Are Republicans trying to make the war more global?

[JJR]

Seriously - does anyone else believe that the current administration and their lackeys are trying to make this war last forever? Has anyone else paused and thought, "Hey - I think they are trying to make this a more global war . . . and will expand it until we are fighting all of the enemies of Isreal."

Obvioiusly it's all about the oil, but isn't it interesting that the largest group that lobbys Congress . . . is Jewish American? I don't want the sum of my existance to be about cleaning up Israel's garbage for them. That's not the team I want to be on, America doesn't have make itself this team . . . we have more important things to do.

I've posted a thread before about the cowardly Ernest Rady. He's just an example. I think I dislike him because he is the epitomy . . . the ultimate Republican. Old, always wearing a dark suit in sunny California . . . bony girl arms with old man stink.

Is our whole society geared around heaping rewards on someone like THAT . . . are our soldiers working for HIM with the ultimate goal to be to put in a puppet prime minister of Israel that we can control so we can suck all the oil from that dry piece of real estate, then bug off to Alaska once it's all gone?

I've heard people on here say, "The war is wrong" and so on, but the global issue I think is pertinent. Stop focusing on who we are currently bombing at the moment.

Are we really going to protect Isreal forever and expand until we are fighting every Arab Nation on Earth? Who decided who was the good guys and who was the bad guys here?

Are we at least going to dump Israel once we score the oil . . . or must we fulfill the obligation forever?

[JJR]

I digressed a little, for that I appologise (before anyone can comment). I just want to focus on the question I posed.

Are Republicans trying to get us . . . fighting every Arab nation?

[Darth Rotor]

I digressed a little, for that I appologise (before anyone can comment). I just want to focus on the question I posed.

Are Republicans trying to get us . . . fighting every Arab nation?
I note that a non Republican, Joe Lieberman, has in the last few months spoken up supporting a generally hard line rationale for attacking Iran. So too have a number of Hawkish conservative pundits. (Kristol, a bunch of NR contributors, IIRC Krauthammer has been heard from on this score)

I recall VP Cheney mentioning a while back, in a public statement, that "military option is not off the table" in re Iran.

If that is what you are referring to, Iran is not an Arab nation.

If you are referring to similar bellicose discussions in re Syria, then my provisional answer is: yes, there are some people within the Republican bloc who want Syria to be changed, either by force or a variety of other means, with part of the reason being reducing the threat to Israel, and the region in general.

The real fun begins when someone in America figures that it is time to change Saudi Arabia "for their own good."

We may yet live in even more interesting times.

DR

[JJR]

Thank you for answering. I think we are going to end up fighting all the enemies of Isreal . . . which is the entire Middle East.

That's ridiculous. We automatically can't win.

[Ziggurat]

Obvioiusly it's all about the oil, but isn't it interesting that the largest group that lobbys Congress . . . is Jewish American?

Evidence?

Are we really going to protect Isreal forever and expand until we are fighting every Arab Nation on Earth?

I don't see anyone complaining about the fact that we've essentially agreed to protect Japan forever. Oh, that's right: they're not Jews, so it's OK. But suppose we do want to "protect Israel forever" . Why on earth would that require that we fight every arab nation? It wouldn't. If you honestly think that we're getting ready to attack Saudi Arabia, you're even more clueless than you seem.

[JJR]

Israel is the size of San Diego. It's tiny. How are we going to protect a place the size of a city in the middle of a sea of Arabs??

Stupid, man.

Oh, my friend just informed me that Israel is half the size of Florida. Excuse the hell out of me. It's still an island in a sea of angry Arabs.

[JJR]

Evidence?

I should provide a link . . . but it's true damn it!! Give me a clue as to how I should gather information on lobbyers and I'll give it a google. Keywords would be nice.

I'm not afraid of work and I type at 70wpm.

I don't see anyone complaining about the fact that we've essentially agreed to protect Japan forever. Oh, that's right: they're not Jews, so it's OK. But suppose we do want to "protect Israel forever" . Why on earth would that require that we fight every arab nation? It wouldn't. If you honestly think that we're getting ready to attack Saudi Arabia, you're even more clueless than you seem.

Look man I'm not reading from the David Duke Jr.'s propoganda guidebook. If anything, I think the Jews should come here to America. It's part of my religion - I'm supopsed to believe that the new Jersalem will be on the American Continent and that the 10 tribes of Zion will reunite . . . HERE.

There's plenty of room. We've got the boats. Hell, we've got the aeroplanes. Travel first class, man. Have a couple of drinks.

And, yes I think it is possible that . . . in a few years we could attack Saudi Arabia simply because they are an enemy of Israel. The Arabs and the Jews have been fighting since they were monkees . .. they aren't going to get along.

Don't think that I forgot that my thread about all the UFO sightings over Isreal in the "Conspiracy Theories" area was deleted either. That sucks, man. Silly mods.

[Ziggurat]

Israel is the size of San Diego. It's tiny. How are we going to protect a place the size of a city in the middle of a sea of Arabs??

They haven't been attacked by another state in decades now (after a long period of semi-regular wars). So that problem seems to have been largely solved. As for terrorist attacks, well, invasions clearly don't stop terrorism in and of themselves, so why would just doing more of them magically solve that problem for Israel?

[JJR]

They haven't been attacked by another state in decades now (after a long period of semi-regular wars). So that problem seems to have been largely solved. As for terrorist attacks, well, invasions clearly don't stop terrorism in and of themselves, so why would just doing more of them magically solve that problem for Israel?

Let's just clear things up about what I want so you don't have to guess. After all, that's scientific. We like facts, right?

Here's what I want in black and white: I want the Jews to bail out and come here . . . and after that if the Arabs keep acting like high-school skinheads . . . just nuke 'em. Hey, the fact that we're going to be nuking in that area might motivate some Jews to come to the 'States.

[Ziggurat]

I should provide a link . . . but it's true damn it!!

Why should we believe you? Simply because you believe it's true? Because someone told you it's true? If the information is hard for you to locate, on what basis do you trust that whoever told you was able to locate such information rather than just making it up? And what happens to your model of how this all works if you find out that it is not, in fact, true?

Give me a clue as to how I should gather information on lobbyers and I'll give it a google. Keywords would be nice.

That's your job, not mine.

[Katana]

JJR, I found this interesting website (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/).

I may not give you all of your answers, but it's a start.

You can do searches by bill, issue, industry, top spenders, etc.

Check out the different search tabs.

[Ziggurat]

Here's what I want in black and white: I want the Jews to bail out and come here . . .

And how will that work? Are they all going to move to one place in the US, or spread out? Because they've formed communities and social networks in Israel, and they don't want to break up those communities. If it's all in one place, where? Who gets to decide? And if it's not in one place, what determines who goes where? And who exactly is going to pay for the move? You're looking at something probably on the order of trillions of dollars to rebuild that many homes, that much infrastructure, and that many businesses. And over what timescale? It's nice that you want to move the Jews next door to satisfy your personal religious goals, but what if they aren't interested? And suppose that it is predestined by God to happen - what if it's not supposed to happen for another thousand years?

[corplinx]

I think we are trying to expand the fight globally since we have done such a great job of occupying Iraq/Babylon. Yeah. We really want more of that.

[rtalman]

JJR, I found this interesting website (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/).

I may not give you all of your answers, but it's a start.

You can do searches by bill, issue, industry, top spenders, etc.

Check out the different search tabs.what she said.

Top Spenders, 1998-2006
Client
Total
US Chamber of Commerce (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=US+Chamber+of+Commerce&year=2006)
$317,164,680
American Medical Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=American+Medical+Assn&year=2006)
$156,375,500
General Electric (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=General+Electric&year=2006)
$137,770,000
American Hospital Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=American+Hospital+Assn&year=2006)
$129,114,026
Edison Electric Institute (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Edison+Electric+Institute&year=2006)
$105,642,628
AARP (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=AARP&year=2006)
$105,332,064
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Pharmaceutical+Rsrch+%26+Mfr s+of+America&year=2006)
$104,302,000
National Assn of Realtors (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=National+Assn+of+Realtors&year=2006)
$97,530,000
Business Roundtable (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Business+Roundtable&year=2006)
$97,060,000
Northrop Grumman (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Northrop+Grumman&year=2006)
$95,682,374
Blue Cross/Blue Shield (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Blue+Cross%2FBlue+Shield&year=2006)
$84,156,418
Freddie Mac (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Freddie+Mac&year=2006)
$81,884,048
Lockheed Martin (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Lockheed+Martin&year=2006)
$80,206,965
Boeing Co (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Boeing+Co&year=2006)
$77,898,310
Verizon Communications (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Verizon+Communications&year=2006)
$75,836,522
Philip Morris (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Philip+Morris&year=2002)
$75,500,000
General Motors (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=General+Motors&year=2006)
$71,158,483
Fannie Mae (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Fannie+Mae&year=2006)
$70,957,000
Ford Motor Co (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=Ford+Motor+Co&year=2006)
$67,670,808
US Telecom Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?txtname=US+Telecom+Assn&year=2006)
$65,280,000

[Cain]

JJR, I found this interesting website (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/).

I may not give you all of your answers, but it's a start.

You can do searches by bill, issue, industry, top spenders, etc.

Check out the different search tabs.

This is an interesting distortion. Lobby money is not the only (or the best) metric. When members of Congress are asked which lobbies are the most influential I think they say AARP and AIPAC. It changes over time but those are near the top (as reported in either _Forbes_ or _Fortune_ -- I get the two mixed up). Also, years Republicans have been trying to get their grubby paws on the checkbooks of wealthy Jews who donate to Democrats.

[Katana]

This is an interesting distortion. Lobby money is not the only (or the best) metric. When members of Congress are asked which lobbies are the most influential I think they say AARP and AIPAC. It changes over time but those are near the top (as reported in either _Forbes_ or _Fortune_ -- I get the two mixed up). Also, years Republicans have been trying to get their grubby paws on the checkbooks of wealthy Jews who donate to Democrats.


I don't understand your "distortion" comment, as I clearly stated that it doesn't give all answers.

When it comes to how members of Congress answer the question, realize, too, that their perceptions may not be in line with reality any more than a lay person's.

[Cain]

I don't understand your "distortion" comment, as I clearly stated that it doesn't give all answers.

I take that back, but your listing does seem to imply Israeli lobbying isn't even in the top 20.

When it comes to how members of Congress answer the question, realize, too, that their perceptions may not be in line with reality any more than a lay person's.

Here's where I saw it -- in the Mearsheimer/Walt paper:

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

A cursory search does not give back anything more recent than 1999 results (where AIPAC ranks #3):

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,667546,00.html

[Regnad Kcin]

...I'm not afraid of work and I type at 70wpm.That's rather astounding. I recently took a typing test, notching 49 wpm over four minutes with four errors. I was flying, and my forearms were screaming for a short time afterwards.

Who are you, Barry Allen?

[JJR]

JJR, I found this interesting website (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/).

I may not give you all of your answers, but it's a start.

You can do searches by bill, issue, industry, top spenders, etc.

Check out the different search tabs.

Out of respect for the idea behind this forum (skeptisism) I promise to check it out! I really do think David Duke is kinda dumb and want to pants him. That means pulling down his pants in public and gong . ..

Ha ha!!! (Stolen from the character Nelson from "The Simpsons")

[JJR]

That's rather astounding. I recently took a typing test, notching 49 wpm over four minutes with four errors. I was flying, and my forearms were screaming for a short time afterwards.

Who are you, Barry Allen?

I'm not The Flash but a Maric College where I got my degree in Medical Assisting I obviously passed their I.Q. test (since I attended class) and I also was tested at typing. I averaged 70 wpm.

Oh, and not to be confusing: Maric college uses an I.Q. test to weed out people. They've had to do that recently because of the flood of students. They just figured it's the most fair way to get the "cream of the crop" as they said.

Hey, I'm going to side with educators as much as possible. As long as people are honestly trying to be fair I think it's a good idea.

I scored quite high.

[JJR]

And how will that work? Are they all going to move to one place in the US, or spread out? Because they've formed communities and social networks in Israel, and they don't want to break up those communities. If it's all in one place, where? Who gets to decide? And if it's not in one place, what determines who goes where? And who exactly is going to pay for the move? You're looking at something probably on the order of trillions of dollars to rebuild that many homes, that much infrastructure, and that many businesses. And over what timescale? It's nice that you want to move the Jews next door to satisfy your personal religious goals, but what if they aren't interested? And suppose that it is predestined by God to happen - what if it's not supposed to happen for another thousand years?

I'm relaxed about the will of God. It will happen automatically, like everything else he does . .. and it will be cool and fun.

Basically, they should do it themselves. They should save enough for an aeroplane ticket and come here . . . the land of opportunity.

Then they can get rich and party out!!!

If they don't want to . . . I dunno. Not good to go against God's will.

[Ysidro]

That's rather astounding. I recently took a typing test, notching 49 wpm over four minutes with four errors. I was flying, and my forearms were screaming for a short time afterwards.

Who are you, Barry Allen?

Dude, I can do 80. Either I'm Wally West or you're just slow. ;)

OBOP: I'm surprised someone didn't mention the obvious "they're trying to start the End Times" theory. :rolleyes:

[JJR]

Dude, I can do 80. Either I'm Wally West or you're just slow. ;)

OBOP: I'm surprised someone didn't mention the obvious "they're trying to start the End Times" theory. :rolleyes:

Now, now come on. What happenes in the Conspiracy Theories area stays in the Conspiracy Theories area.

If I'm not going to mention UFOs no one else should get Pat Robertson on us.

And I'm only slow because:

A. I taught myself how to type
B. I'm a terrible speller
C. They kept throwing numbers at me and that's my weak point. There's a special way to do numbers and I still have to hunt-and-peck

[JJR]

Oh and for posterity I'd like to state that Ernest Rady is White, not Jewish. He b a White boy, like me.

Whitey.

[Ziggurat]

Basically, they should do it themselves. They should save enough for an aeroplane ticket and come here . . . the land of opportunity.

The plane ticket isn't the problem. Have you ever shopped for a house? It's expensive. It's especially difficult for most people to do if 1) they can't sell their current house for a decent price (because who's going to buy them if Israelis are evacuating?) and 2) they don't have a job yet, and it might take years for them to find one equivalent to what they were making. Again, we're talking TRILLIONS (not billions) of dollars in costs. Who is going to pay for that? You said they should, but they cannot, not unless you spread the whole process out over many, many decades, in which case why the hell bother? Basically, do you have even the slightest clue about how difficult what you're suggesting is? Because you've shown every indication that you do not.

And why the hell should they have to come here anyways? They've got homes, friends, families, neighbors, jobs, co-workers... they've got entire lives built there. Why should they have to give all that up? They shouldn't have to. And here's a clue for you: most of them won't give it up.

If they don't want to . . . I dunno. Not good to go against God's will.

Yeah, well, much of the mess in the middle east is caused by people convinced that they know what the will of God is. I wouldn't be so quick to presume that you've got it figured out.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh and for posterity I'd like to state that Ernest Rady is White, not Jewish. He b a White boy, like me.

Whitey.
You just made my brain hurt.

How are Jewish people not white?

DR

[rtalman]

You just made my brain hurt.

How are Jewish people not white?

DR
What does race have to do with religion?
http://www.africanamericans.com/images2/SammyDavisJr.jpg

[Darth Rotor]

What does race have to do with religion?
http://www.africanamericans.com/images2/SammyDavisJr.jpg
Good answer, but as you know, Jew does not only refer to religion. Christian does, Jew does not.

DR

[Tricky]

What does race have to do with religion?
http://www.africanamericans.com/images2/SammyDavisJr.jpg
There are a lot of strong correlations between ethnicity and religion (go figure). Right now over in the Religion forum, there's a big brouhaha over whether Jews are a race or a religion.

That said, it is also true that you can't convert to negro.

[gtc]

That's rather astounding. I recently took a typing test, notching 49 wpm over four minutes with four errors. I was flying, and my forearms were screaming for a short time afterwards.

Who are you, Barry Allen?

I typed 72 words in well under a minute with only four errors.

This is what I typed:
A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

Its a word!

[rtalman]

Jew does not only refer to religion..

DRMayhap there is some confusion between "Jewish" and "Semitic"

[Darth Rotor]

Mayhap there is some confusion between "Jewish" and "Semitic"
There is a great deal of deliberately crafted confusion on the topic, what is your point?

DR

[gtc]

There is a great deal of deliberately crafted confusion on the topic, what is your point?

DR

It is not necesarily deliberate.

I think the concept of Jewishness predates the concept that there is (or should be) a clear difference between race, ethnicity, religion etc.

[rtalman]

There is a great deal of deliberately crafted confusion on the topic, what is your point?

DRThat words matter. If one is referring to religion, one shoud use the religious term. If one is referring to ethnicity, then one should use the ethnic term.

[gtc]

However,

Many of the Jews I know would refer to their ethnicity as Jewish, even if they are not religous.

[JJR]

You just made my brain hurt.

How are Jewish people not white?

DR

Caucazoid. Same as Egyptians. Same as Arabs.

EDIT: Same as Irish, same as German, same as Scottish, same as French, and same as the English.

[JJR]

However,

Many of the Jews I know would refer to their ethnicity as Jewish, even if they are not religous.

Yes. Only they get Say Tachs (sp?) disease . . . and no other Caucazoid. ;)

[rtalman]

Yes. Only they get Say Tacs (sp?) disease . . . and no other Caucazoid.French Canadians and Cajuns have a pretty close rate of occurrence of Tay-Sachs (~1 in 30) to the Ashkenazis (~1 in 27), who have the highest concentration among populations of Semitic descent. Irish American populations have an occurrence rate of ~1 in 50 of being Tay-Sachs carriers.

[JJR]

French Canadians and Cajuns have a pretty close rate of occurrence of Tay-Sachs (~1 in 30) to the Ashkenazis (~1 in 27), who have the highest concentration among populations of Semitic descent. Irish American populations have an occurrence rate of ~1 in 50 of being Tay-Sachs carriers.

Perhaps Jews have the . . . most common occurrences of Tay-Sachs. That suggests that a genetic difference exists.

[rtalman]

Perhaps Jews have the . . . most common occurrences of Tay-Sachs. That suggest that a genetic difference exists.That suggests nothing of the sort.

Hemophilia, another inherited disease, was once more common among European nobility than in the general population. Do you contend that there is some 'genetic difference' between the nobility and the common of Europe, beyond simple inheritance of recessive genes?

Blonde hair and blue eyes are also traits inherited in the same manner as Tay-Sachs. Do you think there is a 'genetic difference' between those with blonde hair and blue eyes and the rest of the population of the world, beyond parentage?

[plumjam]

going back to the OP, yes I agree that they're trying to make the war...well, not so much global as unending.
Orwell predicted it in 1984 - Perpetual War.

