U.S. Foreign Policy

[Mr. Perfect]

Even if you assume that French instigation of the NATO intervention in Libya was self-interested, the result is still that Gaddafi was prevented from deploying his air force and heavy artillery/armor against the civilian population centers that rose up against his regime. Its still results in fewer civilian casualties.

Complete speculation. Bottom line, by your own standards you supported the murder of civilians.

[Mr. Perfect]

referring to large groups of people and culture as "disgusting" is racism.

Would that include say the US military or right wing conservatives.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



Washington Post

.

An American man who disappeared in Iran more than six years ago had been working for the CIA . .

..

After he vanished, CIA officials told Congress in closed hearings as well as the FBI that Levinson did not have a current relationship with the agency and downplayed its ties with him. Agency officials said Levinson didn’t go to Iran for the CIA.

But months after Levinson’s abduction, e-mails and other documents surfaced that suggested he had gone to Iran at the direction of certain CIA analysts ..

..

CIA ultimately concluded that it was responsible for Levinson while he was in Iran and paid $2.5 million to his wife, Christine, former U.S. intelligence officials said. The agency also paid the family another $120,000, the cost of renewing Levinson’s contract.

..

On March 8, 2007, Levinson flew from Dubai to the Iranian island of Kish and checked into a hotel. He met with Dawud Salahuddin, a fugitive wanted for the murder of an Iranian dissident and diplomat who was gunned down at his house in Bethesda. Levinson thought Salahuddin could supply details about the Iranian regime, perhaps ones that could interest the CIA, according to officials, who have been able to reconstruct some of his movements.

Levinson spent hours talking to Salahuddin. The next morning he checked out of his hotel and vanished, officials said.

..

After the video and pictures of Levinson emerged, American officials concocted a story that he was being held in Pakistan or Afghanistan in an effort to provide the Iranians some cover to release him, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put out a statement in March 2011 that Levinson might be in southwest Asia. Officials hoped Levinson would turn up in one of those two countries and give the Iranian plausible deniability, officials said.

The ruse failed.

U.S. intelligence officials say if there was a moment for his return, it was when they received the video. They can’t explain why Iran has freed other American captives such as a trio of U.S. hikers but not Levinson. And other U.S. citizens being held by Iran — Pastor Saeed Abedini and former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati — are known to be alive, unlike Levinson.

The Iranians have steadfastly denied holding Levinson. Even as the relationship between the U.S. and Iran has thawed with the recent election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and a temporary deal that freezes parts of the country’s nuclear program, there has been no progress on securing Levinson or information about his fate.

“We don’t know where he is, who he is,” Rouhani told CNN in September during the United Nations General Assembly. “He is an American who has disappeared. We have no news of him.”

U.S. intelligence officials remain skeptical. They suspect that Iran did indeed snatch Levinson but they can’t prove it. Officials surmise that only a professional intelligence service such as Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and National Security could have taken Levinson and thwarted American efforts to find him for so many years.

U.S. intelligence officials acknowledge it’s very possible Levinson, who was in poor health, died under questioning at some point. They say there is no upside for the Iranians to admit he died in their custody.

Former intelligence officials familiar with the case said releasing the information about his ties to the CIA won’t make his situation any worse.

Levinson’s family refuses to believe he is dead and remain hopeful he will return home.

In November, Levinson became the longest-held hostage in American history, surpassing the 2,454 days that Terry Anderson — held in Lebanon in the 1970s — spent in captivity.

“No one would have predicted this terrible moment more than six and a half years ago when Bob disappeared,” Christine Levinson said in a statement last month. “Our family will soon gather for our seventh Thanksgiving without Bob, and the pain will be almost impossible to bear. Yet, as we endure this terrible nightmare from which we cannot wake, we know that we must bear it for Bob, the most extraordinary man we have ever known.”

.

Interesting article, 5 pages


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Noam Chomsky .. The "Axis of Evil," Revisited

.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

referring to large groups of people and culture as "disgusting" is racism.

Would that include say the US military or right wing conservatives.

.

YES

.

[Ibrahim]

But the first time the US went to Iraq Bush senior was shameful in calling on the Shiites to revolt then ordering US troops to stand by and watch as they were murdered by Saddam. But the second time around when the intention really was to remove Saddam it was all about greed.

Hmmm something off with that logic.

The US and UK government lied about the justification for the war, and private US companies with connections to the Bush II administration were awarded billions in no-bid contracts during the occupation.

Which is what the French and EU in fact did. They are the users of Libyan oil.

So you concede that the second Iraq did result in major transfers of public money to private companies affiliated with the Bush II administration?

Even if you assume that French instigation of the NATO intervention in Libya was self-interested, the result is still that Gaddafi was prevented from deploying his air force and heavy artillery/armor against the civilian population centers that rose up against his regime. Its still results in fewer civilian casualties.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

That's illogical. Saddam didn't threaten Iraqis with reprisals until the US and UK were threatening to invade Iraq over non-existent WMDs. Libya was already undergoing a revolution. The US and UK invasion of Iraq CAUSED civilian casualties, the Libyan intervention PREVENTED civilian casualties.

The total abandonment of Iraqi Kurds and Shiites encouraged to rise up against Saddam in the aftermath of the first Iraq war is a separate subject, but obviously deeply immoral and cowardly.

We agree on that least. Everyone now says they believed Saddam would be over thrown. But he was not. But since the Saudis were paying for the war Bush I was not interested in removing Saddam as he had agreed with the Saudis not to remove him in return for them ponying up several 10s of billions for the war.

I think its widely accepted now that the Bush I administration both intentionally kept Saddam in power and left him with the means of violently suppressing the Kurdish uprising by allowing him to keep his arrack helicopters. This arrangement satisfied Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey under the regimes then governing those countries, to the detriment of the Kurds and Iranians.

[Mr. Perfect]

So you concede that the second Iraq did result in major transfers of public money to private companies affiliated with the Bush II administration?

Almost everything the government does transfers public money to private companies. Thank God.

That's illogical. Saddam didn't threaten Iraqis with reprisals until the US and UK were threatening to invade Iraq over non-existent WMDs. Libya was already undergoing a revolution. The US and UK invasion of Iraq CAUSED civilian casualties, the Libyan intervention PREVENTED civilian casualties.

Pure speculation.

[Doc]

But the first time the US went to Iraq Bush senior was shameful in calling on the Shiites to revolt then ordering US troops to stand by and watch as they were murdered by Saddam. But the second time around when the intention really was to remove Saddam it was all about greed.

Hmmm something off with that logic.

The US and UK government lied about the justification for the war, and private US companies with connections to the Bush II administration were awarded billions in no-bid contracts during the occupation.

Which is what the French and EU in fact did. They are the users of Libyan oil.

So you concede that the second Iraq did result in major transfers of public money to private companies affiliated with the Bush II administration?

What I said is French bombed Libya as they tend to do as a matter of greed at least in part. You know like they did in the UN oil for bribes program. Something you constantly accuse the US of doing.





[quote

Even if you assume that French instigation of the NATO intervention in Libya was self-interested, the result is still that Gaddafi was prevented from deploying his air force and heavy artillery/armor against the civilian population centers that rose up against his regime. Its still results in fewer civilian casualties.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

That's illogical. Saddam didn't threaten Iraqis with reprisals until the US and UK were threatening to invade Iraq over non-existent WMDs.

Oh I see you mean there wasn't a northern no fly zone in raq. That Saddam didn't actually torture anyone playing the torture videos on Iraqi national TV so as to make sure everyone in Iraq knew what was going to happen to them if they crossed Saddam....Wrong....Illogical...FALSE

Libya was already undergoing a revolution. The US and UK invasion of Iraq CAUSED civilian casualties, the Libyan intervention PREVENTED civilian casualties.

Hmmm is that like Obama creating or saving jobs?

The total abandonment of Iraqi Kurds and Shiites encouraged to rise up against Saddam in the aftermath of the first Iraq war is a separate subject, but obviously deeply immoral and cowardly.

We agree on that least. Everyone now says they believed Saddam would be over thrown. But he was not. But since the Saudis were paying for the war Bush I was not interested in removing Saddam as he had agreed with the Saudis not to remove him in return for them ponying up several 10s of billions for the war.

I think its widely accepted now that the Bush I administration both intentionally kept Saddam in power and left him with the means of violently suppressing the Kurdish uprising by allowing him to keep his arrack helicopters. This arrangement satisfied Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey under the regimes then governing those countries, to the detriment of the Kurds and Iranians.

I think you are right in that. Many of the Neo-cons agreed with you as well.

[Ibrahim]

But the first time the US went to Iraq Bush senior was shameful in calling on the Shiites to revolt then ordering US troops to stand by and watch as they were murdered by Saddam. But the second time around when the intention really was to remove Saddam it was all about greed.

Hmmm something off with that logic.

The US and UK government lied about the justification for the war, and private US companies with connections to the Bush II administration were awarded billions in no-bid contracts during the occupation.

Which is what the French and EU in fact did. They are the users of Libyan oil.

So you concede that the second Iraq did result in major transfers of public money to private companies affiliated with the Bush II administration?

