A view on the US role in Iraq
Dec 1st 2006, 10:24 pm
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:54:13 -0600 'Planet Visitor II'
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
>>> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
>>> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
>>> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
>>> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
>>> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
>>> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
>>> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
>> Why do you care?
>Anyone who has ever tasted Thai food or watched how a Thai clears
>his/her stomach with five minutes of continuous belching and chewing
>regurgitated food mass, as some sort of ritual after eating food that
>tastes mostly like soggy socks having soaked overnight in a hot
>pepper and rancid vinegar stew, smells like a latrine that has been
>backed up for a few weeks, and looks like monkey placenta, could
>only laugh at hummer's comment.
You obviously visited the wrong Thai eateries.
If you're going to compare the taste/quality of Thai food with
McDonalds fatty junk, excuse me while I rotfl.
>While I understand that some claim they have acquired a taste for
>it, flies have also acquired a taste for toilet waste.
>Now a good Haggis dish... that's for me. Yucch.
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>"DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "hummingbird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Your comments about Marshall Aid are not relevant to today. More
>>> relevant is the sight of American fastfood joints and coke bottling
>>> plants all over the world. I was appalled at the sheer number of
>>> these damn things in Thailand last year. Starbucks on every street
>>> corner. McDonalds all over the place like cockroaches.
>>> Few locals in them of course, just dork western tourists.
>>> How many Thais want to eat American junk food when they have
>>> their own delicious food at one quarter of the price?
>> Why do you care?
>Anyone who has ever tasted Thai food or watched how a Thai clears
>his/her stomach with five minutes of continuous belching and chewing
>regurgitated food mass, as some sort of ritual after eating food that
>tastes mostly like soggy socks having soaked overnight in a hot
>pepper and rancid vinegar stew, smells like a latrine that has been
>backed up for a few weeks, and looks like monkey placenta, could
>only laugh at hummer's comment.
You obviously visited the wrong Thai eateries.
If you're going to compare the taste/quality of Thai food with
McDonalds fatty junk, excuse me while I rotfl.
>While I understand that some claim they have acquired a taste for
>it, flies have also acquired a taste for toilet waste.
>Now a good Haggis dish... that's for me. Yucch.
--
Global surveillance league tables x country:
Image: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.jpg
PDF detail: http://www.toucano.plus.com/WorldSurveillanceLeague.pdf
NB: Britain scores the worst along with Russia and China.
(data courtesy of Daily Telegraph and Privacy International)
Dec 1st 2006, 10:26 pm
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
> From: "DVH" <[email protected]>
> Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:00:13 GMT
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
> the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a foothold,
> it's something more substantial than that.
I have read that the Pentagon is considering pulling American troops out of
Al-Anbar province, where the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah are located, and
redeploying to Baghdad. This does not sound much like "influence" or
"foothold" to me.
Donna Evleth
> Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:00:13 GMT
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> And yet there the Americans are, in every major city of Iraq, influencing
> the budget, the television and the government. Indeed this isn't a foothold,
> it's something more substantial than that.
I have read that the Pentagon is considering pulling American troops out of
Al-Anbar province, where the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah are located, and
redeploying to Baghdad. This does not sound much like "influence" or
"foothold" to me.
Donna Evleth
Dec 1st 2006, 11:04 pm
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On 1/12/06 18:13, in article 011220060913527807%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> And you still have not answered my questions: why not give the inspectors
>> more time? Why the screaming rush?
>
> What an odd perception of "screaming rush"... 12 years.
Inaccurate and misleading.
The UN inspection teams were allowed back
in the Fall of 2002 to begin their work anew.
And considerable progress had been made in those inspections, which
were report on to the UN on March 7th 2003.
There was nothing in that report which indicated that WMDs
existed in any major fashion. In fact that report was closer
to the facts later determined than any of the distortions
provided by American authorities, including Powell's ill advised
speech before the UN.
While some items can be hidden perhaps exported for future use
such as rumored in the case of Syria, chemical warfare weapons
exist in such potential masses that the US itself has yet to
deposed itself of its nerve gases.
Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union message
""U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently
turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their
existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of
these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed
them."
Now 29,984 is a highly precise number. A small number of ancient
gas shells were found but no items ready for use. I stated in
a posting on Nov 17 2003, with regard to this number
THAT IS PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION, A FORM OF LYING.
That is what you are engaged in. The months before the war
provided the up to date information showing the Saddam
not an immediate threat. There were no WMDs, no active nuclear
program, that Iraq was no where as military dangerous as in
1991.
As I posted on January 24, 2003 with respect to Saddam and Iraq
"They had realistic designs at one time but they were shown to be
unrealistic. That lion no longer has claws or teeth, but some
are afraid of its shadow."
Were you that unrealistically afraid Go Fig? Where you afraid
of his shadow?
<[email protected]> wrote:
> And you still have not answered my questions: why not give the inspectors
>> more time? Why the screaming rush?
>
> What an odd perception of "screaming rush"... 12 years.
Inaccurate and misleading.
The UN inspection teams were allowed back
in the Fall of 2002 to begin their work anew.
And considerable progress had been made in those inspections, which
were report on to the UN on March 7th 2003.
There was nothing in that report which indicated that WMDs
existed in any major fashion. In fact that report was closer
to the facts later determined than any of the distortions
provided by American authorities, including Powell's ill advised
speech before the UN.
While some items can be hidden perhaps exported for future use
such as rumored in the case of Syria, chemical warfare weapons
exist in such potential masses that the US itself has yet to
deposed itself of its nerve gases.
Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union message
""U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently
turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their
existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of
these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed
them."
Now 29,984 is a highly precise number. A small number of ancient
gas shells were found but no items ready for use. I stated in
a posting on Nov 17 2003, with regard to this number
THAT IS PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION, A FORM OF LYING.
That is what you are engaged in. The months before the war
provided the up to date information showing the Saddam
not an immediate threat. There were no WMDs, no active nuclear
program, that Iraq was no where as military dangerous as in
1991.
As I posted on January 24, 2003 with respect to Saddam and Iraq
"They had realistic designs at one time but they were shown to be
unrealistic. That lion no longer has claws or teeth, but some
are afraid of its shadow."
Were you that unrealistically afraid Go Fig? Where you afraid
of his shadow?
Dec 1st 2006, 11:55 pm
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>> again.
> We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
> better position now to fix their country than they were before the
> invasion.
This has to be the most stupid statement ever posted on Usenet. Who is
this poor deluded fool? Where does he exist? He's fun but that's
because he makes us all feel superior and that's not good for us.
news:[email protected]...
>>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>> again.
> We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
> better position now to fix their country than they were before the
> invasion.
This has to be the most stupid statement ever posted on Usenet. Who is
this poor deluded fool? Where does he exist? He's fun but that's
because he makes us all feel superior and that's not good for us.
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:27 am
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:17:55 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>> again.
>We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
>better position now to fix their country than they were before the invasion.
Utter rubbish. America bombed their fragile infrastruture into
smithereens. Didn't you notice all that shock and awe stuff?
>But I'm curious to know why you think we have a duty to help at all. How
>would you categorise that duty? Presumably it's not a legal duty, so I'd
>guess you mean a moral duty... Why?
Because America and Britain created this mess. They have a moral
obligation to return it at least to the state it was in before they
went in. Don't you agree?
>> I would say he was accurate and realistic in his prognosis - see above.
>There is no conflict between the two positions above, except where Steve
>suggests a land invasion would be a bad idea. He points to numerous
>problems, many of which have been real, some wrong, and some just bleating
>("anyone we do find to replace [Saddam] is almost certainly going to be
>regarded as an American puppet by Iran"). But what enterprise is
>problem-free?
Problem? The invasion was flawed. There is a distinct difference
between problems and flaws in that problems can be worker out.
>In a loose sense, Steve's objections are tactical while Abe's
>view is strategic. As such, this compare/contrast exercise is misleading.
>Abe's remark on the cheapness of the whole thing still seems true. If you'd
>told somebody at the end of WWII that a coalition would invade and defeat a
>country in the middle of the hostile middle east and suffer around fifty
>dead, they'd have laughed. Two or three thousand dead GIs since then is
>closer to par for suppressing an insurgency, but still looks cheap.