For a government, if it wants to give itself carte blanche to go and do whatever it wants the Perpetual War strategy may well be the best there is.
Hence the "War on Drugs" as seen in latin america
Like, how can you fight a drug and win a war against it? You can't. A drug can't surrender and come to peace terms.
Similarly with the "War on Terror". How can you fight a war against a strategy? When will "terror" sit down at a table with you and sign the armistice? It won't.
That's why, when they invaded Iraq, they never declared war on them. If you declare war with an entity capable of surrender then you risk that entity indeed surrendering and ending the war. You'd also have to grant the enemy rights under the Geneva Convention.
It's ok to declare war on drugs and terror, because drugs and terror have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

Anyway, I'm going on. :p

[Ziggurat]

That's why, when they invaded Iraq, they never declared war on them.

No, it's not. Congress doesn't declare war as such nowdays because that invokes a lot of executive powers which they don't want to grant unless it's something really big (nuclear war, war with China or Russia, etc). Stuff like the ability to commandeer merchant ships, enact price controls, and so on.

If you declare war with an entity capable of surrender then you risk that entity indeed surrendering and ending the war.

Then why did we offer Saddam a chance to surrender (and go into exile, didn't even have to turn himself over to us) before the fight even began?

You'd also have to grant the enemy rights under the Geneva Convention.

Those rights exist based upon the conduct of war, not its labelling. And contrary to what you apparently believe, Iraqi soliders WERE granted full Geneva Conventions POW status and protections. Kind of blows your whole theory out of the water, doesn't it?

[JJR]

That suggests nothing of the sort.

Hemophilia, another inherited disease, was once more common among European nobility than in the general population. Do you contend that there is some 'genetic difference' between the nobility and the common of Europe, beyond simple inheritance of recessive genes?

Blonde hair and blue eyes are also traits inherited in the same manner as Tay-Sachs. Do you think there is a 'genetic difference' between those with blonde hair and blue eyes and the rest of the population of the world, beyond parentage?

I believe that the nobility of Europe was inbred. They were keeping the money in the family. Jews are inbred because they call outsiders "goyem" and this incourages inbreeding. That's mostly . . . orthodoxed Jews though, and not just some dood who is Jewish.

People that think Jews are inferior are usually inbred. They live in the hills and shoot at "outsiders". The word "outsiders" encourages inbreeding just like the word "goyem" used by othrodoxed Jews.

Incest . . . where's YOUR family??

[JJR]

going back to the OP, yes I agree that they're trying to make the war...well, not so much global as unending.
Orwell predicted it in 1984 - Perpetual War.

For a government, if it wants to give itself carte blanche to go and do whatever it wants the Perpetual War strategy may well be the best there is.
Hence the "War on Drugs" as seen in latin america
Like, how can you fight a drug and win a war against it? You can't. A drug can't surrender and come to peace terms.
Similarly with the "War on Terror". How can you fight a war against a strategy? When will "terror" sit down at a table with you and sign the armistice? It won't.
That's why, when they invaded Iraq, they never declared war on them. If you declare war with an entity capable of surrender then you risk that entity indeed surrendering and ending the war. You'd also have to grant the enemy rights under the Geneva Convention.
It's ok to declare war on drugs and terror, because drugs and terror have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

Anyway, I'm going on. :p

Quite a facinating excercise in . . . semantics I guess? It's weird how words work. The CIA MK-Ultra hypnosis experiments were interesting in that hypnosis was used and hypnosis can so change a persons consciousness with just . . . words.

[Katana]

Since the subject of semantics was raised, "war on terror" is inaccurate. What? Are we trying to stamp out feelings?

No. It's terrorism and terrorists that are ostensibly being fought.

[Darth Rotor]

Since the subject of semantics was raised, "war on terror" is inaccurate. What? Are we trying to stamp out feelings?

No. It's terrorism and terrorists that are ostensibly being fought.

The Official government name is 'GWOT' = Global War On Terror.

Many people agree with you, and made up their own acronym.

T.W.A.T.

"The War Against Terrorists." Sadly, my coffee cup with that acronym didn't survive the trip home.

DR

[rtalman]

Jews are inbred because they call outsiders "goyem" and this incourages inbreeding. That's mostly . . . orthodoxed Jews though, and not just some dood who is Jewish.

People that think Jews are inferior are usually inbred. They live in the hills and shoot at "outsiders". The word "outsiders" encourages inbreeding just like the word "goyem" used by othrodoxed Jews.

If you could have just shoehorned in one or two more asinine stereotypes, you might have been able to set a new record for GPWT*


* Garbage Per Word Typed

[JJR]

If you could have just shoehorned in one or two more asinine stereotypes, you might have been able to set a new record for GPWT*


* Garbage Per Word Typed

It's garbage to talk about inbreeding?

Okay, partner, but they really do shoot at people for no reason back where I spend a lot of my time in the South. Lots more Whites live in the ghetto than you might think, also . . . being gangsters and shooting at strangers.

It ain't just those "other people", son. Would YOU like to come to the South some time?

[Ziggurat]

It's garbage to talk about inbreeding?

Okay, partner, but they really do shoot at people for no reason back where I spend a lot of my time in the South. Lots more Whites live in the ghetto than you might think, also . . . being gangsters and shooting at strangers.

It ain't just those "other people", son. Would YOU like to come to the South some time?

And that's got what, precisely, to do with genetics?

Chances are, if you see someone walking around who looks like the stereotype of an inbred hick (physical features sort of "off", not quite there mentally), it's not inbreeding which did it, it's usually fetal alcohol syndrom.

[rtalman]

Okay, partner, but they really do shoot at people for no reason back where I spend a lot of my time in the South. Lots more Whites live in the ghetto than you might think, also . . . being gangsters and shooting at strangers.

It ain't just those "other people", son. Would YOU like to come to the South some time?Res Ipsa Loquitur

[Katana]

And that's got what, precisely, to do with genetics?

{snip}


I'm wondering what, precisely, it has to do with the OP.

[fuelair]

Thank you for answering. I think we are going to end up fighting all the enemies of Isreal . . . which is the entire Middle East.

That's ridiculous. We automatically can't win.
No offense, but actually, we can. We would not be popular afterwards, but our nuclear arsenal is quite sufficient to the task with stuff still available .

[JJR]

No offense, but actually, we can. We would not be popular afterwards, but our nuclear arsenal is quite sufficient to the task with stuff still available .

Too many disident voices and . . . actual people for that sort of thing. Plus, some disidence is just . . . inevitable. Anyway, Bush basically thinks like you are suggesting and that's why I voted against him. He's just snorted too much powder for me to want him in office.

Tabula Rasa. The clean slate, gentlemen. I want the source of this problem found. I want it dealt with.

Then, most likely . . . we will nuke 'em because they'll still be suicide bombing people who aren't even Jewish. Their argument is dead. Gotta go, gotta go. :eek:

:rolleyes:

[plumjam]

Since the subject of semantics was raised, "war on terror" is inaccurate. What? Are we trying to stamp out feelings?

No. It's terrorism and terrorists that are ostensibly being fought.

terror, terrorism, and terrorists are very vague catch-all words. that is precisely where their usefulness lies. so, if anyone disobeys you or resists your imperialism you just label them as "terrorists", case dismissed.
it doesn't matter who they happen to be.. like Saddam and Osama they could have diametrically opposed political viewpoints... but hey, if we label them both as terrorists, lump them together, everything's just hunky dory in the hood, and you can do whatever you like.
it's a way of dismissing any opposition. In fact, not even addressing opposing claims or beliefs.

[Ziggurat]

it's a way of dismissing any opposition. In fact, not even addressing opposing claims or beliefs.

As opposed to simply ignoring contradictory evidence? You still haven't responded to my demonstration that your earlier argument regarding the Iraq invasion was without any factual basis.

[Darth Rotor]

terror, terrorism, and terrorists are very vague catch-all words. that is precisely where their usefulness lies. so, if anyone disobeys you or resists your imperialism you just label them as "terrorists", case dismissed.
it doesn't matter who they happen to be.. like Saddam and Osama they could have diametrically opposed political viewpoints... but hey, if we label them both as terrorists, lump them together, everything's just hunky dory in the hood, and you can do whatever you like.
it's a way of dismissing any opposition. In fact, not even addressing opposing claims or beliefs.
How do you characterize the following action? A guy parks a pickup truck near a crowded market, gets out, and walks away. His buddy uses a cell phone to set off the bomb in the pick up truck. Fifty three people die, sixty or more injured.

Is this merely a practical joke, or is this a terrorist act? Words are used for a purpose, to describe something.

DR

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]No, it's not. Congress doesn't declare war as such nowdays because that invokes a lot of executive powers which they don't want to grant unless it's something really big (nuclear war, war with China or Russia, etc). Stuff like the ability to commandeer merchant ships, enact price controls, and so on.

I see, so the death of a million Iraqis isn't worth the trouble of invoking executive powers. It's just a minor matter to the US government, obviously.



Then why did we offer Saddam a chance to surrender (and go into exile, didn't even have to turn himself over to us) before the fight even began?
And you believe the government about this. I see.
In the same way Saddam invited in the weapons inspectors, with no restrictions, but the USA refused the offer as "propaganda", because the US government had already decided to invade and occupy until the oil runs out.


Those rights exist based upon the conduct of war, not its labelling. And contrary to what you apparently believe, Iraqi soliders WERE granted full Geneva Conventions POW status and protections. Kind of blows your whole theory out of the water, doesn't it?

Did you hear about the Road of Death at the end of the first Gulf War? Plenty of Iraqi soldiers were attempting to surrender, but were subsequently turned into charcoal. This distinction between "soldiers" and "insurgents" is quite a sneaky one. The US likes soldiers cos they're easy to identify and blow to pieces.. when those same soldiers recognise this and chuck their uniforms they are now "unlawful combatants" so you can do whatever you like to them at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Great for the USA.. who can either blow them up or torture them with a 'clear conscience'.

[plumjam]

How do you characterize the following action? A guy parks a pickup truck near a crowded market, gets out, and walks away. His buddy uses a cell phone to set off the bomb in the pick up truck. Fifty three people die, sixty or more injured.

Is this merely a practical joke, or is this a terrorist act? Words are used for a purpose, to describe something.

DR
good question. it could be a number of things

1. low level inter-group warfare/civil strife/sectarian struggle for power

2. A CIA black operation designed to ferment hatred and conflict between two or more groups in a host population (following the age-old imperialist strategy of divide and conquer)

3. the act of two political/ideological/religious fanatics, working on their own, to bring about some kind of ideal state.

4. an act of the host government on its own population, used to create a pretext for violent acts at home or abroad...

I think you get the picture. It could be a load of different scenarios, done for a wide variety of motives. Just labelling it as "terrorism" is a tactic used by those who prefer that the reasons for the action aren't explored too closely. It stops people asking questions.

I have a question for you. If the same market was bombed from the air, with the same results, as part of an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, would it be fair to call it "terrorism"? What would you prefer to call it? Perhaps just an "honest mistake".
This happened during the invasion of Iraq, and despite evidence to the contrary (missile parts with serial numbers) the US/UK blamed it on one of Saddam's own cruise missiles that 'must have gone astray'.

[Ziggurat]

I see, so the death of a million Iraqis isn't worth the trouble of invoking executive powers. It's just a minor matter to the US government, obviously.

Did I say anything like that? No, I did not. Do not invent fictitious positions for me and pretend that I expressed them. As for the substance (such as it is) of your response, well, 1) where the hell are you getting that figure from, and 2) the number of dead isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not specific powers are appropriate for the problem. And quite frankly, there WAS no reason to give the executive branch the power to seize merchant vessels to use for war for Iraq, or to institute price controls. You have not addressed the actual substance of my statement (you know, what I actually said and not what you're pretending I said) in any way, shape, or form.

And you believe the government about this. I see.

The offer was made quite publicly at the time. I don't have to "believe" the government, I remember.

In the same way Saddam invited in the weapons inspectors, with no restrictions, but the USA refused the offer as "propaganda", because the US government had already decided to invade and occupy until the oil runs out.

You apparently have no clue as to what the actual role of the inspectors was. Their job was always to verify compliance with UNSC resolutions. Letting them walk around unrestricted was never enough, what was required was full cooperation in demonstrating compliance. And full cooperation was never provided, as the weapons inspectors themselves testified.

Did you hear about the Road of Death at the end of the first Gulf War? Plenty of Iraqi soldiers were attempting to surrender, but were subsequently turned into charcoal.

And how, pray tell, is it known that they were trying to surrender? And how, exactly, do you explain the fact that we still took more POW's in the first gulf war than soldiers that we killed? Doesn't make sense, does it? Unless simply killing people just to kill them was never the objective.

This distinction between "soldiers" and "insurgents" is quite a sneaky one. The US likes soldiers cos they're easy to identify and blow to pieces.

Why, because it's fun? US soldiers get their jollies off of murder? You're pathetic.

when those same soldiers recognise this and chuck their uniforms they are now "unlawful combatants" so you can do whatever you like to them at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

Well, first off, if a soldier continues to fight after having removed his uniform, then he is an unlawful combatant. If he's stopped fighting, why exactly do you think we'd CARE what he did after that? Oh, that's right: US troops are EVIL! EVIL, I tell you! EEEEEEVIL!

As for Abu Ghraib, well, the widely circulated photos aren't of POW's or unlawful combatants, but of ordinary prisoners. They were abused (illegally under UCMJ laws) because they had started a fight, which made problems for the guards who then took revenge by abusing them, not because of either US policy or because of any uncertainty about their status. And as for Guantanamo, can you point to a single detainee of that place who was an Iraqi army soldier? You can't, because we didn't send Iraqi soldiers to Guantanamo.

Lastly, of course, you claimed that Congress didn't declare war in order to avoid giving POW status to Iraqis. But that is wrong on two counts, as already stated: because legally speaking, their status doesn't depend in any way on how Congress chooses to categorize an armed conflict (and it was without any doubt an armed conflict), and two, that status was in fact applied to them. So are you going to retract your nonsensical claim, or are you going to continue to obfuscate with assorted accusations against the US, none of which can actually rescue your original point from being wrong?

[JJR]

US soldiers don't stand up to the acid test. Their loyalty is not to America, but rather to corporations and big money. That sort of attitude just doesn't get the work done for the day. Save that particular buzz for when you are skiing on leave in Aspen. Impropper attitude.

As for me, I love being in the South. That's probably why it's been said, "I love the corps! A day in the corps is like a day on the farm! Every meal a banquet, every pay check a fortune!" That's all good. I just wish the place I will be living was maybe not so . . . deep south. I mean, hey, if you're actually a hillbilly who shoots at tax collectors it could be a problem. Go easy on the whiskey, there.

Y'know it? How hard is it to understand what "freedom" means when generations of children are being born without access to the rest of the world in America?

Education is nothing to be afraid of . . . since things always remain about the same. All systems have truths that are obeyed . . . since disobeying them is like trying to make water run uphill. I'm content with the real America, since I know that wishing for utopia is the surest way to make things worse.

But these "soldiers" are in it for the money. Smart assed greedheads thinking everyone else has "no idea" about life . . . it's enough to make me want to turn matters of national security over to, say . . . the homies on the street. Specifically, the brothas n othas.

Hit or pass, man. Orders is orders.

[Darth Rotor]

US soldiers don't stand up to the acid test. Their loyalty is not to America, but rather to corporations and big money.
Nope. I suggest you travel to Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood, and try to sell that soap to some soldiers in the First Cav who may be out and about. Or some folks from the 4th ID.

Let me know how it works out, and what your doctor bills are.

DR

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Did I say anything like that? No, I did not. Do not invent fictitious positions for me and pretend that I expressed them. As for the substance (such as it is) of your response, well, 1) where the hell are you getting that figure from, The USA hasn't declared war on any nation since 1942 (Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania), yet since then it has intervened militarily or otherwise in over 50 nations around the world, causing many millions of deaths. My broader point is this: why does the US government prefer not to declare war?
Is it, as you suggest, merely because they don't want to have to go to the legal or administrative trouble?
This patently is not the case. To declare war on a nation confers an a priori legitimacy or claim to sovereignty on the current regime of that particular nation. When, as in the case of most US foreign intervention, the main case for intervention (usually false) is that the current regime is somehow illegitimate then to declare war would seriously damage the case for violence.
There is also the problem of having to 'make the case' for war to the general public. The more you have to make a casesfor declaration of war to the general public, the more the general public are going to know what you are doing worldwide.
If the USA had declared war, and thus had to make the case for it, on nations such as Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Dem Rep of Congo, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia etc.. then the more the US population would know about what its government was really doing around the globe.
This of course, would be pretty inconvenient, and may well restrict the scope US imperialism.
Therefore, as a general rule the US govt does not declare war.

Likewise, a declaration of war by government sets up, in the public mind, an expectation of a final state, an armistice, an end to war, peace. This is also restrictive to the US govt.
Much easier for them to keep it at the level of an "armed conflict", so then they can go back in whenever they want, without the general public knowing about it.

As to the figures, well the Lancet's study http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

concludes that between March 2003 and June 2006 the war caused an additional 655 thousand deaths in Iraqi society. Given that that is 14 months old, and most indicators suggest that the situation has worsened since then, then I think my figure of 1m won't be far away from the truth. This of course, doesn't include the other million Iraqis who died prematurely as a result of sanctions in the years leading up to the invasion, half of whom were children... which prompted Dennis Halliday former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq to resign in protest, due to not wanting to be actively partaking in genocide.

and 2) the number of dead isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not specific powers are appropriate for the problem. And quite frankly, there WAS no reason to give the executive branch the power to seize merchant vessels to use for war for Iraq, or to institute price controls. You have not addressed the actual substance of my statement (you know, what I actually said and not what you're pretending I said) in any way, shape, or form.

As I've explained above, the real reasons for not wanting to declare war really have nothing to do with some kind of deep-seated reluctance to seize merchant vessels, or to bring in price controls.



The offer was made quite publicly at the time. I don't have to "believe" the government, I remember.
At the time they supposedly happened, the Jessica Lynch and (in Afghanistan) Pat Tillman fictions were also made public by the government. These were later shown to be lies put out by the government for propaganda purposes. If the government is capable of lying about the death of one of its own supposed heroes - to both the public and that hero's family, for months do you think the government will be telling you the truth about its communications with someone they have an interest in demonising, such as Saddam Hussein?



You apparently have no clue as to what the actual role of the inspectors was. Their job was always to verify compliance with UNSC resolutions. Letting them walk around unrestricted was never enough, what was required was full cooperation in demonstrating compliance. And full cooperation was never provided, as the weapons inspectors themselves testified.

maybe you never heard of Scott Ritter



And how, pray tell, is it known that they were trying to surrender? I don't have links or citations, this post is so long that it's taking ages to complete. But it's commonly accepted that Bush Snr gave the order to destroy as much of the Iraqi army as possible on their retreat out of Kuwait. Most of this happened from the air, of course, so the possibility of allowing the soldiers themselves to surrender was pretty much discounted. The point was to destroy Saddam's military potency, so little care was taken about prisoners. There have also been persistent reports of American forces bulldozing Iraqi army trenches in the desert at night during the first Gulf War, burying soldiers alive, including those trying to surrender.


And how, exactly, do you explain the fact that we still took more POW's in the first gulf war than soldiers that we killed? Doesn't make sense, does it? Unless simply killing people just to kill them was never the objective.
really? I'd be interested to see where you get your figures. In this last war the US govt has repeatedly stated that it 'doesn't count Iraqi dead'. Did it trouble itself to do so in the first war?


Why, because it's fun? US soldiers get their jollies off of murder? You're pathetic.
Nowhere have I attacked US soldiers, even though Youtube does show that a small minority seem to enjoy the conflict. I have great sympathy for US soldiers. They are not the ones who started the war. They are pushed into very difficult situations by (usually) chickenhawk privileged politicians who use "support the troops" as a hypocritical mantra while cutting their benefits out of the spotlight.


Well, first off, if a soldier continues to fight after having removed his uniform, then he is an unlawful combatant. If he's stopped fighting, why exactly do you think we'd CARE what he did after that? Oh, that's right: US troops are EVIL! EVIL, I tell you! EEEEEEVIL!

Imagine Iraq illegally invaded the USA, resulting in the deaths of 2.5% of the population (the Lancet), which would amount to about 8 million americans. You are a soldier, and the Iraqis have far superior military technology. You resist the invasion, but recognise that if you stay in uniform you will get zapped from several miles away.
What would you do?
As I said earlier, US troops aren't necessarily evil; but their leaders seem to verge on that precipice.

As for Abu Ghraib, well, the widely circulated photos aren't of POW's or unlawful combatants, but of ordinary prisoners. They were abused (illegally under UCMJ laws) because they had started a fight, which made problems for the guards who then took revenge by abusing them, not because of either US policy or because of any uncertainty about their status. And as for Guantanamo, can you point to a single detainee of that place who was an Iraqi army soldier? You can't, because we didn't send Iraqi soldiers to Guantanamo.

hmm.. ordinary prisoners.. I wonder why they might have started a fight (if they did at all)
So none of this is US policy? Have you heard of the School of the Americas ?
http://www.soaw.org/
No, to Guantanamo you usually just send innocent taxi drivers and the like, as well as innocent British citizens. Has anyone in Guantanamo been successfully prosecuted yet?

Lastly, of course, you claimed that Congress didn't declare war in order to avoid giving POW status to Iraqis. But that is wrong on two counts, as already stated: because legally speaking, their status doesn't depend in any way on how Congress chooses to categorize an armed conflict (and it was without any doubt an armed conflict), and two, that status was in fact applied to them. So are you going to retract your nonsensical claim, or are you going to continue to obfuscate with assorted accusations against the US, none of which can actually rescue your original point from being wrong?

Follow the logic of the US government. They "declare" war on "terrorism" or "drugs".. in other words they incessantly try to brainwash the public that they are indeed at war with something/someone.. when, in fact, the last time they genuinely declared war was 1942. These "wars" are not wars at all, but are just propagandistic tools to provide a carte blanche for US domination.
However, when real wars are taking place costing millions of lives, such as in Vietnam and Iraq, the government does everything it can to avoid a declaration of war, or even describing them as wars.
Don't you ever wonder about this?

My claim still stands. The general point is that, as in the case of not wanting to grant POW status, the declaration of war by the US government would make it more difficult for it to go round the world doing what it likes.

Maybe we should write a book together ;)

[Darth Rotor]

good question. it could be a number of things

1. low level inter-group warfare/civil strife/sectarian struggle for power
You can use terrorist tactics in civil wars. You don't have to use them in a global struggle. Still terrorists.
2. A CIA black operation designed to ferment hatred and conflict between two or more groups in a host population (following the age-old imperialist strategy of divide and conquer)
Thanks, Dylan.
3. the act of two political/ideological/religious fanatics, working on their own, to bring about some kind of ideal state.
Using terror tactics.
4. an act of the host government on its own population, used to create a pretext for violent acts at home or abroad...
Thanks, Dylan.

DR

[plumjam]

You can use terrorist tactics in civil wars. You don't have to use them in a global struggle. Still terrorists.

Thanks, Dylan.

Using terror tactics.

Thanks, Dylan.

DR

yeah, you edited out the rest of my answer, perhaps cos you couldn't answer it.

Your "Dylan" comments suggest you are ignorant of the history of how governments really work. Maybe you can enlighten yourself here:

http://anticafta.tripod.com/id177.html

good luck

[Ziggurat]

Learn to use the quote tags properly, it makes life easier for everyone.

My broader point is this: why does the US government prefer not to declare war?
Is it, as you suggest, merely because they don't want to have to go to the legal or administrative trouble?
This patently is not the case.

And yet, you haven't shown in any way, shape, or form why my explanation is insufficient. All you've done is state an alternative explanation, with no reasons given for why that explanation is preferable. You resort to "broader points" because you cannot address where your specific points are failing completely, and hope that by staying with broader points, you can avoid having to back up your arguments.

To declare war on a nation confers an a priori legitimacy or claim to sovereignty on the current regime of that particular nation.

Why would that be an issue? Last time we declared war formally, the governments on which we declared war were subjected to TOTAL domination by the victors. In many of the undeclared wars since, we have left the governments largely intact afterwards (Gulf War 1 being a prime example). Once again, your explanation doesn't match the actual record.

There is also the problem of having to 'make the case' for war to the general public. The more you have to make a casesfor declaration of war to the general public, the more the general public are going to know what you are doing worldwide.

You don't think making a case to the public is just as important for something like the AUMF? Please.

Likewise, a declaration of war by government sets up, in the public mind, an expectation of a final state, an armistice, an end to war, peace. This is also restrictive to the US govt.

Doesn't this directly contradict your attempt at showing that the US is using the "war on terror" and "war on drugs" to create permanent conflict? If this is correct, isn't "war on terror" exactly the WRONG label to use if you want to make it perpetual? Your position is incoherent.

As to the figures, well the Lancet's study http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/im...3606694919.pdf

concludes that between March 2003 and June 2006 the war caused an additional 655 thousand deaths in Iraqi society.

Yeah, well that study is absolute crap. Not only was it off by about an order of magnitude from any other estimate (including extrapolations from the UNDP's earlier, much more extensive study), the methodology was abysmal. They used something like a measly 50 clusters for their sampling, and they didn't measure a SINGLE demographic variable (age, religion, gender, economic status, family size, ANYTHING) to test the representativeness of their sampling method. Nowhere else would such a poorly done study with results so far out of line with every other estimate be considered the preferable source.

This of course, doesn't include the other million Iraqis who died prematurely as a result of sanctions in the years leading up to the invasion, half of whom were children... which prompted Dennis Halliday former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq to resign in protest, due to not wanting to be actively partaking in genocide.

He can complain all he wants to. The ONLY source for those figures was Saddam's government. Now, why might those numbers not be accurate? Hmm....

As I've explained above, the real reasons for not wanting to declare war really have nothing to do with some kind of deep-seated reluctance to seize merchant vessels, or to bring in price controls.

No, you haven't explained at all. Explaining would require that you demonstrate a flaw in my argument. All you've done is claim that's not the reason. Claiming and explaining aren't the same thing.

maybe you never heard of Scott Ritter

I have indeed. I'm also aware of how he flipped positions regarding Iraq. Waving his name around like a talisman doesn't substitute for forming an argument.

I don't have links or citations,

No, of course not.

But it's commonly accepted that Bush Snr gave the order to destroy as much of the Iraqi army as possible on their retreat out of Kuwait.

Is "commonly accepted" a synonym for "correct"? No, it is not. That's called argument ad populum. And it's a fallacy.

Most of this happened from the air, of course, so the possibility of allowing the soldiers themselves to surrender was pretty much discounted.

In other words, you don't know that they were trying to surrender, you just presume they were. Furthermore, while you can't take captives from the air, you can let people flee from vehicles before you destroy them. And I have read accounts which indicated that there were more vehicles destroyed than people killed, which would require that people did flee the vehicles alive.

There have also been persistent reports of American forces bulldozing Iraqi army trenches in the desert at night during the first Gulf War, burying soldiers alive, including those trying to surrender.

War is ugly. Do you know WHY they bulldozed trenches? It wasn't to bury people: to the extent that it happened, it happened because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and didn't have the wherewithall to get out of the way. Trenches got bulldozed so that our tanks could advance, not because we were trying to bury people. From a military standpoint, burying people holed up defensively in a trench is an inefficient and dangerous way to go about killing your enemy.

really? I'd be interested to see where you get your figures. In this last war the US govt has repeatedly stated that it 'doesn't count Iraqi dead'. Did it trouble itself to do so in the first war?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm
Near the bottom, "Brig. Gen. Richard Neal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, says Iraqi forces are in "full retreat" with allied forces pursuing; Iraqi POWs number 30,000-plus, number to climb to 63,000."

Iraqi casualty estimates are usually in the 25,000 - 30,000 range. I have little doubt you can find a source for that on your own.

Nowhere have I attacked US soldiers,

No, of course not. Accusing them of committing war crimes isn't attacking them. Pardon me for not taking this denial of yours seriously.

hmm.. ordinary prisoners.. I wonder why they might have started a fight (if they did at all)

For the same sorts of reasons prisoners get into fights in ordinary prisons the world over. They started a fight with each other. The guards got out of hand punishing them for it, and acted illegally.


Follow the logic of the US government. They "declare" war on "terrorism" or "drugs".. in other words they incessantly try to brainwash the public that they are indeed at war with something/someone.. when, in fact, the last time they genuinely declared war was 1942. These "wars" are not wars at all, but are just propagandistic tools to provide a carte blanche for US domination.
However, when real wars are taking place costing millions of lives, such as in Vietnam and Iraq, the government does everything it can to avoid a declaration of war, or even describing them as wars.
Don't you ever wonder about this?

I'm starting to wonder about you, since the war in Iraq has very frequently been labeled as a war by the administration and by various senators and congressman. Kind of kills your whole thesis. I'm not fond of the "war on drugs", and there are some genuine civil liberties issues involved with it (which could easily be present even if another label had been used), but to pretend that this is 1984 is just silly.

My claim still stands.

No it doesn't. It never stood.

The general point is that, as in the case of not wanting to grant POW status, the declaration of war by the US government would make it more difficult for it to go round the world doing what it likes.

The Geneva conventions cover armed conflicts. Whether or not they are labeled as wars (which is all a congressional declaration does as far as anyone outside the US is concerned) is irrelevant. Not declaring war in order to try to get out of geneva convention obligations doesn't work, and the idea that it ever could work comes from a profound misunderstanding of its basic legal principles. And formal POW status WAS given to Iraqi military personel.

[plumjam]

To Ziggurat,

I could spend the next two hours replying to your points one by one, but I don't think we're ever going to come to any kind of agreement, and frankly life is too short. From what I have read of your views I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you broadly prefer to agree with what the US government puts out, and how the mainstream media parrots it.
Which is probably why you didn't comment on Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman.

As in my previous post to Darth Rotor I can only direct you to a resource detailing what the US govt. has really done in recent history, of which almost all its citizens are kept in ignorance of:

http://anticafta.tripod.com/id177.html

all the best :)

[Darth Rotor]

yeah, you edited out the rest of my answer, perhaps cos you couldn't answer it.
No, it's a tired old moral equivalence gambit not worth wasting time one. If you think an accident or error is equivalent to an intentional killing, I suggest you look up the difference between murder and accidental death. Granted, dead is dead, but the difference in intention is significant. So too is the death indemnity the US pays, and has been paying, for accidental deaths in Iraq for some years.

Care to try again?
Your "Dylan" comments suggest you are ignorant of the history of how governments really work.
Nope. Guess again. It has to do with your nice black t-shirt. I got to write a few precis' on the American Banana Wars when at staff college. I found it a fascinating study of what the government sometimes gets away with, and sometimes doesn't, how the American Progressive movement tried to reform Central America from without and failed, miserably, who wrote Haiti's original constitution, and how info warfare helped catalyze a virtually bloodless coup in the 1950's in Guatemala. Fascinating stuff. Smedly Butler was roughly right, for his time, and for the work he did in the Small Wars. Sometimes, War is a Racket. Other times, it's something else.

DR

[plumjam]

[QUOTE=plumjam;2899184]yeah, you edited out the rest of my answer, perhaps cos you couldn't answer it.
No, it's a tired old moral equivalence gambit not worth wasting time one.

Care to try again.


Nope. Guess again.

DR

good luck in your research ;)

[Darth Rotor]

blah blah blah research
This from the man who claims the Nazis were atheists?

Right.

DR

[NobbyNobbs]

Look man I'm not reading from the David Duke Jr.'s propoganda guidebook. If anything, I think the Jews should come here to America.


Let's just clear things up about what I want so you don't have to guess. After all, that's scientific. We like facts, right?

Here's what I want in black and white: I want the Jews to bail out and come here . . . and after that if the Arabs keep acting like high-school skinheads . . . just nuke 'em. Hey, the fact that we're going to be nuking in that area might motivate some Jews to come to the 'States.

Oh and for posterity I'd like to state that Ernest Rady is White, not Jewish. He b a White boy, like me.

Whitey.

Ok, so I'm late to the party, but I needed to say a couple things. First of all, semantics.

"Israeli" =/= "Jew"
"White" =/= "non-Jew".
And "Israel" is not spelled "Isreal".


Perhaps Jews have the . . . most common occurrences of Tay-Sachs. That suggests that a genetic difference exists.

Are you sure you're not a David Duke fan?

US soldiers don't stand up to the acid test. Their loyalty is not to America, but rather to corporations and big money. That sort of attitude just doesn't get the work done for the day. Save that particular buzz for when you are skiing on leave in Aspen. Impropper attitude.
...
But these "soldiers" are in it for the money. Smart assed greedheads thinking everyone else has "no idea" about life . . . it's enough to make me want to turn matters of national security over to, say . . . the homies on the street. Specifically, the brothas n othas.

Hit or pass, man. Orders is orders.

Wow, you really *are* looking for an a$$-whuping, aren't you?

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]No, it's a tired old moral equivalence gambit not worth wasting time one. If you think an accident or error is equivalent to an intentional killing, I suggest you look up the difference between murder and accidental death.

That is pretty laughable. A government decides to wage an illegal aggressive war on a massively weaker sovereign nation, mainly because it has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves on the planet. It's "justifications" for this aggressive war are subsequently demonstrated to be lies. The government unleashing its "Shock and Awe" operation, which involves aerial bombing of densely populated parts of Iraq, is well aware that this course of action will result in many thousands of civilian dead, yet it proceeds.
This is all not only intentional, but willfully deceitful.

I do not condone ANYONE blowing people up in a market place. I wish it never happened.
So if I were to grant that the original market bombing could be described as terrorism, how would you describe the above?


Granted, dead is dead, but the difference in intention is significant. So too is the death indemnity the US pays, and has been paying, for accidental deaths in Iraq for some years.

lol.. any death indemnity in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador... etc etc etc?

Nope. Guess again. It has to do with your nice black t-shirt. I got to write a few precis' on the American Banana Wars when at staff college. I found it a fascinating study of what the government sometimes gets away with, and sometimes doesn't, how the American Progressive movement tried to reform Central America from without and failed, miserably, who wrote Haiti's original constitution, and how info warfare helped catalyze a virtually bloodless coup in the 1950's in Guatemala. Fascinating stuff. Smedly Butler was roughly right, for his time, and for the work he did in the Small Wars. Sometimes, War is a Racket. Other times, it's something else.
good, that's encouraging.. keep studying.
strange how you would be aware of all that stuff and then when I offer the possibility that the CIA might be responsible for bombings against civilians you call me a conspiracy theorist.
somehow the learning hasn't sunk in yet ;)

[KoihimeNakamura]

That is pretty laughable. A government decides to wage an illegal aggressive war on a massively weaker sovereign nation, mainly because it has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves on the planet. It's "justifications" for this aggressive war are subsequently demonstrated to be lies. The government unleashing its "Shock and Awe" operation, which involves aerial bombing of densely populated parts of Iraq, is well aware that this course of action will result in many thousands of civilian dead, yet it proceeds.
This is all not only intentional, but willfully deceitful.

Yess. Where did Saddam put his assets? Near densely populated parts of Iraq. (Oh, and.. we aren't getting a lot of oil from Iraq. We never did after the war...)

good, that's encouraging.. keep studying.
strange how you would be aware of all that stuff and then when I offer the possibility that the CIA might be responsible for bombings against civilians you call me a conspiracy theorist.
somehow the learning hasn't sunk in yet ;)

It might be. But the probablity is nearly 0%.

[plumjam]

Yess. Where did Saddam put his assets? Near densely populated parts of Iraq. .

really? what were these assets you mention?
I would reckon his main assets were the oil fields up in the north around Kirkuk, and down in the south, far from Baghdad and the main cities.
Did you know that in 'shock and awe' every government ministry building was targeted and bombed, except one?
Yeah, the Oil Ministry.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's a quick lesson. Whereever I put an ampersand, excise it and you'll see how quoting works.

[QUOTE=&plumjam;2899421]really? what were these assets you mention?[/&quote]

reply to this part...

[QUOTE=&plumjam;2899421]I would reckon his main assets were the oil fields up in the north around Kirkuk, and down in the south, far from Baghdad and the main cities.[/&quote]

a reply to this part

[QUOTE=&plumjam;2899421]Did you know that in 'shock and awe' every government ministry building was targeted and bombed, except one?
Yeah, the Oil Ministry.[/&QUOTE]

note how you already have the close quote on this part

[plumjam]

Here's a quick lesson. Whereever I put an ampersand, excise it and you'll see how quoting works.

[QUOTE=&plumjam;2899421]really? what were these assets you mention?[/&quote]

reply to this part...

[QUOTE=&plumjam;2899421]I would reckon his main assets were the oil fields up in the north around Kirkuk, and down in the south, far from Baghdad and the main cities.[/&quote]

a reply to this part

[QUOTE=&plumjam;2899421]Did you know that in 'shock and awe' every government ministry building was targeted and bombed, except one?
Yeah, the Oil Ministry.[/&QUOTE]

note how you already have the close quote on this part

thanks Unrepentant, for the help

I'm definitely quite new to this forum and interface.
I wasn't aware my posts were appearing unclear, but I do acknowledge the proabability. So far I'm pretty sure I've only been quoting one person in any one post, which is why I think their name only appears in the top quote.

:)

[KoihimeNakamura]

really? what were these assets you mention?
I would reckon his main assets were the oil fields up in the north around Kirkuk, and down in the south, far from Baghdad and the main cities.
Did you know that in 'shock and awe' every government ministry building was targeted and bombed, except one?
Yeah, the Oil Ministry.

Assets.. like .. SAM. Radar sites, communication centers.... something like that. Anyway, proof?

[plumjam]

Assets.. like .. SAM. Radar sites, communication centers.... something like that. Anyway, proof?
if he did indeed put some military hardware near or in centres of population then it wouldn't really surprise me. If you were the leader of your country and you were facing a militarily and technologically much more advanced lying illegal agressor who was just after your oil, and you knew that if you were to put your radar sites out in the desert they'd be hard to conceal and would be destroyed without difficulty, what would you do?
I'm no defender of Saddam Hussein.
Maybe you can ask who put him in power and built him up. Who supplied him with his arms and chemical weapons?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Move those goalposts! Move Move!

he did indeed put some military hardware near or in centres of population then it wouldn't really surprise me

well, yes, he had no regard for his people!

If you were the leader of your country and you were facing a militarily and technologically much more advanced lying illegal agressor who was just after your oil, and you knew that if you were to put your radar sites out in the desert they'd be hard to conceal and would be destroyed without difficulty, what would you do?

Let's tackle this. First off, I'll bold the relevant statements

lying illegal agressor - Bush did indeed lie about WMD's. No surprise. Illegal? Let's pull out a hattrick

> For something to be illegal, there must be a standing law against it

And under US law, the only way for something to be illegal: Congress declares it illegal (declared it legal) the UNSC declares it illegal (hasn't)

Maybe you can ask who put him in power and built him up. Who supplied him with his arms and chemical weapons?

First off, this is an obvioust rap. Leads into hat trick #2

> Policy, and who the US supports, changes over time

I point you to the Soviet Union in 1942... and then again in 1952.

Secondly, looking at who supplied Iraq with chemical weapons and arms is like tracing down thousands of wires. ..

So, taking things as they go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

Note that the United States is .5% and due to concerns with Iran. And scrolling down, we see.. they're all helicopters.

Regardless. Your proof for this claim:


Did you know that in 'shock and awe' every government ministry building was targeted and bombed, except one?
Yeah, the Oil Ministry.

is needed.

[plumjam]

Move those goalposts! Move Move!



well, yes, he had no regard for his people!



Let's tackle this. First off, I'll bold the relevant statements

lying illegal agressor - Bush did indeed lie about WMD's. No surprise. Illegal? Let's pull out a hattrick

> For something to be illegal, there must be a standing law against it

And under US law, the only way for something to be illegal: Congress declares it illegal (declared it legal) the UNSC declares it illegal (hasn't)



First off, this is an obvioust rap. Leads into hat trick #2

> Policy, and who the US supports, changes over time

I point you to the Soviet Union in 1942... and then again in 1952.

Secondly, looking at who supplied Iraq with chemical weapons and arms is like tracing down thousands of wires. ..

So, taking things as they go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

Note that the United States is .5% and due to concerns with Iran. And scrolling down, we see.. they're all helicopters.

Regardless. Your proof for this claim:



is needed.

well done, I wonder if any of your pedantry would be of any consolation to, say, the relatives of the million dead Iraqis.

Did you come here to make a specific point about politics/war? Because I haven't heard one yet

[Darth Rotor]

That is pretty laughable. A government decides to wage an illegal aggressive war on a massively weaker sovereign nation, mainly because it has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves on the planet.
Spin. Thanks for regurgitating a sound byte. Do you ever do your own work? Oh, yes, I saw some of it in the "the Nazis were atheist" discussion. :p
The government unleashing its "Shock and Awe" operation, which involves aerial bombing of densely populated parts of Iraq,
I suggest you look up what Shock and Awe is, as a tactic. You aren't even close. I provided a link to the original paper a few months ago. I'll ETA if I can find that post. ETA: NDU's paper on Shock and Awe. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/books%20-%201996/Shock%20and%20Awe%20-%20Dec%2096 What you saw through the cardboard tube of your TV set left an image on your retina that belies what the targets were in the opening phases of the Iraq War. You were suckered, beautifully, as was a lot of the world. To top it off, Rummy made the completely foolish attempt to use bombast as a weapon, and in his pronouncements early in the war, tried to sell the world viewership a box of soap that was filled with sand.
I do not condone ANYONE blowing people up in a market place. I wish it never happened.
We agree, completely. :)
So if I were to grant that the original market bombing could be described as terrorism, how would you describe the above?
A war.
lol.. any death indemnity in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador... etc etc etc?
Non sequitur. Do you always have this problem staying focused on a conversation?
good, that's encouraging.. keep studying.
The day I stop learning is the day I die, I'll return the favor and suggest you start using critical thinking, rather than emotional appeals to someone else's soundbytes.
strange how you would be aware of all that stuff and then when I offer the possibility that the CIA might be responsible for bombings against civilians you call me a conspiracy theorist.
When you cloak themselves in their garments, you may well be mistaken for such.
somehow the learning hasn't sunk in yet ;)
Is talking to yourself really that much fun?

DR

[JJR]

Darth Rotor . . . wotta batooga.

[Darth Rotor]

Darth Rotor . . . wotta batooga.
I have to admit, I never thought I'd be having a conversation with Joan Jett's Rabbit.

Life sure is a funny old dog.

DR

[Ziggurat]

I could spend the next two hours replying to your points one by one,

That may be. I'm more interested in whether or not you can actually counter my points. You've given no indication that you can counter any of them.

From what I have read of your views I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you broadly prefer to agree with what the US government puts out, and how the mainstream media parrots it.

You would be wrong on two counts. First off, the mainstream media and the government aren't my primary sources of information, and second, the mainstream media hardly parrots the government (by which most people generally mean the President's administration, which is frequently in conflict with other parts of government). It has been generally hostile and pessimistic about the occupation of Iraq, for example.

Which is probably why you didn't comment on Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman.

Nice try, but I haven't commented on them because 1) I don't have anything interesting to add, and 2) they're unusual individual cases, and so aren't of much interest to me. They are annecdotes, little more except to the people directly involved with them.

As in my previous post to Darth Rotor I can only direct you to a resource detailing what the US govt. has really done in recent history, of which almost all its citizens are kept in ignorance of:

http://anticafta.tripod.com/id177.html


Let me pick out one incident from that page which is a pet peeve of mine to demonstrate why I don't take your source seriously:
"1953: Iran
CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo."
This is glaringly inaccurate. First off, the Shah of Iran was the Shah of Iran long before 1953. It was, in fact, the Shah who nominated Mossadegh to the post of prime minister in the first place (and the nomination confirmed by parliament, that being his "election"). A power struggle between the two developed several years after this appointment. The CIA took sides in this power struggle, and helped the Shah remove Mossadegh from power, that much is true. But we did not install the Shah (as mentioned, he was already the Shah), and the Shah was not a replacement for Mossadegh (the Shah did not become Prime Minister). This false account of what happened creates a very different impression from the reality of the situation. Now, a proper account of the whole affair need not hold the CIA blameless, but if your source can't even get the basic facts right (and your source clearly cannot), then why the hell should anyone trust it? In other words, you are yet again simply wrong on the facts. You accuse me of swallowing government propaganda, but you reveal that you yourself have been suckered by anti-government propaganda.

Edit: I just noticed another beauty from your link. It posts a rather famous photo from Vietnam:
http://www.ridgewater.net/mmdt1021/samples/fl02site12/projectimages/vietnam2.jpg
and claims it's a photo of the My Lai massacre. Well, it isn't. It's from Trang Bang. The funny thing is, the fact that it's from a different place doesn't make it unsuitable for the argument the authors are trying to frame. But it does show that they're ignorant idiots who can't get basic, widely available, easily-verified facts straight. Quite the source you've got there. I'm sure everyone is real impressed.

[Darth Rotor]

Quite the source you've got there. I'm sure everyone is real impressed.
Nope. ;)

I recall that photo as a magazine cover photo. In color.

DR

[JJR]

I have to admit, I never thought I'd be having a conversation with Joan Jett's Rabbit.

Life sure is a funny old dog.

DR

I'm also known as William Parcher, but there's another user on this forum who uses that name. He talks about Bigfoot a lot.

[KoihimeNakamura]

well done, I wonder if any of your pedantry would be of any consolation to, say, the relatives of the million dead Iraqis.

Did you come here to make a specific point about politics/war? Because I haven't heard one yet

Did you come here to make sense? Becuase none of your points are true?

Let's recap.

Aside from an insult, an appeal to emotion and a false fact, you have no response to myargument. So I'll restate it for a yes or no answer

Do you agree that the US war is not illegal and that the US was not hte primary supplier of the Saddam-led Iraq miltary, as shown above?

(Oh, and I'm still waiting for proof on that one claim.)

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Did you come here to make sense? Becuase none of your points are true?

Let's recap.

Aside from an insult
the adjective 'pedantic', rather than being an insult, is an accurate representation of your approach up to now

, an appeal to emotion
appeals to emotion are entirely justified. without a foundation of emotion how could any system of morality exist?



Do you agree that the US war is not illegal?
(Oh, and I'm still waiting for proof on that one claim.)

if you don't agree with me go ask Kofi Annan, Head of the United Nations at the time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704D.shtml
(for stating such a self-evident truth unsurprisingly the US govt started a smear campaign against him)
I have no doubt you'll reply with some detailed justification for why we shouldn't accept the Head of the UN as an appropriate judge. But come on, get real.

As to the Iraq weapons.. what does it really matter which particular country provided him with most of his weapons? Particular amounts have no moral import.
The point is that the US and the UK provided him with plenty of WMDs, but when he later disobeyed them they used the supposed possession of those same WMDs as a pretext to illegally invade.
Other countries who had supplied him with weapons did not use this past supply as an excuse for an illegal invasion, did they.
Hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]the mainstream media hardly parrots the government (by which most people generally mean the President's administration, which is frequently in conflict with other parts of government). It has been generally hostile and pessimistic about the occupation of Iraq, for example.

lol
are we living on the same planet?



Edit: I just noticed another beauty from your link. It posts a rather famous photo from Vietnam:
http://www.ridgewater.net/mmdt1021/samples/fl02site12/projectimages/vietnam2.jpg
and claims it's a photo of the My Lai massacre. Well, it isn't. It's from Trang Bang. The funny thing is, the fact that it's from a different place doesn't make it unsuitable for the argument the authors are trying to frame. But it does show that they're ignorant idiots who can't get basic, widely available, easily-verified facts straight. Quite the source you've got there. I'm sure everyone is real impressed.

so i give you a site with scores of links to evidence from hundreds of authors, and you pick out one attribution of one photograph to try to discredit the whole.
what does this mean? that the My Lai massacre or the Trang Bang bombing didn't happen, I suppose.
Poor attempt.

[Ziggurat]

so i give you a site with scores of links to evidence from hundreds of authors, and you pick out one attribution of one photograph to try to discredit the whole.
what does this mean? that the My Lai massacre or the Trang Bang bombing didn't happen, I suppose.
Poor attempt.

Did I say that it meant that neither event happened? No, I did not. In fact, I rather specifically said that the photo could have been used to support the author's primary point. Which makes your accusation of what I'm trying to do rather dishonest. Poor attempt indeed. What I said, and what you have no response to, is that such an elementary mistake on basic facts demonstrates ignorance and incompetence. The author can provide as many links as he wants to, but he's not going to magically become competent just by adding more links. I also note that you haven't responded regarding your source's false characterization of the CIA's role in removing Mossadegh in 1953. Hoping that one slips past without anyone noticing?

Oh, and let's not forget: you STILL haven't retracted your nonsensical claim that Congress not declaring war formally has any impact at all on our Geneva conventions obligations, or that anyone within the administration has ever advanced such an absurd legal theory. Hell, you haven't actually countered ANY of my criticisms to date.

[Ziggurat]

if you don't agree with me go ask Kofi Annan, Head of the United Nations at the time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704D.shtml
(for stating such a self-evident truth unsurprisingly the US govt started a smear campaign against him)
I have no doubt you'll reply with some detailed justification for why we shouldn't accept the Head of the UN as an appropriate judge. But come on, get real.

Kofi Annan was not "Head of the UN", he was the Secretary-General of the UN. That post has no real power beyond its administrative duties. Making determinations of whether or not international law has been violated is not part of the duties or power of the job, in this or any other case. His declarations in that regard are of NO more importance than yours or mine.

As to the Iraq weapons.. what does it really matter which particular country provided him with most of his weapons? Particular amounts have no moral import.

My... isn't that convenient.

The point is that the US and the UK provided him with plenty of WMDs,

Not so. The US never provided him with any WMD's, and I suspect the UK didn't either. What the US provided him with were items which could be used in the manufacture of WMD's. But that stuff (for example, chlorine processing equipment) is generally dual-use technology.

but when he later disobeyed them they used the supposed possession of those same WMDs as a pretext to illegally invade.

An absurd contention, since no WMD's were ever provided to Saddam.

Other countries who had supplied him with weapons did not use this past supply as an excuse for an illegal invasion, did they.
Hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?

I guess it's not hypocricy for France to provide the necessary components for a nuclear weapons program to Saddam, and to object to an invasion that would prevent him from restarting any such program in the future. But does a lack of hypocracy make it right? If mistakes were made in the past, should we refrain from correcting those mistakes in order to avoid being labeled hypicritical? The nice thing about charges of hypocricy is that you don't need to adhere to any other standard of behavior and you still get to throw that accusation around. Hell, the less you adhere to any standard of behavior, the easier it is to make that charge.

[KoihimeNakamura]

appeals to emotion are entirely justified. without a foundation of emotion how could any system of morality exist?

OK, fine...

if you don't agree with me go ask Kofi Annan, Head of the United Nations at the time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704D.shtml
(for stating such a self-evident truth unsurprisingly the US govt started a smear campaign against him)

Oil for Food ringing any bells? (And as Ziggurat pointed out, he does not have the authority or responsiblity of pointing out what is in violation of international law)


I have no doubt you'll reply with some detailed justification for why we shouldn't accept the Head of the UN as an appropriate judge. But come on, get real.

Bwa.


As to the Iraq weapons.. what does it really matter which particular country provided him with most of his weapons? Particular amounts have no moral import.
The point is that the US and the UK provided him with plenty of WMDs, but when he later disobeyed them they used the supposed possession of those same WMDs as a pretext to illegally invade.

The US provided dual-use chemicals, not WMD's. And not a lot either, but! What did Saddam drop on the Kurds in the 1980-1990's then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_campaign (source)

[plumjam]

Did I say that it meant that neither event happened? No, I did not. In fact, I rather specifically said that the photo could have been used to support the author's primary point. Which makes your accusation of what I'm trying to do rather dishonest. Poor attempt indeed. What I said, and what you have no response to, is that such an elementary mistake on basic facts demonstrates ignorance and incompetence. The author can provide as many links as he wants to, but he's not going to magically become competent just by adding more links. I also note that you haven't responded regarding your source's false characterization of the CIA's role in removing Mossadegh in 1953. Hoping that one slips past without anyone noticing?

Oh, and let's not forget: you STILL haven't retracted your nonsensical claim that Congress not declaring war formally has any impact at all on our Geneva conventions obligations, or that anyone within the administration has ever advanced such an absurd legal theory. Hell, you haven't actually countered ANY of my criticisms to date.

you believe the US mainstream media "has been generally hostile and pessimistic about the occupation of Iraq".
There's really no point me engaging further in a discussion with someone who believes that.
For whatever reason, you believe the big lies, and when someone points out that they are, in fact, big lies you do whatever you can to focus in on footling points on the other side of the argument.. as if they mattered.
This is self delusion.

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Oil for Food ringing any bells?

that'll be the Oil for Food program that was part of the sanctions policy, wouldn't it? A US-devised policy closely resembling siege warfare that caused the death of (one lower estimate) 287,000 Iraqi children, wouldn't it? (Another estimate claims 567,000)
Whether there was corruption in the oil for food program, I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know because I tend not to believe the outcomes of politically motivated "investigations" whose obvious purpose is to try to smear those, or those related to (think Scooter Libby) people who have raised objections to government policy.
And if you believe such "investigations", why would you?


The US provided dual-use chemicals, not WMD's. And not a lot either, but! What did Saddam drop on the Kurds in the 1980-1990's then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_campaign (source)

"Dual use", sure.. nice get out. What is your best guess as to what they were used for?

[Ziggurat]

you believe the US mainstream media "has been generally hostile and pessimistic about the occupation of Iraq".
There's really no point me engaging further in a discussion with someone who believes that.

Of course not. God forbid you actually defend your ideas. How convenient that you're found a reason to run away from debate.

For whatever reason, you believe the big lies, and when someone points out that they are, in fact, big lies you do whatever you can to focus in on footling points on the other side of the argument.. as if they mattered.
This is self delusion.

Where have I heard this logic before? Oh yes... "fake but accurate". Pathetic. You think as long as you've got the right narrative (because that's all your big picture is), the individual facts don't matter. And so you refuse to address them. Well, reality works the other way around: that vast multitude of little facts ARE the truth. If your big picture doesn't match those little truths, then your big picture is a big lie. And it's you, not me, who can't get those annoying little facts straight.

[KoihimeNakamura]

[quote=Tokorona;2906604]
that'll be the Oil for Food program that was part of the sanctions policy, wouldn't it? A US-devised policy closely resembling siege warfare that caused the death of (one lower estimate) 287,000 Iraqi children, wouldn't it? (Another estimate claims 567,000)

... yes, hold on a second. It was devised to releive their suffering.


Whether there was corruption in the oil for food program, I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know because I tend not to believe the outcomes of politically motivated "investigations" whose obvious purpose is to try to smear those, or those related to (think Scooter Libby) people who have raised objections to government policy.
And if you believe such "investigations", why would you?

I'm skeptical, which doesn't mean I automatically trigger the "DISBELIEF" lever a few thousand times.

Regardless, from wikipedia

Throughout its existence, the program was dogged by accusations that some of its profits were unlawfully diverted to the government of Iraq and to UN officials. These accusations were made in many countries, including the US and Norway. [4] (http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060822-104216-5171r.htm)

So, Norway's in on it now?

Or, hell, the GAO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_food#GAO_investigation (And no, the GAO is not a political body. Civil service)


"Dual use", sure.. nice get out. What is your best guess as to what they were used for?

I already linked to what they were most likely used for. And.. what Agent B (Iraq) does is not linked to what Agent A(US) wants them to do.