Zarqawi is dead...

[j2k4]

...in an air raid.

How 'bout that? :)

A minor victory, at any rate...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198651,00.html

[GepperRankins]

i heard he died ages ago. :dabs:


you're right though. a very minor victory :ermm:

[ZaZu]

As well as are tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's ...

[j2k4]

As well as are tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's ...

And how many are directly attributable to to Zarqawi and Al Qaeda?

Arguably, most of them.

It seems innocents are a trivial concern when considered against the desire to service fundamentalist Islam...

[GepperRankins]

arguably, i'm responsible for most of them :blink:

[lynx]

arguably, i'm responsible for most of them :blink:Maybe so.

However, it seems innocents are a trivial concern when considered against the desire to service fundamentalist republicanism...

[Formula1]

Good riddance.

[GepperRankins]

arguably, i'm responsible for most of them :blink:Maybe so.

However, it seems innocents are a trivial concern when considered against the desire to service fundamentalist republicanism...
i remember when j2 aksed us to prove how exactly fox news is biased. i guess not seeing that joke coming kinda proves fox aren't reporting on the same news as everybody else.



:smugasschortle:



please note: this is a theory, not fact.



:moresmuglarfter:



though, i figure with all these theories on the iraq war giong tits up and global warming. republicans don't think much of speculation.





:ohjesusi'mhigh:

[thewizeard]

lucky so and so, all those (7!) beautiful virgins, waiting for him..heh

[cpt_azad]

To quote a song

"Good riddance, though I'm sad to say, I didn't get to kill you"

That guy needed to be taken out a loooooong time ago, but just goes to show that eventually shit actually gets done over there.

[j2k4]

lucky so and so, all those (7!) beautiful virgins, waiting for him..heh

I heard all the virgins are actually males.

This is not publicized, apparently.

[j2k4]

However, it seems innocents are a trivial concern when considered against the desire to service fundamentalist republicanism...

Yes, I suppose it would be better to leave Iraq to the like of Zarqawi and his ilk, who like to intimidate the hoi polloi and hide amongst them whilst conducting their "insurgency", fomenting civil war and sectarian violence.

I suppose we could have pushed for a U.N. resolution, if we'd desired genuine impact, huh? :dry:

[cpt_azad]

lucky so and so, all those (7!) beautiful virgins, waiting for him..heh
I heard all the virgins are actually males.

This is not publicized, apparently.

:lol: Maybe we should start handing out leaflets of this information to the "insurgents". I think terrorism would stop over night.

[j2k4]

I heard all the virgins are actually males.

This is not publicized, apparently.

:lol: Maybe we should start handing out leaflets of this information to the "insurgents". I think terrorism would stop over night.

I propose that, if we snag UBL, we turn him (with skullduggery and non-U.N. approved drugs) into an anti-Islamist puppet.

Then we can preach religious tolerance and look like the good guys so as to rehabilitate our international reputation on the cheap. :dry:

[lynx]

I don't think the current US or the UK governments have an international reputation worth rehabilitating.

The problem is that both governments claim that everything they do is good, and nothing they do ever has a negative impact. And they expect intelligent people to believe this crap. Unfortunately some are too blinkered to even consider questioning what their governments tell them.

As soon as our governments start to use spin and propaganda to convince us that what should be self evident is true I'm immediately suspicious that they are doing it to hide something, otherwise what would be the point.

I'm not arguing that getting rid of al-Zarqawi is a bad thing. However, in virtually consecutive statements Tony Blair has condemned international attacks, then congratulated the US Air Force on their successful mission.

Until we get rid of governments with this sort of mindset there's little hope for peace anywhere.

[j2k4]

I don't think the current US or the UK governments have an international reputation worth rehabilitating.

The problem is that both governments claim that everything they do is good, and nothing they do ever has a negative impact. And they expect intelligent people to believe this crap. Unfortunately some are too blinkered to even consider questioning what their governments tell them.

As soon as our governments start to use spin and propaganda to convince us that what should be self evident is true I'm immediately suspicious that they are doing it to hide something, otherwise what would be the point.

