Re: Condi on Broadway

Tim Gowen wrote:
> Because there's no way that I secretly know that I'm wrong and because I
> don't like being told that I sympathise with suicide bombers

This is the exchange you refer to:

"EAGLE: They don't have a lot to say about young people being
brainwashed into killing themselves and others in suicide bombings.
Don't tell me they have no other choice but to carry out such
viciousness on
innocent civilians.

TIM GOWEN: No, they don't."

So, if you indeed don't sympathise with suicide bombers, then whatever
did you mean that they have *no other choice* but to kill innocents?
Did you mean you don't sympathise with them, but that their actions are
understandable given their circumstances? That would be a different
argument, and much less objectionable -- but that's not the argument
you made. You claimed in response to me that they had *no other
choice* but to viciously kill innocent civilians. *No other choice.*

> and because
> my memory of things you've said stretches back way further than you want
> it to.
>
And Google's memory is even better, which you may not want yourself.

> > Tell that to all the Iraqi families that lost their loved ones under
> > Saddam. Or is that "not your problem," and you're "loving it" as you
> > insultingly accused me of?
>
> No, because you don't care about the families.

I do care about them (though my concern for them is *not* why the Iraq
war was justified). My question is, why don't you care? You're the
one, ironically, making the rather libertarian argument (*some*
libertarians argue this, anyway) that the rest of the world shouldn't
be intervening in the affairs of other countries, even if they're run
by horrible dictators killing their own citizens by the thousands.
"Round and round 'neath the magic spell...".

> You care that they live
> in Iraq. If the families lived in Zimbabwe you wouldn't care otherwise
> you'd vociferously argue for the invasion of that country. If you
> believed in even-handed responses to all dictators you and I would
> probably get on a whole lot better,

I believe that there is a moral right on the part of free countries to
intervene in all dictatorships, but that doesn't translate into it
being wise to take them all on at once, or even necessarily to take any
one of them on. It's a right but not an obligation.

> but the brazenness with which you
> pick your targets and the shameless way in which you try and hide what's
> in plain sight really gets on my nerves.
>
Can you be more specific?

> Nothing on Schwartzkopf and the invasion of Iraq?
>
You want me to comment on your assertion of something he supposedly
said, without providing a link to see the context in which it was
allegedly said. As I keep repeating, context matters. I almost always
provide a link if I'm bringing up something I claim that someone said.
Why don't you try it?

> The fact that the Allies are bogged down in a war without an exit. That
> we've been duped into allowing this by faulty intelligence.

For the upteenth time, this "faulty intelligence" is what was believed
by most of the intelligence communities throughout the world, and many
people objected to the Iraq war before it began because of the fear
that it would give Saddam an excuse to use his chemical/biological
weapons. Even the Downing Street memo makes mention of this fear,
though this isn't the part that was quoted ad nauseum in the media:

"On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan
was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day
one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You
said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary."

-- Downing Street Memo

If the Downing Street Memo *proves* that Bush lied about WMD, why the
speculation in the *very same memo* about what would happen if Saddam
used WMD on day one? I'm also still waiting for someone to explain why
the word "but" was used (and often dropped when quoting) in the phrase
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
(Google it and you'll see that the quote using "but" comes up
approximately 75,800 times, while the quote without it comes up
approximately 120,000 times). Here's the context: "Bush wanted to
remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of
terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy." What is the significance of the word "But?" It's
very strange, it would seem to indicate some countering idea to Bush's
justification for removing Saddam, though it doesn't present any
coherent counter idea. It begs to be explained, but it's been ignored
-- and often dropped from the quote.

> And I deeply suspect that you're not at all bothered about majority
> opinions vs. enlightened self-interest of the USA. I've suspected that
> for years. It's pretty dangerous to think that way...
>
Another one of your inchoate remarks. "Majority opinions vs.
enlightened self-interest?" What kind of dichotomy is that? They are
not mutually exclusive.

> Well perhaps you were dumping on "most of RATM". We can agree, perhaps,
> that the media occasionally sucks. They dredged up Schwartzkopf's
> father's rather tainted history to discredit him during the first Gulf
> War. But I'm afraid your enthusiasm for the war, plus everything else
> I've mentioned, plus all that business about how the graphic nature of
> Ken Bigley's murder was *not* included in the NY Times report leaves me
> seriously doubtful of your motives and beliefs.

I read this and said to myself "Who the hell is Ken Bigley?" Then I
Googled, and it turns out I apparently never mentioned him, although
you did.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cinco De Mayo LOS RANGERS
    ... (Gordon and Trainor, _The Generals' War, ... of Iraqi forces from Kuwait to going after Saddam. ... belatedly told his top military commanders that Iraq didn't have any ... WMD in possession and told them not to plan on ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: Anti-War Demonstrators March on Washington
    ... > WASHINGTON -- Crowds opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White ... > stockpiles of WMD were not found, Saddam had all the pieces in place ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OT - Blue & Red
    ... > his nose and women were running around Iraq without any hoods on. ... >>> didn't have any WMD anymore) then don't you think it's a poor test to ... >>> impossible or we'll go to war how is that in effect any different from ... How could that have happened if Saddam had already ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Palestinians Under Attack
    ... I'd say two things overall on the entire sordid mess of WMD in Bush's ... decision, ratified by both Congress and the UN, to go to war against ... Saddam in Iraq: ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: OT - Blue & Red
    ... >> So what if Saddam had WMD? ... >> shred) to show Saddam had any plans at all to attack the US or even ... You know, don't you, that we told the inspectors to leave Iraq before ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)