Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What am I missing? What does it cost him?

Well he puts his credibility on the line on the world stage, for one. He also (kind of/sort of) backs a country (the US) which is not among the most popular countries, and risks enflaming his own Muslim problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well he puts his credibility on the line on the world stage, for one. He also (kind of/sort of) backs a country (the US) which is not among the most popular countries, and risks enflaming his own Muslim problem.

He hardly puts his own credibility on the line if the only people who could contradict him are the people he's helping. And I'm just not seeing the costs you have in mind. Moslems in Russia are pretty well inflamed already.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He hardly puts his own credibility on the line if the only people who could contradict him are the people he's helping. And I'm just not seeing the costs you have in mind. Moslems in Russia are pretty well inflamed already.

[surprise] Well I guess we just disagree [/surprise]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[surprise] Well I guess we just disagree [/surprise]

That was clear several posts ago.

The LA Times' Moscow correspondent writes today that Putin's announcement was "a move whose timing is widely seen in Russian political circles as an attempt to support Bush's reelection."

As I recall, Putin is one of the few people who believed before the war that Iraq didn't have WMD. Did you believe him then?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That was clear several posts ago.

The LA Times' Moscow correspondent writes today that Putin's announcement was "a move whose timing is widely seen in Russian political circles as an attempt to support Bush's reelection."

As I recall, Putin is one of the few people who believed before the war that Iraq didn't have WMD. Did you believe him then?

Of couse it was seen that way, because that is what it is, but it does not necessarily make it untrue.

I don't recall that was Putin's position on WMD. Do you have a cite? Either way, I'm not sure it is relevant. His beliefs on WMD are speculative, but he has direct knowledge of what was told to the US in 2002. And even if what was told was untrue, it does significantly bolster Bush's case for war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
His beliefs on WMD are speculative, but he has direct knowledge of what was told to the US in 2002.

Strong words from someone who keeps extolling the importance of the fact that the rest of the world thought Hussein had WMD. I guess what they thought isn't important only if they disagreed with us.

And even if what was told was untrue, it does significantly bolster Bush's case for war.

When did you become so desperate to grasp at these straws? WMD and Al Qaeda are dead as justifications for war. All that's left is the covering action as the administration retreats, and the humanitarian/democracy rationale.

Or do you think that what we've learned since the war ended leads to the conclusion that war was justified to protect ourselves from WMD and to combat Al Qaeda (swamp-draining aside)? And I don't mean, did Bush act reasonably? I mean, if you knew then what you know now about WMD and Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda, would that have warranted war, other rationales aside?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's a disturbing report on the civil war in Saudi Arabia.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't recall that was Putin's position on WMD. Do you have a cite?

Putin in October, 2002:

• Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress.

cite

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Here's a disturbing report on the civil war in Saudi Arabia.

"During the decade, the Egyptians illegally detained, collectively punished, tortured, and killed not only those it accused of jihadist violence but also the suspects' relatives and neighbors. Some people believe torture and collective punishment only breed more violence; others argue that torture is both immoral and ineffective. Either way, the Mubarak regime is still in power, and there have been no terrorist attacks in Egypt since 1997."

What's that saying about an omelette?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"During the decade, the Egyptians illegally detained, collectively punished, tortured, and killed not only those it accused of jihadist violence but also the suspects' relatives and neighbors. Some people believe torture and collective punishment only breed more violence; others argue that torture is both immoral and ineffective. Either way, the Mubarak regime is still in power, and there have been no terrorist attacks in Egypt since 1997."

What's that saying about an omelette?

No one here is stopping you from moving to Cairo. Love it or leave it, pal.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
No one here is stopping you from moving to Cairo. Love it or leave it, pal.

I already told you. When Atticus gets sworn in, I'm getting free passage to Edmonton.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I already told you. When Atticus gets sworn in, I'm getting free passage to Edmonton.

I think they're not keen on torture up there, Albertan winters aside, so maybe Cairo is still a better bet for you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Strong words from someone who keeps extolling the importance of the fact that the rest of the world thought Hussein had WMD. I guess what they thought isn't important only if they disagreed with us.

I don't mean that his beliefs as to whether there were WMD was speculative. I mean that, because it is an intelligence, by nature it is not capable of factual certainty. Neither was our intelligence or the rest of the world's. What was told to the US, on the other hand, is.

When did you become so desperate to grasp at these straws? WMD and Al Qaeda are dead as justifications for war. All that's left is the covering action as the administration retreats, and the humanitarian/democracy rationale.

Or do you think that what we've learned since the war ended leads to the conclusion that war was justified to protect ourselves from WMD and to combat Al Qaeda (swamp-draining aside)? And I don't mean, did Bush act reasonably? I mean, if you knew then what you know now about WMD and Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda, would that have warranted war, other rationales aside?

I don't agree with your first paragraph, but that's a tired subject. As for the question in your second, yes I do believe it warranted war. The swamp draining is a side benefit. IMHO, as a long term strategy against jihad, we need to remake the ME, and it aint going to happen through diplomacy.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I think they're not keen on torture up there, Albertan winters aside....

Maybe this will all change when the Quebecois start going door-to-door slitting the throats of English-speakers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Maybe this will all change when the Quebecois start going door-to-door slitting the throats of English-speakers.

Such behavior is not usually seen in countries with a healthy respect for the rule of law, which goes to why it is that some of us are opposed to torture.