Set The Record Straight


PDA






bountyhunter
February 8, 2004, 12:29 AM
A lot of arguing about what members of the Bush administration said about WMD's, and a lot of people developing amnesia of convenience so they can re-write history. Here's a really concise compilation of audio clips on the subject (it's an audio file):


http://www.mikemalloy.com/audio/lies.mp3


Hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

If you enjoyed reading about "Set The Record Straight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
idd
February 8, 2004, 01:01 AM
How they've moved from "SADDAM HUSSEIN IS BUILDING NUKES! HE'LL HAVE THEM ANY DAY NOW!! AND HE'S COMING TO KILL US ALL USING REMOTELY-CONTROLLED DRONES!!!!" to "Saddam Hussein was engaged in weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."



:barf:

HABU
February 8, 2004, 01:33 AM
BFD. Did W. blow it? Perhaps. Sodom is gone, thats a good thing. If someone is gonna go with the anti-W. propoganda, they can vote for Kerry.

Newsflash: All presidents will screw up. Thank goodness Gore wasn't calling the shots.

nico
February 8, 2004, 01:55 AM
the ingelligence was (apparently) faulty because the CIA has/had weak personal intelligence (espionage). What former president weakened the CIA to the poor state it's in now? (I'll give hint: monica's boyfriend) And what senator/democratic presidential candidate voted for every bill that weakened the CIA? BTW, how come every other major intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq had WMDs just a few years ago? And what happened to the WMDs that were documented in Iraq in 1998?

bountyhunter
February 8, 2004, 01:59 AM
Newsflash: All presidents will screw up.

But, he's the first one to haul us into a war based upon reasons he stated publicly which turned out to be 100% WRONG. All wars are controversial, there was even opposition to WWII where we were attacked. Point is, Bush broke new ground. He claimed the right to attack and destroy another country based solely upon the belief that the country may be a threat. That "pre emptive assassination" doctrine is not one that any other nation that was not an outlaw nation ever tried to pull off.

But, that is not what is infuriating so many people: he lied, he got caught, and he just keeps denying it. he keeps claiming there was good reason to go to war... he keeps claiming that the war in Iraq is related to 9/11.... and he just refuses to admit he screwed up. The reason he claims we had to go to war just keeps mutating. Itw as because they had nukes... no, well then they had bios and chems stockpiled... no, well they were supplying and supporting Al Qaeda....no, well Saddam was a bad guy who killed people... what? Oh yeah, we liked that about him when he worked for us and killed Iranians. But, we wnet to war to bring peace to the oppressed Iraqis.... wait, there are three distinct groups there who want to start a civil war and don't want peace..... well, then we went there to stabilize the region by intimidating the fundamental islamics....

Pick the reason you like best. If you don't see the one you like, just wait. They come out with a new one every week.


That is terrifying because if and when he gets away with this, he will believe he has carte blanch to attack anybody, anytime, anywhere.:barf:

bountyhunter
February 8, 2004, 02:08 AM
the ingelligence was (apparently) faulty because the CIA has/had weak personal intelligence (espionage). What former president weakened the CIA to the poor state it's in now? (I'll give hint: monica's boyfriend) And what senator/democratic presidential candidate voted for every bill that weakened the CIA? BTW, how come every other major intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq had WMDs just a few years ago? And what happened to the WMDs that were documented in Iraq in 1998?

Absolutely, it was Clinton who forced Bush to walk into the oval office with a hair up his butt about attacking Iraq. Since Bush had already decided his course of action, what the hell difference would the intel have made? When Greg Thielmann (the senior intel analyst) made recommendations based upon the totality of our sources as well as our allies, Bush ignored it because it didn't point to war.

Right..... it's all Clinton's fault Bush went off half cocked over the objections of the UN and our allies. Clinton must have drugged him with "looney" juice.

bountyhunter
February 8, 2004, 02:12 AM
Sodom is gone, thats a good thing.

And here's the price:


1) About $400Billion (so far)

2) 550 US dead, about 3000 woundd (so far)

3) Near total drain on available MIL forces weakening our ability to wage the real WOT

4) Alienation of our allies

5) An occupation of at least three years with open-ended costs and drain on our resources.


If you think that was a good deal to take out a two bit thug dictator, I've got a bridge I'll sell you.

Goodpasture
February 8, 2004, 02:16 AM
It was also Clinton who forced the shrub to cut benefits for dependents and wages for the troops.

It is bad enough to force our sons and daughters into a private war. It is unconscionable that he force them into bankruptcy to do it.

nico
February 8, 2004, 02:32 AM
Bush had already decided his course of action
do you have any proof of this? If so, I'm sure the DNC would love to hear it. Not too long ago, every major intelligence agency IN THE WORLD thought Iraq had WMDs (which isn't just nuclear weapons). In 1998, Clinton attacked Iraq because of their WMD program (his claim). Does anyone refute the fact that Iraq violated countless UN resolutions? Does anyone know what happened to the WMDs that were documented in 98 and have since then been unaccounted for? Does it make any sense that a terrorist who happens to run a litter box of a country would all of a sudden decide to dispose of his WMDs after he threw out UN inspectors and the world did nothing but blow up a few tents? btw, last time I checked, we had more allies than France, Germany, and Russia.

fallingblock
February 8, 2004, 04:15 AM
"Clinton must have drugged him with "looney" juice."
************************************************************

:D

The Iraq war has been well worth the costs so far in terms of a strategic reshaping of the Middle East.

Bailing out now would make it all a bit wasteful, but then the party of Clinton does not understand what is necessary to 'win' these sort of situations. :barf:

Lennyjoe
February 8, 2004, 04:31 AM
If the U.S. was being ruled by a Dictator like Saddam and our people were brutalized, murdered and lived in fear, I would hope some country would come in and save us.

Even at the cost we have given to help that country, its worth it.

I serve to protect the freedom that others have provided for us. Why shouldnt other Nations have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms they are entitled to?

To see men, women and children walk up to an American Soldier with tears in their eyes thanking them for freeing them from a brutal dictatorship like Saddams is worth every night I spend away from my family.

Some times Americans can be so nieve to whats going on in other Nations.

To choose between Kerry and Bush, I elect Bush.

Delmar
February 8, 2004, 04:52 AM
Anyone figured up the cost of enforcing the no-fly zone for a dozen years?
Unless KIA started making our aircraft carriers and F-14/15/16's, it can't be cheap.

The loss of life is always sad, and I hate to see it. But, if and its only an if at this time, a democratic Iraq will be a big nail in the coffin of the select few monarchies in the area, the sooner we are going to see the sponsored terrorism in the middle east go away.

How do you stop the killing when the other side has weapons and won't listen?

You hunt them down where they live.

Bob R
February 8, 2004, 05:41 AM
the shrub to cut benefits for dependents and wages for the troops

Do you have documentation for this statement? If so I would love to see it.

If not, why try to push it off as fact?


bob

greyhound
February 8, 2004, 08:17 AM
4) Alienation of our allies


This is one point people make that I strongly disagree with.

Post 9/11 its time to examine alliances that have been in place since the Cold War. Some of them just have no strategic or geographical importance anymore. The Middle Eaat and Asia are the hot spots now, not Europe, thanks in large part to Islamic terrorism.

Countries like the oft mentioned France, Germany and Russia are not our enemies, as some like to paint them, but neither are they allies (well, I guess Russia never was). They are trading partners that have different
priorities. We should trade freely with them of course, but we need to understand that militarily its best for them that we don't flex our power.

We should stand with our British brothers and recognize the logistics and Special Forces help from allies like Australia and Poland. (And Canada, at least in Afghanistan.)

And if "alienation of allies" means bucking the UN, that Bush had the stones to do that in reason #1 why I will be voting for him. In my opinion, since the Cold War the UN's main mission has been to try and counterbalance US power given the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trying to keep the US impotent is one of the things that led to 9/11, i.e. "The US is a paper tiger". About time somebody told the UN to go pound sand.

Another thing about allies that is weird right now is that is seems that alliances among democracies may change according to the administration. In the UK, Australia, and Canada there is a goodly percentage of anti-US, leftist protesters who strongly disagree with their governments alliance with us (some members in those countries will have a better feel for it than I). If those administrations are turned out, their relationship militarily with us might be quite different. Also, here in the US, the self proclaimed "The Comeback" Kerry has pledged that he will march hat in hand to the UN begging forgiveness, and has also pledged to restore our "traditional" alliances. So it all seems kinda fluid right now.

Khornet
February 8, 2004, 08:29 AM
.........unless it was before your time. Re: presidents getting us into wars on false pretenses: try "Gulf of Tonkin Incident".

boofus
February 8, 2004, 08:36 AM
In my opinion the WMDs were never that important to begin with.

The reasons the US should have gone to war was:

Saddam was playing games with the U.N. for the past 12 years. He ejected weapons inspectors twice. Kept delaying inspectors and moving assets around the country. Banned access to certain sites.

He continually moved air defenses to the 'no-fly' zone and took pot shots at the American and British pilots patrolling there.

His people were being bled dry by U.N. sanctions while Saddam pockets the money from Oil-for-Food. Face it, he lived in luxury in 13 palaces or whatever with gold plated MP5s and Lexuses while his people were scrounging for everything the U.N. sanctions banned. (they were scavenging while not being fed to plastic shredders by Saddam's sons)

Saddam did not abide by the terms of his surrender in the first Gulf War, he had 12 years to comply. Kicking out the U.N. inspectors and shooting at Brit and American pilots is cause enough for going to war.

EVEN IF the U.N. finally decided to act and moved in troops or peacekeepers or whatever. The U.S. armed forces would have ended up mobilizing to shore up the U.N.'s weakness. This happened in Somalia and Liberia when U.N. troops came under attack until U.S. Marines showed up. The U.N. is a joke and despots around the world know it.

Might does not equal right. But right without might to back it up is nothing. :scrutiny: Just my thoughts on the matter, take what you like and leave the rest.

c_yeager
February 8, 2004, 09:16 AM
It seems that our TRADITIONAL concept of allies hasnt really changed that much. Germany has spent more time as our enemy than as our ally, Russia has been in that same collumn for longer and in a bigger way than anyone. And we generally havent had any problem with people invading and subjugating France. Sounds like little has really changed.

JimP
February 8, 2004, 09:22 AM
Boofus, right on with ya'.

Now we are hearing it was "preemptive assassination"? My god, when will these people quit?? When we get a weak rat (I know - redundant) in the whitehouse who will completely remove our ability to protect ourselves?? :barf:

Guys, stop with the lies. Your play book is really too small to keep spouting this crap. Funny how $Bill was telling the truth and a year later G-Dub is lying.

mrapathy2000
February 8, 2004, 12:15 PM
Alienation of our allies


you mean the ones that voted for new UN resolutions but were paid off with oil vouchers not to assist us? the ones that had the same intelligence stating Saddam had WMD's and could produce more and even nuclear weapons in the future? have you been watching the nuclear proliferation any? Saudi Arabia wants them now. iran can get them as well. how else should the president stop it, harse language and big rocks?

are allies that abused the food for oil program by sending iraq cluster bombs and advanced aircraft from france,russia that was discovered burried in the sand.

idd
February 8, 2004, 12:58 PM
Does anyone refute the fact that Iraq violated countless UN resolutions?

The United States military does not exist to enforce UN resolutions.

Does anyone know what happened to the WMDs that were documented in 98 and have since then been unaccounted for?

Such as?

a terrorist who happens to run a litter box of a country would all of a sudden decide to dispose of his WMDs after he threw out UN inspectors

Flat wrong. The UN ordered their own inspectors out. They were not "kicked out" by Saddam.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

I serve to protect the freedom that others have provided for us. Why shouldnt other Nations have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms they are entitled to?

The world is filled with dictatorships, many of them installed or supported by the US government. Check out Uzbekistan. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/02/uzbeki7252.htm)

He continually moved air defenses to the 'no-fly' zone and took pot shots at the American and British pilots patrolling there.

How dare those Iraqis defend the sovereignty of their country! What dastardly tricks will they think up next?

How do you suppose the US would react if some country came over here and tried to impose a "no-fly zone"?

Funny how $Bill was telling the truth

When Clinton was in office I condemned his policies and his lies.


Let me guess: you guys watch a lot of FOX news, right?

Hkmp5sd
February 8, 2004, 01:24 PM
Let me guess: you guys watch a lot of FOX news, right?
Actually, I don't watch anything, but I read everything. IMO, Saddam was a threat to the security of the mid-east and the United States.

Back in the 40s, everyone was pointing fingers at each other over how everyone sat around with their thumbs in dark and smelly orifices and allowed Hitler to build a military machine that resulted in deaths of 30-40 million people.

For eight years, Clinton did the exact same thing. Whether or not Bush acted on inaccurate intelligence or not, based on the information he did have and believe, he acted. Saddam isn't sending paychecks to the families of suicide bombers in Israel any longer. He isn't buying equipment to manufacture biological weapons from Germany any longer. He isn't bribing the French to get US intelligence reports that had been supplied to France any longer. He isn't trying to hire former Russian scientists to make him nuclear weapons any longer. The only thing Saddam is doing is dreading the day the US hands him over to the citizens of his country and wondering what method of torture they do to him in his long and very slow execution.

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 01:27 PM
Saddam didn't abide by the conditions of the cease fire he agreed to in '91.

Slick Willy let him slide.

Dubya didn't. Pretty simple, really.

BowStreetRunner
February 8, 2004, 01:40 PM
bountyhunter,
"remember the maine!"
that was real factually based
and we took over countries and didnt leave! (Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico)

Sad. Hussien used WMDs on his own people......no own denies that he gassed his own citizens, they are digging up the graves now

and there was a case for another war years ago after he broke the first UN resolution that he agreed to abide by in exchange for us stopping Gulf War I.......he broke the conditions of the first peace, therefore setting himself up for his eventual outing............Hussien was evil, no two ways about it
no he isnt evil anymore, he is sitting in a cell somewhere awaiting the justice thats going to be handed out by the people he killed and robbed to build countless palaces
BSR

BryanP
February 8, 2004, 01:45 PM
and we took over countries and didnt leave! (Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico)

Hawaii ...

LawDog
February 8, 2004, 02:08 PM
The 1991 Gulf War was paused because Saddam Hussein agreed to do certain things. Saddam Hussein was told in no uncertain terms that the war would continue if he failed to do these things.

He failed to do those things. Clinton let him get by, which was a major loss of face for the US.

Gee Dubya, or someone on his staff, understands that you can't promise to drop the hammer on someone and then not carry through in International politics.

Did Saddam Hussein have WMD? Ask the Kurds and the surviving Iranian troopies.

Is the occupation of Iraq costly? Yes. If you fail to consider the effects of the occupation.

The pro-democracy movement in Iran has picked up more speed in the last year than it has in the sum total of years since Khomeni took over.

You can thank the occupation of Iraq for that.

Qu'daffi in Libya has weapons inspectors dismantling hs chemical stockpiles as we speak. Inspectors from various nuclear agencies are en route to inspect his nuclear programs.

You can thank the object lesson of G. Dubya vs. Iraq for that.

Syria is reigning in its militant terrorist nutbars, lest Damascus become the next objective for the 2 ID.

So on, and so forth. What is that worth?

LawDog

c_yeager
February 8, 2004, 05:01 PM
Flat wrong. The UN ordered their own inspectors out. They were not "kicked out" by Saddam.

I strongly urge you to look a LITTLE more into the reasoning behind WHY the UN ordered out their inspectors. Here's a hint, it DIDNT have to do with the overwhelming cooperation they were receiving.

Destructo6
February 8, 2004, 09:02 PM
It was also Clinton who forced the shrub to cut benefits for dependents and wages for the troops.

It is bad enough to force our sons and daughters into a private war. It is unconscionable that he force them into bankruptcy to do it.
How do you reconcile that statement with this:

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/priorpay/1999.pdf

and

http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/priorpay/2003.pdf ?

Our sons and daughters are adult volunteers and will fulfill their contractual obligations.

idd
February 8, 2004, 10:00 PM
Gee Dubya, or someone on his staff, understands that you can't promise to drop the hammer on someone and then not carry through in International politics.

So the US military's purpose is to enforce UN resolutions? Do you believe that that is that what motivates US national security policies?

Did Saddam Hussein have WMD? Ask the Kurds and the surviving Iranian troopies.

That was back in the 1980s. According to Gen. Hussein Kamal – director of Iraq's nuke, chem-bio and missile programs who defected to the West - the weapons programs were terminated and the weapon stocks themselves destroyed.

If you really want to take a look at history, let's go back a little further.

In 1963 the CIA supported the Ba'ath Party's coup against the Kassem republic. Ba'ath activists, including a young Saddam, gunned down Kassem and many others on a list provided by the CIA. In 1968 the CIA fomented a palace revolt in which the Ba'athists eliminated their coalition partners and assumed direct control. According to CIA officer Roger Morris, a staff member of the US National Security Council under the Johnson and Nixon adminsitrations, "It was a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States and the CIA's involvement there was really primary."

Or ask the US government officials who supported Saddam's government while he was deploying such weapons against Iran in the 1980s. The Reagan adminsitration ordered US intelligence to Saddam with satellite intel on Iran's troop deployments. It assisted Saddam with billions of loans under the cover of promoting American farme xports. The CIA sent weapons. The US gov sent Baghdad weapons-grade anthrax, advanced computers, and equipment to repair jet engines and rockets. And this is just the stuff that we know about. Maybe someday they will declassify National Security Decision Directive 114 of 14 November 1983.

The pro-democracy movement in Iran has picked up more speed in the last year than it has in the sum total of years since Khomeni took over.

Too bad the CIA killed off Iran's earlier pro-democracy movement when it overthrew the constitutionally-elected government of Iran in 1953. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/qid=1076293792//ref=pd_ka_1/104-9820231-4334334?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) See _All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror_ by Stephen Kinzer (John Wiley & Sons: 2003). The CIA created the SAVAK, the Shah's hated secret police. The US fedgov doesn't give a flying *** about democracy in the middle east. For Washington to take credit for whatever progress made by the pro-democracy movement in Iran is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

LawDog
February 8, 2004, 10:12 PM
Do you believe that that is that what motivates US national security policies?

It should. You are perceived as being weak, you will be bullied as such.

The US gov sent Baghdad weapons-grade anthrax, advanced computers, and equipment to repair jet engines and rockets. And this is just the stuff that we know about. Maybe someday they will declassify National Security Decision Directive 114 of 14 November 1983.

Goodness. Weapons-grade anthrax. Isn't that a ... weapon of mass destruction? You know, the kind that supposedly doesn't exist?

The US fedgov doesn't give a flying *** about democracy in the middle east.

Ever since planes wound up getting flown into our skyscrapers, the US FedGov has been giving a flying *** about democracy in the middle east.

LawDog

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 8, 2004, 10:43 PM
But, he's the first one to haul us into a war based upon reasons he stated publicly which turned out to be 100% WRONG

I think that would actually be Jack Kennedy (or Lyndon Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution he lied to get - take your pick) dragging us into Vietnam in order to prevent the SE Asian countries from "falling like dominos" to the communists.

As for 100% wrong, I think it's more like only 25% wrong since WMDs were only one of a number of different reasond the Bush Admin. gave for going to war. And Bush was only wrong about the actual presence of WMDs, not Iraq capability to produce them or willingness to use them.

idd
February 8, 2004, 10:53 PM
Ever since planes wound up getting flown into our skyscrapers, the US FedGov has been giving a flying *** about democracy in the middle east.

As evil as Saddam is, it appears that he had no connection to 9-11.

It should. You are perceived as being weak, you will be bullied as such.

Iraq posed no threat to us.

You know, the kind that supposedly doesn't exist?

The kind that was destroyed according to General Hussein Kamal. The kind that that *no one can find in Iraq* despite repeated assurances from Bush, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, Cheny, etc. that such weapons exist.

No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq found - not even one itty-bitty one. No uranium from Niger. No aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." Iraq was not "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon as Bush told us - not even close. Iraq did not maintain a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used, in Bush's words, "for missions targeting the United States." All lies.

The Bush administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people in order to get its war. Now we have 550 dead US soldiers, more than 3000 wounded, an occupation with no end in sight, US credibility in the toilet, strained relations with allies, and the growing perception in the Arab and Moslem world that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which whose right is to launch pre-emptive war against nation we want.

And meanwhile at home this same government is rolling back civil liberties as fast as it can.

We can be either a republic or an empire - but not both.

Hkmp5sd
February 8, 2004, 11:23 PM
the growing perception in the Arab and Moslem world that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which whose right is to launch pre-emptive war against nation we want.

Who cares? Prior to 9/11 (and contibuting greatly to causing 9/11), the perception in the Arab and Moslem world was that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which was a paper tiger and would do nothing, no matter how many or where you killed its citizens.

Iraq posed no threat to us.

Do you wait until after someone shoots at you before you use your gun to defend yourself? Why should the US be any different?

fallingblock
February 9, 2004, 12:52 AM
"Now we have 550 dead US soldiers, more than 3000 wounded, an occupation with no end in sight, US credibility in the toilet, strained relations with allies, and the growing perception in the Arab and Moslem world that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation which whose right is to launch pre-emptive war against nation we want."
************************************************************

But no points.....
:rolleyes:

550 U.S. dead is a bargain price for the size of the military action and the degree of stabilization already achieved.

U.S. credibility is probably at the highest it's been for the past dozen years or so, among the nations in the middle east as well as the 'fence sitters' who can appreciate a superpower that acts like one instead of cringing and hurling the odd cruise missile ala Clinton.:uhoh:

Witness Libya's "conversion" since the U.S. demonstrated it's new-found resolve to proactive defense.

The other muslim nations may still be making the noises, but they are less willing to take the offensive than before Iraq.

A fine strategic plan by some folks who actually understand the advantage of resolve in the real world.

Michigander
February 9, 2004, 01:32 AM
Before the war...

UN: Passes resolutions against Iraq.
Washington: The UN is wise in passing resolutions against Iraq.

Washington: We must go to war now!
UN: No! We will not vote to go to war at this time. Our inspectors need more time to find WMD's
Washington: NO! The UN is not wise. We cannot wait any longer. We are going to go to war to enforce the UN resolutions even though you, the UN who passed the resolutions, say not to.

After the war, when the US troop can go practically anywhere they please...

Half the World: Where are the WMD's?
Washington: Our inspectors need more time to find WMD's.



LOL! Doublespeak anyone?

idd
February 9, 2004, 01:48 AM
U.S. credibility is probably at the highest it's been for the past dozen years or so

"The Bush administration's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- after public statements declaring an imminent threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- has begun to harm the credibility abroad of the United States and of American intelligence, according to foreign policy experts in both parties."

The Washington Post, 19 January 2004
"Arms issue seen as hurting US credibility" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27978-2004Jan18.html)

The other muslim nations may still be making the noises, but they are less willing to take the offensive than before Iraq.

<whew> We stopped 'em in the nick of time. And to think that before the US invaded Iraq thay were just banging on our door, amassing troops and ships out in the Gulf of Mexico, just itching to get us.

Boy we sure showed them.

The State Department's own annual study, Patterns of Global Terrorism, could not list any serious act of international terrorism connected to the government of Iraq.

I strongly urge you to look a LITTLE more into the reasoning behind WHY the UN ordered out their inspectors. Here's a hint, it DIDNT have to do with the overwhelming cooperation they were receiving.

"The United States, eager to launch military strikes against Iraq, instructed UNSCOM director Richard Butler in 1998 to provoke Iraq into breaking its agreement to fully cooperate with UNSCOM. Without consulting the UN Security Council as required, Butler announced to the Iraqis that he was nullifying agreements dealing with sensitive sites and chose the Baath Party headquarters in Baghdad--a very unlikely place to store weapons of mass destruction--as the site at which to demand unfettered access. The Iraqis refused. Clinton then asked Butler to withdraw UNSCOM forces, and the United States launched a four-day bombing campaign, which gave the Iraqis an excuse to block UNSCOM inspectors from returning." Stephen Zunes, "The Case Against War" Zunes is editor of the Foreign Policy In Focus website. http://www.fpif.org/

bargain price for the size of the military action and the degree of stabilization already achieved.

Stabilization? That remains to be seen. (http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0401chaos.html) "Bush Administration Faces Growing Chaos in Iraq While Some Plan Expansion of War," By Jim Lobe, January 29, 2004. Six months before the invasion, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni told the annual Fletcher Conference on National Security Strategy, “we are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started.”
“CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war,” was the lead sentence in a front-page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 22.

Ever since planes wound up getting flown into our skyscrapers, the US FedGov has been giving a flying *** about democracy in the middle east.

Oh really? Is that why the CIA is recruiting former officers of Mukhabarat, Saddam's hated secret police?

The Sunday Times reports that "American forces have launched a covert campaign to recruit former officers of the Mukhabarat, Saddam Hussein's infamous secret police, who were responsible for the deaths and torture of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis." It reports that dozens of these sadistic and brutal murderers are now employed by the US "for help in hunting resistance groups" within Iraq, as well as "identifying and tracking down Iraqis suspected of spying for Iran and Syria, the neighbouring countries most hostile to Washington."

Another article here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/04/wirq04.xml)

John Pike, an expert on classified military budget at the Washington-based Global Security organization, told The Telegraph: “The creation of a well-functioning secret police, that in effect is a branch of the CIA, is part of the general handover strategy. The presence of a powerful secret police loyal to the Americans will mean that the new Iraqi political regime will not stray outside the parameters that the US wants to set. To begin with, the new Iraqi government will reign but not rule.”

Maybe it will another one of those death squad democracies that the CIA is so famous for.

Michigander
February 9, 2004, 01:57 AM
... Why shouldnt other Nations have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms they are entitled to?

1) If the people of other nations are not willing to fight for their own freedom, then they are not entitled to it.

2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?

3) Which country is next on the very long list of nations in which we must go and "give" their people the "opportunity" they are entitled to with our soldier's and marine's blood and our, our children's and our grandchildren's tax dollars to pay for it?



Michigander

HunterGatherer
February 9, 2004, 03:02 AM
But, he's the first one to haul us into a war based upon reasons he stated publicly which turned out to be 100% WRONG.There goes any chance of ever taking anything you say seriously. :rolleyes:

fallingblock
February 9, 2004, 06:43 AM
Hello idd:

************************************************************
The Washington Post, 19 January 2004
"Arms issue seen as hurting US credibility"
************************************************************

Your source is noted for it's lack of success at factual and unbiased reporting....especially concerning the Iraq war. :D


************************************************************
"<whew> We stopped 'em in the nick of time. And to think that before the US invaded Iraq thay were just banging on our door, amassing troops and ships out in the Gulf of Mexico, just itching to get us."
************************************************************

Actually, not quite in the nick of time...there was a World Trade Center in New York City before some folks flew aircraft into it.

************************************************************
Boy we sure showed them.
************************************************************

We are, indeed "showing them"...and the majority are paying attention.


************************************************************
The State Department's own annual study, Patterns of Global Terrorism, could not list any serious act of international terrorism connected to the government of Iraq.
************************************************************

Uh-huh. And this is a surprise? Have you not been paying attention to the woeful failures of various and sundry U.S. intelligence agencies?


************************************************************
Stabilization? That remains to be seen. "Bush Administration Faces Growing Chaos in Iraq While Some Plan Expansion of War," By Jim Lobe,
***********************************************************

Jim Lobe is another of those folks who write what they feel, not what they see.:rolleyes:


***********************************************************
“CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war,” was the lead sentence in a front-page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 22.
************************************************************

It is a pity so much of the U.S. media is controlled by leftist anti-Bush concerns. The Philidelphia Inquirer has never, to my knowledge, run a positive story on the Bush Administration. I wonder, do they identify their "CIA officers"?:scrutiny:


************************************************************
" The presence of a powerful secret police loyal to the Americans will mean that the new Iraqi political regime will not stray outside the parameters that the US wants to set. To begin with, the new Iraqi government will reign but not rule.”
************************************************************


And this is not prudent in what way? With all the anti-Bush folks squealing about a 'potential theocracy' and 'fundamentalist state', how does this possibility strike them as unwise?


************************************************************
Maybe it will another one of those death squad democracies that the CIA is so famous for.
************************************************************

Name one "death squad democracy" that you have incontrovertible proof of U.S. led "death squads" operating in.

Cite your evidence, or let the myths rest.;)

JimP
February 9, 2004, 06:58 AM
My god, you "hate America 1sters" are really frosting me. Some of the drivel you let drip out of your suckholes is so wrong. I'm heading back there in about a month. Get your fat ??? out of your lounge chair and join me to see what is actually going on or shut the hell up. At least take the time to educate yourself in this. No matter how many times you say "G-Bud told us it was an imminent threat" - doesn't make it so. No one ever said it. Get real for gods sake, go wash your dreadlocks or buff your birkenstocks or some such thing..... :cuss:

Khornet
February 9, 2004, 07:01 AM
you must not look at Iraq, Afghanistan, WMDs, or Halliburton.

Look at Florida 2000. Ever since that issue was decided, we have had a lot of folks who simply hate Bush. Whatever he did after that would be lies, no matter the evidence. This is why their arguments are so circular and circumstantial: they are not based on reason, but anger. And that is why this president can be condemned for thinking and saying what an earlier president was praised for.

And you can't reason with anger.

ojibweindian
February 9, 2004, 08:43 AM
I'm no G-Bush fan, but Iraq was a good call.

I really don't care why we kicked the crap outta them, I'm just glad we did. Personally, I think that we shouldn't stop at Iraq, either. While we're there, we should take care of Syria. Wipe 'em out, and then let the remnants sort out the mess.

Yowza
February 9, 2004, 10:32 AM
Khornet, I think you have an excellent point. I've been trying to figure out for a while now, what is it that people hate so much about Bush? Granted I've only been alive for seven presidencies, but the sheer unbridled hatred is something I've never seen and is truly astounding.

As far as Iraq goes, I don't see how it can't be a good thing for the US. Talk is cheap, but Bush has proven that America has the ability AND the will to protect itself. Two-bit guerrillas and terrorists notwithstanding, the US military completely destroyed Irag's forces in a month and every middle east government knows that it could have just as easily been them. Regardless of Iraq's apparent lack of complicity in the WTC attacks, Saddam had shown himself to be defiant and dangerous to US interests. Even if he were just being ousted to make a point, I think it probably wouldn't have been a bad move. But Bush had intelligence that there was some greater threat there, and who wouldn't have been screaming for impeachment had he done nothing and the intel turned out to be true.

Rick

Hkmp5sd
February 9, 2004, 10:54 AM
and every middle east government knows that it could have just as easily been them.
Yep. Right after the invasion started Iran and Syria were so worried they were next, they began a major sucking up campaign. They would have even joined NATO if Bush had asked. Syria stopped Saddam at the border and pointed him back to Bagdad.

Of course, after a few weeks, they started getting a little braver and now talk like they are big, bad tough guys that we'd better not mess with.

Nate_m
February 9, 2004, 11:10 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I serve to protect the freedom that others have provided for us. Why shouldnt other Nations have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms they are entitled to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The world is filled with dictatorships, many of them installed or supported by the US government. Check out Uzbekistan.

So because our goverment has screwed up in the past means we should keep screwing up? Sounds like great logic to me. BTW I agree with most the rest of your post.

TheEgg
February 9, 2004, 11:18 AM
The Bush administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people in order to get its war.

OK, this is one I have never understood. To make the argument that Bush et.al. "lied, misled, perpetrated a fraud" or whatever formula is the spin of the day, you have to believe some or all of the following:

1. Saddam had no WMD, and instead of proving to the world that he did not, he continued to pursue a path of action that would result in his destruction.

2. Making a command decision based on bad information is the same as "lying, perpetraing a fraud, ect". If Bush and Co. thought, based on bad intelligence, that there were WMD's, then the war could not be a fraud -- they may have been WRONG, but they were not lying, committing a fraud, etc. (Believe it or not folks, there is a difference between making a decision based on bad info. and lying.)

3. IF Bush and Co. knew that there were no WMD's, then the thought process in the White House had to be something along the following: "OK, we know that there are no WMD's -- we know that as soon as we take over Iraq, this will become known and there will be hell to pay. But we will STILL use the WMD argument to justify the war, instead of some other plausible rationale. We don't care about the consequences politically, we just like the WMD tale so much we are going to stick to it."

4. The entire western world and all of their intelligence services cooperated in pulling off Bush's fraud on the world. They all, including Bill Clinton, looked at the evidence, realized that kindly uncle Saddam no longer had WMD, but lied about it.

I am NOT a Bush fan, but I cannot believe any of the above points based on the evidence to date. There are a huge amount of political points to be made against Bush without going into this kind of problem laden ill-logic.

RandyB
February 9, 2004, 11:41 AM
I had training from the Fire Academy and FBI on terroism while working for an emergency response team. This was after the 1st bombing of the WTC and Oklahoma. The materials that were released to us were pretty amazing, not only did it cover WMD, but the most likely sponsers of terrorism (both domestic and non-US). Iraq was listed as a prinicple resource long before Bush took office. This is not in his defense, but does show that the US was preparing EMS/Fire/LE for attacks here at home long before the planes hit.

gburner
February 9, 2004, 11:48 AM
Like the police captain in 'Casablanca'
who is SHOCKED, just SHOCKED to see gambling going on at Ric's place, you hand wringing finger pointers are just as genuine when expressing your outrage that a president would allegedly maipulate events and deceive the public about the need for hostilities to protect our interests or insure our national security. It ain't the first time, folks.
To wit.....
Painting the plains Indians as bloodthirsty savages to justify the persuit of a racist, genocidal, nationalist policy of Manifest Destiny.
(read theft)

Using Federal troops to sieze property belonging to the various states, thus altering the Secession crisis from a political issue to a military one.
(read theft)

The mix of jingoism ratcheted up by TR and yellow journalism by WR Hurst that resulted in our kicking the Spanish back to the Iberian penninsula and taking all of their possessions (read theft). The 'Maine' was a set up.

The sinking of the Lusitania, which was being used to transport weapons and ammo despite protestations to the contrary by the Wilson admin.

The attack on Pearl Harbor which the FDR admin. almost certainly knew was afoot
but needed a pretext to get the fence sitters and isolationists on board.

The theory that communism, left unchecked, would spread like wildfire over Asia (Korean conflict) and Europe
(the Cold War and all it's attendant hysteria and paranoia). Who knew that it would die on the vine like the inedible fruit that it is.

The Gulf of Tonkin (non) Incident, another ginned up pretext to go to war.
Gotta keep those dominoes upright.

I'm sure there are some that I've missed
and some of you will let me know it. My
point is that you shouldn't be upset about the government or our leaders (read politicians) lying to us. That it happens with regularity is a given and one should not wail with such outrage when it does.

Removing Sadaam, stabilizing Iraq and demonstrating to the rest of the world that we still had a pair was the right thing to do, to me that's a no brainer. That events were manipulted and information spun to justify it to a skeptical populace...
c'mon, wake up and smell the coffee. :rolleyes:

Hkmp5sd
February 9, 2004, 12:33 PM
"OK, we know that there are no WMD's -- we know that as soon as we take over Iraq, this will become known and there will be hell to pay. But we will STILL use the WMD argument to justify the war, instead of some other plausible rationale.

Not to mention, if he *knew* there were no WMD, think maybe he would have had the CIA *plant* some to be found by the troops, in front of the cameras, while he is interviewed in the oval office with a big "I told you so" grin?

I wish the media and Bush haters would pick either the "Bush is a stupid, moronic hillbilly" or the "Joseph Stalin reborn" description and stick to it. They can't claim he pulled off this massive, world wide conspiracy of world domination if they call him stupid. And if he's stupid, he couldn't pull of the world domination that they claim he did.

Sean Smith
February 9, 2004, 01:02 PM
But, he's the first one to haul us into a war based upon reasons he stated publicly which turned out to be 100% WRONG.

Somebody has a short memory, even if we assume you are right. LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

ReadyontheRight
February 9, 2004, 01:30 PM
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

George Bush finally, actually DID SOMETHING about it.

So...is the Left truly upset about the whole WMD thing, or is it just a controversy that convenienly seems to "stick" because no one likes war? I believe it's the latter.

boogalou
February 9, 2004, 01:39 PM
1) If the people of other nations are not willing to fight for their own freedom, then they are not entitled to it.

How can someone even respond to this.....:confused:

2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?

Well...... maybe because the USA should help oppressed people and offer the freedoms & liberties you take for granted every day?

3) Which country is next on the very long list of nations in which we must go and "give" their people the "opportunity" they are entitled to with our soldier's and marine's blood and our, our children's and our grandchildren's tax dollars to pay for it?

Oh, now I understand, our security is much more important then other "peoples" freedoms. How arrogant and condescending. Are you saying that the Iraqi people are somewhat less deserving of "natural rights" because of who they are?

I to am troubled by what is going on in Iraq right now, as I have relatives there, and the whole basis of the pre-emptive strike was the supposed existance of WMD, but to think that Sadam was not indirectly helping terrorist organizations financially is naive. And here is something else to think about - Since 911, how many civilians in this country have died as a result of terrorist attacks?

MacViolinist
February 9, 2004, 09:36 PM
idd is doing a great job mof making his point so I won't try to add anything to it. My only comment is on this:



"Oh, now I understand, our security is much more important then other "peoples" freedoms."


Boogalou,
I think the real problem is that Americans think our security is more important than our freedom. Every time we go to war, the federal government uses the hype and frenzy surrounding it to increase its power which results in a reduction of our freedoms. And people stand around and say "Well, it's just a little, and we get so much in return." The next thing we know, we're fighting in court for all we're worth over whether or not we can own guns, for crying out loud. We're paying 40% income tax, and that money goes to more wars, and more laws. Look at what we sacrificed for this war, with the Patriot Acts 1 &2. And it's always in the name of Democracy, or saving the children, or some other such pile. We almost can't afford to go to any more wars, because we are almost out of freedom to pay for them with.

-drew

Hkmp5sd
February 9, 2004, 10:04 PM
Nice post.

fallingblock
February 10, 2004, 04:49 AM
"idd is doing a great job mof making his point so I won't try to add anything to it."
************************************************************

That could be so, but I think Khornet actually addressed idd's 'point' very well indeed.

************************************************************
"Look at Florida 2000. Ever since that issue was decided, we have had a lot of folks who simply hate Bush. Whatever he did after that would be lies, no matter the evidence. This is why their arguments are so circular and circumstantial: they are not based on reason, but anger. And that is why this president can be condemned for thinking and saying what an earlier president was praised for.

And you can't reason with anger."
************************************************************

bountyhunter
February 10, 2004, 01:58 PM
Seeing idd kick butt on this thread reminded me of watching some of Mike Tyson's early fights. Referee would have stopped this one pretty quick out of pity for the opponents. I thought I knew the dirt on Iraq and the US support for it's regimes, but I learned some new stuff here. Good job idd. Always refreshing to read posts that have the documentation to back up the points they make.:p

Thumper
February 10, 2004, 02:12 PM
Are you kidding, BH?

Khornet effectively wiped the floor with him. Or am I missing the sarcasm?

Destructo6
February 10, 2004, 03:24 PM
The sources of authority used by idd have little or no credit.

fpif has a definate political bent:
Help the progressive community to deepen its analysis by formulating and strengthening core principles and consistency on foreign policy;
In 1995, Gen Kamal also said:
General Hussein Kamal – Iraq initially had one reactor and started four different projects. One project was headed by Dr. Jaffar and you are aware of it. There was a second project undergoing test and there were two projects under development. Some parts you have seen. A few months ago they had a project “Sodash”. This was a new one. Some equipment was buried there but it was recovered recently. Part of this buried equipment was at the Sodash site. Other parts were “made to disappear”

Prof. Zifferero – what was the purpose of Sodash?

General Hussein Kamal – that was a new project. They were doing some digging activities for it and found this equipment. I was not aware that this equipment existed. The project was close to the “Iraqi factory” which is also a new project to produce machines.

Prof. Zifferero – so there was our Sodash project, they started digging and discovered equipment. What was this equipment for?

General Hussein Kamal – It was from Jaffar’s project located on the river. This site was destroyed (He accepted Zifferero’s prompt that the site was called Tarmya.)

Prof. Zifferero – This was the EMIS project. What about the centrifuge project headed by Dr. Al Ubeidi?

General Hussein Kamal – there were centrifuges. It was a department of the Ministry of Agriculture. It was situated at Al Salih.

Prof. Zifferero – Are you referring to Rashdiyah?

General Hussein Kamal – Yes, it is in the middle between Al Salih and Rashdiyah. You know the place. They manufacture their own centrifuges in two ways. One way was from maraging steel and the second – using carbon fibres. All centrifuges worked but they preferred the ones made of carbon fibre. With carbon fibre centrifuges, the speed of 60,000 rounds per minute was achieved and they were about to go to 100,000. This would be done in a different area but the activity was stopped by the war.
So, here he shows that he did not know everything, some items were designed and/or intended to be hidden, and he has been out of Iraq's weapons loop since 1995.

Mizzoutiger
February 10, 2004, 04:11 PM
Not to throw a wrench in the works but on policitally driven boards posters must be looked at with a little suspicion.

case in point:

Michigander
New Member

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2

Note the register date and number of posts. Both of these posts just so happen to be in this thread.

Be on the lookout for those who wish to bomb "conservative" boards for their own political reasons this election season.

*Cough* Troll *Cough* *Cough*

Hkmp5sd
February 10, 2004, 04:15 PM
Can't really brand him as a troll. A new member has to start somewhere. Several of the other posters in this thread have made far more controversial remarks.

Gordon Fink
February 10, 2004, 04:21 PM
Arms control, fighting terrorism, democracy for all, peace and freedom through the United Nations …?

Sorry, but I’m a cynic.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/

~G. Fink

Mizzoutiger
February 10, 2004, 04:23 PM
I'm not necessarily bagging on him specifically. But his situation warrants a suspicious eye. Being a frequent visitor of many conservative boards, I run into these people a lot. We are in a time of heated political debate.

I will wait to see his stance on guns... if he wishes to post on those topics.

MacViolinist
February 10, 2004, 05:48 PM
FallingBlock,
How does calling someone a sore loser constitute a refutation of evidence, let a lone a point? More generally, to those saying that idd's sources have no credibility, would you like to back that up, or are you just going to say it over and over? I don't know idd, but if you've got him pegged as a pissed off Gore supporter I'd put some money down that you're flat wrong. There's more out there than just Cons and Dems. Maybe since the 2 are getting so close to the same we should it the Conservacratic Party.


-drew

bountyhunter
February 10, 2004, 07:26 PM
FallingBlock,
How does calling someone a sore loser constitute a refutation of evidence, let a lone a point?


It doesn't.

FallingBlock,
More generally, to those saying that idd's sources have no credibility, would you like to back that up, or are you just going to say it over and over?

The credibility one assigns to a source is based on whether they are saying what agrees with your innate opinion. It's a technique George Bush perfected in reviewing intelligence gathered on other hostile countries.

FallingBlock,
I don't know idd, but if you've got him pegged as a pissed off Gore supporter I'd put some money down that you're flat wrong.

Agreed. Lots of people who are disgusted with Bush were just as disgusted with what Clinton and Gore did. I never understood how republicans seem to believe you can refute somebody complaining about the crimes of this administration by saying:

"Well..... Clinton was a liar, too."

Nobody is arguing about that. I called him a liar when he lied, and I'm doing the same now.

Khornet effectively wiped the floor with him. Or am I missing the sarcasm?.

I guess it depends on your point of view. At this point, republicans have had their worlds so completely warped by the administration's shoveling that political discussions seem to be like trying to describe the shade of burnt umber to a blind man.

bountyhunter
February 10, 2004, 07:32 PM
Thumper Are you kidding, BH?

Khornet effectively wiped the floor with him. Or am I missing the sarcasm? ?

Here is the response from Khornet:

"To understand this controversy
you must not look at Iraq, Afghanistan, WMDs, or Halliburton.

Look at Florida 2000. Ever since that issue was decided, we have had a lot of folks who simply hate Bush. Whatever he did after that would be lies, no matter the evidence. This is why their arguments are so circular and circumstantial: they are not based on reason, but anger. And that is why this president can be condemned for thinking and saying what an earlier president was praised for."



If that is wiping the floor, you need to buy a mop dude. Try answering the mountains of charges leveled, not spouting plattitudes.

thefitzvh
February 10, 2004, 09:03 PM
2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?

Are you one of our men and women?

If so, you have forgotten that one of your basest duties is to "stick up for the little guys" when they cannot.

If you aren't then how dare you presume to know what our young men should or shouldn't do. We all volunteered, we weren't drafted. As one of those men, I can tell you that I know of the atrocities committed by Saddam, and I would gladly give my life in an effort to see those people treated like people.

Not to mention the fact that inspectors were routinely harassed, threatened, and forced out of certain sites. What is that? Probable cause.

Just because bush made a decision based (and only partially, I might add) on bad intel, doesn't make him a liar and a thief. It makes him human.

Also, I doubt anyone here has a higher security clearance than the president and his advisors. They probably know quite a few things about the situation that we don't.

Anyone here of Jewish descent? you might not be here if it wasn't for the US "meddling" in the affairs of other nations.

Take the false logic and red herrings elsewhere... Like DU.

James

fallingblock
February 10, 2004, 09:28 PM
My time zone is some 14 hours off yours.....be patient.;)

************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FallingBlock,
How does calling someone a sore loser constitute a refutation of evidence, let a lone a point?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It doesn't."
************************************************************


Actually, Khornet made that observation, but I think it is relevant to the bitterness which some 'progressives' seem to bring to this discussion.



************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FallingBlock,
More generally, to those saying that idd's sources have no credibility, would you like to back that up, or are you just going to say it over and over?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bountyhunter interjects:

"The credibility one assigns to a source is based on whether they are saying what agrees with your innate opinion. It's a technique George Bush perfected in reviewing intelligence gathered on other hostile countries."
************************************************************


Sorry, but if you folks really believe that "The Washington Post" is a credible source for coverage of the U.S. political scene, then you are letting your itching hatred for "Dubya" cloud your judgement.

If the disputation of these election year hyperbolic excercises in politics requires the weakness of the source to be stated "over and over" then I will say it, much as the 'progressives' seem to make the allegations "over and over" using sources famous for their anti-Bush bias.

Hey, here's a novel concept:

YOU anti-Bush zealots PROVE the allegations are true, by quoting a variety of credible sources.:D


************************************************************quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FallingBlock,
I don't know idd, but if you've got him pegged as a pissed off Gore supporter I'd put some money down that you're flat wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd guess perhaps a "pissed-off progressive", but the effect is much the same. The "pissed-off" overshadows the excercise of judgement.


bountyhunter writes:
"
Agreed. Lots of people who are disgusted with Bush were just as disgusted with what Clinton and Gore did. I never understood how republicans seem to believe you can refute somebody complaining about the crimes of this administration by saying:

"Well..... Clinton was a liar, too."

Nobody is arguing about that. I called him a liar when he lied, and I'm doing the same now."
************************************************************


Trouble is. Clinton IS a liar....no disputing that fact.

I do not think their is enough evidence yet to label "Dubya" as a liar, despite bountyhunter's fondest hope that it is so.




************************************************************

bountyhunter ruminates:

"I guess it depends on your point of view. At this point, republicans have had their worlds so completely warped by the administration's shoveling that political discussions seem to be like trying to describe the shade of burnt umber to a blind man."
************************************************************


Please substitute "progressives" for "republicans" and "lefty news media" for "administration's" in the above statement, and apply it to yourself, bountyhunter.

Y'all are simple blinded by your hatred for what is the best man in the whitehouse in the past sixteen years.;)


Gordon Fink:
************************************************************
from the CNN article you linked to:

"Since it's still unknown how much damage has been or will be done to Iraqi oil fields in the war, it's difficult to estimate the contract's eventual dollar value.

But its biggest value could be that it puts Halliburton in a prime position to handle the complete refurbishment of Iraq's long-neglected oil infrastructure, which will be a plum job.

Getting Iraq's oil fields to pre-1991 production levels will take at least 18 months and cost about $5 billion initially, with $3 billion more in annual operating expenses,..."
************************************************************


War is certainly good for business!

In this case, it was also in the long-term strategic interest of the U.S. middle east policy, as well as of outstanding benefit to the Iraqi people.

And, hey, buddy, "it was all about the oil":rolleyes:

As soon as all those billions are spent getting it moving again.;)

Hkmp5sd
February 10, 2004, 09:34 PM
Better let go of the bickering and name calling and get back to rational debate or someone's gonna slap a lock on this discussion. :)

fallingblock
February 10, 2004, 09:39 PM
I used to wonder why dogs chased their tails, and some of these election-year threads seem to offer insight into that age-old question.:D

gburner
February 10, 2004, 10:36 PM
Nice recovery, guys. I'd hate to see Art pull the car over and start handin' out beatin's.:p

So, none of us are in love with GWB. We are all questioning his honesty and his ability. I still say that he'd have to fall a long way to be in the same league as President Happy-pants and his shrew wife (or any of the socialist hacks currently vying for the dem. nod).

And if enough of us don't vote for Bush,
Kerry will become prez. That reality is one that should make any sane person shudder. Your libertarian vote of conscience, though well intentioned, will help bring about the exact thing that many of us hope to avoid, higher taxes, onerous firearms infringement, more federal regulations, the dems. calling the shots with the pat. acts I & II, selling out our national soveriegnty to the UN, explosive expansion in socialist govt. entitlement programs, a liberal SC and federal judiciary and an overall continuation down the road of 'moral relativism'. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

fallingblock
February 10, 2004, 11:04 PM
Now THAT was a post!


************************************************************
"And if enough of us don't vote for Bush, Kerry will become prez.
That reality is one that should make any sane person shudder."
************************************************************

A fine, succinct analysis of our current situation.

:eek:

JPM70535
February 10, 2004, 11:42 PM
Just a few thoughts on Iraq and the war that seems to have generated so much hate for GW.

Sadam was evil. He used WMDs on his own people. He would cheerfully used them on us if the oppertunity presented itself.

At the present time, Sadam poses no danger to anyone (as a military leader) He is no longer able to finance terrorism.

The war in Iraq is costly, in terms of manpower, money and loss of American lives. 550+ as I recall. BTW, more Americans lose their lives in motor vehicle crashes in a month than in the entire Iraqi operation.

From an economic standpoint, the ouster of Sadam was a good thing, his ability to disrupt oil supplies has been terminated. (No more setting oil fields afire.)

Regardless of how ill advised the attack on Iraq may have been based on faulty intel., sooner or later he would have had to be removed from power.

Waiting for the UN to take military action is an exercise in futility, all they can do is blather.

Don't know if it means anything, but since the war, the economy has taken a definite upturn, strange huh?

No matter what GW does that I don't like I will vote for him as long as the alternative is GUN GRABBER KERRY.

GoRon
February 11, 2004, 01:05 AM
The Bush haters have let their obsession blind them. Our troops are mostley out of Saudia Arabia, this was a source of contention in the region. Iran now has US occupied/liberated countries on its borders,Iraq and Afghanistan. It also has our "allies" Turkey and Pakistan on its borders. Syria now has US controlled Iraq on its border with our "allies" Turkey and Jordon north and south. Our President has completely taken the battle to the source of militant Islam. This was bold strategic action. Letting the UN handle the Iraq situation is the reason it finally came to war again. We must not be afraid to act in our own self interest. Nobody else in the world will act for us. And we are somewhat unique in that we believe people being free around the world is in our best interest. Letting the liberals (Kerry, Clinton etc..) put the UN back in charge of our foriegn policy would be disastrous. Everybody believed Iraq had WMD (see post full of quotes above). Our President did not say the threat was imminent, he said it was a mistake to wait for it to become so.

idd
February 11, 2004, 01:14 AM
fallingblock wrote:
>Name one "death squad democracy" that you have incontrovertible proof of U.S. led "death squads" operating in.

Not exactly sure what you mean by “incontrovertible proof,” but fortunately there have been US congressional investigations, memoirs written by former CIA officers, and histories written with the aid of declassified documents, although often such declassified documents are heavily redacted.

There is the testimony of John Stockwell, a former Marine recon, veteran of three wars, and the highest-ranking former CIA Officer to ever go public. He was stationed in Africa and Vietnam, and eventually sat on a subcommittee of the National Security Council. “In Guatemala 1954, Brazil, Guyana, Chile, the Congo, Iran, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, Equador, Uruguay - the CIA organized the overthrow of constitutional democracies.” http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2897/secretwars1.html

The CIA sponsored death squads in El Salvador, such as the Treasury Police. See Michael McClintock, _The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador (Vol 1)_.

And Guatemala. Michael McClintock, _The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador (Vol 1)_, Schlesinger and Kinzer, _Bitter Fruit_, and Richard Zimmerman, _The CIA in Guatemala_.

In much of Latin America this was done under a program called the Office of Public Safety, officially a AID program that was actually run by CIA. See A.J.Langguth, _Hidden Terrors_ for a chilling description of this program that included the use and training in torture. OPS was eventually shut down after the outcry.

In Iran, the CIA created the SAVAK in 1957. See Stephen Kinzer, _All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror_. See http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/

In Uganda and the Congo the CIA created death squads, according to John Stockwell.

Former CIA Officer Colonel George Hunter White wrote from retirement, “I toiled whole-heartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun, fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill, cheat, steal, rape and pillage with the blessings of the all highest?”

See William Blum, _Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII_.

fallingblock
February 11, 2004, 03:45 AM
Incontrovertible: not open to question : indisputable

Proof: I'm not typing all that...look it up yourself, idd. :D

Most, if not all, of what you have cited is anecdotal evidence and speculation by individuals or politically-motivated 'investigations' as to what was done with training and aid provided by the U.S. to foreign goverments.

Not convincing as 'proof' of U.S. LED "death squads".:scrutiny:

Just a quick example, from the http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/
site you provided:

************************************************************
"CIA subsequently provided organizational and and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah."
************************************************************

The Shah's folks were doing the skulduggery and naughty deeds, not U.S. personnel.;)

One may argue that it did or didn't enhance U.S. interests at the time, but it was the Shah's Iranians choosing what to do with the training.

That's the way the intelligence community does business...well, at least the more civilised parts of it.:D

Khornet
February 11, 2004, 10:05 AM
"Blame America First" Left. USA gins up a few "death squads" in the twilight struggle with Communism, and we're Satan. Stalin et.al. murder tens of millions, and Cold Warriors have an "Inordinate fear of Communism" (James Earl Carter's words).

For so many people, the least sin on America's part outweighs the massive crimes of her enemies. Been that way since the '30s, and always will.

gburner
February 11, 2004, 11:41 AM
Khornet,

Even the smallest speck of dirt shows when you're the one wearing white.:uhoh:

MacViolinist
February 11, 2004, 12:11 PM
Khornet
For so many people, the least sin on America's part outweighs the massive crimes of her enemies. Been that way since the '30s, and always will.

So the Federal goververnment shouldn't be held accountable just because another country does something worse? Maybe I shouldn't be prosecuted for murdering one person if someone else killed 10 peaple last year.


"Your Honor, it was just one measly person, and he deserved it. He was a bad man. He beat his wife and kids. And everything else I do is so good. I gave his wife a new house, and besides he had a GUN. He could have killed me. And did I mention that I'm a really good person and that it seemed like the right thing to do at the time? Also, I'm the richest, most powerful man in the world, and if you try to convict me, I will buy your eternal soul after I bomb the everlasting hell out of you."

hmm. I'm thinking that won't fly.

Few people are comparing Bush, Clinton, et al, to Hitler or Stalin for the simple fact that Hitler and Stalin were punished for their crimes in the end. While the U.S. has not perpetrated crimes of the same magnitude, nevertheless, crimes have been committed. Our respone, as a whole is "oops, sorry about that", but when another country committs crimes it's an "Atrocity" or a "Threat to the freedom of all countries". America has never been held accountable for anything. Frankly, I just sick of the double standard.

-drew

ojibweindian
February 11, 2004, 12:20 PM
Tired of the double standard? Then leave.

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 12:25 PM
America has never been held accountable for anything. Frankly, I just sick of the double standard.

Wow, you get the Osama bin Laden paraphrase of the day award.

Don't let the door hit ya...

MacViolinist
February 11, 2004, 12:28 PM
Wow, you get the Osama bin Laden paraphrase of the day award.

Don't let the door hit ya...

What, so now I'm a terrorist if I DO believe in the rule of law?:confused:

-drew

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 12:31 PM
Just noting who you're aligning yourself with...rightfully.

Don't worry, you're not alone, merely dispised.

MacViolinist
February 11, 2004, 12:35 PM
Just noting who you're aligning yourself with...rightfully.

Don't worry, you're not alone, merely dispised.

Wow, despised for asserting the supremacy of the constitution. I'll keep that in mind.

ojibweindian
February 11, 2004, 12:36 PM
What, so now I'm a terrorist if I DO believe in the rule of law?

Our sovereign law or international law? Sounds like you "believe" in international law.

I assume you think the whole war crimes tribunal in Brussels is a good thing. Right?

If you think America is a murderous nation, bent on the torture and domination of the rest of the world, why don't you go to someplace more peaceful like, say, FRANCE!

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 12:39 PM
There's no positive way to spin your statement , partner. Seriously, if America has "never been" right, why do you continue to support her with your taxes?

Haul butt...or if you feel especially froggy, jump. I bet you keep your thoughts to yourself there in Waco, doncha?

idd
February 11, 2004, 02:02 PM
fallingblock said
Most, if not all, of what you have cited is anecdotal evidence and speculation by individuals or politically-motivated 'investigations' as to what was done with training and aid provided by the U.S. to foreign goverments.

You say this, but how do you know this? Have you read all those books? Or do you find yourself thinking that it just can't possibly be true since it wouldn't jibe with the image of America that they taught us when we were kids. A priori rejection means never having to examine the evidence or risk having your cherished beliefs challenged. It's a form of intellectual laziness.

There are plenty of declassified US government documents showing connections. There is the testimony by those in the CIA who have first-hand knowledge of the events. There is the testimony of those who actually did the killing, and let's not forget the testimony by the victims who were strapped naked to tables and tortured by men such as US advisor Frank Mitrione and his class of Brazilian police students.

Take just the case of El Salvador. There is the testimony of the killers themselves such as Cesar Vielman Joya Martinez (a soldier in the First Infantry Brigade's Department 2 (Intelligence), Ricardo Castro (a graduate from West Point and a company commander in the Salvadoran Army), Rene Hurtado (intelligence agent for the Treasury Police), Nicolas Carranza (chief of the Salvadoran Treasury Police), Colonel Roberto Santivanez, Carlos Antonio Gomez Montano (paratrooper stationed at Ilopango Air Force Base).

Atlacatl Battalion was atrained and equipped by the US government, was responsible for numerous atrocities including slayings of six Jesuit priests and two women at a seminary.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/deathsquads_ElSal.html

So what do you want? A signed (and notarized, perhaps?) letter by the director of the CIA saying "I hereby authorize, instruct and order Colonel Nicolas Carranza to rape nuns and murder priests so long as he rationalizes it in the name of fighting communism"? You won't find it, just like you will never find anything signed by the Kennedy Brothers ordering the CIA to assassinate Castro even though everyone familiar with US foreign policy during that period knows that those two were all over the CIA to get rid of Castro. (And don't misunderstand me. If Castro takes an assassin's bullet or a hangman's noose, I will shed no tears for him.)

And for you current and former CIA guys out there reading this, I don't want this to sound like I am excoriating your agency as a rogue elephant. When Congressman Frank Church investigated the CIA in the 1970s, one of the questions he asked was whether the CIA was a "rogue elephant." He found that it wasn't. CIA does what the president orders it to do with monies appropriated by the Congress. (Now Washington is blaming the CIA for intel failures over Iraq - which is IMHO totally unfair to the agency.)

There's no positive way to spin your statement , partner. Seriously, if America has "never been" right,

Well, I for one would never say that "America is never right." America was right to go to war against Japan and Germany in 1941. America was right to stand up to the Russians over Berlin. (Sounds like a strawman, thumper.)

why do you continue to support her with your taxes?

Because I fear the consequences of nonpayment. A lien, levy or jailtime would tend to interrupt the flow of my day.

Khornet:
"Blame America First" Left.

That's really not where I am coming from, khornet. I am hardly a leftist, I am not "blaming America first," I do not "hate America," and I am not upset that Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election. It appears to me that your claim is a form of ad hominem.

Tired of the double standard? Then leave.

Ah yes, that old standby. "America: love it or leave it." Intellectual engagement reduced to bumber sticker sloganeering.

Even the smallest speck of dirt shows when you're the one wearing white.

I think that there is some truth to that. Crimes committed by Soviets do not really surprise us, but finding out that the US government allied itself with fingernail-pullers against the Jeffersonians somewhere.....it's disheartening.

The Shah's folks were doing the skulduggery and naughty deeds, not U.S. personnel.

I bet that Iranian mullahs could offer similar rationalizations for their support for Hezbollah. I don't buy it. When you sponsor terror, when you train them, give them weapons, money, intelligence, and encouragement, then the blood of the victims is on your hands. In the case of Iran, the CIA-sponsored putsch (Operation Ajax) and subsequent US support for the Shah managed to alienate a country that should have been an allied constitutional republic. Anti-US sentiment grew and then exploded in 1979. Over the longterm, did Operation Ajax really further our nation's own rational self-interests? I do not think that it did.

Our troops are mostley [sic] out of Saudia Arabia, this was a source of contention in the region.

We now have bases scattered throughout the region in Oman, UAE, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. More than 725 military bases throughout the world. We will be in Iraq for years if not decades. See _The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic_ by Chalmers Johnson (Henry Holt and Company: 2004).

Are you one of our men and women?... If you aren't then how dare you presume to know what our young men should or shouldn't do.

Because I am a tax-paying citizen in a republic, not a subject of a military dictatorship. We pay your salary, soldier. You work for us.

As one of those men, I can tell you that I know of the atrocities committed by Saddam

The crimes of Saddam are well-documented. They were well-documented even during the 1980s when Rummy was toasting Saddam, when the US supported Saddam with material and intelligence. Saddam's crimes are not why the US went to war last year.

Also, I doubt anyone here has a higher security clearance than the president and his advisors. They probably know quite a few things about the situation that we don't.

Bush, Cheney and Rummy sure have acted as if they knew something that the rest of us. Turned out that their high security clearances notwithstanding, they were either clueless or dishonest with us. In either event, it doesn't exactly make me want to trust anything more that they say.

you might not be here if it wasn't for the US "meddling" in the affairs of other nations.

The US knew that the Reich was exterminating Jews, but was still turning back Jewish refugees by the boatload. We did not go to war until after Germany declared war on us. Hitler's "Final Solution" had nothing to do with it.

Gordon Fink
February 11, 2004, 02:14 PM
War is certainly good for business!

In this case, it was also in the long-term strategic interest of the U.S. middle east policy, as well as of outstanding benefit to the Iraqi people.

Fallingblock, I’ve pointed out on several occasions that the war could and would probably have some long-term benefits. However, in my opinion, the continued profitability of U.S. oil companies or even the putative freedom of the Iraqi people are not worth the cost in American lives, the damage to Constitutional governance, and the ambiguous morality of this war.

The ends do not justify the means. The institution of slavery brought tremendous economic and cultural benefits to the U.S. and arguably to the slaves themselves, but that doesn’t make it right. The war against Iraq was also wrong, regardless of what good may come out of it.

~G. Fink

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 02:29 PM
idd, sorry you got confused...Perhaps my reference to Waco threw you off? *hint* I was speaking of macviolinist's post.

Specifically, this statement:

America has never been held accountable for anything. Frankly, I just sick of the double standard.

ojibweindian
February 11, 2004, 02:51 PM
Ah yes, that old standby. "America: love it or leave it." Intellectual engagement reduced to bumber sticker sloganeering.

Call it whatever the hell you want. You don't like it here, get out. My dad's blood, his father's blood, and the blood of airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines were spilled in defense of this country. :cuss: :cuss: 's like you who equate this country and its actions to those of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia can kiss my (*)

There is no "Intellectual engagement" when family members leave parts of themselves on the battle field in defense of their nation.

MacViolinist
February 11, 2004, 03:48 PM
Ojibweindian,
My father was a medic in the First Infantry Diviosion during WW2. He was on the front lines in Europe for 19 month, and participated in (among others) The Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of the Hurtgen Forrest. He did it precisely so that I can engage intellectually in the causes and consequences of war.

Thumper,
I never said America was "never right". I said the leaders of the Federal government are never held accountable for their actions. Nor did I ever say that any American, criminal or not, should be held accountable to an international tribunal. Why do have such a problem with the idea that politicians should be held accountable for their actions? Why do you think it's ok for Our Glorious Leaders to violate our constitution overseas and not be tried on charges here?

-drew

ojibweindian
February 11, 2004, 04:19 PM
What have YOU done?

Comparing America to Nazi Germany and the USSR, then hiding behind your father's service is dubious.

Why do you think it's ok for Our Glorious Leaders to violate our constitution overseas and not be tried on charges here?

Simple. The Constitution applies to AMERICAN CITIZENS, not foreigners in another land.

You're a "globalist", aren't you?

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 04:23 PM
indian,

I believe he is, though he deftly sidestepped the issue with the "nor did I ever say that any American, criminal or not, should be held accountable to an international tribunal" comment.

I suspect he's already determined that the internationalists' point of view is not too well respected here.

His earlier comments belie his position, however. Just my opinion.

Rude question: Who are you rooting for in November, Mac?

MacViolinist
February 11, 2004, 04:26 PM
Ojibweindian,
I did not compare America to the USSR or Nazi Germany. As a matter of fact, I specifically said that such comparison does not work.

The Constitution applies to AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Exactly my point. The constitution applies to Americans all over the world. If Amercans break American law in Iran, Iran, Nicaragua, or Viet Nam, or anywhere else they are still Americans and subject to our laws and our Constitution. And no, I am not a globalist.

-drew

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 04:28 PM
Tired of the double standard? Then leave.

Whoa, dude... time warp. Flashes me back to the 60's when that pathetic reply was on the bumper stickers:

America: Love it or Leave it.

Ten years later, it was reborn in another form:

America: get your heart in or get your (picture of donkey) out!

Of course, the logical folly is that anybody who is complaining about how America is must not be a true American. That would apply to Martin Luther King, the Viet nam war protesters, the people who were calling for Nixon's impeachment... there have been lots of times that Americans have complained about what their government or (specifically) what the president was doing.

And, thank God they did.

And thank God most Americans don't believe in the moronic philosophy of "anybody who doesn't think like me has to leave".

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 04:40 PM
My dad's blood, his father's blood, and the blood of airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines were spilled in defense of this country.

That's probably not a card you want to flip out of the deck. I prepared the medal board for my father's burial at Arlington. Six bronze stars, two silver stars, two purple hearts, a ranger badge and more ribbons than you could fit into five rows of bars. He served the ENTIRE war from Dec 7 on in the Pacific and survived the Japanese attacks on Scofield barracks. Served 33 years total service, retired at full colonel. I also had two brothers in, both served in country during Viet nam. I would have been the third except I had the blind luck of getting a high draft lottery number, or I would have been on the next boat to that dump. I'm currently married to a 25 year Navy veteran who is the current commander of a Navy Reserve Medical unit. She was activated for the full duration of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, but (thank God) not yet for this one.

I'll tell you what my father fought for, because it's the same thing he taught me: don't take crap off anybody and don't salute some lying arse wipe just because he got elected (sort of). Being an American doesn't require you to leave your brains at the door when you sign on.

Bottom line is that there are tons of veterans who opposed Bush's stupid war. There were thousands of them at the rallies, they just didn't get shown on TV because they didn't "fit the image" of the peacenik war protester. They also destroy the myth that the people who oppose the war don't support the military, because we ARE or WERE the military. We just don't like having troops sent into combat on the basis of a pack of lies.

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 05:06 PM
She was activated for the full duration of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, but (thank God) not yet for this one.

Well, I'm sure that if she does, she'll appreciate your overwhelming support.

Undermining the morale of those who serve during wartime (and I know FIRSTHAND what I'm talking about) is deplorable...but hey, your daddy served with honor...keep smearing your country. I'm sure his comrades buried along the French coastline would be proud.

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 07:33 PM
Well, I'm sure that if she does, she'll appreciate your overwhelming support.
Undermining the morale of those who serve during wartime (and I know FIRSTHAND what I'm talking about) is deplorable...but hey, your daddy served with honor...keep smearing your country. I'm sure his comrades buried along the French coastline would be proud.


First of all, she (like all reservists) do get the support of their families.

Your statement that the people protesting the deployment are damaging morale is a lie that is both ignorant and despicable. The facts are many of them hope it will force an early withdrawal.

First of all, you don't know jack about morale at present. You are not seeing the troops come back and hearing what they say when cameras are not on. You are not aware of the level of problem morale is in actives and reserves not because of "press coverage" or "protests" but because they were promised a road home when they got to Baghdad and got stuck as an occupational force that will serve for years.

You also don't know what affect the recent implementation of "stop-leave" on the reservists returning from Iraq had... because they are restricted from leaving the service so they know they will be shipped back again if needed. They are locked in and can't get out.

I could fill an encyclopedia with what you don't know, but if it comforts you to think the morale disaster in Iraq is due to those who oppose the war, I guess it's the only comfort you can get. BTW: if you think I am opposed to Bush, you should hear what the reserve troops think of him. You won't hear those sound bytes on Fox news.

ojibweindian
February 11, 2004, 07:36 PM
You should have heard what we said about Clinton when I was in.

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 07:38 PM
From my post (the one you didn't read):

He served the ENTIRE war from Dec 7 on in the Pacific and survived the Japanese attacks on Scofield barracks.

regarding your snide aside:


keep smearing your country. I'm sure his comrades buried along the French coastline would be proud.

There were very few French troops killed in the Pacific Theater.

As for your statement I am smearing the country, I wonder if you will live long enough to ever learn: George Bush is NOT this country. he is just the elected (?) president. Last time I checked, it was still legal to dispute his actions and I am disputing them along with things he says that are proven false.

bountyhunter
February 11, 2004, 07:42 PM
You should have heard what we said about Clinton when I was in.

The general public was not privy to the information at the time, but the reserve units were given directives to discipline officers or enlisted who spoke against Clinton after it became known that he was a running joke among the ranks. My wife was second in command of the unit then, her entire unit was warned about it and it was for real: people were disciplined for it.

It's also the reason you will never hear one word uttered aloud by a reservist today against Bush or his policies. Freedom of speech is one of the rights you give up in the military.

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 07:44 PM
What part of "FIRSTHAND" did you trip over there, bub?

What, you have a handle on deployed soldiers' feelings because you pinned your daddy's medals on? To paraphrase fix: I was there!

Ignorant? Hardly. I wont descend into the blatant name calling, but I will continue to enjoy watching you marginalize yourself.

Seems that I and the other actual Vets here are pretty much in agreement. Kind of turns your current position into mush.

Have fun with it, bountyhunter (smirk). Hey, do you have one of those cool plastic badges? Seriously, I want to know.

:D

MacViolinist
February 11, 2004, 08:42 PM
Thumper,
I am rooting for the Libertarian candidtate, Michael Badnarik, in November. Also, pointing out that I didn't say something is not sidestepping the issue.

Ojibweindian,
Exercising my right to free speech is not equal to hiding behind my father's service. When my father looks me in the face and says that criticizing the Federal Government is out of line, then I will think about stopping.

To both of you, I repeat:
1. What is so wrong with the idea that politicians should be held accountable for their actions?

2. Aren't the laws governing American citizens binding no matter where on this planet they happen to be?

Please consider answering the questions, instead of calling names or throwing insults.

-drew

thefitzvh
February 11, 2004, 08:53 PM
OH! I SEE! Veterans DONT support the war. And they're coming back in droves protesting.

Which is why members of my unit were, and continue to, BEG to go.

Which is why my commander left the unit, so he could go.

Which is why military personnel and their families continue to show up and sit in on anti-war protests.

Which is why there are soldiers by the droves volunteering to GO AGAIN, after they've already been there.


Saying that soldiers resent being sent over to Iraq to be put in harms way is another way of saying this: American soldiers resent their jobs.

We clearly do not.

I KNOW FOR A FACT (read that again, so you can let it sink in) that we found shells containing blister agents. Trace amounts, yes. But there.

If you had a bunch of weed in your house, and you knew the cops were coming, what would you do. Flush it.

Freedom of speech is one of the rights you give up in the military.

Actually it's not. SLANDER is a right you give up in the military. Slander like, oh, I don't know: Calling a man who acted on intel that proved to be partially innaccurate a lying sack of scum.


There were very few French troops killed in the Pacific Theater.

He was talking about the massive amounts of American troops killed, and buried, at Normandy.

Are you a soldier? Until you are, you don't know what "the soldiers" feel. You may think you know, and you may even know the opinions of a few soldiers, but you DON't know soldiers. Even when they complain, it doesn't mean they're COMPLAINING. Those in the military understand exactly what I'm talking about. We complain when chow's cold... we complain when it's hot. We complain when we're in the field, we complain in garrison. We complain while deployed, but complain that we wanna go back on deployment later.

You are not seeing the troops come back and hearing what they say when cameras are not on.

Actually, yes I am.

You also don't know what affect the recent implementation of "stop-leave" on the reservists returning from Iraq had

First, it's called "stop-loss" and it happens EVERY TIME we're committed somewhere. The only people that whine about it are first termers who haven't had it done before.

you should hear what the reserve troops think of him.

How bout the active duty and reserve soldiers that have gone 2 to 3 times in the SAME war? The soldiers you're sampling don't represent the military as a whole.


James

Michigander
February 11, 2004, 09:20 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) If the people of other nations are not willing to fight for their own freedom, then they are not entitled to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How can someone even respond to this.....


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well...... maybe because the USA should help oppressed people and offer the freedoms & liberties you take for granted every day?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Which country is next on the very long list of nations in which we must go and "give" their people the "opportunity" they are entitled to with our soldier's and marine's blood and our, our children's and our grandchildren's tax dollars to pay for it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh, now I understand, our security is much more important then other "peoples" freedoms. How arrogant and condescending. Are you saying that the Iraqi people are somewhat less deserving of "natural rights" because of who they are?
...



There is a piece of paper, a contract, called the Constitution of the United States of America:



We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



emphasis added.

Note: it does not say, "...to ourselves and our posterity and oppressed peoples everywhere..."

Also, it is arrogant of you to assume that I take my liberty "for granted."

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 09:21 PM
First, it's called "stop-loss" and it happens EVERY TIME we're committed somewhere.

Absolutely right, in conjunction with "stop-movement." I experienced BOTH during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Some bountyhunter presuming to explain to me how I felt about traitorous behavior at home during that time borders on laughable.

Michigander
February 11, 2004, 10:09 PM
thefitzvh,




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Why should our brave young men and women do their fighting and dying for them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...how dare you presume to know what our young men should or shouldn't do. We all volunteered, we weren't drafted. As one of those men, I can tell you that I know of the atrocities committed by Saddam, and I would gladly give my life in an effort to see those people treated like people.
...



How dare I? Many brave and honorable soldiers and Marines, volunteers and draftess, have stood guard, patrolled the air, land and sea, and shed their blood and gave their lives so that I may dare presumtions about my government and it's actions and the actions of our standing army.

As for anyone who wishes to "give" their "life in an effort to see those people treated like people," then by all means, go for it. I do not condemn your noble ideals, I'd just prefer you, and those with your sentiments, create your own organization to do it and not use the government created to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."


Anyone here of Jewish descent? you might not be here if it wasn't for the US "meddling" in the affairs of other nations.


Um, I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that it was not until we were attacked by Japan, an ally of Nazi Germany, that we entered the war. That is hardly "meddling in the affairs of other nations."


Take the false logic and red herrings elsewhere... Like DU.



If one gives advice, it has much more credence if he were to follow it.

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 10:11 PM
More newbies!

Welcome Michigander!

Do you like techno?

TheBluesMan
February 11, 2004, 10:23 PM
Too much heat for what little light is being generated.

Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Set The Record Straight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!