Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

quote:

---

I'll have to reply to this when I get back. I can't open .pdf files here.

---

Let me know what specific information you want and I will iew the file and paste the relevant parts here for you.

quote:

---

Alright then. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

---

That's like agreeing to disagree that the sky is blue, tal.You want me to let you go on thinking that it is green when the majority of available evidence indicates very strongly that the sky is blue.

quote:

---

I do not concede that we only invaded Iraq for the oil.

---

Of course, that's not the only thing I said.What about the change in the Bush rationale for war? It went from "We know exactly where these major stockpiles of WMD are.", and "Iraq is an immediate threat to the US.", to "We need to save the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator and spread democracy."

quote:

---

And, for the record, we will find the where the WMD went eventually.

---

But where are the large stockpiles that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfld said they KNEW WHERE THEY WERE?They said they knew exactly where they were, tal, and they said that they were in Iraq. They are on record saying that.Why didn't Hussein use them in the initial attack if he had them?Did you read this article? Bold added by me.MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-13-2005 15:08 AM

This is interesting but you are right that it needs it's own topic.Go ahead and start one and I'll see you there.

quote:

---

Maybe you should find a FoxNEWS link to it, or a synopsis of its findings. I wonder if Fox did report its coming out?

---

I actually tried several different google searches to try to find a Fox News report of the congressional Iraq report, but to no avail.

quote:

---

In any case aren't you baffled by his ability to have access to all sorts of secret documents that none of us can see, yet can't seem to find or read the public documents handed or suggested to him?

---

LOL!Yes, I find that pretty amusing.

Tal, did you read this article?What do you say to the bolded parts below?MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

I would budge if you showed me a compelling argument and some real evidence that hasn't been refuted by Bush's own people.I would LOVE for me to be completely wrong about this, Tal. I would LOVE it if we had gone to war for a justifiable reason.Show me the evidence that refutes all currently known evidence that holmes and I have provided for you, and I'll change my mind.BTW, which particular part of the Congressional commission report do you want to see? I can download and cut n paste any part for you.

quote:

---

We are in a sense gambling on a specific turnout for Iraq which is truly unattached to 9-11, yet could be helpful to more people than hurtful. We have also adopted an ends justifies the means argument to validate that gamble, but that does mean that ends may be something which are preferable to most people.

---

I'm not liking the odds for that wager.Read the entire story at: This linkBold added by me.Iraq New Terror Breeding GroundIraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war."At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents."The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts --including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology. Edired by AdminJar to fix long link. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-15-2005 21:04 AM

---

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

Oh yes, that makes sense to me, holmes.I am not so sure that Tal was arguing from that viewpoint, however, because remember all of the so-called "facts" he trotted out?I think he was trying to show evidence in support of the Bush NewReality(tm)....and when he couldn't do that, he just wanted to "agree to disagree", because he has to believe, sans evidence and in opposition to evidence, in the rightness of the war.He has to believe to do his job as a soldier without freaking out. Maybe, in a few years after he gets back (a little less steeped in testosterone), and reads the Congressional report, he will allow himself to view the war more realistically.

quote:

---

I believe that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, not only for Iraq, but for the region and the world.

---

I agree that Saddam was bad for Iraq.I do not agree that a US invasion to remove him without a clear plan for how to stabilize the country is good for Iraq, the region, and the rest of the world.This has been a massive, unilateral, poorly-run US experiment in nation-building, which is exactly what George Bush denounced during his first campaign as something he thought was a bad idea.

quote:

---

I also believe that Iraqis deserve to govern themselves. They are good people who just want to be able to provide for their families.

---

So do the people in Saudi Arabia. And China. And North Korea. And Pakistan. And Nigeria. And Togo. And Sudan.etc.Is the US going to invade them all? Why or why not?

quote:

---

I also believe Al Qaeda and other terrorists from Syria, Iran, and other places will suffer a major loss if Iraq becomes a free and stable democracy.

---

...and will enjoy a huge ally if it becomes a radical Fundamentalist Muslim state, which is much, much more likely now than it ever was when Hussein was in power.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-16-2005 10:42 AM

Tal, have you had a chance to read the article I posted a link to in message 144?What do you think of it?

quote:

---

Unilateral did you say?

---

Um, who's idea was it to invade Iraq? How many of these countries supported us, mainly nominally, to curry favor with the White House? Which of these countries' leadership is supportive of the War but it's people are dead set against it? Do you think that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld called up the leaders of Latvia, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras to make sure they had their support before going to war?Most importantly, which country is shouldering the majority of the financial burden and taking the most risk and loss of life?All info below from Wikipedia.Multi-National Force — Iraq - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Let's see what nations are here participating in OIF. Albania,

---

Albania has sent 70 troops. Man, just think how the war would be going without Albania!

quote:

---

Australia,

---

Around 400, with around 720 in the area including one ship in the Persian Gulf. They are getting out in about 6 months.

quote:

---

Azerbaijan,

---

250 troops.

quote:

---

Bulgaria,

---

485

quote:

---

Czech Republic,

---

80-110 MPs, which are going to be pulled out soon.

quote:

---

Denmark,

---

496.

quote:

---

Dominican Rep,

---

302 troops who were withdrawn in May after much opposition to further participation in the war by the Dominican people.

quote:

---

El Salvador,

---

Oh, there's a great country to have on our side. 380 troops.

quote:

---

Estonia,

---

55 troops.

quote:

---

Georgia,

---

300 troops.

quote:

---

Honduras,

---

368 troops, which were withdrawn in May because they were supposed to be there for reconstruction, not combat.

quote:

---

Hungary,

---

300 transportation troops, all have been withdrawn.

quote:

---

Italy,

---

3,085.

quote:

---

Japan,

---

550.

quote:

---

Kazakhstan,

---

29 engineers.

quote:

---

South Korea,

---

3,700, but all are engineers or humanitarian, not combat, troops.

quote:

---

Latvia,

---

122 troops.

quote:

---

Lithuania,

---

105 troops.

quote:

---

Macedonia,

---

33 troops.

quote:

---

Moldova,

---

They used to have a whopping 24 de-miners and medics, but reduced it to 12 last July.

quote:

---

Mongolia,

---

180.

quote:

---

Netherlands,

---

1,345, leaving in March, despite a request by the Iraqi government that they stay.

quote:

---

Norway,

---

150 humanitarian troops, but 140 of those were withdrawn last June due to strong pressure from the people of Norway.

quote:

---

Poland,

---

2,400-2,500 troops, planned to be reduced to 1,700 after Iraqi elections, with a full pullout by the end of 2005.

quote:

---

Portugal,

---

128 MP's.

quote:

---

Romania,

---

700.

quote:

---

Slovakia,

---

105.

quote:

---

United Kingdom,

---

8,361 troops, another 3,500 stationed in Kuwait. The UK is the only one of our traditional allies to contribute meaningful human and financial help.

quote:

---

Ukraine.

---

1,589 troops, but are staying in their base and are not involved in combat. The Ukranian legislative body has recently passed a resolution to withdraw all troops, which is planned for early 2005.The following is a list of coutries which were participating but withdrew, many of them due to growing domestic opposition to the war:Nicaragua
Spain
Honduras
Philippines
Tahiland
Hungary
New Zealand
SingaporeSo, all of those countries you named, combined, have contributed around 22,400 troops.The US has around 140,000 troops in Iraq right now, with a planned increase to 153,000 in mid 2005.The US and Great Britain are the only two countries to have more than 5,000 troops in Iraq.74% of the countries participating have fewer than 1,000 people in Iraq.Contrast those numbers with the fact that there are around 20,000 mercenaries in Iraq. That's twice as many troops as Great Britain has contributed, and they are the second largest contributer, behind the US.Yes, Tal, this action of ours in Iraq can be pretty much described as unilateral. What other countries were standing up with us, stating to the rest of the world that Saddam Hussein had WMD and should be ousted? No, the majority of those countries' leaders just went along with us after Bush made it clear that he was going to invade no matter what.

quote:

---

I also believe that Iraqis deserve to govern themselves. They are good people who just want to be able to provide for their families.

---

quote:

---

Let me tell you about a country called Japan. At one time they were just as fanatical in their beliefs, as the extremist islamists are today, to the point of sending young kids to kill themselves by kamikaze in order to damage US forces/Kill US troops.

​

After being attacked

---

EXACTLY.Japan ATTACKED US. They had a large military and they ATTACKED U.S. SOIL.Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq wasn't even capable of attacking U.S. soil.

quote:

---

the US went knocking on Japan's door and whooped thier ass.

---

AFTER they attacked us, remember?Do you seriously think that the US people would have supported our participation in a war with Japan, and our subsequent half centuryof rebuilding effort there if they had never attacked us?

quote:

---

Then, we helped rebuild their nation.Today Japan is one our strongest allies with its own strong economy.

---

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what you stated and what I asked.You said that the Iraqi people had the right to govern themselves and that they were good people who just wanted to provide for their families, and that's why it was good that we invaded and got rid of Saddam Hussein.I agreed, but then listed the above countries, and stated that the people of Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Nigeria, Togo, and Sudan all also deserve to govern themselves and were good people who just want to provide for their families.Why don't we invade their countries and topple their oppressive rulers so they can have those things, Tal?

quote:

---

Oh the plan was a good plan. As I've mentioned in other threads a plan never survives first contact.

---

No, the plan was a stupid plan. They tried to do it on the cheap, with too few troops. Did you hear about the conversation Bush had with Pat Robertson right before the invasion? Robertson told the president that he had to prepare the American people for US casualties, and Bush said, with a straight face, that there weren't going to be any American casualties.Also, here's a great list of quotes from very senior Whitehouse officials:

quote:

---

That being said I am critical about this one thing in the campaign. The worst mistake was when the Ambassador disbanded the Iraqi Army. That single event is why we have an insurgency IMO. The Iraqi Army were not Saddam loyalists like the republican guard. The average Joe on the street looked up to a Regular Army guy.

​

But, in the spirit of getting rid of everything Bathist, the ambassador said to disband the army, oh and by the way if you were in the army don't bother applying for any of the new jobs. So, instead of having a standing, at least somewhat trained Iraqi army to help us fight the foriegn insurgents, alot of them joined the foriegn insurgents.

---

Yep, that was pretty dumb, and a result of the people running the war not knowing anything about Iraqi society and social structure.

quote:

---

Disbanding the Iraqi Army was not the Military's idea. It was the State Department. And that is why that ambassador, is no longer the ambassador.

---

...and who does the State Department answer to?

quote:

---

Ah, proof positive that FliesOnly has achieved so much more than I have by pursuing a policy of politeness.

---

He didn't though.FliesOnly's message was obviously pretty angry and personal.Much more like your style.

quote:

---

Clearly progress is being made.

---

Progress can be made if you make an effort to not piss people off and present really solid facts.Read this thread. It's a good example.http://EvC Forum: why is Israel left out of the sandbox , tal? -->EvC Forum: why is Israel left out of the sandbox , tal?

quote:

---

Tal is a fanatic who believes what he believes because it makes him feel morally righteous, no matter how detached from reality his positions are. No amount of politeness is going to cut through this dogmatic homicidal mania. Regardkless of the quanityt of evidence presented to him, regardless of the admissions of the hero he worships that there are no WMD Tal is now resorting to claim that the US is covering up evidence of WMD for mysterious reasons of its own. Its a conspiracy theory through and through.

---

Contracycle is a fanatic who believes what he believes because it makes him feel morally righteous, no matter how detached from reality his positions are. No amount of politeness is going to cut through this dogmatic mania. Regardkless of the quanityt of evidence presented to him, regardless of the admissions of the hero he worships that there are no good, honest, peace-loving Americans, Contracycle is now resorting to claim that he is always right about the US people being bloodthirsty cannibals even though he's never been there. Its a conspiracy theory through and through.

I was thinking of message 138, actually. You did sound a bit annoyed.Oh, and I wasn't totally equating yours and Contracyle's style of posting.Sorry, I can understand you not wanting to be thought of as being like him, and I don't.I was just making the point that politeness combined with lots of facts and evidence does get results sometimes, where getting angry and lashing out rarely does.You understand that fully, but Contra does not.Again, apologies.

quote:

---

Contracycle in fact holds to a philosophical discipline known as dialectical materialism which necessarily requires evidence from the real world. And contracycle holds his positions becuase he can support them from the real world, and has recanted positions that he could not.

---

Then you should support them in your arguments instead of calling your opponents insulting names.Your position is much more poweful when it is filled with fact instead of invective.

quote:

---

Contracycle is also outspoken in his denunciation of moralism as any form of meaningful dialogue.

---

Of course. But speak out without invective and the words will be heard. With it, and they will be ignored.It is entirely your choice if you want to be heard or not.

quote:

---

Contracycle clearly doesn't worship anybody, and occassionally feels the need to be photographed pissing on the grave of Karl Marx to make the point. Contracycle is also, by virtue of his politics, formally signed up to a doctrine of internationalism which perforce assumes the existence of good people in every country. On the other hand, Contracycle does not beleive that the population of Nazi germany was universally evil and therefore points to the pernicious effect of doctrines and ideologies of superiority which make good people do evil things.

---

That's great.Now, see, you didn't insult anybody there, and I read it. Good job.

quote:

---

Way to go Schraff, you've just conceded one of the theists most primitive arguments, which is that if you have not seen it with your own eyes its hearsay, thus evolution etc can be treated as equivalent to creationism.

---

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

quote:

---

This also teeters on the edge of being American Exceptionalism, seeming to imply that the rules of other states cannot be generalised to the US state. Nil Point, as they in Eurovision.

---

No, the reality of what the American people live like and believe cannot be generalized.Let us recall how this started, Contra.Nobody pays any attention to the rude man shouting on top of the little mountain.

quote:

---

Thanks...but I do have to admit that I do get annoyed with Tal at times. I asked a simple question for which I have not yet seen a reply. All I want is for him to somehow explain how he feels about Gov Bush's own words and President Bush's actions. I would prefer he do it without bringing up 9/11, but I'm not sure that's possible.

---

I'm right there with you. It's pretty clear that there are some things that Tal just will not address. He wil just not ackowledge that they exist.I have lots of practice with that kind of behavior from Creationists. Just know that if they cannot answer or run away from the conversation, you have won.

quote:

---

And I do agree with your take on contracycle. I do so much more enjoy reading his posts when he presents lots of interesting facts (and he does come up with some good ones), than I do when he says things like "the best thing for the World would be the destruction of the U.S."...(or words to those effect).

---

That's what I've been trying to tell him, but it seems like he will defend his methods no matter what.