WMDs not the REAL reason?

[RandFan]

I thought that democracy was meant to be the will of the majority as represented in free and rair elections not imposed by the US and omitting representative groups the US doesn't like? What are you suggesting here? That the opinion of the majority of the people in Iraq should not prevail?

The United States of America is not based on the idea that the Majority is always right.

Is that what you honestly believe? Democracy doesn't work if the strong can oppress the weak. Our constitution guarantees the rights of the minorities. I would have thought that you knew this?

If we just turn the country over so that the Shiites (the Majority) can turn the whole country into a theocracy then we will have failed and there will be no democracy.

I can't belive that you don't get this. No, it would be absolutely wrong to let the Majority seize control and join up with Iran.

However, it would destabilize the area and would do exactly what we promised United Arab Emirates and other nations in the region what we promised we would not let happen.

But that would meet your agenda wouldn't it? You could then smile and say, "told you so".

Sorry E.J., it's not going to happen. There will be a coalition government to meet the needs of all the people. That will give a voice to the disenfranchised and stop exploitation. I'm sorry that such a plan upsets you. I'm sorry that you are in such a hurry to give democracy to the Shiites only for them to immediately get replace the democracy with a theocracy, take control and enforce its will on the minority. Fortunately Bush knew exactly the game that was going to be played when Saddam's regime fell. He knew that Iran was going to pressure the United States to let the Majority jockey for possession and seize power.

While not Einstein Bush is too smart to be bullied into letting that happen. Thank god he thought this out and had a plan. I'm not going to sit and argue with you. Let's see what happens.

 

[davefoc]

Most of the reasons have been put forth that made me think the decision to go to war might be the right one, and most of the reasons have been put forth that made me think the decision to go to war may have been a bad one, in other threads if not in this one.

aerocontrols, touched on what I thought might be some of the real unspoken justifications for the war in the Bush Administration. One of these particularly resonates with me. That is (paraphrasing roughly) Saddam Hussein had the US, the mideast and maybe the world between a rock and a hard place. If the sanctions were lifted, Hussein would use the massive income to build an enormous military equipped certainly with various WMD's leading eventually to devastating military confrontations. If the sanctions weren't listed Hussein would continue to starve his people (thereby creating a legion of terrorists), blame the UN and in particular the US for it and build up his military anyway, all be it a little slower than if the sanctions weren't lifted.

I think it was the logic of something like this that actually convinced Powell and Blair that something had to be done. I had the feeling that Rumsfeld and some others didn't need any such subtle rationalizations. Saddam was an SOB and they wanted to get him. So the actual justifications among the decision makers may have been a little different for each of them.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
Sorry but that is all happy horse crap. George Bush is in no hurry to please E.J. Armstrong. The leader of the free world doesn't have to follow your time timetable. The troops are there to fight a war and carry out a specific agenda and not find WOMD according to YOUR math just to silence critics and please nasayers.

I am completely sure that Bush has no intention of ever pleasing me and I certainly don't expect him to but I do expect more rational information than the happy clappy stuff being peddled at the moment i. Especially f he expects to be taken seriously anywhere outside the US. He told us that the time was running out and that the inspectors couldn't be allowed any more time to do their work and that the war was happening because Saddam Hussein refused to get rid of the WOMD that the US and the UK had supplied him. T

That Bush and Blair have been unable to substantiate their claims despite having control of the country for a substantial period to date seems incredible to me and as for that claim about some 'scientist' having seen the WOMD being destroyed. Duh.

Relax, if the US was going to fake something they would have done it by now. Thankfully all of the reports that have turned out to be false prove the US is being honest. They said it would take awhile and your "math" isn't going to change that. I like how you just ignore the evidence that much of the WOMD was moved and also destroyed. It must be nice to live in a world where you can ignore what you want.

And I believe that if your 'scientist' story was correct it would have been published in full by now. Your explanation is exactly like the one used when Uri Geller failed to produce the goods on the Johnny Carson show because Randi had been able to see his cheating plans in advance. I recommend the book by Randi for the full details.

So I have ignored the evidence. Really. And what evidence is that exactly RandFan? Is that the evidence from this so called 'scientist' ? That really is another Geller fantasy story if ever there was one. It must be nice to live in a world where you can be so gullible. Its amazing how all these people and chemicals and biological agents just disappear into the desert despite all the surveillance. Truly amazing. I think Hussein would have made more money appearing wth your friend Uri.

BFD. No one but conspiracy theorists care. Like I said, if we were going to fake something we could have easily done that. Remember, chemicals that showed positive in the field showed negative in the lab.

Think about that. Why on earth would Bush allow that to happen?
Because they are going to let the chips fall where they may that is why.
.

Well it's really very easy then isn't it? Why not allow the UN to verify the find? Is the US and the UK trying to hide something here. They after all are experts.

You really don't have a clue about intelligence. We can't monitor everything and Iraq had 12 years to perfect their deception. I note how you keep dodging that fact.

I don't know for a fact but I can make lots of logical guesses all plausible and relatively simple, they destroyed it in a warehouse that had special incinerators not detectable from space and transported it in non descript vehicles.

If you were being critical about this you could figure it out on your own

Would you care to substantiate your claim that I don't have a clue about intelligence? Just asking.
I don't keep dodging the fact that Iraq had twelve years to perfect their deception. It is only deception if there is something to be deceptive about and you wll not answer the point that if you don't know where the stuff is as you so patently don't then how do you know it has not been destroyed? Just asking.