I'm not arguing that getting rid of al-Zarqawi is a bad thing. However, in virtually consecutive statements Tony Blair has condemned international attacks, then congratulated the US Air Force on their successful mission.

Until we get rid of governments with this sort of mindset there's little hope for peace anywhere.


Tell me, then:

When has it ever been otherwise?

I was wondering the other day, even in light of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, the alleged incident in Haditha, and all the other "atrocities" committed by American troops, when has a nation at war conducted itself any more integrity?

I don't mean to be facetious here, but I don't recall any historical examples of wars conducted with such honor and dignity the participants were recognized for it...

On that same tack, the U.S. has been chastised for perceived dereliction of a proper observance of the Geneva Convention, and generally scurrilous behavior in the field.

International "opinion" dictates the U.S. hew to the highest standard, yet the only institution on earth whose standard of conduct ought to be higher (as judged by it's charter and reputation) is the United Nations, which suffers no such expectation nor the slings and arrows of denunciation.

Curious, that...:huh:

[lynx]

When has it ever been otherwise?Ah, the old "it's happened before so it's ok to continue" excuse.

Do you have any information on when the next holocaust is planned?

[Mr JP Fugley]

When has it ever been otherwise?Ah, the old "it's happened before so it's ok to continue" excuse.


Pretty much what I was thinking.

[Biggles]

He was hit by two 500lb bombs which totally flattened the small house he was in. They removed his body, which was remarkably intact, and he tried to crawl off the stretcher. It is the stuff of horror movies! One suspects that whatever was inside him transferred to the poor sod that put him back on the stretcher

Zarqawi 2 showing soon :ph34r:

More seriously, it will be interesting to see what the implications of this will be. It is said that Bin Laden was a tad unhappy with the randomness of his killing spree. Will Zarqawi prove a better AQ propaganda tool dead than he was alive?

At least the Shias can breathe easier. His attacks seemed to be directed at them more than anything else. It will have little impact on the Shia attacks on British forces in the South or Ba'athist attacks on US forces in the North. However, I am sure this is already well understood in coalition circles. As J2 said, a small victory and really rather a long time in coming.

[j2k4]

When has it ever been otherwise?Ah, the old "it's happened before so it's ok to continue" excuse.


It has happened before, but I haven't hinted that it is OK.

While noting that there is nothing inherently more transparent or honest about a Socialist than a Capitalist system, I will admit that the deck is stacked against any ready change in all cases.

Are we to be precluded then from discussing such things?

Although your inability to countenance my views extends far beyond mere ideology, perhaps you'd tender some of your valuable time and focus your laser-like intellect to addressing that particular problem?

I await the imminent posting of your visionary solution.

Of course, if you're just inclined to nit-pick...

[lynx]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Personally I just hate the "it happened before argument" as a way of justifying what you do. If you follow that logic you can justify just about anything, including things like torture ffs.

I've just thought of a phrase "Let's get all medieval on their sorry asses." I can hear GW saying now.

[Mr JP Fugley]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.


Do you feel that to have done nothing would have been a better option?

Please don't take that as some sort of challenge to your argument, it isn't. It is simply a question I wish to put to you, no more than that.

[j2k4]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.


What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

[Mr JP Fugley]

My point was that western governments seem willing to condemn atrocities committed by Islamic fundamentalists, while at the same time condoning similar acts when perpetrated in the name of "democracy".

This attitude may be ok with you, it isn't ok with me and it certainly isn't ok with millions of Muslims. That was pretty obvious before our governments embarked on this ill-conceived war, yet they still chose to twist the evidence to suit their own purposes.

To suppose that they were unaware of the probable outcome is unbelievable, so one has to suspect that what has happened was their ultimate goal. Because of the terrain they were getting nowhere in Afghanistan so the solution was to cause instability in the Iraq and get the "enemy" to come to them. When the expected the influx of insurgents occured they could then pick off the leaders in actions such as this.

So if you want to apportion blame about who has caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, and coalition troops, you need look no further than our own governments.


What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

Your constant return to this "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" really does sadden me.

