0
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:41 pm
Good lord, Panzade are you talking to me? If you are, will you marry me? (Never mind, scrap that. Hubby would object anyway). I think of myself as fair and balanced always, but then probably everybody who posts on A2K thinks of himself/herself that way.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:55 pm
Quote:
You pidgeons continue to chant that old bushwacking, mindless diatribe about Bush lying. Everyone, but you pidgeons of course, understands that the false intelligence information of which Bush and the rest of us were victims, was caused by the 30-year history of prior administrations dismantling and handicapping our intelligence capabilities.


It's always someone else's fault with you hawks isn't it? Some other admin responsible for intel mistakes. Well, there was one administration that judged the intel and decided that war was neccessary.

Clinton didn't do that.
Bush Sr. didn't do that.
Reagan was too busy working with Saddam and allowing the sale of chemical weapons to do that.

You would think that a political party that crows about personal responsibility so often would have the sac to hold their leaders to the same standards they would hold everyone else to, but apparently hypocrisy rules these days in Washington.

Quote:
Do you think our military would accept me, a 73 year old aviator, if I were to sign up? Hmmmmm! I'd do it in a New York minute! I'd do it in a New York second, if they would agree, if I were to survive, to train me to fly their newest fighter jet. Wow! By golly, that's sure worth a day dream or two!


Unfortunately, we only have openings on the front lines these days. Nothing glamorous like a fighter jet for you, Hawk; you'd actually have to get your hands dirty.

BTW, Your advanced age explains a lot about your arguments. No offense, of course; senescence invariably leads to confusion and an inability to reason, even in the best of us.

It is also unsurprising that one who lived through the glory days of US warfare is unable to accept the fact that we no longer represent the shining legions of justice that we used to.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:57 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
One has to wonder which is worse: a hawk convinced of the rightness of his/her yet-to-be-determined-effective cause, or the dove (pigeon?) who refuses to consider or even see the probable alternative to the hawk's initiative.


I say, therein lies the difference between doves and pidgeons. A dove of course considers both the probable consequences of pursuing and not pursuing a particular cause. While a pidgeon has enslaved itself in a paradigm that forbids evaluation of the probable consequences of not pursuing a particular cause, while deploring the consequences of pursuing that cause.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:11 pm
Ican writes
Quote:
I say, therein lies the difference between doves and pidgeons. A dove of course considers both the probable consequences of pursuing and not pursuing a particular cause. While a pidgeon has enslaved itself in a paradigm that forbids evaluation of the probable consequences of not pursuing a particular cause, while deploring the consequences of pursuing that cause.


Of course the hawk can also be guilty of the same sin as the pidgeon. In reading what several authors have written of the events and decision-making processes leading up to the invasion of Iraq--the latest is Tommy Frank's book--it is obvious that the Bush administration did consider the pros and cons to great lengths before the order to invade was given. It remains to be seen if the vision will play out as a success in the eyes of historians. I see very little weighing of such pros and cons demonstrated by the resident pidgeons either in Washington, in much of the news media, or here on A2K.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:34 pm
This one is so pertinent to the current discussion in this thread I am going to post all of it as the NY Times requires registration.

Divided We Stand
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:41 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's always someone else's fault with you hawks isn't it? Some other admin responsible for intel mistakes. Well, there was one administration that judged the intel and decided that war was neccessary.

Clinton didn't do that. Bush Sr. didn't do that. Reagan was too busy working with Saddam and allowing the sale of chemical weapons to do that.

You would think that a political party that crows about personal responsibility so often would have the sac to hold their leaders to the same standards they would hold everyone else to, but apparently hypocrisy rules these days in Washington.


I do understand that too many of the bushwacking young like yourself do not understand the difference between lying and screwing-up. Bush screwed-up by believing falsity. You are screwing-up by believing falsity. Only if you do not believe the falsities you espouse could you be truly a liar. Do you understand now? If not wait a few years. Perhaps in growing up you might gain sufficient wisdom to understand.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Unfortunately, we only have openings on the front lines these days. Nothing glamorous like a fighter jet for you, Hawk; you'd actually have to get your hands dirty.

BTW, Your advanced age explains a lot about your arguments. No offense, of course; senescence invariably leads to confusion and an inability to reason, even in the best of us.

It is also unsurprising that one who lived through the glory days of US warfare is unable to accept the fact that we no longer represent the shining legions of justice that we used to. Cycloptichorn

Your reading comprehension level reveals your youth. I said(paraphrasing), I'd sign up in a New York minute if they'd take me. I followed that with, I'd sign up in a New York second if they agreed that if I survived, they would train me to fly their newest jet fighter.

You are presenting here substantial anecdotal evidence that some young are more subject to confusion and inability to reason than some old.

It is also unsurprising that one who voluntarily lives prisoner of a false paradigm is unable to accept the fact that that very paradigm is false.

Since July 4, 1776, my paradigm has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a valid continuation of past glory days.

George W. Bush wrote:
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.


I'm sticking with my paradigm. It works. Your paradigm doesn't work. It never has. I prey you abandon it, young fella.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Of course the hawk can also be guilty of the same sin as the pidgeon. ...
True! I think the hawk is by its nature quilty of the same sin as the pidgeon. I consider you and me and Franks et al to be eagles. An eagle is like the dove except that the eagle is less risk-adverse.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:59 pm
Get off your high horse. You don't understand the first thing about anyone else's paradigm, let alone your own...

Quote:
Your reading comprehension level reveals your youth. I said(paraphrasing), I'd sign up in a New York minute if they'd take me. I followed that with, I'd sign up in a New York second if they agreed that if I survived, they would train me to fly their newest jet fighter.

You are presenting here substantial anecdotal evidence that some young are more subject to confusion and inability to reason than some old.

It is also unsurprising that one who voluntarily lives prisoner of a false paradigm is unable to accept the fact that that very paradigm is false.

Since July 4, 1776, my paradigm has been blah blah blah blah blah....


Perhaps you should re-read. I never questioned the fact that you stated the exact things you've stated; I merely have pointed out that the idea of flying jet planes is somewhat out of the question, and therefore you would do better to reign in that sense of glee.

I think the real interesting paradigm here is your (intentional?) refusal to consider the fact that Bush and Co. didn't screw the intel up! Can you not accept the idea that the prez. would do such a thing? Haven't you lived in America for quite some time? I'm sure an august gentlemen such as yourself doesn't need a young pup like me to list examples of presidential duplicity.

That being the case, do you think it is more likely that legions of researchers, the most talented military generals, and our highest elected officials were all completely and 100% incorrect; or that a decision was made to ignore contrary evidence? Which is more likely, that hundreds of people would be completely wrong, or that a few would lie for their own personal reasons and gain?

Somehow I doubt you will seriously consider the question; else, you might agree with me....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 02:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Get off your high horse. You don't understand the first thing about anyone else's paradigm, let alone your own
...

I think the real interesting paradigm here is your (intentional?) refusal to consider the fact that Bush and Co. didn't screw the intel up! Can you not accept the idea that the prez. would do such a thing? Haven't you lived in America for quite some time? I'm sure an august gentlemen such as yourself doesn't need a young pup like me to list examples of presidential duplicity.

That being the case, do you think it is more likely that legions of researchers, the most talented military generals, and our highest elected officials were all completely and 100% incorrect; or that a decision was made to ignore contrary evidence? Which is more likely, that hundreds of people would be completely wrong, or that a few would lie for their own personal reasons and gain? Cycloptichorn


My high horse? I thought you were on yours! I'm piloting a Basset Hound as we speak! Laughing

Yes, I concede it possible that Bush et al are no damn good, plotting conspiratorial subversives, and worthless most evil forms of human existence. I think it possible that you are financed by the same folks who are financing the insurgents. I bet neither is true.

I estimate the probability that Bush et al are what you allege they are, is at most one chance in a million (as for the odds that you are being financed as I described ... they're greater). If Bush were as you described, he would appear to me to be the most incompetent conspirator I've ever observed or read about. Bush, copying his presidential predecessors deliberately so as to fake screw-up after screw-up in order to gain mastery of America and then the world, is frankly incredible to me. So I need some evidence and not mere pathological allegations to think it more likely otherwise. I'm still stuck with that old senescent paradigm: innocent until proven guilty.

On the otherhand, Kerry ........... well never mind Kerry.... .
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 03:02 pm
Interesting, the young French muslims who see themselves as muslims first and French second.

In Britain, we do not have an "oath of allegiance" as you have for putative citizens. Some are now saying we should.
More worryingly, these youngsters would have been born in France.
We need MODERATE policies and actions overseas so that these sections of our communities (they're not going to go away) do not feel alienated from the host country.
"Bomb the bas*ards" policies, so beloved of country hicks and the unsophisticated, do not play well in the big cities where the racial mix mainly is.
I did not express that well, but the meaning is clear I hope. A ticking timebomb, a fragmented society, more danger at home.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 03:35 pm
Anyone here know what 'buying a bill of goods' means?

Could these be Bush's (and Icon's') 'northern terrroist'?

Klik me
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 03:43 pm
To McTag: "More moderate" would include less pacifism?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:30 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
To McTag: "More moderate" would include less pacifism?


Yes. Or, less pacifism than what? Has any been exhibited recently? I'm not a pacifist personally, and if anyone says I am, I'll punch them on the nose. Smile
I suppose the point is (and I believe I live in a more unified/ homogenous society than most Americans, despite all) that all or most of the onlookers must believe in the course of action the government is taking.
That is why war is such a great tool for governments to use; everyone is suddenly on board at the outset, or those not can easily be labelled renegade or unpatriotic. But this is a device they can use only once per generation.
Did I just contradict myself there?
In the absence of a "clear and present danger" situation or an actual war, the best way to achive max unanimity among the population is to pursue moderate policy, in my view.
GWB's agenda was not moderate, and so a war had to be mongered.
Even got Ican wanting to join in.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
There's no evidence whatsoever that Saddam would have killed 'dozens of thousands' of people over the course of any amount of time in the future; while he was a terrible man, you are purely speculating. Especially if we had kept a close watch on him internationally.

You can revise history however you want, ICan, in your fantasy world; but the US citizen was lied to in order to support a war of ideological expansion, and it most certainly is not justified.

Why don't you sign up and go fight, seeing as you believe in it so much? Right.

Cycloptichorn
And people wonder why I can't resist the urge to use the word idiotic when I read this crap. Even the UN concedes he murdered a million Iraqis via starvation while pocketing the grocery money for Dog's sake. That, was reported for the first 7 years of Sanctions. Do you think the next 7 years were any different? Do you honestly think the next 7 years would be any different? Revise history? You feign concern for 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians while ignoring the FACT that according to UNICEF Saddam and his pal's theft of Grocery Money killed 500,000 just counting the babies, 5 and under. WTF do you mean revise history?
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Especially if we had kept a close watch on him internationally.
WTF do you think the UN was doing or would be doing differently you f... I cannot tell you how hard it is abide by the TOS sometimes. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:57 pm
McTag writes
Quote:
Yes. I'm not a pacifist personally, and if anyone says I am, I'll punch them on the nose.
I suppose the point is (and I believe I live in a more unified/ homogenous society than most Americans, despite all) that all or most of the onlookers must believe in the course of action the government is taking.
That is why war is such a great tool for governments to use; everyone is suddenly on board at the outset, or those not can easily be labelled renegade or unpatriotic. But this is a device they can use only once per generation.
Did I just contradict myself there?
In the absence of a "clear and present danger" situation or an actual war, the best way to achive max unanimity among the population is to pursue moderate policy, in my view.
GWB's agenda was not moderate, and so a war had to be mongered.
Even got Ican wanting to join in.


I agree that GWB's agenda was not moderate AFTER 9/11--it was far more moderate than most conservative Americans wanted prior to 9/11. But then I would have personally held a moderate response to 9/11 in utter contempt.

I think of your history, McTag, knowing of the wars between Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and Danes, the ongoing conflicts in Ireland, the intractable Welsh, the independent Scots that I decend from and though I think perhaps the UK is not as homogenous as some, it nevertheless is probably more homogenous than the even more diverse cultures and ideologies scattered across a much larger population and much larger area that is the U.S.

Evenso, have any of the world's great leaders enjoyed more than temporal unity of support from the people when such support was not demanded? Leaders listen and consider all available information, but leaders don't look to polling data for the decisions they will make. Thus most great leaders, chosen by the people, have taken unpopular positions from time to time, and more often than not, history was kind in its judgment of the leader. It is often when the leader enjoys broad popularity, such as in Hitler's Germany, that history most condemns the results.

I don't know how the current conflict in Iraq will turn out. I think if most Americans stand behind the President, the results will be far better than if most Americans do not. And if we fail, there will be some who oppose him who will then enjoy their self-fulfilled prophecy and feel smug and superior. There are some who will feel angry at the waste. And there will be some who feel grief that the world will be much poorer for it.

There will be decades and centuries to debatye the wisdom of casting the dice on this one. But once the die was caste, I could see no reasonable course of action than to throw my whole support behind the effort and ensure that the mission succeed for the best outcome for us, for our allies, for the Iraqis, and for the world.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 05:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I cannot tell you how hard it is abide by the TOS sometimes. Evil or Very Mad


Yes, I know.

That's one of the reasons, why I don't answer usually to ...I wanted to say ... to e.g. some of your posts :wink:
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 05:07 pm
No matter how great the debate the final sentence will read 'Bush sold us a bill of goods' period.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 05:09 pm
Yes. And I hope for a good outcome too, lest there be any doubt. And a speedy one, if that were possible.

I think that, in Germany in 1939 if a plebiscite had been taken, a large majority of the population would have been supportive of their leader's action.
The psychology is simple, and it has been repeated many times through history.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 05:15 pm
McTag wrote:
Yes. And I hope for a good outcome too, lest there be any doubt. And a speedy one, if that were possible.

I think that, in Germany in 1939 if a plebiscite had been taken, a large majority of the population would have been supportive of their leader's action.
The psychology is simple, and it has been repeated many times through history.


See here.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 05:39 pm
TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Hi,

To start with, I wish to congratulate all Muslim people on the occasion of Eid Al-Adha.

As I said right at the beginning (of my blogging), the battle with the stubborn peasants opposing change in our country was going to depend on the balance of intimidation as I called it then. The basic error was in allowing this balance to tip in favor of the enemy through inadequate security measures coupled with underestimation of his ability to subvert and cripple civil life. The enemy should be well known by now as being an alliance of former regime elements with the Bin-Ladenists, if we may coin this new term; not to mention the motley assortment of petty criminals and mercenaries. The basic ideas and strategies of this enemy are broadly laid out in that famous Zarqawi document. Unfortunately, his plan has been implemented more or less successfully so far. I have always insisted on the paramount importance of that document, which I believe to be authentic. Careful reading of it could shed much light on what has been going up to the present time. He clearly states that one of the most important elements of his plan is to gain control of the Sunni areas and incite the people therein against the rest and majority of the population namely the Shiaa, the Kurds, Christians etc., thereby creating the conditions that would lead to civil war of the worst kind: religious and sectarian conflict. Thus and in pursuit of this vile scheme, the most heinous barbaric crimes have been committed, especially against the Iraqi people, and I do not think we need to enumerate these.

There is also very little doubt that regional powers are playing an important role in financing and aiding the terrorist campaign in Iraq, as a means of thwarting U.S. and Allied strategies. All what the U.S. is expounding is anathema to these neighboring regimes (and others more far away): Democracy, freedom, standing up for the oppressed, the promotion of more enlightened and open political systems. Moreover; the hostility against these ideas are perfectly understandable from their point of view, since they spell death and doom to social systems based on tyranny, despotism , blind bias, arrogance and prejudice.

Regarding the elections, it is almost evident what is going to happen. Voting will take place mostly in those places that are more or less out of reach of the intimidators, namely, the South and Kurdish North. Unfortunately, much of Baghdad is on the wrong side of line. In fact, this intimidation is working against the interests of secular and moderate political forces, and in favor of the more religiously inclined and intransigent parties, since those likely to favor the former are largely to be found in Baghdad and the major cities. And; if the latter parties gain power, they are not likely to treat the "insurgents" very kindly; so, probably, the intimidators are stupidly digging their own graves.

Moreover, no one should expect that the security situation and strife would somehow improve after the elections; it is more likely to intensify. This is an unfinished war; the Saddamists and their allies have fully regrouped and rearmed and are being very well financed and supported. The brave American people have given President Bush the mandate to finish this war despite the painful sacrifices and material cost. The Iraqi people are up in arms through the political groupings, new army, N.G. and various security forces and are suffering the greater part of the sacrifice. Despite all the snags and faltering, these forces are getting bigger and stronger and should be supported and nurtured until they can bear the full responsibility; this is the only viable "exit strategy" available. In fact, we do not like this phrase, for what is required is a "victory strategy". This war must be fought to the bitter end, and there is only one outcome acceptable both to us and to you: Total and Complete Victory. Anything else is completely unthinkable.
Salaam

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 08/07/2025 at 09:02:00