I can make a lot of guesses as plausible as yours. Let me start with a simple one. He doesn't have any WOMD. That appears to fit all the facts. If you were being critical you could figure that out for yourself instead of continuing to believe in what is rapidly turning into a chimera.

Then why do I have to answer such a simple question for you?

Because you always seem to want to keep comoing up with ever more fantastic solutions to the absence of the WOMD. Let us talk to this 'scientist'. That would do it. Sorry. That appears to be too simple a answer - I must look for a more complex one.

If you had bothered reading the story the chemicals have already tested positive in the field. They are going to go through the same verification process that takes time.

Faking it is instant, the truth takes time.
.

Clearly the field chemical and biological detection units with all the front line troops have not been available at this site. So faking is instant. Perhaps the Iraqis should offer their services to Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas because I believe they spend an enormous amount of time and effort producing fakes for their films. Sounds as though the Iraqis could really help them there.

Already answered. Freeing one group of people to be oppressed by another is a waste of time. We didn't go there to free the Shiites so they could oppress the Kurds, Bathists and Sunnis. I am clueless why you are so fired up for the Majority to opress the minority. Give the process a chance. Maybe we can put together a coalition government that will meet the needs of as many groups as possible and avoid the majority siezing power and extracting revenge and plunging the whole area into a theocracy. The Arabs and the west were afraid of this very thing. It was one of the reasons Bush Sr. turned his backs on the Shiites after he encouraged them to rise up against Saddam after the first Gulf War. There is no possible way that we sacrificed Americans to turn the whole region over to the Shiites.

Using another strawman argument RandFan I see. Perhaps you could point out anywhere I said that I am fired up for the majority to oppress the minority? Just asking. I believe in one man one vote. It appears that you don't.

You sacrificing Ameicans. I note that a number of Brits were sacrificed (approx. half of them by American fire) so that Bush can impose his version of 'democracy' on the Iraqi people. Is that what you ae suggesting what happens in the US or can the arabs not be trusted to behave properly like you do in the US where, as we know, the system is scrupulosly fair? Why do you apparently believe that the majority will oppress the minority in Iraq? Could it be because you do not agree with what the people of Iraq actually want?

It has become clear at last. You are really not interested in democracy of a one man one vote type. What you want is for the Iraqi people to do what Bush wants. Well now we know that the war was not fought so they could freely choose their own government - contrary to what Bush claimed before invading and as we all knew anyway. Just keep them happy enough so that the oil will keep flowing.

But there is already interference from Iran. Allowing the majority to oppress the minority is not what we are going to allow to happen.

Yes we realise now that when we were told this war was to bring democracy to Iraq it was a lie and that you want to force what Bush wants onto Iraq instead of letting them elect the government they want. You interferred in Iran's affairs or have you conveniently forgotten that. You showed them what to do.

To you maybe, wanting to keep the Kurds in the north and the Sunni and Bathists from being oppressed is a worthy goal. You obviously don't care but that is what we are going to do.

I do care about democracy that is my whole point. You seem to have a very warped idea of what democracy means and it is clear that we are in an Alice in Wonderland world where WOMD keep disappearing and democracy means what Bush means it to mean rather than what the Iraqi people want it to mean. If what you are saying is true then it was a lie to say that Iraqis would be free to determine their future and I believe you are now starting on a civil war in that country. Congratulations. When you've shafted democracy in Iran and created a land of Mullahs why not go the whole hog and do the same in Iraq?

Oh, under your plan ALL groups but one will be excluded but you bitch about Bushs plan because some are being excluded now but you don't know to what degree they will all be included in the future. Sorry but that does not wash.

You really are a poor debater. Show me just one place where I ever said that I was advocating that all groups but one would be excluded. Just one place RandFan. Now you really will have to learn not to misrepresent people but I recognise your style. At least get the facts right.

I support one man one vote. In a representative system all parties would have seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. Are you seriously suggesting that all Shiites would vote one way and all Sunnis another? What is the basis for your claim if you are? If you are so proud of this debased 'democracy' you are about to foist on Iraq why not do the decent thing and try it at home. What exactly is the system you are going to impose and how will you keep the Shiites out? Just asking.

Perhaps but it doesn't equate to occupation.

Well to me it is a major part of the definition of occupation. Especially when combined with all the other things that ae being foisted on Iraq.

Foreign companies have always been hired to do what the Iraqis could not do. News Flash, the French, Germans and Russians had the contracts to do what the Americans are now going to do. It never was going to be the Iraqis.

The port of Umm Qsar was run very effectively by the Iraqis prior to the invasion. The british military could not see why an American company was being brought in to do the job. It is clear that America has contempt even for its own promises and the dodgy way the initial cntracts have been awarded simply confirms that. Don't you believe that the decision as to who should do the jobs should be for the Iraqis not America, If you wanted Iraqis to run Iraq you would leave that decidion to them but of course you don't actually want Iraqis to run their own country. That is just another lie so you tell them who will be doing the work.

Actually they do. They looked ol' Saddam in the eye and said exactly what they were going to do. They said it might take time to find WOMD. They have not faked anything which would have been in their best interest (I know you will avoid this little fact) and they have been very honest. So there is nothing to fear. If we don't find WOMD {shrug}. We will move on. Saddam can't drag people out into the night to shoot in the back of the head.

He can't cut the ears of people (without aid of anesthesia), he can't torture he can't maim and he can't threaten his neighbors. It's a damn good day.
.

