Depending on whose nudity, some may cause a world protest.
smile*
Here's a guy I'd like to see naked....or in clothes.
The new speaker of the Iraqi Parliament--Hajim al-Hassani. (If I have the name spelled right.)
I liked his first comment. He said it was time for the patient people of Iraq to be treated with some dignity. And, if they (the Parliament) couldn't serve them well, they'd be replaced. (I like him already.) I think he's a former nuclear? scientist.
Just wanted to drop in, congratulate everyone on your recent agreements and remind you that 1535 American men and women are dead and over 11, 000 wounded.
That's all.
Cheers.
Joe(stop. What are you thinking?)Nation
And I'm sure that's something else we can agree on.
No one likes that fact.
old europe wrote:No.
...
had the implications been so obvious, why wouldn't the 9-11 report simply state that?
These implications are far too obvious to merit mention to objective readers. I mention these obvious implications here only because the
Irratios here cannot themselves draw, without a great deal of help, obvious implications. They conflict too much with their liturgy. They prefer to infer things like: Bush was after Iraqi oil because he contemplated (only contemplated, mind you) privatizing Iraqi oil.
Here's something else I think worth contemplating from the 9/11 Commission, Chapter 2.5--do you perceive its obvious implications (
my emphasis added)?
Quote:In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75
...
Now effectively merged with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad,82 al Qaeda promised to become the general headquarters for international terrorism, without the need for the Islamic Army Shura. Bin Ladin was prepared to pick up where he had left off in Sudan. He was ready to strike at "the head of the snake."
82. The merger was defacto complete by February 1998, although the formal "contract" would not be signed until June 2001
Joe Nation wrote:Just wanted to drop in, congratulate everyone on your recent agreements and remind you that 1535 American men and women are dead and over 11, 000 wounded.
And during the same period of time over 60,000 Americans were killed in highway accidents.
How many more Americans and Iraqis would be dead or injured casualties if we had not invaded Iraq?
I know the
Irratio liturgy's answer:
It's
possible there would be fewer casualties if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
Sure it's
possible, but is it
probable?
I also know the
Irratio liturgy's answer to that question:
For all we know all things
possible are equally
probable! Isn't that
possible?
ican, Irratios like you still believe that Iraq was invaded because Saddam had sponsored the 9/11 attacks. No, wait, the Irratios like you believe that Iraq was invaded because Saddam had WMD. Uhm, no wait, my mistake. The Irratios like you still believe that Iraq was invaded because Saddam was an evil dictator, and the Iraqi people had to be liberated!
Whatever. The commission report said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaida in attacks on the United States. Commission staffers said they found proof of contacts but no working relationship. So all your pity rumbling about a "connection" doesn't really make much sense.
ican711nm wrote:How many more Americans and Iraqis would be dead or injured casualties if we had not invaded Iraq?
Well, silly question. I infer you're talking about a scenario where Saddam had sent his fleet to the US to invade Washingtion D.C., I reckon?
Yeah, Lash. There was a connection between Rumsfeld and Saddam, too.
Hey, ican, here's something
I think worth contemplating from the 9/11 Commission, Chapter 2.5--do
you perceive its obvious implications (
my emphasis added)?
Quote:Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. ... But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
Lash wrote:Here's a guy I'd like to see naked....or in clothes.
The new speaker of the Iraqi Parliament--Hajim al-Hassani. (If I have the name spelled right.)
I liked his first comment. He said it was time for the patient people of Iraq to be treated with some dignity. And, if they (the Parliament) couldn't serve them well, they'd be replaced. (I like him already.) I think he's a former nuclear? scientist.
I think it would have saved some trouble if they had not set up the government where the winning party either had to win by a huge number or be held hostage to the loosers of the election. I don't blame those in Iraq who are frustrated in this delay after they risked their lives to vote only to have go through all this stuff and having to choose between giving the Kurds everything they want or not having anything at all.
old europe wrote:ican, Irratios like you still believe that Iraq was invaded because Saddam had sponsored the 9/11 attacks. No, wait, the Irratios like you believe that Iraq was invaded because Saddam had WMD. Uhm, no wait, my mistake. The Irratios like you still believe that Iraq was invaded because Saddam was an evil dictator, and the Iraqi people had to be liberated!
Irratios like you believe the stupidest stuff. I have from the beginning believed that we invaded Iraq for exactly the reason I have stated repeatedly. That reason is not included in your diatribe above. Here it is again for the "umpteenth time":
Quote:1. 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. [Reference A]
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]
4. 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. [References A, B, C, D]
5. 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. [Reference A]
6. 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. [References A, B, D, E]
7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
References:
A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com
D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
old europe wrote:Whatever. The commission report said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaida in attacks on the United States. Commission staffers said they found proof of contacts but no working relationship. So all your pity rumbling about a "connection" doesn't really make much sense.
I have repeatedly agreed with this. You appear to not be able to refute my actual argument so you try the oldest trick in the book. You seem to pretend my argument is something other than it actually is, so you can defeat the different argument instead.
However, there were al Qaeda bases in northeastern Iraq prior to the US invasion of Irag on March 20, 2003.
old europe wrote:Hey, ican, here's something
I think worth contemplating from the 9/11 Commission, Chapter 2.5--do
you perceive its obvious implications (
my emphasis added)?
Quote:Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. ... But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
I agree. But this has zero to do with my argument.
One more time:
Quote:1. 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. [Reference A]
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]
4. 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. [References A, B, C, D]
5. 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. [Reference A]
6. 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. [References A, B, D, E]
7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]
9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.
References:
A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com
D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers
E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
revel wrote: I think it would have saved some trouble if they had not set up the government where the winning party either had to win by a huge number or be held hostage to the loosers of the election. I don't blame those in Iraq who are frustrated in this delay after they risked their lives to vote only to have go through all this stuff and having to choose between giving the Kurds everything they want or not having anything at all.
Revel, I agree with you! The Bush&Adm
blundered on this too. But it can be fixed. All the Iraqi Assembly needs to do is to vote and approve changing the rule to say 51%. All the Bush&Adm has to do is shut the hell up and get out of the way while the Iraqis establish a democracy of their own design.
Choosing gebush over algore, and choosing gebush over jokerry was easy. But I sure wish we had had a whole lot better to choose from. Now the dems are self distructing by having hodean run the party apparatus. We Americans certainly deserve much better. I sure hope we get better choices next time around.
old europe wrote:ican711nm wrote:How many more Americans and Iraqis would be dead or injured casualties if we had not invaded Iraq?
Well, silly question. I infer you're talking about a scenario where Saddam had sent his fleet to the US to invade Washingtion D.C., I reckon?
No, and I think that obvious. I'm talking about a scenario where Saddam kills thousands more Iraqies without "his fleet" (a fleet he doesn't have), AND al Qaeda kills thousands more Americans with plastic boxcutters which they have (or can get from any hardware store).
:wink: By the way, "Zawahiri who had ties of his own with Iraq" according to the 9-11 Commission's Report, was the same Zawahiri whose Egyptian Islamic Jihad was merged with bin Laden's international terrorist group in 1998. Does that mean that Zawahiri became bin Laden's as well as his own tie to Iraq? Hmmmm?
Oh, perish the thought! Such a nasty nasty inference.
ican711nm
I have been following this thread, well, forever. Your efforts have been, not only noble and heroic, but exemplary. Your industry and intellectual integrity using argument and citation of empirical data is a model to be emulated. Your response to this post is not expected; after all, the ramparts that you defend are under a constant and withering assault and demand your constant and undivided attention.
I myself, while trying to defend the U.S.'s actions in this conflict in terms of self defense, after 9/11, have been excoriated for even suggesting that the U.S. has been, not only erroneous in its perceptions of being under siege by terrorist, but actively disingenuous regarding its insistence that a greater evil, embodied by organizations as Al Qaeda, The PLO, IRA, The Red Guard, Hamas, Bader-Meinhoff gang, or Hezbollah threaten all civilization, both occidental and oriental, by virtue of their rejection of established society and its implied laws . But this concern of mine is just that, a personal lament, a mere individual whine. But, your efforts are to be compared with those of defending the Alamo but, hopefully, much more successful.
My obviously flowery and romantic description of your efforts displayed in this thread should not detract from their ultimate value, which is self evident, if only from your critique of empirical evidence of both sides of the issue.
Thank You,
JM
You've got to be kidding, JamesMorrison. I think you are.
The US with its supine allies has perpetrated one of the biggest crimes in history, and lied about it, and Ican is one of its biggest apologists.
