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

...a country, stumbling on the edge of collapse, with a psychotic , delusional leader, who had Sistani's father's beard dipped in gas and lit it as others nailed nails into his head--

with a leader, who although his people were impoverished, had billions of dollars, vengance on his mind, and terrorists who would make his deliveries....

Only a Democrat wouldn't see the handwriting on the wall.

We were on a collision course with Iraq--we just didn't wait to be hit.

0 Replies

Joe, every country is a weakling compared to the US. Does that somehow diminish the crime of starving over a million people to death? Wasn't that the thrust of you challenge? Does it mean nothing to you that the horror you doubted is true? Or, like so many of your comrades here, is it just cause to shift gears into some other anti-Bush screed. 1,000,000 people, Joe. Think. 1,000,000 non-partisan dead people. 500,000 dead children, 5 and under. Nothing partisan about that.

0 Replies

Quote:

We were on a collision course with Iraq--we just didn't wait to be hit.

Hah.

What were they (the Iraqis) going to hit us with? There was far greater danger in the world from al Queda in the Philippines than there was in Iraq in 2001. It's greater now in both places.

The collision course is not with nations.

There was and is greater danger from the al Queda in Afghanistan and the Tribal areas of Pakistan and from the Islamic militants in Kashmir (who have access to nuclear weapons unlike anyone at any time in Iraq) That danger exists as strongly now as it did before the invasion of Iraq except now the mullahs have a wonderful public relations example to inspire their followers.

The collision course is not with nations.

There are more al Queda followers now in Turkey, in Greece, in Germany, than there was before the invasion of Iraq. recruitments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt at moving apace.

The collision course is not with nations.

Iran will make concessions, suspend it's nuclear program and open trade talks, but the Islamic radicals in it's midst will continue to formulate methods of jihad because

it's not about nations.

Joe ( North Korea continues to be the nuclear selling source for the world. That IS a nation which is dangerous. Were they mentioned in the State of the Union? Nation

0 Replies

There is lots of death and horror in the world, bill, Clinton and the UN's major failing was in Africa. Rwanda was a sin against all humanity, three million death, over three million more have been killed in sectarian violence in the Congo, the Sudan's war between religious factions has killed nearly half the population of Southern Sudan, a million people gone. AIDS continues to to ravage populations throughout the continent, but Clinton and the UN focused their attention on the Serbs and Croats and Macedonians.

Is that what you are saying? That Bush picked the problem he could solve like Clinton? Instead of fighting for peace in the most devastated areas on earth, Africa, he choose instead to fight the fight he could win?

Why didn't you just say so?

Joe (History won't talk about the Congo, History hasn't thought about the Congo for years and years.) Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

...
The collision course is not with nations.
...
The collision course is not with nations.
...
The collision course is not with nations.
...
it's not about nations.
...

Please Joe, tell us one more time ---
Joe, what do you think the collision course is with?
Joe, what do you think it's about?

Joe, what do you think we should do instead of what we are doing?

0 Replies

Another US soldier dead in Iraq...and still counting.

0 Replies

Doctors without Borders lists the Republic of the Congo was the single most ignored human tragedy in the world. Should we nuke them or will conventional smart bombs do the trick?
Dys, (I can't see clearly now, my eyes are blurred from the ashes) lexia.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

There is lots of death and horror in the world, bill, Clinton and the UN's major failing was in Africa. Rwanda was a sin against all humanity, three million death, over three million more have been killed in sectarian violence in the Congo, the Sudan's war between religious factions has killed nearly half the population of Southern Sudan, a million people gone. AIDS continues to to ravage populations throughout the continent, but Clinton and the UN focused their attention on the Serbs and Croats and Macedonians.

What do you think we should have done about Rwanda, Southern Sudan, and/or the African AIDs epidemic?

0 Replies

Quote:

Condelezza said Saddam was marginalized in 2000, and all the recent reports show exactly that, he was tied up, tied down, and one unhappy camper without any weapons of mass destruction until the Bush II administration decided on 9-12 to go for the target rich territory of Iraq, all of a sudden he was public enemy number one, except that the real public enemy number one, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.

Joe, yes. Saddam was being contained and the inspections had shown he had no WMDs. No one can predict what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq but I think there would have been many more options than exist to us today.

And when they begin turning up bodies in Iraq and telling the media that Saddam killed zillions of people, we'd better remember the Iran-Iraq war, the victims of which are buried somewhere in Iraq. Also, let's remember the Shia who rose up after the Gulf War and were killed en masse with the help of our materiel. They must be in the ground, too.

You are right in your latest post that al Qaeda is alive and well today, and thriving due to the hot bed in Iraq. It is a hydra-headed monster and has been becoming so, year by year, since the mid-1990's, when we were not paying attention. Or could not summon the political will to lop off the head of the Head....bin Laden. How much easier it would have been to take out one person 7-8 years ago than to take out a country, mistakenly, in that effort.

But we must look at the hope of Iraq not being a disaster. I'm not thinking positively after the election. We will see a religiously oriented state -- from the early returns -- and that will be something that the people running the war will have to factor in. These weeks to come will be interesting. How will the US deal with the outcome of this pollng?

0 Replies

Amazing Joe. First you doubt the deed and ask for proof. Why ask for proof if the crime, once proven, is too trivial to register on your radar anyway? I'm all for continuing to knock heads until all the mass-murderers are rounded up... but somehow I don't think you mean it. Or is this the old can't stop all the crime so why stop any BS? Rolling Eyes

When a million murders don't matter anymore because you don't like the politics of the arresting officer, it's time to check yourself, Joe. That's a sh!tty thing to politicize.

Btw, as disgusting as Rwanda was and the Sudan is, Clinton's major failure was in paying Kim to build Nukes instead of taking him out. That is probably the most dangerous mistake in recent history.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
We were on a collision course with Iraq--we just didn't wait to be hit.

Hah.
Glad you can find humor in it. I don't. The families of 911 victims don't.
What were they (the Iraqis) going to hit us with? There was far greater danger in the world from al Queda in the Philippines than there was in Iraq in 2001. It's greater now in both places.

The collision course is not with nations.
That's true. As I said about two years ago-- no one can fight a symmetrical war with the US any longer. It is now assymetrical--with groups of thugs finding sympathic and complicit nations to cloak them.
There was and is greater danger from the al Queda in Afghanistan and the Tribal areas of Pakistan and from the Islamic militants in Kashmir (who have access to nuclear weapons unlike anyone at any time in Iraq) That danger exists as strongly now as it did before the invasion of Iraq except now the mullahs have a wonderful public relations example to inspire their followers.

The collision course is not with nations.
no one can fight a symmetrical war with the US any longer. It is now assymetrical--with groups of thugs finding sympathic and complicit nations to cloak them
There are more al Queda followers now in Turkey, in Greece, in Germany, than there was before the invasion of Iraq. recruitments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt at moving apace.
Can you give me their addresses?
The collision course is not with nations.
no one can fight a symmetrical war with the US any longer. It is now assymetrical--with groups of thugs finding sympathic and complicit nations to cloak and aid them
Iran will make concessions, suspend it's nuclear program and open trade talks, but the Islamic radicals in it's midst will continue to formulate methods of jihad because

it's not about nations.
Its about terrorism, where ever it comes from.
Joe ( North Korea continues to be the nuclear selling source for the world. That IS a nation which is dangerous. Were they mentioned in the State of the Union? Nation

0 Replies

It continues to amaze me that some people still think we preemptively attacked Iraq for the Iraqi people, because Saddam was such a terrible tyrant.

0 Replies

I'm not one of them--but that doesn't negate the fact.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It continues to amaze me that some people still think we preemptively attacked Iraq for the Iraqi people, because Saddam was such a terrible tyrant.

Who thinks that CI? Name one person.

It amazes me that people out there that will trivialize a million murders in hopes of scoring political points because they weren't the main thrust of the president's argument.

Newsflash to the terminally obtuse: it makes no difference to the million dead people why George Bush decided to attack Iraq. The FACT that Saddam is responsible for over a million murders is all the justification I needed.

Carry on feigning concern for the victims of collateral damage while pretending you don't know Saddam averaged a like number of innocents murdered throughout his rule. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:
Bill:

Given your views about fundamental Islam and Iran I am wondering what you think about the article I posted? To refresh, here is the first relevant paragraph.
As I've tried hard to illustrate to you before, here, it is the barbarism I have a problem with... not the religion. I do hope the Iraqis are able to put together a fair and humane constitution. I have no illusions about that being a certainty... but from all I've seen and read I remain quite optimistic.

The group that seems to so far have the most votes is a whole lot more fundamental than the secular Shiite's and have close ties to Iran. I don't think that they will dare to be as openly strict as Iran as to stone people, but I bet that their way of doing things will not really set well with the US and the other minorities in Iraq. Personally I see trouble. But that is typical of me; I guess.

Anyone:

You know I bet that since more than a majority of people who live in those areas over there are fundamentalist Muslims, they would like it if we democratized the whole middle east for them.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
It continues to amaze me that some people still think we preemptively attacked Iraq for the Iraqi people, because Saddam was such a terrible tyrant.
Who thinks that CI? Name one person.

It amazes me that people out there that will trivialize a million murders in hopes of scoring political points because they weren't the main thrust of the president's argument.

Newsflash to the terminally obtuse: it makes no difference to the million dead people why George Bush decided to attack Iraq. The FACT that Saddam is responsible for over a million murders is all the justification I needed.

Carry on feigning concern for the victims of collateral damage while pretending you don't know Saddam averaged a like number of innocents murdered throughout his rule.

If he was the only dicator in the world or even the worst with blood on his hands I could agree with you. As it was, we was in the middle of a war on terror that we basically left to others to go after someone that was contained. It could have waited until there was at least a half hearted plan and more support and a more of an urgent need. We didn't need to go and destroy a country and kill thousands more innocents lives.

0 Replies

Furthermore, this was out of line:

Quote:

Carry on feigning concern for the victims of collateral damage while pretending you don't know Saddam averaged a like number of innocents murdered throughout his rule.

You cannot divine into our minds and know if we are feigning or not over an impersonal internet message board.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It continues to amaze me that some people still think we preemptively attacked Iraq for the Iraqi people, because Saddam was such a terrible tyrant.

We were motivated by enlightened self-interest, and we have frequently declared as much.

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the
sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and
much oppression, so I have changed this policy."

The USA was one such free nation. Do you wish us to return to that failed policy?

"Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality: America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat; America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."

Replacing tyrannical governments with democratic governments will reduce the number of nations that choose to harbor, aid or comfort terrorists. Do you wish us to resume limiting our defense against terrorists to domestic defense? In other words, shall we instead emulate our equivalent of the failed French Maginot Line or the failed USSR Berlin Wall?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
It continues to amaze me that some people still think we preemptively attacked Iraq for the Iraqi people, because Saddam was such a terrible tyrant.
Who thinks that CI? Name one person.

It amazes me that people out there that will trivialize a million murders in hopes of scoring political points because they weren't the main thrust of the president's argument.

Newsflash to the terminally obtuse: it makes no difference to the million dead people why George Bush decided to attack Iraq. The FACT that Saddam is responsible for over a million murders is all the justification I needed.

Carry on feigning concern for the victims of collateral damage while pretending you don't know Saddam averaged a like number of innocents murdered throughout his rule.

You piss and moan about a million people murdered ...... is that number a breaking point for you or did you pull it out of the air?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know