Bicylist shot and killed for thrill

[[email protected]]

Roger Houston writes:

>> The US polls reflect that Americans are getting less hopeful about
>> success in Iraq (who can blame 'em with the non-stop negative
>> reporting).

>> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
>> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.

>> Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the Iraqis
>> don't know what's going on in Iraq.

> This is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. Can't the
> Iraqis get CNN? Why are they so misinformed? Don't they know that
> they're living in a quagmire? Those poor, poor simple people.

> Hey, you stupid ass Iraqis. Don't make me send Don Imus over there.

The trouble with that is that CNN cites Iraqi news on what appears to
be an on-the-scene report by their reporters, while in fact it is a
CIA newsfeed.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Roger Houston]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The trouble with that is that CNN cites Iraqi news on what appears to
> be an on-the-scene report by their reporters, while in fact it is a
> CIA newsfeed.

I didn't watch CNN during the 90-91 mobilization because I was kinda busy,
but I heard tell they did a pretty good imitation of an arty FO for the
scuds.

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>> "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:H5ujf.11088$QW2.7663@dukeread08...
>>>
>>> The only problem is your sources aren't very credible, I would like
>>> to see the entire story, not their version of what actually
>>> happened. ABC, MSNBC, BBC, give me a break, where's CNN, CBS, &
>>> the New York Times?
>
>> Fox News OK for this one?
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175805,00.html
>>
>> "Before Goss took over the agency [CIA], its inspector general
>> completed a report on the treatment of detainees, following
>> investigations into at least four prisoner deaths that may have
>> involved CIA personnel. To date, one agency contractor has been
>> charged.
>
> OK, so /investigations/ into four (4) prisoner deaths -- out of...what,
> maybe 30,000? 40,000?? more??? -- are underway. That really compares to
> mass graves, rape rooms, cutting off of limbs when too lazy to take heads,
> public executions, etc. etc. etc.?!?
>
> The biggest difference, of course, is that the U.S. PROSECUTES its
> law-breaking personnel, instead of rewarding and glorifying them.
>
I'll grant you that the US is investigating and prosecuting itself, which is
a good and noble thing, if you'll grant me that nobody of significant rank
has yet been prosecuted. SO FAR, at least, all the convictions have been of
low-ranking individuals, IIRC.

Were a lot of these guys following orders -- official or unofficial?
Was there either a permissive tone, or a lack of proper supervision, in
place?

If this were a U.S. corporation, the answer would be a clear "yes". War is
an inherently messy business so the decision is a bit harder to make
accurately from the safety of a warm living room thousands of miles away.
Still, we owe it to our volunteer troops to do our best to enforce military
discipline and conduct and it seems highly questionable adequate controls
were in place. We have thousands of years of empirical evidence that
soldiers of any army will commit atrocities during wartime if not adequately
trained and supervised. If they have not been adequately supervised, that's
a management failure, IMO.

 

[Mike Kruger]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Let's try again. Here are some commonly accepted guidelines for
> deciding if a war is a Just War. These were worked out NOT by
> politicians looking for an excuse, but by neutral philosophers trying
> to solve a moral problem. <idealism snipped>

Nice criteria, but are there any instances anyone can think of where a war
did not occur because people stopped and thought "Wait a minute! This
wouldn't satisfy the criteria for a just war!"

 

[Mark Hickey]

Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
>>>>claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
>>>>isn't a third choice.
>>>
>>>Mark, you're obviously being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure even your
>>>news sources reported that we had economic and military sanctions in
>>>place, and that we had weapons inspectors in country, and the fact
>>>that they found none of the weapons of mass destruction that
>>>the right is claiming today.
>>
>>And the sanctions and weapons inspectors would have somehow removed
>>Saddam... HOW? Perhaps you could explain that one to me... sailed
>>right over my obtuse head.
>
>Moving the goalpost just a bit are we?

Not me. Read the top comment I made, and then tell me how you're not
saying that if you were king of the world, you would have left Saddam
in charge. Sanctions and weapons inspectors wouldn't remove him.

>Where was that on the list of why whe did what we did when we did?
>Absent. We did what we did when we did it because of the grave and
>iminent threat of WMD's being used on us--a chance we couldn't take in
>a post-9/11 climate.

