That would be intellectual pygmy.

What do you have against pygmies? They’re people too!

Then why haven’t you listed them Oz?

Actually, they commissioned the study because of a campaign of complaints (and not unconsiderable abuse) by Israeli interests. The ‘issue’ they ‘admit to’ is a series of allegations.

The health and environmental effects of du are in dispute. There are significant studies which show a statistical link between du and several cancers. Like so many things of this nature we will have to wait for the jury. The tobacco companies argued successfully for 50 years that smoking had no detrimental health effects.

Until this casualty study is ‘debunked’ by a more reliable independent study, it is probably the best available evidence thus far. Whatever the number, it is too many.

What is the motive of the US for not providing accurate figures? They have a legal obligation to do so. Please read the Geneva Conventions.

Why did I mention Bin Laden? Because the FACT that you haven’t caught him, yet waged a war in Iraq with significant loss of life amongst the civilian population with no believable link to the perpertrators of your trauma, shows up the hypocrisy of the said war and the futility (given the stated aims) of that loss of life.

And I’m still not a kiwi you pygmy.

“The fact is that the effects of du are unknown and warrant further analysis.”

No, the facts are that DU is nearly harmless radiologically, has some toxic properties, and in casual short term contact, would be harmless. Under certain limited other circumstances, it may increase risks of cancer, and may cause kidney damage. CERTAIN aspects of the long term are unknown, but there is nothing to indicate serious concern about a specific issue with DU. You still can’t come up with a half decent source, can you?

“That may be why the US is conducting its own tests.”

The US conducted many tests and produced numerous reports. They do continute to monitor certain things to verify long term projections, but that’s SOP for scientific research. I didn’t present them to you because I figured a US report would be seen as unreliable to you.

“I don’t think you can pass off an internationally recognised report from Basra University as Saddam’s doing eithet.”

Nothing comes out of totalitarian states that doesn’t toe the party line, or you put your neck at risk. Saddam probably commissioned the report after seeing how people like you were so concerned about DU, never mind the science. I like this topic because it’s hard science, you can’t wiggle out of this one.

“In the absence of the occupation force fullfilling of its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions and reporting collating and accounting for deaths under the occupation it is left to satistical analysis to come up with a best estimate. If this study was considered robust enough for the Lancet to publish it, there is some basis for believing it is at the very least plausible.”

I don’t accept something as fact just because it came from a ‘reputable’ source, do you? The Lancet is a medical journal. This wasn’t really a medical report, why was it in a medical journal?
But if you think that’s fine, then rebut the rebuttals. I gave you links to solid arguments against it’s veracity. You’ve done little but make further empty assertions and distortions without links or sources, or logical argument for that matter.
Publications with respected traditions have been used before- NYT and Duranty re: the Ukrainian famine.
Don’t swallow your food whole, you might choke on it.

“The Lancet is one of the two most respected medical journals in the English speaking world and you would do yourself a disservice trying to label it with one of your silly neocon putdowns.”

Which of my “silly neocon putdowns” would that be? You’re the one who seems so keen on putdowns.

“The fact that you think that 50,,000 deaths is acceptable in your excellent adventure tells me much about your integrity.”

Ah, first 40,000, now 50,000- soon it’ll be 100,000 will it? I was generous to your take to say 30,000 after the UN report (which put the HIGH end at 29,000). Please quote me saying 50,000 was acceptable. I did no such thing. I supplied counter arguments to your position. I’m not sure what number is acceptable, or if it’s even a meaningful debate in isolation. How many were acceptable in defeating the Imperial Japanese? It’s tough to say after the fact, much less during. Perhaps you should research civilian casualty rates for wars in general to give this context. I’m not debating what’s appropriate, but your distortion of fact. Nice second try to shift the focus, though.

“Where’s Osama?”

What’s your point? Trying to shift focus again? Saying that the war will end with the Death of Osama? What?

Kiwi indeed. Idiot.

In the absence of the occupation force fullfilling of its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions and reporting collating and accounting for deaths under the occupation it is left to satistical analysis to come up with a best estimate. If this study was considered robust enough for the Lancet to publish it, there is some basis for believing it is at the very least plausible.

The Lancet is one of the two most respected medical journals in the English speaking world and you would do yourself a disservice trying to label it with one of your silly neocon putdowns.

The fact that you think that 50,,000 deaths is acceptable in your excellent adventure tells me much about your integrity.

Where’s Osama?

“More than half” would be over 50,000- still wildly out of range of the UN report numbers… try again.

As for www.iacenter.org-

the best quote you could get from a report written by SADDAMS GOVT was this?:

“The long-term effects of DU on the environment are still not fully developed. This presents a potential risk with time. This situation imposes the need to further field and specialized studies and research.”

Which by the way, is basically in the UN report as well. In plain english, it’s a basic researchers caveat that they have had a limited time of study, and can’t extrapolate (one way OR THE OTHER) about long term results. It’s basically meaningless in the context of our debate here. It proves nothing.

Note the official Saddamist line used in the report here: “used by the western allies during their aggression on Iraq in 1991.”

I love it when you try to bring me facts. More please.

Proximity and spread have a great deal to do with concentration and exposure…

This should be short enough for the average attention span around here.

5:23 PM, May 27, 2006

confudeforeigner said…
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm

“The long-term effects of DU on the environment are still not fully developed. This presents a potential risk with time. This situation imposes the need to further field and specialized studies and research.”

5:30 PM, May 27, 2006

Sorry, made a bit of a hash of these posts. Too many threads open.

Because Saddam wasn’t shooting chem weaps at US Forces invading from Kurdland because we were fighting in the South.

Iraqi forces didn’t even know where US armor and helicopters were, they just fired the artillery shell at anyone and anything. That tends to spew a lot of chem weaps around rural villages, with fast dispersal in the air and ground and water supplies.

I think douglas is getting angry. Time for more meditation, douglas.

So even the UN report is unconvincing to you? This just shows you think you know more than you do- you’re conflating physics and biology issues- radiation has biological effects, but we know quite well how much = likely side effects. DU just doesn’t emit enough radiation to harm you unless you’ve been shot with it and a big piece stays in you. Read the UN report, and check the link to this: “”Agent Orange, thalidomide, Viiox etc haave all been deemed safe at various stages.. The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world.”

So even the UN report is unconvincing to you? This just shows you think you know more than you do- you’re conflating physics and biology issues- radiation has biological effects, but we know quite well how much = likely side effects. DU just doesn’t emit enough radiation to harm you unless you’ve been shot with it and a big piece stays in you. Read the UN report, and check the link to the pdf that has this:“Carcinogenicity Although bone cancer has been induced in experimental animals by
injection or inhalation of soluble compounds of high-specific-activity uranium isotopes
or mixtures of uranium isotopes, no carcinogenic effects have been reported in animals
ingesting soluble or insoluble uranium compounds (Wrenn et al., 1985). However,
given the nature of ionizing radiation damage to DNA, retention of any radioactive
material in the body will have associated an increase in the probability of cancer; albeit
small and depending on the radiation dose.” Now if you had said that southern Iraq had the worlds highest rate of kideny damage, you might’ve been able to defend your assertion, but you didn’t
There are plenty of other reasons why southern Iraq may have high childhood cancer rates- like all the airborne chemicals as a result of the oil well fires set by Saddam at the end of Gulf I. Couldn’t be good for pregnant mothers, or small children. Seems rather likely, in fact. But of course, it must be the US at fault…

“There was a massive amount of ordinance and kids being kids pick up shiny things. Not too many play stations down there.”

Most of that ordinance wasn’t DU, and most of it was fired off in areas like the road to Basra in the middle of nowhere, not walking distance to Basra. How many kids could even be in those areas? Find me ONE photo on the internet of a kid holding a piece of DU he/she picked up…

“On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?”

No, what you believe is ‘acceptable’ is up to you. You’re supposed to realize you bought a line (hook and sinker included), because you didn’t bother to research something easily disproved because it fit in so nicely with your preconceptions. This says something about what you believe in general, and your abilities to discern fact from propaganda. But you’re not gentleman enough to admit you’ve been had, and concede the point.

Is 40,000 (if that’s what it is) acceptable? What if it’s less than the number Saddam would’ve killed in the last three and a half years? Would it be acceptable then? You imply none are acceptable, thats a pretty untenable position.

Let me know when you disgorge the hook.

Saddam=WMD=been used before.

Why don’t the Iranians have the same rates then? Or the Kurds?

Saddam=WMD=been used before.

Saddam was NOT provided with enough food to feed the population.

Oh Saddam had food, he just only fed his loyalists.

On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?

The amount that the United States has directly killed in Iraq, without resorting to semantical arguments of guilt without trial, is a lot lower than 40,000.

Agent Orange, thalidomide, Viiox etc haave all been deemed safe at various stages.. The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world. There was a massive amount of ordinance and kids being kids pick up shiny things. Not too many play stations down there.

Au contraire- If I tell you not to hurt anyone, and you do, how am I responsible for that? The United States is not responsible for the shortcomings of the UN, home of the oil-for-food-for-bucks-for-tyrants scandal. Aside from that, if Saddam was provided with enough food and medicine for the people of Iraq, but didn’t give it to them, instead trading it for stuff he wasn’t supposed to have from other people unscrupulous enough to do business with him, how is that the fault of the US? IF you hold that we (the west) are responsible for those deaths, would we not also be responsible for the deaths of those killed by Saddam, since we let it happen? Do you see the problem with your logic yet?

Saddam was NOT provided with enough food to feed the population. Despite the masssive amount of money the regime syphoned off, it is a spit in the ocean compared to the needs of a population of 25+ million people.

As far as medicines and medical equipment goes the issue is not with Saddam it was the bans. Antibiotics were banned, chemotherapy drugs were banned, x-ray and MRI scanners banned, basic surgical instruments banned. Need I go on? Pencils banned for pitys sake.

So yes, we were responsible and we can’t plead ignorance or “unintended consequence” because we knew what was going on from day 1. See the problem with your logic yet?

And yes we are also responsible in part for the other deaths at Saddam’s hand too. Remember he was our ‘rock in the middle east’ for a long time before he was the pariah. He killed an awful lot more people in that time than after. He used chemical weapons approved by the US and largely supplied with raw materials by German companies along with US and Soviet supplied weapons. And we didn’t just turn a blind eye, we actively encouraged him.

Look here.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable? Whatever the manner of the deaths, they are the responsibility of the coalition. Read the Geneva Conventions.

Sorry, but you don’t get to pass them off to forces unknown. Bush had no workable plan for post occupation security and saying “gee, we thought we were liberators” doesn’t cut it legally or morally. He placed the security of the oilfields pretty high on his things to do list though didn’t he?

You keep talking about Iranian strategic self-sufficiency. What’s getting almost free electricity(if electricity is what’s really wanted) have to do with strategic issues?

Cunfude: Realpolitik. The symbolism of the head of a hostile rogue nuclear state having policy influence in Washington, given the actual current crisis, is not going to play well in the Islamic world. I have often wondered how many Islamic terrorists signed up on the day when the image of GWB greeting Sharon as a “great man of peace” on the White House lawn was beamed around the world. Jeeeezus H christ. Who said the yanks don’t do irony?

The US can’t stop dealing with allies just because the “Islamic world” is woefully ignorant and misinformed about the Israeli\Palestinian conflict. The typical Muslim believes the US government was behind 9/11 – with the help of the hated Jews, of course. Such deep ignorance will probably never be overcome and certainly won’t be relieved by shunning an ally. On the one hand you deny that most Muslims tacitly support terrorism and deny any monolithic Islamic hatred of the West and on the other hand you caution against stirring up(by consulting with an ally) the very things you deny.

I said earlier: On the “implied threat” – That threat would go away if Iran would stop employing and funding terrorists. If they continue to employ terrorists they need to know that one day there may be an accounting for waging war by proxy.

Cunfude: Again, realpolitik dictates that one must separate and identify your enemies.

I would think that common sense and a desire for survival, not realpolitic, would compel the identification of enemies. That has been one of the problems in the past, that the US has not fully identified its enemies. But by fits and starts that’s being corrected. These tin-pot despots who have been employing the terrorists with impunity need to know that some day, perhaps soon, that there could be retribution.

I said earlier: Considering the two countries’ relative sizes and power I think it more likely that Bush was giving advice to Israel. But good advice should be thoughtfully considered irregardless of the source. Your hatred of Israel is your problem, not Bush’s problem.

Confude: Really? Read the American Century again. And very carefully note the signatories. I recognize the hypocrisy of the Israeli political leadership and I know of the reality of what is a brutal suppression, oppression and sustained murderous treatment of an entire people because they happened to live in Palestine. What were they thinking? In the US you only get one side of the story. Your news media is gutless to the point of culpability.

I’m afraid I’ve read all sides of the sad story. Here are some sites you should visit:

http://www.memri.org

http://www.seconddraft.org

http://camera.org

Look, you were talking about the US killing a hundred thousand civilians in the last 4 years. Then you started skipping around to the sanctions, and when I pointed out that there is no logical connection between why the existence of sanctions justifies the US killing 100,000 civilians in the last 4 years, you now talk about “we did it”. No, the US, let alone I, did not kill 100,000 civilians in the last 4 years. And sanctions from 10 years ago aren’t going to cover up that fact of reality.

We are NOT equally all responsible, because the US unlike you, actually ended the sanctions. And we weren’t profiting from ending the sanctions unlike your friends in the UN security council. They would have ended sanctions and let Saddam stay in power, we got rid of both. We are obviouslly not equally responsible because we obviously prefered differenct actions that would have lead to different results.

You are it’s biggest constituent part and the biggest barrier to its reform.

Like the BMC said, constituents are individuals. No individual in the world has any say in the UN. Period. There are no elections, there are no representatives, there are only dictators, democracies, and their ambassadors. The people in the UN represent nations, not individuals.

Put “quotations” around the quotes, which would satisfy Justin’s request.

I guess that’s why the Jews own the Middle East. That’s why victims of ethnic cleansing, like the Kurds, have more sympathy for the Jews than they do for their fellow (Arab) Muslims.

That’s why there are so many Arabs living in Israel.

Hamas has done what ethnic cleansing exactly? You mean wanting to get rid of the settlers as per UN resolution.

From Article 6 of the Hamas Covenant:

“The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

From the Preamble:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

Hamas wants Lebensraum, just like Hezbollah, just like the Mullahs in Iran, the Janjiweed in the Sudan, the ’separatists’ in Thailand, the ‘rebels’ in Kashmir and just like Al Qaeda.

These groups quote the Koran in the same way that the Ugandan Lords Resistance army uses the Bible to justify mass slayings and slavery. Islam isn’t to blame for groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and their ilk, just like Christianity isn’t to blame for the LRA. The politicians who use Islam to justify ethnic cleansing are to blame.

By the way, didn’t you say this a while ago?

Iran’s economy needs a consistent efficient electricity supply to grow. Why on earth would we try to stop them when, surely, our desire is to see the reemergence of the educated middle class as a force in their politics?

LOL. I’d guess that about 99% of the world’s population knows what these reactors are for and it has nothing to do with oil-rich Iran’s need for ‘energy’. Then you call Iran a “nascent democracy”. Who do you think you’re fooling?

You are threatening them not they you.

I’m proposing that we ignore the Mullahs for now because they’re too stupid to be a nuclear threat.

You’re the one who was whining about an “almighty conflagration”. Since the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle, there has always been a possibility of an “almighty conflagration”. It could happen tomorrow. The best solution is to live well. Stop wasting your free time shilling for the mullahs on the internet.

The Palestinians had a point that Israel’s creation was not perfectly just. Yet from 1948 - 1967 Muslim Egypt and Jordan could have but failed to support the creation of a second, Palestinian state, next to the Jewish state, on pre-1967 boundaries.

Instead crazy USSR supported Nasser massed troops on the border, and Israel wiped out the wimpy Muslim fighters in 6 days.

The Jews humiliated the weak, disorganized, undisciplined Arab Muslims — which is a big reason the Jews are hated. Much more so than them taking land which had been conquered Ottoman land, and very poor, for centuries. Muslim shame about weakness has been turned into Jew-hate and America-hate. Supported by those who hate capitalism’s success.

The oppression has always been Arab oppression of Palestinians, as is true in Lebanon today, while blaming it on the West, the US, and Israel. Mostly false blame, yet Israel hasn’t been perfectly just — and there is NO “pure justice” available today.

Peace will require acceptance of less than justice.

It’s important to see how the Left blames America/ the West for most of the evil of recent history.

The Holocaust murders were caused by Hitler, not the West’s unjust Treaty of Versailles; the Cambodian Killing Fields were caused by (China supported) commie Pol Pot, not Nixon’s bombing [with commie victory enabled by the Dems voting to end funding for fighting evil]; the Rwanda genocide was Hutu vs unjust Tutsi (French enabled, Clinton calling it “not genocide”, until it was over); the Darfur genocide is enabled by the UN & Amnesty calling it “not genocide.”

The choice is war or genocide, and the anti-war folk want to stop genocide with words, only. Their failure to do is blamed … on America.

The evil is done by the evil actors, and such evil actors always look to excuse their evil actions with some imperfections of others.

America is good, is great — but is imperfect. The Left that blames America for Iraqis starving due to sanctions, is failing to blame Saddam, the acting dictator in charge, for the deaths.

The Left that blames America for Iraqis dying from suicide bombs is failing to blame the acting Islamist murderers, though more Iraqis are starting to.

The purpose of the blame includes “keeping their hands clean,” but also indulging in BDS Bush-hate. It’s fun to demonize “the enemy” — and Bush-haters do it, with Bush as the enemy.

If Iran gets a nuke, and allows Hizbollah to nuke Tel Aviv “secretly” — such “blame America first” Leftists will blame America.

America should act like Iran is on that path now. Iran, unlike Israel, signed the NPT. That means, for 3 years they’ve been in violation of their signed agreements.

What does “international law” say about violations? Well, no UN SC resolution, no enforcement. It’s not really law, because there’s no World Cop; no World Judge; no democratic World Legislature. There “is” the UN, full of corrupt dictators, all looking to blame America for any evil by themselves, and using America’s imperfections as justifications.

The purpose of the UN was to stop genocide, and stop war — and it has failed, failed, failed, and is still failing. As long as there are important, powerful countries that don’t accept Free Press & Free Religion, it will continue to fail.
(The world needs a Human Rights Enforcement Group / coalitions of willing democracies — but such an org doesn’t exist yet.)

Of course, the Left blames the failures of the UN on … America! Not supporting the ICC, not doing enough (in Darfur), doing too much (in Iraq). Even the weather is America’s fault! — Bush doesn’t support signing Kyoto (which Clinton’s gov’t rejected). Of course, those that DID sign, are virtually all in violation.

But “signed treaties”, like the Paris Peace Accords, are only really to be followed by America. Other country violations don’t matter, don’t count, and never reduce the blame to be given to (too-)rich America for being imperfect.

I blame Bush, too, a little bit — he should have been talking about invading Darfur for two years. He should have pointed out the alternative to imperfect American invasion is slo-mo, UN enabled genocide.

He should also talk about how long, and slow is the process of nation-building. Look at how Iraq is already ahead of Kosovo (media suppressed info, of course).

There were other ways to help Iraqs rebuild faster (municipal loan bonds to elected Iraqi mayors, for instance, controlled by Iraqis), and much cheaper for the US taxpayer.

But read the Euston Manifesto — Leftists like Norm Geras who is more honestly in favor of human rights and democracy, and is increasing disturbed by the rampant, intellectually dishonest anti-Americanism of so much of the Left.

You’re not serious, are you? Meaningful choice? In elections where truly meaningful candidates are disallowed from running? The Mullahs are just better at playing the game than Saddam, so people like you will say things like the above quoted silliness. yikes.

“The sanctions were written by the US and Britain and approved and administered by the UN. We are all equally responsible.”

Au contraire- If I tell you not to hurt anyone, and you do, how am I responsible for that? The United States is not responsible for the shortcomings of the UN, home of the oil-for-food-for-bucks-for-tyrants scandal. Aside from that, if Saddam was provided with enough food and medicine for the people of Iraq, but didn’t give it to them, instead trading it for stuff he wasn’t supposed to have from other people unscrupulous enough to do business with him, how is that the fault of the US? IF you hold that we (the west) are responsible for those deaths, would we not also be responsible for the deaths of those killed by Saddam, since we let it happen? Do you see the problem with your logic yet?

100,000? Get with the times, that’s long ago debunked. Where, pray tell, do you get your info? This article at Slate slams the survey, and they’re no fans of the Bush admin. He goes with Iraq the body counts numbers, but they’re dissected here. You won’t like the source, but I’d like to see you refute it with logical argument.
Of course, then you’d have to explain why a more complete survey by the UN puts the number FAR lower… link
They say:“War-related Death
The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.”

One then has to also keep in mind that some of those casualties are ‘civilian’ combatants/insurgents, many were innocent civilians killed BY insurgents, or used as human shields, victims of crime would be indistinguishable from those of warfare, intersectarian violence, etc. Also, subtract all those who weren’t killed by Saddam since he’s been out of power… It actually doesn’t leave all that many for our helicopter gunships and smart-bombs, does it…

Are you starting to see yet why we don’t simply take all you claim as fact at face value???

So you should really separate out in your mind the sanction period from 1993 to 2003, to the OIF period from 2003 to 2006.

Read my post again. It isn’t me that is confused. That goes for the rest of your rant too, I am a westerner. We did it, you included. The sanctions were written by the US and Britain and approved and administered by the UN. We are all equally responsible. The corruption changes nought in the human cost. The State Dept and the British FO decided the items on the banned list and a lot of it was pure unadulterated bastardry. Pencils and exercise books for gawds sake.

You really need to figure who the UN is Yboy. You are it’s biggest constituent part and the biggest barrier to its reform.

Justin, for some reason I can only get safari to change ALL the font. Sorry, I know it is confusing. New on macs.

Maryzazero.

A ridiculous post. You are threatening them not they you.

The Israelis have been dividing and conquering for decades and Israel is a testament to ethnic cleansing.

Hamas has done what ethnic cleansing exactly? You mean wanting to get rid of the settlers as per UN resolution. Hmmm.

More lovely western hypocrisy. Great stuff. I love that bile from you guys when confronted with the undeniable fact that the Palestinians may have a point.

Learn the history.

That’s why more troops in the beginning wouldn’t have worked. Only orders from High Command to shoot looters, kill and torture kidnappers, behead insurgents publicly in front of town squares, would have helped early on. Neither you nor US High Command were willing to do such things to secure the indigenous population, so you really can’t say your superior to the US in terms of protecting the captive population because you would not have approved the necessary means to secure the captive population.

Conservative estimates put the death toll from the sanctions at 500,000.

Take that up with people who were profiting from the sanctions in Europe and the UN, and the people who thought Saddam was contained.

The US solved the problem of sanctions, permanently. What did you guys do while these “people you didn’t care to liberate” were dieing in Iraq?

By the way, you should really correct your facts, confud.

The fact of the matter is that you/we’ve killed 100,000 plus civilians in the last 4 years and gawd knows how many in Iraq since the Kuwait thing. Explaining to the family of an arab that there dead father/mother/sister/brother/child was ‘collateral damage’ would seem an obscenity wouldn’t it? I won’t even mention the recent spate of summary executions of civilians by US troops in Iraq.
By my calculations, sanctions stopped soon after 2003.

So you should really separate out in your mind the sanction period from 1993 to 2003, to the OIF period from 2003 to 2006.

Peaceful resolution to what? What almighty conflagration are you trying to threaten us with?

Are we supposed to respect the Mullahs et. al. because they’re threatening us with nukes? Why are you encouraging us to give in to baseless extortion? Because you’re afraid of Armegeddon? We’ve been living under the threat of Armegeddon for decades, nothing has changed. Get used to it.

If we’re afraid of the dweebs in Iran we have no business calling ourselves a superpower.

This whole lumping of all the muslims in together and blurring of distinctly different groupings in getting tiring. It is childish and unproductive. I won’t use the ‘r’ word but there is a distinct reek in your last couple of posts.

All Iraqis aren’t Muslims. Did I mention Muslim Kurds, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Moroccans, Egyptians, Nigerians, Americans, Britons, Indonesians, Malaysians or Uighurs?

No, I’m criticizing Islamists. I don’t think we should dialogue with kleptocratic, theocratic chuckleheads who have been carrying out campaigns of ethnic cleansing against Jews, Copts, Palestinian Christians, Lebanese Christians, Zoroastrians and Kurds. Because they are the enemy we’re supposed to be fighting.

You call me a racist for criticizing this campaign of ethnic cleansing. Why?

Who are you going to deal with if you won’t deal with the elected representatives?

In a war against terrorism, the goal is to kill terrorists. I would deal with anyone who could effectively help us kill the enemy, in numbers large enough to force a genuine surrender. If I wanted to win the war.

If I wanted to lose, I’d negotiate with terrorists.

6:59 PM, May 25, 2006

Then you’d be lying. American bombs and bullets have killed innumerably more than what 2500?

Further, the US as an occupying force is legally and morally responsible for security of the captive population.

Conservative estimates put the death toll from the sanctions at 500,000. Even if that is wildly overstated it is still a ridiculous death toll to punish the Baathist leadership. (who were making shedloads of money out of the sanctions).

Its a funny old world.

That isn’t worthy of a response really, but here goes, Iran was once a democracy, Iran has limited but still meaningful choice in their elections, Iran may well liberalise the political process given time.

Unlike Saddam’s Iraq which was never anything of the sort, nor had the Iraqi people any experience of democracy or even ever being a nation as such.

This whole lumping of all the muslims in together and blurring of distinctly different groupings in getting tiring. It is childish and unproductive. I won’t use the ‘r’ word but there is a distinct reek in your last couple of posts.

Why would you talk to the mullahs?

Hmmm, how about to bring about a peaceful resolution and some understanding that allows the entire planet to move forward without creating one almighty conflagration. I have the impression that you would like the conflagration though.

Hizbollah and Hamas are working towards the same goals as al Qaeda (Arabism, Islamism, ethnic cleansing of minority groups). The current tactics being used against Hamas are interesting. Giving terrorists political power while taking their money supply away and keeping them behind guarded borders seems to be creating a civil war. It’s scorpions in a bottle, or ‘let’s you and him fight’. If Hamas and Fatah wind up destroying each other, I would hope we could use a similar tactic later. It’s cost-effective too.

Who are you going to deal with if you won’t deal with the elected representatives? Realpolotik remember?

Neither Hamas or Hezbollah have ever been involved in ethnic cleansing. Ridiculous.

You forget that Palestine was a multireligious, multicultural and relatively peaceful place prior to the Zionist terrorists ethnic cleansing, wholesale slaughter and land seizures.

I suppose you were comfortable with apartheid South Africa too.

Are you sure that figure isn’t eleventy million by now? According to the latest issue of Lancet, I’m sure it is.

You need to seperate Hizbollah and Hamas from AQ. Entirely different agendas, different tactics. (I can hear the screeching starting for that )

Hizbollah and Hamas are working towards the same goals as al Qaeda (Arabism, Islamism, ethnic cleansing of minority groups). The current tactics being used against Hamas are interesting. Giving terrorists political power while taking their money supply away and keeping them behind guarded borders seems to be creating a civil war. It’s scorpions in a bottle, or ‘let’s you and him fight’. If Hamas and Fatah wind up destroying each other, I would hope we could use a similar tactic later. It’s cost-effective too.

Your parallel between the Shia mullahs in Tehran and the Wahabbis is wrong

Then can you tell me why many Iranians call the Islamists ‘Arabs’ (which is one of the most unkind things one Persian can call another).

Let’s not forget that the Iranians have been trying to get a dialogue going for some time now with the US without much success. Each side has been guilty of dissembling and obfuscation but the mullahs have given every indication that they want dialogue with the west.

Why should we want to ‘dialogue’ with troglodyte Mullahs and their spokesman? I think the Iranians are trying to get a Gaddafi’-style deal. I doubt that they are capable of creating a real nuclear arsenal. Everyone with brains left that country decades ago and the Chinese and Russians aren’t stupid enough to give them real equipment. (although Europe might be). That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t target the regime at some point in time, but we shouldn’t panic because they say ‘nukes’! Like Gaddafi, they’re hoping to extort money and legitimacy from us. ‘Dialogue’ and giving in to extortion is the worst option.

If we want to deal effectively with Iran, we’re going to have to improve our relations with China and Russia.

I didn’t say that Iran is a free and open democracy, at best it is a nascent democracy.

??? And 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam, when Iraq was another “nascent” democracy.

Like I said before. Believing the BBC tends to make people utter false things like “US has killed 100,000+ civilians in the last 4 years”.

People who listen to the BBC also tend to say stuff like this.

In the US you only get one side of the story. Your news media is gutless to the point of culpability.

If everyone flips a 100,000 denomination coin, which side lands up 100,000?

Douglas, get a grip ; ) It’s time to eject, the ship’s going to down. SOS

Elected? Moderate? Defeated? You’re joking, right? You say this like Iran is a free and open democracy, and these presidents aren’t really tapped by the Mullahs. Perhaps we should take everything else you say with a few grains of salt.

No, not joking at all. I didn’t say that Iran is a free and open democracy, at best it is a nascent democracy. Do some reading about the candidates before you blunder in next time and don’t be such a political chauvanist.

The mindset of the above quote is interesting. If Iran decided to let the West provide almost free electricity to them they wouldn’t be any worse off than they are now. They could always go back to merrily enriching uranium for electricity. I really don’t understand the problem – on the one hand you can enrich uranium for electricity or on the other hand you can have the reactor-grade uranium for free and on top of that you get a free reactor. Sounds like a great deal to me.

Well, I’ll deal with my “mindset” in my own time thanks. The mindset of the Iranians is that they are supicious of the west (with good reason) and they want to be entirely strategically self sufficient.



Not discuss the Middle East with a visiting Middle Eastern ally? Well, I know you don’t like Israel but discussion of issues with an ally is mere elementary, conventional foreign policy behavior – done no doubt since nations were first formed.

Realpolitik. The symbolism of the head of a hostile rogue nuclear state having policy influence in Washington, given the actual current crisis, is not going to play well in the Islamic world.

I have often wondered how many islamic terrorists signed up on the day when the image of GWB greeting Sharon as a “great man of peace” on the White House lawn was beamed around the world. Jeeeezus H christ. Who said the yanks don’t do irony?

On the “implied threat” – That threat would go away if Iran would stop employing and funding terrorists. If they continue to employ terrorists they need to know that one day there may be an accounting for waging war by proxy.

Again, realpolitik dictates that one must seperate and identify your enemies.



Considering the two countries’ relative sizes and power I think it more likely that Bush was giving advice to Israel. But good advice should be thoughtfully considered irregardless of the source. Your hatred of Israel is your problem, not Bush’s problem.

Really? Read the American Century again. And very carefully note the signatories.

I recognize the hypocrisy of the Israeli political leadership and I know of the reality of what is a brutal suppression, opression and sustained murderous treatment of an entire people because they happened to live in Palestine.

What were they thinking?

In the US you only get one side of the story. Your news media is gutless to the point of culpability.

Uh, China? They certainly COULD. Would they at some point? Tough question, but they are making some moves of late that might make that a very worthy point of consideration.

confudeforeigner said…
“Yes, he (Ahmedinejad) is, after all, an elected president who replaced a moderate western leaning head of state who was defeated.”

Elected? Moderate? Defeated? You’re joking, right? You say this like Iran is a free and open democracy, and these presidents aren’t really tapped by the Mullahs. Perhaps we should take everything else you say with a few grains of salt.

We’re not at war with 1.3 billion people, we’re at war with the Islamist mujahideen and their sponsors. As I’ve noted before, most 1.3 billion Muslims also loathe the Islamist mujahideen and their sponsors.

Reading this site and listening to the architects of US foreign policy gives one a distinct impression of the opposite.

Know your enemy.