If we choose to behave like them and fight in any way we want. If we disregard the rules, then what makes us different from them. Please don't say "they started it". I wouldn't expect it from my 13 year old and I don't expect it from you.

We make rules of conflict because, morally and ethically we think they are correct. If other people choose to ignore them then surely that is even more reason why we should not.

[Biggles]

Is this the moral relativism I have heard tell of?

[j2k4]

Your constant return to this "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" really does sadden me.

If we choose to behave like them and fight in any way we want. If we disregard the rules, then what makes us different from them. Please don't say "they started it". I wouldn't expect it from my 13 year old and I don't expect it from you.

We make rules of conflict because, morally and ethically we think they are correct. If other people choose to ignore them then surely that is even more reason why we should not.

To extract a nice, neat "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" sound-bite is to miss the point, and by a rather wide margin.

We are bound by the rules?

Fine; we'll play by them (and we are, by and large, and allowing for the normal human behavior which leads to an occasional cock-up).

They are not so obligated?

Again, fine.

We have chosen a fight we feel is necessary and that we must win.

Let us do the job; if you want to help, fine, if not, STFU...the U.N. is your mouthpiece and will speak for you.

We are bound to fight with one arm bound behind us and three fingers and a thumb hacked from the other hand, and all you can do is bitch.

Again, fine.

I'm still okay with Zarqawi being out of the picture, which was my original point.

[StephG]

Your constant return to this "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" really does sadden me.

If we choose to behave like them and fight in any way we want. If we disregard the rules, then what makes us different from them. Please don't say "they started it". I wouldn't expect it from my 13 year old and I don't expect it from you.

We make rules of conflict because, morally and ethically we think they are correct. If other people choose to ignore them then surely that is even more reason why we should not.

To extract a nice, neat "they don't play by the rules, so we shouldn't either" sound-bite is to miss the point, and by a rather wide margin.

We are bound by the rules?

Fine; we'll play by them (and we are, by and large, and allowing for the normal human behavior which leads to an occasional cock-up).

They are not so obligated?

Again, fine.

We have chosen a fight we feel is necessary and that we must win.

Let us do the job; if you want to help, fine, if not, STFU...the U.N. is your mouthpiece and will speak for you.

We are bound to fight with one arm bound behind us and three fingers and a thumb hacked from the other hand, and all you can do is bitch.

Again, fine.

I'm still okay with Zarqawi being out of the picture, which was my original point.


That was a whole load of words, totally devoid of a point.

The position you constantly return to is that they break the Geneva Convention, so why should people moan when we also break it? If you genuinely don't know the answer to that, then you really are no better than those you decry.

"Let us do the job; if you want to help, fine, if not, STFU...the U.N. is your mouthpiece and will speak for you."

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Let me rephrase it "My way or the highway". I think not.

[Biggles]

I think it fair to say that Zarqawi chose to live and die by the sword, if not in Iraq then almost certainly elsewhere.

However, I am not convinced, and never have been, that the Iraqis deserved having their backyard used for an ideological battleground. An awful lot of innocent men, women and children have died at the hands of both sides in this struggle. I do not believe history will be kind to Bush, Blair or Bin Laden. (Saddam had already secured "git of the 1980s/90s award in the history books).

It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to question the morality of the chosen battleground, nothwithstanding that there is a terrorist threat to counter. The latter was why the US had the full support of the UN to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and why there are Canadian, French, Russian and German troops assisting in that cause. The decision to turn Iraq into a front line was purely George Bush's call, not Bin Laden's. If we had concentrated in ensuring stability in Afghanistan and honouring the pledges of aid there then the Zarqawis would have headed to and been defeated in Afghanistan and we would not have our forces and resources split.

[StephG]

Is this the moral relativism I have heard tell of?
Probably

[j2k4]

We have chosen a fight we feel is necessary and that we must win.



That was a whole load of words, totally devoid of a point.

The position you constantly return to is that they break the Geneva Convention, so why should people moan when we also break it? If you genuinely don't know the answer to that, then you really are no better than those you decry.

"Let us do the job; if you want to help, fine, if not, STFU...the U.N. is your mouthpiece and will speak for you."

What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Let me rephrase it "My way or the highway". I think not.

I have, in other threads, made clear why I think we went into Iraq rather than merely huddling in Afghanistan (a relatively inconsequential country, insofar as it has no oil) and taking care of the Taliban.

Those who think the terrorists would have come to us in Afghanistan are (1) wrong, and (2) selling Afghanistan short in lieu of Iraq-Afghanistan has citizens, too, if I'm not mistaken.

It only stands to reason that Iraq was the best candidate in the region (given Saddam's habits) for something approaching a democracy; Saudi Arabia, while a distasteful prospect as an ally, is relatively stable, but not inclined to be as well-rounded (and militarily capable) as is necessary to take a hand, regionally.

These things were regarded as the desired potentiality of Iraq.

More to the point though, we are there, and to leave at this particular point would be a mistake, or maybe you'd have preferred we vacate and leave Iraq to Zarqawi, bin Laden and the like?

You seem to think a swift departure will lead to peace in the mideast and no more 9/11s, 3/11s, 7/7s or other terrorist activity anywhere ever again.

What precisely do you propose we do, StephG?

[lynx]

Do you feel that to have done nothing would have been a better option?Probably, and certainly not in the way it was undertaken.

No doubt some will suggest that to be an endorsement of Saddam Hussein, but it is nothing of the sort. Look at the facts in a little more detail.

Firstly, Saddam Hussein was more or less "under control". A lot of what went on since the first Gulf War was posturing and verbal rhetoric intended for internal consumption. The west knew that.

Secondly, there was never any suggestion that his removal was because of human rights violations (for want of a better all encompassing phrase).

Indeed, there were much more deserving targets for such action. For example Somalia, where earlier actions had damaged the non-west-friendly warlord sufficiently that a west-friendly one held more power. No reduction in the human rights abuses though, even though they exceeded those in Iraq many times over.

Ask yourself why the western governments did not pursue his removal on humanitarian grounds. It would have got much more support at the UN, even though it would still not have got a resolution. But such a motive would not have raised the ire of the "local" population in the same way that an impossible search for non-existent WMD would, and would therefore be less likely to achieve the true objective.

However, once the failure to find any WMD became apparent, and thousands of Iraqis had died in bombing raids, the suggestion that it was all good because it stopped the human rights abuses was brought up. That this was simply a ruse was obvious, and almost certainly added to the rising tension in the area.

We need to stop staring at where our governments are directing out gaze, and look at what's going on in the background. That's where we'll find the real truth about what's going on.

[j2k4]

Do you feel that to have done nothing would have been a better option?Probably, and certainly not in the way it was undertaken.

No doubt some will suggest that to be an endorsement of Saddam Hussein, but it is nothing of the sort. Look at the facts in a little more detail.

Firstly, Saddam Hussein was more or less "under control". A lot of what went on since the first Gulf War was posturing and verbal rhetoric intended for internal consumption. The west knew that.

The West knew what, exactly?

Precious little, as it turns out; the "question" of WMD was not a question, beforehand-EVERYONE believed Saddam possessed them, and EVERYONE had intelligence that indicated this was so; we had even seen him use them in the past.

Subsequent stories to the effect they were hidden/buried, moved to Syria, dumped in the Euphrates, what-have-you, lead to no conclusive disposition.

In any case, the fact no WMD was found has now become a panacea for all those who claim to have "known it all along".

For them, hindsight is a boon, indeed.

To suggest they knew what every intelligence service (not to mention the U.N. and it's inspectors) did not know is gratuitous opportunism.

Secondly, there was never any suggestion that his removal was because of human rights violations (for want of a better all encompassing phrase).

Indeed, there were much more deserving targets for such action. For example Somalia, where earlier actions had damaged the non-west-friendly warlord sufficiently that a west-friendly one held more power. No reduction in the human rights abuses though, even though they exceeded those in Iraq many times over.

Then are we to conclude that to imperil the lives of extant Somalians would weigh less heavily on the consciences of those who would prefer Iraq be left alone?

Ask yourself why the western governments did not pursue his removal on humanitarian grounds. It would have got much more support at the UN, even though it would still not have got a resolution. But such a motive would not have raised the ire of the "local" population in the same way that an impossible search for non-existent WMD would, and would therefore be less likely to achieve the true objective.

Humanitarian grounds were a sidelight of what was thought the greater issue-WMD and the potential terrorist connections.

In either case, as has been mentioned throughout this section, many times, and in many places, you put your chips on the square with the greatest potential yield, and that was Iraq (remember the accusations self-interest?)

BTW-

What does "...much more support at the UN, even though it would still not have got a resolution." count for?

UN resolutions over Iraq were totally meaningless, if you'll remember; it follows that "support" would have meant commensurately less.

However, once the failure to find any WMD became apparent, and thousands of Iraqis had died in bombing raids, the suggestion that it was all good because it stopped the human rights abuses was brought up. That this was simply a ruse was obvious, and almost certainly added to the rising tension in the area.

This is true, though artfully worded; it gives the impression that the claims to have stopped human-rights abuses were issued in direct response to innocents being bombed.

Without discounting the terrible toll this has taken on the Iraqi citizens, I have seen instances of polls purporting to question them as to a continued coalition presence there, and the result is generally in the negative.

If they were polled as to whether, when all is said and done, they'd prefer a democracy (after their own fashion) or a fundamentalist existence under, say, a Muqtada al Sadr?

Now, there's a better question.

We need to stop staring at where our governments are directing out gaze, and look at what's going on in the background. That's where we'll find the real truth about what's going on.

Sounds like a plan.

What's the background telling you?

[Busyman™]

The West knew what, exactly?

Precious little, as it turns out; the "question" of WMD was not a question, beforehand-EVERYONE believed Saddam possessed them, and EVERYONE had intelligence that indicated this was so; we had even seen him use them in the past.

Subsequent stories to the effect they were hidden/buried, moved to Syria, dumped in the Euphrates, what-have-you, lead to no conclusive disposition.

In any case, the fact no WMD was found has now become a panacea for all those who claim to have "known it all along".

For them, hindsight is a boon, indeed.

To suggest they knew what every intelligence service (not to mention the U.N. and it's inspectors) did not know is gratuitous opportunism.
:lol: :lol:

There have been accounts of GWB turning his attention Iraq "out of the blue" before this great intelligence surfaced. I believe this great intelligence surfaced after GW made his decision. I don't believe his decision came because of the intelligence. All o dat was a sell for everyone else.

Even with that intulugunce, many didn't believe it. I sure thought it was bullshit. Maybe Bush was reading Nostradamus writings and thought Saddam was starting to wear a blue turban.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4]
:lol: :lol:

There have been accounts of GWB turning his attention Iraq "out of the blue" before this great intelligence surfaced. I believe this great intelligence surfaced after GW made his decision. I don't believe his decision came because of the intelligence. All o dat was a sell for everyone else.

Even with that intulugunce, many didn't believe it. I sure thought it was bullshit. Maybe Bush was reading Nostradamus writings and thought Saddam was starting to wear a blue turban.

I believe what I said was relative only to the question of whether Saddam had WMD; that the administration chose to use this as a justification for the war is beside my point.

As for who believed and who did not, what we have is enough documentation to fill the National Archive with statements by every member of our government as well as those of most others.

What you have is a facetious and anecdotal claim of prescience.

This is not an uncommon phenomenon.

[Busyman™]

[QUOTE=Busyman™]

I believe what I said was relative only to the question of whether Saddam had WMD; that the administration chose to use this as a justification for the war is beside my point.

As for who believed and who did not, what we have is enough documentation to fill the National Archive with statements by every member of our government as well as those of most others.

What you have is a facetious and anecdotal claim of prescience.

This is not an uncommon phenomenon.
Hmmm, if the West knew very little whether Sodom had WMD then that is the point.

Sorry, I can say "I knew it all along" since it wasn't found.

One can speculate it was moved to Syria or Russia for all I care. It wasn't found in Iraq and our soldiers are dying for squat. At least in Vietnam was a real threat. The difference there was whether it was any of our business.

