RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing

RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 2:57:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Bush should have waited for the world to catch up. Saddam was an evil man--it was only a matter of time before the world saw fit to dispose of him. Simple case of speculation and conjecture on Your part...nothing more nothing less... Of course. Prognostication about the road not traveled is always speculation. Same can be said of pontifications about "Wrong enemy, wrong country, wrong war." The reality is we went into Iraq. We are in Iraq. We will be in Iraq. Any discussion about Iraq that proceeds from any other starting point is speculation by definition.

Alumbrado -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 2:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado No, you are supposed to plan and achieve specific military objectives.... http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2008/06/domestic-disturbances.html Sorry, I guess I thought the "planning" part was part of the process, I did not know it had to be mentioned. You plan long, hard and well-------> then you go all out, implementing your plan. It was the 'specific military objectives' part I was referring to... the military isn't in the nation building business, and whatever is going on in Iraq, it isn't a military objective.

slvemike4u -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 3:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Bush should have waited for the world to catch up. Saddam was an evil man--it was only a matter of time before the world saw fit to dispose of him. Simple case of speculation and conjecture on Your part...nothing more nothing less... Of course. Prognostication about the road not traveled is always speculation. Same can be said of pontifications about "Wrong enemy, wrong country, wrong war." The reality is we went into Iraq. We are in Iraq. We will be in Iraq. Any discussion about Iraq that proceeds from any other starting point is speculation by definition. Point well taken CL ,but should not the conversation be ,when are we getting out of Iraq.McCain hails the great sucess the surge has been,fine then we can start pulling out,but wait if the surge is due to the increase of combat trops we are in a classic catch -22 ...surge works less violence ...situation the same.Meanwhile the bill keeps risng both in the blood of U. S. serviceman,the grief of American families and the bill that will be presented to our children to finance this "victory"of Mr.Bush and Mr. Cheney...my question would be how much can our children afford to pay for relative peace in Iraq,how large a bill will we pass on...

celticlord2112 -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 3:16:15 PM)
quote: my question would be how much can our children afford to pay for relative peace in Iraq,how large a bill will we pass on... If we leave too soon, or depart not in good order, the legacy to the next generation will be one of war, not relative peace. It is a simple choice. The debt we leave the next generation can be denominated in dollars or in deaths. Which do you prefer?

slvemike4u -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 3:18:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: my question would be how much can our children afford to pay for relative peace in Iraq,how large a bill will we pass on... If we leave too soon, or depart not in good order, the legacy to the next generation will be one of war, not relative peace. It is a simple choice. The debt we leave the next generation can be denominated in dollars or in deaths. Which do you prefer? Certainly not the status quo in which we are ringing up both ,with no end in sight...and both the accountants bill and the butchers bill come with no clear cut advantage to the average American

pollux -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 3:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NumberSix Never had any, wasn't gonna get any. Never had any? What do you think all of those UN inspection agencies were for? UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, etc.? Why do you think Iraq was under UN sanction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/defectors.html Good lord, you can debate whether or not it was wise to invade Iraq, or whether it ought to have been known that much of his WMD stockpiles had been destroyed by 2003, but to say Iraq never had any WMD really is revisionist history.

Politesub53 -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 3:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: There is also no reason to believe he would build a chemical arsenal. There was every reason, chiefly his constant non-cooperation with the UN inspectors. I agree with CL. Dont forgot Iraq had used chemical weapons with great success against Iran and the Kurds already. I have stated on previous threads that although we should never have gone in, pulling out too soon will end in more bloodshed than staying put.

farglebargle -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 4:15:36 PM)
Using chemical weapons is a lot different than the lies Bush trotted out. BUSH CLAIMS ( it's still on the White House website folks... ) quote: * 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people * 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin * 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents # Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, ... high strength aluminum tubes .... I especially love the way the fucking WHITE HOUSE misspells aluminium. ( I know that 'aluminum' is a North American accepted usage, but given the worthlessness of the US Dollar, we better all start 'Thinking Euro'... )

Lordandmaster -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 4:37:16 PM)
That was George Orwell. (It's "continuous," not "continued.") quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome A wise man once said "the war is not meant to be won, the war is meant to be continued".

Owner59 -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 4:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: my question would be how much can our children afford to pay for relative peace in Iraq,how large a bill will we pass on... If we leave too soon, or depart not in good order, the legacy to the next generation will be one of war, not relative peace. It is a simple choice. The debt we leave the next generation can be denominated in dollars or in deaths. Which do you prefer? Prognostication about the road not traveled ,it seems. Why can`t we leave?The pro occupation guys have been wrong about everything else so far.Why not wrong on this point too? The place is toxic to al-queda,we know that.We also know that al-queda is only there only b/c we are there.We leave,they get kicked out. Win,win. So,.....why should we(our GIs) stay there?

bipolarber -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 4:53:54 PM)
We had to go into Iraq (at least according to the GOP) because if they had waited for the UN inspectors, the US media might have woken up, started asking questions, and would have made the population of the country realize they were being lied to. Bush, like Braer Rabbit, struck the Iraq tar baby hard, and with everything he had... and suddenly realized he was stuck, and left open to attacks at the lesiure of the predators there (the insurgency). Except in "Junior's" case, there's no briar patch to be thrown into, to be set free. The rest of the world is happy to see the US being brought down by this imbicile's misguided attempt at empire building. It's going to take decades, and trillions to undo the damage he and the GOP has done to our relations with the rest of the world, and the damage done at home. Next time, US, don't allow an idiot king to be installed... and then elected while in a state of fear.

sickboy777 -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 5:47:37 PM)
Get yerself a nice map of the middle east. Print it out. Now get a big YELLOW highlight marker and mark off all the nations which NATO now has airbase access to. Then grab yourself a BLUE marker and mark those nations which have NATO land troop presence. Now have a nice close look at what they surround. That's all I have to say on the matter... Once you complete this puzzle, everything will fall into place.

DarkSteven -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 6:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: my question would be how much can our children afford to pay for relative peace in Iraq,how large a bill will we pass on... If we leave too soon, or depart not in good order, the legacy to the next generation will be one of war, not relative peace. It is a simple choice. The debt we leave the next generation can be denominated in dollars or in deaths. Which do you prefer? There are two primary options, remaining in Iraq and withdrawing. Both are unacceptable. If we leave now, then Iraq will dissolve into civil war. Iran will probably take more of an interest to make sure that the outcome favors it. If we stay, then the current situation will remain of having a country at war with itself while US troops remain in harm's way. With no assurance whatsoever that things will improve. And the US public is growing increasingly tired so that a withdrawal will probably be forced on the government without significant progress in Iraq. Presenting the situation by showing that only one outcome is unacceptable, is not kosher.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 7:07:25 PM)
quote: Presenting the situation by showing that only one outcome is unacceptable, is not kosher. It is extremely kosher. Where there are two options, by definition one must be acceptable. We accept the consequences of the one option or we accept the consequences of the other. Two options leave no third alternative. For both options to be unacceptable, a third option must be advanced. Have you one in mind?

Alumbrado -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 8:10:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I especially love the way the fucking WHITE HOUSE misspells aluminium. ( I know that 'aluminum' is a North American accepted usage, but given the worthlessness of the US Dollar, we better all start 'Thinking Euro'... ) Actually 'aluminum' is the word that Sir Humphry Davy coined in 1812. The media later changed it to aluminium because it was apparently easier for reporters to remember calcium, barium, strontium, magnesium...and aluminium. Do you ever tire of being misled by the media?

DomKen -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 8:39:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I especially love the way the fucking WHITE HOUSE misspells aluminium. ( I know that 'aluminum' is a North American accepted usage, but given the worthlessness of the US Dollar, we better all start 'Thinking Euro'... ) Actually 'aluminum' is the word that Sir Humphry Davy coined in 1812. The media later changed it to aluminium because it was apparently easier for reporters to remember calcium, barium, strontium, magnesium...and aluminium. Do you ever tire of being misled by the media? Strange it seems that the scientist who improved the first practical method of extracting aluminium from bauxite wasn't a reporter but did title his book on the subject "De l'aluminium, ses propriétés, sa fabrication" in 1859. It also appears that the first use of the -ium spelling occured in a letter to a journal called the Quarterly Review in 1812. So where exactly does the media get involved in this?

Alumbrado -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/22/2008 8:46:03 PM)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=aluminum&searchmode=none http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/g/grodgers/ScientificTravelingWebsite/Davy.html It isn't so much that facts have changed, it is people's insistence on ignoring them.

Politesub53 -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/23/2008 3:36:52 AM)
I guess it all depends on your reference source, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was neither Aluminium or Aluminum, but Alumium. Nomenclature history The earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral Alumina. The citation is from his journal Philosophical Transactions: "Had I been so fortunate as..to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium."

meatcleaver -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/23/2008 4:39:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux quote: ORIGINAL: NumberSix Never had any, wasn't gonna get any. Never had any? What do you think all of those UN inspection agencies were for? UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, etc.? Why do you think Iraq was under UN sanction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/defectors.html Good lord, you can debate whether or not it was wise to invade Iraq, or whether it ought to have been known that much of his WMD stockpiles had been destroyed by 2003, but to say Iraq never had any WMD really is revisionist history. Surely WMD is a moot point. My guess is the term WMD was used because it is vague and imprecise. It allows the politicians wanting this war to later define what ever is found as proof Iraq had WMDs, whatevder they might end up being. Unfortunately nothing was found that could be passed off as WMDs without a loud guffaw from those that said Iraq had none currently. However, I've often wondered what bombs, missiles and other military hardware is if they aren't WMD. Enough innocent Iraqis have been killed without the use of WMDs but merely with the intervention of an illegal force with conventional weapons. Talk about Newspeak!

pollux -> RE: The Facts in Iraq Are Changing (6/23/2008 10:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: pollux quote: ORIGINAL: NumberSix Never had any, wasn't gonna get any. Never had any? What do you think all of those UN inspection agencies were for? UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, etc.? Why do you think Iraq was under UN sanction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/defectors.html Good lord, you can debate whether or not it was wise to invade Iraq, or whether it ought to have been known that much of his WMD stockpiles had been destroyed by 2003, but to say Iraq never had any WMD really is revisionist history. Surely WMD is a moot point. My guess is the term WMD was used because it is vague and imprecise. It allows the politicians wanting this war to later define what ever is found as proof Iraq had WMDs, whatevder they might end up being. Unfortunately nothing was found that could be passed off as WMDs without a loud guffaw from those that said Iraq had none currently. However, I've often wondered what bombs, missiles and other military hardware is if they aren't WMD. Enough innocent Iraqis have been killed without the use of WMDs but merely with the intervention of an illegal force with conventional weapons. Talk about Newspeak! The post I responded to claimed that Iraq never had any WMD, a term which has a clear and precise definition, both now and before the Iraq war. It refers to weapons whose effects are particularly broad and indisciminate, specifically: nuclear, chemical, and biowarfare agents. The claim that Iraq never had any such weapons is empirically false.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125