Politics: A new beginning

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't know what minority reports you're reading, but this is possibly one of the least grounded-in-fact statements that I have seen as applied to "Iraqi society".

Well, there are lots of unemployed rapists, executioners, paid informants, and gravediggers, I suppose . . .

Yep, I just made it up. 50% unemployment pre-war. 70% now. And it only took me 5 minutes to find these articles. Wish I had more time to post 20.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3052248.stm

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/16/Fl..._of_work.shtml

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
If you listen to O'Neill's explanations - his own words, now - you realize how much spin there is in your statement.

I'm reading the book. There is no spin in my statement.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Yep, I just made it up. 50% unemployment pre-war. 70% now. And it only took me 5 minutes to find these articles. Wish I had more time to post 20.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3052248.stm

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/16/Fl..._of_work.shtml

so in your mind 50% unemployment was a positive we should have left? shit, at 50% I bet there's alot of discouraged people now just coming back. Ty, got any blogs on this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Well, last I checked, Iraq violated every single resolution and decree issued by the United Nations. So say we (and every other country in Europe save France, Belgium and Germany) went in to make them comply.

A lot of Arabs wonder why we don't say the same thing about Israel. Careful what you're using for cover -- it may bite you in the ass.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so in your mind 50% unemployment was a positive we should have left? shit, at 50% I bet there's alot of discouraged people now just coming back. Ty, got any blogs on this?

No, it means that there was a 40% increase in unemployment b/c of the war. If people are coming back b/c Saddam is gone or the war is over, then they don't deserve jobs b/c that's just stupid. "Hey, they cleaned up Cherynobl!! Let's go back and see if we can get our old jobs!"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Yep, I just made it up. 50% unemployment pre-war. 70% now. And it only took me 5 minutes to find these articles. Wish I had more time to post 20.

Now go back to your post and try to discern what I was responding to.

("No, see, bilmore, I DID SO spell Iraq correctly . . .")

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Now go back to your post and try to discern what I was responding to.

("No, see, bilmore, I DID SO spell Iraq correctly . . .")

I'm not sure. Either the humiliation or unemployment aspect of my post. You quoted both. And you quoted "Iraqi Society" - two words that weren't used in my post. So, color me confused.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, shit, Gattigap, if your entire case on those issues is going to be based on a completely dishonest theme, let's not.

Your premise that we were lied to seems to involve this theme of "he said we had to because the threat was imminent", in the face of the clear truth that he explicitly SAID it wasn't imminent. How much weight should I give such an argument? I wasn't lied to becuase I could understand English, but you were because you still thought he was saying the threat was imminent?

I'm sorry if I'm sounding over the top here, but this just frustrates the hell out of me.

A "completely dishonest" theme?

The point I'm trying to make is that it was presented to us as a war of necessity because of a nuclear threat that turned out to be much more remote than what was presented. If what you want to do is discard that point and end up quibbling over how "imminent" is "imminent", then I feel like we're both wasting our time.

FWIW, I concluded that the threat was "imminent" because of administration statements like these:

* In a radio address on September 14, 2002, President Bush warned, "Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear-weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

* On October 7, 2002, the President told a group in Cincinnati, "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

* On November 1, 2002, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told the Second Global Conference on Nuclear, Bio/Chem Terrorism, "We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material - whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile-material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

There was also Bush's and Rice's statements that we can't wait, because while "there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

These statements told me that the Administration wanted to go to war because this process is inexorable, to their minds inevitable, and (however long it may be) most likely will be short. We've also got hundreds of thousands of troops sitting in Kuwait. So we've GOTTA go, and we've gotta go now.

If I'm missing something -- if at some point he "SAID it wasn't imminent," and that he moved on to other main reasons for this war, and that I was too fucking stupid to get it because I'm just not understanding English -- please let me know.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'm not sure. Either the humiliation or unemployment aspect of my post. You quoted both. And you quoted "Iraqi Society" - two words that weren't used in my post. So, color me confused.

50% were unemployed. Am i missing something? even if there was no increase, I bet we'd be seeing protests. It is part of the nbew freedom, like radios in afghanistan. but to suggest that we fucked up a country because unemployment went from 50 to 70% is silly.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
50% were unemployed. Am i missing something? even if there was no increase, I bet we'd be seeing protests. It is part of the nbew freedom, like radios in afghanistan. but to suggest that we fucked up a country because unemployment went from 50 to 70% is silly.

I'm sure the 3 million newly jobless* see it differently than you.

*in a population of 22 million.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I don't know if I count as "right wing" here, but if so, I dissent and note that I still think it was done for geopolitical reasons, and that, as such, it has proved a fairly productive if risky move.

I don't know whether you're right wing, either, and that answer won't give me any more clues.

Of course, I (a proud member of the left here) would agree that geopolitical reasons were at the forefront.

But in my mind that would be a criticism, since I view exerting control over distant parts of the world as a project doomed to ultimate, inevitable failure, and I haven't heard a case I buy for how we maintain a high level of power while withdrawing.

Thanks for an honest response to an honest question.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
A lot of Arabs wonder why we don't say the same thing about Israel. Careful what you're using for cover -- it may bite you in the ass.

Quite a major difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council. Besides, I'm only stating the case against these UN suck-ups like Kerry. The UN spoke repeatedly - so we acted.

For years, I've felt we should pull out of this anti-US useless organization known as the UN, kick all these non-taxed scofflaw scumbag diplomats out of NY and send them to some asswipe place like the Hague where they can all jerk each other off and knock on Israel while establishing Syria as the head of the Human Rights Commission, and raze the eyesore to the ground and put up riverside condominiums.

[SlaveNoMore]

Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'm sure the 3 million newly jobless* see it differently than you.

If you want to skew numbers and add 400,000 members of a vanquished army to your "unemployment" totals, go right ahead.

By all estimates, this number skyrockets when you also add in non-regular army military and others in Saddam's personal employ.

Perhaps Haliburton can hire some former Republican Guard members and get those numbers back down to pre-war levels, hmm?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Quite a major difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council. Besides, I'm only stating the case against these UN suck-ups like Kerry. The UN spoke repeatedly - so we acted.

For years, I've felt we should pull out of this anti-US useless organization known as the UN, kick all these non-taxed scofflaw scumbag diplomats out of NY and send them to some asswipe place like the Hague where they can all jerk each other off and knock on Israel while establishing Syria as the head of the Human Rights Commission, and raze the eyesore to the ground and put up riverside condominiums.

I find this rather interesting in light of Bremer's recent trip to New York to "suck up" to Kofi Annan on behalf of the admin so we can get the UN's seal of approval for our avoidance of direct elections in Iraq.

But I guess the only word in your post that this would really change is "useless".

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you want to skew numbers and add 400,000 members of a vanquished army to your "unemployment" totals, go right ahead.

By all estimates, this number skyrockets when you also add in non-regular army military and others in Saddam's personal employ.

Perhaps Haliburton can hire some former Republican Guard members and get those numbers back down to pre-war levels, hmm?

It was my understanding that there would be no math in this debate.

My point was not to argue over the numbers, but rather to display one example of why Iraqis are really pissed off right now.