I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.



<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> > The noble cause is millions (MILLIONS) of people freed from oppression
and
> > tyranny.
>

You do realize the tyrranist was just changed rather than removed
altogether? There is nothing the USA, the EU, or the freakin' AMB can do to
resolve tribal conflict without resorting to removing one tribe or the other
from the face of the earth.

> I don't recall that as being the reason set forth when Congress
> approved action.

And if that were the reason then I would say there were many much better
candidates for help than Iraq.

Greg
 
[email protected] wrote:

> I'm amazed that there are people out there who are shocked about why
> everyone isn't on-board with this action.

And you accuse others of using straw men!

Nice.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to
>> see
>> through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources
>> (including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
>> could.
>
> Well, you select the stuff that supports your position, remove all the
> weasel words when presented "in summary", hide the originals behind
> "top secret", never to see the light of day, present the summary, in a
> further summary, to the public as truth, then stand back and watch
> everyone fall into line.
>

It's worse than that. He knew we were going to war with Iraq before he even
had this information. That is public record.
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I'm amazed that there are people out there who are shocked about why
> > everyone isn't on-board with this action.
>
> And you accuse others of using straw men!

No strawman at all. The statement stands by itself, and does not
supply attitudes or ideas where they do not exist, in an attempt to
discredit the holders of the attitudes. There are people who are
shocked that not everyone is on-board with the Iraq war. I know at
least two of those folks personally.

I am amazed by these folks.

So, go ahead and point out the strawman, Mr. Logic.

E.P.
 
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:25:29 GMT, Bill Sornson wrote:

> So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to see
> through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources
> (including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
> could.

Ultimately a leader is responsible for the conduct within his
administration. The Senate review found that there were plenty of people
in the intelligence community who were aware that most of their
"iron-clad" intelligence was just speculation and heresay. This was
information that could have saved tens of thousands of lives. There were
TWO WEEKS between our initial decision to go to war and crossing the Iraqi
border, yet in all that time NOTHING got communicated? This was either a
huge cover-up or a huge screw-up. Either way HIS administration failed to
do its job.

> The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone would
> be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just because it's
> turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome than anticipated
> doesn't change the initial reasons and eventual hoped-for outcome.

I read the congressional agreement, and it didn't say word one about
overthrowing a government and/or installing a democracy. If things had
"gone well" based on the "initial reasons", we'd have found and destroyed
the WMD and so-called links to terrorism that the Bush administartion
claimed existed.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I'm amazed that there are people out there who are shocked about why
>>> everyone isn't on-board with this action.
>>
>> And you accuse others of using straw men!
>
> No strawman at all. The statement stands by itself, and does not
> supply attitudes or ideas where they do not exist, in an attempt to
> discredit the holders of the attitudes. There are people who are
> shocked that not everyone is on-board with the Iraq war. I know at
> least two of those folks personally.
>
> I am amazed by these folks.
>
> So, go ahead and point out the strawman, Mr. Logic.

In the context you wrote it, it was diversionary (or at least off-point).
No one on here (that I recall) has expressed "shock" that some people aren't
"on-board" with the Iraq war. (Seems more like people are shocked that some
still SUPPORT it, in fact.)
--
Ray Bolger
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> In the context you wrote it, it was diversionary (or at least off-point).

It *was* an aside. But, like I said, I did not assign anyone a
position and then try and attack that position. It was sort of
"peripherally related" to the topic at hand.

> No one on here (that I recall) has expressed "shock" that some people aren't
> "on-board" with the Iraq war.

No, not in this particular thread. But then again, I never claimed it
for anyone in the thread.

If you will re-read my original comment, I was expressing *my*
amazement - not addressing anyone else's attitude, except in terms of
my opinion.

And knock off the Carl Fogel impression - it's bad enough when *he*
does it.

:)

E.P.
 
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:02:44 -0700, G.T. wrote:

> You do realize the tyrranist was just changed rather than removed
> altogether? There is nothing the USA, the EU, or the freakin' AMB can do to
> resolve tribal conflict without resorting to removing one tribe or the other
> from the face of the earth.

Its quite possible that the three distinct provinces could be given
greater autonomy. Much of the escalation of tribal conflicts began after
the British started drawing borders where there were none before.

Of course, that would require the new central government to give up some
of its power, something that governments are typically reluctant to do.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
 
[email protected] wrote:

> And knock off the Carl Fogel impression - it's bad enough when *he*
> does it.

Dear...um, 'E',

That's about as close to Carl's style as I'll ever get :)

(You can tell by my one short paragraph versus his 18 /long/ ones.)

Hit & Run BS
 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Mark Hickey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The fact remains that the vast majority of statesmanship is done over
>> >> the phone.
>> >
>> >Yeah, the POTUS telecommutes.
>>
>> This is actually NEWS to you?
>
>I was being sarcastic.
>
>I can see you're twisting yourself in knots to back "your guy." It
>makes you look kinda silly.

Not at all - I was correcting mistaken assumptions - nothing more,
nothing less. Woulda done the same thing for Bill Clinton had someone
suggested his "vacations" were non-working ones.

>But hey, being the POTUS is "hard work." And he's "working hard", I'm
>sure.

Think you'd last three days?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>Raptor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
>>>>available information knew that.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...
>>
>>They have been proved right.
>
>
> They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL

No, they voted to authorize the president to use force, or "all means
necessary" or somesuch.

AAMOF, it was an abdication of responsibility by the Congress. Sanity
was in short supply in February 2003.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior -
>>>>our *principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And
>>>>when we violate our own principles, we need to call those who
>>>>do it on the carpet.
>>>
>>>
>>>We do. And did.
>>
>>The second you cite "their" behavior as mitigating, you betray
>>yourself.
>
>
> Where did I cite "their" behavior at all? Based on your recent flurry of
> posts, I'm curious as to what you're reading!

A quick check of the records immediately available doesn't show that
you've written anything remotely justifying "our" worst behavior by
pointing to "their" worst behavior. You've talked around the subject a
great deal, but never crossed that line. To this extent, I stand corrected.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>
>>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Raptor wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Raptor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at
>>>>>>the available information knew that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...
>>>>
>>>>They have been proved right.
>>>
>>>They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL
>>>
>>
>>Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US. With
>>that kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it?
>
>
> So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to see
> through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources
> (including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
> could.

The ONLY logical conclusion based on the evidence of the day was that we
had no evidence that Saddam had any WMDs on hand, let alone the means to
deliver them. Anything else was incorrect.

> The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone would
> be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just because it's
> turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome than anticipated
> doesn't change the initial reasons and eventual hoped-for outcome. Only a
> premature withdrawal can accomplish that.

I happen to agree with your last statement. We leave prematurely at our
peril. The damage we are taking is tolerable. It is, after all, a war.
The plan currently in place shows every sign of working, eventually.

I for one would have stuck to my position, that it was a very bad idea,
regardless of the outcome. It was a pretty safe bet that it was going to
be a horrible mess given the singleminded rush to war and all the snake
oil being spouted. Had it worked out as well as it possibly could have
(for this version, just listen to **** Cheney even today), I would've
breathed a sigh of relief that it actually worked.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>>I see plenty of indignation over any legitimate abuse that occurred at
>>>AG. Heck, it was front page on the New York Times for weeks.
>>>Fortunately, those who are responsible are being punished
>>>appropriately - that's how our system works. I should point out that
>>>the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make
>>>being stacked naked look like a picnic.
>>
>>>OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
>>>up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
>>>outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.
>>
>>>Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
>>>by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
>>>all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?
>>
>>The only passes I see being handed out are by people who actually try to
>>argue that we're so much better.
>>
>>It's NOT about them. It's NOT about who our enemy is.
>>
>>It is about US: you, me, our country.
>
>
> Which is why the guards who did it are now in prison. That's how our
> system works, and I am glad of it. What's your point? That any
> individual action by any one individual in the military is your fault
> personally?

What about the civilian contractors who ordered - or suggested - the
abuse? What about the commander of the unit? What about everyone who
knew about it?

What about the commander in chief who orders his legal staff to find out
whether our forces are or should be constrained to the Geneva Conventions?

>>WHO are we? WHAT do we stand for? WHAT is this war about, again?
>>
>>The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
>>look "not so bad" is flat wrong. To do so is to deny your sense of honor
>>and discipline, if indeed you have any. To refrain from swooping down
>>like an avenging angel on this cancer that has invaded the ranks of our
>>military is a source of shame to all Americans, whether we ever wore the
>>uniform or not.
>
>
> Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". Who do you know that says what
> went on in AG *IS* acceptable? What more do you want the military to
> do? Decapitate the guards involved?

I just have a problem any time someone tries the old, "Well, they're so
much worse," line, like you have.

>>Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be
>>"the good guy." We are not.
>
>
> So let me get this straight - the actions of a few bonehead guards in
> Iraq cancel out anything else positive the US has done.

Where it counts most, on the muslim street, they come pretty damn close.

>>This is just another example of our <ahem> leaders leading us astray.
>>Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress.
>
>
> OK - I'll give you a chance to prove you're not just another misguided
> blog-poisoned soul. Show me some evidence that the abuse of common
> criminals in AG was orchestrated by the administration, or of the
> administration condoning that behavior.
>
> Surely after your rant above, this shouldn't prove difficult. Put
> your facts where your opinion is...

See the Geneva Convention topic above.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
> powerful!

Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective
delivery systems.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>cc wrote:
>>> I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above
>>> points,
>>> but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our
>>> media
>>> is biased toward the left wing. It is owned by transnational
>>> corporations,
>>> whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our
>>> so-called
>>> two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from
>>> self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of
>>> dissident
>>> opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much
>>> reflects
>>> the interests of its owners.
>>
>>It would be instructive for some to research the organization backing
>>the Sean Hannity radio show.
>
> Ummmm, that would be the sponsors. It would be easier to research the
> sponsors of Air America though (since it's such a small group). ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark,

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for
is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a big
girl riding
a scooter, it is fun to watch though.

I've been to Iraq several times in the past few years (and many other places
where we
are "oppressing" the local innocents.

We aren't the bad guys in this equation and the majority of the thinking
people in the world know it.

Marty
 
Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
>> powerful!
>
>Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective
>delivery systems.

Then why did the UN ever impose sanctions and keep them on for all
those years?

Check out the March 2003 UNMOVIC (weapons inspection) report if you
really want to know what they thought Iraq had. I'll warn you it'll
disagree with the blog you are reading now (the one that claims none
of the intelligence agencies or UN thought Saddam had WMD).

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf

It's OK to have different opinions about what should have happened
regarding Iraq, but those opinions should all be based on fact.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Raptor wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Raptor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
>>>>>available information knew that.
>>>>
>>>>Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...
>>>
>>>They have been proved right.
>>
>> They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL
>
>No, they voted to authorize the president to use force, or "all means
>necessary" or somesuch.
>
>AAMOF, it was an abdication of responsibility by the Congress. Sanity
>was in short supply in February 2003.

I agree that - if your claim that there was no evidence that Saddam
had WMD was true - the Congress was insane to vote as they did.

The Congress are a lot of things - partisan, petty, self-serving, and
sanctimonious... but they, as a group, are NOT insane. A few of the
individuals OTOH.... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"Marty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark,
>
> Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
>for
>is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a big
>girl riding
>a scooter, it is fun to watch though.

I'm not sure anything I've ever done has been compared to a "big girl
riding a scooter" before... I'm going to try to NOT keep that mental
picture in my mind when I do this in the future... ;-)

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion when I participate in these
threads. My goal is to correct factual misperceptions, and there are
a HOST of them. The problem is that when people have seriously flawed
understanding of the actual historical facts involved (like "Raptor's"
belief that none of the pre-war intelligence suggested Iraq had WMD),
the person has no choice but to extend that reasoning to other events
(and in his case, that would include the Congress acting in an
"insane" manner and the UN imposing over a decade of sanctions for no
reason, for example).

It's a complex issue, but one that can only be intelligently discussed
once we all agree on the facts. There's still room for plenty of
differing opinions about what should have happened, but starting from
a factual basis means that the discussion could be worthwhile.
Otherwise we may as well discuss how Frodo should have handled the
whole ring thing. ;-)

>I've been to Iraq several times in the past few years (and many other places
>where we
>are "oppressing" the local innocents.
>
>We aren't the bad guys in this equation and the majority of the thinking
>people in the world know it.

I wish our media would focus in a balanced manner on the positive and
negative things happening in Iraq. It's the mantra of those who are
actually there - that there IS so many good things going on, but that
those things never reach the eyes and ears of the public. I don't
think this is so much because of bias in the media, but because "good
news doesn't sell". It's much the same in domestic news, though the
local news broadcasts / newspapers tend to take at least some time for
"good news".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
I guess...
Replies
18
Views
737
Mountain Bikes
john
J
L
I guess it is Ned Overrend or Overend
Replies
0
Views
401
Mountain Bikes
LIBERATOR
L
C
Flat guess how
Replies
6
Views
343
Mountain Bikes
Dave W
D
S
New game: Guess the weight
Replies
5
Views
735
Mountain Bikes
Bill Wheeler
B
Jade
Hardrock Challenge - help guess my bike's age
Replies
14
Views
9K
Mountain Bikes
scottz123
scottz123
Top Bottom Back