Mongers,
Just more right wing reactionary scare tactics from our in-house Fox News analyst, Punter 127.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Printable View
Mongers,
Just more right wing reactionary scare tactics from our in-house Fox News analyst, Punter 127.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]And which facts would that be? Other than the conversation you had with your mirror about Bush's "secret plan" to draw in all the bad guys like a late night be movie Western I haven't noticed any "facts", just your own words which on this subject have become pretty laughable I'm sorry to say.[/QUOTE]Hi,
The "facts" are that we liberated Iraq, and as a result of our presence there, Al Qaeda was inexorabily drawn into a fight with our military there.
Which of these "facts" do you believe was the result of a "conversation" I had with my "mirror"?
BTW, I don't see anyone else laughing at this.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"[i]It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too.[/i]"
Jackson,
I do not think any reasonable examination of the situation in Iraq would deem the Iraqi people to be either free or united; therefore no liberation ever took place. Free? Meaning freedom of religion? Before long there will be a Shiite theocracy in place, with Iran pulling the strings. You can forget freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from self-incrimination; in those parts, vigilante justice takes care of the people who want those freedoms. There is no freedom in Iraq.
United? The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have been battling it out for over a thousand years; modern day Iraq is not a unified nation-state, but a conglomerate of convenience created post-WWI to ease the administration by the UK; think Raj India, which degenerated into Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Someday, the US military will leave Iraq (just like the UK army left Raj India) and the three components will split apart into separate entities.
So in reality, what are the results of the Iraq war? First we have an beefed-up and more confident Iran, who will someday in the near future run Iraq just as Syria ran Lebanon for so many years; we have a bankrupted US Treasury, along with damaged US prestige abroad, and trillions of dollars in pissed-away resources. Not to forget, we have over 4100 dead US servicemen, who died for nothing as part of a grand money making scheme by the neo-cons in power.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi,
BTW, I don't see anyone else laughing at this.[/QUOTE]I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.[/QUOTE]I laughed, but then I realize it wasn't a joke. It's hard enough to imagine that someone would consider us liberators before the invasion. But now, after all that has happened, it's almost unbelievable that someone could still hold that opinion.
What's the latest on Annie Oakley?
[QUOTE=Doggboy]What's the latest on Annie Oakley?[/QUOTE]I don’t know about Annie Oakley but Sarah Palin’s out winning the hearts (and votes) of the American people, and stealing the limelight from “BO”.
[QUOTE=Doggboy]What's the latest on Annie Oakley?[/QUOTE]The pitbull with lipstick is still out there with her dad trying to lie their way into the White House. The press is actually starting to pull the curtain back on the lies and phony claims of stewardship and her unremarkable and pedestrian career in government.
[QUOTE=Punter 127]I don't know about Annie Oakley but Sarah Palin's out winning the hearts (and votes) of the American people, and stealing the limelight from "BO".[/QUOTE]Just wait until Sarah has to start answering questions from a non vetted reporter. I think some of the shine will rub off.
I have no interest in converting you or anyone else to my way of thinking (one that is generally based on facts and reality rather than synthetic angst and injustice, fabricated in soft minds by pop media and academia)
I respect your right to say what want. However, I will take issue with some of your most egregious misstatements and point out some inaccuracies and falsehoods.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]Innocent states pay the prices when the big bully's like UK in 1947 in India & US in 2008 Iraq leave after looting all the wealth, oil, gold.[/QUOTE]So too do innocents pay the price under tyrannical dictators (please don't bother responding that Bush is a dictator or any of your other campus-sit-in slogans) However, any rational, objective view will tell you that fewer live under tyranny in Iraq today than in 2002. The facts are that of a population of approximately 29 million, under Saddam, about 28,999,900 lived under constant fear of his rule. You may cling to whatever misconceived notions you have about Iraq today, but I can assure you from first hand knowledge that parts of the country and populace are thriving. It is not to say that the place is perfect but it is better and getting better all the time. To postulate that life under Saddam wasn't so bad is just plain stupid.
The Human Rights Watch (not your everyday Neo-Con source) states, 'Since the overthrow of the Iraqi government in April 2003 by the U. S.-led coalition forces, over 250 mass graves have been located across Iraq. Some are believed to contain the remains of thousands of victims, including entire families.' Many hundreds of thousands of murders are directly attributable to Saddam. For example, in Anfal alone, he was responsible for killing 182,000 people.
As far as looting wealth, oil and gold, you could not be more wrong. This is just plain false. In the history of warfare, the ethos was 'to the victor goes the spoils.' However, since the Marshall Plan, America has done the exact opposite. While as the victor we stand in a position to repay ourselves for the cost of the war, through seizing oil revenues, however we do not. We will not. The fact is that US has not taken any material war booty or ill-gotten gains in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]You are fretting for your 4100 dead service men[/QUOTE]Your slight to our armed forces and indifference to the sacrifice that they have made exposes you ignorance of the reality of our world. The contribution to mankind of the US and Allied forces, since 1917, is evidenced in the facts that 1) you posted your comments in English rather than Russian, German or Chinese, 2) you are free to make such statements, and 3) you appear to be free to move about the world mongering and pursuing other forms of happiness.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]spare a thought or two for the millions of Iraqis who have been injured, killed, raped by the US servicemen.[/QUOTE]Please back up your statements with facts. Even if we take the June 2006 Lancet study – which has had much criticism and produced a number far higher than any developed by other non-US Govt sources including Iraq Body Count project, the United Nations, and the Iraqi Ministry of Health—you can't get remotely close to your wildly erroneous claim. The study's estimate for violent deaths occurring in Iraq for the period 2003-2006 isf 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) This credits the Coalition with those deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc, in addition to those killed by Coalition actions. Of those deaths, 31% (or 186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition.
The incidence rate of US abuses is extremely low and in all cases under investigation are limited to individuals and small groups of individuals. There are, as always with large groups of human beings, bad people among them. From the materials I could find, there are fewer than 50 allegations of rape by US servicemen in Iraq for the period 2003-2008 (in a country with 13 million female citizens)
"The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor."" (U. S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
Each murder, rape, torture and death of innocents and of our service men is a tragedy.
Your glib dismissal of the sacrifices made for your freedom and intentional regurgitation and dissemination of erroneous information reveals your ignorance and dogmatic worship and adherence to a hollow ideology. I am sure there is a steady stream of this drivel coming out of your mouth 24/7, so please don't feel the need to respond just wipe the spooge off your chin.
[QUOTE=Gato Hunter]Just wait until Sarah has to start answering questions from a non vetted reporter. I think some of the shine will rub off.[/QUOTE]I've been saying that about The Messiah for months.
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.[/QUOTE]Let's consider your theory from another perspective:
You would have us believe that of all the educated and experienced military minds working in the Pentagon, as well as all the dedicated professionals employed in the CIA, the NSA, etc, that NONE of them had the slightest idea, not the slightest inkling, that by the process of liberating Iraq that the possibility existed that Al Qaeda would subsequently migrate to Iraq and begin fighting our military there?
It's amazing that you think so poorly of our military and our intelligence agencies that you willingly believe that they could not and did not anticipate this phenomenon.
Frankly, accepting your primary counter-argument requires no less than the willing suspension of disbelief.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"[i]It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too.[/i]"
"The facts are that of a population of approximately 29 million, under Saddam, about 28,999,900 lived under constant fear of his rule."
Where is your support for that statement? That is not a fact; it's merely an assertion.
"The admiral said U. S. And NATO forces in Afghanistan blamed militant safe havens in Pakistan for launching bolder, more sophisticated attacks on U. S. And NATO forces in eastern Afghanistan. He also warned that time was running out on the ability of the West to provide Afghanistan with vital nonmilitary assistance for Afghanistan including roads, schools, alternative crops for farmers and the rule of law.
"These are the keys to success in Afghanistan. We cannot kill our way to victory and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone," Mullen said.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in sobering testimony before the U. S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee" 10 September 2008
WE CANNOT KILL OUR WAY TO VICTORY.
Jackson, I have no theory, the facts such as they are have ground themselves out over the past 6 years on the front pages and inside analysis of major newspapers and well researched books in the US. I'm glad to see you've abandoned any pretense of fact based information and are now freewheeling in pure speculation. I don't join you there and encourage you to willingly suspend your current beliefs long enough to take in new information and amend your thinking. You're currently off the rails on this one and no amount of creative thinking on your part is going to change the bottom line, an ill conceived and badly executed plan based on lies for invading another country that had nothing to do with the high jacked plane attacks that occurred in New York City on September 11th. Everything that happened as a result of the decision to attack Iraq became a "theory" in search a basis to justify the colossal bad judgment of a sitting president that made his decisions on "instinct".
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]...badly executed plan.[/quote]I disagree. It was a brilliantly executed plan, as evidenced by the speed and efficiency in which we defeated the 6th largest military in the world.
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]...based on lies for invading another country that had nothing to do with the high jacked plane attacks that occurred in New York City on September 11th.[/QUOTE]I agree, there was no connection. So what?
There was also no connection between Hitler's invasion of France and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, but we nevertheless responded to both threats.
BTW, you avoided my question: Do you believe that prior to the Iraq liberation that no one in the military or the government's intelligence agencies had any inkling of an idea that our presence in Iraq would attract Al Qaeda?
This is my core point, although you seem to want to expand it beyond my original context in order to facilitate your denigration of my theory, which is:
1. That Bush knew in advance that an additional benefit to liberating 36 million Iraqis would be that Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.
2. That this would be a fight in which Al Qaeda would be hopelessly out-numbered and out-classed, and in which they would be essentially be committing suicide.
3. That as a result, Al Qaeda would most certainly be too preoccupied to mount successful attacks on the US mainland.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"[I]It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too.[/i]"
Dickhead:
[QUOTE=Dickhead]"The facts are that of a population of approximately 29 million, under Saddam, about 28,999,900 lived under constant fear of his rule."
Where is your support for that statement? That is not a fact; it's merely an assertion.[/QUOTE]You are absolutely right, that it is not a fact nor was I trying to pass it off as a fact. Only 100 people out of 29MM didn't live in fear? Of course that isn't right. I made it up as an "illustration of the absurd" in that it was an overwhelming majority of the populace.
We can't go back in time and poll the people (especially those killed by Saddam) as to whether or not they feared him. We can however make some educated guesses. Clearly, the Shi'a and Kurdish populations had pretty good reason to fear him but even those of his own Ba'ath party were not immune to inhumane treatment and death. He was no friend to the Christians either. I do not know about the other smaller religions but suspect that they too didn't benefit from his rule.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq is 97% Muslim (Shi'a 60%-65% , Sunni 32%-37%); 3% are Christian and the remaining 2% is comprised of: Yazdânism, Mandaeism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Shabaks. The Kurds are about 15-20% of the Iraqi population (most Kurds are Sunni Muslims although the original religion was Yazidism and there are some Shi'a Kurds in Iran) Just counting the Shi'a, Kurds and Christians, we come to a range of 78%-88% of the population (or 22.6MM-25.5MM people) with good reason to fear him. That doesn't take into the fact that just because one was Sunni, they were safe from him.
To argue that Saddam did not have terrorist ties before war is again factually inaccurate (check out [url]http://www.husseinandterror.com/[/url]) It is also inaccurate to state that Saddam had connections to 911. The only people I have ever heard say such a thing are opposed to the war and state repeatedly that such a notion was part of our reasoning for going into Iraq. It wasn't. It also may come as a surprise to you, but Al-Qeada is not the only terrorist organization out there.
"According to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq is 97% Muslim (Shi'a 60%-65% , Sunni 32%-37%); 3% are Christian and the remaining 2% is comprised of...."
Ummmm: 97% + 3% + 2% = 102%
Of course, the CIA is not really a very good source of "facts" anyway as Salvador Allende's loved ones can attest to. You have both a glaring math error and a popular grammar error ("comprised of") in the same sentence. That detracts from your credibility, of course. And if you weren't trying to pass your earlier statement off as fact, why did you say, "the [b]facts[/b] are"?
All that other crap, you're confusing me with someone else since I certainly never said anything like Al-Qaeda was the only terrorist organization out there.
So you just make up as many facts as you like. I don't give a shit; I am outta there!
We need to hunt down and kill all these Zoroastrians before they achieve nuclear capability.
"According to Snopes. Com" = ignore. Sidney, of course, is hoping you won't take the trouble to read the linked article, which clearly states that the Obama campaign has made a copy of Michelle's thesis available to anyone who cares to read it.
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]The pitbull with lipstick is still out there with her dad trying to lie their way into the White House. The press is actually starting to pull the curtain back on the lies and phony claims of stewardship and her unremarkable and pedestrian career in government.[/QUOTE]Why didn ’t you just go ahead and say “lipstick on a pig ”?
You better hope they come up with something (or make something up) because it looks like the people of the heartland, (you know the “low education and working class mentality ” folks) relate to her more than they do a Chicago elitist windbag, and I know you don ’t like it but they get to vote.
The swing voters of “flyover country ” will be the deciding factor in this election, just like they have been in past elections.
I wonder what would happen if the loser of the presidential election became the vice-president by law. The more I think about this, the more appeal it has. Wouldn't that person then be the second-most qualified person and shouldn't they logically take over if the president dies? Wouldn't that introduce some true bipartisanism and prevent the group-think that plagues the Bush administration(s)? The VP don't do shit anyway so why not at least consider this?
Sorry for the minor errors, glad you pointed them out. I must admit that I rushed a bit and crossed up info from two sources on the religious composition. I do have some responsibilities in addition to checking out the finer things in Bs As, that eat into my posting time.
So based on my math being off 2% and grammatical mistake (EB White vs. Popular usage - in this forum of all things) you dismiss all the actual points out of hand (like the fact that you buddy Banknote was only off by a factor of 1075% in his piece)
Like I originally said, I am not interested in converting anyone to my POV, just trying to shed a little light on some serious falsehoods.
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Why didn 't you just go ahead and say "lipstick on a pig "?
You better hope they come up with something (or make something up) because it looks like the people of the heartland, (you know the "low education and working class mentality " folks) relate to her more than they do a Chicago elitist windbag, and I know you don 't like it but they get to vote.
The swing voters of "flyover country " will be the deciding factor in this election, just like they have been in past elections.[/QUOTE]Thanks Punter, it didn't occur to me that Sarah Palin might be like "lipstick on a pig". Good one and brave of you to call her out on this.
Actually I think Sarah Palin will be elected as VP when, ready?, Pigs have Wings.
Whether those heartland folks you describe, who I hope do cast their votes because the United States is a representative democracy, decide that -
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
[QUOTE=Jackson]I agree, there was no connection. So what?
There was also no connection between Hitler's invasion of France and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, but we nevertheless responded to both threats.
BTW, you avoided my question: Do you believe that prior to the Iraq liberation that no one in the military or the government's intelligence agencies had any inkling of an idea that our presence in Iraq would attract Al Qaeda?
This is my core point, although you seem to want to expand it beyond my original context in order to facilitate your denigration of my theory, which is:
1. That Bush knew in advance that an additional benefit to liberating 36 million Iraqis would be that Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.[/QUOTE]Lassie, get help!
Really, if you see Alice in Wonderland down there give our regards.
You can ignore the facts and reality as you please but I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. There's no rational answer to your question, sorry.
All I got to say is.
Regards,
BM.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Sorry for the minor errors, glad you pointed them out. I must admit that I rushed a bit and crossed up info from two sources on the religious composition. I do have some responsibilities in addition to checking out the finer things in Bs As, that eat into my posting time.
So based on my math being off 2% and grammatical mistake (EB White vs. Popular usage - in this forum of all things) you dismiss all the actual points out of hand (like the fact that you buddy Banknote was only off by a factor of 1075% in his piece)
Like I originally said, I am not interested in converting anyone to my POV, just trying to shed a little light on some serious falsehoods.[/QUOTE]I don't know Banknote from a plate of piss and I don't know what he was off by 1075% on. I [b]don't care[/b] if the Iraqi people were afraid of Sadaam or not. However, I don't think your tendency to invent facts is really going to be effective in shedding any light on anything. And if you want to swallow all the CIA's bullshit unquestioningly, that's fine too.
Oh, and by the way, what's your source for this: "For example, in Anfal alone, he was responsible for killing 182,000 people." I know, you "just made it up as an illustration of the absurd."
CIA = Covert International Assassins!
[QUOTE=Dickhead]CIA = Covert International Assassins![/QUOTE]I'm glad that we have [u]somebody[/u] to do what needs to be done.
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]Lassie, get help!
Really, if you see Alice in Wonderland down there give our regards.
You can ignore the facts and reality as you please but I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. There's no rational answer to your question, sorry.[/QUOTE]A typical liberal response: To avoid the embarrassment of answering the question, you instead suggest that I'm living in a LSD fantasy and that a dog should be dispatched to get me some help.
You can't answer the question because...
1. If you say "Yes, the US Government [u]did[/u] anticipate that invading Iraq would attract Al Qaeda to Iraq" then your "Bush is the world's stupidest President" theory is deflated, and...
2. If you say "no, the US government [u]did[/u] [u]not[/u] anticipate that invading Iraq would attract Al Qaeda to Iraq" then you would look ridiculous by inferring that thousands of military and intelligence professionals could not predict the obvious.
And that's my point: I'm stating that it was obvious to everyone at the time that by our presence in Iraq Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.
[QUOTE=Jackson]You avoided my question: Do you believe that prior to the Iraq liberation that no one in the military or the government's intelligence agencies had any inkling of an idea that our presence in Iraq would attract Al Qaeda?
This is my core point, although you seem to want to expand it beyond my original context in order to facilitate your denigration of my theory, which is:
1. That Bush knew in advance that an additional benefit to liberating 36 million Iraqis would be that Al Qaeda would be motivated to deploy in Iraq and attack our military.[/QUOTE]
I care this much.
[QUOTE=BadMan]I care this much.[/QUOTE]Bad we have had disagreements in the past but this is the best.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]Ha ha! I was smiling after reading your report. I was really entertained at your anger vented out at me. [/QUOTE]Anger? Venting? Just giving you my opinion and a few facts. I think your point of view and orientation make you perceive things that aren't really there.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]I am lucky I am not standing in front of you, you really seem to dislike me for what I wrote! [/QUOTE]You would be lucky to be standing here with me; I am a very agreeable person. You have nothing to fear from me. In fact, I am in town, let's have a drink. I'll buy the first round. I clearly stated that I respect your right to say what you want. I don't know you, how could I dislike you, yet. Let's get a drink and I can decide then whether or not I like you.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]However, I do not appreciate your blind faith in policies of USA. [/QUOTE]How do you know anything about my faith (blind or otherwise) or my sentiments regarding all US policies? I made a statement about pre and post war Iraq.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]It seems that US is some kind of noble country looking after the entire world or the entire world is living on US economy & resources.[/QUOTE]It is, many of them are. The world is always changing. When the shit hits the rotary oscillator, friends come out of the wood work and the US usually overlooks the slights that it has endured from those new found friends.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]However, I do have strong reasons to believe that Saddam was a emperor of his country & running well. [/QUOTE]You are entitled to think what you want. Please reread my first response, I think you missed something.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]Many people in the world shed tears when he was displaced by on pretext that he is producing chemical weapons (to date none have been found) He was tortured, his whole family killed by USA,[/QUOTE]I cried when Old Yeller died. Chemical weapons were one of many valid reasons. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq, although not in the quantities expected. That doesn't change the soundness of the decision.
What proof do you have that he was tortured?
Wrong, with the exceptions of Uday and Qusay, the rest of his family left Iraq are in exile in various other nations. Saddam in fact is credited with killing at least as many of his family (Hussein Kamel al-Majidas, Saddam Kamel al-Majid, and Adnan Khairallah Tulfah) as is the coalition forces (Saddam, Uday and Qusay)
[QUOTE=Bank Note]this is not the way to treat an Emperor of a country.[/QUOTE]I quite agree. I believe he was treated too well.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]Don't fool your self and your friends here by saying that no wealth is being looted from Iraq. In fact, big size Very large crude oil carriers (VLCCs) are regularly going to oil berths in Iraq and transporting oil to US. [/QUOTE]How else would you propose the transport the crude, row boats? I imagine the crude is destined for refineries, regardless of which country they happen to be in. The oil is part of the global supply (not a special "US Secret Supply" which would be hard to hide and would definitely bring the price at the pump) Don't kid yourself; the Iraqi government is paid for every drop of oil.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]Damn, your country is becoming richer thanks to Iraq war. [/QUOTE]On the contrary the US has spent billions on the war. Please provide me with some data on actual repayment let alone profit (profit is when you make more money than you spend in delivering a good or service) Why is the American deficit rising (in addition to drunken sailor spending in Washington and a few financial bailouts here and there)
[QUOTE=Bank Note]As far as freedom of movement in the world, thanks to US & allied forces. What a laugh! World has become a horrible place to travel! [/QUOTE]You're right, making the world "more interesting to travel" in your eyes is much more important that the freedom gained through WWI, WWII, the cold war and the Iraq War. My bad.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]You probably have a US passport & white skin so you don't know what anguish millions of people are going through while traveling these days with their humble passports and dark skin. [/QUOTE]Again, you know nothing about me, what I have seen and where I have been. Why should the color of my skin matter? The color of your skin does not matter to me.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]But do you or many of the Americans here ever shed a tear for thousands who die every fucking day in Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan on name of terrorism? [/QUOTE]Like I said, the loss of each innocent human life is a tragedy. I believe that to be true no matter where that loss of life occurs, what religion or color the victim is. How are they dying in the name of terrorism? I have many close friends from Lebanon, Egypt and the UAE, but I think of them as I do all my friends, without putting labels (race, religion, nationality) on them as it seems you are want to do.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]When a white man dies because of war, the world should come to a stop but dark skin man's life has no apparent value! How many times the world stops when bombs explode in Pakistan / Lebanon & innocent women & children die. [/QUOTE]Says who? See previous two answers. I would like to point out that I think it would be equally bad for all of us if the world actually stopped.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]Now, don't send me another nasty message because this message is not directed at you, Wild wallyeye. However, its just to make you & others aware that don't live in this notion that US is doing Iraq a favor by occupying it or by attacking it in first place or that British did a favor by ruling India for 100 years or that because of US, the rest of the world is surviving and eating two square meals![/QUOTE]
My notes aren't nasty unless you think it is nasty to be confronted with the truth. But your message is directed at me and implies that I am a racist. Again, we have differing opinions on Iraq.
I don't recall if I supported the Crown way back then, but I doubt it; my family has been on the receiving end of British rule, on two different continents. However, I hardly blame all Brits for that.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]However, I don't think your tendency to invent facts is really going to be effective in shedding any light on anything. Oh, and by the way, what's your source for this: "For example, in Anfal alone, he was responsible for killing 182,000 people." I know, you "just made it up as an illustration of the absurd."[/QUOTE]Exactly, I made it up before I presented it into the official record (at the Supreme Criminal Court, hearing the case of the anti-Kurdish Anfal Campaign, in Anfal) during Chemical-Ali's trial.
Sorry, should have sited that.
Jackson-
Your assertions are ridiculous and could only come from someone who has been living under a rock for the past 66 months. It is completely obvious and clear to ANYONE who has any understanding of the events that took place leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the years of chaos that followed that the Bush Administration had ABSOLUTELY NOT ANTICIPATED that a devastating insurgency would take hold. Do you really think George W. Shrub would have gone on that aircraft carrier in May 2003 and put on that dog and pony show with the slogan "mission accomplished" if he was expecting a never ending insurgency that would kill more than 10x as many US soldiers as the actual regular war that preceded it? Shrub's appointee to run the post war reconstruction and administration of Iraq, W. Paul Bremer completely failed at his job and made several horrible errors (mainly disbanding the Iraqi Army, and banning all Baathist from any security position, when they were the only ones with any experience in security) that directly caused the security vacuum that allowed the insurgency to flourish and a slew of foreigners to enter Iraq and begin the so-called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq".
Your argument is just a neo-conservative cop-out to try to spin the complete failure that is this Iraq expedition in a positive light. None of the stated desired consequences of the Neo-Cons have occured in Iraq; Saddam was not replaced with a western style democratic regime; Iraq has not and will never become a beacon of the west in the Middle East; in fact, it has become, and will become, more fundamentalist islamic as a result of the Iranian theocracy pulling the strings behind the shiite majority. The Neo-Cons did get two of their unstated desired consequences: jacked up oil prices and hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts for their cronies who manufacture war materials.
The US already had a foreign state to fight all the Al Qaeda "rabid dogs" as you like to call them; it's called Afghanistan. The US correctly attacked and invaded Afghanistan post 9/11 and then incorrectly shifted focus to a fruitless war in Iraq. Now Afghanistan is a mess again with Opium trafficking and Al Qaeda (via Taliban) is entrenched again there. Afghanistan should have been pacified and cleaned up 6 years ago, but as a result of the Iraq misadventure it was not.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Bremer, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld should all be tried for war crimes.
Rock,
Okay, I'll mark that down as one "No" vote.
It's unfortunate that you and others here seem to have absolutely no confidence in the thousands of educated, trained and experienced military personnel, CIA intelligence agents and NSA analysts, all of whom are dedicated to collecting and analysing volumes of data to which neither you or I am privy, and would instead like to presume that your own judgement is vastly superior.
Thanks,
Jackson
BTW, what is this "Failure" in Iraq you all continue to rant about. Talk about "living under a rock". In case you haven't heard, we're winning!