There are many 'radical clerics' just as bad (or worse) than Sadr who are on board with the US and Bremer. They want power as much as Sadr, they just gambled that the best way to get it was to cozy up to the US. Sadr took the other road. It's as simple as that.
This may not mean much to people outside Iraq but to Iraqis it is a sign of hypocrisy on the part of the US. And another point where trust is eroded.
"on board with the US "
I'm real sorry if there are Iraqis who are snakes, lying and going along with the U.S. temporarily and laying low and biding their time until it is safe to strike or take power.
How the hell is it America's fault if they are deceived by some thug leader?
You and they would whine about not letting the population participate or not having a diverse enough number of leaders blah blah. Then if we do allow the people to congregate and follow local religious leaders it turns into quasi recruitment/military indoctrination.
Then when they finally rear their ugly head and go to war with our troops and we fight back we are "oppressing" them? They lie, build power, attack and that is oppression?
If an Iraqi (or other leader as in Bin Laden's case back in the 80's in Afghanistan) sides with the U.S. and fakes being neutral or an ally and is deceitful long enough to get some training or weapons from the U.S. then how is that the U.S.' fault??
Would you rather we jail, deport or shoot these leaders just in case they are lying, biding time until they can fight for power? What would you rather have us do?
And dviant, when you say "Please check your facts' and then make factually false statements that demonstrate your ineptitude, you better expect someone to call you out on it. Don't pretend to be an authority on Java if your only idea of a garbage collector is someone who makes more money than you.
And I corrected did I not? So please get off you high horse for once. I was willing to entertain the notion I could be wrong. I don't see many of the anti-war folks here being humble enough to do that.You find one misrepsented point and claim "all my opinions are based on false beliefs".
Tori - LOL that Google thing was pretty good
Kneelbeforezod - Ooooh touche for the French... that was interesting too!
And I corrected did I not? So please get off you high horse for once. I was willing to entertain the notion I could be wrong.
You find one misrepsented point and claim "all my opinions are based on false beliefs".
Let's look at what you said and in the process defeat the whole thing:
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
Please check your facts. We went into Iraq because of Saddam's failure to live up to the terms of his 1991 surrender, including the accounting for a destroying all known WMD (still unaccounted for). Lets not forget 12 years of defiance of UN resolutions and shooting at coalition plans patrolling UN mandated "no fly" zones. Not to mention human rights violations, giving refuge to terrorists (Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, etc). Those facts haven't changed.
Your 'facts' are all wrong here. This clearly demonstrates that your overall opinion is based on a number of false belief about the fundamental issues.
Salman Pak:
Quote:
Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and ?Frontline,? the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ?was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,? and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
__In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
__Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.
Let's look at what you said and in the process defeat the whole thing:
Well first of all, whats you're refuting is not "the whole thing" its a couple examples from the ties to terrorists part.
Quote:
This clearly demonstrates that your overall opinion is based on a number of false belief about the fundamental issues. Salman Pak: And we all now know that the INC defectors gave no accurate info, as pointed out by multiple agencies.
Well thats your take on it. I don't really see how that discredits Khodad? Perhaps I'm just being too suspicious of a murderous regime like Saddams, but when UN inspectors saw the (a?) jet in 1995 and were told it was for "counterterrorism" efforts, they apparently didn't buy it it either. All this "clearly demonstrates" is that you're taking the comment of an anonymous CIA source (ironic coming from you) as the end all truth to support your anti-war beliefs despite other evidence.
Quote:
Abu Nidal:
1. Nidal died of gunshot wounds in baghdad in August of 2002.
2. The official Iraqi line was that he killed himself while Iraqi Intel was getting ready to cart him off.
3. All analysts, commentators, scholars and reports believe that Saddam had him killed.
4. There are reports that the reason for this was that Abu Nidal was planning a coup.
5. There are reports that Mossad was backing him in this and that he had been working under Mossad's direction for 4 years.
Again, this discredits Abu Nidal terrorists connection to Iraq how? Just because Saddam (mostly likely) had him killed doesn't mean he had no involvment with him. How about this?
Quote:
Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999. As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.
Quote:
What you cited were not facts, they were flat-out falsehoods.
What I cited in that point were connections to terrorism. I don't think any single one of these are the grand smoking gun that some conservative sites make them out to be, but these and other connections begin to reveal the sympathtic relationships Saddam had to terror.
I hear a lot of tail rattling, but not much material. Perhaps, we should call you the Omniscient Rattlesnake?
My impressions are similar to yours, dviant. I read the post and was left wondering, "What is so damning here? I must be missing something because I got nothing here. This guy sure seems boastful over little ado."
So I waited to see if anyone else would come up with something the rest of us could grab unto.
I'm real sorry if there are Iraqis who are snakes, lying and going along with the U.S. temporarily and laying low and biding their time until it is safe to strike or take power.
How the hell is it America's fault if they are deceived by some thug leader?
You and they would whine about not letting the population participate or not having a diverse enough number of leaders blah blah. Then if we do allow the people to congregate and follow local religious leaders it turns into quasi recruitment/military indoctrination.
Then when they finally rear their ugly head and go to war with our troops and we fight back we are "oppressing" them? They lie, build power, attack and that is oppression?
If an Iraqi (or other leader as in Bin Laden's case back in the 80's in Afghanistan) sides with the U.S. and fakes being neutral or an ally and is deceitful long enough to get some training or weapons from the U.S. then how is that the U.S.' fault??
Would you rather we jail, deport or shoot these leaders just in case they are lying, biding time until they can fight for power? What would you rather have us do?
John, no offense, but who the hell are you talking to? You're getting pretty indignant about things no one is saying.
Go back and read the post you are umm.... reacting to.
It's a pretty informed effort to parse out the various threads of Iraqi power struggles. Saying that Sistani is "on board with the US" is just how it is. It isn't a cynical code phrase for all the things you imagine are being said.
I mean, you get that right? That in a situation like Iraq there is going to be a great deal of deal making and strategic alliances and shifting loyalities and back-stabbing that have nothing to do with the moral high ground or sloganeering, but just reflects the natural human will to power.
That's neither good nor bad, and neither absolves nor indicts the US. One would hope that these various factions can be finessed into a government long enough to get some civil institutions on the ground, but it's looking pretty dicey.
Trying to be clear about these realities is something that it appears the Bush administration had failed to do, assuming that the fall of Saddam would be enough to bring the entire population together.
But I'm not getting why you're getting so pissed off by people talking about it.
No, there are more than enough, such as pointing out that it is beyond question that the INC was full of shit, according to everyone from the DIA to Chalabi himself, but you are clearly so intent on holding on to any remnants of your false beliefs that it is simply not worth the allocation of my time.
*All available evidence* refutes the idea that Salman Pak was used for terrorism training, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Saddam used it to train terrorists or that Saddam even had ANY cooperation with terrorists, your only sources arefully discredited by the likes of even the DIA.
There is a mountain of evidence against the idea of Salman Pak being a terrorist training camp. If you still believe it was, you are being willfully ignorant and there's nothing I can do because you clearly aren't dealing with reality.
Bad call on your part - giant never runs out of arguments, or links to support them. The rest of us liberals just sit back and envy his time and energy.
John, no offense, but who the hell are you talking to? You're getting pretty indignant about things no one is saying.
Go back and read the post you are umm.... reacting to.
It's a pretty informed effort to parse out the various threads of Iraqi power struggles. Saying that Sistani is "on board with the US" is just how it is. It isn't a cynical code phrase for all the things you imagine are being said.
(...)
But I'm not getting why you're getting so pissed off by people talking about it.
I'll tell you when I'm mad. I'm not. I used "hell" and you think I'm raving.
I'm not claiming anyone said those things verbatim.
I do realize, as you say, "in a situation like Iraq there is going to be a great deal of deal making and strategic alliances and shifting loyalities and back-stabbing that have nothing to do with the moral high ground or sloganeering, but just reflects the natural human will to power."
However I am lamenting, (whether it has been argued here or not) the fact that when the U.S. decides to not support a leader or group they get yelled at, when the U.S. does decide to support a leader or group they get yelled at and when the leader or group decides to do a powergrab and fight the U.S. and their own people/neighbors, the U.S. gets yelled at.
I can see segovius is speaking in this case in a nonpartisam tone and he makes good points.
I also realize the quotes around "oppressed" might make it look like I am implying segovius used the word. The quotes in that case only denote a sardonic tone, not a direct quote. I'm sorry quotes have multiple uses.
