0
   

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

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 08:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
This is why I rarely bother trying to answer questions with any detail anymore. People like Cyc. pick out a single word and then use that to base a stupid come back with instead of trying to respond with any sort of actual discussion.


Enough with the hypocrisy; I've seen you do the same thing many, many times McG, so get off it...

Would you rather I addressed your actual argument, which seems to consist of the following:

1. There's no proof America had anythng to do with it


You should have stopped here. The rest of your post really blows any credibility you might have had. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
2. There's no reason to believe America does this sort of thing (despite the fact it's admitted)
3. We should decide to trust people, or not, based on their employment, b/c that makes a difference
4. We should decide to trust people, or not, based upon their religion, b/c that makes a difference
5. People cannot take vacations in Muslim areas, have anything to do with Muslim churches, or actually BE Muslim without being suspicious.
6. Therefore, b/c this guy is a Muslim, and out of work, we can't believe what he says.

Does that sound about right?

I can go back to the one-liners if ya like

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 09:03 pm
In the "olden days," when we talked about ends not justifying means, we talked about ends as noble intentions and means as actual actions taken to achieve those noble intentions. We rejected the idea that a noble intention--no matter how noble--could justify any action whatsoever that helped fulfill that noble intention.

Instead we chose a more pragmatic approach. If the net summation of actual consequences were good, then the actual combination of means taken to produce those consequences were good. If the net summation of actual consequences were bad, then the actual combination of means taken to produce those consequences were bad. Of course there were (and I expect always will be) disagreements among us about whether net summations of consequences were good or bad.

We believed in the old maxim that that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. So we avoided using the nobility of intentions to help us choose means.

Two Examples:

If the end is an intention to create a utopia in which everyone roots for everyone, and the means implemented to fulfill that intention are to kill those who obstruct the evolution of that utopia, those means are not good.

If the end is an accomplished reduction in the murder rate, and the means implemented in accomplishing that end is killing proven murderers, those means are good.

------------------------
It's difficult for me to imagine that practically speaking, any means implemented will always continue to accomplish today and tomorrow what those same means accomplished yesterday. Also, like it or not, we are likely to be continually faced with varying tradeoffs of degrees of good and bad. Consider automobiles. Automobiles are mostly good for getting most of us where we want to be when we want to be there. But the fact that about 50,000 people in America are killed in automobile accidents every year is mostly bad.

In brief, regardless of intentions, a good means is one that actually produces a net good consequence; a bad means is one that actually produces a net bad consequence.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 09:47 pm
That's the spirit, McG!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 01:59 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4411335.stm

edit- see next post- sorry
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 02:04 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4411335.stm

Iraq general kidnapped in Baghdad

An Iraqi general who commands a special armoured unit has been kidnapped by gunmen in Baghdad, Iraqi police say.
Brigadier General Mohammad Jalal Saleh was pulled from his car along with his bodyguards in the west of the city

……….

No group has said it seized General Saleh.
The kidnapping of foreign aid workers and journalists gets the most international attention, but Iraqis are very frequent targets, usually abducted for ransom.
Even the city's anti-kidnap unit is unsure how many take place, says the BBC's Matthew Price in Baghdad.
An officer who spoke to our correspondent refused to be identified because a colleague of his was killed after appearing in the media.
Both insurgents and criminals engage in kidnapping in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 04:44 am
Way way back at the first iteration of this thread, more than a few of us suggested that the US was going into Iraq not because of WOMD, and not because of an unsuppressable love of freedom, but rather to gain a permanent footprint in the Middle East (and thus strategic control of 2/3 of the world's oil supply). We suggested that permanent military bases would be in the offing (verified at that time by one US general who spoke somewhat out of turn, explicitly referring to this aspect of the military planning).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323%2Denduring%2Dbases.htm?r=679&id=5311-5631016-m7UdOe5BtDVkwyEoIvLWug
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 05:04 am
blatham, I think you and the others were/are right. I guess two questions remain, do they ends justify the means and is the ends justifiable. (not the result but ends which were the motivation.)

Meanwhile:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24808-2005Apr4.html

Zarqawi Said to Be Behind Iraq Raid
Assault on Abu Ghraib May Signal New Tactics
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A01


BAGHDAD, April 4 -- Insurgent groups led by foreigners and Iraqis asserted Monday that guerrilla leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's organization was responsible for a major assault on Abu Ghraib prison Saturday that U.S. officers called one of the most sophisticated attacks of the insurgency.

Rocket barrages forced Marine guards to abandon a prison watchtower at the height of the precision-timed offensive, which employed mortars, rockets, ground assaults and a car bomb, a U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, said Monday.

U.S. rapid-response troops, backed by Apache helicopters and artillery, fired small arms and grenades to help the guards drive attackers back from prison walls, Rudisill said. The battle wounded 44 American troops and 13 of the more than 3,000 detainees held at the prison.

"It was one of the more concerted attacks that we've seen," said Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman.

Asked if there had been any other insurgent attack that surpassed it, Boylan said, "Not that I'm aware of."

In an interview, Iraqi insurgent leaders said the assault was carried out by Zarqawi's group, al Qaeda in Iraq. The claim was also made in the name of the group on a radical Islamic Web site. The group's numerous attacks had until now largely involved suicide bombings, car bombings and kidnappings rather than direct confrontations with U.S. forces.

U.S. authorities said they had not yet determined the veracity of the claims. Boylan said it was "too early to say whether this is a new trend or a new strategy'' for the insurgency, which in March inflicted fewer casualties on U.S. forces than in any month since February 2004.

Insurgent commanders said Monday that the prison assault represented a shift in tactics and that more attacks on U.S. installations would follow.

"These operations will be different from the old ones, the car bombs, the IEDs,'' said Abu Jalal, a top commander in the extremist group Mohammed's Army, using the common abbreviation for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs. Mohammed's Army is one of dozens of home-grown armed groups believed to be fighting the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

"We are going to use the same method that they used when they attacked Iraq," said Abu Jalal, who uses a nom de guerre and described himself as a former general in the Iraqi military during Saddam Hussein's rule.

"The old military officers know very well that the attacks on the bases of the enemy army weaken the morale of the soldiers and frighten them. The soldier feels safe when he goes back to his base. If he is attacked in the place that feels safe, that place is really hell," Abu Jalal said.

If Zarqawi was behind the attack, it was unclear where or when his movement acquired the tactical expertise to directly confront U.S. Marines. Abu Jalal denied that former military officers in Mohammed's Army had served as advisers, saying, "It was 100 percent Zarqawi." The statement on the radical Web site said "sources with the enemy" had helped provide information to plot the attack.

Abu Jalal said the attack had been launched to free a commander of Zarqawi's group and associates held at Abu Ghraib.

The prison complex at Abu Ghraib, about 20 miles west of Baghdad, became notorious for torture under Hussein. After the U.S. invasion toppled Hussein, Abu Ghraib was taken over by the U.S. military and became the focus of widely publicized abuses of detainees by American forces.

U.S. officials decided this year to eventually close the prison, in part because it is located in an area heavily populated by insurgents and their supporters.

The raid Saturday was launched at dusk and appeared to involve at least 40 to 50 men, U.S. officers said.

The insurgents opened the attack with barrages of 81mm and 120mm mortar rounds, followed by rocket-propelled grenades, the U.S. military said. Arab media reports said some of the projectiles landed inside the prison, causing the injuries among detainees.

At least one rocket-propelled grenade hit a corner watchtower, wounding Marine guards inside. The explosion forced the guard team to abandon the tower, Rudisill said. The heaviest damage was caused by a mortar round that destroyed a refrigerator truck, he said.

Ground fighters among the insurgents advanced only after the mortar and rocket assault had ended and attacked the prison from two directions simultaneously. The smaller of the thrusts was apparently a feint to divert attention from the main attack, Rudisill said, who cited both tactics as evidence of sophisticated planning.

Arab media said the attackers withdrew under covering fire. The U.S. military reported one rebel killed and dozens wounded. Authorities declined to say whether any insurgents had been captured.

Rudisill said the prison's walls were not breached and that no inmates escaped. U.S. forces were able to blow up a vehicle bomb before it reached the prison walls, he said.

Rudisill said he believed there was no evidence that a tractor-mounted bomb that exploded near Abu Ghraib on Monday was meant for the prison, saying the explosion was too far away for prison guards to see.

Special correspondent Naseer Nouri contributed to this report.



© 2005 The Washington Post Company
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 05:18 am
Quite right blatham

Whilst its amusing to see people here tearing lumps out of each other about whether the Iraq "success" was by default or design, the processs 2 years on of consolidating the American military grip on Iraq continues.

I never thought for a moment that wmd was anything other than an excuse, I did however believe there was an opportunity to build a better Iraq sans Saddam.

What I did not appreciate at the time was the pure cynicism of the "higher motives". There was only ever one driver for all this. The invaders took the oil fields and oil infrastructure and left the rest of the country to go to hell. An early pointer to this was immediately after the fall of Baghdad, when looting was rife, museums pilfered and government ministries wrecked, except one of course, the ministry of oil. Somehow a few soldiers were detailed to guard that building.

But now what troubles me is not that oil was part of the mix of reasons encouraging USUK to invade Iraq, but that the invasion was actually necessitated by the world oil situation. In other words international action like Iraq demonstrates both the reality of Peak Oil and USUK's reaction to it.

Afghanistan and Iraq are only the beginning. We are in for an extremely bumpy ride over the next 20-30 years.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 05:26 am
MG:-

Did anybody serious ever think otherwise?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 06:36 am
McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
One thing that fascinates me: instead of discussing the issue when evidence might turn up, why not post a list of totally unrelated stuff?

It's like "hey, we have proof you robbed this bank", answered by "now look at the beautiful weather today"...


Perhaps you missed the first sentence in that post... Let me post it again so you see it.

On a side note dealing with Iraq...

Does that help?


I thought that was what I said.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 06:49 am
OE ..... Evidently you need to say it louder ..... like the Monty Python's 'Loud Family' Wink
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 06:51 am
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:00 am
blatham wrote:
Way way back at the first iteration of this thread, more than a few of us suggested that the US was going into Iraq not because of WOMD, and not because of an unsuppressable love of freedom, but rather to gain a permanent footprint in the Middle East (and thus strategic control of 2/3 of the world's oil supply). We suggested that permanent military bases would be in the offing (verified at that time by one US general who spoke somewhat out of turn, explicitly referring to this aspect of the military planning).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323%2Denduring%2Dbases.htm?r=679&id=5311-5631016-m7UdOe5BtDVkwyEoIvLWug


Even in a report such as this, for which thanks for supplying the link Blatham btw, we still can find junk phrases like "intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. "

There was in interesting comment column in The Independent today, by Michael Meacher MP and entitled "America is usurping the democratic will in Iraq", let's see if I can find it for you...yes, here 'tis

Michael Meacher: America is usurping the democratic will in Iraq
To forestall a clerical-driven religious regime, Washington has a plan to arm small militias
05 April 2005
It's two months now since the elections in Iraq, and still no government is formed. The struggle over the Sunni problem, the Kurdish claim for the massive Kirkuk oilfields, and the manoeuvring between religious groups and contending personalities continues unabated. But there is a deeper problem still.
There are two scenarios for Iraq. One, the American one, aims for a pro-Western government, an uninterrupted supply of Middle East oil to US markets, and a semi-permanent military base in the area to ensure that the first two objectives are secured. The other is more complex, and only now slowly beginning to emerge.
When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, they expected there would be a quick handover to carefully selected allies in a secular government that would be the opposite of Iran's theocracy, and perhaps even a counterfoil to Iran's regional aspirations. It is one of the greatest ironies of the US intervention that the Iraqi people instead used their first voting opportunity to elect a government with a strong religious base, and indeed with close links to the Islamic republic on their border. The US, having destroyed the sole major secular government in the region, is now at risk of replacing it with a theocratic regime.

(more) http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=626452
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:16 am
Does anyone here seriously believe that, if we were to suddenly withdraw all of our forces, the fledgling democracy in Iraq would survive? We have over 110,000 troops in Iraq. With the construction of 14 bases of various types that amounts to about 8,000 troops per base. Hardly an outrageous number. Some of these bases will likely be configured to accept the quick mobilization of returning U.S. forces if that should be required.

