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

Quote:

British ambassador to Italy Sir Ivor Roberts said at a private meeting (as leaked to Italian newspaper today) that George Bush was the best recruiting seargant for al Qaeda.

That if anyone had reason to celebrate his re election it would be al Qaeda and bin Laden.

Interesting quote, Steve. I agree with you that our little war created a breeding ground for terrorists. Iraq this year. Iran, next? Then Syria?

0 Replies

I retract my phrase "our little war." It is pitiful in light of the news I just heard: another civilian beheaded.

0 Replies

I think there is a feeling of utter despair in the UK.

We cant believe we've got ourselves into this mess.

Its all out in the open now that Blair knew exactly the true state of Iraqi wmd but deliberately exaggerated the issue so as to provide cover for an invasion and regime change which would otherwise be illegal.

(Which hasn't of course stopped the Secretary General of the UN himself describing it as illegal nevertheless.)

This whole misadventure has been a criminal waste. None of the war's objectives have been met, except for the imprisonment of Saddam, and now he's able to argue that the invasion was illegal, that he was illegally deposed and is being illegally held.

I keep asking myself so how did Blair (who is no fool) get us into this hell hole?

I think the answer runs something like this.

The twin pillars of Britain's foreign policy are our strong alliances with both America and the rest of our European partners. This unique position enables us to "punch above our weight". Take away either and Britain is just another bit of ungrateful old Europe, or an American outpost floating uncomfortably near the coast of Europe.

But there's a difference between the two alliances. One is tough and flexible (Europe) but the other with the US, although strong, is potentially brittle.

The Iraq war forced Blair to choose, so he chose the least worse option.

He probably thought he could repair the damage done with the Europeans, but hacking off the Americans might put an end to the so called special relationship with America.

So he took a gamble with George Bush. Which would have been ok had it not been for....well er George W Bush actually.

0 Replies

The poor captives they behead- have you noticed?

They dress them in orange-coloured overalls first, just as worn at Guantanamo Bay by the prisoners held there incommunicado, without charges being brought and without recourse to the law.

0 Replies

Yes its beyond terrible.

Iraq is in a state of anarchy. I think we should release the women prisoners to save the hostages. It can't make the situation any worse.

We or to be more specific, the Americans, have lost this war, so its not as if it jeopardises the mission.

0 Replies

Just out of curiosity Steve, how many woamen do you believe are being held? A follow up if I may, do you honestly believe that giving in to terrorist demand will lessen the number of hostages they take to try to force their agenda?

0 Replies

There are two women in the prisons specified.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... Yaknow, if you compare the quote of mine that you posted, and the quote of mine that I wrote, you may notice a slight difference - 'So Stop Believing That' wasn't written by me.

Please. In arguments about how your evidence is better respected than others, don't misquote greviously and obviously....

Cycloptichorn

What? I do not understand this post. Please clarify.

0 Replies

Allow me to make it clear for you.

We were having a discussion over veracity of evidence, amongst other things. My post:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
May you sooner than later discover your falsity.

You misread your and other's unresearched opinions for evidence

That's almost as bad as..... believing that your evidence is golden and noone elses' is.

Cycloptichorn

That is what I wrote.

In your next post, you quote me as saying:

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's almost as bad as..... believing that your evidence is golden and noone elses' is. So stop believing that. <--- I never wrote this, Icann. Where did it come from?!?!

I don't think my evidence is golden. I don't even think my evidence is sufficient. I merely think my evidence is more compeling, limited as it is, than your evidence.

I look forward to seeing your evidence any day now.

So, just so we're straight, in the midst of an argument about how your evidence is better than others, you blatantly misquote me.

To which I respond, WTF! Just how often do you misquote people, Icann? Your credibility is seriously called into doubt when you greviously change what someone wrote just a few posts before....

Seriously. Don't make up things and attribute them to me again.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's the thing. You give NOONE'S opinions weight besides those who agree with you.

One more time:
I do not think my arguments are "golden." I do not think my arguments are sufficient. I think only that my arguments are more compelling. That means to me that I give your arguments less but not zero weight than I give my own.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This brings up a question: will it be neccessary to go to war with EVERY nation that AQ flee to? If certain AQ operatives are found in America, would other countries be justified in attacking us - even if we protested our innocence and lack of connection with them (just like Iraq did)?

That's silly! The only nations that are potential candidates for invasion are those whose governments choose to sponsor/shelter al Qaeda instead of kill/capture al Qaeda.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, I do want more proof of this, as the consensus seems to be against any formal ties. And informal ones are not damning; hell, WE had informal ties to Bin Laden for years!

I rarely use the term proof in these forums. By proof I mean establish with certainty that something is true or is false. My reason is stated in the first sentence in my signature. So I will not be providing you proof anymore than you will be providing me proof. I use the term evidence instead. By the term evidence I mean information which increases the probability that something is true or false.

I will subsequently attempt to provide more evidence. That evidence will be in the form of more alleged facts and/or more logical implications of facts previously or newly cited.

To me the term formal when used to characterize ties, connections, or relationships can be quite ambiguous when used in some contexts. For example, is a formal tie something like a written agreement, contract or treaty, while an informal tie is something like an aural agreement, contract or treaty?

I think that whether or not a tie is formal or an informal has nothing to do with whether it is damning. Whether a tie is damning depends on the nature of the tie: that is, it depends on what is done within the context of that tie and not whether it is formal or informal.

I think there was a damning informal tie between Saddam and Osama, and I think I have provided compelling evidence to support that claim. In particular, I think I have provided compelling evidence that Saddam informally helped shelter, finance, equip, and/or facilitate al Qaeda prior to and after the invasion of Afghanistan.

0 Replies

I'm not responding to anything you write until you adress your blatant misquoting of me Icann.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Your 'evidence' to support your case; what assurances do I have that you didn't make that up as well, Icann?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Allow me to make it clear for you.

OK, thank you. You have cleared that up for me. My misquote of your post definitely was an error on my part. I apologize. I do not yet know how I made that error, but nevertheless I clearly made it. Sorry!

0 Replies

Looks to me like a misplaced [/ quote] is all.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Allow me to make it clear for you.

OK, thank you. You have cleared that up for me. My misquote of your post definitely was an error on my part. I apologize. I do not yet know how I made that error, but nevertheless I clearly made it. Sorry! <-Icann

Thanks, and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the issue.

That being said, I hope we can move away from our adversarial posts (to which I claim at least half responsibility) to a more conversational level, as I do respect what you write here (even if I don't agree with it).

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Steve, McTag, McGentrix...I, too, noticed the Gitmo-like jumpsuits. I do not think any attempt at appeasing hostage takers will work. They are exacting revenge, in a society that reveres and demands it, for US and coalition actions. If it is not the two women in prison, it would be something else. One of killers said that this latest beheading is payback for the abuses in Abu Ghraib. The citizens and soldiers of the countries who started this war will pay and pay, years into the future. What did we think? That we could do such an outrageous thing as start an unjustified war and suffer no consequences?

Your assessment of Tony Blair's dilemma and decision is interesting and probably correct, Steve.

0 Replies

Parallel to the discourse in this forum, I have been trying to arrive at at least a speculation for something in this discourse I've found increasingly puzzling.

I'll attempt to describe my puzzle.

It has been my personal experience as a student, as a research and development engineer, as a professional aviator, and as a layman political and economic science investigator, that complex human activity, regardless of who is involved, is highly error prone.

Look at past war time presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. All but Lyndon Johnson, and so far George W. Bush, made numerous serious often tragic mistakes before they eventually achieved their objectives.

So why the fixation today on George W. Bush's errors to the exclusion of discussion of the relative merits or demerits of alternative actions?

So why the disinclination to discuss the relative merits or demerits of two presidential candidates?

Instead, the discussion here seems to focus on the absolute merits (or demerits) of actions taken and the absolute merits of only the incumbent candidate.

Surely the people partipating in this forum have experienced their own personal sequence of significant errors before achieving their objectives. Surely they realize that it is rare that any choice made in a complex activity does not have both up and down sides. Surely they realize that the human struggle is about figuring out, without knowing in advance, those choices which in the long run have much more of an upside that a down side.

If I'm right, then why the preoccupation with what's going wrong to the practical exclusion of what's going right, or what is required to go right?

I simply do not understand it!

0 Replies

Quote:

So why the fixation today on George W. Bush's errors to the exclusion of discussion of the relative merits of alternative actions?

I can give you a (smallish) list of good moves made by Bush and his administration. Any reasonable person can cite them. I cannot speak to the relative merits of alternative actions because they were actions not taken. It is logically fallacious to say that a certain outcome would have resulted if an alternative action was taken.

Quote:

So why the disinclination to discuss the relative merits of two presidential candidates?

This is one of my major discouragements with the political climate in the US today. The complete polarization of statement and opinion forces me to the sidelines as a non-participant. I will vote, because I must and I always have; but the paucity of statesmanship and the non-discussion of real issues (which has been replaced by ridiculous historical revisionism and ugly back-biting), leaves me with a sense of despair.

0 Replies

McG wrote

Quote:

A follow up if I may, do you honestly believe that giving in to terrorist demand will lessen the number of hostages they take to try to force their agenda?

Well as I believe Iraq is as good as lost to the insurgents and that Bush will scuttle out of there as soon as he can (once he's got his second term), it makes no difference.

As for taking more hostages, well perhaps its time to pull out non-military personnel. Certainly those who remain should be better guarded. In this latest hostage taking incident, they just walked into the house and took them away.

0 Replies

They might have less American hostages to take if we didn't flood their country full of contractors.

Those rebuilding jobs could have easily gone to Iraqis, or at least American companies could have employed Iraqis. But that wouldn't have made anyone any money here, now would it?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know