Up is down...
zolo
Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to invading
Iraq? Am I missing something?
I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
-zolo
John
Wrong. After Bush and his incompetence my political philosophy has
shifted to the middle. Thats what a President who lied to me about the
reasons for going to war with Iraq has done to me.
Steve Carroll
zolo <zo...@nospam.net> wrote:
The same John who claims to use Macs again and likes OSX better than XP
in some respects and actually ADMITS to it? Yup... I think he got into
Snit's pillbox...
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group". - Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
Robert Fovell
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Wow. JohnBoy, you're like a barometer, and thus have more than just
amusement value. Frankly, when laughably shallow, jerk-knee "thinkers"
like you start abandoning ship, the said ship is very likely doomed. It
will be amusing to watch the rats that still grimly hang on gnaw at your
ankles as you try to slither off the poop deck.
Now, for my part, I have never voted for a Democrat for president in my
life, but I simply don't see how I can give this incumbent my vote. The
saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
suspect millions more, feel this way.
--
"[Politics] asks for the highest type of men, and there's nothing in it
to attract the highest type of men. So we have to work with what we get -
and we get things like this." -- Raymond Chandler, "The Lady in the Lake"
Nashton
> In article <10do86f...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>zolo wrote:
>>
>>>I think I'm living in Bizarro World...
>>>
>>>Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
>>>film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
>>>same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
>>>nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to
>>>invading Iraq? Am I missing something?
>>>
>>>I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
>>>
>>>-zolo
>>
>>
>>Wrong. After Bush and his incompetence my political philosophy has
>>shifted to the middle. Thats what a President who lied to me about the
>>reasons for going to war with Iraq has done to me.
>
>
> Wow. JohnBoy, you're like a barometer, and thus have more than just
> amusement value. Frankly, when laughably shallow, jerk-knee "thinkers"
> like you start abandoning ship, the said ship is very likely doomed. It
> will be amusing to watch the rats that still grimly hang on gnaw at your
> ankles as you try to slither off the poop deck.
Oh, come on Robert, nothing wrong with a change of heart/allegiance.
Have you never changed your mind in your life?
>
> Now, for my part, I have never voted for a Democrat for president in my
> life, but I simply don't see how I can give this incumbent my vote. The
> saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> suspect millions more, feel this way.
In a strict sense, what you wrote about John can be also said about you.
You're also jumping ship because you are ideologically opposed to Bush
et al.
Nicolas
Bob S
> Wrong. After Bush and his incompetence my political philosophy has
> shifted to the middle. Thats what a President who lied to me about the
> reasons for going to war with Iraq has done to me.
What reasons do you recall Bush giving?
--
Cheers,
Bob S
John
Bob S <Bo...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
That there were large amounts of WMD and that Saddam would use them or
permit others to use them against the US.
Yet never did the CIA or any other intelligence agency have even one
actual piece of evidence(such as an actual observation of weapons by a
reliable source or method) that they existed. Read the book by Bob
Woodward "Plan Of Attack".
Snit
nospam-0DAFAD....@news.supernews.com on 6/25/04 11:26 AM:
> In article <Bob_S-11754F....@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bob S <Bo...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
>
>> In article <10do86f...@news.supernews.com>,
>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong. After Bush and his incompetence my political philosophy has
>>> shifted to the middle. Thats what a President who lied to me about the
>>> reasons for going to war with Iraq has done to me.
>>
>> What reasons do you recall Bush giving?
>
>
> That there were large amounts of WMD and that Saddam would use them or
> permit others to use them against the US.
And they could be readied in a very short time... I think it was in minutes,
but maybe hours.
>
> Yet never did the CIA or any other intelligence agency have even one
> actual piece of evidence(such as an actual observation of weapons by a
> reliable source or method) that they existed. Read the book by Bob
> Woodward "Plan Of Attack".
I just may do that... thanks.
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
zurg
Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Now, for my part, I have never voted for a Democrat for president in my
> life, but I simply don't see how I can give this incumbent my vote.
You know, if you had asked me within his first year-and-a-half, I would
have given Bush high marks, despite my political leanings. He could
have been the first Republican I would have voted for had he continued
doing what he did. I didn't agree with a lot of his policies, but I
still feel that he handled his initial response to 9/11 as best could
be expected. However, the whole Iraq thing, his unbelievable arrogance
toward the rest of the world, the subsequent revelations about his
administration's ties to PNAC and a slew of other lies have turned me
resolutely against him.
> The
> saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> suspect millions more, feel this way.
No, I disagree. He understands, but doesn't care. Recall that prior to
the invasion of Iraq, he made some public statement concerning those
massive worldwide protests happening (paraphrased): "I don't care
really. I'll be watching a football game." I could almost live with a
president who simply didn't have a clue, but one who consciously
ignores the voices of so many of his own people? There is no excuse for
that. I don't care how much you disagree, as the leader of what is
still ostensibly a democracy, you do not have the luxury of turning a
deaf ear to so many voices. That's the behavior of a tyrannt or a king,
not a president, not someone put in office to represent all of us.
zolo
Just keep in mind that you're talking about someone who truly believes
he ascended to the throne as part of God's will, and who thinks he is
speaking directly for God. Faith-based politics is a truly scary thing.
-zolo
Edwin
> In article <10do86f...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > zolo wrote:
> > > I think I'm living in Bizarro World...
> > >
> > > Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
> > > film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
> > > same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
> > > nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to
> > > invading Iraq? Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
> > >
> > > -zolo
> >
> >
> > Wrong. After Bush and his incompetence my political philosophy has
> > shifted to the middle. Thats what a President who lied to me about the
> > reasons for going to war with Iraq has done to me.
>
> Wow. JohnBoy, you're like a barometer, and thus have more than just
> amusement value. Frankly, when laughably shallow, jerk-knee "thinkers"
> like you start abandoning ship, the said ship is very likely doomed. It
> will be amusing to watch the rats that still grimly hang on gnaw at your
> ankles as you try to slither off the poop deck.
Damn, what a pompous, arrogant ass you are, Dr. Fovell! I've known
for some time you don't come to this group because of anything about
computers, but rather to strut your over-inflated ego.
> Now, for my part, I have never voted for a Democrat for president in my
> life, but I simply don't see how I can give this incumbent my vote. The
> saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> suspect millions more, feel this way.
Looks like you're in with the "shallow thinkers," eh? Watch your
ankles as you "slither off the poop deck."
--
Edwin
Bob S
John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > What reasons do you recall Bush giving?
>
>
> That there were large amounts of WMD and that Saddam would use them or
> permit others to use them against the US.
>
> Yet never did the CIA or any other intelligence agency have even one
> actual piece of evidence(such as an actual observation of weapons by a
> reliable source or method) that they existed. Read the book by Bob
> Woodward "Plan Of Attack".
I believe you are incorrect. It is true the US presented "evidence" to
the Security Council about alleged WMDs, but the reason for the
incursion was not WMDs, but Iraq's violation of 14 UN resolutions. I
kid you not. Go back and look it up.
--
Cheers,
Bob S
John
Bob S <Bo...@NoSpam.Com> wrote:
And specifically HOW did the alleged violations of those 14 resolutions
actually threaten the US if THERE WERE NO WMDs?
Elizabot
> In article <_YUCc.25796$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> zolo <zo...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I think I'm living in Bizarro World...
>>
>>Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
>>film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
>>same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
>>nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to invading
>>Iraq? Am I missing something?
>>
>>I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
>>
>>-zolo
>
>
> The same John who claims to use Macs again and likes OSX better than XP
> in some respects and actually ADMITS to it?
The same John who has stated:
"Moore isn't profiting from 9/11. He is profiting from the bumbling
boobs of the dumbest president in US history(and of course a Mac user)."
"The idiotic Bush IS a Mac user."
"Don't forget Bush is an idiotic Mac user too."
"Today President Bush(a known Mac user) announced his plans to legalize
all the illegal immigrants. Stupid. What else can be expected of one
who makes such a stupid choice in a computing platform."
> Yup... I think he got into Snit's pillbox...
Indeed!
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
LOL! What's up with this 'I'm a Mac user again' crap he has going,
though? He's even taken to writing some positive comments vs. XP.
Something's up...
Elizabot
Nothing's "up." John isn't that devious. He's given Mac OS X a real try
and found out why we all like it so much! His previous mac-ownership
experience was with 8.x, so I can understand his reluctance to try OS X.
I assume Apple will release another update that will correct his
wireless printing problem soon, if his problem is indeed OS related.
George Graves
Especially since he is now saying that he LIKES OSX and finds it much
more "elegant" than XP. I think you're on to something.
--
George Graves
------------------
"This election is shaping up great. Our choices
are a guy who has a lot of second thoughts, or
a guy who has never had a first thought."
-- Jay Leno
George Graves
Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <10do86f...@news.supernews.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > zolo wrote:
> > > I think I'm living in Bizarro World...
> > >
> > > Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
> > > film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
> > > same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
> > > nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to
> > > invading Iraq? Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
> > >
> > > -zolo
> >
> >
> > Wrong. After Bush and his incompetence my political philosophy has
> > shifted to the middle. Thats what a President who lied to me about the
> > reasons for going to war with Iraq has done to me.
>
> Wow. JohnBoy, you're like a barometer, and thus have more than just
> amusement value. Frankly, when laughably shallow, jerk-knee "thinkers"
> like you start abandoning ship, the said ship is very likely doomed. It
> will be amusing to watch the rats that still grimly hang on gnaw at your
> ankles as you try to slither off the poop deck.
>
> Now, for my part, I have never voted for a Democrat for president in my
> life, but I simply don't see how I can give this incumbent my vote. The
> saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> suspect millions more, feel this way.
I'm with you, Bob. I CANNOT vote for Bush, and I will not break my
life-long record of voting AGAINST democrats. So, I will not be voting
for Kerry either. I have no intention of being a party to putting that
left-wing liberal asshole in the Whitehouse. I weep for the next four
years as Kerry tries to remake America into some kind of Socialist
Utopia.
Jeff Barber
There are many wars that are fought within the intelligence
agencies, one of those wars is between HUMINT and SIGINT
(human intelligence vs. signals intelligence). Historically
speaking, past administrations have usually sided with
SIGINT, for various reasons, one being its general reliability,
its apparent stability. (This is a picture of a mobile
rocket launcher. See the engine, see the rocket, etc.)
Apparently, it's beginning to look like this administration
has chosen to more fully side with the HUMINT side of the
house. Choosing to believe evidence provided by sources
like Chalabi instead of evidence, or lack of evidence,
provided by satellites, antennas, etc.
Ahmed Chalabi is an example of the pitfalls of HUMINT.
He wasn't a reliable source of intelligence. Oops!
Robert Fovell
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
> Robert Fovell wrote:
>
> > In article <10do86f...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>zolo wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think I'm living in Bizarro World...
> >>>
> >>>Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
> >>>film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
> >>>same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
> >>>nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to
> >>>invading Iraq? Am I missing something?
> >>>
> >>>I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
> >>>
> >>>-zolo
> >>
> >>
> >>Wrong. After Bush and his incompetence my political philosophy has
> >>shifted to the middle. Thats what a President who lied to me about the
> >>reasons for going to war with Iraq has done to me.
> >
> >
> > Wow. JohnBoy, you're like a barometer, and thus have more than just
> > amusement value. Frankly, when laughably shallow, jerk-knee "thinkers"
> > like you start abandoning ship, the said ship is very likely doomed. It
> > will be amusing to watch the rats that still grimly hang on gnaw at your
> > ankles as you try to slither off the poop deck.
>
> Oh, come on Robert, nothing wrong with a change of heart/allegiance.
> Have you never changed your mind in your life?
Of course I have. We're talking about the JohnBoy unit here.
> >
> > Now, for my part, I have never voted for a Democrat for president in my
> > life, but I simply don't see how I can give this incumbent my vote. The
> > saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> > suspect millions more, feel this way.
>
> In a strict sense, what you wrote about John can be also said about you.
> You're also jumping ship because you are ideologically opposed to Bush
> et al.
Well, I don't think of myself as "jumping ship", because I was never a
willing passenger to begin with.
Robert Fovell
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> In article <rfovell-45FD6D...@news.supernews.com>, Robert
> Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Now, for my part, I have never voted for a Democrat for president in my
> > life, but I simply don't see how I can give this incumbent my vote.
>
> You know, if you had asked me within his first year-and-a-half, I would
> have given Bush high marks, despite my political leanings. He could
> have been the first Republican I would have voted for had he continued
> doing what he did. I didn't agree with a lot of his policies, but I
> still feel that he handled his initial response to 9/11 as best could
> be expected.
I agree.
> However, the whole Iraq thing, his unbelievable arrogance
> toward the rest of the world, the subsequent revelations about his
> administration's ties to PNAC and a slew of other lies have turned me
> resolutely against him.
All this "lies" stuff has been, IMHO, hideously overblown. The far left
repeats the same old song, trying to make it fester into fact (and they
appear to be succeeding). Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did. Did
the case against Saddam wind up being exaggerated? It seems so. But
did he lie? I don't think so. I very clearly recall a case against
Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
It doesn't matter that WMDs have not been found; I'll bet you Saddam
thought he had them. Anyway, that's by the bye, and I don't feel like
debating it. It wasn't the right war at the right time, and I would
have spent those billions the war has cost us very, very differently.
I'll tell you what: have you been listening to Gore lately? I'm no fan
of Bush, but deep down I'm glad Gore was not elected. Is this the real
Gore now, or is it just an act? Anyway, it's hideous. I hate what is
happening to public discourse in this country.
>
> > The
> > saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> > suspect millions more, feel this way.
>
> No, I disagree. He understands, but doesn't care. Recall that prior to
> the invasion of Iraq, he made some public statement concerning those
> massive worldwide protests happening (paraphrased): "I don't care
> really. I'll be watching a football game."
There can be very excellent reasons for ignoring "worldwide protests".
Shades of the nuclear freeze-niks of old. They were vociferous, they
were strident, and they were very wrong.
> I could almost live with a
> president who simply didn't have a clue, but one who consciously
> ignores the voices of so many of his own people? There is no excuse for
> that. I don't care how much you disagree, as the leader of what is
> still ostensibly a democracy, you do not have the luxury of turning a
> deaf ear to so many voices. That's the behavior of a tyrannt or a king,
> not a president, not someone put in office to represent all of us.
I seem to be unable to even start describing how and why I disagree with
what you have written. Maybe I need to let it marinate in my mind for
awhile. My rebuttal might start with something like this: Leadership is
not accomplished by public opinion poll. If it had been conducted that
way in the past, you'd be speaking German now.
--
"Fascists divide in two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists."
-- Ennio Flaiano
Robert Fovell
There is some comfort in the fact that JohnBoy's narrow-gauge mind (I'm
embracing and extending this from George; thank you <g>) cannot but
label everything he disagrees with as being a result of "incorrect
platform preference". It means that one need not consider what he says
seriously. His mind is too narrow-gauge to grok that.
<s>
--
"Pessimists are right more often than not, and when they are wrong they are
pleased to be so." -- George F. Will
Robert Fovell
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <_YUCc.25796$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> zolo <zo...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > I think I'm living in Bizarro World...
> >
> > Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
> > film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
> > same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
> > nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to invading
> > Iraq? Am I missing something?
> >
> > I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
> >
> > -zolo
>
> Especially since he is now saying that he LIKES OSX and finds it much
> more "elegant" than XP. I think you're on to something.
Perhaps JohnBoy is slightly more savvy than his childishly ineloquent
posts suggest. Perhaps he has finally realized that what he espouses
and endorses appears, ipso facto, moronic, wrong and/or ridiculous. So,
he has decided to endorse Michael Moore and the Mac, and to diss Bush,
all in a plan to further his beloved Windows and political agenda.
Either that or he slipped on a bar of soap during his semi-annual shower
and now has a brain tumor the size of a grapefruit.
Jeff Barber
Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
There's a definite bias associated with the Mac. One
never endorses Rush Limbaugh and the Mac.
Michael Moore and the Mac.
Rush Limbaugh and the Mac.
One of these things is not like the other.
Of course, we now have reason to believe that Rush's judgement
may have been affected by drugs. Unfortunately, this is
not entirely an excuse designed to make us Maccies feel good.
As Mayor would doubtless inject, "Yeah, musta been the drugs
to make him buy a Mac!" I can just hear him saying it. What
does Mayor sound like? Surprisingly like Archie Bunker, after
an evening of tire smoke.
We need an evolution in Usenet, where the posts are spoken with
the poster's audio signature file attached. We then wouldn't
need caps and emoticons, I'm sure. Although sarcasm might not
come across so well. Age might not translate either, I'm confidant
Jason's voice would match "Malcolm In The Middle" in tone;
"Liberals are so stupid. Saddam is evil!"
John
And Bush was too ignorant to realize that there was NO real
intelligence.
George Graves
Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
Hmmm. Just trying to figure what somebody with a brain tumor that's
definitely larger than his brain would look like....
ZnU
Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
Well, the reality is that (as polls demonstrate) the American people
ended up believing all sorts of things about 9/11 and Iraq which were
untrue, and which the administration almost certainly knew were untrue,
or at least knew were unreliable. How did this happen? Somehow I have
trouble believing it was all an accident.
The evidence against Saddam did not "wind up" being exaggerated. It was
willfully exaggerated. Now, I'm not one of those people who believes
this war as all about contracts for Haliburton; I have no doubt the
administration really believed that taking out Saddam was the right
thing to do. But misleading people in the name of a cause you believe to
be right is still wrong.
> It doesn't matter that WMDs have not been found; I'll bet you Saddam
> thought he had them. Anyway, that's by the bye, and I don't feel like
> debating it. It wasn't the right war at the right time, and I would
> have spent those billions the war has cost us very, very differently.
>
> I'll tell you what: have you been listening to Gore lately? I'm no fan
> of Bush, but deep down I'm glad Gore was not elected. Is this the real
> Gore now, or is it just an act? Anyway, it's hideous. I hate what is
> happening to public discourse in this country.
I caught a Gore speech a month or six weeks ago (the "not in our name"
speech), and I thought it was great stuff. Why didn't he do that when he
was running for president? Why doesn't Kerry do it now? This "play it
safe" nonsense didn't work for the Democrats in the mid-term elections,
and if it works for Kerry now it'll only be because Bush is so awful.
> > > The
> > > saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> > > suspect millions more, feel this way.
> >
> > No, I disagree. He understands, but doesn't care. Recall that prior to
> > the invasion of Iraq, he made some public statement concerning those
> > massive worldwide protests happening (paraphrased): "I don't care
> > really. I'll be watching a football game."
>
> There can be very excellent reasons for ignoring "worldwide protests".
> Shades of the nuclear freeze-niks of old. They were vociferous, they
> were strident, and they were very wrong.
Plus, Fox News told me all those protesters in Europe had really been
duped by Marxists. (I kid you not. And these words came out of the mouth
of a Fox News reporter on scene, not some right-wing pundit. How can
anyone take Fox seriously?)
> > I could almost live with a
> > president who simply didn't have a clue, but one who consciously
> > ignores the voices of so many of his own people? There is no excuse for
> > that. I don't care how much you disagree, as the leader of what is
> > still ostensibly a democracy, you do not have the luxury of turning a
> > deaf ear to so many voices. That's the behavior of a tyrannt or a king,
> > not a president, not someone put in office to represent all of us.
>
> I seem to be unable to even start describing how and why I disagree with
> what you have written. Maybe I need to let it marinate in my mind for
> awhile. My rebuttal might start with something like this: Leadership is
> not accomplished by public opinion poll. If it had been conducted that
> way in the past, you'd be speaking German now.
--
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences,
and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences."
-- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004
Mike Engles
Hello
Of course no mention of Israeli violations of UN resolutions.
Mike Engles
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <rfovell-E373AA...@news.supernews.com>,
> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <250620041155559846%zu...@fakeaddress.com>,
> > zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <rfovell-45FD6D...@news.supernews.com>, Robert
> > > Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > repeats the same old song, trying to make it fester into fact (and they
> > appear to be succeeding). Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did. Did
> > the case against Saddam wind up being exaggerated? It seems so. But
> > did he lie? I don't think so.
Here's where we disagree. There were more distortions than accuracies
in the run up to war. And there still is a torrent of bs flowing from
Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz's mouths. I cut Rumsfeld some slack since
oddly enough he seems to have a better grip on reality than the rest
of the crew.
"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" -- George Bush, March 2002
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_covers/0,10987,1101030331-435968,00.html
"I haven't made the decision for war" (paraphrase) -- George Bush,
2003
> > I very clearly recall a case against
> > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
> > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
> > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
unlimited access doing the inspection thing. The fact is Bush in his
weirdest, most animatronic press conference, the last one before the
bombing started, told the world he was going to have the UN "show
their cards" to get the final, necessary UN approval to launch the
war. Which he then promptly failed to do.
Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
right it's not even fucking funny.
> > I seem to be unable to even start describing how and why I disagree with
> > what you have written. Maybe I need to let it marinate in my mind for
> > awhile. My rebuttal might start with something like this: Leadership is
> > not accomplished by public opinion poll. If it had been conducted that
> > way in the past, you'd be speaking German now.
I catch the drift, but I think you underestimate the power of
resistance and/or overestimate the power of the overlord. WW2 is
actually a very good example of the added costs of giving the benefit
of the doubt to madmen -- reading Churchill's writings when he was the
voice in the wilderness should be required for every pacifist and
big-L liberal.
The country lost 2000 men, plus the poor sods captured in our isolated
Pacific garrisons due to being flatfooted and not actively,
preemptively defending our interests in late 1941. Yet retaining the
moral highground has its upside -- when the time came for the Japanese
to surrender, they could largely come to the realization that their
launching of the war was a wrong. If the war had started by eg. our
B-17s in the Phillipines interdicting troop transports heading to
Singapore (which is why FDR had flown them there in the first place),
things could have been a lot murkier, IMV.
The leftists (and even conservatives like Chamberlain) were wrong to
assume peace could be guaranteed via talk. Credible capability, and
the will to use it, is critical. But there is a false dichotomy
lurking here, and I think now spending $500B/yr on cold-war scale
defense really isn't very cost-effective, and Bush's reckless and
morally unjustifiable war of choice has done more to harm US world
power than eg. anything Carter did during his lame term of office.
And don't bring up the fucking plastic shredders. We've killed ~10,000
and maimed ~50,000 civilians in a year of fighting, all for fuck-all
at this point. Even if things miraculously turn out for the better in
the end, the costs of this little adventure were way, way, way too
high.
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <250620041155559846%zu...@fakeaddress.com>,
> zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
> appear to be succeeding). Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did. Did
> the case against Saddam wind up being exaggerated?
nice use of the passive voice, btw. Says a lot about your thinking processes.
John
imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
Robert is capable of thinking? Not from what I have seen.
david raoul derbes
You need a better set of glasses.
For my money, Robert Fovell is the wittiest guy in this newsgroup.
David Derbes
Sean Burke
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> I'm with you, Bob. I CANNOT vote for Bush, and I will not break my
> life-long record of voting AGAINST democrats. So, I will not be voting
> for Kerry either. I have no intention of being a party to putting that
> left-wing liberal asshole in the Whitehouse. I weep for the next four
> years as Kerry tries to remake America into some kind of Socialist
> Utopia.
Don't waste your vote - vote libertarian!
-SEan
George Graves
ZnU
Jeff Barber <jeffte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think it's more that this administration chose to side with whoever
would tell them what they wanted to hear.
Alan Baker
Yes. I'm sure with your limited vision that you can't see much.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Heywood Mogroot
Most perispacious, yes. It pains me to disagree with him so vehemently
on this issue.
Really a curveball from him. He appeared more perceptive in his
writing.
david raoul derbes
I well understand that George, Robert and other people more conservative than
I (a) can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry and (b) really don't want
to vote for Bush.
Why not write in a candidate you _do_ like or vote Libertarian or something
else?
I hope everyone eligible to vote _does_ vote. I hope Bush is not returned
to the White House.
David Derbes
Steve Carroll
> ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:<znu-C3C689.0...@individual.net>...
> > In article <rfovell-E373AA...@news.supernews.com>,
> > Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <250620041155559846%zu...@fakeaddress.com>,
> > > zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <rfovell-45FD6D...@news.supernews.com>, Robert
> > > > Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > repeats the same old song, trying to make it fester into fact (and they
> > > appear to be succeeding). Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did. Did
> > > the case against Saddam wind up being exaggerated? It seems so. But
> > > did he lie? I don't think so.
>
> Here's where we disagree. There were more distortions than accuracies
> in the run up to war. And there still is a torrent of bs flowing from
> Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz's mouths. I cut Rumsfeld some slack since
> oddly enough he seems to have a better grip on reality than the rest
> of the crew.