We did what we did about 10 years too late - after he refused to honor
the terms of the cease fire that saved his bacon (slight intended) he
should have been taken down in about six months, IMHO.
>>>
>>>>The French (you know, one of the stars of the oil-for-food bribery
>>>>scandal) made it clear that they would veto any vote to go after
>>>>Saddam under any circumstances, so the choices were for the US and
>>>>coalition partners to go in, or leave Saddam in charge so he could
>>>>continue offing his political enemies and shooting at our pilots.
>>>
>>>See above ... or refuse to. Your choice.
>>
>>I know - you figure the weapons inspectors would kidnap Saddam, right?
>
>So it's brutal dictators we're after ... or just brutal dictators that
>have used chemical weapons on their own ... or just brutal dictators
>that we propped up and supplied with chemical weapons ... or is it
>opressed and suffering citizenries ... or is it oppressed and
>suffering citizenries with big proven oil reserves?

How about "brutal dictators who've killed at least several hundred
thousand of his own people, recently invaded a neighboring country
disrupting the world economy, who's manufactured huge quantities of
WMD, some of which he's used on his enemies, and some of which he's
used on his own people, who openly supports terrorists with direct
payments, who's ignored 14 UN sanctions and played games with the
weapons inspectors, and who's tried to assassinate an ex-president.

>I can't keep track. What's the reason du jour today, Mark?

That's only because (apparently) none of the above matter to you.
Different strokes and all that I guess...

>>>>Sure I'm concerned about them, even though I'm a "right wing asshole".
>>>>Go figure. But we're NOT the only country in the world who can deal
>>>>with these issues (remember that war cry from the left?). Where is
>>>>the UN in this? If you want to see how the world works when left to
>>>>the UN, go to Africa - or you could just rent 'Hotel Rwanda' and get a
>>>>good flavor.
>>>
>>>But, Mark: we don't need a permission slip, right? If we think a
>>>cause is just, we're not afraid to act unilaterally. The dead in
>>>Darfur? The child soldiers in Cote d'Ivoire? Famine? Drought?
>>
>>Name a country who provides more humanitarian aid than the US.
>
>As long as we're $1 ahead of the #2 country, you can sleep. Not me.
>What about the massacres in Darfur? Checkbook taking care of that
>one?

This is getting boring, Neil... but it's typical liberal "logic".
"Mommy, you shouldn't be ****** at me for burning down the garage cuz
Billy burnt down his house". The US is the most humanitarian nation
on earth, as much as it pains the left to try to come to terms with
that notion.

>>>'cept in those cases, it's highly UNlikely that other UNSC members
>>>would veto.
>>
>>Veto, schmeto - why don't they get off their over-bribed arses and do
>>something themselves?
>
>OMG! You mean that other countries might have acted in their economic
>self-interest rather than/along with following their principles? I'm
>shocked! It's also good to know we're above all of that graft and
>corruption (need I start detailing recent events?).

What would YOU do with a polititian who endangered the lives of many,
many thousands of people by taking bribes and not doing what obviously
needed to be done to protect the population? Oh, wait... I know the
answer to that one. We'd put them in charge of our military. Heh.

>>>>Should I ask where the outcry from all the lefties was over the
>>>>hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered by Saddam?
>>>
>>>I heard it. I'm still hearing it about oppressed people around the
>>>world.
>>
>>So you must at least be happy that a despot is no longer offing an
>>average of at least 10,000 Iraqis a year (not to mention the hundreds
>>of thousands he killed during the Iran war and Kuwait invasion).
>>
>>Or maybe not.
>
>I'm happy he's gone. I'm repulsed at the way it went down and
>mortified at the news of our abuses, sanctioned torture, and use of
>chemical weapons on innocents.

There were abuses, and those that are guilty of them are being
punished. Show me a case where torture has been "sanctioned" on
anyone in Iraq. Not waterboarding, not sleep deprivation - torture
that is not within the legal boundaries of the GC. And I thought you
advocated leaving governments intact if they use chemical weapons on
citizens, anyway.

>We're supposed to be better than the person whom we invaded for those
>same actions, IMO, but I'm not Macchiavellian.

Neil, pardon me... but "DUH". You and Chalo are sounding more alike
lately. You really can't distinguish between the US and Saddam's
Baathist regime? WOW.

>>>>>There are places in this world where we could do some good, but
>>>>>where's the profit in that?
>>>>
>>>>So now we ARE the world's policemen? I thought you guys were opposed
>>>>to that concept. You want us to "invade" some more countries?
>>>
>>>God, no. Ain't you got any OTHER tools in your toolbox besides
>>>invasion? I would have thought that we, as a country, did....
>>
>>So if we go into Africa and take out a despotic regime to prevent them
>>killing their own citizens, it's "good"... but if we do it in a
>>country that's got oil, it's "bad".
>
>No. Working with the international community to provide humanitarian
>assistance, or intervention, when the agreed-upon criteria are met
>makes you a hero.

Well then, by YOUR definition, the US is the "biggest hero in the
world" since they do more of that than any other nation on earth.
Imagine that.

>Being unilateral makes you a bully with a $200/day crack (oil) habit.

Hmmmm. 40 countries = "unilateral". I'm using Websters - you?

>>Y'see, that's why I can't be a liberal. My brain hurts when I try to
>>make sense of something like that.
>
>I'm starting to think you're just overtaxing that poor little thing.
>
>Maybe you should rest.

Probably. This is a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:

>To be simplistic, for your benefit: What if _we_ had spent 1/10 that
>on bribes? If money is all it took for Saddam to control the UN, we
>could certainly have outbid him. Do you disagree? That money could
>have come in the form of direct payments, or in subtler forms such as
>promised market deals, research aid, medical supplies, campaign
>contributions, etc. Whatever could be done legally.
<snipped other similar text>

Frank, I really can't imagine a world where we reward such horrendous
behavior by paying them off. Can you REALLY suggest that without
following that approach to its logical conclusion? We'd only have to
pay off every despot in the world, since they'd have a) no fear of
reprisal, and b) a profit motive for outrageous behavior.

Besides, you're never going to convince me that Saddam (who had
literally billions of dollars in cash, and a string of ornate palaces)
was "bribable". Saying that "research aid" or "medical supplies"
would be meaningful to Saddam is laughable. "Campaign
contributions"???!!! You HAVE to be kidding me. Surely you have to
know more about prewar Iraq than that...

>> >Of course, you'll say none of the diplomatic alternatives would have
>> >worked. Um... which is, I assume, why we're presently invading dozens
>> >of other countries under the control of despicable leaders, right?
>>
>> Why, you wanna do that? You guys are making my head hurt... ;-)
>
>Thinking can do that.
>
>Of course, I'm NOT advocating invasion of other countries. I'm
>pointing out that your _current_ excuse for the invasion of Iraq is
>trumped up. If it were true that we invaded simply to get a dictator
>out of power, then we'd be involved in a dozen invasions right now.
>That we're not is proof that there were other reasons for the invasion.

And we've discussed them ad nauseum.

>And of course, your _original_ excuse for the invasion was entirely
>different: You and your cohorts said it was _obvious_ that Saddam had
>"weapons of mass destruction," and that his possession of WMDs was
>somehow justification for our own unleashing of the world's greatest
>war machine, so that we could use our own Weapons to perform Mass
>Destruction on him.

I'm not sure who "my cohorts" are, but if if they're the CIA, most of
the Democrats, UNMOVIC, and most foreign intel agencies, then yeah,
they all DID think it was obvious that Saddam had WMDs.

>If anything makes your head hurt, it should be the cognitive dissonance
>of your position, and it's complete contradiction of what you pretend
>to be your moral compass.

There's no contradiction at all. Nothing but history and fact,
actually.

>> Your "choices" make you look naive...
>
>To a person whose _actual_ morality consists of "Might makes right."

Hardly, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth (no matter how
badly you missed the mark).

"Right makes right" would be much more accurate.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Let's see how you guys are doing on the "lying thing"...
>>
>> Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11, but you somehow can't manage
>> to find any evidence of that "fact".
>>
>> Bush manipulated the intel going into the war, but you somehow can't
>> manage to find any evidence of that "fact" either.
>
>Wow. Speaking of lying!
>
>First, please replace "Bush" by "The Bush administration," because
>that's what's most often claimed. George W's radio link usually works
>well, and the words fed to him usually contain enough wiggle room to
>let him strongly imply what the administration wants, without having
>the cardboard president actually make specific, accountable statements.
> (In his defense, this is common among politicians - although most
>politicians are not figureheads to the degree George W is).
>
>But evidence of the administration's misleading statements has been
>posted many times. Of those posting here, there have been only about
>four people who are capable of pretending "We know where the weapons of
>mass destruction are" means something else.
>
>Or you can refer to the famous Downing Street Memo (actually, minutes
>of a top-level security meeting in Britain), containing this paragraph
>(and much more detail on the Bush administration's plans):
>
>"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
>shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
>wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
>conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
>being fixed around the policy."

The OPINION of ONE British officer visiting Washington becomes the
only gospel? Hooo boy.

>And regarding Iraq and 9/11, a brief Google session finds:
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
>
>"The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq"
>
>"American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the
>case for war.
>By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which
>focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight
>times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often
>in the same breath with Sept. 11.
>
>Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi
>president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression
>that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi
>dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS
>poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein
>was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month
>ago.
>
>Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence
>that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has
>been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be
>encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American
>support for a possible war against Iraq."

What, not ONE quote? Just second hand op-ed pieces?

>So we can't find _any_ evidence? That's in five minutes of Googling.
>It's been posted before.
>
>If you wanted to be accurate, Mark, you'd say "You can't find any
>evidence I'll believe." But that's describing a shortcoming in your
>belief system, not a complete lack of evidence.

C'mon Frank - if I claimed that Clinton or Kerry or Chirac or ???? was
the reason that a bunch of people believed something, even though I
couldn't find any evidence whatsoever to back up my claim, you'd be
(rightfully) calling me out on it.

Yet, in this case, where...

1) No one can produce a SINGLE freaking QUOTE
2) Many quotes from GWB say there IS NO CONNECTION
3) Newspapers and TV news talked incessantly about "the connection"
for years now...

.... you come to the conclusion that it just HAD to be Bush.

Sigh... I know you know better.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

The Wogster <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Hickey writes:
>>>
>>>>The US polls reflect that Americans are getting less hopeful about
>>>>success in Iraq (who can blame 'em with the non-stop negative
>>>>reporting).
>>>
>>>>The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
>>>>thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>>>
>>>>Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the Iraqis
>>>>don't know what's going on in Iraq.
>>>
>>>Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
>>>press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no spin.
>>
>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to see any
>> evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from sources not
>> "controlled" by the CIA.
>
>Gee, you know there are many ways to get foreign news, for example
>short-wave radio, satellite TV, cell phones, telephones, the Internet at
>the very least. Considering that Sadly Insane controlled the Iraqi
>media for so long, Iraqis are probably experts at finding alternate news
>sources, heck an Iraqi could be reading this group!

It's really funny when you think about it... There is a report that a
US contractor may have been sending some factually true but biased
pieces to Iraqi media, and suddenly (to quote Jobst) all the news in
Iraq is coming "directly from the CIA".

I suppose I should be happy that there is at least a grain of fact as
the basis for this though, no matter how much it had to be tortured to
produce the opinion.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey writes:

>>>>> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
>>>>> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.

>>>>> Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the
>>>>> Iraqis don't know what's going on in Iraq.

>>>> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in
>>>> their own press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted
>>>> with no spin.

>>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to see
>>> any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from sources
>>> not "controlled" by the CIA.

I just hear an interview with an administration spokesman who admitted
that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what you don't want to
believe.

>> Gee, you know there are many ways to get foreign news, for example
>> short-wave radio, satellite TV, cell phones, telephones, the
>> Internet at the very least. Considering that Sadly Insane
>> controlled the Iraqi media for so long, Iraqis are probably experts
>> at finding alternate news sources, heck an Iraqi could be reading
>> this group!

> It's really funny when you think about it... There is a report that
> a US contractor may have been sending some factually true but biased
> pieces to Iraqi media, and suddenly (to quote Jobst) all the news in
> Iraq is coming "directly from the CIA".

Who are "US contractors" who pay bribes to get their interpretation
of events into the Iraqi media? Listen to the news from BBC and US
sources who investigate these misdeeds.

> I suppose I should be happy that there is at least a grain of fact as
> the basis for this though, no matter how much it had to be tortured to
> produce the opinion.

Maybe you cold decode that last utterance for the public. I am not
privy to this convoluted and facetious logic.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Mark Hickey]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Peter - serious question... Are you going to be disappointed if "it
>> works"? The Iraqis are a whole lot more optimistic than Americans are
>> about it, so you'd better start thinking about how you might react to
>> GWB being right.
>
>I don't know what you mean by "it works". Personally, I think the war is
>already a failure since the cost has exceeded the benefit.

The cost is now - the potential benefit is long-term.

>In the same way, I don't understand "GWB being right". He has already
>been wrong about everything, what is there left to be right about?

History will tell whether he's right or not. If the democracies in
Afghanistan and Iraq "work", they're going to cause profound changes
throughout the entire region. If so, like it or not, the man will go
down as a visionary. If he's wrong, he is a goat forever.

I do hope you'd rather him be right.

>In even the most rosy scenario, the US has done damage to the prospects
>of of a world governed by international law, through its unilateral
>actions, that is the greatest loss. We have squandered a huge
>opportunity to abandon our cold war mentality. We are world leaders with
>no vision. We have used the peace dividend to make war -- a particularly
>cynical and stupid war. We are investing in the wrong things (war,
>military) at a time (globalization) when investment in the right
>(education, infrastructure) things is critical. All of our victories in
>the last 60 years have been economic, we're betting on the wrong horse.

Prior to the war, the "international law" was the UN.

Now the rest of the world knows what a joke THAT was.

>In the Middle East, the neo-cons misunderstand the "enemy" the same way
>their comrades misunderstood SE Asia during Vietnam. Islamic
>fundamentalism is on the rise, and it will not be stopped militarily. To
>understand why Iraq will never "work" (in the neo-con sense), you have
>to understand why Arabs danced in the street after 9/11. History teaches
>that the only thing that will unite traditional enemies is the presence
>of a greater common enemy. We are fulfilling that role (again) --
>remember China and Vietnam.

And I disagree. We are at war with a ideology, and the only way to
beat it is by making it impossible for that ideology to have state
sponsorship or access to WMD.

>The ultimate irony in all of this is how the fundamentalists in this
>country -- a group to which GWB belongs and owes his presidency -- don't
>grasp the reality of Islamic fundamentalism. They expect the Arabs to
>behave "rationally" and embrace a secular democracy, while they maintain
>their own irrational positions and attempt to de-secularize their own
>government. Extremism begets extremism.

The government that Iraq will end up with will be considerably less
secular than the one it replaced. That in itself will be seen by the
Arab street as a significant point.

>The ultimate fallacy of this war is that were are attempting to
>determine Iraqi self-determinism for them -- such folly cannot end well.

And I disagree again - I think the political process is well-designed
to have less and less foreign influence with every step taken. By the
time the elections take place on the 15th, the government will be very
representative of the Iraqi people. Give it a few more years, and it
will be more so.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

>Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote re: Office of Special Plans,
>for example:
>
>> Oooh, a secret cabal of the only guys
>> on the planet who knew (violin
>> riff) the REAL TRUTH.... (cue Twilight
>> Zone music). I'm sure they had
>> lots of spies in Iraq that no one
>> knew about too, right?
>
>This is another classic "You're cute, Mark, but..." line of yours.
>
>Math lesson, and--as others have said--I'll reduce the fractions for
>your intelligibility:
>
>1) Liddy + Mitchell + Haldeman + Dean + Hunt = CREEP
>
>2) Ronny RayGun + Robert McFarlane + Cap Weinberger + Colin Powell +
>Michael Ledeen, et al = Iran-Contra
>
>3) Tricky **** + Kennedy + Allen Dulles + Charles Cabell (close!) +
>Richard Bissell, et al = Bay of Pigs.
>
>You know, Mark: I've been giving you far too much credit for cerebral
>horsepower.

Yeah, I should have realized that all those things from decades ago
make your point about the current administration crystal clear...

.... NOT.

Of course, it is kind of fun to play connect the dots without having
to worry about any REAL connection. If Kerry had won, he'd
automatically be a womanizer if I were to remind you about Kennedy and
Clinton. How cool is that?

>Perhaps you're more like GWB than I thought--a member of the "My
>mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts" crowd, unwilling to
>acknowledge the Emperor's obvious lack of clothing, and more than a
>bit ignorant of history.

Hey, I'm not the one making claims for which I have no proof, you are.
You're claiming that the current administration was MUCH smarter and
in touch than the CIA, UNMOVIC, and the rest of the world's
intelligence agencies.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Bob]

Chalo wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > I know you aren't the first to try to compare Vietnam and Iraq but like
> > all that do make that comparison, you're mistaking the vastly different
> > motivations of our opponents. There is a fundamental difference between
> > the radical Islamists we are fighting in Iraq and the Vietnamese we
> > opposed in Vietnam.
>
> This war was not undertaken to address radical Islamism in any way,
> although the American public's racist fears were played upon to that
> end. The truth is that the US invasion imposed radical Islamism upon
> Iraq, and the further the US protracts this war, the more serious the
> worldwide threat posed by radical Islamists becomes.
>
> Making a case for this war by exploiting people's fears about radical
> Islamists is a disgraceful sham, given that Iraq's problems with
> radical Islamists were a foreseeable and widely predicted consequence
> of the American invasion, and that the US's continued presence there is
> worsening the problem.
>
> Chalo Colina

Chalo, you are a hopeless case so I won't waste time arguing with you.
I'll simply point out three things and leave it at that.
First, your selective snipping is misleading. I didn't say that we went
to war to fight radical Islamists any more than I said we went to war
in Vietnam to oppose the Vietnamese that wanted a reunification of
North and South. The primary justification for our involvement in
Vietnam offered by successive US Presidents and Congresses was to stop
the spread of Communism and defend a threatened democracy. That turned
out badly. The primary reasons offered so far for our involvement in
Iraq were and are to: 1) remove a brutal and dangerous regime that was
destabilizing the area and 2) protect our interests in an area vital to
our economy and security. How that will turn out remains to be seen.
Second, there's nothing even remotely "racist" in the West's reasonable
apprehension over the professed views of a group of religionists that
state quite clearly that they are uncompromisingly opposed to Western
social values and are willing to use terror tactics to supplant those
values with their own. To claim that racism is even a minor factor in
how most people view the war in Iraq is simply racebaiting and is
beneath contempt even for you.
Third, all of the "US actions are *creating* radical Islamists"
arguments I've heard are, at best, chicken and egg arguments. I say
egg, you say chicken. Neither of us will convince the other as no
definitive answer is possible.
BTW, your statement that the US invasion has "imposed radical Islamism
on Iraq" implies that there were no radical Islamists in Iraq *before*
the invasion. Accepting that as fact would lead to a conclusion I doubt
you'll like very much, i.e., the alleged "insurgents" aren't really
insurgents at all but foreign terrorists that are using murder to
further their own political goals. If that's the case then in moral
terms *all* casualties- even those caused unintentionally by US troops-
fall on their heads.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey writes:
>
>>>>>> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
>>>>>> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>
>>>>>> Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the
>>>>>> Iraqis don't know what's going on in Iraq.
>
>>>>> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in
>>>>> their own press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted
>>>>> with no spin.
>
>>>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to see
>>>> any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from sources
>>>> not "controlled" by the CIA.
>
> I just hear an interview with an administration spokesman who admitted
> that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what you don't want to
> believe.

Name and citation please? (An "administration spokesman" admitted that
"Iraqis can't get news from sources not 'controlled' by the CIA"?!? Come
on, JB! That's rich, even for you!!!)

>>> Gee, you know there are many ways to get foreign news, for example
>>> short-wave radio, satellite TV, cell phones, telephones, the
>>> Internet at the very least. Considering that Sadly Insane
>>> controlled the Iraqi media for so long, Iraqis are probably experts
>>> at finding alternate news sources, heck an Iraqi could be reading
>>> this group!
>
>> It's really funny when you think about it... There is a report that
>> a US contractor may have been sending some factually true but biased
>> pieces to Iraqi media, and suddenly (to quote Jobst) all the news in
>> Iraq is coming "directly from the CIA".
>
> Who are "US contractors" who pay bribes to get their interpretation
> of events into the Iraqi media? Listen to the news from BBC and US
> sources who investigate these misdeeds.

Done in every war since the dawn of time, but who cares about that?

>> I suppose I should be happy that there is at least a grain of fact as
>> the basis for this though, no matter how much it had to be tortured
>> to produce the opinion.

> Maybe you cold decode that last utterance for the public. I am not
> privy to this convoluted and facetious logic.

Ooh! Oooh! Allow me: Among all your outlandish, reckless, blog-fed
claims, at least this one was based a TEENY TINY bit on a reputable news
report -- although as usual you've taken that proverbial grain of alleged
truth and stretched it into a verdant field of unadulterated cornblather.

How'd I do, Mark?

:-D

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 05:57:37 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote

>>Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
>>press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no spin.
>
>Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to see any
>evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from sources not
>"controlled" by the CIA.

"Once you kill people because you don't like what they say, you change
the rules of war."
- Robert Fisk, April 23, 1999

It seems that the Iraqi "free press" is being paid by the Pentagon to
run stories favourable to the occupiers and the puppet regime they
installed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXjhWSGfGJsg

Bombing Al Jazeera in Afghanistan and killing their reporters in Iraq
is standard operational procedure.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/28690/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article329375.ece

It happened in Belgrade too, if you remember correctly. I'm not
blaming the chimp for that one but I do totally loathe the corporatism
that runs your Republic while hiding behind the lies of "freedom' and
"democracy".
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/nato1.html

Fact is most, if not all, "journalists" never leave their hotel rooms
in Baghdad. They get their information from US or British military
officials. Stories and sources can't be checked. They spit out what
they're fed, IOW - GIGO.

--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:41:56 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Quit your sniveling, *****.
>
>Snoot! That's twice you've gone to the sexual orientation flame card before
>my first cup (manly mug) of coffee!

That's just plain old kennel talk, *****.

I'd tell you to "suck my ass" but you'd probably also interpret that
to satisfy your fantasies.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:38:19 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>And I disagree. We are at war with a ideology, and the only way to
>beat it is by making it impossible for that ideology to have state
>sponsorship or access to WMD.

uhhh, Sadam fought against the Islamic fundamentalism sweeping Iran
for eight long years and the cost of many thousands of lives
--
zk

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bob wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>>
>>> I know you aren't the first to try to compare Vietnam and Iraq but
>>> like all that do make that comparison, you're mistaking the vastly
>>> different motivations of our opponents. There is a fundamental
>>> difference between the radical Islamists we are fighting in Iraq
>>> and the Vietnamese we opposed in Vietnam.
>>
>> This war was not undertaken to address radical Islamism in any way,
>> although the American public's racist fears were played upon to that
>> end. The truth is that the US invasion imposed radical Islamism upon
>> Iraq, and the further the US protracts this war, the more serious the
>> worldwide threat posed by radical Islamists becomes.
>>
>> Making a case for this war by exploiting people's fears about radical
>> Islamists is a disgraceful sham, given that Iraq's problems with
>> radical Islamists were a foreseeable and widely predicted consequence
>> of the American invasion, and that the US's continued presence there
>> is worsening the problem.
>>
>> Chalo Colina
>
> Chalo, you are a hopeless case so I won't waste time arguing with you.
> I'll simply point out three things and leave it at that.
> First, your selective snipping is misleading. I didn't say that we
> went to war to fight radical Islamists any more than I said we went
> to war in Vietnam to oppose the Vietnamese that wanted a
> reunification of North and South. The primary justification for our
> involvement in Vietnam offered by successive US Presidents and
> Congresses was to stop the spread of Communism and defend a
> threatened democracy. That turned out badly. The primary reasons
> offered so far for our involvement in Iraq were and are to: 1) remove
> a brutal and dangerous regime that was destabilizing the area and 2)
> protect our interests in an area vital to our economy and security.
> How that will turn out remains to be seen. Second, there's nothing
> even remotely "racist" in the West's reasonable apprehension over the
> professed views of a group of religionists that state quite clearly
> that they are uncompromisingly opposed to Western social values and
> are willing to use terror tactics to supplant those values with their
> own. To claim that racism is even a minor factor in how most people
> view the war in Iraq is simply racebaiting and is beneath contempt
> even for you.
> Third, all of the "US actions are *creating* radical Islamists"
> arguments I've heard are, at best, chicken and egg arguments. I say
> egg, you say chicken. Neither of us will convince the other as no
> definitive answer is possible.
> BTW, your statement that the US invasion has "imposed radical Islamism
> on Iraq" implies that there were no radical Islamists in Iraq *before*
> the invasion. Accepting that as fact would lead to a conclusion I
> doubt you'll like very much, i.e., the alleged "insurgents" aren't
> really insurgents at all but foreign terrorists that are using murder
> to further their own political goals. If that's the case then in moral
> terms *all* casualties- even those caused unintentionally by US
> troops- fall on their heads.

BOB FOR PRESIDENT -- THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM!!! :-D

 

[Bill Sornson]

Snooty Putz wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:41:56 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Quit your sniveling, *****.

>> Snoot! That's twice you've gone to the sexual orientation flame
>> card before my first cup (manly mug) of coffee!

> That's just plain old kennel talk, *****.
>
> I'd tell you to "suck my ass" but you'd probably also interpret that
> to satisfy your fantasies.

Ah, gotta love that Lefty Gentility. Class act today, Putzster.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson writes:

>>>>>>> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with
>>>>>>> 80+% thinking things are getting better and will be better in
>>>>>>> a year.

>>>>>>> Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the
>>>>>>> Iraqis don't know what's going on in Iraq.

