Iraq: stuff you don't see on CNN

[bigred]

All I hear about are suicide bombers, but there are other things happening FYI.....


• More than 1,100 reconstruction projects underway in Iraq. Current projects include the construction of 364 schools, 67 public health clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil, 93 water and sewage facilities and 69 electrical facilities (a/o 15 Dec).

• Congress has allocated $18.4 billion for reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure. More than 1,400 reconstruction projects funded by this allocation have begun. Of the allocation, $9.64 billion has been obligated for reconstruction and $2.2 billion dollars disbursed (a/o 29 Dec).

• As of December 29, more than 108,000 local Iraqis have been hired to work on US-funded reconstruction projects. Our desire is to hire as many local subcontractors as possible.

• $78.4 million has been focused on providing reliable electric service, clean water and sewer services. This money supports more than 3700 projects Iraq wide.

• Throughout the year, an additional $90.1 million was provided to support additional Iraqi public services. These projects serve to further strengthen Iraq’s infrastructure and ensure a promising future for the Iraqi people.

• MNF-Iraq has dispersed more than $578 million in Commander’s Emergency Relief Funds (CERP) reaching more than 34,512 projects to build and improve infrastructure, provide for
the welfare of the citizens and support education -- all in an effort to help Iraq take its first steps to recovery after Saddam’s rule.

• Baghdad – 345 CERP projects underway, $35.8 million. There are 552 USG-funded reconstruction projects valued at $1.5 billion currently underway.

• Basra – 23 CERP projects underway, $15.77 million. There are 172 USG-funded reconstruction projects valued at $181 million currently underway.

• Mosul – 118 CERP projects underway, $8.4 million.

• Fallujah – 6 CERP projects underway - $1.5 million. One of the larger projects, a new water treatment plant, will begin this year, and is expected to employ 2000 Iraqis. Seven projects are under construction or will begin shortly with an estimated value of more than $16 million.

• Samarra – 44 CERP projects underway, $2.4 million. Sixty-eight construction and nonconstruction projects have been started or planned with a total value of $15 million. IIG met with the 1ST Infantry Division to plan for the $25 million reconstruction healthcare facilities, schools, hospitals, police stations, and infrastructure repair.

• Sadr City – 27 CERP projects underway amounting to $2.8 million. One hundred and nineteen construction and non-construction projects have begun or are under construction with a value of more than $278 million.


RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS – 2

Essential Services

• WATER
• Baghdad- Expansion of a major water treatment plant serving Baghdad and surrounding areas is approximately 75% complete. This project will produce about 250 million gallons of potable drinking water per day for Baghdad residents.

• Basrah-All 14 water treatment plants are nearly complete and undergoing inspection.

• Diyala/Salah ad Din Provinces- USAID’s new rural water initiative is underway. Since construction began in September 2004 until late November, 11 wells were drilled.

• ELECTRICITY
• Added 1813 Megawatts to the national power grid.

• Installed 8600 kilometers of 400-kV cables to move power between regions.

• More than 1500 400-kV electrical towers installed.

• More than 13 133-kV substations installed.

• HEALTH CARE
• 13 hospitals and 29 public health centers are under renovation as of 7 December

• Up to 80 new public health centers will begin construction by 1 December.

• 59 Primary Health Care Centers are under construction and 110 are being renovated.

• USAID has renovated 19 hospitals and is constructing one hospital.

• The first two series of a total of four of polio vaccinations reached 96% of Iraq’s 4.6
million children under age of 5 in all 18 governorates.

• EDUCATION
• USAID has rehabilitated 2,358 schools in Iraq, and printed and distributed 8.7 million revised math and science textbooks to grades 1-12.

• As of mid-October, about 4.3 million children are currently enrolled in primary schools, up from 3.6 million in 2000.

• Telecommunications

• Telephone subscribers now number over 2,152,000 (1,192,000 cell phones) 158% increase from pre-war levels.

• Economic Development

• World Bank agrees to fund $235 million in infrastructure projects.

• ‘Paris Club’ creditors to provide at least 80% debt reduction of $40 billion foreign debt.

• U.S. Government cancels 100% of $4.1 billion Iraqi debt to U.S.

• Commercial airlines are using Baghdad International Airport, averaging 45 flights a day.

• INDEPENDENT MEDIA
• 75 radio stations
• 180 newspapers
• 10 television stations

[Bruce]

Thank you for the info.

To my knowledge, the US is the only nation that rebuilds other nations without conquering them [as in Iraq is not US territory]. Isn't that something liberals should feel warm and squishy about?

[sorgoth]

Interesting stuff. I didn't realize it was quite to that extent.

It's information like this that makes me more and more in favor of the war...

There were some rather huge difficulties, but, well, the government of the united states really is cleaning up after itself.

Which is nice.

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by Bruce
Thank you for the info.

To my knowledge, the US is the only nation that rebuilds other nations without conquering them [as in Iraq is not US territory]. Isn't that something liberals should feel warm and squishy about?

Isn't nation-building something that conservatives are supposed to squirm and bitch about?

[Silicon]

Source:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/downloads/MNFI-Year-in-Review_2004-Fact-Sheets.pdf



The fact-sheet as provided by the US government and the MNF Iraqi Coalition.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rhoadp
Isn't nation-building something that conservatives are supposed to squirm and bitch about?

Too damn right. "We are not in the business of nation building". Mr Flip Flop Bush.

[Peskanov]

Mmmm...are any of you expecting general aproval?
It's seems you forget all that was previously destroyed by selective bombing, especially the power net, to despair of all Iraqis.
So the USA bomb it, and then rebuild it, and what do you expect? A hooray?
And all that reconstruction is not going to be free for the Iraqians. Anybody thinking otherwise is naive...

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Peskanov

So the USA bomb it, and then rebuild it, and what do you expect? A hooray?

Um, yes.

And all that reconstruction is not going to be free for the Iraqians.[/B][/QUOTE]

Evidence?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bruce


Um, yes.

And all that reconstruction is not going to be free for the Iraqians.

Evidence? [/B]

Part of the rationale for the war was that many costs associated with it could be paid with by Iraqi oil. Like Saudi Arabia paid for a lot of the Gulf War. Hence the insurgents targetting oil lines and wells. The US is being forced to pay up front for the cost itself. Any potential for payback is a long way off still.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Peskanov
So the USA bomb it, and then rebuild it, and what do you expect? A hooray? Did you miss the reports comming out of Iraq on the day of the election? I think you have a disconect. Do the Iraqis resent us for a lot of the bad that has happened? Sure. Do the Iraqis want us to leave? Yes. Are the Iraqis capable of figuring out that there election was paid in part with American blood? Yes.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by bigred
All I hear about are suicide bombers, but there are other things happening FYI.....


• More than 1,100 reconstruction projects.......

Is this list supposed to make me feel good??? If anything it angers me that we are pouring so much money into Iraq, and at the same time we run up huge deficits domestically.

Expand healthcare for americans... that will cost too much. Build a new hospital in iraq! NO PROBLEM!!! How many hospitals did we blow up anyway>???

[gnome]

Originally posted by Bruce
Thank you for the info.

To my knowledge, the US is the only nation that rebuilds other nations without conquering them [as in Iraq is not US territory]. Isn't that something liberals should feel warm and squishy about?

Actually, it does make me feel good to know this. It's one of the things I like about America.

But it doesn't make it all good after the fact, without regard to what led us there in the first place.

[Tmy]

As for the snipe at CNN. CNN is just as watered down as the rest. Try watching some foreign news stations then youll see some real footage of whats going on.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Part of the rationale for the war was that many costs associated with it could be paid with by Iraqi oil. Like Saudi Arabia paid for a lot of the Gulf War. Hence the insurgents targetting oil lines and wells. The US is being forced to pay up front for the cost itself. Any potential for payback is a long way off still.

(Sigh) More conspiracy theories. :nope:

Originally posted by Tmy If anything it angers me that we are pouring so much money into Iraq, and at the same time we run up huge deficits domestically.

Me, me, me, me, ME!. How do you like that? The government can build a hospital for the surviving citizens of a genocidal maniac tyrant, but my city only afford 13 Starbucks. Where are our priorities? If only Kerry had won.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bruce
(Sigh) More conspiracy theories. :nope:



Me, me, me, me, ME!. How do you like that? The government can build a hospital for the surviving citizens of a genocidal maniac tyrant, but my city only afford 13 Starbucks. Where are our priorities? If only Kerry had won. [/B]

Not me. MY COUNTRY! Is this somthing new? You dont buy that bullflop that we're in Iraq to save the iraqis do you?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Tmy
Not me. MY COUNTRY! Is this somthing new? You dont buy that bullflop that we're in Iraq to save the iraqis do you?

Regardless of the motiviation, do you deny that Iraqis have been saved?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bruce
Regardless of the motiviation, do you deny that Iraqis have been saved?

What do you mean saved? Id say iraq was a less dangerous place when Saddam was in charge. At least at the moment.

Im more concearned for the safety of Americans than Iraqis.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Tmy
Not me. MY COUNTRY! Is this somthing new? You dont buy that bullflop that we're in Iraq to save the iraqis do you?

Let me ask you something, Tmy. Let's say you and your family have been hiding in an abandoned building for years because somebody falsely accused you of being an enemy of the state. You have to steal food to keep your chilrden alive. Constant gunfire wakes you up in the night. Your kids are gravely ill.

Then one day, you here word that the evil dictator has been unseated. A foreign soldier shows up at your door with food and medicine, and gives you the directions to a new hospital that is being built.

Are you going to give a flying crap what the motivation was for all this!?! Would it make a damn bit of difference if the soldier were really there because his leaders wanted cheaper oil??

The hatred of liberals amazes me sometimes, even moreso than some of the worse racists I have encountered.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Tmy

Im more concearned for the safety of Americans than Iraqis.

I appreciate your concern, but things are relatively safe here for the moment.

Edited to add: Besides, it was that kind of thinking that allowed an evil dictator to nearly take over Europe. As I recall from history class, most Americans thought exactly that way until Pearl Harbor was bombed.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Tmy
Id say iraq was a less dangerous place when Saddam was in charge.

Ugh. Now who's being naive? They didn't find WMD's, but they found several mass graves.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bruce
Let me ask you something, Tmy. Let's say you and your family have been hiding in an abandoned building for years because somebody falsely accused you of being an enemy of the state. You have to steal food to keep your chilrden alive. Constant gunfire wakes you up in the night. Your kids are gravely ill.

Then one day, you here word that the evil dictator has been unseated. A foreign soldier shows up at your door with food and medicine, and gives you the directions to a new hospital that is being built.

Are you going to give a flying crap what the motivation was for all this!?! Would it make a damn bit of difference if the soldier were really there because his leaders wanted cheaper oil??

The hatred of liberals amazes me sometimes, even moreso than some of the worse racists I have encountered.

Let me ask you this. Lets say you and your family are living a good life. All of a sudden your daddy is called back into the military, your family is forced to fend for itself cause its main bread winner is now on the other side of the planet for well over a year. One day a man comes to your home to let you know that daddy was blown to bits. And why? Well no reason. We thought there were some gas bags lying around but we were wrong.

You think your gonna give a flying crap that some country on the other side of the planet now has a new sewage treatment plant???!?? Bonus! A plant thats being paid for with your future tax payements.

What amazes me is how you feux-bleeding heart neocons pretend to give a crap about the welfare of the little people of the world.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bruce
Ugh. Now who's being naive? They didn't find WMD's, but they found several mass graves.

And who were in those mass graves? Iran/Iraqis from the war. Rabble rousers, and rebels. Hes a friggen dicator. Hes killing off the theats to his power. Not that is a good thing. But you know what. Too bad for them. If we could get rid of Saddam with one bullet. Im up for that. But to sacrafice american lives and money on the hunch that Iraq will turn up fine. Well I dont thinks its worth the cost.

Id be that more Iraqis have been killed in 3 years since the invasion than the 3 years prior.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Bruce
The hatred of liberals amazes me sometimes, even moreso than some of the worse racists I have encountered. Channelling Hannity or Coulter, or maybe you this is all Bruce?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bruce
I appreciate your concern, but things are relatively safe here for the moment.

Edited to add: Besides, it was that kind of thinking that allowed an evil dictator to nearly take over Europe. As I recall from history class, most Americans thought exactly that way until Pearl Harbor was bombed.

I prefer the WWI analogy. Saddam was in no state to take over anything, his army never recovered from the Gulf War. This was a known fact. The only thing that wasn't known was that it was in even worse shape than it was thought to be.

WWI was about empires, resources, territory, etc. Just like this war is.

[csense]

Originally posted by Tmy

What amazes me is how you feux-bleeding heart neocons pretend to give a crap about the welfare of the little people of the world.



Originally posted by Tmy

And who were in those mass graves? Iran/Iraqis from the war. Rabble rousers, and rebels. Hes a friggen dicator. Hes killing off the theats to his power. Not that is a good thing. But you know what. Too bad for them.


I'm confused, so help me out here.

In the first post, you imply (by ideological contradiction) that you do care about the "little people of the world," but in the second quote, you don't.

Which is it?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Channelling Hannity or Coulter, or maybe you this is all Bruce?

Both Left and Right piss me off. For the moment, I'm more pissed off at the Left. It's probably because I just saw Hotel Rwanda last night and got all riled up. It really pisses me off when I see people preaching about civil liberties and rights (the United Nations, lefties, France), but when women and children are being murdered with machettes right in front of their faces, they pack their bags and head home. Screw those filthy Africans/Arabs. They can take care of themselves. I guess the right to live and not be hacked to pieces like pigs only counts in "MY" country.

I spit on those with attitudes like Tmy. Turning your back on your fellow man, regardless of nationality or politics, is the worst kind of hatred. :mad:

[Tmy]

Originally posted by csense
I'm confused, so help me out here.

In the first post, you imply (by ideological contradiction) that you do care about the "little people of the world," but in the second quote, you don't.

Which is it?

I do care. But I have a heirarchy. Americans come first. Theres also a cost benefit analysis.

To me the cost of taking out Saddam were not worth the benefit. Thats what every does.


Bruce over here reminds me of those neo con fakers. They dont give a rats arse about the ameriacn little guy. It blows my mind how they want to bring so much to the Iraiqs, by gutting american social programs to pay for it. Americans without healthcare, F-them lazy bastards. We need to fix up Iraq so Bush looks like a hero.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Tmy
I do care. But I have a heirarchy. Americans come first. Theres also a cost benefit analysis.


First of all, I AM the little guy. I've always been the little guy, and unless I win the lottery, I always will be the little guy. Secondly, you've done a superb job of supporting my previous post. Let's hope a day won't come when terrorist nuke the capital and take over our country, and that other countries won't be considering cost benefit analysis as a knife is being put to your throat.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Bruce
First of all, I AM the little guy. I've always been the little guy, and unless I win the lottery, I always will be the little guy. Secondly, you've done a superb job of supporting my previous post. Let's hope a day won't come when terrorist nuke the capital and take over our country, and that other countries won't be considering cost benefit analysis as a knife is being put to your throat.
bruce...Have you ever considered writing screeplays for Bruce Willis films?

The Capitals been Nuked!
Terrorists take over the country!
Tmy has a knife to his throat....what will happen next??? How about Tmy does a double backflip filmed in slow motion while grabbing the terrorists handgun and blasting all 10 of them in the room (with a six shot revolver) Then he finds the master plan that all good evil henchmen carry on them....it has promise, write it up.....

[Bruce]

Originally posted by The Fool
bruce...Have you ever considered writing screeplays for Bruce Willis films?

The Capitals been Nuked!
Terrorists take over the country!
Tmy has a knife to his throat....what will happen next??? How about Tmy does a double backflip filmed in slow motion while grabbing the terrorists handgun and blasting all 10 of them in the room (with a six shot revolver) Then he finds the master plan that all good evil henchmen carry on them....it has promise, write it up.....

It's not a Bruce Willis film without his signature head-butt.

Yipee-ki-yea

[The Fool]

actually Bruce...I think your crocodile tears for Iraqis is an Fing joke after your little effort here..

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51106&perpage=40&highlight=bruce&pagenumber=1

[Bruce]

Originally posted by The Fool
actually Bruce...I think your crocodile tears for Iraqis is an Fing joke after your little effort here..

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51106&perpage=40&highlight=bruce&pagenumber=1

As always, I shall refer to my general disclaimer. :p

:
:
V

[csense]

Originally posted by Tmy
I do care. But I have a heirarchy. Americans come first. Theres also a cost benefit analysis.



Given a situation in which there exist similar moral dilemmas, I might be inclined to agree with you, but I just don't see that to be the case here. Granted, economics is a consideration, but I would be very hesitant to put a pricetag on what is right and just.

As an aside, and from my own personal opinion, I really don't see a health care crisis in this country. If you have a decent job, then you most likely have health insurance. last I checked, the vast majority of uninsured Americans is in the 18 to 25 age bracket, which to me represents those who are in higher education, and believe me, if I had the oppurtunity to choose between health insurance and a College education, I would definately choose College, since there are so many more benefits that would be waiting for me down the road.

I personally don't consider College students without health insurance a crisis by any stretch of the immagination.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bruce
Both Left and Right piss me off. For the moment, I'm more pissed off at the Left. It's probably because I just saw Hotel Rwanda last night and got all riled up. It really pisses me off when I see people preaching about civil liberties and rights (the United Nations, lefties, France), but when women and children are being murdered with machettes right in front of their faces, they pack their bags and head home. Screw those filthy Africans/Arabs. They can take care of themselves. I guess the right to live and not be hacked to pieces like pigs only counts in "MY" country.

I spit on those with attitudes like Tmy. Turning your back on your fellow man, regardless of nationality or politics, is the worst kind of hatred. :mad:

I don't recall ever feeling happy about the Rwandan massacre. Maybe it was the other lefties.

Like everyone else, I think the UN was caught flat footed at the speed with which it all happened. IIRC, the whole world was surprised. FWIW, I think that Australia and all the other members of the UN should have done the right thing in Rwanda, but the UN is only as good as it's members. The monitoring force was telling everyone what was going to happen, if that was ignored, then it is the fault of all the members of the UN, not just the lefties who comprise a part of the population of those countries.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by bigred
All I hear about are suicide bombers, but there are other things happening FYI.....

It's proper to credit your source.

Example:

Washington, DC, Mar. 3 (UPI) -- The military has not budgeted for the $574 million needed to pay death benefits for troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, according to Pentagon documents.

From:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050303-072805-9373r.htm

Example for citing #2

Briton 'may face execution'

Rosie Cowan, crime correspondent
Friday March 4, 2005
The Guardian

A British terrorist suspect could face the death penalty or imprisonment in Guantánamo Bay if he is extradited to the US, his lawyers said yesterday.
The US authorities want to try Babar Ahmad, 30, from Tooting, south-west London, for allegedly running websites and sending emails to raise money for the fighting in Chechnya and Afghanistan.
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1430213,00.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has passed 1,500, an Associated Press count showed Thursday after the military announced the deaths of three Americans, while car bombs targeting Iraqi security forces killed at least four Iraqis in separate attacks.

The latest reported American deaths brought the toll to 1,502 since the United States launched the war in Iraq in March 2003, according to the AP count.

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7043921/

Picture from article:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050303/050303_iraq2_hmed_5a.h2.jpg


As for your original post, should the media focus on a school opening or a TV station going back on the air (like it had prior to the US invasion) instead of the most deadly blast in Iraq yet?

You see the media has only a limited time to tell the story (22 minutes including sports and local news). Before March 2003, all they had time to air was Bush rhetoric in the move towards war instead of investigating the reasons for war. Yet, now all they have time for is reality of war, in both cases it's easier than doing journalism and asking questions.

[Giz]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The monitoring force was telling everyone what was going to happen, if that was ignored, then it is the fault of all the members of the UN, not just the lefties who comprise a part of the population of those countries.

True, it was the UN's fault. The reason "lefties"are sometimes tarred with the same brush is that us "righties" don't expect the UN (while it's full of corrupt despots) to care about these things. The "left", as it tends to emphasise multilateralism/international consensus, seems to regard the UN as some sort of effective agency, and touts it as a solution to the worlds problems...


And AUP "WWI was about empires, resources, territory, etc. Just like this war is."
- You've been pulled up about this before. The Central Powers fit that bill but the Western Allies that you try to grind your axe against certainly don't:
USA: 14 points (self determination etc), ring a bell?
UK: Balance of power/ preventing German hegemony, ring a bell?
France: Self defence (even if they hadn't mobilised they would still have been attacked/occupied) and recovering Alsace-Lorraine (kind of territorial but also self determination for a mainly & formerly French province)

Hardly a bunch of warmongering imperialists going after oil...

[Skeptic]

I can see how one can support both the war and reconstruction: both are parts of a united effort to make a free, prosperous Iraq. This is GWB's position.

I can see how one (like gnome) opposes the war but support reconstruction: if the war was evil or wrong or misguised, etc., then the US has a moral duty to minimize and undo damage it did during the war.

I can even see how one supports the war and opposes reconstruction: the threat to the US gone, it's not the US's problem how Iraq moves on from there (The "Pat Buchanan" view).

All three are at least logically consistent. But to oppose BOTH the war AND repairing its damage? Surely the more one thinks the war was wrong, the more one should insist the US has a duty to repair its damage?

This seems to be a morally inconsistent position, whose sole "point" is that it the exact opposite of GWB's position of supporting both the war and the reconstruction.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Considering the source, it is worthless. Whats this thing about "we are the good ones, they were the bad ones... ", that kind of mentality is just sick.

Saddam was one, what about the rest of cruel dictators of the world? Does other countries doesnt deserve to be "saved"?

Please.

[Peskanov]

Bruce, here you have your evidence:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4983&sequence=0

And the people is going to feel the consequences very soon: the subsidies that keep most Iraquians over the poverty level are going to be eliminated.

http://www.rebuild-iraq-expo.com/News_show_news.asp?id=715

[Giz]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen


Saddam was one, what about the rest of cruel dictators of the world? Does other countries doesnt deserve to be "saved"?

Please.

I don't recall any neo-cons saying that other countries don't deserve to be saved... they just haven't spread the US armed forces too thin by invading 100 despotisms simultaneously... is the removal of a dictator morally wrong unless it's simultaneous with the universal removal off all other dictators?

[bigred]

I would just like to apologize for not realizing that this post would quickly digress into yet another fun-filled ping-pong match of "neo-cons" vs "neo-libs" (PS I think some of y'all got into The Matrix just a bit much ;) FYI conservatives and liberals have been around a long time; there is nothing new or "neo" about either...what a dorky term). There are already a ton of those things around and they tend to be pointless.

PS and FYI, I have mixed feelings about the the war in Iraq. Just would like to see a little more BALANCED reporting/viewpoints about it, including information like this along with the death tolls.

Unfortunately, none of that boring stuff above about saving lives, building hospitals, schools etc etc appear to be "newsworthy."

:rolleyes:

[Hutch]

Not much to add, everyone seems to be moving the discussion along nicely, but did see one it worth clarifying...

Originally posted by bigred
• Congress has allocated $18.4 billion for reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure. More than 1,400 reconstruction projects funded by this allocation have begun. Of the allocation, $9.64 billion has been obligated for reconstruction and $2.2 billion dollars disbursed (a/o 29 Dec).

Note that while $18.4B have been appropriated, only half ($9.64B) has been Obligated. In Government budget circles, obligated means the funding has been set up or "the check has been written" for planned acquisitions, but it does not indicate that a Contract has been signed or executed. The proper term for that would be the dollars are 'Committed", which is not part of the paragraph. Disbursed means exactly that, money paid out on a contract to the contractor who has incurred the expenses...so who the contractor has paid and how much cannot be known without seeing the source documents.

One other note...while building up the infrastructure is a good thing (I am sure some research would show similar numbers for our time in Vietnam), if the people do not have a belief that they will be secure to use the facilities to the extent provided, then all the buildings are no more than the remains of Ozymadis (sic) statue...IMHO, of course.

And that battle, the one for security and stability, may yet be won, but it is not won yet....

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by bigred
Unfortunately, none of that boring stuff above about saving lives, building hospitals, schools etc etc appear to be "newsworthy."

:rolleyes:

"If it bleeds, it leads"--old journalist slogan.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by The Fool
actually Bruce...I think your crocodile tears for Iraqis is an Fing joke after your little effort here..

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51106&perpage=40&highlight=bruce&pagenumber=1

I thought it was pretty clear in that thread that I was targeting the notion that loud music and brainwashing rhetoric are forms of torture. I stopped reading the replies when straw men started to appear and folk such as yourself accused me of advocating all forms of torture.

Thank you for resurfacing that post. I see now that I was made into a lovely effigy.

Originally posted by Tmy

Bruce over here reminds me of those neo con fakers. They dont give a rats arse about the ameriacn little guy. It blows my mind how they want to bring so much to the Iraiqs, by gutting american social programs to pay for it. Americans without healthcare, F-them lazy bastards. We need to fix up Iraq so Bush looks like a hero.

Looks as if the sport of witch-hunting has never left New England.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Bruce
Both Left and Right piss me off. For the moment, I'm more pissed off at the Left.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative type, eh?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Tmy
I do care. But I have a heirarchy. Americans come first. Theres also a cost benefit analysis.


Clearly this is not true, You'd happily spend money to have food sent overseas to the starving, at the expense of needy, but not starving people here.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by RussDill
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative type, eh?

Blech. I hate the new political catagorizations. Conservative and Liberal brush strokes were too broad, so we need a bunch of smaller brush stokes. Can't each individual have their own individual opinions without being lumped into a political catagory? I've been accused of everything from monarchist to anarchist, radical liberal to radical conservative. It bores me. That's why I don't often get involved in political discussions.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bruce
Blech. I hate the new political catagorizations. Conservative and Liberal brush strokes were too broad, so we need a bunch of smaller brush stokes. Can't each individual have their own individual opinions without being lumped into a political catagory? I've been accused of everything from monarchist to anarchist, radical liberal to radical conservative. It bores me. That's why I don't often get involved in political discussions. With all due respect Bruce, there can only be two ideologies. Mine and everyone else's. If your ideology is the same as mine then your ideology is well founded. If it is not then any label is irrelevant because you are, to some degree, simply wrong.

[nightwind]

This list kinda angered me also, when I realized how much money we were pouring into Iraq.

I am sure our educational system, and other programs in the U.S. would have appreciated even a small percentage of what is being spent.

I also agree, that it is not our business to build a nation, create democracies, etc .

But I can see that we do bear some responsibility for rebuilding when we bomb them into oblivian.

[c0rbin]

Regarding the victims of Saddam, TMY said this:

Too bad for them.

Is it too bad for these people?

From CNN article: Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/index.html)

The women -- four or five of whom were pregnant -- and children appear to have been killed with a single small caliber gunshot to the head.

Again, I reiterate, these women and children were killed with handguns at close range.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by RandFan
With all due respect Bruce, there can only be two ideologies. Mine and everyone else's. If your ideology is the same as mine then your ideology is well founded. If it is not then any label is irrelevant because you are, to some degree, simply wrong. :D - Thanks, I really needed a good laugh today.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by nightwind
I am sure our educational system, and other programs in the U.S. would have appreciated even a small percentage of what is being spent.


Personally, I see a problem with the federal government providing dollars for education. My personal political opinion is that education should be all state spending, but that's just me.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by RandFan
With all due respect Bruce, there can only be two ideologies. Mine and everyone else's. If your ideology is the same as mine then your ideology is well founded. If it is not then any label is irrelevant because you are, to some degree, simply wrong.

You stole that from the Book of Bruce! You are hereby excommunicated. Begone, heretic!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Bruce
You stole that from the Book of Bruce! You are hereby excommunicated. Begone, heretic!

Klaatu barada nik*cough*

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Bruce
I thought it was pretty clear in that thread that I was targeting the notion that loud music and brainwashing rhetoric are forms of torture. I stopped reading the replies when straw men started to appear and folk such as yourself accused me of advocating all forms of torture.

Thank you for resurfacing that post. I see now that I was made into a lovely effigy.





pathetic bruce....simply pathetic.. You could not care less about the fate of Iraqis. You stopped reading the replies? Actually, you fled the thread after your first pathetic post. ...your sig lines pretty much sum up your views on taking responsibility for your own words.

[Peskanov]

Bruce, it seems my reply got lost in the previous page, so I repeat my post.
Here you have what you requested, the evidence about the Iraqians having to pay to rebuild their country.

Bruce, here you have your evidence:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4983&sequence=0

And the people is going to feel the consequences very soon: the subsidies that keep most Iraquians over the poverty level are going to be eliminated.

http://www.rebuild-iraq-expo.com/Ne...news.asp?id=715

[Tmy]

Originally posted by RussDill
Clearly this is not true, You'd happily spend money to have food sent overseas to the starving, at the expense of needy, but not starving people here.

There are virtually no starving people in the US.

Sending a relativly small sum of money to starving people overseas (ex Tsunami victims) is very small cost to america. Billions and billions to Iraq plus the death of Americans is quite a large cost. Too much if you ask me.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Regarding the victims of Saddam, TMY said this:



Is it too bad for these people?

From CNN article: Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/index.html)



Again, I reiterate, these women and children were killed with handguns at close range.

From your link.

"He believes they were probably killed in early 1988, though it might have happened in late 1987. " Friggen 18 years ago!!!

That Kurdish area has been under UN and no-fly protection for years. There was no Saddam threat to these people when we invaded in 2003.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Interesting stuff. I didn't realize it was quite to that extent.

It's information like this that makes me more and more in favor of the war...

There were some rather huge difficulties, but, well, the government of the united states really is cleaning up after itself.

Which is nice.

However you cut it we still attacked and invaded another nation unprovoked and under false pretenses and killed thousands and thousands in the process, including well over 1,000 of our own sons and daughters.

http://www.nypress.com/18/8/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

"Either we hope for the vindication of Bush's risky, very possibly reckless policy.…" Note the use of the qualifying, "risky, very possibly reckless," here—obscuring the stark lie of the word "vindication." To Andersen's audience, nothing can possibly vindicate Bush's Iraq policy. Along with millions of other people, I opposed the war before it began, and we opposed it not because we thought we might lose or fail in Iraq, but because invading Iraq was wrong. It was wrong because they were lying about why we were invading; it was wrong because the whole notion of preemptive invasion is immoral and dangerous; it was wrong for a dozen other plainly irrefutable reasons that will not change if Iraq is magically transformed into Switzerland by next year.

[billydkid]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger25.html

[RandFan]

Originally posted by billydkid
However you cut it we still attacked and invaded another nation unprovoked and under false pretenses and killed thousands and thousands in the process, including well over 1,000 of our own sons and daughters.

http://www.nypress.com/18/8/news&columns/taibbi.cfm

"Either we hope for the vindication of Bush's risky, very possibly reckless policy.…" Note the use of the qualifying, "risky, very possibly reckless," here—obscuring the stark lie of the word "vindication." To Andersen's audience, nothing can possibly vindicate Bush's Iraq policy. Along with millions of other people, I opposed the war before it began, and we opposed it not because we thought we might lose or fail in Iraq, but because invading Iraq was wrong. It was wrong because they were lying about why we were invading; it was wrong because the whole notion of preemptive invasion is immoral and dangerous; it was wrong for a dozen other plainly irrefutable reasons that will not change if Iraq is magically transformed into Switzerland by next year. You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I can respect it. I assume you refuse to accept mine.

The final chapter has not been written but it was, IMO, worth it. I think we will succeed however no venture is guaranteed. Saddam was a genocidal, homicidal maniac who oppressed his people. He cut the arms and ears off of young men. Threw innocent people in prison and made his people live not only in fear but more importantly with out hope. His only likely successor was one of two degenerate and sadistic pieces of *****.

There is now hope. Saddam and the two raping sons are gone. I'm saddened at the loss of life. I'm happy that we were able and willing to do something this time. I doubt the reasons are simplistic. I doubt VERY much that Bush knew absolutely anything. I'm VERY certain that Bush believed that Saddam was a very real threat.

When I saw the Iraqi's vote I wondered if I was in my shoes if anyone would care enough if I was in the position they were before Saddam was overthrown.

I respect your opinion Billy. It seems that a number of people on this forum believe that there can be no respect for people who disagree with them. Sad.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Tmy
There are virtually no starving people in the US.

Sending a relativly small sum of money to starving people overseas (ex Tsunami victims) is very small cost to america. Billions and billions to Iraq plus the death of Americans is quite a large cost. Too much if you ask me.

We already are spending billions on food aid per year, plus billions more on other forms of aid. Also, keeping Iraq in a box wasn't free, billions of dollars had to be spent per yer on that.

How much in today's dollars do you think was spent liberating south korea? By how much do you think the south korean economy has enriched our own?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by RussDill
Klaatu barada nik*cough*

"Klaatu barada niktu" : Release the book unto me
"Klaatu barada nikcoughblum" : Bite my fat one, Lord of the Underworld

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Bruce, it seems my reply got lost in the previous page, so I repeat my post.


You are mistaken. Your post was completely ignored, as is this one.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
When I saw the Iraqi's vote I wondered if I was in my shoes if anyone would care enough if I was in the position they were before Saddam was overthrown. Waaiiit a minute. I AM in my shoes. Damn.

Their shoes, if I was in their shoes.

Dan Quale was right. "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

[Bruce]

Originally posted by The Fool
pathetic bruce....simply pathetic..

No, Fool. What is pathetic is how you, Tmy, Peskanov, and others went out of your way to twist my words, make outlandish and unfounded accusations, dig up old arguments, and pick fights, all in a lame attempt to paint me as an advocate of torture, a neo conservative, and falsely showing concern for the people of Iraq. Why? Because you disagree with my position? How can you claim to know my true intentions or concerns?

I rarely post here because debating politics with most of the frequent posters here is like debating atheism in a church. It's completely pointless. Every thread is eventually reduced to bashing and ridiculing.

Taking responsibility for my own words? My sig is to clarify that any attack I make is directed toward the offending individual, and not those in political, religious, etc affliation with the individual. It's also meant to be humorous, but why am I bothering to explain that to one who calls himself The Fool?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Bruce
You are mistaken. Your post was completely ignored, as is this one.

Ok, let me explain why I ignored it.

The first link is for a budget proposal, which includes:

Three Illustrative Approaches to Reconstruction
Approach 1: Fully Fund the Needs Identified by the United Nations and World Bank
Approach 2: Fund Only the 2004 Needs Identified by the United Nations and World Bank
Approach 3: Fund All Immediate Needs and Some Medium-Term Needs


and


Pros and Cons of Forgiving Foreign Debt. Most observers agree that Iraq's international obligations will have to be renegotiated. For example, Horst Kohler, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, has stated that without "substantial debt relief, the country has no prospect of restoring its creditworthiness and of regaining access to private capital to finance future growth."(18) Some observers argue that all of the debt accumulated under the Hussein regime should be forgiven. They maintain that it is unfair to saddle a free people with the debt incurred by the previous, odious regime in which it had no voice. Others believe that Iraq must pay its obligations in order to avoid serious consequences for other nations and, possibly, for the international financial system. In that view, if Iraq's debt was forgiven, other countries that were less than fully democratic might no longer be able to attract financing from the capital markets for fear that the money would not be repaid if regimes changed. And if those countries could no longer borrow funds, they would appear to have little incentive to pay back what they already owed.

Considering the typical debating approach used on this forum, I will immediately be asked, "Oh, come on, you don't honestly believe that America and other countries involved in the war will honestly pay for everything." To which I will reply: I'm as unwilling to debate political "beliefs" as I am with religious "beliefs". To which then I will be labeled a coward, torture advocate, etc. Then the debate will be railroaded into a detail economics discussion, which I have absolutely no expertise or interest in.

The second link says nothing about reconstruction costs. It only says this:


Most Iraqis relied on subsidized fuel, electricity and food rations under a UN-sponsored oil-for-food program during the regime of Saddam Hussein.
After Saddam’s overthrow, the interim government adopted the system, which still provides a vital lifeline for a large portion of Iraq’s population, many of whom are unemployed or earn only a meager wage.

If I remember correctly, the UN-sponsored oil-for-food program was a total scam (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp) that was mostly used to fund terrorism. This article proposes plans to ween the people of Iraq off of scam money and figure out a way to run their economy on oil revenue, which is the only natural resource Iraq has, unless someone finds a way to sell sand.

Now that Peskanov has wasted my time with "evidence" that he obviously failed to read after a quick Google/copy/paste, he will no doubt post more unread Google searches and dare me to read and respond to them.

At the end of the day, I will go to bed feeling indignant, pissed off, and realize that arguing politics with trolls on a skeptic's forum does nothing to change the world or reduce my blood pressure.

The next day, I will wake up refreshed and go back to posting humorous anecdotes in Banter, and try desperately to forget this whole painful experience.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Bruce
No, Fool. What is pathetic is how you, Tmy, Peskanov, and others went out of your way to twist my words, make outlandish and unfounded accusations, dig up old arguments, and pick fights, all in a lame attempt to paint me as an advocate of torture, a neo conservative, and falsely showing concern for the people of Iraq. Why? Because you disagree with my position? How can you claim to know my true intentions or concerns?

well bruce, thats really sad how you are singled out and persecuted by evil people. I guess not everyone shares your sense of humor about torture eh?

I rarely post here because debating politics with most of the frequent posters here is like debating atheism in a church. It's completely pointless. Every thread is eventually reduced to bashing and ridiculing.

No bruce its most often about challenging political party parrots like you. Crying anguish about the fate of Iraqis....as long as they are not the ones whose fate is the fault of your masters.

Taking responsibility for my own words? My sig is to clarify that any attack I make is directed toward the offending individual, and not those in political, religious, etc affliation with the individual. It's also meant to be humorous, but why am I bothering to explain that to one who calls himself The Fool?
I honestly don't know why you are trying to explain it either bruce...you must think that you are such a cool guy that offensive behavior will be overlooked, good luck with that .

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by RandFan
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I can respect it. I assume you refuse to accept mine.

The final chapter has not been written but it was, IMO, worth it. I think we will succeed however no venture is guaranteed. Saddam was a genocidal, homicidal maniac who oppressed his people. He cut the arms and ears off of young men. Threw innocent people in prison and made his people live not only in fear but more importantly with out hope. His only likely successor was one of two degenerate and sadistic pieces of *****.

There is now hope. Saddam and the two raping sons are gone. I'm saddened at the loss of life. I'm happy that we were able and willing to do something this time. I doubt the reasons are simplistic. I doubt VERY much that Bush knew absolutely anything. I'm VERY certain that Bush believed that Saddam was a very real threat.

When I saw the Iraqi's vote I wondered if I was in my shoes if anyone would care enough if I was in the position they were before Saddam was overthrown.

I respect your opinion Billy. It seems that a number of people on this forum believe that there can be no respect for people who disagree with them. Sad.

:clap:

Well said, RF, well said.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Giz
I don't recall any neo-cons saying that other countries don't deserve to be saved... they just haven't spread the US armed forces too thin by invading 100 despotisms simultaneously... is the removal of a dictator morally wrong unless it's simultaneous with the universal removal off all other dictators?

No, but it would have been nice to engage in some kind of national debate about who should be first, instead of all that flummery about mushroom clouds and WMD's. It makes me think that removing a dictator was not foremost on the administration's mind, and thus it makes me feel lied to. Even if we do a superb job and Iraq improves, are lies a sound basis for foreign policy?

[csense]

Originally posted by gnome
No, but it would have been nice to engage in some kind of national debate about who should be first, instead of all that flummery about mushroom clouds and WMD's. It makes me think that removing a dictator was not foremost on the administration's mind, and thus it makes me feel lied to. Even if we do a superb job and Iraq improves, are lies a sound basis for foreign policy?

Sometimes gnome, the duck walks right up to you and quacks...then it's fairly obvious which one goes first. Now if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...yet some otherwise well intentioned people still don't see the duck...then maybe they need to be told that it also bites like a duck.

[Peskanov]

Bruce, if you post a thread about propaganda, you are going to be challenged. If you can't stand that don't post.
Letting your acusations and divagations aside, let's discuss my links.

Considering the typical debating approach used on this forum, I will immediately be asked, "Oh, come on, you don't honestly believe that America and other countries involved in the war will honestly pay for everything."

I am no asking anything, the debt amounts for 40 billion dollars, but there is a lot more to pay to rebuild Iraq.
What I am seeing in the reports is that Iraq is going to pay the bulk of the reconstruction using their Oil revenues. Where am I wrong?

If I remember correctly, the UN-sponsored oil-for-food program was a total scam that was mostly used to fund terrorism

I don't see the relation of this with the question at hand.

This article proposes plans to ween the people of Iraq off of scam money and figure out a way to run their economy on oil revenue, which is the only natural resource Iraq has, unless someone finds a way to sell sand.

No, this article says that public money is going to be used in the reconstruction. I argued that Iraqis will pay for the reconstruction of their country, remenber? When you remove basic public services to use the money in reconstruction, this means people is paying.
I consider being able to heat your house in winter a basic need, don't you agree? Right now they have a serious problem with that.

Bruce, what do you think of pages like the one I mentioned, http://www.rebuild-iraq-expo.com?
One of those scavenger's expo happened in my country at the start of the war, with all companys fighting for the reconstruction contracts. It's a nice bussines, when Iraq's companys are ignored and all the money goes back to the coalition countries, isn't?
I will tell another nice thing about your so-ethical president and the reconstruction bussines. His brother, Jeb, visited my country a pair of months before the war and happily promised "good bussines for everybody" talking about the upcomming war. What's your opinion about that? Do you want a link or do you prefer to continue ignoring it?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Bruce
Ok, let me explain why I ignored it.
....

Very well said!

[Peskanov]

Troll.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Troll.

By what definition?

[Peskanov]

What do you pretend simply siding with a post plagued with strawmans and insults?
Do you have any argument to offer or are you just trying to heat the discussion?
Argue or get lost.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Peskanov
What do you pretend simply siding with a post plagued with strawmans and insults?
Do you have any argument to offer or are you just trying to heat the discussion?
Argue or get lost.

I think that among the two of us, it is you who is more interested in "heating the discussion" and offering insults than I. If you were not, the first word you directed toward me would have been something other than, "troll."

[geni]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Regarding the victims of Saddam, TMY said this:



Is it too bad for these people?

From CNN article: Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/index.html)



Again, I reiterate, these women and children were killed with handguns at close range.

100 people killed 18 years ago and you care. You clearly care a lot. How did you feel about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rais_massacre

simular numbers simular actions. Slightly more recent.

[Peskanov]

Well Mycroft, Bruce said:

Now that Peskanov has wasted my time with "evidence" that he obviously failed to read after a quick Google/copy/paste, he will no doubt post more unread Google searches and dare me to read and respond to them.

At the end of the day, I will go to bed feeling indignant, pissed off, and realize that arguing politics with trolls on a skeptic's forum does nothing to change the world or reduce my blood pressure.

And you said, refering to this same insulting post:

Very well said!

Now, do you insist you were not trolling and heating the discussion when lining up with that post? Hypocrite...
Please note that despite bruce insults, I have refrained to play his game because at least he was ofering arguments also. You don't even deliver.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Bruce
Let me ask you something, Tmy. .........

The hatred of liberals amazes me sometimes, even moreso than some of the worse racists I have encountered.


Bruce,

Im all up for a cordial debate. But when you toss somthing out like the above, dont be surprised when it angries up the blood. I tend to get a tad offened when being accused of be a hateful person on par with uber-racists.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by RandFan
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I can respect it. I assume you refuse to accept mine.

The final chapter has not been written but it was, IMO, worth it.

True the final chapter hasnt been written. But looking at what we know at this date, i dont think it was worth it. Things may turn out swell. Then again, Iraq may implode into a horrible civil war.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Well Mycroft, Bruce said:

"Now that Peskanov has wasted my time with "evidence" that he obviously failed to read after a quick Google/copy/paste, he will no doubt post more unread Google searches and dare me to read and respond to them. "

Why do you think Bruce said that?

Could it be because in response to a simple request for evidence supporting your claim that Iraqi oil is going to pay for Iraqi reconstruction (and why shouldn’t it?) you link to a 45 page document without so much as a hint as to where this information is supposed to be found? Bruce concludes that you haven’t read the link, could that be because it’s reasonable to assume that if you had you would at least show the courtesy of linking to the correct page where the information is?

Then further, you add another link asking for his opinion on a completely new topic, attempting to draw him into a new argument. Who’s trying to "heat the discussion"? Who’s trolling?

I agree with Bruce because I agree with Bruce. It’s not because I’m trying to insult anyone or am trying to "heat the discussion." You had the choice of ignoring my post, your position in opposition of my opinion being well established. Instead you made a choice to respond with an insult designed to "heat the discussion." Ironically, you later claim to have "refrained to play his game" (apparently meaning insults) after your own insult is pointed out to you.

Do I want to argue this issue with you?

I don’t have a problem with your insults or your demonstrated inclination to "heat the discussion." It’s an internet forum, and I think participants should have something of a thick skin to participate. What I do have a problem with is your simultaneous and hypocritical inclination to bash these characteristics in others while denying them in your own behavior.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Why do you think Bruce said that?
....

Well said! ;)

[Peskanov]

How nice, you didn't even know that you called me troll when siding with Bruce. But when called over that, you finally side with the insult as well. You are a nice chap, Mycroft. Thank you.

Could it be because in response to a simple request for evidence supporting your claim that Iraqi oil is going to pay for Iraqi reconstruction (and why shouldn’t it?)

At least you could have the detail of reading the posts related to our discussion, couldn't you?
I am going to summarize it for you:
I claimed that the Iraqi people will pay the bulk of the price of rebuilding Iraq (like any other loser nation on history).Atention, I said WILL.
Bruce requested evidence. I presented two links and requested his answer. The evidence have to do with the near future, because I said WILL, remenber? My links:
- A budget detailing the cost of rebuilding Iraq, comming from a USA guvernamental source. I hoped it would be credible enough to Bruce.
And, no, I haven't googled the report today, I knew of it from other source. Does it matter, btw?
The budget shows that those 18bn$ are drop in the ocean of Iraq economic disaster.
The report also hints very strongly about loans and Iraqi's money (Oil, their only source of wealth) to pay it as the most probable option.
Both points reinforce my view.

- Reports of Iraq's government cutting public expenditures to pay reconstruction. I googled this link searching for measures taken by Iraq's govenrment related to public money. Any problem with that?
It also helps my point of Iraqi's paying the price of war.

Weak or not, that's the evidence I offered.
Do you or Bruce have anything reasonable to say about the matter, aside from incoherent ramblings?
Do you have any hint about the future grants and loans?
Do you believe that USA will cover all the cost of the reconstruction?
What do you think of using exclusively USA and European companys for the reconstruction? Do you think it's good for Iraq?

You could be surprised when finding that I can accept being wrong and I can back from a position when the arguments justify it. However, don't stop, continue rambling, your insults say more about you two that it says about me.

[Peskanov]

BTW, Mycroft, nice touch, cutting my quote of Bruce calling me troll. It's on the second paragraph I quoted, you know, so don't get lost.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Peskanov
BTW, Mycroft, nice touch, cutting my quote of Bruce calling me troll. It's on the second paragraph I quoted, you know, so don't get lost.

Why shouldn't I cut it? It's not in dispute. Bruce called you a troll, so what? If it makes you feel better, I'll call you one too.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is you're guilty of the same behavior you claim to deplore in others. You're upset Bruce called you a troll, but then you call me a troll. You don't like it when Bruce insults you, but you insult him and I. You claim I'm "heating the discussion" when you're tossing names and insults around.

If you want a certain standard of behavior from others, your first obligation is to live up to it yourself. Be a combative jerk if that's what you like, but if you are it's hypocrisy to slam someone else for doing it too.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Bruce
Well said! ;)

Troll!

:D

[demon]

RandFan:
"Saddam was a genocidal, homicidal maniac who oppressed his people"

Yes, with our help.

RandFan:
"Saddam and the two raping sons are gone"

So we've put our own rapists and torturers in their place.

[RandFan]

RandFan:
"Saddam was a genocidal, homicidal maniac who oppressed his people"

demon
Yes, with our help. Oh, well, then never mind. We F***ed up and now we can't do anything to change it. Fallacy comes to mind.

RandFan:
"Saddam and the two raping sons are gone"

demon
So we've put our own rapists and torturers in their place. The truth came out. There was an outcry. There was an investigation. People are going to jail. I hate to break the news to you but this did not happen under Saddam. You are trying to equate that which won't equate. Nice try though.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Tmy
What do you mean saved? Id say iraq was a less dangerous place when Saddam was in charge. At least at the moment.

Im more concearned for the safety of Americans than Iraqis.

That's a silly comment. Less dangerous for who? The tens or hundreds of thousands he (they) killed, or for those who did the killing? The problem is YOU were not paying much attention or expressing your outrage then.

As to "at least at the moment", you should get some treatment for that short term vision you have. Perhaps some new specs?

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Troll!

:D

How dare you make such an accusation towards ME!?! This coming from someone who's into beastiality (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52930) , showing hatred toward America (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52249), and, and, and finger painting (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51955)!

Not one of your better moments, Mycroft. Not only are you a troll, but I might go so far as to call you a filthy Bush supporter!!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tmy
What do you mean saved? Id say iraq was a less dangerous place when Saddam was in charge. At least at the moment.

Im more concearned for the safety of Americans than Iraqis.

But waaaaaaaaait a cotton pickin' minute....

...isn't it the left which is supposed to care about the third world and the fate of others? Isn't it the left which keeps telling us how unfair it is that Americans have it so much better than most of the rest of the world? Isn't it the left which keeps telling Americans to make sacrifices for the third world?

Obviously, Bush came to the conclusion, after 9/11, that improving the lot of the third world, especially removing tyrannies, would be better not only for the third world but also for the world in general and hence for America, in the medium- to long-run. Whether or not Bush is CORRECT in this conclusion, I do not know. Nobody, I am afraid, actually knows for sure. But it is revolutionary, and in fact, it's the same conclusion often advocated by the left in the past!

Alas, from the "progressive" point of view, there's a fly in the ointment: Bush is ACTUALLY trying to make this vision a reality, and, therefore, is demanding from Americans ACTUAL sacrifices. This is unacceptable. The "progressive" guys are wonderful, really, when it comes to talking about all the sacrifices Americans should make for the third world--as long as they are perfectly sure nobody would demand these counterfactual sacrifices would actually occur in real life. To wish upon a star that Americans would all together make enormous sacrifices in blood and money to save the world is just fine; it makes one FEEL really good. But to actually make a sacrifice? What, you mean in REALY LIFE? Without anybody telling you how wonderful you are for wanting to do it? Forgheddaboudit.

The same is true with the real sacrifice--that of blood. The progressive are all at arms about the fact that, allegedly, the armed forces are employing mostly "ill-educated, poor people of color" in a cynical use of the undesirable as cannon fodder. Well, then, what did you say, sir? Should we have a draft, so that all--including those who are not poor or uneducated--would do their share equally? GOD FORBID!!!! That might mean ME!!!!!! Nonononono, I was only talking about how unfair it is that the armed forces uses poor black uneducated people! I didn't actualy mean to do anything about it--that might mean middle-class white educated people like myself could get drafted! Are you nuts???

In other words, one reason the "progressives" hate Bush is that he exposes their hypocracy. Their reactions show, forcefully, that all their talk about caring about the rest of the world was just that--talk--while it is the evil capitalist neo-con imperialist racists (TM) who actually are doing something about the world.

[Bruce]

By golly, I really am psychic. My predictions:

Originally posted by Bruce
Considering the typical debating approach used on this forum, I will immediately be asked, "Oh, come on, you don't honestly believe that America and other countries involved in the war will honestly pay for everything." To which I will reply: I'm as unwilling to debate political "beliefs" as I am with religious "beliefs". To which then I will be labeled a coward, torture advocate, etc. Then the debate will be railroaded into a detail economics discussion, which I have absolutely no expertise or interest in.

The results:
Originally posted by Peskanov

Do you believe that USA will cover all the cost of the reconstruction?
What do you think of using exclusively USA and European companys for the reconstruction? Do you think it's good for Iraq?

I should charge money.

Originally posted by Peskanov

- A budget detailing the cost of rebuilding Iraq


No, I've already addressed this. It is a multi-tiered budget proposal. One of the proposals suggests fully funding the reconstruction. This is not evidence. Evidence is facts, not theories. Were it an actual budget, and not a proposal, then it would count as evidence.

Originally posted by Peskanov

- Reports of Iraq's government cutting public expenditures to pay reconstruction. I googled this link searching for measures taken by Iraq's govenrment related
to public money. Any problem with that?


Absolutely! This is scam money from Oil for Food that was supposed to go towards food, not towards the manufacture of weapons and the subsidation of public expenditures. I already addressed that. Does this not bother you at all, or does it only bother you when the US government is involved in international scams and misappropriates funds? Sorry, am I rambling incoherently for you again?

Originally posted by Peskanov
Do you believe that USA will cover all the cost of the reconstruction?

Just to reitereate, I refuse to seriously debate beliefs. I don't pretend to know the intentions of my government. My first reply to the OP complimented bigred for providing factual evidence that money is being spent by the US to rebuild Iraq, something that most Americans don't hear about thanks to our liberally biased media.

This whole debate started with:

Originally posted by Peskanov
Mmmm...are any of you expecting general aproval?
It's seems you forget all that was previously destroyed by selective bombing, especially the power net, to despair of all Iraqis.
So the USA bomb it, and then rebuild it, and what do you expect? A hooray?
And all that reconstruction is not going to be free for the Iraqians. Anybody thinking otherwise is naive...

You threw the first punch, so to speak, so stop your crying about being insulted.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The same is true with the real sacrifice--that of blood. The progressive are all at arms about the fact that, allegedly, the armed forces are employing mostly "ill-educated, poor people of color" in a cynical use of the undesirable as cannon fodder. Well, then, what did you say, sir? Should we have a draft, so that all--including those who are not poor or uneducated--would do their share equally? GOD FORBID!!!! That might mean ME!!!!!! Nonononono, I was only talking about how unfair it is that the armed forces uses poor black uneducated people! I didn't actualy mean to do anything about it--that might mean middle-class white educated people like myself could get drafted! Are you nuts???


Well said, you filthy, Bush supporting troll. :D :g1: :golf:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Bruce
Well said, you filthy, Bush supporting troll. :D :g1: :golf:

I deny "filthy".

(Then again, Kipling said it best long ago: "you make a'mock of uniform that guard you when you sleep".)

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I deny "filthy".

Bah, in a day in age where "bad" means "good", and "phat" is a compliment, "filthy" now means "well spoken and truthful." ;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
Bruce,

Im all up for a cordial debate. But when you toss somthing out like the above, dont be surprised when it angries up the blood. I tend to get a tad offened when being accused of be a hateful person on par with uber-racists.

Really, Timmy? And what do you call this:

"I hate blacks and everything they stand for, but I admire their athletic skill and ability to dance."

Just a little substitution, in the style of AUP (uber-liberal) to demonstrate a point. The head of the friggin' DNC said as much about conservatives:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."

....and suddenly everything's peachy, right? No harm, no foul.

I see plenty of evidence that the left, both organized and casual, is so embroiled with venom, hatred and blind stupidity that I don't see Bruce's remark as any more "racist" cough*redherring*cough* than Dean's remark. And Bruce isn't the one writing a party platform.

Can anyone remember a time when people still used "red state" and "blue state" in everyday language more than four months after the election?

Can anyone remember such a media mobilization to paint a president as "evil"? I mean, even Nixon got a fairer shake.

Can anyone remember so many slings and arrows from the loving, compassionate, inclusive guardians of freedom known as the American left?

Get over youself, Timmy, and show me one - just ONE - kind, compassionate, supportive remark by any democrat in Washington. The left is full of hate, but because you're so wrapped up in being correct about everything you can't even see it. I guess the friggin' ulcer fairy must've put those there, because you sure never let anything get to you, right?

Bottom line: bitch all you want but don't tell me you're singing opera. And by all means carry on, I look forward to saluting President Rice someday while Hillary tries to out-do Kerry's constipated expression on inauguration day.

Ah, I feel better. How come you guys never do?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Bruce
Bah, in a day in age where "bad" means "good", and "phat" is a compliment, "filthy" now means "well spoken and truthful." ;)

Yeah, but in this hizzy it's "philthy." Peace out, yo.

[Peskanov]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Troll!

:D

See, I am reasonable. We are already agreeing in something.

[Peskanov]

Bruce,

I should charge money.

Yeah, you predicted you were going to be asked some relevant and honest questions. I know, I read your tirade.
Congratulations for your predictions. You are still welcome to answer the questions also.

No, I've already addressed this. It is a multi-tiered budget proposal. One of the proposals suggests fully funding the reconstruction. This is not evidence. Evidence is facts, not theories. Were it an actual budget, and not a proposal, then it would count as evidence.

Well, I reckon I probably missed the correct word.I don't know if budget is the fitting one, what I meant is that the report details the cost of rebuilding Iraq, and looks like info from a credible source.
The point, which I thinked would be obvious by itselt is that the proposed 18bn are only a small part of the cost, and that the proposals to cover the bulk of it mostly rest on loans.
My english is poor, but I suspect you don't want to get the point anyway. Do you?

Absolutely! This is scam money from Oil for Food that was supposed to go towards food, not towards the manufacture of weapons and the subsidation of public expenditures. I already addressed that.

I see you insist in your strange argument.
1- Oil come from Iraq's ground and is sold in foreign countries.
2 - A part of the money is scammed by some corrupt authorities.
3 - The rest is distributed as subsidies to a needing population.
4 - The new government cut the subsidies to afford reconstruction cost.
Tell me Bruce, what's the relation between 2 and 3,4. I don't see any, and you have not offered any. Or maybe you think the population must be punished for ONU's sins?

Does this not bother you at all, or does it only bother you when the US government is involved in international scams and misappropriates funds? Sorry, am I rambling incoherently for you again?

Yes, totally rambling. You are atacking a strawman and you know it. I refused to address this point because it was in half of an emotional tirade and I could care less.
Does scams bother me? Yes.
Does cutting public subsidies to use these funds in reconstruction means that Iraqis are paying for the war. Hell, YES.


And all that reconstruction is not going to be free for the Iraqians. Anybody thinking otherwise is naive...

You threw the first punch, so to speak, so stop your crying about being insulted.

I stand behind that afirmation, and guess what? I don't even think you believe USA will pay the cost of all Iraq's destruction.
History has shown who pays the broken glasses.

Have you ever tried to keep the actions of your country separated from your opinions? Man, I did it a lot of years ago and it feels good. You should try from time to time.

[Skeptic]

Really, Timmy? And what do you call this:

"I hate blacks and everything they stand for, but I admire their athletic skill and ability to dance."

Well, I dunno. This seems to be the democratic party's position nowadays--with whatshisname, the ex-KKK member, joining Ms. Boxer in objecting to "Condi" Rice's nomination by Bush. People like that should know their place... and besides, isn't Bush over quota already?

(By the way, has there ever been a president so obviously NOT racist as Bush is? His nominations seems to be completely color-blind. This is not to say other presidents with fewer minorities in cabinet were racist, of course; just that with Bush, his lack of racism is the most obvious.)

Ah, today's democratic party--when ex-KKK members oppose the nomination of black women to cabinet, and Ted "Chappaquidik" Kennedy explains to all in the senate about the horrors of water torture.

But they CARE.

The head of the friggin' DNC said as much about conservatives:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."

"We all know that we should love our fellow man, and we all know that there are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that!"--Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week".

I see plenty of evidence that the left, both organized and casual, is so embroiled with venom, hatred and blind stupidity that I don't see Bruce's remark as any more "racist" cough*redherring*cough* than Dean's remark. And Bruce isn't the one writing a party platform.

In today's political climate, as "The Fool" and AUP clearly show, "racist!" = "I disagree with you on that", or, "you didn't say what I wanted you to say."

Can anyone remember such a media mobilization to paint a president as "evil"? I mean, even Nixon got a fairer shake.

The left seems to operate on the principle that feeling makes it so: that is, if they FEEL that something is so, really, really, strongly, then it IS so.

The most common "truth" that "everybody knows" of this sort is that Bush is stupid. I had quite a few conversations with "open-minded progressives" which went something like this:

--"Bush is stupid."

--"How do you know?"

--"Well, just LOOK at his IDIOTIC face!"

--"You mean, you figured out Bush is stupid the same way some people just LOOK at black people and SEE how mentally defective they are?"

--"No, I mean, look at this: he has the same expression as a CHIMP!"

--"We all do. Humans and chimps have very close facial expressions. This is natural, us being the two closest species. If we photographed you smiling and put it next to a chimp smiling, you too would look similar. It's hardly a surprise that Bush, the most often photographed man on the planet with all probability, can be 'matched' with chimps this way."

--"No, I mean, look at his RECORD as a young man!"

--"What record? He was a fighter pilot and a graduate of Yale."

--"But, but, he only got the pilot job due to his father!"

--"Really? If I were a father who really HAD an idiot son, just about the last job I would try and get him would be that of a pilot, where you could easily get yourself killed by making a dumb mistake. Wouldn't I prefer to get him a desk job as a general's assistant in the Pentagon, or something?"

--"Nevermind! He only got to Yale because of family influence! It's not proof of anything!"

--"Perhaps not; but it certainly isn't proof he IS stupid, is it not? After all, the two candidates he faced hardly fared any better: Al Gore, a Harvrad graduate whose father just HAPPENED to be a senator and Harvard Alum? Or Kerry, who came from an extremely influential family as well and went to all those top-rate boarding schools on his dad's dime? If this doesn't prove they are stupid (and it doesn't), it hardly proves Bush is."

--"But what about all his 'Bushisms'?"

--"What about them? When a politician makes hundreds and thousands of speeches, of course he will be caught with silly mistakes. In any case, when Bush makes a grammatical mistake, usually, it is still rather obvious what he meant to say. Compare that to Kerry or Gore--perfect grammar, but a message so 'nuanced' nobody actually knows what their position is or what they will do."

--"But their nuance shows they are more intelligent than Bush!"

--"Does it? For those who are so wonderfully intelligent, they seem to forget that the main purpose of political speeches is to make an understandable, important point, not to show off one's immense learning and intelligence by finding 'nuance' everywhere. Did it occur to you that Bush is quite possibly just as aware of the comlexities of the situation as Gore and Kerry are--but, unlike them, he understand politics better?"

--"Well, he should show he has the intelligence by giving at least one speech WITH nuance!"

--"He sometimes does. But every time Bush DOES give a speech with nuances and cavets, the same people who fall over themselves praising Kerry and Gore merely say that he was 'unclear', or that his speech showed 'hesitation', or that he seemed 'confused' and 'unsure of himself', and so on."

--"Are you saying there is bias in the reporting?"

--"Well, possibly. Consider, for instance, Bush's famous 'slip' of calling the people of Greece 'Grecians'. Everybody laughed at the 'idiot' Bush. Well, in fact, Grecians IS a legitimate name for the people of Greece--Alexander Pope calls them just that in his translation of the Iliad, for example. None of those who so high-handedly dismissed his use of the term were enough of a scholar to know that, so they thought it is a simple mistake."

--"You aren't suggesting Bush actually READ Pope, do you???"

--"I don't see why that's such an impossiblity."

--"Becuase he's an idiot!"

--"No, that's what you're trying to PROVE. You are using circular reasoning: when Bush used the word 'Grecians', it was 'proof' that he is an idiot; and he couldn't possibly have gotten the word from Pope, since he is an idiot so he hadn't read him. In other words, he's an idiot because he mistakenly used a word, and it IS a mistake in the first place because he IS an idiot. See the problem?"

--"Yeah yeah yeah, but (snort), COME ON! EVERYBODY knows Bush didn't read Pope!"

--"Actually, no. Nobody knows that (except perhaps his close friends who know about his reading habit in detail.) That's just another unfounded assumption about him. But, more to the point, if KERRY had made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE, how much do you want to bet that the same people using it as proof Bush is an idiot would use it as proof of Kerry's maginificent erudition, using a wonderful word, 'Grecians', found only in Pope and other earlier writers--unlike that vulgar 'Greeks', the common word only idiots like Bush would use?"

--"Er... RACIST!"

You just can't win. Bush is an idiot, period--becuase they feel that way.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Really, Timmy? And what do you call this:

"I hate blacks and everything they stand for, but I admire their athletic skill and ability to dance."

Well, I dunno. This seems to be the democratic party's position nowadays--with whatshisname, the ex-KKK member, joining Ms. Boxer in objecting to "Condi" Rice's nomination by Bush. People like that should know their place... and besides, isn't Bush over quota already?

(By the way, has there ever been a president so obviously NOT racist as Bush is? His nominations seems to be completely color-blind. This is not to say other presidents with fewer minorities in cabinet were racist, of course; just that with Bush, his lack of racism is the most obvious.)

Ah, today's democratic party--when ex-KKK members oppose the nomination of black women to cabinet, and Ted "Chappaquidik" Kennedy explains to all in the senate about the horrors of water torture.

But they CARE.

The head of the friggin' DNC said as much about conservatives:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."

"We all know that we should love our fellow man, and we all know that there are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that!"--Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week".

I see plenty of evidence that the left, both organized and casual, is so embroiled with venom, hatred and blind stupidity that I don't see Bruce's remark as any more "racist" cough*redherring*cough* than Dean's remark. And Bruce isn't the one writing a party platform.

In today's political climate, as "The Fool" and AUP clearly show, "racist!" = "I disagree with you on that", or, "you didn't say what I wanted you to say."

Can anyone remember such a media mobilization to paint a president as "evil"? I mean, even Nixon got a fairer shake.

The left seems to operate on the principle that feeling makes it so: that is, if they FEEL that something is so, really, really, strongly, then it IS so.

The most common "truth" that "everybody knows" of this sort is that Bush is stupid. I had quite a few conversations with "open-minded progressives" which went something like this:

--"Bush is stupid."

--"How do you know?"

--"Well, just LOOK at his IDIOTIC face!"

--"You mean, you figured out Bush is stupid the same way some people just LOOK at black people and SEE how mentally defective they are?"

--"No, I mean, look at this: he has the same expression as a CHIMP!"

--"We all do. Humans and chimps have very close facial expressions. This is natural, us being the two closest species. If we photographed you smiling and put it next to a chimp smiling, you too would look similar. It's hardly a surprise that Bush, the most often photographed man on the planet with all probability, can be 'matched' with chimps this way."

--"No, I mean, look at his RECORD as a young man!"

--"What record? He was a fighter pilot and a graduate of Yale."

--"But, but, he only got the pilot job due to his father!"

--"Really? If I were a father who really HAD an idiot son, just about the last job I would try and get him would be that of a pilot, where you could easily get yourself killed by making a dumb mistake. Wouldn't I prefer to get him a desk job as a general's assistant in the Pentagon, or something?"

--"Nevermind! He only got to Yale because of family influence! It's not proof of anything!"

--"Perhaps not; but it certainly isn't proof he IS stupid, is it not? After all, the two candidates he faced hardly fared any better: Al Gore, a Harvrad graduate whose father just HAPPENED to be a senator and Harvard Alum? Or Kerry, who came from an extremely influential family as well and went to all those top-rate boarding schools on his dad's dime? If this doesn't prove they are stupid (and it doesn't), it hardly proves Bush is."

--"But what about all his 'Bushisms'?"

--"What about them? When a politician makes hundreds and thousands of speeches, of course he will be caught with silly mistakes. In any case, when Bush makes a grammatical mistake, usually, it is still rather obvious what he meant to say. Compare that to Kerry or Gore--perfect grammar, but a message so 'nuanced' nobody actually knows what their position is or what they will do."

--"But their nuance shows they are more intelligent than Bush!"

--"Does it? For those who are so wonderfully intelligent, they seem to forget that the main purpose of political speeches is to make an understandable, important point, not to show off one's immense learning and intelligence by finding 'nuance' everywhere. Did it occur to you that Bush is quite possibly just as aware of the comlexities of the situation as Gore and Kerry are--but, unlike them, he understand politics better?"

--"Well, he should show he has the intelligence by giving at least one speech WITH nuance!"

--"He sometimes does. But every time Bush DOES give a speech with nuances and cavets, the same people who fall over themselves praising Kerry and Gore merely say that he was 'unclear', or that his speech showed 'hesitation', or that he seemed 'confused' and 'unsure of himself', and so on."

--"Are you saying there is bias in the reporting?"

--"Well, possibly. Consider, for instance, Bush's famous 'slip' of calling the people of Greece 'Grecians'. Everybody laughed at the 'idiot' Bush. Well, in fact, Grecians IS a legitimate name for the people of Greece--Alexander Pope calls them just that in his translation of the Iliad, for example. None of those who so high-handedly dismissed his use of the term were enough of a scholar to know that, so they thought it is a simple mistake."

--"You aren't suggesting Bush actually READ Pope, do you???"

--"I don't see why that's such an impossiblity."

--"Becuase he's an idiot!"

--"No, that's what you're trying to PROVE. You are using circular reasoning: when Bush used the word 'Grecians', it was 'proof' that he is an idiot; and he couldn't possibly have gotten the word from Pope, since he is an idiot so he hadn't read him. In other words, he's an idiot because he mistakenly used a word, and it IS a mistake in the first place because he IS an idiot. See the problem?"

--"Yeah yeah yeah, but (snort), COME ON! EVERYBODY knows Bush didn't read Pope!"

--"Actually, no. Nobody knows that (except perhaps his close friends who know about his reading habit in detail.) That's just another unfounded assumption about him. But, more to the point, if KERRY had made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE, how much do you want to bet that the same people using it as proof Bush is an idiot would use it as proof of Kerry's maginificent erudition, using a wonderful word, 'Grecians', found only in Pope and other earlier writers--unlike that vulgar 'Greeks', the common word only idiots like Bush would use?"

--"Er... RACIST!"

You just can't win. Bush is an idiot, period--becuase they feel that way.

Yes, in fact the argument will go that way if you only choose people that make poor arguments. Classic straw man, surely you recognize it?

Most rational people that think Bush is an idiot feel that way because they strongly disagree with his leadership decisions, and his apparent tendency to disregard expert advice in favor of his own platform. Sure, some people make fun of him because he looks like a chimp, just like some people made fun of Kerry because he looked like Lurch. Some people are childish.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Really, Timmy? And what do you call this:

"I hate blacks and everything they stand for, but I admire their athletic skill and ability to dance."

Well, I dunno. This seems to be the democratic party's position nowadays--with whatshisname, the ex-KKK member, joining Ms. Boxer in objecting to "Condi" Rice's nomination by Bush. People like that should know their place... and besides, isn't Bush over quota already?

(By the way, has there ever been a president so obviously NOT racist as Bush is? His nominations seems to be completely color-blind. This is not to say other presidents with fewer minorities in cabinet were racist, of course; just that with Bush, his lack of racism is the most obvious.)

Ah, today's democratic party--when ex-KKK members oppose the nomination of black women to cabinet, and Ted "Chappaquidik" Kennedy explains to all in the senate about the horrors of water torture.

But they CARE.

The head of the friggin' DNC said as much about conservatives:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."

"We all know that we should love our fellow man, and we all know that there are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that!"--Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week".

I see plenty of evidence that the left, both organized and casual, is so embroiled with venom, hatred and blind stupidity that I don't see Bruce's remark as any more "racist" cough*redherring*cough* than Dean's remark. And Bruce isn't the one writing a party platform.

In today's political climate, as "The Fool" and AUP clearly show, "racist!" = "I disagree with you on that", or, "you didn't say what I wanted you to say."

Can anyone remember such a media mobilization to paint a president as "evil"? I mean, even Nixon got a fairer shake.

The left seems to operate on the principle that feeling makes it so: that is, if they FEEL that something is so, really, really, strongly, then it IS so.

The most common "truth" that "everybody knows" of this sort is that Bush is stupid. I had quite a few conversations with "open-minded progressives" which went something like this:

--"Bush is stupid."

--"How do you know?"

--"Well, just LOOK at his IDIOTIC face!"

--"You mean, you figured out Bush is stupid the same way some people just LOOK at black people and SEE how mentally defective they are?"

--"No, I mean, look at this: he has the same expression as a CHIMP!"

--"We all do. Humans and chimps have very close facial expressions. This is natural, us being the two closest species. If we photographed you smiling and put it next to a chimp smiling, you too would look similar. It's hardly a surprise that Bush, the most often photographed man on the planet with all probability, can be 'matched' with chimps this way."

--"No, I mean, look at his RECORD as a young man!"

--"What record? He was a fighter pilot and a graduate of Yale."

--"But, but, he only got the pilot job due to his father!"

--"Really? If I were a father who really HAD an idiot son, just about the last job I would try and get him would be that of a pilot, where you could easily get yourself killed by making a dumb mistake. Wouldn't I prefer to get him a desk job as a general's assistant in the Pentagon, or something?"

--"Nevermind! He only got to Yale because of family influence! It's not proof of anything!"

--"Perhaps not; but it certainly isn't proof he IS stupid, is it not? After all, the two candidates he faced hardly fared any better: Al Gore, a Harvrad graduate whose father just HAPPENED to be a senator and Harvard Alum? Or Kerry, who came from an extremely influential family as well and went to all those top-rate boarding schools on his dad's dime? If this doesn't prove they are stupid (and it doesn't), it hardly proves Bush is."

--"But what about all his 'Bushisms'?"

--"What about them? When a politician makes hundreds and thousands of speeches, of course he will be caught with silly mistakes. In any case, when Bush makes a grammatical mistake, usually, it is still rather obvious what he meant to say. Compare that to Kerry or Gore--perfect grammar, but a message so 'nuanced' nobody actually knows what their position is or what they will do."

--"But their nuance shows they are more intelligent than Bush!"

--"Does it? For those who are so wonderfully intelligent, they seem to forget that the main purpose of political speeches is to make an understandable, important point, not to show off one's immense learning and intelligence by finding 'nuance' everywhere. Did it occur to you that Bush is quite possibly just as aware of the comlexities of the situation as Gore and Kerry are--but, unlike them, he understand politics better?"

--"Well, he should show he has the intelligence by giving at least one speech WITH nuance!"

--"He sometimes does. But every time Bush DOES give a speech with nuances and cavets, the same people who fall over themselves praising Kerry and Gore merely say that he was 'unclear', or that his speech showed 'hesitation', or that he seemed 'confused' and 'unsure of himself', and so on."

--"Are you saying there is bias in the reporting?"

--"Well, possibly. Consider, for instance, Bush's famous 'slip' of calling the people of Greece 'Grecians'. Everybody laughed at the 'idiot' Bush. Well, in fact, Grecians IS a legitimate name for the people of Greece--Alexander Pope calls them just that in his translation of the Iliad, for example. None of those who so high-handedly dismissed his use of the term were enough of a scholar to know that, so they thought it is a simple mistake."

--"You aren't suggesting Bush actually READ Pope, do you???"

--"I don't see why that's such an impossiblity."

--"Becuase he's an idiot!"

--"No, that's what you're trying to PROVE. You are using circular reasoning: when Bush used the word 'Grecians', it was 'proof' that he is an idiot; and he couldn't possibly have gotten the word from Pope, since he is an idiot so he hadn't read him. In other words, he's an idiot because he mistakenly used a word, and it IS a mistake in the first place because he IS an idiot. See the problem?"

--"Yeah yeah yeah, but (snort), COME ON! EVERYBODY knows Bush didn't read Pope!"

--"Actually, no. Nobody knows that (except perhaps his close friends who know about his reading habit in detail.) That's just another unfounded assumption about him. But, more to the point, if KERRY had made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE, how much do you want to bet that the same people using it as proof Bush is an idiot would use it as proof of Kerry's maginificent erudition, using a wonderful word, 'Grecians', found only in Pope and other earlier writers--unlike that vulgar 'Greeks', the common word only idiots like Bush would use?"

--"Er... RACIST!"

You just can't win. Bush is an idiot, period--becuase they feel that way.

Does it annoy you when someone quotes your entire post just to make a point that is not only weak, but actually lends support to your arguement?

I know I do. ;)

[Skeptic]

Yes, in fact the argument will go that way if you only choose people that make poor arguments. Classic straw man, surely you recognize it?

Quite true, but you're missing the point. What I said was that I had many such conversations. The point is not that no better argument COULD be made against Bush's views; I am not claiming that is the case. The point is, rather, that precisely THESE WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS--Bush is an idiot because he "looks like a chimp" or the equivalent--are the arguments I so often hear.

It is not a strawman fallacy since I am, in fact, quoting what the people I argue with about Bush say. It is only a strawman if somebody actually made a better arument but I instead put up a bad argument and pretended it is theirs. But I am merely reporting what arguments I actually hear; it's not my fault they are worthless.

What I am making is, in reality, a sociological point: that the "herd of independent minds" in the progressive camp rarely DO offer anything better than worthless non-arguments to support thier conclusion that "Bush is an idiot". Obviously, this shows that it is an emotional conclusion, reached for irrational reasons, and that the "proof" came later.

"Most" people who think Bush is an idiot do so for "rational" reason? Not in my experience! In fact, in my experience, the exact opposite is true. Just look at this forum: for every poster like yourself who dislikes Bush or the war and gives reasons for it in a rational fashion, there are a dozen "A Unique Person" or "The Fool"-like posters whose "arguments" against Bush is, in effect, a). Everything he does is wrong, b). He is an idiot because I say so, c). Shut up and agree with me, you RACIST!!! While this forum is hardly a valid statistical sample, in my experience this seems to be more or less the real-life proportion between Bush-haters in "meat-space", as well.

My theory about why the arguments of such (over-)educated people as many of the Bush-haters are so worthless intellectually is that they (the arguments) don't pass any "darwinian" test. In my experience, most of those who make these arguments are "progressive" who are really big on "reaching out to the other"--but they restrict their "reaching out" to people of a different religion or race, never (or hardly ever) to those with a different political persuasion. When all your friend agree with you that Bush is an idiot from the start, then an argument such as "he looks like a chimp!" will not be challanged; it will only be supported by knowing smiles and nodding agreements. Is it any wonder that, in effect, any sort of nonsense "proof" of Bush's "stupidity" is retained and repeatedly regurgirated without a thought under such conditions?

Most rational people that think Bush is an idiot feel that way because they strongly disagree with his leadership decisions,

Yes, but that is no proof of him being an idiot. The obvious other possiblity--that they, with no experience whatever in politics, leadership, world affairs, armed forces, or any other relevant field--are simply wrong about how to run te country and that Bush is right, never occurs to them. Bush is wrong is taken as dogma; but in reality, "Bush disagrees with my views, so he is an idiot" is a non sequitor. YOU might be the idiot. Or, more likely, neither of you are the idiot, but you simply have a disagremeent.

and his apparent tendency to disregard expert advice in favor of his own platform.

So what? This, too, is no proof of being an idiot. Experience shows quite well that expert advice is no more reliable, in many cases, than layman's knowledge--certainly not in complex situations that have no perfect solution. Reagan, for instance, was asolutely right about the USSR and all the Sovietologists were wrong. Lincoln ran the civil war in a way that strongly disagreed with most of his expert military advisors; they were wrong and he was right. There are many other cases.

Besides, what we have here is "reporters' bias": if Bush agrees with 90% of what experts tell him and disagrees with 10%, then those 10% would be publicized and gleefully disseminated in the media, leading to the false conclusion that he "disregards expert advice". You don't, after all, ever see headlines saying, "Bush agrees with panel, will do as it says". Does this mean this never happens? Of course not. It's just not considered newsworthy by those who think Bush is an idiot.

Sure, some people make fun of him because he looks like a chimp, just like some people made fun of Kerry because he looked like Lurch. Some people are childish.

Agreed. But the difference is, again, HOW MANY are like that. You say it is "some"; I say it is "most".

[gnome]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Quite true, but you're missing the point. What I said was that I had many such conversations. The point is not that no better argument COULD be made against Bush's views; I am not claiming that is the case. The point is, rather, that precisely THESE WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS--Bush is an idiot because he "looks like a chimp" or the equivalent--are the arguments I so often hear.

It is not a strawman fallacy since I am, in fact, quoting what the people I argue with about Bush say. It is only a strawman if somebody actually made a better arument but I instead put up a bad argument and pretended it is theirs. But I am merely reporting what arguments I actually hear; it's not my fault they are worthless.

All right. So is it an amalgam, or does the argument typically carry on like that all the way through?

Most rational people that think Bush is an idiot feel that way because they strongly disagree with his leadership decisions,

Yes, but that is no proof of him being an idiot. The obvious other possiblity--that they, with no experience whatever in politics, leadership, world affairs, armed forces, or any other relevant field--are simply wrong about how to run te country and that Bush is right, never occurs to them. Bush is wrong is taken as dogma; but in reality, "Bush disagrees with my views, so he is an idiot" is a non sequitor. YOU might be the idiot. Or, more likely, neither of you are the idiot, but you simply have a disagremeent.

Of course these are possibilities. But by what other standard are we to judge his competence or intelligence? I agree we should not go by his looks or misstatements. Why not his actions and words (the ones he meant to say)...?

and his apparent tendency to disregard expert advice in favor of his own platform.

So what? This, too, is no proof of being an idiot. Experience shows quite well that expert advice is no more reliable, in many cases, than layman's knowledge--certainly not in complex situations that have no perfect solution. Reagan, for instance, was asolutely right about the USSR and all the Sovietologists were wrong. Lincoln ran the civil war in a way that strongly disagreed with most of his expert military advisors; they were wrong and he was right. There are many other cases.

Besides, what we have here is "reporters' bias": if Bush agrees with 90% of what experts tell him and disagrees with 10%, then those 10% would be publicized and gleefully disseminated in the media, leading to the false conclusion that he "disregards expert advice". You don't, after all, ever see headlines saying, "Bush agrees with panel, will do as it says". Does this mean this never happens? Of course not. It's just not considered newsworthy by those who think Bush is an idiot.

For me it's a question of who he's listening to instead. If a President disregards expert opinion in favor of a decision made through his own research and assessment, well, that's his job sometimes. On the other hand, I tend to worry when the experts are disregarded in favor of lobbyists arguing their own interest, not the country's. "Proof" is a rough concept here, because it's a statement of opinion. "Proving" he is an idiot would require measuring his IQ, if one even assumes that those are valid, and comparing it to the clinical standard.

Sure, some people make fun of him because he looks like a chimp, just like some people made fun of Kerry because he looked like Lurch. Some people are childish.

Agreed. But the difference is, again, HOW MANY are like that. You say it is "some"; I say it is "most".

Your argument is that the left has more name-callers and childish cheap shots than the right? I'm curious how you draw that conclusion.

On Reagan vs. Sovietologists, that is probably worthy of its own thread. I would want to know on which specific points they disagreed before assessing who was right.

[Skeptic]

All right. So is it an amalgam, or does the argument typically carry on like that all the way through?

Depends. Obviously I was giving a "paradigmatic" example, not an actual conversation with someone in particular. In rare instances, I have had conversations that were very similar to this (although perhaps not in exact order--after all this laundry-list of "Bush is stupid" reasons doesn't have any logical structure to it).

More usual, however, a conversation with a Bush-hating guy is shorter in two senses: first, it only involves two or three of the "proofs" Bush is stupid, and second, my own replies are cut off petulantly by them as soon as the main idea becomes clear, the current "proof" simply forgotten, and the next one trotted out victoriously. Then, after three or four "proofs" are shot down in this manner, the Bush-hater begins to realize I am not a misguided soul, to be saved from conservatism with his amazing proofs of Bush's stupidity, but REALLY don't think Bush is stupid. Then they usually blow their top, call me a "racist" or "conservative", and refuse to speak to me any more.

Perhaps the best analogy is to believers in ghosts (or UFOs, whatever): they have a laundry-list of sound-bite "proofs", and if one of them is challanged, they just cut the interlocutor off and move on to the next one. If, repeating the process a few times, their companion is not convinced, then that is merely proof that they are "skeptics" or "cynics" or have a "restricted materialistic worldview", etc., and that there's no point speaking to them anymore.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Bruce
Regardless of the motiviation, do you deny that Iraqis have been saved?

I'm guessing you're referring to those Iraqis who have not yet been killed.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by RandFan
You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I can respect it. I assume you refuse to accept mine.

The final chapter has not been written but it was, IMO, worth it. I think we will succeed however no venture is guaranteed. Saddam was a genocidal, homicidal maniac who oppressed his people. He cut the arms and ears off of young men. Threw innocent people in prison and made his people live not only in fear but more importantly with out hope. His only likely successor was one of two degenerate and sadistic pieces of *****.

There is now hope. Saddam and the two raping sons are gone. I'm saddened at the loss of life. I'm happy that we were able and willing to do something this time. I doubt the reasons are simplistic. I doubt VERY much that Bush knew absolutely anything. I'm VERY certain that Bush believed that Saddam was a very real threat.

When I saw the Iraqi's vote I wondered if I was in my shoes if anyone would care enough if I was in the position they were before Saddam was overthrown.

I respect your opinion Billy. It seems that a number of people on this forum believe that there can be no respect for people who disagree with them. Sad.

I appreciate your courtesy. Yes, I do respect your opinion and, yes, it would certainly be much better for all concerned if things go well now that we are committed. But I think the outcome is far from certain. Daily reports confirm that in the overall we are far from any genuine victory. And I think the precedent set by this action and the bald faced deceit used to justify it are truly frightening. And consider the unfathomable depth of the hatred fueled by the Iraq war in the Islamic world. I think we will be haunted by the reprecussions for many, many years.

[csense]

Originally posted by billydkid
Daily reports confirm that in the overall we are far from any genuine victory.


On the contrary, we have already acheived one of our primary goals: fundamental sociological change, which is the primary philosophical reason we are there.

Terrorism, and all it's related problems will never, ever, go away, unless there is a fundamental cultural/sociological change in either our society, or theirs. Like it or not, it's the rock bottom truth. Politics, foreign policy, and the like, are just corrollaries, and however they manifest, are just symptoms of a much deeper problem.

Now, knowing this, and getting back to my point, ask yourself this: if you wanted to make change within this culture or society, and you wanted access to the largest segment of the population that could be instrumental or effective in acheiving this....who would you target?

The answer is, the female population. Make no mistake that virtually every woman in the Muslim world is watching Iraq very closely, and if Iraqi women can vote, then why can't I.....

[Bruce]

Originally posted by billydkid
I'm guessing you're referring to those Iraqis who have not yet been killed.

No, I'm referring to the Iraqis that have now seen the light of Christ.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, in fact the argument will go that way if you only choose people that make poor arguments. Classic straw man, surely you recognize it?

Quite true, but you're missing the point. What I said was that I had many such conversations. The point is not that no better argument COULD be made against Bush's views; I am not claiming that is the case. The point is, rather, that precisely THESE WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS--Bush is an idiot because he "looks like a chimp" or the equivalent--are the arguments I so often hear.


I have never referred to Bush as a "Chimp", Bush or Dubya. You just make this stuff up as you go along.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have never referred to Bush as a "Chimp", Bush or Dubya. You just make this stuff up as you go along.

You got to love AUP...

ME: "I often have had conversations with irrational Bush haters. They call Bush a chimp..."

AUP: "I never called Bush a chimp, you liar!"

Compare with:

ME: "For some reason, sexually impotent men take out their frustration on me. They call me a cynic..."

AUP: "I never called you a cynic, you liar!"

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Elind
That's a silly comment. Less dangerous for who? The tens or hundreds of thousands he (they) killed, or for those who did the killing? The problem is YOU were not paying much attention or expressing your outrage then.

As to "at least at the moment", you should get some treatment for that short term vision you have. Perhaps some new specs?

Oh please. Let me ask you somthing. Wheres your outrage over Bush hobnobbing with dictator........excuse me Pakistani "President" Musuraff at the whitehouse? Or is it ok now cause hes doing our bidding. But ina few years when hes a pain in the ass it'll be perfectly fine to paint him as the worlds worst villian.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
Oh please. Let me ask you somthing. Wheres your outrage over Bush hobnobbing with dictator........excuse me Pakistani "President" Musuraff at the whitehouse? Or is it ok now cause hes doing our bidding. But ina few years when hes a pain in the ass it'll be perfectly fine to paint him as the worlds worst villian.

Completely fair and appropriate. Think about that next time you suck up to a coworker whose cooperation you need.

How long have you been living on this planet, Timmy? You seem amazed by the simplest things.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by billydkid
I appreciate your courtesy. Yes, I do respect your opinion and, yes, it would certainly be much better for all concerned if things go well now that we are committed. But I think the outcome is far from certain. Daily reports confirm that in the overall we are far from any genuine victory. And I think the precedent set by this action and the bald faced deceit used to justify it are truly frightening. And consider the unfathomable depth of the hatred fueled by the Iraq war in the Islamic world. I think we will be haunted by the reprecussions for many, many years. Fair enough. Thanks BTW. I agree with you that much is riding on this.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jocko
Completely fair and appropriate. Think about that next time you suck up to a coworker whose cooperation you need.

How long have you been living on this planet, Timmy? You seem amazed by the simplest things.

Yes, the rise of facism.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The same is true with the real sacrifice--that of blood. The progressive are all at arms about the fact that, allegedly, the armed forces are employing mostly "ill-educated, poor people of color" in a cynical use of the undesirable as cannon fodder. Well, then, what did you say, sir? Should we have a draft, so that all--including those who are not poor or uneducated--would do their share equally? GOD FORBID!!!! That might mean ME!!!!!! Nonononono, I was only talking about how unfair it is that the armed forces uses poor black uneducated people! I didn't actualy mean to do anything about it--that might mean middle-class white educated people like myself could get drafted! Are you nuts???
We don't want an all-encompassing draft, but we do believe that pro-war decision makers and the pro-war citizenry that keeps them in office that treat army recruits as something of an unofficial untouchable class ought to be held more accountable for their beliefs.

[bigred]

Originally posted by Bruce
Blech. I hate the new political catagorizations. Conservative and Liberal brush strokes were too broad, so we need a bunch of smaller brush stokes. Can't each individual have their own individual opinions without being lumped into a political catagory? I've been accused of everything from monarchist to anarchist, radical liberal to radical conservative. It bores me. That's why I don't often get involved in political discussions. Bravo and amen.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You got to love AUP...

ME: "I often have had conversations with irrational Bush haters. They call Bush a chimp..."

AUP: "I never called Bush a chimp, you liar!"

Compare with:

ME: "For some reason, sexually impotent men take out their frustration on me. They call me a cynic..."

AUP: "I never called you a cynic, you liar!"

So I take it that when you specifically refer to me in a post, you are not actually referring to me?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jocko
Completely fair and appropriate. Think about that next time you suck up to a coworker whose cooperation you need.

How long have you been living on this planet, Timmy? You seem amazed by the simplest things.

I didnt say I disagreed with hobnobbing wh Musuraff. Its yet another neccessary evil to ensure the US's safety. But them agian i dont run around screaming "democracy for the iraqis at all costs!". Thatd be kinda hypocritical, dont ya think.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
I didnt say I disagreed with hobnobbing wh Musuraff. Its yet another neccessary evil to ensure the US's safety. But them agian i dont run around screaming "democracy for the iraqis at all costs!". Thatd be kinda hypocritical, dont ya think.

And why is that? You assume an awful lot there, Timmy.