Iraq is much worse that we thought.

Akrasia

According to a Maltese U.N. inspector in Iraq, almost 1000 iraqis are being tortured to death per month in Baghdad alone

He says the Baghdad morgue received 1,100 bodies in July alone, about 900 of whom bore evidence of torture or summary execution. That continued throughout the year and last December there were 780 bodies, including 400 having gunshot wounds or wounds as those caused by electric drills.

In a frank interview with The Times, Dr Pace says photos and forensic records have proved that torture was rife inside detention centres. Though the process of release has been speeded up, there are an estimated 23,000 people in detention, of whom 80 to 90 per cent are innocent.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=215387
In a Washington Post article, it is claimed that Iraqi officials overseeing the morgue have been put under pressure not to investigate the number of suspicious deaths and to understate the mortality figures

Many of the recent killings by torture and execution have been blamed on forces of the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry, as well as allied Shiite militias of Al-Sadr's group and of one of the other ruling Shiite religious parties in the government. Shiite leaders have repeatedly denied accusations of any involvement with death squads.

Pace, speaking by phone from his home in Sydney, Australia, said some of the officials connected with the morgue had been put "under a lot of these pressures"and had been threatened in the past and told not to investigate the killings of those brought to the morgue "precisely because it was considered a way of attributing responsibility for such crimes."

The pressure would be to underreport the numbers "or to ignore them," Pace said. "I think the pressure would be not to take into account the totality of cases."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/REPOSITORY/603010359/1013/NEWS03

Ag marbh

Much worse than you thought. Not one bit of that suprised me at all.

Akrasia

10,000 people being tortured to death in a year in Baghdad alone is a massive massive problem, and that was even before those shrines were attacked.
The fact that this torture is happening mainly in Government instalations is massive, the fact that the U.S. knows about it is Massive.

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

Ag marbh

Akrasia wrote:

10,000 people being tortured to death in a year in Baghdad alone is a massive massive problem, and that was even before those shrines were attacked.
The fact that this torture is happening mainly in Government instalations is massive, the fact that the U.S. knows about it is Massive.

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

They've been getting away with atrocities for years and I don't see it about to change any time soon.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

You don't think it already counts as one?

jc

Hobbes

Clearly it is better then Saddams days though and your just seeing the last throws of these evil Saddamites. Anyone questioning this is because they hate our freedoms. :v:

TBH I can't see an outcry that much in the US unless they can prove US troops were doing it (which I doubt very much they are) or it is US people who are being killed/tourtured.

popinfresh

I doubt there was THIS much crap like this going on when Saddam was in power. Oh well, I suppose the important thing as far as the US is concerned is that they were tortured and killed under a freedom loving democratic government.:rolleyes:

ISAW

Ag marbh wrote:

Much worse than you thought. Not one bit of that suprised me at all.

Indeed I wondered who the "we" were in "Worse than "WE" thought"

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

10,000 people being tortured to death in a year in Baghdad alone is a massive massive problem, and that was even before those shrines were attacked.
The fact that this torture is happening mainly in Government instalations is massive, the fact that the U.S. knows about it is Massive.

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

Hmmm? The Congo? Mugabe? Iraq under Saddam? Pinochet ( Chile 9/11) ? Suharto (Indonesia)? Didn't the US authorities know about them? Didn't torture and whole scale bloodbaths occur?

I fail to see your point. What is your point exactly?

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

Clearly it is better then Saddams days though and your just seeing the last throws of these evil Saddamites.

Really? I suppose you have evidence to support this? Maybe it is with the evidence of WMD in Iraq ior with the evidence that Saddam supported Al Khyda.

In fact Bin Laden was supported by the US administration. For that matter so was Saddam. and the Us currently tout the link that rather than Saddam supporters the insurgents are "islamo facist fundamentalists" from OUTSIDE Iraq. It is quite clear that Saddam didn't support Islamic fundamentalists!

Anyone questioning this is because they hate our freedoms. :v:

i.e. accuse anyone who does not agree with you in spite of your lack of evidence as being "anti american" and "anti democracy". the same was said of anti vietnam protestors. Is this the same sort of democracy they supports dictators like Pinochet in chile over elected Allende or over chaves in Venezuala or the likes of Suharto and Mugabe?
the same democracy they sends black and poor white GIs to the front when only one of the children of the whole Congress signs up.

TBH I can't see an outcry that much in the US unless they can prove US troops were doing it (which I doubt very much they are) or it is US people who are being killed/tourtured.

It is already proven that the US supported dictators including Saddam! It is already proven they used white phosphorus in Iraq. The treatement of prisioners (and their names ) in Guantanamo Bay will be shown this week.

Why do you apply different standards to the lives of US people than you do to other people. I thought the US constitution says "all people are equal" and that that was a self evidence truth. Apparently you honestly believe it is not the truth! And while you can hold the troops guilty it is those who control them and those who order them who take the blame in the final instance. Such a line was argued by Jackson the Chief American Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

Sand

Remember kids, dont try sarcasm at home...

Sleipnir

Hobbes wrote:

Clearly it is better then Saddams days though and your just seeing the last throws of these evil Saddamites. Anyone questioning this is because they hate our freedoms. :v:

TBH I can't see an outcry that much in the US unless they can prove US troops were doing it (which I doubt very much they are) or it is US people who are being killed/tourtured.

1,100 people per month were not showing up in the morgue under Saddam's reign. I'm not saying he didn't execute people, but it wasn't anywhere near the number of people dying there daily.

Isn't it great that you can sit in your chair and say it's much better now than it was?
How would you feel if you were holding the blackened corpse of your month old child as you watched the bomber-saviours flying above you? Would you be happier?


Oh, it's already been proved that U.S. soldiers are torturing Iraqis. What else do you need? Video evidence that ALL soldiers are doing it?

When/how did Saddam threaten your freedoms?

Sand

1,100 people per month were not showing up in the morgue under Saddam's reign. I'm not saying he didn't execute people, but it wasn't anywhere near the number of people dying there daily.

Isn't it great that you can sit in your chair and say it's much better now than it was?
How would you feel if you were holding the blackened corpse of your month old child as you watched the bomber-saviours flying above you? Would you be happier?


Oh, it's already been proved that U.S. soldiers are torturing Iraqis. What else do you need? Video evidence that ALL soldiers are doing it?

When/how did Saddam threaten your freedoms?

Yeah Hobbes, what have you got to say for yourself? :v:

Sleipnir

Sand, are you the George Costanza of boards or have you actually got something to add to the thread? You have posted twice and said nothing. Why are you here?
Go for a walk or something if you're that bored.

Captain Trips

Look stop bickering. Saddam hated the freedoms of the US and attacked New York on Sept. 11th with terrorists. To fight this terror, and defend those freedoms, some people may suffer, gobble gobble, September 11th. And as such, it's vitally important that the US goes on from strength to strength to rid the world from evil doers and terrorists who are trying to destroy us and those who want to try and repeat September 11th. The terrors and dangers that are being created by evil nations abroad will not sway us from the task of ensuring endless freedom from more terror and fear attacks like Septmeber 11th.

Gobble gobble blah blah September 11th blah gobble gobble you see terrorists blah blah September 11th blah blah Saddam Husein blah blah blah freedom blah terror blah September 11th.

The above is the reason the US got support from it's own people to invade Iraq. Seeing as they have been starting wars, everywhere basically, for decades, including napalm on Vietnamese, starting coups in South America and basically being a complete wanker, it should come as no surprise that some torture is going on. As long as it's population continue to form opinions based on things being black/white (i.e., evil nations, allies, good vs bad, freedom vs tyranny republican vs democrat dog vs cat), torture will continue.

I don't think the US is on the way to bring freedom to the people of Tibet, or Somalia, any time soon.

Sand

Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing. Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be, supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions - and hes probably less than optimistic about anything positive coming from it. Unfortunately for him, his corner of the ring is shared by people who are so determined to find and clobber "dem dammed bush lovers" that he got trampled in his attempt at sarcasm...Friendly fire. Now keep on attacking Hobbes if you want, but you really shouldnt. See, I did have something useful to contribute.

FYI - Tripps is being sarcastic too.

ISAW

Captain Trips wrote:

Look stop bickering. Saddam hated the freedoms of the US and attacked New York on Sept. 11th with terrorists.

No he didn't! Actually AFAIK Bush has admitted that Saddam and Al Khyda were not linked and Saddam had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. But since you claim it I suppose you might supply some evidence for your claim that Saddam was behind Sept 11th? Also the US administration supported Saddam so how could he hate them? sure Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand didn't he? That isnt a sign of hatred is it?

To fight this terror, and defend those freedoms, some people may suffer, gobble gobble, September 11th.

What do you mean? what had saddam to do with Sept 11th? You sound like dick Chaney. I am sorry but the principle of justice is not that some innocents suffer . the point is that even the muilty must go free if youhave no evidence. One is assumed innocent[/] Guilt must be proven. Now where is your proof saddam had anything to do with 911 or that he had WMD when the US occupied Iraq?

And as such, it's vitally important that the US goes on from strength to strength to rid the world from evil doers and terrorists who are trying to destroy us and those who want to try and repeat September 11th.

But where is there any evidence that
1. Saddam had WMD when the Us invaded?
2. Saddam supported muslim fundamentalist terror?

You claimn it! Can you provide the evidence? Or do you always lynch people without trial and evidence in your country?

The terrors and dangers that are being created by evil nations abroad will not sway us from the task of ensuring endless freedom from more terror and fear attacks like Septmeber 11th.

there you go again! Where is you evidence of this in relation to Iraq? There is plenty of evidence of terror by Mugabe Suharto Pinochet and a host of others supported by the US? Why didnt the US "ensue freedom" by capturing them? why did they instead support military dictatros over elected leaders like Allende (happened on Sept 11th) or chaves?

Gobble gobble blah blah September 11th blah gobble gobble you see terrorists blah blah September 11th blah blah Saddam Husein blah blah blah freedom blah terror blah September 11th.

The above is the reason the US got support from it's own people to invade Iraq. Seeing as they have been starting wars, everywhere basically, for decades, including napalm on Vietnamese, starting coups in South America and basically being a complete wanker, it should come as no surprise that some torture is going on. As long as it's population continue to form opinions based on things being black/white (i.e., evil nations, allies, good vs bad, freedom vs tyranny republican vs democrat dog vs cat), torture will continue.

I don't think the US is on the way to bring freedom to the people of Tibet, or Somalia, any time soon.

Well this is just showing up the double standards and hypocracy demonstrated by the militarist element of the US administration!

Sand

What do you mean? what had saddam to do with Sept 11th? You sound like dick Chaney. I am sorry but the principle of justice is not that some innocents suffer . the point is that even the muilty must go free if youhave no evidence. One is assumed innocent[/] Guilt must be proven. Now where is your proof saddam had anything to do with 911 or that he had WMD when the US occupied Iraq?

ISAW, Captain Trips is on your side. Hes being sarcastic and parodying the pro-war camp. He doesnt believe what he is writing so he will not provide evidence to back it up as you demand.

This thread is a prime example of what happens when sarcasm goes wrong.

Captain Trips

Okay, sorry if the sarcasm didn't come over very well.

ON the actual topic, I recommend reading Baghdad Year Zero which I think is on harpers.org. It's a very good essay on the viewpoint (or at least what the wanted Iraq to be) of the original US-controlled administration after the end of "major hostilities" (off topic, that sounds like a joke after the past week).

The "map" I suppose, is purely drawn by the western influences of the time, including the British. In reality, I imagine that the groups who exist under one "government" be it Saddam, US or whoever, can be just as disparate and unmixable as say the North and South of Ireland. From an outsiders POV, we are basically a bunch of Christian white folk with too much booze and guns.

So likewise, over there, of course equal differences exist, but probably with that separate layer of cultural heterogony thrown in, so it's no wonder as it's been there forever. Saddam was just an administrator, as is the US at the moment. If there is a peace locally or not depends less on who is doing the administrating.

In retrospect, it's clear that the US viewed "Iraq" as a single adminstration country, like the US is or England, but it isn't as the culture there is totally different to the Anglo-Saxon style of rule which we are all used to, but there is different.

The war was designed and run by MBAs and accountants and manager types who have all sorts of opinions but little reality base to go on. There isn't a long thick black straight line around Iraq like there is on a British map of the world, but it does give us a layer of understanding of the rough geography but absolutely, in reality, no understanding at all of the real differences culturally that were only held together loosely by a dictator like Saddam.

If anything, it shows us that the US is not as good a dictator as Saddam, which ironically is a sort of plus point.

News in brief, December 2006: US shown to be "not as bad as South Africa" in providing healthcare to citizens. I think I'll send it to The Onion.

SpAcEd OuT

ISAW wrote:

No he didn't! Actually AFAIK Bush has admitted that Saddam and Al Khyda were not linked and Saddam had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. But since you claim it I suppose you might supply some evidence for your claim that Saddam was behind Sept 11th? Also the US administration supported Saddam so how could he hate them? sure Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand didn't he? That isnt a sign of hatred is it?



What do you mean? what had saddam to do with Sept 11th? You sound like dick Chaney. I am sorry but the principle of justice is not that some innocents suffer . the point is that even the muilty must go free if youhave no evidence. One is assumed innocent[/] Guilt must be proven. Now where is your proof saddam had anything to do with 911 or that he had WMD when the US occupied Iraq?



But where is there any evidence that
1. Saddam had WMD when the Us invaded?
2. Saddam supported muslim fundamentalist terror?

You claimn it! Can you provide the evidence? Or do you always lynch people without trial and evidence in your country?



there you go again! Where is you evidence of this in relation to Iraq? There is plenty of evidence of terror by Mugabe Suharto Pinochet and a host of others supported by the US? Why didnt the US "ensue freedom" by capturing them? why did they instead support military dictatros over elected leaders like Allende (happened on Sept 11th) or chaves?



Well this is just showing up the double standards and hypocracy demonstrated by the militarist element of the US administration!

LOL he was clearly being sarcstic

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing.

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?

Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,

Oh! apparently you do?

supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

these are contradictory aims. One could not support deposing Saddam and also be against ending UN sanctions since the sanctions were against the rule of Saddam over Iraq! so nobody could be both one and the other. So you are providing no new information about hobbes in spite of you claim to know about what he actually thinks

- and hes probably less than optimistic about anything positive coming from it.

Now you contradict yourself since by that statement you support the idea that two mutually contradictory paths are acceptable. Not surprising if you subscribe to a double standards US foreign policy.

Unfortunately for him, his corner of the ring is shared by people who are so determined to find and clobber "dem dammed bush lovers" that he got trampled in his attempt at sarcasm...

I am not so much anti-Bush as pro truth and having common values and standards. Displaying double standards and resorting to duplicity to conceal them is something I oppose.

Friendly fire. Now keep on attacking Hobbes if you want, but you really shouldnt. See, I did have something useful to contribute.

Did you? What was it?

FYI - Tripps is being sarcastic too.

Really? How so ? And so what?

ISAW

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

LOL he was clearly being sarcstic

So what? I only notices the attempt when I got to the "blah bl;ah b;lah" bits. But even if it was a poor attempt so what? Why do you consider it a valid retort to a valid point to state "he was only trying to be funny" or "it was only a joke"?

So what about the person behind it or the words he used? surely the content of his argument is the important thing? Whether or not he considers it a joke to quip about deaths in Iraq, muslim cartoons, torture is all well and good. Whether there is any validity to the ideas he expresses whether expressed in humour is what is at issue. Being funny or trying to be funny about a point is all well and good. Whether the fun being poked actually has any validity e.g. that some ignorant US policy directors really can't justify their hypocritical double standards, is what is important in the political forum.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?



Oh! apparently you do?


these are contradictory aims. One could not support deposing Saddam and also be against ending UN sanctions since the sanctions were against the rule of Saddam over Iraq! so nobody could be both one and the other. So you are providing no new information about hobbes in spite of you claim to know about what he actually thinks



Now you contradict yourself since by that statement you support the idea that two mutually contradictory paths are acceptable. Not surprising if you subscribe to a double standards US foreign policy.



I am not so much anti-Bush as pro truth and having common values and standards. Displaying double standards and resorting to duplicity to conceal them is something I oppose.



Did you? What was it?



Really? How so ? And so what?

What are you talking about? You're not reading anything properly. Do you not understand what sarcasm is? Slow down and take your time

Hobbes

Sleipnir wrote:

1,100 people per month were not showing up in the morgue under Saddam's reign. I'm not saying he didn't execute people, but it wasn't anywhere near the number of people dying there daily.

Maybe Saddam was better at hiding the bodies? :v:

solas

captain trips wrote:

Okay, sorry if the sarcasm didn't come over very well.

funniest thing I've seen on the web in ages.

Sand

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?

Meh, do what you want.

Hobbes

ISAW wrote:

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?

No hes right. :v: = sarcasm. There was a thread a long time ago where I wrote something but left out the smileys and only the long standing posters knew I was being sarcastic (as pretty much everyone knows my views at this point). Was still funny people getting confused over it though.

ishmael whale

Is this meant to be sarcastic too?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319967978568410735&q=george+bush

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

Why do you apply different standards to the lives of US people than you do to other people.

Because they do it themselves?
Because its right?
Because they deserve it?

The possibilities are endless...

I thought the US constitution says "all people are equal" and that that was a self evidence truth.

Aren't you thinking of the Declaration?

Besides, as supporters of the current Administration's activities will point out, that statement is only intended to refer to Americans.

I also think you'll find it only refers to all men being created equal, so it completely ignores whether or not women are equal to each other and/or to men.

I wouldn't put too much weight behind such a loaded statement.

And while you can hold the troops guilty it is those who control them and those who order them who take the blame in the final instance. Such a line was argued by Jackson the Chief American Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

Clearly, Jackson's comments were only intended to be applied to the losing side in a war. Everyone knows victors don't commit atrocities (just like winners don't do drugs).

Jaden

This thread should be used as a shining example of the inability of some people to spot sarcasm.

And remember kids, if you can't spot the sarcasm, just keep ploughing along with indignant posts saying that you don't care. Bonus points for line-by-line rebutting.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

This thread is a prime example of what happens when sarcasm goes wrong.

This is why we should take the warning labels off potentially harmful products.

Either that or it may be time to reconsider universal suffrage.

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

What are you talking about? You're not reading anything properly. Do you not understand what sarcasm is? Slow down and take your time

Here is what was stated:

Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,
supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

I pointed out
1. It is claiming to speak for someone else.
2. It is contradictory - how could one support the ending of sanctions and also support deposing Saddam and also support US policy which supported one of these said they supported the other and showed positive results for neither?

What is it specifically you accuse me of not understanding?
You quoted my whole post. what in particular are you saying I am "going too quickly" on?

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

No hes right. :v: = sarcasm. There was a thread a long time ago where I wrote something but left out the smileys and only the long standing posters knew I was being sarcastic (as pretty much everyone knows my views at this point). Was still funny people getting confused over it though.

That was not the point!
I confess that only later in the message I noticed the sarcasm. The point though is that he stated about your opinion on sanctions and on deposing Saddam. He supplied no citation for you. do you accept that whatever he says is your opinion is your opinion?

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Because they do it themselves?
Because its right?
Because they deserve it?
The possibilities are endless...

I asked Why do you apply different standards to the lives of US people than you do to other people.

It was a request for personal opinion. Not for possibilities.

Aren't you thinking of the Declaration?

Yes I was.

Besides, as supporters of the current Administration's activities will point out, that statement is only intended to refer to Americans.

Exactly my point! And they would be wrong.

I also think you'll find it only refers to all men being created equal, so it completely ignores whether or not women are equal to each other and/or to men.

Taken in context it does but women and slaves didnt for ecxample vote then. todays understanding would interpret "men" as "mankind"

I wouldn't put too much weight behind such a loaded statement.

I would! It shows the origins of the US.

Clearly, Jackson's comments were only intended to be applied to the losing side in a war. Everyone knows victors don't commit atrocities (just like winners don't do drugs).

Clearly in spite of your trying to be funny you are correct in assuming this incorrect interpretation of Us jurisprudence is entertained by a willfully ignorant or hypocritical Us administration.

Pazaz 21

Quote:
Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,
supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

Is it just me or is ISAW totally misinterpreting the point that is being made here.

The way i read it, it says:

He DOES NOT support the deposing of Saddam Hussein. He DOES NOT support the ending of sanctions. Perhaps he wanted the sanctions to continue against Saddam and to solve the situation in a diplomatic matter, i do not know if that is his opinion, but it is mine. As for Sands speaking for Hobbes, i think they know each others opinions pretty well and if Hobbes had disagreed with the post i'm sure he would have let it known

The Corinthian

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Is it just me or is ISAW totally misinterpreting the point that is being made here.

The latter. Whether it’s because he’s incapable of comprehending irony or because he refuses to admit that he’s ranting for no cause is open to debate. I’ll say a bit of both.

ISAW

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Quote:
Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,
supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

Is it just me or is ISAW totally misinterpreting the point that is being made here.

The way i read it, it says:

He DOES NOT support the deposing of Saddam Hussein. He DOES NOT support the ending of sanctions. Perhaps he wanted the sanctions to continue against Saddam and to solve the situation in a diplomatic matter, i do not know if that is his opinion, but it is mine. As for Sands speaking for Hobbes, i think they know each others opinions pretty well and if Hobbes had disagreed with the post i'm sure he would have let it known

The way i read it claims:

1 the poster is speaking for Hobbes. What he claims Hobbes believes is:

Hobbes did not support deposing Saddam Hussain
and also
Hobbes did not support the ending of sanctions.

I agree that it is possible that he meant that he wanted to not depose Iraq (effectively retaining Saddam in power) and also keep sanctions against Iraq. If so he could clarify that by stating it is so. If it is so I ask why were sanctions made against Iraq? They were a direct consequence of the leadership of Saddam i.e. the sanctions were opposing Saddam. Now I also accept that one can oppose Saddam and also oppose his removal by force from power. But Hobbes has clarified no of this and furthermore he hasent stated it! Sand stated that it was Hobbes position. Until both of they clarify people can pretend to read anyones mind but noone will really know what position either of them hold.

Hobbes already stated he did not notice the sarcasm but he hasent stated his position on deposing iraq or on sanctions.

The Corinthian

ISAW wrote:

Hobbes already stated he did not notice the sarcasm but he hasent stated his position on deposing iraq or on sanctions.

Actually he said he was being sarcastic.

Never mind - I'm sure you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, to avoid any confusion, that last bit was sarcasm. And this bit is called condescension.

Sand

The way i read it claims:

1 the poster is speaking for Hobbes. What he claims Hobbes believes is:

Hobbes did not support deposing Saddam Hussain
and also
Hobbes did not support the ending of sanctions.

I agree that it is possible that he meant that he wanted to not depose Iraq (effectively retaining Saddam in power) and also keep sanctions against Iraq. If so he could clarify that by stating it is so. If it is so I ask why were sanctions made against Iraq? They were a direct consequence of the leadership of Saddam i.e. the sanctions were opposing Saddam. Now I also accept that one can oppose Saddam and also oppose his removal by force from power. But Hobbes has clarified no of this and furthermore he hasent stated it! Sand stated that it was Hobbes position. Until both of they clarify people can pretend to read anyones mind but noone will really know what position either of them hold.

Hobbes already stated he did not notice the sarcasm but he hasent stated his position on deposing iraq or on sanctions.

ISAW, is there a point there? I honestly cant follow your argument clearly as your post isnt exactly very readable. At the end of the day, this thread is - or was - about the dire situation in Iraq, not about whether Im the Irish Uri Geller.

Ive a fair idea of Hobbes views seeing as Ive been arguing with him and others back and forth for about 3-4 years on this forum, and as you might imagine Iraq and various US policies are extremely well covered ground. He opposed the invasion, and still opposes it today. Hobbes, feel free to correct if Im wrong here. Support of continued sanctions is a requirement of any sane policy that leaves Saddam in power. AFAIR Hobbes was/is not in favour of allowing Saddam free access to materials needed for a weapons program. Again, correct me if Im wrong.

And I dont "speak for Hobbes", or if I do the wages for being his PR rep are ****e, and the health plan isnt exactly union standard. All I ever did was alert you to the fact that you were taking Hobbes post at face value, when it wasnt supposed to be taken that way. I.E. I was trying to help you stop wasting your own time. I can understand youd be annoyed at what you might see as people using Iraqi deaths as material for comedy routines, but as Ive learnt myself the internet is full of opportunities to get aggravated. You have to learn to shrug/count to ten and move on.

ISAW

Sand wrote:

ISAW, is there a point there? I honestly cant follow your argument clearly as your post isnt exactly very readable.

Funny? I thought I numberer the point and it was quite clear what was claimed after that?

At the end of the day, this thread is - or was - about the dire situation in Iraq, not about whether Im the Irish Uri Geller.

sorry but according to the charter it is! You can't claim something as fact without supporting it! Otherwise iot is only your opinion.

Ive a fair idea of Hobbes views seeing as Ive been arguing with him and others back and forth for about 3-4 years on this forum, and as you might imagine Iraq and various US policies are extremely well covered ground.

This is argument from authority. Not good enough I am afraid. You may well be correct in your attribution of what someone else believes but you have yet to provide evidence. Arguments like "everyone knows that" or "believe mem I know" don't count.

He opposed the invasion, and still opposes it today.

Say you! And you may well be right but you have to support you claim with evidence to establish it as a fact!

Hobbes, feel free to correct if Im wrong here.

That is acceptable but weak. I know God will agree with me on that. God feel free to post where I am wrong if I am. In the absence of God posting I suppose we can all assume I am correct then can we?

Support of continued sanctions is a requirement of any sane policy that leaves Saddam in power.

So the US were insane then when Bush senior was in charge? Given that the Us actually supplied Saddam at that time and did not support sanctions?

AFAIR Hobbes was/is not in favour of allowing Saddam free access to materials needed for a weapons program. Again, correct me if Im wrong.

Again it is only what you recall. Post a reference or accept it is only your opinion. and again asking Hobbes to post a correction if you are wroing is not evidence that you are correct! "Correct me if I am wrong" is either denying an antecedent or affirming a consequent ( i mix them up) but it does not logically follow that you are right. Absence of evidence of being wrong is not evidence of absence of absence of being right.

And I dont "speak for Hobbes",

Stating "Hobbes believes X (Hobbes correct me if I am wrong if you do not believe X)" fairly much amounts to the same thing.

or if I do the wages for being his PR rep are ****e, and the health plan isnt exactly union standard. All I ever did was alert you to the fact that you were taking Hobbes post at face value, when it wasnt supposed to be taken that way. I.E. I was trying to help you stop wasting your own time.

I accept I dint notice the sarcasm and I thank you for you kind intentions. However, that is not "all" you did. Nor is it "all you ever did" in relation to your interaction with me alone in this thread.

I can understand youd be annoyed at what you might see as people using Iraqi deaths as material for comedy routines, but as Ive learnt myself the internet is full of opportunities to get aggravated. You have to learn to shrug/count to ten and move on.

I don't really have a problem with the humour side. Nor do I feel a fool (though I admit I was certainly fooled into replying and initially thinking the poster was being serious) for replying. One point I am making is that even when we can joke about things people can still ask what we really think whether we think the thing is funny or not. One can laugh at a cartoon arelating to a Prophet and still have views in sympathy with his followers. Please forgive me if I gave the impression that I was gravely offended in any way. Please also understand that whatever I may think of you or whatever you think of me the objective point about the history of US involvment in Iraq and their historic behaviour towards dictators and apparent double standards still stands.

Jim

I think its bubbles.

The Corinthian

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

I think its bubbles.

Could be. Then again you should never forget that there's a left hand side to the Bell curve too.

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually he said he was being sarcastic.

Who said? And he didnt "say" it. He wrote it or he stated it. I have no idea if he "said" it.

Never mind - I'm sure you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, to avoid any confusion, that last bit was sarcasm. And this bit is called condescension.

That last bit was called correcting you condescending manner. This next bit is called clarification.

Originally Posted by Sand:
Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing.

I asked if he spoke for Hobbes and Hobbes replied:

No he's right.

I now assume that Hobbes meant he was being sarcastic.

See what happens when you ignore the sarcasm and ask for explaination and try to tackle the issues the OP raised?

I take it ou were being sarcastic about your condescending manner towards me? Or do ou actually mean to express something by suggesting you have condescension towards me?
If so what is it you are trying to state?

Freelancer

This has a compelling hypnotic quality to it.

ISAW, try and dig up! DIG UP!

I don't really have a problem with the humour side.

Do you mean beside your inability to see it?

bottlerocket

ISAW wrote:

Who said? And he didnt "say" it. He wrote it or he stated it. I have no idea if he "said" it.

Jeez take it easy, think of your blood pressure.

The Corinthian

ISAW wrote:

That last bit was called correcting you condescending manner.

No it was called pedantry - on which point “correcting you condescending manner” makes little grammatical sense in English.

See what happens when you ignore the sarcasm and ask for explaination and try to tackle the issues the OP raised?

You didn’t ignore the sarcasm you simply didn’t comprehend it. Indeed, you seem to not even understand what the purpose of sarcasm, satire or irony is in political debate.

I take it ou were being sarcastic about your condescending manner towards me? Or do ou actually mean to express something by suggesting you have condescension towards me?
If so what is it you are trying to state?

The rules of this forum regarding the calling of other posters buffoons, idiots or similar prevent me from expanding on this point any further.

Pazaz 21

ISAW wrote:

Who said? And he didnt "say" it. He wrote it or he stated it. I have no idea if he "said" it.

Your just arguing symantics now ?

That last bit was called correcting you condescending manner. This next bit is called clarification.

Originally Posted by Sand:
Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing.

I asked if he spoke for Hobbes and Hobbes replied:

No he's right.

I now assume that Hobbes meant he was being sarcastic.

Duh!!!!

See what happens when you ignore the sarcasm and ask for explaination and try to tackle the issues the OP raised?

I take it ou were being sarcastic about your condescending manner towards me? Or do ou actually mean to express something by suggesting you have condescension towards me?
If so what is it you are trying to state?

I think the fact that he is not discussing the opinion he expressed is because IT WAS NOT HIS OPINION. HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC. What would be the point of discussing ( and ultimatley having to defend) an opinion he never held.

I think we should get back to the matter at hand and stop fighting over a simple, stupid, but simple, misunderstanding and total inability to comprehend sarcasim.

Now, What do people think is the real posibility of a civil war breaking out and who is trying to instigate it ?

ISAW

bottlerocket wrote:

Jeez take it easy, think of your blood pressure.

I haven't worried about it since I got the cancer.

ISAW

Freelancer wrote:

This has a compelling hypnotic quality to it.

ISAW, try and dig up! DIG UP!

LOL. Now that I find funny!

Do you mean beside your inability to see it?

No I don't.

ISAW

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I think the fact that he is not discussing the opinion he expressed is because IT WAS NOT HIS OPINION. HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC. What would be the point of discussing ( and ultimatley having to defend) an opinion he never held.

Wrong! He stated that someone else had a specific opinion about both sanctions against Iraq and about Saddam leading Iraq.

I think we should get back to the matter at hand and stop fighting over a simple, stupid, but simple, misunderstanding and total inability to comprehend sarcasim.

I ignored the sarcasm. the point whichcameafter that is about supporting sanctions and supporting Saddam which I found contradictory but which migh not actually be so.

Now, What do people think is the real posibility of a civil war breaking out and who is trying to instigate it ?

You really don't need to . If you go into a country and remove a dictator and dismantle his established force which is actively opposing muslim fundamentalists and you then take some of them back and put them with other locals in a "new" police force and introduce a constitution where anyone has the right to a gun and use chemical weapons against the locals torture and kill them and imprison them half way around the world without due process or trial, then what do you expect?