Text 10390, 193 rader
Skriven 2009-03-19 23:45:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av John Fitzgerald
Ärende: OBAMA ANOTHER OIL MAN?
==============================
 JF> -


JF>>>   Once again guys, Bush didn't say anything
JF>>>   Clinton Democrats didn't say  for eight years
JF>>>   about Saddam and Iraq. ...

BK>>>  We now know Bush knew better.

 JF>>   Apparently you only think you know.  You can't prove it.
 JF>>   Seems you can't even offer a viable explanation.  And I
 JF>>   notice you haven't, once again.

BK>>  The inspectors were there, they were inspecting where
BK>>  and when they chose, and they were filing reports Bush
BK>>  had available.  He would only not know if he *CHOSE*
BK>>  to not know.

 JF>    This is a little sketchy, Bob.  Not sure what you're
 JF>    saying here.

 The UN inspectors in Iraq after 9-11 got to go anywhere and
 inspect at will.

 JF>  ...

JF>>>    Milosevic was no threat to the US, had no WMD programs.
JF>>>    And if you want to justify taking him out because of
JF>>>    ethnic cleansing and atrocities against various peoples
JF>>>    in the region then you are justifying taking Saddam out
JF>>>    in the process, as he was guilty of same.

BK>>>  No, not really. Saddam was only guilty of murder to protect his
BK>>>  position. It was not genocide. And he was not even doing much of
BK>>>  that, as he couldn't get at the Kurds, his primary target.

 JF>>   "Only guilty of murder.."?    Saddam had a long history
 JF>>   of killing Kurds, and many others and it only would have
 JF>>   been a matter of time before he tried to do so again, and

BK>>   You could justify it on that basis, only if you want
BK>>   to extend it to all the others doing the same thing.
BK>>   Why didn't Bush invade Sudan? He could have ended
BK>>   all the atrocities in Darfor, and it would have
BK>>   been much easier than Iraq.

 JF>   Saddam was a much greater threat.  Just ask Clinton.

 Not in 2003 three he wasn't. Saddam was never a threat to the
 US.

 I have never denied Clinton was a weak man. That was his great
 failing. Bush shared that failing. Which is why both were so
 easily victimized by the paranoia of the purveyors of the fear
 of Saddam.

 Saddam was no threat. Neither is Iran today. Yet the paranoia
 flows freely.

 JF>  ...

 JF>>   any event, the case against Saddam doesn't rest on the
 JF>>   Kurds, I was just pointing out that such actions were all
 JF>>   Clinton needed to go after Milo'.

BK>>   And Clinton did not get us into a quagmire, with 4,000+
BK>>   dead Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

 JF>    It is only your opinion that we are in a "quagmire".

 We are finally, maybe, climbing out of the quagmire. All it will
 take, though, is another erruption of extremist violence and we
 are right back in. Up to our necks.

 JF>    People actually over there have quite a different
 JF>    opinion.  It's no picnic, and they are still fighting
 JF>    here and there, but over all, Al qaeda is in decline,

 Al Qaeda was never a major player there. The locals could do
 enough without help.

 JF>    loosing Iraqi support, the new gov is coming up to speed
 JF>    and they have had many successful elections.   And how
 JF>    many people died in the Vietnam war?  50,000+

 Probably more like a million over the course of the whole thing.
 Your point? Do you want to keep killing until we match it?
 According to the British medical journal, over half a million
 have died in Iraq. That's half a million too many.

 JF>    And "hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis" is another
 JF>    slanderous distortion put out by partisan hacks.  No

 Just very likely true.

 JF>    doubt they are blaming all the deaths at the hands of
 JF>    insurgents and others on our guys. Again, our actions in

 John, you do gotta pay attention. We know it was done mostly by
 local extremists. Doesn't change the fact that Bush set up the
 conditions. They weren't killing before Bush sent the troops in.
 And they would not have been near as bad has Bush not bungled it
 so badly.

 JF>    Iraq have been tactical, most of the troops over there
 JF>    having never seen any action.  It would take ie.the
 JF>    constant carpet bombing of highly populated areas to
 JF>    kill that many people. "Hundreds of thousands" means at
 JF>    least 200,000 dead Iraqs.  Just how are they dying in
 JF>    such great numbers?

 100 per day for 6 years. That's enough.

BK>>   Bush did. And by diverting from Afghanistan he left
BK>>   us with a war there that threatens to take
BK>>   over Pakistan, and give the Taliban real nukes.

 JF>    Pakistan will wipe Afghanistan off the map before they
 JF>    let this bunch of 9th century morons get any where near
 JF>    their nukes.

 John, you better start reading newspapers. The Pakistani Intel
 services have a real longstanding cooperation with Al Qaeda and
 the Taliban. The real ties you mistakenly thought Saddam had.

 JF>>>     As for Obama in Iraq, yes, it would take months to pack
 JF>>>     up and leave...not a year and a half.

BK>>>    He's trying too hard to pacify the right.
BK>>>    He should just work on getting out.

 JF>>   He didn't seem too interested in pacifying the right when
 JF>>   he chose to close Gitmo, when he lifted the ban on
 JF>>   embryonic stemcell research, by appointing Hillary, of
 JF>>   all people, as S.O.S..  No, he's staying in Iraq because

BK>>   Actually, appeasing the right on Iraq
BK>>   may be a tradeoff over the rest.

 JF>   That's possible.

BK>>   Oh, and a whole lot of conservatives are in favor
BK>>   of embryonic stem cell research, and closing Gitmo.
BK>>   In fact, I would say all  real conservatives are
BK>>   in favor of closing Gitmo.

 JF>   Does that mean real liberals want it to remain open?

 Nope, real liberals want it closed too.

 JF>   Gitmo, like Saddam, has been distorted by some Democrats
 JF>   for partisan reasons only.

 No, it has not. The fact that you don't know what's happening
 there is reason enough to say that.

 JF>>   he was finally made aware of the realities that still
 JF>>   loom in that country and the strategic advantage it gives
 JF>>   us when we will have to deal with Iran in the very near
 JF>>   future.  At least he gets it.

BK>>   If he stays in Iraq for strategic advantage he
BK>>   will bring more damage to this country and more corruption.

 JF>   Interesting opinion.  How would you explain it?

 Bringing war and conquest, which is what keeping a garrison in
 Iraq for our purposes would be, would corrupt this country.
 Colonialism ended decades ago, pretty much half a century or
 more ago. A great point in favor of this country was that we
 were never a colonial power. Becoming one now would reduce us to
 the level of those who were.

BK>>    Your entire concept of invading Iraq and
BK>>    staying there to use it against Iran is immoral.

 JF>   Putting yourself in position to deal with an imminent
 JF>   threat in Iraq and Iran is "immoral"...how?   You forgot
 JF>   to say.

 No imminent threat in Iraq. I said using Iraq against Iran.

 And it is immoral to invade and conquer another country to use
 it as a staging ground against another country. Killing people
 to appease the paranoids in this country is disgusting.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Trust in Allah--but tie your camel tight!  Persian Proverb.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)