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

[Mark Hickey]

Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>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?

She got busted big-time. I don't recall if she was put in prison for
being involved, or just demoted for not knowing what was happening.
As I recall, the findings were that she was an inept manager rather
than being involved in the abuse.

>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?

He's a mountain biker? What about him? Why wouldn't he ask that
question - it's a very valid question. You are aware, aren't you,
that the discussion about the GC resulted in the administration
ordering that our personnel stay well within the limits of acceptable
treatment of prisoners, right? Maybe not...

>>>The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
>>>look "not so bad" is flat wrong. <snip>
>>
>> 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.

Ummmmm..... I've read the above a few times, and have NO idea what
you're talking about. I didn't even mention "them". I asked who you
think HAS condoned the behavior of the AG guards. Are you dodging the
question?

>>>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.

You share that with them then - that the overwhelming good behavior
and support of a hundred thousand plus sincere American troops can be
erased by a half-dozen prison guards. You can believe that's logical
if you like (though it dooms you to never being able to believe in any
organization larger than a couple dozen individuals).

>>>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.

Thanks for verifying that "you got nuthin'". I knew you couldn't find
anything at all, but wondered how you'd respond.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Marty]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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

My friend, you have a way with words and I like to read them. Especially
because I agree with them!!

I'm pretty sure that most of the reason why I don't engage more often is
that
I'm NOT that skilled (ask my wife!). I know what's right and I know what's
wrong. I know what
works and I know what doesn't. Thankfully, my gov't doesn't keep me on the
payroll
because of my skill with words.

Keep hammering.

Marty

 

[BB]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:

> Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
> for is without purpose.

Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
country 'stands for'?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

 

[Mark Hickey]

BB <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:
>
>> Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
>> for is without purpose.
>
>Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
>a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
>country 'stands for'?

A majority thought it wasn't a mistake at the time. A majority think
we should stay and finish what we started.

So, yes. To cut and run now would be the very antithesis of what this
country stands for.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Marty]

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:
>
>> Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
>> for is without purpose.
>
> Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
> a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
> country 'stands for'?
>
> --
> -BB-
> To e-mail me, unmunge my address

I don't know what the majority of Americans think and I frankly don't care.
I don't believe polls are ever correct and I certainly don't believe what we
are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

What bothers me most is that a vocal minority want to see this nation fail
soley because
they don't like this President. At this stage of the game if it's bad for
America it's bad
for Bush and therefore good politics. It must suck to wake up every day and
hope for
bad news.

Marty

 

[G.T.]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:
> >
> >> Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it
stands
> >> for is without purpose.
> >
> >Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
> >a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
> >country 'stands for'?
>
> A majority thought it wasn't a mistake at the time. A majority think
> we should stay and finish what we started.
>

Brilliant thinking. Stay in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Brilliant.

Greg

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> 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).

The only blog I ever take the time to read is Riverbend's, which
describes her family's day-to-day life in Iraq.

No, this is all based on my knowledge gained through independent
examination of the available public knowledge. The information needed to
make cogent decisions is there, if one only bothers to look and think.

> 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.

The intelligence of the day has been widely aired. Sure, there was
plenty of evidence to suspect Saddam of carrying on WMD research or,
shall we say, "Weapons of Mass Desctruction program related activities."
There was no evidence that he HAD WMD or delivery systems.

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

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> 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?

Missed this part.

The sanctions were, of course, imposed because in 1991 Saddam most
clearly did have WMD material and weapons. Those items were destroyed
over succeeding years. Starting approximately 1998, when the UN
inspectors left, there was no evidence that Saddam had any WMD left.

Sure we couldn't trust him. But we still had no evidence, just
suspicions and a track record. That's perfectly reasonable justification
for continued sanctions and pressure of a variety of means, but when
you're talking about starting a hot war on the strength of suspicions
and history, you need to be exceedingly careful.

Had Shrub handled things property and patiently, I would have fully
supported a decision to invade Iraq when the time was right. There was a
hell of a lot that needed to be done that was not done before March 03,
and you and I are paying the price for this incompetence and impatience.

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

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

To anyone following this besides Mark and I: Sorry for polluting a.m-b
with so much OT. I hate letting a careful discussion about this stupid
war go, since they're relatively rare. I'll be doing my part to put this
to rest in the immediate future.

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>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?
>
>
> She got busted big-time. I don't recall if she was put in prison for
> being involved, or just demoted for not knowing what was happening.
> As I recall, the findings were that she was an inept manager rather
> than being involved in the abuse.

Those MI contractors need to be sanctioned. Anyone who knew about the
abuse but did nothing needs to be busted.

>>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?
>
> He's a mountain biker? What about him? Why wouldn't he ask that
> question - it's a very valid question. You are aware, aren't you,
> that the discussion about the GC resulted in the administration
> ordering that our personnel stay well within the limits of acceptable
> treatment of prisoners, right? Maybe not...

Just asking the question betrays our motives and demeans our standards.

How can we claim to all concerned (including the very skeptical) that we
are the good guys, having openly pondered just how bad we can get away
acting and still be good?

>>>>The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
>>>>look "not so bad" is flat wrong. <snip>
>>>
>>>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.
>
> Ummmmm..... I've read the above a few times, and have NO idea what
> you're talking about. I didn't even mention "them". I asked who you
> think HAS condoned the behavior of the AG guards. Are you dodging the
> question?

You have mentioned "them" at other times. You've drawn such comparisons.
You, and others including those in our government, have compared our
worst behavior to their (terrorist's) worst, as if it matters. It
doesn't. We have our standards, and if they're not adhered to, they stop
being standards.

>>>>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.
>
>
> You share that with them then - that the overwhelming good behavior
> and support of a hundred thousand plus sincere American troops can be
> erased by a half-dozen prison guards. You can believe that's logical
> if you like (though it dooms you to never being able to believe in any
> organization larger than a couple dozen individuals).

I'm talking here in terms of feelings: public reaction. Wars, especially
those fought against nouns like "terrorism", are as much marketing
campaigns as they are armed contests. In that regard, I wouldn't blame a
single Muslim or Arab for wondering who is the good guy in this fight.

If we want to snuff out terrorism as much as possible, we are going
about it in the wrong way. Every time we screw up the PR side, we're
creating a new terrorist(s). Scratch that goal.

I'm also talking in terms of ideals: who we are and what we stand for.
If our standards are not followed exclusively, and violations of them
responded to thoroughly, our whole purpose, the whole set of goals,
risks failure.

How can one interpret such comparisons as I'm pointing to ("they're so
much worse") as anything short of expressing tolerance, even a little
bit, for those who violate our standards?

>>>>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.
>
>
> Thanks for verifying that "you got nuthin'". I knew you couldn't find
> anything at all, but wondered how you'd respond.

That's still a very open topic. If you can manage to dismiss this
unprecedented step by this administration (actually inquiring as to
whether we're beholden to the GC), THEN I got (close to) nothin.

You're a grunt in the US Army: What message does such a step send you?
Some of those kids are going to start thinking that this time it
actually matters that some of our enemies don't all measure up to snuff
as "human".

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

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

Marty wrote:
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
>>>for is without purpose.
>>
>>Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
>>a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
>>country 'stands for'?
>>
>>--
>>-BB-
>>To e-mail me, unmunge my address
>
>
> I don't know what the majority of Americans think and I frankly don't care.
> I don't believe polls are ever correct and I certainly don't believe what we
> are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

What we are doing in Afghanistan is most certainly NOT a mistake. The
only mistakes made there are: failure to capture or kill Osama, and
diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Iraq was a bad idea, and has been executed by the civilian leadership
with almost uniform failure. I am stunned - no exaggeration - by how
badly this war has been run by the civilians.

In contrast, I am nearly overwhelmed by the competence, bravery and
sacrifice of our armed forces in the execution of those same flawed
orders. Our forces are succeeding and will succeed, I hope, DESPITE
their leaders.

> What bothers me most is that a vocal minority want to see this nation fail
> soley because
> they don't like this President. At this stage of the game if it's bad for
> America it's bad
> for Bush and therefore good politics. It must suck to wake up every day and
> hope for
> bad news.

You need to step out of the neo-conservative bubble to see more shades
of gray in the world and others. We're not all either-or. I'm American
first, Democrat second.

If this Iraq thing turns out quite well, and as a result a Republican or
worse, another neo-con, wins election in 2008, it'll be overall a
positive thing for America. I'll begrudge the "other side" its victory
and bemoan the damage in other areas that would be done, but so be it.

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

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Mark Hickey]

Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> 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).
>
>The only blog I ever take the time to read is Riverbend's, which
>describes her family's day-to-day life in Iraq.
>
>No, this is all based on my knowledge gained through independent
>examination of the available public knowledge. The information needed to
>make cogent decisions is there, if one only bothers to look and think.
>
>> 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.
>
>The intelligence of the day has been widely aired. Sure, there was
>plenty of evidence to suspect Saddam of carrying on WMD research or,
>shall we say, "Weapons of Mass Desctruction program related activities."
>There was no evidence that he HAD WMD or delivery systems.

You can't POSSIBLY have actually read the UNMOVIC report and still
hold that opinion. You'd also have to entirely ignore the impetus
that drove the UN to impose sanctions on Iraq, and a large majority
ofthe US Congress to vote for war.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Missed this part.
>
>The sanctions were, of course, imposed because in 1991 Saddam most
>clearly did have WMD material and weapons. Those items were destroyed
>over succeeding years. Starting approximately 1998, when the UN
>inspectors left, there was no evidence that Saddam had any WMD left.

Gee, then why did the UN waste all that money looking for the WMD? Or
perhaps you could enlighten me on the documentation that backs up this
destruction of all the WMD. Seems to me that the rest of us remember
NOT having any evidence of destruction of the WMD...

>Sure we couldn't trust him. But we still had no evidence, just
>suspicions and a track record. That's perfectly reasonable justification
>for continued sanctions and pressure of a variety of means, but when
>you're talking about starting a hot war on the strength of suspicions
>and history, you need to be exceedingly careful.

All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his known
stores of WMD. Of course, doing so will propel you to an
ubercelebrity on the talk show circuit, so be careful...

>Had Shrub handled things property and patiently, I would have fully
>supported a decision to invade Iraq when the time was right. There was a
>hell of a lot that needed to be done that was not done before March 03,
>and you and I are paying the price for this incompetence and impatience.

Monday morning quarterbacking is a popular, though essentially
pointless "sport". Given the information we were working with at the
time, I supported the decisions made. Had we all known NOW what we
knew THEN it would have been different. But so what? If that was the
case, I would have retired filthy rich from playing the stock market.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> BB <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:
>> >
>> >> Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it
>stands
>> >> for is without purpose.
>> >
>> >Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
>> >a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
>> >country 'stands for'?
>>
>> A majority thought it wasn't a mistake at the time. A majority think
>> we should stay and finish what we started.
>
>Brilliant thinking. Stay in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Brilliant.

Using the word "quagmire" a bunch o' times doesn't make it so.

Very few suggest pulling out immediately - that would be a bit like
paying off half your mortgage and moving out. If the Iraqis and
Afghanis can form working democracies that region will be transformed
over the next couple decades. Pulling out now would pretty much
guarantee chaos.

Just remember, the terrorists are pulling out all the stops because
they know how effective a successful democracy in Iraq will be.
They're coming in from all over the region to disrupt the process. If
a democracy wasn't a threat to them, they'd be doing other things.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>> She got busted big-time. I don't recall if she was put in prison for
>> being involved, or just demoted for not knowing what was happening.
>> As I recall, the findings were that she was an inept manager rather
>> than being involved in the abuse.
>
>Those MI contractors need to be sanctioned. Anyone who knew about the
>abuse but did nothing needs to be busted.

If you can find proof of others who knew about the abuse, offer it up.
I'm in total agreement that anyone who sanctioned the abuse should be
punished to the fullest extent of the law.

>>>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?
>>
>> He's a mountain biker? What about him? Why wouldn't he ask that
>> question - it's a very valid question. You are aware, aren't you,
>> that the discussion about the GC resulted in the administration
>> ordering that our personnel stay well within the limits of acceptable
>> treatment of prisoners, right? Maybe not...
>
>Just asking the question betrays our motives and demeans our standards.

And NOT clarifying the standards is a GOOD thing? Your logic escapes
me.

>How can we claim to all concerned (including the very skeptical) that we
>are the good guys, having openly pondered just how bad we can get away
>acting and still be good?

No one claims that we weren't trying to coerce prisoners into talking
(and I'm NOT talking about AG). Doing this requires methods you'd
hate to see used on your mother, no doubt. But there are accepted
methods that fall well within the boundaries of the Geneva Convention.
A query about the legalities involved in inerrogating non-military
prisoners was a prudent thing to do. This is all new territory.

>>>>>The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
>>>>>look "not so bad" is flat wrong. <snip>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> Ummmmm..... I've read the above a few times, and have NO idea what
>> you're talking about. I didn't even mention "them". I asked who you
>> think HAS condoned the behavior of the AG guards. Are you dodging the
>> question?
>
>You have mentioned "them" at other times. You've drawn such comparisons.
>You, and others including those in our government, have compared our
>worst behavior to their (terrorist's) worst, as if it matters. It
>doesn't. We have our standards, and if they're not adhered to, they stop
>being standards.

You keep intentionally mixing the conduct of the guards at AG with the
sanctioned efforts of the government. I have NO problem with the
sanctioned methods used to interrogate prisoners in the region. You
might. But I've also stated that NO ONE condones the abuse that
happened at AG - which is an entirely different subject.

>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> You share that with them then - that the overwhelming good behavior
>> and support of a hundred thousand plus sincere American troops can be
>> erased by a half-dozen prison guards. You can believe that's logical
>> if you like (though it dooms you to never being able to believe in any
>> organization larger than a couple dozen individuals).
>
>I'm talking here in terms of feelings: public reaction. Wars, especially
>those fought against nouns like "terrorism", are as much marketing
>campaigns as they are armed contests. In that regard, I wouldn't blame a
>single Muslim or Arab for wondering who is the good guy in this fight.

Maybe the one who's not blowing up women and children? Just a
thought...

But here I'm going to do MY part to stop the OT blather and quit...
;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[BB]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:55:01 -0400, Marty wrote:

> What bothers me most is that a vocal minority want to see this nation fail
> soley because they don't like this President. At this stage of the game
> if it's bad for America it's bad for Bush and therefore good politics.
> It must suck to wake up every day and hope for bad news.

Perhaps you should understand your enemy better. When people express
concern and dismay about soldiers and civilians getting killed, I really
don't think they're hoping soldiers and civilians will get killed.

And if the media is too focused on bad news, its only because bad news
sells. The US media focuses almost solely on bad news everywhere. TBS used
to have a Saturday morning show called "Good News" that focused solely on
good news, but they cancelled it within a year.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >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.

I didn't even suggest such a thing. Stop making stuff up.

> >But hey, being the POTUS is "hard work." And he's "working hard", I'm
> >sure.
>
> Think you'd last three days?

Yes. I'd last the whole two terms.

E.P.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>I didn't even suggest such a thing. Stop making stuff up.

My response (which you took exception to) was on the subject you
mention. What's the problem?

>> >But hey, being the POTUS is "hard work." And he's "working hard", I'm
>> >sure.
>>
>> Think you'd last three days?
>
>Yes. I'd last the whole two terms.

Thankfully, we'll never know... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >I didn't even suggest such a thing. Stop making stuff up.
>
> My response (which you took exception to) was on the subject you
> mention. What's the problem?

You're responding, currently, to me. If you meant to *not* include me
in your generalization, you should have explicitly stated as much.

>From what I can tell, not one person has said that GWB's vacations were
non-working ones. You just made that up.

> >> >But hey, being the POTUS is "hard work." And he's "working hard", I'm
> >> >sure.
> >>
> >> Think you'd last three days?
> >
> >Yes. I'd last the whole two terms.
>
> Thankfully, we'll never know... ;-)

Why "thankfully?" You have absolutely no clue about my politics, or my
positions on any issue, save my cautious stance on the Iraq war.

But hey, when you suggest that a *mere mortal* wouldn't last three
days, then that must mean that your hero must be some sort of demigod
to be able to hack that Oval Office gig, huh?

Sheesh. Yet *another* Loretta Lynn usenet denizen.

E.P.

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Or
> perhaps you could enlighten me on the documentation that backs up this
> destruction of all the WMD. Seems to me that the rest of us remember
> NOT having any evidence of destruction of the WMD...

Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.

> All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his known
> stores of WMD.

Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.

>
> Monday morning quarterbacking is a popular, though essentially
> pointless "sport".

This isn't football. This is *war*. People die on purpose in war.

There's sort of a different standard when it comes to waging war -
something I suspect you don't understand. You can't merely believe
that you are right - you actually have to *be* right.


> Given the information we were working with at the
> time, I supported the decisions made.

You have top secret clearance? Wow. I thought you were just a guy who
trained PRC defense workers.

Somehow, I'm guessing you don't really have top secret clearance, and
that you never read any of the intelligence reports.

> Had we all known NOW what we
> knew THEN it would have been different.

I think you meant to swap the NOW and THEN portions of that statement.
We could have known then what we know now - if there'd have been the
appropriate amount of patience for the resumed inspection regime to
continue.

> But so what?

Tell that to the relatives of the dead men and women. I'd bet you take
a fist or two in the nose. But you wouldn't have the guts to say it to
their faces.


> If that was the
> case, I would have retired filthy rich from playing the stock market.

For some reason, you think that the WMD question was unknowable.
That's an extremely simple-minded assessment.

All of the above doesn't matter one whit. Saddam's regime violated the
terms of the cease-fire when he targeted coalition aircraft. In
addition, he violated another term of the cease-fire when he kicked out
the inspectors. Those two things alone should have been justification
enough. But going all wild on the WMD/al Qaida connections BS as sole
justification was just plain stupid.

Except as an "ends-justify-the-means" method of getting Congress to
authorize war. Which is really what it was all about. Plain old
bare-knuckle politics.

I still gotta wonder - if those 150k troops would have been in Tora
Bora when we knew Bin Laden was still there - would Bin Laden be in a
U.S. prison right now? Now *there's* an unknowable question.

E.P.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Or
>> perhaps you could enlighten me on the documentation that backs up this
>> destruction of all the WMD. Seems to me that the rest of us remember
>> NOT having any evidence of destruction of the WMD...
>
>Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.
>
>> All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his known
>> stores of WMD.
>
>Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.

LOL. I think you'd better take a course or two in logic.

Otherwise all a pickpocket has to do is knock you down, grab your
wallet and say "I don't HAVE your wallet". I guess you'd slink off
defeated? ;-)

>> Monday morning quarterbacking is a popular, though essentially
>> pointless "sport".
>
>This isn't football. This is *war*. People die on purpose in war.
>
>There's sort of a different standard when it comes to waging war -
>something I suspect you don't understand. You can't merely believe
>that you are right - you actually have to *be* right.

Name one war where 100% of the pre-war intelligence was correct.
Y'know, like the way we were waiting out in the Pacific for the attack
from the Japanese in 1941.... oops.

>> Given the information we were working with at the
>> time, I supported the decisions made.
>
>You have top secret clearance? Wow. I thought you were just a guy who
>trained PRC defense workers.
>
>Somehow, I'm guessing you don't really have top secret clearance, and
>that you never read any of the intelligence reports.

Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". I forgot you don't consider
yourself part of this country. Mea culpa.

But basically, this is all getting MUCH too pointless to continue
wasting bandwidth.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame