0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 06:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sigh. I'm just not interested in what your 'accusations' are, for someone ... who actively calls for the killing of innocents as you do ...

I actively call for the extermination of itm. I do not actively call for the killing of innocents. I acknowledge that killing some innocents will be an inescapable consequence of exterminating itm. I argue that the policy of exterminating itm is necessary to reduce the total future number of innocents that would otherwise be killed by the itm, if we fail to exterminate the itm.

Can't we just keep this to policy debate ...?
Yes!

... thanks very much...
You're welcome!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2006 10:52 pm
Back to policy discussion,

There seem to be quite a few people willing to go on record that the Bush admin deliberately lied about the Niger Uranium issue.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 12:26 am
Never mind about that, Bill Clinton lied about having sex with a junior! He started it.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 04:49 am
Clinton was a piker .... Bush screwed the world!!!
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 05:04 am
Quote:
Negatives

By DIANE CHRISTIAN

"Accentuate the positive,
Eliminate the negative,
Latch on to the affirmative,
And don't mess with Mister In-between."

Harold Arlen lyrics, Johnny Mercer song, crooned by Bing Crosby

"The Negation is the Spectre, the Reasoning Power in Man"

William Blake

"The US does not torture," President Bush has repeated often-in the face of terrible pictures from Abu Ghraib and vicious stories from around the world. What is the President saying? Is it a lie or wishful denial, or positive thinking, or casuist ry, or political pandering?

Richard Pryor had a comedy routine where he advised husbands caught in flagranto to counter with "are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?" Sometimes we deny by closing our eyes. But sometimes we deny by rationalizing; by attacking the facts with negation and reasoning. President Bush can say the US doesn't torture because he redefines US and torture. To wit: The US is good and wouldn't do anything bad. A few bad apple rogue torturers working the night shift at Abu Ghraib aren't the US. And, aided by lawyers, he torques senseless the meaning of torture, restricting it by abstraction and redefinition, and by the Secretary of Defense special-reduction to the absurd. Rumsfeld ruminates that he stands hours a day at his desk so what's torture about forced standing in prison? The dead body on ice, the man roasted above fire, the excrement-smeared, hooded, naked, terrified, sexually brutalized, and wounded figures available everywhere but the American media are not addressed. They're flushed into collateral damage-like the children burned, maimed, and brutalized by bombs, mistakes, and deliberate revenge in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The assertive kind of denial merits attention because it subverts our survival and coping mechanisms of accentuating the positive into callousness.

William Blake, poet and painter, man of words and images, was on to it. He saw it as the dark side of reason. He called that negating move man's Spectre, and he attributed it to our reasoning ability to abstract, to negate the body, and subordinate it to an abstraction. It's a kind of mental mania, like war which sacrifices humans for the sake of protecting them. As Blake's "London" has it: "And the hapless Soldier's sigh/ Runs in blood down Palace walls."

I think Blake would see President Bush in his Spectre's power when he denies US torture. With chirpy comfort he uses abstract reasoning to destroy and undermine dour facts. If you assert that the US doesn't torture you take no responsibility for all the documented US uniformed torturers and, more importantly, you cloak all the US torturers who have approved, affirmed, and used the tactics. The spectrous covert agencies used to do US cloak and dagger dirty wet work. In movies, the aide says 'Mr. President you don't want to know.' Not knowing, he also accrues 'deniability.' Ronald Reagan said after the Iranian arms for hostages deal was revealed that he still couldn't in his heart of hearts believe we had traded arms for hostages. The President specialized in the role of true believer in American goodness and righteousness. But Bush doesn't say I can't believe in my heart of hearts that the US tortures. He says the US doesn't torture. He negates the language and facts and seems not a naif but a stonehead. The US in fact has a thoroughly vicious history of abetting torture in Latin America and fomenting assassination. We haven't wanted to know. We have rationalized, negated, denied. We mean well. We signed the protocols against torture.

Alan Dershowitz openly approves torture for 'necessary' situations. He at least doesn't argue that if we do it it isn't torture. He says we can and should do it. Both positions, denying and urging, are immoral, but the negative one is more dangerous. Dershowitz is the very recognizable bully who rationalizes his violence. Even if we do terrorist acts, we're off the hook because we're good and they're bad. It's standard tribal blindness.

But the notion that we create the categories, that the commander-in-chief makes and unmakes the rules and the language, that is a mania of power-thinking you can force all to your will. It is Blake's Spectre-an ungoverned reasoning power which deludes us that we are not human and vulnerable and bodily and breakable, as are those we torture.

The President opined that his cowboy-warrior language was unsophisticated and that the country has been hurt by Abu Ghraib. His hedging is like Reagan's, about himself, and like Reagan's self-pity, the analysis is wrong. "Bring 'em on, smoke 'em out, dead or alive" is plain, all too intelligible-it's spoiling to fight. And Abu Ghraib is about us hurting prisoners, often innocent prisoners. It's not the hurt we suffer by being perceived as vicious evil-doers rather than innocent good-doers. The problem is not erroneous perception, it's the actual facts. We are torturers-like Saddam, like terrorists. We were and are.

Let us say not what we don't do but what we do do. And let us say it without abstraction. Freedom and liberty and democracy are not force and torture and coercion. Language will have its revenge. It belongs not to the warrior who cries the time for talk is over, but to the human being who hopes we can talk not kill. The Spectre is warlike. It stalks us and is within us. In our deepest heart of hearts we may wish good but we are also capable of evil. No projecting it away.

Haditha or My Lai. Do we think we can train people to kill and destroy and make the world kinder and gentler thereby? The principle of contradiction is something language can teach us. You cannot eliminate the negative.

Diane Christian is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at University at Buffalo and author of the new book Blood Sacrifice. She can be reached at: [email protected]

Source
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 11:24 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Back to policy discussion,

There seem to be quite a few people willing to go on record that the Bush admin deliberately lied about the Niger Uranium issue.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02

Cycloptichorn

comments added by ican
In The Vanity Fair Roundtable, 06/06/06, CRAIG UNGER, wrote:


The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger.
This is false! This "yellowcake" claim is but one of 23 reasons the Congress gave for invading Iraq. Of the 23 reasons given, 13 were subsequently proven true, and 10 were proven false. Of the 13 reasons that were proven true, each of the two were independently sufficient reason for invading Iraq.

As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House
By CRAIG UNGER
READ V.F.'s PLAMEGATE COVERAGE
That Saddam was alleged to have sought "yellowcake" is "the cornerstone of a highly successful 'black propaganda' campaign ..." Question Like hell it was Exclamation This article is just another of many examples of the liebral opinion news media at work lying.

ican711nm wrote:
We are fighting a war and these are the reasons why:

(1) We Americans probably face a sizeable risk of being murdered by Terrorist Malignancy, if we decide to limit the defense of ourselves against Terrorist Malignancy to only here in America;

(2) The state of Afghanistan harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from May 1996 to October 2001, when the USA invaded Afghanistan seeking to end their sanctuary in Afghanistan;
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

(3) The state of Iraq harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from December 2001 to March 2003, when the USA invaded Iraq to end their sanctuary in Iraq;
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

(4) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


(5) Friday, September 14, 2001
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
Congress wrote:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


(6) Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.


(7) Wednesday, October 16, 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and gave two subsequently verified, primary and sufficient reasons for doing so:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Congress wrote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;


(8) But, you protest Bush and Congress also said Iraq abetted 9/11, when neither Bush or Congress said any such thing!

But, I protest that 19 terrorists, first trained in Afghanistan, armed with box cutters, hijacked four airliners, and flew them into American buildings or into the ground killing almost 3,000 American civilians.

If 19 terrorists could murder 3,000 not abetted by Iraq and not armed with WMD, what could 10,000 terrorists do, if abetted by Iraq but not armed with WMD--murder more than one-million?

(9) 9-11 Commission Report, 9/20/2004, Chapter 2.5
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:
U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78


... in his January 2003 State of the Union address, George W. Bush told the world, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Did Bush believe this when he said it? If he did not believe this when he said it, then Bush lied. If Bush did believe this when he said it, then Bush erred.

I'm not aware of any evidence that Bush did not believe this when he said it. Thus, until Bush is proven guilty of lying about this, Bush is innocent of lying about this.

...
To Michael Ledeen, however, Iran's ascendancy is just one more reason to expand the Iraq war to the "terror masters" of the Middle East. "I keep saying it over and over again to the point where I myself am bored," he says. "I have been screaming 'Iran, Iran, Iran, Iran' for five years. [Those in the Bush administration] don't have an Iran policy. Still don't have one. They haven't done ****-all."
What do Ledeen et al want done about Iran? They do not say! I bet the reason they do not say is because they want to be in safe position to criticize whatever is actually done by the Bush administration. Gad, these guys are obvious frauds! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 11:50 am
ican writes
Quote:
What do Ledeen et al want done about Iran? They do not say! I bet the reason they do not say is because they want to be in safe position to criticize whatever is actually done by the Bush administration. Gad, these guys are obvious frauds!


I agree! These guys need to learn how to be frauds without being obvious!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 12:11 pm
George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part I, Chapter 5, wrote:

'You haven't a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,' he said almost sadly. 'Even when you write it you're still thinking in Oldspeak. I've read some of those pieces that you write in "The Times" occasionally. They're good enough, but they're translations. In your heart you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?'

Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

Would you believe this will happen by the year 2084, if we succumb to the currently underway effort to re-define words (e.g., murder, lie, genocide, resister, insurgent, terrorist, torture, lawful, armed, humane, compassionate, preempt, defend, et cetera)?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 12:22 pm
Quote:
What do Ledeen et al want done about Iran? They do not say!


That's because even a casual perusal of Ledeen's history would show that he has been agitating for Regime Change in Iran since the Iran-Contra days. Either through armed conflict, or not.

We've discussed this clown before...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 01:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What do Ledeen et al want done about Iran? They do not say!


That's because even a casual perusal of Ledeen's history would show that he has been agitating for Regime Change in Iran since the Iran-Contra days. Either through armed conflict, or not.

We've discussed this clown before...

emphasis added by ican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen
Quote:
Ledeen, a prominent and incessant advocate of regime change in Iran, as he had earlier supported the dissident movements within the Soviet Empire, has also stated that Iran is the main backer of the insurgency in Iraq and even supports the al-Qaida network led by al-Zarqawi which has, in reality, declared jihad against Shi'ite Muslims. He cited German and Italian court documents--some of which were also reported in "Newsweek" magazine [citation needed] --that show Zarqawi created a European terrorist network while based in Tehran. Ledeen is a board member of the "Coalition for Democracy in Iran" (CDI), founded by Morris Amitay, a former lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Ledeen has also been part of the board of the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon. According to the Washington Post, quoted by Asia Times, he is the only full-time international affairs analyst regularly consulted by Karl Rove, George W. Bush's closest advisor[1]


Cycloptichorn

My mistake. What I should have posted is:

What do Ledeen et al recommend the USA do to solve the Iran problem? They do not say.

Ledeen advocates "regime change." That's an objective. What do Ladeen et al now want the USA to do to achieve that objective? Invade? Bomb? Infiltrate? Sabotage? Sanction? Ostracize? Threaten? Criticize? Negotiate?

By this time, absent a specific recommendation for how to achieve "regime change in Iran", and merely being "a prominent and incessant advocate of regime change in Iran", is obviously merely being a fraud.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 02:05 pm
I'm sure you understand that I am no supporter of Ledeen's; he's a dirty s.o.b. as far as I am concerned.

Note that Ledeen is not seen as a sympathetic figure by the writers of the pre-mentioned article, but rather as someone who is tied up in the middle of the scandal about the forged Nigerian documents.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 02:09 pm
Map of US rendition 'spider web:'

http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_RenditionsMap_EN.jpg

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 02:24 pm
Cycl, please explain why interstate transfers of USA prisoners of war is unlawful? Specifically, what international law or convention prohibits one state transferring its prisoners of war to other states than itself, or from itself to other states?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 02:38 pm
Of course, you understand that we are not talking about 'prisoners of war.' We are talking about victims of the US policy of Rendition, who were captured on no battlefield, and have been charged with no crime.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 04:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, you understand that we are not talking about 'prisoners of war.' We are talking about victims of the US policy of Rendition, who were captured on no battlefield, and have been charged with no crime.

Cycloptichorn

Rendition Question

Quote:

www.m-w.com

Main Entry: ren·di·tion
Pronunciation: ren-'di-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: obsolete French, from Middle French, alteration of reddition, from Late Latin reddition-, redditio, from Latin reddere to return
: the act or result of rendering : as a : SURRENDER b : TRANSLATION c : PERFORMANCE, INTERPRETATION

Main Entry: 1ren·der
Pronunciation: 'ren-d&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ren·dered; ren·der·ing /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English rendren, from Middle French rendre to give back, yield, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin rendere, alteration of Latin reddere, partly from re- + dare to give & partly from re- + -dere to put -- more at DATE, DO
transitive senses
1 a : to melt down <render>; also : to extract by melting <render> b : to treat so as to convert into industrial fats and oils or fertilizer
2 a : to transmit to another : DELIVER b : GIVE UP, YIELD c : to furnish for consideration, approval, or information: as (1) : to hand down (a legal judgment) (2) : to agree on and report (a verdict)
3 a : to give in return or retribution b (1) : GIVE BACK, RESTORE (2) : REFLECT, ECHO c : to give in acknowledgment of dependence or obligation : PAY d : to do (a service) for another
4 a (1) : to cause to be or become : MAKE <enough> <rendered> (2) : IMPART b (1) : to reproduce or represent by artistic or verbal means : DEPICT (2) : to give a performance of (3) : to produce a copy or version of <the> (4) : to execute the motions of <render> c : TRANSLATE
5 : to direct the execution of : ADMINISTER <render>
6 : to apply a coat of plaster or cement directly to
intransitive senses : to give recompense
- ren·der·able /-d(&-)r&-b&l/ adjective
- ren·der·er /-d&r-&r/ noun


Sorry, I do not understand. Confused

Were they captured in Afghanistan? The whole country is a battlefield.

Were they captured in Iraq? The whole country is a battlefield.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 07:54 pm
Sorry, I'll be more specific.

None of these people were captured on the battlefield in either Iraq or Afghanistan. This refers to the practice of Extraordinary Rendition, which refers to US kidnapping of people around the world in the name of the War on Terror, flying them to foreign countries where torture and interrogation rules are not, shall we say, as strict as ours.

Most of these are alleged to be 'terror suspects,' but who can say? You should do some research on this issue.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article707605.ece

It is important to note that while there is a huge amount of evidence that this is a practice taking place, the US government has not confirmed this practice. Which isn't surprising, given the secretive nature of the WoT and the Bush admin in general.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 02:07 am
Leader of al-Qaeda al-Zarqawi dead.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:
The Dead Voice of "al Qaeda" in Iraq

When you hear Zarqawi mentioned in the news just have a think about the following...

A Jordanian extremist suspected of bloody suicide attacks in Iraq was killed some time ago in U.S. bombing and a letter outlining plans for fomenting sectarian war is a forgery, a statement allegedly from an insurgent group west of the capital said.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq "during the American bombing there," according to a statement circulated in Fallujah this week and signed by the "Leadership of the Allahu Akbar Mujahedeen."
The statement did not say when al-Zarqawi was supposedly killed, but U.S. jets bombed strongholds of the extremist Ansar al-Islam in the north last April as Saddam Hussein's regime was collapsing.


It said al-Zarqawi was unable to escape the bombing because of his artificial leg. [MSNBC 3/4/04]

Arab commentator Abd al-Bari Atwan says it is quite possible that al-Zarqawi is now dead.
He told Aljazeera.net: "There is no real proof that he is alive. If he is supposedly moving around freely in Iraq, why haven't Iraqis spoken about him? He can't be that difficult to recognise with his wooden

Link

Terror leader al-Zarqawi dead, Iraqi officials say
From Debra Krajnak
CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted insurgent in Iraq, is dead, according to an aide to Iraq's prime minister.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was expected to make a public announcement of the death, the details of which are unclear.

Two Pentagon officials told CNN that the government is awaiting al-Maliki's announcement in Baghdad before commenting on the report officially.

Link
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 02:17 am
Most of the Guantanamo prisoners (over 90%) were kidnapped by local militia and sold to the Americans. Nothing to do with battlefields.
Credible evidence against them, very sketchy indeed, and certainly not admissible in any properly constituted court of law.
That's why they're not being tried. They are there for questioning only.

Illegally held.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 03:54 am
It's good to see the likes of Zarquai dead but it won't make much difference in the conflict going on there. Zarquai was a small bit player, as is Al Qaeda. In any event, like an assassinated Mafia leader, he can be replaced.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 04:57 am
Chalk one up for the good guys....with Zarqawi dead, I have hopes for a shift in fortunes in favor of the Iraqi government. In addition, I would hope to see a decrease in sectarian violence without Zarqawi and his minions stirring the pot at every opportunity, bombing mosques, etc.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/17/2025 at 12:01:52