Peace Protestors, more screaming fits

[seansean]

just my opinion, but saddam isn't stupid. he knew if he EVER used wmd against us, we would nuke him. he wasn't a threat to us, and IMHO, bush and co. knew that. we killed a lot(tens of thousands) of innocent people, and I think it comes down to whether you're OK with that or not. If you are, then nothing you read on this board is gonna change your mind.

 

[AZLibertarian]

ceetee

"As he determines necessary and appropriate" for what? To what end? It's right there in that same section. "Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Sorry to get into parsing all this, however the preamble of Sentences (1) and (2) lets the President--not the Congress or the UN--determine how we use our military forces. It was a "blank check".

By your logic, our nation is in iminent danger of attack from dozens of directions out there... do we attack them all?

Not necessarily. We prioritize, and determine where it would be likely that any potential military action would have success. Obviously, we use diplomacy first whereever possible. If diplomacy doesn't work, and a stand-off ensues, then so be it. But, where our national interests--as determined by the President--are best served through military action, then we go.

And the best thing about being an American is that you have the right, the duty, and the obligation to speak your mind, and nobody can come and put you in the Gulag for it.

I agree completely. I don't think the "Peace Protesters" are wrong for speaking their minds, although I do think they're wrong. What the protesters miss, IMO, is that we weren't at peace with Islamic terrorists. They'd been attacking us for at least a decade. We are now finally understanding that they are at war with us--and we've decided to take the war back to them.

On a side note: One of the terms that drives me wild is "Anti-War". It presumes that there are those who are "Pro-War". Nobody [nobody rational, that is] is "Pro-War". We may disagree whether a conflict is worth the price we pay for it, but nobody wants war.

 

[RevDisk]

I agree completely. I don't think the "Peace Protesters" are wrong for speaking their minds, although I do think they're wrong. What the protesters miss, IMO, is that we weren't at peace with Islamic terrorists. They'd been attacking us for at least a decade. We are now finally understanding that they are at war with us--and we've decided to take the war back to them.

Indeed. What people are questioning, is why we invaded Iraq and not a country more directly linked to terrorism? Pakistan is reselling nuclear material to hostile countries (we blamed NK for it, but they only sold it to Pakistan and Pakistan resold it to Libya). Not to meantion they have detonated nuclear weapons on their soil. That's typically a good indication of possessing WMD. Saudi Arabia finances most global terrorism, directly or indirectly. Iran has been the leader of providing safe harbor and direct aide to terrorists for a long time, as well as a track record of NBC weapons.

Iraq's only proven usage of so-called weapons of mass destruction is the Iraq-Iran War. BOTH sides used chemical warfare. Its usage was overrated. Any decent Army NBC NCO worth his salt will tell you that chemical weapons are hardly mass destruction. They're not easy to use, their range is limited, and there are many variables that must be computed so the stuff doesn't kill your troops instead of the enemy. Properly used, yes, they can do a lot of damage. About the same damage as dropping cluster bomblets.


Saddam hated the fundimentalists and terrorists. He went to war against them, and killed any he suspected in his own country. Being the two-faced person he was, he showed public "solidarity" with outside movements striking the West. In reality, he viewed them as a threat to his power.

The exception would be the PLO. Oddly, the US don't treat the PLO like terrorists. We give them aide and ask their enemies to stop attacking them. The US has done more to help the PLO cause than Saddam ever did. Look up the amount of foreign aide we've given them.

On a side note: One of the terms that drives me wild is "Anti-War". It presumes that there are those who are "Pro-War". Nobody [nobody rational, that is] is "Pro-War". We may disagree whether a conflict is worth the price we pay for it, but nobody wants war.

A person supports a war is indeed pro-war. They might not feel peachy keen about it, but if they proclaim their support for a war, how are they not pro-war? Being pro-war would be supporting the rational to start the war, supporting continued operation of the war, or supports the person(s) that started said war unconditionally.

 

[ceetee]

AyZee...

You have to take it as a whole which is greater than the sum of it's parts. That "blank check" was really more like an expense account, which was only supposed to be spent fulfilling certain specific objectives... Bush is acting like a kid on his first out-of-town business trip, blowing his per diem on hookers and booze.

Maybe this is just my interpretation, but I always thought that it was not within the President's authority to decide who we go to war with, and when. It's the Presid job to present to Congress ALL the revelant information (including whatever hard evidence he possesses), and let Congress tell him just how far he can go. Congress gave him the authority, in writing, to use our military might to see to it that the Resolutions of the United Nations are carried out. Just as Congress has not authorized force against any other Muslim homeland (Pakistan and the Philippines come to mind), Congress DID NOT give him the authority to draw that "line in the sand".

And MAX if you're gonna resort to using Latin, we may as well call the whole thing off!



(I'm kidding! I'm a kidder!)

 

[Sean Smith]

Iraq's only proven usage of so-called weapons of mass destruction is the Iraq-Iran War.

Somebody forgot about the Kurds.

Did Iraq ever use sarin?
Yes. Iraq began producing sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995. Saddam Hussein used sarin on the Kurds in northern Iraq during a 1987-88 campaign known as the Anfal. The worst attack occurred in March 1988 in the Kurdish village of Halabja; a combination of chemical agents including sarin, mustard gas, and possibly VX killed as many as 5,000 people and left 65,000 others facing severe skin and respiratory diseases, abnormal rates of cancer and birth defects, and a devastated environment. Experts say Saddam Hussein also launched about 280 smaller-scale chemical attacks against the Kurds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm
http://cfrterrorism.org/weapons/sarin.html
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemsaringas.html

 

[RevDisk]

Somebody forgot about the Kurds.

No, I didn't. There is some evidence that Halabja was an Iranian attack blamed on Iraq for propaganda purposes. Also, there is some doubt about the Kurdish losses to chemical weapons. Besides word of mouth, the evidence is somewhat sketchy. Saddam did use chemical weapons on the Kurds, but no one knows how much, what type or how many people died because of it.

From what I've gathered, it looked like Iraqis hit the area with mustard gas, the Iranians treated, Iraqi forces took the area, and then the Iranians hit it with sarin. The Iranians then brought in the press and said the Iraqis did it. Of course, the Iranians and the Iraqis pointed fingers at each other. It's rather hard to know whom to believe. I wouldn't trust Iran's word, nor Saddam's. Then again, at the time we were technically pseudo-allies with Saddam. Your guess is as good as any.

 

[AZLibertarian]

RevDisk

What people are questioning, is why we invaded Iraq and not a country more directly linked to terrorism?

Well, this is just me now, and I've said many times that I wish Bush had made a better case for our war in Iraq, but I believe the reason was our desire to

• Preempt an enemy we (and others) believed either had or was seeking WMDs.
• Put in a toehold for democracy in the region. I sincerely believe that democracy will bring a lasting peace to the region.

Why Iraq and not some other place? I said earlier "We prioritize, and determine where it would be likely that any potential military action would have success." Bush was elected to make these kinds of decisions. We can each armchair quarterback what he's done, but what he believes is all that counts. [I don't believe for a minute that Bush has gone willy-nilly all alone here. After a decade of Saddam evading his responsibilities in the many UN resolutions, Bush went numerous times to the UN to make his case, the D's in Congress were screaming in early '02 that he couldn't go to war in Iraq without their blessing--and he got it.] Do North Korea, Iran, and China provide problems we have to deal with? Sure. Are Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt only marginally our friends? Probably. But none of that negates that Saddam's Iraq was an enemy of this country and needed to be dealt with. Our security and the peace of the region are better for what we've done.

A person supports a war is indeed pro-war.

Maybe I didn't make my views clear enough in my earlier post. I hear "pro-war", and I think of someone who wants war. I don't think anyone "wants" war, but we can get to the point where it is the only thing left to do. In the case of our war on Islamofacism, I think those who you call "pro-war" only recognize that we're in a war not of our own choosing, and are now willing to support fighting back.

 

[ceetee]

Originally posted by AZLibertarian

Bush was elected to make these kinds of decisions. We can each armchair quarterback what he's done, but what he believes is all that counts.

Bush believes (and has said so publicly) that God told him to attack Iraq. I, for one, would like to see a video of that conversation...

Just for the sake of argument, AyZee, what makes you so sure that the burgeoning Christofacism being promulgated by these neocons is any better than your "Islamofacism"?

 

[GoRon]

Well, about 20 years ago they were "freedom fighters", weren't they? When the same Bin Laden and his Al'Quaeda fought against the "evil empire" of USSR, they were natural allies of US. Raised by US, trained by US, armed by US...

Blah, blah, blah....that is a load of dung.

Bin Laden and his group were not allies of the US.

 

[GoRon]

Just for the sake of argument, AyZee, what makes you so sure that the burgeoning Christofacism being promulgated by these neocons is any better than your "Islamofacism"?

Give me a break

 

[morganm01]

"News flash: We _are_ a divided nation."

News Flash II: Korea is a divided nation....Rwanda, divided.

The USA=United. Oh yeah, some ppl wish their guy had not lost the election though. Better load up on ammo!

 

[Sean Smith]

"Your guess is as good as any."

Let's see, I cited forensice evidence, you... um... made up some stuff.

 

[ceetee]

GoRon...

Really well-thought-out and highly reasoned response there...

 

[GoRon]

To imply that there is actually "Christofascism" in the US is just silly in my opinion.

It says alot about you and where you are coming from philosophically.

To equate the Bush administration with the terrorists shows how far down the moral relativism hole you have fallen.

The so called "Christofascists" have done more to improve the lot of the Iraqi people in less than two years than the UN did with all its resolutions over 12 years.

 

[10shooter]

Well I say it "I'm PRO-WAR" when given the choice over talking until all of the Jews, Gypsies, Russians, etc. were dead I think war was better in Europe. When given the choice of talking to a government bent on genocide until they finish the slaughter or using force to stop them I'll pick force. Yes war is the very last choice, First some prevention to stop (diplomatic, trade embargo, buy them off), then a little more force (equip the opposition, and all of the above). Last stroke is to goto war but if war was never a potential then your foe has little reason to take you seriously. War is a threat that allows leverage as do trade embargos. No one I know likes war, war is the breakdown of all other options, but war may be perferred over doing nothing while people are slaughtered. Now we as a nation or a civilization are in a war, some say its against terrorist, some say it against the old Iraqi regime. In a war there are two sides we either win or we don't. When peace protestors protest they aren't seemingly to concern about our enemies tactics or methods just ours. Maybe its our fault when protestors see a onesided war, does the news show the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam. Does the news show the millions that starved to death in North Korea. Does the news show the millions killed by other regimes around the world. When the media did show Rwanda our world leaders talked until a half million people were dead. I can understand when people see the US at war with full color pictures the horror is brought home and death is reviled by nations that have known peace. Our culture is assaulted and people try to stop the killing, this can be shortsighted, if Hitler were only stopped in 35. Don't think badly of those who would fight to stop a few before it becomes needed for survival to fight many. Did Saddam have U.N. approval to use chemical weapons on the Kurds. Did Rwanda have U.N. approval to commit genocide. Did North Korea have U.N. approval to starve it people in pursuit of military power. Does the U.S.A. need U.N. approval. I'm still young and naive so my views may be naive.

 

[AZLibertarian]

ceetee,

Bush believes (and has said so publicly) that God told him to attack Iraq. I, for one, would like to see a video of that conversation...

Me too, and since this is the first time I've heard this, I did a little google search on "bush god tells him to attack iraq". I clicked the first citation, then followed the link relevant to this quote. So I'll ignore that we're getting this from a site called "bushwatch", and concentrate on the quote itself. The article has Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas quoting President Bush. Unless you've got a more credible source for this quote, you'll color me less than impressed.

Just for the sake of argument, AyZee, what makes you so sure that the burgeoning Christofacism being promulgated by these neocons is any better than your "Islamofacism"?

You know, I'm not going to rise to that bait. The idea that "Christofacism" exists at all is so ridiculous, and that, if it does exist, that it might be equivalent to the eminently obvious evil nature of Islamofacism is simply too much to begin to argue against. You'll have to go to some lengths to establish what you mean by "Christofacism" before I'll even engage with this.

 

[ceetee]

Actually, that's not Abbas quoting Bush... That's Haaretz, printing portions of the transcripts of the meeting.

Bush said that God told him to attack Saddam... accept it or not.



Wikipedia has a great section on Fascism (yes, I spelled it wrong earlier, too).

Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The word fascism (uncapitalized) has come to mean any political stance or system of government resembling Mussolini's, as further discussed below.

And it discusses it further, below:

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

- exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
- uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
- engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
- engages in corporatism,
- implements or is a totalitarian regime.

Also (like it or not), the current neocon leadership has been proven to be:

- using government-paid propagandists to promote views that may otherwise seem distasteful to the populace
- enacting economic legislation to create a severe divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots"
- promoting the welfare of corporate entities over the welfare of the citizens (corporatism)
- implementing a regime where people can simply be "disappeared" off to Guantanamo, or Afganistan, based on trumped-up charges.
- Usually with the name of Christ on their lips.

In my book, if it looks like manure, and smells like manure, I'm not about to taste it to see if it tastes like manure, too. And if that's not a burgeoning "Christofascism", then I'm a monkey's uncle...

I'm usually content in the knowledge that they're gonna burn in Hell, but since I may end up there too, at least I recognnize the hypocracy for what it is.

 

[Scottmkiv]

I think the main difference with Islam and Christianity is that Muslims actually take the Koran seriously. Virtually no Christians, no matter how much they claim, take Christianity seriously. By this I mean, they don't believe every part of the bible literally, and of the very few who do, only a very small portion act in accordance.

Before any Christians try and argue that they do take Christianity seriously, please read Skeptics Annotated Bible

I don't think anyone could read through all those primitive superstitions, approval of slavery and sex slavery, commandments to slaughter and great big heaps of impossible contradictions, and then claim they really did follow every bit of the bible.

Christians just cherry pick the bits that sound nice, and because the bible endlessly contradicts itself, they always have some vague scriptural support for their position.

Any religion taken seriously is just as vile as Islam, if your standard is human life.

 

[macavada]

Good post ceetee. The whole "islamofascism" thing is getting a little tired. Good to see someone actually has a grasp of what fascism is/was. Ironically, our own government is adopting some of the major tenets of that political system.

 

[RevDisk]

"Your guess is as good as any."

Let's see, I cited forensice evidence, you... um... made up some stuff

"Iraq and the International Oil System" by Stephen Pelletiere. Professor of National Security Affairs, Middle East politics. US Army War College. (Not what I'd call a left wing hippy source.) Page 206 specifically, but he has an excellent chapter on the entire Iraq-Iran War.

"Poison Gas Attack Kills Hundreds", Washington Post, 24 March 1988.

"Turkey Reports Kurdish Refugees Showed No Signs of Gassing" New York Times, 10 September 1988.

"Both Iraq and Iran Gassed Kurds in War, US Analysis Finds" Washington Post, 3 May 1990.


Stephen Pelletiere also co-wrote two other volumes on the Iraq-Iran War.

"Iraqi Power and US Interests" by Pelletiere, Johnson, and Rosenberger. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 1990.

"Lessons Learned : The Iran-Iraq War" by Pelletiere and Johnson


I rather dislike being called a liar, Sean Smith. I indeed did not make it up. More annoying is that I spent many weekends writing papers on the Iran-Iraq War along with various papers on Nuke-Bio-Chem weapons for my Terrorism courses while I could have been getting drunk like my fellow students at that time.

 

[AZLibertarian]

ceetee,
You really ought to read the article.

Haaretz, I gather, is either newspaper or news agency. The article is full of "Abbas said this", "Abbas said that" and "Abbas said somebody else said". It is not a transcript. There are no direct quotes from anyone other than Abbas.

The final paragraph of the article is:

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." [emphasis added]

I am still less than impressed with the source of your point that Bush believes God told him to strike Saddam.

Also (like it or not), the current neocon leadership has been proven to be:

- using government-paid propagandists to promote views that may otherwise seem distasteful to the populace
- enacting economic legislation to create a severe divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots"
- promoting the welfare of corporate entities over the welfare of the citizens (corporatism)
- implementing a regime where people can simply be "disappeared" off to Guantanamo, or Afganistan, based on trumped-up charges.
- Usually with the name of Christ on their lips.

Here's how I'd translate....

• You think the public can be duped by propagandists. This sure worked well for Dan Rather, now didn't it?
• The Man jus keepin me down.
• More of the Man jus keepin me down.
• Please name one American--just one--who's been "disappeared" from our shores. Those held in Gitmo are enemies being generously treated. There is a wide body of thought that we could have treated them as Illegal Non-Combatants, and they could have been summarily shot. That we're being human and treating them as if they were EPWs escapes many.
• You don't like that some in our government don't hide that they're Christians.

Other than that, I do appreciate the lesson on facism. The points in the Wikipedia information you provided sure seem to me to point to Islamic-facism much more than to whatever neocon/Christian-facism that you see out there. Your connection of Christianity and facism remains unsubstantianted in my book, so I guess that does make you a Monkey's Uncle.

 

[Partisan Ranger]

I was jogging along the Potomac in DC one brilliant late summer morning 3 and a half years ago when I saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.

For a moment, I stupidly thought I was watching a movie being made. Then I remembered the WTC crash an hour earlier I had seen on TV and put it together.

That night, on the DC news I saw a mother whose child was on that plane screaming, my baby's gone, my baby's gone.

Seeing those 2 things was all the justification ever needed, in my mind, to pursue terrorist barbarians to the ends of the earth, and dismantle the governments that sponsor them, militarily if necessary, but hopefully through peaceful means where possible.

It was clear to me from day 1 that the searing pain of that day would soon pass from many minds, and that we would be fighting this war against ourselves as much as the barbarians. That doesn't make the fight any less justified. We need to protect ourselves, and we can also bring some semblance of democracy to people who desperately need hope and freedom.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

CHL:

All of this was done by an enemy of Saddam. 9/11 and Iraw aren't related.

I agree that there was little if any involvement by the Iraqis in the 9/11 attack. Or at least I havn't seen any evidence of it. However prosecuting the war on terror will involve cleaning up a lot of areas that were not directly involved with the 9/11 attacks. Yet the 9/11 attacks are still the motive. It's similar to WWII when the US's real involvement began with an attack by Japan followed by ...a US invasion of French Morocco-Algeria.

 

[PaulV]

The case for war:

1. Numerous violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Gulf War I was not finished properly.
-Multiple attacks on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.
-Keeping of weapons prohibited by the agreement. (Long range rockets, explosives for nuke tests (Remember the big flap about missing explosives just before the election? They were supposed to get rid of that stuff.) and WMD (read the Duelfer report, a few were found.)
-Weapons development programs prohibited by the agreement. (Longer range rockets and bio-weapons (Again, read the Duelfer report, no agents were found but the program was kept ready to be made active.)
-Hampering weapons inspections. (It was not the UN's job to play scavenger hunt. The defeated power was to provide ready access and proof of destruction of the weapons they admitted having.) By the way what happened to those weapons?
-Acquiring prohibited foreign weaponry through the oil for food scandal. Sanctions were a joke. Countries that opposed our action (France, Germany, and Russia) were benefitting through illegal weapons sales to Saddam. Sanctions never would have forced compliance due to corruption.

2. Support for terrorism.
-Providing refuge to the Abu Nidal group.
-Contracts from the oil for food scandal went to organizations that have been recognized as Al-Qaeda fronts.
-Reward payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers
-Assasination attempt on a U.S. President.
-Hijacking training complex.

3. Genocide.

4. Iraq is right in the center of the problem area. It was a good strategic move. Asserting our presence here drives a stake through the heart of Islamic fundamentalist movement. I think we are beginning to see the walls of oppression cracking in the middle east. Look at what is happening in Lebanon, Egypt, and even Iran.


Those who disagree with this conflict are generally of the type that want to ignore a problem until it's hit them in the face. The Sudatenland, where is that and who cares anyhow?

Also (like it or not), the current neocon leadership has been proven to be:
- enacting economic legislation to create a severe divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots"
- promoting the welfare of corporate entities over the welfare of the citizens (corporatism)

Good grief! Karl Marx is posting on THR. The gap will grow and it is a good thing. Have you ever heard of exponential growth? The standard of living curve for both poor and rich in this country has seen an exponential growth rate. Naturally the growth rate for the "poor" class lags that of the wealthier class so even though the gap grows the standard still rises for everyone.

 

[ThreadKiller]

And once again, we learn pessimism plays a key role in the liberal thought process.

Tim