0
   

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

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 11:32 am
We play rugby football, which is similar to your "football" but played without padding or body armour.

Ican, you are a silly ass and I look forward to the day when you realise this.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 04:20 pm
McTag wrote:
... Ican, you are a silly ass and I look forward to the day when you realise this.

Laughing
Well, it is alleged, "takes one to know one." This allegation means that if you are truly competent to recognize a silly ass, you are alleging that you too are a silly ass . While it is allegedly necessary for one to be a silly ass to truly recognize that another person is a silly ass, being a silly ass is not necessarily alleged sufficient for recognizing a silly ass.

By the way, I imagine that when one actually recognizes oneself to be a silly ass, one ceases to be a silly ass.

So to bestow upon you my compassion, today I allege you're correct that I'm a silly ass, and I officially allege that you too are a silly ass. Surprised

I hope that makes you feel all better now. 2 Cents
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 04:47 pm
pdiddie

yes we call it rounders

girlies play it
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 04:49 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
{do Americans play cricket?}
silly question....do you know what it is?
Laughing

Sure, in cricket, one hits a pitched ball and runs like hell from one wicket to another. In baseball, one hits a pitched ball and runs like hell to 1st base, and with any luck to 2nd base, then 3rd base and then home plate. In cricket when one misses the ball, one risks a toppled wicket and perhaps an amused catcher. In baseball, when one misses the ball, one only risks an amused catcher.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 05:01 pm
www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: con·nec·tion
Pronunciation: k&-'nek-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin connexion-, connexio, from conectere
1 : the act of connecting : the state of being connected : as a : causal or logical relation or sequence <the connection between two ideas> b (1) : contextual relation or association <in this connection the word has a different meaning> (2) : relationship in fact <wanted in connection with a robbery> c : a relation of personal intimacy (as of family ties) d : COHERENCE, CONTINUITY
2 a : something that connects : LINK <a loose connection in the wiring> b : a means of communication or transport
3 : a person connected with another especially by marriage, kinship, or common interest <has powerful connections>
4 : a political, social, professional, or commercial relationship: as a : POSITION, JOB b : an arrangement to execute orders or advance interests of another <a firm's foreign connections> c : a source of contraband (as illegal drugs)
5 : a set of persons associated together: as a : DENOMINATION b : CLAN
- con·nec·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

Both the 9/11 Commission and the US Senate Intelligence Committee 'ave alleged there was an al-qaeda-Iraq connection before 9/11.

Did that connection vanish after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, only to reappear after the invasion of Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 05:28 pm
ican, al Qaeda is a "conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries, including Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Burma, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Bosnia as well as the West Bank [and China]." Other countries where al Qaeda is known to have covert operational cells include Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaysia, the United States, Britain, France and Canada.

...but not Iraq... eventhough it's on the list. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 05:35 pm
Brand X wrote:
ican, al Qaeda is a "conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells in countries spread across at least 26 countries ...
...but not Iraq... eventhough it's on the list. :wink:


Well, that settles it then. Failure on our part to concurrently invade all those countries, including but not limited to the USA, means we should not have invaded any of them, right? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 05:45 pm
I have it on very good authority that the people of Topeka wil object if we invade Kansas.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 05:45 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 05:47 pm
For those who need to know! Crying or Very sad
www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: 3con·glom·er·ate
Pronunciation: -'gläm-r&t, -'glä-m&-
Function: noun
1 : a composite mass or mixture; especially : rock composed of rounded fragments varying from small pebbles to large boulders in a cement (as of hardened clay)
2 : a widely diversified corporation
- con·glom·er·at·ic /k&n-"glä-m&-'ra-tik, "kän-/ adjective
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 05:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I have it on very good authority that the people of Topeka wil object if we invade Kansas.


Would they accept our invading Kansas if we excluded Topeka? :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Aug, 2004 07:17 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
... Ican, I can't get into debates with you as to the difference between real reality and actual reality. What I posted was my opinion. ...


Silly me! I actually thought that you thought your opinions were based on facts and logic, and, if questioned, you would provide some examples of those facts and logic.

My opinion about why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq is largely based on what President Bush actually claimed to the US Congress were the reasons we must and did invade these countries. Failure on my part to encounter any facts or logic to the contrary, my own opinion why we invaded these countries includes many of President Bush's reasons plus my own reasons repeatedly articulated here in this forum.

I realize that my position fails to give sufficient weight to the ubiquitous prevailing paranoia that Bush is no damn good, and cannot and should not be trusted. Alas, I do not trust paranoids. I do not trust paranoids, because I have observed their consistently destructive behaviors over the last approximately 70 years. Not only do they victimize others, I infer they themselves are victimized by their own baseless opinions.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 08:25 am
Quote:
So let me ask a couple of questions here so I can get a better handle on leftist thinking...

