Day by Day (8-14)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Georgia, or that the "real-world reply" was just empty threats, not
exactly diplomacy . . .:
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/14/>
Also the incredible hypocrisy of any American telling the Russians
what they're doing is wrong; as usual, brilliantly covered by The
Daily Show!:
<http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=179208>
That also reminded me that Georgia sent 2000 troops to help invade
Iraq way back when, making only one resonse possible . . .:
*points finger at Georgia*
<Nelson Muntz>Ha ha!<Nelson Muntz>
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Detox
> Yup, no mention of McCain's foreign advisor being a lobbyist for
> Georgia, or that the "real-world reply" was just empty threats, not
> exactly diplomacy . . .:
>
> <http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/14/>
>
> Also the incredible hypocrisy of any American telling the Russians
> what they're doing is wrong; as usual, brilliantly covered by The
> Daily Show!:
>
> <http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=179208>
>
Funny stuff. No, really. I laughed. Jon's a funny guy. He's got
good writers as well.
But this exactly the sort of faulty logic that caused me to say that
I've got questions about our country a while back.
There is no moral equivalency between our invasion of Iraq and
Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Saddam Hussein was a dictator. His government represented his desires
for himself and to hell with the Iraqi people. Iraq is a better place
long term without him.
Georgia has a democratically elected government that represents the
desires of the Georgian people. [The recent Russian election wasn't
exactly the cleanest thing in the world.]
Once Iraq has stabilized [something that is coming closer to reality
with each passing day], we'll be leaving. At least, any presence that
we maintain after that point will be with the permission of the duly
elected representatives of the Iraqi people.
Russia is conducting operations to seize and hold territory.
By invading Iraq, we put a stop to genocide.
It should be obvious by now that Russia is ethnically cleansing South
Ossetia.
Flawed reasoning skills will be the downfall of our nation. [And yes
I understand that this is a bit of slow pitch for those that think
little of the intellectual capacity of the current administration...]
--
Regards,
Dann
ted.go...@gmail.com
> On Aug 14, 10:26 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Yup, no mention of McCain's foreign advisor being a lobbyist for
> > Georgia, or that the "real-world reply" was just empty threats, not
> > exactly diplomacy . . .:
>
> > <http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/14/>
>
> > Also the incredible hypocrisy of any American telling the Russians
> > what they're doing is wrong; as usual, brilliantly covered by The
> > Daily Show!:
>
> > <http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=179208>
>
> Funny stuff. No, really. I laughed. Jon's a funny guy. He's got
> good writers as well.
>
> But this exactly the sort of faulty logic that caused me to say that
> I've got questions about our country a while back.
>
> There is no moral equivalency between our invasion of Iraq and
> Russia's invasion of Georgia.
>
> Saddam Hussein was a dictator. His government represented his desires
> for himself and to hell with the Iraqi people. Iraq is a better place
> long term without him.
>
> Georgia has a democratically elected government that represents the
> desires of the Georgian people. [The recent Russian election wasn't
> exactly the cleanest thing in the world.]
It isn't clear why that should matter (and FWIW, I believe Hussein was
elected. Not a meaningful election, but...) We explicitly support
many non-democratic regimes (Saudi Arabia and some of the other Gulf
states to start) and are willing to do active business with many
others (like China), generally without massive complaints about their
shortcomings. We generally accept the idea of internal sovereignty
and territorial integrity (except when we don’t), and while we push
democracy, we certainly don't invade all countries that don't meet our
standards. That "fact" that Iraq is better off without Hussein (a
fact that could be argued, given the loss of life in Iraq since we
overthrew him) doesn't seem relevant.
> Once Iraq has stabilized [something that is coming closer to reality
> with each passing day], we'll be leaving. At least, any presence that
> we maintain after that point will be with the permission of the duly
> elected representatives of the Iraqi people.
Would we actually leave _now_ if they asked us to? It seems unlikely,
since we apparently wouldn't even agree to a SoF agreement that called
for us to be out by the end of next year without it being modified
with lots of weasel clauses. It's also not certain that Iraq is
actually stabilizing, just that the various otherwise battling power
centers (Sadr, various Sunni and Shi'a "warlords", Maliki and his
Shi'a-oriented police forces) find it useful right now to limit the
violence (and the Kurds tend to stand apart) - whether this situation
is stable long-term or just a temporary condition while the US
enforces it and while the various factions jockey for position is TBD
(I personally believe the latter, but would be pleased to be wrong).
> Russia is conducting operations to seize and hold territory.
Not clear - they certainly want Georgia out of those territories, at
least in part because they view Georgia as a potential adversary that
is a member of a very powerful military alliance that was founded
specifically to counter Russia (well, the USSR). Whether they want to
annex this territory or just want to set it up as an independent (but
Russia leaning) buffer state isn't obvious yet.
> By invading Iraq, we put a stop to genocide.
But any genocide that happened happened about 20 years ago, and had
certainly ended by 1990, so we weren't _stopping_ it - it was already
stopped. Further, we don't invade places to stop genocides. Rwanda,
Darfur, for the most part Bosnia (where we bombed, but didn't put
boots on the ground until the fighting was over), etc. show that. We
invaded Iraq for a number of stated reasons, none of which turned out
to be valid, and none of which were related to genocide.
> It should be obvious by now that Russia is ethnically cleansing South
> Ossetia.
Likely true. I'm not saying that the Russian behavior is particularly
defensible.
WRT hypocrisy - a better charge of hypocrisy could be leveled against
the Russians, who apparently believe in self-determination for
breakaway provinces when they are Russia-leaning and in Georgia, but
not when they are anti-Russian and in Russia itself (like
Chechnya)... I have actually heard this charge made, but not too
loudly, and it I doubt that the Russians would be very concerned in
any case...
ted
Jym Dyer
> lobbyist for Georgia, or that the "real-world reply" was
> just empty threats, not exactly diplomacy . . .:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/14/
=v= This strip is what you'd get if Bruce Tinsley learned
to copy superhero comics instead of _Howard_the_Duck_.
<_Jym_>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
This is the problem I'm seeing with the True Believers (I'm being
kind not calling them the Useful Idiots they are), they're still stuck
in 1990, and the Neocons are all to happy to take advantage of that
support to push through their goals. No ignoring of history, and the
change that goes with the passage of time, will change reality . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On Aug 14, 10:26 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Yup, no mention of McCain's foreign advisor being a lobbyist for
>> Georgia, or that the "real-world reply" was just empty threats, not
>> exactly diplomacy . . .:
>>
>> <http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/14/>
>>
>> Also the incredible hypocrisy of any American telling the Russians
>> what they're doing is wrong; as usual, brilliantly covered by The
>> Daily Show!:
>>
>> <http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=179208>
>>
>
>Funny stuff. No, really. I laughed. Jon's a funny guy. He's got
>good writers as well.
>
>But this exactly the sort of faulty logic that caused me to say that
>I've got questions about our country a while back.
>
>There is no moral equivalency between our invasion of Iraq and
>Russia's invasion of Georgia.
>
I'll give that, at least from what I can see; it's more like
Israel's incursion into Lebannon a coupla years back, where the people
now chastizing Russia either stood by, or outright cheered Israel on .
. .
>Saddam Hussein was a dictator. His government represented his desires
>for himself and to hell with the Iraqi people.
Maybe Shiites and Kurds, but Sunnis knew this was the man who would
take care of them! Also, as previously mentioned, this effectively
ended in 1991; hell, by 1995 Kurdistan had been established in the
north, and there was nothing Saddam could do about it . . .
Iraq is a better place
>long term without him.
>
Bull . . . shit . . .
>Georgia has a democratically elected government that represents the
>desires of the Georgian people. [The recent Russian election wasn't
>exactly the cleanest thing in the world.]
>
Nevemind some of the questionable "clean" of Georgia's elections,
this was about South Ossettia . . .
>Once Iraq has stabilized [something that is coming closer to reality
>with each passing day],
Pending what happens in November; 16 brigades in 16 months . . .
>we'll be leaving.
Actually, that's the ultimate precursor to a stablized Iraq . . .
At least, any presence that
>we maintain after that point will be with the permission of the duly
>elected representatives of the Iraqi people.
>
In every way imaginable, from elected representatives to IEDs,
they've been clear about us getting the hell out . . .
>Russia is conducting operations to seize and hold territory.
>
If this were the case, then that Iraq comparison would certainly be
valid!
>By invading Iraq, we put a stop to genocide.
>
Nope, we started it, to the tune of about 1 million so far . . .
>It should be obvious by now that Russia is ethnically cleansing South
>Ossetia.
>
There's that projection again! For those unaware: about two weeks
ago, Georgia sent troops into Soth Ossettia to help "cleanse" the
ethnic Russian population in the area; their pleas for help were what
brought forth the wrath of Mother Russia (hmmm, the mother bear and
cub analogy suddenly seems appropriate), though that's quickly
becoming literal overkill . . .
>Flawed reasoning skills will be the downfall of our nation. [And yes
>I understand that this is a bit of slow pitch for those that think
>little of the intellectual capacity of the current administration...]
The irony here should be enouth to cure several dozen anemia
patients; hmmm, wonder if that took that slow pitch over the fence . .
.
Oooh, Jack Cafferty jumps in!:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew7A3s7n74c>
Dann
news:387ea92a-1927-44d9...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> On Aug 15, 9:40 am, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Once Iraq has stabilized [something that is coming closer to reality
>> with each passing day], we'll be leaving. At least, any presence
>> that we maintain after that point will be with the permission of the
>> duly elected representatives of the Iraqi people.
>
> Would we actually leave _now_ if they asked us to?
I think going to Iraq was a reasonably good idea. From what I read,
others that agree with that position also agree that if the
democratically elected representatives of Iraq were to ask us to leave,
we would have zero business in staying.
Of course, not many of us are policymakers so who knows what will
actually happen. I just know that support for any remaining presence
would go away pretty quickly.
>> By invading Iraq, we put a stop to genocide.
>
> But any genocide that happened happened about 20 years ago, and had
> certainly ended by 1990, so we weren't _stopping_ it - it was already
> stopped. Further, we don't invade places to stop genocides. Rwanda,
> Darfur, for the most part Bosnia (where we bombed, but didn't put
> boots on the ground until the fighting was over), etc. show that. We
> invaded Iraq for a number of stated reasons, none of which turned out
> to be valid, and none of which were related to genocide.
The last big bit of genocide was actually in 1993. However, it is my
understanding that the Saddam Fedayeen <sp?> and other security agencies
were "disappearing" people right up until we crossed the Kuwaiti border.
And then there's the whole problem of Saddam's sons raping any
girl...literally....that happened to catch their eye.
And while I don't really want to rehash the issues surrounding our
reasons for invading, that last sentence only makes sense if one
dismisses the reasons for invading stated by Mr. Bush, uses only the
reasons asserted by his critics, and ignores two ISG reports and a series
of successful open/honest/fair elections.
>> It should be obvious by now that Russia is ethnically cleansing South
>> Ossetia.
>
> Likely true. I'm not saying that the Russian behavior is particularly
> defensible.
Georgia isn't exactly clean either, but the Russian response went well
beyond anything they might have been doing.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Jym Dyer
=v= Given that the pretexts for doing so have all been shown
to be not only false, but deliberately misleadingly false,
what makes it a good idea?
<_Jym_>
Dann
news:Jym.16Aug20...@econet.org.
"And while I don't really want to rehash the issues surrounding our
reasons for invading, that last sentence only makes sense if one
dismisses the reasons for invading stated by Mr. Bush, uses only the
reasons asserted by his critics, and ignores two ISG reports and a series
of successful open/honest/fair elections."
--
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2008, Jym Dyer said the following in
> news:Jym.16Aug20...@econet.org.
>
> >> I think going to Iraq was a reasonably good idea.
> >
> > =v= Given that the pretexts for doing so have all been shown
> > to be not only false, but deliberately misleadingly false,
> > what makes it a good idea?
>
>
> "And while I don't really want to rehash the issues surrounding our
> reasons for invading, that last sentence only makes sense if one
> dismisses the reasons for invading stated by Mr. Bush, uses only the
> reasons asserted by his critics, and ignores two ISG reports and a series
> of successful open/honest/fair elections."
I hope this doesn't signal an increasingly-deep self-quoting
thread war.
Mike Beede
Ted Goldblatt
> On 15 Aug 2008, said the following in
> news:387ea92a-1927-44d9...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
>>> By invading Iraq, we put a stop to genocide.
>> But any genocide that happened happened about 20 years ago, and had
>> certainly ended by 1990, so we weren't _stopping_ it - it was already
>> stopped. Further, we don't invade places to stop genocides. Rwanda,
>> Darfur, for the most part Bosnia (where we bombed, but didn't put
>> boots on the ground until the fighting was over), etc. show that. We
>> invaded Iraq for a number of stated reasons, none of which turned out
>> to be valid, and none of which were related to genocide.
>
> The last big bit of genocide was actually in 1993. However, it is my
> understanding that the Saddam Fedayeen <sp?> and other security agencies
> were "disappearing" people right up until we crossed the Kuwaiti border.
> And then there's the whole problem of Saddam's sons raping any
> girl...literally....that happened to catch their eye.
Yeah, but...
The items you talk about here (disappearances, random rapes, etc.) are
just the stock in trade of totalitarian regimes, not genocide. If you
are arguing that it was a nasty crew that did bad things to the populace
- well, no one is going to dispute that point. However, that wasn't the
claim made here (or earlier in the run up to war), and we tolerate many
similarly nasty rulers.
> And while I don't really want to rehash the issues surrounding our
> reasons for invading, that last sentence only makes sense if one
> dismisses the reasons for invading stated by Mr. Bush, uses only the
> reasons asserted by his critics, and ignores two ISG reports and a series
> of successful open/honest/fair elections.
OK, now I am really confused. The only issue actually stated in Bush's
March 6 2003 news conference (I believe the last one before the
invasion) was WMD (UN resolution 1441). While there were minor side
issues mentioned at the time (like a desire for regime change), 1441 was
claimed as the basis for everything, and the other rationales coming
from the White House were after the fact.
I'm not sure what your reference to the ISG reports is to show - the
reports showed no WDM, no active WMD programs, no anything. And this
was by a group largely composed of and certainly led by the CIA and DIA,
the 2 groups with the most desire/need to come up with a positive
report. The most the any of the reports included was the supposition
that Saddam would resume WMD programs if/when sanctions and UN controls
came off. However, the evidence leading to this conclusion seems
tenuous, and the likelihood that sanctions and controls would come off
to that level (given Saddam's limited cooperation with the UN
inspectors) seems low.
I have no idea at all what elections you are talking about at the end of
this or what they are supposed to prove WRT the justifications for the
invasion...
ted
Dann
BED47E.160...@news.visi.com.
>
> I hope this doesn't signal an increasingly-deep self-quoting
> thread war.
I wouldn't have self quoted this time were it not for two very similar
statements coming so close together where the one response seemed more than
adequate.
Dann
news:6gounuF...@mid.individual.net.
Not exactly.
First, I'm not sure about the speech on March 6th. According to the
official White House listing, there was no Presidential speech made that
day.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/archive.html
However, this speech from October in 2002, covers most of the major points.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Specifically
-- failing to disarm WMD weapons and programs IAW the surrender agreement
of 1991
-- liberating the Iraqis from a government that had practiced mass murder
upon them and continued to abuse their human rights
-- past practices of harboring terrorists and funding terrorism
-- the desire to foster democracy [i.e. "create the institutions of
liberty"]
I think there might be one or two more, but I'm done looking for them.
The larger point is that this was about more than WMD from the start. From
before Congress authorized the use of military force.
The interest in human rights and democracy in Iraq was not window dressing
nor was it retconned into the equation after the invasion.
I will add to the above the fact that the 9-11 Commission determined that
Saddam Hussein and Al Qa'ida had reached agreement relative to cooperation
between them. I'm not sure if that was known in March of 2003 or if that
conclusion was released later on.
This is not exactly new ground we're covering.
> I'm not sure what your reference to the ISG reports is to show - the
> reports showed no WDM, no active WMD programs, no anything. And this
> was by a group largely composed of and certainly led by the CIA and
> DIA, the 2 groups with the most desire/need to come up with a positive
> report. The most the any of the reports included was the supposition
> that Saddam would resume WMD programs if/when sanctions and UN
> controls came off.
Nope. I've read them both.
Both reports reported discovery of materials and information from existing
or pending WMD programs. Some [more than a fraction as I recall] of the
materials and information had escaped detection by UNMOVIC.
The bottom line, Saddam was playing a shell game by restricting the
movements of the inspections team. And he was winning.
Rather than "no", "no", and "no", the ISG found active WMD programs that
were unknown to UNMOVIC.
Add to that the line of trucks that were loading unknown materials for
shipment to Syria in the weeks and months leading up to our invasion. What
was in those trucks? I wasn't there so I don't know.
However, an Iraq Air Force general has stated that he saw what was in the
trucks and it was chemical and biological weapons.
> However, the evidence leading to this conclusion
> seems tenuous, and the likelihood that sanctions and controls would
> come off to that level (given Saddam's limited cooperation with the UN
> inspectors) seems low.
We sure do have different memories of those events. As I recall, a variety
of NGOs were complaining that the sanctions were killing average Iraqis and
had to be lifted. French and German diplomats [among others] were
suggesting the given the lack of results from UNMOVIC that perhaps the time
had come to lift the sanctions.
IMO, global politics were shifting away from supporting those sanctions.
Given the corruption and fraud that Saddam Hussein was able to create
within the original Oil-for-Food program, just imagine what he might have
accomplished with a lesser program.
The bottom line, sanctions weren't hurting Saddam Hussein or his ability to
pursue WMDs. And he was successfully hiding some significant portion of
his WMD capability from the UNMOVIC inspectors.
> I have no idea at all what elections you are talking about at the end
> of this or what they are supposed to prove WRT the justifications for
> the invasion...
My point is that one of the justifications for invading was to foster
democracy in the region. The three elections that Iraq has held thus far
would suggest to me that we have successfully fostered some level of
democracy in Iraq. How long it lasts is anyone's guess.
Bottom line...another one....is that there were several reasons given for
invading. The presence of WMDs was but one of them.
I understand and respect those that believe that the initial justifications
were insufficient. I understand and respect those that believe that what
we discovered post invasion was not sufficient to warrant invading in the
first place. If that is where our differences are then I'm content to let
them lie there.
Those positions at the least acknowledge some level of justification
greater than zero or none.
Jym Dyer
> two very similar statements coming so close together
> where the one response seemed more than adequate.
=v= Right. Because two people independently came up with
the actual truth about the Iraq war (that it was based on
false pretexts).
=v= BTW, did anyone here notice that the anthrax researcher
whose recent death was ruled a suicide happened to work for
the very same lab that was initially cited as a source for
the false claim that the anthrax came from Iraq?
=v= Does anyone remember who the first politician was to
announce the entirely false anthrax/Iraq link to the public?
(Hint: He's the G.O.P.'s candidate for President.)
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
=v= You just keep telling yourself that.
> ... and a series of successful open/honest/fair elections.
=v= You just keep telling yourself that, too.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> ... that last sentence only makes sense if one dismisses
> the reasons for invading stated by Mr. Bush, uses only
=v= This part of the argument is jaw-droppingly vapid, and gets
no better when repeated over and over.
=v= Yes, "one" might dismiss the Shrub's statements for invading
for real live actual substantive reasons, all well-documented at
this point. Yet this vapidly focuses on this hypothetical "one"
rather than the substantive reasons.
=v= The next clause refers not to critics of those reasons, but
critics of the Shrub. So now we've vapidly strayed further from
the substantive reasons into contemplations of what some group
of personalities are imagined to think of another personality.
> ... and ignores two ISG reports and a series of successful
> open/honest/fair elections.
=v= So now, with "dismissers" and "critics" vapidly dismissed
and criticized, let's juxtapose something that might possibly
be of substance. But of course, the point here is to gloss
over the actual substance of those reports. No need to question
their quality or do anything more than mention their existence.
Only "dismissers" and "critics" would do such a thing.
<_Jym_>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
I'm guessing several things here . . .:
- Dellusional to real-world events.
- Pathological liar.
- A mix of these two.
Detox
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:27:23 -0700, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> >> ... ignores two ISG reports ...
>
> >=v= You just keep telling yourself that.
>
> >> ... and a series of successful open/honest/fair elections.
>
> >=v= You just keep telling yourself that, too.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> I'm guessing several things here . . .:
>
> - Dellusional to real-world events.
> - Pathological liar.
> - A mix of these two.
I don't care how deeply Jym and I disagree. That description of him
is just plain wrong.
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
1991, as in irrelevant to 2003. I guess I was wrong with "stuck in
1990"; it's clearly 1991 . . .
>-- liberating the Iraqis from a government that had practiced mass murder
>upon them and continued to abuse their human rights
Something that comes nowhere near justifying an invasion. In fact,
it's enough to put the perpetrators of said invasion before an
international criminal court; next stop, The Hague!
>-- past practices of harboring terrorists and funding terrorism
"Harboring," of course, meaning trying to hunt them down . . .
>-- the desire to foster democracy [i.e. "create the institutions of
>liberty"]
>
Incredibly vague, and reminicent of reasons tyrants have used to
invade . . .
>I think there might be one or two more, but I'm done looking for them.
>
>The larger point is that this was about more than WMD from the start. From
>before Congress authorized the use of military force.
>
>The interest in human rights and democracy in Iraq was not window dressing
>nor was it retconned into the equation after the invasion.
>
All irrelevant, of course; when not outright lies . . .
>I will add to the above the fact that the 9-11 Commission determined that
>Saddam Hussein and Al Qa'ida had reached agreement relative to cooperation
>between them. I'm not sure if that was known in March of 2003 or if that
>conclusion was released later on.
>
Speaking of outright lies! The 9-11 Commission was dwonright
*explicit* about the lack of connections between Saddam Hussein and Al
Qaida; sorry, not buying it . . .
>This is not exactly new ground we're covering.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6arynj
>
Lies don't have a statute of limitations, three years sure as hell
ain't it . . .
>> I'm not sure what your reference to the ISG reports is to show - the
>> reports showed no WDM, no active WMD programs, no anything. And this
>> was by a group largely composed of and certainly led by the CIA and
>> DIA, the 2 groups with the most desire/need to come up with a positive
>> report. The most the any of the reports included was the supposition
>> that Saddam would resume WMD programs if/when sanctions and UN
>> controls came off.
>
>Nope. I've read them both.
>
Doesn't sound like it . . .
>Both reports reported discovery of materials and information from existing
>or pending WMD programs. Some [more than a fraction as I recall] of the
>materials and information had escaped detection by UNMOVIC.
>
I guess the key word here is "pending"; anything can be called
pending, with enough speculation . . .
>The bottom line, Saddam was playing a shell game by restricting the
>movements of the inspections team. And he was winning.
>
It's hard to play a shell game when there's nothing to play with .
. .
>Rather than "no", "no", and "no", the ISG found active WMD programs that
>were unknown to UNMOVIC.
>
None mentioned here, of course (hint hint!) . . .
>Add to that the line of trucks that were loading unknown materials for
>shipment to Syria in the weeks and months leading up to our invasion. What
>was in those trucks?
Nonexistent trucks carrying nonexistent material, no real
questions here . . .
>I wasn't there so I don't know.
>
The key words here, "I don't know" . . .
>However, an Iraq Air Force general has stated that he saw what was in the
>trucks and it was chemical and biological weapons.
>
Once again, no name. This "Iraq Air Force General" probably has
great descriptions of flying carpets and unicorns as well . . .
>> However, the evidence leading to this conclusion
>> seems tenuous, and the likelihood that sanctions and controls would
>> come off to that level (given Saddam's limited cooperation with the UN
>> inspectors) seems low.
>
>We sure do have different memories of those events. As I recall, a variety
>of NGOs were complaining that the sanctions were killing average Iraqis and
>had to be lifted. French and German diplomats [among others] were
>suggesting the given the lack of results from UNMOVIC that perhaps the time
>had come to lift the sanctions.
>
>IMO, global politics were shifting away from supporting those sanctions.
>Given the corruption and fraud that Saddam Hussein was able to create
>within the original Oil-for-Food program, just imagine what he might have
>accomplished with a lesser program.
>
>The bottom line, sanctions weren't hurting Saddam Hussein or his ability to
>pursue WMDs.
Interesting conclusion, as the previous two paragraphs contradict
it . . .
And he was successfully hiding some significant portion of
>his WMD capability from the UNMOVIC inspectors.
>
Those magical WMDs again . . .
>> I have no idea at all what elections you are talking about at the end
>> of this or what they are supposed to prove WRT the justifications for
>> the invasion...
>
>My point is that one of the justifications for invading was to foster
>democracy in the region.
Not justification for invasion, but excellent reason for
prosecuting the invaders!
The three elections that Iraq has held thus far
>would suggest to me that we have successfully fostered some level of
>democracy in Iraq. How long it lasts is anyone's guess.
>
Yup, elections that have highlighted ethnic divisions, and have
really done no more than stain some fingers . . .
>Bottom line...another one....is that there were several reasons given for
>invading. The presence of WMDs was but one of them.
>
>I understand and respect those that believe that the initial justifications
>were insufficient. I understand and respect those that believe that what
>we discovered post invasion was not sufficient to warrant invading in the
>first place. If that is where our differences are then I'm content to let
>them lie there.
>
The last post shows no "understanding," but certainly a lot of
contempt . . .
>Those positions at the least acknowledge some level of justification
>greater than zero or none.
Still zero, still none . . .
Sixteen brigades in sixteen months . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>In article <Jym.15Aug20...@econet.org>,
>I'm quite impressed at how the artwork has gotten significantly worse
>over the years. Especially considering half of it is just cut and
>pasted from earlier strips.
>
That ain't all getting significantly worse; apparently Poland is
safer as a nuclear target . . .:
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/16/>
. . . John McCain's limo has no cell phone . . . or blackberries .
. . or a radio . . .:
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/19/>
. . . Barak Obama never really existed . . .:
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/20/>
. . . Al Qaeda's suddenly moved from Afghanistan/Pakistan to Iraq .
. .:
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/23/>
. . . and associating with communists is bad again; apparently the
HUAC reassembled . . .:
<http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/24/>
--
- ReFlex76