Off Topic Messages

Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:38 pm

Scatter wrote:
TJ wrote:
Scatter wrote:I laughed at what I heard today pertaining to this incident......

Where would you rather be.........???
Hunting with Cheney in the woods, or going over a bridge in a car driven by Ted Kennedy???

At least Cheney would get you to a hospital...........Kennedy would leave you at the bottom of the river. :lol: :lol:



It's just a joke of course, but it strikes me as a bit desperate to be flagging up an incident that occurred more than 30 years ago.


TJ.......you're sense of humor needs tweaking my boy :lol:

So here I go.........

There is no statute of limitations on negligent homocide........no redemption for waiting 3 days to report the crime. Kennedy was an apt comparison.Except he actually killed someone.

Cheney doesn't owe anyone an explanation beyond what he gave.

Besides.......It was a private matter.........it doesn't affect how he will perform his duties.....you remember, like getting a BJ in the Oval Orifice while a world leader in the most volatile region of the world awaits in the Rose Garden (Yassir Arafat).

A little consistency from the Left would be a refreshing change :lol:


How Clinton's BJ is relevant is beyond me. But I know it's impossible for a Republican to resist an opportunity to flag it up, however spurious the connection :wink:

I didn't mean to come across as void of humour :) I just meant that the motivation of the joke was so transparently partisan - ie "Cheney may have screwed up, but let's not forget Kennedy's behaviour in 1973!" Struck me as a bit lame to trawl through the archives to find a similar (admittedly worse) incident involving a Democrat.

It's a joke to call for consistency on the left, if the implication is that it exists on the right. The fact is, BOTH parties are guilty of subjecting politicians to different standards, in accordance with party lines. The natural tendency is to more readily excuse and forgive those that we support. Personally I have always considered the Clinton antics with Monica to be wrong, but blown out of all proportion (excuse the pun). I'd like to think I would say the same if Bush had a similar wandering eye. The intellectually honest approach is to judge politicians purely by their actions, without making allowances based on party membership. Sadly, that doesn't happen as often as it should.

Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:58 am

likethebike wrote:Stop. Especially with the near sedition stuff.

Seditious to mention the dreg of Camelot???? Don't worry......he's too drunk to get as upset over it as you are :wink:

Had Clinton had a similar accident we would have never heard the end of it. All the media was all over it including the sainted Fox News. Again as I explained before the Vice President has himself to blame over the lion's share of the media uproar as Bush apologist Chris Matthews HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That's the funniest damn thing I've read in ages!!!!! :lol: :lol: . Tip O'Neill's former flunky is now a Bush apologist........ :shock:
explained on television the other night. It was only as the cover up became evident that the story became inflated. A cover up implies some kind of wrongdoing.

Coverup :roll: . PelletGate :lol:

Few would argue that it's an interesting story and few would argue that it's a story of towering importance. It was the Vice President's odd behavior that inflated it though in the first place.

Much ado about nothing........it was a friggin hunting accident. BFD.....

To equate shooting a man with the sex act is a little disturbing to me.

Never heard of the expression "Shooting your........" Nevermind :lol:
Besides........your forgetting the Company Line. That wasn't sex. Which makes the hunting incident not really a shooting........since he didn't ACTUALLY use a bullet. :wink:

Sorry......I just can't get all worked up over this......


Last edited by Scatter on Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:06 am

Hey check out this video game!!

http://dickhunt.ytmnd.com/

Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:15 am

TJ wrote:
Scatter wrote:
TJ wrote:
Scatter wrote:I laughed at what I heard today pertaining to this incident......

Where would you rather be.........???
Hunting with Cheney in the woods, or going over a bridge in a car driven by Ted Kennedy???

At least Cheney would get you to a hospital...........Kennedy would leave you at the bottom of the river. :lol: :lol:



It's just a joke of course, but it strikes me as a bit desperate to be flagging up an incident that occurred more than 30 years ago.


TJ.......you're sense of humor needs tweaking my boy :lol:

So here I go.........

There is no statute of limitations on negligent homocide........no redemption for waiting 3 days to report the crime. Kennedy was an apt comparison.Except he actually killed someone.

Cheney doesn't owe anyone an explanation beyond what he gave.

Besides.......It was a private matter.........it doesn't affect how he will perform his duties.....you remember, like getting a BJ in the Oval Orifice while a world leader in the most volatile region of the world awaits in the Rose Garden (Yassir Arafat).

A little consistency from the Left would be a refreshing change :lol:


How Clinton's BJ is relevant is beyond me. But I know it's impossible for a Republican to resist an opportunity to flag it up, however spurious the connection :wink:

I didn't mean to come across as void of humour :) I just meant that the motivation of the joke was so transparently partisan - ie "Cheney may have screwed up, but let's not forget Kennedy's behaviour in 1973!" Struck me as a bit lame to trawl through the archives to find a similar (admittedly worse) incident involving a Democrat.

As I said.......it was just a joke. So "void of humor" is a perfectly apt desription. C'mon TJ.......just chuckle for me :wink:

It's a joke to call for consistency on the left, if the implication is that it exists on the right. The fact is, BOTH parties are guilty of subjecting politicians to different standards, in accordance with party lines. The natural tendency is to more readily excuse and forgive those that we support. Personally I have always considered the Clinton antics with Monica to be wrong, but blown out of all proportion (excuse the pun).

OK......Now THAT is funny!!!!! There's the TJ I love!!!! :lol:

I'd like to think I would say the same if Bush had a similar wandering eye. The intellectually honest approach is to judge politicians purely by their actions, without making allowances based on party membership. Sadly, that doesn't happen as often as it should.

Too true........another thing that doesn't happen too often is people just laughing at a joke........without getting all defensive.

Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:07 am

Seriously the right has really, really abused the terms sedition and treason. They've hollowed those terms of all effective meaning. Criticizing the government is not treason in and of itself I don't care where it is. The Bush machine makes it seem as if once the government has embarked on a certain path you're duty bound to support that path. You talk about wrongheaded. What's worse in essence what Gore said was the truth. How can that be sedition? Any American who supports an idea like Guantanamo Bay really has no appreciation for what the country is supposed to be about.

And the Vice President nearly kills a man in a hunting accident it's an interesting story. You can't deal with that I'm sorry. Were it Clinton there would be calls for resignation and impeachment. I agree interesting is not always important. And again Cheney brought it on himself by the cover up which implies worse occurred than actually did.

And again equating potentially killing a man (accidental or not) is seriously disturbed. You talk about crossed wires.

I agree it's not nowhere near as important as the big lies the Vice President put out about the war in Iraq, Iraq's connection to Al Quaeda, and outing a CIA agent out of political spite. Those acts are more treasonous than anything Al Gore said.

And again the relentless political spin and supercilious talking points of the far right pushes me once again into defending a man who I think is a mediocre politician simply because there is no sense of balance or proportion or reason. Talk about a bunch of paranoid nut jobs with a persecution complex. They're really a beset upon group with the President, congress (not for long) and Supreme Court.

And obviously you have never watched Chris Matthews show. Many, many have commented on how he has destroyed his credibility with his "man crush" on George W. Bush.

Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:13 am

likethebike wrote:Seriously the right has really, really abused the terms sedition and treason. They've hollowed those terms of all effective meaning. Criticizing the government is not treason in and of itself I don't care where it is. The Bush machine makes it seem as if once the government has embarked on a certain path you're duty bound to support that path. You talk about wrongheaded. What's worse in essence what Gore said was the truth. How can that be sedition? Any American who supports an idea like Guantanamo Bay really has no appreciation for what the country is supposed to be about.

And the Vice President nearly kills a man in a hunting accident it's an interesting story. You can't deal with that I'm sorry. Were it Clinton there would be calls for resignation and impeachment. I agree interesting is not always important. And again Cheney brought it on himself by the cover up which implies worse occurred than actually did.

And again equating potentially killing a man (accidental or not) is seriously disturbed. You talk about crossed wires.

I agree it's not nowhere near as important as the big lies the Vice President put out about the war in Iraq, Iraq's connection to Al Quaeda, and outing a CIA agent out of political spite. Those acts are more treasonous than anything Al Gore said.

And again the relentless political spin and supercilious talking points of the far right pushes me once again into defending a man who I think is a mediocre politician simply because there is no sense of balance or proportion or reason. Talk about a bunch of paranoid nut jobs with a persecution complex. They're really a beset upon group with the President, congress (not for long) and Supreme Court.

And obviously you have never watched Chris Matthews show. Many, many have commented on how he has destroyed his credibility with his "man crush" on George W. Bush.


WOW........you make Cindy Sheehan sound reasonable :lol: Talk about your crossed wires.........and paranoid nut-jobs :wink:

Seriously, you're going to have to get you head out of the Daily Koz and get some fresh air, because if you actually believe what you wrote here....... :shock:

Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:06 pm

Maybe this sums up the story best:

Image


DJC

Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:15 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Excellent Doc........that's what started this whole rigamarole.......a joke.

Fitting to end it this way as well.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:35 am

Actually, this one, by the same artist, is better:

Image

DJC

Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:36 am

Again, the Right hijacks debate to try and portray anything that exposes the corruption and incompetence of the current administration by labelling it as Left wing extremism and by labelling dissent with public policy as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:40 am

And again, it's useless to debate the Left fringe Kookisms that get bandied about here. That's why I decide to laugh at it........present company excepted.

It's like spending time arguing with an "Elvis Is Aliver"..........what's the point?? :D

If people want to believe in conspiracy theories, be they Alien, Assassination, Elvis, or Political..........no amount of fact or common sense will sway them.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:55 pm

TJ wrote:How Clinton's BJ is relevant is beyond me. But I know it's impossible for a Republican to resist an opportunity to flag it up, however spurious the connection :wink:

I didn't mean to come across as void of humour :) I just meant that the motivation of the joke was so transparently partisan - ie "Cheney may have screwed up, but let's not forget Kennedy's behaviour in 1973!" Struck me as a bit lame to trawl through the archives to find a similar (admittedly worse) incident involving a Democrat.

It's a joke to call for consistency on the left, if the implication is that it exists on the right. The fact is, BOTH parties are guilty of subjecting politicians to different standards, in accordance with party lines. The natural tendency is to more readily excuse and forgive those that we support. Personally I have always considered the Clinton antics with Monica to be wrong, but blown out of all proportion (excuse the pun). I'd like to think I would say the same if Bush had a similar wandering eye. The intellectually honest approach is to judge politicians purely by their actions, without making allowances based on party membership. Sadly, that doesn't happen as often as it should.


Not a bad take, TJ.

Scatter, surely you recognize that it's news when a Vice-President is involved in a shooting. The mishandling of it alone has given it a life it never would have had. And it's a false comfort to dismiss all the jokes as coming from "left wing kooks." All of America is not left wing and on this one they are laughing (much like then Veep Dan Quayle's gaffes) and also starting to wonder out loud about the nation's leadership. And much as Clinton took a cultural drubbing for his "oral/ oval office" escapades, all of this comes with the territory of being in charge. It's hard to run away from all such gaffes. And the some of the Washington press corps anger is in fact tied to a sense among some that they were lied to in the past.

There is undoubtedly a defensiveness on the part of GOP partisans at Fox News and elsewhere in bringing up Ted Kennedy or the irrelevant Al Gore or Jimmy Carter as well.

To put this in the terms of that game applied to TV shows, I'd say this administration has "jumped the shark" at long last.

Meaning, in a cultural sense, you see people openly laughing at the White House and even questioning the willpower and sincerity to protect our ports. Second terms usually take their tumble at one point and this may be the moment we look back on.

Even the until-recently middle of the road / apolitical David Letterman "Late Show" had a skit the other night about Cheney that then turned into an anti-Cheney, anti-war diatribe that until recently would have only been at home on Jon Stewart's show. The audience yukked it up over the last line about getting us "..into a pointless war."

It's hard to avoid thinking this hasn't been the best six months for Team Bush. It looks like the wheels are coming off. And good riddance.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:24 pm

Scatter wrote: It's like spending time arguing with an "Elvis Is Aliver"..........what's the point??


Been there and done that. Probably the biggest nutjobs I've ever had the misfortune to encounter :lol:

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:There is undoubtedly a defensiveness on the part of GOP partisans at Fox News and elsewhere in bringing up Ted Kennedy or the irrelevant Al Gore or Jimmy Carter as well.


And that's all I really meant in the first place. Whether bringing it up in joke form or making a serious comparison, it comes across as a bit desperate and overly defensive.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:36 pm

You don't debate them because you CAN'T! No WMD in Iraq. No connection between 9/11 in Iraq. We were not greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people. Those are all hits on the Cheney hit parade. There's no defense for the truth.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:18 pm

likethebike wrote:You don't debate them because you CAN'T! No WMD in Iraq.


To be fair though, on that point it was thought there would be. The extent of the threat was debated, but there was pretty much universal agreement from all intelligence agencies that Saddam still had WMD. Not surprising considering that he had spent years wanting the world to believe just that. It's a mistake to look at the war as an isolated event. We are talking about a nation that had been subject to years of UN Resolutions which it had repeatedly breached and was continuing to do so. As you may have detected in other threads, I am very much in the pro-Clinton camp. That said, he also thought Saddam still had WMD before the conflict. It wasn't a novel idea that Bush and Blair sold the world on.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:13 am

likethebike wrote:You don't debate them because you CAN'T! No WMD in Iraq. No connection between 9/11 in Iraq. We were not greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people. Those are all hits on the Cheney hit parade. There's no defense for the truth.


Wrong again.....I've debated you often.To suggest otherwise is dishonest, and casts me as a coward. I'm certain you didn't mean that......right??


Your response reminds me of the note posted in the preacher's sermon outline........"Pound pulpit here......case weak".

WMDs.......your Boy Bill sure believed in them, as did all the rest of your political heroes(Gore Kennedy, Kerry, McCain.......all had the exact info the White House had and rattled sabres accordingly). You're being blatantly dishonest here. A new book by an Iraqi General has WMDs being flown out of Iraq and into Syria on commercial airliners while the Libs kept us playing footsie with the U.N.......that makes several unrelated sources now that corroborate both the moving of the weapons and their destination

You know.......if you go to New York, the Twin Towers aren't there any more either. Doesn't mean they never were.


Connection between 9/11 and Iraq........We are after terrorist supporters. They don't HAVE to directly link to 9/11 and that was made clear from the outset. Now are you going to tell me Iraq didn't support terror?? Good luck with that :lol:

Last poll showed the majority of the Iraqi people want us there, and don't want us leaving prematurely. Strike three.

All this is old ground, well plowed. I'm not getting drawn into this again. I'm no closer to the Left, you're no closer to the Right.


I believe you have more pressing issues to deal with as well........Best Always my friend :wink:

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:55 am

Scatter wrote:
You know.......if you go to New York, the Twin Towers aren't there any more either.
Doesn't mean they never were.


That argument doesn't hold water.

It wasn't a question of whether he ever had WMD's.

We know he did.

The question was, did he comply with the UN resolution which told him to get rid of them ?

He did.

Bush/Blair didn't believe he had and went to war.

They were proved wrong.

He had got rid of them.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:28 am

ColinB wrote:Scatter wrote:
You know.......if you go to New York, the Twin Towers aren't there any more either.
Doesn't mean they never were.


That argument doesn't hold water.

It wasn't a question of whether he ever had WMD's.

We know he did.

The question was, did he comply with the UN resolution which told him to get rid of them ?

He did.

Bush/Blair didn't believe he had and went to war.

They were proved wrong.

