NationStates Jolt Archive

King George the Lesser doesn't like who's in charge anymore (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1301202000&en=15493a3118442a2c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 28 — Senior Shiite politicians said today that the American ambassador has told Shiite officials to inform the Iraqi prime minister that President Bush does not want him to remain the country's leader in the next government.

It is the first time the Americans have directly intervened in the furious debate over the country's top job, the politicians said, and it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders.

The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting last Saturday to pass a "personal message from President Bush" on to the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who the Shiites insist should stay in his post for four more years, said Redha Jowad Taki, a Shiite politician and member of Parliament who was at the meeting.

Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.
Makes you wonder, what definition pops up in King Georgie's head when the word "democracy" comes out of his mouth?

King George the Lesser doesn't like who's in charge anymore (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1301202000&en=15493a3118442a2c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

Makes you wonder, what definition pops up in King Georgie's head when the word "democracy" comes out of his mouth?

Is this really a surprise?

Cue Corny (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm) in 3... 2... 1...

Is this really a surprise?

Cue Corny (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm) in 3... 2... 1...
I can't wait to see the spin he throws on this one.

I don't trust your source.

You didn't know? It's not an American-style democracy if the AMERICANS don't decide who's the leader... :p

I don't trust your source.
Fine--go live in happy land with Liverbreath, where Bush is competent and the war in Iraq is going swimmingly. While you're at it, see if you can get the Red Queen to behead Tweedledumber and ask Glinda to send Toto home from Oz.

I don't trust your source.

What source would you trust that isn't The National Review then?

I don't trust your source.

That's because you're a moron that won't trust any source of facts that dispute your preconcieved point of view, even if said source were your own friggin' eyes.

Next question.

funny how the cut & paste stops short of this paragraph...

The Americans have harshly criticized the Jaafari government in recent months for supporting Shiite militias that have been fomenting sectarian violence and pushing Iraq closer to full-scale civil war. Ambassador Khalilzad has sharpened his attacks in the last week, saying the militias are now killing more people than the Sunni-led insurgency.

There is growing concern among American officials that Mr. Jaafari is incapable of reining in the private armies, especially since Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric who leads the most volatile of the militias, is Mr. Jaafari's strongest backer.
and...
"The decisions about the choice of the prime minister are entirely up to the Iraqis," Ms. Colton said. "This will be an Iraqi decision."

President Bush, in general comments about Iraq, said at the White House that he was pleased the Iraqis were "continuing to discuss who will fill the key slots in the government."

and while we are selectively cutting and pasting...

The reported pressure from the American government over Mr. Jaafari's nomination is another sign of the White House's acute impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a four-year government. The nomination has become one of the most contentious issues in those talks, with the main Kurdish, Sunni Arab and secular blocs calling for the Shiites to replace Mr. Jaafari. American officials say the chronic delay in installing a government has created a power vacuum where lawlessness is thriving and a low-level civil conflict is raging.

me... I think it's just American pressure, not a direct order to their policies/procedures.

the same pressure every Nation tries to exert on others.

King George the Lesser doesn't like who's in charge anymore (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1301202000&en=15493a3118442a2c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

Makes you wonder, what definition pops up in King Georgie's head when the word "democracy" comes out of his mouth?

Ya know what? There's also cries from the Population for the Prime Minister in Iraq to resign. We are talking about the Prime Minister here right?

What percentage, bitte zehr, Corny?

funny how the cut & paste stops short of this paragraph...

Nothing selective about the cutting and pasting--I'm following fair use rules as I understand them.

me... I think it's just American pressure, not a direct order to their policies/procedures.Never said it was a direct order--didn't say much of anything at all, as a matter of fact. But Bush, when he was crowing triumphantly about the elections and was standing amid his purple-fingered sycophants, repeatedly pointed to the elections as examples of democracy in action, and hailed the people choosing their own leaders. Now he doesn't like those leaders and is pressuring the Iraqis to drop them. The last time he pressured the Iraqi people to drop a leader, that leader was Saddam Hussein. What'll he do this time?

This kind of violence has shaken confidence in Mr. Jaafari. Among Iraqis, he has come under widespread criticism for failing to smash the Sunni-led insurgency, letting Shiite death squads run rampant and doing little to improve reconstruction

Mr. Jaafari won the nomination by one vote in a secret ballot last month among the 130 parliamentarians of the main Shiite bloc....

Not just the Americans eh?

What percentage, bitte zehr, Corny?

That I do not know! But acording to another article, the Iraqi President has also asked that the P.M. of Iraq to step down.

Iraq's President Calls for PM to Step Down (http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/boomframe.jsp?query=Calls+for+Iraqi+Prime+Minister+to+Resign&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D9b0306cf03f77cd4%26clickedItemRank%3D13%26userQuery %3DCalls%2Bfor%2BIraqi%2BPrime%2BMinister%2Bto%2BResign%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnew s.go.com%252FInternational%252FwireStory%253Fid%253D1178172%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DHPPavTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FInternational%2FwireStory%253Fid%253D1178172)

Granted this was back in 2005.

Also just for shear enjoyment :D

Iraqi Sunni leader optimistic on united govt soon (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1777252)

Some good and bad news in that link but it can still happen and I am optimistic that it could happen too.

Nothing selective about the cutting and pasting--I'm following fair use rules as I understand them.understood. prob just coincidence. not insuating anything.

Never said it was a direct order--didn't say much of anything at all, as a matter of fact. But Bush, when he was crowing triumphantly about the elections and was standing amid his purple-fingered sycophants, repeatedly pointed to the elections as examples of democracy in action, and hailed the people choosing their own leaders. Now he doesn't like those leaders and is pressuring the Iraqis to drop them. The last time he pressured the Iraqi people to drop a leader, that leader was Saddam Hussein. What'll he do this time?last time, there was no elections after Saddam. this time, he will let the people talk. and the pressure is to allow the people to talk.

note, there was no threat, just him saying he won't support Mr. Jaafari.

what that entails can be anything from no support should Mr. Jaafari ask for US aid to just plain being cordial and that's it.

what he told Saddam was different. "Get out or be removed." Not many ways to interpret that.

I see. Let's assume, for a moment, that 99.8% of the Iraqis hate the new (democratically elected) guy with a passion. The country is, right now, a democracy (or claims to be). Did ANY of these Iraqis ask for Bush's help? Because, you know, all that talk about "sovereign democracy" and so on...

I see. Let's assume, for a moment, that 99.8% of the Iraqis hate the new (democratically elected) guy with a passion. The country is, right now, a democracy (or claims to be). Did ANY of these Iraqis ask for Bush's help? Because, you know, all that talk about "sovereign democracy" and so on...

If they want us to leave, all they have to do is force the government into telling us to leave.

If they want us to leave, all they have to do is force the government into telling us to leave.

Corny, Corny, Corny...

Non-sequiturs don't work when used by people that are bad at them. You see, I was talking about Bush's "help with him stepping down", not how long the cannon fodder is gonna stay there. Or do you claim that Dubya gets a say only because he has grunts in the sands?

If they want us to leave, all they have to do is force the government into telling us to leave.
We're on that path--not quite there yet (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC747056.htm), but it's coming.

Now here's the real question. If the Iraqi government tells us to leave, will we go, or will we find a reason to stay? After all, we're not building temporary military facilities there--we're building permanent ones. Do you really think Bush and Rummy and Cheney will just leave that behind? Come on, Corny--not even you are that big of an apologist, are you?

Corny, Corny, Corny...

Non-sequiturs don't work when used by people that are bad at them. You see, I was talking about Bush's "help with him stepping down", not how long the cannon fodder is gonna stay there. Or do you claim that Dubya gets a say only because he has grunts in the sands?

Bush isn't going to do jack crap about helping him stepping down.

We're on that path--not quite there yet (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC747056.htm), but it's coming.

Now here's the real question. If the Iraqi government tells us to leave, will we go, or will we find a reason to stay? After all, we're not building temporary military facilities there--we're building permanent ones. Do you really think Bush and Rummy and Cheney will just leave that behind? Come on, Corny--not even you are that big of an apologist, are you?

We'll leave because we gave our word that when they ask us to leave, we'll leave.

The assumption that the current Iraqi government is particularly democratic or legitimate is a very questionable one.

The US is proving once again that it has absolutely no clue what it is doing, though, which of course is no surprise. They seem to have made a significant error by supporting the Shi'ite leadership against the Sunnis for months, and are now reversing their position by allying with the enemy of their enemy, who most definitely is not their friend.

The Iranians are no doubt laughing at the whole thing; they have played their cards correctly, and if they can keep the Shi'ite leadership in power they have both gained a valuable ally and checked the expansion of a serious threat.

Bush isn't going to do jack crap about helping him stepping down.

Pssst! Pssst! *Whispers* Don't look, but there's an elephant in the room...

*Points* ---->

Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

The assumption that the current Iraqi government is particularly democratic or legitimate is a very questionable one.

The US is proving once again that it has absolutely no clue what it is doing, though, which of course is no surprise. They seem to have made a significant error by supporting the Shi'ite leadership against the Sunnis for months, and are now reversing their position by allying with the enemy of their enemy, who most definitely is not their friend.

The Iranians are no doubt laughing at the whole thing; they have played their cards correctly, and if they can keep the Shi'ite leadership in power they have both gained a valuable ally and checked the expansion of a serious threat.

I suggest you look at the Iraqi President's comments from late 2005. He was calling for the P.M. to resign from his post long before Bush did.

Pssst! Pssst! *Whispers* Don't look, but there's an elephant in the room...

*Points* ---->

Now point in there where we threatened to remove him if he is.

We'll leave because we gave our word that when they ask us to leave, we'll leave.
You are one of the most unintentionally funny people around, Corny, I've got to give you that. The way you type stuff like you actually believe it is amazing sometimes.

I suggest you look at the Iraqi President's comments from late 2005. He was calling for the P.M. to resign from his post long before Bush did.

Okay. I do not see what that has to do with my post.

We'll leave because we gave our word that when they ask us to leave, we'll leave.

"I give you my word that Rove is innocent in the Plame incident."
"I give you my word that Iraq has WMDs."
"I give you my word that this will be a fast war."
"I give you my word that I'm a moderate conservative."

Ad. Fucking. Infinitum.

Now point in there where we threatened to remove him if he is.

Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept"...

We'll leave because we gave our word that when they ask us to leave, we'll leave.

You honestly believe that Bush & Co. won't come up with some excuse to stay regardless of what the new Iraqi government wants?

Okay. I do not see what that has to do with my post.

Quite alot actually. you were going on like it was soley an American Idea that he step down. Maybe it was just how I read it and if it was, then i apologize.

Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept"...

And that's your proof? Talk about thin! We do not accept Castro. We do not Accept Chavez. There's other leaders we do not accept but we deal with them cordially most of the time.

You honestly believe that Bush & Co. won't come up with some excuse to stay regardless of what the new Iraqi government wants?

Yes! In this case we have no choice since we are on public record as stating that we'll go when they ask us to leave. If we don't, we'll have more diplomatic troubles than one can shake a stick at. We can gain more diplomatically by leaving when told to.

If they want us to leave, all they have to do is force the government into telling us to leave.

The Iraqi people are peripheral. The Shi'ite leadership will keep us there as long as they think we are useful, and the way things are going, that may not be very long.

We should just get out now, frankly; our meddling has caused incredible harm, and will continue to do so.

Quite alot actually. you were going on like it was soley an American Idea that he step down. Maybe it was just how I read it and if it was, then i apologize.

No, the Sunni and Kurdish leadership have been wanting him out since he was elected. The US switched sides.

The Iraqi people are peripheral. The Shi'ite leadership will keep us there as long as they think we are useful, and the way things are going, that may not be very long.

Good to a point.

We should just get out now, frankly; our meddling has caused incredible harm, and will continue to do so.

Better to wait for the government to tell us to leave.

No, the Sunni and Kurdish leadership have been wanting him out since he was elected. The US switched sides.

Yes they did.

And that's your proof? Talk about thin! We do not accept Castro. We do not Accept Chavez. There's other leaders we do not accept but we deal with them cordially most of the time.

The gall!

Corny, understand that, once and for all. If you claim it's not the world's place to accept Bush or not, it's not your place either to accept Chávez, Castro and so on or not. Must I remind you of the America-backed coup attempts against Chávez?

You don't have to accept anything until they're attacking you. Which they never did, save for daring to be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED people that disagree with the US view of the world. Sit the fuck down. For the last time, it's not your place to accept our leaders or not!

The gall!

Corny, understand that, once and for all. If you claim it's not the world's place to accept Bush or not, it's not your place either to accept Chávez, Castro and so on or not. Must I remind you of the America-backed coup attempts against Chávez?

Must I also tell you that if it was American backed, it would've suceeded? To be honest, I do not care what happens to Chavez or to Castro but we still have to deal with them diplomatically.

You don't have to accept anything until they're attacking you. Which they never did, save for daring to be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED people that disagree with the US view of the world. Sit the fuck down. For the last time, it's not your place to accept our leaders or not!

Do not tell me what to do. I will do what I damn well please provided it does not violate the rules of these forums. You cannot order me around because 1) you are not God, 2) you are not my Boss, 3) you are not my professors, and 4) you are not my parents. So why don't you please be alittle more curteous to fellow posters who have opposite opinions than you do.

Edit: Swearing does nothing to your post except bringing down its point. It also makes you look unintelligent.

Must I also tell you that if it was American backed, it would've suceeded? To be honest, I do not care what happens to Chavez or to Castro but we still have to deal with them diplomatically.

Because the assassination attempts against Castro worked so well?


Do not tell me what to do. I will do what I damn well please provided it does not violate the rules of these forums. You cannot order me around because 1) you are not God, 2) you are not my Boss, 3) you are not my professors, and 4) you are not my parents. So why don't you please be alittle more curteous to fellow posters who have opposite opinions than you do.

Same goes for YOUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT! The difference being that, when it doesn't get what it wants, it KILLS PEOPLE!

Because the assassination attempts against Castro worked so well?

coups work better :D

Same goes for YOUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT! The difference being that, when it doesn't get what it wants, it KILLS PEOPLE!

Guess what? Look throughout History. You'll see the exact same pattern. This is nothing new. However, you are on mighty thin ground by saying we're going to remove him if he's re-elected.

Must I also tell you that if it was American backed, it would've suceeded? To be honest, I do not care what happens to Chavez or to Castro but we still have to deal with them diplomatically.

I'm afraid the U.S. does screw up. Who can forget the infamous Bay of Pigs? :p

I'm afraid the U.S. does screw up. Who can forget the infamous Bay of Pigs? :p

Pulling the support at the last minute didn't help matters :p

Must I also tell you that if it was American backed, it would've suceeded?

Right, because all of the US endeavours across the planet have been miraculous successes.

They failed in Haiti, too, just recently. And they failed miserably in Cuba and Nicaragua during the Cold War, and failed initially against Allende.

coups work better :D

I'll remember this smile in case your government is ever couped out.

Guess what? Look throughout History. You'll see the exact same pattern. This is nothing new. However, you are on mighty thin ground by saying we're going to remove him if he's re-elected.

This is your idea of helping your case, Corneliu?

Better to wait for the government to tell us to leave.

I'm not particularly interested in a Shi'ite tyranny in Iraq, sorry. Or a tyranny of anyone else, for that matter. US intervention at this point just amounts to killing people who oppose our particular choice of Best Freedom-Loving Tyrant of the Week, and that is not exactly helping matters.

Is this really a surprise?

Cue Corny (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm) in 3... 2... 1...

I dunno, this (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/palooka.htm) seems more like him. :D

We'll leave because we gave our word that when they ask us to leave, we'll leave.

This made me laugh out loud.

I'll remember this smile in case your government is ever couped out.

Good luck in finding the military personel to actually pull it off.

This is your idea of helping your case, Corneliu?

I'm actually being serious. If you look throughout history, people often kill other people if they don't get what they want any other way. Of course, they''ll just kill to get regardless of what you want. Look at Imperial Japan. Look at Nazi Germany. Heck through in the USSR if you like. I could also point to the British and French Empires and yes, to the United States as well. People will kill people to get whatever they want. Its human nature unfortunately. :(

I'm actually being serious. If you look throughout history, people often kill other people if they don't get what they want any other way. Of course, they''ll just kill to get regardless of what you want. Look at Imperial Japan. Look at Nazi Germany. Heck through in the USSR if you like. I could also point to the British and French Empires and yes, to the United States as well. People will kill people to get whatever they want. Its human nature unfortunately. :(

This doesn't make it morally acceptable. My point being that your government keeps doing morally unacceptable things and you still support it.

I'm actually being serious. If you look throughout history, people often kill other people if they don't get what they want any other way. Of course, they''ll just kill to get regardless of what you want. Look at Imperial Japan. Look at Nazi Germany. Heck through in the USSR if you like. I could also point to the British and French Empires and yes, to the United States as well. People will kill people to get whatever they want. Its human nature unfortunately. :(

WTF? This is like Godwin's law in reverse, 'Hitler did it so it must be ok'. :confused:

This doesn't make it morally acceptable. My point being that your government keeps doing morally unacceptable things and you still support it.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. ALL GOVERNMENTS DO OR DID THE EXACT SAME THING! Not just the United States. All governments do things that are morally unacceptable. Shall I list a few examples from history and not just from the United States?

WTF? This is like Godwin's law in reverse, 'Hitler did it so it must be ok'. :confused:

Did I say it was ok?

I guess I didn't make myself clear. ALL GOVERNMENTS DO OR DID THE EXACT SAME THING! Not just the United States. All governments do things that are morally unacceptable. Shall I list a few examples from history and not just from the United States?

Please do. For the sake of comparison, please limit yourself to first-world industrialised democracies after World War.

Then explain why this makes it okay for the USian government to do so.

Thanks!

Please do. For the sake of comparison, please limit yourself to first-world industrialised democracies after World War.

Sorry dude but if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right. How many laws are on the books that some people decry as morally unacceptable in various countries? I can list all the genocides which were morally unacceptable. I can even list alot of US laws that I found that are unacceptable as well. I'll have to look these up though.

Then explain why this makes it okay for the USian government to do so.

Thanks!

Never said it was acceptable.

Please do. For the sake of comparison, please limit yourself to first-world industrialised democracies after World War.

Then explain why this makes it okay for the USian government to do so.

Thanks!
nah... open it up to all governments at any time period. after all, Governments were around before the world war.

and no one said it was ok for the US government. just alot of people saying that only the US government is/has done such things.

Sorry dude but if I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right. How many laws are on the books that some people decry as morally unacceptable in various countries? I can list all the genocides which were morally unacceptable. I can even list alot of US laws that I found that are unacceptable as well. I'll have to look these up though. Never said it was acceptable.

In that case, why do you support your government, that does so?

nah... open it up to all governments at any time period. after all, Governments were around before the world war.

and no one said it was ok for the US government. just alot of people saying that only the US government is/has done such things.

In recent history, supported by people HERE, yes.

This is excellent Muttley! Just as I planned...

http://moustache-database.freeservers.com/television/dastardly.jpg

In that case, why do you support your government, that does so?

Because I do not find the Iraq War as morally unacceptable. The torture that went on at Abu Ghraib I did. I'm glad those soldiers are in jail and will never again where the Uniform of the US Army.

nah... open it up to all governments at any time period. after all, Governments were around before the world war.

This is what I was getting at.

and no one said it was ok for the US government. just alot of people saying that only the US government is/has done such things.

To many threads to prove this wrong unfortunately. To many people are quick to blame the US for all the world's problems, forgetting the fact that the Past also dictates what the future will bring. That is why I find somethings that the Government does as wrong and other things they do as right regardless of political stripes.

In recent history, supported by people HERE, yes.

Define recent History!

nah... open it up to all governments at any time period. after all, Governments were around before the world war.

and no one said it was ok for the US government. just alot of people saying that only the US government is/has done such things.

