Don't worry. The Bush lemmings will be back as soon as the Bush admin comes up with a plan to try to wriggle out. I hear they are going to try to say they found a mobile bio lab, though the lab will have no traces of bio material (remember, the mobile lab thing was just something that Butler and Ritter thought up one day and never had any substance more than that).
until then, check out hersh's new article in the New yorker:
Hey Clinton was hung out to dry for lieing about less! Of course when Democrats lie about infidelity it's terrible. When a Republican lies to start a war and it results in the death of many people it's no big deal.
Straw man!
You go, boy!
--
tonton:
Quote:
[b]No, they don't. At least we all know that they shouldn't. That's just an excuse for Bush apologists.
Yeah, gotta uphold the moral authority of the office... oh wait are you sure you aren't a circa-1998 Republican senator?
Quote:
Bush lied to congress and the American people (that's me) resulting in death, financial burden and internatonal outrage. hundreds of billions of our tax dollars will be spent on these ideas which are apparently not justified enough to pursue through honest debate. That is unacceptable.
Well technically the lies saved lives in the long run, since our reason for strangling Iraqis for the previous 12 years with sanctions was also a lie, WoMD.
We had to slaughter them with a destroyed economic system and corruption with a few bombs sprinkled in because of WoMD.
What, exactly, changed beside the power of Saddam Hussein in the forseeable future for the Iraqi people? What really changed?
Quote:
All presidents lie, so it's okay? My god this world is going to hell. Don't you realize how horrible your ideas are, Groverat? Don't you have any conscience?
I don't give a rat's ass if the president lies if the result is a net positive.
Call me a crazy realist. Looking for an honest politician is like trying to find an albino squirrel on campus during finals week.
I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Clinton lied about WoMD to justify bombing Iraq in Desert Fox and I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Bush lied about WoMD to oust Saddam. (Though Clinton's was a bit more troubling morally since it didn't accomplish anything real.)
---
SJO:
Quote:
The only "liberation" experienced so far by the Iraqis is the "liberation" of their historical arts and artifacts.
Why not show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty and admit that the liberation fo the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the removal of the UN sanctions regime were amazingly positive and very real things?
Why not just TRY to be a little objective and honest?
I swear, you can still be petty and bitter. It won't kill you.
Yeah, gotta uphold the moral authority of the office... oh wait are you sure you aren't a circa-1998 Republican senator?
Well technically the lies saved lives in the long run, since our reason for strangling Iraqis for the previous 12 years with sanctions was also a lie, WoMD.
We had to slaughter them with a destroyed economic system and corruption with a few bombs sprinkled in because of WoMD.
What, exactly, changed beside the power of Saddam Hussein in the forseeable future for the Iraqi people? What really changed?
I don't give a rat's ass if the president lies if the result is a net positive.
Call me a crazy realist. Looking for an honest politician is like trying to find an albino squirrel on campus during finals week.
I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Clinton lied about WoMD to justify bombing Iraq in Desert Fox and I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Bush lied about WoMD to oust Saddam. (Though Clinton's was a bit more troubling morally since it didn't accomplish anything real.)
---
SJO:
Why not show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty and admit that the liberation fo the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the removal of the UN sanctions regime were amazingly positive and very real things?
Why not just TRY to be a little objective and honest?
I swear, you can still be petty and bitter. It won't kill you.
Yes, yes, yes lots of people lie in this world. The thing to do is not to just shrug your shoulders and say " Oh well, everybody does it " That's part of the problem. The thing to do ( especially with leaders ) is to aspire towards the truth when possible. Especially when dealing with your own people. Anything else will get you into trouble. Just ask Clinton.
I don't know how old you are but you should have learned those values by now.
Besideds it's becoming pretty clear the invasion in Iraq wasn't about any of the things you talk about.
" Why not just TRY to be a little objective and honest? "
SJO: Why not show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty and admit that the liberation fo the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the removal of the UN sanctions regime were amazingly positive and very real things?
Kid yourself not. You know as well as anyone else that the "liberation" of the Iraqi people was NOT the reason for starting the war. The Bush administration doesn't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, as you put it, and is now using the convenient side effect of Saddam's downfall and the future liberation potential for the Iraqi people as a moral distraction, knowing that the US people, a generally decent bunch of folks would appreciate it, in the absence of facts.
Right now...and for the forseeable future, life for the Iraqis has gone from bad to much worse. New additions to their hell include a dusk to dawn curfew, unreliable electricity, little food and water, spreading disease , hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas, random shooting in the streets..and all the other crap that accompanies occupation. In all the intense leafletting campaign that preceded the war for weeks, there was not a single piece of advice/warning regarding cluster bomblets for Iraqi civilians. Supposed to be liberating those folk eh? From their lives perhaps.
The reason for the war...as sold to the US people, was to "disarm Saddam's regime of WMD because they posed a grave and imminent danger to the United States". In the absence of WMD, and all the other shifting reasons, all lies, given to "justify" the war...they are now capitalizing on a phoney ethical leaning post...a nice little electioneering touch. The Bush administration has no limits to the depths they plumb.
Nobody's sad that Saddam is gone (has he really...$1 billion+ can buy all kinds of favors). If Saddam hadn't walked into Kuwait 13 years back, the US would probably *still* be on his side. Get you head out of Fox news, Groverat and smell some reality. The war was a bad idea, and it will come back and bite us...as does all short-sighted, misguided foreign policy.
New additions to their hell include a dusk to dawn curfew, unreliable electricity, little food and water, spreading disease , hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas, random shooting in the streets..and all the other crap that accompanies occupation.
