>
=========================
Main Entry: 4mass
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to the mass of the people <mass market> <mass education>; also : being one of or at one with the mass : AVERAGE, COMMONPLACE <mass man> b : participated in by or affecting a large number of individuals <mass destruction> <mass demonstrations> c : having a large-scale character : WHOLESALE <mass production>
2 : viewed as a whole : TOTAL <the mass effect of a design>
=========================

nimh wrote:

If I go out and kill ten of my fellow inhabitants of Utrecht, I am not "systematically destroying the Utrechters", even though I am murdering them in scores.

True, you are not "systematically destroying the Utrechters"
False, you are not murdering them in scores. You are murdering 10 not more than 20.

=========================
Main Entry: 1score
Pronunciation: 'skOr, 'skor
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural scores
Etymology: Middle English scor, from Old Norse skor notch, tally, twenty; akin to Old English scieran to cut -- more at SHEAR
1 or plural score a : TWENTY b : a group of 20 things -- often used in combination with a cardinal number <fourscore> c : an indefinitely large number
=========================

nimh wrote:

Genocide involves the intent ("deliberate") to kill off ("destroy") everyone of a certain race, culture ... and a serious measure of success in going about it ("systemic").

So it appears that in your opinion, if one is not systematic about one's mass murdering (i.e., destroying) a group of people, one is not committing genocide and therefore such destruction is tolerable and does not justify regime change. Shocked

nimh wrote:

In the end, it turned out the casualty level was relatively low - some 8-10,000. Not genocide thus, because it hardly amounted to the systematic destruction of the Kosovar people - there's 100,000s of them left. But there was sure reason to think a genocide was going on.

.

You think the Bosnian Muslim's agree that the Serbs were not trying to destroy them Question

Do you think attempted genocide is ok as long as it doesn't succeed Question

nimh wrote:

Now segue to Iraq in 2003. Which "racial, political or cultural group" was Saddam trying to destroy? What ongoing genocide?

It was all that cultural group that Saddam perceived to be a threat to continuation of his regime Exclamation

The best I can say for your arguments in your posts is that they consist of mass quibbling. The worst I can say is that they constitute a systematic avoidance of my request to you. One more time:

Nimh,
Please provide specific references or links to the article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging any one or more of the following:
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and the Taliban, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.[/quote]

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

So you want me to find a quote by a famous politician, in which he says that a link that I haven't heard anyone suggest yet, and for which even you cant find any specific link or reference, doesnt exist?

WRONG! IT WAS YOU WHO CLAIMED YOU KNEW OF SUCH A QUOTE; NOT ME Exclamation

I CONCLUDE YOU DO NOT KNOW OF SUCH QUOTE Exclamation

SPECIFICALLY, I CONCLUDE YOU KNOW OF NO specific references or links to an article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging any one or more of the following:
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and the Taliban, or
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU KNOW OF NO specific references or links to an article or articles that quote Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and/or Powell publicly acknowledging the following:
they have no evidence of connection between Saddam and Indonesian Terrorists.

0 Replies

Ican is something bugging you? You seem obsessive in your determination to prove something doesnt exist. You cant prove the non existance of something, so I would appreciate it if you would just drop it.

Now, take a look at this and start foaming at the mouth. (A small prize for the first one to spot the deliberate mistake)

http://www.bigeye.com/031504.htm

0 Replies

"Bigeye"? More like stinkeye. :wink:

Quote:

While the US won an inevitable military victory against near helpless Iraq, political victory so far remains elusive.

Question for history buffs: How many months passed between the end of WWII and the end of the US occupation of Germany and turnover of power there to a new German government?

Here's a link to help you out. (If anyone has a way to get it to the author of Steve's stin... er, bigeye citation, please do. The guy clearly needs a history lesson, or perhaps just a sense of perspective. Thanks!)

THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY

Very Happy

0 Replies

Well, since I live here, have studied both history and political sciences, I can answer that question without looking at the link, you kindly provided:

after approval by the Western military governors, the Basic Law was promulgated on May 23, 1949. A new state, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, or West Germany), had come into existence.

0 Replies

no that wasnt the answer Scrat, next!

0 Replies

Steve - You are welcome to hide from my point if you choose. Very Happy

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know