I thought it should be limited that way because it makes it easier to compare. After all, motivations for pre-emptive strikes and instigating coups would be different for a modern industrialised edmocracy than for some starving third world country.

And now that I think about it, it's just a tangent discussing the likelihood of the current USian administration supporting a coup if Iraq elects someone they don't want. Which would be pure speculation, but a quick look at modern history shows that the USian government has not hesitated before to do such a thing.

I thought it should be limited that way because it makes it easier to compare. After all, motivations for pre-emptive strikes and instigating coups would be different for a modern industrialised edmocracy than for some starving third world country.

Actually, that's also not entirely accurate. However, if you want a list of morally unacceptable behavior:

1904: Japanese Suprise Attack on the Russians that started the Russo-Japanese War.

1910: US giving green light to Japan to annex Korea

1914: Archduke Ferdinan and his wife getting assassinated (starting World War I)

1919: Treaty of Versailles (Sp?) I myself consider this morally unacceptable. Don't know about the rest of you.

The Armenian genocide by the Ottoman empire.

1930's: Appeasement of Adolf's Germany

Staying with Germany: The Extermination of the Jews!

1941: December 7, 1941 violated all the rules of warfare

During World War II and even before: Japanese warcrimes against both civilians and military personel.

I also find the assassinations of head of states (no matter what nation) to be morally unacceptable, as well as all the coups that have been attempted and those that were successful. Cuba, Chile, Iran, etc.

Do I make apologies? No. Why? Not my job to make apologies. That is the job of the Federal Government and the United States State Department.

This is my partial list.

I also find the assassinations of head of states (no matter what nation) to be morally unacceptable, as well as all the coups that have been attempted and those that were successful. Cuba, Chile, Iran, etc.

Right. Now bearing that in mind, what makes you think that the current USian administration would not support a coup if Iraqis elected someone that worked against USian interests?

Actually, that's also not entirely accurate. However, if you want a list of morally unacceptable behavior:

1904: Japanese Suprise Attack on the Russians that started the Russo-Japanese War.

1910: US giving green light to Japan to annex Korea

1914: Archduke Ferdinan and his wife getting assassinated (starting World War I)

1919: Treaty of Versailles (Sp?) I myself consider this morally unacceptable. Don't know about the rest of you.

The Armenian genocide by the Ottoman empire.

1930's: Appeasement of Adolf's Germany

Staying with Germany: The Extermination of the Jews!

1941: December 7, 1941 violated all the rules of warfare

During World War II and even before: Japanese warcrimes against both civilians and military personel.

I also find the assassinations of head of states (no matter what nation) to be morally unacceptable, as well as all the coups that have been attempted and those that were successful. Cuba, Chile, Iran, etc.

Do I make apologies? No. Why? Not my job to make apologies. That is the job of the Federal Government and the United States State Department.

This is my partial list.

So you admit that Dubya has to have no say in what he finds "acceptable" or not as a head of state?

Right. Now bearing that in mind, what makes you think that the current USian administration would not support a coup if Iraqis elected someone that worked against USian interests?

Thank you!

Right. Now bearing that in mind, what makes you think that the current USian administration would not support a coup if Iraqis elected someone that worked against USian interests?

Because it would be a diplomatic disaster far greater than the invasion itself.

So you admit that Dubya has to have no say in what he finds "acceptable" or not as a head of state?

He may have his own opinions on the matter but he cannot legally do anything about them.

Because it would be a diplomatic disaster far greater than the invasion itself.

And we all know that this Administration's caring nature about diplomacy wouldn't allow that to happen?

Because it would be a diplomatic disaster far greater than the invasion itself.

How?

And we all know that this Administration's caring nature about diplomacy wouldn't allow that to happen?

This would be far worse if he tries it. If he does try it, and I firmly believe he wont, I'd be the first inline denouncing him.

He may have his own opinions on the matter but he cannot legally do anything about them.

I'll remember this quote if you ever beg for the head of a leader that claims Dubya should step down.

How?

And I thought this would be so obvious. I guess I was mistaken.

It would be a disaster because it would undermine everything we have worked for and are striving to achieve.

I'll remember this quote if you ever beg for the head of a leader that claims Dubya should step down.

You do that. I'll even let you put it in your signature if I do

It would be a disaster because it would undermine everything we have worked for and are striving to achieve.

Like the Iraq war did to the effort against terrorism?

Like the Iraq war did to the effort against terrorism?

I said diplomacy. I didn't say anything else. I'm talking nations and not individual people.

I said diplomacy. I didn't say anything else. I'm talking nations and not individual people.

I think you misunderstood. My point was that this administration is KNOWN for undermining its own supposed efforts.

I think you misunderstood. My point was that this administration is KNOWN for undermining its own supposed efforts.

Or doing a smart job by getting the terrorists into one location where they can be killed. Depends on how you would like to look at it :D

Or doing a smart job by getting the terrorists into one location where they can be killed. Depends on how you would like to look at it :D

1- Thereby creating MORE terrorists. Smart.

2- Killing innocents in the process. Way to claim moral high ground.

1- Thereby creating MORE terrorists. Smart.

2- Killing innocents in the process. Way to claim moral high ground.

The terrorists are doing far more killing of civilians than the American Army is doing. We do go out of our way to limit civilian casualties. The terrorists do not.

However, that is a seperate debate.

The terrorists are doing far more killing of civilians than the American Army is doing. We do go out of our way to limit civilian casualties. The terrorists do not.

However, that is a seperate debate.

Here's a thought: There WOULDN'T BE terrorists there if you hadn't - you're not only claiming but bragging about it - KNOWINGLY brought them to where innocents lived.

And you claim you're going out of your way to limit civilian casualties? Then so was Al Qaeda in 9-11!

And I thought this would be so obvious. I guess I was mistaken.

It would be a disaster because it would undermine everything we have worked for and are striving to achieve.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I think it would help if you defined exactly what it is the USian administration is working for, and what it is trying to achieve.

Here's a thought: There WOULDN'T BE terrorists there if you hadn't - you're not only claiming but bragging about it - KNOWINGLY brought them to where innocents lived.

There were already terrorists there. May not have been Al Qaeda or hamas or Al Aqsa marters brigade but there were already terrorists there. They were controled by various sections of Saddam's government.

And you claim you're going out of your way to limit civilian casualties? Then so was Al Qaeda in 9-11!

Why don't you ask Osama Bin Laden? Because we support Israel and he didn't like us in Saudi Arabia, forgetting the fact that the Saudi government invited us into their nation just after Kuwait was invaded in 1990. We are no longer in Saudi Arabia.

There were already terrorists there. May not have been Al Qaeda or hamas or Al Aqsa marters brigade but there were already terrorists there. They were controled by various sections of Saddam's government. Why don't you ask Osama Bin Laden? Because we support Israel and he didn't like us in Saudi Arabia, forgetting the fact that the Saudi government invited us into their nation just after Kuwait was invaded in 1990. We are no longer in Saudi Arabia.

There's no way the situation in Iraq when it comes to violence is equal or better than it was before the US army invaded. You don't get to choose to use sovereign inhabited land as a battlefield! Would you like that done to the US? Canada and Mexico start a fight, the US is right in the middle? I was not claiming Al Qaeda wanted to limit civilian casualties, I was claiming the US doesn't give a damn about civilians.

Here's a thought: There WOULDN'T BE terrorists there if you hadn't - you're not only claiming but bragging about it - KNOWINGLY brought them to where innocents lived.

And you claim you're going out of your way to limit civilian casualties? Then so was Al Qaeda in 9-11!

I am geussing that you are among the crowd that believes that the Bush administration is a terrorist organization, if that is true:rolleyes: then i do not understand how you don't see that saddams regeime was a terrorist organization. Wait, terrorists weren't living by innocents before? Oh i see, only iraqis are innocent and those poor afghanis are evil devils.

I was claiming the US doesn't give a damn about civilians.

Are you freaking kidding?!?! If we didnt give a damn, then why don't we just go and kill every iraqi who gives a dirty look, go on a terrorist campaign by intimidating every afghani who says something in support of the enemy. Oh wait, that sounds a lot like it was before.

There's no way the situation in Iraq when it comes to violence is equal or better than it was before the US army invaded.

Did I say that?

You don't get to choose to use sovereign inhabited land as a battlefield!

Your right. Saddam made that choice when he decided to play games with the United Nations.

Would you like that done to the US? Canada and Mexico start a fight, the US is right in the middle?

There was actually a thread on this a long time ago. If I recalled correctly, the United States played both sides off one another. :D

I was not claiming Al Qaeda wanted to limit civilian casualties, I was claiming the US doesn't give a damn about civilians.

And here is where you are wrong. If we didn't "give a damn" (Heikoku post #83) then we would've just carpet bombed every major city using non guided bombs. How many civilians you think would've died if we had done that? Provided we didn't hit Churches, Schools, or hospitals, it would've been legal.

And here is where you are wrong. If we didn't "give a damn" (Heikoku post #83) then we would've just carpet bombed every major city using non guided bombs. How many civilians you think would've died if we had done that? Provided we didn't hit Churches, Schools, or hospitals, it would've been legal.

Despite the exercise of some restraint, the effect of the bombing on Iraqis was still horrendous. A study by the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that some 100,000 Iraqis have died as result of the US-led invasion and occupation, primarily due to US/UK bombing [6]. Because I was in Palestine at the time, the only coverage of the US invasion I saw was on Al-Jazeera. Each morning they broadcast gruesome scenes of dead women and children, victims of the US bombing each night before. As a war against Iran may possibly be upon us in the coming years, it is important to keep in mind the effects of US military tactics on civilian populations, especially if one considers the rhetoric of our government to liberate oppressed peoples to be sincere. Targeting civilians is still terrorism, whether undertaken for the best of motives or the worst.

Quote taken from:
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2035.shtml

The reference in the quote is from: [6] Mortality Before and After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Cluster Sample Survey. The Lancet, Volume 364, Number 9445, 30 October 2004.

And Corny, I'm still waiting for a clarification about what you think USian objectives are.

Thanks!

And Corny, I'm still waiting for a clarification about what you think USian objectives are.

Thanks!

On the tactical/operational level, the U.S. goals in iraq are to provide an environment stable enough for reconstruction, denying insurgents and especially terrorists safe haven, and providing the necessary resources for the development of a democratic iraq. That is a direct quote from a briefing i just recieved earlier today.

I am geussing that you are among the crowd that believes that the Bush administration is a terrorist organization, if that is true:rolleyes: then i do not understand how you don't see that saddams regeime was a terrorist organization. Wait, terrorists weren't living by innocents before? Oh i see, only iraqis are innocent and those poor afghanis are evil devils.

Yeah, moron, that's what I meant when I clarified my belief that ATTACKING A COUNTRY TO MAKE IT A BATTLEFIELD WITH ANOTHER FORCE IS WRONG. I was comparing it to the equally repulsive actions of Al Qaeda. But that point flew right off your head.

On the tactical/operational level, the U.S. goals in iraq are to provide an environment stable enough for reconstruction, denying insurgents and especially terrorists safe haven, and providing the necessary resources for the development of a democratic iraq. That is a direct quote from a briefing i just recieved earlier today.

Thank you.

Yeah, moron, that's what I meant when I clarified my belief that ATTACKING A COUNTRY TO MAKE IT A BATTLEFIELD WITH ANOTHER FORCE IS WRONG. I was comparing it to the equally repulsive actions of Al Qaeda. But that point flew right off your head.
Woa, calm down there.

Pointless insults help no one.

Yeah, moron, that's what I meant when I clarified my belief that ATTACKING A COUNTRY TO MAKE IT A BATTLEFIELD WITH ANOTHER FORCE IS WRONG. I was comparing it to the equally repulsive actions of Al Qaeda. But that point flew right off your head.

Do you really think that we attacked to make it another battlefield? How is going in and removing a dictator similar to terrorizing innocents for their own personal gains?

Are you freaking kidding?!?! If we didnt give a damn, then why don't we just go and kill every iraqi who gives a dirty look, go on a terrorist campaign by intimidating every afghani who says something in support of the enemy. Oh wait, that sounds a lot like it was before.

If you DO give a damn, why did you attack their country to serve as Al Qaeda fly-catcher?

Thank you.
Anytime

Quote taken from:
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2035.shtml

The reference in the quote is from: [6] Mortality Before and After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Cluster Sample Survey. The Lancet, Volume 364, Number 9445, 30 October 2004.

Now do you have an unbiased source?

On the tactical/operational level, the U.S. goals in iraq are to provide an environment stable enough for reconstruction, denying insurgents and especially terrorists safe haven, and providing the necessary resources for the development of a democratic iraq. That is a direct quote from a briefing i just recieved earlier today.

Stated for more accurately

If you DO give a damn, why did you attack their country to serve as Al Qaeda fly-catcher?

We didn't, we attacked so that the iraqis could be freed from oppression. That didn't go exactly as planned and we admit it. We are now trying to fix that and give the iraqis a future that they can look forward too, something they have never had.

We didn't, we attacked so that the iraqis could be freed from oppression. That didn't go exactly as planned and we admit it. We are now trying to fix that and give the iraqis a future that they can look forward too, something they have never had.

no battle plan survives 1st contact with the enemy.

Do you really think that we attacked to make it another battlefield? How is going in and removing a dictator similar to terrorizing innocents for their own personal gains?

Corneliu is making that claim, not me.

We didn't, we attacked so that the iraqis could be freed from oppression. That didn't go exactly as planned and we admit it. We are now trying to fix that and give the iraqis a future that they can look forward too, something they have never had.

Actually, they DID have it, before THE US PUT SADDAM IN POWER IN THE EIGHTIES!

Corneliu is making that claim, not me.

Actually no I didn't make that claim. I said it was a by product of our invasion that terrorists migrated there to attack us.

Actually, they DID have it, before THE US PUT SADDAM IN POWER IN THE EIGHTIES!

Saddam came to power in the 70s Heikoku. 1979 to be more exact. He was instrumental in the Ba'athist coup in 1968.

Actually no I didn't make that claim. I said it was a by product of our invasion that terrorists migrated there to attack us.

Which was something foreseen, Corneliu. Or you're claiming your military is that dumb?

Saddam came to power in the 70s Heikoku. 1979 to be more exact. He was instrumental in the Ba'athist coup in 1968.

So my date is wrong. Refresh my memory, though. Who helped the Ba'ath again?

Actually, they DID have it, before THE US PUT SADDAM IN POWER IN THE EIGHTIES!

Correct me if i'm wrong the coup supported by the US gov't took place in the sixties and led to Abdul Salam Arif coming to power. It was only after internal affairs that saddam became president. I'm not too informed on this subject and any correction would be much appreciated.

So my date is wrong. Refresh my memory, though. Who helped the Ba'ath again?

No one helped them gain power in 1968. This was the 2nd coup in Iraq after the 1st one literally failed after about 8 months in 1963.

after the '68 coup, he was named Vice President. He put himself into power by forcing the his relative to resign in 1979. Why? Because he opposed what was going on between Iraq and Syria that could've lead to the two nations actually unifying into one.

He then assumed the Presidency and the rest, as they say, is history.

Correct me if i'm wrong the coup supported by the US gov't took place in the sixties and led to Abdul Salam Arif coming to power. It was only after internal affairs that saddam became president. I'm not too informed on this subject and any correction would be much appreciated.

Is that supposed to make it all right or just to wash your hands over the fact that, had Arif not been couped in, Saddam wouldn't have climbed either? Does anyone else remember the US helping Saddam with actual WMDs? How can you claim moral high ground???

Which was something foreseen, Corneliu. Or you're claiming your military is that dumb?

The insurgency was forseen, you are right about that.

Is that supposed to make it all right or just to wash your hands over the fact that, had Arif not been couped in, Saddam wouldn't have climbed either? Does anyone else remember the US helping Saddam with actual WMDs? How can you claim moral high ground???

I do not remember the US giving the iraqis WMD's. However i do recall a figure in the $100,000 range of supplies we sold to iraq while the russians sold millions. And you are coming after us?

I do not remember the US giving the iraqis WMD's. However i do recall a figure in the $100,000 range of supplies we sold to iraq while the russians sold millions. And you are coming after us?

To translate it: "Because someone else murdered somebody, my raping someone is ok".

Is that supposed to make it all right or just to wash your hands over the fact that, had Arif not been couped in, Saddam wouldn't have climbed either? Does anyone else remember the US helping Saddam with actual WMDs? How can you claim moral high ground???

And how much did the French give? They gave far far more than the United States did. As did Russia and China.

Doesn't make it right but if your going to blame the United States who was am minor contributor, are you also going to yell at France, China and Russia for doing the samething?

No one helped them gain power in 1968. This was the 2nd coup in Iraq after the 1st one literally failed after about 8 months in 1963.

after the '68 coup, he was named Vice President. He put himself into power by forcing the his relative to resign in 1979. Why? Because he opposed what was going on between Iraq and Syria that could've lead to the two nations actually unifying into one.

He then assumed the Presidency and the rest, as they say, is history.

Saddams failed assasination attempt of the Iraqi PM in 1959 was US backed.

The insurgency was forseen, you are right about that.

So it was foreseen. You knew Iraq would turn into a battleground with third parties, yet you didn't care about the people that lived there. Nice.

And how much did the French give? They gave far far more than the United States did. As did Russia and China.

Doesn't make it right but if your going to blame the United States who was am minor contributor, are you also going to yell at France, China and Russia for doing the samething?

Not one of these countries started a bloody, costly war that killed thousands of people while claiming they were doing it "for democracy". The US did.

I do not remember the US giving the iraqis WMD's. However i do recall a figure in the $100,000 range of supplies we sold to iraq while the russians sold millions. And you are coming after us?


Actually the sums during the Iran-Iraq war were far larger, often through third parties, as well as supplies in theory illegal for the US to sell, but which it allowed Egypt etc to purchase and then pass on. Also there were the "dual use" items, such as trucks, certain types of helicopters.

In addition there was the Sattelite intel and communication intercepts, which were invaluable in keeping the increasingly successful Iranians at bay.

Saddams failed assasination attempt of the Iraqi PM in 1959 was US backed.

Now I would like to see proof of this if you do not mind.

So it was foreseen. You knew Iraq would turn into a battleground with third parties, yet you didn't care about the people that lived there. Nice.

I like how you are repeating yourself as if what you are saying is gospel. It isn't. We do care about the people that live there. If we didn't, we would just let the terrorists blow up their civilians without trying to root them out.

That is precisely what we are doing now. We are literally turning the nation inside out looking for the thugs that are blowing up the Iraqis and killing far more civilians. This actually does nothing for their cause as it makes the people madder at the terrorists than it does at the soldiers.

At least I can respect the insurgency. Well those that only target coalition troops and government personel. At least they try to fight within the rules.

Not one of these countries started a bloody, costly war that killed thousands of people while claiming they were doing it "for democracy". The US did.

How can a war start when the original war never ended?

So it was foreseen. You knew Iraq would turn into a battleground with third parties, yet you didn't care about the people that lived there. Nice.


Actually, if you read the memos that leaked from London, they made little or no plans for after the war, and envisaged little civil strife. What they were smoking at the time these ideas occurred is not mentioned however.

"The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." - 23rd July 2002 -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

"The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/28/MNGL4HUTB81.DTL

The NYT article seems to be now restricted to "members". I just grabbed that link at random as it seems to cover the same ground.

I like how you are repeating yourself as if what you are saying is gospel. It isn't. We do care about the people that live there. If we didn't, we would just let the terrorists blow up their civilians without trying to root them out.

That is precisely what we are doing now. We are literally turning the nation inside out looking for the thugs that are blowing up the Iraqis and killing far more civilians. This actually does nothing for their cause as it makes the people madder at the terrorists than it does at the soldiers.

At least I can respect the insurgency. Well those that only target coalition troops and government personel. At least they try to fight within the rules.

What's so hard to understand?

