Mass graves: yet more lies (ho hum)

[elucidator]

Well, truth be known, friend rjung isn’t all that smart. Happily, he needn’t be. Unlike yourself, he is not obligated to invent tortured rationalizations to support the unsupportable. You need such creativity as you demonstrate here, he doesn’t, all he needs is the good sense God gave a goose, you need the ability to torture logic into confessing that the goose is an eagle.

(Note to rujng: No need to thank me, really. Least I could do.)

[Larry_Mudd]

@New Iskander

I still can’t comprehend Equipose, Larry Mudd and Tagos position: because they remain pissed at US for supporting Saddam in the 80-s, they are now double pissed at Bush for removing Saddam? This is schizophrenia.

I think that the only reason you’re having trouble getting your head around it is that you seem to believe the only solution is application of military force.

The required thing, then and now, is a sane foreign policy.

Yes, people were pissed off in the eighties because governments were enabling a brutal dictator as a political expediency.

Just sticking with the U.S. for the time being-- right up until the bombs started falling in the first Gulf war, the Federal government extended a billion dollars a year worth of credit to Iraq. Ostensibly this was supposed to be good for American farmers-- the funds were guaranteed by a Dept. of Agriculture program. Only the loans were used to buy material for conventional, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. From American companies.

What was wanted then was not a carpet-bombing of Baghdad – it was a withdrawal of support that was substantially furthering Saddam’s potential for harm. Nobody on the right side wants to see troops placed in harm’s way unless absolutely necessary. If Western interests didn’t do such a great job of arming Saddam to the teeth, he may not have presented a problem – and if he did, intervention would have cost less coalition lives.

Once the monster was created, it was necessary to remove him. It should have been followed through on in 1990, when the situation got so fucked up it couldn’t be ignored any longer. Only the prevailing wisdom was a sort of “better the devil you know” attitude. What if Iraq turned into another Iran? So we got a decade-and-a-half when the only people threatened by Saddam were Iraqis, which was hunky-dory, and economic sanctions that effected the regime to a miniscule degree but had a devastating impact the general population.

“Shock and Awe” followed by a lengthy occupation is not helping the Iraqi people any, and it’s not doing anyone else much good either. (Apart from a few happy contractors and their investors.) A continued policy of containment and some common-sense adjustments of sanctions could have saved lives. No Cui bono? incentive there though. Iraqi public? Fuck them. And fuck the UN – what use is informed consensus?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

*originally posted by ni:

The prospect of Saddam posessing WMD was frightening because he was a murderous dictator, killing his own people.

The prospect of Saddam making connections with AQ was frightening because he was a murderous dictator, killing his own people.

Saddam had to go because he was a murderous dictator, killing his own people.

Can you see what preceding three sentences have in common?*

Indeed I can.

All three were posted by a moron.

[Starving_Artist]

@elucidator

Well, truth be known, friend rjung isn’t all that smart. Happily, he needn’t be. Unlike yourself, he is not obligated to invent tortured rationalizations to support the unsupportable. You need such creativity as you demonstrate here, he doesn’t, all he needs is the good sense God gave a goose, you need the ability to torture logic into confessing that the goose is an eagle.

Au contraire, mon schmuck! What you percieve as creativity and tortured logic is itself merely a common sense observation of reality. And while I am flattered by your allusion to my supposed creativity, as you can see below a compliment from you is something to be approached with caution.

@elucidator

(Note to rujng: No need to thank me, really. Least I could do.)

Heh, heh, heh…yes, by all means, jungie, thank elucidator for pointing out that you really aren’t all that smart, after all.

With friends like that, who needs enemies, eh?

[New_Iskander]

@Larry Mudd

Once the monster was created, it was necessary to remove him. It should have been followed through on in 1990, when the situation got so fucked up it couldn’t be ignored any longer. Only the prevailing wisdom was a sort of “better the devil you know” attitude. What if Iraq turned into another Iran? So we got a decade-and-a-half when the only people threatened by Saddam were Iraqis, which was hunky-dory, and economic sanctions that effected the regime to a miniscule degree but had a devastating impact the general population.

“Shock and Awe” followed by a lengthy occupation is not helping the Iraqi people any, and it’s not doing anyone else much good either. (Apart from a few happy contractors and their investors.) A continued policy of containment and some common-sense adjustments of sanctions could have saved lives.

So “the monster” had to be removed in 1990. Instead there were “economic sanctions that effected the regime to a miniscule degree but had a devastating impact the general population”. Therefore, Bush was wrong to remove “the monster” in 2003. Instead, Bush had to use a “continued policy of containment and some common-sense adjustments of sanctions”. Did I get that right?

Why do I keep hearing “XXI Century Schizoid man” by ‘King Crimson’ in the background?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Starving Artist:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record-player….

• You misunderstand. It isn’t the actions of sixteen years ago that pose the threat I spoke of, it’s the propensity for taking that kind of action that is the threat. As good ol’ Dr. Phil says, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the threat Hussein posed was too great to ignore….

It’s never been my fear that Hussein would initiate aggressive action against the U.S., whether at the height of his power or not. My concern regarding the present is that he would either have, obtain, or develop WMD, and that some of these weapons could easily fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group, given Hussein’s animosity toward the U.S.
*

There are two major problems with this line of reasoning.

1. If we are to take your advice and judge Hussein’s future behavior on the basis of his past behavior, then we would have no reason whatsoever to suspect that Hussein would ever give “WMDs” to a stateless terrorist group, because he had never done so in the past, despite numerous opportunities. I’ve pointed this out to you before. To quote once again from the Carnagie Report:

2. Was there reason to believe that Saddam Hussein would turn over unconventional weapons or WMD capability to Al Qaeda or other terrorists?

The president presented this possibility as the ultimate danger and the centerpiece of his case for war. The most strongly worded of many such warnings came in the 2003 State of the Union speech:

“Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.”

In fact, however, there was no positive evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD or agents to terrorist groups and much evidence to counter it.

Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow. The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda.

Since this report was published in January of 2004 no new evidence has come to light regarding the alleged Iraq – Al Qaida connection. It remains, to this day, nothing more than a supposition on the part of the Bush administration and other various paranoid war types, who have been unable to produce one single shred of solid evidential support for the assertion of a working relationship between Al Qaida and Hussein’s regime.

There were more than words for guidance. Terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna has pointed out that the Iraqi regime had a long history of sponsoring terrorism against Israel, Kuwait, and Iran, providing money and weapons to these groups. Yet over many years Saddam did not transfer chemical, biological, or radiological materials or weapons to any of them “probably because he knew that they could one day be used against his secular regime.” In the judgment of U.S. intelligence, a transfer of WMD by Saddam to terrorists was likely only if he were “sufficiently desperate” in the face of an impending invasion. Even then, the NIE concluded, he would likely use his own operatives before terrorists.

Even without the particular relationship between Saddam and bin Laden, the notion that any government would turn over its principal security assets to people it could not control is highly dubious. States have multiple interests and land, people, and resources to protect. They have a future. Governments that made such a transfer would put themselves at the mercy of groups that have none of these. Terrorists would not even have to use the weapons but merely allow the transfer to become known to U.S. intelligence to call down the full wrath of the United States on the donor state, thereby opening opportunities for themselves.

Moreover, governments with the wherewithal to have acquired such weapons and the ambition to want them used are likely to have their own means of delivering them—through people who take orders. In the 1993 assassination attempt on former president George H. W. Bush, for example, Saddam relied on his own intelligence operatives. All in all, governments would have little to gain and perhaps everything to lose by giving their WMD to terrorists.

So, anyway, returning to your point: by your own argument, if we are to judge Saddam’s potential future behavior on the basis of his past actions, then we could at the very least say, with some modicum of confidence, that he would probably not give unspecified “WMDs” to Al Qaida or other terrorist organizations, whatever else he might do – because that was something he chose unequivocally not to do in the past, when he undoubtedly possessed such weapons (at least chemical munitions).
2) Your argument sets the threshold for military action unconscionably low. There are dozens of “rogue/failed” states that view the US with animus, have or are working on “WMDs,” and might potentially, some day, give those weapons to terrorists. Thus this argument can be employed, literally, as a justification for virtually any invasion. Syria, Iran, China, Pakistan, India, Libya, North Korea, El Salvador: what country in world doesn’t fit, or at least potentially fit, your criteria for unprovoked military intervention?

[Larry_Mudd]

@New Iskander

So “the monster” had to be removed in 1990. Instead there were “economic sanctions that effected the regime to a miniscule degree but had a devastating impact the general population”. Therefore, Bush was wrong to remove “the monster” in 2003. Instead, Bush had to use a “continued policy of containment and some common-sense adjustments of sanctions”. Did I get that right?

Yes, more or less. Saddam should never have been supported in the first place. After we did a superficial 180 on the whole “Saddam’s really a nice guy,” stance, there should have follow-through. We did the bombing, knocked out their infrastructure, and hobbled their ability to rebuild. For more than 15 years, Iraqis suffered doubly – they still had Saddam, and they were being punished as well. It was considered to be too much work and too much risk to remove him from power, so the policy was to let him stay. Who knows – maybe it was the best policy, we don’t know what would have happened if Iraq held elections in '91 or so. The sanctions weren’t a good policy as implemented, because they caused terrible harm to innocent people. Weapons inspections were a good policy, and were working. Adjusting the sanctions to allow Iraq to repair their health-care facilities and basic necessities, while not resuming sales of anthrax, mustard gas precursors, conventional weapons, etc, would have been a good policy.

[rjung]

@elucidator

(Note to rujng: No need to thank me, really. Least I could do.)

Appreciate the lift, 'luci. After all, being the father of a four-year-old who consumes all my free time really takes the wind out of my sails. If I can string together three coherent sentences in the morning, that’s considered a great start.

At least, that’s my excuse. Starving Artist, on the other hand, derives his cranial density by natural means…

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@rjung

I don’t think “those people” talked to anyone; they just regurgitated what they read in the Washington Times.

Take another look at the link I posted above. The people that broke the story probably couldn’t have read it in the Washington Times.

. . . because it hadn’t been printed in the Washington Times before it was written. That’s why.

Not to mention that the people that broke the story weren’t exactly shills for Bush and Blair.

@rjung

And if you trace the stories back to their source, they go back to Joseph.

Another lie? It is if you read the article from whence you’re drawing this tripe.

Since you were apparently incapable of reading the article which you’re trying to parrot, let me try this again. The people that broke the story didn’t rely on the Reverend Joey. They relied on people that had been there and seen it in operation.

But just before the war, Ms Clwyd met people in Kurdistan who had been in Abu Ghraib - “in fact they were the last people to come out alive” - and they confirmed the story. “People were either put in head first, or foot first. If you went in foot first, it took you longer.”

She checked the story afterwards with someone from the prison “and they said yes, there were plastic shredders there and they were dismantled just before the military got there”.

For your continuing edification, those people are frequently referred to as witnesses.

@rjung

One quote says that it’s a common Republican tactic to brand as “unAmerican” anyone who disagrees with you (example: Michael Moore). Another quote says that the principles of this nation do not endorse punishing people because they’re expressing a dissenting view (again, see right-wing pundits vs. Michael Moore).

I see. So one position actually is unAmerican. And the unAmerican position just happens to be the one with which you disagree.

Thank goodness we’ve got you around to inform us what is American and what’s unAmerican. I shudder to think what would happen if the rest of us actually tried to make that determination.

By the way, which party was using “unAmerican” to mean “against the principles of this nation”? You were. And the Republicans were using “unAmerican” to mean . . . “against the principles of this nation.”

So you were both using the same word in the same sense, and under the same circumstances that you’d just criticized. Except you’re not a Republican. You’re just a hypocrite.

[elucidator]

Age, outside of your strenuous disagreement with rjung, you have no basis for calling him a liar. And posting a dictionary definition of “witness” is just plain snotty. If you’re going to insult people, could you at least have a bit of panache about it?

Reviewing your sources, the seem to boil down a lot to Ms. Clwyd, about whom I know nothing. But they reflect her opinions, by and large, as well as what she has been told. This is referred to as “hearsay”, and there is a very good reason why it is, at least legally, inadmissable. You and I, without the least bit of strain, could come up with 10 reasons why any given Iraqi (including, for this purpose, Kurds) might tell a member of the British Gov any of ten different things.

You seem stuck on the notion that if you prove that Saddam was an evil, evil man, you make some compelling point, something irrefutable. And if you wish to cling to the notion that GeeDubya is some sort of nuclear avatar, a collossus who bestrides the world and brings truth and justice to the benighted…that’s your business.

But the facts remain: we were not sold this war as a noble excercise in militant humanism, we were sold this war in self-defense: Saddam gonna get your momma! This is demonstrably untrue. And no matter how many examples of Saddam’s sadism and cruelty you trumpet before us, that fact remains unaltered. We have, for reasons of policy, cooperated and assisted some of the most vile human beings to walk this earth. We have, for instance, sold out the very same Kurds ourselves, when it suited our purposes. Claiming some sort of moral authority to exert our will because we are paragons of virtue does for hypocrisy what Gibralter does for rocks, it is spectacular, awesome, and shabby.

[rjung]

Look, Age, let’s make it freakin’ easy for you.

SHOW ME THE WITNESSES. Let’s get them out here, have them swear on a stack of Korans, the whole Joe Friday bit. Can’t be any problem, right? After all, the mean ol’ Saddam ain’t around to terrorize them any more. Why won’t they come out and play?

Or, if that’s too hard for you, try this:

SHOW ME THE SHREDDER(S). I’ll settle for one – industrial-sized, blood-splattered, fragments of bone stuck to the cogs. Even in pieces, if you prefer. Just ask the guys at Abu Ghraib to look around the back; it’s probably behind the water cooler or something.

Dumbass. :wally

As for the accusation of hypocrisy, I’ll remind you (yet again) that I never categorized anyone as “unAmerican.” Principles, yes; people, no. Learn the difference.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

SA:

I know this may be a bit off topic, but still, more on the assertion of links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein:

Operational Relationship’ With Al Qaeda Discounted

** One week after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, White House counterterrorism director Paul Kurtz wrote in a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that no “compelling case” existed for Iraq’s involvement in the attacks and that links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government were weak….

Yesterday, after a lengthy investigation, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States laid out a detailed body of evidence supporting Kurtz’s view. Although recent polls have shown that more than 40 percent of the American public is still convinced that Iraq collaborated with al Qaeda and had a role in the terrorist attacks, the commission reported finding no evidence of a “collaborative operational relationship” between the two or an Iraqi role in attacking the United States.

It stated that representatives of the two may have been in contact in 1994 or 1995, 1998 and possibly 1999, largely because of what the commission described as a shared hatred of the United States. But the commission found that their interests were largely out of sync, and nothing came of the contacts.**

[DesertDog]

@rjung

How much time do you need to make up nonsense? Just say whatever you want to justify your position, then brand anyone who disagrees with you as “unAmerican” – that’s the Republican way.

I’m no fan of the Rebublicans, but – except for the “unAmerican” part – I’ve seen Democrats do the same thing.

Anecdotal example: Some years ago, the California legislature was debating the Ugly Gun Ban – a list of so-called assault rifles they wanted to make illegal. Then-Attorney General John VanDeKamp, a Democrat, addressed the Legislature, waving a semi-auto AK-47 over his head, saying that he was tired of attending the funerals of police officers who had been murdered by such weapons. Intrigued, someone wrote the FBI, submitting the list of the weapons and asking how many peace officers in the U.S. had been shot by such. The FBI’s answer? None.

Either the State Attorney General was hallucinating, or lying, I really don’t care which. Either way, it’s hardly a trait exclusive to the 'Pubs. I suspect there’s something about becoming a professional pol that leads them to think they can say anything they want, and be believed.

DD

[Brutus]

Are you guys sure this is the best time for this thread? I mean, I know that you want to promote the ‘Saddam wasn’t such a bad guy’ meme, but this close to the elections? I dunno…

[elucidator]

Kinda has a point. Pointing out a particular lie from the Bushiviks is, in this instance, like pointing to one particular quill on a porcupine as being longer than it need be, or one ant in an ant hill as being especially obnoxious.

That might make a fine esthetic or philosophical argument: exactly which of the dollops of horseshit we have been served was the biggest? And is the biggest lie really the most significant lie, does size matter?

At least in this case, we have some quantification, we can approximate the lie as being roughly 80 times an exaggeration. On the other hand, we have lies that have no such basis for comparison. Are they equivalent in terms of falsehood? Can one lie be fifty times more a lie if there is no quantification? When it comes to total bullshit, does existence precede essence?

Deep questions, to be sure. Thanks, Brutus, we’ll be sure and let you know if we need more of your extraordinary insight.

[rjung]

@DesertDog

I’m no fan of the Rebublicans, but – except for the “unAmerican” part – I’ve seen Democrats do the same thing.

Wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Anyone who thinks being a Democrat automatically grants you insight and wisdom is bound to be deeply disappointed. Even after all these years, Will Rogers said it best.

That said, I just get irritated at how often the “unAmerican” card gets played, particularly when it comes to people holding an opinion different than those of the speaker. The entire fuckin’ nation was built on the idea of mutual distrust, of checks and balances, of making sure nobody got a blank check to do whatever they wanted to without the other branches stepping in to put a stop to it. Dissent is the most patriotic thing an American can do, and I’m tired of the history-revising righties who tell me otherwise.