BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM

Through the Looking Glass.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:01 AM

I think you'll find that the Bush administration wanted war and the process was a convenient figleaf. When it started to look as though that process was going to impede the path to war, Bush went ahead anyway.

Interesting that none of the hawks has answered the point made by TIA at 09.07 yesterday.
To remind you of the headline: 'Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say'
Anyone care to try to spin that?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:05 AM

Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert
And what sort of crass, moronic, craven, lily-livered, scum-sucking troll bait is that?
Get back to jerking off over Soldier of Fortune or whatever it is that you use for erectile dysfunction, you feeble-minded cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 09:54 AM

Bruce:

That last remark was wildly inaccurate, off the wall, stupid and beyond the pale.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:25 AM

Wrong, Amos.
The comment was in line with those claiming anyone who disagreed with the Mudcat Majority opinion about the war was therefore seeking war, and responsible for the bloodshed caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN.

The following remark at 0905 by Gervase is beyond the pale, and if left to stand will demonstrate that if Martin Gibson had opinions in accord with the Mudcat Majority, he would still be here. Freedom of speech only for those you agree with, right?????

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:35 AM

Congratulations for contributing to all those deaths. Bobert
You stand by that remark?
If so, I stand my mine. Don't go crying to mommy coz the nasty man called you a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 10:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase - PM
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 07:54 AM

.....
When someone resorts to gutter insults it's a good sign that their fund of argument is pretty well bankrupt.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Good to know that you have run out of facts to support your viewpoint.

If you find anything to support YOUR statements, it would be interesting to hear it. Until then, try to refrain fron making comments with no factual content.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:08 AM

Even your mate Teribus acknowledges that the war was planned long before 9/11. That much is common knowledge.
You want facts? What about the UN inspectors saying the invasion was unjustified? Or is someone making that up?
And I think to accuse someone of being responsible for the deaths of others is a far worst insult than calling someone an onanistic cretin.
Maybe I'll retract the 'cretin' - your thyroid function may be perfectly OK for all I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:17 AM

Bruce:

You're overheating my friend. The issue is not what the Mudcat Majority thinks, but whether the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and if so why.

I think you--and perhaps Gervase--need to take a few deep breaths.

You seem to feel you were "blamed for all the deaths" or accused of being a war-monger. And it is possible even I have said things in the heat of argument that could be so interpreted. There are things I could have done to lower the probability of war. I could have communicated more broadly, more loudly, or more intelligently, perhaps. And there are things you could have done, likewise, to lower the probability of that war--not voting for Bush, for example. But it is certainly not the case that "Bobert enabled the war" by telling Saddam he was a psycho-at-large. That is just wild-eyed doublethink, my friend, and I think you know that.

There is no shame in examining the past for error in the hope of building a wiser future. It is silly not to do so.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:24 AM

Those who protested US enforcement of the UNR (and previous ceasefire) are to my mind far more guilty of contributing to the war than those of us who, for whatever reasons, voted for Bush.

Had the demonstrations been for Saddam to comply, or had they even ALLOWED those critical of Saddam to participate ( I gave examples in past thread of them not being allowed to march) IMHO the invasion would not have been needed, and there would be a lot fewer dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:25 AM

"There is no shame in examining the past for error in the hope of building a wiser future. It is silly not to do so."

I agree entirely- so when will you admit the error of your ways and agree with ME????

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:28 AM

My chosen course of action did not, despite your double-jointed logic, result in wanton violence, death, and mayhem.

Neither did Bobert's.

I agree with you on many things, Bruce, but the ready resort to extreme force is not one of them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:37 AM

"the ready resort to extreme force "

After 12 years, and how many Kurds and Kuwaiti killed, you claim that demanding Saddam comply with the cease-fire terms or face the consequences as a "ready resort to extreme force "???



IMHO, MY chosen course of action did not, despite your double-jointed logic, result in "wanton violence, death, and mayhem." The invasion was handled in a reasonable way, in spite of the failures of some allies to allow staging. The POST-INVASION control I have stated was handled less than effectively.

I do not consider the INVASION to be either wanton OR unwarranted.

But then, you insist that I agree with your opinion on everything, I have to presume.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:45 PM

Invasion really accomplishes nothing. It doesn't create an understanding or agreement.
It is merely a tool for expressing a power play to satiate an anger by the aggressor.

The reason Iraq was a huge mistake is that those who were in control of foreign policy knew nothing about Iraq or the Iraqi people so they didn't know how they would react.
There were hardly anyone in the state department under Bush who even knew how to speak Iraqi Arabic or Farsi. It was a joke.

It's so easy to be an armchair soldier and rail against injustices that are manufactured by media and pundits. It's also easy to be a "good German" and take orders without examining what the effect of those actions would be on those being affected.

All the factoids in the world will not explain away the futility of the Iraq invasion. Many of these propaganda devices are used in any war to justify atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 01:53 PM

Here is some Through the Looking Glass:

BB: "I do not consider the INVASION to be either wanton OR unwarranted."

This statement has been backed up with copious quotes from Hans Blix.

But Hans Blix has said that the invasion was unwarranted!

And more:

paraphrasing "...{people who opposed the invasion are responsible for the deaths that it entailed}..."

I for one cannot think that many impossible things before breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:05 PM

Guest TIA,

Instead of changing what I said to something you can make fun of:

"Those who protested US enforcement of the UNR (and previous ceasefire) are to my mind far more guilty of contributing to the war than those of us who, for whatever reasons, voted for Bush.

Had the demonstrations been for Saddam to comply, or had they even ALLOWED those critical of Saddam to participate ( I gave examples in past thread of them not being allowed to march) IMHO the invasion would not have been needed, and there would be a lot fewer dead. "



Feel free to OPPOSE the invasion ( I will allow others to have their own opinions, unlike the many here who insist that no-one have any opinion that is different from theirs) - but DO NOT say that you can oppose enforcing the UNR AND tell Saddam that he will not be held accountable and then ignore the responsibility for his acting in the manner you encouraged him to.

I oppose unneeded wars- but IN THIS CASE the invasion, IMHO, was warranted. I do not know what reasons Blix had for his statement- was he told the UN was that Iraq was not in compliance with the last and final chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:05 PM

1.        "Teribus, stick to what has being said,"

I only wish you would Gervase


2.        "Where did I say that more troops in Afghanistan would have made a difference?"

Where have I stated that you did? If you think it was in point 3 of a previous post of mind:

"Pure supposition of course but sending more troops into Afghanistan would have accomplished what exactly."

Your comprehension of the English language is even poorer than you have demonstrated to date.

3.        "And at no point did I say you didn't consider PIRA attacks to be terrorism."

Then why introduce the subject. Remember your opening plea here to stick with what is being said. You were listing supposed examples of militant Islam, I merely pointed out that in most of those cases there were other factors that provided far more likely reasons for terrorist violence. This imperative that you insist that everything must be seen as being "black" or "white" is childish and ludicrous, not surprising considering your puerile ad hominem attacks.


4.        "To remind you of the headline: 'Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say'"

And the date of that article TIA provided the link for was?? 16th December 2003 and the Invasion was?? 20th March 2003. Have you got anything from the good Doctor Blix prior to 20th March 2003 where he categorically states that:

•        Iraq has completely disarmed
•        All WMD have been destroyed
•        All WMD precursor chemicals and materials have been destroyed
•        All research and development programmes on WMD and WMD delivery systems have been shut down and all material relating to that work destroyed.

It's a tremendous indication of your naïveté if you actually believe and act on what you read in the newspapers.



5.        "And what sort of crass, moronic, craven, lily-livered, scum-sucking troll bait is that?
Get back to jerking off over Soldier of Fortune or whatever it is that you use for erectile dysfunction, you feeble-minded cretin."

You seem to be fixated on masturbation Gervase – Do you do a lot of it? On Mastermind would that be your specialist subject?? You really should get out more and meet a few people.

6.        "Even your mate Teribus acknowledges that the war was planned long before 9/11. That much is common knowledge."

Oh quite right Gervase, I believe that the Pentagon has got extremely detailed plans for a great number of wars, most dating back to 1945, but some pre-dating even that, and they all are being continually updated and revised as conditions change. Iceland; Ireland; UK the US Government has got invasion plans for all of those and more, and they all predate 9/11. I think I can remember asking you what you thought the word "contingency" meant if placed in front of the word "plan". Like most questions you are asked you never did get back to me.

7.        "You want facts? What about the UN inspectors saying the invasion was unjustified? Or is someone making that up?"

Ah yes facts, such as the fact that the UN inspectors stated that the war was, in their opinion, unjustified armed with 20 x 20 hindsight nine months after the event. You know I could have told that guy Napoleon that it would all end in tears – that make me some sort of bloody expert Gervase, you Prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:11 PM

BB: "I do not consider the INVASION to be either wanton OR unwarranted."

This statement has been backed up with copious quotes from Hans Blix.

But Hans Blix has said that the invasion was unwarranted!
---------------------------------------

Good strawman argument.
The first statement is not in the same message as the second.

The first statement is one of MY OPINION.
The secound is in support of FACTS. Have any idea what FACTS are????

The last statement is one of yours that is a statement of his OPINION ( Not mine) and NOT what he put in the UN Report that he submitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:35 PM

But then, you insist that I agree with your opinion on everything, I have to presume.

You do not have to agree with anything, Bruce, least of all those who make you feel uncomfortable.

You never read those accounts of marines wantonly firing on civilians at checkpoints, having been told the more of them were dead, the better, by their sergeant? Not wanton?

Have you seen the pictures of civilians finding themselves suddenly decimated by "shock and awe" tactics that did not work, tactically, but cost hundreds of lives and limbs? Not wanton?

For fie.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:45 PM

Amos,

Have you ever seen the results of a gas attack on civilians?

Have you ever seen the skin sliding off, and the eyeballs dripping out of the face of someone that has had a nuclear bomb dropped on them?

Have you ever see piles of dead bodies stacked like cordwood, because no-one would let them immigrate before the concentration camps were started?

AS for pictures, movies, and written reports, I have all of these.



YOU, Amos, do not have to agree with anything, least of all those who make you feel uncomfortable.


IMHO there are less dead than would have been the case by now if Saddam had not been stopped. I have seen no reason presented to believe otherwise, nor to believe that, no matter what the intention, those who protested the UNR and it's enforcement contribted to Saddam's resistance and to the number of people killed.

MY OPINION. Based on the facts that I have found and been presented. You are free to have your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 05:23 PM

First of all, must be nice to have 24 hours a day 7 days a week to just sit in front a computer without one care about stuff like having to go ouyt and make a living... So to you especially, bruce, congrates...

Secondly, it would also be nice if Mudcat had a one rebuttal rule... I mean, to come home after 8 hours in the real world and find that bruce has submited half a dozen or more confrontational and rude posts since I last had 10 lousy mintes to catch up on things ain't really respectfull...

Thirdly, I resent being blamed for the Iraqi war deaths... That is an ouright ***lie***... It is folks like Teribus and bruce who have the blood on their hands... Any attempt to turn that around is a bald faced psychopathic ***lie***...

Fourthly, there is a complete lack of historical perspective on bb and t's part about UN Resolution 1441... As others here, as well as Bush's own former Treasury Secretary, have pointed out that the decision to invade Iraq was made even before 9/11... The only reason that Bush ever went to the UN was because Secretary of Sate Colin Powell pushed back against the neocons and so Bush reluctantly went to the UN... This resolution was as bogus as a 3 dollar bill...

Fifthly, both bb abd T refuse to answer TIA's question...

Sixthly, bb has gone back to thinking that he SCREAMS loud enought that will make his positions correct... Silly behavior on his part...

Seventhly, I don't think bb would recognize a fact if it was standing in his doorway so his proclamations that his opinions are based on facts are just that: procalmations... Kinda like his vulgar and childish SCREAMING... Just noise...

Eigthly, the Blix quotes I have posted are indeed Blix quotes and deal with the overall process that was on the ground in Iraq when Bush pulled the plug on sanity... Both bb and t had to be provded a source for them... Hmmmmmmmmm??? Why ask for a source if there wasn't some underlieing thinking that he hadn't said those things??? I mean, in asking for the source they were inferring that they were not aware that Blix had said that the Iraqis was cooperating... Maybe bb and t didn't have that information... I don't know... I do know that its very strange that both would have to be lea to the source of Blix's remarks to the Security Council...

Ninethly, how does one go about proving that don't possess something??? This is philosophically imnpossible... Deamnding it is the ultimate trick bag because it can't be done... If you don't have it then you don't have it...

Lastly, tho the bb's and the teribus's of the world will go to their graves in denial, historians will get the story correct that this war was the US's largest foriegn policy blunder...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 05:23 PM

Teribus, my comment on the outcome of Afghanistan had no relation to the number of troops committed, whatever your supposition. I am referring to the hearts and minds aspect of the campaign. The Taleban would have found is considerably more difficult to garner support with a population that actually welcomed the coalition. Think Malaya rather than Vietnam; Templeton rather than Westmoreland.
I suggest you ask your son what the people really think. When asked, "have you seen any Taleban?" do they immediately dob them in, or do they smile evasively and say, "No Taleban here," when everyone knows full well that there are.
I introduced PIRA attacks in Ulster as an analogy because you seemed to be labouring under the delusion that attacks by Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow "don't count" as terrorism; as though only PIRA attacks on the UK mainland counted. Note the "as though".
And, yes, every military has hypothetical plans for any eventuality. We even have war plans against the French on a shelf somewhere in Shrivenham (and no bad thing, some would argue).
But the plans being put forward for Iraq were rather more than that, I think you'll find. If we are talking table-top wargames, why did the very first meeting of the National Security Council following Bush's inauguration have the invasion of Iraq on its agenda? Are you suggesting that, in the UK, COBRA or JIC deliberates the invasion of France as a matter of priority?
You can bluster and spout bollocks until the cows come home, but I think posterity will judge the subject of this overlong thread to be accurate.
And hindsight is, indeed, a wonderful thing. I remember one armchair general saying that it was highly unlikely that there would be a war because Bush would never launch an attack without the full and official sanction of the UN, and anyway, if the Americans did decide to invade it would have to be an entirely amphibious assault and that would never work, so would everyone please calm down.
Ring any bells?
Similarly, if you can be arsed to fossick back through old posts, you'll find that I supported the Afghan operation and thought it justified (albeit with reservations as the the long-term outcome), but at no point did I see the Iraq operation as justified.
For one view from way back when, see this post from February 2003. Hindsight or foresight?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Mar 09 - 11:21 PM

Nobody has to believe my opinion on anything, and you are free to have your own opinion. But don't expect me to have any faith in your opinion of what Hans Blix's opinion was (or anything else for that matter) when there are **direct quotes** from Hans Blix himself that completely belie your opinion of his opinion. And the existence of those quotes is not opinion - it is fact, and I provided the link where you can go read them if you wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:05 AM

Bobert:

"Ninethly, how does one go about proving that don't possess something??? This is philosophically imnpossible... Deamnding it is the ultimate trick bag because it can't be done... If you don't have it then you don't have it..."

Is it any wonder that I emphasize things, when you are constantly proving you have no comprehension of basic English???


-----------------

Date: 17 Mar 09 - 06:34 AM

Bobert:

....

"And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something..."

Since the required proof that was demanded was the accounting for of material that Sqaddam was KNOWN to have ( by UN inspections of 1998 and earlier), there was no requirement for "proof that one does not have something" The proof was of the disposition of known material.

That is another strawman arguement that you have consistantly put in, even though you havce been told repeatedly that it was untrue.

YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. Basic Remedial Logic 001

------------------------------------------------------

Repeating a lie after being told the truth makes you a liar. Your accusations against my facts do not seem to have any support from reality: Perhgaps you should should reconsider who is making the " bald faced psychopathic ***lie***..."

You have obviously not read the UNR that you claim to have such an expert knowledge of...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:10 AM

Guest TIA,

And I have provided direct quotes from the UN report by Blix that state Iraq was not in compliance, and indicating that there was NOT the cooperation needed to fullfil the requirements of UNR1441. I have provided the source ( UN) and this report "completely belie(s) " your quote of his opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:13 AM

"Secondly, it would also be nice if Mudcat had a one rebuttal rule... I mean, to come home after 8 hours in the real world and find that bruce has submited half a dozen or more confrontational and rude posts since I last had 10 lousy mintes to catch up on things ain't really respectfull..."

Bobert,

Since I have been lead to believe from your repeated statements of known false information that you have a reading comprhension problem, I broke up a long post into smaller segments, thinking it might make it easier for you to understand. I am sorry that it was still beyond your abilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:18 AM

Bobert:

"Thirdly, I resent being blamed for the Iraqi war deaths... That is an ouright ***lie***... It is folks like Teribus and bruce who have the blood on their hands... Any attempt to turn that around is a bald faced psychopathic ***lie***..."


I gave my reasoning: If you do not like the result, argue with the facts or logic, not with me.

So, ++your++ opinion that "It is folks like Teribus and bruce who have the blood on their hands... " is allowed, and we should be happy to be told that, but ++you++ resent "being blamed for the Iraqi war deaths... "

Seems like you continue to want to inflict on others what you do not allow to be inflicted on yourself

Ubermensch!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:20 AM

"Seventhly, I don't think bb would recognize a fact if it was standing in his doorway so his proclamations that his opinions are based on facts are just that: procalmations... Kinda like his vulgar and childish SCREAMING... Just noise..."



Ad hominim arguement- you are attacking me, and not the facts. You seem to have abandoned any pretense at discussion, and are trying to silence discussion that you disagree with by force.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM

No ad hominim here, bruce... You have just attached yer wagon to a dead horse and everyone here with the exception of the other two fringe radical righties sees that plainly for what it is...

As for inflicting, hey, ain't our side who has blindly supported a war in which upwards of a million innocent people have been killed... You need to keep that in perspective... But you won't... It's not in yer DNA to accept the truth about this illegal and most immoral war...

No ad hominim, just pure ol' down-home truth...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:30 AM

Sorry, Bobert- to attack me instead of the facts presented is ad hominem ( sorry about the spelling)

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against."




please note:

"It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it."


So it is working against your own side to indulge in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:46 AM

"ain't our side who has blindly supported a war in which upwards of"

No, it is your "side" who encouraged Saddam not to comply with the UNR, and thus made the invasion the only means to disarm him.

"this illegal and most immoral war..."

Your opinion. NOT mine.

The invasion was both legal and moral.

But then, you do not permit opinions other than your own, from what I have been reading of your posts.

Must be nice to be God.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 09:45 AM

Oh, we should suppress dissent in the US because we don't want to give poeple the wrong idea or make them think they can get away with murder....

Sorry, Bruce, that one won't fly either. Saddam Hussein is wholly responsible if he chooses to base his decisions on obviously weak foundations, accept data from unqualified sources, or engage in wishful thinking about the way things are. CNN does not equal intel.

Come to think of it, so was GWB. I guess they both failed that little test.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 09:52 AM

"Oh, we should suppress dissent in the US because we don't want to give poeple the wrong idea or make them think they can get away with murder...."

No more than we should supress voting because people are responsible for the actions of those they vote for- BUT they are still responsible.


The protestors are responsible for the encouragement they gave Saddam, as the ones who voted for Bush are responsible for what he did.

Or are you still pushing for special rights to those you agree with, that you prohibit to those you disagree with????

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:05 AM

I never have, Bruce; this is your fantasy.

The idea that Saddam's insanities should be laid at the doorstep of those who opposed going to war is nuts, that's all. ANy student of history would know better. He made up his own crazy head just as W made up his; they were both nuts, and I am delighted to see them both gone.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:17 AM

Sorry, Amos.

I have stated the reasons that I have these opinions, and have seen nothing to lead me to change them. I do NOT doubt the INTENTIONS of those who protested holding Saddam accountable were peaceful ( for the most part), but the RESULTS are as I have described.

If I throw a flower, with only peaceful intent, am I then NOT responsible when that flower goes in the eye of someone, and blinds them?

If I tell a criminal that he will not be held accountable for his actions, and he then chooses to kill someone, do I not have some responsibility for that killing?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:20 AM

More to the point, you ( your "side") hold ME responsible for the actions of Bush, because I supported him.

Are you not responsible for the side ( no UN action against Saddam) that YOU advocated?

If not, the double standard is alive and well.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:46 AM

No double standard here...

Had Bush allowed the inspections to continue then the reasons given for this war would have been shown to be false and there wouldn't have been a war... That is our side's posotion... Get it, bruce???

No war = ***no*** upwards of a million dead Iraqis

....................verses.......................

Your side which didn't want to let the inspections go forward but instead wanted to invade Iraq...

War = upwards of a million dead Iraqis

Purdy simple...

And please don't go thru yer little twisted rationale that it was our side that is responsibile for this war... There is absolutely no logic or factual basis fpor that line of BS... It is equivalent of blaming the Holocost on the Jews...

(Now Bobert gets to enjoy the rest of a rare day off from playing plumber...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 10:57 AM

"It is equivalent of blaming the Holocost on the Jews..."

No, it is equivalent to putting some of the blame on the Allied Leaders who did not allow Jewish immigration, telling Hitler it was his own problem to deal with and they would not interfere.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 11:01 AM

Bobert,

You learn to read yet?

"the reasons given for this war would have been shown to be false"

UNR 1441 states the reasons- and the reports by Blix state that Saddam was NOT in compliance far after the deadline for his "last and final" chance to comply. Since it was his compliance that was required, the reasons for the war were his non-compliance.




"There is absolutely no logic or factual basis fpor that line of BS"

Then argue the logic and facts, instead of making ex deus pronouncements. You are not God!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 11:53 AM

1.        Teribus, my comment on the outcome of Afghanistan had no relation to the number of troops committed, whatever your supposition. I am referring to the hearts and minds aspect of the campaign. The Taleban would have found is considerably more difficult to garner support with a population that actually welcomed the coalition.

A news flash for you Gervase, the Taleban have never, repeat, never been "popular" in Afghanistan, not even amongst the Pashtu population. The only reason the Taleban ever became so prominent in Afghanistan was because they eradicated the worst of the corruption and excesses of the former "Mujihadeen" warlords after the expulsion of the Russians and offered some semblance of security to the people of Afghanistan but it came at a price – they were never liked but they were perceived generally as being the lesser of two evils in a situation where the "people" didn't have any real choice or say in the matter. Whatever "support" the Taleban have "garnered" in Afghanistan is down to fear and oppression, they are given little or nothing voluntarily from the population, they do however take a great deal at point of gun, and that Gervase includes "fighting men", who, obviously under such recruiting circumstances do not really fight all that hard.

Oh, by the bye that I got from what my son has told me of operations in Afghanistan. As to the specific question you asked. They get a great deal of information from the "local" population, but that information in terms of degree is tempered by the reality that ISAF cannot "hold" territory, not surprising really as it was never meant that they should to any significant extent.

As in discussions on Iraq, with Afghanistan what is completely ignored are the Afghan elements involved, the new Afghan National Army and Afghan Police Force. The former according to my son, is an organisation which is showing great promise, the latter he says are nowhere near as well trained, lazy and corrupt, in short an unreliable problem wherever they go. The ANA has gained the respect of those operating alongside it and my son's hope is that the Army or part of the Army takes over the role of the Afghan Police Force. The funny thing here is that if you compare that to what Doug Beattie's experiences were as recorded in his book "An Ordinary Soldier" it is the exact opposite. He reckoned that the APF were much better than the ANA. A serving member of the R.I.R. he worked with mentoring teams attached to the AFP. My son a serving Marine works with ANA Units, my son says that in taking up static positions near villages the ANA do not set up road-blocks and demand "tolls" from the locals, whereas the AFP do. AFP personnel are more often than not local to the area they work in and have excellent contacts with local Taleban a situation Beattie found astonishing in his time with them. ANA Units consist of Afghans from all over and they have a far greater sense of "Unit" loyalty, which under fire makes them a bit more effective and not being "local" they are less susceptible to outside pressures.

In Afghanistan there was no US "Invasion" as there was in Iraq. Therefore in Afghanistan nobody fought either American, British, Canadian, Dutch, Danish, etc, etc troops. In Iraq, the Iraqi Army, Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard and Saddam Fedayeen fought US and British troops and were defeated, that combatant situation was carried over when the UN MNF came into being, not surprising really as it devolved to the same players as the only people willing and capable of taking on the job.


The Pashtu, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbeks and the other ethnic groups that make up Afghanistan put a great deal of store in how you fight your enemy. The Taleban have lost a great deal of "face" in regressing to their bombing campaign. No longer do they dare face their enemies as the "Mujahideen" faced the Russians. The bombs the Taleban and Al-Qaeda now rely on, kill more Afghan civilians than they do "foreign infidels" and that, believe it or not Gervase, has registered and the Taleban are not liked because of that – the same thing helped in settling the hash of "Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq" in 2007.

2.        I introduced PIRA attacks in Ulster as an analogy because you seemed to be labouring under the delusion that attacks by Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow "don't count" as terrorism; as though only PIRA attacks on the UK mainland counted. Note the "as though".

Not exactly true is it Gervase.   I was talking about terror, and terrorism and whether or not it had "flourished" – You introduced militant Islam as an example of terrorism that had flourished as a result of the actions of the US and her allies, you even provided a link to illustrate this. When it was pointed out to you that most of the examples identified by yourself in that list had other causes completely unconnected from religion, you threw in the PIRA. Both you and I have both agreed to stick to what is actually said – so stop introducing red herrings and desist from attributing to me opinions and points of view that I do not subscribe to or hold.

3.        "Why did the very first meeting of the National Security Council following Bush's inauguration have the invasion of Iraq on its agenda?"

Could that have anything to do with the NSC's work for the three previous years where they were informing the then President of the United States of America, one William Jefferson Clinton, that potentially Iraq posed the greatest external threat to the security and interests of the United States of America?

After the November 2000 Presidential election, and on change of President and Administration in January 2001, can you think of any reason why the opinion of the National Security Council, or their advice, regarding that threat evaluation would change?

Having just taken over the job as President of the United States of America, do you think it likely that if your National Security Council and your Intelligence Agencies inform you of what in their opinion is the greatest threat to the nation, you as President, would shuffle it off to some back-burner for attention at a latter date??

4.        "And hindsight is, indeed, a wonderful thing. I remember one armchair general saying that it was highly unlikely that there would be a war because Bush would never launch an attack without the full and official sanction of the UN, and anyway, if the Americans did decide to invade it would have to be an entirely amphibious assault and that would never work, so would everyone please calm down. Ring any bells?"


Ah I'm glad you dug that up – Bobert always classifies me as having been "Gung-Ho" and all out for the war since long before Day 1. I on the other hand in the run up firmly believed that it would never happen – I think I am on record on this very thread for stating that my reasoning behind that point of view was that I could not believe that Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist regime in Iraq could possibly be so bloody stupid as to think that GWB and the USA was bluffing in the wake of the attacks of 11th September, 2001 that showed them how vulnerable to asymmetric attack the USA was.

At the time I held the belief outlined in your summation of my position as an "armchair general" that the US had no guaranteed access to land bases in the Persian Gulf region. After I posted that view Kuwait; Bahrain and Qatar came forward and granted the US leave to use bases on their territory to support any action against Iraq. I believe another important factor I predicted was the support of Turkey. That piece of the "jig-saw" did not fall into place and it cost the US dearly, the insurrection in the west and central provinces of Iraq would have been far shorter if Iraq's western border could have been sealed immediately.

5.        "Think Malaya rather than Vietnam; Templeton rather than Westmoreland."

By the bye Gervase if it's the man who said, "The answer [to the uprising] lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people", its Templer (As in Field Marshal Sir Gerald Walter Robert Templer KG, GCB, GCMG, KBE) not Templeton.   Here you are comparing apples and oranges and you know it. Much in the same way as Obama is waving his Afghan "Surge" under the direction of General David Petraeus.

If memory serves me correctly both Obama and his Vice-President Joe Biden opposed the "Surge" in Iraq and the latter was extremely derogatory and disparaging of its effectiveness when General Petraeus appeared before the Senate Committee to present his Report on Iraq in September 2007. Of course by the time the 2008 Presidential elections had come round General David Petraeus's every word had been vindicated and while Biden was left wiping the egg off his face, his running mate Barack Obama was chattering away ten to the dozen about his "surge" for Afghanistan having vehemently opposed the earlier one in Iraq. Well Gervase, like your comparison of Malaya & Vietnam, GWB's Iraq Surge & Obama's Afghan Surge are only significant in that they cannot be compared. If Obama thinks a surge of 17-19,000 troops in Afghanistan is going to have the same effect in the same time frame as George W Bush's 30,000 troop surge had in Iraq, then he is going to be a very disappointed man. My take on it is that we will have to be in Afghanistan for at least another ten years

What lessons could General Westmoreland (A complete and utter fool in my opinion) have taken from Gerald Templer to apply in Vietnam. The British in Malaya had quite a few things going for them that the Americans did not have in Vietnam, hence Templer's "Hearts and Minds" philosophy was a great deal easier to implement and those subject to it saw immediate benefits in terms of future prospects and standards of living. There was absolutely nothing that General Westmoreland could do in Vietnam that could ever come even close in terms of effectiveness to what the British accomplished in Malaya. Having coined the phrase the British have always seen the efficacy of a "Hearts and Minds" philosophy and have learned how and when to apply it, the American military have never understood it and have never applied it, they simply do not know how.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM

Bruce:

This is idiocy.

I did not argue for no UN action against Saddam. This is not only a purely theoretical argument, it is one with no associated reality!

I argued against Bush's pushing the US in to a unilateral invasion of a non-aggressor nation.

There are a thousand options Bush could have selected--using PR, sales and marketing, using economics and financial pressure, using better intell, using covert operations, using pressure from Iran, Syria, and other regional voices. Many of these solutions require no violence at all.

It is completely inane superficial logic to posit that those voicing objections to war were responsible for Saddam's irresponsibility.
Flowers or no.

And the reason Bush didn't let the inspections go forward was...???

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 12:37 PM

Continuing to cite the UN and Inspectors as the reason we had to go to war is just insane. The UN and the Inpsectors were practically (sometimes literally) begging Bush and the necons to not invade, and never gave their support or even tacit blessings. Just a few examples:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
December 20, 2002; Guardian
"US Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday accused Iraq of "deception" and "lying" in the 12,000-page weapons inventory it handed to the UN. In his first appraisal of the dossier, Mr Blix noted that Iraq maintained it had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs "and that none have been designed, procured, produced or stored" since the last inspections regime ended four years ago. Mr Blix said that western governments claimed to have evidence to the contrary, but that inspectors were currently not in a position "to confirm Iraq's statements, nor in possession of evidence to disprove it." The inspectors "don't get all the support we need" from western governments, he said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/20/iraq.foreignpolicy



March 7, 2003; Blix at UN Security Council
"…at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance…
…intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.
…There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of weapons of mass destruction. During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.
…How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs."

**Read carefully: "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months"
**Bush and Co. attacked 13 days later (actually the bombing started even before that)



And finally:

Sept. 16, 2004; BBC News
"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Now go ahead and wave your arms about 1441, because selective quotation of only that is all you have got. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 01:03 PM

89 cents and a UN Resolution will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at the local general store...

UN Resolution 1441 was nothin' more than the very least the UN could come up with to stop Bush from invading Iraq or at the very least providing time for saner thinking on Bush's part... That shows how little the UN understood about Bush's severe mental problems that prevented him from reassessment... The man made up his mind to invade Iraq the day that the Supreme Court appointed him to be president...

You pro-war folks must think that evryone else is just plain stupid to believe the crap that ya'll been dealing for the last 7 years...

It was crap then and crap now...

Historians won't have any trouble getting this story right... It will be like Vietnam in that it will take a few years before all the revisionists, apologists and rationalizers will be no more... Right now they amount to nothing but a little radical fringe group that is getting littler and littler as time goes by...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 03:19 PM

The reason that the Taleban have become such an influence in Afghanistan can be laid
at the doorstep of US military policy. The Afghans don't want Americans in their face.
The military proponents may tell you a different story but that's pure propaganda.

It's a situation of the lesser of two evils with the Pashtuns. Who can they live with?

It's time for these tin-pot militarists to step aside and deal with the cultural aspects of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Naturally, the militarists are going to try to defend their turf. And they will do it with belligerence and not with the Afghan or the Iraqi people in mind.

The Taleban will not be a force if we can educate the Afghan people not with weaponry
or phony posturing but with showing good will to them and conveying that we (US) don't want to occupy their country. Let's see some schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, and the preservation of the country's cultural legacy being built and preserved.

Why is it that the easiest solution of bombing, killing and maiming in a country is always
employed? It never works.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:52 AM

"The Taleban will not be a force if we can educate the Afghan people not with weaponry or phony posturing but with showing good will to them and conveying that we (US) don't want to occupy their country. Let's see some schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, and the preservation of the country's cultural legacy being built and preserved." - Stringsinger

During the period that the Taleban were in power in Afghanistan there was one University in the whole country, music and dancing were banned, girls were denied any eductaion at all. The Taleban were in effect doing all the things that Stringsinger accuses the US of. It was the Taleban who were ruthlessly destroying Afghan culture by force and dictat.

In the seven years that have followed the overthrow of the Taleban Frank there are now ten Universities in the country hundreds of new schools, hospitals and medical centres. The foreign troops serving out in Afghanistan with either ISAF or with US Operation Enduring Freedom are not making any effort at all to impose their culture on Afghan society, if you have any evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Now from what you have said, who is doing more for the Afghan people at the moment, the Taleban who terrorise, or the Afghan Government aided by the international community? The Afghan people are better off today than they have been at any point in their history over the last thirty years.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 03:13 AM

T, everybody we invade is doing better today than yesteryear it seems from your point of view. How is that?

Can you explain why the poppy by product is again the main export since the US came to the aid of the Afghan people when before we arrived the drug trade their was near dead?

Iraq was the most cultured, educated of the societies in the region. The culture, has it suffered under US rule, has the education system advanced?
Iraq was the pride of the mid east, that was before we got there!
You probably think that the English should still be in India & that there is no diference between yesterday & tomorrow.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 07:49 AM

The one thing that we are seeing with these wars is that they are a boon to bin Laden's recruiting efforts???

There was never al qeada in Iraq until Bush lost his mind and ordered up the invasion of Iraq...

Dumb foriegn policy...

And here we are all pissed off over $160M in bonuses to AIG employees...

Heck, we spill that much in Iraq every day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 12:45 PM

Well Barry let's hear your ringing endorsement for the rule of Saddam Hussein in that most cultured and educated of societies in the region, that made Iraq the pride of the middle-east. I suppose you have immigration statistics that support the vast number of people who during the reign of Saddam Hussein who were clamouring to live there. I know the number that left, sorry fled, the country was over 4.5 million, maybe they were just extremely hard to please eh?

Spell it all out for us Barry, then get an Iraqi Kurd, Madaan tribesman or Iraqi Shia Muslim's opinion on your take on things - Between that lot combined you have the major part of the Iraqi nation. My bet is that they would vehemently disagree with you.

I'll write the Foreword to kind of set the tone and provide a bit of background, I'll let you to carry on with the rest:

"THE WONDERFUL IRAQ OF SADDAM HUSSEIN" by Barry Finn

Foreword by Teribus

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had high levels of torture and mass murder. Secret police, torture, murders, deportations, forced disappearances, targeted assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, as are the reports of human rights violations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.

Documented human rights violations 1979-2003;

Human rights organizations have documented government approved executions, acts of torture, and rape for decades since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 until his fall in 2003.

•        In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".

•        Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government.

•        Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it was to express support for the government. The Iraqi government controlled the establishment of political parties, regulated their internal affairs and monitored their activities.

•        Police checkpoints on Iraq's roads and highways prevented ordinary citizens from traveling abroad without government permission and expensive exit visas. Before traveling, an Iraqi citizen had to post collateral. Iraqi women could not travel outside of the country without the escort of a male relative.

•        The activities of citizens living inside Iraq who received money from relatives abroad were closely monitored.

•        Halabja poison gas attack:The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period 15 March–19 March 1988 during the Iran–Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces and thousands civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja were killed.

•        Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.

•        In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

•        In June 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion, while government members and Saddam's family members were immune from punishments ranging around these crimes.

•        On March 23, 2003, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi television presented and interviewed prisoners of war on TV, violating the Geneva Convention.

•        Also in April 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind."

•        After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total, and more are being uncovered to this day[citation needed]. While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion.

•        Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock, and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations.

PS Barry I'll let you cover things like the Iran/Iraq War (1.5 million dead), that Saddam started and the introduction of quaint customs such a "Honour Killings" that he legalised.

Pride of the Middle-East - You have got to be joking!!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:51 PM

That is the logical fallacy of the "false choice", wherein opposition to Bush's invasion is equated with support for Saddam's brutality.

Remember, "you're either with us, or with the terrorists!"

Here's another example for you:
"If you support the invasion, then you are happy about the 4300 dead, and over 100000 wounded coalition soldiers"

Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:55 PM

600