1- If you hadn't started a war, there would be no collateral damage.

2- This was a war of choice in which, by your own admission, you picked the battleground as a way to draw enemies there, thereby making the collateral damage MUCH worse.

Are these the actions of people that care?

How can a war start when the original war never ended?

Just explain to me why you come out with that baseless nonsense. Is it some bizarre mental "tic"?

Just explain to me why you come out with that baseless nonsense. Is it some bizarre mental "tic"?

How is it baseless when Gulf War I never ended?

Now I would like to see proof of this if you do not mind.

Take the details from this and look it up yourself (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/30/saddams_secrets/)

Its common knowledge he was linked earlier in his career - they paid for his stay in Cairo. Thats why the idea his later coming to power was CIA backed comes from (though its not true, as far as I'm aware).

How is it baseless when Gulf War I never ended?

Please take your strawman nonsense and stuff it where your head is normally stored. I've already shown that none of the particpants mention this mental delusion of yours in their discussions, so spare us.

Please take your strawman nonsense and stuff it where your head is normally stored. I've already shown that none of the particpants mention this mental delusion of yours in their discussions, so spare us.

I guess I'll take that as "I don't have an answer instead I would rather hurl insults at you".

Answer my question. When did the 1st Gulf War end?

What's so hard to understand?

1- If you hadn't started a war, there would be no collateral damage.

2- This was a war of choice in which, by your own admission, you picked the battleground as a way to draw enemies there, thereby making the collateral damage MUCH worse.

Are these the actions of people that care?

We did not fight this war to draw terrorists to it. If he said we did then he is mistaken.

I guess I'll take that as "I don't have an answer instead I would rather hurl insults at you".

Answer my question. When did the 1st Gulf War end?


Its irrelevant and a strawman. Here - read this

"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

Explain to me what your incessant babble has to do with what they are saying above. I don't see an obvious link between the two.

We did not fight this war to draw terrorists to it. If he said we did then he is mistaken.

Then take that up to him...

I see I'm not going to get an answer. That means you don't have one. Its ok, I understand that easy questions are difficult for some.

I see I'm not going to get an answer. That means you don't have one. Its ok, I understand that easy questions are difficult for some.

O, so now its come out with irrelevant babble and ignore the actual documentation, as opposed to just turning tail and dissappearing when same appears. Who precisely do you think you're fooling? You are trying to justify a war with an argument that nobody involved in actually starting it used.

O, so now its come out with irrelevant babble and ignore the actual documentation, as opposed to just turning tail and dissappearing when same appears. Who precisely do you think you're fooling? You are trying to justify a war with an argument that nobody involved in actually starting it used.

Actually, UN Resolution 686 has somehow been ignored in this whole thing.

Not to mention it was quoted in Public Law 107-243 which authorized the Use of Force against Iraq stating that Saddam violated the terms of the agreed upon Cease-Fire.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Does it really matter if the war was justified or not? Isn't the future a little bit more important to be discussing?

Does it really matter if the war was justified or not? Isn't the future a little bit more important to be discussing?

It should be more important to be discussing that. I'll agree with you there USMC.

It should be more important to be discussing that. I'll agree with you there USMC.

But that can't really be accurately debated on these forums because nobody here really has any real hands on experience. Debating the legality of the war however, is easy because all it takes is a single document and your the authority on the topic.

But that can't really be accurately debated on these forums because nobody here really has any real hands on experience.

Agreed!

Debating the legality of the war however, is easy because all it takes is a single document and your the authority on the topic.

So very true unfortunately. To many people fall into this.

Fine--go live in happy land with Liverbreath, where Bush is competent and the war in Iraq is going swimmingly. While you're at it, see if you can get the Red Queen to behead Tweedledumber and ask Glinda to send Toto home from Oz.

President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

What source would you trust that isn't The National Review then?

President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

That's because you're a moron that won't trust any source of facts that dispute your preconcieved point of view, even if said source were your own friggin' eyes.

Next question.

President Merkin Muffley: Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

King George the Lesser doesn't like who's in charge anymore (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1301202000&en=15493a3118442a2c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

Makes you wonder, what definition pops up in King Georgie's head when the word "democracy" comes out of his mouth?
Well, King George the Lesser did vote in the Iraqi election, so he really should have a say in who the Prime Minister is? :rolleyes:

http://logo.cafepress.com/nocache/4/735262.515134.jpg

Actually, UN Resolution 686 has somehow been ignored in this whole thing.

Not to mention it was quoted in Public Law 107-243 which authorized the Use of Force against Iraq stating that Saddam violated the terms of the agreed upon Cease-Fire.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
You starting up with this nonsense once again?

Come on Corny, give it a rest!! I think you will find all the answers in here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10629435&postcount=181

Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, Resolution 1441, (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

Bush went to war with Iraq without exhausting diplomatic avenues. Bush went to war with Iraq without letting the UN inspectors finish their job.

What does Kerry say about Bush's mis-use of the War Measures Act that Congress gave to him:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kvh/kerryoniraqwar/kerryoniraqwar-qa.pdf

Bush should not have gone to war.

Does it really matter if the war was justified or not? Isn't the future a little bit more important to be discussing?
Actually, it does matter.

If the war was not justified, then the policies which were put in place around it, such as the strategy of pre-emption, must be re-examined in this light. The future doesn't occur in a vaccuum. It is a direct consequence of the actions in the past. Ignore the past and you stand to repeat the same mistakes yet again.

Does it really matter if the war was justified or not? Isn't the future a little bit more important to be discussing?

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

Ergo getting the straight dope about what actually happened affects the future profoundly.

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

Ergo getting the straight dope about what actually happened affects the future profoundly.

For once, I do actually agree with Gymoor II The return.

For once, I do actually agree with Gymoor II The return.If you're being honest here--and I have my doubts--then you ought to appreciate this article (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0314-24.htm) written recently by an eminent historian about learning from the past and how that relates to the Iraq conflict.

If you're being honest here--and I have my doubts--then you ought to appreciate this article (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0314-24.htm) written recently by an eminent historian about learning from the past and how that relates to the Iraq conflict.

SHould be a good one. Thanks.

If they want us to leave, all they have to do is force the government into telling us to leave.This is just golden. Isn't "forcing the government" what the insurgency is all about?

This is just golden. Isn't "forcing the government" what the insurgency is all about?

Actually what the insurgency wants is a return to the rule of Saddam Hussein. The terrorists in Iraq want an islamic state that coincides with their beliefs so that they can use it as a base. If that occured, we'd be right back in there.

That's all from me tonight.

Actually what the insurgency wants is a return to the rule of Saddam Hussein.

The terrorists in Iraq want an islamic state that coincides with their beliefs so that they can use it as a base.
Part B is not in agreeance with Part A. And Part B is not just what the "terrorists" want, unless you want to classify all Muslims as terrorists. Many of the religious locals ones want an Islamic state based in Sharia law.

