Re: New Orleans, The part that pisses me off about it...

On 22 Sep 2005 11:51:03 -0500, Jim Blansett
<jim_blansett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>>>>Because it betrays your hypicrisy. You obsess over the deaths in Iraq,
>>>>>>but you ignore the avoidable deaths in NO.
>>>>>
>>>>>*If* he obsesses,
>>>>
>>>>Someone making hundreds of "silent posts" about the deaths is indeed
>>>>obsessing.
>>>
>>>How are the "silent posts?" He signs each of the "Wage Peace."
>>
>>I don't understand your question.
>
>That is because I screwed it up. I meant to say, "how are the posts
>silent?" and "he signs each of them 'Wage Peace'" but it didn't come
>out that way.

It looks like you are getting obsessive in trivial semantic/spelling
games. I'm going to ignore this.

>>A short simple one that demonstrates that Bush somehow "lied" to us
>>about Iraq. Something you're willing to stake your reputation on.
>
>I don't stake my reputation on the idea that I might be able to
>extract just one more breath in this lifetime. Why should I stake my
>reputation on producing something that, no matter how accurate others
>may see it, you would discount, out of hand?

Because it would be a discussion. Nobody appointed me umpire; I don't
get to call balls and strikes. All I get to do -- all any of us get to
do -- is discuss.

In that spirit, you are welcome to critique the discussion I had with
Jackie. Do you think anything was out of line?

>>> Oh, and while we're at it,
>>>please define for me how you are applying the term "document." What
>>>would you like to see?
>>
>>Duh! Given we're in a newsgroup, how about a posting?
>>
>
>Oh, I understand now. You are using the terms "document" and
>"documentation" interchangeably.

Something that I can find without having a million monkeys typing
search strings into google for a million years. Something other than
the Google Defense.

>>>>> it is about the avoidable deaths, of Americans, in
>>>>>Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>In this case "avoidable" is a wide conjecture. The point of war is to
>>>>prevent future losses of military and civilians.
>>>
>>>If you are using the term "conjecture" to mean inferring from
>>>defective or presumptive evidence, just where is the "defect" or
>>>"presumption?" Are you saying Bush had no other choice but to go to
>>>war with Iraq? Where is your documentation to support that argument?
>>
>>He did it to prevent future deaths of military and civilians. And, for
>>any war, such an action by our President is always an educated guess.
>
>All you did was provide your viewpoint, again. Where is the requested
>documentation for his justification, phil.

It's not a claim like "Bush lied." It is about a philosophy. The
"documentation" one could provide for a statement would come from
philosophers or historians. But I really don't get what your
disagreement is about. Clearly, the reason for the terrible costs of
war are to prevent even larger costs in the future. I hesitate to use
the word "investment" here....

>>We always have a choice.
>>
>>The French and Germans also had a choice, BTW. They could have chosen
>>to honor the terms of UNSC 1441 once Saddam was found in Material
>>Breech of that resolution. They did not.

I wonder: how many Americans know that these governments went back on
their word?

>>>>What was the justification for the failure of NO to execute its own
>>>>evacuation plan?
>>>
>>>Nagin flat screwed up! How many ways does that have to be said before
>>>you finally admit *somebody* agrees with you, at least minimally, on
>>>this point?
>>
>>My point was the relative outrage that Wage Peace has between that
>>screw-up and Bush's gaff on the talk show. One of those screw-ups just
>>caused a bit of froathing; the other could have prevented hundreds of
>>deaths.
>
>What the hell is "froathing?"

An energetic reaction that produces foam out of one's mouth. I believe
the movie "28 Days Later" showed frothing quite well.

> Further,

If you genuinely don't understand a word, please say so. But let's
drop the spelling pedantics, OK?

> you are comparing a man who
>has knowingly, and intentionally, sent nearly 2000 men to their death,
>with one who, for lack of ability to make a cogent decision,
>inadvertently condemned people to die. Strange puppy you are, phil.

And we sent far more to their death in WWII. That is the question of a
war: is it worth the loss of life?

AFAICT, the largest mistake in the last 20 years was the failure to
remove Saddam at the end of the Gulf War. And it would have been an
even larger mistake to leave him in power after he failed to abide by
the Armistice of that war -- and 15-or-so follow-up UN resolutions.
Saddam managed to single-handedly corrupt and nearly destroy the UN
with the bribes and corruption in the "Oil for Food" thefts and
scandal. I do wish all of that could have been avoided.

OTOH, the failed evacuation of NO had no such tradeoff. AFAICT, the
mayor simply failed to deliver on the plan that he himself had signed
off on. It was a pointless and needless waste of life.

>>Guess which one Wage Peace is paying attention to?

If Wage Peace truly valued life, he would be outraged over the failed
evacuation of NO.

>>>>> Each, and every, dead American soldier did *not* have to die
>>>>>there. Each, and every, American death in Iraq was avoidable.
>>>>
>>>>You are repating yourself. Here, I'll do it, too:
>>>>
>>>>The point of war is to prevent future losses of military and
>>>>civilians.
>>>
>>>I'm repeating myself so perhaps you can understand it.
>>
>>Then please STOP DOING IT. Repeating yourself doesn't buttress your
>>points, it weakens them.
>
>According to whom?

According to common sense.

Jim: I expect sophistry from Wage Peace; I do not expect it from you.

> Who appointed you arbiter of repetitive rhetoric?

Who appointed you? You brought it up in the first place.

>>>Right - so you go to war with those who provide some recognizable
>>>threat to your military and/or civilians. That, Phil, based on what
>>>we know now, excludes Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis.
>>
>>That's exactly the question! It's what I've been asking for. What is
>>it that you think we -- actually, you -- now know as fact. Please
>>tell us! Put it in a posting with a subject of:
>>
>>OT: What we now know
>>
>>Note: your aggregation of facts should explain how you know that
>>Saddam was creating no threat to the US with the $10B+ of money he
>>received during the massively corrupted "Oil for Food" program (and
>>the monies that the recpients of that discounted oil pocketed).
>>
>
>This is an example of your moving target, arbitrary, and vacuous
>requirements.

Hardly. Any competent argument that Bush somehow overestimated the
risk of leaving Saddam in power had better include an assessment of
the damage that Saddam did in the world with his thefts and bribery in
the "Oil for Food" program.

Anyone who "knows" that Bush "lied" would have included "Oil for Food"
in their assessment. It would only be a moving target to someone who
is grossly misinformed about current events.

> You post in the manner you want, phil, the rest of us
>will post in the manner we are comfortable with.

All I can do is fondly hope, from time to time, that people actually
think when they post. If just few people here go:

"Now that is interesting! What is the exact thing that these people
are saying Bush lied about? And how is it that they know it with
certainty? How is it that anybody feels they have proof that the WMDs
were actually destroyed? Where is that proof? How do they know that
the WMDs weren't moved to another country?"

"Why is it that Wage Peace fails to answer the question? Why does he
say he has already answered it -- but fails to produce a reference to
that document? Why does he launch into the sophistry? If he really has
facts to back up his claim, why can't he produce them?"

Then it is worthwhile.

> The reader will have
>the choice of leaning more toward one poster's words than the other,
>if they so choose.

Or away from them. Especially those posters who claim they've never
ever made an assertion that they can't back up. ;-)

>>>>>>>> Thank god the mayor of NO doesn't have your apathy -- this time.
>>>>>>[Silence.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Agreed?
>>>>
>>>>How about it, Jim?
>>>
>>>Wage has his choice of conviction and arguments, as do you. If he
>>>chooses not to share your passion, I have no problem with that.
>>
>>Then he is a hypocrite. His passions are not about the prevantible
>>loss of lives; he is concerned about the politics behind the loss of
>>life.
>
>And, of course, the fact that Nagin (notice the correct spelling,
>phil)

Let he who is without a misspelling ....

> is a Democrat doesn't enter, in the slightest, your apparent
>angst, anxiety, and despair over his inability to make a good decision
>about when/how to evacuate NO. Right!

It's a fair question. I was ignorant about politics in NO/LA a month
ago. I do believe I would be outraged if any human failed so
categorically to deliver on the evacuation plan that they had signed
off on. It's not a question of tradeoffs at all; it is simply a
question of abysmally poor execution.

>>>Right - so you go to war with those who provide some recognizable
>>>threat to your military and/or civilians. That, Phil, based on what
>>>we know now, excludes Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis.
>>
>>What is the thing that "we" all now "know"?
>>
>
>Here, phil, maybe this will help you to understand:
>http://snipurl.com/hvdz

At a glance, that document fails to address the possibility that WMDs
were moved to another country. And it fails to say anything at all
about "Oil for Food" -- Weapons of Massive Corruption. And it fails to
note that Saddam was in Material Breech of UNSC 1441. The selective
questioning of the child is interesting; I note he doesn't ask:

"Daddy, if all the UNSC countries all agreed to attack Iraq if they
failed to comply with UNSC 1441 and Saddam was in Material Breech of
UNSC 1441, why did those countries fail to keep their word?"

What would the answer have been???

>>I hear lots of people talking about this, but they fail to spell out
>>what it is. You commit the same sin.

And that document fails to address it, too.

We agree on one thing: there is indeed a Big Lie about the Iraq War.

>>> I see a trend on your part, too.
>>
>>I don't know what you mean. If you're willing to explain what it is
>>that you think "we" all "know", I would be happy to fill in what you
>>think are gaps in my explanations.
>
>Sure you would, phil, sure you would.

Thanks for sharing your prejudices.

Don't you liberals claim to keep an open mind on things? Your appears
to be shut.

>>> That's just plain sloppiness
>>>on your part.
>>
>>Not really. They are demonstrations where Wage Peace fails to back up
>>his assertions. And you do exactly the same thing -- see above.
>>
>>>>Got reasoning?
>
>Yeah, I keep it in the refrigerator, with my milk and eggs, just so
>none of them will spoil.

Bad idea. Reasoning grows stale if you don't use it constantly.

That reminds me about someone who claims "talent on loan from God." He
doesn't realize that she called in the chit years ago.

>>>>>>BTW: the "proof" should also document how the $10B+ that Saddam
>>>>>>acquired in the "Oil for Food" scandal was not used for massive
>>>>>>corruption of the UN and other world governments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it's so simple, you should have no trouble providing your
>>>>>>irrevocable proof.
>>>>
>>>>[Silence.]
>>
>>[Silence. Louder silence.]

[Oppressively ... loud ... silence.]

>>>>>>If you were really interested in your cause, you would welcome
>>>>>>someone's request for a document that clearly and cogently makes your
>>>>>>case.
>
>All the pertinent "documents" are, without doubt, in the hands of our
>guv'mint.

Then people really don't know what they're talking about when they
claim certainty that "Bush lied"????

> At this time, not even invoking FOIA will allow the average
>Joe to procure a "document" that pertains to this war Of, I forgot,
>you prolly mean "documentation." Heh...


>>>>That goes for you too, Jim. If you have a clear case, you should make
>>>>it. Prove to us that the Iraq war is a wasted effort.
>>>
>>>A billion dollars a day - over 1900 dead - and what has it gotten us?
>>
>>Compared to what? You are asking us to describe the outcome of a war
>>in its middle. When did that ever work?
>
>Compared to NOT spending a billion dollars a day - and NOT losing over
>1900 soldiers.

You failed to answer the question. When were we ever able to assess
the value of a war -- in the middle of that war?

> Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't seem to display any qualms
>about discussing this war's outcome - even before we lost the first
>man. How's that fact workin' for ya'?

I have no idea what question you're asking here. Unexpected and bad
things will happen in every war.

>>Can you imagine if the Ted Kennedys of the world had started
>>second-guessing the invasion of Normandy in the middle of WWII????

Can you?

>>>Prove to me it has accomplished anything good, outside of providing a
>>>wonderful example of why nation building doesn't work very well.
>>
>>I don't think such a thing can be done in the middle of a war.
>
>I believe your above sentence would have proved accurate, and more
>brief, had you stopped after the first three words.

And you think that such things can be done in the middle of a war? Do
you have an example or three?

>>Sadly, I think that people like you and Wage would be happier if the
>>war did fail. If I have this wrong, please clarify.
>
>Nice trip-wire, phil.

Please don't tell us how you really feel.

The Cindy Sheehans of the world clearly would like us to withdraw now
-- and turn Iraq into another Vietnam. I'd guess that Wage Peace
concurs; I wouldn't be surprised if you do, too.


>>> and
>>>the lack of concern that you are a member of the minority of Americans
>>
>>I would say that most Americans do not think on a reguar basis. At the
>>very least, they don't think about such issues very much.

Agreed?

>>A question: do any polls ask Americans today if the world would be
>>better off if Saddam were still in power in Iraq today. I haven't seen
>>any.
>
>A question not worthy of any more response than what I've already
>given.

This demonstrates the fundamental problem with the website you pointed
to -- it's about a point of view, not the presentation of facts.
Sadly, this is a question very few are willing to face.

>>>who *still* support bush, speaks volumes, too.
>>
>>Thank god we don't have a president who has a fixation on his
>>popularity from day to day.
>
>No, instead, we have a president who is fixated on exercising 2 hours
>a day, bragging about being a C-student and not reading daily
>newspapers, and presenting himself at various photo-ops, just to make
>it appear he is a viable and concerned leader.

The combination of your hate and the questions you are unwilling to
face is rather distressing. And you're clearly agitated in your
postings. Perhaps it's time for you to drop the thread.

--phil

.

Loading