Actually they don't as I have shown repeatedly. Your attitude shows me most clearly that you have no intention of letting the Iraqis run their country as they wish. You supported Saddam Hussein while he was doing all those things and it is the worst type of hupocrisy to suddenly claim that you are good boys now. The world can see the hypocrisy for what it is. There was an effective inspection regime in place that would possibly have demonstrated that no WOMD existed. Luckily more and more of the world are seeing the US under George W Bush for what it is.

All is well now. Some hope that all hell will break loose but it is a false hope.

Well I guess when you are safe in America it may look as though all is well. I can assure you that it isn't and while I wish it wasn't happening I can hear the drums beating even if you can't. You delivered munitions wthout UN sanction onto Iraq. Yes its nice to sleep easy at night while innocent children in Iraq are shivering from the shock of the burns they suffered when munitions US soldiers placed near their houses exploded despite the residents pleas for them to be removed.

Where is next RandFan? Having acted without UN sanction who is next? Perhaps those pesky Germans will have their economy attacked by Rumsfeld?. Or North Korea. They seem to be thumbing their noses at you very effectively. No oil though, so I don't expect an attack there in the near future.

The UN told Saddam that if he did not comply he would face serious consequences. When Saddam did not comply The UN (thanks France) was unable to deliver on its threat. It became irrelevant. The US and the UK and 30 other countries decided that it was important to not allow Saddam to get away with what it was doing.

It is impossible to say that Bush thwarted the inspectors in light of Saddam's 12 year history of obfuscation and lies. Once before in the past the sanctions were nearly lifted.
.

So it was all the faut of the French. If you believe that you really are living in cloud cuckoo land. Russia, China and the six minor members of the Security Council also wanted the inspectors to continue their work but it seems that Bush knew they might not find anything and thwarted their mission with the aid of Blair although ther work was supported by most of the rest of the world.

It pains me deeply but America was a land I was brought up to like enormously and when the death of a president could cause tears in my home town. It is a place where I still have relatives but under Bush it has become a land I no longer recognise and in my opinionhas become a danger to the world . More people than ever in the UK believe that the UK is a more risk from terrorist activity now than we were before the invasion. I agree with them and fear for the future.

Considering the pathetic track record of the world (slavery, murder, mutilation, oppression, forced marriage, castration, human rights violations, etc., etc...) I'm not overly concerned about the world. We took a 12 year diplomatic road. We went to the UN, we got the UN to threaten serious consequences when it was time to enforce its rules it backed down (thanks France). It became irrelevant. We did what was right. There is nothing to be held accountable for.

And of course America never supported any evil dictators while they did those things to their own people. I believe that the world is a less secure place now that it was before the war and I fear for your country and mine and for all the innocent lives which will be lost because Bush and Blair would not wait for the inspectors to do their job.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan[/]But that would meet your agenda wouldn't it?

At least have the decency to tell me what my agenda is RandFan. Would that be the agenda where one man has one vote and where the brother of a presidential candidate doesn't have control over the most influential state in the election and where judges appointed by the candidates father don't stop votes being counted and where his election official wasn't in control of the 'counting' of the votes in the state in question and where some black voters were not disuaded from voting and where the party of the presidential candidate didn't get money from companies who then weren't unfairly awarded contracts to 'rebuild' a country partially destroyed by the president from the party they gave huge sums of money to. Now that would be something like it.

I believe in a representative democracy in which the rights of all the people are protected. I come from a country where the rights of a minority was suppressed so that terrorists rose from the frustration. What you seem to be advocaing is someting similar where one portion of the country's population is disadvantage in the apparent belief that all Sunnis vote one way and all Kurds another. That is one of the remaining problems in Northern Ireland. Having the conflict apportioned as to religion rather than political or economic or regional affiliation.

What you seem to be proposing is to engineer a solution to America's benefit. From what we have seen to date and the strange case of the disappearing WOMD whether it suits Iraqis I believe is of no interest to Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld et al as long as they get control over the oil and the military bases and the major contracts, oh and the pipeline from the Caspian that American companies want etc.

 

[RandFan]

That Bush and Blair have been unable to substantiate their claims despite having control of the country for a substantial period to date seems incredible to me...

The substantive part of the statement "to me". My statement stands. They are not there to meet your timetable. They have been fighting a war. That it "seems incredible" to you is not argument but only your opinion and no reason for me or anyone else to change their mind.

...and as for that claim about some 'scientist' having seen the WOMD being destroyed. Duh.

Your version of logic and argument. Thank you.

I can make a lot of guesses as plausible as yours.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. So you admit my guess was plausible. Then just relax, it will take time to over come 12 years of Saddam's deceit.

...so that Bush can impose his version of 'democracy' on the Iraqi people. Is that what you ae suggesting what happens in the US...

Would you have the honesty to admit that if we give the Iraqis a "simple" democracy it will very likely cease to exist after the first vote and 40% of the population will forever loose all rights and will be disenfranchised?

...or can the arabs not be trusted to behave properly like you do in the US where, as we know, the system is scrupulosly fair?

The action of the various groups in Iraq have a historical contexts. We understand what that context is and what will likely happen if we create a simple democracy. If you can look at the history and the current events and deny that the Shiites hold a grudge against the Baathists and there is a high likely hood that they would form a theocracy (see Iran) then you are IMO (yes it is just my opinion) not being honest.

Why do you apparently believe that the majority will oppress the minority in Iraq? Could it be because you do not agree with what the people of Iraq actually want?

I want them all to have a voice in their government.

Do you?

It has become clear at last. You are really not interested in democracy of a one man one vote type.

Not if it means that the majority will oppress the minority. Many democracies recognize this including the US. Our electoral college was implemented to protect the majority from oppressing the minority.

What you want is for the Iraqi people to do what Bush wants. Well now we know that the war was not fought so they could freely choose their own government -

What you want will likely allow the majority to take their democracy and toss it and then lord over the minority (see Iran).

Do you not feel that the rights of the minority should be protected? How would a "simple" democracy protect the rights of a minority?

Show me just one place where I ever said that I was advocating that all groups but one would be excluded. Just one place RandFan.

What you do advocate would put in jepordy the rights of the minority and likely exclude all groups but one. Saying you don't want all groups to be excluded but demanding that the US get out and give the Iraqis a simple democracy will do just that. Do you honestly think that the minority Kurds will have any voice? How, they are a minority? What mechanis would protect the minority?

Are you seriously suggesting that all Shiites would vote one way and all Sunnis another? What is the basis for your claim if you are?

My basis is the historic record (see Iran). Come on E.J. the Shiites are cutting their heads open and marching in the streets in unison. They are angry at the treatment they recieved at the hands of the Baathists.

If you are so proud of this debased 'democracy' you are about to foist on Iraq why not do the decent thing and try it at home.

Debased 'democracy'? George Bush understands that for a system to work power can't be concentrated in a single group. As to the United States, if the majority tried to oppress the minority then the minority could go to the courts for relief (as they have many times). Our system is based upon dividing power into the legislative, judicial and executive branches.

And by the way, I don't think our system works all the time to protect the rights of the minority (see below) but it works better than the temporary democracy that you recommend for Iraq.

What exactly is the system you are going to impose and how will you keep the Shiites out? Just asking.

Who said anything about keeping the Shiites out? I just want to protect the rights of the minority. I am not an expert but I would recommend that you read Lani Guinier . For what it is worth, I am very ashamed of what the Republicans did to her. I understand politics and that Lani was pay back for Bork but I think it was reprehensible.

Democracy's Experiments
That's too bad, because Lani Guinier challenges America's smugness about our "winner-takes-all" political system. And she is passionate about democracy. When Lani Guinier talks about representation and minorities, she's talking about people's ideas, about self-definitions, not about race. She insists people who consider themselves a minority should have a voice based on their particular ideas, not just on where they live. That's what she believes our winner-take-all, single member, geographic districts now force on us.

So where in YOUR winner-takes-all ideas are the rights of the minorities in Iraq taken into account? Would you do anything to protect the rights of the minority? If so then what would it be?

Well to me it is a major part of the definition of occupation.

Can you explain why? We have a base in Cuba are we "occupying" Cuba?

If you wanted Iraqis to run Iraq you would leave that decision to them but of course you don't actually want Iraqis to run their own country.

To who? The rebuilding needs to happen now. Do we get everyone together and have a vote? Come on, they will be able to govern themselves it will just take time.

That is just another lie so you tell them who will be doing the work. Actually they don't as I have shown repeatedly.

What have you shown? The Americans did the work prior to the first Gulf war. The French had contracts with Saddam to do the work prior to the second Guld War. It is very important that we make certain that we ensure that the work is done correctly.

Having expelled a regime we have a responsiblity. That responsibilty is not to hand over the keys of the country to the religious group that happens to hold a majority. We have a responsibilty to see to it that the infrastructure is rebuilt and that the needs of ALL are met in the interim.

Your attitude shows me most clearly that you have no intention of letting the Iraqis run their country as they wish.

Wrong, my attitude is that the Iraqis will have to be patient. Their regime was just overthrown. I honestly want all of them to have a voice in their new government. I just realize that it will take time.

You supported Saddam Hussein while he was doing all those things and it is the worst type of hupocrisy to suddenly claim that you are good boys now.

This has been done to death. We did not want Iraq to fall to the Iranians so we supported this monster. It unfortunate but it is something that we must do from time to time. The world is populated by monsters, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Iran, African nations, etc. We are force to make difficult decisions and we don't always make the correct ones. Hindsight is 20/20. That we might be in danger of supporting a tyrant is not a reason to do nothing.

Now that we have an opportunity to do something to help these people we are going to. We are not just going to walk away and allow it to become a theocracy and see all of our worst fears come to pass.

It pains me deeply but America was a land I was brought up to like enormously and when the death of a president could cause tears in my home town. It is a place where I still have relatives but under Bush it has become a land I no longer recognise and in my opinion has become a danger to the world .

(emphisis mine) Thank you for stating that it is your opinion. In my opinion this has been a historical and watershed event. The world is a far better and safer place to be in. I am very proud of what we have accomplished and that the nasayers have been proven wrong. There was no quagmire and there is an exit strategy that will leave in a government that will have a chance to survive and serve the needs of all of the people. There are no guarantees but there is hope. The imprisonments, mutilations and murders have been indefinitely put on hold. We can't please all of the people of course. We won't please you but we will do what is most likely to benefit the most Iraqis, of that there is simply no doubt in my mind. It will take time, the Iraqis will have to be patient but in the end they will have an opportunity and hope that they did not have under Saddam.

Human beings died including British and Iraqis (I apologize for not mentioning them earlier) as well as Americans. It would be wrong to sacrifice those lives and then cut and run. As sad as I am for the loss of life I am happy that it is America that is overseeing the birth of this new government. It saddens me that some people can only find evil in this administration. People see what they want.

