NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/zarqawi.captured/index.html?fark=true

Hussain Kamal confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- the al Qaeda in Iraq leader who has a $25 million bounty on his head -- was in custody at some point last year, but he wouldn't provide further details.

A U.S. official couldn't confirm the report, but said he wouldn't dismiss it.

"It is plausible," he said.

See, this is the stuff that makes us who aren't exactly thrilled with Bush (I know he didn't personally let Zarqawi go,) wince.

His administration seems unable to get organized for anything but elections, though their ability with elections, both here and in Iraq, is unquestionably skilled.

So military guards take their orders and recieve training and instructions directly from the Bush Administration? Huh. You learn something new every day.

So military guards take their orders and recieve training and instructions directly from the Bush Administration? Huh. You learn something new every day.

I noted that Bush wasn't personally responsible. Do you have problem with reading comprehension? And I know this was Iraqi forces. The thing is, while Republicans (in general,) seem to think wealth trickles down, they don't see the same thing happening with leadership. Bush's bad leadership ripples downward and contaminates all his efforts.

Sounds like the Iraqis are to blame this time, not Bush. Much as I'd like to blame him for everything...

Sounds like the Iraqis are to blame this time, not Bush. Much as I'd like to blame him for everything...

Is it not part of Bush's overall plan to train a competent Iraqi security force? Can you sit there and say that Iraqi forces a year ago weren't still being tightly observed by U.S. forces.

I agree that blaming Bush for everything is silly, but the competence of Iraqi forces is a key part of his strategy.

it was allways my oppinion, that the catch-detain-release-routine for illegal combattants does not work. i say go back to catch, convict, interrogate, execute.

Is it not part of Bush's overall plan to train a competent Iraqi security force? Can you sit there and say that Iraqi forces a year ago weren't still being tightly observed by U.S. forces.

I agree that blaming Bush for everything is silly, but the competence of Iraqi forces is a key part of his strategy.

Which would make it the fault of the military officials which oversaw those forces. And unless you can show that Bush gave those people their jobs your trickle down analogy really doesn't work. Also just because someone includes something as part of their plan doesn't necessarily mean things will go according to it. Hell in reality all thats going to happen if you play on this is a blame game. Right now your blaiming Bush. People who support bush will blame the military leaders in charge and so on and so forth. Shit happens lets get it fixed instead of bitching about who's fault it is.

Which would make it the fault of the military officials which oversaw those forces. And unless you can show that Bush gave those people their jobs your trickle down analogy really doesn't work. Also just because someone includes something as part of their plan doesn't necessarily mean things will go according to it. Hell in reality all thats going to happen if you play on this is a blame game. Right now your blaiming Bush. People who support bush will blame the military leaders in charge and so on and so forth. Shit happens lets get it fixed instead of bitching about who's fault it is.

Fair enough, in principle, if this was an isolated incident. The problem is that the Bush administration has shown a knack for organizational inefficiency. It is this culture that trickles down.

Is it not part of Bush's overall plan to train a competent Iraqi security force? Can you sit there and say that Iraqi forces a year ago weren't still being tightly observed by U.S. forces.

I agree that blaming Bush for everything is silly, but the competence of Iraqi forces is a key part of his strategy.

I'd say US officials are still wiping the Iraqi's asses so when looking at it that way you can blame the US military and by extention their Commander in Chief. (how do people take Bush seriously anyway?)

Fair enough, in principle, if this was an isolated incident. The problem is that the Bush administration has shown a knack for organizational inefficiency. It is this culture that trickles down.

Oh I'll agree that Bush has made some idiotic appointments cough cough brownie cough but that doesn't immediately mean he's to blame here. Correlation does not equal causation.

Oh I'll agree that Bush has made some idiotic appointments cough cough brownie cough but that doesn't immediately mean he's to blame here. Correlation does not equal causation.

Again, fair enough. Still, when you get correlation after correlation, it begins to make a case for causation.

Again, fair enough. Still, when you get correlation after correlation, it begins to make a case for causation.

Well I guess for this thread you'd have to really figure out who was responsible and find out if Bush was in charge of him getting the job. Otherwise this would be a case where that correlation doesn't point to causation.

I noted that Bush wasn't personally responsible. Do you have problem with reading comprehension? And I know this was Iraqi forces. The thing is, while Republicans (in general,) seem to think wealth trickles down, they don't see the same thing happening with leadership. Bush's bad leadership ripples downward and contaminates all his efforts.

I've trained Arab troops before, and I can tell you that no amount of leadership ever trickles down to them.

They don't think like we do - ever.

I've trained Arab troops before, and I can tell you that no amount of leadership ever trickles down to them.

They don't think like we do - ever.

Er...then why are we in Iraq again?

Er...then why are we in Iraq again?

Um...how does a statement on how Arab troops train evoke a question about why we are in Iraq when that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? I think I see a strawman being set up.

I think we are there to give Haliburton more money.

I can't think of any other reason.

Um...how does a statement on how Arab troops train evoke a question about why we are in Iraq when that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? I think I see a strawman being set up.
Nope. Gymoor is somehow thinking that leadership at the White House is supposed to trickle down to the lowly Iraqi trainee. That's his assertion.

I suppose, then, the Gymoor could explain the horrendous number of seditious remarks I heard during the 1990s - from officers in every branch of the service who said at formal "dining in"s that I attended that they would mutiny or disobey orders from Clinton if he ever got the country into a major war.

I guess that was really bad leadership on the part of Clinton, right?

I guess that was really bad leadership on the part of Clinton, right?

Indeed it was.

The problem is that the Bush administration has shown a knack for organizational inefficiency.

Government in general has a propensity for organisational inefficiency. Those who blame Bush for this can't see the wood for the trees.

Er...then why are we in Iraq again?

Are you seriously suggesting that the fundamental Arab mindset must be changed for there to be success. Talk about shifting the goal posts.

Government in general has a propensity for organisational inefficiency. Those who blame Bush for this can't see the wood for the trees.

Not all organizational inefficiencies are created equal.



Are you seriously suggesting that the fundamental Arab mindset must be changed for there to be success. Talk about shifting the goal posts.

Um, by creating a functional democracy, isn't that EXACTLY what we're trying to do?

Not all organizational inefficiencies are created equal.

Sorry, you're nowhere near proving your point. You must trace an inefficiency back to Bush, and show that it would not have happened under that insane idiot Bore, or that traitorous fop Kommy. I don't see how such inefficiencies can be avoided in government because government has no reason to be efficient.

Um, by creating a functional democracy, isn't that EXACTLY what we're trying to do?

Wrong again. Trying to change a political system does not equal rewiring the Arabs.

I can't think of any other reason.

That has nothing to do with whether or not there is one, it merely tells us the scope of your "thinking".

I think a reductio ad absurdum of Gymoor's hypothesis would be that if some lowly private failed to square the corner on his bunk properly, that would be Bush's fault.

Of course, in Gymoor's mind, everything is Bush's fault. Probably the ignorant statements coming out of the Iranian President's mouth are Bush's fault, too.

Why don't we just say that everything is Bush's fault? It's easy to say, especially if we never have to prove it.

According to Kimich (was it?) the Arabs do not think like us. So why are wetrying to impose a system based on our way of hinking on them?

Let's use a little logic.

Ah. I see where I went wrong there...

Logic and politics don't mix do they...

According to Kimich (was it?) the Arabs do not think like us. So why are we trying to impose a system based on our way of hinking on them?

Their military ways are not like ours, however, the Iraqis have shown that given the opportunity, they can make democracy work.

I think a reductio ad absurdum of Gymoor's hypothesis would be that if some lowly private failed to square the corner on his bunk properly, that would be Bush's fault.

Of course, in Gymoor's mind, everything is Bush's fault. Probably the ignorant statements coming out of the Iranian President's mouth are Bush's fault, too.

Why don't we just say that everything is Bush's fault? It's easy to say, especially if we never have to prove it.


Oh please. That's NOT what I'm saying. Much like (I hope,) you're not saying that Bush isn't responsible for anything.

Come on Kimchi, I've argued with you enough for you to know I'm not that unreasonable. I generally have that same view of you. Your last statement here doesn't help me maintain that decently respectful opinion of you.

Sorry, you're nowhere near proving your point. You must trace an inefficiency back to Bush, and show that it would not have happened under that insane idiot Bore, or that traitorous fop Kommy. I don't see how such inefficiencies can be avoided in government because government has no reason to be efficient.

Fine, the prove that worse wouldn't have happened under Lincoln and Washington. The fact is that this is Bush's mess (the general condition of today's affairs,) and no one twisted his arm to make him take on the responsibility of Presidentship. If you're President and bad shit happens, then you have to deal with it. Also, making me prove a hypothetical about Kerry or Gore (and your language about them makes me think you're probably a raving indiot,) in no way has to do with a goddam thing.



Wrong again. Trying to change a political system does not equal rewiring the Arabs.

Actually, yes it does. Changing from an autocratic society to a peacefully democratic one is a revolutionarily large step. The fact that you don't think so shows that you have no appreciation of history or of differences in culture.

The fact is that this is Bush's mess

Don't start an opinion with "The fact is ..."

You haven't shown that this is anything more than the normal bureaucratic inefficiency common to all governments.

Actually, yes it does. Changing from an autocratic society to a peacefully democratic one is a revolutionarily large step. The fact that you don't think so shows that you have no appreciation of history or of differences in culture.

An unjustified leap in logic. To accept your statement, I would have to accept that dictatorship is inherient in the Arab mindset, rather than something imposed upon a people who are otherwise fully capable of living and functioning in a democracy. The fact that Arabs living in the West, and Israel can do this proves my point, as does the enthusiasm with which the Iraqis have met their embryonic democracy, and its success (governments in "stable" European democracies have lasted less time, and been less stable) further proves my point.

That's NOT what I'm saying.

Yes, it is. You have taken a military SNAFU, and turned it into a White House job.

Don't start an opinion with "The fact is ..."

You haven't shown that this is anything more than the normal bureaucratic inefficiency common to all governments.

Fine. Then I expect you to clam up when problems crop up under a Democrat, when another eventually takes the office of President.



An unjustified leap in logic. To accept your statement, I would have to accept that dictatorship is inherient in the Arab mindset, rather than something imposed upon a people who are otherwise fully capable of living and functioning in a democracy. The fact that Arabs living in the West, and Israel can do this proves my point, as does the enthusiasm with which the Iraqis have met their embryonic democracy, and its success (governments in "stable" European democracies have lasted less time, and been less stable) further proves my point.

Not inherient, but, let's say "habitual" much like bereaucratic inefficiency is habitual in our country.



Yes, it is. You have taken a military SNAFU, and turned it into a White House job.

I'm saying that this SNAFU, when combined with all the other difficulties we've experienced in Iraq, tends to make one conclude that the overall leadership there is lacking, which reflects poorly on the Commander in Chief. He took responsibility when he took the oath of office.

Not inherient, but, let's say "habitual" much like bereaucratic inefficiency is habitual in our country.

So, you now admit that it not a fundamental change in the nature of the Arabs that is needed.

I'm saying that this SNAFU, when combined with all the other difficulties we've experienced in Iraq, tends to make one conclude that the overall leadership there is lacking, which reflects poorly on the Commander in Chief. He took responsibility when he took the oath of office.

No, you made the case that this affair proved that there was a non-specified leadership problem.

So, you now admit that it not a fundamental change in the nature of the Arabs that is needed.

It's a fundamental change with regards to how they see government.

No, you made the case that this affair proved that there was a non-specified leadership problem.

And when you have enough non-specified leadership problems??

And when you have enough non-specified leadership problems??
Depends on the system. In a parlementary system you have a vote of no confidency from the legislature and the government steps down. In a presidential system well your shit out of luck son.

According to Kimich (was it?) the Arabs do not think like us. So why are wetrying to impose a system based on our way of hinking on them?

Let's use a little logic.

Ah. I see where I went wrong there...

Logic and politics don't mix do they...
They seem to get the idea of struggling for political power at the ballot box, and seem to understand stuffing the ballot box. One only hopes that they understand "vote dead and often". I think that they understood Al Capone perfectly.

What they don't understand in particular is Western ways of combat. They don't, for instance, particularly like the idea of aiming, no matter how many times you show them. The idea of bounding overwatch is never understood. They don't like their individual troops to exercise any initiative. So if their leader gets whacked in combat, the people who were under him mill around like aimless ants.

Ever wonder how during a battle for the Golan Heights, two crippled Centurion tanks that were immobile with wounded crews (Israeli) managed to destroy over 100 T-62 tanks (Syrian crews)? Because of simple, basic refusal to accept certain concepts.

It's a fundamental change with regards to how they see government.

But not a fundamental change in their nature.

And when you have enough non-specified leadership problems??

You didn't prove there was an actual leadership problem, nor did you prove that there was one that affected this case.

But not a fundamental change in their nature.



You didn't prove there was an actual leadership problem, nor did you prove that there was one that affected this case.

Sigh. Nevermind. I can't talk to you if you're just going to talk at me.

(makes a notch in pistol)

(makes a notch in pistol)

Yes, I'm sure your trollgun has lots of notches.

I prefer notches on my bedpost, but to each their own.