I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Raptor wrote:



This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.


They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL

No, they voted to authorize the president to use force, or "all means
necessary" or somesuch.

AAMOF, it was an abdication of responsibility by the Congress. Sanity
was in short supply in February 2003.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

wrote:


Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior -
our *principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And
when we violate our own principles, we need to call those who
do it on the carpet.


We do. And did.

The second you cite "their" behavior as mitigating, you betray
yourself.


Where did I cite "their" behavior at all? Based on your recent flurry of
posts, I'm curious as to what you're reading!

A quick check of the records immediately available doesn't show that
you've written anything remotely justifying "our" worst behavior by
pointing to "their" worst behavior. You've talked around the subject a
great deal, but never crossed that line. To this extent, I stand corrected.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Bill Sornson wrote:
G.T. wrote:

"Bill Sornson" wrote in
message ...

Raptor wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Raptor wrote:



This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at
the available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL


Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US. With
that kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it?


So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to see
through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources
(including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
could.

The ONLY logical conclusion based on the evidence of the day was that we
had no evidence that Saddam had any WMDs on hand, let alone the means to
deliver them. Anything else was incorrect.

The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone would
be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just because it's
turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome than anticipated
doesn't change the initial reasons and eventual hoped-for outcome. Only a
premature withdrawal can accomplish that.

I happen to agree with your last statement. We leave prematurely at our
peril. The damage we are taking is tolerable. It is, after all, a war.
The plan currently in place shows every sign of working, eventually.

I for one would have stuck to my position, that it was a very bad idea,
regardless of the outcome. It was a pretty safe bet that it was going to
be a horrible mess given the singleminded rush to war and all the snake
oil being spouted. Had it worked out as well as it possibly could have
(for this version, just listen to Dick Cheney even today), I would've
breathed a sigh of relief that it actually worked.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:


I see plenty of indignation over any legitimate abuse that occurred at
AG. Heck, it was front page on the New York Times for weeks.
Fortunately, those who are responsible are being punished
appropriately - that's how our system works. I should point out that
the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make
being stacked naked look like a picnic.

OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.

Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?

The only passes I see being handed out are by people who actually try to
argue that we're so much better.

It's NOT about them. It's NOT about who our enemy is.

It is about US: you, me, our country.


Which is why the guards who did it are now in prison. That's how our
system works, and I am glad of it. What's your point? That any
individual action by any one individual in the military is your fault
personally?

What about the civilian contractors who ordered - or suggested - the
abuse? What about the commander of the unit? What about everyone who
knew about it?

What about the commander in chief who orders his legal staff to find out
whether our forces are or should be constrained to the Geneva Conventions?

WHO are we? WHAT do we stand for? WHAT is this war about, again?

The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
look "not so bad" is flat wrong. To do so is to deny your sense of honor
and discipline, if indeed you have any. To refrain from swooping down
like an avenging angel on this cancer that has invaded the ranks of our
military is a source of shame to all Americans, whether we ever wore the
uniform or not.


Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". Who do you know that says what
went on in AG *IS* acceptable? What more do you want the military to
do? Decapitate the guards involved?

I just have a problem any time someone tries the old, "Well, they're so
much worse," line, like you have.

Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be
"the good guy." We are not.


So let me get this straight - the actions of a few bonehead guards in
Iraq cancel out anything else positive the US has done.

Where it counts most, on the muslim street, they come pretty damn close.

This is just another example of our ahem leaders leading us astray.
Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress.


OK - I'll give you a chance to prove you're not just another misguided
blog-poisoned soul. Show me some evidence that the abuse of common
criminals in AG was orchestrated by the administration, or of the
administration condoning that behavior.

Surely after your rant above, this shouldn't prove difficult. Put
your facts where your opinion is...

See the Geneva Convention topic above.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
powerful!

Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective
delivery systems.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
Raptor wrote:

cc wrote:
I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above
points,
but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our
media
is biased toward the left wing. It is owned by transnational
corporations,
whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our
so-called
two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from
self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of
dissident
opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much
reflects
the interests of its owners.

It would be instructive for some to research the organization backing
the Sean Hannity radio show.

Ummmm, that would be the sponsors. It would be easier to research the
sponsors of Air America though (since it's such a small group). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark,

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for
is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a big
girl riding
a scooter, it is fun to watch though.

I've been to Iraq several times in the past few years (and many other places
where we
are "oppressing" the local innocents.

We aren't the bad guys in this equation and the majority of the thinking
people in the world know it.

Marty

Raptor wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:
Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
powerful!

Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective
delivery systems.

Then why did the UN ever impose sanctions and keep them on for all
those years?

Check out the March 2003 UNMOVIC (weapons inspection) report if you
really want to know what they thought Iraq had. I'll warn you it'll
disagree with the blog you are reading now (the one that claims none
of the intelligence agencies or UN thought Saddam had WMD).

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf

It's OK to have different opinions about what should have happened
regarding Iraq, but those opinions should all be based on fact.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Raptor wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

Raptor wrote:

This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
available information knew that.

Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL

No, they voted to authorize the president to use force, or "all means
necessary" or somesuch.

AAMOF, it was an abdication of responsibility by the Congress. Sanity
was in short supply in February 2003.

I agree that - if your claim that there was no evidence that Saddam
had WMD was true - the Congress was insane to vote as they did.

The Congress are a lot of things - partisan, petty, self-serving, and
sanctimonious... but they, as a group, are NOT insane. A few of the
individuals OTOH.... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Marty" wrote:

Mark,

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for
is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a big
girl riding
a scooter, it is fun to watch though.

I'm not sure anything I've ever done has been compared to a "big girl
riding a scooter" before... I'm going to try to NOT keep that mental
picture in my mind when I do this in the future... ;-)

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion when I participate in these
threads. My goal is to correct factual misperceptions, and there are
a HOST of them. The problem is that when people have seriously flawed
understanding of the actual historical facts involved (like "Raptor's"
belief that none of the pre-war intelligence suggested Iraq had WMD),
the person has no choice but to extend that reasoning to other events
(and in his case, that would include the Congress acting in an
"insane" manner and the UN imposing over a decade of sanctions for no
reason, for example).

It's a complex issue, but one that can only be intelligently discussed
once we all agree on the facts. There's still room for plenty of
differing opinions about what should have happened, but starting from
a factual basis means that the discussion could be worthwhile.
Otherwise we may as well discuss how Frodo should have handled the
whole ring thing. ;-)

I've been to Iraq several times in the past few years (and many other places
where we
are "oppressing" the local innocents.

We aren't the bad guys in this equation and the majority of the thinking
people in the world know it.

I wish our media would focus in a balanced manner on the positive and
negative things happening in Iraq. It's the mantra of those who are
actually there - that there IS so many good things going on, but that
those things never reach the eyes and ears of the public. I don't
think this is so much because of bias in the media, but because "good
news doesn't sell". It's much the same in domestic news, though the
local news broadcasts / newspapers tend to take at least some time for
"good news".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Raptor wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:

It is about US: you, me, our country.

Which is why the guards who did it are now in prison. That's how our
system works, and I am glad of it. What's your point? That any
individual action by any one individual in the military is your fault
personally?

What about the civilian contractors who ordered - or suggested - the
abuse? What about the commander of the unit? What about everyone who
knew about it?

She got busted big-time. I don't recall if she was put in prison for
being involved, or just demoted for not knowing what was happening.
As I recall, the findings were that she was an inept manager rather
than being involved in the abuse.

What about the commander in chief who orders his legal staff to find out
whether our forces are or should be constrained to the Geneva Conventions?

He's a mountain biker? What about him? Why wouldn't he ask that
question - it's a very valid question. You are aware, aren't you,
that the discussion about the GC resulted in the administration
ordering that our personnel stay well within the limits of acceptable
treatment of prisoners, right? Maybe not...

The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
look "not so bad" is flat wrong. snip

Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". Who do you know that says what
went on in AG *IS* acceptable? What more do you want the military to
do? Decapitate the guards involved?

I just have a problem any time someone tries the old, "Well, they're so
much worse," line, like you have.

Ummmmm..... I've read the above a few times, and have NO idea what
you're talking about. I didn't even mention "them". I asked who you
think HAS condoned the behavior of the AG guards. Are you dodging the
question?

Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be
"the good guy." We are not.

So let me get this straight - the actions of a few bonehead guards in
Iraq cancel out anything else positive the US has done.

Where it counts most, on the muslim street, they come pretty damn close.

You share that with them then - that the overwhelming good behavior
and support of a hundred thousand plus sincere American troops can be
erased by a half-dozen prison guards. You can believe that's logical
if you like (though it dooms you to never being able to believe in any
organization larger than a couple dozen individuals).

This is just another example of our ahem leaders leading us astray.
Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress.

OK - I'll give you a chance to prove you're not just another misguided
blog-poisoned soul. Show me some evidence that the abuse of common
criminals in AG was orchestrated by the administration, or of the
administration condoning that behavior.

Surely after your rant above, this shouldn't prove difficult. Put
your facts where your opinion is...

See the Geneva Convention topic above.

Thanks for verifying that "you got nuthin'". I knew you couldn't find
anything at all, but wondered how you'd respond.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame