If incompetence is not a crime, than our country being the strongest military in the world can attack any country at will with no further explanation. THAT IS CRIMINAL whether some people in this country believe that or not.
Seymour Hersh said
Bush thinks he's doing the right thing in Iraq," Hersh said.
I can asks
Do you think that good or bad?
I reply
Bush thinks he is doing the right thing in Iraq according to Seymour Hersh, that is clear. I think Bush has led us into a quagmire. Quagmires are not necessarily good or bad but certainly messy.
Hersh states
"He's completely committed whether it's finishing his father's work, for divine reasons, or manifest destiny."
Ican asks
Do you think that good or bad?
I reply
It is a statement of fact, and I agree with Hersh.
Hersh states
Over 1,500 body bags have come back and another 1,000 or 2,000 body bags wouldn't stop him."
Ican asks
Do you think that good or bad?
I reply
I think it is a disgrace. (OK, let me spell it out, B -A - D)
Ican asks
Do you think the risk and value of successfully establishing in Iraq a democracy of the Iraqis own design is good enough to warrant risking "another 1-2000 US servicemen killed in Iraq?"
I reply
No.
and I ask
Do you?
Of course he does; because, remember, to war hawks, the ends justify the means.
Cycloptichorn
The frightening part is "the end justifies all the means." Our country does not have limitless human lives to sacrifice nor the money. It's an extreme to think all this is for the Iraqi People, and Americans must sacrifice into the unknown future.
FOX with the same story, but different headline:
Powell: U.S. 'Blustery' on Iraq, Decision Was Right
link to article in the
original German version
Headline translated: "We have been sometimes to loud, might be, to roughhousing"
and from thesame source
" ...in a Financial Times article dated June 5th, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in US dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in the five US major media conglomerates..."
Well thank you, Steve. Very interesting link. This is an analysis which seems to be gaining currency.
Now we know what the extra bases in Iraq are for, the ones the "US does not need".
They are to support an attack on Iran, which itself would be to support the dollar.
Perilous times, indeed. And immoral.
The "Peak Oil" fantasy has been exposed as pseudo science and a fraud on another thread. The Euro bit is a delusion contrary to the facts. The imputed motives for the United States don't survive even brief scrutiny.
However, if, after all that, you wish to believe this fable, go ahead. Certainly it shouldn't be at all unfamiliar to an inhabitant of Great Britain..
The US administration and military continue to speak with forked tongue. They continue to assure everybody that they will leave when the "new" Iraq government asks us to leave, but we continue to build 14 bases in Iraq, and the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. What's wrong with this picture if we're willing to leave the decisions to the Iraqis? Anybody know what "sovereignty" means?
IMO we went to have a staging ground to consolidate all our bases in that part of the world in order to stabilize the middle east, in our minds anyway with a smaller military.
On our way to implement a democracy in Iraq, we forgot something very important.
********
Children 'starving' in new Iraq
More and more children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat
Increasing numbers of children in Iraq do not have enough food to eat and more than a quarter are chronically undernourished, a UN report says.
Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led intervention - to nearly 8% by the end of last year, it says.
The report was prepared for the annual meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
It also expressed concern over North Korea and Sudan's Darfur province.
UN specialist on hunger Jean Ziegler, who prepared the report, blames the worsening situation in Iraq on the war led by coalition forces.
The silent daily massacre by hunger is a form of murder. It must be battled and eliminated
Jean Ziegler was addressing a meeting of the 53-nation commission, the top UN rights watchdog, which is halfway through its annual six-week session.
When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8%, his report says.
Governments must recognise their extra-territorial obligations towards the right to food and should not do anything that might undermine access to it of people living outside their borders, it says.
That point is aimed clearly at the US, but Washington, which has sent a large delegation to the Human Rights Commission, declined to respond to the charges, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.
Increasing hunger
Mr Ziegler also says he is very concerned about the lack of food in North Korea, where there are reports that UN food aid is not being distributed fairly.
In Darfur, the continuing conflict has prevented people from planting vital crops, he says.
Overall, Mr Ziegler says, he is shocked by the fact that hunger is actually increasing worldwide.
Some 17,000 children die every day from hunger-related diseases, the report claims, which it says is a scandal in a world which is richer than ever before.
"The silent daily massacre by hunger is a form of murder," Mr Ziegler said. "It must be battled and eliminated."
ican's comments are in blue
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Justifying a war based on incompetence is asinine.
That's true. Who did that? How did they do that?
Those that judged our intelligence and decided that WMD were a causal reason for the war, enough to make it the primary factor in making the case for the war, acted incompetenly at the very least and criminally negligent at the most.
I agree!
Justifying the war now by saying 'well, we THOUGHT there were WMD at the time' is justifying the war based upon incompetence of those judging the intelligence.
I agree!
I know YOU don't say that's the reason we went to war, but it's how the case was presented to the American people and the UN.
I agree
Cycloptichorn
I think each of the true and valid reasons for invading Iraq are true and valid regardless of whether or not Bush&Adm gave those reasons. If Bush&Adm did not believe a true and valid reason, and lied when they gave that reason, that true and valid reason is still true and valid. I have repeatedly posted here with explanations what I think is the primary true and valid reason for invading Iraq. That Bush&Adm at first did give that reason and later emphasized alleged WMD as the reason does not add or subtract from the truth and validity of the reason I gave. Here again is what I think is the primary reason.
Quote:Our government cannot secure our lives, our liberties and our pursuits of happiness by attempting to exterminate al Qaeda terrorists without removing those governments that knowingly provide sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases.
I assume Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism.
President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists.
Source: 9/11 Commission Report.
On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier.
Source: 9/11 Commission Report.
We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan.
Source: 9/11 Commission Report.
We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq.
I think a reason that is a close second to the primary reason is one I have also mentioned here several times: Invade Iraq in order to save the Iraqi people from further genocide by Saddam's regime.
I think there are two more that I have also mentioned here several times.
I see what you are saying, Ican, but the crux of the problem to me and, I feel, many others, is not the larger possibilty of whether we can bring democracy to Iraq, but the simple fact that we were lied to, and grandly. I cannot abide such poor leadership; either gigantic liars or gigantic fools, either way they must go.
I just don't trust the 9/11 commission report. Why? Because it's just another gov't document, edited, redacted, and hidden from view, protested by the Gov't at first and then only grudingly co-operated with. Parts of it were (are?) classified. They found out nothing even resembling the truth as far as I am concerned.
Accordingly, one cannot trust the Bush admin. to operate the WoT properly. They are either liars or incompetent. Therefore, one cannot trust them to do the right things in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in 'other' countries.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclop, I just started reading "SECRETS, A MEMOIR OF VIETNAM AND THE PENTAGON PAPERS" by Daniel Ellsberg. The first two pages of this book is very telling of how our government hid the truth from everybody, and got us involved in the war. The reason I picked up this book was influenced by my recent visit to Vietnam, and the information our local guide shared with us about Agent Orange, Agent Green, and Agent Blue, which most Americans are not aware of. I had to find out for myself what went on behind closed doors in Washington, and Daniel Ellsberg was an insider who shared in most of what went on. Your comment about not trusting our government is spot on!
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Ican asks
Do you think the risk and value of successfully establishing in Iraq a democracy of the Iraqis own design is good enough to warrant risking "another 1-2000 US servicemen killed in Iraq?"
I reply
No.
and I ask
Do you?
Ican answers: Yes.
Yes, because it will reduce the probability of AQ re-establishing their bases in Iraq. Reducing that probability will reduce the probability of AQ being trained in Iraq to mass murder Americans. Reducing that probability will reduce the probability of AQ mass murdering Americans.
In addition, it will reduce the probability of the government of Iraq mass murdering Iraqis.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I see what you are saying, Ican, but the crux of the problem to me and, I feel, many others, is not the larger possibilty of whether we can bring democracy to Iraq, but the simple fact that we were lied to, and grandly. I cannot abide such poor leadership; either gigantic liars or gigantic fools, either way they must go.
I just don't trust the 9/11 commission report. Why? Because it's just another gov't document, edited, redacted, and hidden from view, protested by the Gov't at first and then only grudingly co-operated with. Parts of it were (are?) classified. They found out nothing even resembling the truth as far as I am concerned.
Accordingly, one cannot trust the Bush admin. to operate the WoT properly. They are either liars or incompetent. Therefore, one cannot trust them to do the right things in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in 'other' countries.
Cycloptichorn
Other than the 9/11 report; the rest goes for me too.