The only thing I was quoting that he said was the "on board with the US" part:
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
"There are many 'radical clerics' just as bad (or worse) than Sadr who are on board with the US and Bremer. They want power as much as Sadr, they just gambled that the best way to get it was to cozy up to the US. This may not mean much to people outside Iraq but to Iraqis it is a sign of hypocrisy on the part of the US. And another point where trust is eroded."
If segovius is effectively saying America/Bremer gives power to radical clerics as bad or worse than Sadr then I am asking what else do you do? Kill them? Jail them? Deport them? Arm them equally and hope for a stalemate? Disarm all of them? Leave and say "the hell with it"?
Please, I'd like an answer as to what the U.S. should do that would not be met with the typical outrage. (Hint: even isolationism 1. would not work, and 2. would cause outrage)
I'll tell you when I'm mad. I'm not. I used "hell" and you think I'm raving.
I'm not claiming anyone said those things verbatim.
I do realize, as you say, "in a situation like Iraq there is going to be a great deal of deal making and strategic alliances and shifting loyalities and back-stabbing that have nothing to do with the moral high ground or sloganeering, but just reflects the natural human will to power."
However I am lamenting, (whether it has been argued here or not) the fact that when the U.S. decides to not support a leader or group they get yelled at, when the U.S. does decide to support a leader or group they get yelled at and when the leader or group decides to do a powergrab and fight the U.S. and their own people/neighbors, the U.S. gets yelled at.
I can see segovius is speaking in this case in a nonpartisam tone and he makes good points.
I also realize the quotes around "oppressed" might make it look like I am implying segovius used the word. The quotes in that case only denote a sardonic tone, not a direct quote. I'm sorry quotes have multiple uses.
The only thing I was quoting that he said was the "on board with the US" part:
If segovius is effectively saying America/Bremer gives power to radical clerics as bad or worse than Sadr then I am asking what else do you do? Kill them? Jail them? Deport them? Arm them equally and hope for a stalemate? Disarm all of them? Leave and say "the hell with it"?
Please, I'd like an answer as to what the U.S. should do that would not be met with the typical outrage. (Hint: even isolationism 1. would not work, and 2. would cause outrage)
I certainly don't think you're raving. I do think that you're getting needled by a tone you perceive in this thread which I'm not hearing.
That being said, I apologize for attempting to characterize your responses. Obviously, I can't know what your mood is. And we can obviously disagree on something as subjective as tone.
But isn't you're real beef with the situation in Iraq?
I don't think the issue is whether US actions engender outrage, but whether they prove effective. Unfortunately, the initial ill advised invasion, coupled with poor to non-existent planning for the "peace" seems to have brought events to a terrible, if predictable, state.
I have no idea what the next right thing for the US to do is, but is that required of me to be horrified at the playing out of this war? If there is no good next move, is that evidence of my cynicism or gloating or lack of compassion for the Iraqi people or indifference to freedom, or is it the sad result of failed policy?
I truly hope there is a way to make this thing work, as in the establishment of some kind of government that can allow for relative peace and prosperity in Iraq. But you have to allow for the fact that might not be. And that admitting that is in no way smug, or liberal, or elitist, or small minded.
Bad call on your part - giant never runs out of arguments, or links to support them. The rest of us liberals just sit back and envy his time and energy.
Yeah probably not a good idea LOL... I think he needs to get a job or something... and I should be doing mine :P
*All available evidence* refutes the idea... that Salman Pak was used for There is a mountain of evidence...
And yet the best you came up with some lefty site with "a former CIA chief" that says a comment about it being so "hollywood"? That WAS the quote you decided to highlight...
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
It's not as simple as that.
There are many 'radical clerics' just as bad (or worse) than Sadr who are on board with the US and Bremer. They want power as much as Sadr, they just gambled that the best way to get it was to cozy up to the US. Sadr took the other road. It's as simple as that.
This may not mean much to people outside Iraq but to Iraqis it is a sign of hypocrisy on the part of the US. And another point where trust is eroded.
"on board with the US "
I'm real sorry if there are Iraqis who are snakes, lying and going along with the U.S. temporarily and laying low and biding their time until it is safe to strike or take power.
How the hell is it America's fault if they are deceived by some thug leader?
You and they would whine about not letting the population participate or not having a diverse enough number of leaders blah blah. Then if we do allow the people to congregate and follow local religious leaders it turns into quasi recruitment/military indoctrination.
Then when they finally rear their ugly head and go to war with our troops and we fight back we are "oppressing" them? They lie, build power, attack and that is oppression?
