THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Pay no attention to that childish blathering, Foxy. :wink:

Foxfyre wrote:
Sadly your information is sadly lacking Cyclop, and again recites your complaints with virtually no plan of how to do it differently. I won't even respond until you do your homework.
A very wise course of action. Cyclop knew things no one else on earth knew at the time of the invasion. And using aljazeerah as a source of information would be part of a joke from anyone else. Blatham's salon.com, which is absurdly slanted itself, looks like voice of reason compared to Al Jazeerah. I do appreciate the laughs, though.

Blatham, if you don't recognize that you're addressing the flip side of that coin, your eyes aren't all the way open either.

willy

As I'm not an American, and as I'm not a member of, nor affiliated with, any political party anywhere on earth, the charge of partisanship would be uncautious. Further, as I've said on any number of occasions, I would have happily supported John McCain to head up a US administration, that ought to go some distance to indicating that I hold certain principles of governance to be more important than membership in some party.

Salon, of course, carries regular columns by two conservatives (as differentiated from, say, townhall).

I'm going to paste a piece from The NY Review of Books written by Ian Buruma as it voices far better than I ever could the reasons why THIS administration has been such a destructive force for America and for the world.

Quote:

0 Replies

Thok, the law of innocent life is tragic under any circumstances. But what the article you posted does not mention is that most of the untimely innocent deaths in Iraq have been at the hands of the Iraqi and insurgent terrorists.

0 Replies

It also says that "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," which I find hard to believe.

0 Replies

Hard to believe because it is blatantly false. It is possible that the innocents killed by coalition forces were mostly women and children. I haven't seen any demographics on that. But one of the reason we have suffered as many deaths and wounding of our military as we have is because we have been so damn careful NOT to harm innocents as much as possible.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thok, the law of innocent life is tragic under any circumstances. But what the article you posted does not mention is that most of the untimely innocent deaths in Iraq have been at the hands of the Iraqi and insurgent terrorists.

How could you possibly have evidence for this claim, fox.

0 Replies

Thanks blatham!

If I could write, I would have written something very like the piece you have posted by Ian Buruma.

He expresses my feelings very well. I, who love America, who have stood on the Twin Towers and who wept when they fell, am deeply saddened by the enduring damage done to the country by those behind George Bush.

0 Replies

Blatham, the coin's flip side I was referring to was Cyclop being as partisan as you were saying Foxy is... not you. :wink: However; Cycloptichorn is right that I shouldn't attack the messenger either.

Your suggestion that Salon wasn't biased brought up another good laugh, thank you. Laughing

(I watched the quote: "no spin zone" for the first time last night :wink:, too... hint, hint, hint...

Oh, and an interesting perspective, btw.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Question: If the UN believed Saddam did not have WMD, why did they devote years to financing an expensive inspection team who were charged to look for them?

Foxfyre, these new-democrats keep changing their positions as they fall on their faces with their current ones. The new-democrats supported John Kerry's position: "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." The new-democrats say we should have taken more time to determine whether or not Saddam had WMD. They ignore the now obvious harmful consequences of taking more time. They ignore Saddam's repeated interruptions and limitations on the UN inspection teams. They ignore the now obvious reason for those interruptions and limitations. They ignore Saddam's obvious need for more time to hide whatever he did not want the UN inspectors to find. They ignore the fact that the last such interruption before the UN inspectors were invited back one last time, lasted more than a month. Certainly that was enough time to hide much of what Saddam did not want the UN inspectors to find.

If all that did not succeed in motivating both the French and Russians to commit to not veto an invasion, why would the new-democrats think both these two countries would ever commit to not veto an invasion of Iraq? Why would the new-democrats back a candidate who thinks such commitments could come soon enough to permit our continuing survival? Furthermore, why would the new-democrats back a candidate who continues to think the invasion of Iraq was "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?"

I ask you these questions in the desperate hope you or others might shed some light on their answers.

0 Replies

Where Thok's piece strays from reality is using only the 14.6 months before the invasion as a measuring stick. Those months alone were not indicative of just how miserable Iraqi life really was. Idea

0 Replies

I don't have answers for that Ican. I think John Leo might have touched on it here:
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37474&highlight=

This is a thread started a little while ago, but Leo's essay is very thought provoking and, while not offering any solutions, does cast some light on the situation we're facing.

0 Replies

bill

Didn't mean to imply that Salon wasn't, in the majority of their writers' opinion, left-leaning. I equate Salon or NY Times with the Wall Street Journal...each have an editorial slant, but regularly and consistently include writers who do not share the editorial position. It's very important, I think, to acknowledge these news sources' valuation of plurality in viewpoint, and to note other sources who advance a singular point of view, and townhall is such a one.

0 Replies

McTag

I think that piece resonates with all of us here who are external observers to the polity of the US.

0 Replies

THE MYTH OF THE 'MISSING EXPLOSIVES': A SHAMELESS LIElink

0 Replies

from the piece McG posted

Quote:

Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.

And this is why, if Kerry loses, he will lose. I like to think there is a limit to how much the American public is willing to have its intelligence insulted.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote

Quote:

Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.

You have been listening and of course bought the line that someone wrote for the moron. Kerry nor anyone else has denigrated our service people. It is the leadership, Bush and his cabal that are at fault. The military follows orders and does the best it can with what it has. The are being misdirected and shortchanged.
Bush has been trying to sell the concept that Kerry has been blaming the military for the F**kup and as usual his followers like yourself eat that BS up.

Foxy wrote.

Quote:

I like to think there is a limit to how much the American public is willing to have its intelligence insulted.

One would think so. However as long as there are people like you Bush can continue to shovel the s**t and they will continue to swallow it.

0 Replies

Au, I LISTEN myself with my own ears to Kerry's speeches. I hear the contempt for the military in his campaign rhetoric. He occasionally has a line commending the service of the troops, and then almost in the next breath holds them up as inadequate for their task. Those I know in the military are developing a seething contempt for him as a result. For the Commander in Chief and the military to not respect each other is not a good thing anytime I think, and is especially worrisome in wartime.

0 Replies

Foxfyre - you're going to have to reference that accusation. I've just been doing a search through factcheck and similar sources. Kerry is quoted supporting the troops, commending them on their efforts, backing the troops.

He may have said that the number of troops were inadequate, but I can find no reference to him finding U.S. soldiers inadequate.

Reference please.

0 Replies

Foxfyre said re Kerry and the UN: "and who he will relinquish all authority re Iraq to once he is president. "

People who listen to his actual words know that the last thing Kerry would do is relinquish authority to the UN.

F says also about Kerry: "then almost in the next breath holds them up [our troops] as inadequate for their task. "

Kerry has NEVER said that our troops were inadequate. He has said that there were not adequate troops on the ground, and that the ones who are there are not adequately armoured and supplied, which any reasonable person who reads and listens already knows.

0 Replies

ehBeth, we've been talking all week about the 'missing munitions in Iraq'. Kerry's rhetoric is that these should have been secured and guarded and George Bush failed to do so. Well anybody with any sense knows it wasn't George Bush's job to do so but, if it should have been done, was the military's job to do so. The soldier in the field hears this as HIS failure, not the Presidents. Also the scandal at Abu Ghraib, or that there are inadequate forces to keep the peace or there was no plan to keep the peace, etc. etc. etc. This soldier on the ground in Iraq does not hear any of this as a slam against the President. He hears it as a criticism of the military. I don't have a link since most of this I've heard the soldiers say on TV or in person.

0 Replies

ADMINISTRATION MISLEADS ON MISSING EXPLOSIVES

The Bush administration is pushing the theory that the 380 tons of explosives were missing from the Al Qaqaa storage facility before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Administration spokesman Dan Senor said on CNN that "there's a very high probability that those weapons weren't even there before the war."[1]

For days, this theory has been in direct conflict with a Pentagon official, who told the Associate Press on Monday, "US-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact."[2]

Now, video shot in Iraq by a Minneapolis news team provides further proof that the administration's theory is bogus. After the invasion - on April 18, 2003 - the Minneapolis ABC news crew was stationed just south of the Al Qaqaa facility.[]3 That day, they drove 2 to 3 miles north with the 101st Airborne Division. There, "members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labeled 'explosives.'"[4] Some of the boxes were marked "Al Qaqaa."[5] One soldier told the crew: "we can stick [detonation cords] in those and make some good bombs."[6] Watch the video:
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65509.

Sources:

1. "Paula Zahn Now," CNN, 10/26/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65510.
2. "380 tons of explosives missing in Iraq," Associated Press, 10/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65511.
3. "5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq," KSTP.com, 10/28/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65512.
4. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65512.
5. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65512.
6. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=65512.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know