Undoubtedly both the interests of Iraqi democracy, and changing the evolving political trajectory of that part of the world, as well as considerations relating to the oil supply enter into the calculus in these matters.

Those who wish to cling to their fixed prejudices that it is only the oil supply that motivates us will no doubt continue to do so in spite of the many facts that rather clearly demonstrate otherwise. All that is needed to obtain Persian Gulf oil is money. The need of the producing nations to sell it is as great as of the Japanese, Chinese, American and European consumers to buy it. We are not stealing Iraqi oil. We have, for over thirty years, been using military force to ensure that no one closed the Persian Gulf to this traffic - that aspect of all this is hardly new.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:23 am
What is new, George, is that you have occupied a sovereign country, unilaterally and militarily, to exert your will.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:32 am
McTag wrote:
What is new, George, is that you have occupied a sovereign country, unilaterally and militarily, to exert your will.


That is certainly true. However, in the history of the world, it is hardly remarkable. (Moreover it wasn't "unilateral" - after all we had the Brits, Italians, Spanish, and many others on our side.)

You are - once again - indulging in hyperbole.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:33 am
Well, thirty years is quite a long timespan to take into account, George. Your argument that the US have been using military force to ensure that no one closed the Persian Gulf to traffic is quite valid.

But then you will have to take into account things like how in the 80s, 1000 anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were shipped to Iran. Illegally. Because the US president thought it was a good idea to do so.

Just one example, but quite telling in a way. US behaviour during the last 30 years in the region can hardly be described as upholding the ideals of democracy. Maybe oil wasn't the only reason for going to war, but it was certainly a major factor.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:34 am
georgeob1 wrote:
McTag wrote:
What is new, George, is that you have occupied a sovereign country, unilaterally and militarily, to exert your will.


That is certainly true. However, in the history of the world, it is hardly remarkable. (Moreover it wasn't "unilateral" - after all we had the Brits, Italians, Spanish, and many others on our side.)

You are - once again - indulging in hyperbole.


At least you're not trying to justify it.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:59 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Does anyone here seriously believe that, if we were to suddenly withdraw all of our forces, the fledgling democracy in Iraq would survive?

If you read the link I have supplied you with, you will see that the US is taking steps to direct the political process there, precisely to ensure it does not progress democratically.
Quote:

Undoubtedly both the interests of Iraqi democracy, and changing the evolving political trajectory of that part of the world, as well as considerations relating to the oil supply enter into the calculus in these matters.

Undoubtedly, in order of importance about 5%, 10%, 85% respectively.
Quote:
Those who wish to cling to their fixed prejudices that it is only the oil supply that motivates us will no doubt continue to do so in spite of the many facts that rather clearly demonstrate otherwise. All that is needed to obtain Persian Gulf oil is money. The need of the producing nations to sell it is as great as of the Japanese, Chinese, American and European consumers to buy it. We are not stealing Iraqi oil. We have, for over thirty years, been using military force to ensure that no one closed the Persian Gulf to this traffic - that aspect of all this is hardly new.


What would have happened to the US economy if Saddam had been able to carry out his wish to link Iraqi oil to the Euro?
He couldn't be allowed to continue down that path. He had to be stopped, at all costs, from an American point of view. That is why legal niceties were dispensed with, and the reason for the unseemly haste. UN inspectors were by this time an irrelevance and a hindrance to US intentions.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:10 am
McTag wrote:


What would have happened to the US economy if Saddam had been able to carry out his wish to link Iraqi oil to the Euro?
He couldn't be allowed to continue down that path. He had to be stopped, at all costs, from an American point of view.


No effect on us at all. This is a fantasy evidently current among some here (notably Steve) but there is no basis on which to believe it would either matter much, or that we care much about it. This and a few oil and weapons contracts to the French and a pattern of bribes to European politicians (including some Brits) were the tools Saddam had at his disposal and he used them liberally. The world no longer really has a single reserve currency anyway. To a large extent basic commodities, including oil have replaced 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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 08:42:15