He had got rid of them.


You're wrong Colin. The destruction of the WMDs would have left inert elements behind that were to be verified. None found. Where did they go if the weapons in the quantities verified were destroyed??

Also, the sources that finger the move of WMDs fro Iraq to Syria have them being moved just before the war. What was being moved if it was already destroyed??

There is no evidence that Saddam had neutralized his weaponry, as there WOULD have been had he followed the resolutions.

These inert substances can't just get tossed into the dust bin. Where are they??

Read this......


Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

Both Duelfer and Kay found that Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

But while the president's critics and the media might plausibly hide behind ambiguity and a lack of sensational-

looking finds for not reporting some discoveries, in the case of Saddam's ballistic-missile programs they have no excuse for their silence. "Where were the missiles? We found them," another senior administration official told Insight.

"Saddam Hussein's prohibited missile programs are as close to a slam dunk as you will ever find for violating United Nations resolutions," the first official said. Both senior administration officials spoke to Insight on condition that neither their name nor their agency be identified, but their accounts of what the United States has found in Iraq coincided in every major area.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice. Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:



A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?



"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"



New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.



A line of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."



"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."



"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] - well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."



In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles - probably the No Dong - 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed that the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

In taking apart Iraq's clandestine procurement network, Duelfer said his investigators had discovered that "the primary source of illicit financing for this system was oil smuggling conducted through government-to-government protocols negotiated with neighboring countries [and] from kickback payments made on contracts set up through the U.N. oil-for-food program" [see "Documents Prove U.N. Oil Corruption," April 27-May 10].

What the president's critics and the media widely have portrayed as the most dramatic failure of the U.S. case against Saddam has been the claimed failure to find "stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons. But in a June 2003 Washington Post op-ed, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus called such criticism "a distortion and a trivialization of a major threat to international peace and security."

Never heard this?? So much for the BBC.......or rather the BBS, or CBS, or ABS, or CNNBS, or MSNBS.......

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:03 am

An excellent and accurate post Scatter. It's been a real source of frustration for me that it's necessary to be proactive in accessing these facts, because our news organisations don't think they make interesting headlines. More accurately, they don't make as interesting headlines as "'No WMD Found In Iraq". The situation is not as black and white as that and the media has very often been negligent in presenting the shades of grey.

I still recall seeing a report about around 30 fighter jets found buried in the Iraqi desert. To me this was a very significant story as, while not chemical or biological weapons, it showed that burying weapons in the desert was a concealment tactic employed by the Iraqi forces. I think it's very reasonable to say, "If fighter jets, why the hell not WMD??" It's certainly a point that deserves some consideration, even if deemed unlikely. Instead, the story passed by with very little attention. Some news channels didn't even bother picking it up and have since openly mocked any suggestion that there could be WMD buried in the desert. There is too often a total lack of balance in reporting that I find very unfortunate and misleading.

For those who didn't see the jets in the desert story, here's a link (just to prove I wasn't daydreaming):
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles. ... 6,164,2186

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:08 am

TJ -

Thanks for that !

Just a thought...... did the UN resolution require them to get rid of the fighter aircraft ?

I can't remember.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:09 am

There were restrictions on the type of aircraft that could be bought Colin. Whether that was retroactive to what they already possessed I don't know.

The facts remain that there was conclusive evidence found of violations of the U.N. resolutions. There were indeed banned weapons and WMD components and programs found.

Now the question remains........why did I have to be the one to inform many members of this MB of these facts when so many were so sure that it wasn't so??

Where was the vaunted BBS???? I never want to hear another lecture about how we Americans don't know what the hell is going on in the world because of our media.

Where does that leave the Left with their smug assurances that the war was contrived, and Bush is a terrorist??

This leaves the disturbing conclusion that the media has an agenda to SHAPE what you believe rather than to inform you and let you draw conclusions. Pretty damn scary, isn't it?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:15 am

There has been no factual evidence presented to any official or to the media to legitimize any claim that any weapons were moved. It's been three years and nothing. The Iraqis had WMD because we sold them however they used them all.

The Vice President did not say Iraq had links to terrorism. He flat out stated links to 9/11 even after such links were refuted by the 9/11 commission. Further, if the US were to invade every government that ever hosted we would have invaded Saudi Arabia two seconds after the attacks and Iran ten seconds after that. Why doesn't it make you think that was no crazy, leftist kooky protest against Afghanistan? Many, many Democrats went to bat for this war and were left with egg on their faces by this administration and the lack of WMD.

I don't know what polls show the Iraqis welcoming Americans. I do know that the country is on the verge of a civil war after the devastating attack today. How is that better than what was there before? Again at the risk of being distorted that's not an endorsement of the previous status quo.

I never said you didn't debate but I would point out that is very offensive to label every criticism of the Bush administration as left wing kookism. Also, my point is those arguments are not really debatable. No WMD, no link to 9/11 and the country is turmoil.

The "we thought" argument only holds so much water. The president of the most powerful country in the world is not supposed to act on something he "thinks" might be true. He's supposed to do a better job of evaluating evidence instead of weighing heavily things that conformed to his previous beliefs and ignoring everything that conflicted with them. The stakes are too high and we are way paying for it. We're paying for it in the record costs of the war, the American and Iraqi lives lost in the conflict, the instability of the country and in the lack of US military to the point where we have to soft-pedal negotiations with the Iranians, who have potential nuclear capability, because our military is tied up in Iraq.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:24 pm

ColinB wrote:TJ -

Thanks for that !

Just a thought...... did the UN resolution require them to get rid of the fighter aircraft ?

I can't remember.


I think it's more a case of there being restrictions on what they do with the aircraft, rather than having the aircraft, ie the airforce was effectively grounded. I think the practice of burying them in the desert is quite revealing though and should give pause for thought for anyone who states categorically that there was no WMD.

I too have seen polls which show that the majority of Iraqis do support the presence of the coalition, but there is undoubtedly and understandably growing unrest. But who is responsible for that? Is it the coalition or the supporters of the previous regime who wish to sabotage Iraq's transition to a democratic state at every turn? There is only ongoing violence because of the actions of the latter. It can of course be argued that such a situation was inevitable and that we were naive to expect a smoother transition.

What I find particularly offensive is the tendency of some to speak of the insurgency and the average Iraqi citizen as if they were synonymous. The motivation of that suggestion is clear - it implies that we invaded a sovereign nation and deposed a leader that had popular support from the masses. Utter crap of course as Saddam was hated and feared by the majority. Why else would one-sixth of the country be in exile? That dishonest suggestion is also very insulting to the hundred of thousands of Iraqis that faced appalling treatment at the hands of Saddam.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:30 pm

UMMMMMM....the factual findings I cited above that you so glibly dismiss were reported to Congress.......every one of the Leftists who agitate against the war to glean funds from the finge know this already. I have 3 more articles on my harddrive with the same information.

I never bothered to post them here because of exactly what you just did.......they did not fit the template you've constructed and staked so much on, so you dismiss them. Facts be damned.

This is all the evidence I needed to know that the previous post I wrote about the uselessness of debating this, since conspiracy lovers, be they Alien, Assassination, Elvis, or political never let the facts get in the way.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:44 pm

TJ -

You wrote:
...there is undoubtedly and understandably growing unrest.
But who is responsible for that?
Is it the coalition or the supporters of the previous regime who wish to sabotage Iraq's transition to a democratic state at every turn?
There is only ongoing violence because of the actions of the latter.
It can of course be argued that such a situation was inevitable and that we were naive to expect a smoother transition.


Yes, a growing unrest verging on civil war !

There are those who want to sabotage the introduction of democracy.

But the presence of the coalition forces is part of the problem.

Is our continuing occupation making things worse ?

Or would our withdrawal simply cause a blood-bath ?

We shouldn't have invaded, sure, but that's in the past now.

How to make the best of the current situation is the dilemma our leaders face.