Quote:

unrestrained id said:
Hmmm....

Is wanna arguing that the ends justify the means (death, destruction etc.)?

Say, how 'bout we nuke Pyongyang?

It may result in thousands, even millions of innocent life lost, but we may just get Kim and the Koreans would be sooo much better off in the long run.

That's what you sound like to me wanna.




I don't believe for a second that's what WBAM is saying.
You're putting words in his mouth.

And your personal attacks on those who disagree with you are just self-incriminatingly stupid, and make you look even more bitter and lacking in objectivity.

Here's what WBAM actually said:

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:

What's with you people and your insistence on childish insults? just because people dissagree with you.
Fine they're Bastards because they think Iraqis are better off whithout Saddam,
fine the Iraqi people are also bastards for not recognising this.

Frankly you're just an ass if that's how you're going to conduct yourself.

The worst thing Wonder and G did was dignify your crack pot claims that Iraq would be better off under Saddam.

I know a few Iraqis myself and according to you they're all bastards because they are delighted that Saddaam was taken out of power, of course one of them is biased because his father was executed for opposing Saddaam, what a bastard.



How you go from there to WBAM allegedly saying we should drop nukes on North Korea, and to hell with N. Korea's civilian casualties from such a bombing, is absolutely beyond me.






Quote:

unrestrained id said:
War is always a LAST resort. And as the Downing Street memos clearly show, it wasn't in regards to Iraq. We didn't go in because we HAD to, we went in because we wanted to.

Quote:

Originally posted by the British Government

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action (memo Date: 23 July 2002), even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.





We're not talking circumstantial evidence anymore. It is now verified fact that George Bush and Tony Blair agreed to go to war in early 2002, and that they "fixed the facts" to make the case for war.



No, it's not "verified fact".

There's a huge difference between
(1) "fixing" the facts, as the mafia fixes a boxing match
and
(2) remaining fixed on a political objective, eliminating Saddam's threat, and gathering clear and available evidence to make a legal argument to the world for an Iraq invasion to topple Saddam, as Bush and Blair did.

I don't see that what Bush and Blair argued --the criminal actions of Saddam Hussein and his government-- is in any way untrue.

  • Saddam broke 10 U.N. resolutions calling on him to disarm
    .
  • Saddam violated the 1991 U.N. cease-fire.
    .
  • Saddam slaughtered his own citizens, to the point that it was necessary to set up Northern and Southern no-fly zones over huge regions of Iraq, to keep Saddam from adding to the tens of thousands he had already slaughtered of his own citizens.
    .
  • Saddam was in material breach of the 1991 ban on his pursuit of WMD's, according to the David Kay report. Saddam, while not having completed WMD's, still had scientists researching development of WMD's so that as soon as U.N. sanctions might be lifted, Saddam could quickly go into WMD production.
    .
  • The rape-rooms, the torture chambers, and the hundreds of mass graves across Iraq, holding the bodies of roughly 1 million Iraqis, of Iraq's surviving population of 25 million.


And on and on.

But again, you go on believing in a lack of evidence, or that Bush and Blair "fixed" the evidence, you bet.






Quote:

unrestrained id said:

I also hear that things are improving now and only the "liberal media" says otherwise......

Quote:

Report: Iraq assessment bleaker

By wire services
Published May 19, 2005


BAGHDAD - U.S. military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment of the war in Iraq on Wednesday, pulling back from recent suggestions - including by some of the same officers - that there were positive trends in Iraq that could allow a reduction in the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq late this year or early in 2006.

The New York Times quoted one unnamed senior officer as suggesting that U.S. military involvement could last many years.






So what ?

Are there still U.S. troops in Germany ?
in Japan?
In South Korea ?
in Bosnia?
In Kosovo ?
In Liberia ?
And in hundreds of other spots across the world, in the aftermath of police actions, or simply in stations abroad, in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Pacific.
Some have been stationed in these places for 50 or 60 years.

That doesn't necessarily mean that these U.S. military commanders (in your above quoted/linked article) project that U.S. troops will be in combat far into the future in Iraq.

More likely, U.S. troops will be kept in Iraq as an assurance, as a stabilizing force, long after the fighting is over. Long after Iraqi troops have taken over the combat against insurgents (if an insurgency even still remains, a year or two from now).

As U.S. troops have been kept as an assurance in these other places.







Quote:

( article, continued: )

At the same time, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior U.S. military official as telling reporters that the recent surge in violence in Iraq followed a meeting in Syria last month of associates of Jordanian insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.



There you go.

Is this an Iraqi insurgency ?

Or is it, more clearly, an insurgency that wouldn't even exist if not for external leadership, financing and propaganda from islamic fanatics (al Qaida) from outside Iraq?
And thugs and murderers from Saddam Hussein's former regime.

Further supporting that if not for external elements de-stabilizing Iraq, no insurgency would exist.

And yet it is painted by Bush-haters in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere as an Iraqi insurgency.

It's not.






Quote:

unrestrained id said:
Quote:

( article, continued: )

Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi paramilitary police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to the insurgents and allow U.S. forces to reduce their role in fighting.

A senior officer in Baghdad said recent polls conducted for the U.S. military by Baghdad University have shown confidence flagging sharply, down from an 85 percent rating immediately after the elections to 45 percent now.

To raise the level of public confidence, the officer said, the new government would need success in cutting insurgent attacks and addressing popular impatience for improvements in public services like electricity that are worse, for many Iraqis, than they were last year.







I already established on the previous topic page, link included, that electrical power, contrary to anti-Bush myth, has been restored to pre-war levels since OCTOBER 2003.

The exact wattage of pre-war levels, and present levels, are listed in the article.

And the article also explains that shortages occur because of post-war increases in the Iraqi economy and industry, creating increased demand.

We're talking about people who live in a place where the average day is over 100 degrees.
Of course everyone now wants air conditioners, and all the comforts that they previously never had. But that doesn't happen overnight.

That is not nearly the same thing as not having the same electrical power level as before the war.
It is instead a surge in demand for even more power.


Quote:

unrestrained id said:
Someone should tell that redneck cartoon character about the electricity. He's still busy beleiveing the Administration.



Ah, more insults...

Anyone who disagrees with you is a redneck.
Or otherwise stereotyped as uneducated, and a witless stooge of the neo-cons.

You forgot to stereotype me as living in a trailer as well, as you have in prior posts at least once.
I'm neither redneck, nor live in a trailer.

Although I know people who are, and don't hold them in self-righteous contempt, as you do.

Again, your insults and stereotyping just further manifest your lack of civility and objectivity, and they self-incriminatingly make you look (even more) stupid.







Quote:

unrestrained id said:
By the way, it looks as if more people are wising up. FOX News' viewership dropped spectacularly and has lost almost 60% of it's viewership. I guess there's only so much "fair and balanced" one can swallow.



While FOX's numbers have dropped, your linked sources (eagerly anti-Bush and pro-liberal as they are) never say that FOX's ratings are dropping because of a pro-Bush perspective, as you yourself editorialize, not the articles.

The articles also point out that CNN and other news reports have suffered a similar slump in viewership.

My guess would be that there was, on all networks, an intense upsurge in news viewing in the period leading up to the November 2004 Bush/Kerry election, and that without a similar event, viewers have not had the same urgency to watch the news.

And I would guess that CBS News (in the wake of the Dan Rather liberal-partisan affair) has taken the largest drop.

Although I also saw recently that NBC's morning show with Katie Couric has also slumped into its lowest ratings ever.






I count at least four alt-I.D.'s here on RKMB for Whomod since January, that share the same patterns of links, long posts, personal insults and fanatical anti-conservative rhetoric.

I guess he thinks if he agrees with himself under four different user-names that somehow makes him more believable and credible.

It doesn't.

  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.