Don't forget immense unemployment:
Quote:
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize several of Iraq?s industries. [Heritage Foundation, 9/25/02; Observer, 11/3/02; Washington Post, 4/21/03; Wall Street Journal, 5/1/03] This would have a significant impact on Iraq?s workforce, 75% of which had previously relied upon Saddam?s government or military for employment. A May 5, 2003 article in the New York Times revealed that the U.S. authority in Iraq had done little to absorb former government employees. The article reported that in Baghdad, ?thousands of Iraqis [were] begging for work from the newly arrived American administrators.? In one instance, reported the newspaper, ?hundreds of angry Iraqis swarmed into the lobby of the Palestine Hotel ... and protested for hours about their inability to get work from the American administrators, who ... have their headquarters inside the marble halls of the Republican Palace. ... Outside ..., soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications.? [New York Times, 5/5/03]
I don't know how old you are but you should have learned those values by now.
I'm also old enough to know not to expect honesty from politicians, and I'm sure as hell old enough to value real results over 100% honesty from said politicians.
---
SJO:
Quote:
Right now...and for the forseeable future, life for the Iraqis has gone from bad to much worse. New additions to their hell include a dusk to dawn curfew, unreliable electricity, little food and water, spreading disease , hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas, random shooting in the streets..and all the other crap that accompanies occupation.
- Curfew: I don't see what the hell that matters.
- Unreliable electricity: You mean like they had before the war?
- Little food and water: You mean like they had before the war?
- Spreading disease: You mean like they had before the war?
- Hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas: Got any source for that?
- Random shooting: Again, any sources?
Really, SJO, this is pathetic even for you.
Face it, the Iraqi people are better off right now and undoubtedly in the forseeable future. I guess we can ignore the thousands upon thousands of political prisoners who were tortured, raped and beaten by Hussein. Show me a dead baby picture and make it all go away!
That ONE LINK is all you could find? What a joke.
--
giant:
Quote:
Don't forget immense unemployment:
Yeah, Iraq was a real worker's haven before. I wonder why 60% of the people lived off international assistance programs before the war.
SJO: Curfew: I don't see what the hell that matters.
What?????? I can't believe you said that....but I guess you did...
Quote:
- Unreliable electricity: You mean like they had before the war?
Maybe not to US standards for sure...but Iraq was one of the most "westernized" nations before the sanctions. The electricity system there has been trashed.
Quote:
- Little food and water: You mean like they had before the war?
- Spreading disease: You mean like they had before the war?
- Hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas: Got any source for that?
- Random shooting: Again, any sources?
I have read more articles about this kind of stuff than many people have had hot dinners. I shall dig them up tonight igf I have a spare 15 minutes. I'm amazed you haven't read anything about it...but there agin, Fox and Co don't run articles counter to administration policy.
Quote:
Really, SJO, this is pathetic even for you.
Face it, the Iraqi people are better off right now and undoubtedly in the forseeable future. I guess we can ignore the thousands upon thousands of political prisoners who were tortured, raped and beaten by Hussein. Show me a dead baby picture and make it all go away!
That ONE LINK is all you could find? What a joke.
A quick glance thru the media....it doesnt take much effort really. Apologies I couldn't find anything on the FOX network that was relevant...but we wouldnt exactly expect anything now would we?
Incidentally, the curfew (or lack of) is probably a good mark of defining how "liberated" a place is. The Iraq curfew is now probably permanent.
What?????? I can't believe you said that....but I guess you did...
Contrast and compare between Saddam w/out curfews and curfews w/out Saddam if you would and tell me how this is worse (knowing that it is temporary).
Quote:
Maybe not to US standards for sure...but Iraq was one of the most "westernized" nations before the sanctions. The electricity system there has been trashed.
"before the sanctions"
You're moving the goalposts, SJO, we are talking about lies to go to war, not to impose sanctions. The sanctions lies were not GeeDub's. Those were his daddy's and Clinton's.
Quote:
I have read more articles about this kind of stuff than many people have had hot dinners. I shall dig them up tonight igf I have a spare 15 minutes. I'm amazed you haven't read anything about it...but there agin, Fox and Co don't run articles counter to administration policy.
If you can show one instance of me ever citing FoxNews for anything I'd love to see it. The fact that you rely on such an easy attack shows how amazingly weak your position is.
Lies from the administration or no, Iraq is in a much better position for progress than it was before the war.
--
Cluster bombs:
Bad stuff, but sanctions killed 274 a day.
Again, your sources never cease to amaze me. I find it endlessly amusing that you attack my credibility with ludicrous accusations of relying on FoxNews when your sources are mostly paranoia sites. (For God's sake one is called LIBERALSLANT.COM!)
For every one of your amazingly biased opinion pieces I can find 5 stories of Saddam's horrible deeds, it's really a pointless action you undertake to hide the fact that this operation has been a tremendous success.
There's chaos in a city whose government has just been removed, HOW SHOCKING!
IraqBodyCount.net tells us ~2500 civilians have been killed to this point. That's less than 10 days of sanctions that George W. Bush removed.
"BUT! BUT! What about the opinion piece from LIBERALSLANT.COM!?!?!"
--
giant:
Quote:
I'm sure the country's GDP decrease from $60b to $5.7b (99) due toi sanctions had something to do with that.
DO YOU THINK, SHERLOCK!?
Wow, what a stunning financial analysis, Mr. Greenspan, I hope you haven't taken too much time from your busy schedule to point out something so difficult to decipher.
Guess what's gone now... I'll give you 10 seconds.
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize several of Iraq?s industries. [Heritage Foundation, 9/25/02; Observer, 11/3/02; Washington Post, 4/21/03; Wall Street Journal, 5/1/03] This would have a significant impact on Iraq?s workforce, 75% of which had previously relied upon Saddam?s government or military for employment. A May 5, 2003 article in the New York Times revealed that the U.S. authority in Iraq had done little to absorb former government employees. The article reported that in Baghdad, ?thousands of Iraqis [were] begging for work from the newly arrived American administrators.? In one instance, reported the newspaper, ?hundreds of angry Iraqis swarmed into the lobby of the Palestine Hotel ... and protested for hours about their inability to get work from the American administrators, who ... have their headquarters inside the marble halls of the Republican Palace. ... Outside ..., soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications.? [New York Times, 5/5/03]
2.
As for the future of the Iraqi economy, there is a lot more involved than employment rates (which is what we are talking about). Where do you get the idea that the lifting of sanctions is going to be this wonderful cure from Iraq's economic woes? Many countries have enough trouble without sanctions, and you can bet Iraq will continue to be one of them. Considering manufacturing has all but died, the country has a long way to go. This becomes even more of a problem if foriegners are being brought in taking the jobs created by the need to rebuild the country and get it running again.
Anyway, quit with these BS attempts to change your argument. You have done it time and time again and it really is sad to watch.
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize ... snip ... soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications.? [New York Times, 5/5/03][/b]
The real work of reconstructing work has yet to begin. For Christ's sake it hasn't even been a month since the statue fell and you're expecting a vibrant economy?
As the economy of Iraq gets on its feet jobs will come, what the hell is so hard to understand about that?
Quote:
As for the future of the Iraqi economy, there is a lot more involved than employment rates (which is what we are talking about).
Am I the one who brough up employment rates? Hmm.
Quote:
Where do you get the idea that the lifting of sanctions is going to be this wonderful cure from Iraq's economic woes?
Before sanctions, Iraq had a strong economy.
With sanctions, Iraq had a very weak economy.
Iraq has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the entire world.
Oil is one of the most important economic items on the planet.
You know... this really isn't rocket science.
Quote:
Many countries have enough trouble without sanctions, and you can bet Iraq will continue to be one of them. Considering manufacturing has all but died, the country has a long way to go.
Manufacturing?
OIL
How's the manufacturing biz in Qatar lately? How about Kuwait?
Hmm... how do they get their money? Oh yeah... OIL!
How did Iraq become so powerful before the Gulf War? Hmmm oh yeah.... OIL!
Manufacturing? heh... you're not even trying are you?
Quote:
This becomes even more of a problem if foriegners are being brought in taking the jobs created by the need to rebuild the country and get it running again.
Who is being brought in to take the jobs created to rebuild the country? Are we going to be shipping in millions of Americans? Did I miss a memo?
Quote:
Anyway, quit with these BS attempts to change your argument. You have done it time and time again and it really is sad to watch.
Change it from what to what?
It seems a lot easier for you to accuse me of it than to lay out how I have done it.
SJO:d compare between Saddam w/out curfews and curfews w/out Saddam if you would and tell me how this is worse (knowing that it is temporary).
Oh really? You an architect of Iraqi policy, or have an 'in' with the PNAC, the Pentagon and the White House?
Quote:
"before the sanctions"
You're moving the goalposts, SJO, we are talking about lies to go to war, not to impose sanctions. The sanctions lies were not GeeDub's. Those were his daddy's and Clinton's.
GeeDub has been 'president' for 18 months nearly...does that not count?...perhaps because he wasn't legally elected? Sanctions are *still* in effect....there hasn't been any time during GeeDub's tenure that there haven't been sanctions against Iraq.
Quote:
If you can show one instance of me ever citing FoxNews for anything I'd love to see it. The fact that you rely on such an easy attack shows how amazingly weak your position is.
Lies from the administration or no, Iraq is in a much better position for progress than it was before the war.
I can't...your position on the whole issue smacks of regurgitating administration propaganda...just as spewed out by Fox..et al. perhaps I should have qualified that one more clearly.
--
Quote:
Cluster bombs:
Bad stuff, but sanctions killed 274 a day.
Are you, or have you been in favor of sanctions? I haven't, because that was a mechanism that helped keep Hussein in power.
Quote:
Again, your sources never cease to amaze me. I find it endlessly amusing that you attack my credibility with ludicrous accusations of relying on FoxNews when your sources are mostly paranoia sites. (For God's sake one is called LIBERALSLANT.COM!)
So what? Why complain about that one, when I also included 2 articles from right-wing/Libertarian sites, one from an Israeli site and several from regular corporate sites. Gooff.com ....just because they include material that doesn't get aired on the networks doesn't mean they have any less credibility. If anything.......
Quote:
For every one of your amazingly biased opinion pieces I can find 5 stories of Saddam's horrible deeds, it's really a pointless action you undertake to hide the fact that this operation has been a tremendous success.
Oh dear. Saddam was a horror story (still may be)....I have no disgareement with you on that fact. Then remind yourself
...Saddam Hussein did his worst stuff, involving chemical/bio weapons, and a bunch of other horrific stuff....when he was a US buddy and ally. Never forget that the US (specially under Reagan) helped him with funding, weapons and intelligence when he was using chemical weapons against Iran. Stupid, short-sighted foreign policy that predictably came back to haunt us.
Of course the missiles-shooting-bombing-killing operation was a "success" in that it prevailed over the Iraqis missiles-shooting etc operation. This "war" was no contest. $400 billion defense budget takes on $1billion. Highly trained soldiers take on a ragtag army of conscripts and poorly equipped regulars, with no navy, no marines and no air force. This motley crew were apparently a huge and imminent danger to the USA, enough to warrant $75-$150 billion of taxpayer funds, which we don't have... jeez...gimme a freakin' break!!!
It is hard to reconcile how the failure of negotiation, the breakdown of communications and the breach of international and constitutional law could be somehow construed in anyone's imagination as being "successful".
Quote:
There's chaos in a city whose government has just been removed, HOW SHOCKING!
IraqBodyCount.net tells us ~2500 civilians have been killed to this point. That's less than 10 days of sanctions that George W. Bush removed.
He hasn't removed them!!!! Aren't the sanctions there because of IUraq's WMDs..which the Admin *still insists* are in Iraq?
Quote:
"BUT! BUT! What about the opinion piece from LIBERALSLANT.COM!?!?!"
Oh...if you are paying any attention, groverat, READ THIS
Creates a centralized economy, with a high disparity in income. It seems highly unlikely that in the long run oil income will be distributed evenly through a highly socialist system in a country with such rifts between groups. Maybe you should learn a little about the problems with being a rentier state, and specifically an oil one, and why democracy is greatly hindered before you make more of a fool of yourself.
As for the other gulf states you mentioned, their economies are supported by populations of foreigners that are larger than the population of citizens, which are very small. In Bahrain, the citizen income to foreign is over 3 to 1, with the others in the same ballpark.
Groverat, I don't mind helping you get out of your fantasy-land world view, but your whole act really makes you look like a fool. Especially now that your factually accuracy rating is right down there with fellowship and sdw.
Iraq doesn't need an oil economy in order to get on its feet, it needs a fully diversified one, which it probably won't get.
Oh really? You an architect of Iraqi policy, or have an 'in' with the PNAC, the Pentagon and the White House?
Well I'm just assuming we're not going to be running dissidents through plastic shredders feet first or operating myriad torture chambers throughout the country. Silly me.
Quote:
GeeDub has been 'president' for 18 months nearly...does that not count?...perhaps because he wasn't legally elected? Sanctions are *still* in effect....there hasn't been any time during GeeDub's tenure that there haven't been sanctions against Iraq.
They are in the process of being removed and they really have no future. At the very least GeeDub has called for their removal and oppossed their existence and taken very real steps to get them removed.
The point still applies, this thread is about war, not sanctions, and there's no way in hell you can blame sanctions on GeeDub. He (obviously) can't control the UN.
Quote:
I can't...your position on the whole issue smacks of regurgitating administration propaganda...just as spewed out by Fox..et al. perhaps I should have qualified that one more clearly.
Yes or No: Is Iraq in a better position for progress now than it was before the war?
Quote:
Are you, or have you been in favor of sanctions?
You obviously haven't been paying attention.
No and no.
Quote:
So what? Why complain about that one, when I also included 2 articles from right-wing/Libertarian sites, one from an Israeli site and several from regular corporate sites. Gooff.com ....just because they include material that doesn't get aired on the networks doesn't mean they have any less credibility. If anything.......
Because they were mainly opinion pieces with no real facts, just conspiracy.
The only real facts shown were the cluster bomb deaths, other than that it's all editorial. That's of no use.
Quote:
...Saddam Hussein did his worst stuff, involving chemical/bio weapons, and a bunch of other horrific stuff....when he was a US buddy and ally.
Oh my God that is so relevant!
Quote:
Of course the missiles-shooting-bombing-killing operation was a "success" in that it prevailed over the Iraqis missiles-shooting etc operation.
I guess you want to ignore the many predictions of weeks of fighting in the streets in Baghdad, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of civilian casualties. A "quagmire". "Another Vietnam".
That's why it was a surprise, it went faster and less bloody than anyone expected. (Except Bill Clinton, who said it would only take a couple of days. That Bill, ever the optimist!)
Quote:
It is hard to reconcile how the failure of negotiation, the breakdown of communications and the breach of international and constitutional law could be somehow construed in anyone's imagination as being "successful".
Breach of constitutional law?
Quote:
He hasn't removed them!!!! Aren't the sanctions there because of IUraq's WMDs..which the Admin *still insists* are in Iraq?
He's trying to remove them, it's the anti-war lot who is keeping them on.
Easier to bash the US than to recognize whose fault those sanctions really are at this point, eh?
Quote:
Oh...if you are paying any attention, groverat, READ THIS
How in God's name does that refute the idea that they were liberated? Because they're ambivalent?
---
giant:
Quote:
Creates a centralized economy, with a high disparity in income. It seems highly unlikely that in the long run oil income will be distributed evenly through a highly socialist system in a country with such rifts between groups. Maybe you should learn a little about the problems with being a rentier state, and specifically an oil one, and why democracy is greatly hindered before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Who had a better life before the war, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis, Qatar(ians?)(is?) or Iraqis?
God! Is groverat still at it? Ah, still trying to prove the pointless. But, what can you expect from someone who thinks lieing is exceptable. Geez I didn't even think that about Clinton!
Comments
until then, check out hersh's new article in the New yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
EDIT: How dubious a name.....
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
Hey Clinton was hung out to dry for lieing about less! Of course when Democrats lie about infidelity it's terrible. When a Republican lies to start a war and it results in the death of many people it's no big deal.
Straw man!
You go, boy!
--
tonton:
[b]No, they don't. At least we all know that they shouldn't. That's just an excuse for Bush apologists.
Yeah, gotta uphold the moral authority of the office... oh wait are you sure you aren't a circa-1998 Republican senator?
Bush lied to congress and the American people (that's me) resulting in death, financial burden and internatonal outrage. hundreds of billions of our tax dollars will be spent on these ideas which are apparently not justified enough to pursue through honest debate. That is unacceptable.
Well technically the lies saved lives in the long run, since our reason for strangling Iraqis for the previous 12 years with sanctions was also a lie, WoMD.
We had to slaughter them with a destroyed economic system and corruption with a few bombs sprinkled in because of WoMD.
What, exactly, changed beside the power of Saddam Hussein in the forseeable future for the Iraqi people? What really changed?
All presidents lie, so it's okay? My god this world is going to hell. Don't you realize how horrible your ideas are, Groverat? Don't you have any conscience?
I don't give a rat's ass if the president lies if the result is a net positive.
Call me a crazy realist. Looking for an honest politician is like trying to find an albino squirrel on campus during finals week.
I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Clinton lied about WoMD to justify bombing Iraq in Desert Fox and I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Bush lied about WoMD to oust Saddam. (Though Clinton's was a bit more troubling morally since it didn't accomplish anything real.)
---
SJO:
The only "liberation" experienced so far by the Iraqis is the "liberation" of their historical arts and artifacts.
Why not show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty and admit that the liberation fo the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the removal of the UN sanctions regime were amazingly positive and very real things?
Why not just TRY to be a little objective and honest?
I swear, you can still be petty and bitter. It won't kill you.
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
Straw man!
You go, boy!
--
tonton:
Yeah, gotta uphold the moral authority of the office... oh wait are you sure you aren't a circa-1998 Republican senator?
Well technically the lies saved lives in the long run, since our reason for strangling Iraqis for the previous 12 years with sanctions was also a lie, WoMD.
We had to slaughter them with a destroyed economic system and corruption with a few bombs sprinkled in because of WoMD.
What, exactly, changed beside the power of Saddam Hussein in the forseeable future for the Iraqi people? What really changed?
I don't give a rat's ass if the president lies if the result is a net positive.
Call me a crazy realist. Looking for an honest politician is like trying to find an albino squirrel on campus during finals week.
I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Clinton lied about WoMD to justify bombing Iraq in Desert Fox and I didn't give a rat's nutsack when Bush lied about WoMD to oust Saddam. (Though Clinton's was a bit more troubling morally since it didn't accomplish anything real.)
---
SJO:
Why not show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty and admit that the liberation fo the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the removal of the UN sanctions regime were amazingly positive and very real things?
Why not just TRY to be a little objective and honest?
I swear, you can still be petty and bitter. It won't kill you.
Yes, yes, yes lots of people lie in this world. The thing to do is not to just shrug your shoulders and say " Oh well, everybody does it " That's part of the problem. The thing to do ( especially with leaders ) is to aspire towards the truth when possible. Especially when dealing with your own people. Anything else will get you into trouble. Just ask Clinton.
I don't know how old you are but you should have learned those values by now.
Besideds it's becoming pretty clear the invasion in Iraq wasn't about any of the things you talk about.
" Why not just TRY to be a little objective and honest? "
Honest being the key word here.
SJO: Why not show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty and admit that the liberation fo the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the removal of the UN sanctions regime were amazingly positive and very real things?
Kid yourself not. You know as well as anyone else that the "liberation" of the Iraqi people was NOT the reason for starting the war. The Bush administration doesn't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, as you put it, and is now using the convenient side effect of Saddam's downfall and the future liberation potential for the Iraqi people as a moral distraction, knowing that the US people, a generally decent bunch of folks would appreciate it, in the absence of facts.
Right now...and for the forseeable future, life for the Iraqis has gone from bad to much worse. New additions to their hell include a dusk to dawn curfew, unreliable electricity, little food and water, spreading disease , hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas, random shooting in the streets..and all the other crap that accompanies occupation. In all the intense leafletting campaign that preceded the war for weeks, there was not a single piece of advice/warning regarding cluster bomblets for Iraqi civilians. Supposed to be liberating those folk eh? From their lives perhaps.
The reason for the war...as sold to the US people, was to "disarm Saddam's regime of WMD because they posed a grave and imminent danger to the United States". In the absence of WMD, and all the other shifting reasons, all lies, given to "justify" the war...they are now capitalizing on a phoney ethical leaning post...a nice little electioneering touch. The Bush administration has no limits to the depths they plumb.
Nobody's sad that Saddam is gone (has he really...$1 billion+ can buy all kinds of favors). If Saddam hadn't walked into Kuwait 13 years back, the US would probably *still* be on his side. Get you head out of Fox news, Groverat and smell some reality. The war was a bad idea, and it will come back and bite us...as does all short-sighted, misguided foreign policy.
Originally posted by sammi jo
New additions to their hell include a dusk to dawn curfew, unreliable electricity, little food and water, spreading disease , hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas, random shooting in the streets..and all the other crap that accompanies occupation.
Don't forget immense unemployment:
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize several of Iraq?s industries. [Heritage Foundation, 9/25/02; Observer, 11/3/02; Washington Post, 4/21/03; Wall Street Journal, 5/1/03] This would have a significant impact on Iraq?s workforce, 75% of which had previously relied upon Saddam?s government or military for employment. A May 5, 2003 article in the New York Times revealed that the U.S. authority in Iraq had done little to absorb former government employees. The article reported that in Baghdad, ?thousands of Iraqis [were] begging for work from the newly arrived American administrators.? In one instance, reported the newspaper, ?hundreds of angry Iraqis swarmed into the lobby of the Palestine Hotel ... and protested for hours about their inability to get work from the American administrators, who ... have their headquarters inside the marble halls of the Republican Palace. ... Outside ..., soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications.? [New York Times, 5/5/03]
CCR
I don't know how old you are but you should have learned those values by now.
