Welcome to the Israelis World: 9 Afghan Children Killed in US Airstrike

[tnitsuj]

from the BBC

 

[Witling]

Yes, the same story is carried on Al Jazeera but I don't post news from that site. Unfortunately, this will happen again. It may be seven children, it may be fourteen. The nature of war generates these mistakes -- or mishaps if you don't want to call it a mistake. But, they do not do it in my name, I've drawn the line. Not in My Name.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Yes, the same story is carried on Al Jazeera but I don't post news from that site. Unfortunately, this will happen again. It may be seven children, it may be fourteen. The nature of war generates these mistakes -- or mishaps if you don't want to call it a mistake. But, they do not do it in my name, I've drawn the line. Not in My Name.

Do you not support the operation in afghanistan or just the accidents like these?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whitling
Yes, the same story is carried on Al Jazeera but I don't post news from that site. Unfortunately, this will happen again. It may be seven children, it may be fourteen. The nature of war generates these mistakes -- or mishaps if you don't want to call it a mistake. But, they do not do it in my name, I've drawn the line. Not in My Name.

Do you not support the operation in afghanistan or just the accidents like these?

Don't worry mr American Flag. I think just about everyone supports the operation in Afghanistan. Even that damn commie liberal Hoard Dean.

 

[Witling]

Charrison, I support defense. I don't see our actions in either Afghanistan or Iraq as defense. I'm not a pacifist, I thought that Gulf War I was justified. I did not think the second Gulf War was justified. By the way, how are we doing with those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?

EDITED: And how has 55 years of beating up on Palestinians worked for Israel?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, I support defense. I don't see our actions in either Afghanistan or Iraq as defense. I'm not a pacifist, I thought that Gulf War I was justified. I did not think the second Gulf War was justified. By the way, how are we doing with those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?

EDITED: And how has 55 years of beating up on Palestinians worked for Israel?

So you think that the country that hosted al queda which were responsable for 9/11 should have been left alone?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, I support defense. I don't see our actions in either Afghanistan or Iraq as defense. I'm not a pacifist, I thought that Gulf War I was justified. I did not think the second Gulf War was justified. By the way, how are we doing with those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?

EDITED: And how has 55 years of beating up on Palestinians worked for Israel?

if the leftists in this country and europe, (and not to omit mention of the clowns at the UN) not balked at the idea of finishing it the first time there would not have been a second gulf war.

as for the WMD we are doing great! we found mobile chem labs and a 40 acre hidden chemical complex. we found numerous missiles that exceeded the 90km limit...etc..etc. of course we both know that really is a moot issue, as soon as any is found it wil be dismissed as planted evidence anyway, so why go on harping about it?

of course all the dems do is try to poo poo it away because they have a political agenda that is thier number one concern.

do you think clinton was justified commiting acts of war against iraq in 1998 without additional UN resolutions?

 

[Witling]

Shad, there are those statements with out support that I've come to expect from you. I don't think you can characterize missles that exceed a specified range as "weapons of mass destruction." There is a giant dispute about the nature of the vans. As for planted evidence. Tons and tons of this stuff were alleged to exist. That can't be planted without a trace. Fortunately, not being a Democrat, I don't feel obliged to defend or justify Democratic actions.

As for Clinton, no, I don't think the cruise missles were justified. I think it was a mistake and, as I recollect, it really was a mistake. They got the wrong factory. Then there's the blowing up of the Chinese embassy. Ooops.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Shad, there are those statements with out support that I've come to expect from you. I don't think you can characterize missles that exceed a specified range as "weapons of mass destruction." There is a giant dispute about the nature of the vans. As for planted evidence. Tons and tons of this stuff were alleged to exist. That can't be planted without a trace. Fortunately, not being a Democrat, I don't feel obliged to defend or justify Democratic actions.

As for Clinton, no, I don't think the cruise missles were justified. I think it was a mistake and, as I recollect, it really was a mistake. They got the wrong factory. Then there's the blowing up of the Chinese embassy. Ooops.

The missles definatly were not declared and now allowed according the UN resolutions. The kay report showed that the Iraq was hidding plenty from the UN inspectors.

 

[Witling]

Charrison, if violation of UN resolutions was sufficient to justify invasions, Israel would be occupied. In my opinion, both Afghanistan and Iraq were feel good operations. Remember going up to the war. North Korea was saying "Hey, we got weapons." Clearly the regime there is more repressive than Sadaam's and the country is more dangerous. We're not going to go there. We whent to the two countries in the Middle East because of oil and because it was easy. Militarily our losses were, and continue to be, militarily insignificant. Politically, every American death (alas, we count foreign deaths as nothing) comes closer to putting this present, lying, administration out of business.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, if violation of UN resolutions was sufficient to justify invasions, Israel would be occupied. In my opinion, both Afghanistan and Iraq were feel good operations. Remember going up to the war. North Korea was saying "Hey, we got weapons." Clearly the regime there is more repressive than Sadaam's and the country is more dangerous. We're not going to go there. We whent to the two countries in the Middle East because of oil and because it was easy. Militarily our losses were, and continue to be, militarily insignificant. Politically, every American death (alas, we count foreign deaths as nothing) comes closer to putting this present, lying, administration out of business.

So you still did not answer the question.

What should have been done with afghanistan that supported al queda while they planned 9/11 attacks?

Clearly NK had nothing to do with 9/11 and we still hold them under sanctions and have troops stationed there. But i supposed you would like see that war started so Soeul can be shelled by the 10,000 artillary peices that sit in the dmz.

 

[DealMonkey]

Text of Iraq weapons inspector David Kay's congressional testimony, as provided by the CIA

Excerpted:

...

We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the U.N./IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq's WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by U.N./IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations. The result was that our understanding of the status of Iraq's WMD program was always bounded by large uncertainties and had to be heavily caveated.

With the regime of Saddam Hussein at an end, ISG has the opportunity for the first time of drawing together all the evidence that can still be found in Iraq ? much evidence is irretrievably lost ? to reach definitive conclusions concerning the true state of Iraq's WMD program. It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions and, in some areas, we may never reach that goal. The unique nature of this opportunity, however, requires that we take great care to ensure that the conclusions we draw reflect the truth to the maximum extent possible given the conditions in post-conflict Iraq.

We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.

...

But, but, but ... I thought we KNEW that Iraq had WMDs? But, but, but ... didn't we already FIND the WMDs? The Kay team has found a whole lot of nothing, that's what they found. He comes right out and admits it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Text of Iraq weapons inspector David Kay's congressional testimony, as provided by the CIA

Excerpted:

...

We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the U.N./IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq's WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by U.N./IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations. The result was that our understanding of the status of Iraq's WMD program was always bounded by large uncertainties and had to be heavily caveated.

With the regime of Saddam Hussein at an end, ISG has the opportunity for the first time of drawing together all the evidence that can still be found in Iraq ? much evidence is irretrievably lost ? to reach definitive conclusions concerning the true state of Iraq's WMD program. It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions and, in some areas, we may never reach that goal. The unique nature of this opportunity, however, requires that we take great care to ensure that the conclusions we draw reflect the truth to the maximum extent possible given the conditions in post-conflict Iraq.

We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.

...

But, but, but ... I thought we KNEW that Iraq had WMDs? But, but, but ... didn't we already FIND the WMDs? The Kay team has found a whole lot of nothing, that's what they found. He comes right out and admits it.

Well he is reporting that no weapons stocks have been found, but you left where he describes the hidden research facilties and other undeclared things.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Well he is reporting that no weapons stocks have been found, but you left where he describes the hidden research facilties and other undeclared things.

So we bomb the beejesus out of Iraq over a clerical error? Dear god, I hope the IRS doesn't catch on to this tactic.

 

[Witling]

Charrison, words have an exact and literal meaning for me. You asked, and I quote,

"So you think that the country that hosted al queda which were responsable for 9/11 should have been left alone?"

I replied that I thought the cruise missles were a mistake. You didn't ask what I thought should have been done. Do you know wish to ask what I think should have been done?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Well he is reporting that no weapons stocks have been found, but you left where he describes the hidden research facilties and other undeclared things.

So we bomb the beejesus out of Iraq over a clerical error? Dear god, I hope the IRS doesn't catch on to this tactic.

Sorry, as much as you like, kay did not give a clean bill of health to Hussien weapons.

The report also showed that the worlds intel(not just the US) does have problems.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, words have an exact and literal meaning for me. You asked, and I quote,

"So you think that the country that hosted al queda which were responsable for 9/11 should have been left alone?"

I replied that I thought the cruise missles were a mistake. You didn't ask what I thought should have been done. Do you know wish to ask what I think should have been done?

What cruise missles are you referring to? THe ones that clinton used?

So you think we were better off leaving afghanistan to be terrorist nest?

 

[Witling]

DealMonkey quotes Kay as saying, "We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis." This is going to be a wonderful thing for the administration because except for the most trivial of problems, e.g., "Is there a black sock in the drawer?" one cannot prove a null hypothesis or to put it another way, you can't prove that something doesn't exist in the real world. Were Kay to look 100 years, there would still be unexamined places where there "might" be weapons. Incidentally, I haven't heard that the U.S. has tried ground penetrating radar. Does any know if this has been done?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Sorry, as much as you like, kay did not give a clean bill of health to Hussien weapons.

Riiiigght. We were worried that Hussein might strike us with his "long-range clandestine dual-use laboratory." That's why self-defense is so often cited as a reason for OIF.

The report also showed that the worlds intel(not just the US) does have problems.

The problem being: We didn't know jack sh!t about what was going on in Iraq. We guessed. And the U.S. government's best guess was sold as a known fact.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Whitling
DealMonkey quotes Kay as saying, "We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis." This is going to be a wonderful thing for the administration because except for the most trivial of problems, e.g., "Is there a black sock in the drawer?" one cannot prove a null hypothesis or to put it another way, you can't prove that something doesn't exist in the real world. Were Kay to look 100 years, there would still be unexamined places where there "might" be weapons. Incidentally, I haven't heard that the U.S. has tried ground penetrating radar. Does any know if this has been done?

Yes, Kay is using the classic Rummy strategy:

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Sorry, as much as you like, kay did not give a clean bill of health to Hussien weapons.

Riiiigght. We were worried that Hussein might strike us with his "long-range clandestine dual-use laboratory." That's why self-defense is so often cited as a reason for OIF.

The report also showed that the worlds intel(not just the US) does have problems.

The problem being: We didn't know jack sh!t about what was going on in Iraq. We guessed. And the U.S. government's best guess was sold as a known fact.

Even french and german intel was pointing at Iraq having WMD. But i guess you would rather ignore that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Even french and german intel was pointing at Iraq having WMD. But i guess you would rather ignore that.

Musn't have been very convincing considering neither country was onboard for OIF.

 

[Witling]

Charrison asks: "What cruise missles are you referring to? THe ones that clinton used?

Response: Yes, I was referring to the cruise missles that Clinton launched. It's true that those were not launched in response to 9/11 but rather in response to an embassy bombing.

Charrison asks: So you think we were better off leaving afghanistan to be terrorist nest?

Response: I think that your question implies a lack of consideration of mid-range response. You seem to have neatly divided the world into only two possibilities. There are actually many more possibilities than you acknowledge. I simply think that the policy well out toward the war end of the spectrum was not wise for us. How well has it worked for Israel?

I repeat, are you asking what we should have done with respect to Afghanistan in response to 9/11?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison asks: "What cruise missles are you referring to? THe ones that clinton used?

Response: Yes, I was referring to the cruise missles that Clinton launched. It's true that those were not launched in response to 9/11 but rather in response to an embassy bombing.

Charrison asks: So you think we were better off leaving afghanistan to be terrorist nest?

Response: I think that your question implies a lack of consideration of mid-range response. You seem to have neatly divided the world into only two possibilities. There are actually many more possibilities than you acknowledge. I simply think that the policy well out toward the war end of the spectrum was not wise for us. How well has it worked for Israel?

I repeat, are you asking what we should have done with respect to Afghanistan in response to 9/11?

Since you are not a pacafist, what would you have done? Since military options do not seem to be ones that you would use.

 

[Witling]

Charrison, I don't want to cop out here, but I would like some time to consider what I would have recommended. It's not something I've thought about before. Fore me, thinking that one action is wrong doesn't mean that I've generated an alternative actions. Sometimes I have, but not in this case. I'll write again in this thread tomorrow.