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

Foxfyre wrote:

My guess is that the election will go on as scheduled and it will be completed efficiently and effectively. Any other course will give aid and comfort and a sense of victory to the terrorists.

Quote:

Rebels undermine Iraq elections, U.S. says
Official: 'It would now be difficult' in parts of north

Source

Quote:

... although "security is still a serious concern," U.S. officials believe they can overcome it. ...

0 Replies

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-10222004-387488.html

0 Replies

Walter, thanks for the informative articles.

FF, of course they are going to say that. They will continue to say it, exactly as you do, up until the last minute:

Quote:

My guess is that the election will go on as scheduled and it will be completed efficiently and effectively. Any other course will give aid and comfort and a sense of victory to the terrorists.

Just because one wants something doesn't mean it will happen.

Ge Laughing

0 Replies

I heard the same story about the elections in Afghanistan. Where is the humor?

0 Replies

Oops, I see it, sorry. Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-10222004-387488.html

Thanks for your source from

Quote:

October 22, 2004 1:07 PM

I really can't see the point, why it is more valid than mine of

Quote:

1:35 p.m. ET Nov. 19, 2004

0 Replies

It isn't more valid Walter, but it is at least as valid. There are those who do not want successful elections in Iraq and many on the Left, even here in America, who would overtly or passively scuttle them if they can. The naysayers have been saying 'it can't be done' or 'it won't happen' even as each target date is reached and successfully accomplished. Until they tell me it didn't go off on schedule, I prefer to be an encourager instead of a "the sky is falling' person and I will choose to go with those who so far have turned out to be more right than wrong. Meeting the target dates for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq have so far gone right on schedule. There is no reason to believe the Iraqi election in January will not be accomplished on schedule as well.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

ican wrote:
[9-11 Com, Chapt. 2.4, emphasis added by me]
Similar meetings between Iraqi . . .

and

Quote:
[9-11 Com, Chapt. 2.4, emphasis added by me]
To protect his own ties with Iraq . . .

The first quote is not from chapter 2.4, it's from chapter 2.5. Your chapter reference is incorrect.

Also, you posted your quote of chapter 2.4 before your quote of chapter 2.5. You posted these quotes out of chronological order.

In chronological order, chapter 2.4 appears in the 9/11 commission report before 2.5. See, chronologically speaking, 2.4 precedes 2.5.

I agree. Thank you! I have since corrected my typo in my original post of the first quote to:
[9-11 Com, Chapt. 2.5, emphasis added by me].

I assume you meant to type:
[Also, you posted your quote of chapter 2.5 before your quote of chapter 2.4. You posted these quotes out of chronological order.] That may also have been a mere typo.

I agree that my quotes in my original post are not in the same order as they are published in the Commission's report.

I thought you were kidding in your previous post! I now realize you were not kidding. Your serious opinion on this subject carries zero weight with me.

I disagree with your opinions that the published order of those two quotes in the Commission's Report are relevant to the meaning of those two quotes. I disagree with your opinions on how those two quotes relate to one another. I disagree with your opinions about how those two quotes should be interpreted. Your opinion contradicts the fact that there was some evidence of a cooperative harboring relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam before the US invaded Iraq. Your opinion contradicts the fact that our troops discovered, after their invasion of Iraq, the camps where the al Qaeda were actually harbored before the invasion of Iraq (e.g., Tommy Frank's "American Soldier", Chapter 12--pages 483 and 519).

By the way, let's not forget this factual gem also from "American Soldier", see Charpter 10, page 421 [emphasis added by me]:

Quote:

... But where to find that consensus leader?

Many in Washington considered Amad Chalabi a likely choice. Chalabi had risen to prominence after Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This legislation declared that it would be the "policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." The Act directed the President to designate one or more suitable Iraq opposition organizations to receive assistance. Chalabi's umbrella Iraqi National Congress, led mainly by anti-Saddam exiles, was designated such a group.

Clinton in 1998 Exclamation

Why didn't the WFNA (i.e., W=World, F=Fictional, N=News, A=Association) remind us of that 1998 legislation? Why didn't the WFNA point out that Bush and his administration failed to obey that 1998 legislation by deciding to invade Afghanistan before they decided to invade Iraq?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I am anxiously waiting to see how ican is going to spin his answer. This is all getting so wearisome.

I infer that anxiously waiting is wearisome for you. Laughing

I hereby rush to your rescue and end your anxious waiting!

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both justified for the same two reasons:
1. Al Qaeda was cooperatively harbored in each;
2. The governments of each were murdering civilians.

AR1 (i.e., Additional Reason), Saddam was discovered to be planning to resume WMD development when sanctions on Iraq were lifted.

AR2, Franks Chapter 12, page 522:"This whole country is one big weapons dump, I thought. There must be thousands of ammo storage sites. It will take years to clear them all.

Powell declared both reasons 1 and 2 in his speech to the UN 2/5/2003. Both these reasons have been verified for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Powell also declared and emphasized the WMD reason. Note, the WMD reason, is not included in my list because it was later discovered to be false. However, AR1 and AR2 were later discovered to be true.

Yes, shame shame shame everlasting shame on George Bush and Colin Powell (also shame on Tommy Franks, Chapt. 11, page 466; Chapt. 12, pages 546 and 547) for believing Saddam had ready-to-be-used WMD. Nonetheless, reasons 1 and 2 and AR1 and AR2 are inescapably individually and collectively more than adequate justification for invading Iraq. Yes Bush et al used a false reason to justify the invasion. Lucky for them, but even more lucky for us, the invasion of Iraq was nevertheless executed. Had we not invaded Iraq we would have probably very soon started to pay a series of dear prices for that failure.

Multiple opinions here and elsewere to the contrary, none of that is spin; all of that is fact.

0 Replies

All the tired horses in the sun
How'm I supposed to get any ridin' done? Hmm?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

All the tired horses in the sun
How'm I supposed to get any ridin' done? Hmm?

Get a car!

You're welcome. Good night!

0 Replies

It's so nice
to wake in the morning
and not have to tell someone
that you love them
when you don't
love them
anymore.
goodnight Ican

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It isn't more valid Walter, but it is at least as valid. There are those who do not want successful elections in Iraq and many on the Left, even here in America, who would overtly or passively scuttle them if they can. The naysayers have been saying 'it can't be done' or 'it won't happen' even as each target date is reached and successfully accomplished. Until they tell me it didn't go off on schedule, I prefer to be an encourager instead of a "the sky is falling' person and I will choose to go with those who so far have turned out to be more right than wrong. Meeting the target dates for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq have so far gone right on schedule. There is no reason to believe the Iraqi election in January will not be accomplished on schedule as well.

In 1991, the secretary of defense*, explaining the unwisdom of regime change said: "Once you've got to Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalism? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?" Was *Dick Cheney right?
-George Will 11/19/04 column

Money/ oil talks, and it says "FLIP-FLOP". "Flip and flop if it suits our purpose, we'll find some clever reasons to justify it later. Maybe some terrorists will strike at us- that ought to do it."

0 Replies

I'm sure you feel that way McTag. I look at the broader history and have read extensively how the decisions were made and how they did not originate with the Bush administration. The fact is, we are now there. That bell cannot be unrung. Our task now is to complete the job, leave the Iraqis a free and democratic people, and the Middle East a more stable and peaceful part of the world as a result of it. There will be time enough for analysis of what went right and what went wrong later on.

0 Replies

Quote:

Our task now is to complete the job, leave the Iraqis a free and democratic people, and the Middle East a more stable and peaceful part of the world as a result of it. There will be time enough for analysis of what went right and what went wrong later on.

"Ah fiddle dee dee, I'll think about that tomorrow." said Scarlet.

Here's a question, what other Mid-East rulers want what we want? To use Foxfyre's phrase 'leave the Iraqis a free and democratic people'. Who else, currently in power in the Middle East, wants that to happen?

The Saudi Princes? The Emirs and Potentates of Yemen? Our allies, the Kuwaitis? or the Sultan of Oman? Do these guys (and all of them are guys) want to lose their jobs? How about the leaders of the Emirates or those completely reasonable folks running Iran (a purported democracy after all.)

To the West, we have Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, thus far we have seen no movement of the part of the King of Jordan or the autocrat running Syria to start voter registration drives. Lebanon, once the pride of trans-Arab co-operation, remains a bubbling pot of dissension and disarray. A shining example of how well a new democracy in the Middle East might fare.

That leaves us the Turks who are swimming as fast as they can towards the safer harbours of the European Union and, though they have the most to gain from a peaceful Iraq, prefer not to get involved.

So, which one of the strong-man rulers of the Middle East will come forward to assist us in securing the democratic revolution that will sooner or later topple him? Hands? Anyone?

Joe (Hey, where'd everybody go?) Nation

0 Replies

Well said, Joe.

0 Replies

Quote:

....Was *Dick Cheney right?
-George Will 11/19/04 column

Ah, the irony of it. Thanks, McTag, for digging that up.

JoeNation, the rulers of the states you name have a vested interest in keeping their jobs. They will not change their minds when there is a "free and democratic" Iraq which is a wonderful pie-in-the-sky phrase that means absolutely nothing and is something the world might see ten years from now if the Iraqis really want such a government and can wrest it from a bitterly divided country by the long slow process of creating democratic institutions such as a free judiciary and a representative legislature or parliament.

Ah, yes, the bell cannot be unrung. But I will continue to question what happened so that I can warn against it even more strongly next time.

0 Replies

Joe, tell me if this is a fair summary of your point:
Even if we succeed at bring democracy to Iraq, by removing the oppressive bastard's system and replacing it with one of self determination... the other oppressive bastard's in the area will continue to resist such a change? Does that about cover it?

Now I'll ask you; If, and I'll borrow Fox's phrase too...If we 'leave the Iraqis a free and democratic people'; do you think that will make the people in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, Iran more or less likely to want additional freedom and democracy for themselves? How about Turkey, Oman, Kuwait... do you think they'll want more or less self-determination?

My point? Of course the leaders don't want to cede their power... and of course they'll try to stick up for each other but what does that have to do with right and wrong? IMO, any opinion that's more concerned with what the despots want than the people they're supposed to represent is morally bankrupt.

I'll continue to believe that people everywhere deserve freedom, dignity and the right to pursue happiness. If, again using Fox's phrase, we 'leave the Iraqis a free and democratic people' and that pisses off the other oppressive leaders like you say, by riling their people... then I'd say that's a giant step in the right direction for humankind.

0 Replies

Well, these people are watching what's going on in Iraq with great interest.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4319.shtml

Maybe Joe's question of what the Mid East "rulers" want would be better phrased by what do the Mid East "people" want.

0 Replies

Well it would be my GUESS that the people of the middle east, want to be able to walk out in the streets, go to work, go to the market and not be worried that they might be mistaken by the coalition forces as insurgents nor mistaken by the insurgents as sell-outs to the occupation forces and in either case be shot dead. Lets face it folks the people are living in constant fear and neither side is offering a solution. But that would just be my guess.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know