THEIR ABOUT TO GET CAUGHT OVER IRAQ

Having just finished reading the Clarke book, I can assure you this is completely untrue. In fact, it's obvious that the Bushies failed to acknowledge the threat after assuming office--to the point of criminal negligence. No wonder they want to settle with the victims' families in exchange for promises to not be prosecuted.

Further, after Sept. 11, their actions with respect to Afghanishtan, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda were misguided, and ineffective. They were too busy creating a false linkage to Iraq to pursue their own agenda.

There's too many facts that can be corroborated, and the entire book is a factual, non-partisan narration.

 

Ross,
since I now have some time, I can elaborate on why I called you an imbecile on another thread. The weapons were used in the 1980s. They were verifiably eliminated in the 1990s. Bush invaded in 2003. And he invaded in retaliation for an attack by AQ. That's the same as invading Mexico in retaliation for Pearl Harbour. Don't say it wasn't, because America's tacit acceptance was based on his administration's tireless efforts to create a link between 9/11 and Iraq and sell the invasion as the only solution. They couldn't fool the international community, but 70% of America bought it. It was pure fabrication of course, and he has recently admitted that there was no such link. I guess you don't have a problem with this?

The new party line is that it was done to make a Iraq a better-off place. Perhaps one day Iraq will be a better off place, but America's battle was with terrorism. Noone ever tasked Bush with the mission of improving the life of the average Iraqi, and I doubt Americans would be willing to sacrifice 500+ lives to do so. By the time it's over, that number will be in the thousands. And that's not counting the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead--I am sure they and their families appreciate the favour. I am sure you do.

Bush invaded on the pretext that there was a link between Iraq and Sept. 11, between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and between Iraq and WMD. All three were outright lies. You believe them, though.

Further, by focusing on Iraq, and not deploying a large force to Afghanistan immediately after Sept. 11, Bush enabled OBL and his cronies to escape, and for Al Qaeda operatives to think they were "successful". Although he declared the Taliban a rogue government, he continued to negotiate with them for OBL, signalling US intentions and giving everyone plenty of time to escape. What's forgotten is how poorly executed the Afghanistan strategy was in the aftermath of 9/11. But the world has felt the ramifications, from Bali to Madrid. You see something else in those pictures, obviously.

Then, by invading Iraq with ZERO justification, Bush actually reinforced the claims OBL's claims that the US is an imperialist crusader and the enemy of Islam. He played right into AQ's hands with that move. And you defend it.

Instead of focusing on Al Qaeda and wiping it out, Bush focused on Iraq. This gave AQ a whole new breeding ground and and helped it recruit new converts. And it mired the US down on yet another battleground, a very costly one and unfortunately one that was completely avoidable. America's number one enemy has grown stronger. It's bigger, more spread out, and ever harder to penetrate. And you think he has been effective in the war against terror.

Most damning of all is how Bush has handled the administration and security of the US. His government is composed of fiefdoms and cronies and important projects and objectives are routinely sacrificed for pork. Anyone who dares question the status quo is instantly labeled a traitor and vilified as a traitor. I can provide specific examples, but this post is long enough and I am sure you can find them online with the most cursory of searches. That is, if you are willing to be objective. Your allies in Europe tried to voice valid concerns, but were shouted down. We are still being shouted down. Did you see that mad dog Rumsfeld lecturing the Germans and calling their behavior "shocking"? One wonders what the correct term for his would be.

If someone refuses to acknowledge the facts when faced with such a preponderance of evidence, you can only reason with them for a while before coming to the conclusion that they are an imbecile.

 

Tifosi69, KDS, Ross and Art;

I have a few books for you to read. All dealing with the history of oil and modern politics.

1: The Prize by Daniel Yergin
2: Anglo-American Establishment - Carroll Quigley
3: A Century of War - F. William Engdahl

Before you presume that they are partisan, anti-bush, pro-bush or whatever, just realize this: the last of them was written in '89. None deal with recent history, and yet they are incredibly telling.

--Dan

 

So...tell me about driving around at high RPM....

 

Art: it's on my list, but I'm finishing up a book about Formula 1 (Alan Henry's the Powerbrokers - needed something light for a while ), and then moving onto Le Carre's latest (Absolute Friends?). Will check it out, thanks for the tip.

I wholly feel that a lot of the bickering that goes on (especially by some members illustrating their opinions) are because they refuse to read all sides of the story, or at the very least, the most factual accounts (The Prize is absolutely brilliant in this regard) and instead banter on in the same inane manner. You know someone hasn't a clue when their argument gets louder, not smarter. Glad to see a few are doing the reading. The first thing to realize is how little one really knows.

--Dan

 

well zack, your name calling of me was in a different thread and a different subject, hence your explanation for it in this thread is puzzling. never mind.

much of what you say here is your take on events that are unfolding at the moment, and the 'facts' which you point to are up for debate - which by the way is what is going on in this thread.

bob, i too have read 2 of the 3 books, with particularly fond memories of 'the prize'. and most of the time i am pretty even handed in my discussion here and try not to become too vitriolic, as zack evidently missed in the arab/israeli thread.

am i conservative? yes. do i try to justify my reasoning? yes

 

Are your justifications valid? No.

 

ok zach, you win. nobody on this board knows as much about the arab israeli issue as you do - and i say that without (too much) sarcasm.

at the risk of becoming childish, but just in case anybody wants to know what this argument is about, this is what i wrote and what zack has described as idiotic. you be the judge:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have only been to israel once, so i don't have the depth of experience of zach and ralf. however, having seen first hand the way each side treats the other, i have sympathy for both. israel is definetely guilty of human rights abuses; palestinians are definetely guilty of terrorism. which one begot the other? history only gives us a longer more detailed account of the chicken/egg story.
but the argument in this thread mirrors my impression of the country itself: the majority of the population that wants peace by any means is unfortunately sabotaged by the minority that wants only victory by defeat of the other. there have been 2 times in recent history when peace seemed within their grasps: once when rabin was prepared to give land for peace, but was assasinated by one of his own countrymen; and the meeting at camp david when arafat refused the deal offered to him.
both times the deal was scuppered from within - hence the feeling by many that nobody wants peace and that these 2 enemies deserve each other.

the real test of leadership is now upon both sides. will israel vote sharon out and replace him with a man of rabin's intentions? will the palestinian leadership do the hard job of facing their countrymen and demanding an end to violence-to-provoke and get rid of arafat and his fraudulent cronies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
regarding the other geopolitical subjects, i believe i know enough to expound. and when i disagree with you, or others, i do it without rancor.

 

Ross I thought your statement was well put. It appears you are trying to make some sense out of what is going on over there instead of blindly supporting one side or the other. Good show!

 

Zack, that is what an argument is! both sides try to justify thier positions in an attempt to sway the others thinking. If there is some other purpose that I am not aware of I would be most happy to hear it! Everyone thinks thier opinion is correct, that is how it works. To say Ross's justifications are not valid is to say that your opinion is fact and his is not. The fact is they are both just opinions!

 

Not quite. You can take the same fact and use them to arrive at a different conclusion of what policy, response, etc. should be. But when you don't take fact, and when you use erroneous reasoning, then you can't help but maintain an erroneous position. Then there is very clearly a right and a wrong course.

You can argue about the correct course to follow when the underlying premise is correct, but there is a difference of opinion on what to do about it. But when the underlying beliefs are incorrect, then your position is untenable.

There is a difference between differing opinions, and reality versus conjecture. I was referring to the conjecture used to justify the actions of the US administration. If you support it, you are supporting a castle built on thin air.

 

Right on, again, if this is true then why was there a conservative "tsunami" in '02?

 

I find your post (quoted below) to be very reasonable, ross. This is not at all the tone you used to address Art in numerous posts, which is what I was responding to earlier. My rancour is beginning to fade quickly as well.

One detail: Both peace deals were rejected for valid reasons. There were elements at work to sabotage both. I do not remember all the details, but in the last one rejected by the Palestinians, one of the matters agreed upon was that secrecy would be maintained until the end. Yet detailed accounts of negotiating points were published in major newspapers suggesting a leak within the Israeli camp. These details were presented in a manner that showed the Palestinians were being unreasonable when they were not, forcing them to make further concessions and eroding their crediblity in front of the Palestinians, who would see them as having left with a list of achievable demands and coming back with far less. Further, the accords were supposed to build upon the fulfilment of pledges that had previously been agreed to, such as the dismantling of specific settlements. This was not done.

 

All right then give me some facts. I don't think I have heard many during this disscussion but fire away!

 

Click here and read post number 15.

 

ok then zack. no hard feelings.
don't worry about art - he and i have been exchanging views (barbs?) now for quite a while and i think he knows i respect him as a person, even though i disagree with him on virtually all his political views !

 

You call that fact? Sounds like the same old Democratic party whine I've been hearing for months now but if it makes you sleep better at night we'll more power to you!

 

Dammit... you beat me to the punch again! LOL

 

Sorry, glad you liked it though!

 

All of those points are easily verifiable, and therefore, factual. Who met whom and said what, and which events took place when. It's nothing to do with partisanship.

People claim the book was timed to coincide with elections. But the White House influenced its timing more than the author. People claim it's pure profiteering. The author intends to give away the proceeds from the book. People claim it's about revenge for being passed over for a plum assignment.

The author has had a fantastic career in the highest echelons of the US government under several administrations. When he felt he was not being heard, he did some self-examination and thought he was maybe too close to the trees (fighting terrorism) to see the forest (threats faced by America). So he created another position of equal rank for himself, which allowed him to contribute to the fight in another way. He retired of his own volition.

An exemplary record and an exemplary public official. One who received personal handwritten thank yous and commendations from Mr. Bush, at least 3 previous presidents, as well as numerous other heads of state.

What do you call facts?

 

Well let's see. Websters defines fact as "something that actually exists; reality; truth" I think I would go along with that. I don't recall one thing in that post that I would call absolute fact. Anyone else agree?

 

excuse me, I take that back. Bush did invade in 2003!