[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3214901.stm

Visiting US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has escaped unhurt after a rocket attack on his hotel in Baghdad.

Up to eight rockets were fired at the Hotel al-Rashid, one of the most heavily guarded sites in the Iraqi capital.

A US soldier was killed and 15 other people, 11 of them American, were wounded, the US military said.

Possible right-wing spin: "They weren't rockets, they were fireworks - let off by dancing Iraqis celebrating their liberation in a street party"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct26.html

Wolfowitz, who is traveling in Iraq, was not injured in the attack on the al-Rashid, which is home to hundreds of American soldiers and civilian reconstruction staff. In a televised statement, he vowed that the terrorist attack would not deter American reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

"There are a few who refuse to accept the reality of a new and free Iraq," he said. "We will be unrelenting in our pursuit of them."

I don't think it's them that have a problem with the reality of a free Iraq.

[MacGorilla]

If that attack wasn't a "get out" message, I don't know what is.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
If that attack wasn't a "get out" message, I don't know what is.

and do you take seriously the messages of neo nazis or commies when they march?

The views of a terrorist minority cannot be allowed to undermine the future security, stability, and democracy of Iraq.

[lil'babykitten]

He escaped?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
He escaped?

Worse yet, Rummy wasn't there.

[Spliffdaddy]

The old remnants of the Hussein loyalists are getting desperate.

We must be doing something right.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The old remnants of the Hussein loyalists are getting desperate.

We must be doing something right.

no kidding. And many Saddam loyalists are right here on these boards.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
no kidding. And many Saddam loyalists are right here on these boards.

Care to name some names?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
and do you take seriously the messages of neo nazis or commies when they march?

The views of a terrorist minority cannot be allowed to undermine the future security, stability, and democracy of Iraq.

just a what if....

what if the Iraqi people are justifiably glad to get rid of Saddam, but a majority prefer some other form of government to democracy, or at least not the US form of it?

You would have then liberated them...will you allow them the freedom to choose their own form of government? Although *I* prefer democracy to any other form, it is certainly not the only form of governance.

If you free them, and they choose a non-democratic form of governance, do you intend to force them to accept democracy?

For example, Aristotle taught that the best form of government would be the philosopher king, or a benign dictator. If someone else had the power that Saddam did, BUT was mahatma Ghandi in nature, would that be acceptable?

and further, why does their form of government have to be acceptable to us? If we believe the humanitarian purpose of liberation, it was to free them from an evil man, not an evil government model...right?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
no kidding. And many Saddam loyalists are right here on these boards.

Really? who?
Certainly not me.
However, I HAVE seen you and others mistakenly charge people of that when they object to the way the war of Iraq was handled.

In your view, then, is ANY criticism of the Bush administration, or the justification to preemptively regime change another country equivalent to loyalty for the overthrown leader?
What is your proof/demonstration of that?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Care to name some names?

sure. All the defenders of terrorism and those that rejoice in the deaths of American soldiers at the hands of insurgents in Iraq.

[christ]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
...If we believe the humanitarian purpose of liberation, it was to free them from an evil man, not an evil government model...right?

No. It was to spread 'truth, justice, and the American Way' (with no emphasis on the truth and justice part).

[chris v]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
and do you take seriously the messages of neo nazis or commies when they march?

No, but fortunately, the Neo-Nazis and Commies aroud here aren't armed with rocket launchers, (for the most part-- the Neo-Nazis would love a few) and don't have much popular support.

Some attempt at policing the place, and disarming the fanatics might be a good idea, so long as we intend to stick around. But then, there's those "porous borders," across which more fanatics and more heavy weaponry just continue to flow.

Tar Baby?

CV

[Spliffdaddy]

I would suggest that the future of Iraq is in its own hands. Sure, we can continue to 'steer' millions of people into what we think is the right direction - based on what is most beneficial to both the US and Iraq - but in the long term the desires of the Iraqi citizens WILL win out. If they choose another Saddam Hussein, we'll probably be back to 'liberate' them again.

Yeah, I suppose we could dictate the future of Iraq well into the next century if we wanted to. But we don't want to. Too much effort for not much reward. It would be a lot easier to 'liberate' them every few decades.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
sure. All the defenders of terrorism and those that rejoice in the deaths of American soldiers at the hands of insurgents in Iraq.

and that would be....?

I've seen no one doing that. If you have, I'd say our perceptions differ widely.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If you free them, and they choose a non-democratic form of governance, do you intend to force them to accept democracy?

If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, then that's the choice of Iraqis. If 20 years from now Iraq is a sh*thole run by another murderous dictator, then we'll blame Iraqis for choosing that form of government.

For example, Aristotle taught that the best form of government would be the philosopher king, or a benign dictator. If someone else had the power that Saddam did, BUT was mahatma Ghandi in nature, would that be acceptable?

It's up to Iraqis to choose what is acceptable and what is not. However, Aristotle's idea is fundamentally flawed. A country may be able to go a few generations--at most--with a 'benevolent' dictator, but such a system is not sustainable. People are simply too corrupt. I'll fill you in on another adage, not Aristotle, but wise nonetheless: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Aristotle was on the crack pipe if he thought it'd function.

and further, why does their form of government have to be acceptable to us? If we believe the humanitarian purpose of liberation, it was to free them from an evil man, not an evil government model...right?

it doesn't have to be acceptable to us. I don't care for the German model, but they manage to avoid anarchy. Now the Iraqis can have a chance at self-determination. What they choose to do with it is up to them.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
sure. All the defenders of terrorism and those that rejoice in the deaths of American soldiers at the hands of insurgents in Iraq.

Like terrorism supporting Bush and Saddam's old buddies, Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and that would be....?

I've seen no one doing that. If you have, I'd say our perceptions differ widely.

Gentlemen, there will be no fighting in here. This is the War Lounge!

[lil'babykitten]

Second Attack In last Few Minutes...

Two Explosions Reported in Central Baghdad
Sun October 26, 2003 01:47 PM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - At least two explosions detonated Sunday evening in an area of Baghdad that includes the headquarters of Iraq's U.S.-led administration, the U.S. military said.

A military spokesman said the explosions had gone off in the capital's Green Zone, which also includes a top-security hotel that came under rocket attack earlier in the day. Reporters in central Baghdad also heard several explosions.

Earlier Sunday, guerrillas fired rockets into the Rashid Hotel where U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying, killing a U.S. soldier and wounding 17 people.

Wolfowitz was believed to have left the hotel before the latest explosions Sunday evening

[MacGorilla]

I haven't seen anyone here rejoice at the news of American deaths in Iraq.

Though I was against the war in Iraq and like to bash the Administration for his deception and mishandling of the whole affair, I am 100% supportive of our men and women on the ground and any deaths are deeply saddening.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I I...like to bash the Administration for his deception

What deception?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What deception?

pssst......weapons of mass destruction.......lack thereof.....threat to national security......lack thereof........ties with al-Qaeda......lack thereof.....

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by eklipse:
pssst......weapons of mass destruction.......lack thereof.....threat to national security......lack thereof........ties with al-Qaeda......lack thereof.....

Pssst: spacefreak came pre-programmed with 2002 data.

He still thinks Saddam is what Bush made him out to be, and he still thinks Saddam is in power (as does Spliffdaddy).

The OCR isn't up to the task yet, so it may take a while to seep through that nothing we've heard so far indicates that any of these bombings/attacks are perpetrated by "Saddam loyalists", rather than disgruntled patriots who, while happy that Saddam is gone, would be a lot happier if the occupiers were, too.

-s*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
pssst......weapons of mass destruction.......lack thereof.....threat to national security......lack thereof

Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them,

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

He still thinks Saddam is what Bush made him out to be, and he still thinks Saddam is in power (as does Spliffdaddy).
-s*

Saddam in power? Saddam in love, more like. He lives in Switzerland with Bin Ladin, they have bank accounts there. Many criminals and politicians do. It's neutral!

So there are the two great tyrants, now going by the names of Gustav and Ida, dancing across green fields like something out of a Bollywood movie, singing 'The hills are alive with the sound of weapons of mass destruction!'

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
So there are the two great tyrants, now going by the names of Gustav and Ida, dancing across green fields like something out of a Bollywood movie, singing 'The hills are alive with the sound of weapons of mass destruction!'

Thanks.

I did *so* not need to go to sleep to that image.



-s*

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I haven't seen anyone here rejoice at the news of American deaths in Iraq.

Perhaps not rejoicing, but earlier in the thread, this was said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
He escaped?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Worse yet, Rummy wasn't there.

You'll have to excuse my poor vB code. Anyway, doesn't sound too supportive to me. I'll just go back to lurking...

[daimoni]

.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I didn't. But that was before Bush II was selected to be our Resident.

Agreed. USA out of Iraq!

it can't leave until it is reasonably sure that Iraqis are capable of maintaining security, freedom, and safety for themselves. Abandoning them now would be a tragedy and abdication of the highest levels of responsibility. Accept that and move on.

[tie]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
it can't leave until it is reasonably sure that Iraqis are capable of maintaining security, freedom, and safety for themselves. Abandoning them now would be a tragedy and abdication of the highest levels of responsibility. Accept that and move on. [/B]

Abandoning them isn't the only option. For example, we could give lots of control to the UN, reducing our own stake in it. Yes, we would lose our control of Iraq. We'd no longer have the power to give out as many contracts to corrupt American companies without any oversight. We'd no longer have control of its oil fields. But getting Halliburton more contracts isn't worth $150 billion to me.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
it can't leave until it is reasonably sure that Iraqis are capable of maintaining security, freedom, and safety for themselves.

This in a thread about a bomb going off under the Pentagon's #2 man while in Iraq.

Maintaining security, freedom and safety my arse.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them,

All this proves is that 'every intelligence organization in the world' was wrong and that the US is no better than France with regards to intelligence gathering and analysis. The difference between the US and the rest of the world is that the rest of the world didn't invade and occupy another country on the basis of this questionable intelligence.


What about the alleged ties to al-Qaeda? Was that not part of the deception?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Karl Snyder:
Perhaps not rejoicing, but earlier in the thread, this was said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
He escaped?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Worse yet, Rummy wasn't there.

You'll have to excuse my poor vB code. Anyway, doesn't sound too supportive to me. I'll just go back to lurking...

Yeah, but, this is a legitimate tactic - you know, 'a precision strike to "decapitate" the enemy's leadership and minimize the effect on their infrastructure' - ring any bells?

[daimoni]

.

[Spliffdaddy]

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
and do you take seriously the messages of neo nazis or commies when they march?

The views of a terrorist minority cannot be allowed to undermine the future security, stability, and democracy of Iraq.

Alright, way to invoke Godwin's Law on only the THIRD post!