| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2006 11:55:02 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Makka:
How can we condemn one nation from striving for nuclear energy on one hand but push to develop it for ourselves on another. We ship uranium to numerous countries from our own anyway! |
Your country's President hasn't stated for the record that some other country should be wiped off the map. Nuclear weapons are the only practical tool for accomplishing that. Or do you think the President of Iran was lying? |
Yeah I guess. As I said, getting out of my depth. But it seems the only country to have used nukes in a threatening manner is the one now policing everybody else and acting without UN authority! I think that concerns me more!
|
|
|
|
06/10/2006 12:05:34 AM · #102 |
The sad truth about UN involvement and authority is that on certain occasions it has sadly failed... witness the atrocities that were committed in Rwanda while the UN danced around and did precious little.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/10/2006 12:07:54 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The sad truth about UN involvement and authority is that on certain occasions it has sadly failed... witness the atrocities that were committed in Rwanda while the UN danced around and did precious little.
Ray |
Yeah....very true!
|
|
|
|
06/10/2006 02:24:27 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
In that event, Senator Biden's suggestion for breaking up the country into three semi-autonomous regions might warrant some serious consideration. |
Not sure about this: there ar lots of examples of this not working very well (eg India and Pakistan, Yugoslavia). |
Yes, I'm aware of those examples, but I do think there are some cases where it has worked. The Iraqis seem to be voting with their feet in any event. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are separating themselves due to the violence and the need for protection from their own militias, and the Kurds have been living separately for the most part for a long time, as I'm sure you know.
I don't know what the answer is. This is just one of several options that have been floated here that hasn't gotten much air time or serious discussion.
The one thing I am certain about is that we have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure at the very least, but naturally our government is screwing that up, too.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2006 12:39:41 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
The Sunnis and Shi'ites are separating themselves due to the violence and the need for protection from their own militias, and the Kurds have been living separately for the most part for a long time, as I'm sure you know. |
They were mostly separated even before Iraq was invaded. Just like in New York, you have China Town, Harlem, Little Italy, etc. The area around the base I was at was mostly Shi'ites and there was also a large Christian area. but when you passed this street you knew that you went from the Sunni, to Shi'ite until you passed this street. They are not separating themselves "due to the violence" And the militias have always been in place.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
The one thing I am certain about is that we have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure at the very least, but naturally our government is screwing that up, too. |
You need to look hard to see that the US is rebuilding infrastructure, and doing a good job at it. My Task Force(TF 1-21 FA) Built an 11 mile road from a large group of farms to the market, we built 6 foot bridges across the main highway in Baghdad to keep people from getting run over. We gave out tons of seed and fertilizer to the farmers, we rebuilt 4 elementary schools.
SO, how is the government screwing up the rebuilding their infrastructure?
I've given the following links before but they have been dismissed as "propaganda." It's a good source for civil affairs projects:
MNF-I
MNC-I
MND-B
MND-N
MND-W
MND-S
MND-SE
LSA Andaconda
Message edited by author 2006-06-10 12:40:18. |
|
|
|
06/10/2006 01:11:25 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Makka:
But it seems the only country to have used nukes in a threatening manner is the one now policing everybody else and acting without UN authority! I think that concerns me more! |
Neil, while I appreciate your concerns, I think that they are too narrow.
If I correctly interpret your use of the qualifier, "only country", to mean the United States, then consider the following:
Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons.
China has threatened to use nuclear weapons.
France has threatened to use nuclear weapons.
Great Britain has threatened to use nuclear weapons.
India has threatened to use nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has threatened to use nuclear weapons.
Israel has threatened to use weapons assumed to be nuclear.
North Korea has threatened to use weapons assumed to be nuclear.
In short, I believe that every country that is known to posess nuclear weapons, or is assumed to posess nuclear weapons, has used them in a threatening manner. The U.S. is NOT the only country.
If you mean to imply that the U.S. is the only country "policing everbody else", you would be wrong. Nearly the entire European community, as well as Russia and China are engaged in attempting to prevent Iran ( and other countries, as well ) from obtaining nuclear weapon capabilities. Some of those countries, and not just the U.S., have indicated that force might be employed if deemed necessary.
If you mean to imply that U.S. acted without UN authority when it invaded Iraq, then you venture into an area that is still undecided.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated, regarding the invasion of Iraq, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
However, Randy Scheunemann, former advisor to Donald Rumsfeld responded, "I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states."
To the best of my knowledge, neither the U.N. general assembly nor the U.N. Security Council has made any official determination as to whether the coalition acted with or without U.N. authority. |
|
|
|
06/10/2006 01:22:01 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
The one thing I am certain about is that we have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure at the very least, but naturally our government is screwing that up, too. |
To add to what Robert said earlier. Critical portions of the infrastructure have been rebuilt - and not just once, but multiple times - only to be sabotaged by insurgents again and again. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen, said recently,
"What's happened is that an incessant, an insidious insurgency has repeatedly attacked the key infrastructure targets, reducing outputs".
He said that some of the performance numbers had actually gone above prewar values, only to fall below prewar values again because of insurgent attacks and other factors.
I don't think that our government is "screwing it up". I think that the insurgents are. |
|
|
|
06/11/2006 05:08:32 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I am sure that American Horse would disagree that the natives in this country have welcomed the culture and even given up their land to the pilgrims because they loved them so much. But we do not teach occupation here, we teach about one nation... but enough about this. |
Relevant limerick |
Suppose a white man should come to me and say, "Joseph, I like your horses. I want to buy them." I say to him, "No, my horses suit me; I will not sell them."
Then he goes to my neighbor and says to him, "Joseph has some good horses. I want to buy them, but he refuses to sell." My neighbor answers, "Pay me the money and I will sell you Joseph's horses."
The white man returns to me and says, "Joseph, I have bought your horses and you must let me have them."
If we sold our lands to the government, this is the way they bought them.
-Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce |
|
|
|
06/11/2006 05:54:03 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by RonB:
To add to what Robert said earlier. Critical portions of the infrastructure have been rebuilt - and not just once, but multiple times - only to be sabotaged by insurgents again and again. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen, said recently,
"What's happened is that an incessant, an insidious insurgency has repeatedly attacked the key infrastructure targets, reducing outputs".
He said that some of the performance numbers had actually gone above prewar values, only to fall below prewar values again because of insurgent attacks and other factors.
I don't think that our government is "screwing it up". I think that the insurgents are. |
Good job quoting Stuart Bowen, another Bush appointed croney who worked on Bush's first gubernatorial campaign, in 1994.
It has been reported that one of President Bush's 750 Presidential signing statements attached to the investigation blocked findings by adding a caveat that the new inspector general would have no authority to investigate any contracts or corruption issues involving the Pentagon.
Why thatâs quite a deal there. The inspector has no authority to inspect.
Insurgents are not the main cause of reconsctruction shortcomings. CSIS Iraqi Economic Reconstruction and Development
|
|
|
|
06/11/2006 07:58:22 PM · #110 |
I'm reading this article and have found several mistakes first one under electricity: "On October 14, just a day before the referendum on Iraqi constitution, electricity was out for âhoursâ in Baghdad, affecting an area of 2,500 square miles, making the daily break- fast for Muslims in the month of Ramadan difficult."
No it wasn't. I know for a FACT that most of Baghdad had power that day. |
|
|
|
06/11/2006 08:02:34 PM · #111 |
Would of been better if we all just had of stayed away I think! What a mess!
|
|
|
|
06/11/2006 09:00:20 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
To add to what Robert said earlier. Critical portions of the infrastructure have been rebuilt - and not just once, but multiple times - only to be sabotaged by insurgents again and again. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen, said recently,
"What's happened is that an incessant, an insidious insurgency has repeatedly attacked the key infrastructure targets, reducing outputs".
He said that some of the performance numbers had actually gone above prewar values, only to fall below prewar values again because of insurgent attacks and other factors.
I don't think that our government is "screwing it up". I think that the insurgents are. |
Good job quoting Stuart Bowen, another Bush appointed croney who worked on Bush's first gubernatorial campaign, in 1994.
It has been reported that one of President Bush's 750 Presidential signing statements attached to the investigation blocked findings by adding a caveat that the new inspector general would have no authority to investigate any contracts or corruption issues involving the Pentagon.
Why thatâs quite a deal there. The inspector has no authority to inspect.
Insurgents are not the main cause of reconsctruction shortcomings. CSIS Iraqi Economic Reconstruction and Development |
Missing Millions
Clever Bush - appoints Bowen to investigate where the money goes; decides as the decider that he can rewrite/ignore the laws and tells Bowen he cannot investigate; As Bowen's post exists that means no Senate or House commitee can ask for an investigation or hearing...Clever! Evil but clever.
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 05:40:34. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 05:06:50 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by RMyers1314:
I'm reading this article and have found several mistakes first one under electricity: "On October 14, just a day before the referendum on Iraqi constitution, electricity was out for âhoursâ in Baghdad, affecting an area of 2,500 square miles, making the daily break- fast for Muslims in the month of Ramadan difficult."
No it wasn't. I know for a FACT that most of Baghdad had power that day. |
I don't doubt you, but at the same time the electricity would need to be out for an hour or so before dawn to cause a problem (given the need during Ramadan to fast during daylight).
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 05:45:23 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I do not doubt that cargo carriers had already been retained. Just as I'm sure that even now, actions are being taken "in the event" that certain future "possibilities" that tend toward being "probabilities" will eventually become "realities".
In the commodities market, such run-ups or run-downs in delivery guarantees at a given price are called "futures". They are best-guess gambles made about future prices based on current knowledge, future guidance, and historical evidence of price changes under similar circumstances. |
The scale was somewhat different. Literally, prices were doubling and quadrupling because of the scale of the US demand for capacity in early to mid 2002. I was only involved in the management for a two or three months, but this was extraordinary according to the people I was working with.
I accept that if the purpose of the forces was to pressure Iraq to change its stance over weapons inspections, then this might have been reasonable. But the space was booked in late 2001/early 2002, when the connection appears to relate (in terms of timing and political need) to 9/11, not the refusal to admit weapons inspectors since 1998-9 or any significant new information.
This huge US operation, putting an invasion sized force next to Iraq, appears to have been planned long in advance of the difficult political dialogue that followed. The expense (hundreds of millions) would seem hard to justify had the US been committed to a political solution rather than a military one. Arguably, the approach worked: the weapons inspectors were readmitted; the Iraqi declaration relating to WMDs was made; and subsequent negotiations resulted in enhanced co-operation and the ongoing destruction of Iraq's missile stock (itself only marginally in breach of the terms of the UN prohibition). Yet we still went to war.
It seems very odd. To me, it seems more plausible that the war was linked to the need to be seen to react to 9/11 (and to create a link between Al Quaida and Iraq that was not previously seen to exist) than out of genuine concerns that Iraq posed a security risk or immediate threat. The political argument would not have satisfied the need to be seen to react to 9/11, and (in the absence of a complete rollover by Iraq, which may have been effective suicide for the nation subsequently in the region) the political negotiations appear to have been doomed from the start.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 06:36:36 AM · #115 |
PNAC
The invasions pf Iraq and Afghanistan were planned well before 911
The Patriot Act was written well before 911.
In the PNAC they told us what they were going to do, they weren't hiding it, they just needed their 'New Pearl Harbour' to happen so they could implement the plan.
It always shocks me that so few people have never heard of PNAC let alone know what it is, who planned it and what it really means for the whole world! |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 10:09:49 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
To add to what Robert said earlier. Critical portions of the infrastructure have been rebuilt - and not just once, but multiple times - only to be sabotaged by insurgents again and again. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen, said recently,
"What's happened is that an incessant, an insidious insurgency has repeatedly attacked the key infrastructure targets, reducing outputs".
He said that some of the performance numbers had actually gone above prewar values, only to fall below prewar values again because of insurgent attacks and other factors.
I don't think that our government is "screwing it up". I think that the insurgents are. |
Good job quoting Stuart Bowen, another Bush appointed croney who worked on Bush's first gubernatorial campaign, in 1994.
It has been reported that one of President Bush's 750 Presidential signing statements attached to the investigation blocked findings by adding a caveat that the new inspector general would have no authority to investigate any contracts or corruption issues involving the Pentagon.
Why thatâs quite a deal there. The inspector has no authority to inspect.
Insurgents are not the main cause of reconsctruction shortcomings. CSIS Iraqi Economic Reconstruction and Development |
Thanks Madmordegon. You have provide two services.
One, you have shown, yet again, that one of the very first things many on the left do when confronted with statements in opposition to their own position is to try to impugn the credibility of their opponent through smear tactics. Such tactics are necessary because the statements themselves cannot be shown to be untrue.
Two, by posting the link to CSIS, you have ( inadvertently, I'm sure ) provided even more proof of the validity of Bowen's assertions.
In the conclusions of the CSIS article that YOU linked to:
"The chief impediment to the successful execution of Iraqâs economic reconstruction has been instability. Insurgency has successfully targeted economic assets that are crucial to the economic reconstruction of the country. A series of measures including creating physical buffer zones, increasing the troop presence near the facilities and introducing high technology equipment will help eliminate the constant drain. Other problems inherent in the management of the US aid effort exacerbate the negative effect of the insurgency."
Please note the introductory words "the CHIEF impediment".
Even more damning is this, which is also contained in the CSIS report the YOU linked to:
"Republican political appointee Stuart Bowen runs the audit office. Bowen's appointment initially raised eyebrows, but such concerns have been wiped away by fastidious reports his office has produced."
It seems that YOUR source accepts Bowens reporting, and even cites his reports in theirs. Why is it then, that you still attempt to discount his credibility?
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 10:54:59. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:58:18 AM · #117 |
Selective reading
Ron...did you even read the link I posted? |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 12:11:53 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks Madmordegon. You have provide two services.
One, you have shown, yet again, that one of the very first things many on the left do when confronted with statements in opposition to their own position is to try to impugn the credibility of their opponent through smear tactics. Such tactics are necessary because the statements themselves cannot be shown to be untrue.
|
That is genius. Ignore that HE IS a Bush crony and is put in place to AVOID REAL investigation and with limited authority, and then come down on me for "smear tactics" while taking a swipe at the "left". And then selectively quote the report obviously ignoring the many parts detailing the corruption and pathetic planning.
Oh well, I should have known to stay away from you RonB. Your skills of rhetoric are top notch.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:06:58 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Thanks Madmordegon. You have provide two services.
One, you have shown, yet again, that one of the very first things many on the left do when confronted with statements in opposition to their own position is to try to impugn the credibility of their opponent through smear tactics. Such tactics are necessary because the statements themselves cannot be shown to be untrue.
|
That is genius. Ignore that HE IS a Bush crony and is put in place to AVOID REAL investigation and with limited authority, and then come down on me for "smear tactics" while taking a swipe at the "left". And then selectively quote the report obviously ignoring the many parts detailing the corruption and pathetic planning.
Oh well, I should have known to stay away from you RonB. Your skills of rhetoric are top notch. |
Don't feel bad. He did the same thing to Bobby Kennedy, Jr.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:46:15 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Two, by posting the link to CSIS, you have ( inadvertently, I'm sure ) provided even more proof of the validity of Bowen's assertions.
In the conclusions of the CSIS article that YOU linked to:
"The chief impediment to the successful execution of Iraqâs economic reconstruction has been instability. Insurgency has successfully targeted economic assets that are crucial to the economic reconstruction of the country. A series of measures including creating physical buffer zones, increasing the troop presence near the facilities and introducing high technology equipment will help eliminate the constant drain. Other problems inherent in the management of the US aid effort exacerbate the negative effect of the insurgency."
Please note the introductory words "the CHIEF impediment".
|
I think that this quote from the executive summary better reflects the contents of the report:
"Insurgency has been a major obstacle to an effective reconstruction. However, shortcomings of the US aid planning and execution indicate that even if there was not an endemic insurgency in Iraq, the reconstruction would still be ineffective."
It is also odd that anti-Bushism should be regarded as being "left" wing. From my viewpoint, both major US parties are conservative parties with marginally differing views on liberalism. In the US (as I understand it), accusing someone of being left wing is something of a slur itself, given the historical animosity towards socialism. Indeed, socialism appears to have little to do with whether one state should invade another, or whether the restriction of freedom for the greater good is justifiable.
The more appropriate dynamic for RonB to criticise would be liberalism (ie people who believe in greater individual freedom and less state interference) as against the liberal conservativism (ie people who believe in greater state intervention and fewer personal liberties). Mr Bush (though I dare say that it needs no spelling out) is a liberal conservative.
I would note in this context that I am using the word "liberalism" with its technical meaning, without the McCarthy-esque overtones that I understand are sometimes read into the term in the US. I have previously been advised that US readers might better read "libertarianism" for "liberalism". However, I note that it is by accident of historical political activity in the US that liberal theory has been associated with a theory of social rights, not by any philosophical requirement.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 02:11:14 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by RonB:
... you have shown, yet again, that one of the very first things many on the left do when confronted with statements in opposition to their own position is to try to impugn the credibility of their opponent through smear tactics. |
If only they did that as effectively as the right, John Kerry would be President. But I guess "we've" finally learned what constitutes a winning strategy in this corrupt political system we're all saddled with now ... |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 02:49:42 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
... you have shown, yet again, that one of the very first things many on the left do when confronted with statements in opposition to their own position is to try to impugn the credibility of their opponent through smear tactics. |
If only they did that as effectively as the right, John Kerry would be President. But I guess "we've" finally learned what constitutes a winning strategy in this corrupt political system we're all saddled with now ... |
General. For me, John Kerry did more to keep himself out of office than any ad campaign or Swift Boat Veteran could've ever done. It truly seemed that it depended on what day you caught him on to find out how he felt about certain issues as he had a knack for condradicting himself. Sure, the Republicans exploited it but I can't fault them for that. I feel that the Democratic Party could've picked a better man for the job in someone like Joe Lieberman. It was just too difficult for Americans to connect with a John Kerry. Mind you, I am not a Republican OR Democrat but have went from an Independent to a registered Libertarian. It finally clicked with me that until we actually have a 3rd LEGITIMATE party to throw into the mix we're just staying on the same bumpy road that we've travelled for many years now.
I have been following this thread the last few days and only have one thought. I genuinely hope that the Americans arguing on both sides of the issue here are speaking their true beliefs rather than what their voter regestration card labels them as. There's too much of that going on in this country and we all suffer for it. I've seen Republicans complain about Clinton and the mistakes made in Somalia while defending Bush and the mistakes made in Iraq. I've seen Democrats say that Bush deliberitaly lied to the American people to start a war yet defend Clinton who admitted to lying under oath. The hypocrisy of our citizens will continue to contribute to the downfall of my great country. I look for the day that our leaders are finally held acountable for their actions.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:28:04 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
... you have shown, yet again, that one of the very first things many on the left do when confronted with statements in opposition to their own position is to try to impugn the credibility of their opponent through smear tactics. |
If only they did that as effectively as the right, John Kerry would be President. But I guess "we've" finally learned what constitutes a winning strategy in this corrupt political system we're all saddled with now ... |
General. For me, John Kerry did more to keep himself out of office than any ad campaign or Swift Boat Veteran could've ever done. |
Maybe so ... that might not have been the best example to illustrate the frequency and effectiveness of right-wing mud-slinging. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:36:58 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
Two, by posting the link to CSIS, you have ( inadvertently, I'm sure ) provided even more proof of the validity of Bowen's assertions.
In the conclusions of the CSIS article that YOU linked to:
"The chief impediment to the successful execution of Iraqâs economic reconstruction has been instability. Insurgency has successfully targeted economic assets that are crucial to the economic reconstruction of the country. A series of measures including creating physical buffer zones, increasing the troop presence near the facilities and introducing high technology equipment will help eliminate the constant drain. Other problems inherent in the management of the US aid effort exacerbate the negative effect of the insurgency."
Please note the introductory words "the CHIEF impediment".
|
I think that this quote from the executive summary better reflects the contents of the report:
"Insurgency has been a major obstacle to an effective reconstruction. However, shortcomings of the US aid planning and execution indicate that even if there was not an endemic insurgency in Iraq, the reconstruction would still be ineffective." |
You are quite correct, legalbeagle. That statement does better reflect the contents of the report. But Madmordegon's link to that report was made to buttress his assertion that "insurgents are not the main cause of reconstruction shortcomings". And I, therefore, limited my rebuttal to that specific charge, and intentionally did not attempt to address factors not specifically related to the charges made by Madmordegon.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It is also odd that anti-Bushism should be regarded as being "left" wing. From my viewpoint, both major US parties are conservative parties with marginally differing views on liberalism. In the US (as I understand it), accusing someone of being left wing is something of a slur itself, given the historical animosity towards socialism. Indeed, socialism appears to have little to do with whether one state should invade another, or whether the restriction of freedom for the greater good is justifiable.
The more appropriate dynamic for RonB to criticise would be liberalism (ie people who believe in greater individual freedom and less state interference) as against the liberal conservativism (ie people who believe in greater state intervention and fewer personal liberties). Mr Bush (though I dare say that it needs no spelling out) is a liberal conservative.
I would note in this context that I am using the word "liberalism" with its technical meaning, without the McCarthy-esque overtones that I understand are sometimes read into the term in the US. I have previously been advised that US readers might better read "libertarianism" for "liberalism". However, I note that it is by accident of historical political activity in the US that liberal theory has been associated with a theory of social rights, not by any philosophical requirement. |
Actually, I chose the term "the left" rather than the term "liberals" because in an earlier thread I learned, from you, that some in the European community did have a different understanding of "liberalism". Ref: explanation near the bottom of your 09/16/2005 08:24:41 AM posting in the thread, Bush, USA, Iraq, Hurricane.... So I thought that "the left" would be less confusing. Perhaps "American liberals" would convey the meaning better? |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:55:28 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
the Democratic Party could've picked a better man for the job in someone like Joe Lieberman. |
Yes, since he is indistinguishable from a Republican, he could have gotten more of the Republican vote. The only problem is that when Joe Lieberman wins then Joe Lieberman is the President. Yuck.
|
|
