To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26551
26550  |  26552
Subject: 
Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:40:59 GMT
Viewed: 
1557 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

   much of the resistence is coming from outside of Iraq, not from an overwhelming majority of the Iraqis themselves. We are talking about a few 1,000 insurgents in a country of millions.

I know that John doesn’t hang out in OT.Debate much anymore, and this isn’t really an attempt to refute the claim he makes in this paragraph, but I recalled his statement when I read this. A few 1,000 indeed.

  
   Maybe the Iraqi ‘insurgents’ are attempting to defend their homeland from a foreign aggressor?

What will these insurgents think about the new Democratically elected Iraqi government when it happens? This has nothing to do with the US.

Other thoughts re: a nominally Democratically elected Iraqi government:

Dick Cheney, Sec. Defense, in 1991:
“If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?

How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”

Read more here.

And George W. Bush, Titled Commoner, in 1998:
“Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

Read more here.

Hmm...

Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
 
(...) Dave, that is all well and good, but those quotes are from before Iraq launched the 911(tm) attacks on the USA… please don’t over look that… er… fact. Bush (Jr): We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; (...) (19 years ago, 5-Jan-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
 
(...) What part of wiping out the Taliban in Afganistan wasn't helpful? What part of deposing SH, a known sponsor of terrorism and possessor of WMDs wasn't helpful? What would you suggest as an alternative response? (...) What war are you talking (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR