0
   

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

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2004 11:56 pm
Ican, I told you before. Don't make me tell you again.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 01:58 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
If Dubya Had Read What Poppy Wrote . . .

In his memoir, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."


Worth repeating...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 03:00 pm
An interesting article. (I basicall get all my news from yahoo.) Anway,

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040817/ap_on_el_pr/iraq_opinion_1

What I found interesting is even some of the republicans think the aftermath of the war has gone bad.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 04:03 pm
revel
Quote:
What I found interesting is even some of the republicans think the aftermath of the war has gone bad
.

Banish them to the salt mines. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 06:34 pm
au1929 wrote:
Ican
When did it become our obligation to right the wrongs of the world. Hell we can't even right the wrongs here at home. If the Iraqi people wanted freedom from Saddam it was their obligation not ours to fight for it. And now that we have freed them from their tyrant take a good look at the thanks we are getting.


Excellent question and comments.

What follows is my opinion. If there be evidence to support it, I'm currently unaware of it.

First, are all wrongs equal, or are some wrongs worse than others?

No, all wrongs are not equal. Murder is a worse wrong than theft, and theft is a worse wrong than lying. Genocide is worse than serial murder. Serial murder is worse than single murder. Single murder is worse than negligent murder.

Second, is it our obligation to right the wrongs of the world?

Yes. It has always been so. There has always been a conflict between those who perpetrate wrongs and those who attempt to rectify those wrongs regardless of the locations of the perpetrators and their victims.

Third, if yes, then to what or whom are we obligated?

We are obligated to ourselves. We are obligated to our posterity. We are also obligated to that intelligence, if one exists, that influenced and/or influences our evolution, .

Fourth, if no, then what are the consequences of not trying to right the wrongs of the world?

The world will dispense with our species. We either constantly increase the number of us rooting for one another to live long, healthy, honorably and prosperously, or we reduce the probability that we ourselves and our posterity will live long, healthy, honorably and prosperously.

Conclusion

It is in all our mutual self-interests to attempt to right the wrongs of the world giving priority to those worst wrongs we can rectify, and, as our capabilities and resources increase, rectify remaining wrongs.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 06:58 pm
Setanta wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
So if the US had not invaded Iraq, what would be different now? Confused


I can't believe you could ask such a dense question. Had we not invaded Iraq, you can bet your bottom dollar Muqtada Al Sadr would not have been raging around the south of the country in charge a few hundred to a few thousand armed militia. When his father was murdered, he did not rise up against the Ba'atists. Someone else here has mentioned the term power vacuum. You would do well to consider the implications of the term. To an extent, we created the Mahdi Army. That's no big criticism, it was bound to happen. A vaid criticism would be that we're not doing anything effective to deal with the situation.


I can believe you gave such a simplistic answer to such a fundamental question! Shocked

No-invasion: The Iraqi Baathist government would be preying on its own people.

Yes-invasion: some Baathists and some other Iraqis are preying on the current Iraqi government and on other Iraqi people, and on a small number of coalition forces.

Now here is another fundamental question. Which predators (the no-invasion-predators or the yes-invasion-predators) would have been or are the more effective in murdering Iraqis?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 07:06 pm
Who's interest were we pursuing at Wounded Knee?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 07:17 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Who's interest were we pursuing at Wounded Knee?


No one's!

Have some Americans preyed on some other Americans, some Native Americans?

Yes! The predatory act you mentioned occurred in the 19th century.

Has that wrong been righted?

Yes! Americans don't prey on Native Americans in the 21st century.

Did some Native Americans prey on other Americans in the 19th Century?

Yes, and that wrong too has been righted. Native Americans don't prey on non-native Americans in the 21st century.

Now in this 21st century, it's in the self-interest of the human race including all Americans to right the wrong of Iraqis preying on Iraqis.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 08:33 pm
Ge, great quote from Papa Bush. How amazingly prophetic.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 08:43 pm
It is disgusting to see the Rah Rah war crowd shedding their crocodile tears for the Iraqis . . .

Quote:
Now in this 21st century, it's in the self-interest of the human race including all Americans to right the wrong of Iraqis preying on Iraqis.


But not the Sudanese, the Burmese, the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Chechens and Ingusetians, the North Koreans . . . now what is it about Iraqis that have made them so special? Couldn't be the PNAC agenda for a southwest asian base, no? Couldn't be the world's second largest proven petroleum reserves, eh?

Spare me your puerile lectures about the morality of the administration's military adventurism, at the cost of us all.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 09:01 pm
Quote:
Ican
When did it become our obligation to right the wrongs of the world. Hell we can't even right the wrongs here at home. If the Iraqi people wanted freedom from Saddam it was their obligation not ours to fight for it. And now that we have freed them from their tyrant take a good look at the thanks we are getting.


Quote:
We get thanks everyday. Especially from the people who were NOT baathists. It's primarily Baathists and outsiders leading the insurgency because we removed them from power and stopped their gravy train.


The first quote is au. The second is McGentrix. These are two elementary issues about what is happening in Iraq.

I am baffled by why you say, McGentrix. Surely it is not the Baathists who are insurgent, nor is it outsiders. It seems to be Shia who want to own their own country rather than have it occupied and run by a foreign government. Sadr is a rebel, of course, but his rebellion is not incomprehensible. One might ask why he won't be a part of the political process? He sees the political process as corrupt, as a puppet-group with the strings pulled by America.

au, you ask one of the most basic questions, to my mind. Do we have the obligation to right the wrongs of the world? I have thought about this ever since Bush went into Iraq. His supporters say that his motivation is altruistic: to right the wrongs of the world, to free the oppressed in Iraq. If I could see the purity of his motive and not see it sullied by national self-interest and by global self-positioning and oil-oil-oil, then I might go along with such stated reasoning.

Those comments do not respond to the issue of Do we have the obligation? I think we do, but we must be sure that we CAN do it before we DO it. And we must think about what messages we send. We did it so wrong-headedly in Iraq. The effect has been that Iran and North Korea are now actively and openly pursuing nuclear weapons. If you were one of those countries, would you not do so, having seen what happened to Iraq with its gutted and abandoned nuclear and biological programs and thus no way to defend themselves?

McGentrix, what do you mean by We get thanks everyday? What does thanks have to do with doing what is right?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 10:26 pm
Setanta wrote:
It is disgusting to see the Rah Rah war crowd shedding their crocodile tears for the Iraqis . . .

ican711nm wrote:
Now in this 21st century, it's in the self-interest of the human race including all Americans to right the wrong of Iraqis preying on Iraqis.


But not the Sudanese, the Burmese, the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Chechens and Ingusetians, the North Koreans . . .


You continue to not get it. You continue to criticize the lack of perfection of others in an apparent justification of what you perceive is your own. You continue to use bogus logic. You continue to hold on to neo-lib paranoia like some kind of pacifer, a "Linus's Blanket," a distraction from the pain of apparently deeply felt inadequacies.

Of course it is the self-interest of the human race including all Americans to right the wrongs of the Sudanese, the Burmese, the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Chechens and Ingusetians, the North Koreans, Rawandaians, etc. However, it is a fool's argument to claim it wrong to attempt to right one wrong without righting all wrongs concurrently. One at a time without any backsliding would be great. Two at a time would be extraordinary.

And there is, my dear Setanta, far more of the human race than we Americans available to right the wrongs of the human race. The current problem, is that too few others, including too few Americans, are willing to participate. Too many others would rather criticize than participate in righting one or more wrongs themselves. Too many others would rather criticize the few making the effort to right a wrong for not concurrently righting all the wrongs of the human race.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2004 10:58 pm
SEE ABOVE COMMENT BY ICAN

ican, youre attemted, high moral topo, self-congratulatory explanation of Americas destiny to "Right thhe wrongs of Iraqis on Iraqis' is the only bogosity herein. You are searching for a comfortable point of justification for a war that has little. i think set assumes a valid position that can be summarized in a tidy
"Why the hell are we in Iraq at all?"


Your dismissal of the other , much more straategically threatening spots on earth , makes absolutely no sense. Even most of your media spokesman are giving up on the validity of the Iraqi War.
It was ill conceived
badly carried out
expensive in life and property
has a potential for being a maelstrom
is probably going to accomplish just the opposite of what you think is an intended outcome

Outside of that , you can take whatever "high moral road" you wish. Many of us aint buyin it, not one little
bit.

On top of thhat , we have an administration of self proclaimed senior chicken hawks who claim that you neeednt be a chef to understand the intricacies of cooking. au contraaire, when our kids lives are the capital spent to achieve your noble goal, youd damn well better understand the ART OF WAR.
face it, you and yours are lately scrambling around looking for a post facto reason and your '\
"righting the wrongs''... crap is just the latest wild grab at legitimacy.
Why not just use your Texas reasoning that Saddam and his kin just "needed killin"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 04:24 am
Ican, i am not dear to you in any regard. If you haven't the good manners at least have the good sense not to address me in a patently disgusting fashion.

And stop trying to pedel to me that revolting conservative justification after the fact for the invasion of Iraq. Those whom you routinely cozen among you dimmer conservative friends may buy that line of crap, but the intelligent posters here will not. No one advertised this as a war of liberation for the Iraqis, there were all sorts of horseshit stories about WoMD's and terrorist connections which have proven false. So now you sing your phoney song about concern for the Iraqi people. You and your ilk sicken me.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 04:31 am
Kara wrote:
Ge, great quote from Papa Bush. How amazingly prophetic.

Hi B. One would think a former President would share such wisdomwitha sitting President ..... much like a father would with a son. I'll bet big time Dick knew though. Confused Confused
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 06:21 am
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/wwn-florida.jpg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 12:59 pm
farmerman wrote:
SEE ABOVE COMMENT BY ICAN
ican, youre attemted, high moral topo, self-congratulatory explanation of Americas destiny to "Right thhe wrongs of Iraqis on Iraqis' is the only bogosity herein.

Laughing

"High moral topo" Rolling Eyes

ican711nm -- emphasis added wrote:
Conclusion
It is in all our mutual self-interests to attempt to right the wrongs of the world giving priority to those worst wrongs we can rectify, and, as our capabilities and resources increase, rectify remaining wrongs.


farmerman wrote:
You are searching for a comfortable point of justification for a war that has little. i think set assumes a valid position that can be summarized in a tidy "Why the hell are we in Iraq at all?"


I found about two years ago "a comfortable point of justification for" the Iraqi war. It was then that I learned al Qaeda were fleeing from Afganistan into Iraq as well as into other states in the region. We then had the same justification for invading Iraq as we had for invading Afghanistan: regime change of a tyrannical state harboring al Qaeda.

This year, the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee both alleged the already obvious. They both alleged that al Qaeda and Iraq were "connected" prior to the al Qaeda 19-terrorist invasion of the US on 9/11/2001. We first invaded Afghanistan 10/2001 and then later invaded Iraq 3/2003 in our own self-defense against future terrorist invasions of our country.

My conclusion regarding the self-interest of the human race, stated above, was in response to a broader question regarding why the human race in general and Americans in particular should be trying to civilize Afghanistan and Iraq.

farmerman wrote:
Your dismissal of the other , much more straategically threatening spots on earth , makes absolutely no sense. Even most of your media spokesman are giving up on the validity of the Iraqi War.


My "dismissal of the other, much more straategically threatening spots on earth" Shocked

Where did I do that? I did argue that the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Iraq presented the more immediate threat to our security, and that other nations also had an obligation to deal with the other "threatening spots on earth." The nuclear bomb development in Iraq and North Korea can be terminated without mounting an invasion. The Israeli method of destroying nuclear bomb development (e.g., Iraq) is surer, quicker, simpler, and probably a whole lot more effective.

farmerman wrote:
It was ill conceived / badly carried out / expensive in life and property / has a potential for being a maelstrom / is probably going to accomplish just the opposite of what you think is an intended outcome


The invasion of Iraq was well conceived and well executed. The process of civilizing Iraqi government was poorly conceived and poorly executed. Who do you think is more likely to rectify that process: Kerry or Bush?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 01:12 pm
Setanta wrote:
... No one advertised this as a war of liberation for the Iraqis, there were all sorts of horseshit stories about WoMD's and terrorist connections which have proven false. ...


Wrong!

First, the justification for the Iraq regime change originally presented by Bush to Congress and Powell to the UN included many more reasons than the perceived threat of WMDs. Second, among these reasons was the alleged al Qaeda connection, the same connection justifying the Afghanistan invasion, the same connection alleged this year by the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Third, also among these reasons was termination of the murdering and maiming of the Iraqi people by their own government.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 02:46 pm
Al Qaeda, Iraq partners in terror -- Powell Wednesday, February 5, 2003 Posted: 8:16 PM EST (0116 GMT) ... Abu Mussab Zarqawi

Quote:
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for years has consorted with the al Qaeda terrorist network, often using as a go-between a shadowy figure who set up a training camp in northeast Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.

Speaking to the U.N. Security Council, Powell offered the most detailed explanation yet of possible links between Baghdad and associates of Osama bin Laden. At its center, he said, is Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a bin Laden associate who has traveled in Iraq.

Iraqi officials have steadfastly denied that they have any links to al Qaeda, insisting such charges are part of a U.S. disinformation effort to justify a military attack. Powell dismissed their denials, and said Iraq has a record of trying to deceive the world.

"Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al Qaeda together," Powell said.

After al Qaeda and the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan, Zarqawi, a Jordanian national, established a camp in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in using explosives and poisons, Powell said.

The camp is in the northern Kurdish area of the country, outside the control of the Iraqi regime, but Iraq has kept track of events there by infiltrating Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamic group that controls the area, Powell said.

Intelligence services disagree whether the camp is actually linked to Saddam's regime.

Zarqawi also has been sighted in Baghdad, Powell said. He traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment last May, staying there for two months "while he recuperated to fight another day," Powell said.

During Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, nearly two dozen of his associates set up a base of operations in the capital to move people, money and supplies throughout the country, said Powell. "They've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," Powell said.

The United States, using another international intelligence service as an intermediary, twice gave the Iraqi government information it could have used to apprehend Zarqawi and break the Baghdad cell, but "Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go," he said. "From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond."

Zarqawi's group is linked to a number of recent terrorist operations, Powell said. Among them:

• In October, Lawrence Foley, an official with the U.S. Agency for International Development, was gunned down in Amman, Jordan. "The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder, " Powell said. An associate of the gunman escaped to Iraq, he added.

• Last month, British police uncovered a terrorist plot to produce ricin, a deadly toxin, and Powell said the thwarted attack was linked to Zarqawi's group. Several Western intelligence agencies have said the planned attack has been tied to training provided by Zarqawi.

• At least 116 operatives connected to Zarqawi's network have been arrested in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. The network was also planning attacks in Germany and Russia, Powell said.

• At least nine North African extremists traveled to Europe in 2001 to conduct explosive and poison attacks, an al Qaeda detainee who trained under Zarqawi has told intelligence agents.

• Last year, two suspected al Qaeda operatives linked to associates of Zarqawi's Baghdad cell, including one who was trained in the use of cyanide, were arrested as they crossed the border from Iraq into Saudi Arabia.

Members of al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence "have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s," Powell said. In 1996, bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Sudan, and later that year had a meeting with the director of Iraq's intelligence service, he said.

Powell also said a senior al Qaeda member has reported that Saddam was more willing to assist al Qaeda after the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and was impressed by the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

According to Powell, a senior al Qaeda operative, now being detained, said that a terrorist operative was sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and chemical weapons. He was dispatched after bin Laden concluded that al Qaeda labs in Afghanistan were not capable of manufacturing such materials, Powell said.

Also, said Powell, a senior Iraqi defector, one of Saddam's former European intelligence chiefs, said Iraqi agents were sent to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s to train al Qaeda members in document forgery.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2004 02:48 pm
Poor Mr. Powell.
He hasn't had a good time of it.
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 04/19/2025 at 06:38:24