Things in iRaq not as bad as the media says

[Oski2005]

Attacks kill at least 69 across Iraq
Police, government buildings targeted; 3 U.S. troops among dead

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:30 a.m. ET June 24, 2004BAQOUBA, Iraq - Insurgents launched attacks Thursday against police and government buildings, less than a week before the handover of sovereignty. At least 69 people, including three American soldiers, were killed and more than 270 were injured, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.

In Baghdad, the Health Ministry said at least 66 people were killed and 268 injured nationwide. However, the figures did not include U.S. dead and injured.

The heaviest clashes were reported in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, where two American soldiers were among the dead. Attackers also targeted police stations in Ramadi, Mahaweel, and the northern city of Mosul, where car bombs rocked the Iraqi Police Academy, a police station and the al-Jumhuri hospital.

A fourth bombing attack on another police station occurred about an hour later, followed by a firefight in which Iraqi police lost control of the Sheikh Fatih station. American forces moved in to regain control of the station -- firing back at insurgents using a nearby mosque as a base.

At least one U.S. soldier was killed and eight people, including three U.S. soldiers and five Iraqi police, were injured, the U.S. military said in Mosul. At least 50 people died in the bombings there, hospital officials said.

In other attacks, four Iraqi soldiers were killed in an explosion near a checkpoint manned by Iraqi and American soldiers in the southern Baghdad district of Dora. Three U.S. soldiers tended to what appeared to be a wounded American soldier on the road. The soldier's helmet lay nearby. Black smoke and flames shot up from a burning pickup truck.

It was not immediately clear what caused the blast.

U.S. officials projected calm after the attacks. "Coalition forces feel confident with the situation," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, coalition deputy operations chief.

Al-Zarqawi involved?
Iraq’s prime minister said he believed a group linked to Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was behind the Mosul attacks. But Iyad Allawi didn't believe the wave of attacks was coordinated, saying he felt the Ramadi and Baqouba attacks were probably the work of Saddam Hussein loyalists.

But a statement quoted Thursday by a Saudi Web site claimed responsibility for the Baqouba attacks in the name of al-Zarqawi, and said the insurgents belong to his Tawhid and Jihad movement. He called residents to "comply with the instructions of resistance."

The statement appealed to residents to remain their homes "because these days are going to witness campaigns and attacks against the occupation troops and those who stand beside them."

On Tuesday, an audiotape attributed to al-Zarqawi threatened to assassinate Allawi.

In Baquoba, U.S. aircraft dropped three 500-pound bombs against an insurgent position near the city soccer stadium, said Maj. Neal O'Brien, a U.S. 1st Infantry Division spokesman. Insurgents roamed the city with rocket launchers and automatic weapons and occupied two police stations.

Insurgents earlier destroyed the home of the police chief of the Diyala province where Baqouba is located, O'Brien said.

At the main hospital in Baqouba, doctors received injured people continuously and the corridors were spattered with blood. Civilian cars sped close carrying people with gunshot and shrapnel wounds.

One man in the emergency ward vented his anger, screaming "May God destroy America and all those who cooperate with it!"

Blasts shake Fallujah
Explosions and shelling also shook Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad.

Armed men ran through the streets, witnesses said. Residents said U.S. forces were shelling from positions outside the city, and helicopters were in the skies, but the U.S. military could not immediately be reached for comment.

One Marine helicopter made an emergency landing, but no one was wounded.

U.S. forces manning a checkpoint opened fire on local government convoy that included Fallujah's mayor and police chief that was trying to meet the Americans to discuss the violence, an Iraqi police lieutenant, speaking on condition of anonymity. The convoy turned back, and no injuries were reported.

Police and insurgents cooperating?
A motorist who drove through Fallujah Thursday morning said Iraqi police and insurgents were cooperating, chatting amicably along the streets, and seemed to be working together.

U.S. forces launched two airstrikes on Fallujah in recent days against what they said were safehouses al-Zarqawi, whose group claimed responsibility for the beheading of American hostage Nicholas Berg and Kim Sun-il, a South Korean whose decapitated body was found Tuesday.

U.S. Marines besieged Fallujah for three weeks in April after four American civilian contractors working for the Blackwater USA security company were ambushed and killed, their bodies mutilated and hung from a Euphrates river bridge.

The city has been relatively calm since Marines announced a deal to end the siege that created the Fallujah Brigade, commanded by officers from Saddam Hussein's army.

Though the Fallujah Brigade patrols the city, hard-line clerics and fighters who held off the Marines are still control the town.

Ramadi attacks
In other attacks on security forces, insurgents wearing black and using masks fired rocket-propelled grenades to attack two police stations in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi 60 miles west of Baghdad, police said.

"We were inside the al-Qataneh police station and suddenly a very heavy explosion happened," said 1st Lt. Ahmed Sami. "We discovered later on that the station was attacked from all around."

He said the station was destroyed in the initial blast. Seven people were killed and 13 were wounded, hospital officials said.

Another group attacked the Farook police station in Ramadi, also with rocket propelled grenades, Sami said. In a third assault, insurgents attacked a Ramadi government building, destroying several police cars.

And in Mahaweel, 40 miles from Baghdad, gunmen stormed the police station and killed an undetermined number of policemen. The gunmen blew up the police station before leaving, witnesses said.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


The second we leave, this country is f*cked.0

Edit: oops, forgot to link this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5225026/

[B-Bob]

Link to the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4025)

Coalition: Vast Majority Of Iraqis Still Alive

BAGHDAD—As the Coalition Provisional Authority prepares to hand power over to an Iraqi-led interim government on June 30, CPA administrator L. Paul Bremer publicly touted the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Bremer speaks before a large crowd of still-living Iraqi children.
Above: Bremer speaks before a large crowd of still-living Iraqi children.

"As the Coalition's rule draws to a close, the numbers show that we have an awful lot to be proud of," Bremer said Tuesday. "As anyone who's taken a minute and actually looked at the figures can tell you, the vast majority of Iraqis are still alive—as many as 99 percent. While 10,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been killed, pretty much everyone is not dead."

According to U.S. Department of Defense statistics, of the approximately 24 million Iraqis who were not killed, nearly all are not in a military prison. Bremer said "a good number" of those Iraqis who are in jail have been charged with a crime, and most of them have enjoyed a prison stay free of guard-dog attacks, low-watt electrocutions, and sexual humiliation.

U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt explained the coalition's accomplishments in geographical terms.

"There are vast sections of the country where one can go outside unarmed during the daylight hours," Kimmitt said, speaking from a heavily guarded base outside of Baghdad. "Even in cities where fighting has occurred, many neighborhoods have not been torn apart by gunfire. And, throughout the country, more towns than I could name off the top of my head have never been touched by a bomb at all."

Kimmitt said the bulk of the nation's public buildings are still standing.

"Throughout the nation, four out of five mosques have not been obliterated," Kimmitt said. "That's way, way, way more than half. Also, 80 percent of the nation's treasures and artifacts have not been destroyed by artillery or stolen in the widespread looting. If we were in school, that'd be a B-minus."

... (continued) ...

[Oski2005]

You know what's funny, that Onion article is exaclty what basso, Faos, Drudge, Hannitty, Dracula, Mr. Burns, and other conservatives keep accusing the media of not putting out.

[B-Bob]

Originally posted by Oski2005
You know what's funny, that Onion article is exaclty what basso, Faos, Drudge, Hannitty, Dracula, Mr. Burns, and other conservatives keep accusing the media of not putting out.
What's especially dark, if you read the entire long "parody" article is that they use a couple of actual quotes from government officials. Sad.

[Woofer]

It's worse?

No worries, also courtesy of the Onion, don't forget we're going spend a few hundred billion to go to Mars.

[Faos]

Originally posted by Oski2005
You know what's funny, that Onion article is exaclty what basso, Faos, Drudge, Hannitty, Dracula, Mr. Burns, and other conservatives keep accusing the media of not putting out.

Keep hatin' America. :rolleyes:

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Faos
Keep hatin' America. :rolleyes:

So now, not only is criticizing the president hating America, but criticizing conservative propaganda style journalists, and gossip mongers is also hating America?

Or was that a joke?

[Baqui99]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
So now, not only is criticizing the president hating America, but criticizing conservative propaganda style journalists, and gossip mongers is also hating America?

Or was that a joke?

I think it was a joke...

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Baqui99
I think it was a joke...

Aren't all of Faos' posts a joke?:D

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Baqui99
I think it was a joke...

The really incredible thing is it wasn't.

[Oski2005]

And people wonder why we keep making the "why does blank hate america" joke?

[B-Bob]

Why does faos hate faos?

[Woofer]

Is that a tautology?

[Faos]

I wish you communists would quit picking on me.

[ROXRAN]

Yes...This is not anything till the terrorists get their hands on WMD, like they always wanted, like Saddam would have given in his own pursuit...like Gore (the Devil) is unfit to do any speaking without coming across as sourgrapes attention crybaby...SCREAM! SPIT! SHAKE!...Quick check Gore's diaper...He is full of it!

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Yes...This is not anything till the terrorists get their hands on WMD, like they always wanted, like Saddam would have given in his own pursuit...like Gore (the Devil) is unfit to do any speaking without coming across as sourgrapes attention crybaby...SCREAM! SPIT! SHAKE!...Quick check Gore's diaper...He is full of it!

LMFAO, art imitates life.....WMDs? :confused:

[Cipherous]

Originally posted by B-Bob
Link to the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4025)

Coalition: Vast Majority Of Iraqis Still Alive

BAGHDAD—As the Coalition Provisional Authority prepares to hand power over to an Iraqi-led interim government on June 30, CPA administrator L. Paul Bremer publicly touted the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Bremer speaks before a large crowd of still-living Iraqi children.
Above: Bremer speaks before a large crowd of still-living Iraqi children.

"As the Coalition's rule draws to a close, the numbers show that we have an awful lot to be proud of," Bremer said Tuesday. "As anyone who's taken a minute and actually looked at the figures can tell you, the vast majority of Iraqis are still alive—as many as 99 percent. While 10,000 or so Iraqi civilians have been killed, pretty much everyone is not dead."

According to U.S. Department of Defense statistics, of the approximately 24 million Iraqis who were not killed, nearly all are not in a military prison. Bremer said "a good number" of those Iraqis who are in jail have been charged with a crime, and most of them have enjoyed a prison stay free of guard-dog attacks, low-watt electrocutions, and sexual humiliation.

U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt explained the coalition's accomplishments in geographical terms.

"There are vast sections of the country where one can go outside unarmed during the daylight hours," Kimmitt said, speaking from a heavily guarded base outside of Baghdad. "Even in cities where fighting has occurred, many neighborhoods have not been torn apart by gunfire. And, throughout the country, more towns than I could name off the top of my head have never been touched by a bomb at all."

Kimmitt said the bulk of the nation's public buildings are still standing.

"Throughout the nation, four out of five mosques have not been obliterated," Kimmitt said. "That's way, way, way more than half. Also, 80 percent of the nation's treasures and artifacts have not been destroyed by artillery or stolen in the widespread looting. If we were in school, that'd be a B-minus."

... (continued) ...

oh man, thats hilarious

[Sishir Chang]

Why does the Onion hate America?;)

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Yes...This is not anything till the terrorists get their hands on WMD, like they always wanted, like Saddam would have given in his own pursuit...like Gore (the Devil) is unfit to do any speaking without coming across as sourgrapes attention crybaby...SCREAM! SPIT! SHAKE!...Quick check Gore's diaper...He is full of it!

What ever information you have that our nation's intel community didn't that would suggest Saddam would have given WMD to terrorist, then please get it to them immediately. Your musings on what SAddam would have done differ from those of our intel leaders.

Come on man, they need you.

[ROXRAN]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
What ever information you have that our nation's intel community didn't that would suggest Saddam would have given WMD to terrorist, then please get it to them immediately. Your musings on what SAddam would have done differ from those of our intel leaders.

Come on man, they need you.

Common sense and checkmarks...

let's see.

1. invaded another country without warning...

2. used WMD on his own people...

3. Gave money in support of terroristic deeds (suicide bombings)...

Of course the same intel people of the past didn't/couldn't see 9/11 happening...You are right, they do need me to point these facts out...It would have been inevitable, and unavoidable that a madman would have, and could have lended developed mass destructive weapons based on at minimum, 3 facticious checkmarks which raise concern with him as a realized threat...

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Common sense and checkmarks...

let's see.

1. invaded another country without warning...

2. used WMD on his own people...

3. Gave money in support of terroristic deeds (suicide bombings)...

Of course the same intel people of the past didn't/couldn't see 9/11 happening...You are right, they do need me to point these facts out...It would have been inevitable, and unavoidable that a madman would have, and could have lended developed mass destructive weapons based on at minimum, 3 facticious checkmarks which raise concern with him as a realized threat...

Those facts only show that he was a bad man, and obssessed with keeping an iron grip on his power. It's that very fact that makes it doubtful he'd be spreading WMD around to others.

As far as #3 what are you talking about? Are you talking about the money paid to families martyrs who died fighting Israeli oppression? Only very small amount of that fund went to families of suicide bombers. I'm not saying the fund should have given money for that at all. Or were you referring to something eles?

[ROXRAN]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Those facts only show that he was a bad man, and obssessed with keeping an iron grip on his power. It's that very fact that makes it doubtful he'd be spreading WMD around to others.

As far as #3 what are you talking about? Are you talking about the money paid to families martyrs who died fighting Israeli oppression? Only very small amount of that fund went to families of suicide bombers. I'm not saying the fund should have given money for that at all. Or were you referring to something eles?

He was a bad man obsessed with terroristic deeds within and outside his country...His zeal and wish for big-time destructive weapons encapsulated the logical correlation with him being an extraordinary threat...and Of course, I'm talking about the slimeball suicidal terrorists causing terror against the good Christian people of Israel....:)

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
Common sense and checkmarks...

let's see.

1. invaded another country without warning...

2. used WMD on his own people...

3. Gave money in support of terroristic deeds (suicide bombings)...

Of course the same intel people of the past didn't/couldn't see 9/11 happening...You are right, they do need me to point these facts out...It would have been inevitable, and unavoidable that a madman would have, and could have lended developed mass destructive weapons based on at minimum, 3 facticious checkmarks which raise concern with him as a realized threat...

Those are compelling points but don't necessarily lead to him giving WMD to terrorists, particularly of the Al Qaeda stripe.

1. Yes Saddam did invade another country, two in fact, but rather that didn't didn't endear him to Islamic radicals. Shiites radicals who never liked him in the first place hated him more when he took on Iran. Sunni radicals resented a secularist like him threatening the seat of Islam in Saudi Arabia. At the time Osama Bin Ladin hadn't quite fallen out of favor with the house of Saud had argued that instead of having the an international coalition defend Saudi Arabia they should have had Mujahadin.

2. True, he was an evil bastard but he did that to keep himself in power not to strike a blow against the US or anyone else for ideological reasons.

3. True also but at the same time many other Arabs and Muslims have too including our good friends the house of Saud and Arab Emirates who have probably given far more money to Palestinian groups of all stripes than Saddam ever had. In a way our own government has given money to terrorists since we funded and armed the Mujahadin in Afghanistan many of which ended up forming Al Qaeda.

All of this shows that Saddam is a bad bad bad man but none of this logically leads to him giving WMD to terrorists. If anything your 'facts' would more likely indicate he wouldn't want to give WMD away to groups that might threaten him.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Those are compelling points but don't necessarily lead to him giving WMD to terrorists, particularly of the Al Qaeda stripe.

1. Yes Saddam did invade another country, two in fact, but rather that didn't didn't endear him to Islamic radicals. Shiites radicals who never liked him in the first place hated him more when he took on Iran. Sunni radicals resented a secularist like him threatening the seat of Islam in Saudi Arabia. At the time Osama Bin Ladin hadn't quite fallen out of favor with the house of Saud had argued that instead of having the an international coalition defend Saudi Arabia they should have had Mujahadin.

2. True, he was an evil bastard but he did that to keep himself in power not to strike a blow against the US or anyone else for ideological reasons.

3. True also but at the same time many other Arabs and Muslims have too including our good friends the house of Saud and Arab Emirates who have probably given far more money to Palestinian groups of all stripes than Saddam ever had. In a way our own government has given money to terrorists since we funded and armed the Mujahadin in Afghanistan many of which ended up forming Al Qaeda.

All of this shows that Saddam is a bad bad bad man but none of this logically leads to him giving WMD to terrorists. If anything your 'facts' would more likely indicate he wouldn't want to give WMD away to groups that might threaten him.

If you remove WMD from the argument, there is still substantial justification to take Saddam out of power. That EVERYONE admits he's a 'bad bad man' should be enough to prove that.

[mc mark]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
...there is still substantial justification to take Saddam out of power. That EVERYONE admits he's a 'bad bad man' should be enough to prove that.

But that's not the reason used by this administration to remove him.

If Bush would have pushed the humanitarian reasons for taking Saddam out I would have at least listened to the argument and probably would have been swayed.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
If you remove WMD from the argument, there is still substantial justification to take Saddam out of power. That EVERYONE admits he's a 'bad bad man' should be enough to prove that.

Had that been the justification for the war, Bush would not be getting all this flak. Personally, I was (begrudgingly) convinced initially that the war was necessary because of the visions of mushroom clouds and mustard gas in the US. As far as I am concerned, he (and many others in the administration) looked me in the eye and lied to my face, just like Clinton did, and that makes them as bad as Clinton right there.

The difference is that Clinton was lying about a blowjob and Bush was lying about the reasons to go to war. HUGE difference.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
If you remove WMD from the argument, there is still substantial justification to take Saddam out of power. That EVERYONE admits he's a 'bad bad man' should be enough to prove that.


Among the problems with this, in addition to that outlined by previous posters ( ie, that it wasn't our actual reason) are these:

* There are many bad men. When superpowers pick and choose which bad men to eliminate by themselves, the obvious temptation is to do so in conjunction with it's own interests. As such, it would be just another rationale for extending their own power. Our track record has us supporting more bad men then we abolished. What do you suppose the reason for that is?

* With whom do you replace the bad man?

* Who defines who is and who is not a bad man? I would support the idea of global consensus stated in your post, but how do we arrive at same? According to polls, the vast majority of the planet sees the US under Bush as the world's greatest threat to peace, and view the invasion as an obvious power play for self interest. Does that make him a bad man to everyone but us?

* How do you account for differing profiles of interested parties as it relates to said party's ability to project biased renditions of other leaders? See Boer War, etc. ( Actually the prallels between the Boer War and the invasion of Iraq are startling, but another discussion)...If Bush, with the world watching and the great wealth and power of the US at his disposal says that Leader X of Southeast Timorland is a despotic pirate, how would leader X refute this claim with any real weight?

[Deckard]

Originally posted by MacBeth
................
* How do you account for differing profiles of interested parties as it relates to said party's ability to project biased renditions of other leaders? See Boer War, etc. ( Actually the prallels between the Boer War and the invasion of Iraq are startling, but another discussion)...If Bush, with the world watching and the great wealth and power of the US at his disposal says that Leader X of Southeast Timorland is a despotic pirate, how would leader X refute this claim with any real weight?
Oh, very good! The Boer War was a watershed event for Victorian Britain and it's ruling Conservative party, the way Britons looked at their empire, the limits of British power, and, arguably, when that empire's wave reached it's peak and crashed against the rocks of a hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, stubborn antagonist who sucked an astonishing amount of British power, wealth and prestige into what had been seen as a minor dustup on the edges of the realm.

Parallels? Campbell-Bannerman saying, "A phrase often used [by government] was that 'war is war,' but when one came to ask about it one was told that no war was going on, that it was not war. When was a war not a war? When it was carried out by methods of barbarism in South Africa." A huge number of Boers, including women and children, were put in concentration camps. The war was carried out to insure British control of the newly discovered gold in the Boer republics. The revelation of 'barbarism' on the part of the British was a national and worldwide scandal. The world view (and the British view) of the Empire as a benevolent institution shattered, as was the perception, since the end of the Napoleanic War, of British military superiority. The Conservative government was turned out and replaced by the Liberal party. Parallels indeed.

[twhy77]

Originally posted by Oski2005
And people wonder why we keep making the "why does blank hate america" joke?

Yeah I've been meaning to tell you guys thats not real funny anymore. I mean there was that period where it was, chuckle chuckle, they got us! But now its kind of like, not original and fresh anymore. You guys need something new. Something upbeat and ready to face a new millenium of Republican/Democrat jokes.

[Sishir Chang]

HayesStreet;

Macbeth took typed the words right off of my fingertips with his response to your comment about my post about Saddam being a bad bad man as justification for invasion.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by twhy77
Yeah I've been meaning to tell you guys thats not real funny anymore. I mean there was that period where it was, chuckle chuckle, they got us! But now its kind of like, not original and fresh anymore. You guys need something new. Something upbeat and ready to face a new millenium of Republican/Democrat jokes.


The day people like Faos or bamaslammer stop saying it seriously, we'll stop saying it jokingly.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
HayesStreet;

Macbeth took typed the words right off of my fingertips with his response to your comment about my post about Saddam being a bad bad man as justification for invasion.

Congratulations.

The problem with MacBeth's continuous 'sky is falling' logic is that in this case we do all, in fact, agree Saddam was a bad man. That's not one superpower declaring him a bad man, risking the oh so overhyped slippery slope. We all agree he was a bad man, yes? As there isn't anyone who disputes this, we don't have to worry about somehow being arbitrary in determining this. EVERYONE AGREES.

As far as the administrations justification etc, obviously this was not the main reason they gave. I agree. What difference does it make when we're trying to assess the current situation in Iraq?

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
Congratulations.

The problem with MacBeth's continuous 'sky is falling' logic is that in this case we do all, in fact, agree Saddam was a bad man. That's not one superpower declaring him a bad man, risking the oh so overhyped slippery slope. We all agree he was a bad man, yes? As there isn't anyone who disputes this, we don't have to worry about somehow being arbitrary in determining this. EVERYONE AGREES.

As far as the administrations justification etc, obviously this was not the main reason they gave. I agree. What difference does it make when we're trying to assess the current situation in Iraq?

Don't believe I ever argued with you on whether or not the sky was falling. Do recall debating the merits of a war based on intel, the possibility that our avowed purpose might not be our real purpose, that we needed global support, etc. Sorry I was so far off base...

As to this: Obviously the point you sidestepped is that there are many universally acknowledged bad men, but when you pick and choose which bad men you take out, which you ignire, and which you support, and it happend to generally coincide with your own interests, the rest of the planet might not see those few you choose to take out as humanitarianism. And in doing such things for such purposes, you are yourself making moves similarly motivated and carried out to those which bad men have themselves made.

Again, based predominantly on this war, the vast majority of the planet sees Bush as a bad man. What's the solution? Obviously, selectivity again.

[ROXRAN]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Don't believe I ever argued with you on whether or not the sky was falling. Do recall debating the merits of a war based on intel, the possibility that our avowed purpose might not be our real purpose, that we needed global support, etc. Sorry I was so far off base...

As to this: Obviously the point you sidestepped is that there are many universally acknowledged bad men, but when you pick and choose which bad men you take out, which you ignire, and which you support, and it happend to generally coincide with your own interests, the rest of the planet might not see those few you choose to take out as humanitarianism. And in doing such things for such purposes, you are yourself making moves similarly motivated and carried out to those which bad men have themselves made.

Again, based predominantly on this war, the vast majority of the planet sees Bush as a bad man. What's the solution? Obviously, selectivity again.

President Bush is a bad man for acting on a realized threat...You are eskewed in more ways than one!

[jo mama]

Originally posted by andymoon

The difference is that Clinton was lying about a blowjob and Bush was lying about the reasons to go to war. HUGE difference.

as the bumper-sticker says "no one died when clinton lied"

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by MacBeth
Don't believe I ever argued with you on whether or not the sky was falling. Do recall debating the merits of a war based on intel, the possibility that our avowed purpose might not be our real purpose, that we needed global support, etc. Sorry I was so far off base...

As to this: Obviously the point you sidestepped is that there are many universally acknowledged bad men, but when you pick and choose which bad men you take out, which you ignire, and which you support, and it happend to generally coincide with your own interests, the rest of the planet might not see those few you choose to take out as humanitarianism. And in doing such things for such purposes, you are yourself making moves similarly motivated and carried out to those which bad men have themselves made.

Again, based predominantly on this war, the vast majority of the planet sees Bush as a bad man. What's the solution? Obviously, selectivity again.

Not sidestepping anything. You claim there is danger in unilateral decisions about 'who is bad.' This is not such a case. Clearly no one supports Saddam. In fact the Iraqi people themselves clearly did not want Saddam in power and are glad he is gone. Therefore the premise of your critique, which starts with the RISK (not the fact, but the risk) of one power going overboard, is incompatible with the situation in Iraq. There was no mistake made. He was a bad man. The people over which he ruled think he's a bad man.

I understand why some of the world would question Bush's motives. He didn't make the case for Iraq properly. However, whether or not the world perceives the intervention as humanitarian is largely irrelevant to whether or not humanitarian objectives have in fact been achieved. As for people seeing him as a threat, we can remove him too! Fine by me.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
President Bush is a bad man for acting on a realized threat...You are eskewed in more ways than one!

LMFAO, I couldn't make this stuff up.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
Not sidestepping anything. You claim there is danger in unilateral decisions about 'who is bad.' This is not such a case. Clearly no one supports Saddam. In fact the Iraqi people themselves clearly did not want Saddam in power and are glad he is gone. Therefore the premise of your critique, which starts with the RISK (not the fact, but the risk) of one power going overboard, is incompatible with the situation in Iraq. There was no mistake made. He was a bad man. The people over which he ruled think he's a bad man.

I understand why some of the world would question Bush's motives. He didn't make the case for Iraq properly. However, whether or not the world perceives the intervention as humanitarian is largely irrelevant to whether or not humanitarian objectives have in fact been achieved. As for people seeing him as a threat, we can remove him too! Fine by me.

The unilateralism is in how bad, what the recourse is, and why this bad man and not others. I may have a headache. Many may agree I have a headache, Some may disagree that hitting me on the head and stealing my wallet might not be the best solution for my headache.

I am gladdened that you support Bush's removal as well. Are you down at Pall Mall or Downing St. petitioning for Operation Freedom USA? ;)

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
President Bush is a bad man for acting on a realized threat...You are eskewed in more ways than one!

Er...one of us is certainly eskewed, that's for sure.

P.S. Please pass on the infomration you have about the relization of the threat Iraq posed to us to the government, the CIA, etc. None of them seem to have it.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by MacBeth
The unilateralism is in how bad, what the recourse is, and why this bad man and not others. I may have a headache. Many may agree I have a headache, Some may disagree that hitting me on the head and stealing my wallet might not be the best solution for my headache.

I am gladdened that you support Bush's removal as well. Are you down at Pall Mall or Downing St. petitioning for Operation Freedom USA? ;)

There is much more consensus that Saddam was a bad actor than against the intervention in Iraq, to put it in perspective. Certainly we can disagree on what the solution to the problem is, but no one asserts that Saddam was not a genocidal despot. So saying 'who gets to decide who's bad, how do we know we're not just saying that out of self interest,' is silly. Why is it silly? Because EVERYONE agrees he is/was a bad actor.

Arguments about 'why Saddam instead of other despots' aren't really relevant to the question of whether or not removing him was a desirable or undesirable thing. Whether it would be good to remove Kim Jr does not affect this question. To generalize situations as different as the PRC and Iraq is dangerous and hardly realistic. We couldn't invade the PRC and change their government if we wanted to. Does that mean we shouldn't have stopped genocide in Bosnia? No, it doesn't.

As far as Bush, I recommend voting against him. That's the cool thing about not having a despot in power...one of the cool things Iraqis hopefully will soon be able to particpate in.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by HayesStreet
There is much more consensus that Saddam was a bad actor than against the intervention in Iraq, to put it in perspective. Certainly we can disagree on what the solution to the problem is, but no one asserts that Saddam was not a genocidal despot. So saying 'who gets to decide who's bad, how do we know we're not just saying that out of self interest,' is silly. Why is it silly? Because EVERYONE agrees he is/was a bad actor.

Arguments about 'why Saddam instead of other despots' aren't really relevant to the question of whether or not removing him was a desirable or undesirable thing. Whether it would be good to remove Kim Jr does not affect this question. To generalize situations as different as the PRC and Iraq is dangerous and hardly realistic. We couldn't invade the PRC and change their government if we wanted to. Does that mean we shouldn't have stopped genocide in Bosnia? No, it doesn't.

As far as Bush, I recommend voting against him. That's the cool thing about not having a despot in power...one of the cool things Iraqis hopefully will soon be able to particpate in.


A) It would be hard for it to be 'much more', in that over 90% of the planet was opposed to the invasion.

B) It is entirely relevant. Big picture.

If you don't dismiss the possibility, as much of the world doesn't, that the US can be a threat to world peace, then it's motivation for it's actions are as relevant as those actions themselves. Remember, as I;ve told you many, many times, virtually every expansionistic empire in history has given 'reasons' for it's expansion beyond extending it;s own power, and many of those have been more credible and held up longer than the reasons we gave for this one. So, as such, if you look at why Iraq and why not all kinds of other nations, IF the difference is because some in power feel that excercising our power in Iraq is to our benefit whereas in , say, Liberia it is not, then the long term ramifications might and to many would supercede the short term benefits of removing a dictator. Among other reasons, it will be important because the residents of the region themselves will be less prone to support the transformation as directed by us if they feel we are there for our interests not theirs. And, guess what, that's the way most Irais feel. And how well is it going?

For the rest of the planet, if they see us acting aggressively only against those despots whose overthrwo benefits us, and ognoring or supporting the others, they will be less prone to give us the support on this and future enterprises. As we see currently. There is virtually no debate as to the lessening of our international standing as a result of this action, and we have never been this mistrusted before. It's can't all be everyone else's fault.

This is not an isolated incident. Even if it were, the fact that we sold this war with different reasons, reasons which have failed to materialze, is worth more than a shrug. It begs many questions, and answeres some. For one thing...if our motivations were humantiarian and democratic, why did we subvert our own democratic process to accomplish it? As with a witness on the stand, once you;ve been caught lying, especially as many times as we have, then the tendancy to look at your motivations in the best light thereafter is remote, especially when other reasons more in keeping with your established pattern are available.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by MacBeth
A) It would be hard for it to be 'much more', in that over 90% of the planet was opposed to the invasion.

And yet, there it is. I don't see anyone proposing that Saddam was not a bad actor. Do you? However, I do see quite a few people, including Iraqis who are glad we removed him from power.

Originally posted by MacBeth
B) It is entirely relevant. Big picture.

If you don't dismiss the possibility, as much of the world doesn't, that the US can be a threat to world peace, then it's motivation for it's actions are as relevant as those actions themselves. Remember, as I;ve told you many, many times, virtually every expansionistic empire in history has given 'reasons' for it's expansion beyond extending it;s own power, and many of those have been more credible and held up longer than the reasons we gave for this one. So, as such, if you look at why Iraq and why not all kinds of other nations, IF the difference is because some in power feel that excercising our power in Iraq is to our benefit whereas in , say, Liberia it is not, then the long term ramifications might and to many would supercede the short term benefits of removing a dictator. Among other reasons, it will be important because the residents of the region themselves will be less prone to support the transformation as directed by us if they feel we are there for our interests not theirs. And, guess what, that's the way most Irais feel. And how well is it going? For the rest of the planet, if they see us acting aggressively only against those despots whose overthrwo benefits us, and ognoring or supporting the others, they will be less prone to give us the support on this and future enterprises. As we see currently. There is virtually no debate as to the lessening of our international standing as a result of this action, and we have never been this mistrusted before. It's can't all be everyone else's fault.


Remember, as I've told you many times, every intervention is exercised with 'reasons' why its good. That's true of those we'd consider justified or not. I can say both that and the intervention in Iraq was justified. You saying that doesn't prove it wasn't justified. In addition, if your argument were true then interventions in places where we DO NOT have interests should increase our 'credibility.' They don't as proven by Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia and Haiti among others.

As far as Iraq I think they are quickly tiring of the 'insurgency.' As long as we continue to move toward leaving they'll be pushing them out more and more.



Originally posted by MacBeth
This is not an isolated incident. Even if it were, the fact that we sold this war with different reasons, reasons which have failed to materialze, is worth more than a shrug. It begs many questions, and answeres some. For one thing...if our motivations were humantiarian and democratic, why did we subvert our own democratic process to accomplish it? As with a witness on the stand, once you;ve been caught lying, especially as many times as we have, then the tendancy to look at your motivations in the best light thereafter is remote, especially when other reasons more in keeping with your established pattern are available.

If it's not an isolated incident, then we'd hardly have a great deal of credibility anyway. Kinda takes out the impact to your international credibility argument. Anyway, I never said Bush's main justification was humanitarian, although it was certainly present, so I'm not sure what you get for that. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that Bush justified the intervention properly. As per our usual conversations, however, that doesn't mean its not justified, or that its not a good thing overall. And you should also consider that many of the same people you would point to that consider the US a threat to world peace would have said the same thing (some did in fact, like Arafat, and many 'people in the region') when we invaded Iraq under the UN banner. An action that you supported, unless I'm mistaken.

[Woofer]

They can't be as bad, otherwise the military would not need to call up 5600 soldiers involuntarily.


http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=885608&tw=wn_wire_story

Army Plans Involuntary Call-Up of Thousands




Monday, June 28, 2004 11:16 p.m. ET

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday.


The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in those two countries.

Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity.