"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.
Printable View
"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.