Politics: J'accuse! - Page 129

Hank Chinaski · 04-17-2004, 09:52 PM

3 facts. Please discuss the inter-relationship.

1 John Kerry believes we really must get UN soldiers in Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117397,00.html

2 During the Shia militia attacks, most other countries' soldiers simply ran.

3 In Kosovo, jordanian "peace keepers" kill the other UN guys, who are mostly US.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117395,00.html

What soldiers does JFK wanna see? US guys but reporting to some other entity?

France is really the only other country that could send soldiers who might actually fight, isn't it?

Russia has enough problems with Chechnia (sp?) it wouldn't send troops to Iraq anyway.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-17-2004, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
So then what is your point about criticizing the US for giving the Kurds a veto as this somehow being anti-democracy? I took it to mean that it does not result in proportional representation (which is true). Is your issue with the Kurdish veto something other than non-proportional representation? Please elaborate if I have misunderstood you.

Well, it is anti-democratic, as you suggested. I was suggesting that Iraqis might be reasonably miffed about it.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-17-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski On some very basic level, we should expect this guy to be on our side. I understand posturing for post war postion, but he has big time line-crossed. We should have included him in the governing council? Maybe, but if he has juice can't he get elected? I'm not the one always trying to blame Ty, at least not always blame us.

He line-crossed because we shut him out of the governing council, and were cracking down on him (shutting down his newspaper = hard to justify as consistent with the Federalist Papers, etc.). Being in the interim government obviously carries with it advantages. Not the advantages of getting Saddam's trove of intelligence files, which we gave to Chalabi, but serious advantages. We were obviously cutting him out -- if that wasn't a disadvantage, why did we do it?

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-17-2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Sadr is a puppet of Iran.

Doubtless a religious fundamentalist like him couldn't think for himself, right?

Not Me · 04-17-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Well, it is anti-democratic, as you suggested. I was suggesting that Iraqis might be reasonably miffed about it.

I guess than CA should secede from the union because it is clear that the US cares nothing about democracy since CA gets non-proportionate representation in the senate.

Which countries today have a true democracy? A true democracy is not desirable because it is majority rule, which inevitably leads to oppression of those in minority groups.

Not Me · 04-17-2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Doubtless a religious fundamentalist like him couldn't think for himself, right?

I have no doubt that he suffers from delusions of grandeur and is in it to grab power for himself, too.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-17-2004, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
3 facts. Please discuss the inter-relationship.

1 John Kerry believes we really must get UN soldiers in Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117397,00.html

2 During the Shia militia attacks, most other countries' soldiers simply ran.

3 In Kosovo, jordanian "peace keepers" kill the other UN guys, who are mostly US.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117395,00.html

What soldiers does JFK wanna see? US guys but reporting to some other entity?

France is really the only other country that could send soldiers who might actually fight, isn't it?

Russia has enough problems with Chechnia (sp?) it wouldn't send troops to Iraq anyway.

The point it not to have a fighting force. The point is to have an international imprimatur on the future of Iraq. It's harder to persuade the Iraqis that what we're doing there is selfless when we won't let the UN help make the decisions.

Not Me · 04-17-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He line-crossed because we shut him out of the governing council, and were cracking down on him (shutting down his newspaper = hard to justify as consistent with the Federalist Papers, etc.). Being in the interim government obviously carries with it advantages. Not the advantages of getting Saddam's trove of intelligence files, which we gave to Chalabi, but serious advantages. We were obviously cutting him out -- if that wasn't a disadvantage, why did we do it?

Umm could it have anything to do with that rival cleric he had murdered? Maybe we are just wacky in thinking that people who order rival leaders murdered shouldn't be involved in governing Iraq.

You do realize that there is a warrant out for his arrest for the murder of another cleric, don't you? I would say that pretty much disqualifies him for a position on a governing council.

Hank Chinaski · 04-17-2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The point it not to have a fighting force. The point is to have an international imprimatur on the future of Iraq. It's harder to persuade the Iraqis that what we're doing there is selfless when we won't let the UN help make the decisions.

Kerry called for a new approach that would put greater reliance on other nations, but conceded "it won't be easy to get our friends and allies to send in new troops."

Ain't no one saying the UN can't help put togehter new gov't etc. but Kerry's playing politics about dead soldiers and w/o any substance to what he's saying.

The Larry Davis Experience · 04-17-2004, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ain't no one saying the UN can't help put togehter new gov't

As of yesterday, that is correct. Before then, not so much.

Hank Chinaski · 04-17-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
As of yesterday, that is correct. Before then, not so much.

Larry, you're too honest, and too smart to say this. At the very beginning Bush wanted the UN to be "involved" in the war. This would not mean US would take Baghdad, and Sri Lankan marines would take Bashra. UN "involvement" simply meant a stamp of approval. The UN didn't approve- okay.

Once the war was "over" the US asked for UN assistance- it came until its HQ blew up. We have never said we don't want UN help.

What Kerry is saying is there should be Int'l soldiers on the front lines. That is either calculated BS, or he's crazier than Dean.

Secret_Agent_Man · 04-17-2004, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Those men who have wives that are considerably better looking than they are but make more money than she does should quit deluding yourselves that she married you for your sense of humor/personality or whatever. She is a whore and you are her john. Marriage in that context is just legalized prostitution.

Hey! You don't know Bilmore nearly well enough to be talking shit like that!

Plus, it's unseemly to turn on your own that way.

S_A_(fine & foxy)M

The Larry Davis Experience · 04-17-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Larry, you're too honest, and too smart to say this.

That may be the meanest thing you ever said to me.

Quote:

At the very beginning Bush wanted the UN to be "involved" in the war. This would not mean US would take Baghdad, and Sri Lankan marines would take Bashra. UN "involvement" simply meant a stamp of approval. The UN didn't approve- okay.

Once the war was "over" the US asked for UN assistance- it came until its HQ blew up. We have never said we don't want UN help.

Up until the HQ attack the UN was there to coordinate humanitarian aid, nothing more. They had no hand in the poltiical transition until Brahimi showed up a few weeks ago. I'd be interested to see a citation saying otherwise, but I don't think you're right.

Right after the war we didn't even want the UN's monetary help. IIRC, we had to go to the UN and get a new resolution passed before we did the first round of panhandling for support, back last June or so.

Quote:

What Kerry is saying is there should be Int'l soldiers on the front lines. That is either calculated BS, or he's crazier than Dean.

I agree with you, sort of. I don't think that there are many other countries woith soldiers that can do the job in front of the security forces in Iraq right now. But the very second that the situation is at a point where a non-US force can shoulder some or a majority of the load, I want them in there. If we are indeed doing this for the betterment of the world, I don't think this vast a majority of the soldiers killed in the line of duty should be American.

There were several obits in the SF Chronicle at the end of this week of Marines stationed at Pendleton hailing from the Bay Area who were killed in Ramadi. Sobering stuff.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-17-2004, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Umm could it have anything to do with that rival cleric he had murdered? Maybe we are just wacky in thinking that people who order rival leaders murdered shouldn't be involved in governing Iraq.

You do realize that there is a warrant out for his arrest for the murder of another cleric, don't you? I would say that pretty much disqualifies him for a position on a governing council.

I'm sure we're sticking hard to those principles. No funny business, that's the word. Which is why we gave the files of Saddam's secret police to Chalabi.

Not Me · 04-17-2004, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm sure we're sticking hard to those principles. No funny business, that's the word. Which is why we gave the files of Saddam's secret police to Chalabi.

Umm, because we gave files to Chalabi we have to put a murderer on the governing council because fair is fair?

From all the news accounts I read, "we" didn't give Chalabi those files. His supporters took them when SH's secret police abandoned their posts during the invasion.