A Conversation I Had...

[Tmy]

'Dictator' is for Bush's propaganda for mass consumption.

Dictator-wise Bush supports a dictator in Uzbekistan.

.

And in Pakistan! Hmmm maybe if Saddam changed the country's name to Iraqistan he wouldntve invaded.

I understand the need to hobnob with useful dictators. Its the hypocracy of the invasion PR campaine that gets on my nerves. But selling a war based on getting a foothold in an oil rich troublesome region is a hard sell.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ion
'Dictator' is for Bush's propaganda for mass consumption.

Dictator-wise Bush supports a dictator in Uzbekistan.

Different topics. Has nothing to do with petro-dollars versus petro-euros.

Originally posted by Ion
Bush wanted Iraq's oil to be traded in US dollars and not Euros.

That's why (and a few other reasons) he attacked Iraq.

Certainly this is your opinion, but you haven't demonstrated it.

Do you have any pre-war statements from Bush stating that Iraq changing to Euros was any concern to the US?

Do you have any evidence that Iraq changing to euros would somehow harm the US?

Do you have evidence that this harm would somehow be worse than dumping 200 billion dollars into a war along with the deficit spending it forces?

Do you have any evidence that this war with Iraq would somehow stop other oil producing nations from using euros?

As far as conspiracy theories go, it sounds as good as most, but does it stand up to scrutiny?

 

[Atlas]

France has not rejected that idea.

France has rejected that idea with Bush at the helm of US, but has not rejected that idea without Bush at the helm of US.

This story refers to a french offical interviewed on Sept 18th.
A French official said Saturday that even if Sen. John Kerry defeats President Bush in November's election, his country won't provide troops to help the U.S. in Iraq - the same policy France has under President Bush.

"If Kerry is elected, we wouldn't send troops either," the unnamed official told the New York Daily News. "We don't need any more targets in Iraq."

(Edit: Yah, I know... unnamed source... but I think there is reason to believe it. Kerry hasn't been skillful in courting European opinion.)

This other story sounds fairly non partisan in it's assessment that it'll be a tough sell for Kerry to get additional troops ffrom France and Germany.

Kerry is oblivious to all this. In particular, he seems not to realize that he and his fellow Democrats have been repeatedly insulting the 15 European countries in the U.S.-led Iraq coalition. Although they include some of the leading military powers in the EU and NATO, they were dismissed at the Boston convention as "countries you can buy on eBay." That kind of thing rankles at least as much as Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" -- and it annoys America's friends rather than its rivals.

Ya know, he also called it "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" -- That doesn't seem like the kind of diplomatic enticement that will have France and Germany scurrying to be a part of. Do you have any reports that shows Europe is ready to give Kerry what he's asking for?

PS. Those other links I asked about... they do sound interesting. If you run across them googling around I'd like to read them but I'm not asking you to go back through all of your posts over the last year. There is enough recent stuff we can use to argue our positions. I think we both suspect the other of being credulous. We're probably both wrong.

I can't take my eyes off the future and I think it is bleak indeed if we don't face up to the threats in the middle east. I think you can't take your eyes off the past and how we got into this mess. I admit to some discounting of your perspective because I fear failure in the face of middle east threats. To me, giving an inch to these bassturds leads us toward world war with an enemy that places an alien value on human life.

It's a real fear that informs my thinking. I'm over 50 so it isn't that I'm afraid my life will be cut short. I'm afraid for the world. I look at Pan Arabism and Islamism as nascent Naziism. We let it grow at our peril.

 

[Ion]

...
Certainly this is your opinion, but you haven't demonstrated it.
...

The first order by Bush after invading Iraq was to change Iraq's oil trade from Euros into US dollars.

Bush showed his true colors then.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

For the other questions that you pose about Bush changing Iraq's oil trade from Euros into US dollars, read the link that I posted.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: A Conversation I Had...

Actually, I do.

I found out, to my surprise I admit, that people actually PREFER someone who is "telling it like it is" occassionally, even if it disagrees with them, than the flavorless "politically correct" crowd who all sound the same, and you know exaclty what they'll say from the start.

We are certainly still friends, if that's what you mean.

Up until the point they ask you if you have read all those books.

 

[Ion]

There is intersting data in your post, Atlas.

...
A French official said Saturday that even if Sen. John Kerry defeats President Bush in November's election, his country won't provide troops to help the U.S. in Iraq - the same policy France has under President Bush.

"If Kerry is elected, we wouldn't send troops either," the unnamed official told the New York Daily News. "We don't need any more targets in Iraq."
...
Kerry is oblivious to all this. In particular, he seems not to realize that he and his fellow Democrats have been repeatedly insulting the 15 European countries in the U.S.-led Iraq coalition. Although they include some of the leading military powers in the EU and NATO, they were dismissed at the Boston convention as "countries you can buy on eBay." That kind of thing rankles at least as much as Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" -- and it annoys America's friends rather than its rivals.

Ya know, he also called it "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" -- That doesn't seem like the kind of diplomatic enticement that will have France and Germany scurrying to be a part of. Do you have any reports that shows Europe is ready to give Kerry what he's asking for?
...

Kerry repeatedly said in the newspaper that he would have approached the Iraq's war with a priority for securing first the UN approval.

Bush I did it.

Bush II experimented with not securing the UN approval, and he fails now.

Is Kerry going to be listened to by Europeans and get them to collaborate in Iraq (for example get France to send money if not troops), if he is elected US president?

I hope so.

Kerry is the last alternative to Bush II, and Bush II created this mess in Iraq.

Originally posted by Atlas
...
I can't take my eyes off the future and I think it is bleak indeed if we don't face up to the threats in the middle east. I think you can't take your eyes off the past and how we got into this mess.
...
I'm afraid for the world. I look at Pan Arabism and Islamism as nascent Naziism. We let it grow at our peril.

Bush II poking fun at UN, installing listening devices in UN so that he can spy whether "...you are with us, or against us...", overruling UN, is a no.

Like in the slogan 'Regime change begins at home', we must ensure that in the US there is no equivalent to "...Pan Arabism and Islamism as nascent Naziism....", there is no neoconservative's Pax Americana or religiousity in power.

Myself I liked the integrity of Howard Dean (Democrat) when it comes to running for the US Presidency, but he is out of the picture now.
I liked Clinton's Presidency.

Now, the US Presidency is in between Bush II and Kerry, and Bush is a no success.

I hope that Kerry wins and corrects Bush's wrongdoings.

 

[Atlas]

I hope that Kerry wins and corrects Bush's wrongdoings.

I'm finally feeling pretty good that you'll be the one disappointed when we get up on Nov. 3rd.

The polls are leaning a little bit toward Bush. But it's all pretty much within the margin of error.

I think on Thursday, Kerry has to take it away from Bush. Not impossible, but I think Bush is getting prepared. It's going to be a debate that could have some fireworks.

I think if Bush gets past this first debate unscathed he'll pull it off.
If he gets put on the defensive and Kerry gets him flustered but appears strong himself Kerry may capture some of the disaffected.

But I'm thinking there are too many democrats that feel like you, like Dean was the better candidate. Now that Kerry has to run to the right of Bush in some aspects of this war, he won't be giving the real anti-war Americans a reason to go vote.

Bush cannot look complacent in the debate. He has to be engaged and in charge. He's been practicing. He's shapening his barbs for Kerry. If he doesn't make any big gaffes (I'm never confident he won't) he'll be able to spin a win.

 

[Ion]

...
The polls are leaning a little bit toward Bush.
...

In another forum, somebody from the Democrat party posted that the polls are skewed into polling too much in the Republican strongholds, but not polling youth using cell phones.

It was dissected that Gallup's polls were polling 40% of registered Republicans and 30% of registerd Democrats.

No wonder then thant Gallup is skewed.

As for why this is even a race given Bush's disasters, many US people are religious and anti-abortion rather than knowing the world's events.

(Myself, I am a liberal, still anti-abortion in general).

 

[Skeptic]

Then you are in his idiot-group too.

Two in Drooper's idiot-group.

More?

ME! ME!

Please add me to your idiot list, Ion.

Thanks.

 

[SlippyToad]

Re: Re: Re: A Conversation I Had...

And what greater God than "stability"? That's worth a few zillion dead to achieve the goal, isn't it?

There's stability, and there's letting sleeping dogs lie, and there's even going after the right dog. Saddam Hussein wasn't the dog that attacked us, plain and simple. The one who did is still at large and no less dangerous than before.

Of course, the US COULD restore stablity using Saddam's method. Gassing everybody in Fallujah to death with nerve gas would sure show those damn insurgents the US is serious about stability. And once there is stability, your mythical "average Iraqi" will be happy, will he not?

This is a stinking red herring, also known as the fallacy of false alternative. The only option we have now is to finish this thing as decently as we can. While we wait, our resources are so overextended that it's likely they can't effectively respond if something real comes along. It's like a Chinese finger puzzle. You have to be smart enough not to stick your fingers in it in the first place.

 

[Ion]

ME! ME!

Please add me to your idiot list, Ion.

Thanks.

You are in.

 

[jj]

ME! ME!

Please add me to your idiot list, Ion.

Thanks.

What? You want to join me on that list?

 

[Skeptic]

What? You want to join me on that list?

Let's just say that agreeing that being on Ion's "idiot list" is a badge of honor is a belief with wide bi-partisan support...

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ion
The first order by Bush after invading Iraq was to change Iraq's oil trade from Euros into US dollars.

Uh-huh. And if we learned Haliburton was buying American made Charmin toilet paper for use in Iraq, would that "prove" that the toilet paper industry was somehow secretly behind the war?

This is not proof.

Originally posted by Ion
For the other questions that you pose about Bush changing Iraq's oil trade from Euros into US dollars, read the link that I posted.

Read it. You're trying to understand economics by reading an anti-globalization pro-socialist leftist rag. It doesn't work.

p.s. Can I be on your list too?

 

[Ion]

...
Read it. You're trying to understand economics by reading an anti-globalization pro-socialist leftist rag. It doesn't work.
...

Note that you are helpless in countering with your data the data that it presents.

The article's data supports the explanation for Bush's war in Iraq.

...
p.s. Can I be on your list too?

Go ahead.

I joined this forum to pull teeth from pro-war chickenhawks like you, Lister, Drooper, Skeptic & other primitives of your kind.

So, keep coming with your chickenhawk teeth, it makes my day to pull your teeth.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think the link is in the old arab saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Are you aware that by that logic, anyone who opposes the will of the USA is a supporter of Islamic fundamentalism? Because that's the only link between Islamic fundamentalism and Hussein you've got.

Saddam was just as unscrupulous. He allowed terrorists to hide out on his soil. There were documented contacts and meetings between al Queda and Saddam's regime.

As I understand it, there is no evidence that those contacts and meetings went anywhere, probably because (as I may have mentioned) Hussein was viciously opposed to Islamic fundamentalists.

I did ask, "Is there a third alternative?" It wasn't a rhetorical question. I believe it in everybody's interest to do what it takes and find a way to victory. I do think this is the Bush strategy. Kerry is kinda hard to read. He wants to enlarge the coalition by denigrating those that are already with us and by calling this the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't seem a good strategy for getting more people on board. So that leaves cut and run.

Look, this kind of vapid electoral sloganeering makes my head sore. Kindly spin for your shill of choice on someone else's time. The fact is that neither Kerry nor Bush has claimed that they are going to do anything dramatically different in Iraq, so fantasising about how whichever candidate you support will do good stuff and whichever candidate you don't will do bad stuff is just inane.

No. Some posters neglect to mention that the other side is doing bad things. It's all and only the US that is being evil and arrogant. There is no sense of proportion. If a civilian dies it's because of the US. The enemy can do no wrong. That's kinda silly too, don't you think.

I'd believe you had any real interest in "proportion" if you ran around insisting that every mention of anything good the US does be "balanced" by equal discussion of the bad things it does.

It would have been a false dichotomy had I not offered you the option of providing any other answer you might choose.

[Atlas]Do you really believe that, or are you a lying, snivelling, hypocrite? Can there really be any other possibility?[/Atlas]

There, see, I offered you the option of providing any other answer you might choose. Thus it is neither offensive nor a false dichotomy.

I really believe that radical Islam and terroristic nations (including Saddam's Iraq) represent a threat as great to the world as Naziism.

Why do you get to run those two together? Last time I checked there was not an organised, monolithic conspiracy of "radical Islam and terroristic nations" presenting a coherent global threat.

If I get to make up a boogyman by running totally unrelated threats together, well, global warming, pollution, war, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, rogue comets and boy bands represent a greater threat to the world than "radical Islam and terroristic nations". I guess we need the USA to declare a War On All That Stuff.

 

[Atlas]

Kevin_Lowe ,


Atlas: Saddam was just as unscrupulous. He allowed terrorists to hide out on his soil. There were documented contacts and meetings between al Queda and Saddam's regime.

Lowe: As I understand it, there is no evidence that those contacts and meetings went anywhere, probably because (as I may have mentioned) Hussein was viciously opposed to Islamic fundamentalists.

Yes, he was opposed to them operating independently on his soil without his authorization. He didn't set out to crush it as part of his own pan Arab inclination. He used religion when it suited his purpose, he would not tolerate an alternate form of authority in his domain.

Atlas: I did ask, "Is there a third alternative?" It wasn't a rhetorical question. I believe it in everybody's interest to do what it takes and find a way to victory. I do think this is the Bush strategy. Kerry is kinda hard to read. He wants to enlarge the coalition by denigrating those that are already with us and by calling this the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't seem a good strategy for getting more people on board. So that leaves cut and run.

Lowe: Look, this kind of vapid electoral sloganeering makes my head sore. Kindly spin for your shill of choice on someone else's time. The fact is that neither Kerry nor Bush has claimed that they are going to do anything dramatically different in Iraq, so fantasising about how whichever candidate you support will do good stuff and whichever candidate you don't will do bad stuff is just inane.

Sorry to be vapid. I'll try to be less so. I was asking for you input. What do you think? You hadn't noticed that I had asked for you alternative and attacked me in an earlier post. I offered my take so you could explain where we differ. I guess that was a mistake. Perhaps you can tell me Kerry's position and yours - so we can move beyond vapidity here.

Atlas: No. Some posters neglect to mention that the other side is doing bad things. It's all and only the US that is being evil and arrogant. There is no sense of proportion. If a civilian dies it's because of the US. The enemy can do no wrong. That's kinda silly too, don't you think.

Lowe: I'd believe you had any real interest in "proportion" if you ran around insisting that every mention of anything good the US does be "balanced" by equal discussion of the bad things it does.

I believe that wartime events are horrible to contemplate. The news covers these pretty well. They don't always offer a context. And some of the posters here see every act of America as diabolical. I see our enemy as diabolical, it is a destroyer of civilization. I believe deep in my heart that it must be stopped. I know I take a "big picture" view of this and lump terror states, and radical Islam, and the mideast "problem" together. It is a region that has steadily increased ability to disrupt and destroy over the last several decades. It is at "war" with the west at several levels. I am not a big believer in the use of force. I make exceptions for armed madmen. Several years back I was a pacifist. I have been transformed. I desperately hope for a peaceful free state to arise from old Iraq. I supported the war going in. I still think it was the right thing at the right time. It doesn't look so great now, but the tides of war may turn yet again. This is our first exchange Kevin. I'm neither vapid nor someone's shill. I come to my appreciation of events on my own. I value these boards because I get the other side of the issue. You obviously feel as strongly as I. I can certainly respect that but I hope we can have a friendlier airing of our differences.

Atlas: I really believe that radical Islam and terroristic nations (including Saddam's Iraq) represent a threat as great to the world as Naziism.

Lowe: Why do you get to run those two together? Last time I checked there was not an organised, monolithic conspiracy of "radical Islam and terroristic nations" presenting a coherent global threat.
If I get to make up a boogyman by running totally unrelated threats together, well, global warming, pollution, war, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, rogue comets and boy bands represent a greater threat to the world than "radical Islam and terroristic nations". I guess we need the USA to declare a War On All That Stuff.

As I mentioned above I do run the cross currents of the middle east together in a single stream. When Palestinians "martyr" themselves destroying Israelis Saddam and Saudi Arabia gave money to the murderers's family. Bathists in Syria take money from the Iranian mullachracy. As far as an "organized, monolithic conspiracy " I agree it is not. But I do believe it is a disorganized conspiracy. And I do look at it like it's a global threat. Terrorists who have sprung up in the region and received state support have mounted attacks in North Africa, Europe and the US. They have tried to topple governments in Pakistan, Russia and elsewhere. I think it can be seen as unrelated threats but only by the myopic. That's my bias and I'll read your rebuttal with an open mind. I do admit that you'll have to deconstruct things pretty aggressively to get me to see it another way. But I am here to debate ideas, I know we are all biased and I believe in discarding poorly formed ideas for those that make more sense. So hopefully, we can agree to air our dispute honorably.

 

[punchdrunk]

Atlas: Saddam was just as unscrupulous. He allowed terrorists to hide out on his soil. There were documented contacts and meetings between al Queda and Saddam's regime.

Lowe: As I understand it, there is no evidence that those contacts and meetings went anywhere, probably because (as I may have mentioned) Hussein was viciously opposed to Islamic fundamentalists.

'The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

'It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

'The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” '

MSNBC report on the 9/11 Commission's Findings of links between Iraq and Al Qaida

Atlas: I did ask, "Is there a third alternative?" It wasn't a rhetorical question. I believe it in everybody's interest to do what it takes and find a way to victory. I do think this is the Bush strategy. Kerry is kinda hard to read. He wants to enlarge the coalition by denigrating those that are already with us and by calling this the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't seem a good strategy for getting more people on board. So that leaves cut and run.

I believe Kerry has a better chance of getting more countries on board. The Bush Administration's unilateral approach has alienated many. At this point, the best strategy for getting more countries on board is to not elect Bush; this may not seem 'fair', but I believe it to be true.

Obviously Kerry is not going to cut and run. His stated proposal for the war in Iraq is to get the UN involved as early and as quickly as possible, and to get US troops out by the end of his first term. This is not a cut and run.

 

[merphie]

I believe Kerry has a better chance of getting more countries on board. The Bush Administration's unilateral approach has alienated many. At this point, the best strategy for getting more countries on board is to not elect Bush; this may not seem 'fair', but I believe it to be true.

Like who? Spain, France, or Germany?

 

[Atlas]

... 'The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” '

I believe Kerry has a better chance of getting more countries on board. The Bush Administration's unilateral approach has alienated many. At this point, the best strategy for getting more countries on board is to not elect Bush; this may not seem 'fair', but I believe it to be true.

Obviously Kerry is not going to cut and run. His stated proposal for the war in Iraq is to get the UN involved as early and as quickly as possible, and to get US troops out by the end of his first term. This is not a cut and run.

Welcome to the Forum Rhoadp. Good post.

There were several contacts and they reached up into Saddam's hierarchy. Yes, there is no evidence that the meetings were anything more than little tea parties. I suspect something more sinister because I have qualms about the ethics of both groups.

To me they were attempting to discover how they could be useful to one another in their common fight. That's how I size it up and not anything that confirms Saddam was in any way behind 9/11.

Iraq had UN sanctions promising serious repercussions. For the US, Iraq was as much a part of "the problem", even requiring "no fly" zones. If it was not dealt those serious repercussions, the UN would sooner or later be forced to lift all sanctions and restore Iraq's complete sovereignty, at which point Saddam would have had a green light to proceed with his plans unimpeded.

Anyway, that's how I sized up the situation in the run up to the war. I did, of course, expect to find WMDs. Many nations believed they were there. I can't call what Bush told us a lie. To me, Saddam was being canny. He believed he could outlast the US and the UN and reconstitute his programs. That had to be stopped and if possible, the establishment of another democracy in the region would be huge.

A few months ago I believed that Kerry might have had more success in getting other countries on board. But he has referred to the current coalition as "countries you can buy on eBay." And to the war as "the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place." Who would join him in prosecuting that?

I do agree with you that Kerry is not going to cut and run. I used that term to see if the other posters who were so opposed to Bush embraced that as the correct tactic. I guess I didn't mind him saying that he wanted to bring our boys home within 4 years. It was the comment that he'd start within 6 months that troubled me. I think such comments encourage the enemy. They gain small victories anytime they force us to change directions. Kerry has also said that more troops may be needed. So indeed, he may inflate our troop count before he is able to get us out of there.

I realize he's got to say something to separate himself from Bush but I disagree that he's our best hope based on what he's said so far.