Not to mention that the containment strategy Scylla was deriding as “lucky” was the one targeting Iraq, not Al Qaeda or the nebulous “terrorism”. Examples of Al Qaeda or other terrorist-group activities aren’t relevant to the Iraq situation anyway (random, you *do * know Saddam had fuck-all to do with 9/11, don’t you? Please say you know). I replied to them anyway because Bush 1 and Clinton were applying a similar policy of containment to them as well as to Iraq, to the extent possible.
What does any of this have to do with Iraq? That was the topic. Iraq.
I have every right, and it’s none of your business or concern.
You didn’t write that in your previous post above. The previous post above is the one where you tell me I’m not allowed to say “we.” I didn’t take your comment of two posts ago as directed at me anyhow.
To my mind, in this case, the fact that Chalabi was known as a con-artist and shyster years before the Bush and the neo-cons tapped him to be titular head of Iraq. It’s hard to justify the relationship Bush had to Chalabi prior to the discovery that he (Chalabi) was passing state secrets to the Iranians. You write:Which is undoubtedly true, but ignores the simple fact that in this instance, with Chalabi, the administration was warned well in advance. Your response has a kind of prima facie reasonableness to it, but then Nightime replies:It’s really very simple. It’s a relief to see someone express in a straightforward manner, with a simplicity I don’t master, exactly what happened and why it’s a problem.
[/quote]
I don’t understand how I’m being impervious to the fact Chalabi’s a scumbag. I think the first time I addressed the subject on this board was when it was just brought up. I acknowledged it as a fact, a mistake and failing of the administration. How am I being impervious? Are you impervious? I think our opinion of Chalabi is the same.
I think this is a failing of the administration but I don’t think it proves anything. We have to deal with somebody. Doubtless, everybody is warning us about everybody else. We make judgements and sometimes they’re wrong.
So? I was impervious? I really don’t understand what your complaint with me on this issue is?
Sheesh, bud. Back up a step. I’m not arguing for Chalabi. I’m not arguing the administration didn’t err in placing confidence in him. I hate to be taken to task for arguments I’m not making.
I think the actual question is how we view the administration in light of this error. Frankly, I don’t know how to evaluate it. I strongly suspect that there are all kinds of groups and people we could be dealing with, and that few of them are particularly savory, and that we’ve had warnings and complaints about many. To go back to your kitchen example, I think the metaphor would work this way:
You need plumbing work done. There are three plumbers that can potentially do the job. In checking them out, you find complaints and problems with all three. In interviewing them, they make promises, address the complaints and problems that have been made against them. They try to build a rapport, make themselves look good and make their competitors and those that complained about them look bad.
In the end, you choose the one you think you can work with, and the one you think you can manage best.
Sometimes you choose badly.
Actually, I pretty much deride any policy that simply postpones a problem rather than addresses it.
I think Al Qaeda and terrorism are very relevant to Iraq. Saddam is our declared enemy and it would be foolish to attempt to operate in the region with him a free threat. He gave money to suicide bombers’ families and applauded 9/11, so he was clearly aiding terrorists. He has in the past proven that he’s willing to take a gambit and invade an ally of ours if he thinks he can get away with it. His denouement was long overdue, IMO and I think it is foolish and stupid to allow such enemies to continue to exist if you have an option.
Iraq had zero to do with al Qaeda and suicide bombers in Israel are none of our business.
They can’t succeed once if they don’t exist any more.
I don’t think the statement that our reaction to 9/11 created Bali and Madrid. Terrorism has existed for quite some time.
Those aren’t facts, Elvis, they’re your opinion, your asessment of the situation. It’s one I think is pretty obviously wrong.
Well, no. This thread hasn’t been limited to Iraq. And the two points I’ve recently addressed have specifically had broader scope.
Point One:
Scylla made a comment:
.
Mr Svinlesha objected to Scylla’s pronoun usage in this paragraph.
That’s one of the two points I adressed. The Scylla comment isn’t limited to Iraq. Actually, it’s more about 9/11 and Korea. Korea ain’t Iraq. Yeah, you could read Iraq into his comment about “clearing the mountain”, but it also covers many other acts by the US. Afghanistan is in there as much as Iraq is.
Point Two:
ElvisL1ves said, following up on the above point by Scylla relating to containment:
.
I’ve already established above that Scylla was talking about containing terrorism, Korea and the perpetrators of 9/11. That would be Al Qaida and not Iraq. Maybe Iraq’s in there too (by implication), but he’s clearly talking about a broader list of threats.
Given that, Elvis was wrong. There were other casualties, and the storm was clearly gathering.
I have no intention of getting drawn into a debate on Iraq. It’s been done to death. Sorry if this offends you, but I chose to address other issues. So I did. And your implication that my points are invalid because I didn’t get into your favorite issues (“Bush lied!” “Iraq bad!”) doesn’t hold up.
The term “containment” refers only to Iraq. Nobody uses that term to refer to Iraq.
This whole thing started because Scylla was trying to assert that W had inherited an “unstable situation” in Iraq. An assertion that was rightly called bullshit by such alacritous posters as me.
An attempt to then bring in al Qaeda is just a lame grasping at straws.
Terrorism. Nobody uses that word to refer to terrorism.
Are you ever right?
Results of google search (terrorism and containment). 205,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=containment+terrorism
And to shoot another Diogenes in the drum:
contain and “north korea” gets us 283,000 hits.
Wow. Impressive. Did you try Googling “containment” and “China”? Or “containment” and “Stalin”? How about “containment” and “Tupperware”?
Truly, containment only refers to Iraq.
Bush Douche Monkey gets 10,900 hits.
As a matter of fact, in this context it does. It is and was not a term used in conjunction with terrorism.
I think you have to repeat it one more time to make it true. Then all those google hits will disappear.
The Google stunt is meaningless. I thought we had already made that more than obvious but you seem to be a special case so I’ll soeak very slowly.
You can pair the word “containment” with anything on Google and get lots of hits. It proves exactly dick. “Containment” Is a term which was very commonly used by politicos in conjunction with Iraq. It was not used for terrororism. You will not be able to find a cite for any politician citing the need to “contain terrorism.” I guarantee you.
Jeez, I got bad news, Dio. Google Random and you get like 55,000,000 hits! Google Diogenes and its something like 118,000. So, really, that’s it. Game over, he wins.
I would have Googled elucidator, but I was in a hurry to get back and tell you guys. Couldn’t wait that long, you know how it is.