I'm also old enough to know not to expect honesty from politicians, and I'm sure as hell old enough to value real results over 100% honesty from said politicians.
---
SJO:
Right now...and for the forseeable future, life for the Iraqis has gone from bad to much worse. New additions to their hell include a dusk to dawn curfew, unreliable electricity, little food and water, spreading disease , hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas, random shooting in the streets..and all the other crap that accompanies occupation.
- Curfew: I don't see what the hell that matters.
- Unreliable electricity: You mean like they had before the war?
- Little food and water: You mean like they had before the war?
- Spreading disease: You mean like they had before the war?
- Hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas: Got any source for that?
- Random shooting: Again, any sources?
Really, SJO, this is pathetic even for you.
Face it, the Iraqi people are better off right now and undoubtedly in the forseeable future. I guess we can ignore the thousands upon thousands of political prisoners who were tortured, raped and beaten by Hussein. Show me a dead baby picture and make it all go away!
That ONE LINK is all you could find? What a joke.
--
giant:
Don't forget immense unemployment:
Yeah, Iraq was a real worker's haven before. I wonder why 60% of the people lived off international assistance programs before the war.
SJO: Curfew: I don't see what the hell that matters.
What?????? I can't believe you said that....but I guess you did...
- Unreliable electricity: You mean like they had before the war?
Maybe not to US standards for sure...but Iraq was one of the most "westernized" nations before the sanctions. The electricity system there has been trashed.
- Little food and water: You mean like they had before the war?
- Spreading disease: You mean like they had before the war?
- Hundreds of children killed by picking up cluster bomblets in residential areas: Got any source for that?
- Random shooting: Again, any sources?
I have read more articles about this kind of stuff than many people have had hot dinners. I shall dig them up tonight igf I have a spare 15 minutes. I'm amazed you haven't read anything about it...but there agin, Fox and Co don't run articles counter to administration policy.
Really, SJO, this is pathetic even for you.
Face it, the Iraqi people are better off right now and undoubtedly in the forseeable future. I guess we can ignore the thousands upon thousands of political prisoners who were tortured, raped and beaten by Hussein. Show me a dead baby picture and make it all go away!
That ONE LINK is all you could find? What a joke.
A quick glance thru the media....it doesnt take much effort really. Apologies I couldn't find anything on the FOX network that was relevant...but we wouldnt exactly expect anything now would we?
Incidentally, the curfew (or lack of) is probably a good mark of defining how "liberated" a place is. The Iraq curfew is now probably permanent.
Cluster bombs
"Liberation"?
Liberation? US rehiring Saddam's brutes
More on "Liberation" or rather, chaos
Now *HERE"S* some liberation for you
Liberation?
Look who supported the looting
From one dictator to the next...
Cluster Bombs....
And......they keep on misleading
and lying
Originally posted by groverat
Yeah, Iraq was a real worker's haven before. I wonder why 60% of the people lived off international assistance programs before the war.
I'm sure the country's GDP decrease from $60b to $5.7b (99) due toi sanctions had something to do with that.
What?????? I can't believe you said that....but I guess you did...
Contrast and compare between Saddam w/out curfews and curfews w/out Saddam if you would and tell me how this is worse (knowing that it is temporary).
Maybe not to US standards for sure...but Iraq was one of the most "westernized" nations before the sanctions. The electricity system there has been trashed.
"before the sanctions"
You're moving the goalposts, SJO, we are talking about lies to go to war, not to impose sanctions. The sanctions lies were not GeeDub's. Those were his daddy's and Clinton's.
I have read more articles about this kind of stuff than many people have had hot dinners. I shall dig them up tonight igf I have a spare 15 minutes. I'm amazed you haven't read anything about it...but there agin, Fox and Co don't run articles counter to administration policy.
If you can show one instance of me ever citing FoxNews for anything I'd love to see it. The fact that you rely on such an easy attack shows how amazingly weak your position is.
Lies from the administration or no, Iraq is in a much better position for progress than it was before the war.
--
Cluster bombs:
Bad stuff, but sanctions killed 274 a day.
Again, your sources never cease to amaze me. I find it endlessly amusing that you attack my credibility with ludicrous accusations of relying on FoxNews when your sources are mostly paranoia sites. (For God's sake one is called LIBERALSLANT.COM!)
For every one of your amazingly biased opinion pieces I can find 5 stories of Saddam's horrible deeds, it's really a pointless action you undertake to hide the fact that this operation has been a tremendous success.
There's chaos in a city whose government has just been removed, HOW SHOCKING!
IraqBodyCount.net tells us ~2500 civilians have been killed to this point. That's less than 10 days of sanctions that George W. Bush removed.
"BUT! BUT! What about the opinion piece from LIBERALSLANT.COM!?!?!"
--
giant:
I'm sure the country's GDP decrease from $60b to $5.7b (99) due toi sanctions had something to do with that.
DO YOU THINK, SHERLOCK!?
Wow, what a stunning financial analysis, Mr. Greenspan, I hope you haven't taken too much time from your busy schedule to point out something so difficult to decipher.
Guess what's gone now... I'll give you 10 seconds.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
THE SANCTIONS!
Cookie for you, Alan, you win the big prize!
No Saddam and No Sanctions = A Good Thing
Is the light bulb firing up yet?
1. what part of this is so hard to understand?
