0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:07 pm
There is nothing confusing about it Ican . . . you have posted horseshit in your contention that the United States is "almost angelic" in comparison to the countries you have listed. Two examples, and two only, are from nations whose dictators were far, far more destructive than U.S. administrations--Germany and the Soviet Union in the 20th century. Hardly a glowing recommendation to say that we are not as bad as Hitler and Stalin. Not at all a basis for contending that we are "angelic" in comparison.

I love my country, and that is why the results of the current administration's attempt to implement the bankrupt PNAC agenda sickens me. I also have not illusions about what our governments have done in the past, and therefore how absurd it is to make such feeble attempts at a comparison with other nations in other times.

You continue to ignore what so many here have pointed out--no matter how relatively bad or good one may contend we are, it does not justify pre-emptive war on a flimsy basis and possibly even based on knowing lies; it does not justify the deaths of over one hundred thousand people; it does not justify the continued torture of people held without due process of law.

The actions of this administration trample into the bloody mud of history everything Americans have traditionally prided themselves on.

What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:19 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I'll got a map, dys.

Good, now hand it to Ulla and keep your eyes on the road.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:23 pm
I'll keep them closed, as usually ... especially here.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:24 pm
Whereas i can see how that would reduce your stress in driving, Walter, isn't there a law of diminishing returns which kicks in at some point?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:29 pm
I certainly would answer that question, Set, but since my eyes still are close, I neither can read it nor type an answer.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:29 pm
The burdens you bear, Walter . . . a veritable, or at least virtual, martyr . . .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:32 pm
I don't know about "virtual, martyr," but I can say for sure he's a gentleman and a scholar.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:33 pm
I admire Ican. You've got to hand it to a guy who, despite almost constant display of ignorance, prejudice, illogic mixed with pigheaded obstinacy, and unwillingness or inability to see the obvious, can nevertheless almost singlehandedly keep intelligent people tied up in a correspondence.

Some achievement. This correspondence is like a social service which is not reaching its target clientele.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:36 pm
Set I am so sorry. The America you describe (in your posts) is gone. It was an America I could aspire to. But something terrible has happened, and I don't know what it is.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:37 pm
I see the Brit Wits have arrived . . . the fun should appreciate comensurately . . .

Good evening, gentlemen . . . slow Saturday nigh?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:38 pm
McTag

Bullsh1t baffles brains
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 02:39 pm
It's gone down the toilet, but very few can really smell the stink eminating in this country we call the US of A.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 03:22 pm
well I just hope it wasnt a copy of the koran
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 04:28 pm
Some Muslims are now making the picture of Saddam in his shorts a crisis. It couldn't be because he was shown half naked, because when he was president of Iraq, he was shown swimming with his exposed chest. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between swimming trunks and shorts. I guess that can become a crisis. jeeesh!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 04:29 pm
I wonder how many people they end up killing for that?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 05:16 pm
Setanta wrote:
... I love my country, and that is why the results of the current administration's attempt to implement the bankrupt PNAC agenda sickens me.
What is "the bankrupt PNAC agenda."


You continue to ignore what so many here have pointed out--no matter how relatively bad or good one may contend we are, it does not justify pre-emptive war on a flimsy basis and possibly even based on knowing lies; it does not justify the deaths of over one hundred thousand people; it does not justify the continued torture of people held without due process of law.
I agree! Thankfully, other than a small number of prisoner abuse incidents, I've not encountered any evidence that any of those things you allege actually happened.

The actions of this administration trample into the bloody mud of history everything Americans have traditionally prided themselves on.
What specific actions of this administration do you think "trample into the bloody mud of history everything Americans have traditionally prided themselves on"?


What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend?
What specifically do you disagree with in the following argument for our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq? Knowing that, I'll be better able to tell you what it is that is so hard for me to comprehend.


ican711nm wrote:
LEST YE FORGET

THE GENERAL ARGUMENT

Al Qaeda was/is a self declared agressor against the US. The governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based are accomplices to this agressor. It is al Qaeda and the governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based that must be stopped in our own self-defense.

Nothing the Bush&Adm or the Blair&Adm intended or didn’t intend, said or didn’t say, conspired or didn't conspire, or otherwise did or didn’t do can change these facts. The truth of the existence or non-existence of ready-to-use "WMD" in Iraq, or of a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda cannot change these facts.

Pre-empting a tyrant consists of stopping him from hurting you more before he hurts you more. That is what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan and that is what we are attempting to do in Iraq


Foxfyre wrote:
There are some, however, who think you must be seriously hurt or killed before you are allowed to protect yourself. The frightened wife must not get a restraining order against the man she knows will hurt or kill her until he actually does the deed. They are more concerned about the feelings of the young thug on the corner than they are about the fears of the driver who offends him when he locks the car door. The civil rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of innocent people to not be threatened by him. The rights of a terrorist to not be embarrassed or made uncomfortable are more important than the need of an innocent victim about to be beheaded. So, a pre-emptive strike against a country with a track record for terrorist acts and that is on the record as having intentions to hurt you must not be touched until they commit the act.
...


ican711nm wrote:
The US invasion of Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan were both pre-emptive wars by both US and British govenment declarations, and by valid logic in order to prevent future murderers of US and British citizens. Al Qaeda declared war against Americans in four different fatwas in 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2004. These fatwas (except the 2004 fatwa) and the war they repeatedly declared were actually perpetrated against Americans prior to our invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in March 2003.


9/11 Commission wrote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report alleged, 8/21/2004 in CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1: Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
2. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
3. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
4. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
5. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
6. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approximately 1500 dead Americans plus approximately 1500 dead non-Americans.


9/11 Commission wrote:
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.


ican711nm wrote:
The US subsequently attempted to pre-empt further attacks by al Qaeda and remove al Qaeda training bases and camps by invading and replacing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, because of the failures of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to remove al Qaeda training bases and camps from their respective countries.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Afghanistan was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Afghanistan and the replacement of the Taliban regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda bases and camps to be re-established in Afghanistan once the US left Afghanistan.

The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Iraq was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Iraq and the replacement of the Saddam regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda taining bases and camps to be re-established in Iraq once the US left Iraq.

THE BASIC ARGUMENT

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, G]

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 Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan.

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. Terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in December 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier, and after we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.[References A, B, C, D, F]

7. 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, F]

8. 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]

9. 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]

10. 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:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/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

F. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org

G. Osama Bin Laden “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”-1996, and, Osama Bin Laden: Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans-1998
(scroll down to find them both)
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 06:02 pm
Ican: your argument is flawed from the second sentence:
Quote:
Al Qaeda was/is a self declared agressor against the US. The governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based are accomplices to this agressor.


Al Qaeda does not need a country or a government to assist them. They may have utilized areas of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and Afghanistan to train, rest and plan, but none of those bases were essential to al Qaeda's mission. The sooner the US understands this fact and stops thinking this is a nation-based war the sooner some progress may be made.
To achieve it's ends, al Qaeda needs for the governments it attacks to overreact to those attacks. George Bush is a godsend for them because he and his former National Security Advisor now Secretary of State both think that regime change has some advantage for the USA. In actuality, regime change assists al Qaeda in formenting chaos and terror, subverting whatever infrastructure exists and allows even more radical sects to assert their power --legitimately.

Joe( Welcome to Sadr City.) Nation
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 06:35 pm
McTag wrote:
I admire Ican. You've got to hand it to a guy who, despite almost constant display of ignorance, prejudice, illogic mixed with pigheaded obstinacy, and unwillingness or inability to see the obvious, can nevertheless almost singlehandedly keep intelligent people tied up in a correspondence.

Some achievement. This correspondence is like a social service which is not reaching its target clientele.
Laughing

Perhaps your theory is valid. Perhaps these fine folks subconsciously see what they are doing as a kind of social service for me. Well bless their hearts if that be true.

Perhaps my theory is valid. Perhaps these fine folks subconsciously see what they are doing to be a valiant effort to avoid their coming to the conclusion that what they believe to be true is actually false.

Now I have zero evidence to support my theory. Do you have any to support yours?

I lack the ability to read minds, in this case subconscious minds. However, there are recurring symptoms to suggest my theory is more probably valid than is yours. These fine folks, including you McTag, too frequently avoid responding to my posts with rational rebuttals, and choose instead to villify me. That is hardly the behavior one would expect from someone attempting to perform a social service for another person.

I concede that these recurring symptoms exhibited by you fine folks are not conclusive evidence that my theory is valid. They could indicate a number of possibilities, not the least of which is they are merely seeking to shut me up. But nevertheless they do cause me to wonder if my theory is valid, since by this time they should have come to the understanding that their symptoms reduce and do not increase my respect for their opinions.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 06:55 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Ican: your argument is flawed from the second sentence:
[quote]Al Qaeda was/is a self declared agressor against the US. The governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based are accomplices to this agressor.


Al Qaeda does not need a country or a government to assist them. They may have utilized areas of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and Afghanistan to train, rest and plan, but none of those bases were essential to al Qaeda's mission. The sooner the US understands this fact and stops thinking this is a nation-based war the sooner some progress may be made.
To achieve it's ends, al Qaeda needs for the governments it attacks to overreact to those attacks. George Bush is a godsend for them because he and his former National Security Advisor now Secretary of State both think that regime change has some advantage for the USA. In actuality, regime change assists al Qaeda in formenting chaos and terror, subverting whatever infrastructure exists and allows even more radical sects to assert their power --legitimately.

Joe( Welcome to Sadr City.) Nation[/size][/quote]
Thank you for your rational rebuttal.

I do not understand why you think:
Quote:
Al Qaeda does not need a country or a government to assist them. They may have utilized areas of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and Afghanistan to train, rest and plan, but none of those bases were essential to al Qaeda's mission.


I think it possible your following statement is valid:
Quote:
In actuality, regime change assists al Qaeda in formenting chaos and terror, subverting whatever infrastructure exists and allows even more radical sects to assert their power --legitimately.


Other than regime change of governments that host al Qaeda, what do you think would be a more effective way to prevent al Qaeda from training suicidal murderers from "formenting chaos and terror, subverting whatever infrastructure exists?" For example, do you think it more productive for the US to treat each mass murder by al Qaeda as a crime, and after each such crime is committed attempt to identify, capture or kill those perpetrators that did not kill themselves in the commission of their crime?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 07:05 pm
From BBC:


"Attacks 'delay' Iraq rebuilding


Comment: As if this was new news.


Attacks on oil targets are costing Iraq millions
Too much money earmarked for rebuilding Iraq is being diverted to tackle security demands, the US official in charge of post-war reconstruction says.

Comment: Just last week, the generals who recently talked about reducing our forces in Iraq had a change of heart. One general even said our army may still fail in Iraq.

William Taylor, who heads the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, said rebuilding the country was a costly and dangerous business.

Comment: This is news?

Mr Taylor disclosed that 295 American contractors and their security guards had been killed since April last year.

Comment: Betcha dollars to donuts, there are gonna be a whole lot more dead American contractors before this war is over.

He said there was "a long way to go" in providing adequate services to Iraqis.

Comment: That's what we call "understanding the problem."

A United Nations survey released earlier this month found that Iraqi living standards had been plummeting with only just over half of the population having access to safe drinking water."

Comment: This is only one of our many successes in Iraq.
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 0.11 seconds on 07/07/2024 at 03:57:16