I have had my opportunity to speak. While reserving the right to make a few further remarks in regards to your rebuttal I will let you have the last word.

It is obvious that I can't change your mind and I have no desire to respond line by line for days on end. It doesn't accomplish anything.

Thank you for your responses.

RandFan

 

[ithinksoiam]

Skeptics, huh! Idiots more like!

I really do wonder how idiots (Randfan, etc..) imagine themselves to be skeptics. They are more gullible than that duck sitting in the sunshine! Ah! Common Sense, where art thou?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Skeptics, huh! Idiots more like!

I really do wonder how idiots (Randfan, etc..) imagine themselves to be skeptics. They are more gullible than that duck sitting in the sunshine! Ah! Common Sense, where art thou?

If you had spent some time reading my posts throughout the forum you would have found that I have been willing to change my mind on a number of issues. That I have admitted when I was found to be wrong. You would have also found that I have defended opposing ideologies and started threads that question my very own held beliefs.

And what is it that you do 'soiam? You start your sojurn here with ad hominem. No valid argument, No logic, just fallacious reasoning. And I am the idiot? Do us all a favor and grow up. When you do come back and make some logical arguments.

There is no monopoly of common sense on either side of the political fence --Sting.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Skeptics, huh! Idiots more like!

I really do wonder how idiots (Randfan, etc..) imagine themselves to be skeptics. They are more gullible than that duck sitting in the sunshine! Ah! Common Sense, where art thou?

You know, I should have let Hal do the responding. Oh well I guess that it is not too late.

A Chill in the Air? (04-23-2003 until 04-29-2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,

Has anyone else noticed a chill in the forum air? It seems to me that there is more of an edge in how people are responding to each other. There seems to be more "you're wrong and stupid" rather than "I think you're wrong, and here's why." I'd just encourage us to remember that we are nice folks here in this virtual community, and we should work and play well with others. So please, when you have the chance to disagree, let's try to do so with as much civility as possible, mmm-k?

Thank you for your contribution to our forum.

 

[Tricky]

Re: Skeptics, huh! Idiots more like!

I really do wonder how idiots (Randfan, etc..) imagine themselves to be skeptics. They are more gullible than that duck sitting in the sunshine! Ah! Common Sense, where art thou?

When it comes to politics, you find skeptics going in all sorts of directions. That is because politics is not a science with testable outcomes. So much of what you observe is extremely subjective. When you get to subjects like the paranormal, skeptics are much more united.

Randfan in particular is one of the least narrow-minded people on these boards (at least among those who are completely WRONG about everything ). And as he says, I have witnessed him modify his position, back off on claims and acknowledge his opponants' points.

Now if you want to go after Jedi Knight, be my guest.

 

[Baker]

I believe in representative democracies where everyone has a vote and the party that wins the most seats controls the government. Something similar I think is tried in the US. You seem to be saying that the Iraqis won't be allowed to elect the government they want. Is that what you are trying to say. If so do you support that approach in the US?

The US is Republic the system helps protect the rights of the minority from the views of the majority.
So are you saying that you would live under strict religion rule if the majority of the citizens wished to have it that way?

By the international media including the Guardian newspaper. I know for sure that the UK forces operated in the south near Basra. They were not tasked to enter Baghdad and I know of no significant UK force that entered Baghdad. Do you know if they did?

No and I don't see how that means we where trying to hide something from the UK forces.
Could you post the link to these news articles claiming that the Oil Ministry building in Baghdad was the only building defended properly by US troops immediately after they drove in?

Do you know if there has been an assurance that the seismic data, maps and production data from oil exploration activities in Iraq have not been copied and sent out of the country? I would appreciate knowing if any such assurance has been made as I am sure that none will be despite categorical claims that the war was not for oil.

No, I have no knowledge of the seismic data being sent out if you do may I see the link to the story.
You are asking me to provide assurance that the seismic data was not sent out to US oil Company's.
Isn't that like saying can you prove John Edwards is not speaking to the dead?

It seems that it is true that the US press is not giving a full picture of American activities in Iraq if you d not know what I am taling about.

They must be apart of the conspiracy.

The American political system is a system where money talks and where the political parties receive enormous sums of money from major companies who then get awarded favours such as the contracts given to Halliburton which was led by Dick Cheney before he joined the presidential ticket. The same company contributed some $650,000 to the Republican party in 1999-2002. See www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/iraq_corporate_contracts.html for more details. It is looking like a scandal in America but even more so overseas. I sincerely hope that the morass of the American system is not foisted on Iraq and that they are left in peace to pick the system they really want otherwise there will be adverse repercussions across the world for decades afterwards.

Most of these Company's also gave to the Democratic Party your reason is that because more was given to the Republican's that they are getting the contracts.
That may be true but I just have your story from the ReclaimDemocracy.org site to go by
It doesn't prove the war for oil conspiracy.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Skeptics, huh! Idiots more like!

Randfan in particular is one of the least narrow-minded people on these boards (at least among those who are completely WRONG about everything ).

In a word touché.
HEY! We agree about JK so I can't be wrong about everything or else you admit your wrong about him. Ain't logic great. And god help us all if we are wrong and JK is right. Oooops... A-thiest calling out to god. Please don't tell Franko.

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Re: Skeptics, huh! Idiots more like!

HEY! We agree about JK so I can't be wrong about everything or else you admit your wrong about him. Ain't logic great. A

Arrgh! Hoist by me own petard. Shiver me timbers.

(But shorten your Sig, RF. I can't see the forest for the truisms.)

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Skeptics, huh! Idiots more like!

(But shorten your Sig, RF. I can't see the forest for the truisms.)

Done, and damn I've got to get that whole state-of-being vs. possession down. It's "you're" not "your". You know what I mean.

 

[DrChinese]

Of course, there are lots of "real" reasons for the attack, one of which is certainly that Saddam was a dangerous tyrant. By itself, that is not a good enough reason, or else we would be taking out the even more dangerous tyrants. The problem is that the US needed a reason which didn't sound too self serving, and there simply aren't many of those. Among the "real" reasons are:

• The oil
• The US needs a power base in that part of the Mideast
• The US needed to make a power show for our other enemies
• We knew they would not put up much of a fight
• Need to distract people from the economy
• Very profitable for business cronies to "rebuild" Iraq
• Need to distract people from the fact that we haven't caught Osama
• Need testing ground for our new military apparatus
• They cheered when the WTC collapsed
• They tried to assassinate Daddy Bush
• Had to do it now, because fighting in the desert in summertime is nearly impossible (this has more to do with the timing than the actual reason).
• Did I mention the oil?

IF the WMDs were a "real" reason, they were probably a very minor one. After all, the greatest damage done to the US by Islamic terrorists was done by a handful of people armed with box cutters.

You know they are lying because their lips are moving. Of course the war was not about WMD. Bush didn't seem at all upset about the prospect of finding NONE during his recent interview. He continues to say Saddam had them, there is also the terrorist link, etc. knowing full well that there are suckers who want to believe the president no matter how ridiculous Bush's comments are. If he gets buy-in for any one reason, that seems to be enough for most people.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I would consider Saddam himself one of the worst WMD's. We definately knew that he was there, at least until the shooting started.

 

[Tricky]

I would consider Saddam himself one of the worst WMD's. We definately knew that he was there, at least until the shooting started.

And we haven't found HIM either! Damn!

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFanThe substantive part of the statement "to me". My statement stands. They are not there to meet your timetable. They have been fighting a war. That it "seems incredible" to you is not argument but only your opinion and no reason for me or anyone else to change their mind.

Thank you for making that point. You are quite right RandFAn. So when you post your opinion you suggest that it can safely be ignored. While you adopt the 'French' approach to discussion there seems little point in continuing. However I am not proposing to bomb anybody so here goes.

Your version of logic and argument. Thank you.

Yes I do have an opinion based on the evidence you have provided and based on your first point we now know how to treat your opinion as well it seems.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. So you admit my guess was plausible. Then just relax, it will take time to over come 12 years of Saddam's deceit.

Let me see. Who was it who said '....only your opinion and no reason for me or anyone else to change their mind.' RandFan apparently. We can also presumably say that it will take time to discover Bush's true reasons for starting a war in Iraq. If 'finding' all this WOMD is going to take an apparently unquantifiable and possibly enormous amount of time I do wonder what all the rush was about to go to war? Hint - it has nothing to do with allowing the Iraqis to govern themselves as they see fit unless it happens to agree with Bush's agenda. The word colony seems resonant here perhaps.

Would you have the honesty to admit that if we give the Iraqis a "simple" democracy it will very likely cease to exist after the first vote and 40% of the population will forever loose all rights and will be disenfranchised?
.

No I don't believe that. Sorry. I actually believed Bush for a while when he said that he was going to war partly to allow free Iraqis to govern Iraq themselves. Unfortunately it is now clear that was not completely true as he apparently not going to allow the Iraqi people to do that unless they do so in the way he approves of. What is wrong with letting the Iraqi people decide for themselves what sort of government they want? It appears we really went to war to create an American colony.

The action of the various groups in Iraq have a historical contexts. We understand what that context is and what will likely happen if we create a simple democracy. If you can look at the history and the current events and deny that the Shiites hold a grudge against the Baathists and there is a high likely hood that they would form a theocracy (see Iran) then you are IMO (yes it is just my opinion) not being honest.

I am very glad that you have pointed out the historical context here because America's history in the immediate region is very germaine to these people. They have been lied to by America in the last war when Bush Senior incited them to revolt then left them to die at Hussein's hands and seen democratic movements crushed with American help. It seems that type of 'democracy' did not suit America either.

Can I just point point out that because people disagree with your opinions does not make them dishonest. IMHO you too readily resort to this sort of defence when peple disagree with you. I could as easily reply with the same suspect argument to much of wha you have said but have refrained from doing so -so far. If the war was really fought to allow the people of Iraq to run their own country then why not allow them to do so in whatever form they want? Based on what is happening now what George Bush should have said is the the war was being fought to allow me to impose the solution I believe is best for Iraq. In your own terms that would have been more honest.

I want them all to have a voice in their government.

Do you?.

I certainly do and have difficulty reconciling Bush and Rumsfelds current position with their pre-war rhetoric. Perhaps you can point me to any of their pre-war statements which mesh with their current position? I have just seen your final 'cake and eat it' clause so don't expect a reply here or anywhere else.

Not if it means that the majority will oppress the minority. Many democracies recognize this including the US. Our electoral college was implemented to protect the majority from oppressing the minority.

I take it that what you actually mean is - not if the people Bush wants to win are in a minority. Your electoral college resulted in the debacle in Florida. Is that the sort of thing you want in Iraq? If your government was truly representative can you tell me how many truly independent Senators and Congressmen there are? I know - don't expect an answr. I will do sme research myself.

What you want will likely allow the majority to take their democracy and toss it and then lord over the minority (see Iran).

Do you not feel that the rights of the minority should be protected? How would a "simple" democracy protect the rights of a minority?

So you agree that the people of Iraq will not be free to choose the type of government they want. I simply want the people of Iraq to have the type of government they want. You are making claims about how they will vote and behave and I do believe that is what is called an opinion and - as you have so succintly pointed out earlier - has no merit.

What you do advocate would put in jeopardy the rights of the minority and likely exclude all groups but one. Saying you don't want all groups to be excluded but demanding that the US get out and give the Iraqis a simple democracy will do just that. Do you honestly think that the minority Kurds will have any voice? How, they are a minority? What mechanis would protect the minority?

So you cannot support your own claim. Why do you ask my opinion when you are engaged in the 'French' defence? You will simply discard it anyway if your first paragraph is to be taken at face value?

My basis is the historic record (see Iran). Come on E.J. the Shiites are cutting their heads open and marching in the streets in unison. They are angry at the treatment they recieved at the hands of the Baathists.

So your opinion is based on an unsubstantiated claim about history? What exactly is wrong with people engaging in religious observance. I note that christian groups march in the street and bombed clinics in the US and that Catholics engage in some bloody rituals such as emulating the cruxifiction. Scary - depends on your point of view- and not unique to Muslims either.

Given your statement in the first paragraph of this post you will have to do better than that. It apears that you do not like one group within Iraq and Iran and therefore see them as one amorphous unit with every man jack of them jumping to the same tune. Is that how it is for Republicans and Democrats in the US or for the government of South Africa? Doesn't that show how cartoonish your claims are? You don't want the people you don't like in power - regardless of the wishes of the Iraqi people. That isn't democracy to me.

Debased 'democracy'? George Bush understands that for a system to work power can't be concentrated in a single group. As to the United States, if the majority tried to oppress the minority then the minority could go to the courts for relief (as they have many times). Our system is based upon dividing power into the legislative, judicial and executive branches.

And by the way, I don't think our system works all the time to protect the rights of the minority (see below) but it works better than the temporary democracy that you recommend for Iraq.
.

I call it debased democracy because even if the Iraqi people want to set up another system Bush will not let them. I see that you are proposing your opinion as a basis for supporting the imposition of a style of govenment on the Iraqi people that they may not want. I note your views on opinions.

Who said anything about keeping the Shiites out? I just want to protect the rights of the minority. I am not an expert but I would recommend that you read Lani Guinier . For what it is worth, I am very ashamed of what the Republicans did to her. I understand politics and that Lani was pay back for Bork but I think it was reprehensible.

You do not want the Shiites to have proportionate representation. Apparently you will let them in but only on the terms of the US not the Iraqis.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy's Experiments
That's too bad, because Lani Guinier challenges America's smugness about our "winner-takes-all" political system. And she is passionate about democracy. When Lani Guinier talks about representation and minorities, she's talking about people's ideas, about self-definitions, not about race. She insists people who consider themselves a minority should have a voice based on their particular ideas, not just on where they live. That's what she believes our winner-take-all, single member, geographic districts now force on us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where in YOUR winner-takes-all ideas are the rights of the minorities in Iraq taken into account? Would you do anything to protect the rights of the minority? If so then what would it be?

Not sure where you got that last quote. There are many versions of democracy. I am happy t let the Iraqis choose their preferred variety including ones with which I may not be happy.

Can you explain why? We have a base in Cuba are we "occupying" Cuba?

To a large extent I believe that you are if only on a part of the island. America on many occasions tried to assassinate Castro because they ddn't like him or his policies. I seem to remember something called the Bay of Pigs and a blockade for his cheek. I call it occupation because the US consitution does not apply there. Not only is part of the island occupied that but Bush is hiding behind that occupation to prevent the detainees in Guantanamo Bay being treated as per the US constitution. Apparently he is afraid of the detainees being subjected to the judicial parts of the democracy you are proud of. The world wonders why the detainees are not permitted to have proper justice if US citizens are proud of it?

To who? The rebuilding needs to happen now. Do we get everyone together and have a vote? Come on, they will be able to govern themselves it will just take time.

The British military in Basra wanted the local Iraqis who ran the port at Umm Qsar before the war to run it after the war. They were perfectly competent before the war and in the opinion of your so called 'coalition' partners are perfectly competent to do so after the war. But no - that isn't good enough for Bush. Thus an American company was given a contract to run the port in violation of normal contracting procedures. Now that is not what I call giving Iraqis their freedom. Come on RandFan - the US wants to run Iraq like a colony and everything that is happening now shows exactly what the intent is. Don't claim that this is all for the benefit of the Iraqis then push them aside at the first opportunity. The world is not stupid.

What have you shown? The Americans did the work prior to the first Gulf war. The French had contracts with Saddam to do the work prior to the second Guld War. It is very important that we make certain that we ensure that the work is done correctly.

Having expelled a regime we have a responsiblity. That responsibilty is not to hand over the keys of the country to the religious group that happens to hold a majority. We have a responsibilty to see to it that the infrastructure is rebuilt and that the needs of ALL are met in the interim.
.

I have shown that the words of Bush and Blair do not match up to the reality and as such can no longer be taken at face value. What you mean is that the Iraqi people cannot be trusted to do what you want them to do. That is the basis of much of what is going on in Iraq now.

Wrong, my attitude is that the Iraqis will have to be patient. Their regime was just overthrown. I honestly want all of them to have a voice in their new government. I just realize that it will take time.

We were told that America would get out quick. Now we are told that America wants military bases for the foreseeable future. What exactly is your definition of how long the American colonisation will last. A month, a year, two years ten years, fifty years? Are you using American time or Iraqi time? American time it seems.

This has been done to death.

It nevertheless remains true.

The world is populated by monsters, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Iran, African nations, etc.

With its previous support for terrorism around the world the US itself is seen as monster by many people. Until you grasp that concept and analyse the reasons for it in sufficient depth then the world's safety will remain in peril.

That we might be in danger of supporting a tyrant is not a reason to do nothing.

Perhaps you have taught others that might is right?

I am very proud of what we have accomplished and that the nasayers have been proven wrong.

I am happy that you are proud of what Bush has achieved with Blair but I feel a few rhetorical questions coming on. Where is the WOMD? Where are the Iraqi companies running Iraqi ports? When will the Iraqi people be allowed to choose the government they want? When will all the American military leave Iraq? Contrast these with cetain pre-war claims - Iraq will be liberated from the tyrant Hussein to run their land in freedom and we will leave at the earliest opportunity. Not total agreement there I think.

I have had my opportunity to speak. While reserving the right to make a few further remarks in regards to your rebuttal I will let you have the last word.

Sort of like having you cake and eating it.

It is obvious that I can't change your mind and I have no desire to respond line by line for days on end. It doesn't accomplish anything.

Thank you for your responses.
.

Hear hear. I look forward to seeing how long it will take to let the Iraqis really run their own country.

I realise that some here sometimes regard comment on the nasty things that America has done as somehow meaning that those who so comment are totally anti-American. I do not and never have regarded America or most Americans as wholly bad. I acknowledge the many good deeds carried out by America and Americans and sympathise as all decent people should with the terrorist atrocities committed against America and Americans as I do against Israelis and Palestinians and others around the world.

My fear is that there appears to be a reluctance on the part of the current US administration to face up to America's own deeds around the world and to fully understand the effect that behaviour has had around the world. Until they do I fear that their actions now and in future will have an adverse effect on world peace.

One sobering scenario is that Bush's administration simply does not care about the concerns of the international community and wants to expand the American sphere of influence/empire in any way it sees fit, including militarily if necessary, and irrespective of the consequences. As time marches on that seems more and more to be the implication of their current actions. I hope I am wrong, however when Colin Powell states that France will suffer 'consequences' for having the temerity to disagree with the wishes of the US and Rumsfeld implies economic damage will be done to Germmany for the same reason what should the UN and the EU do? Lie back and think of America? I don't think so.

 

[ithinksoiam]

Here we go!

Okay. Here we go.

Hmmm, should I do this with an analogy? Yeah, sure, why not. Hey, anything that works, right?

Consider you are a good decent guy that has fallen in love with a girl. Well, the pull of biology is strong and you two do the forbidden act. A few months later the girl tells you that she is pregnant by you and that you should marry her and do justice to your child. Given that you are a good guy, you go right ahead and tie the knot. Once the deed is done, your new companion tells you, "Hey, I just made that little tidbit up about your baby up so I can become co-owner of your untold riches. But hey sucker, what can you do?

So what do you do in this situation? Just sit back and say, "Yeah, she is a cheat but I love her more than I did ever before?"

I think this analogy perfectly fits our WMD fiasco in Iraq. Bush says now WMDs are not really important. I just used them as a nice pretext to fool you guys in going. And here I see you guys going "Yep, right said Mr. President. You go".

Maybe a little wake up call is in order

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
The US is Republic the system helps protect the rights of the minority from the views of the majority.
So are you saying that you would live under strict religion rule if the majority of the citizens wished to have it that way?.

No. THe US system brought us the debacle in Florida and all that that has entailed. I believe that the Iraqis should choose the system they want.

No and I don't see how that means we where trying to hide something from the UK forces.
Could you post the link to these news articles claiming that the Oil Ministry building in Baghdad was the only building defended properly by US troops immediately after they drove in?
.

I did not claim that you were trying to hide something from the UK forces alone, just from the world.

For one story close sourced closer to you see
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/119505_oil28.html Interesting is it not?

No, I have no knowledge of the seismic data being sent out if you do may I see the link to the story.
You are asking me to provide assurance that the seismic data was not sent out to US oil Company's.
Isn't that like saying can you prove John Edwards is not speaking to the dead?
.

I don't expect you to provide such assurance merely asking if Bush provided it? Seems not.

They must be apart of the conspiracy

You can believe that if you want. I simply can't comment.

Most of these Company's also gave to the Democratic Party your reason is that because more was given to the Republican's that they are getting the contracts.
That may be true but I just have your story from the ReclaimDemocracy.org site to go by
It doesn't prove the war for oil conspiracy..

My thesis is that the giving of political donaions in the huge amounts seen in the US adversely affects all the parties that receive it - including both the Deomcratic and Republican parties. I note however that the bulk of the reported donations by Cheney's company went to the Republicans who won and whose president invade Iraq and promptly gave contracts without due process to a number of companies that gave them money to be elected. If you wrote a novel about the election of Bush and what has happened to the companies that supported them perhaps no-one would believe you. Oh and I never claimed that it proved the war for oil conspiracy. Eventually however even court cases can be won by the weight of circumstantial evidence and the circumstantia evidence is piling up thick and fast.

 

[Incitatus]

If the president of the US lied there will be hell to pay.