bung, It's not clear at all to me that Dean was right that we should have stayed out of Iraq. I think there was a reasosnable argument to invade, even as I agree that it was not an overwhelming argument. But Dean and his crowd offered no reasonable alternative. Let the UN handle it? No, that is not a reasonable alternative. Whatever. The situation now is we are there, and we have to go forward from that reality. Dean is still stuck on saying he was against it. What would he do now? How would he handle things now? I'm not hearing anything constructive from him or any of the other Democrat candidates.
Something to think about. If you were under scrutiny 24/7 how would you come off? I am sure nothing like you think you would. Personally, I could never run for office, they would make fun of my life for sure. We need to read everything written with a grain of salt. Just because you found it on the internet, it is not necessarily true. Look at the bullshit I just wrote? This crap is on the internet.:eek:
If the data looks bad. DON'T COUNT THEM. you know...don't wanna show the sheeple the facts, they may wake up and question your oppression. Iraq to stop counting civilian dead 10.12.2003 [18:03] BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) â Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The order was relayed by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, but the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop, said Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department. "We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn't agree with it," she said, adding: "The CPA doesn't want this to be done." A spokesman for the CPA had no immediate response. The number of U.S. soldiers killed in the war is well documented. The Pentagon says 115 American military personnel were killed in combat from the start of the war to May 1, when President Bush declared major combat over, and 195 since. Iraq kept meticulous records of its soldiers killed in action but never released them publicly. Military doctors have said the Iraqi military kept "perfect" records, but burned them as the war wound down. ummmmmm Pabst? comments? anyone? I'd like to see the spin on this one too democracy and liberation at its best I guess.... Surely down the road the numbers will be used by you and your cronies as another statistic to justify this or another fraud for war? Is this being reported on CNN? What a joke
Mavman? anyone?, no comments/spin here? What exactly are we doing there? and why did we bomb the crap out of them???? Yeah it's your bumya's way alright.
Stop counting? When did they start? Ever hear a total of dead in Afghanistan? They don't count the arabs dead, as their life isn't worth as much as ours, are they?
You say that the argument provided by Bush & Company wasn't an overwhelming argument? For once we agree. However, if a job "has" to be done, and if no one suggests a reasonable alternative solution, I would say the argument to get the job done was overwhelming. The issue is did the job "have" to be done? I never heard an overwhelming reason it had to be done, and why more time couldn't not have been given to inspectors. Unless you think the bogus "intel" itself was the overwhelming part? So, if Bush led us into a "clusterfuck" why should we trust him to pull us out of it?
Yes NVS, I agree with you. Verified, independent, accountings of civilian deaths are important. Both as a moral yardstick and for historical records. Clearly though, the U.S. has been less blood thirsty in this time around. In the Gulf War, the estimated civilian fatalities of 100,000 were quite disturbing.
In Blow to U.S. Plans, Top Shiite Demands Direct Elections In a blow to White House plans for a smooth handover of power to an Iraqi transitional government by July 1, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq said today that members of an interim assembly had to be chosen through direct elections. The cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had called in November for direct elections to counter an American proposal to hold caucus-style elections, but had said he would reconsider his decision if a United Nations committee decided that general elections were not possible. But in a statement issued today, Ayatollah Sistani essentially left no room for compromise by saying that elections could be held "within the next months with an acceptable level of transparency and credibility." He added that an interim constitution being drafted by the Iraqi Governing Council would have to be approved by a directly elected assembly for it to have legitimacy. In another sign that Iraqis were asserting their power, the Governing Council issued new guidelines today for the removal of former Baath Party members from government jobs. Like the Coalition Provisional Authority's previous guidelines, the new ones call for the automatic dismissal of anyone who belonged to the top four levels of the Baath Party. But it allows for people from the fourth level to appeal the dismissal, and says those who choose not to appeal can take a pension. Disturbing signs emerged of a tenuous security situation in parts of southern Iraq, generally considered much calmer than the north. An Iraqi-American man working for the provisional authority and an Iraqi man were found shot to death execution-style by a highway south of Basra, said Capt. Saddam Mortaza of the Basra police. Their killer or killers had blindfolded the two men and tied their hands behind their backs, then shot them in their heads, Captain Mortaza said. In the southern town of Amara, protesters armed with sticks and homemade bombs attacked British soldiers outside city hall one day after six people were killed by Iraqi police officers and possibly British soldiers in a demonstration against the country's lack of jobs. When asked about Ayatollah Sistani's latest demand for direct elections, a senior coalition official said American officials were pressing ahead with their plans for putting together an interim assembly. Those plans are outlined in an agreement reached between the provisional authority and the Governing Council on Nov. 15, and they call for caucus-style elections throughout Iraq's 18 provinces by May 31 for members of the interim assembly. That assembly would then appoint officers to the transitional government. "We are working on implementing the Nov. 15 agreement," the coalition official said. "We've got to move forward on this agreement." The official said the provisional authority was letting the Governing Council deal with Ayatollah Sistani, saying, "It's so important they take the lead." But Ayatollah Sistani's statement came right after a committee from the Governing Council led by Adnan Pachachi, the current head of the council, met with Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf, the holy Shiite city south of Baghdad. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/i...00&en=8e7d4f0e8e8f62bf&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
No, looking at an unpleasant outcome and then saying therefore the reasons were not valid is just the ends justifying the means turned on its head. Most of what I heard was pacifists whining about being called unpatriotic, (setting themselves up to say "I told you so") while not providing any constructive debate or taking any of the heat of making any decisions.