>I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand two
>things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
>Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
Sounds like you're preparing to cut and run to me.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>> again.
>We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
>better position now to fix their country than they were before the invasion.
Utter rubbish. America bombed their fragile infrastruture into
smithereens. Didn't you notice all that shock and awe stuff?
>But I'm curious to know why you think we have a duty to help at all. How
>would you categorise that duty? Presumably it's not a legal duty, so I'd
>guess you mean a moral duty... Why?
Because America and Britain created this mess. They have a moral
obligation to return it at least to the state it was in before they
went in. Don't you agree?
>> I would say he was accurate and realistic in his prognosis - see above.
>There is no conflict between the two positions above, except where Steve
>suggests a land invasion would be a bad idea. He points to numerous
>problems, many of which have been real, some wrong, and some just bleating
>("anyone we do find to replace [Saddam] is almost certainly going to be
>regarded as an American puppet by Iran"). But what enterprise is
>problem-free?
Problem? The invasion was flawed. There is a distinct difference
between problems and flaws in that problems can be worker out.
>In a loose sense, Steve's objections are tactical while Abe's
>view is strategic. As such, this compare/contrast exercise is misleading.
>Abe's remark on the cheapness of the whole thing still seems true. If you'd
>told somebody at the end of WWII that a coalition would invade and defeat a
>country in the middle of the hostile middle east and suffer around fifty
>dead, they'd have laughed. Two or three thousand dead GIs since then is
>closer to par for suppressing an insurgency, but still looks cheap.
>I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand two
>things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
>Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
Sounds like you're preparing to cut and run to me.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:29 am
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
In article <C1972A77.C5C1F%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/12/06 18:13, in article 011220060913527807%[email protected], "Go Fig"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And you still have not answered my questions: why not give the inspectors
> >> more time? Why the screaming rush?
> >
> > What an odd perception of "screaming rush"... 12 years.
>
>
> Inaccurate and misleading.
No, quite true.
In 91', he was allowed to maintain power only if he agreed to the terms
of the cease-fire and giving up all his WMDs without exception was one
of the terms.
>
> The UN inspection teams were allowed back
> in the Fall of 2002 to begin their work anew.
"Allowed" ?
They started again ONLY because there was 100k U.S. military and an
armada off his beaches.
>
> And considerable progress had been made in those inspections, which
> were report on to the UN on March 7th 2003.
>
> There was nothing in that report which indicated that WMDs
> existed in any major fashion.
That is NOT the standard.
jay
Sat Dec 02, 2006
mailto:[email protected]
> In fact that report was closer
> to the facts later determined than any of the distortions
> provided by American authorities, including Powell's ill advised
> speech before the UN.
>
> While some items can be hidden perhaps exported for future use
> such as rumored in the case of Syria, chemical warfare weapons
> exist in such potential masses that the US itself has yet to
> deposed itself of its nerve gases.
>
> Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union message
>
> ""U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
> munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently
> turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their
> existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of
> these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed
> them."
>
> Now 29,984 is a highly precise number. A small number of ancient
> gas shells were found but no items ready for use. I stated in
> a posting on Nov 17 2003, with regard to this number
>
> THAT IS PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION, A FORM OF LYING.
>
> That is what you are engaged in. The months before the war
> provided the up to date information showing the Saddam
> not an immediate threat. There were no WMDs, no active nuclear
> program, that Iraq was no where as military dangerous as in
> 1991.
>
> As I posted on January 24, 2003 with respect to Saddam and Iraq
>
> "They had realistic designs at one time but they were shown to be
> unrealistic. That lion no longer has claws or teeth, but some
> are afraid of its shadow."
>
> Were you that unrealistically afraid Go Fig? Where you afraid
> of his shadow?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/12/06 18:13, in article 011220060913527807%[email protected], "Go Fig"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And you still have not answered my questions: why not give the inspectors
> >> more time? Why the screaming rush?
> >
> > What an odd perception of "screaming rush"... 12 years.
>
>
> Inaccurate and misleading.
No, quite true.
In 91', he was allowed to maintain power only if he agreed to the terms
of the cease-fire and giving up all his WMDs without exception was one
of the terms.