>
> "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" -- George Bush, March 2002
>
> http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_covers/0,10987,1101030331-435968
> ,00.html
>
> "I haven't made the decision for war" (paraphrase) -- George Bush,
> 2003
What you just presented appears to be a potential distortion of its own.
I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
assert. For all we know, Bush could have thought a strong possibility
existed that SH could be removed from the inside when he made this
statement... without resorting to war. Not being there to see the
context, it could have even been a lame attempt at humor. The article
did state that the Congressmen laughed, albeit uncomfortably. Who saw
this happen to know the actual context? And did they convey the entire
context when they wrote about it? I'd need a much firmer statement about
overtaking Iraq than this in order to believe what you're asserting. As
ludicrous as you may think all of this is... none of it is as ludicrous
as what you just presented and the manner in which you presented it.
> > > I very clearly recall a case against
> > > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
> > > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
> > > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
>
> WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
> The fact is Bush in his
> weirdest, most animatronic press conference, the last one before the
> bombing started, told the world he was going to have the UN "show
> their cards" to get the final, necessary UN approval to launch the
> war. Which he then promptly failed to do.
I don't believe Bush ever said anyone's approval was necessary. I'd like
to see your evidence that backs your insinuation here. Personally, I
think you got caught with your paraphrasing pants around your ankles but
I'll give you the opportunity to back your play.
> Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
> for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
> posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
> my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
> right it's not even fucking funny.
It's easy to think you are right on stuff like this... but the only
thing you are right on so far that I have seen is that it is the U.N.'s
business. But you are overlooking where they already were wrt that
business... it was business they had already agreed to do. When Powell
stood on the floor of the U.N., now aware he could expect to be voted
against on what they had all just agreed to do, he talked about the
meetings that created 1441 and led to the unanimous signing. He said,
very plainly, that EVERYONE knew what they were talking about if Iraq
continued with their non-compliance. They all knew it meant going in.
They all knew it was a 'final opportunity'. No one... not one single
person challenged this statement on the U.N. floor. The cameras inside
the meeting room were panning to faces that weren't able to look Powell
in the eye when he spoke. The only spineless pieces of shit that did
bother to challenge his statement, waited until they got in front of the
cameras outside to do so. It was FUCKING obvious the game that was being
played. If you missed this then you are excused. If not, you are simply
fooling yourself or trying to fool others. The 'crock' here was how
dirty were the hands of certain veto-capable countries. Go read 1441, it
DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T say
anything about more inspections, sanctions etc. in the event of
continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be. The only topic
that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity' was blown.
That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
resolution. As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to comply
with 1441. As Powell stated (unchallenged), everyone knew what that
meant... that things were going to be done whether Iraq was cooperative
or not. Cooperation wasn't going to happen with SH in power. Given the
history of defiance and broken resolutions over the very same issues,
that much was already blatantly obvious. Even David Kay said "confirming
a country's voluntary disarmament is a job that should not take months
or years." Bottom line is... things could have turned out very
differently had SH realized that some of the countries were giving more
than lip service to this 'final opportunity' resolution.
Snit
fretwizz-AC5687...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/27/04 12:30 PM:
Nothing you say show that is how it appears. You show a logical possibility
of it, but not an appearance of it. Do you know the difference?
> I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
> assert.
Other than in mathematics, what would you consider conclusive proof of
anything? People can lie. Pictures can be distorted. People can remember
incorrectly. We *could* all be brains floating in vats. What proof is
completely, undeniably, conclusive?
> For all we know, Bush could have thought a strong possibility
> existed that SH could be removed from the inside when he made this
> statement... without resorting to war.
Do you have any support for this idea?
> Not being there to see the context, it could have even been a lame attempt at
> humor.
Unlikely... and there is no reason to think this that I can see.
> The article did state that the Congressmen laughed, albeit uncomfortably.
If you see that as support for the idea that it was humor, then your
knowledge of human behavior is pretty darn weak. I am not suggesting it is
counter-support, but it is hardly support.
> Who saw this happen to know the actual context? And did they convey the entire
> context when they wrote about it? I'd need a much firmer statement about
> overtaking Iraq than this in order to believe what you're asserting.
Here you actually make sense.
> As ludicrous as you may think all of this is... none of it is as ludicrous as
> what you just presented and the manner in which you presented it.
At least you admit your ideas are "ludicrous"... harsher criticism than I
was giving them.
>
>>>> I very clearly recall a case against
>>>> Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
>>>> it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
>>>> to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
>>
>> WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
>> unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
>
> You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
Can you prove this... beyond *any* doubt?
>
>> The fact is Bush in his
>> weirdest, most animatronic press conference, the last one before the
>> bombing started, told the world he was going to have the UN "show
>> their cards" to get the final, necessary UN approval to launch the
>> war. Which he then promptly failed to do.
>
> I don't believe Bush ever said anyone's approval was necessary. I'd like
> to see your evidence that backs your insinuation here. Personally, I
> think you got caught with your paraphrasing pants around your ankles but
> I'll give you the opportunity to back your play.
How kind of you... as I will give you a chance to *prove* your above claim
about Blix.
>
>> Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
>> for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
>> posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
>> my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
>> right it's not even fucking funny.
>
> It's easy to think you are right on stuff like this... but the only
> thing you are right on so far that I have seen is that it is the U.N.'s
> business. But you are overlooking where they already were wrt that
> business... it was business they had already agreed to do.
Can you prove this idea? Where did the UN agree to allow the US to
overthrow Saddam?
> When Powell stood on the floor of the U.N., now aware he could expect to be
> voted against on what they had all just agreed to do, he talked about the
> meetings that created 1441 and led to the unanimous signing. He said, very
> plainly, that EVERYONE knew what they were talking about if Iraq continued
> with their non-compliance.
Who cares what Powell said others meant... what did the others say they
meant. Do you not see how Powell's interpretation may not be accurate... in
fact, can you prove this his view had any merit whatsoever?
> They all knew it meant going in.
Can you prove this?
> They all knew it was a 'final opportunity'. No one... not one single
> person challenged this statement on the U.N. floor.
Lack of publicly challenging the sole world super power is not an indication
of agreement.
> The cameras inside the meeting room were panning to faces that weren't able to
> look Powell in the eye when he spoke.
Here you present evidence that people in the room may not have been in
agreement, even if they did not directly challenge him.
> The only spineless pieces of shit that did
> bother to challenge his statement, waited until they got in front of the
> cameras outside to do so.
So they *did* challenge him... just not "on the U.N. floor". Seems clear
they did not agree. OK.
> It was FUCKING obvious the game that was being played.
What game... and can you prove it?
> If you missed this then you are excused. If not, you are simply
> fooling yourself or trying to fool others. The 'crock' here was how
> dirty were the hands of certain veto-capable countries. Go read 1441, it
> DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T say
> anything about more inspections, sanctions etc.
What was that meeting to be about? Have you read 1441?
> in the event of
> continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
> explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be.
Your only support, if you can call it that, is what one American claimed
others meant. Do you have anything to prove your claim?
> The only topic that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity' was
> blown.
Do you have proof of this?
> That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
> resolution.
Can you prove this is the reason they used those words?
> As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to comply with 1441.
You said it, but you did not prove it.
> As Powell stated (unchallenged), everyone knew what that meant... that things
> were going to be done whether Iraq was cooperative or not.
Failure to challenge a point in one venue does not constitute support.
> Cooperation wasn't going to happen with SH in power. Given the
> history of defiance and broken resolutions over the very same issues,
> that much was already blatantly obvious. Even David Kay said "confirming
> a country's voluntary disarmament is a job that should not take months
> or years."
Can you even prove this?
> Bottom line is... things could have turned out very differently had SH
> realized that some of the countries were giving more than lip service to this
> 'final opportunity' resolution.
Things could have turned out differently base on many people's actions. So?
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
Steve Carroll
lo...@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
> In article <x7isdd7...@bolo.xenadyne.com>,
> Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
> >
> >George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm with you, Bob. I CANNOT vote for Bush, and I will not break my
> >> life-long record of voting AGAINST democrats. So, I will not be voting
> >> for Kerry either. I have no intention of being a party to putting that
> >> left-wing liberal asshole in the Whitehouse. I weep for the next four
> >> years as Kerry tries to remake America into some kind of Socialist
> >> Utopia.
> >
> >Don't waste your vote - vote libertarian!
> >
> >-SEan
>
> I well understand that George, Robert and other people more conservative than
> I (a) can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry and (b) really don't want
> to vote for Bush.
Strange though... because it makes no sense to NOT vote for Kerry if you
want to give Bush the slimmest chance of reelection. If Bush doesn't win
it's -going- to be Kerry, no question... so if your goal is to remove
Bush, you should vote Kerry. A write in doesn't really stand a chance so
why waste your vote when it can accomplish at least one of your goals?
Snit
>> I well understand that George, Robert and other people more conservative than
>> I (a) can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry and (b) really don't want
>> to vote for Bush.
>
> Strange though... because it makes no sense to NOT vote for Kerry if you
> want to give Bush the slimmest chance of reelection. If Bush doesn't win
> it's -going- to be Kerry, no question... so if your goal is to remove
> Bush, you should vote Kerry. A write in doesn't really stand a chance so
> why waste your vote when it can accomplish at least one of your goals?
There is more to an election than just getting someone elected - there is
making a point.
>
> --
> "I may just be the primary topic of this group". - Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
Well, with folks like you being so obsessed with me, I just might be. :)
George Graves
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
First of all, and primarily, MY vote is mine and I wouldn't be honest
with myself if I didn't vote my conscience. My conscience would not let
me be a party to the election of a candidate that I feel to be AT LEAST
as bad as bush, if not even more damaging to the country (in a different
way). Secondly, my state's electoral votes will go to Kerry irrespective
of who I vote for, so my vote doesn't count or matter one iota to anyone
but me. Two years from now when Kerry and his gang of lefties are trying
to add a hammer and sickle to the US flag (or whatever other indignity
the Socialist asshole tries to inflict on this poor ol' Republic), at
least I'll be able to take some solace in the knowledge that I didn't
vote for the sonovabitch.
Mike Dee
news:BD01BC6B.56020%snit-...@cableone.net:
>> That there were large amounts of WMD and that Saddam would use them
>> or permit others to use them against the US.
>
> And they could be readied in a very short time... I think it was in
> minutes, but maybe hours.
In 45 minutes. This was Blair's "trump card" for committing British troops
to war in Iraq.
D.
Snit
Xns951672819...@130.133.1.4 on 6/27/04 4:15 PM:
I wonder who in csma will jump in to support that claim. Does *anyone* on
the planet not see that it was clearly as best dead wrong and most likely a
bald faced lie?
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Your irrelevant philosophy aside, IMO he failed to support his assertion
with what he presented.
> > For all we know, Bush could have thought a strong possibility
> > existed that SH could be removed from the inside when he made this
> > statement... without resorting to war.
>
> Do you have any support for this idea?
I don't need to offer support for a potential condition that undermines
his assertion. Until such time that he addresses it with something that
can effectively render it a non-potential... the fact that it even has
potential for existence means it knocks down his assertion for the time
being. I realize this idea is foreign to you but he made the assertion,
it's up to him to prove it.
> > Not being there to see the context, it could have even been a lame attempt
> > at
> > humor.
>
> Unlikely... and there is no reason to think this that I can see.
You are defending a positive assertion here. You need more than to
proclaim a potential condition is 'unlikely' in order to accomplish
that. You need to remove the possibility of the potential. This can be
done with hard evidence... which just so happens to be the way to prove
an assertion in the first place. Funny how it works, huh?
> > The article did state that the Congressmen laughed, albeit uncomfortably.
>
> If you see that as support for the idea that it was humor, then your
> knowledge of human behavior is pretty darn weak. I am not suggesting it is
> counter-support, but it is hardly support.
You're all confused... I don't need support... Heywood does.
> > Who saw this happen to know the actual context? And did they convey the
> > entire
> > context when they wrote about it? I'd need a much firmer statement about
> > overtaking Iraq than this in order to believe what you're asserting.
>
> Here you actually make sense.
I've made sense the entire time. That you suddenly recognize it means
very little.
> > As ludicrous as you may think all of this is... none of it is as ludicrous
> > as
> > what you just presented and the manner in which you presented it.
>
> At least you admit your ideas are "ludicrous"... harsher criticism than I
> was giving them.
Your reading comprehension is shown to be poor... again. I didn't say
that my ideas are ludicrous. I clearly stated that Heywood may think
they are.
> >>>> I very clearly recall a case against
> >>>> Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
> >>>> it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
> >>>> to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
> >>
> >> WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> >> unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
> >
> > You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
>
> Can you prove this... beyond *any* doubt?
Easily. In March of 2001, Hans Blix reported to the U.N. the following
text as it pertains to 1441:
" Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has
cooperated, quote, "immediately, unconditionally and actively," unquote,
with UNMOVIC, as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The
answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided.
However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following.
The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did
regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far
persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our
inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken
by the Iraqi side, with a view to resolving some long-standing open
disarmament issues, can be seen as active or even proactive, these
initiatives, three to four months into the new resolution, cannot be
said to constitute immediate cooperation, nor do they necessarily cover
all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome, and UNMOVIC is
responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved
disarmament issues."
Blix' attempts to politicize and smooth things over aside, it is
extremely obvious that he is reporting that Iraq is not in compliance
with what 1441 requires at the time of the deadline.
> >> The fact is Bush in his
> >> weirdest, most animatronic press conference, the last one before the
> >> bombing started, told the world he was going to have the UN "show
> >> their cards" to get the final, necessary UN approval to launch the
> >> war. Which he then promptly failed to do.
> >
> > I don't believe Bush ever said anyone's approval was necessary. I'd like
> > to see your evidence that backs your insinuation here. Personally, I
> > think you got caught with your paraphrasing pants around your ankles but
> > I'll give you the opportunity to back your play.
>
> How kind of you... as I will give you a chance to *prove* your above claim
> about Blix.
I just did it above.
> >> Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
> >> for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
> >> posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
> >> my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
> >> right it's not even fucking funny.
> >
> > It's easy to think you are right on stuff like this... but the only
> > thing you are right on so far that I have seen is that it is the U.N.'s
> > business. But you are overlooking where they already were wrt that
> > business... it was business they had already agreed to do.
>
> Can you prove this idea? Where did the UN agree to allow the US to
> overthrow Saddam?
Prove the idea? Yes... read 1441. Your 2nd question isn't relevant
because the U.S. didn't overthrow Saddam. Additionally, (to stave off
the question you should have asked) the U.N. isn't the last word on
anything... never has been. When some of them pulled what they did with
1441, they received what they were worth... nothing.
> > When Powell stood on the floor of the U.N., now aware he could expect to be
> > voted against on what they had all just agreed to do, he talked about the
> > meetings that created 1441 and led to the unanimous signing. He said, very
> > plainly, that EVERYONE knew what they were talking about if Iraq continued
> > with their non-compliance.
>
> Who cares what Powell said others meant... what did the others say they
> meant. Do you not see how Powell's interpretation may not be accurate... in
> fact, can you prove this his view had any merit whatsoever?
From my perspective, I already have.
> > They all knew it meant going in.
>
> Can you prove this?
Again, from my perspective, I already have.
> > They all knew it was a 'final opportunity'. No one... not one single
> > person challenged this statement on the U.N. floor.
>
> Lack of publicly challenging the sole world super power is not an indication
> of agreement.
Apparently you haven't watched much U.N. coverage. The 'sole world super
power' is 'challenged' on a regular basis on topics of FAR less import
than this.
> > The cameras inside the meeting room were panning to faces that weren't able
> > to
> > look Powell in the eye when he spoke.
>
> Here you present evidence that people in the room may not have been in
> agreement, even if they did not directly challenge him.
I can only imagine what sort of bizarre things are going on in your mind
to make this statement.
> > The only spineless pieces of shit that did
> > bother to challenge his statement, waited until they got in front of the
> > cameras outside to do so.
>
> So they *did* challenge him... just not "on the U.N. floor". Seems clear
> they did not agree. OK.
They agreed when they drafted and signed 1441... that is the point. How
do YOU define 'final opportunity'? Why would ALL those who threatened to
*vote against* miss the opportunity to challenge what they would
obviously consider a MAJOR error on Powell's part with something so
significant? Particularly when it implicates them?!? Answer: They
didn't. Their non-response is due to another reason.
> > It was FUCKING obvious the game that was being played.
>
> What game... and can you prove it?
The game where they agreed to do a job at the drafting and signing of
1441 but balked when the deadline came and Iraq was still in
non-compliance. The text of the 'final opportunity' resolution 1441
makes it extremely clear (and proves ) that the 'serious consequences'
Iraq had continually been warned about (mentioned again in item 13 of
that resolution) were not simply going to be a rehash of all the things
that had been tried up until this point... more inspections, sanctions,
air zoning, etc.
> > If you missed this then you are excused. If not, you are simply
> > fooling yourself or trying to fool others. The 'crock' here was how
> > dirty were the hands of certain veto-capable countries. Go read 1441, it
> > DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T say
> > anything about more inspections, sanctions etc.
>
> What was that meeting to be about? Have you read 1441?
Yes, I have read it. The meeting was to be about what item 12 says it
was to be about. Now explain why it's unreasonable to conclude that the
reason is what Powell stated at the U.N. meeting. What do you think the
terms 'final opportunity' and 'serious consequences' meant? Do you think
they meant more inspections? More sanctions? More air zoning? Or are you
contending that Powell simply lied on the U.N. floor and no one thought
it was a big enough deal to screw with it... despite his words that
essentially labeled some of them as backstabbers? Was this all just a
great performance on his part? Is this your contention? You always ask
me questions about this... I never get to hear what your side of this
story is. For a change, why not tell me what you think happened at the
U.N. that day?
>
> > in the event of
> > continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
> > explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be.
>
> Your only support, if you can call it that, is what one American claimed
> others meant. Do you have anything to prove your claim?
Have you read 1441? Are you seriously trying to pretend that, in the
event of continued non-compliance, no one there knew they would be
discussing the necessity of having to go into Iraq and do the job of
disarmament for them? What else is left to do at that point? Reality
check: 1441 was called a 'final opportunity' (item 2) for one reason and
one reason only.
> > The only topic that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity'
> > was
> > blown.
>
> Do you have proof of this?
Again, in the event of a blown final opportunity, what is there left to
talk about? With your continued asking of this same type of question
over the past several months, I would assume you have an alternative
theory as to what happened. Why not share it?
> > That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
> > resolution.
>
> Can you prove this is the reason they used those words?
Do you have reason to believe the words 'final opportunity' didn't
actually mean 'final opportunity'? Why not tell me the reason?
> > As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to comply with 1441.
>
> You said it, but you did not prove it.
I have, too many times... as have several others in this NG.
> > As Powell stated (unchallenged), everyone knew what that meant... that
> > things
> > were going to be done whether Iraq was cooperative or not.
>
> Failure to challenge a point in one venue does not constitute support.
Watch some U.N. meetings, Snit... you'll see that the superpower
bullshit you're spewing doesn't stop people from opening their mouths
when they disagree at the U.N. The U.N. floor is THE place to voice
those disagreements if and when you have them... not in front of press
cameras... that was simply bullshit and anyone with a brain knows it.
> > Cooperation wasn't going to happen with SH in power. Given the
> > history of defiance and broken resolutions over the very same issues,
> > that much was already blatantly obvious. Even David Kay said "confirming
> > a country's voluntary disarmament is a job that should not take months
> > or years."
>
> Can you even prove this?
>
Do you ever read anything other than this NG? Do you retain it?
> > Bottom line is... things could have turned out very differently had SH
> > realized that some of the countries were giving more than lip service to
> > this
> > 'final opportunity' resolution.
>
> Things could have turned out differently base on many people's actions. So?
So the idea that Bush was going to take Saddam out, as suggested by
Heywood earlier in this thread, isn't necessarily as much of a given as
he's lead us to believe. SH's action COULD possibly have prevented this.
Obviously, you don't even pay attention to what you read in here... I
guess there is little reason to believe you pay attention to what you
read outside of this NG... much less retain any of it.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-58AD5C...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/27/04 1:09 PM:
>
> >> I well understand that George, Robert and other people more conservative
> >> than
> >> I (a) can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry and (b) really don't want
> >> to vote for Bush.
> >
> > Strange though... because it makes no sense to NOT vote for Kerry if you
> > want to give Bush the slimmest chance of reelection. If Bush doesn't win
> > it's -going- to be Kerry, no question... so if your goal is to remove
> > Bush, you should vote Kerry. A write in doesn't really stand a chance so
> > why waste your vote when it can accomplish at least one of your goals?
>
> There is more to an election than just getting someone elected - there is
> making a point.
What 'point'? To whom will this 'point' be made? Both of the people in
question appear to be making their 'point' known... that they DON'T want
4 more years of Bush while not liking Kerry. If a quarter of the
Republicans feel this way... and many that would have otherwise voted
for Bush would now vote for Kerry, Bush's demise is all but guaranteed.
It probably is anyway... but why not clinch it if your half your 'point'
is to have Bush be gone? At least you get half your 'point' made. One of
only two people WILL be winning this election. There are much better
ways to make a 'point' than throwing away your vote because you don't
like either candidate. IMO a stronger point is made by abstaining from
voting altogether in such a circumstance.
> > --
> > "I may just be the primary topic of this group". - Michael Glasser (AKA
> > Snit)
>
> Well, with folks like you being so obsessed with me, I just might be. :)
You wrote it so you must think you have a reasonable chance of being the
primary topic of the entire newsgroup. I doubt you'll find many that
agree with you. You're only my primary topic because I come here to hunt
trolls.
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group". - Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
Robert Fovell
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
I don't know where this popular idea that Iraq had something to do with
9/11 came from, since I know that I myself never thought that. Nor was
complicity in 9/11 in my mind a necessary precondition for military
action against Saddam. Nor was it necessary that Saddam be an imminent
threat. My strong recollection that Bush said he was acting so as to
not allow the threat to fester into imminency was reinforced by a news
report this week.
None of this has anything to do with the question of whether Iraq was
the right move at the right time. It only relates to the sequence of
events and their justifications.
>
> The evidence against Saddam did not "wind up" being exaggerated. It was
> willfully exaggerated. Now, I'm not one of those people who believes
> this war as all about contracts for Haliburton;
Good for you. That is the stuff of childrens' stories, IMHO.
> I have no doubt the
> administration really believed that taking out Saddam was the right
> thing to do. But misleading people in the name of a cause you believe to
> be right is still wrong.
>
> > It doesn't matter that WMDs have not been found; I'll bet you Saddam
> > thought he had them. Anyway, that's by the bye, and I don't feel like
> > debating it. It wasn't the right war at the right time, and I would
> > have spent those billions the war has cost us very, very differently.
> >
> > I'll tell you what: have you been listening to Gore lately? I'm no fan
> > of Bush, but deep down I'm glad Gore was not elected. Is this the real
> > Gore now, or is it just an act? Anyway, it's hideous. I hate what is
> > happening to public discourse in this country.
>
> I caught a Gore speech a month or six weeks ago (the "not in our name"
> speech), and I thought it was great stuff. Why didn't he do that when he
> was running for president? Why doesn't Kerry do it now? This "play it
> safe" nonsense didn't work for the Democrats in the mid-term elections,
> and if it works for Kerry now it'll only be because Bush is so awful.
I think if Gore did this ersatz outrage on steroids stuff in 2000, he
would have lost by a still larger margin. He strikes me as shrill and
insincere. (Preemptive argument, since I have to do this so often, and
it's a sore spot with me: Gore lost the electoral vote, the only vote
that matters. The candidates know this and it guides their campaign
strategy. Gore's margin in the meaningless popular vote was smaller
than his plurality in California. Thus, if it is fair to say Gore
should have been elected on the basis of the popular vote, it is also
fair to claim that Gore won California and lost the other 49 states in
aggregate. Thanks for letting me slip this one in <g>.)
>
> > > > The
> > > > saddest thing is, the guy seems to have zero clue as to why I, and I
> > > > suspect millions more, feel this way.
> > >
> > > No, I disagree. He understands, but doesn't care. Recall that prior to
> > > the invasion of Iraq, he made some public statement concerning those
> > > massive worldwide protests happening (paraphrased): "I don't care
> > > really. I'll be watching a football game."
> >
> > There can be very excellent reasons for ignoring "worldwide protests".
> > Shades of the nuclear freeze-niks of old. They were vociferous, they
> > were strident, and they were very wrong.
>
> Plus, Fox News told me all those protesters in Europe had really been
> duped by Marxists. (I kid you not. And these words came out of the mouth
> of a Fox News reporter on scene, not some right-wing pundit. How can
> anyone take Fox seriously?)
I think many of them were indeed duped, some quite willingly, if only by
their own ballistically supreme naivete. Many of them, in the
pernicious 'moral equivalence' of the time, saw the West and the Soviets
as equals: equally viable, equally culpable, so which one survived was
unimportant. No way, not IMHO. Some of them were themselves working to
create a Soviet-style state, and were more honest about that than their
apologists. The cold war was won despite them, not because of them.
One of my favorite JFK lines goes something like this: We seek not peace
at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom. That was from
the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Heinlein wrote something like
this: You can have peace, and you can have freedom; don't count on
having them at the same time very often. True in a timeless way,
unfortunately. Freedom compromised or ransomed is freedom lost.
--
"[Politics] asks for the highest type of men, and there's nothing in it
to attract the highest type of men. So we have to work with what we get -
and we get things like this." -- Raymond Chandler, "The Lady in the Lake"
Robert Fovell
> ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:<znu-C3C689.0...@individual.net>...
> > In article <rfovell-E373AA...@news.supernews.com>,
> > Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <250620041155559846%zu...@fakeaddress.com>,
> > > zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <rfovell-45FD6D...@news.supernews.com>, Robert
> > > > Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > repeats the same old song, trying to make it fester into fact (and they
> > > appear to be succeeding). Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did. Did
> > > the case against Saddam wind up being exaggerated? It seems so. But
> > > did he lie? I don't think so.
>
> Here's where we disagree. There were more distortions than accuracies
> in the run up to war. And there still is a torrent of bs flowing from
> Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz's mouths. I cut Rumsfeld some slack since
> oddly enough he seems to have a better grip on reality than the rest
> of the crew.
>
> "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" -- George Bush, March 2002
>
> http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_covers/0,10987,1101030331-435968
> ,00.html
>
> "I haven't made the decision for war" (paraphrase) -- George Bush,
> 2003
It would not surprise me if, back when he was Governor of Texas, George
W. Bush dreamt of one day becoming president and finding a pretext for
finishing what he probably considered an unfinished task in Iraq.
September 11 changed the political climate (no, Iraq didn't need to be
involved at all in 9/11 for them to slip into the cross-hairs in this
changed climate) making it possible, and Saddam was bullheaded and
stupid enough to make it inevitable.
>
> > > I very clearly recall a case against
> > > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
> > > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
> > > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
>
> WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> unlimited access doing the inspection thing. The fact is Bush in his
> weirdest, most animatronic press conference, the last one before the
> bombing started, told the world he was going to have the UN "show
> their cards" to get the final, necessary UN approval to launch the
> war. Which he then promptly failed to do.
>
> Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
> for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
> posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
> my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
> right it's not even fucking funny.
I didn't see your posts, sorry. I have spent very little time here in
the last couple of years, and read this NG only fitfully and
incompletely.
>
> > > I seem to be unable to even start describing how and why I disagree with
> > > what you have written. Maybe I need to let it marinate in my mind for
> > > awhile. My rebuttal might start with something like this: Leadership is
> > > not accomplished by public opinion poll. If it had been conducted that
> > > way in the past, you'd be speaking German now.
>
> I catch the drift, but I think you underestimate the power of
> resistance and/or overestimate the power of the overlord. WW2 is
> actually a very good example of the added costs of giving the benefit
> of the doubt to madmen -- reading Churchill's writings when he was the
> voice in the wilderness should be required for every pacifist and
> big-L liberal.
I don't underestimate the power of resistance. I don't for a minute
believe the Thousand Year Reich would have run its claimed course.
However, there would have been much misery, and a closer encounter with
the Orwellian 1984 than we have (thankfully) had as of yet.
>
> The country lost 2000 men, plus the poor sods captured in our isolated
> Pacific garrisons due to being flatfooted and not actively,
> preemptively defending our interests in late 1941. Yet retaining the
> moral highground has its upside -- when the time came for the Japanese
> to surrender, they could largely come to the realization that their
> launching of the war was a wrong. If the war had started by eg. our
> B-17s in the Phillipines interdicting troop transports heading to
> Singapore (which is why FDR had flown them there in the first place),
> things could have been a lot murkier, IMV.
>
> The leftists (and even conservatives like Chamberlain) were wrong to
> assume peace could be guaranteed via talk. Credible capability, and
> the will to use it, is critical. But there is a false dichotomy
> lurking here, and I think now spending $500B/yr on cold-war scale
> defense really isn't very cost-effective, and Bush's reckless and
> morally unjustifiable war of choice has done more to harm US world
> power than eg. anything Carter did during his lame term of office.
Nicely put.
BTW, if someone asked me, tho no one has, I would spend that money and
more on what I consider to be the real national security issue #1:
dependence on foreign oil. We have to do something, and it has to
involve moving beyond finite and politically and environmentally
hazardous fossil fuels. The only thing I don't grok is why there isn't
an overwhelming sense of urgency about this. Maybe I just don't get
something really obvious.
<s>
Robert Fovell
Actually, I'm of two minds regarding your meaning. I wonder what that
says about my thinking processes <g>. Clarify?
Robert Fovell
How admirally exact: Now from what you have seen.
Someday, you may catch up with the rest of us, John. Not any time soon,
I wager.
Robert Fovell
> lo...@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote in message
> news:<lHoDc.29$45.1...@news.uchicago.edu>...
> > In article <nospam-5F216D....@news.supernews.com>,
> > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> > > imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > >> news:<rfovell-E373AA...@news.supernews.com>...
> > >> > In article <250620041155559846%zu...@fakeaddress.com>,
> > >> > zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > appear to be succeeding). Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did. Did
> > >> > the case against Saddam wind up being exaggerated?
> > >>
> > >> nice use of the passive voice, btw. Says a lot about your thinking
> > >> processes.
> > >
> > >Robert is capable of thinking? Not from what I have seen.
> >
> > You need a better set of glasses.
> >
> > For my money, Robert Fovell is the wittiest guy in this newsgroup.
>
> Most perispacious, yes. It pains me to disagree with him so vehemently
> on this issue.
Let us celebrate the fact we can disagree so vehemently :-)
>
> Really a curveball from him. He appeared more perceptive in his
> writing.
Not sure what to say here.
Mike Dee
news:BD04B41E.562D0%snit-...@cableone.net:
I thought it to be an outright blatant lie from the moment I heard it
being used. Folk's like the Mayor and Flip lapped it up. Mayor was
about the last to "let go" [if he ever did]. He seems to spend his time
these days blaming it [why the war is going badly for Bush] on the
"liberal press", a sad case.
My comments made to Mayor back in June 2003, if interested:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bbgt0b%249adpi%241%40ID-119983.news.dfncis.de&output=gplain>
Prolly about the time he KF'd me :)
D.
Robert Fovell
I have voted Libertarian in the past. I might have to do so this year,
but that will be out of desperation.
A wee bit of background as to why: I think I'm less of a "small-l"
libertarian than I was in the past. As I become older I see the world
is a little more complicated than it seemed in my youth, and in response
I have become more pragmatic. I still have a copy of Hospers'
"Libertarianism" (and happy to have it), tho I have not opened its
covers for some years now.
In the mid-1970s, I was a "big-L" Libertarian, to the degree of holding
a minor post in the party. You can do that when there is only a dozen
posts to fill and a dozen people to do the filling ;-)
But I quickly grew disillusioned. Rather than a party of big ideas, it
seemed largely a collection of anti-tax people who wanted things from
the government but didn't want to pay for them. Well, after Reagan, the
reflexively anti-tax folk had somewhere else to go, but the Libertarian
party they left behind still seemed bereft of meaning and import, so I
let it slip slide away from me.
I wish a centrist party would arise in this country but that won't
happen, not in my lifetime. But maybe as politics becomes still more
polarized, there is a breath of a chance. Maybe.
Snit
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in
> news:BD04B41E.562D0%snit-...@cableone.net:
>
>> "Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in
>> Xns951672819...@130.133.1.4 on 6/27/04 4:15 PM:
>>
>>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in
>>> news:BD01BC6B.56020%snit-...@cableone.net:
>>>
>>>>> That there were large amounts of WMD and that Saddam would use them
>>>>> or permit others to use them against the US.
>>>>
>>>> And they could be readied in a very short time... I think it was in
>>>> minutes, but maybe hours.
>>>
>>> In 45 minutes. This was Blair's "trump card" for committing British
>>> troops to war in Iraq.
>>
>> I wonder who in csma will jump in to support that claim. Does
>> *anyone* on the planet not see that it was clearly as best dead wrong
>> and most likely a bald faced lie?
>
> I thought it to be an outright blatant lie from the moment I heard it
> being used. Folk's like the Mayor and Flip lapped it up. Mayor was
> about the last to "let go" [if he ever did]. He seems to spend his time
> these days blaming it [why the war is going badly for Bush] on the
> "liberal press", a sad case.
>
> My comments made to Mayor back in June 2003, if interested:
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bbgt0b%249adpi%241%40ID-119983.news.dfnc
> is.de&output=gplain>
>
> Prolly about the time he KF'd me :)
Well, at least Bush did not lie about sex (that I know of)
Robert Fovell
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <rfovell-257445...@news.supernews.com>,
> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <gmgravesnos-C004...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <_YUCc.25796$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > > zolo <zo...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think I'm living in Bizarro World...
> > > >
> > > > Is John who just posted a thread in support of the new Michael Moore
> > > > film the same John who is our Senior Technologist, A.K.A. WinMan, the
> > > > same person who used to use the phrase "clueless liberal Macer" ad
> > > > nauseum? The same John who was a pro-Bush hawk when it came to
> > > > invading
> > > > Iraq? Am I missing something?
> > > >
> > > > I think John has a doppleganger who is having a bit of fun with us.
> > > >
> > > > -zolo
> > >
> > > Especially since he is now saying that he LIKES OSX and finds it much
> > > more "elegant" than XP. I think you're on to something.
> >
> > Perhaps JohnBoy is slightly more savvy than his childishly ineloquent
> > posts suggest. Perhaps he has finally realized that what he espouses
> > and endorses appears, ipso facto, moronic, wrong and/or ridiculous. So,
> > he has decided to endorse Michael Moore and the Mac, and to diss Bush,
> > all in a plan to further his beloved Windows and political agenda.
> >
> > Either that or he slipped on a bar of soap during his semi-annual shower
> > and now has a brain tumor the size of a grapefruit.
>
> Hmmm. Just trying to figure what somebody with a brain tumor that's
> definitely larger than his brain would look like....
If it's any easier, picture John with a tumor the size of a cherry
tomato. It's rather closer to the size of his brain ;-)
Heywood Mogroot
snip
> > "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" -- George Bush, March 2002
> >
> > http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_covers/0,10987,1101030331-435968
> > ,00.html
> >
> > "I haven't made the decision for war" (paraphrase) -- George Bush,
> > 2003
>
> What you just presented appears to be a potential distortion of its own.
? My reaction to the paraphrase above, when bush first said it, was
"WTF?", since it was not apparent at all what would have been
necessary for Saddam to stop the US invasion, occupation, and ball of
wax we have put our foot in now. Anyone knowledgeable about the
deployment schedules into the theatre could see the invasion was on,
and that the run up to war was just a tap dance while the forces were
made ready. Sure Saddam was playing games with us... see below... but
everyone knew we were going into Baghdad regardless of what Saddam
himself did or did not do.
> I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
> assert.
Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
the run up).
> For all we know, Bush could have thought a strong possibility
> existed that SH could be removed from the inside when he made this
> statement... without resorting to war. Not being there to see the
> context, it could have even been a lame attempt at humor. The article
> did state that the Congressmen laughed, albeit uncomfortably. Who saw
> this happen to know the actual context? And did they convey the entire
> context when they wrote about it? I'd need a much firmer statement about
> overtaking Iraq than this in order to believe what you're asserting. As
> ludicrous as you may think all of this is... none of it is as ludicrous
> as what you just presented and the manner in which you presented it.
I do not pin my thinking about this on one thing reported in Time
magazine. It is part of a very wide pattern of activity from the PNAC
crew.
> > > > > I very clearly recall a case against
> > > > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
> > > > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
> > > > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
> >
> > WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> > unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
>
>
> You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
1441 was not the final authorization for war.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,420808,00.html
though the administration took it as 'close enough'.
Saddam was playing a very dangerous game in the run up to war, and I
am somewhat accepting of the pro-war argument 'better safe than sorry'
when it comes to 'taking out' rogue regimes (though indeed wonder why
this logic isn't being applied to Khaddafi, a personage with a similar
if not worse bad-actor track record vis-a-vis arab terrorism), but I
believed before the war started and have, to put it mildly, not seen
much to contraindicate, that US intervention would make the situation
worse not better.
I remarked at the time that I would feel a whole lot better about our
unilateral intervention (which it was despite the token forces sent by
the UK and Spain) if it indeed had the full involvement of the
international community.
For me, the issue really wasn't about Saddam per se, since I did not
view him as a prime cause of Iraq's mess.
Large sectors of Iraqi thought are going to be pro-Arab, anti-Israel,
anti-US, regardless of how smoothly we could have removed Saddam and
his sons from power, and I really didn't see how applying external
violence would result in a stable sane liberal regime for Iraq -- I
saw it more than likely we'd see a united Hezbollah allah Akbar
government emerge after our forces finally decamped (and said so in
the immediate run-up).
IOW, having full world support for our adventure would have reduced
the chances we'd find ourselves in the current mess. This would have
required cutting in the current stakeholders of Iraqi wardebt and oil
contracts, not to mention shelving the extreme makeover of Iraq
society we tried to pull in 2003.
> > The fact is Bush in his
> > weirdest, most animatronic press conference, the last one before the
> > bombing started, told the world he was going to have the UN "show
> > their cards" to get the final, necessary UN approval to launch the
> > war. Which he then promptly failed to do.
>
> I don't believe Bush ever said anyone's approval was necessary. I'd like
> to see your evidence that backs your insinuation here. Personally, I
> think you got caught with your paraphrasing pants around your ankles but
> I'll give you the opportunity to back your play.
here's the press conference:
Let's see here, Elizabeth?
Q: Thank you, Mr. President.
As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a
resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for
a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the votes?
BUSH: Well, first, I don't think — it basically says that he is in
defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says.
And it's hard to believe anybody saying he isn't in defiance of 1441
because 1441 said he must disarm.
And yes, we'll call for a vote.
Q: No matter what?
BUSH: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We
want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam
Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council.
And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the
world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/iraq/main543108.shtml
No final vote was held, sine the US knew it did not have the votes.
> > Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
> > for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
> > posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
> > my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
> > right it's not even fucking funny.
>
> It's easy to think you are right on stuff like this...
after $160B spent, over 850 dead, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis
killed, maimed, wounded, made orphans, with 90% of the country (not
counting the Kurds) wanting us out of their country. Yeah, I'd say
it's easy thinking I am right on stuff like this.
> but the only
> thing you are right on so far that I have seen is that it is the U.N.'s
> business. But you are overlooking where they already were wrt that
> business... it was business they had already agreed to do. When Powell
> stood on the floor of the U.N., now aware he could expect to be voted
> against on what they had all just agreed to do, he talked about the
> meetings that created 1441 and led to the unanimous signing. He said,
> very plainly, that EVERYONE knew what they were talking about if Iraq
> continued with their non-compliance. They all knew it meant going in.
> They all knew it was a 'final opportunity'. No one... not one single
> person challenged this statement on the U.N. floor.
The UN was willing for us to dig our own grave, apparently. win-win
for them, really, though there is not much love for the UN on the Iraq
street, either then or now.
> The cameras inside
> the meeting room were panning to faces that weren't able to look Powell
> in the eye when he spoke. The only spineless pieces of shit that did
> bother to challenge his statement, waited until they got in front of the
> cameras outside to do so. It was FUCKING obvious the game that was being
> played. If you missed this then you are excused. If not, you are simply
> fooling yourself or trying to fool others.
Yes, there was gameplaying going on. Billions of dollars worth of
frozen oil contracts and other forward-looking agreements related to
the whole UN administration of Iraq were on the line.
I don't mean to whitewash the situation here, all I stated was I felt
there was a lot of administration deception (and/or rank delusion and
I don't particularly care which) in the run up to war.
> The 'crock' here was how
> dirty were the hands of certain veto-capable countries.
There were and are plenty of crocks to go around.
> Go read 1441, it
> DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T say
> anything about more inspections, sanctions etc. in the event of
> continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
> explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be. The only topic
> that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity' was blown.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1162952,00.html
Do I believe a random blowhard on Usenet or Dr Blix . . . hmm . . . I
believe Blix.
> That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
> resolution. As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to comply
> with 1441.
See above. Blix's job was to report to the UNSC. The UNSC's job was to
determine what move to make next. The Bush admin (along with Blair)
short-circuited this and went in without final clear UN authority.
To the great detriment of the enterprise.
> As Powell stated (unchallenged), everyone knew what that
> meant... that things were going to be done whether Iraq was cooperative
> or not. Cooperation wasn't going to happen with SH in power. Given the
> history of defiance and broken resolutions over the very same issues,
> that much was already blatantly obvious. Even David Kay said "confirming
> a country's voluntary disarmament is a job that should not take months
> or years." Bottom line is... things could have turned out very
> differently had SH realized that some of the countries were giving more
> than lip service to this 'final opportunity' resolution.
See, for me, SH wasn't really part of the problem. He was an old fart,
a tinpot strongman and bloody despot in the old mold of our other
friendly strongmen (eg. CKS, the Shah of Iran).
I recall reading somewhere that Saddam behaved as he did since he
could not conceptualize the US actually taking him out, since he was
supposed to be our modern westernized bastard in the Mideast holding
the fort against Shia/Iranian/Islamic radicalism.
The problem is Islamic revisionism. Taking out Saddam wasn't
necessarily the best move to be made in the region in 2003, especially
unilaterally as we did it. Trying to move in with a menu of US-style
revisions to their entire society and culture was sheer folly.
Snit
dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com on 6/27/04 9:21 PM:
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<fretwizz-AC5687...@netnews.comcast.net>...
>> In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
>> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>>
>
> snip
>
>>> "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" -- George Bush, March 2002
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_covers/0,10987,1101030331-4359
>>> 68
>>> ,00.html
>>>
>>> "I haven't made the decision for war" (paraphrase) -- George Bush,
>>> 2003
>>
>> What you just presented appears to be a potential distortion of its own.
>
> ? My reaction to the paraphrase above, when bush first said it, was
> "WTF?", since it was not apparent at all what would have been
> necessary for Saddam to stop the US invasion, occupation, and ball of
> wax we have put our foot in now. Anyone knowledgeable about the
> deployment schedules into the theatre could see the invasion was on,
> and that the run up to war was just a tap dance while the forces were
> made ready. Sure Saddam was playing games with us... see below... but
> everyone knew we were going into Baghdad regardless of what Saddam
> himself did or did not do.
I can not see how any moderately educated person could have missed the idea
that the US *was* going to go to war with Iraq.
>
>> I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
>> assert.
>
> Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
> the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
> the run up).
Steve gets stuck on the idea of needing conclusive proof - as in the level
needed for mathematical proofs... and of course he never offers this himself
as it is not possible in the real world.
>
>> For all we know, Bush could have thought a strong possibility
>> existed that SH could be removed from the inside when he made this
>> statement... without resorting to war. Not being there to see the
>> context, it could have even been a lame attempt at humor. The article
>> did state that the Congressmen laughed, albeit uncomfortably. Who saw
>> this happen to know the actual context? And did they convey the entire
>> context when they wrote about it? I'd need a much firmer statement about
>> overtaking Iraq than this in order to believe what you're asserting. As
>> ludicrous as you may think all of this is... none of it is as ludicrous
>> as what you just presented and the manner in which you presented it.
>
> I do not pin my thinking about this on one thing reported in Time
> magazine. It is part of a very wide pattern of activity from the PNAC
> crew.
>
>>>>>> I very clearly recall a case against
>>>>> Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda connection,
>>>>> it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was Saddam
>>>>> to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
>>>
>>> WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
>>> unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
>>
>>
>> You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
>
> 1441 was not the final authorization for war.
Steve has been given the opportunity to understand this many, many times.
His bias prevents hum from accepting it.
Heywood Mogroot
Of course. If you really feel Kerry isn't an improvement over Bush,
then by all means vote for Bush or even stay home with a pout on your
face.
> Secondly, my state's electoral votes will go to Kerry irrespective
> of who I vote for, so my vote doesn't count or matter one iota to anyone
> but me. Two years from now when Kerry and his gang of lefties are trying
> to add a hammer and sickle to the US flag (or whatever other indignity
> the Socialist asshole tries to inflict on this poor ol' Republic)
funny I don't see that at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
> at
> least I'll be able to take some solace in the knowledge that I didn't
> vote for the sonovabitch.
indeed. Must suck to be you now.
Snit
If I were to ask you if you wanted to be punched in the stomach or the face,
and you said you did not want to be punched at all - even if you know I was
going to punch you - would it be a meaningless statement?
>
>> Secondly, my state's electoral votes will go to Kerry irrespective
>> of who I vote for, so my vote doesn't count or matter one iota to anyone
>> but me. Two years from now when Kerry and his gang of lefties are trying
>> to add a hammer and sickle to the US flag (or whatever other indignity
>> the Socialist asshole tries to inflict on this poor ol' Republic)
>
> funny I don't see that at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
He will not go public with the flag idea until after the election. If will
be an effort to make the Russians stop making viruses. Bill Gates put him
up to it.
:)
>
>> at
>> least I'll be able to take some solace in the knowledge that I didn't
>> vote for the sonovabitch.
>
> indeed. Must suck to be you now.
--
George Graves
No, Kerry is definitely NOT an improvement over Bush. Kerry's platform
has ONE plank in it - Kerry ain't Bush. There are no others. He has no
ideas other than the usual left-wing Socialist prattle, catch phrases,
and sound bytes. Ask a Kerry supporter to tell you WHY they support this
dismal man, and all you will get is a tirade against Bush. It's really
pathetic that this country has come to this where the two major
candidates for the highest office in the realm are not worthy of being
elected dogcatcher in Mayberry.
> > Secondly, my state's electoral votes will go to Kerry irrespective
> > of who I vote for, so my vote doesn't count or matter one iota to anyone
> > but me. Two years from now when Kerry and his gang of lefties are trying
> > to add a hammer and sickle to the US flag (or whatever other indignity
> > the Socialist asshole tries to inflict on this poor ol' Republic)
>
> funny I don't see that at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
As if one would expect to.
> > at
> > least I'll be able to take some solace in the knowledge that I didn't
> > vote for the sonovabitch.
>
> indeed. Must suck to be you now.
Why? Because I won't vote my country away to either of two assholes? It
sucks to be in the position this country is in. An election coming-up
and NO qualified candidates.
George Graves
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Like I meant the flag bit literally.
>
> He will not go public with the flag idea until after the election. If will
> be an effort to make the Russians stop making viruses. Bill Gates put him
> up to it. ;)
Exactly!
ZnU
Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com> wrote:
Nobody who paid close attention thought that, but most people don't pay
close attention. The administration's rhetoric was very obviously
designed to create a connection in peoples' minds without explicitly
stating anything. Saddam and al Queda were constantly mentioned in
connection with one another, right next to discussion of 9/11.
> Nor was complicity in 9/11 in my mind a necessary precondition for
> military action against Saddam. Nor was it necessary that Saddam be
> an imminent threat. My strong recollection that Bush said he was
> acting so as to not allow the threat to fester into imminency was
> reinforced by a news report this week.
Right. I supported getting rid of Saddam despite the fact that I never
believed he was a serious immediate threat to the United States. And the
fact I didn't think things would be quite as easy as the Bush
administration seemed to think. And the fact that my response to
Powell's UN presentation was basically "Is that all you've got?"
I still believe it was the right thing to do, though I'm extremely
pissed off at Bush for doing it badly (which, in retrospect, I should
have expected; I mean, he's never done anything else well). But I have
no illusions that the average American would have agreed with my
position, knowing all the facts. The public support that made the war
politically possible was created though intentionally misleading
rhetoric and exaggerated evidence.
Well, come to think of it, there wasn't nearly as much to be outraged
about in 2000.
> He strikes me as shrill and insincere.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm angry about the way the Bush
administration has played games with international law and human rights.
I'm angry that I now live in a country where the leaders need to make
public statements about their views on torture. It used to be that such
things were just taken for granted. I don't see why Gore shouldn't be
angry about these things as well. And I'm fed up with the idea that
anyone who shows any emotion in politics is "shrill".
> (Preemptive argument, since I have to do this so often, and it's a
> sore spot with me: Gore lost the electoral vote, the only vote that
> matters. The candidates know this and it guides their campaign
> strategy. Gore's margin in the meaningless popular vote was smaller
> than his plurality in California. Thus, if it is fair to say Gore
> should have been elected on the basis of the popular vote, it is also
> fair to claim that Gore won California and lost the other 49 states
> in aggregate. Thanks for letting me slip this one in <g>.)
Gore lost the electoral vote based on a state election where the margin
of error exceeded the margin of victory (according to the definitions
set down by Florida law) and major irregularities were present.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I watched a Fox News reporter claim that
the massive protests all across Europe against Bush and the Iraq war
were the result of Marxist manipulation. This is the crap millions of
Americans are exposed to every day. Forgive me for not crying with the
right-wingers about Moore presenting things from his point of view.
--
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences,
and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences."
-- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004
Mike Dee
news:BD04E3E4.56325%snit-...@cableone.net:
> "Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in
> Xns9516A0BCB...@130.133.1.4 on 6/27/04 8:47 PM:
>
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in
>> news:BD04B41E.562D0%snit-...@cableone.net:
>>
>>> "Mike Dee" <emte...@optushome.com.au> wrote in
>>> Xns951672819...@130.133.1.4 on 6/27/04 4:15 PM:
>>>
>>>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in
>>>> news:BD01BC6B.56020%snit-...@cableone.net:
>>>>
>>>>>> That there were large amounts of WMD and that Saddam would use
>>>>>> them or permit others to use them against the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> And they could be readied in a very short time... I think it was
>>>>> in minutes, but maybe hours.
>>>>
>>>> In 45 minutes. This was Blair's "trump card" for committing British
>>>> troops to war in Iraq.
>>>
>>> I wonder who in csma will jump in to support that claim. Does
>>> *anyone* on the planet not see that it was clearly as best dead
>>> wrong and most likely a bald faced lie?
>>
>> I thought it to be an outright blatant lie from the moment I heard it
>> being used. Folk's like the Mayor and Flip lapped it up. Mayor was
>> about the last to "let go" [if he ever did]. He seems to spend his
>> time these days blaming it [why the war is going badly for Bush] on
>> the "liberal press", a sad case.
>>
>> My comments made to Mayor back in June 2003, if interested:
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bbgt0b%249adpi%241%40ID-119983.n
>> ews.dfnc is.de&output=gplain>
>>
>> Prolly about the time he KF'd me :)
>
> Well, at least Bush did not lie about sex (that I know of)
So you think it's OK to lie to begin an illegal war?
D.
Heywood Mogroot
> "Heywood Mogroot" <imout...@mac.com> wrote in
> dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com on 6/27/04 9:21 PM:
>
> >> assert.
> >
> > Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
> > the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
> > the run up).
>
> Steve gets stuck on the idea of needing conclusive proof - as in the level
> needed for mathematical proofs... and of course he never offers this himself
> as it is not possible in the real world.
Only idiots ask for 'conclusive proof'. The wise can handle evidence as it comes in.
reminds me of creationists . . . "Where's your proof, huh? All you got is evidence!"
Heywood Mogroot
Indeed. I argue a LOT on blogs, and can usually pigeonhole people
pretty well. Wait, reading your above more fully:
"It wasn't the right war at the right time, and I would have spent
those billions the war has cost us very, very differently."
I can see we're not so far apart after all. I held my nose voting for
Gore (mainly due to the Lieberman half of the ticket), but I felt his
fiery speech about Abu Ghraib was on-topic and quite aligned with my
feelings on this administration's inerrant ability to run everything I
care wrt my country through the mud.
The reason things are so polarized is because there is a polarizing
culture kampf going on now. I'm a lefty libertarian so I have equal
truck with the moderate sane republican wing (ie about 6 people) and a
more widely distributed smattering of democrats (basically eg. Dean,
who despite the press attack [and sliming from Kerry] was mostly a
conservative rural-state democrat).
I've got a laundry list about a mile long on how I think Bush is
ruining this country, so I really fail to see how Gore or Kerry's
muddled liberalism would be worse.
I'm pro-choice, pro-science, anti-death penalty (except with 100.0%
certainty of guilt), anti ostentatious demonstrations of personal
religion in the public square, anti legislating morality, anti-drug
war, anti deficit spending, anti M/I complex, pro health insurance
reform (don't know what's best, but what we have now truly sucks for
too many people), pro alternate energy R&D, anti federal gun control
(though feel cities & counties should be able to legislate/license gun
ownership), anti big-media consolidation, anti-monopoly, etc. etc.
I do believe the federal government is too big and that states should
have more independence, and would like to see the tax burden fall more
local than federal, eg. a 10% county, 10% state, and 10% federal
burden.
ack sorry about the rant. Getting late...
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>
> > Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<rfovell-E373AA...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > In article <250620041155559846%zu...@fakeaddress.com>,
> > > zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > appear to be succeeding). Did Bush make mistakes? Sure he did. Did
> > > the case against Saddam wind up being exaggerated?
> >
> > nice use of the passive voice, btw. Says a lot about your thinking processes.
>
> Actually, I'm of two minds regarding your meaning. I wonder what that
> says about my thinking processes <g>. Clarify?
The passive voice is used to avoid talking about the actors involved.
At the risk of getting clinical, it can be used to avoid unpleasant
cognitive dissonance...
I am reminded of Bush's statements last year:
"On some TV screens there was a constant reminder for the American
people — ‘March to War.' War is not a very pleasant subject in
people's minds (and) it's not conducive for the investment of
capital."
Bush told a news conference Wednesday that "the drumbeat to war" had
slowed economic recovery due in part to an unnamed television
network's use of the banner "March to War."
"That's not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when
they hear, ‘March to War' all the time," Bush said.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2003/08/02/national/a02080203_03.txt
Quite simply, this man and I do not share the same reality.
There was a march to war Aug 2002 -> March 2003, and it was quite
spectacular to watch from the sidelines. The UN was just a road-bump
on the way to empire, something Blair convinced Bush to go for while
the big green machine was assembling its armored spearheads in the
desert bases of Kuwait.
The case for war was built on bald-faced deceit of the american people
-- the people were evenly split for/against, with a large contigent on
the fence, immediately prior to Powell's UN address.
The guilty parties are now claiming self-deception, but in whether it
was willful or simply incompetence is of not that great a concern to
me.
Saving the Iraqi people from Saddam was a fool's errand. If the Iraqis
wanted to be free they could easily free themselves. One would think
they could have done it with less cost than what we have inflicted on
them in the 16 months of our ongoing liberation.
The argument of saving *us* from Saddam misses the point that it is
the Iraqis themselves we need to really worry about, not Saddam. He
was just a tinpot dictator, not a Dr Evil personally leading Iraq's
WMD R&D. At least americans could walk out on the street unescorted
two years ago in Baghdad. What this mess is going to turn out like now
is anyone's guess.
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <BD04F754.5633F%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Secondly, my state's electoral votes will go to Kerry irrespective
> > >> of who I vote for, so my vote doesn't count or matter one iota to anyone
> > >> but me. Two years from now when Kerry and his gang of lefties are trying
> > >> to add a hammer and sickle to the US flag (or whatever other indignity
> > >> the Socialist asshole tries to inflict on this poor ol' Republic)
> > >
> > > funny I don't see that at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/
>
> Like I meant the flag bit literally.
funny I don't see so much 'Socialism' in Kerry. I'm a lefty
libertarian, so I probably disagree with his policies in some areas
almost as much as I can tolerate him in other areas, but I think we'll
get a better federal government overall out of Kerry than Bush.
Especially those 3 or 4 SCOTUS appointments that are due up over the
next 4 years.
As a Mac person, I'm surprised you have so much abiding faith in the
free market -- it takes a light touch, but government intervention can
be a value-add IMV.
Snit
LOL. Very true.
Snit
No. I was being sarcastic.
Steve Carroll
So why not present your evidence that offers the best support for what
you claim? It's now mid 2004... I assume you have such evidence.
> > For all we know, Bush could have thought a strong possibility
> > existed that SH could be removed from the inside when he made this
> > statement... without resorting to war. Not being there to see the
> > context, it could have even been a lame attempt at humor. The article
> > did state that the Congressmen laughed, albeit uncomfortably. Who saw
> > this happen to know the actual context? And did they convey the entire
> > context when they wrote about it? I'd need a much firmer statement about
> > overtaking Iraq than this in order to believe what you're asserting. As
> > ludicrous as you may think all of this is... none of it is as ludicrous
> > as what you just presented and the manner in which you presented it.
>
> I do not pin my thinking about this on one thing reported in Time
> magazine. It is part of a very wide pattern of activity from the PNAC
> crew.
So you have plenty of ammo to choose from... why choose what could so
easily be picked apart? You're obviously already convinced so it stands
to reason you only included this to convince others.
> > > > > > I very clearly recall a case against
> > > > > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda
> > > > > connection,
> > > > > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was
> > > > > Saddam
> > > > > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
> > >
> > > WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> > > unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
> >
> >
> > You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
>
> 1441 was not the final authorization for war.
Was that the sound of a goalpost being moved? Look, you've essentially
already agreed that the U.N. failed and they were happy to watch us 'dig
our own graves'. They softened the dirt and handed us the shovel by not
doing what they had agreed to in 1441. If you want to argue about 1441
then argue why it failed first.
> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,420808,00.html
>
> though the administration took it as 'close enough'.
>
> Saddam was playing a very dangerous game in the run up to war, and I
> am somewhat accepting of the pro-war argument 'better safe than sorry'
> when it comes to 'taking out' rogue regimes (though indeed wonder why
> this logic isn't being applied to Khaddafi, a personage with a similar
> if not worse bad-actor track record vis-a-vis arab terrorism), but I
> believed before the war started and have, to put it mildly, not seen
> much to contraindicate, that US intervention would make the situation
> worse not better.
It usually does.
> I remarked at the time that I would feel a whole lot better about our
> unilateral intervention (which it was despite the token forces sent by
> the UK and Spain) if it indeed had the full involvement of the
> international community.
No question... but why are so many so willing to forget that we got
fucked at the U.N., only to turn around and whine that 1441 didn't
authorize war? IMO that's a ridiculous position to take and one you are
obviously taking here. You honestly don't see a problem with it?
> For me, the issue really wasn't about Saddam per se, since I did not
> view him as a prime cause of Iraq's mess.
I'm sorry... from my perspective, this makes less sense. The reason I
got involved in this discussion with you is because of the 'take out
Saddam' remark. Why include THAT as your entry to convince anyone if you
don't think SH is central? Especially if you have so many others to
choose from?
> Large sectors of Iraqi thought are going to be pro-Arab, anti-Israel,
> anti-US, regardless of how smoothly we could have removed Saddam and
> his sons from power, and I really didn't see how applying external
> violence would result in a stable sane liberal regime for Iraq -- I
> saw it more than likely we'd see a united Hezbollah allah Akbar
> government emerge after our forces finally decamped (and said so in
> the immediate run-up).
>
> IOW, having full world support for our adventure would have reduced
> the chances we'd find ourselves in the current mess. This would have
> required cutting in the current stakeholders of Iraqi wardebt and oil
> contracts, not to mention shelving the extreme makeover of Iraq
> society we tried to pull in 2003.
It would have required those countries that back-stabbed us to live up
to their word. How you can keep overlooking something so obvious leads
me to believe your goal, like the majority of people that talk the talk
you are talking, is to politicize this.
Your 'approval to launch the war' statement is from the perspective of
having U.N. backing. We know Bush didn't feel he needed such backing. We
knew this long before the invasion. For me, the point here is the same
as above. You are talking about needing authorizing and completely
overlooking WHY the U.N. failed... as it if doesn't matter regardless of
the cause. I don't look at things that way.
> > > Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
> > > for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
> > > posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
> > > my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
> > > right it's not even fucking funny.
> >
> > It's easy to think you are right on stuff like this...
>
> after $160B spent, over 850 dead, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis
> killed, maimed, wounded, made orphans, with 90% of the country (not
> counting the Kurds) wanting us out of their country. Yeah, I'd say
> it's easy thinking I am right on stuff like this.
That's gross oversimplification. This isn't anywhere near over yet. Iraq
hasn't even taken full control. To assess whether it will have been
worth what was spent in lives and dollars now is jumping the gun in a
big way... unless your goal is to politicize this. The money is higher
than anyone would like to see because the death toll is lower than it
ever has been for such an endeavor. Look, I'm not saying I agree with
having gone to war... but we did it and we must follow through now. Only
time will tell whether this will have been worth it or not. History
shows few have patience to wait it out before passing judgment,
especially negative judgment. If you want to pat yourself on the back
midstream and believe you know all that ever will be known, have at it.
> > but the only
> > thing you are right on so far that I have seen is that it is the U.N.'s
> > business. But you are overlooking where they already were wrt that
> > business... it was business they had already agreed to do. When Powell
> > stood on the floor of the U.N., now aware he could expect to be voted
> > against on what they had all just agreed to do, he talked about the
> > meetings that created 1441 and led to the unanimous signing. He said,
> > very plainly, that EVERYONE knew what they were talking about if Iraq
> > continued with their non-compliance. They all knew it meant going in.
> > They all knew it was a 'final opportunity'. No one... not one single
> > person challenged this statement on the U.N. floor.
>
> The UN was willing for us to dig our own grave, apparently. win-win
> for them, really, though there is not much love for the UN on the Iraq
> street, either then or now.
This is the most lucid comment I have seen you make and is somewhat
contrary to your position that 1441 doesn't authorize war, at least,
from my perspective. I say this because it begins to address the cause
why 1441 didn't work. If the U.N. fails with 1441... then 1441 is
obviously irrelevant, (as was the U.N., at that point). Many people in
here keep asserting that 1441 didn't authorize the war. They are
correct, it didn't. At the same time, these same people never address
the fact that this willingness to let us dig our own graves went on. We
must face it... they did NOT live up to the spirit contained in a 'final
opportunity' that reminded Iraq 'serious consequences' were coming in
the event of continued non-compliance. They said one thing and did
another when crunch time came. It's silly to pretend none of this ever
happened but people in here do it. Anyway, I'm not so sure it was a
win-win for them, though. I think having lost what they did at the U.N.
was a mistake for them.
> > The cameras inside
> > the meeting room were panning to faces that weren't able to look Powell
> > in the eye when he spoke. The only spineless pieces of shit that did
> > bother to challenge his statement, waited until they got in front of the
> > cameras outside to do so. It was FUCKING obvious the game that was being
> > played. If you missed this then you are excused. If not, you are simply
> > fooling yourself or trying to fool others.
>
> Yes, there was gameplaying going on. Billions of dollars worth of
> frozen oil contracts and other forward-looking agreements related to
> the whole UN administration of Iraq were on the line.
>
> I don't mean to whitewash the situation here, all I stated was I felt
> there was a lot of administration deception (and/or rank delusion and
> I don't particularly care which) in the run up to war.
I think the delusion ran higher than the deception. But ours weren't the
dirtiest of hands in this particular matter. The countries that made it
known they voting against had their own good reasons for keeping us out
of Iraq.
> > The 'crock' here was how
> > dirty were the hands of certain veto-capable countries.
>
> There were and are plenty of crocks to go around.
>
> > Go read 1441, it
> > DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T say
> > anything about more inspections, sanctions etc. in the event of
> > continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
> > explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be. The only topic
> > that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity' was blown.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1162952,00.html
>
> Do I believe a random blowhard on Usenet or Dr Blix . . . hmm . . . I
> believe Blix.
Of course. Now I suggest you go read his March statement just prior to
the invasion and you'll see that he stated Iraq was not in compliance
with 1441 at the time of the deadline. From the U.S. perspective, that
is -end of story-. One thing your link shows here is that the rest of
the U.N. didn't live up to item 12 when we dropped out. As Blix stated,
1441's successor was NEVER tabled. IOW, what he leaves out is that the
remainder of the UNSC didn't even try to formulate a reasonable
alternative to invasion and present it before the invasion took place.
Something they still COULD have done and SHOULD have attempted to do.
They had plenty of time to accomplish this if they chose to do it...
they chose not to bother. This shows their awareness of the enormity of
the failure. IMO you are spot on when you state they were willing to let
us dig our own graves. The reason they were voting against meeting to
create 1441's successor is because they knew it meant they must now do
what they had agreed to do... as Annan had spoken of regarding Iraq's
failure to comply with 1441:
"if Iraq fails to make use of this last chance, and continues its
defiance, the council will have to make another grim choice."
and
"When that time comes, the council must face up to its
responsibilities."
> > That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
> > resolution. As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to comply
> > with 1441.
>
> See above. Blix's job was to report to the UNSC.
And report he did... that Iraq was still in non-compliance at the dead
line.
> The UNSC's job was to
> determine what move to make next.
Get real. What move WOULD be next? What do you think 'serious
consequences' meant? What was Kofi talking about with the 'grim choice'?
What is it with you guys... geez.
> The Bush admin (along with Blair)
> short-circuited this and went in without final clear UN authority.
>
> To the great detriment of the enterprise.
Bottom line: Iraq did fail to comply and the council didn't face its
responsibilities. Those are the facts. The council members making it
public that they would not agree to meet as per item 12 to discuss the
'grim choice' (AKA serious consequences) were the ones responsible for
the failure. At that point, 1441 not authorizing war becomes irrelevant
and rightly so. It makes little sense to point out it didn't authorize
war in light of those facts. I fail to see how anyone can miss this.
> > As Powell stated (unchallenged), everyone knew what that
> > meant... that things were going to be done whether Iraq was cooperative
> > or not. Cooperation wasn't going to happen with SH in power. Given the
> > history of defiance and broken resolutions over the very same issues,
> > that much was already blatantly obvious. Even David Kay said "confirming
> > a country's voluntary disarmament is a job that should not take months
> > or years." Bottom line is... things could have turned out very
> > differently had SH realized that some of the countries were giving more
> > than lip service to this 'final opportunity' resolution.
>
> See, for me, SH wasn't really part of the problem. He was an old fart,
> a tinpot strongman and bloody despot in the old mold of our other
> friendly strongmen (eg. CKS, the Shah of Iran).
>
> I recall reading somewhere that Saddam behaved as he did since he
> could not conceptualize the US actually taking him out, since he was
> supposed to be our modern westernized bastard in the Mideast holding
> the fort against Shia/Iranian/Islamic radicalism.
>
> The problem is Islamic revisionism. Taking out Saddam wasn't
> necessarily the best move to be made in the region in 2003, especially
> unilaterally as we did it. Trying to move in with a menu of US-style
> revisions to their entire society and culture was sheer folly.
I think your characterization of things is a bit off. I'll agree to
disagree.
Steve Carroll
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:<BD04EC51.56334%snit-...@cableone.net>...
> > "Heywood Mogroot" <imout...@mac.com> wrote in
> > dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com on 6/27/04 9:21 PM:
> >
> > >> I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
> > >> assert.
> > >
> > > Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
> > > the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
> > > the run up).
> >
> > Steve gets stuck on the idea of needing conclusive proof - as in the level
> > needed for mathematical proofs... and of course he never offers this
> > himself
> > as it is not possible in the real world.
>
> Only idiots ask for 'conclusive proof'.
Snit is in error here. Like you, he is the one that is whining that 1441
doesn't authorize war, essentially asking for conclusive proof that does
so. My position is that because the U.N. members didn't live up to 1441,
for this matter, the resolution becomes irrelevant... and the U.N. with
it.
> The wise can handle evidence as it comes in.
Well, you just wrote a post to me where you told me that you were aware
that the U.N. let us dig our own grave. You're wise enough to see what
they did...
> reminds me of creationists . . . "Where's your proof, huh? All you got is
> evidence!"
So you are now aware of the facts. I'll no longer see any whining about
U.N. authorization from you, right?
Snit
>>> Steve gets stuck on the idea of needing conclusive proof - as in the level
>>> needed for mathematical proofs... and of course he never offers this himself
>>> as it is not possible in the real world.
>>
>> Only idiots ask for 'conclusive proof'.
>
> Snit is in error here. Like you, he is the one that is whining that 1441
> doesn't authorize war, essentially asking for conclusive proof that does
> so. My position is that because the U.N. members didn't live up to 1441,
> for this matter, the resolution becomes irrelevant... and the U.N. with
> it.
I actually talking about your silly misunderstanding of absolute proof, such
as when you decided my mere support but no proof (as in a mathematical
proof) somehow was a refutation of my claim.
You demand absolute proof from others, but do not offer it yourself. Not
only do you demand it from other, you deem someone not having proof as a
disproof.
Remember these quotes from you:
You yourself have admitted that your "proof" against Bush
proves nothing, so there is nothing more to say about it,
is there?
And when I stated:
Seems you are arguing that since I agreed there is not 100% proof
for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then
that in itself constitutes a valid refutation? Is that what you have
been trying to say? If not, where and how is my characterization
wrong?"
You, Steve, responded with:
Seems I am arguing? I HAVE BEEN arguing this... for about a
month now.
So it is clear that you see anything less than 100% proof as not just a
place where there is the logical possibility of a disproof but as a disproof
in itself.
That is when it is applied to others. When it is applied to you suddenly it
is not fair.
Yeah, I know, you are just a poor, misunderstood troll hunter, right? :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-CE6EE2...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/28/04 8:07 AM:
>
> >>> Steve gets stuck on the idea of needing conclusive proof - as in the
> >>> level
> >>> needed for mathematical proofs... and of course he never offers this
> >>> himself
> >>> as it is not possible in the real world.
> >>
> >> Only idiots ask for 'conclusive proof'.
> >
> > Snit is in error here. Like you, he is the one that is whining that 1441
> > doesn't authorize war, essentially asking for conclusive proof that does
> > so. My position is that because the U.N. members didn't live up to 1441,
> > for this matter, the resolution becomes irrelevant... and the U.N. with
> > it.
>
> I actually talking about your silly misunderstanding of absolute proof, such
> as when you decided my mere support but no proof (as in a mathematical
> proof) somehow was a refutation of my claim.
In an argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves
ANYthing *is* a refutation. Deal with it.
>
> You demand absolute proof from others, but do not offer it yourself.
No, I don't. But nice way to move the goal-post and drag the same tired
topic into every thread. Bravo.
(snip of irrelevant material)
Snit
> In article <BD05851D.563AB%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>> fretwizz-CE6EE2...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/28/04 8:07 AM:
>>
>>>>> Steve gets stuck on the idea of needing conclusive proof - as in the level
>>>>> needed for mathematical proofs... and of course he never offers this
>>>>> himself as it is not possible in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> Only idiots ask for 'conclusive proof'.
>>>
>>> Snit is in error here. Like you, he is the one that is whining that 1441
>>> doesn't authorize war, essentially asking for conclusive proof that does
>>> so. My position is that because the U.N. members didn't live up to 1441,
>>> for this matter, the resolution becomes irrelevant... and the U.N. with
>>> it.
>>
>> I actually talking about your silly misunderstanding of absolute proof, such
>> as when you decided my mere support but no proof (as in a mathematical
>> proof) somehow was a refutation of my claim.
>
> In an argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves
> ANYthing *is* a refutation. Deal with it.
I see you snipped the post in a completely dishonest way.
In any case, take a logic class.
A lack of a mathematical proof does not equate to a disproof... ever.
>> You demand absolute proof from others, but do not offer it yourself.
>
> No, I don't. But nice way to move the goal-post and drag the same tired
> topic into every thread. Bravo.
>
> (snip of irrelevant material)
LOL.... you refer to evidence as "irrelevant material"!
That proves my point. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-432505...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/28/04 8:41 AM:
>
> > In article <BD05851D.563AB%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> >> fretwizz-CE6EE2...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/28/04 8:07 AM:
> >>
> >>>>> Steve gets stuck on the idea of needing conclusive proof - as in the
> >>>>> level
> >>>>> needed for mathematical proofs... and of course he never offers this
> >>>>> himself as it is not possible in the real world.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only idiots ask for 'conclusive proof'.
> >>>
> >>> Snit is in error here. Like you, he is the one that is whining that 1441
> >>> doesn't authorize war, essentially asking for conclusive proof that does
> >>> so. My position is that because the U.N. members didn't live up to 1441,
> >>> for this matter, the resolution becomes irrelevant... and the U.N. with
> >>> it.
> >>
> >> I actually talking about your silly misunderstanding of absolute proof,
> >> such
> >> as when you decided my mere support but no proof (as in a mathematical
> >> proof) somehow was a refutation of my claim.
> >
> > In an argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves
> > ANYthing *is* a refutation. Deal with it.
>
> I see you snipped the post in a completely dishonest way.
Of course that's how you see it... that's what delusions are made of. I
plainly marked where I snipped and it was clearly irrelevant.
> In any case, take a logic class.
>
> A lack of a mathematical proof does not equate to a disproof... ever.
Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here. In an
argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves anything is a
refutation. To validly label someone guilty there must be some form of
proof, not merely evidence that suggests guilt. Guilt must be
established... and done so beyond a reasonable doubt. Having NO proof
(being unable to prove a single thing) creates that reasonable doubt.
You are obviously still unaware of it but this is one of the most basic
tenets upon which our country is based. Do you really need to have this
explained to you over and over? I'll keep doing it... but one would hope
you'd do some research on the subject and progress past the point where
you endlessly repeat the same erroneous, irrelevant mantra.
> >> You demand absolute proof from others, but do not offer it yourself.
> >
> > No, I don't. But nice way to move the goal-post and drag the same tired
> > topic into every thread. Bravo.
> >
> > (snip of irrelevant material)
>
> LOL.... you refer to evidence as "irrelevant material"!
>
> That proves my point. :)
You have no evidence relevant to the topic being discussed here... only
you drooling about irrelevant issues.
Snit
The topic was proof... you even commented on it. What you snipped were the
quotes, from you, that shows you have no understanding of the topic.
Very relevant. Very dishonest for you to snip them, and then respond as
though they did not prove... um... show strong support for what I was
saying.
>
>> In any case, take a logic class.
>>
>> A lack of a mathematical proof does not equate to a disproof... ever.
>
> Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here. In an
> argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves anything is a
> refutation.
Lack of proof < lack of support, esp. when in context proof is meaning the
level of proof required in math.
This is true always. Even in an argument that purports guilt. Even in a
court room (which csma is not).
This is just logic, Steve.
> To validly label someone guilty there must be some form of
> proof, not merely evidence that suggests guilt.
Nothing in the real, physical world ever gets to the level of proof as seen
in mathematical proofs. Nothing. Ever.
> Guilt must be established... and done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here you go from "proof" to showing things beyond a "reasonable doubt".
Very, very different standards.
"Proof", or really support, beyond a reasonable doubt *can* be shown in the
real world.
Why change the goal post like that, Steve?
> Having NO proof (being unable to prove a single thing) creates that reasonable
> doubt.
Not only is what you claim not always true, it is *never* true. There has
never been any court case that absolute proof has been shown, yet people
have reached the "lack of reasonable doubt" mark many times.
The level of proof required in mathematics can *never* be reached in the
physical world.
> You are obviously still unaware of it but this is one of the most basic tenets
> upon which our country is based.
You jumped from "proof", which in context is an absolute, to "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" which is not an absolute.
Why the change in goal posts, Steve?
See, this is another one of your oft repeated trolling attempts... you are
changing the goal posts midstream.
> Do you really need to have this explained to you over and over?
No matter how many times you change this goal post... from the absolute of
"proof" to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", I will not accept your lie.
Even if you repeat the same lie again, I will not fall for it. Even if you
get several people to back you, I will not fall for it. Even if ....
anything... I will not fall for your lie.
> I'll keep doing it... but one would hope you'd do some research on the subject
> and progress past the point where you endlessly repeat the same erroneous,
> irrelevant mantra.
Steve, not only have we both lost track of the number of times I have caught
you in lies... my attempts to get you to answer for your lies have gotten so
old that it is clear you will *never* answer them.
Read recent posts where people are sick of me asking you again and again and
again and again.
You claim to have provided answers, but you can not find those, either.
Maybe they are in the same post where you claim I stated Bush was legally
guilty of something.
>
>>>> You demand absolute proof from others, but do not offer it yourself.
>>>
>>> No, I don't. But nice way to move the goal-post and drag the same tired
>>> topic into every thread. Bravo.
>>>
>>> (snip of irrelevant material)
>>
>> LOL.... you refer to evidence as "irrelevant material"!
>>
>> That proves my point. :)
>
> You have no evidence relevant to the topic being discussed here... only
> you drooling about irrelevant issues.
Quotes from you about proof... quotes from you that show your extreme
ignorance...
Those are not irrelevant. And had they not been lies and errors on your
part, you would have had no need to snip them. It was very dishonest of you
to do so.
Heywood Mogroot
> In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>
> > > I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
> > > assert.
> >
> > Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
> > the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
> > the run up).
>
> So why not present your evidence that offers the best support for what
> you claim? It's now mid 2004... I assume you have such evidence.
Because this is just a usenet discussion and not a court of law, and
at any rate no matter what I post you will dismiss out of hand.
> > I do not pin my thinking about this on one thing reported in Time
> > magazine. It is part of a very wide pattern of activity from the PNAC
> > crew.
>
> So you have plenty of ammo to choose from... why choose what could so
> easily be picked apart? You're obviously already convinced so it stands
> to reason you only included this to convince others.
I couldn't care less what others believe at this point. You, for
instance, as a defender of the Bush admin are either a convinced
ideologue living in a dreamworld, or rather bone-ignornant, or
complicit in their crimes/offenses against the american way.
I don't particularly care which, nor do I wish to argue this deeply in
csma anymore. There is no middle ground here. . . one of us is right
and it's up to the reader to decide, if he/she/it cares.
> > > > > > > I very clearly recall a case against
> > > > > > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda
> > > > > > connection,
> > > > > > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was
> > > > > > Saddam
> > > > > > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
> > > >
> > > > WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> > > > unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
> > >
> > >
> > > You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
> >
> > 1441 was not the final authorization for war.
>
> Was that the sound of a goalpost being moved?
De-fogged. Transgressions against the UN peace process are dealt with
by the UN. Transgressions against the US can be dealt with by the US.
We had nothing in Saddam that would stand up in court, and the Blix
report to the UNSC gave enough cover to our friends in the UN to not
want to go ahead with full prosecution of an opposed invasion and
occupation.
> Look, you've essentially
> already agreed that the U.N. failed and they were happy to watch us 'dig
> our own graves'. They softened the dirt and handed us the shovel by not
> doing what they had agreed to in 1441. If you want to argue about 1441
> then argue why it failed first.
I'm arguing about Bush and the deceptions that lead up to war. 1441,
the UN, Oil-for-food, are sidetracks that do not interest me at this
point. I only vote for president of the US, not general secretary of
the UN.
> > I remarked at the time that I would feel a whole lot better about our
> > unilateral intervention (which it was despite the token forces sent by
> > the UK and Spain) if it indeed had the full involvement of the
> > international community.
>
> No question... but why are so many so willing to forget that we got
> fucked at the U.N., only to turn around and whine that 1441 didn't
> authorize war? IMO that's a ridiculous position to take and one you are
> obviously taking here. You honestly don't see a problem with it?
No, since 1441 didn't authorize war, and I don't believe we 'got
fucked' at the UN, since what we have done without their full cover
has been quite detrimentary to our interests in the M.E. Richard
Clarke said it best when in his book he stated it was like bin laden
in his cave had a machine telling Bush to "Invade Iraq, Invade
Iraq...".
> > For me, the issue really wasn't about Saddam per se, since I did not
> > view him as a prime cause of Iraq's mess.
>
> I'm sorry... from my perspective, this makes less sense. The reason I
> got involved in this discussion with you is because of the 'take out
> Saddam' remark. Why include THAT as your entry to convince anyone if you
> don't think SH is central? Especially if you have so many others to
> choose from?
The issue here was about Bush lying to get the PNAC war on fully. I
don't really care about Saddam, he was, for the most part, the Iraqi's
problem. And the Israeli's, due to his support of Hamas. And ours, to
the extent he could not be put back in the box like Khaddafi.
> > IOW, having full world support for our adventure would have reduced
> > the chances we'd find ourselves in the current mess. This would have
> > required cutting in the current stakeholders of Iraqi wardebt and oil
> > contracts, not to mention shelving the extreme makeover of Iraq
> > society we tried to pull in 2003.
>
> It would have required those countries that back-stabbed us to live up
> to their word.
They seem to be helping us fine in Afghanistan still. The evidence
indicates that they were right not to support our adventure in Iraq.
> How you can keep overlooking something so obvious leads
> me to believe your goal, like the majority of people that talk the talk
> you are talking, is to politicize this.
Politicize what?
> > > > The fact is Bush in his
> > > > weirdest, most animatronic press conference, the last one before the
> > > > bombing started, told the world he was going to have the UN "show
> > > > their cards" to get the final, necessary UN approval to launch the
> > > > war. Which he then promptly failed to do.
> > >
> > > I don't believe Bush ever said anyone's approval was necessary. I'd like
> > > to see your evidence that backs your insinuation here. Personally, I
> > > think you got caught with your paraphrasing pants around your ankles but
> > > I'll give you the opportunity to back your play.
> >
> > here's the press conference:
> >
> > Let's see here, Elizabeth?
> >
> > Q: Thank you, Mr. President.
> >
> > As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a
> > resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for
> > a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the votes?
> >
> > BUSH: Well, first, I don't think ? it basically says that he is in
> > defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says.
> >
> > And it's hard to believe anybody saying he isn't in defiance of 1441
> > because 1441 said he must disarm.
> >
> > And yes, we'll call for a vote.
> >
> > Q: No matter what?
> >
> > BUSH: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We
> > want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam
> > Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council.
> >
> > And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the
> > world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/iraq/main543108.shtml
> >
> > No final vote was held, sine the US knew it did not have the votes.
>
> Your 'approval to launch the war' statement is from the perspective of
> having U.N. backing. We know Bush didn't feel he needed such backing. We
> knew this long before the invasion. For me, the point here is the same
> as above. You are talking about needing authorizing and completely
> overlooking WHY the U.N. failed... as it if doesn't matter regardless of
> the cause. I don't look at things that way.
Fine. I don't feel the need to convince you of error at this point.
How's the weather in Denialistan?
> > > > Enforcing UN resolutions is the UN's business, not the US's. The case
> > > > for war was a crock, and I could see it from day 1. I consider my
> > > > posts in the George Bush iPod Salesman thread in this ng to be among
> > > > my finest and most prescient analytical writing in my life. I was so
> > > > right it's not even fucking funny.
> > >
> > > It's easy to think you are right on stuff like this...
> >
> > after $160B spent, over 850 dead, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis
> > killed, maimed, wounded, made orphans, with 90% of the country (not
> > counting the Kurds) wanting us out of their country. Yeah, I'd say
> > it's easy thinking I am right on stuff like this.
>
> That's gross oversimplification. This isn't anywhere near over yet. Iraq
> hasn't even taken full control. To assess whether it will have been
> worth what was spent in lives and dollars now is jumping the gun in a
> big way... unless your goal is to politicize this. The money is higher
> than anyone would like to see because the death toll is lower than it
> ever has been for such an endeavor. Look, I'm not saying I agree with
> having gone to war... but we did it and we must follow through now.
Yup. Thanks Ralph.
> Only
> time will tell whether this will have been worth it or not. History
> shows few have patience to wait it out before passing judgment,
> especially negative judgment. If you want to pat yourself on the back
> midstream and believe you know all that ever will be known, have at it.
It's a difficult calculus I agree. If you ask Korean war veterans if
it was worth the lives of their buddies to save S Korea the answers
are mixed, but over time they turned around and say it was.
My issue is not that we invaded Iraq . . . I thought it was going to
be a tough slog and we'd see a bunch of extremists running around
afterwards, but if the american people and/or world community got
behind it **** with informed consent of the reasons why and the
potential costs involved **** then I would have gone along, since it
is indeed impossible to accurately measure the blood calculus vs.
future improved international security.
That Bush and his administration had to lie, to the american people
and to the UN, to make their case indicates the case for war was not
strong enough to convince people it was worth taking Saddam out.
Things will get better once Bush and friends are removed from power.
Hopefully for good this time, given the number of retreads from the
Reagan/Bush I regime.
> > > The cameras inside
> > > the meeting room were panning to faces that weren't able to look Powell
> > > in the eye when he spoke. The only spineless pieces of shit that did
> > > bother to challenge his statement, waited until they got in front of the
> > > cameras outside to do so. It was FUCKING obvious the game that was being
> > > played. If you missed this then you are excused. If not, you are simply
> > > fooling yourself or trying to fool others.
> >
> > Yes, there was gameplaying going on. Billions of dollars worth of
> > frozen oil contracts and other forward-looking agreements related to
> > the whole UN administration of Iraq were on the line.
> >
> > I don't mean to whitewash the situation here, all I stated was I felt
> > there was a lot of administration deception (and/or rank delusion and
> > I don't particularly care which) in the run up to war.
>
> I think the delusion ran higher than the deception.
Hanlon's Law aside, there is enough evidence that there was a
concerted effort to cook the case for war that I don't really hold
open the delusion argument. The nexus of neoconservative influence
within the Defense Department is part of this evidence, given the
general nefariousness of their worldview and modus operandi (cf.
Irving Kristol and the other Straussians).
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
> But ours weren't the
> dirtiest of hands in this particular matter. The countries that made it
> known they voting against had their own good reasons for keeping us out
> of Iraq.
Yup. But the complicity of France and Russia is orthogonal to this
administration's actions.
> > > Go read 1441, it
> > > DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T say
> > > anything about more inspections, sanctions etc. in the event of
> > > continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
> > > explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be. The only topic
> > > that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity' was blown.
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1162952,00.html
> >
> > Do I believe a random blowhard on Usenet or Dr Blix . . . hmm . . . I
> > believe Blix.
>
> Of course. Now I suggest you go read his March statement just prior to
> the invasion and you'll see that he stated Iraq was not in compliance
> with 1441 at the time of the deadline.
yes yes. 1441 was the first shoe in the run up. The UNSC passed it to
placate its sponsors.
> From the U.S. perspective, that is -end of story-.
From the administration's perspective, yes. Opinions differ, and the
Bush administration is not identical with the US.
> One thing your link shows here is that the rest of
> the U.N. didn't live up to item 12 when we dropped out. As Blix stated,
> 1441's successor was NEVER tabled. IOW, what he leaves out is that the
> remainder of the UNSC didn't even try to formulate a reasonable
> alternative to invasion and present it before the invasion took place.
Hard to do so when the invasion is on such a tight timetable. In fact,
I think it's relatively safe to say that train had already left the
station, and it didn't matter what the UN did or tried to do.
> Something they still COULD have done and SHOULD have attempted to do.
> They had plenty of time to accomplish this if they chose to do it...
> they chose not to bother. This shows their awareness of the enormity of
> the failure. IMO you are spot on when you state they were willing to let
> us dig our own graves. The reason they were voting against meeting to
> create 1441's successor is because they knew it meant they must now do
> what they had agreed to do... as Annan had spoken of regarding Iraq's
> failure to comply with 1441:
>
> "if Iraq fails to make use of this last chance, and continues its
> defiance, the council will have to make another grim choice."
>
> and
>
> "When that time comes, the council must face up to its
> responsibilities."
The US/UK saw they would not get final sign off on violent overthrow
of the Saddam regime, but went ahead anyway. Just a midway freezeframe
in the longjump into war.
> > > That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
> > > resolution. As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to comply
> > > with 1441.
> >
> > See above. Blix's job was to report to the UNSC.
>
> And report he did... that Iraq was still in non-compliance at the dead
> line.
More or less, yes.
> > The UNSC's job was to
> > determine what move to make next.
>
> Get real. What move WOULD be next? What do you think 'serious
> consequences' meant? What was Kofi talking about with the 'grim choice'?
> What is it with you guys... geez.
What is with me is the legalities, and more importantly, the holistic
wisdom of the action.
It would have been wiser to build a bona fide case for war not
construct the sham case we built.
It would have been wiser to cut in the stake-holders of Iraq (largely
France, Germany, Japan, and Russia) into the decision making process.
It would have been wiser to cut the deals necessary to bring on a full
bona-fide coalition, resembling that of the 1990/1991 gulf war (or the
one fighting islamic radicalsm in Afghanistan), and not the 'coalition
of the billing' Bush one was able to scrape together.
It would have been wiser to level with the american people about the
expected costs of the war, not just blow them off as 'we have no way
of knowing at this point'.
And it would have been most wise to leave the US GOP neocon
carpetbaggers home and not inject them into a fluid and dangerously
unstable situation.
That the US couldn't get its war with full UN imprimature is rather
extraneous to most of these points.
> > The Bush admin (along with Blair)
> > short-circuited this and went in without final clear UN authority.
> >
> > To the great detriment of the enterprise.
>
> Bottom line: Iraq did fail to comply and the council didn't face its
> responsibilities. Those are the facts.
That's not the bottom line, though. The bottom line is we've spent
$160B and lost 850 dead, a thousand or two horribly maimed, more
thousands seriously injured, and tens of thousands of families torn
apart over a pipe dream of neocon conquest and nation building.
> The council members making it
> public that they would not agree to meet as per item 12 to discuss the
> 'grim choice' (AKA serious consequences) were the ones responsible for
> the failure. At that point, 1441 not authorizing war becomes irrelevant
> and rightly so. It makes little sense to point out it didn't authorize
> war in light of those facts. I fail to see how anyone can miss this.
I don't miss it. I dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion about
this administration.
The bottom line fact is we fucked the situation up, but good.
> > The problem is Islamic revisionism. Taking out Saddam wasn't
> > necessarily the best move to be made in the region in 2003, especially
> > unilaterally as we did it. Trying to move in with a menu of US-style
> > revisions to their entire society and culture was sheer folly.
>
> I think your characterization of things is a bit off. I'll agree to
> disagree.
That we can do. See you 11/2.
Heywood Mogroot
> more on what I consider to be the real national security issue #1:
> dependence on foreign oil. We have to do something, and it has to
> involve moving beyond finite and politically and environmentally
> hazardous fossil fuels. The only thing I don't grok is why there isn't
> an overwhelming sense of urgency about this. Maybe I just don't get
> something really obvious.
there should be a manhattan project -level of goverment investment in
this. Part of the problem is that this administration simply does not
believe in the efficacy of government oversight of business.
governments spending on money on things other than weapons programs
simply doesn't compute. To be fair to the true libertarians, they are
also not so big on that $500B/yr defense budget.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
(snip)
> >> I see you snipped the post in a completely dishonest way.
> >
> > Of course that's how you see it... that's what delusions are made of. I
> > plainly marked where I snipped and it was clearly irrelevant.
>
> The topic was proof... you even commented on it. What you snipped were the
> quotes, from you, that shows you have no understanding of the topic.
As you perceive it. That's what makes it irrelevant.
> Very relevant. Very dishonest for you to snip them, and then respond as
> though they did not prove... um... show strong support for what I was
> saying.
No... your problems with me are not relevant to the topic I was
discussing with Heywood. Sorry... not buying today.
> >> In any case, take a logic class.
> >>
> >> A lack of a mathematical proof does not equate to a disproof... ever.
> >
> > Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here. In an
> > argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves anything is a
> > refutation.
>
> Lack of proof < lack of support, esp. when in context proof is meaning the
> level of proof required in math.
What part of the following statement confused you?
"Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here"
Reality check: No one purporting guilt has the burden of -supporting-
that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They have the burden
of -proving- that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So you
don't get confused, this works out of court as well as in. YOU can
believe that someone is guilty based on evidence you consider *supports*
such a belief. You are free to do that... just like I am free to point
out to you why most people hold to the concept of *proving* that a
person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... even outside of a
courtroom, with math not entering into it. IOW not everyone is as
careless with claiming people are guilty as you are. I'm here to remind
you of that.
> This is true always. Even in an argument that purports guilt. Even in a
> court room (which csma is not).
>
> This is just logic, Steve.
As used by you. The rest of the United States and much of the world uses
the concept known as presumption of innocence. This is where the party
purporting guilt has the burden of proving that a person is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt... in court or out, with no math involved.
> > To validly label someone guilty there must be some form of
> > proof, not merely evidence that suggests guilt.
>
> Nothing in the real, physical world ever gets to the level of proof as seen
> in mathematical proofs. Nothing. Ever.
Again, what part of "Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is
irrelevant here" confused you? Why are you continuing to talk about it?
It is not relevant here.
> > Guilt must be established... and done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> Here you go from "proof" to showing things beyond a "reasonable doubt".
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt... a rather common phrase. Gee... I
wonder why that is?
> Very, very different standards.
>
> "Proof", or really support, beyond a reasonable doubt *can* be shown in the
> real world.
No... is it commonly referred to as 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.
You are the only one trying to play word games here. No one uses the
term 'support beyond a reasonable doubt'... no matter how much your
bizarre argument here needs it to do so.
> Why change the goal post like that, Steve?
>
> > Having NO proof (being unable to prove a single thing) creates that
> > reasonable
> > doubt.
>
> Not only is what you claim not always true, it is *never* true. There has
> never been any court case that absolute proof has been shown, yet people
> have reached the "lack of reasonable doubt" mark many times.
>
> The level of proof required in mathematics can *never* be reached in the
> physical world.
Irrelevant. Do you ever intend to discuss things that are relevant to
the topic? Let me know...
(snip of remainder of irrelevant material by Snit)
Snit
> In article <BD059D93.56402%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> I see you snipped the post in a completely dishonest way.
>>>
>>> Of course that's how you see it... that's what delusions are made of. I
>>> plainly marked where I snipped and it was clearly irrelevant.
>>
>> The topic was proof... you even commented on it. What you snipped were the
>> quotes, from you, that shows you have no understanding of the topic.
>
> As you perceive it. That's what makes it irrelevant.
More baseless claims from you. What a shock.
It really is impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with you if you
are going to just discount reason and logic. As I point out your lies more
and more, you do little more than that.
If you are not going to respond in any meaningful / reasonable way you are
doing nothing more than trolling.
>
>> Very relevant. Very dishonest for you to snip them, and then respond as
>> though they did not prove... um... show strong support for what I was
>> saying.
>
> No... your problems with me are not relevant to the topic I was
> discussing with Heywood. Sorry... not buying today.
The topic was "proof". You do not get the concepts of "proof", "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt" and "support".
Your clear lack of understanding is very much on topic. And I notice you
say nothing to discount the evidence I show to support my claim - you simply
snip it.
You run from reason, logic, and meaningful questions.
>
>>>> In any case, take a logic class.
>>>>
>>>> A lack of a mathematical proof does not equate to a disproof... ever.
>>>
>>> Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here. In an
>>> argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves anything is a
>>> refutation.
>>
>> Lack of proof < lack of support, esp. when in context proof is meaning the
>> level of proof required in math.
>
> What part of the following statement confused you?
>
> "Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here"
You claim I offered no proof.
If by proof you mean the type proof used in mathematics, you are right, but,
as you say, it is irrelevant. For you to keep harping on it and not admit
you are being irrelevant is dishonest on your part.
If by proof you mean "support" or "evidence", then I offered plenty - so
your claim is a lie.
No matter how you look at it, your claim is dishonest.
> Reality check: No one purporting guilt has the burden of -supporting-
> that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They have the burden
> of -proving- that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So you
> don't get confused, this works out of court as well as in. YOU can
> believe that someone is guilty based on evidence you consider *supports*
> such a belief. You are free to do that... just like I am free to point
> out to you why most people hold to the concept of *proving* that a
> person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... even outside of a
> courtroom, with math not entering into it. IOW not everyone is as
> careless with claiming people are guilty as you are. I'm here to remind
> you of that.
1) csma is not a court room. To treat it like it is, as you try to, is
dishonest on your part.
2) You have changed the topic from "proof" to "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt". That is dishonest on your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
>
>> This is true always. Even in an argument that purports guilt. Even in a
>> court room (which csma is not).
>>
>> This is just logic, Steve.
>
> As used by you. The rest of the United States and much of the world uses
> the concept known as presumption of innocence. This is where the party
> purporting guilt has the burden of proving that a person is guilty
> beyond a reasonable doubt... in court or out, with no math involved.
You are claiming I have stated *anything* which would go against the
presumption of innocence in relationship to adjudication. That is dishonest
on your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
>
>>> To validly label someone guilty there must be some form of
>>> proof, not merely evidence that suggests guilt.
>>
>> Nothing in the real, physical world ever gets to the level of proof as seen
>> in mathematical proofs. Nothing. Ever.
>
> Again, what part of "Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is
> irrelevant here" confused you? Why are you continuing to talk about it?
> It is not relevant here.
It is relevant because you sometimes use the word that way, such as when you
say I have no "proof", and other times use it in a different way, such as
when you treat csma as a court room or some forum that is seeking
adjudication. That is dishonest on your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
>
>>> Guilt must be established... and done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> Here you go from "proof" to showing things beyond a "reasonable doubt".
>
> Proof beyond a reasonable doubt... a rather common phrase. Gee... I
> wonder why that is?
You are mixing up the different meanings of the word "proof". That is
dishonest on your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
>
>> Very, very different standards.
>>
>> "Proof", or really support, beyond a reasonable doubt *can* be shown in the
>> real world.
>
> No... is it commonly referred to as 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.
You are implying I have stated otherwise. I have not. That is dishonest on
your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
> You are the only one trying to play word games here. No one uses the
> term 'support beyond a reasonable doubt'... no matter how much your
> bizarre argument here needs it to do so.
Again, you are making claims and trying to attribute them to me. That is
dishonest on your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
>
>> Why change the goal post like that, Steve?
>>
>>> Having NO proof (being unable to prove a single thing) creates that
>>> reasonable
>>> doubt.
>>
>> Not only is what you claim not always true, it is *never* true. There has
>> never been any court case that absolute proof has been shown, yet people
>> have reached the "lack of reasonable doubt" mark many times.
>>
>> The level of proof required in mathematics can *never* be reached in the
>> physical world.
>
> Irrelevant. Do you ever intend to discuss things that are relevant to
> the topic? Let me know...
it is relevant. Proof is the topic. I am completely on topic. Your denial
is dishonest on your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
>
>
> (snip of remainder of irrelevant material by Snit)
You are snipping relevant information and claiming it is not relevant That
is dishonest on your part.
Again, if you are simply going to lie - there is no point in talking to you.
Snit
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<fretwizz-7AB8AD...@netnews.comcast.net>...
>> In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
>> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>>
>>>> I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
>>>> assert.
>>>
>>> Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
>>> the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
>>> the run up).
>>
>> So why not present your evidence that offers the best support for what
>> you claim? It's now mid 2004... I assume you have such evidence.
>
> Because this is just a usenet discussion and not a court of law, and
> at any rate no matter what I post you will dismiss out of hand.
Hey Steve: does the idea that you try to treat csma as your own private
court room sound familiar?
Does the idea that you will dismiss ideas out of hand sound familiar?
People are not as stupid as you seem to think they are....
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<fretwizz-7AB8AD...@netnews.comcast.net>...
> > In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
> >
> > > > I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
> > > > assert.
> > >
> > > Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
> > > the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
> > > the run up).
> >
> > So why not present your evidence that offers the best support for what
> > you claim? It's now mid 2004... I assume you have such evidence.
>
> Because this is just a usenet discussion and not a court of law, and
> at any rate no matter what I post you will dismiss out of hand.
Nice try:) So you weren't really trying to convince anyone of anything
when you wrote it... just telling us why you were so easily convinced?
Fair enough... but I'll have to try hard to believe it.
> > > I do not pin my thinking about this on one thing reported in Time
> > > magazine. It is part of a very wide pattern of activity from the PNAC
> > > crew.
> >
> > So you have plenty of ammo to choose from... why choose what could so
> > easily be picked apart? You're obviously already convinced so it stands
> > to reason you only included this to convince others.
>
> I couldn't care less what others believe at this point. You, for
> instance, as a defender of the Bush admin are either a convinced
> ideologue living in a dreamworld, or rather bone-ignornant, or
> complicit in their crimes/offenses against the american way.
You're entitled to your opinion.
> I don't particularly care which, nor do I wish to argue this deeply in
> csma anymore. There is no middle ground here. . . one of us is right
> and it's up to the reader to decide, if he/she/it cares.
Yup. For the record, you didn't convince me of much.
> > > > > > > > I very clearly recall a case against
> > > > > > > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda
> > > > > > > connection,
> > > > > > > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was
> > > > > > > Saddam
> > > > > > > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
> > > > >
> > > > > WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> > > > > unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
> > >
> > > 1441 was not the final authorization for war.
> >
> > Was that the sound of a goalpost being moved?
>
> De-fogged. Transgressions against the UN peace process are dealt with
> by the UN. Transgressions against the US can be dealt with by the US.
> We had nothing in Saddam that would stand up in court, and the Blix
> report to the UNSC gave enough cover to our friends in the UN to not
> want to go ahead with full prosecution of an opposed invasion and
> occupation.
The U.N. had convicted Iraq for over a decade. The Blix report found
Iraq in non-compliance at the deadline of a 'final opportunity' that
promised 'serious consequences'. You run from these facts. I can't.
> > Look, you've essentially
> > already agreed that the U.N. failed and they were happy to watch us 'dig
> > our own graves'. They softened the dirt and handed us the shovel by not
> > doing what they had agreed to in 1441. If you want to argue about 1441
> > then argue why it failed first.
>
> I'm arguing about Bush and the deceptions that lead up to war. 1441,
> the UN, Oil-for-food, are sidetracks that do not interest me at this
> point. I only vote for president of the US, not general secretary of
> the UN.
I realize that... and as I've told you, I think you presented an
extremely weak argument. According to you now,(as of this post) you
could care less who it convinces. Why bother posting it if that is your
feeling? Makes no sense.
> > > I remarked at the time that I would feel a whole lot better about our
> > > unilateral intervention (which it was despite the token forces sent by
> > > the UK and Spain) if it indeed had the full involvement of the
> > > international community.
> >
> > No question... but why are so many so willing to forget that we got
> > fucked at the U.N., only to turn around and whine that 1441 didn't
> > authorize war? IMO that's a ridiculous position to take and one you are
> > obviously taking here. You honestly don't see a problem with it?
>
> No, since 1441 didn't authorize war, and I don't believe we 'got
> fucked' at the UN, since what we have done without their full cover
> has been quite detrimentary to our interests in the M.E. Richard
> Clarke said it best when in his book he stated it was like bin laden
> in his cave had a machine telling Bush to "Invade Iraq, Invade
> Iraq...".
Sigh...
> > > For me, the issue really wasn't about Saddam per se, since I did not
> > > view him as a prime cause of Iraq's mess.
> >
> > I'm sorry... from my perspective, this makes less sense. The reason I
> > got involved in this discussion with you is because of the 'take out
> > Saddam' remark. Why include THAT as your entry to convince anyone if you
> > don't think SH is central? Especially if you have so many others to
> > choose from?
>
> The issue here was about Bush lying to get the PNAC war on fully. I
> don't really care about Saddam, he was, for the most part, the Iraqi's
> problem. And the Israeli's, due to his support of Hamas. And ours, to
> the extent he could not be put back in the box like Khaddafi.
You think you have proven that with the evidence you presented? Oh...
sorry... I forgot that you weren't trying to convince anyone of this.
> > > IOW, having full world support for our adventure would have reduced
> > > the chances we'd find ourselves in the current mess. This would have
> > > required cutting in the current stakeholders of Iraqi wardebt and oil
> > > contracts, not to mention shelving the extreme makeover of Iraq
> > > society we tried to pull in 2003.
> >
> > It would have required those countries that back-stabbed us to live up
> > to their word.
>
> They seem to be helping us fine in Afghanistan still. The evidence
> indicates that they were right not to support our adventure in Iraq.
From your viewing of it.
> > How you can keep overlooking something so obvious leads
> > me to believe your goal, like the majority of people that talk the talk
> > you are talking, is to politicize this.
>
> Politicize what?
Gimme a break.
You tell me... you live there. I'm telling you about facts that have
occurred... you're giving me anecdotal evidence and trying to sell me
something you don't claim you care if I buy or if anyone buys for that
matter. I fail to see the point of your position. Are you waffling
because you can't handle the facts I am presenting? Fine.... but it
doesn't make for a very productive discussion.
So why do you keep bringing up topics like 1441 and authorization?
> . . . I thought it was going to
> be a tough slog and we'd see a bunch of extremists running around
> afterwards, but if the american people and/or world community got
> behind it **** with informed consent of the reasons why and the
> potential costs involved **** then I would have gone along, since it
> is indeed impossible to accurately measure the blood calculus vs.
> future improved international security.
>
> That Bush and his administration had to lie, to the american people
> and to the UN, to make their case indicates the case for war was not
> strong enough to convince people it was worth taking Saddam out.
You've missed it entirely. The point here is that the Bush
administration, regardless of what you are claiming above, didn't have
to lie. They MAY have lied... I won't pretend I know the concrete answer
to this like you do... but it wasn't necessary. The 1441 folly proves
that. But you don't want to or can't discuss it for some reason so we'll
never get there.
Maybe they'll get better... maybe not.
> > > > The cameras inside
> > > > the meeting room were panning to faces that weren't able to look Powell
> > > > in the eye when he spoke. The only spineless pieces of shit that did
> > > > bother to challenge his statement, waited until they got in front of
> > > > the
> > > > cameras outside to do so. It was FUCKING obvious the game that was
> > > > being
> > > > played. If you missed this then you are excused. If not, you are
> > > > simply
> > > > fooling yourself or trying to fool others.
> > >
> > > Yes, there was gameplaying going on. Billions of dollars worth of
> > > frozen oil contracts and other forward-looking agreements related to
> > > the whole UN administration of Iraq were on the line.
> > >
> > > I don't mean to whitewash the situation here, all I stated was I felt
> > > there was a lot of administration deception (and/or rank delusion and
> > > I don't particularly care which) in the run up to war.
> >
> > I think the delusion ran higher than the deception.
>
> Hanlon's Law aside, there is enough evidence that there was a
> concerted effort to cook the case for war that I don't really hold
> open the delusion argument. The nexus of neoconservative influence
> within the Defense Department is part of this evidence, given the
> general nefariousness of their worldview and modus operandi (cf.
> Irving Kristol and the other Straussians).
>
> http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
A bit of a stretch IMO.
> > But ours weren't the
> > dirtiest of hands in this particular matter. The countries that made it
> > known they voting against had their own good reasons for keeping us out
> > of Iraq.
>
> Yup. But the complicity of France and Russia is orthogonal to this
> administration's actions.
So you recognize that others hands were dirtier than ours in this mess
and it means nothing to you as far as what happened at the U.N.?
Incredible...
> > > > Go read 1441, it
> > > > DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T
> > > > say
> > > > anything about more inspections, sanctions etc. in the event of
> > > > continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
> > > > explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be. The only
> > > > topic
> > > > that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity' was blown.
> > >
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1162952,00.html
> > >
> > > Do I believe a random blowhard on Usenet or Dr Blix . . . hmm . . . I
> > > believe Blix.
> >
> > Of course. Now I suggest you go read his March statement just prior to
> > the invasion and you'll see that he stated Iraq was not in compliance
> > with 1441 at the time of the deadline.
>
> yes yes. 1441 was the first shoe in the run up. The UNSC passed it to
> placate its sponsors.
Yes... and that being the reason, it was a huge mistake on their part if
they had no intention of following through. They literally created the
atmosphere for the failure. The irony here is, before the backpeddling
took place, the passage of this resolution actually received wider
support than that of the first Gulf War.
> > From the U.S. perspective, that is -end of story-.
>
> From the administration's perspective, yes. Opinions differ, and the
> Bush administration is not identical with the US.
>
> > One thing your link shows here is that the rest of
> > the U.N. didn't live up to item 12 when we dropped out. As Blix stated,
> > 1441's successor was NEVER tabled. IOW, what he leaves out is that the
> > remainder of the UNSC didn't even try to formulate a reasonable
> > alternative to invasion and present it before the invasion took place.
>
> Hard to do so when the invasion is on such a tight timetable. In fact,
> I think it's relatively safe to say that train had already left the
> station, and it didn't matter what the UN did or tried to do.
In a word: Bullshit.
>
> > Something they still COULD have done and SHOULD have attempted to do.
> > They had plenty of time to accomplish this if they chose to do it...
> > they chose not to bother. This shows their awareness of the enormity of
> > the failure. IMO you are spot on when you state they were willing to let
> > us dig our own graves. The reason they were voting against meeting to
> > create 1441's successor is because they knew it meant they must now do
> > what they had agreed to do... as Annan had spoken of regarding Iraq's
> > failure to comply with 1441:
> >
> > "if Iraq fails to make use of this last chance, and continues its
> > defiance, the council will have to make another grim choice."
> >
> > and
> >
> > "When that time comes, the council must face up to its
> > responsibilities."
>
> The US/UK saw they would not get final sign off on violent overthrow
> of the Saddam regime, but went ahead anyway. Just a midway freezeframe
> in the longjump into war.
Let's read that page accurately, shall we? The pertinent fact is that
the others had no intention of living up to what they agreed to live up
to in 1441. You appear to be admitting this, yet... you downplay the
significance.
> > > > That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
> > > > resolution. As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to
> > > > comply
> > > > with 1441.
> > >
> > > See above. Blix's job was to report to the UNSC.
> >
> > And report he did... that Iraq was still in non-compliance at the dead
> > line.
>
> More or less, yes.
I won't let you mince words here... it was not more or less. That was
what he reported and it was true at the time of the deadline.
> > > The UNSC's job was to
> > > determine what move to make next.
> >
> > Get real. What move WOULD be next? What do you think 'serious
> > consequences' meant? What was Kofi talking about with the 'grim choice'?
> > What is it with you guys... geez.
>
> What is with me is the legalities, and more importantly, the holistic
> wisdom of the action.
What legalities? This isn't a courtroom, right? That shit works both
ways. Now if you want to hold a realistic discussion, stop with the
bullshit. The legalities are that 1441 went out the window and the U.N.
with it at that point. You won't see anyone in the U.N. bring the U.S.
up on charges for this. I think you know why.
> It would have been wiser to build a bona fide case for war not
> construct the sham case we built.
The case WAS built to go in and disarm! The train stopped at the station
for the final vote that everyone knew HAD to follow the final blown
opportunity. People bailed on their word at this point. Geez... are you
not reading what I am telling you? Do you still think it isn't true?
> It would have been wiser to cut in the stake-holders of Iraq (largely
> France, Germany, Japan, and Russia) into the decision making process.
They were cut in, right up until it was shown that they had no intention
of backing their agreement.
> It would have been wiser to cut the deals necessary to bring on a full
> bona-fide coalition, resembling that of the 1990/1991 gulf war (or the
> one fighting islamic radicalsm in Afghanistan), and not the 'coalition
> of the billing' Bush one was able to scrape together.
It actually started off bigger with 1441's passage... but it wasn't
going to happen with these backstabbers. What's it going to take to make
you realize what actually happened at the U.N.? I give up...
> It would have been wiser to level with the american people about the
> expected costs of the war, not just blow them off as 'we have no way
> of knowing at this point'.
I agree.
> And it would have been most wise to leave the US GOP neocon
> carpetbaggers home and not inject them into a fluid and dangerously
> unstable situation.
>
LOL!
> That the US couldn't get its war with full UN imprimature is rather
> extraneous to most of these points.
>
> > > The Bush admin (along with Blair)
> > > short-circuited this and went in without final clear UN authority.
> > >
> > > To the great detriment of the enterprise.
> >
> > Bottom line: Iraq did fail to comply and the council didn't face its
> > responsibilities. Those are the facts.
>
> That's not the bottom line, though. The bottom line is we've spent
> $160B and lost 850 dead, a thousand or two horribly maimed, more
> thousands seriously injured, and tens of thousands of families torn
> apart over a pipe dream of neocon conquest and nation building.
You know what I meant. In actuality, even your cute paragraph here isn't
the bottom line.
> > The council members making it
> > public that they would not agree to meet as per item 12 to discuss the
> > 'grim choice' (AKA serious consequences) were the ones responsible for
> > the failure. At that point, 1441 not authorizing war becomes irrelevant
> > and rightly so. It makes little sense to point out it didn't authorize
> > war in light of those facts. I fail to see how anyone can miss this.
>
> I don't miss it. I dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion about
> this administration.
Then I would suggest that you don't involve yourself in discussion of
foreign politics because this kind of reality is what you're likely to
encounter. People generally won't disregard pertinent information
because you don't think it's relevant. This shit is all tied together.
You are trying to untie it to focus on certain things.
> The bottom line fact is we fucked the situation up, but good.
It was fucked up long before it got to the point where our partners
bailed out and left us holding the caskets and checkbook.
> > > The problem is Islamic revisionism. Taking out Saddam wasn't
> > > necessarily the best move to be made in the region in 2003, especially
> > > unilaterally as we did it. Trying to move in with a menu of US-style
> > > revisions to their entire society and culture was sheer folly.
> >
> > I think your characterization of things is a bit off. I'll agree to
> > disagree.
>
> That we can do. See you 11/2.
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Heywood Mogroot" <imout...@mac.com> wrote in
> dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com on 6/28/04 12:07 PM:
>
> > Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:<fretwizz-7AB8AD...@netnews.comcast.net>...
> >> In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> >> imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I wouldn't consider that any sort of conclusive proof of what you
> >>>> assert.
> >>>
> >>> Of course not. It's just evidence for my case, and later support for
> >>> the way I saw it at the time (the story came out a month or two after
> >>> the run up).
> >>
> >> So why not present your evidence that offers the best support for what
> >> you claim? It's now mid 2004... I assume you have such evidence.
> >
> > Because this is just a usenet discussion and not a court of law, and
> > at any rate no matter what I post you will dismiss out of hand.
>
> Hey Steve: does the idea that you try to treat csma as your own private
> court room sound familiar?
Why not ask Heywood why he kept trying to throw things back into the
courtroom only when it suited him?
> Does the idea that you will dismiss ideas out of hand sound familiar?
No... but I've little doubt that you've done enough research on google
to have found another poster use this extremely common phrase wrt to me.
I can find hundreds of thousands of instances of people claiming this
about others. Almost as many as I can find of people calling you a
liar:) What's your point?
>
> People are not as stupid as you seem to think they are....
As usual, you're wrong. I don't think Heywood is stupid... just not as
well informed as he believes he is.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-3B8F34...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/28/04 12:25 PM:
>
> > In article <BD059D93.56402%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>>> I see you snipped the post in a completely dishonest way.
> >>>
> >>> Of course that's how you see it... that's what delusions are made of. I
> >>> plainly marked where I snipped and it was clearly irrelevant.
> >>
> >> The topic was proof... you even commented on it. What you snipped were the
> >> quotes, from you, that shows you have no understanding of the topic.
> >
> > As you perceive it. That's what makes it irrelevant.
>
> More baseless claims from you. What a shock.
>
> It really is impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with you if you
> are going to just discount reason and logic. As I point out your lies more
> and more, you do little more than that.
>
> If you are not going to respond in any meaningful / reasonable way you are
> doing nothing more than trolling.
According to you... but then... you have called any number of people
trolls and liars, often with no better reason than they have bested you
in some argument or other. Your sole goal is to 'win'... to be 'right'.
You have absolutely no interest in the partaking of an argument with the
intention of learning something, therefore, you don't.
> >> Very relevant. Very dishonest for you to snip them, and then respond as
> >> though they did not prove... um... show strong support for what I was
> >> saying.
> >
> > No... your problems with me are not relevant to the topic I was
> > discussing with Heywood. Sorry... not buying today.
>
> The topic was "proof". You do not get the concepts of "proof", "proof
> beyond a reasonable doubt" and "support".
According to you... and I'm not too bothered by it.
> Your clear lack of understanding is very much on topic. And I notice you
> say nothing to discount the evidence I show to support my claim - you simply
> snip it.
>
> You run from reason, logic, and meaningful questions.
In your opinion.
> >>>> In any case, take a logic class.
> >>>>
> >>>> A lack of a mathematical proof does not equate to a disproof... ever.
> >>>
> >>> Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here. In an
> >>> argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves anything is a
> >>> refutation.
> >>
> >> Lack of proof < lack of support, esp. when in context proof is meaning the
> >> level of proof required in math.
> >
> > What part of the following statement confused you?
> >
> > "Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here"
>
> You claim I offered no proof.
You told this NG that you offered no proof... only strong support in
*YOUR* opinion. Thankfully, guilt requires more than strong support in
the opinion of one person who has shown he doesn't understand why the
presumption of innocence is important.
> If by proof you mean the type proof used in mathematics, you are right, but,
> as you say, it is irrelevant. For you to keep harping on it and not admit
> you are being irrelevant is dishonest on your part.
>
> If by proof you mean "support" or "evidence", then I offered plenty - so
> your claim is a lie.
Unfortunately, for you and your argument, the presumption of innocence
doesn't open the door to your evidence merely *supporting* your guilt
assertion. It must *prove* that assertion... and do so beyond reasonable
doubt. You were repeatedly told that you failed to achieve this to those
that took the time to read your parroted argument. You were also told
why. Deal with it.
> No matter how you look at it, your claim is dishonest.
>
> > Reality check: No one purporting guilt has the burden of -supporting-
> > that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They have the burden
> > of -proving- that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So you
> > don't get confused, this works out of court as well as in. YOU can
> > believe that someone is guilty based on evidence you consider *supports*
> > such a belief. You are free to do that... just like I am free to point
> > out to you why most people hold to the concept of *proving* that a
> > person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... even outside of a
> > courtroom, with math not entering into it. IOW not everyone is as
> > careless with claiming people are guilty as you are. I'm here to remind
> > you of that.
>
> 1) csma is not a court room. To treat it like it is, as you try to, is
> dishonest on your part.
You told this NG that your argument was a legal argument. You told this
NG that a person was guilty of breaking laws that you claimed he broke.
You told this NG that this person was a war criminal and a terrorist
because of these things. In other words... YOU set a specific context.
You then conducted your argument without benefit of presumption of
innocence, where you presided as the sole arbiter and refused to listen
to the multitude of posters that tried to explain your errors to you.
It's an exercise in non-reality to believe that people won't address
this in the context in which YOU presented it. Just because your
argument got shredded to bits from several different directions is no
reason to pretend the context YOU set didn't exist.
(snip of the remainder of Snit's irrelevant, unsubstantiated claims)
Jeff Barber
ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > Apparently, it's beginning to look like this administration
> > has chosen to more fully side with the HUMINT side of the
> > house. Choosing to believe evidence provided by sources
> > like Chalabi instead of evidence, or lack of evidence,
> > provided by satellites, antennas, etc.
> >
> > Ahmed Chalabi is an example of the pitfalls of HUMINT.
> > He wasn't a reliable source of intelligence. Oops!
>
> I think it's more that this administration chose to side with whoever
> would tell them what they wanted to hear.
Well, yeah, there is that. Although my favorite theory
is that Bush actually is stupid. It would explain
practically everything.
Jeff Barber
lo...@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
> I well understand that George, Robert and other people more conservative than
> I (a) can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry and (b) really don't want
> to vote for Bush.
>
> Why not write in a candidate you _do_ like or vote Libertarian or something
> else?
>
> I hope everyone eligible to vote _does_ vote. I hope Bush is not returned
> to the White House.
>
> David Derbes
I've found over the years that I prefer a Republican
White House and a Democrat Congress, each with just
enough power to get what they each want and deny the
other from going too far overboard.
I'd be happy if the Dems take back Congress and begin
whittling away some of Bush's powers. The Presidency
has become far too powerful in the last couple of years.
It's time to reign it back in.
Besides, the political cartoons are a lot funnier
when a Republican is in the White House.
Jeff Barber
Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com> wrote:
> BTW, if someone asked me, tho no one has, I would spend that money and
> more on what I consider to be the real national security issue #1:
> dependence on foreign oil. We have to do something, and it has to
> involve moving beyond finite and politically and environmentally
> hazardous fossil fuels. The only thing I don't grok is why there isn't
> an overwhelming sense of urgency about this. Maybe I just don't get
> something really obvious.
>
> <s>
Energy companies want to finish milking the cow that
they have their hands on. When she runs dry, then
they move onto the next cow.
It'll be awhile before the tar sands in Canada get milked.
And how ironic is it that they want to extract hydrogen
from gasoline? Yeah, the engine runs off hydrogen, but
you still gotta fill the tank with Saudi gas. I
almost split a gut after reading that one.
Snit
> In article <BD05C206.5641D%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>> fretwizz-3B8F34...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/28/04 12:25 PM:
>>
>>> In article <BD059D93.56402%snit-...@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>>> I see you snipped the post in a completely dishonest way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course that's how you see it... that's what delusions are made of. I
>>>>> plainly marked where I snipped and it was clearly irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> The topic was proof... you even commented on it. What you snipped were the
>>>> quotes, from you, that shows you have no understanding of the topic.
>>>
>>> As you perceive it. That's what makes it irrelevant.
>>
>> More baseless claims from you. What a shock.
>>
>> It really is impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with you if you
>> are going to just discount reason and logic. As I point out your lies more
>> and more, you do little more than that.
>>
>> If you are not going to respond in any meaningful / reasonable way you are
>> doing nothing more than trolling.
>
> According to you... but then... you have called any number of people
> trolls and liars, often with no better reason than they have bested you
> in some argument or other.
Wow! Another unsupported accusation from Steve Carroll. Do you ever get
tired of making such claims? Ever consider actually *trying* to support
something you say?
> Your sole goal is to 'win'... to be 'right'.
> You have absolutely no interest in the partaking of an argument with the
> intention of learning something, therefore, you don't.
