RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
JDG wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. And I find the notion of winning gratitude while standing idly by as a megalamoniac dictator terrorizes the population, starts futile wars with his neighbors, and leaves his country impoversihed while completely enriching himself to be even stupider. See, I can mock your position as easily as you can mock mine *g* Would have worked better had that really been my position. :) But I don't think I've ever said anything that can be construed to mean that one can stand by idly while others are being tortured/killed and earn gratitude that way. So hold on to these lines and trot them out when I do make such a silly proposition. :) Now if there had been a serious attempt to find a different, less destructive way to get rid of Saddam before the invasion and the tarring of every opposer as a supporter of Saddam you might have had a point. But there wasn't, and therefore you don't. You wouldn't be referring to the generally-supposed policy of France, Russia, and China, among others, to work towards the lifting of sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, would you? No I wasn't refering to that at all. If you re-read my lines above, you'd see that I was talking of alternate ways to remove Saddam, and not on the totally different subject of removal of sanctions. On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order of 10+ years to work. And, to refresh my memory, which one of these policies was aimed at *removing* Saddam instead of containing him, and neutralising the threat posed by him? If a American Republicans/conservatives were proposing sticking with a policy that had failed for 10+ years, I wonder what your reaction would have been... *shrug* Depends on the issue, the costs and who'd be paying them, how strongly I feel about a subject, and a host of other factors. You'd have to propose a hypothetical situation to find out how I'd react. But one thing I can say for sure, I would react the same way whether the notion was proposed by a Democrat or a Republican. I respond to the idea, not to the proposer. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Doug wrote: AQ wants to prolong the violence because they are aware that Americans have a limited amount of patience; that by prolonging the violence they will force us to leave. I'll disagree with you here. I do not think that AQ wants the US to withdraw. Not right now at any rate. A couple of captured AQ documents clearly indicate that AQ is hoping that the US stays in Iraq for a long time to come. The American presence in Iraq is accomplishing what OBL had hoped the Afghanistan war would do - act as a motivator and radicalise the Muslim youth, and provide a target for the new recruits to practice on. Some analysts and intelligence institutions have already pointed toward a trend wherein jihadis get their 'training' in Iraq and then move to Afghanistan. Also, it is a drain on your economy and OBL is on record about wanting that. He has said as much in a letter about Iraq. Another cache of letters, caught when Zwahiri was killed, showed that AQ is also worried that it doesn't have enough representation in Iraq [estimates about AQ involvement put them at about 5-10% of the Iraqi insurgents/whatever the current term might be]. So if the US withdraws, AQ is not sure that they have enough of a toe-hold to stay on in Iraq. None of this means, of course, that they wouldn't crow to high heaven and proclaim victory the minute a departure is announced. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Finally! I have been reading excerpts but it took me almost the entire day to work my way down to this message. JDG wrote: Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as a result of US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. Well, actually it is more than that. That sentence well describes what was happening earlier. Now we have a civil war. And that is infinitely bloodier than any jockeying-for-position. And as for the blame, John, well, consider this: In 1947, India was partitioned. We asked for the partition, we agreed to it, and it was carried out. But a lot still blame the British for the Partition, and insist that they could have done more, not only to prevent it but also to ensure that it was less violent. Because they were the ones with the power, and they were the ones who could have done it. Now Iraqis didn't ask for the invasion. They didn't ask for an occupation. And they certainly didn't ask for a bungled occupation where no attempts were ever made to see if the secular nature of the Iraqi state could survive Saddam's downfall. They also didn't ask for a govt so enfeebled by a lack of decent police and army that it cannot maintain order within its own borders. All these things were decided by the Coalition. So I am not sure why you think that the responsibility for enabling this sectarian madness shouldn't fall on the Coalition too. In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country together. Yes, I know you think that way. But I don't and I have never advocated that Saddam should have carried on just so Iraq doesn't break up. It is not an 'either-or' situation, John. You don't need a genocidal maniac as a dictator to keep a country together. A strong efficient govt does the trick. Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... Right after you explain why you assume I think that. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:37 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order of 10+ years to work. And, to refresh my memory, which one of these policies was aimed at *removing* Saddam instead of containing him, and neutralising the threat posed by him? Sanctions and diplomatic isolation are, typically, the strongest non-military techniques the world has to push for regime change. This is what was attempted with Cuba, South Africa, and North Korea, for example. It is true that, in cases where the US has a great deal of influence (say the Philippines), regime change can be afforded by using influence (in that case the US convinced members of the Philippines military to stand down when Marcos wanted them to stop a regime change via elections). But, I think it is safe to say that outside countries had little leverage with the leadership in Iraq. The best chance for regime change came right after Gulf War I. Hussein had been humiliated; his army had totally collapsed against the US. The US supported uprisings within the country, which were stamped down quickly, efficiently, and mercilessly. What we didn't take into account was the fact that the Republican Guard had been held out of the fighting, was intact, and still strongly loyal. The US and Britain then instituted no-fly zones, in an effort to reduce Hussein's ability to attack the Shiites and the Kurds. AFAIK, it was an unprecedented limitation of the sovereign power within a country, outside of a war of course. As a result of this, the Kurds were able to hold their own in the North, and run that part of Iraq as a semi-autonomous region. I know that regime change was a goal of Bush Sr. and Clinton, but not considered an attainable one, short of invasion. Thus, they focused on the lesser goal of containment, after the attempt at regime change failed. One might argue for a targeted assignation, but that's problematic in three ways. First, while we tend to focus on the leader himself, eliminating that one person doesn't eliminate the dictatorship. The best we could reasonable hope for is that a less talented dictator takes over. Our hopes for a quick regime change in N. Korea were based on Kim Jr. not having the chops of Kim Sr. In all likelihood, he doesn't, but he's in power 12 years later. So, if we magically got rid of Hussein, the next in line (say his brother or Chemical Ali) would not represent a regime change. Second, during both Gulf Wars, we did include command and control as legitimate bombing targets. Neither time did we get Hussein. Even after we control Iraq, it took quite a while to find him. Third, these techniques have been declared illegal in the US, mostly for reasons of self interest. We did try them with Castro, to no avail. Since the Kennedy assignation, we saw that the use of this technique as a means of could risk starting big wars that no-one wants. In particular, no one wanted the USSR to think it's the USA if the chairman of the communist party were to be killed. Given the problems we have with asymmetric war now, I don't think Western governments want to put this on the table. AQ and Bin Laden are different, of course, because they are not a government. And, the US and Britain actually bombed military targets when Hussein stonewalled inspections. The next step after bombing is a military campaign involving boots on the ground. Indeed, I could argue that Iraq between the Gulf Wars could be used as an example of trying everything short of invasion, with no success. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 11/27/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Iraqis are killing Iraqis at a stunning rate today, and they are, it is because the Coalition enabled such a situation to arise. So, for quite a lot of us, all the Iraqi deaths post 2003 are on the Coalition's head. Okay... Ritu, did you really mean to say that the Coalition (not the US, John) is totally responsible for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis these days? Surely that is only partial responsibility? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Nick Arnett asked: Okay... Ritu, did you really mean to say that the Coalition (not the US, John) is totally responsible for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis these days? Nope. The Coalition, as I mentioned in the mail John quoted, is responsible for enabling the situation to arise. This kind of chaos was by no means the inevitable result and better administration could have warded off a lot of the problems which currently feed off each other. Surely that is only partial responsibility? Yep. Most of the responsibility for the individual acts of violence is shared by those who pull the trigger or plant the IEDs, or decorate a car with explosives, etc. etc. But the fact that such a large number of idiots find it so easy to perpetrate such a large number of crimes daily is very much the responsibility of those who overturned the previous order without knowing how to replace it with a functioning state. The preparation was woeful, the execution appalling, and it needn't have been this way. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:37 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them JDG wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. And I find the notion of winning gratitude while standing idly by as a megalamoniac dictator terrorizes the population, starts futile wars with his neighbors, and leaves his country impoversihed while completely enriching himself to be even stupider. See, I can mock your position as easily as you can mock mine *g* Would have worked better had that really been my position. :) But I don't think I've ever said anything that can be construed to mean that one can stand by idly while others are being tortured/killed and earn gratitude that way. So hold on to these lines and trot them out when I do make such a silly proposition. :) But, JDG never said anything that can reasonably be construed to match your characterization given above. So, I think a reasonable reading of this was that both of you can make quick, easy, cartoons of the more complex, nuanced position of the other, but why bother. My understanding of your position was that there were some things that had some reasonable chance to result in regime change that should have been tried before war. I've been racking my brain, thinking of what has been proposed, and cannot come up with anything that was proposed pre-war that was either innovative or had a reasonable basis for plausibility. I'm kinda curious, what were these other possibilities? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Ritu wrote: I'll disagree with you here. I do not think that AQ wants the US to withdraw. Not right now at any rate. A couple of captured AQ documents clearly indicate that AQ is hoping that the US stays in Iraq for a long time to come. The American presence in Iraq is accomplishing what OBL had hoped the Afghanistan war would do - act as a motivator and radicalise the Muslim youth, and provide a target for the new recruits to practice on. Some analysts and intelligence institutions have already pointed toward a trend wherein jihadis get their 'training' in Iraq and then move to Afghanistan. Also, it is a drain on your economy and OBL is on record about wanting that. He has said as much in a letter about Iraq. Another cache of letters, caught when Zwahiri was killed, showed that AQ is also worried that it doesn't have enough representation in Iraq [estimates about AQ involvement put them at about 5-10% of the Iraqi insurgents/whatever the current term might be]. So if the US withdraws, AQ is not sure that they have enough of a toe-hold to stay on in Iraq. None of this means, of course, that they wouldn't crow to high heaven and proclaim victory the minute a departure is announced. I'll agree with the above with the caveat that anyone that knows the U.S. at all knows that the public has little patience for failure. The machinations of the Bush administration which, while it is abysmal at nation building, is rather proficient at deception and manipulation of the public (a la Rove), have prolonged the acceptance of the conflict somewhat. Now that public opinion has turned sharply against the war, it's only a matter of time before we leave. There is one other reason AQ doesn't want us to leave; they're Sunnis and aren't particularly interested in another Shi'a state in the region. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
At 08:39 AM Tuesday 11/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:37 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order of 10+ years to work. And, to refresh my memory, which one of these policies was aimed at *removing* Saddam instead of containing him, and neutralising the threat posed by him? Sanctions and diplomatic isolation are, typically, the strongest non-military techniques the world has to push for regime change. This is what was attempted with Cuba, South Africa, and North Korea, for example. It is true that, in cases where the US has a great deal of influence (say the Philippines), regime change can be afforded by using influence (in that case the US convinced members of the Philippines military to stand down when Marcos wanted them to stop a regime change via elections). But, I think it is safe to say that outside countries had little leverage with the leadership in Iraq. The best chance for regime change came right after Gulf War I. Hussein had been humiliated; his army had totally collapsed against the US. The US supported uprisings within the country, which were stamped down quickly, efficiently, and mercilessly. What we didn't take into account was the fact that the Republican Guard had been held out of the fighting, was intact, and still strongly loyal. The US and Britain then instituted no-fly zones, in an effort to reduce Hussein's ability to attack the Shiites and the Kurds. AFAIK, it was an unprecedented limitation of the sovereign power within a country, outside of a war of course. As a result of this, the Kurds were able to hold their own in the North, and run that part of Iraq as a semi-autonomous region. I know that regime change was a goal of Bush Sr. and Clinton, but not considered an attainable one, short of invasion. Thus, they focused on the lesser goal of containment, after the attempt at regime change failed. One might argue for a targeted assignation, We send him a[nother] mistress? but that's problematic in three ways. First, while we tend to focus on the leader himself, eliminating that one person doesn't eliminate the dictatorship. The best we could reasonable hope for is that a less talented dictator takes over. Our hopes for a quick regime change in N. Korea were based on Kim Jr. not having the chops of Kim Sr. In all likelihood, he doesn't, but he's in power 12 years later. So, if we magically got rid of Hussein, the next in line (say his brother or Chemical Ali) would not represent a regime change. Second, during both Gulf Wars, we did include command and control as legitimate bombing targets. Neither time did we get Hussein. Even after we control Iraq, it took quite a while to find him. Third, these techniques have been declared illegal in the US, mostly for reasons of self interest. We did try them with Castro, to no avail. Since the Kennedy assignation, Marilyn? Or another one? we saw that the use of this technique as a means of could risk starting big wars that no-one wants. In particular, no one wanted the USSR to think it's the USA if the chairman of the communist party were to be killed. Given the problems we have with asymmetric war now, I don't think Western governments want to put this on the table. AQ and Bin Laden are different, of course, because they are not a government. And, the US and Britain actually bombed military targets when Hussein stonewalled inspections. The next step after bombing is a military campaign involving boots on the ground. Indeed, I could argue that Iraq between the Gulf Wars could be used as an example of trying everything short of invasion, with no success. Dan M. Aren't Spell Checkers Fun Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
At 10:24 AM Tuesday 11/28/2006, Ritu wrote: Nick Arnett asked: Okay... Ritu, did you really mean to say that the Coalition (not the US, John) is totally responsible for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis these days? Nope. The Coalition, as I mentioned in the mail John quoted, is responsible for enabling the situation to arise. This kind of chaos was by no means the inevitable result and better administration could have warded off a lot of the problems which currently feed off each other. Surely that is only partial responsibility? Yep. Most of the responsibility for the individual acts of violence is shared by those who pull the trigger or plant the IEDs, Sorry to have nothing to contribute tonight but nitpicks, but someone on TV yesterday mumbled that term so badly that at first it sounded like IUDs . . . Both Associated With Bangs Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as a result of US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country together.Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 11/26/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If need be, I can make a general case that our decision making process is better informed when we do study pact actions and results in such a manner than when we don't. Indeed, arguing against such a case would reject a great deal of how we learn through empirical observations. I'm quite sure that's not needed, since it is common sense that one can prophet from the past. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 11/27/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occuring in Iraq. Cite, please. I don't recall anybody making any such argument. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jdiebremse Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:34 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as a result of US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of the recent violence is sectarian. And, it's also reasonable to think that if the Bathist party fell (Hussein's death alone would not have been sufficient if the strongest of his relatives/lieutenants took power afterwards), that there would be some violent score settling. But, from what I've read, there were many factors involved in Iraq sectarianism. For example, even at this late date, there are still mixed Sunni/Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad where Shiites look out for Sunni neighbors as best they can. There have been a number of inter-sect marriages. Unfortunately, the way we've handled things, we have fostered the development of multiple militia. Chaos reigns. As things continue to slip, I expect the civil war to become extremely nasty. By extremely nasty, I mean noticeably worse than what we had seen in the Balkans. In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country together. Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... I think I understand your point. Collapses of minority sect totalitarian rule can often be the source of tremendous chaos. Civil wars often result. In Iraq, some of the factors that would lead to a civil war were present. But, I think that our presence allowed various militias to form up under the banner of anti-Americanism as well as tribal loyalties. Then, by keeping a lid on things with our troops, we allowed this mess to simmer for 3+ years. We also tied our own hands concerning a sharp intervention to prevent Shiite genocide against Sunni. If we hadn't occupied the country for almost 4 years already, we would have had options...as would other countries. When Bush Sr. pushed for the fall of Hussein after Gulf War I, the projected levels of violence after an overthrow were nowhere near what the level of violence is now. I think there is significant historical evidence to show that Bush. Sr.'s team was far less likely to underestimate problems than Bush Jr.'s. My projection for Iraq is dismal. I think the best we can hope for is a swift and decisive Shiite victory in a civil war, and the death tool in the aftermath to be kept in the tens of thousands...as ethnic cleansing takes place. The reasonable worst case scenario is now a horror. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
JDG wrote: Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occurring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occurring largely as a result of US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. The sectarian violence now occurring in Iraq was sparked when the Al-Askari Mosque (the Golden Mosque) was destroyed last February by Al Qaida. Why did Al Qaida do it? To prolong the violence in Iraq. Why did they want to prolong the violence? Because of the presence of the U.S. in Iraq. Would the Sunni/Shi'a have occurred anyway? There's no way to know, but it's significant that before that bombing, violence between sects was minimal. In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country together. So since we aren't invading North Korea, we support the perpetuation of Jong? Come on John, what kind of whacked out logic is that? Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... Yes, I believe that that is quite possible and even probable. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 27 Nov 2006 at 8:45, Doug wrote: The sectarian violence now occurring in Iraq was sparked when the Al-Askari Mosque (the Golden Mosque) was destroyed last February by Al Qaida. Why did Al Qaida do it? To prolong the violence in Iraq. Why did they want to prolong the violence? Because of the presence of the U.S. in Iraq. And that is what I call absolute and total nonsense. Your causative chain of thought is founded on the basis that, somehow, Al Qaida's hostility to America is BECAUSE of Iraq. ... Do you REALLY need cites on previous actions they took? No. What's clear is they planned and carried out a major attack. If it had not been there, then it would probably of been in America. (And if not, Europe). Iraq is simply another battle front for what they see as a war against America. Would the Sunni/Shi'a have occurred anyway? There's no way to know, but it's significant that before that bombing, violence between sects was minimal. Absolutely, yes. It was a powerkeg allways waiting to go off, that was only the spark. Why? Because of the strong central government that America tried to set up. Which remains, to me, nonsensical. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Andrew wrote: I wrote: The sectarian violence now occurring in Iraq was sparked when the Al-Askari Mosque (the Golden Mosque) was destroyed last February by Al Qaida. Why did Al Qaida do it? To prolong the violence in Iraq. Why did they want to prolong the violence? Because of the presence of the U.S. in Iraq. And that is what I call absolute and total nonsense. Your causative chain of thought is founded on the basis that, somehow, Al Qaida's hostility to America is BECAUSE of Iraq. How do you arrive at that conclusion? AQ wants to prolong the violence because they are aware that Americans have a limited amount of patience; that by prolonging the violence they will force us to leave. And in fact they have pretty much done that because public opinion has turned against the war and it’s only a matter of time before we begin to withdraw. So we're going to loose, and Iran will step into the void we leave in Iraq, put down the Sunni resistance, and form a dangerous anti-American, anti-Israeli alliance. And short of reinstating the draft and widening the war (which will never happen under the current political climate) - essentially initiating WWIII, there is very little we can do about it. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
At 08:58 AM Monday 11/27/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm quite sure that's not needed, since it is common sense that one can prophet from the past. Aargh. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 27 Nov 2006 at 12:42, Doug wrote: Andrew wrote: I wrote: The sectarian violence now occurring in Iraq was sparked when the Al-Askari Mosque (the Golden Mosque) was destroyed last February by Al Qaida. Why did Al Qaida do it? To prolong the violence in Iraq. Why did they want to prolong the violence? Because of the presence of the U.S. in Iraq. And that is what I call absolute and total nonsense. Your causative chain of thought is founded on the basis that, somehow, Al Qaida's hostility to America is BECAUSE of Iraq. How do you arrive at that conclusion? No, re-read what I typed. It's not a conclusion, it's pointing out that the causative chain of though I was replying to stated that. AQ wants to prolong the violence because they are aware that Americans have a limited amount of patience; that by prolonging the Huh? No, again, you're somehow focusing on AQ hates Americans in Iraw. They PLAIN HATE AMERICANS. They're prolonging the violence by attacking Americans because it hurts American interests and Americans. Iraq happens to be the current best place for them to do that. So we're going to loose, and Iran will step into the void we leave in Iraq, put down the Sunni resistance, and form a dangerous anti-American, anti-Israeli alliance. Dangerous to who? American interests, sure. As for anti-Isralie, Saddam wasn't precsely pro-Isralie in the first place. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. And I find the notion of winning gratitude while standing idly by as a megalamoniac dictator terrorizes the population, starts futile wars with his neighbors, and leaves his country impoversihed while completely enriching himself to be even stupider. See, I can mock your position as easily as you can mock mine Now if there had been a serious attempt to find a different, less destructive way to get rid of Saddam before the invasion and the tarring of every opposer as a supporter of Saddam you might have had a point. But there wasn't, and therefore you don't. You wouldn't be referring to the generally-supposed policy of France, Russia, and China, among others, to work towards the lifting of sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, would you? Oh nevermind On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order of 10+ years to work. If a American Republicans/conservatives were proposing sticking with a policy that had failed for 10+ years, I wonder what your reaction would have been... JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occuring in Iraq. Cite, please. I don't recall anybody making any such argument. Nick Ok 11/22 at 12:37am according to Yahoo! --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And nobody knows how many Iraqis have been killed by the non-American, non-Iraqi actors either. But what I do know is that the distinction made by you is not being made by the majority of the world. If Iraqis are killing Iraqis at a stunning rate today, and they are, it is because the Coalition enabled such a situation to arise. So, for quite a lot of us, all the Iraqi deaths post 2003 are on the Coalition's head. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Andrew wrote: Huh? No, again, you're somehow focusing on AQ hates Americans in Iraw. They PLAIN HATE AMERICANS. They're prolonging the violence by attacking Americans because it hurts American interests and Americans. Iraq happens to be the current best place for them to do that. Why do they hate Americans? Primarily due to American hegemony in the Middle East and American support for Israel. If we were just some country on the other side of the world with cultural differences they wouldn't care one way or the other about us. Our pressence in Iraq incites their hatred. People there that would otherwise not be interested in how much AQ hates us are swayed by our pressence there. Look at it this way, Andrew. Think of someone you really don't get along with, but you don't see very often. Now think how you would feel if that person pitched a tent in your yard. How would you feel? That's what we're dealing with in Iraq. Dangerous to who? American interests, sure. As for anti-Isralie, Saddam wasn't precsely pro-Isralie in the first place. An alliance between Iraq and Iran is potentially much worse than what we have dealt with in the past. Mix in an anti American bias and potential support from countrys like Russia, France and China - places that care little for the security of Israel and you begin to see how dire the situation can become. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Dan Minette wrote: Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. We have, and I think there is a reasonable view that might address some of what you and some of what JDG argues for. Which probably means that neither of y'all will like it. Because, of course, JDG and I are the epitome of unreasonableness... *g* I believe that we have responsibility for our actions and for our inactions. But, the type of responsibility we have varies with how directly we are the agents of the results of our actions/inactions. Agreed. Turning back to the question we argued before the 2nd Iraq war, those like me who argued against going in needed to accept the consequences of Hussein remaining in power as a result of the path we favored being taken. By the same token, those who favored invasion need to accept the consequences of that invasion. Now this is where you too fall prey to Bush's Manichean world view. The object was [for argument's sake] the removal of a dictator. Bush's plan was invasion and re-building. And *no other alternatives* were ever explored. You either had to buy Bush's vision or be declared a supporter of Saddam's regime of torture. Frankly, I find that nonsensical and do not buy the argument. Let's say I read a newspaper report about a man taking his one month old baby for a walk by the river. He sees a small kid drowning. He jumps in with the baby, can't save the boy, and all three die. I read the story and remark, 'Oh, that's stupid.' Now that does not automatically make me a supporter of drowning, or of the notion that small kids should drown. All it means is that I think the dad should have lay the baby down somewhere before jumping in to effect a rescue, that it is stupid to jump in with at least one arm already occupied. Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. So, I'd argue that those who argue for invading Iraq must accept the consequences of that action being taken in the exact same sense that those of us who opposed going in needed to accept the consequences of the continued rule of Hussein. Argue all you want, I'm not buying it. :) Now if there had been a serious attempt to find a different, less destructive way to get rid of Saddam before the invasion and the tarring of every opposer as a supporter of Saddam you might have had a point. But there wasn't, and therefore you don't. Neither side needed to want the bad consequences of their chosen path...they just needed to accept the responsibility inherent in choosing those consequences instead of others. Yes, and what we are seeing here is an attempt to avoid responsibility for the choice made by saying 'your choice was bad too!' The fact is that no other choice was explored or offered. 'Your agreement or accusations of being a supporter of a genocidal murderer' is not a valid choice. Not when the proposed plan is ridiculous. In doing so, the other alternatives were all worse would be a valid argument. Yes, but to say that other alternatives would have had to be explored. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 6:07 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them Dan Minette wrote: Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. We have, and I think there is a reasonable view that might address some of what you and some of what JDG argues for. Which probably means that neither of y'all will like it. Because, of course, JDG and I are the epitome of unreasonableness... *g* I believe that we have responsibility for our actions and for our inactions. But, the type of responsibility we have varies with how directly we are the agents of the results of our actions/inactions. Agreed. Turning back to the question we argued before the 2nd Iraq war, those like me who argued against going in needed to accept the consequences of Hussein remaining in power as a result of the path we favored being taken. By the same token, those who favored invasion need to accept the consequences of that invasion. Now this is where you too fall prey to Bush's Manichean world view. The object was [for argument's sake] the removal of a dictator. Bush's plan was invasion and re-building. And *no other alternatives* were ever explored. I'm not sure why you made the last statement. I'm sure you have at least passing familiarity with the previous 10+ years since the end of the first Gulf War. A number of different alternatives were tried during that time. The first alternative, of Bush I, was to rely on the implosion of Hussein's army in the face of the Americans to provide a spark for an internal revolution. The idea was that after that army surrendered en mass, its capacity would be reduced, along with Hussein's status. The US encouraged the Shiites to revolt, and they were brutally put down by the Republican Guard. After that, the US and Britain enforced no-fly zones in the north and south to limit the carnage. That proved very successful in the north, where the Kurds were able to hold their own. The peace treaty allowed for inspections and sanctions. They had some success during the '90s. But, in late '97 and '98, Hussein stopped/limited inspections at gun point, declaring vast areas presidential palaces and off limits to any inspections. At that point, the US decided to bomb the suspected sites and the inspectors withdrew. During the late '90s and early '00, the sanctions leaked more and more. The oil for food program of the UN was rife with corruption. France and Russia, which had lucrative contracts with Hussein, were pushing to end sanctions entirely. It's amazing to me that the French Ambassador to the UN admitted that Hussein paid him $100,000 for consulting work before/during the time he was arguing to end sanctions. At the same time, the people of Iraq were suffering because the money wasn't going to them. You either had to buy Bush's vision or be declared a supporter of Saddam's regime of torture. Frankly, I find that nonsensical and do not buy the argument. But, that's not what I said. Remember _I_ was opposed to Gulf War II. Honestly, I'm not so far gone that I would stoop to an ad honimen attacks on myself. :-) But, at the time and now I agreed that, by supporting containment, I would accept the moral consequences of allowing Hussein to remain in power because I honestly felt it was the lesser evil. There's a difference between that and supporting Hussein. Let's say I read a newspaper report about a man taking his one month old baby for a walk by the river. He sees a small kid drowning. He jumps in with the baby, can't save the boy, and all three die. I read the story and remark, 'Oh, that's stupid.' Now that does not automatically make me a supporter of drowning, or of the notion that small kids should drown. All it means is that I think the dad should have lay the baby down somewhere before jumping in to effect a rescue, that it is stupid to jump in with at least one arm already occupied. I understand that. I see that this argument has an obvious easy outlay the baby down first, stupid. But, there isn't always an easy out. A more realistic true life story would be stopping a parent from going back into a burning building to find their childknowing that this may eliminate the only chance the child has to livebut also knowing that the odds were strong that all that would happen is that both would die. Someone who did that would have to accept the consequences of their actionsthey eliminated the chance of that child living. But, someone who didn't stop the parent would also have to accept the consequences of their inaction...if the parent never came out alive. I think part of being human is the fact that we must make moral choices based on incomplete information. We don't know
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 11/26/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... a critical part of this is accepting the consequences of one's own preferred path, as well as the consequences of the path one opposes. Unfortunately, that's based in fantasy because God only knows what would have happened if another course had been taken. Those who argue that things would have been worse if... etc., are arguing from imagination, not experience. Even experience is tainted by our inability to be objective; fantasy far more so. The knowledge that we'll never know what could have been is one source from which I'm able to draw some compassion for the leaders who got us into this mess. I cannot be certain that there was a better way. My opinion is that there was, but that can never be more than just an opinion. We will never know. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:49 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them On 11/26/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... a critical part of this is accepting the consequences of one's own preferred path, as well as the consequences of the path one opposes. Unfortunately, that's based in fantasy because God only knows what would have happened if another course had been taken. Those who argue that things would have been worse if... etc., are arguing from imagination, not experience. Even experience is tainted by our inability to be objective; fantasy far more so. Indeed, nothing is known with certainty. We don't know that, if Lincoln didn't defend the Union, that the slaveholders wouldn't have all decided on January 14th, 1862 to free the slaves and to ask to be readmitted to the union as states which gave full civil rights to all. But, I certainly would have betted against it. We don't know that, if the US invaded China during the Korean war, that China wouldn't have immediately given up. But, the odds were long. What we do know is probability. Given the previous twelve years of history, given other historical precedents, one would have to consider it improbable that Hussein's government would fall within a few years. Just as right now, it is very likely that the genocide in the Sudan will continue and worsen without outside intervention. We don't know this, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't gauge the most likely outcome of inaction as well as action. The knowledge that we'll never know what could have been is one source from which I'm able to draw some compassion for the leaders who got us into this mess. I cannot be certain that there was a better way. My opinion is that there was, but that can never be more than just an opinion. We will never know. There is something between certain knowledge and just opinion: there is likelihood. I'm familiar with the history of attempts to nail down certain knowledge...and they have not proven fruitful in the past. We place our bets, and take our chances. History isn't a science, but there are patterns and probabilities and general rules that can be developed. There seems to be evidence of the existence in talent in leadership; some leaders are better than others. Part of the study of history involves the analysis of the decision making process. This study typically includes both the information available to the decision maker at the time, and the information available to us now. One cannot make an assessment of the actions without determining the likelihood of outcomes for other choices. And, without such analysis, it becomes harder to use historical decisions and their aftermaths to inform the decisions one has to make oneself. If need be, I can make a general case that our decision making process is better informed when we do study pact actions and results in such a manner than when we don't. Indeed, arguing against such a case would reject a great deal of how we learn through empirical observations. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And nobody knows how many Iraqis have been killed by the non-American, non-Iraqi actors either. But what I do know is that the distinction made by you is not being made by the majority of the world. If Iraqis are killing Iraqis at a stunning rate today, and they are, it is because the Coalition enabled such a situation to arise. So, for quite a lot of us, all the Iraqi deaths post 2003 are on the Coalition's head. And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
JDG wrote: And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:07 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. We have, and I think there is a reasonable view that might address some of what you and some of what JDG argues for. Which probably means that neither of y'all will like it. I believe that we have responsibility for our actions and for our inactions. But, the type of responsibility we have varies with how directly we are the agents of the results of our actions/inactions. For example, the responsibility the United States has for the action of its soldiers is greater than the responsibility it has for the actions of the militia that are torturing and killing wantonly in Iraq. It would not be reasonable to argue that the US soldiers torture and kill Iraqi's less than Hussein's men as a defense for the morality of US actions in Iraq. It would, however, be reasonable to argue that, while there is wanton murder by some, the levels are lower than what they were before. To use a separate example, crimes committed by members of the police are not an acceptable tool of law enforcement. But, at the same time, the crime rate in a city need not be zero for us to consider the new police strategy to be a success because crime rates have been lowered by it. Turning back to the question we argued before the 2nd Iraq war, those like me who argued against going in needed to accept the consequences of Hussein remaining in power as a result of the path we favored being taken. By the same token, those who favored invasion need to accept the consequences of that invasion. Now, I'll admit that a reasonable person could have thought Bush would have handled things better than he did, but I do think that my initial prediction that we'd win the initial conflict and bungle managing the peace afterwards (with a civil war as a real risk) turned out to be generally accurate. So, I'd argue that those who argue for invading Iraq must accept the consequences of that action being taken in the exact same sense that those of us who opposed going in needed to accept the consequences of the continued rule of Hussein. Neither side needed to want the bad consequences of their chosen path...they just needed to accept the responsibility inherent in choosing those consequences instead of others. In doing so, the other alternatives were all worse would be a valid argument. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 11/25/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, for quite a lot of us, all the Iraqi deaths post 2003 are on the Coalition's head. And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum Very, very bad logic. Those who failed to remove Saddam (the rest of the world) for years and years weren't supporters. Otherwise, you and I can be counted among his former supporters (and good luck getting on an airplane). I allow you to state almost any idea you care to, but that doesn't mean I'm supporting them. Do you dare argue that we are not responsible for the present situation in Iraq, with all the death and destruction that has resulted? Not completely responsible, certainly, but surely you aren't trying to evade any responsibility? If people who failed to remove Saddam from power were his supporters, then surely those who who made war on him are supporters of the deaths of tens of thousands in the resulting conflict. Even when the law and morality create an obligation to act, failure to do so doesn't equate to support or responsibility for the ill that is taking place, does it? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them It would, however, be reasonable to argue that, while there is wanton murder by some, the levels are lower than what they were before. IIRC the death rate in Iraq is double pre-war levels, mostly due to the insurgency. Or were you pointing to something else and I missed your meaning? xponent Numbers Game Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:54 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them It would, however, be reasonable to argue that, while there is wanton murder by some, the levels are lower than what they were before. IIRC the death rate in Iraq is double pre-war levels, mostly due to the insurgency. Or were you pointing to something else and I missed your meaning? I probably wasn't clear. I was putting forth categories of arguementation, not talking about the actual facts in Iraq. For example, someone who expected a competently run post-invasion period could argue that we should expect life to be better after Hussein than under him. If it were run competently, and death rates were no higher than they were in the last half of 2003, then that would be, IMHO a persuasive argument. Now, it is clear that the US damaged its own interests through the Iraq invasion and it's aftermath, and its probable that Iraq will be worse off after Hussein than under Hussein. So, I was not arguing for the proposition that things are better off than under Hussein. Rather, I was arguing that better or worse than Hussein was a valid measuring stick. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:54 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them It would, however, be reasonable to argue that, while there is wanton murder by some, the levels are lower than what they were before. IIRC the death rate in Iraq is double pre-war levels, mostly due to the insurgency. Or were you pointing to something else and I missed your meaning? I probably wasn't clear. I was putting forth categories of arguementation, not talking about the actual facts in Iraq. For example, someone who expected a competently run post-invasion period could argue that we should expect life to be better after Hussein than under him. If it were run competently, and death rates were no higher than they were in the last half of 2003, then that would be, IMHO a persuasive argument. Now, it is clear that the US damaged its own interests through the Iraq invasion and it's aftermath, and its probable that Iraq will be worse off after Hussein than under Hussein. So, I was not arguing for the proposition that things are better off than under Hussein. Rather, I was arguing that better or worse than Hussein was a valid measuring stick. That explains things thenG Heck I've made such arguments. xponent Anti-Gravitas Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia. etc. And how does that 13+ years of attacks compare to just the last month in Iraq? I dunno, how many Iraqis did the US kill last month? And how many Iraqis did Iraqis kill? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
JDG wrote: And how does that 13+ years of attacks compare to just the last month in Iraq? I dunno, how many Iraqis did the US kill last month? Who knows? You guys don't do body counts when you are doing the killing. And how many Iraqis did Iraqis kill? Again, who knows? And nobody knows how many Iraqis have been killed by the non-American, non-Iraqi actors either. But what I do know is that the distinction made by you is not being made by the majority of the world. If Iraqis are killing Iraqis at a stunning rate today, and they are, it is because the Coalition enabled such a situation to arise. So, for quite a lot of us, all the Iraqi deaths post 2003 are on the Coalition's head. Shouldn't be a surprise as Powell did give a fair warning about breaking and owning. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