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize several of Iraq?s industries. [Heritage Foundation, 9/25/02; Observer, 11/3/02; Washington Post, 4/21/03; Wall Street Journal, 5/1/03] This would have a significant impact on Iraq?s workforce, 75% of which had previously relied upon Saddam?s government or military for employment. A May 5, 2003 article in the New York Times revealed that the U.S. authority in Iraq had done little to absorb former government employees. The article reported that in Baghdad, ?thousands of Iraqis [were] begging for work from the newly arrived American administrators.? In one instance, reported the newspaper, ?hundreds of angry Iraqis swarmed into the lobby of the Palestine Hotel ... and protested for hours about their inability to get work from the American administrators, who ... have their headquarters inside the marble halls of the Republican Palace. ... Outside ..., soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications.? [New York Times, 5/5/03]
2.
As for the future of the Iraqi economy, there is a lot more involved than employment rates (which is what we are talking about). Where do you get the idea that the lifting of sanctions is going to be this wonderful cure from Iraq's economic woes? Many countries have enough trouble without sanctions, and you can bet Iraq will continue to be one of them. Considering manufacturing has all but died, the country has a long way to go. This becomes even more of a problem if foriegners are being brought in taking the jobs created by the need to rebuild the country and get it running again.
Anyway, quit with these BS attempts to change your argument. You have done it time and time again and it really is sad to watch.
1. what part of this is so hard to understand?
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize ... snip ... soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications.? [New York Times, 5/5/03][/b]
The real work of reconstructing work has yet to begin. For Christ's sake it hasn't even been a month since the statue fell and you're expecting a vibrant economy?
As the economy of Iraq gets on its feet jobs will come, what the hell is so hard to understand about that?
As for the future of the Iraqi economy, there is a lot more involved than employment rates (which is what we are talking about).
Am I the one who brough up employment rates? Hmm.
Where do you get the idea that the lifting of sanctions is going to be this wonderful cure from Iraq's economic woes?
Before sanctions, Iraq had a strong economy.
With sanctions, Iraq had a very weak economy.
Iraq has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the entire world.
Oil is one of the most important economic items on the planet.
You know... this really isn't rocket science.
Many countries have enough trouble without sanctions, and you can bet Iraq will continue to be one of them. Considering manufacturing has all but died, the country has a long way to go.
Manufacturing?
OIL
How's the manufacturing biz in Qatar lately? How about Kuwait?
Hmm... how do they get their money? Oh yeah... OIL!
How did Iraq become so powerful before the Gulf War? Hmmm oh yeah.... OIL!
Manufacturing? heh... you're not even trying are you?
This becomes even more of a problem if foriegners are being brought in taking the jobs created by the need to rebuild the country and get it running again.
Who is being brought in to take the jobs created to rebuild the country? Are we going to be shipping in millions of Americans? Did I miss a memo?
Anyway, quit with these BS attempts to change your argument. You have done it time and time again and it really is sad to watch.
Change it from what to what?
It seems a lot easier for you to accuse me of it than to lay out how I have done it.
Originally posted by groverat
SJO:d compare between Saddam w/out curfews and curfews w/out Saddam if you would and tell me how this is worse (knowing that it is temporary).
Oh really? You an architect of Iraqi policy, or have an 'in' with the PNAC, the Pentagon and the White House?
"before the sanctions"
You're moving the goalposts, SJO, we are talking about lies to go to war, not to impose sanctions. The sanctions lies were not GeeDub's. Those were his daddy's and Clinton's.
GeeDub has been 'president' for 18 months nearly...does that not count?...perhaps because he wasn't legally elected? Sanctions are *still* in effect....there hasn't been any time during GeeDub's tenure that there haven't been sanctions against Iraq.
If you can show one instance of me ever citing FoxNews for anything I'd love to see it. The fact that you rely on such an easy attack shows how amazingly weak your position is.
Lies from the administration or no, Iraq is in a much better position for progress than it was before the war.
I can't...your position on the whole issue smacks of regurgitating administration propaganda...just as spewed out by Fox..et al. perhaps I should have qualified that one more clearly.
--
Cluster bombs:
Bad stuff, but sanctions killed 274 a day.
Are you, or have you been in favor of sanctions? I haven't, because that was a mechanism that helped keep Hussein in power.
Again, your sources never cease to amaze me. I find it endlessly amusing that you attack my credibility with ludicrous accusations of relying on FoxNews when your sources are mostly paranoia sites. (For God's sake one is called LIBERALSLANT.COM!)
So what? Why complain about that one, when I also included 2 articles from right-wing/Libertarian sites, one from an Israeli site and several from regular corporate sites. Gooff.com ....just because they include material that doesn't get aired on the networks doesn't mean they have any less credibility. If anything.......
For every one of your amazingly biased opinion pieces I can find 5 stories of Saddam's horrible deeds, it's really a pointless action you undertake to hide the fact that this operation has been a tremendous success.
Oh dear. Saddam was a horror story (still may be)....I have no disgareement with you on that fact. Then remind yourself
...Saddam Hussein did his worst stuff, involving chemical/bio weapons, and a bunch of other horrific stuff....when he was a US buddy and ally. Never forget that the US (specially under Reagan) helped him with funding, weapons and intelligence when he was using chemical weapons against Iran. Stupid, short-sighted foreign policy that predictably came back to haunt us.
Of course the missiles-shooting-bombing-killing operation was a "success" in that it prevailed over the Iraqis missiles-shooting etc operation. This "war" was no contest. $400 billion defense budget takes on $1billion. Highly trained soldiers take on a ragtag army of conscripts and poorly equipped regulars, with no navy, no marines and no air force. This motley crew were apparently a huge and imminent danger to the USA, enough to warrant $75-$150 billion of taxpayer funds, which we don't have... jeez...gimme a freakin' break!!!
It is hard to reconcile how the failure of negotiation, the breakdown of communications and the breach of international and constitutional law could be somehow construed in anyone's imagination as being "successful".
There's chaos in a city whose government has just been removed, HOW SHOCKING!
IraqBodyCount.net tells us ~2500 civilians have been killed to this point. That's less than 10 days of sanctions that George W. Bush removed.
He hasn't removed them!!!! Aren't the sanctions there because of IUraq's WMDs..which the Admin *still insists* are in Iraq?
"BUT! BUT! What about the opinion piece from LIBERALSLANT.COM!?!?!"
Oh...if you are paying any attention, groverat, READ THIS
Liberation....try again
Originally posted by groverat
Cluster bombs:
Bad stuff, but sanctions killed 274 a day.
Why do you insist on continuing to lie about this when you were the one that provided the link that disproved your beliefs?
Originally posted by groverat
OIL!
Creates a centralized economy, with a high disparity in income. It seems highly unlikely that in the long run oil income will be distributed evenly through a highly socialist system in a country with such rifts between groups. Maybe you should learn a little about the problems with being a rentier state, and specifically an oil one, and why democracy is greatly hindered before you make more of a fool of yourself.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_p.../53.3ross.html
and scroll down here for a short version:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnec...mes/economics/
As for the other gulf states you mentioned, their economies are supported by populations of foreigners that are larger than the population of citizens, which are very small. In Bahrain, the citizen income to foreign is over 3 to 1, with the others in the same ballpark.
Groverat, I don't mind helping you get out of your fantasy-land world view, but your whole act really makes you look like a fool. Especially now that your factually accuracy rating is right down there with fellowship and sdw.
Iraq doesn't need an oil economy in order to get on its feet, it needs a fully diversified one, which it probably won't get.
Oh really? You an architect of Iraqi policy, or have an 'in' with the PNAC, the Pentagon and the White House?
Well I'm just assuming we're not going to be running dissidents through plastic shredders feet first or operating myriad torture chambers throughout the country. Silly me.
GeeDub has been 'president' for 18 months nearly...does that not count?...perhaps because he wasn't legally elected? Sanctions are *still* in effect....there hasn't been any time during GeeDub's tenure that there haven't been sanctions against Iraq.
They are in the process of being removed and they really have no future. At the very least GeeDub has called for their removal and oppossed their existence and taken very real steps to get them removed.
The point still applies, this thread is about war, not sanctions, and there's no way in hell you can blame sanctions on GeeDub. He (obviously) can't control the UN.
I can't...your position on the whole issue smacks of regurgitating administration propaganda...just as spewed out by Fox..et al. perhaps I should have qualified that one more clearly.
Yes or No: Is Iraq in a better position for progress now than it was before the war?
Are you, or have you been in favor of sanctions?
You obviously haven't been paying attention.
No and no.
So what? Why complain about that one, when I also included 2 articles from right-wing/Libertarian sites, one from an Israeli site and several from regular corporate sites. Gooff.com ....just because they include material that doesn't get aired on the networks doesn't mean they have any less credibility. If anything.......
Because they were mainly opinion pieces with no real facts, just conspiracy.
The only real facts shown were the cluster bomb deaths, other than that it's all editorial. That's of no use.
...Saddam Hussein did his worst stuff, involving chemical/bio weapons, and a bunch of other horrific stuff....when he was a US buddy and ally.
Oh my God that is so relevant!
Of course the missiles-shooting-bombing-killing operation was a "success" in that it prevailed over the Iraqis missiles-shooting etc operation.
I guess you want to ignore the many predictions of weeks of fighting in the streets in Baghdad, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of civilian casualties. A "quagmire". "Another Vietnam".
That's why it was a surprise, it went faster and less bloody than anyone expected. (Except Bill Clinton, who said it would only take a couple of days. That Bill, ever the optimist!)
It is hard to reconcile how the failure of negotiation, the breakdown of communications and the breach of international and constitutional law could be somehow construed in anyone's imagination as being "successful".
Breach of constitutional law?
He hasn't removed them!!!! Aren't the sanctions there because of IUraq's WMDs..which the Admin *still insists* are in Iraq?
He's trying to remove them, it's the anti-war lot who is keeping them on.
Easier to bash the US than to recognize whose fault those sanctions really are at this point, eh?
Oh...if you are paying any attention, groverat, READ THIS
How in God's name does that refute the idea that they were liberated? Because they're ambivalent?
---
giant:
Creates a centralized economy, with a high disparity in income. It seems highly unlikely that in the long run oil income will be distributed evenly through a highly socialist system in a country with such rifts between groups. Maybe you should learn a little about the problems with being a rentier state, and specifically an oil one, and why democracy is greatly hindered before you make more of a fool of yourself.
Who had a better life before the war, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis, Qatar(ians?)(is?) or Iraqis?
List in order.
Originally posted by groverat
...there's no way in hell you can blame sanctions on GeeDub. He (obviously) can't control the UN.
Why do you insist on continuing to lie about this when you were the one that provided the link that disproved your beliefs?
Obviously a U.S. veto can control the effect of the sanctions and that's what the U.S. did. Obviously. Thanks to your link.
Why do you insist on continuing to lie about this when you were the one that provided the link that disproved your beliefs?
Wasn't your dispute that the negative effects of the sanctions were all the US's fault at first?
And now they are that the sanctions never had negative effects?
Find it.
UNICEF says sanctions have killed 500,000 Iraqi children. But again you can post no logic or fact to dispute the negative effects of the sanctions.
Whatever is convenient, eh bunge?
Obviously a U.S. veto can control the effect of the sanctions and that's what the U.S. did. Obviously. Thanks to your link.
Tell me, bunge, how does one veto something that's already passed?