OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists

JP

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<s64u805qc2qkbsutcrpqe6qc1td9c7m25o@4ax.com>...

> Except that there was nothing subtle about Goebbels propaganda. Heck,
> probably 40% of the US population couldn't tell you who the Secretary
> of State is. The funny thing is, it was "common knowledge" that GWB
> claimed Iraq WAS involved... so either there's a propaganda machine
> operating on both sides, or the public isn't too discerning in their
> analysis of the actual facts (probably a bit of both).

There's not anything subtle about GOP propaganda, either, but you've
put your finger on the problem: ignorance is a vacuum ready to suck in
the lies of propagandists. There is a connection between a large
percentage of Americans being unable to name the Secretary of State
and so many people falling for the innuendo widely disseminated by
Bush and Cheney (especially Cheney) accusing the Iraqis of complicity
in 9/11.

> You forget the Pakistan army is in the hills trying to root out Osama.

Are you sure about that? Or are they putting on a show of it? I would
not stake my life on the Pakistani Army bringing in Bin Laden. (Well,
I guess I am staking my life on it, as are all of us. Shit.)

> And I'm not nearly as worried about Pakistani nukes as those developed
> by the USSR that might be "floating around". I doubt the Pakastani
> nukes are at a level of sophistication that makes them very portable
> (their chief aim being to scare India).

On what are you basing this? They seem to be protable enough to fit
into intermediate range ballistic missiles. But you're right: the USSR
missiles are also an issue, which is why it puzzles me that Bush cut
funding for a program designed to secure them.

> Pakistan is NOT Afghanistan,
> politically - I don't see a relatively affluent society giving it all
> up for the privledge of wrapping their women in bhurkas (not that
> there's anything wrong with that...). ;-)

Yes, you're right. You are pointing out *the* essential problem with
the US intervention in the Middle East: our ham-fisted presence there
is radicalizing large swathes of the Muslim population and putting our
nominal allies there under increased pressure from the
fundamentalists.

> Yet you don't want to "connect the dots" in Iraq, with a much larger
> host of information. Known WMD stores,

Don't you mean "unknown"?

> known support of terrorist organizations

None of which have targeted the US. It did not include Al Qaeda, and
even their support of Palestinian terrorists was relatively weak
compared to Iran or Syria, and maybe even Saudi Arabia.

> vehemently anti-US attitude (as in trying to
> assassinate an ex president).

Over a decade ago, with little to point to since then. And some make
the argument that the Bush assasination plans may have been a proto-Al
Qaeda operation. Personally, I think they could be right. Gulf War I
is known to have been the event that specifically turned Bin Laden
against the US, because he considered us to be infidels occupying the
holy land of Islam.

> No need for a fundamentalist Islamic
> revolution or development of additional (crude) nukes needed to cause
> havoc.

Yep, we're causing enough havoc all by ourselves to last for
generations.

JP

JP

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<ga6u8097qsoa8m446m8t9pbpnulim4v7h2@4ax.com>...

> Hmmm, a simple question. You don't want to admit that Saddam was
> offing his own citizens at a MUCH higher rate than the war ever will
> (even including those who are shooting at Marines)? When cornered,
> type "when cornered, change the subject" I guess.

At the time that Hussein was offing his own citizens at such a high
rate he was a US ally receiving intelligence, indirect material
support and a smiling handshake from Rumsfeld. His last large violent
suppression of the Shia came with the implicit approval of the US,
when our troops were placed to stop the slaughter but were ordered by
Bush I to stand down while he did it. At the time of the invasion
Hussein was still bad but not bad enough to be seen as worse than the
US occupation as it stands now.

The problem here is that you can argue this point until you are blue
in the face, but it's not going to change the way the Iraqis feel
about us, which is an inevitable outcome of the mismangement of the
original invasion.

To recap how we got here:
Top US military commanders told the Bush administration they would
need 300k+ troops to take *and* occupy Iraq. The civilian amateurs in
the Pentagon decided to ignore this advice for political reasons (to
make it easier to sell the war to the US public) and invaded Iraq with
enough troops to overthrow Hussein and defeat his army, but not enough
to maintain order. Iraq descended into chaos. The US did not have the
forces to restore order and their attempts to do so were resultingly
ham-fisted, creating a death spiral of Iraqi resentment, increasing
resistance and perceived brutal response by US forces.

Meanwhile, US domestic support for the war, while there, is quite
tenuous. There is no way that the American public will allow the
commitment of money, nor do we have the troops available now to do the
job right even if we had the money. (It is possible, maybe, that with
enough troops originally, we could have avoided the looting and
general chaos so that we could have reduced the troop levels now. That
was an opportunity come and gone, though, forever.) This is the hell
of it: the American public does not want to pay the true cost of the
war, either now or at the time the war started. They're only willing
to pay the costs if they are what they were originally sold as.

This has all been exacerbated by the incredibly inept international
diplomacy conducted by the Bush administration. Surprise! We don't
have very many allies willing to jump into this mess with us.

The invasion of Iraq has been perhaps the biggest strategic disaster
ever for the US in its history as a world power. Probably worse than
Vietnam which, while it had its own seriously negative consequences,
did not leave us in the strategic corner where we have now painted
ourselves in the Middle East. We have gotten ourselves in a very big
mess, and probably won't be able to extricate ourselves until more
people in the US accept the reality of the situation.

JP

andres muro

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<rt2m801m1kqga2l8n4935c3bin9hls6vso@4ax.com>...
> dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote:

Mark wrote:
>
> It's likely to get worse as those who oppose a democracy in Iraq get
> more and more desparate to derail the process. It'll be interesting
> to see what happens after the June 30 handover of power.

Nobody opposses democracy in Iraq. We simply don't believe that the US
government is qualified to do this. There are virtually no countries
in which the US has intervened where conditions improved as a result
of US intervention with the possilbe exception of Germany and Japan
(questionable).

Things in Iraq are not any better. In fact, thay are a lot worse.
However, if the US government is so interested in improving living
conditions, why don't they start here? I can give tours of places in
the US where there are hard working people and children with no access
to electricity, drinking water, paved roads that live in shacks, don't
have windows in their homes, cannot access health care, and live in
abject poverty. There are rich corporate CEOs that have stolen the
savings of thousands of their own employees, and have not spent a day
in jail. HOwever, if I am poor and rob beer and candy bars from a
seven/eleven I'll go to jail for sure. If I do this three times, I'll
spend years in jail.

Ask the mothers of the kids who die in Iraq if they would like to get
their kids back and not help Iraq become a "democracy". Once you lost
your child, democracy becomes meaningless. Ask people w/o health
insurance if they care about democracy in other countries. Ask mothers
who rarely see their kids because they work two or three jobs how
they feel about democracy. Go to communities where there is high
insidence of Ashma, and hepathitis because of lack of sewer systems or
paved roads if they care about democracy. Ask children who have rotten
teeth and cannot go to the dentist how they feel about democracy.
Ask the 26,000 children in the state of Texas who lost health coverage
from one day to the next, ironically right after the "no child left
behind act" passed, how they feel about democracy.

If the government can spend several billion in establishing
"democracies" in other countries, why don't they first improve the
conditions of the poor right here.

Also, think about this: If there was an Iraqi military base in the US
and Iraqi soldiers where running down the streets with machine guns
and shooting at buildings, how would that make you feel? Wouldn't you
want to go and commit terrorist acts against Iraq. Take it a little
further. Imagine that Iraq bombed your neighbourhood and killed a few
family members, and damage water, electrical supplies, destroyed
hospital facilities. What would you want to do to Iraqis? Based on
this, what would you expect iraqis will want to do tom the US?

Andres




>
> >(snipping, mixing posts)
> >
> >>> It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him of trying to
> >>> tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will become truth. Show me one
> >>> instance - no one else has been able to.
> >
> >My goodness, Mark: "Iraq/Terrorists, terrorists/Iraq", over and over again by
> >Bush on TV, reported on elsewhere and repeated. Repeated "enough times" to make
> >the linkage with the American public. And all questions/doubts shouted down
> >(paaaatriotism), secrecy abounding.
>
> Sorry, but I don't spell "terrorism" with a 9 and a couple 1's. I
> don't think many others do as well.
>
> >And that "Clinton did less" again. Stop, please. Clinton got in trouble for
> >everything he did (except for private Monica celebrations), including
> >"depleting our missile stock to the point of compromising national security"
> >(paraphrasing). Don't sweep the people who died and were horribly injured (plus
> >the huge property losses) in the 9/11 attacks. Those deaths, as you well know,
> >changed the President's options, to put it mildly. Even Bush I found the
> >capture/killing of Sadaam politically "difficult" (or it was just a setup where
> >the good 'ol boy network clobbered the little guys while letting the higher-ups
> >go back to the palace. Your choice.)
>
> I don't disagree with you. I do think his decision to scale down our
> intelligence agencies was a mistake, but I stop FAR short of "blaming
> him" for 9/11.
>
> >>> Aren't you glad the current >>administration finally got it right?
> >
> >(My understanding): The current administration lied in order to follow plans
> >that had been in place for a long time before 9/11. --TP
>
> If the current administration did NOT have a contingency plan to take
> out Saddam before 9/11 they'd be idiots. The Woodward book (the whole
> book, not select quotes out of context) tells the story of a plan that
> came together over months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that
> the UN was going to refuse to back up any action to remove Saddam from
> power / enforce all the UN resolutions. Think back to the time and
> tell me that anyone thought it was unlikely that we'd end up going in
> to take him out.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<9q6u8053kvdtcb04dcoupc8gn90n7cnsse@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<timr80p8or3uge8avkr2ur6vj4kj22k4hj@4ax.com>...
> >> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<pk2m80t6vdrrg5gb8iaq0ei99f91g8vul2@4ax.com>...
> >> >> Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Mark, what I found most troubling about all this is that the United
> >> >> >States was the country that supplied Saddam with biologic and nerve
> >> >> >agents, and then removed Iraq from its list of terrorist nations *after*
> >> >> >he used those weapons on Iranians and Iraqis. Even Rumsfeld was
> >> >> >photographed shaking his hand. Why does the US continue to hang out
> >> >> >with and support such people?
> >> >>
> >> >> The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to Kennedy. I guess
> >> >> it's one of those "the enemy of your enemy" things, but it does seem
> >> >> pretty questionable in retrospect.
> >> >
> >> >Just like our current support for Saudia Arabia and Pakistan? Or do
> >> >you have more GOP-apologist excuses for that as well?
> >>
> >> Gee, what is it with you guys tonight? All over GWB for going into
> >> Iraq, now you can't wait to go after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Dang
> >> warmongers... ;-)
> >
> >When cornered, change the subject...
>
> You're right. But I guess you thought you could deflect the issue by
> bringing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan into a discussion about Iraq. Heh.

Bzzzt. Our support for questionable regimes is *directly related* to
your comments. Your rebuttal quip is not at all related to anything,
and adds nothing but an attempt to avoid the question.

> >JP has already summarized my point nicely.
>
> I'll ask you the same questions (but let you read it in my reply to
> JP). You won't answer it though - you'll change the subject. ;-)

I'll reply over there.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<ga6u8097qsoa8m446m8t9pbpnulim4v7h2@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<ngmr80tg1j1ndgpnsfbuqdkc63r75apg7j@4ax.com>...
> >> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Yeah - a three-party revolution in which Kurd, Shia and Sunni will die
> >> >by the tens of thousands, the artifically-constructed country of Iraq
> >> >dissolving into three contested parts, and so much more misery
> >> >inflicted that it will make Saddam's regime a fond memory. For them
> >> >and us.
> >> >
> >> >Wishful thinking on your part does not imply probability of success.
> >>
> >> Hopelessness and doomsaying on your part doesn't imply probability of
> >> failure.
> >
> >Let's examine the history of the region, shall we? Now, having
> >completed that exercise, which view is closer to reality - a reversion
> >to a system that has been in place for thousands of years, or a system
> >heretofore unknown, imposed by an outside invader?
>
> If you were an Iraqi, which would YOU want?

Changing the subject AGAIN? You accuse me of hopelessness and
doomsaying. So I respond with what I base my rationale on, not what
my unrealistic hopes and dreams happen to be.

It's called a "reality check", Mark. Since you don't have a response,
I am assuming you actually agree that the scenario I describe is far
more likely than the one you hope for.

> >Gosh, do you use your head for anything other than a storage facility
> >for right-wing propaganda?
>
> When you are cornered, resort to ad hominem...

I'm not the cornered one here, and we both know the substance of my
commentary was above. That one line out of context is not the sum of
my argument - try and stay focused without having to grasp at straws.

> >> Besides, think how many hundreds of thousands would have to
> >> die to keep up with Saddam's rate of filling mass graves!
> >
> >When cornered, change the subject...
>
> Hmmm, a simple question.

That has nothing to do with the previous comments. A non sequitur at
best. A red herring for certain.

> You don't want to admit that Saddam was
> offing his own citizens at a MUCH higher rate than the war ever will
> (even including those who are shooting at Marines)?

I see. That somehow makes it OK to destabilize a region, possibly set
up another fundementalist regime (and it's attendant genocide) at
opposition with all its neighbors AND controlling a fair bit of oil,
AND having one of our NATO allies kick our boys out for fomenting a
Kurdish revolution on their border?

Yeah, that's a great Hobsonian choice. Frankly, I have no idea which
is the greater of the two evils. The fact that I might actually have
to choose an evil is the illustration of Shrub's hubris in the Middle
East.

> When cornered,
> type "when cornered, change the subject" I guess.

Except we both know it's a red herring, having nothing to do with the
likely outcome of our intervention. True liberal democracy has a
snowball's chance in hell there. More likely, what preceeded the
U.K.'s interference there...
--
Jonesy

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<ms4u80luq0t55mpcrqud7rongv9jgr72s6@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote
>
> >> You really don't know about Iraq's
> >> direct and open support of terrorists?
> >
> >Which anti-U.S. terrorists would those be? Hezbollah? Al Qaeda? No?
> > Here's a little something to think about - wouldn't the most prudent
> >course of action be to go after the anti-U.S. terorists FIRST, then
> >clean up the rest of them later? This is the semantics game that
> >really kills your argument.
>
> "In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued
> an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb,
> former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti
> authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects,
> led by two Iraqi nationals."

This is hardly the stuff global terrorism is made of. IIRC, Iraq got
spanked for that.

> "Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq
> Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran
> and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military
> personnel and U.S. civilians."

Still not very compelling. Who has ever heard of the MKO? And what
is the source of this particular nugget of "intelligence?"

> "Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international
> terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in
> twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets
> have included the United States and several other Western nations.
> Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training,
> logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of
> Iraq."

LOL. Iraqi security killed Abu Nidal. Come on, Mark - is this it?
That's pretty weak stuff. None of these folks (or groups) was any
real threat to the U.S.

> I won't even mention the ones that target our allies (which is not
> something we should ignore, but for the sake of brevity, I will).

I ignore it, because it's not our problem to clean up every IRA
supporter in Boston. Oh, wait...

Let's start with the big fish first, then move on to the small fry
after the barbeque.

> > "He supported terorists." Yeah, and so
> >do a lot of other countries, in greater amounts, and even in greater
> >amounts than Iraq ever did with anti-Israel terrorists.
>
> There are seven countries on "the list". Iraq however was under a UN
> Security Council Resolution to cease and desist doing so. He didn't.

And the others did? See, that's just the problem - other places are
worse, they don't do anything either, so why do they get a pass?

> >> Who would even try to deny it?
> >
> >Nobody - that's why the argument is so completely moronic. And yet
> >you go back to it again and again, like it actually means something...
>
> Read the above examples.

They are weak to marginal. They don't make the argument any more
compelling.

> Tell me you don't believe it is possible
> that Saddam would have aided any of those groups who might have taken
> it upon themselves to target the US or US interests.

Possible? It's possible that nukes from the former USSR on on ships
in U.S. harbors right now. Likely? Well, that's a tough one. When
every move Iraq made was scrutinized down to the knat's keister, I
would say the risk was fairly low. Lower than, oh, 20 guys with
knives hijacking some airliners...

> >> >Iraq did not have anything to do with the 9/11 terrorists. They are
> >> >two separate issues. Hey, I bet you wear red on occasion. I guess
> >> >that means you are a communist, right? That is EXACTLY the tortured
> >> >reasoning used.
> >>
> >> "Reasoning" isn't the word I'd use for your comparison.
> >
> >When cornered, change the subject.
>
> "Wearing red" isn't "changing the subject"? LOL.

No, it isn't. It's an illustration of tortured reasoning, the kind of
reasoning used by Shrub apologists when it comes to our Iraqi
Adventure. "He supported terrorists!" Yeah, so do some folks in
Boston. Since neither supporter is actually supporting anti-U.S.
folks, they should be down on the priority list of War on Terror
targets. *That's* an example of straight-forward, linear logic.

According to everyone who's told tales about what went on in the Shrub
inner sanctum, Iraq was on the hit list Jan. 22 2001.

> >I'm illustrating a "connect the dots" sort of logical fallacy that
> >conservatives lean on so heavily to bolster their shaky arguments. A
> >sort of reasoning, that if a liberal used it, the conservatives would
> >be hopping up and down, howling about the illogic of it all.
>
> Wearing red???? Heh heh heh.

Red having to do with communism, like making that connection is
meaningful. For someone who pretends to be smart, you sure are acting
dumb all of a sudden.

> Certainly you can come up with a less
> nonsensical example that fits the situation at least slightly (though
> if it fit, it would work against you, so never mind...).

The fact is that connect-the-dots reasoning (see Monty Python and the
Holy Grail - the witch sketch - for connect-the-dots silliness) is
fallacious from the start. Since it relies on word games and
semantics in order to *even sound plausible*, life gets tough on the
connect-the-dotters.

> >> They're also snapping to nicely right now (hopefully they'll come back
> >> from the Afghanistan border with UBL's head on a stake).
> >
> >They are a coup away from a Fundementalist Biggest Stick. If that
> >doesn't worry you, then you have your rectocranial insertion at full
> >extention. The population does not support Musharref - if you
> >actually read the news, you'd know this. They think OBL is a hero,
> >fergawdsake!
>
> So does Jesse Jackson, but I'm not too worried about him coming to
> power. ;-)

When cornered, change the subject...

> >> >> Maybe... partisan politics should have no part in these issues (either
> >> >> way).
> >> >
> >> >LOL. Partisan politics that distracted Clinton from the real threat,
> >> >while the GOP wanted to kick him out for a little bit of intern
> >> >dick-smoking? Get real.
> >>
> >> Clinton approached the terrorist threat as a law enforcement issue.
> >
> >When cornered, change the subject.
>
> Heh. Nothing "distracted" Clinton from the task at hand - he just
> didn't pursue it any more vigorously than he would have without all
> the scandals.

Yeah, that obstructionist house and the impeachment thing didn't have
anything to do with anything. Get real. Your comment is about as
stupid as anything I've read in usenet lately.

> I don't blame him entirely for that, and don't believe
> that he could have mustered the political will to do what GWB was able
> to after 9/11.

The two GOP administrations before him had taken the same line. It's
hard, absent a shattering event like 9/11, to accomplish anything
major without the other party pissing on the parade.

> The fact remains he - at best - viewed terrorism as a
> law enforcement issue... my point (and NOT "changing the issue").

Funny, we were talking about partisan politics, not how Clinton and
his two predecessors considered the terrorism problem. Indeed,
changing the issue...

> >> Bush sees it as a full-on war. I agree with the latter, personally.
> >
> >I'm sure you would have pissed your pants in apoplexy if Clinton would
> >have done anything more than launch missles.
>
> Then you'd be absolutely wrong (again).

Oh, please. When Clinton launched missles at Iraq, Sudan and
Afghanistan, the GOP had kittens over it. You, of all the faithful,
secretly said "that's it boy, you take it to those bastards!" Sure
you did.

> I supported him fully in the
> (very limited) response to some horrific attacks, but wished he would
> have taken it further.

Proof?

> > After all, he only did
> >that to distract from Monica, right? Ooops, as it turns out, he seems
> >to have destroyed the last of Saddam's weapons-building capacity in
> >the WMD realm.
>
> Yes, they were going to shower us all with aspirin. LOL.

Did you read Blix's report?

> >> The point being that you are trying to rewrite history so you can say
> >> GWB "lied" about WMD
> >
> >Except I haven't said anything of the kind. Shrub used any excuse he
> >could find to invade Iraq. As it turns out, he was wrong about the
> >WMD. Now, that's not such a big deal - intelligence can be poor, and
> >that falls upon Dems and GOP equally. The problem lies when you start
> >changing national policy - policy that's been in place for over two
> >hundred years. It's not enough to *think* you're right. You actually
> >have to *be* right. Otherwise, you're no different than any other
> >invader who has ever invaded on any sort of pretext. I realize that
> >this is a very complex objection, and won't appeal to the "black and
> >white, dumb it down for me" crowd. Morals actually mean something to
> >some of us, and the lack of morality from this so-called religious
> >president is appalling.
>
> We don't know he wasn't right.

There is not yet a shred of evidence to suggest that his judgement was
correct, and plenty of evidence to suggest it wasn't.

> Certainly there's no rational reason
> Saddam would choose to be run out of town on a rail rather than admit
> that he had actually destroyed all his WMD.

Ah, but he did. They just didn't have a paper trail. Add to that the
logical impossibility of proving a negative, and you've got the
circular logic that is required to wash your hands.

> In any case, there was
> virtually no doubt about Iraq's WMD stores and production capacity
> before the war.

And yet, everybody was horribly, totally wrong. Wow. How do you say
"Oops" in Arabic?

> There was no doubt that sooner or later we'd end up
> having to take him out, and there was no doubt 80% of that effort
> would fall the the US (again).

This is where leadership skills come in. You make your case the best
way you know how, without obfuscating or lying by degrees, and see
where your leadership takes you. It's tough in a democracy, but great
leaders have been able to do it.

> We're quibbling over the timing (which
> as it turns out was affected not by deeply held beliefs about
> political process, but filthy lucre flowing into the pockets of those
> involved in the UN).

No. Invasion and occupation was not an inevitable outcome, otherwise
we wouldn't be having this discussion. Long-term monitoring was
actually working.

> To trivialize what Saddam did to end up where he
> is is ludicrous.

Red herring.

> >> Except that
> >> by that logic, everyone else (including the Clinton administration and
> >> the UN weapons inspectors) also "lied" just as much... but you don't
> >> seem to recall that "little detail". Heh.
> >
> >This is the logical fallacy called a "strawman."
>
> You should look up the definition of that word. You seem to have it
> confused with "history".

You are claiming I am "not recalling a detail." An accusation that
has no merit, and suggests some partisanship on my part. Thus, a
strawman for you to knock down. Since I never said Bush lied about
the WMDs, or about Iraq's connection to al Qaeda, claiming otherwise
is an attempt at strawman.

Q.E.D.

> >I hope you have something better to bring to the table in your next
> >reply.
>
> I'm not breaking a sweat yet.

Since you are giving up, I will take that to be a macho quip, to be

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<s64u805qc2qkbsutcrpqe6qc1td9c7m25o@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >> There are some who believe that Iraq was directly connected.
> >
> >Just the stupid ones, right? Even Shrub said they weren't connected.
>
> There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about that subject in these
> hallowed halls though.

No, there really isn't. The only confusion comes from the deliberate
attempts by the Shrub and his minions to make sure and say "Iraq" and
"The War on Terror" in the same sentence.

The fact that nearly 70% of the public bought it sure makes you
wonder, huh?

> >> There
> >> are others who feel it's likely there IS a connection (not a hard
> >> conclusion to come to based on some of the evidence, but it's hardly a
> >> slam-dunk).
> >
> >Unlike what Tenet said about Iraqi WMD, right? LOL!
> >
> >There is not one shred of evidence that ties Al Qaeda to Iraq. Except
> >the lies from expatriates. Nothing, nada.
>
> I agree there isn't any solid proof.

No only isn't there solid proof, there's no proof. None, zip, nada.
The connections posited before have all turned out to be fabrications.

> It's apparent that some of the
> "intelligence" before and after the war was based more on settling old
> scores than passing on good info.

Wow. Irony.

> >> And a good deal others don't bother to differentiate
> >> between Al Qaida and other terrorists.
> >
> >More idiots. Must suck to be surrounded by such useful idiots, I
> >guess.
>
> Well you know what they say... in a land of blind men...

And it all works very nicely toward the plan Shrub began working on
Jan. 22, 2001. Curious. And so serendipitous. Boggles the mind,
actually.

> >Let me offer another, more plausible, hypothesis: By conflating Iraq
> >and the War on Terror, the desired effect was created in the mind of a
> >large proportion of the public. It is a time-honored propaganda
> >trick. Read up some time for an education in manipulating the masses.
> > Goebbels was quite good at this.
>
> Except that there was nothing subtle about Goebbels propaganda.

Where do you read anywhere that I suggested that the Shrub minions
were subtle in this?

> The funny thing is, it was "common knowledge" that GWB
> claimed Iraq WAS involved...

Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Since
Shrub and Co. worked very hard at conflating the two issues, it's no
wonder some folks just assumed he'd actually come right out and said
what he and his minions were implying so strongly. You do realize
that you have just made my argument stronger, right?

> so either there's a propaganda machine
> operating on both sides, or the public isn't too discerning in their
> analysis of the actual facts (probably a bit of both).

Actual fact is hard to come by when there's a whispering campaign
about "Salman Pak" and "Atta meets with Iraqi Intel guy in Prague",
etc., etc. Naw, those were just honest mistakes. That's the only
kind of mistake a conservative makes, right, Mark? Never, ever a
cold, calculated disception to drive opinion in the direction
desired...

> >> I don't think Pakistan's nuclear program is really our biggest problem
> >> right now...
> >
> >Because you have been told to ignore the man behind the curtain; so
> >you do, just like all good subjects. I'll get to the reasoning in a
> >bit...
> >
> >> So you believe Pakistan is / was a bigger threat to the US than Iraq?
> >
> >Let's do a little connect-the-dots of our own, shall we?
> >
> >1.) Pakistan is a primarily Muslim nation, with a large group of
> >fundementalists.
> >
> >2.) Pakistan already has nukes, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> >
> >3.) The father of that program sold his secrets on the open market,
> >such that ANY terrorist with enough cash can now do-it-yourself.
> >Someone who is rich, say, like some guy named Osama.
> >
> >4.) As the Shah found out, a fundementalist revolution can happen at
> >any time, especially when the Great Satan is in bed with the leaders
> >of an islamic nation.
> >
> >5.) Pakistan was the first government to recognize the Taliban, AND
> >Osama is a hero to Pakistan's Muslim peoples.
> >
> >Are you shitting your pants yet? You really should be...
>
> You forget the Pakistan army is in the hills

They are indeed doing that...

> trying to root out Osama.

....but maybe not so much of that. Since much of the population of
Afghanistan considers Osama a hero, I wonder what happens to the
infidel that brings the hero in for justice. How about his family?
"An extended family was stoned to death this morning in a small
village 40 miles outside Karachi..."

> And I'm not nearly as worried about Pakistani nukes as those developed
> by the USSR that might be "floating around".

Boy, that might be a better use of men and resources than fighting a
stupid war of choice in the Mid East, huh? Still, those bombs are
only an Islamic revolution away from being our worst nightmare.

> I doubt the Pakastani
> nukes are at a level of sophistication that makes them very portable
> (their chief aim being to scare India).

They are missle-ready. Plenty sophisticated enough.

> Pakistan is NOT Afghanistan,
> politically - I don't see a relatively affluent society giving it all
> up for the privledge of wrapping their women in bhurkas (not that
> there's anything wrong with that...). ;-)

If a Taliban-like group came to power, or something like the
Ayatollahs in Iran? Remember, under the shah (and the former leader
of Afghanistan) women could drive, and hold advanced degrees, and be
doctors, and show their faces in public...

Need I go on, or are those two examples not enough?

> >> It's hard to know where to start on that, so I won't...
> >
> >And you were criticizing me on my critical thinking skills. LOL.
>
> Yet you don't want to "connect the dots" in Iraq, with a much larger
> host of information.

There is a large host of information, and even more MISinformation.
Like Salman Pak. And bioweapons trailers. The dots I'm connecting on
Pakistan are real, known and have historical precedent. The dots in
Iraq are war-mongering wishful thinking.

> Known WMD stores

Where are they? I guess they aren't really known...

> known support of terrorist
> organizations

None of which are anti-U.S. in action...

> vehemently anti-US attitude (as in trying to
> assassinate an ex president).

This one could apply to France as well (not the assassination thing,
but hey...) One out of three ain't bad, keep going...

> No need for a fundamentalist Islamic
> revolution or development of additional (crude) nukes needed to cause
> havoc.

One out of four ain't bad. Want to try again, this time with
something a little more concrete and relevant?

--
Jonesy

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<dm6u809k660re95be6bdtrffhs4s0la172@4ax.com>...
> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<timr80p8or3uge8avkr2ur6vj4kj22k4hj@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> Gee, what is it with you guys tonight? All over GWB for going into
> >> Iraq, now you can't wait to go after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Dang
> >> warmongers... ;-)
> >
> >It's damn sure a conundrum, alright. Although they have both provided
> >significant support to Al Qaeda, a war against either of them would be
> >a disaster that would make Iraq look like kindergarten. However, that
> >doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at other ways to hold them
> >accountable. Pakistan, because of its nukes, and Saudi Arabia, because
> >of its oil, are among the most powerful nations in the world. It is so
> >much easier to beat up on someone weak like Iraq, not that that is
> >turning out to be so easy, either.
> >
> >Do you get the irony? Beating up on someone easy without connections
> >to 9/11 while letting the powerful who were connected to 9/11 go free?
>
> Uhhh, think "Afghanistan".

Not very powerful. Pretty weak, in fact. A walk-over.

> >It doesn't mean we want war with them but it sure does help clarify
> >the extreme stupidity of invading Iraq.
>
> So what IS your point?

That we embarked on a war of choice that does not further the goals of
the war on terror. In fact, it may have actually hurt that war by
providing yet another chaotic place for them to organize and recruit.

> That we should issue a pass to each and every
> nation that does support terrorism?

No. That we should go after the most guilty parties first, then dwell
on the small fry later.

> That we should never, ever do
> anything because it might make the French mad at us (if for no other
> reason than cutting the bribes off)?

It might be nice to try and convince them first, then threaten to
expose their shady dealings next, then ignore them later. If it had
just been France, who cares? Even France and Russia - big deal.
France, Russia and China - "hey guys, go fix a skating competition, or
something." But when virtually all of your allies say "wait a minute
- where's this evidence, again?" then you have to think hard about the
consequences.

> Which is it - get 'em all or let 'em all slide?

The logical fallacy of the false choice. The answer is "neither."
You get the big fish first, then worry about the small fry later.
It's about priorities and fixed resources. Speaking of which -
Halliburton is hiring over there. I hear they need folks to do some
regular sorts of jobs. Aren't you going to go over there and help
out, Mark? Help bring democracy and a better life to Iraq? Oh, I
know - you much too important to your business to make that kind of
sacrifice. Just leave that to the Marines. Right, Mark?
--
Jonesy

JP

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<dm6u809k660re95be6bdtrffhs4s0la172@4ax.com>...
> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<timr80p8or3uge8avkr2ur6vj4kj22k4hj@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> Gee, what is it with you guys tonight? All over GWB for going into
> >> Iraq, now you can't wait to go after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Dang
> >> warmongers... ;-)
> >
> >It's damn sure a conundrum, alright. Although they have both provided
> >significant support to Al Qaeda, a war against either of them would be
> >a disaster that would make Iraq look like kindergarten. However, that
> >doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at other ways to hold them
> >accountable. Pakistan, because of its nukes, and Saudi Arabia, because
> >of its oil, are among the most powerful nations in the world. It is so
> >much easier to beat up on someone weak like Iraq, not that that is
> >turning out to be so easy, either.
> >
> >Do you get the irony? Beating up on someone easy without connections
> >to 9/11 while letting the powerful who were connected to 9/11 go free?
>
> Uhhh, think "Afghanistan".

Uhhh, I wasn't talking about Afghanistan when I said "Beating up on
someone easy without connections to 9/11 while letting the powerful
who were connected to 9/11 go free." See, Afghanistan *was* connected
to 9/11, and it *wasn't* allowed to go free. Subtle distinction there.

> >It doesn't mean we want war with them but it sure does help clarify
> >the extreme stupidity of invading Iraq.
>
> So what IS your point? That we should issue a pass to each and every
> nation that does support terrorism? That we should never, ever do
> anything because it might make the French mad at us (if for no other
> reason than cutting the bribes off)?
>
> Which is it - get 'em all or let 'em all slide?

It's ironic the way you bring up Afghanistan and then the French.
There is a simple fact that blows away both of your responses: the
French are still fighting along side the US in Afghanistan. Get it?
Just war = allies.

This thread would have ended about 100 posts back if you didn't have
your logical fallacies to fall back on. Of course, without logical
fallacies the GOP wouldn't be able to get anyone elected dogcatcher,
let alone President.

JP

David Damerell

Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:
>http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Bloody hell, will the lot of you stop, already?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

Jonesy

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<nFw*3Xejq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
> Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
>
> Bloody hell, will the lot of you stop, already?

David:

Either find a way to increase your reading comprehension (thread
title), or carefully peruse the instructions for your newsreader such
that you may be able to discover it's filtering functions.

HTH,

R. F. Jones