Does it matter who it is that dies? Do American deaths mean more than Iraqi deaths? Does it matter who causes the deaths? Does a person being dead as a result of an american bomb worse than a death caused by Saddam sending them through a wood chipper? Does it matter that fewer people will die in the future as a result of x number of deaths now? Even though different people were going to die than the ones that did?


McGentrix, I hadn't thought that deaths were a right or left thing.

I deplore the deaths caused by government support of the militias in the Sudan as much as I regret those in Iraq, past and current. I would not have regretted so much the death or capture of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen if they had been taken out by a surgical strike of CIA operatives. They were evil men, or at least one evil man and his stooges or cohorts.

Who says that there will be fewer deaths in the future? How can anyone know that? The HOPE that those killing fields will be subdued is just that, a hope. What if our well meant but bumbling efforts devolve into civil war or devastating ethnic cleansing?

If we knew for sure that 10,000 Iraqi deaths would not happen in coming years because of 1,000 US soldier deaths, would that trade-off be acceptable? When would the balance begin not to work? I do not see how anyone can answer these questions, except by saying I don't know or We don't know. The problem in this country is that our leaders are afraid to say I don't know, or maybe this wasn't such a good idea and we'd better go back to the drawing board.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 08:33 am
Quote:
My opinion about why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq is largely based on what President Bush actually claimed to the US Congress were the reasons we must and did invade these countries.


...and as those claims have been shown to be largely fantasy, how do you feel now?


I don't know about Congress but in Britain there is no doubt that if Parliament had known in March last year what we all know now, Tony Blair would never have won the debate, there would have been no British participation in invading Iraq, and Blair would have been forced to resign.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 08:47 am
Quote:
The problem in this country is that our leaders are afraid to say I don't know, or maybe this wasn't such a good idea and we'd better go back to the drawing board.


Its not so much the not knowing that bothers me as the not caring.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 08:55 am
Quote:
don't know about Congress but in Britain there is no doubt that if Parliament had known in March last year what we all know now, Tony Blair would never have won the debate, there would have been no British participation in invading Iraq, and Blair would have been forced to resign.


Steve, how would Parliament have known what we know now? Do you mean that they should have been told that there were gaps and questions about the intelligence? Do you think that Blair was aware of questions regarding the accuracy of the intel (his own or that of the US) but that he brushed them aside?

I think that if Congress had been given all of the intel, not just what suited the administration's war plans, that we never would have gone to war.

As an aside, I am disgusted with Kerry's backing and filling about his vote on the war. It would have been easy, and perhaps even true, that he voted to support an attack on Iraq IF the president was totally convinced by the intel that we were under dire threat. Now -- in response to questions asking if he would have voted that way if he knew what is known now -- he is saying that, even if he had known there were no WMDs or any of the other hoked-up intel, he would still have supported the president in going to war. What an absolutely spineless stance when he has trotted out vets who say that Kerry knows war, he has been to war, he will never take us into war carelessly.

In discussions with friends in Europe, I hear that many of them are saying there would be no change in our administration's policies if Kerry is elected.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 09:36 am
Indeed no matter who is elected there will be no change in our policy regarding Iraq. How could there be? Bush has locked us in and retreat is not possible. We broke it and now we are obligated to fix it. However, we may be able to repair some of the damage that Bush did on the diplomatic front. Bush in his arrogance and childish behavior has turned our former allies to if not enemies at least uninterested observers. And I suspect in some way hoping we get our fingers sorely burnt.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 09:56 am
Quote:
Steve, how would Parliament have known what we know now?


Well of course it was a pretty fatuous question, but I was really thinking of Iraq's lack of wmd. Blair was adamant that Iraq's wmd posed a "real and current" threat that left no option but to invade. He made an impassioned speech, a lot of mps who had doubts were convinced by it. They now feel conned, and are quietly seething with anger.

Quote:
Do you mean that they should have been told that there were gaps and questions about the intelligence?


Absolutely. All the caveats, all the qualifications all the checks and balances which are inherent to intelligence reports were stripped out from the September 2002 document....by Alastair Campbell (Tony's best mate within Downing Street, and his Director of Communications) along with John Scarlett (who retained "ownership of the document") who was Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and for services rendered has recently been promoted by Blair to being head of MI6 and thus Britain's top spy.

Quote:
Do you think that Blair was aware of questions regarding the accuracy of the intel (his own or that of the US) but that he brushed them aside?


Its just impossible that he did not know. One example, when told by Scarlett that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons that could be deployed in 45 minutes or less, Blair claims he never went on to ask what this meant. He NEVER ASKED if this meant Saddam had a few artillary shells that could be fired at invading troops, or if he had long range missiles that could hit British bases in Cyprus. If we are to believe him, the only possible explanation was that Blair knew full well that Saddam only had a very limited wmd capability. When the Evening Standard published headline "45 minutes from doom", Blair did nothing to correct the impression that was given. There are obviously two types of intelligence streams, one given to govt. by the intelligence serives, and intelligence given to the people by government in order to scare them sh1tless.

Blair is incredibly sensitive on this issue. His fall back position is that the intelligence might have been wrong, but he acted in good faith. Anyone who dares question his integrity, i.e. that he knew the truth but sold us a lie, is asking for BIG TROUBLE.

Quote:
I think that if Congress had been given all of the intel, not just what suited the administration's war plans, that we never would have gone to war.


So there must be many members of congress who feel tricked, just like Brit mps?



Quote:
As an aside, I am disgusted with Kerry's backing and filling about his vote on the war. It would have been easy, and perhaps even true, that he voted to support an attack on Iraq IF the president was totally convinced by the intel that we were under dire threat. Now -- in response to questions asking if he would have voted that way if he knew what is known now -- he is saying that, even if he had known there were no WMDs or any of the other hoked-up intel, he would still have supported the president in going to war. What an absolutely spineless stance when he has trotted out vets who say that Kerry knows war, he has been to war, he will never take us into war carelessly.


Well I have been quite heartened by some of the stuff I've heard Kerry say, but the real reasons that took us to war will not have changed with the election of a Democrat, or anyone else for that matter, so maybe he's just being honest. Though I agree it sounds really weak.

Quote:
In discussions with friends in Europe, I hear that many of them are saying there would be no change in our administration's policies if Kerry is elected.


I think this is the general fear. Lots of people think America has embarked on a programme of neo-imperialism. Any particular president might change emphasis but wont change the general thrust.

If Bush gets re elected, I think he'll engineer regime change in Iran. And if Kerry gets elected...?

Thanks for your posts btw, always interesting to read...especially when you agree with me Smile

Now to an interesting phase in the cricket...yes the same game, being going on since Thursday. Might finish tomorrow!
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 11:51 am
The Americans are building bases in Iraq to control the oil traffic and so I expect that a Kerry administration will not differ greatly from a Bush administration in that respect.
The future for Iraq is; a puppet government and a permanent US and maybe UN presence, to balance power between Iraq, Iran and Turkey.

My issue is not so much with the conduct of the war, but the duplicity over the reasons for starting it
(if anyone can be bothered looking, Rod Liddle has a good article in The Spectator this week about that)
The problem from my point of view is the reaction of the Iraqi people to the occupation, and the inability of the occupying forces to properly police the country and bring about a viable peace.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2004 11:51 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
My opinion about why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq is largely based on what President Bush actually claimed to the US Congress were the reasons we must and did invade these countries. Failure on my part to encounter any facts or logic to the contrary, my own opinion why we invaded these countries includes many of President Bush's reasons plus my own reasons repeatedly articulated here in this forum.


...and as those claims have been shown to be largely fantasy, how do you feel now?


I feel fine! Only a couple of those claims have been allegedly shown to be largely fantasy.

Yes, it's clear now that the WMD Saddam alleged existed at the signing of the 1991 armistice agreement, were either subsequently disassembled and destroyed, or were subsequently disassembled and hidden. In either case, it is probable that at the start of the Iraq invasion Saddam's WMD did not present the imminent threat that many alleged existed. Also development of nuclear weapons by Iraq was not imminent either.

Does that eliminate all significant cause for invasion of Iraq? WMD were not employed on 9/11. Only 19 suicidal al Qaeda terrorists were employed. Their most dangerous weapons besides themselves were plastic box cutters and airline tickets. Thousands of murdered, maimed, and wounded were nontheless victims of these 19 WMD-free terrorists.

Both the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee continue to allege a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to as well as after 9/11. Was Saddam merely helping to sponsor selected al Qaeda for the coming Olympic games, or was Saddam helping provide them means to perform 9/11, and other 9/11's thereafter. Saddam's provision of sanctuary of formerly Afghanistan based al Qaeda from the US military helped them continue their planning and preparation for their next 9/11.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
I don't know about Congress but in Britain there is no doubt that if Parliament had known in March last year what we all know now, Tony Blair would never have won the debate, there would have been no British participation in invading Iraq, and Blair would have been forced to resign.


Is that merely your factually and logically unsupported opinion, or do you have some facts and logic to support your "no doubt" claim?
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 0.07 seconds on 04/04/2025 at 06:08:30