>
> The UN inspection teams were allowed back
> in the Fall of 2002 to begin their work anew.
"Allowed" ?
They started again ONLY because there was 100k U.S. military and an
armada off his beaches.
>
> And considerable progress had been made in those inspections, which
> were report on to the UN on March 7th 2003.
>
> There was nothing in that report which indicated that WMDs
> existed in any major fashion.
That is NOT the standard.
jay
Sat Dec 02, 2006
mailto:[email protected]
> In fact that report was closer
> to the facts later determined than any of the distortions
> provided by American authorities, including Powell's ill advised
> speech before the UN.
>
> While some items can be hidden perhaps exported for future use
> such as rumored in the case of Syria, chemical warfare weapons
> exist in such potential masses that the US itself has yet to
> deposed itself of its nerve gases.
>
> Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union message
>
> ""U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
> munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently
> turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their
> existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of
> these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed
> them."
>
> Now 29,984 is a highly precise number. A small number of ancient
> gas shells were found but no items ready for use. I stated in
> a posting on Nov 17 2003, with regard to this number
>
> THAT IS PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION, A FORM OF LYING.
>
> That is what you are engaged in. The months before the war
> provided the up to date information showing the Saddam
> not an immediate threat. There were no WMDs, no active nuclear
> program, that Iraq was no where as military dangerous as in
> 1991.
>
> As I posted on January 24, 2003 with respect to Saddam and Iraq
>
> "They had realistic designs at one time but they were shown to be
> unrealistic. That lion no longer has claws or teeth, but some
> are afraid of its shadow."
>
> Were you that unrealistically afraid Go Fig? Where you afraid
> of his shadow?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:38 am
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On 2/12/06 14:29, in article 021220060529293997%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Inaccurate and misleading.
>
> No, quite true.
>
> In 91',
We are talking about 2002-2003 dummy. There was nothing there in 2003,
the inspectors found nothing, Bush's hired guns could find nothing
later.
So they wrecked a nation on a stupid whim. And you are part of the
team which helped them.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Inaccurate and misleading.
>
> No, quite true.
>
> In 91',
We are talking about 2002-2003 dummy. There was nothing there in 2003,
the inspectors found nothing, Bush's hired guns could find nothing
later.
So they wrecked a nation on a stupid whim. And you are part of the
team which helped them.
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:40 am
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
Planet Visitor II wrote:
> Anyone who has ever tasted Thai food or watched how a Thai clears
> his/her stomach with five minutes of continuous belching and chewing
> regurgitated food mass, as some sort of ritual after eating food that
> tastes mostly like soggy socks having soaked overnight in a hot
> pepper and rancid vinegar stew, smells like a latrine that has been
> backed up for a few weeks, and looks like monkey placenta, could
> only laugh at hummer's comment.
> While I understand that some claim they have acquired a taste for
> it, flies have also acquired a taste for toilet waste.
Have you been refused by the whores, girlfriends or whatever you call
them? I suppose even they must draw the line somewhere.
> Anyone who has ever tasted Thai food or watched how a Thai clears
> his/her stomach with five minutes of continuous belching and chewing
> regurgitated food mass, as some sort of ritual after eating food that
> tastes mostly like soggy socks having soaked overnight in a hot
> pepper and rancid vinegar stew, smells like a latrine that has been
> backed up for a few weeks, and looks like monkey placenta, could
> only laugh at hummer's comment.
> While I understand that some claim they have acquired a taste for
> it, flies have also acquired a taste for toilet waste.
Have you been refused by the whores, girlfriends or whatever you call
them? I suppose even they must draw the line somewhere.
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:46 am
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"John Rennie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
> "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>>> again.
>> We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
>> better position now to fix their country than they were before the
>> invasion.
> This has to be the most stupid statement ever posted on Usenet. Who is
> this poor deluded fool? Where does he exist? He's fun but that's
> because he makes us all feel superior and that's not good for us.
John, my dear little empty-headed sunbeam. You do bring me a lot of
pleasure, but this time I feel your general lameness has got the better of
you, and I have to say something to anybody reading your nervous, shrill
little appeals.