If an Iraqi (or other leader as in Bin Laden's case back in the 80's in Afghanistan) sides with the U.S. and fakes being neutral or an ally and is deceitful long enough to get some training or weapons from the U.S. then how is that the U.S.' fault??
Would you rather we jail, deport or shoot these leaders just in case they are lying, biding time until they can fight for power? What would you rather have us do?
And dviant, when you say "Please check your facts' and then make factually false statements that demonstrate your ineptitude, you better expect someone to call you out on it. Don't pretend to be an authority on Java if your only idea of a garbage collector is someone who makes more money than you.
And I corrected did I not? So please get off you high horse for once. I was willing to entertain the notion I could be wrong. I don't see many of the anti-war folks here being humble enough to do that.You find one misrepsented point and claim "all my opinions are based on false beliefs".
Tori - LOL that Google thing was pretty good
Kneelbeforezod - Ooooh touche for the French... that was interesting too!
Originally posted by dviant
And I corrected did I not? So please get off you high horse for once. I was willing to entertain the notion I could be wrong.
You find one misrepsented point and claim "all my opinions are based on false beliefs".
Let's look at what you said and in the process defeat the whole thing:
Originally posted by dviant
Please check your facts. We went into Iraq because of Saddam's failure to live up to the terms of his 1991 surrender, including the accounting for a destroying all known WMD (still unaccounted for). Lets not forget 12 years of defiance of UN resolutions and shooting at coalition plans patrolling UN mandated "no fly" zones. Not to mention human rights violations, giving refuge to terrorists (Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, etc). Those facts haven't changed.
Your 'facts' are all wrong here. This clearly demonstrates that your overall opinion is based on a number of false belief about the fundamental issues.
Salman Pak:
Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and ?Frontline,? the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ?was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,? and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
__In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
__Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.
From Selective Intelligence
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052803H.shtml
And we all now know that the INC defectors gave no accurate info, as pointed out by multiple agencies.
Abu Nidal:
1. Nidal died of gunshot wounds in baghdad in August of 2002.
2. The official Iraqi line was that he killed himself while Iraqi Intel was getting ready to cart him off.
3. All analysts, commentators, scholars and reports believe that Saddam had him killed.
4. There are reports that the reason for this was that Abu Nidal was planning a coup.
5. There are reports that Mossad was backing him in this and that he had been working under Mossad's direction for 4 years.
http://www.intellnet.org/news/2002/08/29/11285-1.html
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0823_1_n.shtml
And add to this the fact that the no fly zones were not 'UN mandated.'
In short, you have no idea what you are talking about and are in no position to say to someone "check your facts."
Originally posted by dviant
Those facts haven't changed.
What you cited were not facts, they were flat-out falsehoods.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
eXile magazine's War Nerd on French military history.
That was a great read.
Originally posted by giant
Let's look at what you said and in the process defeat the whole thing:
Well first of all, whats you're refuting is not "the whole thing" its a couple examples from the ties to terrorists part.
This clearly demonstrates that your overall opinion is based on a number of false belief about the fundamental issues. Salman Pak: And we all now know that the INC defectors gave no accurate info, as pointed out by multiple agencies.
Well thats your take on it. I don't really see how that discredits Khodad? Perhaps I'm just being too suspicious of a murderous regime like Saddams, but when UN inspectors saw the (a?) jet in 1995 and were told it was for "counterterrorism" efforts, they apparently didn't buy it it either. All this "clearly demonstrates" is that you're taking the comment of an anonymous CIA source (ironic coming from you) as the end all truth to support your anti-war beliefs despite other evidence.
Abu Nidal:
1. Nidal died of gunshot wounds in baghdad in August of 2002.
2. The official Iraqi line was that he killed himself while Iraqi Intel was getting ready to cart him off.
3. All analysts, commentators, scholars and reports believe that Saddam had him killed.
4. There are reports that the reason for this was that Abu Nidal was planning a coup.
5. There are reports that Mossad was backing him in this and that he had been working under Mossad's direction for 4 years.
Again, this discredits Abu Nidal terrorists connection to Iraq how? Just because Saddam (mostly likely) had him killed doesn't mean he had no involvment with him. How about this?
Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999. As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.
What you cited were not facts, they were flat-out falsehoods.
What I cited in that point were connections to terrorism. I don't think any single one of these are the grand smoking gun that some conservative sites make them out to be, but these and other connections begin to reveal the sympathtic relationships Saddam had to terror.
Originally posted by giant
Your head is so far 'in the sand' it's sad.
Run out of actual arguments have you?
Originally posted by giant
Your head is so far 'in the sand' it's sad.
I hear a lot of tail rattling, but not much material. Perhaps, we should call you the Omniscient Rattlesnake?
My impressions are similar to yours, dviant. I read the post and was left wondering, "What is so damning here? I must be missing something because I got nothing here. This guy sure seems boastful over little ado."
So I waited to see if anyone else would come up with something the rest of us could grab unto.
Originally posted by johnq
"on board with the US "
I'm real sorry if there are Iraqis who are snakes, lying and going along with the U.S. temporarily and laying low and biding their time until it is safe to strike or take power.
How the hell is it America's fault if they are deceived by some thug leader?
You and they would whine about not letting the population participate or not having a diverse enough number of leaders blah blah. Then if we do allow the people to congregate and follow local religious leaders it turns into quasi recruitment/military indoctrination.
Then when they finally rear their ugly head and go to war with our troops and we fight back we are "oppressing" them? They lie, build power, attack and that is oppression?
If an Iraqi (or other leader as in Bin Laden's case back in the 80's in Afghanistan) sides with the U.S. and fakes being neutral or an ally and is deceitful long enough to get some training or weapons from the U.S. then how is that the U.S.' fault??
Would you rather we jail, deport or shoot these leaders just in case they are lying, biding time until they can fight for power? What would you rather have us do?
John, no offense, but who the hell are you talking to? You're getting pretty indignant about things no one is saying.
Go back and read the post you are umm.... reacting to.
It's a pretty informed effort to parse out the various threads of Iraqi power struggles. Saying that Sistani is "on board with the US" is just how it is. It isn't a cynical code phrase for all the things you imagine are being said.
I mean, you get that right? That in a situation like Iraq there is going to be a great deal of deal making and strategic alliances and shifting loyalities and back-stabbing that have nothing to do with the moral high ground or sloganeering, but just reflects the natural human will to power.
That's neither good nor bad, and neither absolves nor indicts the US. One would hope that these various factions can be finessed into a government long enough to get some civil institutions on the ground, but it's looking pretty dicey.
Trying to be clear about these realities is something that it appears the Bush administration had failed to do, assuming that the fall of Saddam would be enough to bring the entire population together.
But I'm not getting why you're getting so pissed off by people talking about it.
Originally posted by dviant
Run out of actual arguments have you?
No, there are more than enough, such as pointing out that it is beyond question that the INC was full of shit, according to everyone from the DIA to Chalabi himself, but you are clearly so intent on holding on to any remnants of your false beliefs that it is simply not worth the allocation of my time.
*All available evidence* refutes the idea that Salman Pak was used for terrorism training, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Saddam used it to train terrorists or that Saddam even had ANY cooperation with terrorists, your only sources arefully discredited by the likes of even the DIA.
There is a mountain of evidence against the idea of Salman Pak being a terrorist training camp. If you still believe it was, you are being willfully ignorant and there's nothing I can do because you clearly aren't dealing with reality.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
eXile magazine's War Nerd on French military history.
Thanks for this link.
For JOHN Q : an another proof that french sucks : picture of the french senate
Originally posted by dviant
Run out of actual arguments have you?
Bad call on your part - giant never runs out of arguments, or links to support them.
Originally posted by addabox
John, no offense, but who the hell are you talking to? You're getting pretty indignant about things no one is saying.
Go back and read the post you are umm.... reacting to.
It's a pretty informed effort to parse out the various threads of Iraqi power struggles. Saying that Sistani is "on board with the US" is just how it is. It isn't a cynical code phrase for all the things you imagine are being said.
(...)
But I'm not getting why you're getting so pissed off by people talking about it.
I'll tell you when I'm mad. I'm not. I used "hell" and you think I'm raving.
I'm not claiming anyone said those things verbatim.
I do realize, as you say, "in a situation like Iraq there is going to be a great deal of deal making and strategic alliances and shifting loyalities and back-stabbing that have nothing to do with the moral high ground or sloganeering, but just reflects the natural human will to power."
However I am lamenting, (whether it has been argued here or not) the fact that when the U.S. decides to not support a leader or group they get yelled at, when the U.S. does decide to support a leader or group they get yelled at and when the leader or group decides to do a powergrab and fight the U.S. and their own people/neighbors, the U.S. gets yelled at.
I can see segovius is speaking in this case in a nonpartisam tone and he makes good points.
I also realize the quotes around "oppressed" might make it look like I am implying segovius used the word. The quotes in that case only denote a sardonic tone, not a direct quote. I'm sorry quotes have multiple uses.
The only thing I was quoting that he said was the "on board with the US" part:
Originally posted by segovius
"There are many 'radical clerics' just as bad (or worse) than Sadr who are on board with the US and Bremer. They want power as much as Sadr, they just gambled that the best way to get it was to cozy up to the US. This may not mean much to people outside Iraq but to Iraqis it is a sign of hypocrisy on the part of the US. And another point where trust is eroded."
If segovius is effectively saying America/Bremer gives power to radical clerics as bad or worse than Sadr then I am asking what else do you do? Kill them? Jail them? Deport them? Arm them equally and hope for a stalemate? Disarm all of them? Leave and say "the hell with it"?
Please, I'd like an answer as to what the U.S. should do that would not be met with the typical outrage. (Hint: even isolationism 1. would not work, and 2. would cause outrage)
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Thanks for this link.
OMG!!! The French government is being run by iMacs!!
They always said computers would take over the world.
Originally posted by johnq
I'll tell you when I'm mad. I'm not. I used "hell" and you think I'm raving.
I'm not claiming anyone said those things verbatim.
I do realize, as you say, "in a situation like Iraq there is going to be a great deal of deal making and strategic alliances and shifting loyalities and back-stabbing that have nothing to do with the moral high ground or sloganeering, but just reflects the natural human will to power."
However I am lamenting, (whether it has been argued here or not) the fact that when the U.S. decides to not support a leader or group they get yelled at, when the U.S. does decide to support a leader or group they get yelled at and when the leader or group decides to do a powergrab and fight the U.S. and their own people/neighbors, the U.S. gets yelled at.
I can see segovius is speaking in this case in a nonpartisam tone and he makes good points.
I also realize the quotes around "oppressed" might make it look like I am implying segovius used the word. The quotes in that case only denote a sardonic tone, not a direct quote. I'm sorry quotes have multiple uses.
The only thing I was quoting that he said was the "on board with the US" part:
If segovius is effectively saying America/Bremer gives power to radical clerics as bad or worse than Sadr then I am asking what else do you do? Kill them? Jail them? Deport them? Arm them equally and hope for a stalemate? Disarm all of them? Leave and say "the hell with it"?
Please, I'd like an answer as to what the U.S. should do that would not be met with the typical outrage. (Hint: even isolationism 1. would not work, and 2. would cause outrage)
I certainly don't think you're raving. I do think that you're getting needled by a tone you perceive in this thread which I'm not hearing.
That being said, I apologize for attempting to characterize your responses. Obviously, I can't know what your mood is. And we can obviously disagree on something as subjective as tone.
But isn't you're real beef with the situation in Iraq?
I don't think the issue is whether US actions engender outrage, but whether they prove effective. Unfortunately, the initial ill advised invasion, coupled with poor to non-existent planning for the "peace" seems to have brought events to a terrible, if predictable, state.
I have no idea what the next right thing for the US to do is, but is that required of me to be horrified at the playing out of this war? If there is no good next move, is that evidence of my cynicism or gloating or lack of compassion for the Iraqi people or indifference to freedom, or is it the sad result of failed policy?
I truly hope there is a way to make this thing work, as in the establishment of some kind of government that can allow for relative peace and prosperity in Iraq. But you have to allow for the fact that might not be. And that admitting that is in no way smug, or liberal, or elitist, or small minded.
Originally posted by dmz
OMG!!! The French government is being run by iMacs!!
They always said computers would take over the world.
Yes every governement should bow in front of their Apple overlord
Originally posted by Chinney
Bad call on your part - giant never runs out of arguments, or links to support them.
Yeah probably not a good idea LOL... I think he needs to get a job or something... and I should be doing mine :P
Originally posted by giant
*All available evidence* refutes the idea... that Salman Pak was used for There is a mountain of evidence...
And yet the best you came up with some lefty site with "a former CIA chief" that says a comment about it being so "hollywood"? That WAS the quote you decided to highlight...