To Leave or Not to Leave

<i> Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) .............

Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 19, 2005 at 8:57 AM

I mean, what the hell.  wew know why they attacked and occupied, fuck all the bullshit excuses before and since. We knew some of it in 2003 and now we know the rest.  Need a new big Middle East Base, Saudi’s use by date is nearing end.  Need to secure the oil for USA. We know about the OIL for Euros, which Saddam started and which is spreading to Iran and Venezuala, and the Iranian Oil Bourse due to open in 2006 trading in Euros..  Now know the whole story on that front.  Well maybe we never know the whole story, but you know what I mean.

Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:00 AM

Oops hit the submit button by accident too quick.  Also Rabbit leaves his battered spelling and syntax as always.  If it is good enough for a POTUS, it is good enough for a rabbit.

Of course Israel has a great deal to say about US foreign policy, you are their attack dogs after all, and getting shot of Saddam and Iraq, as an entity was always high on their agenda.

Lastly, but the thing which will probably come to oust all the other reasons when the history books are written, the real target is Iran.  This is all just the ground work to prepare for and set up that next phase of the PNAC master plan, which is itself but a part of the Illuminati means to their ends. 

Lets hope that they do all manage to bring about their own ends, and not ours.

Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 19, 2005 at 9:07 AM

<blockquote>But if by terrorism we mean the systematic threatening, torturing and/or killing of civilians to force them to accept a political or military situation they wouldn

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:08 AM

<blockquote>By these terms, there is little chance of U.S. pullout from Iraq any time soon, since by the Defense Department

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:11 AM

<blockquote>president

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:15 AM

<blockquote>in the almost three years since the current invasion, the United States has been unable to rebuild much

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:18 AM

<blockquote>by demonizing Iraq

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:23 AM

<blockquote>few of the alternative plans by Democrats and their allies are much better. On the official level, perhaps the most prominent statement by a

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:26 AM

<blockquote>America

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:29 AM

<blockquote>this plan calls for 80,000 U.S. troops to be redeployed by the end of 2006 (

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:35 AM

it admits that attacks have skyrocketed under the Bush administration. But without this historical context, a successful plan against the insurgency and the larger problem of terrorism cannot be developed.

Again with the journalistic misrepresentation. It should read, attacks have skyrocketed since 9/11.

Despite the attempt on the left to repaint the problem as caused by Bush, the problem actually predates Bush. I do feel for the terrorists, though. Imagine that your greatest achievement, 9/11, failed to achieve your prime objective. That is to push the Americans out of the Middle East.

Thank God Bush was at the helm!

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:39 AM

<blockquote>Zarqawi serves American interests so well that if he didn

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:41 AM

In such an environment, simplicity is the best option for politicians and activists seeking to begin a process of withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. The longer and more detailed the plan, the more likely it falls into the very political, ideological and strategic traps that have made such a mess of the occupation to begin with.

Oh. So I guess Richard Holbrooke’s admonisment to create a 500 page plus peace document, ala Bosnia, before doing anything, is no longer on the table with the Democrats?

Thank God!

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 19, 2005 at 10:44 AM

<i>Can anyone say

Posted by David in Canada on Dec 19, 2005 at 12:47 PM

David,  thanks.

I wanted to point out that a lot of the language the media and government uses is patronizing crap. I suggest that if we really want to “win the hearts and minds” of Iraqis, we might want to empathize with them to such a degree that we don’t see much point in bombing them.

The whole idea that if we weren’t fighting them “over there” that we’d be fighting them “over here” just floors me. Who are these “terrorists” who can pull off 9/11, but find fighting us in Iraq to be a sound strategy? If we pull out are they going to say, “Oh, no—-now we have to fight over there”. Seems to me like taking the fight over there just made it more convenient for the “terrorists”. 

Many Iraqis consider the insurgency to be a national movement and don’t want outsiders to join the fight, btw.

Though I agree we should pull out completely, I have to say that we did not “lose the hearts and minds” of the Iraqis because we never won them.

And all this talk about elections and rebuilding is crap. We all know the money is being looted and a lot of it can’t even be accounted for, it was so blatantly ripped off. Good grief, Halliburton brought in Indians and Phillipinos to work in Iraq.

And if anyone here would like to walk up to an Iraqi who lost their house and family to our bombs and tell them that they should look on the bright side—-they voted—-then I heartily encourage that person to do so.

It’s so much bull talking about “victory”.  Iraqis have to deal with losses that can’t be repaid for what?!?! They did nothing to deserve this. The people of Iraq did nothing  to us, and to keep making excuses and trying to make it look like we did them favors with our unjustified attack is chauvinistic hubris at best.

Posted by wileywitch on Dec 19, 2005 at 3:55 PM

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Ghandi

Posted by David in Canada on Dec 19, 2005 at 5:23 PM

Jay,

You responded to most of my underlines added while reading Levine

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 20, 2005 at 7:30 AM

whattheheck,

I would disagree only with your comment that it is useless to try and make reasonable comments on this site.

There are others who read this site without participating much.

It is only pointless to expect a rational response from the usual suspects.

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 10:06 AM

Hey, David.

Here is some more cherries…

Bush’s overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November. His approval rating on Iraq jumped 10 percentage points since early November, to 46 percent, while his rating on the economy rose 11 points, to 47 percent. A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism, up from 48 percent in the November poll.

Up by 8 to 11 points in just over a month!

How’s them pits?

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 10:28 AM

Hi What the Heck,

Exactly who was defending the the rights of expression Ghandi used?

—————

Hi Jay,

I wonder how the Iraqis feel?

Posted by David in Canada on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:37 AM

David,

I have quoted numerous polls here and at other ITT topics that indicate that, while the Iraqis would like the American troops to leave as soon as possible, which is certainly reasonable, the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time.

That there is animosity and resentment to be sure, particularly among the Sunnis, does not change that fact.

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 11:42 AM

David,

In Ghandi’s case it would have been the British most of the time. Had he (or anyone else peacefully protesting) been in Saddam’s control, or in China today he would most likely had died a bit fatter and much younger.

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 20, 2005 at 1:19 PM

Jay,

Point well taken regarding the possibility of silent readers.  I’ve read so much of the verbal jousting on here I guess I came to believe few would bother to stick around. Too much of it seems to be just for the satisfaction of one-upmanship or, perhaps I should say put-downmanship.

I

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 20, 2005 at 1:33 PM

I hear you.

I left for a short while for the same reason, though David was sure I’d be back.

I guess he knows me better than I do. But I come now only for the rebuttal.

Shameless promotion - feel free to leave a little graffiti at my site. Hardly anyone there, but that doesn’t trouble me. I have a Letters to the Editor section, now, so people can comment about anything they wish.

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 1:48 PM

while the Iraqis would like the American troops to leave as soon as possible, which is certainly reasonable, the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time.

<blockquote>

Posted by David in Canada on Dec 20, 2005 at 2:58 PM

OK What the Heck, I will humor you.

Yes, there was good voter turnout in the Iraqi elections.

Jay, I knew you would be back. I detected a masochistic streak in you long ago ;)

Posted by David in Canada on Dec 20, 2005 at 3:14 PM

No. I am tired of looking things up for people, especially when I have previously posted them.

Repeatedly.

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 20, 2005 at 3:14 PM

OK. Don’t post any references to support your assertion.

Would you care to rebut the apparent contradiction between the poll I referenced and the allegation you made that the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time for American troops to leave.

Have the Iraqis told you when they want the American troops to leave their country?

Posted by David in Canada on Dec 20, 2005 at 5:43 PM

PART 1:
Too whattheheck, David in Canada, Jay and well everyone else:
I’d like to point out the main problem with ITT that neither of the three groups that are shown in its boards will point out.

First the three groups: 1. The writers (obviously)
2. Democrats
3. Conservatives
(Potentially you could add a fourth group consisting of foreigners but this group nearly exclusively agrees with the Democrat’s loyalist)

Now before I begin I must point out that whenever I post I am consistently castrated as tool of the conservatives or a right winger (by the Democrat’s posters) and if you read what i have to write I obviously am not.

Now on to the biggest problem with ITT, here it goes:
If you read this article it shows the problem in a perfect manner, although nearly all of Salim’s articles are great for this too). It goes along with the basic guidelines for articles on ITT which are essentially: 1. Attack the Bush administration (although I agree with this largely and disagree with Bush on nearly everything for now I am just pointing out the facts)...
Than they go on to: 2. Show some policy of the Democrats which would be largely better than that of Bush
And finally: 3. Show some sympathy for any of the following groups(depending on the topic) a. minorities, b. women, c. academics, d. peace activists, and e. activists in general.

Now when you look at this it seems all and good as this is a liberal “progressive” news source, however think about this in the context of the article. What solutions or other avenues does ITT explain in the article, well we have three:

1. Senator Joe Biden’s,  which quoting the article includes such gems as:
A. “Iraq will not become a model democracy any time soon,”
B. “he accused the Bush administration of “misrepresenting the facts, misunderstanding Iraq, and misleading on the war.”
C. “Biden argues that America’s fundamental goals are to stop Iraq from being a haven for terrorists and to prevent a full-blown civil, and ultimately regional, war.”
(and yes for all of those of you who will tell me that ITT doesnt like or accept Biden’s solution I already know that so save it ok)

2.  Rep John Burtha’s solution(and now thats funny and you will see why soon) which ITT details as:
A. “clearer, more pragmatic, and in one respect, profound: He calls simply for a coherent “exit strategy” that would bring all the troops home in the near future.”
B.  ““Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months” (PLEASE REMEMBER THE SIX MONTHS PART AS IT IS CRUCIAL IF YOU READ ON)(Also it is important to recognize that in the article this is largely the strategy which ITT backs)

3. And Rep. Barbara Lee’s plan which includes according to ITT:
A. “the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreements with the government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.” (A strategy which ITT seems unable to accept but does not blast like it does Bush’s or Biden’s)

Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 21, 2005 at 4:39 AM

PART 2:
Please think about all of this and consider the following:
1. RALPH NADER advocated a six month withdrawl plan during the 2004 campaign, yet ITT has not mentioned Nader or his plan in any of their discussions on Iraq instead always giving credit to the Democrats.
2. ITT claims to be such a great news source for the American left(and I think its pretty damn good but has alot of flaws). Now the American left would certainly contain in it the anti war movement and pro-peace movement right? Well while claiming to represent these people ITT consistently touts the greatness of so many Democrats(yes I know they do knock a few of them, but it is rare) while blasting the Bush administration(which it well deserves), yet it fails to ever mention Nader even during the campaign in 2004 when it was clear Nader was the only anti war candidate that was available to the American people(or available to some Americans but we will speak of that soon) and thus we would expect that a news magazine who speaks to the anti war and pro peace would tout the Nader campaign or at least mention it right? Nope look at the past year or hell past couple of years including the issues during the campaign Nader was never mentioned(except during the boards and usually by me). Moreover compare that with the coverage(mostly good, or well at the very least bad but well you should still vote for him “Anybody but Bush” mantra is applicable here) which ITT gave to John Kerry, to supposedly please or encourage their anti war readers they gave us a pro war candidate, but hey he’s a Democrat and that was enough to get most of you idiots to love him. And if your one of those tools who thinks that Nader is an egomaniac(which if you read any of his books and look at what hes accomplished no educated person can actually say) than think about the coverage ITT gave to the only anti war party! The Green Party during the 2004 campaign and since has been completely ignored by ITT. Anyone who reads the 10 key beliefs of the Greens should understand they are an anti war party yet in this debate about the war ITT conviently leaves them out of their pages along with Nader.
3. This Iraq thing its about democracy huh? Both the Democrats and Republicans often state this. I am not debating this statement but merely am here to point out a fallacy in it as far as ITT and the Democrats go. If we want to install democracy in Iraq wouldn’t it help if we maybe, just maybe took democracy seriously here at home huh? What I am speaking of here reflects on the actions of the Democrats during the 2004 campaign in which they systematically brought lawsuit after lawsuit in any state they could against the Nader campaign and to a lesser degree David Cobb’s campaign(but you wouldnt know who Cobb is b/c ITT and almost all media whether liberal or conservative ignored him). These lawsuits were meant to have two goals.

A. Through these suits the Democrats could drain funds from both campaigns by waging lengthy legal battles in the courts(which they clearly had an advantage in as well as in many states judges are elected and thus many are Democrats and will side with their party b/c they know if they dont they wont see the money they need for reelection).
And
B. When successful these suits would keep Nader off the ballot in that state(and as stated Cobb but too a much lesser extent) and thus the Democrats could corner progressives whom would have voted for Nader or Cobb into voting for Kerry as their real anti-war candidate would not be available on the ballots.

Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 21, 2005 at 4:42 AM

Yet since and during the election what have you heard on ITT about these actions which are truely undemocratic(As no matter what your ideology I beleive we can all agree that limiting the choices of voters is certainly undemocratic)? You’ve heard nothing, you can’t cite one article on ITT than even barely mentions this b/c they dont want you to know about this they would never dare speak out against the Democrats b/c they have fell into the pathetic group of persons willing to accept anything as long as its not Bush and than would dare not question the Democrats on this as to them the Democrats are the only option in fighting against Bush.(It also should be stated that the ACLU, an organization which I used to be a card carrying member of helped these ambushes on democracy against the Nader campaign, dare i ask if it could be because nearly all of their funding comes from Democrats…hmmmmm.) Oh and please dont forget how ITT continues to “save” and “defend” democracy by taking every chance they get to state how Bush shouldn’t have won the 2000(or to a lesser extent 2004 election, which at its core is an attack on Nader), yet while doing this attack on Bush they feel it not necessary to discuss the previously mentioned attack on democracy committed by the Democrats themselves.

4. The liberal-progressive issues which the Democrats dont support, or show mild support for, how much are they discussed on ITT. I am speaking of such issues and stances as:
A. The ‘living wage’ of $10 an hour being implemented(Nader and Greens for this majority of Democrats against)
B. The fight against the War on Drugs(Nader and Greens against the racist wasteful war on drugs, and Democrats are split coming close to 50-50, more likely 40-60 in favor of continuing it)
C.Publicly financed elections(Nader and Greens for, Democrats mostly against, probably about 80-20 with 80 % being against)
D. Instant Runoff Voting(Nader and Greens for, Democrats nearly entirely against)
E. The fact that many of Bush’s biggest campaign supporters(financially) (Citibank being the prime example) also gave ample financial support to the Democrats, thus playing both side of the coins.
F. Consumer Justice(yeah you try and argue that anyone has done more for the consumer than Nader and I will laugh at you)
G. Speaking out against fair trade agreements which export our jobs(which many Democrats have supported but have seen little, if any, criticism by ITT)

(Despite these downfalls I will give ITT some credit they have been very insightful as far as two topics go: Universal Health Care and Unions)

Now please, oh please!!!! Look through the list (A-G) which many of the progressive readers(which makes up a majority of ITT’s readership) likely should support. But how many of these issues are discussed in ITT, the sad truth is very few, possibly none, and when they are discussed it is very very rare and moreover it is usually discussed in order to tout some Democrat who is currently in favor of the topic discussed in this article, and thus largely with the goal of getting said Democrat elected.

With all of this said I await your comments and criticisms and follow ups thanks for reading through this and think before you act.

Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 21, 2005 at 4:44 AM

(Pre mature prediction: Many, if not all, conservatives will agree with much I have to say thus making the Democrats on here think their argument that I am a conservative supposedly stronger, the Democrats will blast me and say I am stupid, give a stat given to them by their party, or just rant an “Anybody but Bush” mantra in my face. And finally the true liberal progressives will really understand my criticisms of ITT and join with me to please consistently start a movement to point out these shortcomings to force ITT to become more progressive and truly represent us.

FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS YOUR NOT LIBERAL I AM A REAL LIBERAL AND IF YOU WANTTO KNOW WHY ASK A CONSERVATIVE WHO THEY FEAR MORE ME OR YOU?(Conservatives please give me your insight on this who do you fear more)

Thanks With Love
A Nader Raider(2nd Generation Raider)

Organizations (and websites) I Support or recommend:
1.  www.ssdp.org (Students for Sensible Drug Policy) (My flagship organization)
2. “The Washington Journal” on CSPAN (I truly love this show its amazing beyond belief, nothing else on TV or in any other medium can even come close to the Journal. To understand how truly fair they are to all well, I’ve seen Nader on the show twice, the head of the College Democrats once, all kinds of religious leaders several times, calls from all over the political spectrum, the editor of the “Weekly Standard” (highly conservative) on the program twice. Please watch the journal and call in and congrulate them for doing such a damn good job without the Journal I dont know where we would be politically speaking.
3. CSPAN in general (I really like their coverage its just amazing, did you see that 6 hour story on John Roberts that was incredible and unbiased) www.cspan.org
4. The Green Party (www.gp.org)
5. The Nader campaign and Ralph, (much love), www.votenader.org
6. DC VOTE (although I expect them to be heavily influenced in a bad way by Democrats I havent been able to prove it yet like I did with the ACLU) www.dcvote.org
7. NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) (shout out to Allen St Pierre and Kris Krane doing great work their guys) www.norml.org
8. BBC (can’t leave them out, doing great work there) www.bbc.com
9. http://www.wsws.org/index.shtml (World Socialist Web Site) although I disagree with alot and overall is blatant propaganda obviously there are some interesting things if you look hard enough on the site
10. Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org)
11. Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org)
12. Drug Policy Alliance (www.dpa.org) (Much love to the Chris who also works at NORML who works their, forgot your last name sorry)
13. The Libertarian Party (I disagree with alot if not the majority of their policies but they are helping third parties so they get a shout out to) www.lp.org

Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 21, 2005 at 4:44 AM

NaderRaider,

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 21, 2005 at 12:48 PM

whattheheck thanx for your follow up feedback

However if you would and any one else who has complained about ITT or anyone at all or ITT loyalists the main reason for my postings(the four of them) is too get feedback on my argment about the problems i discuss which I believe are inherent in nearly every article here at ITT

Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 21, 2005 at 2:38 PM

David,

I am just tired of counting coup with polling data. Especially when both sides adamantly claim that polling data is not all that reliable. My point with Levin was he cherry picked the one to make his point. But, my previously mentioned polls were from the Pew Trust; and about as old as the polls you are citing…

But, if we are going to grab each others feathers, did you see Stephen Hayden, National Security Advisor, last night in a speech before the CSIS organization? He quoted some nifty polls. One was a recent ABC Poll (sorry, that is only as detailed as he described it) that indicated over 70% of Iraqi business people were optimistic for the next year.

Now, that is indigenous Iraqi business people. Not the Indian and Fillipino variants of Halliburten that Rabbit harps on….

Your turn!
;)

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 21, 2005 at 3:14 PM

naderraider,

first knee-jerk reaction.

Love and respect your independence, hate your politics.

But that’s ok. Most people here hate my politics too.

A. living wage of $10 - I can dig it.
B. drugs - I’ve already debated the drug debate here about a month ago. I don’t remember what article is is attached to, which is not surprising. Nobody stays much on topic. If you find it and have something new to say, let me know here, but let’s keep the debate on whatever article it is slung to
C. Publicly financed elections - theoretically I agree, but recent history (ie PACs) have demonstrated there is always a way around. I am more in favor in providing access and possibly financing to the smaller political parties than any attempt to restrict financing. It don’t work and it just costs more.
D. Instant runoff voting - don’t know the issue
E. See C.
F. Consumer Justice - oh yea. I am big on that!
G. Fair Trade - Big time free marketeer here. I fear what protectionism did in the 20s and 30s. Free trade should not be completely unrestrained of course. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan and Bill Gates come to mind.

Errata.

Universal Health Care - No. I want managed care in ruins. Just give me real major medical insurance. I’ll pay for my own damn check-ups!

Unions - Again. Good in theory and they made some great strides in the first half of the last century. But about as manageable as Marxism. When people go on strike because they need a third ATV or snowmobile, I lose interest.

Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 21, 2005 at 3:34 PM

As usual here at ITT if you make a logical argument for independent third parties and against the democrats people just wont comment on it and ignore it
GO BRAINWASHING!!!!

Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 23, 2005 at 2:54 AM

NaderRaider,

I can’t vote for Nader because I don’t live in the United States.

I think independent third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties are great. I vote for the Green Party of Canada. The British Columbia Greens from Canada were the first Green party in North America by the way.

Just a side note :
A science fiction writer named Greg Bear wrote a book called Eon with Naderites in it.

Posted by David in Canada on Dec 23, 2005 at 11:46 AM

NaderRaider,

As usual here at ITT if you make a logical argument for independent third parties and against the democrats people just wont comment on it and ignore it
GO BRAINWASHING!!!!
Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 23, 2005 at 4:54 AM
——————————

Sorry, NaderRaider, I guess my logical argument can only be against the possibility of an independent third party.  Our two parties are so entrenched and since they have been allowed to make their own rules, any serious threat will cause them to circle the wagons and prevent it from happening.

IMO those who want something different (better) are inclined to be more thoughtful than the average voter.  They will likely not be a single issue voter, but be more interested in the larger picture. To get any power a single issue must dominate

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 24, 2005 at 8:16 AM

Naderraider—- I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, and Kerry in the election because I wanted Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney out.

The president isn’t supposed to be the be-all and end-all of our government. 

Jay, if the wages are raised to ten dollars an hour and you rent, you can bet your butt that your rent will go up accordingly. Prices will go up too, because they are based more on what people are willing to pay than the cost of making these products. Wages have been steadily rising for the last thirty years or so, yet the middle class is disappearing and buying power is dropping.

Posted by wileywitch on Dec 24, 2005 at 1:40 PM

Wiley,

I got this yesterday in a financial newsletter:

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 25, 2005 at 7:00 AM

Wiley,

It was the belief on Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, that GM will declare bankruptcy in order to escape their $32 pension deficit.

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 25, 2005 at 7:04 AM

WTH, I’m familiar with that single stat—-I used to like living alone, but over time, it became unaffordable even though I made more than minimum wage.

GM spends more on health care than steel.

An automobile corporation (don’t remember which one—-think it was a Japanese corp.) just chose to move a plant to Canada instead of the U.S. because (they claim) U.S. workers are mostly illiterate, they’re too hard to train, and to costly to insure.

My guess is that what a GM CEO makes in one year is enough to support at least a hundred workers. Why is it that there is nary a mention of stockholders making tax free money ad infinitum for doing nothing beyond investing money that has been more than repaid with interest when talking about people getting money and not working?  Why is it that there is never any talk about these slouches?

Posted by wileywitch on Dec 25, 2005 at 1:08 PM

Wiley, you said…

“My guess is that what a GM CEO makes in one year is enough to support at least a hundred workers. Why is it that there is nary a mention of stockholders making tax free money ad infinitum for doing nothing beyond investing money that has been more than repaid with interest when talking about people getting money and not working?

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 26, 2005 at 7:53 AM

WTH, I’m not blowing you off, I’m recouping from the holidays. 
At least we agree on a couple of things.

Posted by wileywitch on Dec 26, 2005 at 5:18 PM

Sorry whattheheck,  I’m having a hard time reading anything less pressing than our current foreign affair fiascoes, and life and death matters. Everyone I know is freaking out about medicaid, and/or immediate health issues. And

all hell about to break loose

Posted by wileywitch on Dec 28, 2005 at 7:58 PM

Wiley,

I read the Knight-Ridder piece on the Kurds and as the author says it has not appeared on Fox or CNN. At least I have not seen or heard anything about it elsewhere.

After reading some of the other articles I would say the writer has a very consistently strong bias. While there is probably some truth here, there is also a lot of slanted writing.

The truth is most likely somewhere in between the extremes we get. It is well known the Kurds have gotten the shaft from nearly everyone and many would like their own seprate state. Well, why not?

Posted by whattheheck on Dec 31, 2005 at 12:13 PM

Everything is slanted WTH. If it’s not slanted, it’s not saying anything.

Look at Israel, WTH.  People don’t just establish states like buying a house. For one thing, the Kurds want a lot of oil rich territories. For another most of the Arab world and Turkey is going to find that completely unacceptable.

What gets me about the Kurds is that they keep falling for it——this administration doesn’t care about the Kurds or anybody else, and it is most likely that, once again, the Kurds will fight for their independence with “our” encouragement and then we will leave and they will have to fight the Mid-Eastern world on their own.

Posted by wileywitch on Dec 31, 2005 at 12:43 PM

Wiley,

Sorry about the confusion on the other article as to who said what.  I copied and pasted the whole replies section to reply to later when off line. The bylines end up closer to the next writer

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 2, 2006 at 9:33 AM

Well, WTH, I probably don’t need to tell you that people are more complicated than weather. We all have our biases. Too bad we don’t have six or eight parties with which to hash out our various problems. We could be united on some issues, and in opposition on others without being unnaturally and unnecessarily polarized.

I want us to stop bombing people and to spend more our our money on infrastructure and education than we spend destroying lives and property. No one on this planet needs more trauma.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 2, 2006 at 9:51 PM

Wiley and LB,

Obviously the two of you are pretty much on the same wave length and apparently not convinced the radical Muslims are a continuing national threat. It is a threat where you and I will not recognize the individuals unless they actually take over a plane (or whatever) we are on at the time.  In such a case we will not be able to “reason” with them.

Changing U.S. policies or their perceptions is too long range to matter.

I am curious, however, because of LB’s comment regarding my being more concerned about protecting my friends and family than about injuring those who have declared us as people they intend to kill.

Do either you have children? Would you not choose to protect them first if an emergency were imminent? Would you refrain from injuring someone who was a danger to them? Is everyone of equal value to you?

During an armed robbery many years ago the gunman was about ten or fifteen feet away and swung his gun in our direction. The first thing I did was to shove my son (about 5 at the time) behind a pillar and yell at my wife to get down on the floor. If I had been armed I would have tried to kill the guy

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 3, 2006 at 7:38 AM

WTH, I would kill, if necessary to protect any child.

The problem with Iraq is that it has nothing to do with terrorism and was no threat to us.

Other countries have been dealing with terrorism for years. When I was stationed in Germany, the Bader Meinhoff Gang was active. People didn’t build their lives around terrorism and give up their rights in the name of it.

There are rebels and terrorists in Central and South America.  There are criminals everywhere.

I would like to see us focus on defense. How we respond to something is as much a part of our integrity as how we work to prevent tragedies.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 3, 2006 at 4:03 PM

Wiley,

OK, so you do place more value on the children than the attacker. Good.

There are different degrees and goals of terrorism. These are not just criminals.

I responded to your similar post on the 2 Wars thread with my views.

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:05 PM

whattheheck,

I pray all worked out in the end, in the armed robbery. It is incredible how quickly a father reacts and what he can do when his family is threatened. I have a four year old girl. Last winter, in the mall parking lot, she got away from us and ran out in front of an approaching van. I had just enough time to rush out, pick her up and shield her as the van struck us.

Fortunately, I was wearing this big parka that I had gotten from my mother-in-law the year before. Worst parka you could ever imagine. it didn’t breathe at all, and I sweat like a pig when I wear it. But it was really cold that so I wore it. it acted like those airbags they put on the Martian Landers. We bounced off the van and bounced off the ground.

The only damage was a raspberry on my elbow from hitting the ground.

And a rip on the inside sleeve that to this day sheds little down feathers.

To this day, my wife thinks I am some kind of hero. But there was nothing special. Instinct kicked in and it was like I was just a spectator.

Nothing like being papa, though.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 4, 2006 at 2:18 PM

WTH, we’ll never agree, probably. I think of bombing cities as state sponsored terrorism. I think killing Iraqi children is just as dishonorable and inexcusable as killing an American child.

Terrorists are criminals—they are mass murderers.  To label them as something so huge is to downplay our own role in conflicts and to excuse our unlawful behavior. We’ve dropped 300 tons of radioactive bombs and bullets on a country that did not threaten anyone.

We cannot eliminate every threat. It’s pathological to think that we must. To keep defending our outrageous and illegal behavior is to invest yet more in future atrocities committed by otherwise powerless people. 

Can Botswana put on their uniforms and bomb us legally because we harbor so many serial killers?

Should we declare war on teenagers because of Columbine?

We’re escalating the nuclear arms race, for crying out loud.
This wounded, innocent American crap is getting old.  Let’s get a little perspective, here. 

Good story Jay! I love other people’s stories.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 4, 2006 at 7:34 PM

Wiley,

Thanks for the kind words. When it comes to my daughter, I’ve got a ton of stories! Every month or two, I collect them and send out a Samantha newsletter to family and friends. Papa generally gets the short end of the stick in most of the stories. She is a real dickens! I should post them on my own blog with a permanent link.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 5, 2006 at 10:18 AM

Reflection is an important and vital part of life. Take a second look at Levine’s earlier piece on Iraq and democracy, Echoes of Oslo, published here Aug 21, just before the draft constitution was voted on.

Doom and gloom with serious doubts the Iraqis would even get past that. I wonder how silly that (and this) article will look next summer.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2286/

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 5, 2006 at 10:28 AM

Wiley,

I don

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 5, 2006 at 10:34 AM

Wiley,

Apologies for the following.

<i>We

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 5, 2006 at 10:41 AM

Jay,

We were all OK, thanks.  The guy hopped into a getaway car (no plates) and they skipped.  Just after he pointed his revolver at us a security guard (unarmed) yelled at him and he swung it back toward him. The guard did a head-first dive under a counter. No shots were fired. It never made the papers

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 5, 2006 at 10:51 AM

So, Jay. What I hear you saying is that it’s alright to kill and poison Iraqi children because you think Hussein is a threat? How many of his peoples’ lives equals one Saddam? Is that “democracy” at work? 

If we were threatening another country that had done us no harm, with a nuclear strike, would it be alright with you if that countrys’ armed forces spread radioactive munitions in your neighborhood, poisoning your children, giving them cancer? Would that make sense to you? If you support this, then you support state sponsored terrorism. How can you think it’s o.k. to dump radioactive waste on an entire nation? That is so sick. Maybe you want to rethink this, huh? Do you know what you are saying?

Hussein has been sitting in jail for quite some time, and the generals appear to agree that we are fueling the insurgency.

Why can you not put yourself in these peoples’ shoes? Do you look for alternative explanations? Do you try to find other angles? If not, then why not? I know you’re intelligent.
The only people in the whole world that believe this tripe in the U.S. MSM is us. CNN broadcasts more accurate news to other world audiences. 

Why—-if democracy is important to you—-do you insist on conflating Saddam Hussein with the people of Iraq? Why do you not know/understand that when he gassed his own people he gassed them with weapons we sold him—-he was our ally, because he was secular and he was fighting muslim fundamentalism. He was at war with the ayatollah of Iran at the time. The people he gassed (if he gassed them—-there is argument about this) were Kurds and Shia that were fighting with Iran.

He’s no prince, but neither is George Bush, and Hussein did not poison his entire nation while he kept religious fundamentalism at bay. The only place where there were terrorists before our attack was the no fly zone which was under U.S. and British occupation.

We have over 3200 strategic warheads alone? And Bush wants to build more and start testing them ASAP. Do you really think we need more to be “safe”?

If you’re not willing to consider this, then we’re going to have to stop talking.  I will not converse with someone who insists on justifying the mass murder of children, and is unwilling to consider information that contradicts these views. 

What’s in the echo chambers is overly simplistic comic book crap. Evil-doers! Good grief.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 5, 2006 at 11:56 AM

So, Jay. What I hear you saying is that it

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 6, 2006 at 8:29 AM

Jay,

Totally agree with your latest.

Anyone interested in an account of an on the spot account between the two Gulf Wars should read, “Martyrs’ Day” by the late Michael Kelly.

I doubt if many readers here will go to this, but if so well get a whole load dumped on the site. I found it espcially significant that it came to me from a very anti-Bush friend.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 6, 2006 at 9:52 AM

Leave Iraq ...  from 2003 !

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 7, 2006 at 5:00 PM

Don’t you get it yet ?

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 7, 2006 at 5:01 PM

There have been many recommendations from various anti-US-Iraq writers at this site. Contary to what is often expressed I do read many of them. Here are a couple regarding the idea that Saddam was a contributor to Islamic terrorism for you to read and consider. (Yes, I know, these guys are NeoCons and also the PNAC group, but if I can wade through your stuff…)

In general I think we are ultimately hoping for a better, safer, more peaceful world

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 9, 2006 at 7:34 AM

David,

Glad to see you are quoting sources that say,

His regime was also at least pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction

Do you get it?

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 9, 2006 at 8:51 AM

Also from David’s source,

Instead of accepting a less-than-ideal situation in Iraq, the United States now is in the position of having to fix what it broke.

Yeah, we broke it right over Saddam’s carbine that he loved to pack and brandish for the crowds.

Of course we should fix it.

That has been the whole point.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 9, 2006 at 8:53 AM

His regime was also at least pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction

Looks like they got that one wrong too. Nobody is perfect.

Years of weapons inspections seemed to do the job very well.

Better than a war by a long shot.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 9, 2006 at 2:39 PM

Instead of accepting a less-than-ideal situation in Iraq, the United States now is in the position of having to fix what it broke.

Iraq is more broken than ever before :

Electricity below pre-war levels. Oil exports below pre-wear levels.

The only thing above pre-war levels is the killing.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 9, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Well ... not the only thing ... but you get my point.

Living Conditions in Iraq: A Criminal Tragedy

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 9, 2006 at 3:49 PM

Thank you, David. It’s sad that so many people cannot summon the generosity and charity to say that it is at least tragic for us to kill so many civilians, and that we could do better. It’s such a simple thing for anyone who happens to think the golden rule is valid. There is a fundamental lack of reciprocity here that is dangerous and hypocritical.

We have duties and responsibilities even as (illegal) occupiers for the care of the Iraqi people and the restoration of what we broke.

And since we so take the “bad” with the “good”, why can we not give Hussein credit for keeping the radical fundamentalist moslems at bay, or for bombing Iran’s nuclear reactors before they went on line, as we are evidently planning on doing?

Not that I’m in favor of bombing their reactors—-I’m not. I don’t like Hussein either, but I dislike being lied to by my own government and media even more, especially when we are doing harm and behaving in an abusive way that lowers us and is doing great harm to our relations with what we used to call allies.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 9, 2006 at 5:00 PM

Wiley,

Please clarify your comment,

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 10, 2006 at 8:02 AM

David,

Looks like you got that one wrong, eh?

Of course, there is always the Iraq real per capita income, up 30% over pre-war times.

But, that would mean you’d have to admit this whole argument is not going your wy.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 10, 2006 at 10:50 AM

whattheheck,

Isn’t it incredible that the story about all those documents hasn’t hit the headlines yet? I get feeds from five or six of the big news agencies (NYT, WaPost,etc) and still no aftershock….

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 10, 2006 at 10:52 AM

Jay,

What exactly did I get wrong?

Your source for the Iraqi per capita 30% increase, please.

I could care less if an argument goes my way or not. If I am wrong about something I will happily correct myself.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 10, 2006 at 11:05 AM

Jay,

Astounding!  This should be page one on every paper, but I have seen nothing so far.

Another untold story: David says Iraq is more broken than ever before. Someone at this site criticized the lack of electric power in Iraq so far. At a Christmas party a good friend and retired Army Lt. Colonel told us we are building their electric, water and sewer systems from scratch. Before the war, Baghdad had eight separate electric grids. All utilities will be totally modern to latest standards when completed.

Can anyone in the White House say,

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 10, 2006 at 12:17 PM

David,

You think,

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 10, 2006 at 12:33 PM

Here’s a public relations idea—-let’s reanimate their children’s corpses.

Of course, for this public relations project to work, we must demonstrate that we think this is such a good idea that we don’t mind if they return the favor in our hour of need.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 10, 2006 at 12:37 PM

Why believe the Iraq inspections were any better?

Because no (significant) weapons of mass destruction were found.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 10, 2006 at 2:10 PM

At a Christmas party a good friend and retired Army Lt. Colonel told us we are building their electric, water and sewer systems from scratch.

... and you believe him? Consider this excerpt from the link I provided above :

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO),

“Iraq had a modern sanitary infrastructure with an extensive network of water-purification and sewage-treatment systems. Water networks distributed clean, safe water to 95% of the urban population and to 75% of those in rural areas. In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP”.

It has fallen to 127, one of the most dramatic declines in human welfare in recent history, as a result of the U.S-Britain-sponsored sanctions and wars, which needlessly killed civilians en mass.

All utilities will be totally modern to latest standards when completed.

When will that be? What about the power grid here in North America? It needs work too. Remember the black out of 2003? Maybe seperate power grids are a good idea to avoid similar problems.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 10, 2006 at 2:28 PM

US War Crimes, An International Vow of Silence

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 10, 2006 at 2:30 PM

David,

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 10, 2006 at 2:57 PM

Wiley,

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 10, 2006 at 3:08 PM

David,

<blockquote>In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 10, 2006 at 3:47 PM

I believe that is called cherry-picking.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 10, 2006 at 3:47 PM

David,

Here is another article from Boot with references to statistics about Iraqi opinion polls, which we discussed in relation to earlier cherry-picking charges.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-boot23nov23,1,5521295.column

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 10, 2006 at 3:50 PM

<i>I don

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 10, 2006 at 3:50 PM

David,

Cool! That Max Boot reference also has the per capita stat, which Boot ascribes to the Brookings Institute.

He also passes on other BI info:

<blockquote>According to Brookings’ Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein’s day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users.

The growth of the independent media

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 10, 2006 at 3:55 PM

Let Freedom Ring!

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 10, 2006 at 3:57 PM

In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP

Jay,

After the first Gulf War in 1991 and the subsequent sanctions it went downhill in Iraq. After the 2003 invasion and occupation Iraq went over the cliff’s edge.

<i>Clinton wasn

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 10, 2006 at 4:02 PM

Jay, thanks for the LA Times URL. It was informative. How do weigh it against this.

<blockquote>The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 10, 2006 at 4:18 PM

WTh

I guess you ARE blaming the U.S. for kids killed by suicide bombers and roadside bombs.  Who gets the blame for teaching their kids to do the bombing? Is that our fault as well? 

Are you forgetting this, or did you not bother to read it

Rabbit shall answer you.  Yes we are blaming the US becuse these kids were not being killed by suicide bombers before US intervention.  You guys fucked the place up, and that can’t be avoided.  100% your fault.  By invading and relieving the government of control then installing your own puppets you took full responsibility for the whole country. 

Surprising a grown man needs to be told such a basic fact of life.  Did you or did you not raise your children to take responsibiloity for their own actions?

As for you, you dimwitted freak Jay, you have had an equally simple fact pointed out to you before, many times, every time you talk about how badly things were in Iraq before 2003.

Rabbit shall repeat it another time, so that even if you still don’t understand, at least others will see you have been told.

The USA was completely responsible for the most all inclusive, sheer medieval blockade of modern history for ten years.  This blockade which was enforced with constant overflights and regular bombing raids during that whole time, included Medicines, building materials and even BABY FOOD.  God how you disgust me, rolling around in the shit like a filthy hyena, trying to justify things which if anyone else did them you’d be screaming like a stuck pig.

These sanctions, you nasty toady little shill for craven curs, are what brought Iraq almost to a complete standstill, destroyed the infrastructure and DIRECTLY caused the death of about a million children.

Rabbit is going to post something next which details exactly what you have done.  The following information is irrefutbale truth.  You pair of morons cannot, you simply cannot argue the facts without proving you are completely braindead.  Of course Jay has proven he is completely stagnant and WTH too, so it is unlikely you’ll get it even then, but these are the facts.  You can only respond to them by saying how they fit into your ideas.  Your problem is that your opinions are permanent, whilst the facts are what you try and change about.  Jay probably still argues Bush has never told a lie, he certainly once held that view, and it would interest the rabbit very much if Jay would let us in on how he feels about his original premise a few months ago that Dubya never lied about anything.  (Please deny it Jay, Rabbit will post your own words) So what do you rerckon now Jay?  Are you the last person in the world to believe the shrub never lies?

This is further proof of what I said yesterday WTH, we are vastly superior sunshin.  We hold facts as being unchangeable, once established, whilst opinions as being something which is as fluid as the changing face of reality.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 7:14 PM

January 26, 2000

    Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations

    Dear H.E. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, KCMG,

    A delegation of U.S. citizens from twenty states has just returned
    from Iraq.  On January 17, we observed in Baghdad the 9th Anniversary
    of the beginning of the January 17 - February 28, 1991. U.S. aircraft
    flew 110,000 aerial sorties against Iraq, averaging one every 30
    seconds, dropping 88,500 tons of explosives, the equivalent of 7 l/2
    Hiroshima bombs.

    This was by far the most intensive bombardment in history.  It killed
    tens of thousands of people, injuring many more.  Medicines and
    medical supplies were exhausted.  It devastated water systems from
    reservoir, pumping station, pipeline, filtration plant to kitchen
    faucet as well as urban sewage and sanitation systems nationwide. Food
    production, processing, storage, distribution, and marketing facilities
    were widely destroyed.  Poultry was nearly wiped out by loss of
    electricity and lack of grain.  Animal herds were decimated. Fertilizer
    and insecticide plants and storage structures were destroyed.
    Communications systems, telephone, radio, TV, were shattered.
    Transportation was badly battered.  Vital industries were attacked
    everywhere.  Electric power was knocked out across the nation in the
    first 24 hours of the assault.  Petroleum production, refining, storage
    and distribution from well to service station were attacked across the
    nation.

    The combined effect of this vast destruction of essential goods,
    services and industries with the most comprehensive economic
    sanctions of modern times, first imposed on Hiroshima Day, August 6,
    1990, has caused more than a million and a half deaths.

    Conditions of Life and Death in Iraq
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I have traveled to and within Iraq ten times since sanctions were
    imposed, once during the bombing in 1991.  Each year, the death rate
    has risen radically.  The numbers of deaths have been reported
    internationally regularly and updated each month since 1991.  In Iraq,
    they are palpable. UN agencies, the World Health Organization, the
    Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Program,
    UNICEF and others have found and confirmed the deaths time and
    time again.  They must shock the conscience of every sentient human
    being.  Comprehensive reports by UN agencies and other sources are
    available to you.  You are charged with this knowledge.  The total
    numbers of deaths in every segment of the society has risen radically in
    each of the past nine years under U.S./U.N. sanctions.

    As a tragic illustration total annual deaths of children in Iraq under the
    age of five from respiratory infection, diarrhea and gastroenteritis and
    malnutrition are:

During
1989:7110 deaths
1991:27473
1994:52905
1997:58845
1998:71279
1999(Jan.- Nov.):  73572

    The annual number of deaths of children under age five grew more
    than tenfold from 1989 to 1999.  Total deaths of children under age
    five from these selected causes alone during 1990 to November 1999
    is 502,492.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 7:17 PM

    While children under age five are the most vulnerable age group,
    except for the extreme elderly, every age group has suffered radical
    increases in the numbers of deaths.  Members of the population with
    serious chronic illnesses requiring regular medication, or therapy,
    suffer the highest percentages of death of any sectors, approaching
    100% for some illnesses where survival rates were as high as 95%
    before sanctions.

    The sanctions target to kill, or injure infants, children, the elderly,
    and the chronically ill.

    The Red Crescent and other knowledgeable professional groups
    believe it will be years after the end of sanctions before the
    increase in deaths from most causes stops rising because of the
    cumulative effect of the sanctions on the physical conditions of
    parents, children, the new born and the overall environment.

    Most of those who survive suffer severe physical and mental injury
    from the sanctions.  Indicative of the impact of sanctions is the
    enormous rise in the percentage of registered births under 2.5
    kilograms, a dangerously low birth weight in a nation without adequate
    food, medicine and medical supplies and equipment.  Like death,
    under weight births have risen radically every year:

    Year / % of live births at weights under 2.5 kilograms

1990:4.5
1991:10.8
1994:21.1
1998:23.8
1999(Jan. - Nov.):  24.1

    The percentage of live births below 2.5 kg. has increased more than
    fivefold to one in four registered births.  The consequence for the
    lives of these children is enormous.  Many will have underdeveloped
    organs, mental retardation, remain smaller and weaker than average
    and be more vulnerable to sickness, malnutrition and bad water.  Their
    life expectancy has been reduced by as much as 30%.  Probably 90%
    of all the infants born in Iraq since 1990 have significantly lower
    birth weights than they would if there were no sanctions.  The effect
    on lives and health of children with higher birth weights is also
    drastic. This is why foreign medical teams for five years have
    referred to a “stunted generation” in Iraq.

    Suggestive of the struggle the children living and dying under
    sanctions in Iraq face are the following increases since 1990 in
    treated cases of nutrition related sicknesses and deficiencies.

    Year /  Number of cases
          Kwashiorkor
    1990:    485 (base)
    1991:  12796 26.3 times
    1994:  20975 42.6   “
    1998:  30232 61.4   “

    Year /  Number of cases
    Marasmus
    1990:    5193 (base)
    1991:  96186 18.5 times
    1994:  192296 37     “
    1998:  264468 50.8   “

    Year /  Number of cases
    Protein, Calorie, Vitamin deficiency, Malnutrition
    1990:    96809 (base)
    1991:  947974 9.8 times
    1994:  1576194 16.3 “
    1998:  1910309 19.7

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 7:19 PM

Kwashiorkor is an extremely dangerous end product of malnutrition
    in which the victim wastes and dies without early intensive care.  Few
    doctors in Iraq had ever seen a case before late 1990.  From
    medical school and continuing studies they associated Kwashiorkor
    with starvation in the poorest regions of Africa and south Asia during
    periods of war, drought, pestilence and other calamities.  Marasmus
    inflicts a lower death rate than kwashiorkor, but is extremely
    dangerous, permanently damaging and requires early and extended
    care for survival.  The effects of severe and protracted malnutrition
    are permanent and life shortening.

    Common communicable diseases preventable by vaccination which
    are provided nearly all children in developed countries and were
    standard in Iraq before 1990 have increased by multiples.  While
    rates for these diseases fluctuate unlike the death rates and rates for
    malnutrition related sickness, because of the cyclical nature of their
    communication, they have been regularly higher, increasingly so, and
    have afflicted additional hundreds of thousands of children.  Increases
    in 1998 over 1989 were as follows: whooping cough, 3.4 times;
    measles, 4.5 times (25, 818 cases); mumps, 3.7 times (35,881).
    The Sanctions Committee of the Security Council has failed to
    approve negotiated contracts for Iraq to purchase vaccines for these
    and other diseases.  Poliomyelitis, which had been virtually
    extinguished in Iraq, has increased by a multiple ranging from 2 to
    18.6 times since 1989.  Cholera rose from zero cases in 1989 to
    2560 cases in 1998 and conditions in Iraq threaten an epidemic.
    Amoebic dysentery was 13 times greater in 1998, totaling 264,290
    cases, over 1989 and much higher in several earlier years.  Typhoid
    fever was up 10.9 times to 19825 cases in 1998 over 1989.
    Scabies increased every year from zero cases in 1989 to 43,580 in
    1998.  Every adult knows the misery, suffering and sometimes
    heartbreak these preventable communicable diseases cause.

    Doctors, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, all persons in health care,
    work under tragic conditions.  Doctors and nurses uniformly state
    that patients they could easily save under normal conditions die every
    day.  The hospitals are in wretched condition: dark, cold, dirty,
    stairwells crumbling, walls peeling, beds without sheets, plumbing
    inoperable, electricity erratic, equipment without parts, medicines,
    oxygen, aesthetics, antiseptics, antibiotics, x-ray film, catheters,
    gauze, aspirin, light bulbs, pencils always scarce, often unavailable.
    Common life saving medicines from dehydration tablets to insulin are
    never in adequate supply

Got it now have we boys?  Iraq was a big mess because of what YOU did to them for ten years.  You thus waited until the country was virtually destroyed, no longer able to stand up and fight really.  You thne hit them with a massib=ve military assault, using the most destructive and utterly inhumane weapons ever deployed in warfare, and as well as destroying the elctrical grid and what was left of the infrastructure, you BIG BRAVE COWBOYS marched triumphantly into Iraq, and expected to be greeted as heroes.  You stupid pissant wretched curs, now want to squat here and mouth platitudes about humanity and inhumanity, as if you had a right

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 7:24 PM

The Sanctions Violate the Genocide Convention of 1948
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Genocide is defined in the Genocide Convention, in part, as follows:

      Article II…genocide means any of the following acts committed
    with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
    racial or religious group, as such:

    (a)  Killing members of the group;
    (b)  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
    group;
    (c)  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
    to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    There can be no doubt that the sanctions against Iraq intentionally
    destroyed in major part members of a national group and a religious
    group, as such, killing members of the groups, causing bodily and
    mental harm to their members and deliberately inflicting conditions of
    life calculated to bring about their physical destruction, at least, in
    part.  If this is not genocide, what is?

    The United States, after decades of resisting, finally ratified the
    Genocide Convention before these sanctions were imposed.  It has
    frequently accused other governments of genocide, sometimes
    assaulting them severely with its massive, high tech military weapons
    against which nearly all nations are defenseless.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 7:25 PM

ROGUE NATION

So the US says that Iraq has repeatedly ignored or refused to comply
with UN conventions? Well, here’s a list of all the rogue policies
aggressively pursued by the Bush administration:

1) the refusal to sign an international accord phasing out land
mines;
2) the withdrawal from UN negotiations on a Biological Weapons
Convention;
3) the renunciation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and
determination to build an ABM system;
4) the rejection of the Kyoto environmental accord;
5) the termination of support for the Upper Atmospheric Research
Satellite which monitors the ozone layer over Antarctica;
6) the rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court;
7) the rejection of a small arms control pact;
8) a push to criminalise the disclosure of intelligence information;
9) a determination to re-authorise assassination as a tool of
foreign policy;
10) the expansion of counter-insurgency capacities (a regional “Plan
Colombia”)
11) the militarisation of space (“star wars”)
12) refusal to ratify Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear
testing;
13) repeated rejection along with Israel, using veto power, of
continual UN resolutions calling for an end to the Israeli
occupation of the Palestinian territories;

and the list goes on.

“U.S. foreign policy is designated to create and maintain an
international order in which U.S.-based business can prosper, a
world of ‘open societies’... that are open to U.S. economic
penetration and political control.”
                            - Noam Chomsky

“In it’s actual usage, the term ‘democracy’ in U.S. rhetoric, refers
to a system of governance in which elite elements based in the
business community control the state by virtue of their dominance of
private society, while the population observes quietly. So
understood, democracy is a system of elite decision and public
ratification, as in the United States itself. Correspondingly,
popular involvement in the formation of public policy is considered
a serious threat. It is not a step towards democracy; rather it
constitutes a ‘crisis of democracy’ that must be overcome. The
problem arises both in the United States and in its dependencies,
and has been addressed by measures ranging from public relations
campaigns to death squads, depending on which population is
targetted… what all this means for the third world, to put it
crudely but accurately, is that the primary concern of U.S. foreign
policy is to guarantee the freedom to rob and exploit”

                            - Noam Chomsky

Hah! So now we can decipher Bush’s Orwellian doublespeak and
understand what he REALLY means when he says he’s fighting
for ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’!

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 7:28 PM

Shall we add re-starting the almost extinct Heroin trade out of Afghanistan?

What about the use of banned chemical and Nuclear weapons?

What about the fact that you arsewipes are about to launch nuclear weapons against a fairly minor state, who does not have such weapons?

Any answers to these questions?  Any answer to the FACTS of what you sleezy cowards call a war of freedom or some such nonsense?

ROGUE NATION!

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 7:32 PM

This was said about the sanctions whilst they were in force.  They were real, you do remember that boys don’t you?  It occurs to the rabbit that Tweedledum and Tweedledee may not actually remember the sanctions, or they may think it wasn’t the USA which did it.  Hell they probably may never have known about them at the time, or at least they were and maybe are convinced

Do you think we are making up the sanctions Boys? 

It is criminal to hold the lives of the people of Iraq hostage to
    demands of the U.S. against their government, whatever those demands
    may be.  In war it is prohibited to use starvation as a weapon.
    Medical aid must be given enemy wounded.  Under sanctions an Iraqi is
    being deliberately killed every two minutes by conditions of life.
    Sanctions are the functional equivalent of pointing guns at the heads
    of Iraq’s children and elderly while saying do what we demand to
    their government, or we will shoot, then pulling a trigger every two
    minutes, or less.

More to show how the world saw what the sanctions were doing while the USA only responded by invading shortly after this petition. 

Having brought about such calamitous conditions inside IRAQ, the good old USA decided what they now needed was a massive fire assault, indiscriminate bombings and a few thousand tons of Depleted Uranium vapourised all over the countryside.  3000 tons worth of dirty bombs, out of fear the Iraqi’s “might” posess one such weapon…..which they didn’t!

Oh you guys are real defenders of the free world.  Real Roger Ramjet and his Eagles and Superman all wrapped up into one.  Who is your great hero boys?  Who is the biggest hero in all this farcical WOT?  I know, it’s George W Bush isn’t it?  The great commander in Chief, your Emperor. 

He is your Emperor, doesn’t that just warm your wee hearts to know?

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 8:28 PM

Dave why did you correect yourself?  The ONLY thing in Iraq above pre-war levels is the killing.  Oh yes, the number of US troops in Iraq,  that’s two things I guess.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 8:35 PM

More Jay wizardry.

<i>I take issue with the preposition Saddam didn

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 8:46 PM

Oh and JAY Bird,  ABU NIDAL is a ridiculous excuse to have done anything to anybody at any time.  What the hell are you raising such a pissant issue for?  Besides which as usual you don’t know anything you are talking about.

In a melodramatic tale worthy of G. Gordon Liddy, North sat there with a straight face and explained to the committee that the Abu Nidal organization had put a price on his head, and that he needed the security system for protection against this global terrorist threat. The presentation included visual aids, such as slides of newspaper stories about Abu Nidal’s atrocities, including the murder of women and children abroad. (Abu Nidal is not known to have committed a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.)

There’s some small controversy over whether he shot himself to avoid capture by Iraqi authorities, or whether he was shot by said Iraqi authorities, and whether he had been working with said Iraqi authorities regardless of who actually shot him. The controversy is small not because the facts are clear, but because no one really cared about the man by the time he bought it.

This doesn’t look like very useful support Jay boy.

Abu Nidal died of between one and four gunshot wounds in Baghdad in August 2002, believed by Palestinian sources to have been killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein, [2] but said by the Iraqi government to have committed suicide. [3] The Guardian wrote on the news of his death: “He was the patriot turned psychopath. He served only ... the warped personal drives that pushed him into hideous crime. He was the ultimate mercenary.”

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 10, 2006 at 8:59 PM

<i> I guess you ARE blaming the U.S. for kids killed by suicide bombers and roadside bombs.  Who gets the blame for teaching their kids to do the bombing? Is that our fault as well?

Are you forgetting this, or did you not bother to read it?

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 10, 2006 at 11:42 PM

Of course, the above post is for WTH.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 10, 2006 at 11:43 PM

CORRECTION—-Sufis most certainly did not fight with Iran. They wouldn’t fight in a poetry slam. That almost rhymes.

SHIITES.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 10, 2006 at 11:53 PM

Now stay calm Wiley, these guys have been willfully ignorant for a long time now and believe Rabbit, it is not for want of having the information right there for them to study and understand. 

Wait till WTH gets around to explaining how nothing can ever be known and everything is all just imaginary, and the only thing which WILL NEVER CHANGE is his mind. You ain’t seen nothing yet sister.

The whole Germans Holocaust thing and the insanity of not a few historical events takes on a whole new banal meaning finally doesn’t it?  You have to see your fellow human living in such blatant denial and illusion to understand how a nation can become the monsters which history records.  Even then the effect is hard to fathom.

Rabbit has just had an uncomfortable moment of revelation.  It suddenly seems obvious how the ancient prophesies seem so spot on.  I guess this is the result of having seen the show before.

I wonder if this fatal flaw is what brings us to our knees every twenty thousand years or so, and what thus keeps us Earth bound.  Interesting thought.  A genetic imprint which ensured just such a self destructive tendency, no matter which pathways our new technological evolution may take, the result will always be enough to ensure we never get off this planet.  Prison Planet?  Prison Planet for Souls.  Maybe we are being given the chance to earn parole, through successive lifetimes, individuals may eventually get parole and be allowed beyond this dimensions. 

Or not, WTH and Jay.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 3:28 AM

Our genetic predisposition to domination and war is like the bars which keep us in.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 3:29 AM

Wiley,

Thanks for the clarification of your position.

Rabbit,

You are babbling again. You should have continued in your preaching profession

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 11, 2006 at 7:35 AM

Wiley,

So is it your special insight or your refusal to consider any other scenario which causes you to dismiss Saddam as providing terrorist training?

This is from the same prior reference:

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 11, 2006 at 10:02 AM

Rabbit,

We agree that sanctions are worse than useless. We should have taken Saddam out in 1991 instead.

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 11, 2006 at 10:05 AM

Good God. Rabbit is once again practicing the time honored “throw enough caca at ‘em and they’ll just walk away”.

Or is it “repeat something often enough and it has to be true”?

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 11, 2006 at 11:57 AM

Are you a moral relativist that judges the deaths on our watch by comparison to Hussein?

Great! At least the parents of children murdered by our weapons can thank God that they weren’t murdered by Hussein.

You think you can judge what government Iraq needs? Tell us everything you know about Iraqis and Iraq. If you know so much about the Iraqis that you know we should have removed their leader at a previous time, and that they are better off now, then why don’t you tell them. Apparently, a lot of them don’t think they’re better off now. Straighten them out, WTH. Give them your wise counsel.

Then try this one on—-who is it we were supposed to “take out” Hussein for? For what purpose? Do you really think this is a humanitarian issue?

Most of the rest of the world considers our regime change practices to be illegal. That pretty much makes our illegal acts a form of state sponsored terrorism, doesn’t it?

So, once again, do you think Iraqis are your niggers? A lesser race that you understand better than they understand themselves?

I don’t “babble”, btw.  You should be so fluent, but you never really have that much to say.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 11, 2006 at 12:00 PM

David,

So, life in Iraq went downhill after sanctions were imposed? And, tell me again, the reason for those sanctions?

The reference to Clinton was that during that time, when sanctions were in place, nothing good happened. The sanctions failed as Saddam cut away at the bone of Iraqi society.

If Clinton had done his job, instead of getting one from Monica, maybe Iraqi life would not have festered so miserably.

Again, I ask,

And, tell me again, the reason for those sanctions?

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 11, 2006 at 12:00 PM

Rabbit doesn’t babble either.

Do you Rabbitino?

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 11, 2006 at 12:09 PM

Well, David, here goes.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

In August? Before the Iraqis had even a draft of a constitution? Before the Sunnis started to turn away from violence and “boycott” democracy? When things looked their bleakest? Kind of like you using statistics from 1990 to hide how bad Iraqi life got during the Clinton non-Administration?

Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province

100 - 45 = 55 percent believe that the attacks are NOT justified? Sounds like majority rule to me.

<i>82 per cent are

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 11, 2006 at 12:15 PM

whattheheck,

I think there is something wrong with your geography. Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak are not in the northern no-fly zone that wiley is referring to….

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 11, 2006 at 12:22 PM

wiley,

most of the people Hussein killed were Iranian Kurds and Sufis who fought with Iran in the Iraq-Iran war, and the very same fundamentalists that we are trying to kill now. Do you think Bush would not kill people who fought with a country that we are at war with, when soldiers from that country are coming into our territory?

So, I presume you therefore fully support Bush and his alleged ‘torture’ policy?

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 11, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Wiley,

“I don

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 11, 2006 at 3:10 PM

Wiley,

I see you caught it a bit later. Sorry.

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 11, 2006 at 3:13 PM

Jay,

This conversation goes no where. Wiley and Rabbit are too satisfied they already know it all and apparently don

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 11, 2006 at 3:24 PM

Jay,

the reasons for those sanctions ?

Hmmm ...

To punish Iraqis for being unfortunate enough to have a brutal dictator for a leader and to weaken the country for the 2003 invasion.

could you do me the favor and explain away the stats

The opinion polls we are discussing have little to do with one another except that they are about Iraq. One tells statistics of automobiles, telephones and newspapers and another tells of opinions about the military occupation of the country. One does not explain away the other.

What the Heck you are right about one thing; this is getting repetitive.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 11, 2006 at 5:18 PM

You had a much more intelligent president in 1991, WTH.

Bush senior knew that taking Iraq was not the problem but holding it.  What the hell do you do with it once you are in there.

There was also the little matter of imposing the most horrendous sanctions in Modern History, to bring the country to it’s kness.

Rabbit is not babbling, WTH.  You just had a series of relevant facts, outlined , resourced and detailed, all of which relate to the discussion at hand.  You really should try to up your image a bit and not reduce your self in others’ eyes by answering such posts with an absurd one liner.  Rabbit has gone to the trouble of telling you before, for every tiny bit of sense you show you spil it with your glibness when faced with something real which challenges your views.

How else can you say I’m babbling when you still balle on with the same tunem, Saddam bad we had to take him out.?

Nobody says he isn’t bad, butn the answer was never that the USA needed to topple him.  The answer from the start was that the USA should not have been ointerfering with other nations’ politics, thus bringing him to power.  They shoukld not have been supllying him with all those WMDs when he was simultaneously using them to commit ALL the atrocities you now think you can stand back and self righteously point the finger at.

Certainly Saddam Hussein was always a vindictive, aggressive and nasty leader.  So why did the USA support him so much for so long?

I was arguing against US support of Saddam Hussein sunshine when you were still sure the USA was doing the best it could by supporting his totally WRONG and aggressive war against IRAN.  You cannot pretend that history exists in a vaccum that it somehow ceases to have existence the day after.  Everything has consequences you sad little minds.  You spout such slogans, for slogans is all they are if you cannot put it into practice at the same time.

Don’t make one of your pathetic little round the bush comments of that meaning the USA has to stay in Iraq to finish the job.

You need to get your wee heads around the simple, herewith fully proven reality that the USA has been intefering with middle eastern politics in an aggressive and totally omoral way for decades and Iraq is just the latest abuse in a long line of events.  Go back and read it all boys, you are only avoiding the issues like support for Hussein during his bad doings, the wicked sanctions which will eventually be known by your grandchildren as being a war crime of the first magnitude.  Not to mention the Horrible weapons of WMD which you not only have been but are using against weaker nations.  How many pre-emptive strikes do you think you can get away with before we just start to call it what it is, an aggressive unilateral expansionist war of empire?

Or how long from the readings of history do you think it will be before it becomes that so well understood phenomenom of an irreversible cataclysmic collapsing empire?

By history’s score the USA is minutes to midnight for the end.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 7:32 PM

Rabbit shall read on, but WTH if you think this was babbling, as an answer to the simplistic twaddle you answered my previous posts with, then you are so far out of your depth on this site, that it is amazing someone with any sense is subjecting themselves to it.  You can reduce an idea to a few glib sentences and repeat that over and over as you do, but that is not a substitue for actual engagement and reasoned debate.  Many of the terms you use WTH, are meaning much more than you imply. In truth for the complexity of the ideas you express a vocabulary of a couple hundred words should suffice.  Rabbit suggests you put that dictionary you like to refer to away, google the two hundred most common words in daily speach and practice using them to express yourself.  You will be making a much more accurate presentation of your ideas. 

For your own dignity, don’t reply to Rabbit’s fair and honest reasoning with some well rehearsed slogan.

Further more, why waste your obviously limited space in posts on adhominem attacks on Rabbit, when he is certainly for the most part your master in the insults department?  (It’s the field you give me to work with)

How about being a man about it, and tackling the core points of my posts.  If you lack the ability to define these, ask and Rabbit will distil it into as small a reply as you’d like, no less than twenty one words…...

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 7:32 PM

WTH we do not agree that sanctions were (or are) worse than useless.

Rabbit is pointing out that the sanctions were responsible for upwards from a million children’s deaths.  A War Crime as is also pointed out clearly above.  That is worse than anything Saddam did to anyone, laddy.  Weren’t you something to do with matematics?  You only have to compare Saddams alleged total of 350, 000, of all ages and various groups, to the one to one and a half million children who died as a direct result of the sanctions.  Since these included baby formula, it isn’t hard to say it was intentional.

Don’t forget that Rice repeated these numbers and said it was worth it.  She didn’t deny they did it.  The thing with the sanctions was, what were they meant to achieve?  What other than a brutal and debilitating genocide was the purpose?  Don’t rtry and answer WTH unless you have one, with refs.  Because there was none when the light of day shone onto shitheap.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 7:39 PM

<i>This conversation goes no where. Wiley and Rabbit are too satisfied they already know it all and apparently don

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 7:50 PM

There he goes Wiley, the great Whattheheck.  The organ of reason, the statue of progress, the champion of cowardice.

Gutless beggars always run away once they have nothing but either answer the damned issue directly, answer a direct question or engage in an adult debate.  Oh they’ll pop up somewhere else claiming how they just trounced us idiots, who can never be reasoned with because we are brainwashed and all the other self projections we see every day on the net. 

The excuse is always that WE are being unreasonable, or WE are refusing to read anything new, yet they rarely come up with a single reference apiece, and it is always dealt with in detail by others.

Thank God we don’t have to call them our countrymen, eh Dave?

(Sorry Wiley, that last bit was mean to point out)

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 7:57 PM

Madeleine Albreicht (sp?) also said that “it was worth it” to kill all those Iraqi babies (and fetuses, no doubt). It was worth what? To whom? For what purpose?

I dunno, Rabbitack. I’m thinking WTH is an economy class shill.

So, WTH—-rather than responding with political chess (wannabe) agitprop, how about being a man about it and coming right out and saying that you aren’t concerned, or you don’t care about Iraqi children. Stop hiding behind the skirt of (faux) political strategy and take responsibility for your callousness.

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 11, 2006 at 7:59 PM

That’s alright, Rabbitavo. I am very sorry for the collective mental state of my country. I visibly irritated my boss today by telling her that Wolf Blitzer of CNN is no less a shill than the crew on Fox. She thinks CNN is liberal.

Did you furinnurs see Mrs. Alito crying behind her husband today? My God! I would have kept an open mind about the possibility of him actually being judicious and fair once he got the seat; but clearly he’s not judicious enough to leave his weepy little wife at home while he gets grilled (that’s the “liberal” Wolf Blitzer talking) for a life-long post interpreting law in the light of our poor goddamned piece of paper.

Anybody have a clue about the sex of the person sitting next to her? The one with the heinous plaid jacket? If asked to guess if it’s a man or woman, I would toss a coin. I’ve only encountered this twice in my life. I’m not knocking the person, but it’s hard to belief that that person wasn’t put there intentionally. His son? Daughter?

Posted by wileywitch on Jan 11, 2006 at 8:17 PM

hmmm….Economy Class Shill…

If he isn’t subconsciously straining at the bonds of mental torpidity, as Rabbit hopes, then he could be an economy class shill. 

OR a Larval Troll.

But he is still Rabbit’s reluctant Penguin.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 9:19 PM

Ango-American War of Terror

Grist..meet Mill.

Posted by Rabbit on Jan 11, 2006 at 11:59 PM

wiley,

Apologies for the crass comments yesterday.

I crossed the line on that one and it was more than a bit disingenuous. My (lame) excuse is that I got caught up in the crossfire of rhetoric, but that is just an excuse.

I do respect your opinions and I am working on being more civil, as difficult as that is when one cannot look into the eyes of another and see, if not their soul, then at least their heart.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 9:04 AM

David,

I was refering to whattheheck’s reference to the millions of pages of documents captured in Afganistan and Iraq that are now beginning to be declassified showing that much of our intel on Iraq and al Qaeda was not as wrong as has been blindly lambasted in the the past couple years.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 9:06 AM

David,

you are cherry-picking polls again.

I am suprised at your refusal to even address the polls that refute the argument that life in Iraq is significantly improving.

As far as your interpretation of the reason for the sanctions, please explain why you think Clinton is a closet neo-con? After all, he could have lifted the sanctions at anytime. By your conspiracy-tainted theory, since he didn’t, he must be a part of the conspiracy.

Or was Monica a neo-con plant to keep him distracted?

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 9:10 AM

oops, it should be ...

address the polls that refute the argument that life in Iraq is NOT significantly improving.

I got lost in the double negatives.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 9:12 AM

Jay,

I am not cherry picking polls. Never have. What makes you say that ? I merely stated that polls about different subjects and stats on different indicators do not necessarily invalidate or refute the other. As I have said before : I am willing to look at any information anyone has to offer.

It’s good that Iraqis have independant newspapers to read and that there are more auotmobiles on the road. It’s bad that US soldiers at checkpoints shoot up innocent families travelling in their cars.

<i>As far as your interpretation of the reason for the sanctions, please explain why you think Clinton is a closet neo-con? After all, he could have lifted the sanctions at anytime. By your conspiracy-tainted theory, since he didn

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 12, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Ah, forgive me David. When you said the reasons for the sanctions were,

To punish Iraqis for being unfortunate enough to have a brutal dictator for a leader and to weaken the country for the 2003 invasion.

I thought you were implying that it was to punish Iraqis for being unfortunate enough to have a brutal dictator for a leader and to weaken the country for the 2003 invasion, 12 years later.

No, you are right. That doesn’t sound like a conspiracy.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 10:33 AM

So what does everybody think about the feared Iraqi Civil War that will lead to chaos, that is now just beginning to brew?

According to the NYT, Sunni are turning on Sunni. Of course, the realization of the dreaded Civil War is, for the moment, confined to the Sunni insurgency,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/international/middleeast/12insurgent.html?ei=5088&en=6eb2fe56419a37be&ex=1294722000&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1137064199-bK3iKBF2UnVLfWlgZKuIJg&pagewanted=all

The split within the insurgency is coinciding with Sunni Arabs’ new desire to participate in Iraq’s political process, and a growing resentment of the militants. Iraqis are increasingly saying that they regard Al Qaeda as a foreign-led force, whose extreme religious goals and desires for sectarian war against Iraq’s Shiite majority override Iraqi tribal and nationalist traditions.as the Iraqi Sunni insurgences.

So, is this hell in a high water basket, or the beginning of the end of the insurgency.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 10:38 AM

Jay,

Please forgive me :

When you said Conspiracy- tainted theory I thought you were trying to taint and malign my statments. I did not say it was not a conspiracy.

Jay, will all due respect and please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are trying to create animosity and looking for a fight. You will get neither from me.

I will repeat for clarity :

The reason for the sanctions was to punish Iraqis for being unfortunate enough to have a brutal dictator for a leader and to weaken the country for the 2003 invasion.

The USA conspired to put Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq and eventually to fight Iran when it suited their purposes.

The USA has conspired to remove Saddam Hussien from power when it suited their purposes and the sanctions against Iraq were one of the steps along the way to war.

Jay, obviously we disagree. That’s OK.

Remember, I have promised that I will not kill you because we disagree :)

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 12, 2006 at 11:40 AM

[url=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0822/p01s02-woiq.html”] Does it matter if you call it a civil war?
[/url]

Iraq’s constitution could be seen as a draft ‘peace pact’ for warring parties.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 12, 2006 at 12:01 PM

oops

Does it matter if you call it a civil war?

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 12, 2006 at 12:04 PM

David,

No, not trying to start a fight. Just feeling peckish for some reason.

But.

C’mon, David. When you say the sanctions of the early 90s was to weaken Iraq for an invasion 12 years later, across three presidencies, that does imply long ranged intent and planning and collusion between the various personages in power, no?

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 12:43 PM

Viva la peace pact!

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 12:44 PM

David,

Re your Civil War link, are you advocating that the conflict within Iraq is one with ethnic and religous overtones? It does seem to be one of the points of that article as it describes the violence between Shi’te and Sunni.

Not that I disagree. But was just wondering what your point was.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 12:57 PM

mmmm, ok, ok. I need to read before I leap.

You are calling it a conspiracy….

moot issue I guess then.

Posted by Jay Cline on Jan 12, 2006 at 1:00 PM

Jay,

Yeah,I know, I said I wasn’t going to comment on this sight, etc., but I must agree with David about the conspiracy.

This isn’t just the 12 years

Posted by whattheheck on Jan 12, 2006 at 2:28 PM

Jay,

Peckish, that’s OK, it happens.

that does imply long ranged intent and planning and collusion between the various personages in power

You are an ex-military guy. You should know that the Pentagon has war plans drawn up for conflicts that may happen. It is prudent to plan for eventualities.

You are a political guy too. You should know that their is very little difference, especially when it comes to foreign policy (even more so mid-east foreign policy), between Democrats or Republicans.

I think that the various personages in power have been waiting for the opportunity to dust off those war plans and put them into action.

Even if they had to help to fabricate that opportunity.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 12, 2006 at 2:33 PM

The civil war link was one that I save from months ago. I think my point would best be summed up in this excerpt from that article.

“It’s not a threat. It’s not a potential. Civil war is a fact of life there now,’’ says Pavel Baev, head of the Center for the Study of Civil War at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway. He argues that until the nature of the conflict is accurately seen, good solutions cannot be found. “What’s happening in Iraq is a multidimensional conflict. There’s international terrorism, banditry, the major foreign military presence. But the civil war is the central part of it - the violent contestation for power inside the country.”

Multidimensional.

Mix one cup ethnic, two cups religious, one cup secular, six cups foreign military occupation, three cups of poor planning, a pinch of this and that.

Tastes awful.

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 12, 2006 at 2:45 PM

What the Heck,

Thanks for lightening the mood.

Hail, Hail, Freedonia!

Posted by David in Canada on Jan 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM