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

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Christmas Wishlist...
I have to make this fast.

No electricity for three days in a row (well, unless you count that glorious hour we got 3 days ago...). Generators on gasoline are hardly working at all. Generators on diesel fuel aren't faring much better- most will only work for 3 or 4 straight hours then they have to be turned off to rest.

Ok- what is the typical Iraqi Christmas wishlist (I won't list 'peace', 'security' and 'freedom' - Christmas miracles are exclusive to Charles Dickens), let's see:

1. 20 liters of gasoline
2. A cylinder of gas for cooking
3. Kerosene for the heaters
4. Those expensive blast-proof windows
5. Landmine detectors
6. Running water
7. Thuraya satellite phones (the mobile phone services are really, really bad of late)
8. Portable diesel generators (for the whole family to enjoy!)
9. Coleman rechargeable flashlight with extra batteries (you can never go wrong with a fancy flashlight)
10. Scented candles (it shows you care- but you're also practical)

When Santa delivers please make sure he is wearing a bullet-proof vest and helmet. He should also politely ring the doorbell or knock, as a more subtle entry might bring him face to face with an AK-47. With the current fuel shortage, reindeer and a sleigh are highly practical- but Rudolph should be left behind as the flashing red nose might create a bomb scare (we're all a little jumpy lately).
Source: River Bend: Iraq Blog

That sounds remarkably close to post hurricane wishes. No wonder most people get the hell out of town when they're told a disaster is imminent.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Walter - I also read Riverbend. Just for purposes of clarity, let me remind readers here that there are some hundred or so blogs in the vein of IraqTheModel (those delightful dentists/brothers) living in Baghdad and roughly four blogs like Riverbend's that see nothing but the doom and gloom.

If you search just a tiny bit further, you'll find several hundred more blogs in the Riverbend vein. It was a bit depressing to find them. There are 114,000 hits in groups listed at Google just searching under Fallujah.

It's actually a sadly funny search. Pages of atrocity/battle/dead ... countered by an ad -

Joining Marines
Learn more about the Marines.
Free Info, No Obligation.
www. military. com

sample

You know, ehBeth - somehow I get the feeling that you don't find that sort of thing at all sad...as long as you can prove your point. I rather have this feeling that this is the type of thing you just eat right up.

I didn't click on your "sample". I'm sure you enjoyed it enough for both of us.

0 Replies

JW - believe what you will. I would not have said I found it sad if I found it humourous. It is not in my nature to be frivolous in this type of discussion.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Walter - I also read Riverbend. Just for purposes of clarity, let me remind readers here that there are some hundred or so blogs in the vein of IraqTheModel (those delightful dentists/brothers) living in Baghdad and roughly four blogs like Riverbend's that see nothing but the doom and gloom.

If you search just a tiny bit further, you'll find several hundred more blogs in the Riverbend vein. It was a bit depressing to find them. There are 114,000 hits in groups listed at Google just searching under Fallujah.

It's actually a sadly funny search. Pages of atrocity/battle/dead ... countered by an ad -

Joining Marines
Learn more about the Marines.
Free Info, No Obligation.
www. military. com

sample

You know, ehBeth - somehow I get the feeling that you don't find that sort of thing at all sad...as long as you can prove your point. I rather have this feeling that this is the type of thing you just eat right up.

I didn't click on your "sample". I'm sure you enjoyed it enough for both of us.

absolutely amazing! (but not unexpected)

0 Replies

JW, unlike your typical posts, ehBeth has a long history of making thoughtful, well-researched posts. That you feel fit to insult her to such an extent does more to fill basic impressions of you that most of us have had for as long as you have been on a2k. If you aren't insulting someone, you say how "funny" someone's posts are. Somehow, each time i hear you say something is funny, I can hear the sound of a laughing hyena in the background.

What you have just done is beyond the pale. Stop it.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

You know, ehBeth - somehow I get the feeling that you don't find that sort of thing at all sad...as long as you can prove your point. I rather have this feeling that this is the type of thing you just eat right up.

I didn't click on your "sample". I'm sure you enjoyed it enough for both of us.

I have no desire to pile on and I don't believe most of your posts are bad ones. I like most of them. But this one is just wrong.

0 Replies

like Admiral Bird describing the north pole as "brisk"

0 Replies

Yeah, JW, quit picking on ehBeth. When you treat her badly, I take it real personal.

0 Replies

ican,
I request evidence for the STATEMENTS you made in post 1069156:

Quote:

It was the 2001s that the Kurds chose not to attack.
It was the 2001s that Saddam could have responded to the US demands and easily removed these al Qaeda by asking the Kurds to attack and defeat them too.
Or, Saddam could have attacked and removed the 2001s with his own forces.

These aren't QUESTIONS, ican, they are STATEMENTS, or did you mean to punctuate them with question marks instead of periods?

The point I have made, and you have illustrated, is that the evidence you've presented so far for the "harboring of al Qaeda in Iraq by Saddam Hussein" amounts to a paragraph in the 9/11 commission report that itself amounts to the words "apparently" "indications of tolerance" and "may even have helped," and a hell of a lot of speculations on your part. That's weak evidence to support the statement, "Saddam willingly and knowingly and tolerantly harbored al Qaeda in northern Iraq."

My sources are more valid than yours because my sources have not been discredited and shown to be poor sources of information. Your sources have been discredited and shown to be poor sources of information. Powell was wrong about all the claims he made about Saddam and WMD, the aluminum tubes, the revived nuclear program, the decontamination vehicles, the bioweapons trailers, the desert weapons hidden among palm groves, 8,500 liters of anthrax, four tons of VX, "embedded key portions of illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within legitimate civilian industry," "stockpiles of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent," chemical warheads, etc. He made claims about a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants." The 9/11 Commission Report, your other source of information about Saddam's supposed harboring of al Qaeda in Iraq, doesn't even mention al-Zarqawi, and is as definite about its claims of Saddam's "harboring" of "al-Qaeda" in Iraq as, "apparently," "indications of tolerance" and "MAY [emphasis mine] even have helped."

The other two sources you quote don't support your wild leaps of logic and fanciful INFERENCES.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

You know, ehBeth - somehow I get the feeling that you don't find that sort of thing at all sad...as long as you can prove your point. I rather have this feeling that this is the type of thing you just eat right up.

I didn't click on your "sample". I'm sure you enjoyed it enough for both of us.

You know - it may sometimes be hard for you to imagine - but some of us abroad, when reading about and from a place like Iraq, actually see more than mere fodder for the intra-American fight between conservatives and liberals over brownie points proving his side right or the other side wrong ...

0 Replies

Yes nimh I can see that perspective as explanatory for numerous US/World disharmonies but even we don't usually anticipate the use of improvised explosive devices in other than the most heinous terrorist activities. Conventional sniping from behind the cover of feigned civility is more our style.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

My opinion, stated before, is that states (and The States) act only out of perceived self-interest, not benevolence. ......Self-interest chiefly, not benevolence, IMO, but I for one am very grateful nevertheless. Even if my German is rather poor.

there is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

there is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

A huge one... but it's a tough distinction for club members to see. :wink:

0 Replies

Diane wrote:

JW, unlike your typical posts, ehBeth has a long history of making thoughtful, well-researched posts. That you feel fit to insult her to such an extent does more to fill basic impressions of you that most of us have had for as long as you have been on a2k. If you aren't insulting someone, you say how "funny" someone's posts are. Somehow, each time i hear you say something is funny, I can hear the sound of a laughing hyena in the background.

What you have just done is beyond the pale. Stop it.

One of the very first posts that I read of ehBeth's when I signed onto A2K was a reply to someone asking for a link to support what she'd posted. Instead of supplying a link or giving an explanation of why one wasn't available, she chose to give a rather insulting and sarcastic explanation of how one "uses" Google. Beyond the pale? I thought so, but ignored it.

That was my first impression of her and her infrequent replies to my posts have been much of the same. I already know and understand her stance on the president of my country and of America in general and I've ignored it.

This country is actively involved in helping others secure freedom and hope for their future, while others criticize and snipe, and my intuition is that the anti-war people here could care less about the Iraqis, except to project suffering on them and use this as a club against Bush.

You choose to see her posts as you wish, Diane. I don't particularly find them all that "well-researched and thoughtful", but then that is merely my opinion.

0 Replies

Remember the rules regarding this topic from the inventor.

"Try and play nice"

0 Replies

Quote, "This country is actively involved in helping others secure freedom and hope for their future, while others criticize and snipe, and my intuition is that the anti-war people here could care less about the Iraqis, except to project suffering on them and use this as a club against Bush."

Wrong premise. The Bush administration attacked Iraq on the grounds that Saddam had WMDs and connections to terrorists. We DID NOT GO INTO IRAQ TO SECURE THEIR FREEDOM. That was an afterethought after it was proven Saddam didn't have WMDs. Bush said he did it for the American People. As a matter fact, the American People are paying dearly for this administration's missteps, errors and omissions.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

ican,
I request evidence for the STATEMENTS you made in post 1069156:

Two subsequent posts to that one are:

1069205:

1072857:

In #1072857, I answered:

Quote:

You request evidence for my questions regarding what may possibly be true. I have no such evidence, and, of course, it is irrational to think one requires evidence to justify questions one asks, whether those questions be rhetorical or actual.

You may have it either way. The Kurds did or did not attack AaI (i.e., Ansar al Islam) after 2001. Saddam did or did not negotiate with the Kurds to attack and remove AaI after 2001. Saddam could have or could not have attacked and removed AaI after 2001. And one more possibility: Saddam could have or could not have simply asked the US to attack and remove AaI after 2001. "You decide." However, once you decide what you think is the correct version of each speculation, please tell me what your decisions are and why you think so. Then I will show you why your decisions imply that Saddam knowingly and willingly and tolerantly harbored al Qaeda in northern Iraq.

In the first paragraph of this quote, I explained that I have no evidence for my questions. I now add I also have no evidence for my speculations.

Please respond to the second paragraph of my quote.

InfraBlue wrote:

My sources are more valid than yours because my sources have not been discredited and shown to be poor sources of information. Your sources have been discredited and shown to be poor sources of information.

Let's focus for now only on th 9-11 Commission Report. What is your evidence that the 9-11 Commission report or the parts I have prviously quoted have been "discredited and shown to be [a] poor [source] of information?" What is your evidence that your references have been substantiated and shown to be good sources of information?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

McTag wrote:
My opinion, stated before, is that states (and The States) act only out of perceived self-interest, not benevolence. ......Self-interest chiefly, not benevolence, IMO, but I for one am very grateful nevertheless. Even if my German is rather poor.
there is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

Often benevolence is in one's own enlightened self-interest. In other words, benevolence and self-interest are not mutually exclusive, whereas, altruism and self-interest are mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

I have read a lot of the posts here today and it is more of the same name calling and labeling and now the board has even been turned into a popularity contest of which attributes are the more preferable. It is all so silly and now I do not feel bad about bringing so much emotion myself on to this board as i have seen others surpass me by a mile today. I suggest more take a breather.

Much is made about how the (non) fact that it was only a few abuses in Iraq that happened and given the atmosphere of war it is surprising that more and worse abuses did not occur.

In the first place, we won't really know just how pervasive the abuses were, had there not been pictures I doubt anyone would have admitted that any abuses occurred at all.

There have been accounts by various people in the military that have spoken out of it being much more pervasive that just a few boys and girls getting rowdy on a boring Saturday night or something. (which would still be bad)

However more important than the abuse themselves is how it all came to happen in the first place. Rumsfield decided to change the Geneva Convention in order to suit his desired results and so people took that to mean that they could get away with methods that normally in such situations they could not in effort to get information on the insurgents.

The following is from some older blogs (right word?) in which the articles talks about what I just said.

Rumsfeld defends Pentagon in abuse scandal
Defense secretary says terrorists' actions are worse
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:06 p.m. ET Sept. 10, 2004

Quote:

But Pentagon investigations in recent months have said there have been some 300 allegations of prisoners killed, raped, beaten and subjected to other mistreatment at military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay since the start of the war on terror.

Rumsfeld read from a long list of statistics he'd brought with him, saying there have been 11 investigations into the abuses, 950 people interviewed, 45 referred for court martial and 23 soldiers administratively separated from the service.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5963209/

http://www.sabcnews.co.za/world/north_america/0,2172,80067,00.html

US senators hear from generals on Iraq prison abuse
May 19, 2004, 08:15

Quote:

In a report on ABC News today, Samuel Provance, a former military intelligence staffer at Abu Ghraib prison, said dozens of soldiers were involved in the abuse besides the seven military police reservists who have been charged. Provance, now stationed in Germany, also said "there is definitely a cover-up". -

Reuters

Lawyer wants Bush on witness stand over Iraq abuse
June 21, 2004, 10:30
A lawyer defending a US soldier charged with abusing prisoners in Iraq says he will seek to put George W Bush, the US president, and Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defence, on the witness stand.

Bush and Rumsfeld sidestepped the Geneva Convention in their "war on terror", Paul Bergrin, the civilian defence counsel said earlier today. His client, Javal Davis, was instructed on a daily basis to soften up Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence, Bergrin said. "Bush gave a speech declaring his war on terror and said the Geneva Convention no longer applied," Bergrin told reporters after an impassioned address in the court room.

He accused Rumsfeld and other top US officials of trying to redefine the definitions of abuse and torture in a campaign aimed at influencing lawyers at the department of justice. Pretrial hearings are being held in Baghdad this week for Davis, Charles Graner and Ivan Frederick, reviving notorious images of sexual and physical humiliation that sparked worldwide outrage.

The photographs of smirking American soldiers tormenting naked detainees rocked the US military when they emerged in April, prompting accusations that policies adopted in Bush's "war on terror" had encouraged the cruelty. - Reuters

http://www.sabcnews.co.za/world/north_america/0,2172,82104,00.html

Whether we are happy or sad to relay such news is beside the point. The point is that there should be people held accountable for both going into Iraq for no reason and for allowing abuses to flourish.

Furthermore it does not matter if we are good or bad all around. If we have done something that needs to be addressed then it should be addressed regardless if that something is not as bad as what others have done or would do if they were in our position.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Walter - I also read Riverbend. Just for purposes of clarity, let me remind readers here that there are some hundred or so blogs in the vein of IraqTheModel (those delightful dentists/brothers) living in Baghdad and roughly four blogs like Riverbend's that see nothing but the doom and gloom.

If you search just a tiny bit further, you'll find several hundred more blogs in the Riverbend vein. It was a bit depressing to find them. There are 114,000 hits in groups listed at Google just searching under Fallujah.

It's actually a sadly funny search. Pages of atrocity/battle/dead ... countered by an ad -

Joining Marines
Learn more about the Marines.
Free Info, No Obligation.
www. military. com

sample

You know, ehBeth - somehow I get the feeling that you don't find that sort of thing at all sad...as long as you can prove your point. I rather have this feeling that this is the type of thing you just eat right up.

I didn't click on your "sample". I'm sure you enjoyed it enough for both of us.

Brilliantly rational point - substituting absolutely baseless fantasies for any attempt to respond to Beth's point.

"You disagree with me, and you point to information tending to counter my argument, therefore you must be the kind of person who loves to see others suffer."

Way to go.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know