Maybe in 20 years time a Republican controlled Congress can manufacture greatness to GWB and rename some of our monuments and subway stops after him.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=j2k4]
Hmmm, if the West knew very little whether Sodom had WMD then that is the point.

You may not put words in my mouth...

Sorry, I can say "I knew it all along" since it wasn't found.

...while you put whatever you like into your own.

One can speculate it was moved to Syria or Russia for all I care. It wasn't found in Iraq and our soldiers are dying for squat. At least in Vietnam was a real threat. The difference there was whether it was any of our business.

The difficulty here is functionaries in Saddam's regime are the source of such stories, but, no matter how believable, we'd have to invade Syria to continue the chase, you see?

Once again, you are free to type whatever words you like in response, although I'm sure you were already aware of all this.

Maybe in 20 years time a Republican controlled Congress can manufacture greatness to GWB and rename some of our monuments and subway stops after him.

I'm quite sure you are wrong about this, although the likelihood of a Republican-controlled Congress, while an iffy proposition, is a much better bet than a Democrat one.

[Busyman™]

Ahhh....that's right. Let's not leave out the rest of the ME.

[QUOTE]I'm quite sure you are wrong about this, although the likelihood of a Republican-controlled Congress, while an iffy proposition, is a much better bet than a Democrat one.
....and your point of reference is what, the last 7 years?

I think we are due for a change...mmmyesyes, that's right.

On a side note, I do like how the gay marriage has come again only recently and where the hell have those colored alerts gone off too? I miss the White House and military working so closely together.

[Ava Estelle]

The West knew what, exactly?

Precious little, as it turns out; the "question" of WMD was not a question, beforehand-EVERYONE believed Saddam possessed them, and EVERYONE had intelligence that indicated this was so; we had even seen him use them in the past.

Everyone? You seem to be conveniently forgetting the inspectors who were there immediately before the invasion, the ones who were forced to leave before finishing their job, and who's subsequent report concluded that in their opinion there were no WMDs. Why did Bush order the invasion only two weeks before the inspectors were due to finish their task, could it have anything to do with the leaked details of their probable conclusions?

[Rat Faced]

The West knew what, exactly?

Precious little, as it turns out; the "question" of WMD was not a question, beforehand-EVERYONE believed Saddam possessed them, and EVERYONE had intelligence that indicated this was so; we had even seen him use them in the past.

Subsequent stories to the effect they were hidden/buried, moved to Syria, dumped in the Euphrates, what-have-you, lead to no conclusive disposition.

In any case, the fact no WMD was found has now become a panacea for all those who claim to have "known it all along".

For them, hindsight is a boon, indeed.

To suggest they knew what every intelligence service (not to mention the U.N. and it's inspectors) did not know is gratuitous opportunism.

Well quite a few million people all over the world didnt believe he had them... you might remember all the demonstrations?

Then there was the inspectors, pointing out that the US and UK were refusing to let them have the equipment to prove what they already believed, that there was no WMD left and it had already been destroyed.

Mostly it was the US and UK Governments trying, and failing, to convince anyone from memory...

[Rat Faced]

What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

Then why did you (The USA) arm, finance and encourage them whilst the Russians were in Afganistan? The Afgan government of the time, after all, had been democratically elected and invited the Russians in.

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

Not for the Iraqi's... if you want to fight a battle, then i think its morally incorrect to involve an innocent population that was previously not part of the fight. You just lost the moral highground in a sentence.

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

Then why didnt you stop them beforehand? We all know that the last thing Clinton did was tell Bush that Bin Laden and terrorism was his most important issue and gave a load of intelligence on which to continue, if he wished, the eradication of their training camps through bombing and/or assisination etc.. the new administration chose to ignore the advice and intelligence until it was way too late.


The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

Hang on... a couple of sentences ago, you just admitted that it was a case of "better there than here", implying that was the reason... what exactly is your argument? YOU FORCED THEM TO BE HOST, the opposition didnt chose the battlefield, you did!

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

Nothing that has happened couldnt have been predicted. I managed it before the invasion and without the highly bought intelligence. I'm not exactly in the highest IQ ratings and i dont have professional qualifications in psychology. It was just plain bloody common sense ffs.

[j2k4]

The West knew what, exactly?

Precious little, as it turns out; the "question" of WMD was not a question, beforehand-EVERYONE believed Saddam possessed them, and EVERYONE had intelligence that indicated this was so; we had even seen him use them in the past.

Everyone? You seem to be conveniently forgetting the inspectors who were there immediately before the invasion, the ones who were forced to leave before finishing their job, and who's subsequent report concluded that in their opinion there were no WMDs. Why did Bush order the invasion only two weeks before the inspectors were due to finish their task, could it have anything to do with the leaked details of their probable conclusions?

I have emboldened the operative statement in your post; it should cure that which ails you, as well as Rat.

Odd, too, your following statement to the effect that the inspectors' ...subsequent report CONCLUDED with their OPINION that there were no WMD.

Such reports are supposed to CONCLUDE with FACTS, I believe, and NOT mere opinions.

BTW-

The proper acronymic term is WMD, not WMDs, unless you have unilaterally decided to ignore the hidden 'S' on the end of the 'W' (short for WEAPONS) in WMD.

Sorry to be indulging that particular peccadillo at this juncture, but, well...there it is.

[Rat Faced]

Actually, the correct acronym is NBC.

WMD is a spin thing.

Plus... they couldn't give facts as they were refused the equipment that would have furnished facts, as you well know. ;)

[j2k4]

What we have here, then, is a very basic disagreement.

In today's world (a world I am somewhat at odds with), it would seem that the oppressive/repressive/regressive/aggressive Islamic-fundamentalist imperative is morally equivalent to Democracy.

I disagree.

Then why did you (The USA) arm, finance and encourage them whilst the Russians were in Afganistan? The Afgan government of the time, after all, had been democratically elected and invited the Russians in.

The world was a vastly different place in 1980, Rat.

Any nascent terrorist movement was somewhat less than apparent at the time, and Soviet expansionism was the largest foreign policy concern on our plate.

I would have thought you old enough to remember all this...

I have problems with certain aspects of our foray into Iraq, but if the pre-war forecast was for a prolonged post-Saddam insurgency wherein terrorists would flood the country in order to fight us infidels, then fine; better there than here.

Not for the Iraqi's... if you want to fight a battle, then i think its morally incorrect to involve an innocent population that was previously not part of the fight. You just lost the moral highground in a sentence.

The "moral highground"?

Who said anything about "moral highground"?

There is nothing moral about war; I have never said there was.

Along the same line, however, have you any comment on the morality of terrorism?

BTW-I have heard that Al Qaeda is shopping for a country, and has Somalia in it's sights.

Would you favor admitting them into the U.N.?

We can't negotiate them out of existence, the U.N. is totally ineffective, and we cannot abide their continued freedom to act as they have.

Then why didnt you stop them beforehand? We all know that the last thing Clinton did was tell Bush that Bin Laden and terrorism was his most important issue and gave a load of intelligence on which to continue, if he wished, the eradication of their training camps through bombing and/or assisination etc.. the new administration chose to ignore the advice and intelligence until it was way too late.

We all "know"?

I "know" I heard testimony from the Clintonites to that effect; beyond that, it's difficult to tell for sure.

Clinton didn't lift a finger over the USS Cole bombing, yet he "told" Bush UBL and Al Qaeda should be his highest priority?

Actually, I think the reason we didn't stop them beforehand was precisely the same reason they weren't stopped in Spain, or (ahem) London.

The poor Iraqis are suffering the effects of the cancer which has unfortunately chosen them as host, and if the terrorists fought according to Geneva rules, this would have long been over, but, hey, we're bound by the rules, right?

Hang on... a couple of sentences ago, you just admitted that it was a case of "better there than here", implying that was the reason... what exactly is your argument? YOU FORCED THEM TO BE HOST, the opposition didnt chose the battlefield, you did!

The "opposition" is not a native force either, Rat.

Call that one a draw.

How's about a U.N. resolution that we take the gloves off and fight....fair?

My opinion, of course.

Nothing that has happened couldnt have been predicted. I managed it before the invasion and without the highly bought intelligence. I'm not exactly in the highest IQ ratings and i dont have professional qualifications in psychology. It was just plain bloody common sense ffs.

Yeah.

If you are claiming to have predicted all of this beforehand...well, let's just say I think that's just a wee bit of a stretch.

You may have been a doubter, but I don't recall any lengthy prognostications.

If this continues, I get dibs on green and purple. ;)

You can have yellow. :)

[lynx]

If I've read that right you argue that the opinions of those opposed the war are invalid because there were only expected conclusions rather than hard facts. This despite the observation there would have been hard facts if the US/UK hadn't interfered in the inspection process, and the expected conclusions have been proven to be correct.

Yet at the same time you argue that those governments can create a war based only on the so called "intelligence" of some shadowy figure, who's identity still has not been revealed. Yet even though that "intelligence" has been totally discredited, it was still valid to follow it.

Nice going.

Btw, don't bother with colours. When you get enough they will simply merge and become white, which you will no doubt then define as black. :dry:


"Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

[Busyman™]

"Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."
I like that one better..........

Maybe if he didn't attempt to meet the demands, he'd have been better off. :crazy:

[yyyang]

Don't know this man before.

[GepperRankins]

i noticed his corpse is pictured on western news.

[lynx]

"Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."
I like that one better..........

Maybe if he didn't attempt to meet the demands, he'd have been better off. :crazy:I liked that one too, but I just put it down to Bush's poor grasp of the English language. Now that I think about it, maybe it wasn't...:dry:

[Busyman™]

I like that one better..........

Maybe if he didn't attempt to meet the demands, he'd have been better off. :crazy:I liked that one too, but I just put it down to Bush's poor grasp of the English language. Now that I think about it, maybe it wasn't...:dry:
You need check out a recent HBO comedy special.

Lewis Black: We're All Screwed.

Quality stuff. Trust me. I've already watched the 1st 30 min. and he hasn't even talked about when he performed at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

[Rat Faced]

Nothing that has happened couldnt have been predicted. I managed it before the invasion and without the highly bought intelligence. I'm not exactly in the highest IQ ratings and i dont have professional qualifications in psychology. It was just plain bloody common sense ffs.

Yeah.

If you are claiming to have predicted all of this beforehand...well, let's just say I think that's just a wee bit of a stretch.

You may have been a doubter, but I don't recall any lengthy prognostications.

If this continues, I get dibs on green and purple. ;)

You can have yellow. :)

I stated quite categorically PRIOR to the Invasion that the only options if the invasion went ahead were:

1/ The break-up of Iraq into seperate countries, which will then proceed to war upon each other or

2/ Civil War or

3/ The establishment of another regime that is as bad as Hussain, that keeps the population quiet by fear. This would involve attacks on basic rights worse than those of Hussain in the last previous 10 years since the attack, in order to get the "Fear Factor" that he had enjoyed.


So far, we have an Iraqi Government that ignores Human Rights itself quite publicly, whilst at the same time quite willing to condemn the US publicly for the same thing, and the Country is heading quite quickly towards Civil War.

The fact that its heading towards Civil War is no longer even denied too heavily by either the US or UK Military, although the Politicians try and talk a brave talk.

I'd say that so far... yes, i predicted quite accurately.

Iraq is a "made up" country.

It was specifically made up the way it was in order to allow the British to "Govern" it without having to worry about Rebellion to British Rule.

It was designed from its inception for one purpose:

The population would fight each other rather than the British, whilst the British made free with its resources.

It worked quite well in this respect.


Im not proud of the above fact, however it has been known by the various World Governments since we gave "Iraq" its ""independance" in 1932 from our League of Nations Mandate with a hand picked Monarch that would do what we wished. It was reinforced again following our invasion during the 1941 Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī coup.

The country didnt really gain independance until 1945 (other than theoretically) with the creation of the UN, and still wouldnt have got away if they hadnt also managed to become a founding member of the Arab League in the same year when London wasnt looking in their direction.