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

... But without Muir, the ecology movement might have been set back decades. Chambers Biographical Dictionary (another great Scottish invention) describes him as he "father of environmentalism". Muir's tendency to think of landscapes in terms of ecosystems rather than individual features was revolutionary and his lobbying of President Theodore Roosevelt to make Yosemite a national park changed the face of America.

What sort of democracy is it when you FORCE people to go vote for someone or another they don't want?

Allawi's people were passing out pamphlets a few days ago. I went out to the garden to check the low faucet, hoping to find a trickle of water and instead, I found some paper crushed under the garden gate. Upon studying it, it turned out to be some sort of "Elect Allawi" pamphlet promising security and prosperity, amongst other things, for occupied Iraq. I'd say it was a completely useless pamphlet but that isn't completely true. It fit nicely on the bottom of the cage of E.'s newly acquired pet parakeet.

They say the borders are closed with Jordan and possibly Syria. I also heard yesterday that people aren't being let into Baghdad. They have American check-points on the main roads leading into the city and they say that the cars are being turned back to wherever they came from. It's a bad situation and things are looking very bleak at this point.

It's amazing how as things get worse, you begin to require less and less. We have a saying for that in Iraq, "Ili yishoof il mawt, yirdha bil iskhooneh." Which means, "If you see death, you settle for a fever." We've given up on democracy, security and even electricity. Just bring back the water.

- posted by river @ 4:19 PM

What sort of democracy is it when you FORCE people to go vote for someone or another they don't want?

What could be wrong with an objective consideration of typical behaviors or historical norms for the evaluation of the significance or meaning of the actions of nations or organizations of humans? Are you gifted with a proven, absolute yardstick for the evaluation of such deeds? Upon what standard is it based?

[size=8]The full meaning of the word "tolerate" includes the sense "to suffer," i.e. (id est, that is, namely), to endure, bear, feel pain, inadvertently.

The 9/11 commission report is poor evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda. It is so poor in fact, that the 9/11 commission report itself does not state that Saddam harbored al Qaeda. It merely uses the ambiguous term "tolerated" in regard to Saddam concerning Ansar al-Islam, and the indefinite phrase "may even have helped." It is only you, ican, that is drawing conclusions thereof alleging Saddam harbored al Qaeda. The evidence you rely on to arrive at your conclusions is hardly enough to say that Saddam harbored al Qaeda.

The Kurds had much more control over northern Iraq than Saddam, and that was by way of the protection from Saddam afforded them by the Joint Task Force enforcing the no-fly zone there. That "al Qadea" reformed in northern Iraq by 2001 after the Kurds defeated al Qaeda in northern Iraq by 1999 is not evidence that the Kurds had no more control over northern Iraq than did Saddam. The Kurds were prepared to deal with Ansar al-Islam in 2002. Their ultimate hinderance was the US' looming war against Iraq. The evidence that I have that Saddam actually lacked the choice of at least attempting the same thing is the fact that Saddam had no control over northern Iraq. That the US claims it requested Saddam to extradite Zarqawi and his subordinates is irrelevant because of that fact.

That Saddam never claimed that al Qaeda were not so encamped, or otherwise, in northern Iraq is not evidence of Saddam's alleged harboring of al Qaeda. That Saddam never claimed he tried to remove al Qaeda is not evidence that he did not attempt to remove al Qaeda, let alone your allegations of Saddam's harboring of al Qaeda. All of this amounts to assumptions on your part predicated on leaps of logic, nothing more.

The 9/11 commission's silence about Zarqawi is relevant because, aside from it's possible corroboration of Powell's claims--which it does not--it could have elaborated on it's own allegations of "tolerance" of and "may even have helped" Ansar al-Islam, which is the terrorist group with whom Zarqawi had fallen in northern Iraq. It does not.

And so, maybe Zarqawi had such a role, and maybe he did not, and this is a matter of pure speculation. That isn't very good evidence for the claim that Saddam had dealings with him, or that Saddam had the wherewithal to extradite him, etc. All this amounts to is uncorroborated, unverified bluster, and this is what you are basing your own claims of harboring, pure speculation. Speculation is not evidence of Saddam's harboring of al Qaeda.

I did not imply that anyone who scores less than 100%, is rated by me as scoring 0%, i.e. is discredited. Your inference is fallacious.

I am saying that Powell and the US admin. played fast and loose with their "evidence" of Saddam's WMD and harboring of al Qaeda to terrorize and incite the US public into support for its invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no evidence of either. Powell and the US admin. have been discredited on these counts. Because of this, any of their subsequent utterings are suspicious and questionable.[/size]

If I had a choice, neither Bush nor Kerry would be President. We all choose the guy that fits us better... not best. Was your first choice represented in the last election?

It would be exactly the same Blatham. I'd still want the guilty punished and I believe that is exactly what's happening. Your assumption that "higher ups" are responsible has not been proven. Since when would a liberal person like you like to see people convicted of crimes based on perceived likeliness of guilt? That doesn't jive with most of your politics and frankly, it screams hypocrisy.

... The problem is that this US administration and the people who voted for them (twice!) think that everyone else in the world is just like them. The fact of the matter is that the rest of the world is not at all like the evangelical, pro-pre-emptive war, anti-gay, anti-tax, pro-small government, pro-business/anti-worker, anti-Kyoto, anti-stem cell, anti-whatever else you got that sounds like too much fun folks running Washington and a lot more like what the Democratic Party used to be for before the New Democrats started moving towards the American middle.
They are so sure they are on on the path of the righteous, they do not ask anyone else's opinions and if those opinions are offered unasked, they do not listen. ...

Patrick Henry: "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace!—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethen are already in the field. Why stay we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!"

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It would be exactly the same Blatham. I'd still want the guilty punished and I believe that is exactly what's happening. Your assumption that "higher ups" are responsible has not been proven. Since when would a liberal person like you like to see people convicted of crimes based on perceived likeliness of guilt? That doesn't jive with most of your politics and frankly, it screams hypocrisy.

Do you really believe that those troopers brought the hoods and dogcollars into the field .... do you think they studied'Islamic taboos in high school.... ?

They were trained by a superior, not by someone under them.

Do you really believe that those troopers brought the hoods and dogcollars into the field .... do you think they studied'Islamic taboos in high school.... ? They were trained by a superior, not by someone under them.

Quote:

You really wanna argue moral relativism, george? It's unbecoming in a modern conservative. Careful, or I'll fink to the Pope.

Quote:

Torture is as close to an absolute wrong as one might find.

Exactly what does that mean? Is what happened in Abu Garb the equivalent of what occurred in Saddam's prisons and torture rooms or during the French suppression if the Algerian insurrection? Obviously not. Moreover whether you believe the process is fair or complete, there was self-disclosure and there is a legal process for dealing with the perpetrators - as Occam Bill has already noted.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with an objective consideration, but you aren't objective. Nor is bill. Your allegiance to your government and your nation are trumping an objective stance. If these acts were being done to American soldiers, how much would it matter that the French did X or Y?

I don't think that either Bill or I have ever suggested the U.S. government is blameless or without fault in any aspect of these events. Instead we are fending off obviously absurd and (in my view) mindless suggestions that we have equaled or exceeded the worst such events in history. In addition we have argued that there is a meaningful distinction to be found between our actions and between those of our critics who previously did far worse, and with far less justification. Overall I believe we are far more objective than you, for example, in these realistic comparisons

February 2005
The War Against World War IV
Norman Podhoretz
Commentary
...
Insurgents

All things considered, then, I feel safe in predicting that Bush will not reverse course in his second term, and that he will continue striving to implement the doctrine bearing his name throughout the greater Middle East—that, in short, he will go on "sticking to his guns, literally and figuratively," as Time put it in naming him "Person of the Year." But I feel equally safe in predicting that the forces opposing him, both in the region and at home, will persist in their stuggle to nip this immense enterprise in the bud.

In Iraq, the insurgents a coalition of diehard Saddamists, domestic Islamofascists, and foreign jihadists—have a simple objective. They are trying to drive us out beore the seeds of democratization that we are helping to sow have taken firm root and begun to flower. Only thus can the native insurgents hope to recapure the power they lost when we toppled Saddam; and only thus can the Iranins, the Syrians, and the Saudis, who have been dispatching and/or financing he foreign jihadists, escape becoming the next regimes to go the way of Saddem’s under the logic of the Bush Doctrine.

The despots tyrannizing these countries all know perfectly well that an American failure in Iraq would rue out the use of military force against
them. They know that it would rob their, non-military measures of any real effectiveness. And they know that it ould put a halt to the wave of
reformist talk that has been sweeping through the region since the promulgation of the Bush Doctrine and that poses an unprecedented threat to their own hold on political power, just as it does to the religious and cultural power of the radical Islamists.

But the most important thing the insurgents and their backers in the neighboring despotisms know is that the battle for Iraq will not be won or
lost in Iraq; it will be won or lost in the United States of America. On this they agree entirely with General John Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, who recently told reporters touring Iraq: "It is all about staying the course. No military effort that anyone can make against us is going to be able to throw us out of this region." Is it any wonder, then, that the insurgents were praying for the victory of John F. Kerry—which they all assumed would mean an American withdrawal—or that the reelection of Bush—which they were not fooled by any exit polls into interpreting as anything other than a ratification of the Bush Doctrine—came as such a great blow to them?

But too much is at stake in Iraq for them to give up now, especially as they are confident that they still have an excellent shot at getting the American public to conclude that the game is not worth the candle. General Abizaid again: "We have nothing to fear from this enemy except its ability to create panic . . . and gain a media victory." To achieve this species of victory—and perhaps inspired by the strategy that worked so well for the North Vietnamese—they are counting on the forces opposing the Bush Doctrine at home. These forces comprise just as motley a coalition as the one fighting in Iraq, and they are, after their own fashion, just as desperate. For they too understand how much they for their own part stand to lose if the Bush Doctrine is ever generally judged to have passed the great test to which it has been put in Iraq.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
...
We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.

Patrick Henry: "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace!—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethen are already in the field. Why stay we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!"