Hmmm, recently we had a disagreement about what John meant on something. I
admitted he was the expert on what he meant, and if I were wrong I would
happily admit it. Turns out I was right.
Ready to admit you were wrong?
Recently I pointed out how your repeated claim that I have said Bush was
legally guilty has no support or evidence to show it. I admitted if you
could find such support I would admit I was wrong.
You found not support.
Ready to admit you were wrong?
One difference between us, Steve, is that I *do* provide evidence for my
claims about you. Another difference is I openly admit to my mistakes -
which you then jump all over and claim I was lying. Do you need me to bring
up your references to that so I can support my point? Have you already
forgotten doing that?
See, you make the baseless claim that I never admit to being wrong, and when
I do admit to being wrong you claim I was lying.
Either way you attack me. Clearly you are just trolling.
See, Steve, that is called support.
And, of course, you will snip it in your response, because you are a lying
troll.
>>>> Very relevant. Very dishonest for you to snip them, and then respond as
>>>> though they did not prove... um... show strong support for what I was
>>>> saying.
>>>
>>> No... your problems with me are not relevant to the topic I was
>>> discussing with Heywood. Sorry... not buying today.
>>
>> The topic was "proof". You do not get the concepts of "proof", "proof
>> beyond a reasonable doubt" and "support".
>
> According to you... and I'm not too bothered by it.
You are focusing on the fact that the ideas were presented by me and not
based on the content.
Do you know what type logical fallacy you are committing as you do that?
Can you see how you make it impossible to have a meaningful conversation
with you as you do that?
>
>> Your clear lack of understanding is very much on topic. And I notice you
>> say nothing to discount the evidence I show to support my claim - you simply
>> snip it.
>>
>> You run from reason, logic, and meaningful questions.
>
> In your opinion.
It is more than just my opinion that you are snipping evidence I present
against you.
>
>>>>>> In any case, take a logic class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lack of a mathematical proof does not equate to a disproof... ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here. In an
>>>>> argument that purports guilt, lack of evidence that proves anything is a
>>>>> refutation.
>>>>
>>>> Lack of proof < lack of support, esp. when in context proof is meaning the
>>>> level of proof required in math.
>>>
>>> What part of the following statement confused you?
>>>
>>> "Mathematical proof, or the lack of it, is irrelevant here"
>>
>> You claim I offered no proof.
>
> You told this NG that you offered no proof... only strong support in
> *YOUR* opinion. Thankfully, guilt requires more than strong support in
> the opinion of one person who has shown he doesn't understand why the
> presumption of innocence is important.
You are treating csma like a court room, when it is not. This is dishonest
on your part.
You show an ignorance of the fact that all *anyone* does in csma is present
their view. Views can be supported by evidence, as mine is and was.
You also ignore the fact that you are simply presenting your view... so you
are doing the same thing I am. Your ignoring of this fact is dishonest on
your part.
>
>> If by proof you mean the type proof used in mathematics, you are right, but,
>> as you say, it is irrelevant. For you to keep harping on it and not admit
>> you are being irrelevant is dishonest on your part.
>>
>> If by proof you mean "support" or "evidence", then I offered plenty - so
>> your claim is a lie.
>
> Unfortunately, for you and your argument, the presumption of innocence
> doesn't open the door to your evidence merely *supporting* your guilt
> assertion. It must *prove* that assertion... and do so beyond reasonable
> doubt. You were repeatedly told that you failed to achieve this to those
> that took the time to read your parroted argument. You were also told
> why. Deal with it.
You are ignoring the comments I just made, while merely repeating the ideas
I have just shown to be faulty. That is dishonest on your part.
>
>> No matter how you look at it, your claim is dishonest.
I see not even you try to deny this. Your claim is simply dishonest.
>>
>>> Reality check: No one purporting guilt has the burden of -supporting-
>>> that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They have the burden
>>> of -proving- that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So you
>>> don't get confused, this works out of court as well as in. YOU can
>>> believe that someone is guilty based on evidence you consider *supports*
>>> such a belief. You are free to do that... just like I am free to point
>>> out to you why most people hold to the concept of *proving* that a
>>> person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... even outside of a
>>> courtroom, with math not entering into it. IOW not everyone is as
>>> careless with claiming people are guilty as you are. I'm here to remind
>>> you of that.
>>
>> 1) csma is not a court room. To treat it like it is, as you try to, is
>> dishonest on your part.
>
> You told this NG that your argument was a legal argument.
Do you have the research capabilities to find any of the number of times I
referenced the definition I, and others, were using for that phrase?
Somehow I doubt it.
> You told this NG that a person was guilty of breaking laws that you claimed he
> broke. You told this NG that this person was a war criminal and a terrorist
> because of these things. In other words... YOU set a specific context.
That context was not adjudication, even in a mock way. Your treatment of it
as such was, and is, dishonest.
> You then conducted your argument without benefit of presumption of
> innocence, where you presided as the sole arbiter and refused to listen
> to the multitude of posters that tried to explain your errors to you.
> It's an exercise in non-reality to believe that people won't address
> this in the context in which YOU presented it. Just because your
> argument got shredded to bits from several different directions is no
> reason to pretend the context YOU set didn't exist.
A csma argument made by a person does not need to start with any
presumptions. There is no due process required or owed in a csma
conversation.
Your treatment of csma as a court room or other environment of adjudication
is dishonest on your part.
>
> (snip of the remainder of Snit's irrelevant, unsubstantiated claims)
You are snipping comments where I again show your views to be incorrect and
dishonest. To do so is dishonest on your part.
Again, you are piling one lie - or dishonest act - on top of another.
George Graves
Jeff Barber <jeffte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's my guess.
--
George Graves
------------------
"This election is shaping up great. Our choices
are a guy who has a lot of second thoughts, or
a guy who has never had a first thought."
-- Jay Leno
Steve Carroll
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <jefftedbarber-12B...@news.verizon.net>,
> Jeff Barber <jeffte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-0B54C9.0...@individual.net>,
> > ZnU <z...@acedsl.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Apparently, it's beginning to look like this administration
> > > > has chosen to more fully side with the HUMINT side of the
> > > > house. Choosing to believe evidence provided by sources
> > > > like Chalabi instead of evidence, or lack of evidence,
> > > > provided by satellites, antennas, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Ahmed Chalabi is an example of the pitfalls of HUMINT.
> > > > He wasn't a reliable source of intelligence. Oops!
> > >
> > > I think it's more that this administration chose to side with whoever
> > > would tell them what they wanted to hear.
> >
> > Well, yeah, there is that. Although my favorite theory
> > is that Bush actually is stupid. It would explain
> > practically everything.
>
> That's my guess.
I honestly don't think it's this simple because Clinton and Putin were
saying many of the same things.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
That's all I or anyone else ever does in a conversation with you. You
constantly ask for this to be proven or that to be proven and then you
deny the proof that is blatantly obvious. That's why people don't
discuss things with you on a serious level for any length of time...
you're a kook who projects his bizarre activity onto others. You think
you are logical but you aren't even close. You are a liar and google
will show numerous posters who aren't kooks or trolls state their belief
this is true. You are reaping what you have sown. I suggest you take
another look around, Mikey. Today, Nashton... one of a group of two
that regularly came to your defense, has kf'd you. Why do you suppose he
did this? Why do you suppose Nashton, Elizabot, Edwin, Sandman, the
Mayor, Andrew, Woofbert and who knows who else have done the same,
making it public while doing so?
(snip of irrelevant mouth foaming by Snit)
Snit
This is clearly a lie. I have been asking you for evidence of your claims
and you have been snipping my content, as you even do, below. This shows
dishonesty on your part.
> That's why people don't discuss things with you on a serious level for any
> length of time... you're a kook who projects his bizarre activity onto others.
> You think you are logical but you aren't even close. You are a liar and google
> will show numerous posters who aren't kooks or trolls state their belief this
> is true. You are reaping what you have sown. I suggest you take another look
> around, Mikey. Today, Nashton... one of a group of two that regularly came to
> your defense, has kf'd you. Why do you suppose he did this? Why do you suppose
> Nashton, Elizabot, Edwin, Sandman, the Mayor, Andrew, Woofbert and who knows
> who else have done the same, making it public while doing so?
You are making accusations of dishonesty against me while ignoring the heavy
amount of evidence I have been presenting about your dishonesty. You do not
even point out something you see as being dishonest from me; as I have done
repeatedly with you. In neglecting to do so, yet making such a claim, you
are being dishonest.
>
> (snip of irrelevant mouth foaming by Snit)
As described above, you are snipping relevant information. This shows a
dishonesty on your part.
Heywood Mogroot
[snip]
> > I don't particularly care which, nor do I wish to argue this deeply in
> > csma anymore. There is no middle ground here. . . one of us is right
> > and it's up to the reader to decide, if he/she/it cares.
>
> Yup. For the record, you didn't convince me of much.
I care. Really.
> > > > > > > > > I very clearly recall a case against
> > > > > > > > Iraq being spelled out, and it did not require an Al Qaeda
> > > > > > > > connection,
> > > > > > > > it did not require WMDs to be found, etc.. All it required was
> > > > > > > > Saddam
> > > > > > > > to accede to UN resolutions, which he did not do, time and again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WTF? Was I dreaming, or were there UN people on the ground with
> > > > > > unlimited access doing the inspection thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You were dreaming. Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441.
> > > >
> > > > 1441 was not the final authorization for war.
> > >
> > > Was that the sound of a goalpost being moved?
> >
> > De-fogged. Transgressions against the UN peace process are dealt with
> > by the UN. Transgressions against the US can be dealt with by the US.
> > We had nothing in Saddam that would stand up in court, and the Blix
> > report to the UNSC gave enough cover to our friends in the UN to not
> > want to go ahead with full prosecution of an opposed invasion and
> > occupation.
>
> The U.N. had convicted Iraq for over a decade. The Blix report found
> Iraq in non-compliance at the deadline of a 'final opportunity' that
> promised 'serious consequences'. You run from these facts. I can't.
I don't run from them. I simply think the US deciding to end the
charade as it did was the wrong decision for several reasons, eg.
giving bad precedent for future actions by other major powers, eg.
China.
> > > Look, you've essentially
> > > already agreed that the U.N. failed and they were happy to watch us 'dig
> > > our own graves'. They softened the dirt and handed us the shovel by not
> > > doing what they had agreed to in 1441. If you want to argue about 1441
> > > then argue why it failed first.
> >
> > I'm arguing about Bush and the deceptions that lead up to war. 1441,
> > the UN, Oil-for-food, are sidetracks that do not interest me at this
> > point. I only vote for president of the US, not general secretary of
> > the UN.
>
> I realize that... and as I've told you, I think you presented an
> extremely weak argument. According to you now,(as of this post) you
> could care less who it convinces. Why bother posting it if that is your
> feeling? Makes no sense.
I vote for party who provides the executive leadership of this country
in November. I can only evaluate the current admin's decisions, where
they are taking this country, and how they are navigating the ship of
state up to this point.
They suck and need to go.
> > > > I remarked at the time that I would feel a whole lot better about our
> > > > unilateral intervention (which it was despite the token forces sent by
> > > > the UK and Spain) if it indeed had the full involvement of the
> > > > international community.
> > >
> > > No question... but why are so many so willing to forget that we got
> > > fucked at the U.N., only to turn around and whine that 1441 didn't
> > > authorize war? IMO that's a ridiculous position to take and one you are
> > > obviously taking here. You honestly don't see a problem with it?
> >
> > No, since 1441 didn't authorize war, and I don't believe we 'got
> > fucked' at the UN, since what we have done without their full cover
> > has been quite detrimentary to our interests in the M.E. Richard
> > Clarke said it best when in his book he stated it was like bin laden
> > in his cave had a machine telling Bush to "Invade Iraq, Invade
> > Iraq...".
>
> Sigh...
This is just one of my reasons for objecting to the war as it was
launched. I have more.
> > > > For me, the issue really wasn't about Saddam per se, since I did not
> > > > view him as a prime cause of Iraq's mess.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry... from my perspective, this makes less sense. The reason I
> > > got involved in this discussion with you is because of the 'take out
> > > Saddam' remark. Why include THAT as your entry to convince anyone if you
> > > don't think SH is central? Especially if you have so many others to
> > > choose from?
> >
> > The issue here was about Bush lying to get the PNAC war on fully. I
> > don't really care about Saddam, he was, for the most part, the Iraqi's
> > problem. And the Israeli's, due to his support of Hamas. And ours, to
> > the extent he could not be put back in the box like Khaddafi.
>
> You think you have proven that with the evidence you presented? Oh...
> sorry... I forgot that you weren't trying to convince anyone of this.
I'm not attempting to "prove" anything to the reader. I give evidence
when and where I can and/or desire.
> > > > IOW, having full world support for our adventure would have reduced
> > > > the chances we'd find ourselves in the current mess. This would have
> > > > required cutting in the current stakeholders of Iraqi wardebt and oil
> > > > contracts, not to mention shelving the extreme makeover of Iraq
> > > > society we tried to pull in 2003.
> > >
> > > It would have required those countries that back-stabbed us to live up
> > > to their word.
> >
> > They seem to be helping us fine in Afghanistan still. The evidence
> > indicates that they were right not to support our adventure in Iraq.
>
> From your viewing of it.
Yup. And 60% of the electorate now.
> > > How you can keep overlooking something so obvious leads
> > > me to believe your goal, like the majority of people that talk the talk
> > > you are talking, is to politicize this.
> >
> > Politicize what?
>
> Gimme a break.
OK.
We have a different view of 'facts', like eg. 1441 authorized war, or
even if Iraq was in 'material breach' of 1441 prior to the launch of
hostilities. In the general case war should be the last resort IMV,
and in March 2003 it certainly wasn't. There are exceptions for
preventative and especially pre-emptive war, but I knew at the time
this wasn't at all a pre-emptive war, and even its preventative bases
were weak since when it comes down to it Saddam wasn't necesarilly a
Dr Evil character we had to worry about. I didn't know about al Sadr
at the time, but his ilk is what I kept in mind could be a very likely
outcome of this adventure of American treasure ($160B) and blood
(thousands of serious US casualties).
> > > Only
> > > time will tell whether this will have been worth it or not. History
> > > shows few have patience to wait it out before passing judgment,
> > > especially negative judgment. If you want to pat yourself on the back
> > > midstream and believe you know all that ever will be known, have at it.
> >
> > It's a difficult calculus I agree. If you ask Korean war veterans if
> > it was worth the lives of their buddies to save S Korea the answers
> > are mixed, but over time they turned around and say it was.
> >
> > My issue is not that we invaded Iraq
>
>
> So why do you keep bringing up topics like 1441 and authorization?
I didn't. First, Fovell did, saying the Iraq wasn't acceding to UN
resolutions, hence the war. I think this reading is mostly incorrect,
since IMV it really didn't matter what Saddam did or did not do prior
to March 2003, we were going in regardless.
1441 and 'authorization' were things specifically brought up by you:
"Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441."
This is an interpretation of his statement, and like I've said several
times is a side-track since 1441 IMV (and Blix's, and other members of
the UNSC, and the informed world during the run-up) was not the final
authorization for military action to remove Saddam.
> > . . . I thought it was going to
> > be a tough slog and we'd see a bunch of extremists running around
> > afterwards, but if the american people and/or world community got
> > behind it **** with informed consent of the reasons why and the
> > potential costs involved **** then I would have gone along, since it
> > is indeed impossible to accurately measure the blood calculus vs.
> > future improved international security.
> >
> > That Bush and his administration had to lie, to the american people
> > and to the UN, to make their case indicates the case for war was not
> > strong enough to convince people it was worth taking Saddam out.
>
> You've missed it entirely. The point here is that the Bush
> administration, regardless of what you are claiming above, didn't have
> to lie. They MAY have lied... I won't pretend I know the concrete answer
> to this like you do... but it wasn't necessary. The 1441 folly proves
> that. But you don't want to or can't discuss it for some reason so we'll
> never get there.
Administration lies, distortions, inaccuracies, misstatements,
believing bad intelligence, stovepipes. . .
'what's the difference' to you, but to me it is seriously troubling.
This is no way to run a railroad.
hope we find that pony... bummer about all innocent people those
killed so far, huh?
Of course. There is no Straussian undercurrent among the neocons, and
there were no neocons in positions of policy direction within this
administration in your world, apparently. People like Richard Perle,
Chairman of the Defense Policy Board in the run-up to war, simply are
non-entities or something.
> > > But ours weren't the
> > > dirtiest of hands in this particular matter. The countries that made it
> > > known they voting against had their own good reasons for keeping us out
> > > of Iraq.
> >
> > Yup. But the complicity of France and Russia is orthogonal to this
> > administration's actions.
>
> So you recognize that others hands were dirtier than ours in this mess
> and it means nothing to you as far as what happened at the U.N.?
> Incredible...
Dirtier than ours? Maybe, I don't have much knowledge of firm details,
if anyone really does.
http://images.google.com/images?q=rumsfeld%20saddam
There's one dirty American hand. Wonder where its owner is now.
> > > > > Go read 1441, it
> > > > > DOES say there would be a meeting before going into Iraq, it DOESN'T
> > > > > say
> > > > > anything about more inspections, sanctions etc. in the event of
> > > > > continued non-compliance, just the meeting... which, as I just
> > > > > explained, EVERYONE already knew what the topic would be. The only
> > > > > topic
> > > > > that COULD be left in the event that a 'final opportunity' was blown.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1162952,00.html
> > > >
> > > > Do I believe a random blowhard on Usenet or Dr Blix . . . hmm . . . I
> > > > believe Blix.
> > >
> > > Of course. Now I suggest you go read his March statement just prior to
> > > the invasion and you'll see that he stated Iraq was not in compliance
> > > with 1441 at the time of the deadline.
> >
> > yes yes. 1441 was the first shoe in the run up. The UNSC passed it to
> > placate its sponsors.
>
> Yes... and that being the reason, it was a huge mistake on their part if
> they had no intention of following through. They literally created the
> atmosphere for the failure. The irony here is, before the backpeddling
> took place, the passage of this resolution actually received wider
> support than that of the first Gulf War.
What you see as failure I see as the UN inspection regime moving
forward. Whether it was worth the effort of engagement with the regime
is debatable (and was the hidden debate I suppose). Apparently the
world community wanted continued engagement upon receiving the Blix
report.
Bush wanted war, and he got what he wanted, without the world
community behind him for the most part. Blair came along for the ride,
and token support was obtained from eg Spain, Italy, and other ragtag
armies.
> > > One thing your link shows here is that the rest of
> > > the U.N. didn't live up to item 12 when we dropped out. As Blix stated,
> > > 1441's successor was NEVER tabled. IOW, what he leaves out is that the
> > > remainder of the UNSC didn't even try to formulate a reasonable
> > > alternative to invasion and present it before the invasion took place.
> >
> > Hard to do so when the invasion is on such a tight timetable. In fact,
> > I think it's relatively safe to say that train had already left the
> > station, and it didn't matter what the UN did or tried to do.
>
> In a word: Bullshit.
Consider me refuted. Then again, maybe not, since I do recall
monitoring the curious buildup of forces in theatre on
globalsecurity.org at the time. Very elucidating.
> > > Something they still COULD have done and SHOULD have attempted to do.
> > > They had plenty of time to accomplish this if they chose to do it...
> > > they chose not to bother. This shows their awareness of the enormity of
> > > the failure. IMO you are spot on when you state they were willing to let
> > > us dig our own graves. The reason they were voting against meeting to
> > > create 1441's successor is because they knew it meant they must now do
> > > what they had agreed to do... as Annan had spoken of regarding Iraq's
> > > failure to comply with 1441:
> > >
> > > "if Iraq fails to make use of this last chance, and continues its
> > > defiance, the council will have to make another grim choice."
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "When that time comes, the council must face up to its
> > > responsibilities."
> >
> > The US/UK saw they would not get final sign off on violent overthrow
> > of the Saddam regime, but went ahead anyway. Just a midway freezeframe
> > in the longjump into war.
>
> Let's read that page accurately, shall we? The pertinent fact is that
> the others had no intention of living up to what they agreed to live up
> to in 1441. You appear to be admitting this, yet... you downplay the
> significance.
I admit no such thing. The UNSC was in full retention of the right to
determine what the other shoe was going to be, at least for actions
done in its name.
Perhaps they were satisified with the restarted inspection regime.
Perhaps they didn't want the US calling all the important shots in a
postwar Iraq and were simply being inhumane assholes. Perhaps they
were of the mind that armed force was lifting the lid on a pandora's
box at exactly the wrong time in the WoT. Perhaps there was a policy
tripline at nuclear research, and all these rusting chemical warheads
and slightly illegal rocket artillery wasn't deemed worthy of action.
Perhaps all of the above.
> > > > > That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of that
> > > > > resolution. As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to
> > > > > comply
> > > > > with 1441.
> > > >
> > > > See above. Blix's job was to report to the UNSC.
> > >
> > > And report he did... that Iraq was still in non-compliance at the dead
> > > line.
> >
> > More or less, yes.
>
> I won't let you mince words here... it was not more or less. That was
> what he reported and it was true at the time of the deadline.
Funny we never got that last vote on it, though. I mince here because
Blix's report was minced, too, and at any rate is was up to the UNSC,
not the US & UK, to determine what UN action was next on the docket.
> > > > The UNSC's job was to
> > > > determine what move to make next.
> > >
> > > Get real. What move WOULD be next? What do you think 'serious
> > > consequences' meant? What was Kofi talking about with the 'grim choice'?
> > > What is it with you guys... geez.
> >
> > What is with me is the legalities, and more importantly, the holistic
> > wisdom of the action.
>
> What legalities? This isn't a courtroom, right? That shit works both
> ways. Now if you want to hold a realistic discussion, stop with the
> bullshit. The legalities are that 1441 went out the window and the U.N.
> with it at that point. You won't see anyone in the U.N. bring the U.S.
> up on charges for this. I think you know why.
of course not. I'm not the one bringing the UN into this discussion at
all. You were correct that they were irrelevant. It was clearly a
mistake of the first order to bring them into the war run-up in the
first place, and the admin only did it at Blair's insistence.
However, the legalities are important, since legalities establish
precedents, and the next time a UNSC permament member, like, oh, I
don't know, let's choose Red China, decides to go its own way on
things all the US will be able to do, Bush admin or no, is say more
power to 'em.
> > It would have been wiser to build a bona fide case for war not
> > construct the sham case we built.
>
> The case WAS built to go in and disarm!
Disarm what? Saddam was disarmed, as much as any nation can be in this
day & age.
> The train stopped at the station
> for the final vote that everyone knew HAD to follow the final blown
> opportunity. People bailed on their word at this point. Geez... are you
> not reading what I am telling you? Do you still think it isn't true?
I think you're reading what you want to see about the final week of UN
process. See above.
> > It would have been wiser to cut in the stake-holders of Iraq (largely
> > France, Germany, Japan, and Russia) into the decision making process.
>
> They were cut in, right up until it was shown that they had no intention
> of backing their agreement.
1441 end with this:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned
Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Somehow this state, with 'serious consequences' in waiting, was where
the Blix report and final deliberation, and final sign-off on hostile
action, becomes a binding war declaration to you.
> > It would have been wiser to cut the deals necessary to bring on a full
> > bona-fide coalition, resembling that of the 1990/1991 gulf war (or the
> > one fighting islamic radicalsm in Afghanistan), and not the 'coalition
> > of the billing' Bush one was able to scrape together.
>
> It actually started off bigger with 1441's passage... but it wasn't
> going to happen with these backstabbers. What's it going to take to make
> you realize what actually happened at the U.N.? I give up...
Please don't. If you actually have sourced information, separate from
opinion, I'd like to hear it.
You call them backstabbers, while I think of them as sovereign nations
with their own national interests in the region. The UN sanction
regime, even with smart sanctions, could not hold indefinitely, and
the Iraq question was certainly something not to just leave laying
around to fester unaddressed.
But the administration's constructed case for intervention touched on
precious little of the above, rather WMDs were settled on 'for
bureaucratic reasons'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm
a somewhat unfortunate choice of words but I believe correctly
indicative of the administrations mindset in the run-up.
> > It would have been wiser to level with the american people about the
> > expected costs of the war, not just blow them off as 'we have no way
> > of knowing at this point'.
>
> I agree.
>
> > And it would have been most wise to leave the US GOP neocon
> > carpetbaggers home and not inject them into a fluid and dangerously
> > unstable situation.
> >
>
> LOL!
shit like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48543-2004May22.html
really ticked me off but perfectly explained why our occupation was
rather incompetent.
"They had come over because of one reason or another, and they were
put in positions of authority that they had no clue about," remembered
Army Reserve Sgt. Thomas D. Wirges, 38, who had been working on
rehabilitating the Baghdad Stock Exchange.
> > > > The Bush admin (along with Blair)
> > > > short-circuited this and went in without final clear UN authority.
> > > >
> > > > To the great detriment of the enterprise.
> > >
> > > Bottom line: Iraq did fail to comply and the council didn't face its
> > > responsibilities. Those are the facts.
> >
> > That's not the bottom line, though. The bottom line is we've spent
> > $160B and lost 850 dead, a thousand or two horribly maimed, more
> > thousands seriously injured, and tens of thousands of families torn
> > apart over a pipe dream of neocon conquest and nation building.
>
> You know what I meant. In actuality, even your cute paragraph here isn't
> the bottom line.
True, and semi-apologies for getting too cute with my
counter-argument.
Things could indeed start coalescing in Iraq, but at this point I
really fail to see how a pro-US, pro-Israel, stable,
beacon-of-democratic-promise is going to arise from the current facts
on the ground.
I hope this is not a failure of vision so much as a simple
understanding of the elements involved: poverty, nationalism,
pan-Arabism, religious actionism (in the formerly rather secularized
Iraq), hatred of Israel, resentment at US overlordship, indiscriminate
violence, and interfering in their internal affairs.
It's really not a pretty picture IMV.
> > > The council members making it
> > > public that they would not agree to meet as per item 12 to discuss the
> > > 'grim choice' (AKA serious consequences) were the ones responsible for
> > > the failure. At that point, 1441 not authorizing war becomes irrelevant
> > > and rightly so. It makes little sense to point out it didn't authorize
> > > war in light of those facts. I fail to see how anyone can miss this.
> >
> > I don't miss it. I dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion about
> > this administration.
>
> Then I would suggest that you don't involve yourself in discussion of
> foreign politics because this kind of reality is what you're likely to
> encounter. People generally won't disregard pertinent information
> because you don't think it's relevant. This shit is all tied together.
> You are trying to untie it to focus on certain things.
Yeah, the bullshit run-up to war. If Bush wanted a war to remove
Saddam, he should have sold it honestly, not gin up something even LBJ
would be embarassed to present to the american people, do an end-run
around the UNSC once the policy debate turned against him there, and
then so incompetently prosecute the damn thing to where we find
ourselves now.
> > The bottom line fact is we fucked the situation up, but good.
>
> It was fucked up long before it got to the point where our partners
> bailed out and left us holding the caskets and checkbook.
I can certainly agree with this to some extent. Iraq was a bad
situation on some levels, eg. its support for Hamas suicide bombers,
and just general anti-US sentiment in its leaders and some/most
classes of people.
But I take a Hippocratic appoach to policy: first, do no harm. With
OBL apparently still loose, Afghanistan none too solidified, I believe
it was a severe strategic mistake to pull most of our irons out of
Afghanistan and prosecute the war against Saddam.
Snit
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<fretwizz-B465EE...@netnews.comcast.net>...
>>> The issue here was about Bush lying to get the PNAC war on fully. I
>>> don't really care about Saddam, he was, for the most part, the Iraqi's
>>> problem. And the Israeli's, due to his support of Hamas. And ours, to
>>> the extent he could not be put back in the box like Khaddafi.
>>
>> You think you have proven that with the evidence you presented? Oh...
>> sorry... I forgot that you weren't trying to convince anyone of this.
>
> I'm not attempting to "prove" anything to the reader. I give evidence
> when and where I can and/or desire.
You are walking on dangerous ground - Steve has shown a poor understanding
of the concepts of proof - as in a mathematical proof or absolute proof -
and proof (or support) beyond a reasonable doubt.
I discuss this in more detail, and offer proof... um... support... in these
recent posts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4055145688d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2
coff=1&selm=BD059D93.56402%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=23
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4055145688d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2
coff=1&selm=BD05C206.5641D%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=25
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
No, it isn't... it's reality.
> I have been asking you for evidence of your claims
> and you have been snipping my content, as you even do, below. This shows
> dishonesty on your part.
No, it doesn't.
> > That's why people don't discuss things with you on a serious level for any
> > length of time... you're a kook who projects his bizarre activity onto
> > others.
> > You think you are logical but you aren't even close. You are a liar and
> > google
> > will show numerous posters who aren't kooks or trolls state their belief
> > this
> > is true. You are reaping what you have sown. I suggest you take another
> > look
> > around, Mikey. Today, Nashton... one of a group of two that regularly came
> > to
> > your defense, has kf'd you. Why do you suppose he did this? Why do you
> > suppose
> > Nashton, Elizabot, Edwin, Sandman, the Mayor, Andrew, Woofbert and who
> > knows
> > who else have done the same, making it public while doing so?
>
> You are making accusations of dishonesty against me while ignoring the heavy
> amount of evidence I have been presenting about your dishonesty. You do not
> even point out something you see as being dishonest from me; as I have done
> repeatedly with you. In neglecting to do so, yet making such a claim, you
> are being dishonest.
Dishonesty is a perception that can differ from person to person. You
want to know about dishonesty on this NG? Do a google search for how
many csma posters have labeled me a liar and then do one for yourself.
I've been on this NG for a LONG, LONG time, you haven't been here long
at all. Even so, I'll bet the number calling you a liar exceeds the
number calling me a liar. Your past insistence that, because this is the
internet, people are more prone to tossing out such titles, won't work
here as well as you'd like. If that were true, and your claim for me
true as well, my numbers will be MUCH larger than yours, by a factor of
10 at least. I'm confident this isn't so... your numbers will exceed
mine. Of the ones that do call me a liar, do the research to find out if
it is actually warranted. You might be surprised at what you find... and
NO, I don't expect you to be honest with me about your findings... but I
don't need you to be, YOUR dishonestly presented take on it isn't
important to me. Naturally, of all the people that have called you a
liar, they are all wrong, aren't they? Currently, you are the only
person making this claim for me. This tells me all I need to know. I
notice that you didn't bother to comment on the significant number
(about 1/3) of regulars that have kf'd you. Any particular reason?
> > (snip of irrelevant mouth foaming by Snit)
>
> As described above, you are snipping relevant information. This shows a
> dishonesty on your part.
It's relevant in YOUR opinion. As such, my snipping has nothing to do
with dishonesty.
Snit
You are making a claim while offering no support. There is no reason to
think you are even approaching reality.
>
>> I have been asking you for evidence of your claims and you have been snipping
>> my content, as you even do, below. This shows dishonesty on your part.
>>
> No, it doesn't.
Your denial does not change the facts of your dishonesty, but it is, in
itself, a dishonest claim from you.
Your claim that the honesty of a comment can be ascertained through group
consensus is not only incorrect, it is not honest.
If you want a much better example of showing how someone is dishonest, check
out the following articles:
BD043ADF.5623F%snit-...@cableone.net
In that post (and the thread that leads to it) I clearly show how your claim
that I had ever stated Bush was legally guilty of anything is a lie on your
part.
I offer evidence and clear reasoning. Neither you nor anyone else has been
able to suggest any honest way of looking at the facts that does not lead to
the conclusion that you are lying (or mentally incompetent).
BD0654E0.56513%snit-...@cableone.net
In this post I mainly focus on your lies about due process, and again go
into pretty heavy detail. I also show a clear example of where you lied
about my claims as to what makes someone guilty.
These are unambiguous explanations supported with evidence that clearly show
just some of your lies.
Whenever I bring them up, however, you merely snip them or otherwise refuse
to face them and admit to your dishonesty.
This is, in itself, dishonest on your part. Your lies repeatedly pile on
top of each other.
>
>>> (snip of irrelevant mouth foaming by Snit)
>>>
>> As described above, you are snipping relevant information. This shows a
>> dishonesty on your part.
>>
> It's relevant in YOUR opinion. As such, my snipping has nothing to do with
> dishonesty.
Look at what you snipped. Can you find any reasonable way to deem it
irrelevant? I will be surprised if you can - you will be more likely to
just snip away the request in a dazzling display of yet more of your
dishonesty.
Robert Fovell
> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahooooooooo.com> wrote in message
> news:<rfovell-EE9465...@news.supernews.com>...
> > In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
> >
> > BTW, if someone asked me, tho no one has, I would spend that money and
> > more on what I consider to be the real national security issue #1:
> > dependence on foreign oil. We have to do something, and it has to
> > involve moving beyond finite and politically and environmentally
> > hazardous fossil fuels. The only thing I don't grok is why there isn't
> > an overwhelming sense of urgency about this. Maybe I just don't get
> > something really obvious.
>
> there should be a manhattan project -level of goverment investment in
> this.
Okay, so the number of people in favor of this has just doubled!
> Part of the problem is that this administration simply does not
> believe in the efficacy of government oversight of business.
It isn't just this administration. I don't hear anyone from the other
side of the aisle talking about this either, not now, not when they were
the administration. This has been issue #1 since the 1970s made it
clear how close to the precipice we could be.
>
> governments spending on money on things other than weapons programs
> simply doesn't compute. To be fair to the true libertarians, they are
> also not so big on that $500B/yr defense budget.
Well, the pureblood libertarians wouldn't endorse any
government-coordinated, funded or encouraged effort at all, IMHO.
Perhaps the more flexible could see the national security rationale.
Perhaps.
--
"[Politics] asks for the highest type of men, and there's nothing in it
to attract the highest type of men. So we have to work with what we get -
and we get things like this." -- Raymond Chandler, "The Lady in the Lake"
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> news:<fretwizz-B465EE...@netnews.comcast.net>...
> > In article <dd5de929.04062...@posting.google.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I don't particularly care which, nor do I wish to argue this deeply in
> > > csma anymore. There is no middle ground here. . . one of us is right
> > > and it's up to the reader to decide, if he/she/it cares.
> >
> > Yup. For the record, you didn't convince me of much.
>
> I care. Really.
So why post about it at all? You wanted the good touchy feely sense you
get when you let everyone know where you stand?
The 'charade' wasn't played by the U.S., though, I'll agree that they
did decide to end it. Personally, I think that was a good move.
> > > > Look, you've essentially
> > > > already agreed that the U.N. failed and they were happy to watch us
> > > > 'dig
> > > > our own graves'. They softened the dirt and handed us the shovel by not
> > > > doing what they had agreed to in 1441. If you want to argue about 1441
> > > > then argue why it failed first.
> > >
> > > I'm arguing about Bush and the deceptions that lead up to war. 1441,
> > > the UN, Oil-for-food, are sidetracks that do not interest me at this
> > > point. I only vote for president of the US, not general secretary of
> > > the UN.
> >
> > I realize that... and as I've told you, I think you presented an
> > extremely weak argument. According to you now,(as of this post) you
> > could care less who it convinces. Why bother posting it if that is your
> > feeling? Makes no sense.
>
> I vote for party who provides the executive leadership of this country
> in November. I can only evaluate the current admin's decisions, where
> they are taking this country, and how they are navigating the ship of
> state up to this point.
>
> They suck and need to go.
Fair enough but this still doesn't explain why you bothered to post what
you thought was evidence of something... done as if trying to convince
readers. You wrote this for yourself? I don't believe that.
Well, when you do it publicly, you don't think it's logical to expect a
percentage of the readers to disagree and vocalize that disagreement? To
whom were you giving evidence? And for what purpose?
> > > > > IOW, having full world support for our adventure would have reduced
> > > > > the chances we'd find ourselves in the current mess. This would have
> > > > > required cutting in the current stakeholders of Iraqi wardebt and oil
> > > > > contracts, not to mention shelving the extreme makeover of Iraq
> > > > > society we tried to pull in 2003.
> > > >
> > > > It would have required those countries that back-stabbed us to live up
> > > > to their word.
> > >
> > > They seem to be helping us fine in Afghanistan still. The evidence
> > > indicates that they were right not to support our adventure in Iraq.
> >
> > From your viewing of it.
>
> Yup. And 60% of the electorate now.
Polls?
I didn't take issue with this.
> or
> even if Iraq was in 'material breach' of 1441 prior to the launch of
> hostilities.
I provided the Blix statement to Snit in this thread that shows this was
true.
> In the general case war should be the last resort IMV,
> and in March 2003 it certainly wasn't.
I'm confused here... I thought you stated you were somewhat accepting of
the pro war argument? I believe you also stated that your issue was not
that we invaded Iraq.
> There are exceptions for
> preventative and especially pre-emptive war, but I knew at the time
> this wasn't at all a pre-emptive war, and even its preventative bases
> were weak since when it comes down to it Saddam wasn't necesarilly a
> Dr Evil character we had to worry about. I didn't know about al Sadr
> at the time, but his ilk is what I kept in mind could be a very likely
> outcome of this adventure of American treasure ($160B) and blood
> (thousands of serious US casualties).
>
> > > > Only
> > > > time will tell whether this will have been worth it or not. History
> > > > shows few have patience to wait it out before passing judgment,
> > > > especially negative judgment. If you want to pat yourself on the back
> > > > midstream and believe you know all that ever will be known, have at it.
> > >
> > > It's a difficult calculus I agree. If you ask Korean war veterans if
> > > it was worth the lives of their buddies to save S Korea the answers
> > > are mixed, but over time they turned around and say it was.
> > >
> > > My issue is not that we invaded Iraq
> >
> >
> > So why do you keep bringing up topics like 1441 and authorization?
>
> I didn't. First, Fovell did, saying the Iraq wasn't acceding to UN
> resolutions, hence the war. I think this reading is mostly incorrect,
> since IMV it really didn't matter what Saddam did or did not do prior
> to March 2003, we were going in regardless.
>
> 1441 and 'authorization' were things specifically brought up by you:
>
> "Blix even stated that Iraq did NOT comply with 1441."
I didn't say that you brought it up first... only that you keep
referring to it wrt authorization. Why do that if you don't want to
argue the points involved? It's obvious I have made clear the importance
I place upon it. You downplay the importance until you need it to make a
point of your own... then you run again.
> This is an interpretation of his statement,
I provided the March Blix statement in this thread (to Snit) that shows
it is NOT and interpretation. It is what he reported.
> and like I've said several
> times is a side-track since 1441 IMV (and Blix's, and other members of
> the UNSC, and the informed world during the run-up) was not the final
> authorization for military action to remove Saddam.
There you go again... bringing it in. If you don't want to hear my
counter argument why I feel this line of thinking is in error, don't
keep talking about it only to whine when I counter it and you can't or
won't address it. You're playing games here.
> > > . . . I thought it was going to
> > > be a tough slog and we'd see a bunch of extremists running around
> > > afterwards, but if the american people and/or world community got
> > > behind it **** with informed consent of the reasons why and the
> > > potential costs involved **** then I would have gone along, since it
> > > is indeed impossible to accurately measure the blood calculus vs.
> > > future improved international security.
> > >
> > > That Bush and his administration had to lie, to the american people
> > > and to the UN, to make their case indicates the case for war was not
> > > strong enough to convince people it was worth taking Saddam out.
> >
> > You've missed it entirely. The point here is that the Bush
> > administration, regardless of what you are claiming above, didn't have
> > to lie. They MAY have lied... I won't pretend I know the concrete answer
> > to this like you do... but it wasn't necessary. The 1441 folly proves
> > that. But you don't want to or can't discuss it for some reason so we'll
> > never get there.
>
> Administration lies, distortions, inaccuracies, misstatements,
> believing bad intelligence, stovepipes. . .
>
> 'what's the difference' to you, but to me it is seriously troubling.
> This is no way to run a railroad.
You're entitled to your opinion...
The hundreds of thousands that SH tortured and killed? Or the hundreds
of thousands that were starved as a result of the oil for food fiasco?
Oh... you don't mean them. I suppose they don't count, do they? You want
more games? Is that what you're telling me?
LOL! You know nothing about me... yet you have attributed all sorts of
political leanings to me:)
So you think it was OK to mislead the US/UK by unanimously passing 1441
in a post 9/11 atmosphere and then not living up to your word when
dealing with a decade plus *acknowledged international threat*? BTW,
this is a 'track record' Khaddafi didn't yet possess.
> Whether it was worth the effort of engagement with the regime
> is debatable (and was the hidden debate I suppose). Apparently the
> world community wanted continued engagement upon receiving the Blix
> report.
>
> Bush wanted war, and he got what he wanted, without the world
> community behind him for the most part. Blair came along for the ride,
> and token support was obtained from eg Spain, Italy, and other ragtag
> armies.
>
> > > > One thing your link shows here is that the rest of
> > > > the U.N. didn't live up to item 12 when we dropped out. As Blix stated,
> > > > 1441's successor was NEVER tabled. IOW, what he leaves out is that the
> > > > remainder of the UNSC didn't even try to formulate a reasonable
> > > > alternative to invasion and present it before the invasion took place.
> > >
> > > Hard to do so when the invasion is on such a tight timetable. In fact,
> > > I think it's relatively safe to say that train had already left the
> > > station, and it didn't matter what the UN did or tried to do.
> >
> > In a word: Bullshit.
>
> Consider me refuted. Then again, maybe not, since I do recall
> monitoring the curious buildup of forces in theatre on
> globalsecurity.org at the time. Very elucidating.
You're dreaming again. They never had any intention of doing anything
other than either letting us foot the bill if Iraq continued
non-compliance. They knew going in meant SH's removal... that meant
their loans were dust and, worse yet, they had to PAY for the privilege
of confronting the failed loans. Better to shut the f*ck up and let us
deal with it... which is exactly what happened. There will never be any
legal action from the U.N. over this
> > > > Something they still COULD have done and SHOULD have attempted to do.
> > > > They had plenty of time to accomplish this if they chose to do it...
> > > > they chose not to bother. This shows their awareness of the enormity of
> > > > the failure. IMO you are spot on when you state they were willing to
> > > > let
> > > > us dig our own graves. The reason they were voting against meeting to
> > > > create 1441's successor is because they knew it meant they must now do
> > > > what they had agreed to do... as Annan had spoken of regarding Iraq's
> > > > failure to comply with 1441:
> > > >
> > > > "if Iraq fails to make use of this last chance, and continues its
> > > > defiance, the council will have to make another grim choice."
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > "When that time comes, the council must face up to its
> > > > responsibilities."
> > >
> > > The US/UK saw they would not get final sign off on violent overthrow
> > > of the Saddam regime, but went ahead anyway. Just a midway freezeframe
> > > in the longjump into war.
> >
> > Let's read that page accurately, shall we? The pertinent fact is that
> > the others had no intention of living up to what they agreed to live up
> > to in 1441. You appear to be admitting this, yet... you downplay the
> > significance.
>
> I admit no such thing.
I honestly thought I had convinced you with the realities that occurred.
Sorry.
> The UNSC was in full retention of the right to
> determine what the other shoe was going to be, at least for actions
> done in its name.
At that point in time, on that issue, there was no UNSC as far as the
US/UK was concerned. Have I not made this clear? As clear as the reasons
why there will never be any legal action from the U.N. on this issue?
> Perhaps they were satisified with the restarted inspection regime.
Misses the point as much as it can be missed. 1441 called for more than
continuing along the same paths in the event that Iraq continued
non-compliance. Even Kofi Annan recognized this. To believe this, one
has to believe that the 'serious consequences' were simply more
inspections. And you called me an idiot...
> Perhaps they didn't want the US calling all the important shots in a
> postwar Iraq and were simply being inhumane assholes. Perhaps they
> were of the mind that armed force was lifting the lid on a pandora's
> box at exactly the wrong time in the WoT. Perhaps there was a policy
> tripline at nuclear research, and all these rusting chemical warheads
> and slightly illegal rocket artillery wasn't deemed worthy of action.
>
> Perhaps all of the above.
You are just bent on missing the point here, aren't you? If it was ANY
of the above they should never have signed 1441.
> > > > > > That is why they used the term 'final opportunity' in the text of
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > resolution. As I said, even Blix acknowledged that Iraq failed to
> > > > > > comply
> > > > > > with 1441.
> > > > >
> > > > > See above. Blix's job was to report to the UNSC.
> > > >
> > > > And report he did... that Iraq was still in non-compliance at the dead
> > > > line.
> > >
> > > More or less, yes.
> >
> > I won't let you mince words here... it was not more or less. That was
> > what he reported and it was true at the time of the deadline.
>
> Funny we never got that last vote on it, though. I mince here because
> Blix's report was minced, too,
Much as Blix tried to soothe reality with his mealy mouthed wording,
even he couldn't hide the fact that Iraq failed to comply with 1441 at
the time of the deadline. If you've read the text of 1441, the following
words by Blix in his March statement should clarify things for you:
"
It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken
by the Iraqi side, with a view to resolving some long-standing open
disarmament issues, can be seen as active or even proactive, these
initiatives, three to four months into the new resolution, cannot be
said to constitute immediate cooperation, nor do they necessarily cover
all areas of relevance. "
Read: "cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation"
I suggest you read 1441 now. I've done enough work for you on what you
are obviously ill-prepared to discuss.
> and at any rate is was up to the UNSC,
> not the US & UK, to determine what UN action was next on the docket.
>
> > > > > The UNSC's job was to
> > > > > determine what move to make next.
> > > >
> > > > Get real. What move WOULD be next? What do you think 'serious
> > > > consequences' meant? What was Kofi talking about with the 'grim
> > > > choice'?
> > > > What is it with you guys... geez.
> > >
> > > What is with me is the legalities, and more importantly, the holistic
> > > wisdom of the action.
> >
> > What legalities? This isn't a courtroom, right? That shit works both
> > ways. Now if you want to hold a realistic discussion, stop with the
> > bullshit. The legalities are that 1441 went out the window and the U.N.
> > with it at that point. You won't see anyone in the U.N. bring the U.S.
> > up on charges for this. I think you know why.
>
> of course not. I'm not the one bringing the UN into this discussion at
> all. You were correct that they were irrelevant. It was clearly a
> mistake of the first order to bring them into the war run-up in the
> first place, and the admin only did it at Blair's insistence.
>
> However, the legalities are important, since legalities establish
> precedents, and the next time a UNSC permament member, like, oh, I
> don't know, let's choose Red China, decides to go its own way on
> things all the US will be able to do, Bush admin or no, is say more
> power to 'em.
But that's how war works anyway... and likely always will. It doesn't
wait for lawyers. Surely you are aware of this? No?
> > > It would have been wiser to build a bona fide case for war not
> > > construct the sham case we built.
> >
> > The case WAS built to go in and disarm!
>
> Disarm what? Saddam was disarmed, as much as any nation can be in this
> day & age.
There was proscribed material unaccounted for. At the time, it could not
be said they were known to be disarmed. If you start talking hindsight
bullshit here, I may as well talk to Snit. You have obviously NOT read
Blix' March statement. Here is another excerpt regarding disarmament:
" The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of
disarmament, indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not
watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."
Honestly... I feel like I am arguing with someone who has very few of
the facts and is only seeking to politicize this. I'm beginning to see
little point in continuing.
> > The train stopped at the station
> > for the final vote that everyone knew HAD to follow the final blown
> > opportunity. People bailed on their word at this point. Geez... are you
> > not reading what I am telling you? Do you still think it isn't true?
>
> I think you're reading what you want to see about the final week of UN
> process. See above.
And I'm starting to think you don't really know enough about this issue
to engage in intelligently.
> > > It would have been wiser to cut in the stake-holders of Iraq (largely
> > > France, Germany, Japan, and Russia) into the decision making process.
> >
> > They were cut in, right up until it was shown that they had no intention
> > of backing their agreement.
>
> 1441 end with this:
>
> 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned
> Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
> continued violations of its obligations;
>
> 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
>
> Somehow this state, with 'serious consequences' in waiting, was where
> the Blix report and final deliberation, and final sign-off on hostile
> action, becomes a binding war declaration to you.
No, it doesn't and you keep repeating it on my behalf doesn't make it
so. I have made my position very clear on what I feel happened with
1441. For your part, you have repeatedly said it's not relevant to you
and you show very little knowledge of the facts as they actually
occurred pertaining to it. Because of both of these things, there isn't
much reason for me to expect you to engage in a productive discussion on
the topic.
> > > It would have been wiser to cut the deals necessary to bring on a full
> > > bona-fide coalition, resembling that of the 1990/1991 gulf war (or the
> > > one fighting islamic radicalsm in Afghanistan), and not the 'coalition
> > > of the billing' Bush one was able to scrape together.
> >
> > It actually started off bigger with 1441's passage... but it wasn't
> > going to happen with these backstabbers. What's it going to take to make
> > you realize what actually happened at the U.N.? I give up...
>
> Please don't. If you actually have sourced information, separate from
> opinion, I'd like to hear it.
I've given sourced info... you sit there smugly pretending you are
having an actual discussion. You aren't. I think this has gone about as
far as it can. Thanks for the discussion up to this point.
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Don't you have some OT post to create? Quit slacking, Snit... get to
work:)