Torture & Murder by the Bush Administration in Iraq

[Michael Tee]

http://www.thousandreasons.org/get_article.php?article_id=329

from the website of One Thousand Reasons

Bush has just green-lighted the Shi'ite death squads which torture and murder Sunnis at random.  The death squads were created by American "advisors" under the plan known as the Salvador Option.

[Plane]

If these guys win the votes in Iraq , we can't prevent their plan.

[Michael Tee]

<<If these guys win the votes in Iraq , we can't prevent their plan.>>

1.  It's not THEIR plan, it's Negroponte's.
2.  Lotta things in Iraq you can't prevent, plane, not just the Salvador Option.  Lotta things you can't prevent outside Iraq either, like payback for the Salvador Option.  You guys are playing with fire here, and sooner or later you're gonna get burned again.

[Plane]

Our getting attacked is inevitable , like the famous fast gun in an old western , upstarts are always showing up to challenge.


Iraq may fail , the failing will make Iraquis miserable for at least a generation , but we did what we could to make that somethign other than inevitable.

[Michael Tee]

<<Iraq may fail , the failing will make Iraquis miserable for at least a generation , but we did what we could to make that somethign other than inevitable.>>

Well, I don't know who that was intended to fool, but it certainly won't fool any Iraqis.

[Plane]

<<Iraq may fail , the failing will make Iraquis miserable for at least a generation , but we did what we could to make that somethign other than inevitable.>>

Well, I don't know who that was intended to fool, but it certainly won't fool any Iraqis.

It got most of them to go to the polls three times in order to choose their government .


That isn't fooled , that is the people attempting to take controll.

I hope that they succeed.

[Michael Tee]

<<It got most of them to go to the polls three times in order to choose their government .


<<That isn't fooled , that is the people attempting to take controll.

<<I hope that they succeed.>>

I won't disagree with that. 

Do you really think that's why the U.S. invaded Iraq?  Or do you think it's something they were driven to in desperation after the failure of Plans A and B?

[Plane]

<<It got most of them to go to the polls three times in order to choose their government .


<<That isn't fooled , that is the people attempting to take controll.

<<I hope that they succeed.>>

I won't disagree with that. 

Do you really think that's why the U.S. invaded Iraq?  Or do you think it's something they were driven to in desperation after the failure of Plans A and B?

It is the Why that won the publics support , I do not consider this inconsequential.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is the Why that won the publics support , I do not consider this inconsequential.

=======================================
No, it isn't. Not even close.

The Americans supported the conquest of Iraq because thet were told that Saddam had nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that would be used against the American people unless we elected Juniorbush's sorry butt. None of this was actually TRUE, and now most people oppose the invasion, because it was the wrong idea carried out with major incompetence.

The Iraqi public supports the US occupation far less than the Americams do. 65% of them favor shooting at an American soldier i9n their country.

[Michael Tee]

<<It is the Why that won the publics support , I do not consider this inconsequential.>>

Is there a reason why you chose not to answer my question?

 (My question was:  <<Do you really think that's why the U.S. invaded Iraq?  [free elections?]  Or do you think it's something they were driven to in desperation after the failure of Plans A and B?>>)

[sirs]

Is there a reason why you chose not to answer my question?
(My question was:  <<Do you really think that's why the U.S. invaded Iraq?  [free elections?] 

No.  The why continues to be that of the WMD threat Iraq posed

Or do you think it's something they were driven to in desperation after the failure of Plans A and B?>>)

No as well.  The effort to help bring democracy to post-Saddam Iraq, was both a political & moral requirement having taken out Saddam in the 1st place.  It was not directly connected to the mission accomplished A and A, of taking out Saddam's WMD threat, merely a planned follow-up.  A poor plan, to say the least, but neither the reason why, nor an alternative to having invaded Iraq

[Plane]

<<It is the Why that won the publics support , I do not consider this inconsequential.>>

Is there a reason why you chose not to answer my question?

 (My question was:  <<Do you really think that's why the U.S. invaded Iraq?  [free elections?]  Or do you think it's something they were driven to in desperation after the failure of Plans A and B?>>)

I think it is the why the made it possible .

The war has to be sold to the public and the public must buy it for a seriousl war effort to be mounted.

There were other reasons , I am not even going to pretend that setting the Iriquis free would be enough by itself , we cannot liberate the whole Earth at once.

But if this "Why " were absent the People of the US would not have bought in and the Administrations ability to act would have been much much less.

[Michael Tee]

Well thanks for answering.

Let me try another related one, dealing with the rightness or wrongness of the action, assuming the motive is as you believe.

If you come to believe that your neighbour, a well-known thug and criminal, is assembling an arsenal of weapons including poison gas to launch an attack on your home and family, and you go to the police and they want to wait and study the situation some more, after they've already been studying it for months; and you then kick down the neighbour's door and storm into his house, killing his wife and kids, to search for the arsenal of weapons which turn out to be non-existent - - has any crime been committed?  (Assume that there are no weapons in the house when you break in and none are ever found afterwards.)

[sirs]

If you come to believe that your neighbour, a well-known thug and criminal, is assembling an arsenal of weapons including poison gas to launch an attack on your home and family, and you go to the police and they want to wait and study the situation some more, after they've already been studying it for months; and you then kick down the neighbour's door and storm into his house, killing his wife and kids, to search for the arsenal of weapons which turn out to be non-existent - - has any crime been committed? 

Typical of the anti-war left, in trying to make this some criminal act vs calling it for what it is, acts of war.  To add more accuracy, you'd need to include that the person your speaking of is also in law enforcment, that the thufg criminal refused to allow the "police" to fully investigate, and that when the time was up for the thug to come out of the house clean, the killing that occured was targeting that of the thug criminal, and any other deaths that may have occured, were tragic accidents

[Michael Tee]

<<To add more accuracy, you'd need to include that the person your speaking of is also in law enforcment . . . >>

In the international community, every household on the street is "in law enforcement," i.e. they are all sovereign states, and no one state has the right to dictate to any other state.  So I wouldn't add that condition.  The U.S. has no inherent intrinsic authority over Iraq and never did.  It's either one cop invading another cop's home or one civilian invading another civilian's home.

<<that the thug criminal refused to allow the "police" to fully investigate . . . >>

I'll give you that.

<< . . . and that when the time was up for the thug to come out of the house clean . . .>>

I won't give you that, because the UN refused to set the deadline, refused to authorize use of force at the point in time when the U.S. invaded; there was no lawful deadline on the thug at that point, so I won't concede the time was up for him to do anything.

<< . . .  the killing that occured was targeting that of the thug criminal, and any other deaths that may have occured, were tragic accidents>>

I'll give you that too.

So on the conditions I set, are you willing to answer the question?  Is plane?