>>>>>> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in
>>>>>> their own press... directly from the CIA and truthfully
>>>>>> recounted with no spin.

>>>>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to
>>>>> see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from
>>>>> sources not "controlled" by the CIA.

>> I just hear an interview with an administration spokesman who
>> admitted that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what you
>> don't want to believe.

> Name and citation please? (An "administration spokesman" admitted
> that "Iraqis can't get news from sources not 'controlled' by the
> CIA"?!? Come on, JB! That's rich, even for you!!!)

He stop lying! Your quote marks claim that those are my words. I
never said that. That is a classic ploy for someone who cannot defend
a position. Attribute something you can attack to the person with
whom you disagree and shoot at him for it. It seems you and Mark went
to the same indoctrination camp by the rude style and devious
argumentation used to defend a lost cause.

>>>> Gee, you know there are many ways to get foreign news, for
>>>> example short-wave radio, satellite TV, cell phones, telephones,
>>>> the Internet at the very least. Considering that Sadly Insane
>>>> controlled the Iraqi media for so long, Iraqis are probably
>>>> experts at finding alternate news sources, heck an Iraqi could be
>>>> reading this group!

>>> It's really funny when you think about it... There is a report
>>> that a US contractor may have been sending some factually true but
>>> biased pieces to Iraqi media, and suddenly (to quote Jobst) all
>>> the news in Iraq is coming "directly from the CIA".

>> Who are "US contractors" who pay bribes to get their interpretation
>> of events into the Iraqi media? Listen to the news from BBC and US
>> sources who investigate these misdeeds.

> Done in every war since the dawn of time, but who cares about that?

Done by the ministry of information in every war, a branch of the
government that is running the war. Again, the dodge is that the
people in charge, from Rumsfeld on down have no idea what their
minions are up to. That is called dereliction of duty and lack of
leadership. Contractors, my eye. You are telling me that it's an
open market in Iraq and private enterprise operates at will?

I guess then you admit that GWB and team are out of control both
militarily and in foreign policy.

>>> I suppose I should be happy that there is at least a grain of fact
>>> as the basis for this though, no matter how much it had to be
>>> tortured to produce the opinion.

>> Maybe you cold decode that last utterance for the public. I am not
>> privy to this convoluted and facetious logic.

> Ooh! Oooh! Allow me: Among all your outlandish, reckless, blog-fed
> claims, at least this one was based a TEENY TINY bit on a reputable
> news report -- although as usual you've taken that proverbial grain
> of alleged truth and stretched it into a verdant field of
> unadulterated cornblather.

Hold it. That's your game not mine. You started out with a perfect
example.

> How'd I do, Mark?

Don't ask here, talk about it at your next debriefing huddle.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson writes:
{WHY DO YOU ALWAYS DELETE PREVIOUS ATTRIBUTIONS?!?}

snipz

>>>>>>> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in
>>>>>>> their own press... directly from the CIA and truthfully
>>>>>>> recounted with no spin. {JB}

>>>>>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to
>>>>>> see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from
>>>>>> sources not "controlled" by the CIA. {MH}

>>> I just hear an interview with an administration spokesman who
>>> admitted that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what you
>>> don't want to believe. {JB}

>> Name and citation please? (An "administration spokesman" admitted
>> that "Iraqis can't get news from sources not 'controlled' by the
>> CIA"?!? Come on, JB! That's rich, even for you!!!) {BS}

> He stop lying! Your quote marks claim that those are my words. I
> never said that. That is a classic ploy for someone who cannot defend
> a position. Attribute something you can attack to the person with
> whom you disagree and shoot at him for it. It seems you and Mark went
> to the same indoctrination camp by the rude style and devious
> argumentation used to defend a lost cause.

Um, WOW. Let's look again, shall we? (It's still right up there but I'll
go to the trouble of cutting and pasting.)

You wrote, "Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no spin."

Mark replied, "Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like
to see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from sources not
"controlled" by the CIA."

TO WHICH YOU REPLIED: "I just hear{d} an interview with an administration
spokesman who admitted that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what
you don't want to believe."

So tell me again how I "lied" and misrepresented what you said. (The quote
marks were NOT misleading, as the original posts to which they referred were
left intact right above. It was obvious they weren't YOUR words but rather
quoting that about which you were making claims.)

Talk about dishonesty! (I KNOW you're not that stupid to not understand
what was being said/meant.)

{rest snipped cuz you just evaded and added nuthin'}