Does it really matter if the war was justified or not? Isn't the future a little bit more important to be discussing?

I take your point. However if worrying about a friend who has gone for a walk, its best to know what motivated the person with him to accompany them.

Part B is not in agreeance with Part A. And Part B is not just what the "terrorists" want, unless you want to classify all Muslims as terrorists. Many of the religious locals ones want an Islamic state based in Sharia law.

Which would violate the Iraqi Constitution.

This doesn't make it morally acceptable. My point being that your government keeps doing morally unacceptable things and you still support it.

Heikoku, I could hug you for that statement. Logical reasoning, its such a treat :D ! I couldn't agree more with your point against Corny's point on violence and murder to get what one wants.

Anyway ! Back to getting up to date on the posts for this thread

Heikoku, I could hug you for that statement. Logical reasoning, its such a treat :D ! I couldn't agree more with your point against Corny's point on violence and murder to get what one wants.

Then I suggest you continue to read through the thread. You might be surprised.

I'm not quite finished reading through this thread, but there have been some good points on either side. I'd like to partake in the debate, but course work doesn't leave me with a lot of time to help you guys find the truth of the matter.

Keep up the good work guys ! You're finding the truth of the matter, and thats the most important goal in an argument. Props to all everyone who used the principles of Logic and Reasoning in their argumentation, as well as intellectual kindness and fairness.

Then I suggest you continue to read through the thread. You might be surprised.

Yeah, I got a bit further, and I noticed some of the things you had to say. You've conducted yourself very well, awesome stuff Corneliu. Also, some of your moral argumentive points in the later parts are good.

Honestly, I'm glad to see arguments like this, especially Corneliu's conduct. Arguments are about finding truth, not flame wars, and how one conduct's one's self is very important in, not only keeping on track, but avoiding the slip into a flame war, which solves nothing.

Well, I'm out for now. Have a good one guys !

Yeah, I got a bit further, and I noticed some of the things you had to say. You've conducted yourself very well, awesome stuff Corneliu. Also, some of your moral argumentive points in the later parts are good.

Honestly, I'm glad to see arguments like this, especially Corneliu's conduct. Arguments are about finding truth, not flame wars, and how one conduct's one's self is very important in, not only keeping on track, but avoiding the slip into a flame war, which solves nothing.

I thank you for the compliment.

I will say this that I really do not like it when people always single out the United States. Yes we are the most powerful and just like the British and French Empires before us, have been made a target because of it.

However, other nations have done grave atrocities that are far worse then anything we have committed. Does not make what we do right by any means but if your going to condemn one nation for an atrocity, you have to condemn all nations throughout history for the atrocities that have been committed.

If you're being honest here--and I have my doubts--then you ought to appreciate this article (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0314-24.htm) written recently by an eminent historian about learning from the past and how that relates to the Iraq conflict.

It is an interesting article and once I filtered out the bias (and there was alot), he made some good points about past American involvement. I do thank you again for the article Nazz.

On the tactical/operational level, the U.S. goals in iraq are to provide an environment stable enough for reconstruction, denying insurgents and especially terrorists safe haven, and providing the necessary resources for the development of a democratic iraq. That is a direct quote from a briefing i just recieved earlier today.

So, if we assume these objectives are the priorities for the USian administration, we can ask ourselves if they are in conflict with the option of installing a puppet regime.

Now, if the US were to install a dictator, that would still easily allow the US forces to provide an environment stable enough for reconstruction and denying insurgents and especially terrorists safe haven. In fact, itmight even make their job easier.

But what about providing the necessary resources for the development of a democratic iraq? Well, if we are speaking strictly of physical resources, again this is not a problem.

But Corneliu is speaking of a public relations disaster. It would look really bad if the USian administration installed a puppet regime when it is supposed to be spreading democracy.

But there's a way around that too. If the people elect someone that could be construed or portrayed as a Radical Muslim Extremist, or Communist (anyone who nationalises the oil fields, for example), then the USian administration would be obligated to remove them from power to save democracy.

I think that there are really no obstacles for the USian administration, if they choose to go that route.

How is it baseless when Gulf War I never ended?
Even if it didn't, the US cannot resume hostilities by it's lonesome. It need a UN resolution. It didn't get it so it's an illegal invasion AND a breach of the UN resolution declaring the cease-fire.

Do we really have to debunk your wild theories in every thread?

However, other nations have done grave atrocities that are far worse then anything we have committed. Does not make what we do right by any means but if your going to condemn one nation for an atrocity, you have to condemn all nations throughout history for the atrocities that have been committed.
1. Unless their atrocities are continuing, there's nothing that can be done about them. There is still a chance to turn the US from its current course.

2. Other nations that are currently committing atrocities do not generally top it off with hypocritical claims about their moral superiority as the US does.

It is for these two reasons as well as the US's stature that it is singled out.

1. Unless their atrocities are continuing, there's nothing that can be done about them. There is still a chance to turn the US from its current course.

2. Other nations that are currently committing atrocities do not generally top it off with hypocritical claims about their moral superiority as the US does.

It is for these two reasons as well as the US's stature that it is singled out.

If your going to condemn the US then condemn all nations that are committing atrocities. That includes the United Nations who have done far worse than we have. Still does not make what the US has done right.

If your going to condemn the US then condemn all nations that are committing atrocities.

That would only be required were we speaking generally. We arent.

That would only be required were we speaking generally. We arent.

It don't matter Nodinia. Atrocities are going on every day. I have heard very little condemnation on this board about those that do go on.

It don't matter Nodinia. Atrocities are going on every day. I have heard very little condemnation on this board about those that do go on.


Nice try but really makes no sense.

It's like saying that everytime you talk about the bad things Saddam did, then you have to include every single attrocity ever commited by any leader for your discussion about Saddam to be legitimate.

Or how about, every time you talk about a diamonds luster, then you must also mention every other precious gem known or else you should just keep your mouth shut completely.

So here we have come to the realization that you should have had while reading this post - When discussion the bad shit the United States of America did, it is possible to condemn them for it without having to mention all the bad shit other countries did.

It actually makes plenty of sense however, I already know no one likes it when other national problems come up but have to pick on the United States.

It actually makes plenty of sense however, I already know no one likes it when other national problems come up but have to pick on the United States.


Sorry but you can't have a legitimate discussion about people critisizing the US unless you list all people who have critisized any other nation. Plus you cannot sucessfully show how one thing makes sense unless you give examples of all things that make sense.

Sorry but you can't have a legitimate discussion about people critisizing the US unless you list all people who have critisized any other nation. Plus you cannot sucessfully show how one thing makes sense unless you give examples of all things that make sense.
:D