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

dlowan wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Were the three thousand Americans sacrificed on 9/11 acceptable? Would another 3000 in another attack be acceptable? How about 6000? 50,000?

Iraq didn't kill Americans (actually, there were les than 3,000 - and a reasonable number weren't Americans - but hey...never let...) on September 11th.

Try to keep facts straight.

Try to keep your logic as well as facts straight. Saddam in Iraq as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan neither particpated in the planning or in the execution of the 9-11 murders and maimings. But they both sheltered terrorist murderers. At the time of 9-11, most of the 19 murderers responsible for 9-11 had been sheltered by the Taliban for a time. Now terrorist murderers are no longer sheltered in either country. They rightly have to fight to the death for their stinking lives.

Certainly not at the cost of innocent lives.

If we have to kill tens of thousands of innocents to preserve our way of life, something is wrong with either our way of life or our way of preservation. You can decide which.

You are comparing maybes to definates, McG, never a good idea.

And I also think someone so worried about attacks would support a presidential candidate that actually has plans to defend Americans...

Bush has cut money from first responders across the board, has done nothing to secure our borders, hasn't made the neccessary reforms to make airport security more than cosmetic.

Perhaps you should re-think your evaluation in face of your crippling fear for America, the fear which apparently overcomes all other logical thought.

A LA Times editorial stated something to the effect today: You can't establish Democracy by force.

I've been thinking about that. I can't come up with any country that became a democracy without the use of force except maybe England. Germany sure didn't. Japan sure didn't. And neither did the U.S.

Foxy
Check the wording Democracy by force not Democracy through the use of force. ...
You know you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The difference is you cannot force democracy upon people. However, you can use and often have used force to rid yourself of tyranny to achieve democracy and freedom.

Galloway and Russian party leader also deny profiting under Saddam regime

The French government yesterday angrily rejected accusations by the US-led Iraq Survey Group that its politicians and companies profited from Saddam Hussein's oil revenues.

A prominent Russian party leader also dismissed similar claims, as did the British MP George Galloway.

With US-French relations still strained from the Iraq war, the French foreign ministry issued a tart statement expressing surprise that the ISG had made accusations against companies and individuals "without having taken the trouble to verify the information in advance with the in dividuals and companies concerned, nor indeed with the authorities in their countries".

The ISG, embarrassingly for George Bush and Tony Blair, failed to find weapons of mass destruction. But it included in its report accusations about Saddam's use of oil revenues. Most of the companies and individuals mentioned in the report are from France or Russia. But individuals from other countries are also named, including Mr Galloway.

Mr Galloway, who was out of the country yesterday but issued a statement through his Commons office, denied having profited from his campaign against Iraqi sanctions.

In the main body of the report, the ISG said: "According to a former high-ranking Iraqi official with direct access to the information, there are two Americans and one UK citizen listed as recipients on the list of Iraq's illicit oil allocation programme." It does not name the Briton.

But in an annexe to the report, Mr Galloway's name is mentioned twice as having been allocated oil vouchers, once with a Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureikat, and once on his own.

The ISG admits that many of those named never converted their allocations into cash.

Mr Galloway said he had not seen the ISG report but noted similar accusations had been made in the past. "A lie doesn't become true just because you keep repeating it," he said.

The MP, who was a leading campaigner against Iraqi sanctions and founded the Respect party after being thrown out of the Labour party, said: "These allegations come from officials of the American-imposed puppet government in Baghdad and the Bush administration itself and are aimed at discrediting those who opposed them.

"The Iraqi official concerned, Mr Faraj, made the same allegations earlier this year. They were false then and they are false now."

An action by Mr Galloway against the Daily Telegraph over similar allegations is scheduled to begin in the high court on November 16.

Mr Galloway said: "No one has produced a scintilla of evidence in support of the allegation that I have profited from Iraq in any way because no such evidence exists."

Mr Galloway's name was in a copy of the ISG report seen by British journalists on Wednesday, but when the US published the report, it blacked out his name and those of US citizens.

A US intelligence official said Mr Galloway's name had been removed because it was initially unclear if he was a US citizen. The names of Americans could not be published under the country's privacy law. "With George Galloway, we wanted to be absolutely sure that he was not a US person. Now it 's been determined he is not, it's going to be reposted today with his name."

But Whitehall said it had expected Mr Galloway's name to be published and was disappointed when it was not. After phone calls to the US, Whitehall was told that, as the US was withholding the names of US citizens, it was extending the same courtesy to its ally and removed Mr Galloway's name. Whitehall asked that Mr Galloway's privacy be waived and his name published.

In Moscow, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the ultra-nationalist politician, also denied claims in the report. "I never took a drop [of oil], or a single dollar from Iraq or from any other country. I have never dealt with oil," the Interfax news agency quoted him as saying.

The report also named the Indonesian president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the former French interior minister Charles Pasqua as voucher recipients and implicated other governments, including Namibia and Yemen.

A LA Times editorial stated something to the effect today: You can't establish Democracy by force.

I've been thinking about that. I can't come up with any country that became a democracy without the use of force except maybe England. Germany sure didn't. Japan sure didn't. And neither did the U.S.

Force was used. English Civil War, q.v.. Many died. Very unpleasant. King got beheaded.

Here's an IMPORTANT slate piece on how we are arming Pakistan to fight against India, not Al Quaeda:(PLEASE READ!!!)

What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

Published: October 8, 2004

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

Continued. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/08bremer.html?oref=login&oref=login

A LA Times editorial stated something to the effect today: You can't establish Democracy by force.

I've been thinking about that. I can't come up with any country that became a democracy without the use of force except maybe England. Germany sure didn't. Japan sure didn't. And neither did the U.S.

The country has never possessed strong religious institutions...

Paradise on earth, I tell ya.