Hess

[Michael Tee]

<<Iran and Iraq fought a reenactment of WWI for eight years. The casualty count is not clear but is very likely over a million.

<<Only three million Cambodians died in their Killing feilds period , if the question is whether the middle east will be dominated by Shiite or Shia the potential is for much more , I wouldn't doubt ten million or more>>

If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen.  That's THEIR region and THEIR problem.  It's pure speculation, by people who have been proven WRONG every single time they speculated.  All we can know for sure is that the U.S. Army and the Bush administration have made a nice healthy down payment on the "ten million or more" already, and I say it's high time they stopped their evil shit and began to obey international law instead.

[Plane]

<<Iran and Iraq fought a reenactment of WWI for eight years. The casualty count is not clear but is very likely over a million.

<<Only three million Cambodians died in their Killing feilds period , if the question is whether the middle east will be dominated by Shiite or Shia the potential is for much more , I wouldn't doubt ten million or more>>

If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen.  That's THEIR region and THEIR problem.  It's pure speculation, by people who have been proven WRONG every single time they speculated.  All we can know for sure is that the U.S. Army and the Bush administration have made a nice healthy down payment on the "ten million or more" already, and I say it's high time they stopped their evil shit and began to obey international law instead.

At least you know that Asians are not more or less prone to settle their diffrences peaceably than Europeans.

Now were the people that predicted a domino effect after the communist taekeover of Vietnam wrong?

Were the people who predicted a bloodbath under the Communists wrong?
(don't count underesimation)

[Michael Tee]

<<Now were the people that predicted a domino effect after the communist taekeover of Vietnam wrong?>>

100% wrong.  No dominos fell.

<<Were the people who predicted a bloodbath under the Communists wrong?
(don't count underesimation>>

Sure.  The "bloodbath" was less than the settling of scores in France after the fall of the Vichy regime.  Of course they were wrong.

<<At least you know that Asians are not more or less prone to settle their diffrences peaceably than Europeans. >>

I don't think we'll ever see in my lifetime or yours any bloodletting remotely approaching the level of WWII in Europe.  But I try to pick more rational indicators than the racial make-up of the disputants.  History, for example.  The history of Iraq since the country was founded does not show any kind of bloodshed even remotely approaching the levels predicted.  Stuff like the Iran-Iraq war probably could have been prevented entirely had the U.S. not encouraged Saddam to attack his neighbour and assisted him in carrying out the attack.  When left to their own without U.S. interference, the level of bloodshed is and always has been relatively moderate.

[Plane]

<<Now were the people that predicted a domino effect after the communist taekeover of Vietnam wrong?>>

100% wrong.  No dominos fell.

<<Were the people who predicted a bloodbath under the Communists wrong?
(don't count underesimation>>

Sure.  The "bloodbath" was less than the settling of scores in France after the fall of the Vichy regime.  Of course they were wrong.

<<At least you know that Asians are not more or less prone to settle their diffrences peaceably than Europeans. >>

I don't think we'll ever see in my lifetime or yours any bloodletting remotely approaching the level of WWII in Europe.  But I try to pick more rational indicators than the racial make-up of the disputants.  History, for example.  The history of Iraq since the country was founded does not show any kind of bloodshed even remotely approaching the levels predicted.  Stuff like the Iran-Iraq war probably could have been prevented entirely had the U.S. not encouraged Saddam to attack his neighbour and assisted him in carrying out the attack.  When left to their own without U.S. interference, the level of bloodshed is and always has been relatively moderate.

I would rather you be right than me on this one.
Very much.


But ,there is good reason to think that Al Queda can recover and grow ,and they have more potential for growth than the Natzis ever did.

There are more people vunerable to this sort of war now than there were in the thirtys .

This time Atomic Bombs are a part of the beginning , instead of the very end.

Winning in Iraq would be a good idea , then thepeople in the middle east would have one prosperous democratic country .

Looseing in Iraq will produce either a Taliban inspired government or a Aiatola inspired government (or  fight between the choices ).

On the positive side looseing in Iraq will be good for our Oil companys and so might be good for our short term economy, it is an il wind indeed that blows no one good.

[Michael Tee]

<<But ,there is good reason to think that Al Queda can recover and grow ,and they have more potential for growth than the Natzis ever did.

<<There are more people vunerable to this sort of war now than there were in the thirtys .

<<This time Atomic Bombs are a part of the beginning , instead of the very end.>>

plane, I'm sorry, but that - - all of that - - is just hysterical nonsense.  It's so far removed from reality, you might as well have written it up as science fiction and fantasy.  If you are going to build a real-world policy around that kind of crazy speculation, it's a matter for discussion by professional psychiatrists, not amateur politicians.  There are so many non sequiturs and irrelevancies there I can only skim through them, but:  al Qaeda has a minimal role in the Iraqi Resistance, their "potential for growth" hasn't translated into practical power since the fall of the Taliban, people have always been vulnerable to "this sort of war" since the invention of high explosives, and none of the players has an A-bomb.

I'm not saying this COULDN'T result in a bloodbath, only that there's no real hard evidence that it will.  There's MORE reason to believe it won't - - simple history of Iraq, for starters.  The enmities always existed, there were previous Resistance wars against foreign armies and what you are predicting will happen now never happened then.  Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.

<<Winning in Iraq would be a good idea , then thepeople in the middle east would have one prosperous democratic country.>.

You saw the new hydrocarbons law that the U.S. wants its puppet government to pass.  What do you think is going to be so "prosperous" about the country when U.S. oil companies are going to be sucking the lifeblood out of the only natural resource the country possesses?  Iraq was prosperous BEFORE the U.S. encouraged it to attack Iran, and the nation was the owner of its own natural resources.  They did fine WITHOUT American participation in a "free market" and now they're about to be raped, and you call THAT "prosperity?"  You must be nuts.  i don't even know why I take you seriously any more.

<<Looseing in Iraq will produce either a Taliban inspired government or a Aiatola inspired government (or  fight between the choices. )  >>

It could also produce a Ba'ath Arab Socialist government.  Or (please God!) a communist government. What the hell do you care and how is it any of your business what kind of government they have?  Would you like them to make it their business what kind of government YOU have?

<<On the positive side looseing in Iraq will be good for our Oil companys>>

How's that?  70% ain't enough for them?

[BT]

Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.

You quote that number like it is gospel. It isn't.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.



You quote that number like it is gospel. It isn't.

=====================================================
So what is your gospel number?  500,000? 400,000?

Anyway you look at it, it has been a bloodbath.

[BT]

So what is your gospel number?  500,000? 400,000?

Most other figures are in the 100k range, the majority being the result of Iraqi upon Iraqi terror.

[Michael Tee]

<<Most other figures are in the 100k range . . . >>

100K isn't a blood-bath, it's only a blood sponge-bath.

<< the majority being the result of Iraqi upon Iraqi terror. >>

Nothing at all to do with the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime.

[BT]

I stand by my point. The Lancet only comes out with those numbers during election time.  Wonder why?

No other credible source list Iraqi casualties anywhere near that high. The Lancet figures are not gospel, yet you quote them chapter and verse like they were.

No wonder why.

[Plane]

<<But ,there is good reason to think that Al Queda can recover and grow ,and they have more potential for growth than the Natzis ever did.

<<There are more people vunerable to this sort of war now than there were in the thirtys .

 <<This time Atomic Bombs are a part of the beginning , instead of the very end.>>

plane, I'm sorry, but that - - all of that - - is just hysterical nonsense.  It's so far removed from reality, you might as well have written it up as science fiction and fantasy.[/plane]

I am sorry that you do not understand , but your falure to understand is not disproof.


 

If you are going to build a real-world policy around that kind of crazy speculation, it's a matter for discussion by professional psychiatrists, not amateur politicians.  There are so many non sequiturs and irrelevancies there I can only skim through them, but:  al Qaeda has a minimal role in the Iraqi Resistance, their "potential for growth" hasn't translated into practical power since the fall of the Taliban,

 
  Like a bacterial infection being fought by antibiotics , if you quit while there are still organisms with potential for infection , the rebound infection is worse than the first .

Al Queda is entirely less than thirty years old , it is bigger now than it was when it took over Afganistan.

If we start leaveing them alone the way we left thm alone in Afganistan , why shouldn't they grow again ?

What is there to prevent it?

people have always been vulnerable to "this sort of war" since the invention of high explosives, and none of the players has an A-bomb.

More people are more crouded every year , have you any idea how many more people exist in the Middle East now than did at the time of WWII ?

[qute]I'm not saying this COULDN'T result in a bloodbath, only that there's no real hard evidence that it will.  There's MORE reason to believe it won't - - simple history of Iraq, for starters.  The enmities always existed, there were previous Resistance wars against foreign armies and what you are predicting will happen now never happened then.  Considering that the U.S. invasion has already taken 600,000 Iraqi lives, the "fear of bloodbath" motive for hanging on is particularly unbelievable.

You really know nothing of the fighting that happened in Iraq during Saddam Husseins tenure?
Or Before ?

Or the history of the expantion of Islam across Asia , which every Imam in Iraq and Iran would call glourious?
My assertions seem fantastic to you bvecause you have not been paying attenton to history .

<<Winning in Iraq would be a good idea , then thepeople in the middle east would have one prosperous democratic country.>.

You saw the new hydrocarbons law that the U.S. wants its puppet government to pass.  What do you think is going to be so "prosperous" about the country when U.S. oil companies are going to be sucking the lifeblood out of the only natural resource the country possesses?  Iraq was prosperous BEFORE the U.S. encouraged it to attack Iran, and the nation was the owner of its own natural resources.  They did fine WITHOUT American participation in a "free market" and now they're about to be raped, and you call THAT "prosperity?"  You must be nuts.  i don't even know why I take you seriously any more.

<<Looseing in Iraq will produce either a Taliban inspired government or a Aiatola inspired government (or  fight between the choices. )  >>

It could also produce a Ba'ath Arab Socialist government.  Or (please God!) a communist government. What the hell do you care and how is it any of your business what kind of government they have?  Would you like them to make it their business what kind of government YOU have?

<<On the positive side looseing in Iraq will be good for our Oil companys>>

How's that?  70% ain't enough for them?

Did you not note that an oil shortae caused the biggest oil companys in the USA to harvest record profits?

These guys do not want to have lots of Oil ,they want to have lots of money, this is a goal that can be approached by many paths.

Iraq should auction its oil for the best price it can get , I do hope that there is some money for Americans in these deals , but what will prevent French firms from bidding?

[Plane]

Sure.  The "bloodbath" was less than the settling of scores in France after the fall of the Vichy regime.  Of course they were wrong.

Did the French have a million boat people leave France in 47?

[Michael Tee]

<<I stand by my point. [that 600,000 is too high an estimate of Iraqi dead ]>>

You can have your point.  Say it was 100,000.  What's 100,000 Iraqi dead, a boon to the entire nation and humanity in general?

[Michael Tee]

<<You really know nothing of the fighting that happened in Iraq during Saddam Husseins tenure?
Or Before ?>>

Yes, I know a lot about it.  It was minimal, much less than the carnage that we are witnessing now thanks to the American intervention.  A lot of it was due to U.S. instigation, including the Iran-Iraq war and the Kurdish and Shi'ite revolts, which only bolsters my point.

<<Or the history of the expantion of Islam across Asia , which every Imam in Iraq and Iran would call glourious?>>

And the expansion of Christianity across the New World or even Europe itself, what would every priest and preacher call that, disgraceful?

<<My assertions seem fantastic to you bvecause you have not been paying attenton to history .>>

On the contrary, they seem fantastic to me because they are so anti-historical.  The fact that Saddam would attack the U.S.A. for one example, everything you have asserted in this post for another.

<<Did you not note that an oil shortae caused the biggest oil companys in the USA to harvest record profits?>>

Well, how much bigger would those profits have been if the bastards had a monopoly on the output of the Iraqi wells?  Use your imagination, plane - - Cheney sure as hell uses his.

<<These guys do not want to have lots of Oil ,they want to have lots of money, this is a goal that can be approached by many paths.>>

Tell me about it.

<<Iraq should auction its oil for the best price it can get , I do hope that there is some money for Americans in these deals , but what will prevent French firms from bidding?>>

Oh, nothing, plane, nothing at all.  Why don't you invest in a few shares of French oil companies?  WOW are you naive.  The U.S. goes to the trouble of invading the fucking country, losing thousands of lives and half a trillion dollars to get its hands on those wells, gets their puppet government to privatize the oil industry and pay 70%* to the foreigners who will condescend to exploit the resources, and then turns around and gives away the contracts to . . . the French? 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

* figure presented in the draft legislation, obviously the legislature will be permitted to whittle this down somewhat to allow at least the pretence of independence.
 
 

[sirs]

On the contrary, they seem fantastic to me because they are so anti-historical.  The fact that Saddam would attack the U.S.A. for one example, everything you have asserted in this post for another.

And again, Tee, with another overt lie, as no one was ever claiming that Saddam/Iraq was on the verge of attacking mainland America.  NOT ONCE