Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Psychoblues said:Once again you're so full of shit, gunnyl. 'Tis absolutely true that Al Queda had a training camp in Northwest Iraq. 'Tis also absolutely true that the camp was located in a "NO-FLY ZONE". 'Tis also absolutely true that even Saddam Hussein begged for permission to take the camp out to the UN and more emphatically to the United States Of America. He was absolutely refused permission to do so. But, now you make the allegation Hussein and Iraqi peoples in general were somehow complicit in Al Queda objectives.
That's a crock you lemmings will have to deal with at a later date.
And GWB DID claim Iraq was a base for Al Queda and you just pointed that out.
Psyuchoblues
LuvRPgrl said:prior to your post, did you actually read the entire 48 pages? c'mon now, be honest.
Mariner said:I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that Bush never privately considered the downsides. Powell and others in his own circle tried to caution him. I meant that in public he showed nothing but pure confidence that his path was the only one and the right one. His naiveté and arrogance were such that he declared "Mission Accomplished" nearly 2000 dead U.S. soldiers ago. Many, many people outside the administration attempted to caution him of the risks of invading, and were also rebuffed. Brent Scowcroft, his own dad's best friend, said he could not get a hearing; he therefore went public with harsh op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. His own view as that neoCons were "liberals with guns" who had an overly idealistic idea of what could be accomplished in Iraq. The last 3 years have shown him to be far more with-it than Bush et al.
Mariner.
deaddude said:Did you? I read aproximately 10 pages before posting. I know for fact that Palestinian Jew read the entire 48.
Mariner said:I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that Bush never privately considered the downsides. Powell and others in his own circle tried to caution him. I meant that in public he showed nothing but pure confidence that his path was the only one and the right one. His naiveté and arrogance were such that he declared "Mission Accomplished" nearly 2000 dead U.S. soldiers ago. Many, many people outside the administration attempted to caution him of the risks of invading, and were also rebuffed. Brent Scowcroft, his own dad's best friend, said he could not get a hearing; he therefore went public with harsh op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. His own view as that neoCons were "liberals with guns" who had an overly idealistic idea of what could be accomplished in Iraq. The last 3 years have shown him to be far more with-it than Bush et al.
Mariner.
Mariner said:There was a book out about two years ago that detailed the contacts between terrorist organizations and various Mideast states. Iraq had fewer contacts than all the rest--hardly any. Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabi fundamentalism originated, would be a much more logical place to go looking for the supporters of Osama bin Laden. Syria is known to be a major supporter of terrorism. Iraq was a bit player at most.
Mariner.
Mariner said:want to talk about "spin," claiming that Bush was simply celebrating the carrier's mission being accomplished is about as far-fetched as you can get. Go back and read Bush's speech that day. He wasn't just talking about the carrier. He was talking out of complete and utter blissful ignorance of the potential for things to go wrong. In his world view, simply taking out Saddam would cause democracies to flower throughout the Mideast. He chose to ignore and sideline anyone who disagreed. Hence he deserves all the criticism we people who're driving you crazy can dole out. We're not doing it to drive you crazy--we're doing it 'cause Bush has driven us a bit crazy, to the tune of $6 billion a month for a war we didn't need.
Mariner.
Psychoblues said:Once again you're so full of shit, gunnyl. 'Tis absolutely true that Al Queda had a training camp in Northwest Iraq. 'Tis also absolutely true that the camp was located in a "NO-FLY ZONE". 'Tis also absolutely true that even Saddam Hussein begged for permission to take the camp out to the UN and more emphatically to the United States Of America. He was absolutely refused permission to do so. But, now you make the allegation Hussein and Iraqi peoples in general were somehow complicit in Al Queda objectives.
That's a crock you lemmings will have to deal with at a later date.
And GWB DID claim Iraq was a base for Al Queda and you just pointed that out.
Psyuchoblues
Mariner said:want to talk about "spin," claiming that Bush was simply celebrating the carrier's mission being accomplished is about as far-fetched as you can get. Go back and read Bush's speech that day. He wasn't just talking about the carrier. He was talking out of complete and utter blissful ignorance of the potential for things to go wrong. In his world view, simply taking out Saddam would cause democracies to flower throughout the Mideast. He chose to ignore and sideline anyone who disagreed. Hence he deserves all the criticism we people who're driving you crazy can dole out. We're not doing it to drive you crazy--we're doing it 'cause Bush has driven us a bit crazy, to the tune of $6 billion a month for a war we didn't need.
Mariner.
LuvRPgrl said:You always answer questions with questions?
only read 20% of it eh, yet you feel qualified to determine if it had signifcant info in it? ha!
I asked because you gave a blistering opinion of it, so what does it matter if PJ read the entire thing, YOU DIDNT, unless your opinion you posted is just parroting something PJ said to you in private.
Mariner said:GunnyL, that Bush knew perfectly well that there would be looting and an insurgency made up of 100s of new groups? That he was quite comfortable with the idea of 160,000 U.S. troops remaining in the country 3 years later at a monthly cost of $6 billion? That he predicted his disapproval ratings about the war would climb over 60%, but didn't care?
Come on, admit that he was clueless.
Mariner
By the way, today's New York Times has a good piece on torture in China. If being cruel to your citizens is our new threshold for invading, then we'd better get ready to start a new war with a bigger foe. Of course, we can't invade them, because they might really fight back, and because we depend on them to buy $4 billion a month of our treasury bonds in order to keep us from going bankrupt, under Tax and Borrow Republicanomics. In other words, we borrow from one torturer to finance our war on another.
Torture Is 'Widespread' in China, U.N. Investigator Says
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: December 3, 2005
BEIJING, Dec. 2 - A high-level United Nations investigator condemned the "widespread" use of torture in Chinese law enforcement and said Beijing must overhaul its criminal laws, grant more power to judges and abolish labor camps before it can end such abuses, according to a summary of his findings released Friday.
The investigation, by Manfred Nowak, the special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, noted some progress by Chinese officials in reducing violence against prisoners since the country signed an international covenant banning torture in 1988.
But Mr. Nowak said that "obtaining confessions" and fighting "deviant behavior" continued to be central goals of China's criminal justice system. The police and prison guards are pushed to extract admissions of guilt and are rarely punished for using electric shock, sleep deprivation and submersion in water or sewage, among other techniques the Commission on Human Rights considers torture, to obtain them, he said.
deaddude said:Yet you defend it and are unwilling to say whether you have read it at all.
I read 10 pages of it after which I started skiming it, looking for numbers gave any significant data. Didnt find any. Asked PJ if he found any, said no. Came to my conclusion. That means I have probably done more to come to my conclusion than you have and so feel more "qualified" as you put it, to have my "blistering opinion" of the plan than you have to defend it.
Mariner said:Re: China v. Iraq. Yes, you're right on all counts. But Bush openly played up Saddam's history of violent repression, talking about torture rooms and rape centers (almost all of which took place early in Saddam's rule, even before he was our ally in the Iran Iraq war under Reagan and was Dick Cheney's business partner via Dresser Industries, Cheney's Halliburtonn subsidiary). I'm simply contrasting Bush's willingness to "play the torture card" with Saddam with his weakness in similarly confronting China. As the neutral magazine "The Week" put it, Bush came back "most empty-handed" from his visit to China, completely empty-handed on human rights.
Mariner.
LuvRPgrl said:Earth to deaddude...
PLEASE show one sentence I made that would REQUIRE having read the entire document, in order to support my statement as fact.
I will point out yours ......."So rather than a war plan we get a vague 48 page insipid political ploy", how could you know this unless you read more than 20% of it.?
deaddude said:That would not reqire me to have read the entire thing. That would require me to have looked for any significant facts through out the entire thing. I did do that, I skimmed the enitire 48 pages for numbers or statistics, I found no significant data. I asked PJ (who DID read the enitre thing) if he found any, he said he hadn't. So again I feel more than enititled to my "blistering oppinion" of this "plan."