What I said is French bombed Libya as they tend to do as a matter of greed at least in part. You know like they did in the UN oil for bribes program. Something you constantly accuse the US of doing.

That is what the US does, and what France does, and other countries besides. If you admit that then I am satisfied. The point isn't that the intervention was entirely altruistic, the point is that it ended up saving lives.

Even if you assume that French instigation of the NATO intervention in Libya was self-interested, the result is still that Gaddafi was prevented from deploying his air force and heavy artillery/armor against the civilian population centers that rose up against his regime. Its still results in fewer civilian casualties.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

That's illogical. Saddam didn't threaten Iraqis with reprisals until the US and UK were threatening to invade Iraq over non-existent WMDs.

Oh I see you mean there wasn't a northern no fly zone in raq. That Saddam didn't actually torture anyone playing the torture videos on Iraqi national TV so as to make sure everyone in Iraq knew what was going to happen to them if they crossed Saddam....Wrong....Illogical...FALSE[/quote]

Laughable. You quoted Saddam Hussein as saying he would brutally punish those who aided coalition forces. That isn't relevant until coalition forcers were invading or planning to invade. Now you've changed the subject and are talking about Saddam's routine brutality as part of his regime, except that this isn't the reason given by the Bush II or Blair governments for invading Iraq.

Libya was already undergoing a revolution. The US and UK invasion of Iraq CAUSED civilian casualties, the Libyan intervention PREVENTED civilian casualties.

Hmmm is that like Obama creating or saving jobs?

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

And bear in mind that I don't care about your Obama fetish as the intervention wasn't even his idea. It starts with Bernard Henri-Levy, gains traction via Sarkozy.

[Doc]

But the first time the US went to Iraq Bush senior was shameful in calling on the Shiites to revolt then ordering US troops to stand by and watch as they were murdered by Saddam. But the second time around when the intention really was to remove Saddam it was all about greed.

Hmmm something off with that logic.

The US and UK government lied about the justification for the war, and private US companies with connections to the Bush II administration were awarded billions in no-bid contracts during the occupation.

Which is what the French and EU in fact did. They are the users of Libyan oil.

So you concede that the second Iraq did result in major transfers of public money to private companies affiliated with the Bush II administration?

What I said is French bombed Libya as they tend to do as a matter of greed at least in part. You know like they did in the UN oil for bribes program. Something you constantly accuse the US of doing.

That is what the US does, and what France does, and other countries besides. If you admit that then I am satisfied. The point isn't that the intervention was entirely altruistic, the point is that it ended up saving lives.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

Even if you assume that French instigation of the NATO intervention in Libya was self-interested, the result is still that Gaddafi was prevented from deploying his air force and heavy artillery/armor against the civilian population centers that rose up against his regime. Its still results in fewer civilian casualties.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

That's illogical. Saddam didn't threaten Iraqis with reprisals until the US and UK were threatening to invade Iraq over non-existent WMDs.

Oh I see you mean there wasn't a northern no fly zone in raq. That Saddam didn't actually torture anyone playing the torture videos on Iraqi national TV so as to make sure everyone in Iraq knew what was going to happen to them if they crossed Saddam....Wrong....Illogical...FALSE

Laughable. You quoted Saddam Hussein as saying he would brutally punish those who aided coalition forces. That isn't relevant until coalition forcers were invading or planning to invade. Now you've changed the subject and are talking about Saddam's routine brutality as part of his regime, except that this isn't the reason given by the Bush II or Blair governments for invading Iraq.[/quote]

Excuse me but you did say that the end of the Bush I invasion of Iraq was disgusting and shameful in that so many died. They were in fact still being tortured Children tortured in front of parents Videos of Torture being put on Iraq TV in a continuing effort to stay in power by demonstrating that any one who opposed him would severally suffer at his hands. You keep trying to make fine distinctions between doing that and what was done in Libya. IT doesn't wash the blood off of your hands.

Libya was already undergoing a revolution. The US and UK invasion of Iraq CAUSED civilian casualties, the Libyan intervention PREVENTED civilian casualties.

Hmmm is that like Obama creating or saving jobs?

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

And bear in mind that I don't care about your Obama fetish as the intervention wasn't even his idea. It starts with Bernard Henri-Levy, gains traction via Sarkozy.

Again it does not wash your hands.

[Ibrahim]

What I said is French bombed Libya as they tend to do as a matter of greed at least in part. You know like they did in the UN oil for bribes program. Something you constantly accuse the US of doing.

That is what the US does, and what France does, and other countries besides. If you admit that then I am satisfied. The point isn't that the intervention was entirely altruistic, the point is that it ended up saving lives.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

An obvious falsehood. The argument for invading Iraq was the Bush/Blair lie that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that he could or would sell or give to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Complete bunk, as we now know. Iraq caused hundreds of thousands unnecessary of deaths.

Laughable. You quoted Saddam Hussein as saying he would brutally punish those who aided coalition forces. That isn't relevant until coalition forces were invading or planning to invade. Now you've changed the subject and are talking about Saddam's routine brutality as part of his regime, except that this isn't the reason given by the Bush II or Blair governments for invading Iraq.

Excuse me but you did say that the end of the Bush I invasion of Iraq was disgusting and shameful in that so many died. They were in fact still being tortured Children tortured in front of parents Videos of Torture being put on Iraq TV in a continuing effort to stay in power by demonstrating that any one who opposed him would severally suffer at his hands.

Yes. Bush I is responsible for that. Bush II and Blair didn't give that reason for their invasion of Iraq, they lied about WMDs.

You keep trying to make fine distinctions between doing that and what was done in Libya. IT doesn't wash the blood off of your hands.

Its not a fine distinction, its obvious. And there is no blood on my hands, as the Libyan intervention saved lives. The second Iraq war, which you choose to defend, caused hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths, not to mention the tortures and rapes committed by the US military. At least NATO air forces in Libya, aside from preventing Gaddafi from killing civilians, didn't have the opportunity to rape anybody like US ground troops did.

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

And bear in mind that I don't care about your Obama fetish as the intervention wasn't even his idea. It starts with Bernard Henri-Levy, gains traction via Sarkozy.

Again it does not wash your hands.

There is no blood on my hands. Your misrepresentation of events doesn't change the facts, the Libyan intervention saved civilian lives, whereas the Iraq war you defend killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Now answer the question you pathetically dodged.

[Doc]

What I said is French bombed Libya as they tend to do as a matter of greed at least in part. You know like they did in the UN oil for bribes program. Something you constantly accuse the US of doing.

That is what the US does, and what France does, and other countries besides. If you admit that then I am satisfied. The point isn't that the intervention was entirely altruistic, the point is that it ended up saving lives.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

An obvious falsehood. The argument for invading Iraq was the Bush/Blair lie that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that he could or would sell or give to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Complete bunk, as we now know. Iraq caused hundreds of thousands unnecessary of deaths.

10's of thousands died in Libya. At least another 100,000 in Syria. Yeah you support(ed) both civil wars. Completely UN-neccesary given the "non necessity" of the Iraq war as you call it. Not to mention the first gulf war which I imagine you fully supported until you didn't

Laughable. You quoted Saddam Hussein as saying he would brutally punish those who aided coalition forces. That isn't relevant until coalition forces were invading or planning to invade. Now you've changed the subject and are talking about Saddam's routine brutality as part of his regime, except that this isn't the reason given by the Bush II or Blair governments for invading Iraq.

Excuse me but you did say that the end of the Bush I invasion of Iraq was disgusting and shameful in that so many died. They were in fact still being tortured Children tortured in front of parents Videos of Torture being put on Iraq TV in a continuing effort to stay in power by demonstrating that any one who opposed him would severally suffer at his hands.

Yes. Bush I is responsible for that. Bush II and Blair didn't give that reason for their invasion of Iraq, they lied about WMDs.

they gave the reason, at least the Neo-cons in the Bush admin that they wanted Saddam gone from terrorizing Iraqis and the world. Even Bill Clinton initially believed that Saddam was likely responsible for 911. As Only He and Al Qaeda had the resources to pull 911 off. But I am sure you don't want to talk about that

You keep trying to make fine distinctions between doing that and what was done in Libya. IT doesn't wash the blood off of your hands.

Its not a fine distinction, its obvious. And there is no blood on my hands, as the Libyan intervention saved lives. The second Iraq war, which you choose to defend, caused hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths, not to mention the tortures and rapes committed by the US military. At least NATO air forces in Libya, aside from preventing Gaddafi from killing civilians, didn't have the opportunity to rape anybody like US ground troops did.

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

And bear in mind that I don't care about your Obama fetish as the intervention wasn't even his idea. It starts with Bernard Henri-Levy, gains traction via Sarkozy.

Again it does not wash your hands.

There is no blood on my hands. Your misrepresentation of events doesn't change the facts, the Libyan intervention saved civilian lives, whereas the Iraq war you defend killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

People died because of the Libyan civil war which would not have occurred had it not been for the invasion of Iraq and the over throw of Saddam. Deal with it

Now answer the question you pathetically dodged.

ANSWER THE QUESTION I PATHETICALLY DODGED DEMANDS THE ARTFUL DODGER !!!

What Question ? This one?

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

How many would do you suppose would have died had the Iraqi people risen up on their own to overthrow Saddam the brutal Pig and his swine offspring? NO Pathetic answers are acceptable Arty.

[Ibrahim]

What I said is French bombed Libya as they tend to do as a matter of greed at least in part. You know like they did in the UN oil for bribes program. Something you constantly accuse the US of doing.

That is what the US does, and what France does, and other countries besides. If you admit that then I am satisfied. The point isn't that the intervention was entirely altruistic, the point is that it ended up saving lives.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

An obvious falsehood. The argument for invading Iraq was the Bush/Blair lie that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that he could or would sell or give to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Complete bunk, as we now know. Iraq caused hundreds of thousands unnecessary of deaths.

10's of thousands died in Libya. At least another 100,000 in Syria. Yeah you support(ed) both civil wars.

A couple of lies here. First, I don't "support civil war," I support the overthrow if dictators, and insofar as Syrians have started a civil war I favor the non-dictator side of the equation. In the case of Libya what I supported was the NATO air campaign preventing Gaddafi from using aricraft and artillery against civilian population centers, which he vowed to do.

Estimated deaths from the Libyan civil war top out at 25,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... _Civil_War), deaths in the Iraq war are placed at "174,000 civilian and combatant deaths" by the IBC project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) and deaths from the Syrian civil war are estimated at around 90,000 to 125,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... all_deaths).

So obviously Libya was the lest destructive conflict in terms of civilian casualties.

As the war was started by Libyans trying to overthrow their dictator, and the NATO intervention prevented that dictator from using advanced weaponry against civilians, I don't see how you can honestly claim that it did not prevent civilian casualties, or really be against it at all. The numbers bear this out.

Excuse me but you did say that the end of the Bush I invasion of Iraq was disgusting and shameful in that so many died. They were in fact still being tortured Children tortured in front of parents Videos of Torture being put on Iraq TV in a continuing effort to stay in power by demonstrating that any one who opposed him would severally suffer at his hands.

Yes. Bush I is responsible for that. Bush II and Blair didn't give that reason for their invasion of Iraq, they lied about WMDs.

they gave the reason, at least the Neo-cons in the Bush admin that they wanted Saddam gone from terrorizing Iraqis and the world.

Then why all the lies about WMDs and connections to terrorism?

Even Bill Clinton initially believed that Saddam was likely responsible for 911. As Only He and Al Qaeda had the resources to pull 911 off. But I am sure you don't want to talk about that

Who cares what Bill Clinton says?

You keep trying to make fine distinctions between doing that and what was done in Libya. IT doesn't wash the blood off of your hands.

Its not a fine distinction, its obvious. And there is no blood on my hands, as the Libyan intervention saved lives. The second Iraq war, which you choose to defend, caused hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths, not to mention the tortures and rapes committed by the US military. At least NATO air forces in Libya, aside from preventing Gaddafi from killing civilians, didn't have the opportunity to rape anybody like US ground troops did.

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

And bear in mind that I don't care about your Obama fetish as the intervention wasn't even his idea. It starts with Bernard Henri-Levy, gains traction via Sarkozy.

Again it does not wash your hands.

There is no blood on my hands. Your misrepresentation of events doesn't change the facts, the Libyan intervention saved civilian lives, whereas the Iraq war you defend killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

People died because of the Libyan civil war which would not have occurred had it not been for the invasion of Iraq and the over throw of Saddam. Deal with it

This is an unrelated false claim that doesn't contradict any of the facts or arguments I have presented, and is completely unsupported in its own right. Are you now admitting that the NATO intervention in Libya saves lives but trying to give credit to the Iraq war? Somehow Libyans didn't realize they hated Gaddafi until US soldiers raped a little girl in Yusafiyah? You aren't even presenting a theory here, just grasping at straws.

Now answer the question you pathetically dodged.

ANSWER THE QUESTION I PATHETICALLY DODGED DEMANDS THE ARTFUL DODGER !!!

What Question ? This one?

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

How many would do you suppose would have died had the Iraqi people risen up on their own to overthrow Saddam the brutal Pig and his swine offspring? NO Pathetic answers are acceptable Arty.

You dodged my question yet again. Impressive commitment to cowardice and obfuscation.

[Mr. Perfect]

An obvious falsehood. The argument for invading Iraq was the Bush/Blair lie that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that he could or would sell or give to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda.

Resulting in dead Americans, duh.

Complete bunk, as we now know.

Very likely the same as Qderfis claims about what he would do to his citizens.

Iraq caused hundreds of thousands unnecessary of deaths.

The Iraqi on Iraqi deaths were repugnant, no doubt. However one can hardly blame Bush for that unless you believe Iraqis are simple children.

Bush II and Blair didn't give that reason for their invasion of Iraq, they lied about WMDs.

It's hilarious that you would lie about lying. Or ironic I will let one of our resident Tolkien literary experts chime in here.

Every western intelligence apparatus that I know of thought Saddam had WMD. THey did not lie, they were mistaken. I hope you can learn the difference.

No what obama has done, that is lying.

Its not a fine distinction, its obvious. And there is no blood on my hands, as the Libyan intervention saved lives.

Pure speculation.

The second Iraq war, which you choose to defend, caused hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths,

Iraqi on Iraqi violence was very pointless, we can agree there.

not to mention the tortures and rapes committed by the US military.

Why do you not mention the torture and rapes by the Libyan rebels. I think I know why.

At least NATO air forces in Libya, aside from preventing Gaddafi from killing civilians, didn't have the opportunity to rape anybody like US ground troops did.

The rebels did it for you.

There is no blood on my hands.

By your own standards, plenty.

Your misrepresentation of events doesn't change the facts, the Libyan intervention saved civilian lives,

Complete speculation.

whereas the Iraq war you defend killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Do you know how many civilians were killed in Libya.

Do you know who killed most of the civilians in Libya and who killed most of the civilians in Iraq. Let is know.

[monster_gardener]

What I said is French bombed Libya as they tend to do as a matter of greed at least in part. You know like they did in the UN oil for bribes program. Something you constantly accuse the US of doing.

That is what the US does, and what France does, and other countries besides. If you admit that then I am satisfied. The point isn't that the intervention was entirely altruistic, the point is that it ended up saving lives.

Which is the same argument for invading Iraq

An obvious falsehood. The argument for invading Iraq was the Bush/Blair lie that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that he could or would sell or give to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Complete bunk, as we now know. Iraq caused hundreds of thousands unnecessary of deaths.

10's of thousands died in Libya. At least another 100,000 in Syria. Yeah you support(ed) both civil wars.

A couple of lies here. First, I don't "support civil war," I support the overthrow if dictators, and insofar as Syrians have started a civil war I favor the non-dictator side of the equation. In the case of Libya what I supported was the NATO air campaign preventing Gaddafi from using aricraft and artillery against civilian population centers, which he vowed to do.

Estimated deaths from the Libyan civil war top out at 25,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... _Civil_War), deaths in the Iraq war are placed at "174,000 civilian and combatant deaths" by the IBC project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) and deaths from the Syrian civil war are estimated at around 90,000 to 125,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... all_deaths).

So obviously Libya was the lest destructive conflict in terms of civilian casualties.

As the war was started by Libyans trying to overthrow their dictator, and the NATO intervention prevented that dictator from using advanced weaponry against civilians, I don't see how you can honestly claim that it did not prevent civilian casualties, or really be against it at all. The numbers bear this out.

Excuse me but you did say that the end of the Bush I invasion of Iraq was disgusting and shameful in that so many died. They were in fact still being tortured Children tortured in front of parents Videos of Torture being put on Iraq TV in a continuing effort to stay in power by demonstrating that any one who opposed him would severally suffer at his hands.

Yes. Bush I is responsible for that. Bush II and Blair didn't give that reason for their invasion of Iraq, they lied about WMDs.

they gave the reason, at least the Neo-cons in the Bush admin that they wanted Saddam gone from terrorizing Iraqis and the world.

Then why all the lies about WMDs and connections to terrorism?

Even Bill Clinton initially believed that Saddam was likely responsible for 911. As Only He and Al Qaeda had the resources to pull 911 off. But I am sure you don't want to talk about that

Who cares what Bill Clinton says?

You keep trying to make fine distinctions between doing that and what was done in Libya. IT doesn't wash the blood off of your hands.

Its not a fine distinction, its obvious. And there is no blood on my hands, as the Libyan intervention saved lives. The second Iraq war, which you choose to defend, caused hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths, not to mention the tortures and rapes committed by the US military. At least NATO air forces in Libya, aside from preventing Gaddafi from killing civilians, didn't have the opportunity to rape anybody like US ground troops did.

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

And bear in mind that I don't care about your Obama fetish as the intervention wasn't even his idea. It starts with Bernard Henri-Levy, gains traction via Sarkozy.

Again it does not wash your hands.

There is no blood on my hands. Your misrepresentation of events doesn't change the facts, the Libyan intervention saved civilian lives, whereas the Iraq war you defend killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

People died because of the Libyan civil war which would not have occurred had it not been for the invasion of Iraq and the over throw of Saddam. Deal with it

This is an unrelated false claim that doesn't contradict any of the facts or arguments I have presented, and is completely unsupported in its own right. Are you now admitting that the NATO intervention in Libya saves lives but trying to give credit to the Iraq war? Somehow Libyans didn't realize they hated Gaddafi until US soldiers raped a little girl in Yusafiyah? You aren't even presenting a theory here, just grasping at straws.

Now answer the question you pathetically dodged.

ANSWER THE QUESTION I PATHETICALLY DODGED DEMANDS THE ARTFUL DODGER !!!

What Question ? This one?

Gaddafi, via his sons, vowed retribution on Benghazi. What reason do you have for believing he would not have carried that out, killing massive numbers of civilians, as Assad has in Aleppo?

How many would do you suppose would have died had the Iraqi people risen up on their own to overthrow Saddam the brutal Pig and his swine offspring? NO Pathetic answers are acceptable Arty.

You dodged my question yet again. Impressive commitment to cowardice and obfuscation.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

Who cares what Bill Clinton says?

You and probably much of the the world should care what Bill Clinton Thinks & Says....

If your contention is correct that Bill Clinton's avatar Billary will again be President.......

http://www.whoisthecreator.com/images/billary.jpg

This time in female/shakti form.....

Which is often deadlier than the male.....




http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Th ... oduct.html

[Typhoon]

A number of petty posts that contravene the SFRs have been deleted.

Q: Why did not you not move them into the Hell section?
A: It's a time consuming process and the deleted posts were not worth the effort.

Q: I'm not happy that the mods deleted what I spent time writing.
A: As far as the mods know, posting here is entirely voluntary. If anyone is not happy, then they are more than welcome to post elsewhere.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

A number of petty posts that contravene the SFRs have been deleted.

Q: Why did not you not move them into the Hell section?
A: It's a time consuming process and the deleted posts were not worth the effort.

Q: I'm not happy that the mods deleted what I spent time writing.
A: As far as the mods know, posting here is entirely voluntary. If anyone is not happy, then they are more than welcome to post elsewhere.

.

A very big " seconded"


Look, guys, we all busy people, no time back and forth with rubbish and BS

One posts something "intelligent" trying to make a point .. other side should reflect, research the facts from different "high standard and value" sources and come with an "intelligent, high level" answer, if not possible, just move on, skip

just running to WiKi or google to find some rubbish far fetched unrelated BS not only waste one's time and cause fatigue posting (as one does not get an intelligent debate of subject of one's post) but also lowers level of debate into toilet

.

[Doc]

.

A number of petty posts that contravene the SFRs have been deleted.

Q: Why did not you not move them into the Hell section?
A: It's a time consuming process and the deleted posts were not worth the effort.

Q: I'm not happy that the mods deleted what I spent time writing.
A: As far as the mods know, posting here is entirely voluntary. If anyone is not happy, then they are more than welcome to post elsewhere.

.

A very big " seconded"


Look, guys, we all busy people, no time back and forth with rubbish and BS

One posts something "intelligent" trying to make a point .. other side should reflect, research the facts from different "high standard and value" sources and come with an "intelligent, high level" answer, if not possible, just move on, skip

just running to WiKi or google to find some rubbish far fetched unrelated BS not only waste one's time and cause fatigue posting (as one does not get an intelligent debate of subject of one's post) but also lowers level of debate into toilet

.

Look while wikipedia may not be perfect it is still better than people assuming facts that are not facts but rather BS. The same goes for Google as long as you use reliable sources. And believe me there are a lot of sources I could have used but didn't because I do the research into what is claimed much beyond what I post.

[Rest of post moved to This Forum | Complaints section]

[Nonc Hilaire]

.

A number of petty posts that contravene the SFRs have been deleted.

Q: Why did not you not move them into the Hell section?
A: It's a time consuming process and the deleted posts were not worth the effort.

Q: I'm not happy that the mods deleted what I spent time writing.
A: As far as the mods know, posting here is entirely voluntary. If anyone is not happy, then they are more than welcome to post elsewhere.

.

A very big " seconded"


Look, guys, we all busy people, no time back and forth with rubbish and BS

One posts something "intelligent" trying to make a point .. other side should reflect, research the facts from different "high standard and value" sources and come with an "intelligent, high level" answer, if not possible, just move on, skip

just running to WiKi or google to find some rubbish far fetched unrelated BS not only waste one's time and cause fatigue posting (as one does not get an intelligent debate of subject of one's post) but also lowers level of debate into toilet

.

Look while wikipedia may not be perfect it is still better than people assuming facts that are not facts but rather BS. The same goes for Google as long as you use reliable sources. And believe me there are a lot of sources I could have used but didn't because I do the research into what is claimed much beyond what I post.


[Rest of post moved to This Forum | Complaints section]

Agreed. Wikipedia is fine; it lists proper sources when able and often is the most intelligible summary.

But there are no idiots here. Stridently posting unsubstantiated personal opinions is for trolls and less. People come here for intelligent discussion, and to find new sources of reliable information. Ignorant argumentation is wholly unattractive.

[Doc]

.

A number of petty posts that contravene the SFRs have been deleted.

Q: Why did not you not move them into the Hell section?
A: It's a time consuming process and the deleted posts were not worth the effort.

Q: I'm not happy that the mods deleted what I spent time writing.
A: As far as the mods know, posting here is entirely voluntary. If anyone is not happy, then they are more than welcome to post elsewhere.

.

A very big " seconded"


Look, guys, we all busy people, no time back and forth with rubbish and BS

One posts something "intelligent" trying to make a point .. other side should reflect, research the facts from different "high standard and value" sources and come with an "intelligent, high level" answer, if not possible, just move on, skip

just running to WiKi or google to find some rubbish far fetched unrelated BS not only waste one's time and cause fatigue posting (as one does not get an intelligent debate of subject of one's post) but also lowers level of debate into toilet

.

Look while wikipedia may not be perfect it is still better than people assuming facts that are not facts but rather BS. The same goes for Google as long as you use reliable sources. And believe me there are a lot of sources I could have used but didn't because I do the research into what is claimed much beyond what I post.


[Rest of post moved to This Forum | Complaints section]

Agreed. Wikipedia is fine; it lists proper sources when able and often is the most intelligible summary.

But there are no idiots here. Stridently posting unsubstantiated personal opinions is for trolls and less. People come here for intelligent discussion, and to find new sources of reliable information. Ignorant argumentation is wholly unattractive.

Absolutely agreed.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

After years in hostile hands, AP Executive Editor and Senior Vice president Kathleen Carroll said, “It is almost certain that [Levinson's] captors already know about the CIA connection but without knowing exactly who the captors are, it is difficult to know whether publication of Levinson’s CIA mission would make a difference to them.
That does not mean there is no risk. But with no more leads to follow, we have concluded that the importance of the story justifies publication.”

.

[monster_gardener]

.

A number of petty posts that contravene the SFRs have been deleted.

Q: Why did not you not move them into the Hell section?
A: It's a time consuming process and the deleted posts were not worth the effort.

Q: I'm not happy that the mods deleted what I spent time writing.
A: As far as the mods know, posting here is entirely voluntary. If anyone is not happy, then they are more than welcome to post elsewhere.

.

A very big " seconded"


Look, guys, we all busy people, no time back and forth with rubbish and BS

One posts something "intelligent" trying to make a point .. other side should reflect, research the facts from different "high standard and value" sources and come with an "intelligent, high level" answer, if not possible, just move on, skip

just running to WiKi or google to find some rubbish far fetched unrelated BS not only waste one's time and cause fatigue posting (as one does not get an intelligent debate of subject of one's post) but also lowers level of debate into toilet

.

Look while wikipedia may not be perfect it is still better than people assuming facts that are not facts but rather BS. The same goes for Google as long as you use reliable sources. And believe me there are a lot of sources I could have used but didn't because I do the research into what is claimed much beyond what I post.


[Rest of post moved to This Forum | Complaints section]

Agreed. Wikipedia is fine; it lists proper sources when able and often is the most intelligible summary.

But there are no idiots here. Stridently posting unsubstantiated personal opinions is for trolls and less. People come here for intelligent discussion, and to find new sources of reliable information. Ignorant argumentation is wholly unattractive.

Thank You VERY Much for your post, Nonc Hilaire.

Wikipedia is fine; it lists proper sources when able and often is the most intelligible summary.

Seconded.

Wiki can be self correcting and at least lists when there are disputes....

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Washington Post : David Ignatius: Q&A with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



MOHAMMED BIN NAWAF BIN ABDULAZIZ AL SAUD :
The West’s policies toward Iran and Syria pose a threat to the entire Middle East.
We can’t stand idly by.





Folks, you should celebrate .. no need anymore defending weekly beheading of Bangladeshi nannies and Filipino woman accused being a witch .. now you on the side of Cyrus the Pomegranates, China in waiting

.

Saudi Arabia will continue on this new track for as long as proves necessary. We expected to be standing shoulder to shoulder with our friends and partners who have previously talked so much about the importance of moral values in foreign policy. But this year, for all their talk of “red lines,” when it counted, our partners have seemed all too ready to concede our safety and risk our region’s stability.

Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud is Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain.

.

.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



have to admit, quite an accurate analysis


.