The reader will note that John seems to be suggesting Iraq was just fine and
dandy before the invasion, and that this appears to be John's idea of fun.
As a paid-up imbecile, however, John was awarded his licence to go around
spouting shit by the Society of Complacent Halfwits several years ago.
Usenet wouldn't be the same without its victims, of which John is one
striking example.
If you're tempted to dismiss his whining tone as the bleating of a minor
gang member seeking reassurance from those further up the pecking order,
well... you'd be correct.
But if you're also wishing his mother had got busy with a coat-hanger before
he dribbled down her leg, remember the words of George Orwell: "Freedom, if
it means anything, means John is free to be a ****ing idiot".
Those words bring a tear to my eye.
news:[email protected] ...
> "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>>> again.
>> We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
>> better position now to fix their country than they were before the
>> invasion.
> This has to be the most stupid statement ever posted on Usenet. Who is
> this poor deluded fool? Where does he exist? He's fun but that's
> because he makes us all feel superior and that's not good for us.
John, my dear little empty-headed sunbeam. You do bring me a lot of
pleasure, but this time I feel your general lameness has got the better of
you, and I have to say something to anybody reading your nervous, shrill
little appeals.
The reader will note that John seems to be suggesting Iraq was just fine and
dandy before the invasion, and that this appears to be John's idea of fun.
As a paid-up imbecile, however, John was awarded his licence to go around
spouting shit by the Society of Complacent Halfwits several years ago.
Usenet wouldn't be the same without its victims, of which John is one
striking example.
If you're tempted to dismiss his whining tone as the bleating of a minor
gang member seeking reassurance from those further up the pecking order,
well... you'd be correct.
But if you're also wishing his mother had got busy with a coat-hanger before
he dribbled down her leg, remember the words of George Orwell: "Freedom, if
it means anything, means John is free to be a ****ing idiot".
Those words bring a tear to my eye.
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:50 am
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:17:55 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected] roups.com...
>>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>>> again.
>>We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
>>better position now to fix their country than they were before the
>>invasion.
> Utter rubbish. America bombed their fragile infrastruture into
> smithereens. Didn't you notice all that shock and awe stuff?
I class any country run by a murderous socialist dictatorship as broken.
>>But I'm curious to know why you think we have a duty to help at all. How
>>would you categorise that duty? Presumably it's not a legal duty, so I'd
>>guess you mean a moral duty... Why?
> Because America and Britain created this mess. They have a moral
> obligation to return it at least to the state it was in before they
> went in. Don't you agree?
No, but I'm open to persuasion.
My immediate thoughts... It would be foolish to return it to the state it
was in before. Circumstances have changed too much.
We have a moral obligation to help any population in difficulty. This
obligation may be outweighed by other considerations, however, not least of
which is that I believe strongly charity begins at home. There are other
boundaries to what we can do, such as cost in money and lives, and these may
conflict with our obigation to help people.
Your argument in favour of putting our moral obligation to rebuild Iraq
above other obligations would be...?
>>> I would say he was accurate and realistic in his prognosis - see above.
>>There is no conflict between the two positions above, except where Steve
>>suggests a land invasion would be a bad idea. He points to numerous
>>problems, many of which have been real, some wrong, and some just bleating
>>("anyone we do find to replace [Saddam] is almost certainly going to be
>>regarded as an American puppet by Iran"). But what enterprise is
>>problem-free?
> Problem? The invasion was flawed.
The invasion was carried out pretty much perfectly. Baghdad in less than a
month is impressive.
> There is a distinct difference
> between problems and flaws in that problems can be worker out.
What was the flaw?
>>In a loose sense, Steve's objections are tactical while Abe's
>>view is strategic. As such, this compare/contrast exercise is misleading.
>>Abe's remark on the cheapness of the whole thing still seems true. If
>>you'd
>>told somebody at the end of WWII that a coalition would invade and defeat
>>a
>>country in the middle of the hostile middle east and suffer around fifty
>>dead, they'd have laughed. Two or three thousand dead GIs since then is
>>closer to par for suppressing an insurgency, but still looks cheap.
>>I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand
>>two
>>things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
>>Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
> Sounds like you're preparing to cut and run to me.
I have no more influence in the matter than anybody else.
message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:17:55 GMT, "DVH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected] roups.com...
>>> I think having broken Iraq we have a duty to help put it back together
>>> again.
>>We didn't break it. It was already horribly broken. Iraqis are in a far
>>better position now to fix their country than they were before the
>>invasion.
> Utter rubbish. America bombed their fragile infrastruture into
> smithereens. Didn't you notice all that shock and awe stuff?
I class any country run by a murderous socialist dictatorship as broken.
>>But I'm curious to know why you think we have a duty to help at all. How
>>would you categorise that duty? Presumably it's not a legal duty, so I'd
>>guess you mean a moral duty... Why?
> Because America and Britain created this mess. They have a moral
> obligation to return it at least to the state it was in before they
> went in. Don't you agree?
No, but I'm open to persuasion.
My immediate thoughts... It would be foolish to return it to the state it
was in before. Circumstances have changed too much.
We have a moral obligation to help any population in difficulty. This
obligation may be outweighed by other considerations, however, not least of
which is that I believe strongly charity begins at home. There are other
boundaries to what we can do, such as cost in money and lives, and these may
conflict with our obigation to help people.
Your argument in favour of putting our moral obligation to rebuild Iraq
above other obligations would be...?
>>> I would say he was accurate and realistic in his prognosis - see above.
>>There is no conflict between the two positions above, except where Steve
>>suggests a land invasion would be a bad idea. He points to numerous
>>problems, many of which have been real, some wrong, and some just bleating
>>("anyone we do find to replace [Saddam] is almost certainly going to be
>>regarded as an American puppet by Iran"). But what enterprise is
>>problem-free?
> Problem? The invasion was flawed.
The invasion was carried out pretty much perfectly. Baghdad in less than a
month is impressive.
> There is a distinct difference
> between problems and flaws in that problems can be worker out.
What was the flaw?
>>In a loose sense, Steve's objections are tactical while Abe's
>>view is strategic. As such, this compare/contrast exercise is misleading.
>>Abe's remark on the cheapness of the whole thing still seems true. If
>>you'd
>>told somebody at the end of WWII that a coalition would invade and defeat
>>a
>>country in the middle of the hostile middle east and suffer around fifty
>>dead, they'd have laughed. Two or three thousand dead GIs since then is
>>closer to par for suppressing an insurgency, but still looks cheap.
>>I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand
>>two
>>things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
>>Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
> Sounds like you're preparing to cut and run to me.
I have no more influence in the matter than anybody else.
Dec 2nd 2006, 12:54 am
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On 2/12/06 14:46, in article [email protected], "DVH"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The reader will note that John seems to be suggesting Iraq was just fine and
> dandy before the invasion, and that this appears to be John's idea of fun.
What is certain is that Iraq is worse off after the invasion. People are
leaving in droves, either the country or to enter paradise.
Today's news is that Washington is seriously talking about splitting up
the country (it is "their" choice or merely the automatic consequences of
the invasion).
Next, what country in this area is in great political shape? Our partners
in Pakistan are ready to stab us in the back, Egypt has moved back a couple
of notches, Iran and Syria are unnaturally cooperating to advance the
interests of the Hezbollah. Afghanistan is about to implode-explode.
America's adventure in nation building has become one of nation
destroying. The know-nothings who think the know how.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The reader will note that John seems to be suggesting Iraq was just fine and
> dandy before the invasion, and that this appears to be John's idea of fun.
What is certain is that Iraq is worse off after the invasion. People are
leaving in droves, either the country or to enter paradise.
Today's news is that Washington is seriously talking about splitting up
the country (it is "their" choice or merely the automatic consequences of
the invasion).
Next, what country in this area is in great political shape? Our partners
in Pakistan are ready to stab us in the back, Egypt has moved back a couple
of notches, Iran and Syria are unnaturally cooperating to advance the
interests of the Hezbollah. Afghanistan is about to implode-explode.
America's adventure in nation building has become one of nation
destroying. The know-nothings who think the know how.
Dec 2nd 2006, 1:21 am
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
In article <C1974420.C5C81%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/12/06 14:46, in article [email protected], "DVH"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The reader will note that John seems to be suggesting Iraq was just fine and
> > dandy before the invasion, and that this appears to be John's idea of fun.
>
> What is certain is that Iraq is worse off after the invasion. People are
> leaving in droves, either the country or to enter paradise.
>
> Today's news is that Washington is seriously talking about splitting up
> the country (it is "their" choice or merely the automatic consequences of
> the invasion).
>
> Next, what country in this area is in great political shape? Our partners
> in Pakistan are ready to stab us in the back, Egypt has moved back a couple
> of notches, Iran and Syria are unnaturally cooperating to advance the
> interests of the Hezbollah. Afghanistan is about to implode-explode.
So why is France holding back some 30k troops that could help out in
Afghanistan... oh, thats right they "may" be needed in Kosovo.
jay
Sat Dec 02, 2006
mailto:[email protected]
>
> America's adventure in nation building has become one of nation
> destroying. The know-nothings who think the know how.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/12/06 14:46, in article [email protected], "DVH"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The reader will note that John seems to be suggesting Iraq was just fine and
> > dandy before the invasion, and that this appears to be John's idea of fun.
>
> What is certain is that Iraq is worse off after the invasion. People are
> leaving in droves, either the country or to enter paradise.
>
> Today's news is that Washington is seriously talking about splitting up
> the country (it is "their" choice or merely the automatic consequences of
> the invasion).
>
> Next, what country in this area is in great political shape? Our partners
> in Pakistan are ready to stab us in the back, Egypt has moved back a couple
> of notches, Iran and Syria are unnaturally cooperating to advance the
> interests of the Hezbollah. Afghanistan is about to implode-explode.
So why is France holding back some 30k troops that could help out in
Afghanistan... oh, thats right they "may" be needed in Kosovo.
jay
Sat Dec 02, 2006
mailto:[email protected]
>
> America's adventure in nation building has become one of nation
> destroying. The know-nothings who think the know how.
Dec 2nd 2006, 3:28 am
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On 2/12/06 15:21, in article 021220060621180517%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So why is France holding back some 30k troops that could help out in
> Afghanistan..
`
France does not have 30K troops to help out in Afghanistan.
Nor does anyone else, the total NATO contribution is
about 5000, the US 11000.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So why is France holding back some 30k troops that could help out in
> Afghanistan..
`
France does not have 30K troops to help out in Afghanistan.
Nor does anyone else, the total NATO contribution is
about 5000, the US 11000.
Dec 2nd 2006, 3:38 am
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
On 2/12/06 14:27, in article [email protected],
"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand two
>> things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
>> Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
>
> Sounds like you're preparing to cut and run to me.
So are a number of Iraqis. For good reason
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6049174.stm
The agency also says the number of internally displaced is growing, with
some 365,000 Iraqis uprooted this year.
Earlier this week the Baghdad government estimated that about 300,000 people
had been internally displaced since February.
Between them, Jordan and Syria are home to almost a million Iraqis.
"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand two
>> things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
>> Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
>
> Sounds like you're preparing to cut and run to me.
So are a number of Iraqis. For good reason
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6049174.stm
The agency also says the number of internally displaced is growing, with
some 365,000 Iraqis uprooted this year.
Earlier this week the Baghdad government estimated that about 300,000 people
had been internally displaced since February.
Between them, Jordan and Syria are home to almost a million Iraqis.
Dec 2nd 2006, 5:07 am
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
> From: "DVH" <[email protected]>
> Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:17:55 GMT
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand two
> things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
> Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
Two questions: could you please list all of the aims of the invasion? They
seemed to change from week to week.
If we owe Iraq nothing, what is your rationale for "staying the course"
there?
Donna Evleth
> Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.po litics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 11:17:55 GMT
> Subject: Re: A view on the US role in Iraq
>
> I hesitate to speculate on your thinking, but you seem to misunderstand two
> things: 1) Deposing Saddam wasn't the only aim of the invasion. 2) We owe
> Iraq nothing, even if they have a civil war.
Two questions: could you please list all of the aims of the invasion? They
seemed to change from week to week.
If we owe Iraq nothing, what is your rationale for "staying the course"
there?
Donna Evleth
