LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM

[jgruber]

I'm only taking your position to its logical conclusion.  We should not consult with those who disagree.

You're getting waaay of track here.  I'm responding to a post questioning the US's reasoning for acting unilaterally with Iraq.  We should always consult our allies in foreign affairs, but if an extreme bias is evident, then their opinion is worthless and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying it would have been harmful to consult France...just pointless. 

[Jeremy]

that is not the logical conclusion to my arguement.  The logical conclusion would be that we should not consult others who are profiting from the dictator with whom we intend to oust, thus avoiding the inherent bias against our intended actions.

[jgruber]

You seem to be twisting yourself in knots.  First you say there is no logical conclusion, which would make your statement suspect, and then you tell me what the logical conclusion is, which contradicts you first sentence.

If we should not consult with those who profited from the dictator, we would need to exclude many members of the current administration, wouldn't we?

that is not the logical conclusion to my arguement.  The logical conclusion would be that we should not consult others who are profiting from the dictator with whom we intend to oust, thus avoiding the inherent bias against our intended actions.

[Jeremy]

I didn't say there was no logical conclustion, I said YOUR conclusin wasn't logical.  Come on.

If someone in the current administration was currently profitting from Iraq, then I would have to say that yes, they should have no say in any attacks against the regime of Iraq.

[jgruber]

Sorry, I misread your statement, so I have to say I was wrong when I said you were contradicting yourself.


Anywayy......

There is evidence that the Bush family, including dubya, benefited from a relationship with the dictator.  Shouldn't the president have stepped aside when discussions of Iraw were underway?

I didn't say there was no logical conclustion, I said YOUR conclusin wasn't logical.  Come on.

If someone in the current administration was currently profitting from Iraq, then I would have to say that yes, they should have no say in any attacks against the regime of Iraq.

[Jeremy]

If he did indeed benefit from a relationship with Iraq, then I think there would have been a serious conflict of interest and he should not have intervened...or had someone else take charge in the attack.

What evidence is there showing this?  I seriously would love to know.  (not being sarcastic)

[jgruber]

I don't have the exact references, so I can't quote them, but I know there have been a few books and articles suggesting links between Bush and Saddam, Bush and Bin Laden.  I haven't read any of them in depth.  But there is evidence so I keep an open mind on the subject.

If he did indeed benefit frrem a relationship with Iraq, then I think there would have been a serious conflict of interest and he should not have intervened...or had someone else take charge in the attack.

What evidence is there showing this?  I seriously would love to know.  (not being sarcastic)

[Jeremy]

Now you've intrigued me.  I must find these sources and find the truth! (truth being echoed as if shouted from the Grand Canyon)

[jgruber]

A quick search found these articles about bush and bin laden connections

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/041203metwithbinladen.html

[Jeremy]

These articles show that George W. Bush had a business relationship with Osama's brother. It doesn't show that he had any ties with Iraq.