From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 03:56:56 MDT
Hi Jake,
Here is a recent article that disputes your claims that "we" did not find
"any evidence of WMD in Iraq" .
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.
Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml
Also, just briefly, on the matter of WMD to Syria, check out this sample
article:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=780
Would you like to discuss the other reasons we went to war? I also note that
no one is answering my simple question - would they prefer it that Saddam
Hussein was still in power today. Also, given many people apparent hostility
to the US occupation, what are your suggested alternatives and do you think
continued insurrection is the best way of ending the occupation to the best
outcome?
Or is this all just about "damn you went to war even though I objected and
now I hope you fail" - that is, spite.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Jake Sapiens
Sent: 06 May 2004 09:32
To: virus
Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
I don't know from what planet you got the idea that we found any evidence of
WMD in Iraq, or that any such WMD were shipped off to Syria. I HAVE heard
Rush Limabaugh hopefully speculating that something like that happened.
Like him, your opinions on this seem much more immutable than the
speculations you offer in support of them. Damn all the evidence, somehow
there were WMD's. Of course you may be unconcerned either way, but this was
the reason the Bush administration most strongly advocated for invading Iraq
against the better judgment of most of our allies.
>snip<
> Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the
> solution to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam?
> Handing over
to
> Al Sadr?
With current US leadership I don't see any good solution in sight. The way
this administration has squandered its credibility with most of our closest
allies, the only way I see that they can end this would be a unilateral and
catastrophic US pullout. This of course would be terrible for the Iraqis,
but probably no worse than they have endured for decades anyway. If we get
new US leadership, we will probably be in a better position to attempt a
happier ending with the aid of allies who won't currently bother risking
their own credibility with this current US administration. The real
question is do we want to proceed alone or with help? Like a one trick
pony, the Bush administration has so consistently and so pre-emptively
chosen unilateralism to the point that they have burned all bridges to real
diplomacy, not that they show any interest in actually trying that now
anyway. The more alone we are in Iraq regardless of our military strength,
the more disappointing the experiment in democracy will become. I think the
best we can reasonably hope for in a Bush future would be an Islamic Iraqi
state like Iran.
>snip<
> Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so
> very prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the
> scheme of
things
> minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert
> attention
from
> the WMD programs.
>
> Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the
> tribal mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab
> press and those of you who continue to take out your anger at being
> impotent to stop the war by supporting the ruining of the peace.
>
> Regards
>
> Limbic
I see. Once again anybody who opposes the current admnistration is an
angry, impotent, unpatriotic person hoping that peace will fail and the
economy will collapse. Yep, that's what godless liberal babykillers like me
pray for every night. What an amazing job of uncovering my secret political
motivations!
Yet again the Bush apologists who cannot handle the message, would simply
prefer to destroy the conversation rather than deal with facts that have
become fairly obvious to the rest of the world. It saddens me to see you
participating so eagerly in this intellectual dishonesty.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Jonathan Davis <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 05/05/2004 4:33:13 PM
> Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
>
> If by Bush apologist you mean people like me, then you are right about
> one
> thing: my opinions have not changed one whit.
>
> The reasons for going to war are as sound as ever, even with the
> benefit
of
> 20:20 hindsight. Even what I considered one of the lower order good
reasons
> (of many) - the WMD *threat* - was real and increasingly we see
> evidence
of
> what happened to Saddam's arsenal (it went to Syria) and there are
> studiously under-reported discoveries of his nuclear and weapons
> program almost every day.
>
> Iranian and Syrian backed insurrections are causing a few problems,
> but
the
> military response has be nothing short of brilliant. The situation in
> troubled but utterly winnable. If people back home have courage,
> determination and good will.
>
> I this forum, politically, we get a self-reinforcing cycle of
> anti-Bush
and
> anti-War opining that whilst emboldening rabid anti-Semites bigots
> like
Jei
> and spurring my esteemed fellows Jake and Kalkor to harsh claims, is
mostly
> unbalanced and based on bunk.
>
> For quality analysis of what I going on in Iraq, why not try
> dispassionate and balanced commentary? Try:
>
> http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
>
> I also recommend the absolutely brilliant Victor Davis Hanson. Here
> are
two
> latest essays:
>
> What the President Might Say
> http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404300833.asp
>
> Myth or Reality?
> Will Iraq work? That's up to us.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200404230833.asp
>
> His recent essay on the Iraqi torture scandal is magnificent. He
concludes:
>
> "If a small number of soldiers has transgressed, then let us punish
> them severely, as well as the officers who either ordered or ignored
> such reprehensible behaviour. But let us also accept that the reaction
> to this incident is indicative of larger moral asymmetries that are
> the burdens of the West when it goes to war, a culture that so often
> equates the understandable absence of perfection, either moral,
> political, or
military,
> with abject failure -- a fact not lost on our enemies.
>
> We have seen terrible things since September 11 -- monotonous public
> executions, taped decapitations, videos of brutalized hostages,
> diplomats gunned down, aid workers riddled with bullets, children's
> bodies blown
apart
> by improvised explosive devices, nuts, bolts and rat poison added to
suicide
> bombs -- most under either the sponsorship of some autocratic Middle
Eastern
> governments or of terrorist cabals that could not exist without at
> least
the
> tacit support of thousands in the Arab street.
>
> So as we in America address the moral inadequacies of a handful of our
> soldiers, let those in the Middle East take heart from our own
> necessary
and
> stern democratic inquiries and audits, and thus at last now apply the
> same standards of accountability to tens of thousands, far more
> culpable, of their own."
>
> http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3955
>
>
>
> Just for the record, Kalkor and Jake what do you recommend as the
> solution to the Iraq situation? US pullout? Reinstatement of Saddam?
> Handing over
to
> Al Sadr?
>
> I suggest you heed the UN representative to Iraq :
>
> "A key question is whether a credible political process is even viable
under
> such circumstances [Limbic notes this he refers to recent insurrection
> and strife]. It is important to note, in this context, that the
> limited task
we
> are presently engaged in - the formation of an administration to
> assume responsibility as of 30 June - is part of a much broader
> political
process,
> and that this political process has to be seen against the background
> of
the
> realities that made it necessary: namely, war and occupation and,
> before that, a very harsh and brutal regime, and severe, even
> crippling
sanctions,
> not to mention two earlier devastating and costly wars.
>
> The political process aims at restoring Iraqi sovereignty and
independence,
> preserving the country's unity and territorial integrity, and making
> the Iraqi people truly the masters of their own destiny, with the
> political system of their choice and control over their own natural
resources.
>
> So: Is it possible for the process to proceed under such circumstances?
Will
> it be viable? Will it be credible? I put it to you and the Council, Mr.
> President, that *there is in fact no alternative but to find a way of
making
> the process viable and credible*. Between security on the one hand,
> and
the
> end of occupation, the restoration of sovereignty and independence and
> the advent of a legitimate Iraqi government and political regime on
> the other, there is a dialectical link which is obvious. Security is
> essential for
the
> process to be completed. A viable political process is no panacea. It
> is a powerful contributing factor to security; hence, the importance
> for a credible Iraqi Government to be in place and lead the way in the
completion
> of the next phase of the political process. In the end, the solution
> to Iraq's problems will have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The
> sooner a credible Iraqi government is in place to lead the way, the
> better, especially because the absence of such a sovereign government
> is part of
the
> problem in the first place."
>
> http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq1.asp?NewsID=730&sID=19
>
> Let's stop gloating at every setback and roaring "I told you so" so
> very prematurely about circumstances long anticipated and in the
> scheme of
things
> minor setbacks agitated by countries who are trying to divert
> attention
from
> the WMD programs.
>
> Iraq has to work. If it fails it will not be anyone's fault by the
> tribal mafia/Mujahedin/Islamist alliance, the hostile western and Arab
> press and those of you who continue to take out your anger at being
> impotent to stop the war by supporting the ruining of the peace.
>
> Regards
>
> Limbic
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On
> Behalf
Of
> Blunderov
> Sent: 05 May 2004 21:32
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: War & Peace / Rethinking Iraq
>
> Jake Sapiens
> Sent: 05 May 2004 10:58 PM
>
> It's generally much more easy and comfortable to attack a source that
> says "I told you so", rather than admit that you were completely or
> almost completely wrong. Habitual Bush apologists seem to have no
> lack of irrational denial to call upon in these situations. I
> wouldn't expect
even
> a bare modicum of intellectual honesty from them from here on out now
> that almost all of their rationalizations have gone up in delusional
smoke.
> It's a pretty common human response, however, so I wouldn't
> automatically write them all off as anything less than common without
knowing more.
> Disillusion is an ugly process that often has no concern for honesty
> or reality unless and until it has run its course.
>
> [Blunderov] The whole Iraq scenario is a hideous fiasco and now the
> whole world appears to be seething with bombs in public places. (Hope
> the Rhino
is
> safe.)
>
> At least Jubagulord made it out OK.
>
> 'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. Havoc it certainly is and so
> it looks to remain.
>
> Gloomily
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 06 2004 - 03:58:20 MDT