View Full Version : Spoiled Americans
Jasonew6
03-08-2008, 09:08 AM
Article by Craig R Smith
The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The same magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice and I start off in this way. Oh what a mean man I am.
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they are going to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife but if he did ? insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
''What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''
I suggest this Thanksgiving we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy.
wilson
03-08-2008, 09:57 AM
Great post. I've always said that if people are unhappy here, or unhappy in their current situation, they should consider what it would be like living in Iraq, Darfur or Ethiopia. We've got it better than we realize because we're spoiled and nothing is never enough.
When I was a kid I heard a preacher say that the definition of rich was having enough money to pay your bills and then having money left over to spend however you want to. I've never forgotten that. I consider myself rich.
As far as President Bush, history will judge him. Yes, he's made mistakes just like every other president, but I don't know why so many liberals just flat out hate him. The things they say and write about him are unbelievable. People might disagree with our leaders, but they should still respect the office of the presidency. Even after Clinton had his affair with Lewinsky, lied about it under oath and was later impeached, I never hated the man or spoke evil of him. I respected that he was our president, but he let us down and brought shame on our nation in the eyes of others.
Thanks for the post. It makes me once again realize how blessed I am to have what I have in the greatest nation on the face of the earth.
RICHMONDBENGAL_07
03-08-2008, 11:07 AM
Article by Craig R Smith
The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The same magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice and I start off in this way. Oh what a mean man I am.
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they are going to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife but if he did ? insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
''What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''
I suggest this Thanksgiving we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy.
I served in the military and I've seen some 3rd world countries....believe me I know how lucky we are, and am thankful daily for being able to call myself an American. However there is always room for improvement, I won't go into detail on what I think needs improved. Also the mere fact that we can criticize our govt. with out fear of punishment is another thing that makes this nation great.:thumbsup:
jamiethelanky
03-08-2008, 11:15 AM
Great post. I've always said that if people are unhappy here, or unhappy in their current situation, they should consider what it would be like living in Iraq, Darfur or Ethiopia. We've got it better than we realize because we're spoiled and nothing is never enough.
When I was a kid I heard a preacher say that the definition of rich was having enough money to pay your bills and then having money left over to spend however you want to. I've never forgotten that. I consider myself rich.
As far as President Bush, history will judge him. Yes, he's made mistakes just like every other president, but I don't know why so many liberals just flat out hate him. The things they say and write about him are unbelievable. People might disagree with our leaders, but they should still respect the office of the presidency. Even after Clinton had his affair with Lewinsky, lied about it under oath and was later impeached, I never hated the man or spoke evil of him. I respected that he was our president, but he let us down and brought shame on our nation in the eyes of others.
Thanks for the post. It makes me once again realize how blessed I am to have what I have in the greatest nation on the face of the earth.
Bush has brought more shame on the office of President of the United States from the rest of the world than Clinton because of his government's complete lack of respect for the opinions of other countries.
Metalhead
03-08-2008, 12:06 PM
I think the poll refers to the fact that Americans are probably more unhappy about the governments international antics than anything that goes on inside the country, I mean it didn't say is your life crappy? It said are you unhappy with the way the country is going. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans know they have it better than a immense amount of people. It was reffering more to our current leadership's competence. I'm not expressing my opinion one way or the other, just elaborating on what I think the poll is about.
Jason
03-08-2008, 03:19 PM
Gotta disagree with you on a few points!
First, I think that it's a stretch to say that American citizens are hated around the world because we are spoiled. I don't think that we are hated by general consensus anyway, and those that do hate us (near as I can tell) hate that we are loud, ignorant of other cultures and history, and make very little effort to speak the language or learn the customs of places that we visit. Most countries in W Europe enjoy many of the same blessings that we do.
Second, George W. didn't guide me anywhere after 9/11. I'm really not sure how he helped ease any anxiety by telling us one minute that we are never safe, and that we should be on the look out for some general threat that is coming at some unknown time in the future. The next words out of Bush's mouth were "get back on those plains, go to Disney World, go do a lot of shopping for Christmas..." Talk about mixed signals.
Third, we do have an all volunteer military, and it's a good thing for the Bush administration that we do. Sure, it's over extended, and is having trouble filling it's ranks, but like you said... there is no draft. Good thing, because I doubt that the Iraq war would be even half as popular as it is now if everyday Joes were being sent off. The protests would rival those against the Vietnam War. You always hear people that were young during the 60's and 70's say that the war was so real to them, because they could have their number called at any time. Most of us don't have to worry about it... We can just send the troops back to do all the fighting (we'll just buy stickers that say that we love them).
All in all, I think that you did do a great job of pointing out the things that do make the USA a great place to live. People can and will always find something to complain about. For me, it's gas prices. In 2000 a barrel of oil cost $31! Today, over $105! Surely that's just a coincidence with the fact that we have a former Texas oil man (with friends in the industry) for a president.
wilson
03-08-2008, 06:16 PM
Gotta disagree with you on a few points!
First, I think that it's a stretch to say that American citizens are hated around the world because we are spoiled. I don't think that we are hated by general consensus anyway, and those that do hate us (near as I can tell) hate that we are loud, ignorant of other cultures and history, and make very little effort to speak the language or learn the customs of places that we visit. Most countries in W Europe enjoy many of the same blessings that we do.
Second, George W. didn't guide me anywhere after 9/11. I'm really not sure how he helped ease any anxiety by telling us one minute that we are never safe, and that we should be on the look out for some general threat that is coming at some unknown time in the future. The next words out of Bush's mouth were "get back on those plains, go to Disney World, go do a lot of shopping for Christmas..." Talk about mixed signals.
Third, we do have an all volunteer military, and it's a good thing for the Bush administration that we do. Sure, it's over extended, and is having trouble filling it's ranks, but like you said... there is no draft. Good thing, because I doubt that the Iraq war would be even half as popular as it is now if everyday Joes were being sent off. The protests would rival those against the Vietnam War. You always hear people that were young during the 60's and 70's say that the war was so real to them, because they could have their number called at any time. Most of us don't have to worry about it... We can just send the troops back to do all the fighting (we'll just buy stickers that say that we love them).
All in all, I think that you did do a great job of pointing out the things that do make the USA a great place to live. People can and will always find something to complain about. For me, it's gas prices. In 2000 a barrel of oil cost $31! Today, over $105! Surely that's just a coincidence with the fact that we have a former Texas oil man (with friends in the industry) for a president.
Don't worry Jason, Hillary said back in December that oil prices will instantly drop when she is elected president. :hmm:
artanis
03-08-2008, 06:32 PM
Bush has brought more shame on the office of President of the United States from the rest of the world than Clinton because of his government's complete lack of respect for the opinions of other countries.
Its a good thing we don't let the rest of the world vote in our elections...the Pres is to do what is best for us...if the rest of the world does not like it, then it reall is not part of the equation...2/3 of the US may be unhappy with Bush...true...but that same 2/3 does not really care what the rest of the world thinks...the more outsiders feel like they hav a say in our internal squabbles, the more outsiders feel they have a right to interject in our decisions, the more outsiders rail and fight the American machine, the more we will ignore them...we do not now, nor ever have, based our decisions upon outside opinion...thats not being rude, thats being honest.
This is totally not an attack on you Jamie.
jamiethelanky
03-08-2008, 10:09 PM
Its a good thing we don't let the rest of the world vote in our elections...the Pres is to do what is best for us...if the rest of the world does not like it, then it reall is not part of the equation...2/3 of the US may be unhappy with Bush...true...but that same 2/3 does not really care what the rest of the world thinks...the more outsiders feel like they hav a say in our internal squabbles, the more outsiders feel they have a right to interject in our decisions, the more outsiders rail and fight the American machine, the more we will ignore them...we do not now, nor ever have, based our decisions upon outside opinion...thats not being rude, thats being honest.
This is totally not an attack on you Jamie.
I know it isn't - but for people to assume that we (generally) don't like Bill Clinton abroad more than we don't like Bush is at best bizarre.
ClayCenterBengal
03-08-2008, 10:13 PM
No matter how good we are here we should always strive to be a better nation.
ClayCenterBengal
03-08-2008, 10:15 PM
By the way its kind of cool to see a European Bengals fan.
The Noob Avenger
03-08-2008, 10:19 PM
I know it isn't - but for people to assume that we (generally) don't like Bill Clinton abroad more than we don't like Bush is at best bizarre.
Democrats historically like to kiss up in their foreign policy (Well, recent history) I think there a balance attained by voting a different party in regularly.
Hachi Go
03-08-2008, 10:55 PM
Gotta disagree with you on a few points!
First, I think that it's a stretch to say that American citizens are hated around the world because we are spoiled. I don't think that we are hated by general consensus anyway, and those that do hate us (near as I can tell) hate that we are loud, ignorant of other cultures and history, and make very little effort to speak the language or learn the customs of places that we visit. Most countries in W Europe enjoy many of the same blessings that we do.
Second, George W. didn't guide me anywhere after 9/11. I'm really not sure how he helped ease any anxiety by telling us one minute that we are never safe, and that we should be on the look out for some general threat that is coming at some unknown time in the future. The next words out of Bush's mouth were "get back on those plains, go to Disney World, go do a lot of shopping for Christmas..." Talk about mixed signals.
Third, we do have an all volunteer military, and it's a good thing for the Bush administration that we do. Sure, it's over extended, and is having trouble filling it's ranks, but like you said... there is no draft. Good thing, because I doubt that the Iraq war would be even half as popular as it is now if everyday Joes were being sent off. The protests would rival those against the Vietnam War. You always hear people that were young during the 60's and 70's say that the war was so real to them, because they could have their number called at any time. Most of us don't have to worry about it... We can just send the troops back to do all the fighting (we'll just buy stickers that say that we love them).
All in all, I think that you did do a great job of pointing out the things that do make the USA a great place to live. People can and will always find something to complain about. For me, it's gas prices. In 2000 a barrel of oil cost $31! Today, over $105! Surely that's just a coincidence with the fact that we have a former Texas oil man (with friends in the industry) for a president.
Because the oil issue is an American issue and not a global issue, right?
Ever hear of this small nation in southeast Asia? I think it's called China or something.
jamiethelanky
03-09-2008, 11:28 AM
By the way its kind of cool to see a European Bengals fan.
I try my best. :p
Jason
03-09-2008, 01:22 PM
Because the oil issue is an American issue and not a global issue, right?
Ever hear of this small nation in southeast Asia? I think it's called China or something.
In fact I have heard of China. I've been there... You? China's or India's thirst for oil (while getting larger everyday) did not begin in 2000. China has been rapidly industrializing since the days of Mao, and it's economy has been exploding since the days of Deng...
Since we are taking a condescending tone (with your "ever hear of..." comment), SE Asia generally refers to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand....( you know, the countries that are located south and east of China) The "little" country of China occupies portions of central and east Asia.
jamiethelanky
03-09-2008, 01:28 PM
To Bush's credit, the oil price is not his fault and is uncontrollable by presidents (hence why Hillary's claim that she will lower oil prices is unfeasible).
The main villains of this piece are OPEC, who through operating as a cartel are damaging free trade.
Its a good thing we don't let the rest of the world vote in our elections...the Pres is to do what is best for us...if the rest of the world does not like it, then it reall is not part of the equation...2/3 of the US may be unhappy with Bush...true...but that same 2/3 does not really care what the rest of the world thinks...the more outsiders feel like they hav a say in our internal squabbles, the more outsiders feel they have a right to interject in our decisions, the more outsiders rail and fight the American machine, the more we will ignore them...we do not now, nor ever have, based our decisions upon outside opinion...thats not being rude, thats being honest..
1. "Basing our decisions upon outside opinion" is not really the issue. The issue is that the US once had a pre-eminent position of leadership in the world because many countries looked up to it and trusted its leadership. If a president squanders that capital then it doesn't make much sense to just say "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks." If the rest of the world does not like something--like premptive invasions based on cooked evidence-- then that can be very bad for US interests.
2. US politics often have a very direct affect on other countries. The US leads embargoes. It invades countries half a world away. It gives aid or withholds it to politicians running for election in other countries. It supports Israel. It hardly makes sense to work for regime change in many other countries and then complain "outsiders feel they have a say in our squabbles and interject in our decisios"! If they actually could do that, then they would be doing what the US does everwhere else.
Have your ever heard foreigners complain about Americas double standards?
I think the poll refers to the fact that Americans are probably more unhappy about the governments international antics than anything that goes on inside the country, I mean it didn't say is your life crappy? It said are you unhappy with the way the country is going. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans know they have it better than a immense amount of people. It was reffering more to our current leadership's competence. I'm not expressing my opinion one way or the other, just elaborating on what I think the poll is about.
Yes, the question concerns satisfaction with the current White House. People can be pefectly happy they are Americans living in the US and not be happy with the president--in part because they think he is doing such a poor job of protecting the US way of life.
Jasonnew6 has changed the question to one about life in general, and then read the response to Bush and the US' disastrous policy as a whining, vague complaint about life in general. So we are reminded that the US has losts of restaurants and they don't in Uzbekistan.
I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
''What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''
.
Sounds like what nowdays is called the "pre-9/11 mindset".
And by the way, it makes little sense to complain of "freedom" while complaining about the free press and blaming the media for disatisfaction with a botched war.
The Founding Fathers didn't fight the American Revolution so that government could be turned over to a clique beyond the scrutiny of the free press. I wonder what they would have made of this call to turn off the news, trust a volunteer army in the hands of a "wise" leader, and just enjoy life.
Steely_J
03-10-2008, 03:45 PM
I think our country is pretty swell. :thumbsup:
steelman59
03-10-2008, 06:04 PM
Bush has brought more shame on the office of President of the United States from the rest of the world than Clinton because of his government's complete lack of respect for the opinions of other countries.
Your not an American, how would you know, you get all your crap from the media and buy into it. I also am a vet and as a vet I respect my commander in chief. Do I always agree, no I don't but then again I as everyone else are not always privy to all the information, nor can I gurantee that the media has not just twisted the facts to sell their garbage. Let me ask you something Jamie, how many attacks has England suffered, not only from the terrorists today, but from the NRA in the past? In this country, the number of terrorist attacks could be counted on less then one hand.
Personally I am proud of this country and if I have to fight for her, I will do so gladly. It's called being an American and being thankful for what my family and everyone else in this country enjoys. That is the freedom to make their own choices, right or wrong.
jamiethelanky
03-10-2008, 06:16 PM
Your not an American, how would you know, you get all your crap from the media and buy into it. I also am a vet and as a vet I respect my commander in chief. Do I always agree, no I don't but then again I as everyone else are not always privy to all the information, nor can I gurantee that the media has not just twisted the facts to sell their garbage. Let me ask you something Jamie, how many attacks has England suffered, not only from the terrorists today, but from the NRA in the past? In this country, the number of terrorist attacks could be counted on less then one hand.
Personally I am proud of this country and if I have to fight for her, I will do so gladly. It's called being an American and being thankful for what my family and everyone else in this country enjoys. That is the freedom to make their own choices, right or wrong.
??????
It doesn't matter whether I'm American or not - I just see Bush's guys, the John Boltons of the world go out and disrespect the opinions of other countries. I think this is wrong. I don't care if you're a vet, that means diddly squat to me. What I'm interested in is how countries inter-relate. We tried invading and attacking terrorists from the IRA, it just made them stronger. A lot more can be done sometimes with peaceful negotiation. It may not with Al Qaeda, but certainly a full assault on a country was disproportionate and unnecessary.
What do I feel when I learn that the British government encouraged MI5 to (using the direct words quoted) "sex up" the intelligence in the run up in the War on Iraq? I feel shame. I feel ashamed that we could go in and invade a country on trumped up charges.
I repeat, if the British and US administration had just manned up and said that it was for regime change, I'd have been for it.
Sometimes, in fact quite a lot of times, conventional warfare is not the answer. Al Qaeda operates internationally, and should be dealt with through co-operation with other countries. If other countries do not co-operate, then go in with the tanks.
artanis
03-10-2008, 08:55 PM
1. "Basing our decisions upon outside opinion" is not really the issue. The issue is that the US once had a pre-eminent position of leadership in the world because many countries looked up to it and trusted its leadership. If a president squanders that capital then it doesn't make much sense to just say "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks." If the rest of the world does not like something--like premptive invasions based on cooked evidence-- then that can be very bad for US interests.
2. US politics often have a very direct affect on other countries. The US leads embargoes. It invades countries half a world away. It gives aid or withholds it to politicians running for election in other countries. It supports Israel. It hardly makes sense to work for regime change in many other countries and then complain "outsiders feel they have a say in our squabbles and interject in our decisios"! If they actually could do that, then they would be doing what the US does everwhere else.
Have your ever heard foreigners complain about Americas double standards?
Have you ever heard foriegners complain about Americas double standards...while all the while many of those same nations treat their women like dirt...refuse to educate their masses...refuse to invest in their infrasturcture to build a better tomorrow...donot hold free elections...do not have freedom of the press...gobble up foriegn aid they have no intention of repaying...support terrorists...abuse their citizens...and then come whining to Uncle Sam to do something because they are sad and all the complaining they do to the UN won't make the sad go away.
Have you ever heard that?
jamiethelanky
03-10-2008, 08:57 PM
Have you ever heard foriegners complain about Americas double standards...while all the while many of those same nations treat their women like dirt...refuse to educate their masses...refuse to invest in their infrasturcture to build a better tomorrow...donot hold free elections...do not have freedom of the press...gobble up foriegn aid they have no intention of repaying...support terrorists...abuse their citizens...and then come whining to Uncle Sam to do something because they are sad and all the complaining they do to the UN won't make the sad go away.
Have you ever heard that?
Nope.
As far as I can see, my country has all of those things and there is a great deal of our citizens who are fed up with the USA's souble standards...
artanis
03-10-2008, 09:06 PM
Nope.
As far as I can see, my country has all of those things and there is a great deal of our citizens who are fed up with the USA's souble standards...
Clearly, there are some nations that are less like my description than others...so tell you what, why don;t you give me three examples of US double standards...not just a case where the US took a diffrent view to look out for itself, but a true case of double standards...where we said one thing and then did another...for example...in the past we used to say all men were equal but did not treat them as such...that is a fair example of a double standard...show me three from the recent past.
jamiethelanky
03-10-2008, 09:29 PM
Clearly, there are some nations that are less like my description than others...so tell you what, why don;t you give me three examples of US double standards...not just a case where the US took a diffrent view to look out for itself, but a true case of double standards...where we said one thing and then did another...for example...in the past we used to say all men were equal but did not treat them as such...that is a fair example of a double standard...show me three from the recent past.
Stating there was proof of WMDs in Iraq - when there weren't.
Calling yourselves the land of the free - what about Gitmo?
Taking a moral highground on international affairs yet waterboarding as a form of interrogation (or can some say torture?).
philhos
03-10-2008, 09:32 PM
Stating there was proof of WMDs in Iraq - when there weren't.]/quote]
Not a double standard.
[QUOTE=jamiethelanky;293783]Calling yourselves the land of the free - what about Gitmo?
What about it? As far as I know, the denizens of Gitmo weren't American. Only Americans have the freedoms found in the Consitution. ;)
Taking a moral highground on international affairs yet waterboarding as a form of interrogation (or can some say torture?).
Waterboarding isn't torture.
artanis
03-10-2008, 09:55 PM
Stating there was proof of WMDs in Iraq - when there weren't.
Calling yourselves the land of the free - what about Gitmo?
Taking a moral highground on international affairs yet waterboarding as a form of interrogation (or can some say torture?).
Hmmm...no WMDs in Iraq...thats one.
Taking a moral highground on international affairs yet waterboarding as a form of interrogation...debatable, but I will give you another...thats two.
Calling yourselves the land of the free - what about Gitmo?...can't give you that one...they are not citizens...they are not uniformed combatants...they are not even spies...they are terrorists...I am cetain you guys treated the IRA with kid gloves...right?
Anyway...I guess you made your point.
steelman59
03-11-2008, 12:40 AM
Stating there was proof of WMDs in Iraq - when there weren't.
Calling yourselves the land of the free - what about Gitmo?
Taking a moral highground on international affairs yet waterboarding as a form of interrogation (or can some say torture?).
Stating there weren't WMD's in Iraq? Prove there weren't.
Gitmo? They are not afforded the same rights as Americans. They are not military prisoners, suspected of terrorism or plotting terrorism against the United States.
Waterboarding. Guess we could apply their tactics and kill each member of their family in front of them til they talk. Would that make you feel better? Not me.
As far as your previous post about not caring if I am a vet or not. Well maybe you don't and I really don't care. However allow me to make an observation if I may based on your posts. You seem to be one of those types, that really enjoy the freedom you are offered to blast a country that is not yours and also blast your own country. You really enjoy that, but don't care anything about the men and women who suffered to give you that right and other rights that you have. Go ahead and give me all the neg rep you want and all the snide lols in your remarks that you want. But guess what, I don't care, my family my wife's family and other family's just like ours, put our time in, some paid for that freedom you enjoy with their lives and with their health. Ask them if they could go back and have the option all over and guess what, they would still do it and so would I. You know nothing about Americans or anything else. Your knowledge is strictly limited to the media, which isn't worth anything. Call us warmongers or whatever you like, but the bottom line is you punch us in the mouth and your gonna get punched back twice as hard.
I am no fan of Bush, however you do not know the truth, nobody knows the truth, only those involved in the decision to do what we did. Your all for a regime change, but your not for for going in to stop the suffering these people have gone through, Thats really human of you to feel that way. So sit back, enjoy your tea and type away on your computer blasting the USA and your own country, while guys and gals get killed and maimed so you can continue doing what your doing. Yeah I am ticked right now, to even think that you have no respect for veterans or active soldiers and before you say I am reading you wrong, go back and reread your posts without the hate goggles on! :angry:
On a different note, anyone else tired of this weather?
jamiethelanky
03-11-2008, 06:10 AM
Hmmm...no WMDs in Iraq...thats one.
Taking a moral highground on international affairs yet waterboarding as a form of interrogation...debatable, but I will give you another...thats two.
Calling yourselves the land of the free - what about Gitmo?...can't give you that one...they are not citizens...they are not uniformed combatants...they are not even spies...they are terrorists...I am cetain you guys treated the IRA with kid gloves...right?
Anyway...I guess you made your point.
There are a good proportion of people in Gitmo who were picked up by Bounty hunters.
jamiethelanky
03-11-2008, 06:15 AM
Stating there weren't WMD's in Iraq? Prove there weren't.
Gitmo? They are not afforded the same rights as Americans. They are not military prisoners, suspected of terrorism or plotting terrorism against the United States.
Waterboarding. Guess we could apply their tactics and kill each member of their family in front of them til they talk. Would that make you feel better? Not me.
As far as your previous post about not caring if I am a vet or not. Well maybe you don't and I really don't care. However allow me to make an observation if I may based on your posts. You seem to be one of those types, that really enjoy the freedom you are offered to blast a country that is not yours and also blast your own country. You really enjoy that, but don't care anything about the men and women who suffered to give you that right and other rights that you have. Go ahead and give me all the neg rep you want and all the snide lols in your remarks that you want. But guess what, I don't care, my family my wife's family and other family's just like ours, put our time in, some paid for that freedom you enjoy with their lives and with their health. Ask them if they could go back and have the option all over and guess what, they would still do it and so would I. You know nothing about Americans or anything else. Your knowledge is strictly limited to the media, which isn't worth anything. Call us warmongers or whatever you like, but the bottom line is you punch us in the mouth and your gonna get punched back twice as hard.
I am no fan of Bush, however you do not know the truth, nobody knows the truth, only those involved in the decision to do what we did. Your all for a regime change, but your not for for going in to stop the suffering these people have gone through, Thats really human of you to feel that way. So sit back, enjoy your tea and type away on your computer blasting the USA and your own country, while guys and gals get killed and maimed so you can continue doing what your doing. Yeah I am ticked right now, to even think that you have no respect for veterans or active soldiers and before you say I am reading you wrong, go back and reread your posts without the hate goggles on! :angry:
On a different note, anyone else tired of this weather?
I WILL enjoy my freedom. You have to stick to the rules of international combat, and not sink to their level. I have respect that people are in the Armed Forces, my best friend from childhood is in the Royal Navy, but I don't respect you any more than I would a policeman, a firefighter, a nuclear physicist, a bank teller.
Even by stating that inmates at GTMO are not meant to have the same rights as Americans is, in my honest opinion, clear highlighting of a double standard.
I will use your tactic. You've evidently been brought up to think that any criticism of your country is anti-American. Guess what, sunshine, it isn't. I genuinely like America, it has a lot of things wrong with it but I like it. Britain's also the same.
steelman59
03-11-2008, 06:43 AM
I WILL enjoy my freedom. You have to stick to the rules of international combat, and not sink to their level. I have respect that people are in the Armed Forces, my best friend from childhood is in the Royal Navy, but I don't respect you any more than I would a policeman, a firefighter, a nuclear physicist, a bank teller.
Even by stating that inmates at GTMO are not meant to have the same rights as Americans is, in my honest opinion, clear highlighting of a double standard.
I will use your tactic. You've evidently been brought up to think that any criticism of your country is anti-American. Guess what, sunshine, it isn't. I genuinely like America, it has a lot of things wrong with it but I like it. Britain's also the same.
HA HA sunshine. Follow the rules of international combat? Do you know what the ROE's are. Apparently not, because if you did you would know that intentionally targeting civilians as they do are not legal. Here let me give you a clue of the rules of engagement. STAY ALIVE their you go, thats the rules.
jamiethelanky
03-11-2008, 08:29 AM
HA HA sunshine. Follow the rules of international combat? Do you know what the ROE's are. Apparently not, because if you did you would know that intentionally targeting civilians as they do are not legal. Here let me give you a clue of the rules of engagement. STAY ALIVE their you go, thats the rules.
They are a terrorist group. You are a highly powered fighting machine.
Don't sink to their level.
They do target civilians, they do need to be stopped, however there are better ways than you are doing now.
Have you ever heard foriegners complain about Americas double standards...while all the while many of those same nations treat their women like dirt...refuse to educate their masses...refuse to invest in their infrasturcture to build a better tomorrow...donot hold free elections...do not have freedom of the press...gobble up foriegn aid they have no intention of repaying...support terrorists...abuse their citizens...and then come whining to Uncle Sam to do something because they are sad and all the complaining they do to the UN won't make the sad go away.
Have you ever heard that?
Not really.
Do you have some specific countries in mind, or are you just refering to some vague, general amalgam of "they" out there somewhere?
You seem to be one of those types, that really enjoy the freedom you are offered to blast a country that is not yours and also blast your own country. You really enjoy that, but don't care anything about the men and women who suffered to give you that right and other rights that you have. Go ahead and give me all the neg rep you want and all the snide lols in your remarks that you want.
I am no fan of Bush, however you do not know the truth, nobody knows the truth, only those involved in the decision to do what we did. Your all for a regime change, but your not for for going in to stop the suffering these people have gone through, Thats really human of you to feel that way. So sit back, enjoy your tea and type away on your computer blasting the USA and your own country, while guys and gals get killed and maimed so you can continue doing what your doing. Yeah I am ticked right now, to even think that you have no respect for veterans or active soldiers and before you say I am reading you wrong, go back and reread your posts without the hate goggles on! :angry:
"hate goggles" eh.
You seem to be one of those types who claims he has defended freedom abroad, but doesn't want it defended at home.
In a democracy, we don't just say "nobody knows the truth" after leaders act and then affirm obedience to them anyway.
HA HA sunshine. Follow the rules of international combat? Do you know what the ROE's are. Apparently not, because if you did you would know that intentionally targeting civilians as they do are not legal. Here let me give you a clue of the rules of engagement. STAY ALIVE their you go, thats the rules.
Yeahhh ha ha stay alive. I get get you Steelman.
I am thinking we ought to take this a step further than the he** with international law and say the he** with democracy at home! THEY don't have democracy, so why should we??? If we could just shut down the free press so they can't twist what the president says then people would know the war is going well and Bush's policy is working. Think of what the US could get done if the white house and military were not accountable to civilians and even the foreign press was blacked out of the mideast!!
[QUOTE=jamiethelanky;293783]Stating there was proof of WMDs in Iraq - when there weren't.]/quote]
Not a double standard.
What about it? As far as I know, the denizens of Gitmo weren't American. Only Americans have the freedoms found in the Consitution. ;)
Waterboarding isn't torture.
If only Americans have the freedoms found in the Consitution then if I rob an English tourist I should be free from prosecution. And if Jamie comes here and criticizes Bush then I don't see why he shouldn't be arrested and sent to Gitmo as well.
I agree with you that WMD thing was not a double standard, though. I was just a lie--unless it's a double standard that the US gets to have them but not other countries.
Spanish inquisitors did seem to think waterboarding was torture. They were the experts. Can't we take their word for it?
artanis
03-11-2008, 10:14 PM
Yeahhh ha ha stay alive. I get get you Steelman.
I am thinking we ought to take this a step further than the he** with international law and say the he** with democracy at home! THEY don't have democracy, so why should we??? If we could just shut down the free press so they can't twist what the president says then people would know the war is going well and Bush's policy is working. Think of what the US could get done if the white house and military were not accountable to civilians and even the foreign press was blacked out of the mideast!!
See?...you interjected yourself into this conversation...but like I said...no big deal.
artanis
03-11-2008, 10:18 PM
Not really.
Do you have some specific countries in mind, or are you just refering to some vague, general amalgam of "they" out there somewhere?
Actually yes...plenty of countries with questionable practices criticize us all the time...most of the nations in the Middle East (treat their women like dogs)...Russia gets cranky every so often (free press much?)...quite a few countries in South America are pretty lippy (not a bastion of freedom down there ya know)...so yes...I did have some countries in mind...I did not intend to suggest that the UK nor the majority of European nations was as I described...I had intended to label specific countries...but I was doing two things at once...I was vague...Jamie straightened me out...hey...thats funny if you think about it...hehehehehe
jamiethelanky
03-11-2008, 10:18 PM
Actually yes...plenty of countries with questionable practices criticize us all the time...most of the nations in the Middle East (treat their women like dogs)...Russia gets cranky every so often (free press much?)...quite a few countries in South America are pretty lippy (not a bastion of freedom down there ya know)...so yes...I did have some countries in mind...I did not intend to suggest that the UK nor the majority of European nations was as I described...I had intended to label specific countries...but I was doing two things at once...I was vague...Jamie straightened me out...hey...thats funny if you think about it...hehehehehe
Wahey!
He's here till Thursday, try the squid...
artanis
03-11-2008, 10:28 PM
Wahey!
He's here till Thursday, try the squid...
I was wondering if anybody was a gonna get the joke...kinda loopy at the moment...got some friends over...on my third drink...yeah...I'm a cheap drunk.
RICHMONDBENGAL_07
03-11-2008, 11:06 PM
I'm a little drunk...meh...I can't argue the moment.
RICHMONDBENGAL_07
03-11-2008, 11:11 PM
:ninja::ninja:Wahey!
He's here till Thursday, try the squid...
:lol:I got it too....I'm going to bed now:ninja:
Actually yes...plenty of countries with questionable practices criticize us all the time...most of the nations in the Middle East (treat their women like dogs)...Russia gets cranky every so often (free press much?)...quite a few countries in South America are pretty lippy (not a bastion of freedom down there ya know)...so yes...I did have some countries in mind...I did not intend to suggest that the UK nor the majority of European nations was as I described...I had intended to label specific countries...but I was doing two things at once...I was vague...Jamie straightened me out...hey...thats funny if you think about it...hehehehehe
Still kind of vague, Artanis, especially on the Mideast countries. Must be the beer.
Some South American countries get "lippy" because we destroyed their democracies and supported dictators who oppressed their people. Perhaps we could say those countries (E.g. Chile, Argentina, Bolivia) are employing a double standard when the people tortured and imprisoned "whine" about the US while their leaders who work eagerly with the US government and corporations love us. They should make up their minds, eh?
artanis
03-13-2008, 10:30 PM
Still kind of vague, Artanis, especially on the Mideast countries. Must be the beer.
Some South American countries get "lippy" because we destroyed their democracies and supported dictators who oppressed their people. Perhaps we could say those countries (E.g. Chile, Argentina, Bolivia) are employing a double standard when the people tortured and imprisoned "whine" about the US while their leaders who work eagerly with the US government and corporations love us. They should make up their minds, eh?
I doun't think its vague at all...just because i did not list their names?...In Saudi Arabia, parts of Iraq and Iran, woman are not allowed to own property...drive...get an education past a certain age...they are treated like dogs...they refuse to educate HALF their population and then wonder why they live in squalor...could it be that their resources (the human mind) is not being put to use?
steelman59
03-13-2008, 10:46 PM
Yeahhh ha ha stay alive. I get get you Steelman.
I am thinking we ought to take this a step further than the he** with international law and say the he** with democracy at home! THEY don't have democracy, so why should we??? If we could just shut down the free press so they can't twist what the president says then people would know the war is going well and Bush's policy is working. Think of what the US could get done if the white house and military were not accountable to civilians and even the foreign press was blacked out of the mideast!!
Who was it that attacked us? What was it they targeted? they intentionally took civilians and turned them into weapons to attack other civilians. No wonder you left this country, you obviously don't have the guts to stand up for anything. Your making excuses for animals and saying pity them for what we are doing to them with our awesome military might. Guess what, they should have thought about that before taking 3000 plus civilians and killing them.
If you and Jamie don't like the fact that innocents are being killed, then get a message to the insurgents and tell them to take the fight to the dessert, which they won't because they are cowards. Yeah the military has a responsibility to not harm civilians, but they have a primary responsibility to protect themselves. Its sad and unfortunate when civilians are killed or injured but the military is not the police. You shoot at them and they will shoot back and if someone gets in the middle thats sad and unfortunate.
I remember being told one time that if they are just civilians, why are they running towards the gunfire. Innocent people would instinctively run away from it not towards it.
jamiethelanky
03-14-2008, 05:34 AM
Who was it that attacked us? What was it they targeted? they intentionally took civilians and turned them into weapons to attack other civilians. No wonder you left this country, you obviously don't have the guts to stand up for anything. Your making excuses for animals and saying pity them for what we are doing to them with our awesome military might. Guess what, they should have thought about that before taking 3000 plus civilians and killing them.
If you and Jamie don't like the fact that innocents are being killed, then get a message to the insurgents and tell them to take the fight to the dessert, which they won't because they are cowards. Yeah the military has a responsibility to not harm civilians, but they have a primary responsibility to protect themselves. Its sad and unfortunate when civilians are killed or injured but the military is not the police. You shoot at them and they will shoot back and if someone gets in the middle thats sad and unfortunate.
I remember being told one time that if they are just civilians, why are they running towards the gunfire. Innocent people would instinctively run away from it not towards it.
They are a terrorist group, criminals. They should be dealt with as such. Bringing the military so hard on them has brought them too much respect and has managed to make it easier for them to recruit.
You seem not to understand that one can still like their country as an entity but not how it is dealing with things...
TheDon
03-14-2008, 07:22 AM
**** CAUTION*****
***The video posted in this link, shows graphic scenes and the fall of the Twin Towers. If those types of images bother you please do not click this link*** http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/index1.php For those that haven't seen the whole thing.... you may be able to find it on torrent.
Would rather it be dealt with over there than here. Kudos Out to those that serve/served,
that force them to keep it there.
I doun't think its vague at all...just because i did not list their names?...In Saudi Arabia, parts of Iraq and Iran, woman are not allowed to own property...drive...get an education past a certain age...they are treated like dogs...they refuse to educate HALF their population and then wonder why they live in squalor...could it be that their resources (the human mind) is not being put to use?
The issue was countries that accuse the US of following an international double standard.
If Saudi's believe that the Qu'ran defines certain roles for women, then that is not a "double standard" if their laws reflect that belief. It would only be a double standard if they criticized the US for not allowing women to drive or vote or whatever. But they don't, do they? (Sounds like you are a "liberal" when it comes to other countries' conservatives!) And are you saying that Saudis "live in Squalor"?
And who told you that women in Iraq and Iran are not allowed to own property, drive, or get an education past a certain age? Which "parts" are you refering too?
In any case, even if there weren't thousands of Iranian and Iraqi women with doctorates, that would still not clear the US of the charge of deploying double standards.
Who was it that attacked us? What was it they targeted? they intentionally took civilians and turned them into weapons to attack other civilians. No wonder you left this country, you obviously don't have the guts to stand up for anything. Your making excuses for animals and saying pity them for what we are doing to them with our awesome military might. Guess what, they should have thought about that before taking 3000 plus civilians and killing them.
If you and Jamie don't like the fact that innocents are being killed, then get a message to the insurgents and tell them to take the fight to the dessert, which they won't because they are cowards. Yeah the military has a responsibility to not harm civilians, but they have a primary responsibility to protect themselves. Its sad and unfortunate when civilians are killed or injured but the military is not the police. You shoot at them and they will shoot back and if someone gets in the middle thats sad and unfortunate.
I remember being told one time that if they are just civilians, why are they running towards the gunfire. Innocent people would instinctively run away from it not towards it.
It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US, a group based in Afghanistan.
The "insurgents" you refer to are in Iraq, which is quite a ways from Afghanistan.
No one there was "shooting at the military" when Bush let loose a barrage of bombers and cruise missiles on that country. A force occupying the US would have a "responsibility" to protect itself too, wouldn't it? Those insurgents are now making your point about the difficulty of subduing an armed population.
Or are you saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
What civilians do you claim were "running towards gunfire"? When and where?
You seem to be mixing a lot of differing groups and events together into one generalized "they." If Al Qaeda attacks the US from Afghanistan then Iraqi insurgents better not complain if the US occupies their country!
Where did I or anyone else "make excuses" for Al Qaeda?
My point against you was that you attack anyone who upholds the institutions and values of modern, liberal democracies--including those of the US.
**** CAUTION*****
***The video posted in this link, shows graphic scenes and the fall of the Twin Towers. If those types of images bother you please do not click this link*** http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/index1.php For those that haven't seen the whole thing.... you may be able to find it on torrent.
Would rather it be dealt with over there than here. Kudos Out to those that serve/served,
that force them to keep it there.
Where is "there"? Iraq?
steelman59
03-16-2008, 06:45 PM
Where is "there"? Iraq?
Works for me.
Works for me.
So you DO think Iraq was behind 9/11? Or is it just that if Arabs from somewhere
attacked the US then the US ought to be fighting Arabs somewhere, anywhere.
steelman59
03-16-2008, 06:49 PM
So you DO think Iraq was behind 9/11? Or is it just that if Arabs from somewhere
attacked the US then the US ought to be fighting Arabs somewhere, anywhere.
No I believe that Bush firmly believed in the intel that he was handed and that was the reason for going into Iraq. Now since Al Qaeda has decided to fight there, thats fine by me.
Rather have them dealt with there, then here.
No I believe that Bush firmly believed in the intel that he was handed and that was the reason for going into Iraq. Now since Al Qaeda has decided to fight there, thats fine by me.
Rather have them dealt with there, then here.
The intel that was "handed" Bush said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But that wasn't the intel he wanted, so he sent his people out to find and use discredited intel.
Why wouldn't you rather have dealt with them in Afghanistan, rather than allowing them to open still another front in another country and diverting resources from Afghanistan to there? Is Al Qaeda sad that 4,000 Americans have died in a country that had no connection to Al Qaeda and never attacked the US?
steelman59
03-16-2008, 07:11 PM
The intel that was "handed" Bush said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But that wasn't the intel he wanted, so he sent his people out to find and use discredited intel.
Why wouldn't you rather have dealt with them in Afghanistan, rather than allowing them to open still another front in another country and diverting resources from Afghanistan to there? Is Al Qaeda sad that 4,000 Americans have died in a country that had no connection to Al Qaeda and never attacked the US?
Oh I am sorry I did not know you sat in the meeting with the CIA and read the report. Geesh thanks for clearing that up.
Gotta disagree with you on a few points!
First, I think that it's a stretch to say that American citizens are hated around the world because we are spoiled. I don't think that we are hated by general consensus anyway, and those that do hate us (near as I can tell) hate that we are loud, ignorant of other cultures and history, and make very little effort to speak the language or learn the customs of places that we visit. Most countries in W Europe enjoy many of the same blessings that we do.
Second, George W. didn't guide me anywhere after 9/11. I'm really not sure how he helped ease any anxiety by telling us one minute that we are never safe, and that we should be on the look out for some general threat that is coming at some unknown time in the future. The next words out of Bush's mouth were "get back on those plains, go to Disney World, go do a lot of shopping for Christmas..." Talk about mixed signals.
Third, we do have an all volunteer military, and it's a good thing for the Bush administration that we do. Sure, it's over extended, and is having trouble filling it's ranks, but like you said... there is no draft. Good thing, because I doubt that the Iraq war would be even half as popular as it is now if everyday Joes were being sent off. The protests would rival those against the Vietnam War. You always hear people that were young during the 60's and 70's say that the war was so real to them, because they could have their number called at any time. Most of us don't have to worry about it... We can just send the troops back to do all the fighting (we'll just buy stickers that say that we love them).
All in all, I think that you did do a great job of pointing out the things that do make the USA a great place to live. People can and will always find something to complain about. For me, it's gas prices. In 2000 a barrel of oil cost $31! Today, over $105! Surely that's just a coincidence with the fact that we have a former Texas oil man (with friends in the industry) for a president.
You da man! :thumbsup:
Oh I am sorry I did not know you sat in the meeting with the CIA and read the report. Geesh thanks for clearing that up.
Were you there? Actually there were a lot of meetings, not one, and new "teams" and offices formed when the CIA and FBI did not produce or validate the desired intel, and these meetings and teams left a lot of records, along with the public statements of Bush and his staff. People who disputed the "evidence" were re-assigned or pushed out of the loop or even fired. People who fed the administration what they wanted to hear were rewarded. Bush lied. People died. And thousands of them were US service personnel you claim to honor.
Are you still going to hold out there was some super-double-secret intel that no one can ever know anything about that really motivated Bush? Perhaps you have forgotten--or never knew--that the bogus intel was always cast as "partially classified" full of details that could not be fully revealed in the hopes that people would respond exactly as you do?
PS in a democracy leaders can't go to war on super-double-secret intel that only the president and his staff can ever know about.
Were you there? Actually there were a lot of meetings, not one, and new "teams" and offices formed when the CIA and FBI did not produce or validate the desired intel, and these meetings and teams left a lot of records, along with the public statements of Bush and his staff. People who disputed the "evidence" were re-assigned or pushed out of the loop or even fired. People who fed the administration what they wanted to hear were rewarded. Bush lied. People died. And thousands of them were US service personnel you claim to honor.
Are you still going to hold out there was some super-double-secret intel that no one can ever know anything about that really motivated Bush? Perhaps you have forgotten--or never knew--that the bogus intel was always cast as "partially classified" full of details that could not be fully revealed in the hopes that people would respond exactly as you do?
PS in a democracy leaders can't go to war on super-double-secret intel that only the president and his staff can ever know about.
Fabulous post Dill. I couldn't help but notice where you are posting from and was curious about that. If others already know that history or you don't want to talk about it that is o.k. But, being new I wondered. In any case, I think you speak great truths on this matter and am glad that you do. :Clap:
Fabulous post Dill. I couldn't help but notice where you are posting from and was curious about that. If others already know that history or you don't want to talk about it that is o.k. But, being new I wondered. In any case, I think you speak great truths on this matter and am glad that you do. :Clap:
Thanks for the good word.
Yeah, I do live in the Qatar now, for about a year and a half. I guess I am here for the health insurance. (But I've lived in other places too--England, Italy and Germany for 10 years, as I've mentioned a couple times before.) That is one reason why I pay attention to US foreign policy. We are right across the Gulf from Iran and when Bush and Cheney shift the war drums from Iraq to Iran I worry we might get caught in the exchange. No place to hide here.
artanis
03-16-2008, 07:53 PM
Thanks for the good word.
Yeah, I do live in the Qatar now, for about a year and a half. I guess I am here for the health insurance. (But I've lived in other places too--England, Italy and Germany for 10 years, as I've mentioned a couple times before.) That is one reason why I pay attention to US foreign policy. We are right across the Gulf from Iran and when Bush and Cheney shift the war drums from Iraq to Iran I worry we might get caught in the exchange. No place to hide here.
Then lets invade Iran!:thumbsup:
Just kidding!:lol:
No, not really!:thumbsup:
Okay...maybe just a little!:lol:
Lemme think about it!:hmm:
Thanks for the good word.
Yeah, I do live in the Qatar now, for about a year and a half. I guess I am here for the health insurance. (But I've lived in other places too--England, Italy and Germany for 10 years, as I've mentioned a couple times before.) That is one reason why I pay attention to US foreign policy. We are right across the Gulf from Iran and when Bush and Cheney shift the war drums from Iraq to Iran I worry we might get caught in the exchange. No place to hide here.
So are you originally from the U.S.?
I am sure living in those varied places has been a good learning experience. I'll keep an eye on your posts as I'm sure I can learn from someone who has a bit more of a first hand "global" world view. And, I'll hope others can be open to learning from your perspective and generally be a bit less xenophobic. Thanks for responding and sharing your perspective.
steelman59
03-16-2008, 08:39 PM
Were you there? Actually there were a lot of meetings, not one, and new "teams" and offices formed when the CIA and FBI did not produce or validate the desired intel, and these meetings and teams left a lot of records, along with the public statements of Bush and his staff. People who disputed the "evidence" were re-assigned or pushed out of the loop or even fired. People who fed the administration what they wanted to hear were rewarded. Bush lied. People died. And thousands of them were US service personnel you claim to honor.
Are you still going to hold out there was some super-double-secret intel that no one can ever know anything about that really motivated Bush? Perhaps you have forgotten--or never knew--that the bogus intel was always cast as "partially classified" full of details that could not be fully revealed in the hopes that people would respond exactly as you do?
PS in a democracy leaders can't go to war on super-double-secret intel that only the president and his staff can ever know about.
No I was not there and I am not niave enough to believe that what the media reported is true. The only thing I know for sure is that over 3000 lives were lost and in my world somebody has to pay for that.
Let me ask you this, if Saddam was so innocent, why deny the inspectors access? Why stand against the UN sanctions? Seems to me old Saddam had a lot of things to hide or he would not have been so defiant. He had a whole year to get rid of any evidence that was there while we fiddle faddled our way through the UN. As someone else pointed out, even with out the intelligence to support the WMD's or Al Qaeda link, we were still justified because of his refusal to obide by the UN mandates that were set forth. Do I know if Saddam was part of the plan to hit us, no I don't and niether do you. My money says he wasn't, however I dare you to say that he was broken up over it when Al Qaeda did it. I dare you to say that he would not have given Al Qaeda a safe haven in Iraq. Face it, he was a ruthless dictator and despised the West.
Let me ask you this, if Saddam was so innocent, why deny the inspectors access? Why stand against the UN sanctions? Seems to me old Saddam had a lot of things to hide or he would not have been so defiant. He had a whole year to get rid of any evidence that was there while we fiddle faddled our way through the UN. As someone else pointed out, even with out the intelligence to support the WMD's or Al Qaeda link, we were still justified because of his refusal to obide by the UN mandates that were set forth. Do I know if Saddam was part of the plan to hit us, no I don't and niether do you. My money says he wasn't, however I dare you to say that he was broken up over it when Al Qaeda did it. I dare you to say that he would not have given Al Qaeda a safe haven in Iraq. Face it, he was a ruthless dictator and despised the West.
Alright get ready STeelman; I'm going to say it:
Saddam would NEVER have given Al Qaeda a safe haven in Iraq. And he couldn't if he wanted to because he did not control his own country--the US did.
The media reported that 3,000 lives (give or take few) were lost on 9/11. Why do you believe that media report if you don't trust the media?
Between 1992 and 2003, the US bombed Iraq whenever it wanted to. Why do you call that "fiddle faddling" through the UN. And why don't we bomb Israel when it ignores UN resolutions, if that is a valid criterion for bombing countries?
Now let me ask you something else--When did Saddam deny inspectors access to the country? Are you TOTALLY unaware of the plan to "wrongfoot" Saddam into war via inspections violations? What do you mean by "stand against sanctions"? Saddam had no power to stand against anything. Iraq was one of the weakest countries in the middle east with a broken military at the time the US invaded it.
And you don't think Saddam would have been defiant even with nothing to hide? That is more incredible than supposing he would or could harbor Al Qaeda.
I am going to throw you a bone though, Steelman--I hereby "face" the fact that Saddam was a ruthless dictator, though I don't remember that being a question here.
Then lets invade Iran!:thumbsup:
Just kidding!:lol:
No, not really!:thumbsup:
Okay...maybe just a little!:lol:
Lemme think about it!:hmm:
If they get me, Artanis, they will probably be aiming at US military bases here.
I would just be collateral damage.
OMGwow
03-17-2008, 01:00 PM
Gotta disagree with you on a few points!
make very little effort to speak the language or learn the customs of places that we visit.
Sure, it's over extended, and is having trouble filling it's ranks, but like you said... there is no draft.
For me, it's gas prices.
Couple things, look around, our ATM's are the ones that say press 1 for english, our customer support lines are the ones that say press 1 for english. If you travel to another country you will see that (at least in the military) lots of people try to learn their host nations customs and language. I didn't see any english signs on the road or at the stores when off base. If anything we are expected to conform to their languages and not the other way around.
Now for the military having trouble filling its ranks, thats not all true either. the USAF has a thing called force shaping right now where they are allowing people to get out early. They are down sizing the military. Only branch I know of thats hurting is the army. But yes they are way over extended even if they are letting people out early.
yes gas really is making me angry. And you would think the pres would do something because it truely does make him look bad, really bad. but he's on his last term and obviously it doesn't matter to him.
philhos
03-17-2008, 01:12 PM
And you would think the pres would do something because it truely does make him look bad, really bad. but he's on his last term and obviously it doesn't matter to him.
That and the fact that the president has no control over the gas prices probably has something to do with it.
philhos
03-17-2008, 01:14 PM
Now let me ask you something else--When did Saddam deny inspectors access to the country? Are you TOTALLY unaware of the plan to "wrongfoot" Saddam into war via inspections violations? What do you mean by "stand against sanctions"? Saddam had no power to stand against anything. Iraq was one of the weakest countries in the middle east with a broken military at the time the US invaded it.
.
If only you would defend our president as much as you're defending Saddam Hussein ...<_<
OMGwow
03-17-2008, 01:30 PM
That and the fact that the president has no control over the gas prices probably has something to do with it.
I know, I should have explained more. I was just stating that it did look bad. Beleive me I'm going to be first in line to take out the cartel if I could.
OMGwow
03-17-2008, 01:31 PM
Were you there? Actually there were a lot of meetings, not one, and new "teams" and offices formed when the CIA and FBI did not produce or validate the desired intel, and these meetings and teams left a lot of records, along with the public statements of Bush and his staff. People who disputed the "evidence" were re-assigned or pushed out of the loop or even fired. People who fed the administration what they wanted to hear were rewarded. Bush lied. People died. And thousands of them were US service personnel you claim to honor.
Are you still going to hold out there was some super-double-secret intel that no one can ever know anything about that really motivated Bush? Perhaps you have forgotten--or never knew--that the bogus intel was always cast as "partially classified" full of details that could not be fully revealed in the hopes that people would respond exactly as you do?
PS in a democracy leaders can't go to war on super-double-secret intel that only the president and his staff can ever know about.
Actually what happeneds in those meetings you aren't allowed to talk about or you will go to prison for life and be forgotten about.
The president can declare war prior to getting approval in some cricumstances.
no matter how hard you try to believe the media you can't. If you didn't know (I don't think most do know) ANY information that has to deal with national security the government can withhold from the public. So that means your "super-double-secret intel" does actually exist and was probably a reason why we did go to Iraq.
and I'm pretty sure that maybe Iraq didn't have ties to Al Qaeda but Saddam Hussein did.
If only you would defend our president as much as you're defending Saddam Hussein ...<_<
So you are saying that we should not try and establish a factually accurate record of historical and political events upon which to base foreign policy? We should "defend" our guy and attack theirs, regardless of how they behave? Sort of the way things were in Iraq under Saddam?
Why do so many conservatives exempt the president from personal responsibility, from accountability to the public?
Actually what happeneds in those meetings you aren't allowed to talk about or you will go to prison for life and be forgotten about.
The president can declare war prior to getting approval in some cricumstances.
no matter how hard you try to believe the media you can't. If you didn't know (I don't think most do know) ANY information that has to deal with national security the government can withhold from the public. So that means your "super-double-secret intel" does actually exist and was probably a reason why we did go to Iraq.
and I'm pretty sure that maybe Iraq didn't have ties to Al Qaeda but Saddam Hussein did.
Sounds like you are pretty sure about a lot of things.
But in fact, in the US government, only congress can ever "declare war".
And true, certain things are not allowed, like outing CIA agents, as the President's staff did in revenge for Wilson's exposing the Niger yellowcake evidence as fraudulent.
But while information about some ongoing operation may be withheld during that operation (e.g., like the time the US forces were to begin their attack on Baghdad), there is no information that can be permanently withheld from the public. That is why democracies are different from dictatorships. Leaders are supposed to be accountable to voters. When people are comfortable with no accountability, democracy will be gone.
People are allowed to talk about what happens in those abovementioned meetings, especially as their matter becomes declassified. Also the people in them, including the president, talk to the press. And some people, when they realize there has been wrongdoing, leak things to the press--like the Downing street memos.
You say "no matter how hard you try to believe the media you can't." I wonder where your information about the Iraq war, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, how the government works, etc. all comes from? You are not a book reader but you are getting this information from somewhere.
Now for the military having trouble filling its ranks, thats not all true either. the USAF has a thing called force shaping right now where they are allowing people to get out early. They are down sizing the military. Only branch I know of thats hurting is the army. But yes they are way over extended even if they are letting people out early. .
The "MILITARY" is not being downsized. Only the Air Force, and in part with incentives to draw Airmen into the Army. The US doesn't need a big AF, it needs boots on the ground.
Speaking of military recruitment AND declassificiation of info, here is an article from 2007, which gives some sense of how poor war planning and lack of knowledge about the country to be invaded contributed to the current recruiting crisis.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1849221.htm
16 February , 2007 Reporter: Kim Landers
>>TONY EASTLEY: Declassified documents in the US reveal that the American invasion plan of Iraq allowed for 5,000 troops to be there by December 2006.
They also projected that Iraq would be stable by now and would also be pro-US.
Instead, the US has around 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and the country is on the verge of civil war.
The US military is finding it hard to meet its recruitment targets.
To offset the problems, the American military is now relaxing its standards to allow in more recruits with criminal records.<<
OMGwow
03-17-2008, 04:05 PM
Sounds like you are pretty sure about a lot of things.
But in fact, in the US government, only congress can ever "declare war".
And true, certain things are not allowed, like outing CIA agents, as the President's staff did in revenge for Wilson's exposing the Niger yellowcake evidence as fraudulent.
But while information about some ongoing operation may be withheld during that operation (e.g., like the time the US forces were to begin their attack on Baghdad), there is no information that can be permanently withheld from the public. That is why democracies are different from dictatorships. Leaders are supposed to be accountable to voters. When people are comfortable with no accountability, democracy will be gone.
People are allowed to talk about what happens in those abovementioned meetings, especially as their matter becomes declassified. Also the people in them, including the president, talk to the press. And some people, when they realize there has been wrongdoing, leak things to the press--like the Downing street memos.
You say "no matter how hard you try to believe the media you can't." I wonder where your information about the Iraq war, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, how the government works, etc. all comes from? You are not a book reader but you are getting this information from somewhere.
sounds like social engineering to me.
Are you even or ever was a US citizen?
sounds like social engineering to me.
Are you even or ever was a US citizen?
Democracy sounds like "social engineering"?
Say, you aren't a customs agent, are you?
steelman59
03-17-2008, 10:23 PM
Were you there? Actually there were a lot of meetings, not one, and new "teams" and offices formed when the CIA and FBI did not produce or validate the desired intel, and these meetings and teams left a lot of records, along with the public statements of Bush and his staff. People who disputed the "evidence" were re-assigned or pushed out of the loop or even fired. People who fed the administration what they wanted to hear were rewarded. Bush lied. People died. And thousands of them were US service personnel you claim to honor.
Are you still going to hold out there was some super-double-secret intel that no one can ever know anything about that really motivated Bush? Perhaps you have forgotten--or never knew--that the bogus intel was always cast as "partially classified" full of details that could not be fully revealed in the hopes that people would respond exactly as you do?
PS in a democracy leaders can't go to war on super-double-secret intel that only the president and his staff can ever know about.
Only the President and his staff knew about? Well some one sure gave them the information. Since you like scenarios so much here is one for you.
This is a very plausible scenario also. It's gonna take a little reading on your part, but bear with me please.
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a few things in common that would make them allies, or at least provide a safe haven for them.
The first is the pure hatred of the west, especially the United States. In the first Gulf War, we pulverized his military and kicked him out of Kuwait. Then we went to the United Nations and put sanctions against his country and cut him off. Also we are very strong supporters of Isreal, which both detested.
The second is the hatred of Isreal, they would do anything to eliminate Isreal from the picture. Now I am not going into details as to why that is in this post.
Now after the sanctions and the first gulf war, we get the United Nations to send in inspectors to see what his nuclear capability is. His response to the threats of more sanctions is to deny them total access, to lie and eventually kick them out of the country.
9/11 hits and Bush declares open season on terrorists, no matter where they are we are going after them. He also stated that any country harboring and protecting these terrorists would also be subject to military action as well as economic actions.
Now those are the facts, here is the scenario.
We know Afghanistan is a mountainous country with very pourus borders. Meaning we can strike Al Qaeda, but we can not contain them. Now in doing this we have to also fight the Taliban, which is going to give Al Qaeda more time to spread out. Now the question is, where are they going to go? Pakistan, yeah OK they did go into some of those areas near the Afghan border. Saudi Arabia, not a good move. Saudi likes our money to much. India, again not a good move, they are also our allies. Turkey, no way. So where could they go and be free to carry out operations, knowing the government would support them like the Taliban did. I can think of two Iraq and Iran. Iran is questionable though because of the wishy washiness of the government. So we are down to Iraq.
Now the CIA hands Bush their report. Lets say for your point of view, that this report stated the uncertainity of WMD's and that there was no evidence to implicate the Iraqi Government with 9/11.
OK, now what are his options?
Option 1.
Continue to led the United Nations handle it, which they were not doing a very good job of by the way. While they are dealing with Iraq or trying to anyway, we can concentrate our efforts on Afghanistan. Problem is, Al Qaeda knows they can not fight toe to toe with the military, they have to resort to guerilla tactics, hit and run. However you need a base of operations, so they start heading into Iraq, with Husseins blessing.
Eventually the effort by the UN breaks down and we are forced to go into Iraq, but now we have a problem. While we were ignoring Iraq they were rebuilding their military, so now it is going to be a major problem.
Option 2.
Call it a pre-emptive strike, try to cut Al Qaeda off at the pass. Hit Iraq now, before he has a chance to rebuild and Al Qaeda has enough time to establish itself in the country.
The benifits to doing this is numerous.
1. It will resolve the issue as to whether he is working on a nuclear weapons program or any other type of WMD.
2. It leaves Al Qaeda out in the cold, because now they have to sneak into Iraq to avoid detection, that is a logistic nightmare.
3. You once and for all get rid of a big problem in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein.
4. You establish a military presence, right next door to another terrorist state, that being Iran. That not only gives you a logistical advantage but also a strategic advantage.
5. Your now in a better position to monitor all the activity in the middle east.
So there are the options in this scenario, if it is a scenario. I can actually see this as being the real reason for going into Iraq. Why lie to the American people and tell them the sole reason for going into Iraq was to get rid of WMD's. first off it is easier to understand, and secondly your not taking a chance on releasing sensitive information.
Finally Dill there cases where the President can declare war without congressional approval. WW2 is a case in point. We had been ingauged in hostilities I believe for 2 weeks prior to congress formally declaring war. The reason that happened was because our homeland was attacked. In short a direct attack against the United States is an automatic declaration of war.
OMGwow
03-18-2008, 09:20 AM
Democracy sounds like "social engineering"?
Say, you aren't a customs agent, are you?
No, your questions and ignoring to say if you were a citizen sounds like social engineering.
This is a very plausible scenario also.
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a few things in common that would make them allies, or at least provide a safe haven for them.
The first is the pure hatred of the west, especially the United States. In the first Gulf War, we pulverized his military and kicked him out of Kuwait. Then we went to the United Nations and put sanctions against his country and cut him off. Also we are very strong supporters of Isreal, which both detested.
The second is the hatred of Isreal, they would do anything to eliminate Isreal from the picture. Now I am not going into details as to why that is in this post.
Now after the sanctions and the first gulf war, we get the United Nations to send in inspectors to see what his nuclear capability is. His response to the threats of more sanctions is to deny them total access, to lie and eventually kick them out of the country.
9/11 hits and Bush declares open season on terrorists, no matter where they are we are going after them. He also stated that any country harboring and protecting these terrorists would also be subject to military action as well as economic actions.
Now those are the facts, here is the scenario.
We know Afghanistan is a mountainous country with very pourus borders. Meaning we can strike Al Qaeda, but we can not contain them. Now in doing this we have to also fight the Taliban, which is going to give Al Qaeda more time to spread out. Now the question is, where are they going to go? Pakistan, yeah OK they did go into some of those areas near the Afghan border. Saudi Arabia, not a good move. Saudi likes our money to much. India, again not a good move, they are also our allies. Turkey, no way. So where could they go and be free to carry out operations, knowing the government would support them like the Taliban did. I can think of two Iraq and Iran. Iran is questionable though because of the wishy washiness of the government. So we are down to Iraq.
Now the CIA hands Bush their report. Lets say for your point of view, that this report stated the uncertainity of WMD's and that there was no evidence to implicate the Iraqi Government with 9/11.
OK, now what are his options?
Option 1.
Continue to led the United Nations handle it, which they were not doing a very good job of by the way. While they are dealing with Iraq or trying to anyway, we can concentrate our efforts on Afghanistan. Problem is, Al Qaeda knows they can not fight toe to toe with the military, they have to resort to guerilla tactics, hit and run. However you need a base of operations, so they start heading into Iraq, with Husseins blessing.
Eventually the effort by the UN breaks down and we are forced to go into Iraq, but now we have a problem. While we were ignoring Iraq they were rebuilding their military, so now it is going to be a major problem.
Option 2.
Call it a pre-emptive strike, try to cut Al Qaeda off at the pass. Hit Iraq now, before he has a chance to rebuild and Al Qaeda has enough time to establish itself in the country.
The benifits to doing this is numerous.
1. It will resolve the issue as to whether he is working on a nuclear weapons program or any other type of WMD.
2. It leaves Al Qaeda out in the cold, because now they have to sneak into Iraq to avoid detection, that is a logistic nightmare.
3. You once and for all get rid of a big problem in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein.
4. You establish a military presence, right next door to another terrorist state, that being Iran. That not only gives you a logistical advantage but also a strategic advantage.
5. Your now in a better position to monitor all the activity in the middle east.
So there are the options in this scenario, if it is a scenario. I can actually see this as being the real reason for going into Iraq. Why lie to the American people and tell them the sole reason for going into Iraq was to get rid of WMD's. first off it is easier to understand, and secondly your not taking a chance on releasing sensitive information.
Finally Dill there cases where the President can declare war without congressional approval. WW2 is a case in point. We had been ingauged in hostilities I believe for 2 weeks prior to congress formally declaring war. The reason that happened was because our homeland was attacked. In short a direct attack against the United States is an automatic declaration of war.
1. Saddam had no “pure hatred of the West.” He thought he was a US ally until the Kuwait invasions, and even after that still had good relations with France Russia.
2. Al Qaeda considered Saddam a secular “Westernized” Arab whose government, along with the US, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, should be toppled. Saddam would never allow another armed group to exist in a country he controlled. In any case, the US controlled the air space of the country and the northern, western and southern borders. So much for the “safe haven” in Iraq.
3. Al Qaeda considers the Shia “non-Muslim,” so scratch the safe have in Iran. Add to that the tension between the Taliban and the Iranians after the Taliban killed some of their border guards in several clashes.
4. As I have told you many times before, Saddam never kicked any inspectors out of his country and the inspections were working. Why do you keep repeating misinformation? Apparently he lied about nothing since he said he had no WMDs and no one can find any.
5. The best option for Al Qaeda was to go into Pakistan—a US ally—and hide there, which they did. That would have been impossible if the border had been sealed, though.
6. Let’s say that the CIA report handed Bush said what it actually said, namely there was no evidence of any Iraqi attempt to create a nuclear capability or of any link to Al Qaeda. As far as your “option 1” goes, there was no need to “ignore” Iraq while fighting in Afghanistan. Bush could have easily let inspections continue. And did Saddam “rebuild his military” during the two years the US was engaged in Afghanistan? Hardly.
7. Option 2, which Bush apparently took, has had the following results:
....... 1) Al Qaeda has been able to expand into another country because it thrives where states are broken.
....... 2) The “big problem” of Saddam Hussein has been replaced by the bigger problem of a broken Iraq which is draining the US treasury and has cost the lives of 4,000 Americans. And the US will be paying for this indefinitely in both blood and treasure, which so far has expanded the reach of Al Qaeda and boosted its recruiting.
....... 3) Your “strategic advantage” vis a vis Iran has so far yielded only costs and no benefits. The military is extended, most populations in the Gulf feel the US has stirred up an unnecessary mess which will spill over into everyone else’s country. With good grounds, they think the US leadership has no clue about what it is doing, while at the same time the US has imperialistic designs on the whole region—though I know you are ok with that.
8. And finally, Steelman, on December 8th, 1 day after Pearl Harbor, the House and Senate passed a war resolution—i.e., declaration of war-- authorizing FDR to do whatever was necessary to prosecute a war against Japan. That is not an example of a president declaring war without Congressional approval.
RICHMONDBENGAL_07
03-18-2008, 05:41 PM
This is for steelman and dill...I find parts of both arguements valid, personally I think going to Afganistan was justifiable, uncertain about Iraq. however it's a mute point now. the question now is how do we resolve the issue now? Personally I think we are not committed enough in order to resolve it.
steelman59
03-18-2008, 06:05 PM
1. Saddam had no “pure hatred of the West.” He thought he was a US ally until the Kuwait invasions, and even after that still had good relations with France Russia.
2. Al Qaeda considered Saddam a secular “Westernized” Arab whose government, along with the US, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, should be toppled. Saddam would never allow another armed group to exist in a country he controlled. In any case, the US controlled the air space of the country and the northern, western and southern borders. So much for the “safe haven” in Iraq.
3. Al Qaeda considers the Shia “non-Muslim,” so scratch the safe have in Iran. Add to that the tension between the Taliban and the Iranians after the Taliban killed some of their border guards in several clashes.
4. As I have told you many times before, Saddam never kicked any inspectors out of his country and the inspections were working. Why do you keep repeating misinformation? Apparently he lied about nothing since he said he had no WMDs and no one can find any.
5. The best option for Al Qaeda was to go into Pakistan—a US ally—and hide there, which they did. That would have been impossible if the border had been sealed, though.
6. Let’s say that the CIA report handed Bush said what it actually said, namely there was no evidence of any Iraqi attempt to create a nuclear capability or of any link to Al Qaeda. As far as your “option 1” goes, there was no need to “ignore” Iraq while fighting in Afghanistan. Bush could have easily let inspections continue. And did Saddam “rebuild his military” during the two years the US was engaged in Afghanistan? Hardly.
7. Option 2, which Bush apparently took, has had the following results:
....... 1) Al Qaeda has been able to expand into another country because it thrives where states are broken.
....... 2) The “big problem” of Saddam Hussein has been replaced by the bigger problem of a broken Iraq which is draining the US treasury and has cost the lives of 4,000 Americans. And the US will be paying for this indefinitely in both blood and treasure, which so far has expanded the reach of Al Qaeda and boosted its recruiting.
....... 3) Your “strategic advantage” vis a vis Iran has so far yielded only costs and no benefits. The military is extended, most populations in the Gulf feel the US has stirred up an unnecessary mess which will spill over into everyone else’s country. With good grounds, they think the US leadership has no clue about what it is doing, while at the same time the US has imperialistic designs on the whole region—though I know you are ok with that.
8. And finally, Steelman, on December 8th, 1 day after Pearl Harbor, the House and Senate passed a war resolution—i.e., declaration of war-- authorizing FDR to do whatever was necessary to prosecute a war against Japan. That is not an example of a president declaring war without Congressional approval.
I read as far as no pure hatred for the west and the us being his ally, then i could go not further, laughing to hard at the idiocy of that statement.
I read as far as no pure hatred for the west and the us being his ally, then i could go not further, laughing to hard at the idiocy of that statement.
Sounds like there were too many points for you to handle there.
So you are saying he DID NOT consider the US his ally before the Kuwait invasion? What did Saddam do that indicated to you he had a pure hatred for the West before that invasion?
eliminate08
03-18-2008, 07:43 PM
Great post. I've always said that if people are unhappy here, or unhappy in their current situation, they should consider what it would be like living in Iraq, Darfur or Ethiopia. We've got it better than we realize because we're spoiled and nothing is never enough.
When I was a kid I heard a preacher say that the definition of rich was having enough money to pay your bills and then having money left over to spend however you want to. I've never forgotten that. I consider myself rich.
As far as President Bush, history will judge him. Yes, he's made mistakes just like every other president, but I don't know why so many liberals just flat out hate him. The things they say and write about him are unbelievable. People might disagree with our leaders, but they should still respect the office of the presidency. Even after Clinton had his affair with Lewinsky, lied about it under oath and was later impeached, I never hated the man or spoke evil of him. I respected that he was our president, but he let us down and brought shame on our nation in the eyes of others.
Thanks for the post. It makes me once again realize how blessed I am to have what I have in the greatest nation on the face of the earth.
Nice objective post, more than i can say for the lib journalists today who live by the slogan
of being objective. We live in the greatest country to ever be created and i for one am very
proud to be an American. But to say we are all spoiled, i think is wrong in some respects.
(i know you didn't say that, but i was replying to the thread) I have worked my arse off for
everything i own and i would be perty POed if someone called me spoiled or some of the
people i work with or am around.
steelman59
03-18-2008, 08:06 PM
Sounds like there were too many points for you to handle there.
So you are saying he DID NOT consider the US his ally before the Kuwait invasion? What did Saddam do that indicated to you he had a pure hatred for the West before that invasion?
Not to many points, why. Isreal is one reason. Second his use of chemical weapons not only against the Kurds but against Iran did not sit well with the US. They were never buddy buddy as you like to think, we tolerated Hussein because of Iran.
kjb034
03-18-2008, 08:22 PM
Great post. I've always said that if people are unhappy here, or unhappy in their current situation, they should consider what it would be like living in Iraq, Darfur or Ethiopia. We've got it better than we realize because we're spoiled and nothing is never enough.
When I was a kid I heard a preacher say that the definition of rich was having enough money to pay your bills and then having money left over to spend however you want to. I've never forgotten that. I consider myself rich.
As far as President Bush, history will judge him. Yes, he's made mistakes just like every other president, but I don't know why so many liberals just flat out hate him. The things they say and write about him are unbelievable. People might disagree with our leaders, but they should still respect the office of the presidency. Even after Clinton had his affair with Lewinsky, lied about it under oath and was later impeached, I never hated the man or spoke evil of him. I respected that he was our president, but he let us down and brought shame on our nation in the eyes of others.
Thanks for the post. It makes me once again realize how blessed I am to have what I have in the greatest nation on the face of the earth.
Those are good points and its always good to remember how good we have it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't always try to make things better for ourselves and our children.
jamiethelanky
03-19-2008, 03:35 AM
Not to many points, why. Isreal is one reason. Second his use of chemical weapons not only against the Kurds but against Iran did not sit well with the US. They were never buddy buddy as you like to think, we tolerated Hussein because of Iran.
Hating Israel is seperate from hating the West. There are specific issues with Israeli policy towards Palestine that even make me question its authority and Western backing.
philhos
03-19-2008, 12:54 PM
So you are saying that we should not try and establish a factually accurate record of historical and political events upon which to base foreign policy? We should "defend" our guy and attack theirs, regardless of how they behave? Sort of the way things were in Iraq under Saddam?
Never said that. But, I do find it amazing how much you and others are quick to defend the enemy and are quick to condemn your fellow Americans.
Why do so many conservatives exempt the president from personal responsibility, from accountability to the public?
Probably because the liberals don't expect ANYONE (well, anyone outside of conservatives) to maintain any levels of personal responsibility
jamiethelanky
03-19-2008, 12:59 PM
Probably because the liberals don't expect ANYONE (well, anyone outside of conservatives) to maintain any levels of personal responsibility
Then how come Spitzer was forced to apologise. Surely he could have just gone on if that was the case. You're making accusations, sorry, you're witch-hunting and you can't prove a thing you say. This post shows all that is wrong in politics. "They're bad because I say they are."
Then how come Spitzer was forced to apologise. Surely he could have just gone on if that was the case. You're making accusations, sorry, you're witch-hunting and you can't prove a thing you say. This post shows all that is wrong in politics. "They're bad because I say they are."
To clarify, they are bad because they aren't American, or they hate America, and because I say so...or at least the people who think for me say so."
tbone77
03-19-2008, 01:47 PM
Don't confuse running water and electricity with the destructive policies of Bush.
Please zoom-in on this chart and you will understand the hypocrisy (in terms of fiscal irresponsibility) embodied by Bush/Cheney, the fear pedalers, and the war wongers...
http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif
I pity the fool who lives poor, and votes rich....You are the pawn in their game.
tbone77
03-19-2008, 01:52 PM
Never said that. But, I do find it amazing how much you and others are quick to defend the enemy and are quick to condemn your fellow Americans.
Probably because the liberals don't expect ANYONE (well, anyone outside of conservatives) to maintain any levels of personal responsibility
Blogga please!! Don't talk down on people...I'm not a liberal, but I will still debate "personal responsibility" with you. First of all, zoom-in on this chart http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif
Now tell me which presidents are the most responsible at handling the wealth of this country?
And don't give me any of this "post 9/11" mumbo-jumbo. So sick of that crap. I'm not afraid of terrorists. If they ever invade my country I will raise arms and defend my land....But don't pedal this post 9/11 fear mongering, don't tell me we gotta spend a $billion a day in the middle east...
We are simply securing access to foreign oil...and not doing a very good job at it anyway
philhos
03-19-2008, 02:00 PM
Then how come Spitzer was forced to apologise. Surely he could have just gone on if that was the case.
Who forced Spitzer to apologize?
Which president had an affair while president and then all the people in his party defended him saying it was his own "private life" and that we should just butt out?
In this country, personal responsibility is flying out the window. We have people suing other people for their own mistakes ("I broke in to your house, cut my hand on glass and so I'm going to sue you." And don't forget the hot coffee lawsuit.)
I was being a little facetious when I blamed liberals, but I do blame ALL politicians for the fact that no one accepts blame for their own problems.
You're making accusations, sorry, you're witch-hunting and you can't prove a thing you say. This post shows all that is wrong in politics. "They're bad because I say they are."
So, it's okay for someone else to make accusations with no proof, but I can't. Okay. <_<
Never said that. But, I do find it amazing how much you and others are quick to defend the enemy and are quick to condemn your fellow Americans.
Probably because the liberals don't expect ANYONE (well, anyone outside of conservatives) to maintain any levels of personal responsibility
So its the LIBERALS fault that conservatives don't maintain levels of personal responsibility?
One of my "fellow Americans" lied to the public in order to send 4,000 Americans to their deaths in a bogus war. My whole point about establishing an accurate record seems to have just gone past you. For you it's still about boosting our guy and condemining theirs. And that's all.
tbone77
03-19-2008, 02:02 PM
And another thing...
-- Don't conflate criticism of Bush's policies with "Anti-Americanism"
-- Don't conflate criticism of the conduct of the war with "not supporting the troops"
That crap is getting old real fast...Public dissidence is a right that we all need to exercise. Don't be scared to speak your mind and learn something new today.
You can tell me to be content with where we are and what we have, tell me that I am spoiled, but I don't subscribe to it. I will not shut up. I don't want my kids and my grandkids to be saddled with debt from futile wars with enemies that aren't even clearly identified...as is the case in Iraq. I want my kids to inherit a great land. And we should focus on our land before we go tellin' the rest of the world what to do with theirs....This country faces a number of problems and challenges at home. We don't need to be creating more problems abroad. People with too much money, paying for crazy pre-emptive wars...crazy.
What would you do with the $2 trillion we spend in Iraq? Think about that my firend.
philhos
03-19-2008, 02:06 PM
So its the LIBERALS fault that conservatives don't maintain levels of personal responsibility?
Read my previous post. I was being facetious since you seem content to blame one group of something when the fault lies with both.
One of my "fellow Americans" lied to the public in order to send 4,000 Americans to their deaths in a bogus war. My whole point about establishing an accurate record seems to have just gone past you. For you it's still about boosting our guy and condemining theirs. And that's all.
First off, prove that Bush lied.
Secondly, I have no problem establishing an accurate record, but it seems to me that you don't really care to establish an HONEST record. Just one that condemns Bush.
Blogga please!!
We are simply securing access to foreign oil...and not doing a very good job at it anyway
Maybe that isn't even the goal - although I thought it was. You know what they say when the government not doing a good job: Republicans like to say big government can't work and is evil, and then they prove the point by making government bigger and doing evil things. And the Democrats just watch with a clueless look on their faces.
But maybe the goal is just to help out good old fashioned war profiteers. They're as American as apple pie, and surprisingly good campaign contributors to boot.
(Blogga please - so glad to see the comfort level. We can have our disagreements, but we're all Blogga's at the end of the day.)
Not to many points, why. Isreal is one reason. Second his use of chemical weapons not only against the Kurds but against Iran did not sit well with the US. They were never buddy buddy as you like to think, we tolerated Hussein because of Iran.
Where did Saddam get his chemical weapons technology?
kjb034
03-19-2008, 02:10 PM
First off, prove that Bush lied.
Here (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php) B)
And here's (http://downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf) the actual text of the documents.
tbone77
03-19-2008, 02:17 PM
Read my previous post. I was being facetious since you seem content to blame one group of something when the fault lies with both.
First off, prove that Bush lied.
Secondly, I have no problem establishing an accurate record, but it seems to me that you don't really care to establish an HONEST record. Just one that condemns Bush.
Just watch the video on this link if you want an accurate record. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.htmlIt includes the lies promulgated by the media and accepted by us without questioning. The program analyzes the stream of unchecked information from administration sources and Iraqi defectors to the mainstream print and broadcast press, which was then seized upon and amplified by an army of pundits. How gullible are we?
Read my previous post. I was being facetious since you seem content to blame one group of something when the fault lies with both.
First off, prove that Bush lied.
Secondly, I have no problem establishing an accurate record, but it seems to me that you don't really care to establish an HONEST record. Just one that condemns Bush.
First off, Bush he said that Iraq was a threat when he knew that it wasn't. Then he had his press secretary tell the American people in fall of 2002 that he had no war plans on the table when in fact he had been working on a plan to invade Iraq for over a year. He asked the English to help the US "wrongfoot" Saddam, i.e., to get the UN to pass a resolution with inspection conditions that Saddam could or would not meet so there could be a pretext for war--the sort of thing called illegal "entrapment" when police do it. He said that Saddam hussein kicked out inspectors. Geez there are too many to just go on listing like this.
Secondly, What would you cite for evidence that I "don't really care to establish an HONEST record"--other than the fact I am saying things you don't want to hear? And where have I defended "the enemy"?
philhos
03-19-2008, 02:26 PM
Here (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php) B)
And here's (http://downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf) the actual text of the documents.
I said PROVE that he lied. At best, that suggests that Bush "fixed" the intelligence to make going to war more feasible. But, that still doesn't mean he lied.
Look, I'm open minded. I know politicians lie. It's what they do. I harbor no false delusions that Bush is the rare politician who doesn't lie. But, the fact of the matter is you do not have tangible evidence that Bush outright lied.
kjb034
03-19-2008, 02:28 PM
I said PROVE that he lied. At best, that suggests that Bush "fixed" the intelligence to make going to war more feasible. But, that still doesn't mean he lied.
Look, I'm open minded. I know politicians lie. It's what they do. I harbor no false delusions that Bush is the rare politician who doesn't lie. But, the fact of the matter is you do not have tangible evidence that Bush outright lied.
I agree that that's not enough evidence and I apologize for giving the impression that I thought that was indisputable proof, but it makes me very very skeptical of Bush & Co.
philhos
03-19-2008, 02:32 PM
First off, Bush he said that Iraq was a threat when he knew that it wasn't. Then he had his press secretary tell the American people in fall of 2002 that he had no war plans on the table when in fact he had been working on a plan to invade Iraq for over a year. He asked the English to help the US "wrongfoot" Saddam, i.e., to get the UN to pass a resolution with inspection conditions that Saddam could or would not meet so there could be a pretext for war--the sort of thing called illegal "entrapment" when police do it. He said that Saddam hussein kicked out inspectors. Geez there are too many to just go on listing like this.
Let me guess: you're basing this on the Downing Street Memos, right? Or do you have actual proof of all that you just said here?
philhos
03-19-2008, 02:35 PM
I agree that that's not enough evidence and I apologize for giving the impression that I thought that was indisputable proof, but it makes me very very skeptical of Bush & Co.
That's perfectly fine to be skeptical. I'm skeptical of any politician. Always have and probably always will be.
On the subject of pre-war intelligence, here's a blurb about a Senate committee's finding on the subject:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125123,00.html
The U.S. intelligence community overstated the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States and used less-than-100 percent credible information to justify the war in Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee found
"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked, probably would have a nuclear weapon this decade," Roberts said during the press conference. "Well, today we know these assessments were wrong."
The report says U.S. intelligence analysts remained objective, but got careless, which may have led them to overestimate the threat Iraq posed to the United States, officials said. It also says U.S. officials relied too much on intelligence information from Iraqi dissidents and exiles who may have had their own agenda and didn't penetrate Saddam's inner circle effectively enough.
"The fact is, the administration, at all levels and to some extent, us [Congress], used bad information to bolster its case for war," Rockefeller said.
But the committee concluded that intelligence analysts were not pressured to change or tailor their views to support arguments for the invasion of Iraq.
"I think it's important to know that the intelligence they gave was under their judgment -- the right perception," Sen. John Corzine, D-N.J., told FOX News on Friday.
Let me guess: you're basing this on the Downing Street Memos, right? Or do you have actual proof of all that you just said here?
This is a road I have been down many times before, and not just in this forum. I notice now you are talking about "outright lies," so before we get started, a few questions.
Since we are not standing face to face with out hands on (or not on) documents and actual witnesses, could you
1) give me a better sense of what you mean by "lie." For example, if a White House spokesman says there are no plans on the table for prosecuting a war, when there are, do you cast that as the spokesman's lie and not Bush's? If Bush pressures the intel community to get the intel he wants, and then makes a case to the public with such cooked evidence, do you discount that as him merely going with "the best" intelligence available? Do you hold the president to a different standard than, say, the one you would hold Saddam Hussein to--e.g., if Saddam said he was not preparing weapons of mass destruction and it turned out after the fact he was, would you say he was lying?
(I ask because I have noticed that even though there is no evidence Saddam was trying to reconstitute any WMD programs, there are people who still claim that he was and was lying about it, and I have noticed that this group is often the hardest to convince that Bush was lying about the reasons for going to war, even though there is evidence that he was. You don't belong in this group, do you?)
and 2) give me some idea of what would count as proof for you? E.g. would newspaper reports and leaked memos count? The results of congressional inquiries and reports? The word of people who were on state dept. and CIA committees briefing the president? Most people would say yes if they are using those same sources for their counter arguments. Or does it have to be something like an actual Bush confession. What do you say?
And 3) tell me whether that proof will make any difference? I.e., if such proof is produced, and it can be shown that Bush was telling the press and public one thing while actually doing another--like trying to arrange a war while telling the public and UN he was not-- would you agree then that Bush did lie? Or would you say that trying to manipulate public support for the war was somehow the right thing to do, or that his real reasons had to remain "classified" or that he was only responding to intel provided?
steelman59
03-19-2008, 10:51 PM
Hating Israel is seperate from hating the West. There are specific issues with Israeli policy towards Palestine that even make me question its authority and Western backing.
hating isreal is different? Why? Who is Isreals main allies? Who supplies Isreal with military equipment? Who has vowed that Isreal will not fall? Let me guess the United States number 1.
steelman59
03-19-2008, 10:57 PM
Hating Israel is seperate from hating the West. There are specific issues with Israeli policy towards Palestine that even make me question its authority and Western backing.
Not only isreal, but the biggest supporter of the PLO was Saddam Hussein.
jamiethelanky
03-20-2008, 09:55 AM
hating isreal is different? Why? Who is Isreals main allies? Who supplies Isreal with military equipment? Who has vowed that Isreal will not fall? Let me guess the United States number 1.
And the United States are wrong to do so.
You don't pick sides in international politics, you look at the evidence. Israel lauched an attack upon the people of Lebanon because a small minority had launched a terror attack - the reaction completely out of proportion. Israel has been entirely wrong in how it has dealt with Palestinian civilians - kicking them out of house and home and shooting them.
philhos
03-20-2008, 02:33 PM
This is a road I have been down many times before, and not just in this forum. I notice now you are talking about "outright lies," so before we get started, a few questions.
Since we are not standing face to face with out hands on (or not on) documents and actual witnesses, could you
1) give me a better sense of what you mean by "lie." For example, if a White House spokesman says there are no plans on the table for prosecuting a war, when there are, do you cast that as the spokesman's lie and not Bush's? If Bush pressures the intel community to get the intel he wants, and then makes a case to the public with such cooked evidence, do you discount that as him merely going with "the best" intelligence available? Do you hold the president to a different standard than, say, the one you would hold Saddam Hussein to--e.g., if Saddam said he was not preparing weapons of mass destruction and it turned out after the fact he was, would you say he was lying?
(I ask because I have noticed that even though there is no evidence Saddam was trying to reconstitute any WMD programs, there are people who still claim that he was and was lying about it, and I have noticed that this group is often the hardest to convince that Bush was lying about the reasons for going to war, even though there is evidence that he was. You don't belong in this group, do you?)
A lie would be KNOWING something's false but stating it as if it were true.
and 2) give me some idea of what would count as proof for you? E.g. would newspaper reports and leaked memos count? The results of congressional inquiries and reports? The word of people who were on state dept. and CIA committees briefing the president? Most people would say yes if they are using those same sources for their counter arguments. Or does it have to be something like an actual Bush confession. What do you say?
An actual Bush confession would be nice. ;) Seriously, though, newspaper reports and leaked memos would not really count. There are too many people with an agenda in the news media and since the forged documents incident during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaigns, I'm very skeptical of any news reports or leaked memos.
People who were on state dept. and CI committees might hold more weight, but first you would have to prove the absence of an agenda and provide corroborating evidence.
Frankly, proof for me would have to be more than one thing. If you had multiple documents, multiple testimony of reliable witnesses with corroboration, then I would find it hard NOT to believe what they were saying.
And 3) tell me whether that proof will make any difference? I.e., if such proof is produced, and it can be shown that Bush was telling the press and public one thing while actually doing another--like trying to arrange a war while telling the public and UN he was not-- would you agree then that Bush did lie? Or would you say that trying to manipulate public support for the war was somehow the right thing to do, or that his real reasons had to remain "classified" or that he was only responding to intel provided?
Would the proof make any difference? In the grand scheme of things, no it wouldn't. When it comes to the war, frankly, how we got to this point should only be remembered so that we don't repeat our mistakes. Outside of that, we need to focus on winning this war.
However, on a more personal note, the proof would make a difference in how I view George Bush. I don't blindly follow and agree with everything he's done (I can't stand the spending he's done and I don't like his negligence on immigration), I do admire the man 'cause it's evident to me that ever since he's been in office, Democrats and liberals have openly demonstrated their hatred for the man. I'm generalizing, but it amazes me how so many would seemingly root for our country to fail in all things just so that Bush looks bad.
With that said, I would lose respect and I would have to question if maybe the Dems might've been right if there was tangible proof that Bush lied just to start a war.
Cracker
03-20-2008, 06:33 PM
And the United States are wrong to do so.
You don't pick sides in international politics, you look at the evidence. Israel lauched an attack upon the people of Lebanon because a small minority had launched a terror attack - the reaction completely out of proportion. Israel has been entirely wrong in how it has dealt with Palestinian civilians - kicking them out of house and home and shooting them.
I'm starting to agree, although for different reasons. I wonder what we get out of being allied to Israel? It's obvious what they get, but what's in it for us? When have we ever supported anyone to this degree without getting something out of it?
Neutral would be great, but it's not really condusive to Capitalism.
steelman59
03-20-2008, 07:01 PM
And the United States are wrong to do so.
You don't pick sides in international politics, you look at the evidence. Israel lauched an attack upon the people of Lebanon because a small minority had launched a terror attack - the reaction completely out of proportion. Israel has been entirely wrong in how it has dealt with Palestinian civilians - kicking them out of house and home and shooting them.
How could they be wrong? Look what the isreali's have had to endure throughout history. Going all the way back to the roman empire up through the holocaust of WW2, through the massacre at the summer olympics in munich in 1972. Not to mention the number of attacks on their own country. I don't blame Isreal one bit for the tactics they use. The sheep have shed their wool and are now wolves and people have a problem with that I guess. No one has lost more lifes in history through terrorism then the Isrealis and I am including the holocaust from WW2. Now you say we are wrong from backing them?
artanis
03-20-2008, 10:21 PM
I'm starting to agree, although for different reasons. I wonder what we get out of being allied to Israel? It's obvious what they get, but what's in it for us? When have we ever supported anyone to this degree without getting something out of it?
Neutral would be great, but it's not really condusive to Capitalism.
US support for Israel stems largely from the guilt felt by most Americans about the treatment of Jews during WW2...Many believed, correctly, that more could have been done by the US prior to the holocaust to save a few thousand, maybe a few tens of thousands of Jews BEFORE they ended up in camps...guilt plays heavily in this relationship...at least up until the mid 1960s.
Also...Isreal is a democracy...in a sea of Muslim dictatorships and Western hatred it is hard not to notice that as a nation Israel is very similar to us in a lot of ways...they are a democracy...they are the under-dog (something Americans very much admire)...they desire only to be left alone...they have perservered for many years against daunting odds...and, unlike most people in the region, they actually like us...yeah, yeah....most of the people in the region dislike us because of our support for Israel...TOUGH!...the US has too much invested in Israel's survival to abandon her....any anybody who calls for us to abandon Israel to the Muslim extremists needs to look up the word loyalty in a dictionary...would you abandon your son or brother or uncle to a mob of degenerates just because it would make your life easier?
tbone77
03-21-2008, 12:03 AM
A lie would be KNOWING something's false but stating it as if it were true.
One of Bush's biggest lies came when he stated, during the presidential campaign "The vast majority of my (proposed) tax cuts go to the poor end of the spectrum." In reality about 40% of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cuts package ended up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners as reported by the LA Times, and ABC and NBC news. The poorest 60% percent of people only netted about 13% of the tax cuts.
The biggest lies told by Bush are the bold faced lies he repeated leading up to the Invasion of Iraq. There is a really interesting and rather short documentary about these lies that I would recommend you view: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html. This video above demonstrates how the lies were told, and how they essentially pacified the debate as to whether or not we should really invade Iraq. You don't have to watch it, but please don't come back and slander me before you actually watch the video or read the transcript.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 12:18 AM
US support for Israel stems largely from the guilt felt by most Americans about the treatment of Jews during WW2...Many believed, correctly, that more could have been done by the US prior to the holocaust to save a few thousand, maybe a few tens of thousands of Jews BEFORE they ended up in camps...guilt plays heavily in this relationship...at least up until the mid 1960s.
Also...Isreal is a democracy...in a sea of Muslim dictatorships and Western hatred it is hard not to notice that as a nation Israel is very similar to us in a lot of ways...they are a democracy...they are the under-dog (something Americans very much admire)...they desire only to be left alone...they have perservered for many years against daunting odds...and, unlike most people in the region, they actually like us...yeah, yeah....most of the people in the region dislike us because of our support for Israel...TOUGH!...the US has too much invested in Israel's survival to abandon her....any anybody who calls for us to abandon Israel to the Muslim extremists needs to look up the word loyalty in a dictionary...would you abandon your son or brother or uncle to a mob of degenerates just because it would make your life easier?
It's not that simple my friend...the federal government would like you to think it is that simple...but the truth is much more complicated and sinister than that. I hate to break it to you, but it is what it is, and I think my country is better off knowing it's true history....beyond the good guys vs. bad guys version. We must understand our history or we are liable to repeat it.
We've installed, aided, and provided arms and money to many dictatorships in the Middle East and around the world my friend. Your point of view is not sophisticated enough for me to debate it. Let me know if you would like to debate the evidence, some of which is available online. The covert CIA operations (and some overt U.S./British operations) were mostly declassified in the past decade. Do a little research if you are interested in he evidence, and then we can talk about it. But the point is that we only like democracies that do what we tell them to do and fight who we tell them to fight. If they don't do what we tell them to do (and pay them to do), then we find foreign operatives and ambitious general's in the country's army to stage a coup d'etat. This is well known around the world my friend, but we are too proud to confront our own history with honesty and humility.
artanis
03-21-2008, 12:25 AM
It's not that simple my friend...the federal government would like you to think it is that simple...but the truth is much more complicated and sinister than that. I hate to break it to you, but it is what it is, and I think my country is better off knowing it's true history....beyond the good guys vs. bad guys version. We must understand our history or we are liable to repeat it.
We've installed, aided, and provided arms and money to many dictatorships in the Middle East and around the world my friend. Your point of view is not sophisticated enough for me to debate it. Let me know if you would like to debate the evidence, some of which is available online. The covert CIA operations (and some overt U.S./British operations) were mostly declassified in the past decade. Do a little research if you are interested in he evidence, and then we can talk about it. But the point is that we only like democracies that do what we tell them to do and fight who we tell them to fight. If they don't do what we tell them to do (and pay them to do), then we find foreign operatives and ambitious general's in the country's army to stage a coup d'etat. This is well known around the world my friend, but we are too proud to confront our own history with honesty and humility.
Well..."my friend"...then what is the truth?...you say I am wrong but I am SO STOOPID that you will not even debate me...the TRUTH is the US had ALOT of sympathy for Israel after WW2...show me that is not the case...if its not the case what is the case?...if all this info has been declassified then pleas, "friend", educate me...enlighten me...France, Britain, Germany, and plenty of other nations have supported Israel over the decades...but I suppose, "my friend", that that is only because we paid them.
Its easy to come on here and shoot your mouth off, call people unsophisticated and then offer no proof...but I suppose the only proof you have is from whacked out website somewhere...oh, by the way...since you want to infer that I am unsophisticated, I will now infer that the only reason you dislike Irael is because you are anti-semitic...why do you hate the Jews so much?
tbone77
03-21-2008, 12:58 AM
Well..."my friend"...then what is the truth?...you say I am wrong but I am SO STOOPID that you will not even debate me...the TRUTH is the US had ALOT of sympathy for Israel after WW2...show me that is not the case...if its not the case what is the case?...if all this info has been declassified then pleas, "friend", educate me...enlighten me...France, Britain, Germany, and plenty of other nations have supported Israel over the decades...but I suppose, "my friend", that that is only because we paid them.
Its easy to come on here and shoot your mouth off, call people unsophisticated and then offer no proof...but I suppose the only proof you have is from whacked out website somewhere...oh, by the way...since you want to infer that I am unsophisticated, I will now infer that the only reason you dislike Irael is because you are anti-semitic...why do you hate the Jews so much?
The truth is that we've installed, aided, and provided arms and cash to many dictatorships in the Middle East and throughout the world...My point is that we only like democracies that do what we tell them to do and fight who we tell them to fight. This has changed a bit in the past 20 years, but it still true.
By the way I said that your point of view was not sophisticated enough for me to debate it. I did not call you stupid or unsophisticated.
If speaking the truth is "shooting my mouth off" so be it.
Here are a few cases, and seriously, there is a lot of things that many of us don't know. I'm kind of a 20th century history buff so don't take offense. I have no political aim, so I am free to tell the truth and not hold back anything that might be considered offensive. You don't need to read history books. You can start with the open source at Wikipedia for starters and do some research on our foreign affairs over the past 50 years that resulted in the overthrow of 14 governments -- in Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Afghanistan, and ... Iraq.
Even worse are the failed Coup d'etats
Here's a funny one, but actually the consequences are awful: look up the history of Allen Lawrence Pope, who was shot down over Indonesia.
I'm telling you...you won't find this stuff in Mrs. Smith's high school history class. You have to research it. The stories are amazing, many of them were recently declassified, and many of them involve the CIA to some degree. I know you will think I am some kind of anti-american nutball, but the truth is I'm just a curious history buff who seeks the truth when the truth is hardly spoken.
The CIA is not as wild as it used to be. You will not be disappointed if you do some research. BTW "The Good Shepherd" was a stupid movie. This unbias history books are much more interesting. It's not "good guys vs. bad guys". It's money, covert operations, coup d'etats, state run media campaigns, U2 planes, yale graduates, electroshock therapy, torture, suicide, it's incredible....yet it's true. You just won't find it in Ms. Smith's history class at least not before 2003.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 01:03 AM
Well..."my friend"....why do you hate the Jews so much?
I don't. I hate ignorance, oppression, and hypocrisy....
artanis
03-21-2008, 01:19 AM
The truth is that we've installed, aided, and provided arms and cash to many dictatorships in the Middle East and throughout the world...My point is that we only like democracies that do what we tell them to do and fight who we tell them to fight. This has changed a bit in the past 20 years, but it still true.
By the way I said that your point of view was not sophisticated enough for me to debate it. I did not call you stupid or unsophisticated.
If speaking the truth is "shooting my mouth off" so be it.
Here are a few cases, and seriously, there is a lot of things that many of us don't know. I'm kind of a 20th century history buff so don't take offense. I have no political aim, so I am free to tell the truth and not hold back anything that might be considered offensive. You don't need to read history books. You can start with the open source at Wikipedia for starters and do some research on our foreign affairs over the past 50 years that resulted in the overthrow of 14 governments -- in Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Afghanistan, and ... Iraq.
Even worse are the failed Coup d'etats
Here's a funny one, but actually the consequences are awful: look up the history of Allen Lawrence Pope, who was shot down over Indonesia.
I'm telling you...you won't find this stuff in Mrs. Smith's high school history class. You have to research it. The stories are amazing, many of them were recently declassified, and many of them involve the CIA to some degree. I know you will think I am some kind of anti-american nutball, but the truth is I'm just a curious history buff who seeks the truth when the truth is hardly spoken.
The CIA is not as wild as it used to be. You will not be disappointed if you do some research. BTW "The Good Shepherd" was a stupid movie. This unbias history books are much more interesting. It's not "good guys vs. bad guys". It's money, covert operations, coup d'etats, state run media campaigns, U2 planes, yale graduates, electroshock therapy, torture, suicide, it's incredible....yet it's true. You just won't find it in Ms. Smith's history class at least not before 2003.
Wikopedia?...you have got to be kidding me...most high schools don't even let you quote from that monstrosity.
You have no political agenda?...in another post you just said Rep like to keep people poor...that you have infered that Israel is "sinister"...you have repeadetly crappped on one side of the isle but not the other...and now you try and tell me you have no agenda?
The CIA propped up lots of right wingers to squash the left wingers...it was the Cold War...thats what we do...during WW2 we propped up left wingers in Russia and China to beat back the Nazis and Japanese...so there...it all balances out...yes...we created Saddam to combat a militant Muslim regime in Iran...do you think you are bringing the truth to us we have never heard before?
The FACT remains, our INITIAL support for Israel was in LARGE part due to sympathy and guilt concerning the holocaust and the fact that before the gas chambers were fired up we had an opportunity to take a few thousand or ten thousand Jews off of Hitlers hands but we could not over come our anti-semitism to let them come here...so they died...that is a fact...look that up anywhere...even Wiki-noneofusisasdumbasallofus-pedia.
The Araba world launched a series of wars against Irael in the 1960s and got kicked in the jimmy...the Iralies took some land...not much...but the Arabs have been hopping mad ever since...the Isralies have made numerous offers to either purchase the land or give it back peacefully...but the Arabs do not even believe Israel has a right to exist...they want to kill every last Israelie...man, woman, and child...so yeah...I support the Israelis over the Arab Muslims who want to kill them...and us by extension.
Shooting your mouth off entails coming on here and addressing me with a false sense of familiarity which you have not earned..."friend"...you ment it sarcasticly and rudely...then you try and tell me my post is unsophisticated...yet you want to quote Wikipedia...whatthehellever.
devils advocate
03-21-2008, 01:48 AM
OK the first part of your article was revealing and interesting.Makes one wonder why,with so many perks,Americans would dare complain.
However,you totally lost me when describing the current President.
For one,it is a bit overstated to say that we have been protected from terrorism under his administration,9-11 happened during his administration.
There has been controversy regarding liberty,due process and torture,just to name a few.Really,there is almost no one person in his circle that is without some form of controversy.
Some 5 years have past since the declaration of mission complete,without a viable end in sight.His decisions have brought the country to war without regard to the facts.Speaking of war,it is also overstated to say that the brave men and women in the armed forces are protecting our freedom.The current situation has no direct baring on mine or your freedom,unless we are talking about the Patriot Act,which has a definate effect.
There are whispers of conspiracies involving energy and oil,with merit I might add.George Bush had a chance never before seen in the history civilization.He could have been the "uniter",instead he became an undeniable divider that has done nothing positive for this country in almost eight years.Seriously,outside of terrorism,name one positive decision he has made.
devils advocate
03-21-2008, 02:06 AM
Bin Ladin is a devoted Muslim.Saddam was cecular.Bin Ladin would not have teamed up with Saddam for this reason.Also,Bin Ladin offered help to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during Saddams invasion,they refused.It is highly unlikely that Bin Ladin would have then flipped,because it is his intention to bring Jihad to all infidels,Iraqi beaurocrats included.
devils advocate
03-21-2008, 02:22 AM
Hate to beat a dead horse,but there are far too many things that we will never know.Conspiracy theories abound and some have relavence.The notion of a "new" Pearl Harbor had been kicked around about a year before 9-11 actually happened by a group of highly powerful politicians and the like called "The New American Century" as well as many others.Conspiracy theorists,Michael Moore and CIA operatives should not be so easily dismissed by you,me,the President and the public in general.The goal of leadership is to maintain leadership and they will attempt to accomplish their goals by any means necessary no matter how far fetched the idea may seem.
mallorian69
03-21-2008, 04:13 AM
i know i am entering this thread late but i just had to address something. earlier jamie talked about american "double standards" and seems to imply that no other country let alone his own has never done the same thing. well jamie, have you ever heard of something called the stamp act of 1765? according to the british government those who were living in it's colonies in america were citizens of the empire and as such were supposed to have been accorded all of the same rights as all other british subjects but in fact weren't. one of the supposed rights of all british citizens was to have represintation in the british parliment but there was none for the american colonies. because of this, just the first double standard that i will point out, parliment passed the tax act of 1765 without any input from the colonies what so ever. the act required the use of stamped paper for legal documents, diplomas, almanacs, broadsides, newspapers and playing cards. the presence of the stamp on these items was to be proof that the tax had been paid and violators of the law were to be tried in the vice admrialty courts instead of civilian courts. opposition in the colonies was so great and the number of riots steadily increasing that the act was quickly repealed in fear or an armed uprising in the colonies.
the tax it's self was a double standard, only those living in the colonies were forced to pay them. all other british subjects had some say, how ever small it may have been in the british government at the time, except the americans. the fact that no other british subjects were to be tried in a militar court instead of a civilian court for failure to pay taxes was also a double standard.
another double standard of the british government occured in 1776 after the occupation of new york city and subsiquent towns later in that year and through out the entire war. while it's soldiers were murdering and raping innocent civillians peace offerings were sent to the continental congress. even though they claimed to be the most civilized nation on earth at the time and always expected their opponents to follow the rules of warfare at the time, there are too many accounts to list in the private journals and letters of members of both sides and civilians both for the revolution and tories that speak of the autrocities that the british army commited against those that the british government still considered their subjects.
those are only a few of the double standards that your country has had in the past and those are just the ones against americans. from your posts in this thread and others your have absolutly no respect for and hold in contempt anything american. but that's ok jamie cause your government had the exact same attitude in 1775 and look what happened. infact, shortly before the begining of the war one general james grant, who was also a member of the house of commons boasted that "with 5,000 british regulars he could march from one end of the american continent to the other".
it seems some things never change. the majority of those in england back then had no respect for americans as well as many others through out the years. during ww1 the british had no respect for the american doughboys even though it was the fact that america had finally entered the war and could potentially have brought millions of fresh soldiers into the fight and broken the stalemate along the western front that finally forced germany to sue for peace.
the japanese had no respect for americans when they bombed pearl harbor thinking that they could easily knock us out with a single blow. their troops were taught that all americans were cowards and wouldn't put up much of a fight anywhere they chose to attack. guess we proved them wrong too.
the soviet union never thought that if the cold war were to ever end that it would be america and not them that would end up being the ones left standing.
so go ahead and disrespect us all you want jamie, we're used to it from the world at large. but just remember that history has proven that even when people don't respect us as a nation we still come out on top and stronger then ever before.
And the United States are wrong to do so.
You don't pick sides in international politics, you look at the evidence. Israel lauched an attack upon the people of Lebanon because a small minority had launched a terror attack - the reaction completely out of proportion. Israel has been entirely wrong in how it has dealt with Palestinian civilians - kicking them out of house and home and shooting them.
ACtually, I disagree with you on that, Jamie. Israel was not "responding" to an attack.
i know i am entering this thread late but i just had to address something. earlier jamie talked about american "double standards" and seems to imply that no other country let alone his own has never done the same thing. well jamie, have you ever heard of something called the stamp act of 1765? .
Ha ha, so the British had a double standard too!
Now that he knows some history, that should stop Jamie from disrespecting US double standards!!
The FACT remains, our INITIAL support for Israel was in LARGE part due to sympathy and guilt concerning the holocaust and the fact that before the gas chambers were fired up we had an opportunity to take a few thousand or ten thousand Jews off of Hitlers hands but we could not over come our anti-semitism to let them come here...so they died...that is a fact...look that up anywhere...even Wiki-noneofusisasdumbasallofus-pedia.
The Araba world launched a series of wars against Irael in the 1960s and got kicked in the jimmy...the Iralies took some land...not much...but the Arabs have been hopping mad ever since...the Isralies have made numerous offers to either purchase the land or give it back peacefully...but the Arabs do not even believe Israel has a right to exist...they want to kill every last Israelie...man, woman, and child...so yeah...I support the Israelis over the Arab Muslims who want to kill them...and us by extension..
Artanis, I agree with you that US guilt played a large role in US support for Israel. But in order for Israel to be founded, the Israelis had to take somebody's land. That was ok with the US because the somebody was Arab and the land "not much" in the American's view. And by the way, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt did not wait until the '60s to launch a military response to protect Palestinians being run of their villages.
You seem to know more about the subject though, because I am not aware of any attempts by the state of Israel to either purchase the land taken or give it back peacefully. Who in the world would stop them from returning the land they had taken to its rightful owners?
You keep using the term "Arabs" so generally. All "Arabs" do not want to kill every last Israeli, man woman and child, though some understandably do having had family killed by the IDF and their land taken by force and their homes bulldozed. You did know there are Israeli Arabs, didn't you? I doubt if many of them would like to see every Israeli man woman and child die, since that would include them and their families. And why do you call Israel an "underdog" in the Middle-East? Which other country has anywhere near the airpower or armor as this nuclear power?
I would say the primary beef most of the world has against Israel is that its founding goes against those Enlightment values embodied in US constitution and UN charter, namely that all people have EQUAL rights, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. Israel is not a state founded on that notion of equality, and neither can support for it be so founded. People support Israelis over Arabs simply becuase they think Arabs are not equal, do not have equal rights. That is all.
States which have been colonial powers, or like the US have taken land from their own indigenous populations, often have difficulty seeing the Palestinian/Arab position on this point. To them, when a group of Europeans plants their flag somewhere in the 3rd world, well, you have to stand for the people who wear the same clothing styles you do. If the subjected population rebels, then you must support help the Europeans fight their terrorism.
PS Most Arabs LIKE Americans. Last week I had to file a traffic report at a police station in the middle of the desert. The Major there kept me an hour there drinking tea and asking me questions about Pennsylvania. He was so happy to actually meet and talk with an American. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. Most Arabs separate the American people and the values America used to stand for from the current administration.
steelman59
03-21-2008, 08:10 AM
Artanis, I agree with you that US guilt played a large role in US support for Israel. But in order for Israel to be founded, the Israelis had to take somebody's land. That was ok with the US because the somebody was Arab and the land "not much" in the American's view. And by the way, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt did not wait until the '60s to launch a military response to protect Palestinians being run of their villages.
You seem to know more about the subject though, because I am not aware of any attempts by the state of Israel to either purchase the land taken or give it back peacefully. Who in the world would stop them from returning the land they had taken to its rightful owners?
You keep using the term "Arabs" so generally. All "Arabs" do not want to kill every last Israeli, man woman and child, though some understandably do having had family killed by the IDF and their land taken by force and their homes bulldozed. You did know there are Israeli Arabs, didn't you? I doubt if many of them would like to see every Israeli man woman and child die, since that would include them and their families. And why do you call Israel an "underdog" in the Middle-East? Which other country has anywhere near the airpower or armor as this nuclear power?
I would say the primary beef most of the world has against Israel is that its founding goes against those Enlightment values embodied in US constitution and UN charter, namely that all people have EQUAL rights, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. Israel is not a state founded on that notion of equality, and neither can support for it be so founded. People support Israelis over Arabs simply becuase they think Arabs are not equal, do not have equal rights. That is all.
States which have been colonial powers, or like the US have taken land from their own indigenous populations, often have difficulty seeing the Palestinian/Arab position on this point. To them, when a group of Europeans plants their flag somewhere in the 3rd world, well, you have to stand for the people who wear the same clothing styles you do. If the subjected population rebels, then you must support help the Europeans fight their terrorism.
PS Most Arabs LIKE Americans. Last week I had to file a traffic report at a police station in the middle of the desert. The Major there kept me an hour there drinking tea and asking me questions about Pennsylvania. He was so happy to actually meet and talk with an American. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. Most Arabs separate the American people and the values America used to stand for from the current administration.
The problem Dill is not with the Arab people, it is with the governments of these countries. You ask who in the Middle East could compete with Isreal, well Saudia Arabia and Eygpt are probably the only two that could, but that is not the problem here. The problem is that Isreal is surrounded by Arab governments that would love nothing more then to take Isreal out. Individually they could not do it, however if one country decided to get froggy and attack isreal, how long do you think it would take for the rest of them to join forces. This is why the US relationship is so important with Saudi Arabia. I don't know it seems that even though Saudi is not well liked by a lot of the countries over there, because of their relationship with the US, their voice is still heard by the other countries, such as Iran and Syria. In short logistically and strategically Isreal is not in a good position in the world.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 09:43 AM
Wikopedia?...you have got to be kidding me...most high schools don't even let you quote from that monstrosity.
You have no political agenda?...in another post you just said Rep like to keep people poor...that you have infered that Israel is "sinister"...you have repeadetly crappped on one side of the isle but not the other...and now you try and tell me you have no agenda?
The CIA propped up lots of right wingers to squash the left wingers...it was the Cold War...thats what we do...during WW2 we propped up left wingers in Russia and China to beat back the Nazis and Japanese...so there...it all balances out...yes...we created Saddam to combat a militant Muslim regime in Iran...do you think you are bringing the truth to us we have never heard before?
The FACT remains, our INITIAL support for Israel was in LARGE part due to sympathy and guilt concerning the holocaust and the fact that before the gas chambers were fired up we had an opportunity to take a few thousand or ten thousand Jews off of Hitlers hands but we could not over come our anti-semitism to let them come here...so they died...that is a fact...look that up anywhere...even Wiki-noneofusisasdumbasallofus-pedia.
The Araba world launched a series of wars against Irael in the 1960s and got kicked in the jimmy...the Iralies took some land...not much...but the Arabs have been hopping mad ever since...the Isralies have made numerous offers to either purchase the land or give it back peacefully...but the Arabs do not even believe Israel has a right to exist...they want to kill every last Israelie...man, woman, and child...so yeah...I support the Israelis over the Arab Muslims who want to kill them...and us by extension.
Shooting your mouth off entails coming on here and addressing me with a false sense of familiarity which you have not earned..."friend"...you ment it sarcasticly and rudely...then you try and tell me my post is unsophisticated...yet you want to quote Wikipedia...whatthehellever.
Look Sinatra, you can buy the lines that the government feeds you...As for me, I'll do my own research.
The truth is hard to swallow sometimes. I understand that. If you want to debate the facts, be my guest.
If you just want to slander me...go for it. I don't have the time for shenanigans.
You won't silence me.
You can't silence the truth.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 10:40 AM
How could they be wrong? Look what the isreali's have had to endure throughout history. Going all the way back to the roman empire up through the holocaust of WW2, through the massacre at the summer olympics in munich in 1972. Not to mention the number of attacks on their own country. I don't blame Isreal one bit for the tactics they use. The sheep have shed their wool and are now wolves and people have a problem with that I guess. No one has lost more lifes in history through terrorism then the Isrealis and I am including the holocaust from WW2. Now you say we are wrong from backing them?
Yes, because no matter what terror has been dealt against the Jewish people in the past, the way they are dealing with Palestine and the way they dealt with Hamas was completely disproportionate.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 10:40 AM
i know i am entering this thread late but i just had to address something. earlier jamie talked about american "double standards" and seems to imply that no other country let alone his own has never done the same thing. well jamie, have you ever heard of something called the stamp act of 1765? according to the british government those who were living in it's colonies in america were citizens of the empire and as such were supposed to have been accorded all of the same rights as all other british subjects but in fact weren't. one of the supposed rights of all british citizens was to have represintation in the british parliment but there was none for the american colonies. because of this, just the first double standard that i will point out, parliment passed the tax act of 1765 without any input from the colonies what so ever. the act required the use of stamped paper for legal documents, diplomas, almanacs, broadsides, newspapers and playing cards. the presence of the stamp on these items was to be proof that the tax had been paid and violators of the law were to be tried in the vice admrialty courts instead of civilian courts. opposition in the colonies was so great and the number of riots steadily increasing that the act was quickly repealed in fear or an armed uprising in the colonies.
the tax it's self was a double standard, only those living in the colonies were forced to pay them. all other british subjects had some say, how ever small it may have been in the british government at the time, except the americans. the fact that no other british subjects were to be tried in a militar court instead of a civilian court for failure to pay taxes was also a double standard.
another double standard of the british government occured in 1776 after the occupation of new york city and subsiquent towns later in that year and through out the entire war. while it's soldiers were murdering and raping innocent civillians peace offerings were sent to the continental congress. even though they claimed to be the most civilized nation on earth at the time and always expected their opponents to follow the rules of warfare at the time, there are too many accounts to list in the private journals and letters of members of both sides and civilians both for the revolution and tories that speak of the autrocities that the british army commited against those that the british government still considered their subjects.
those are only a few of the double standards that your country has had in the past and those are just the ones against americans. from your posts in this thread and others your have absolutly no respect for and hold in contempt anything american. but that's ok jamie cause your government had the exact same attitude in 1775 and look what happened. infact, shortly before the begining of the war one general james grant, who was also a member of the house of commons boasted that "with 5,000 british regulars he could march from one end of the american continent to the other".
it seems some things never change. the majority of those in england back then had no respect for americans as well as many others through out the years. during ww1 the british had no respect for the american doughboys even though it was the fact that america had finally entered the war and could potentially have brought millions of fresh soldiers into the fight and broken the stalemate along the western front that finally forced germany to sue for peace.
the japanese had no respect for americans when they bombed pearl harbor thinking that they could easily knock us out with a single blow. their troops were taught that all americans were cowards and wouldn't put up much of a fight anywhere they chose to attack. guess we proved them wrong too.
the soviet union never thought that if the cold war were to ever end that it would be america and not them that would end up being the ones left standing.
so go ahead and disrespect us all you want jamie, we're used to it from the world at large. but just remember that history has proven that even when people don't respect us as a nation we still come out on top and stronger then ever before.
I'm very sorry for 250 years ago.
Now let's talk about relevant things.
And for your information, we actually greatly valued your help in the World Wars. So quit lying and get back to what you were previously doing in this thread. I do not disrespect America, I disrespect Bush's foreign policy and it is well within my rights to do that as a rational member of a democracy. If you want to close your ears and put your head in the sand (ie. run off and watch Fox News) then go do so. I will forever challenge what I see as wrong.
NashvilleBengalfan
03-21-2008, 10:44 AM
We aren't spoiled we just smell that way.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 10:45 AM
The problem Dill is not with the Arab people, it is with the governments of these countries. You ask who in the Middle East could compete with Isreal, well Saudia Arabia and Eygpt are probably the only two that could, but that is not the problem here. The problem is that Isreal is surrounded by Arab governments that would love nothing more then to take Isreal out. Individually they could not do it, however if one country decided to get froggy and attack isreal, how long do you think it would take for the rest of them to join forces. This is why the US relationship is so important with Saudi Arabia. I don't know it seems that even though Saudi is not well liked by a lot of the countries over there, because of their relationship with the US, their voice is still heard by the other countries, such as Iran and Syria. In short logistically and strategically Isreal is not in a good position in the world.
There's only a few rogue states that would. Most Arab governments are ambivalent to Israel, despite what they did in Lebanon and what they continue to do in Palestine.
steelman59
03-21-2008, 11:13 AM
There's only a few rogue states that would. Most Arab governments are ambivalent to Israel, despite what they did in Lebanon and what they continue to do in Palestine.
Give me a break already Jamie, something I have noticed with you. While you are quick to condemn the US and Isreal on their actions against other countries and terrorist organizations, you fail to comment on the actions these countries and organizations have committed against them. I guess in your mind it is quite exceptable for some one to walk into a restraunt and detonate explosives, but if that country responds then they are wrong. Its real simple, they stop killing innocent people and we won't blow them to Hades!
Every action causes a reaction, basic law of physics. Also basic law of human kind. Go ahead and defend these poor illequipped countries and organizations because the big bad US is taking advantage of them with our superior military might, guess they should have thought about that might before they gave their blessing on killing innocent people in the Trade Centers or in the case of Isreal blowing up innocent people in Tel AVIV. You whole non violence attitude is crap in the real world. You lay down and whimper when you get kicked by these fanatics and they are just going to keep doing it. Like someone I know says, you turn the other cheek and they will hit that one to.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 11:19 AM
Give me a break already Jamie, something I have noticed with you. While you are quick to condemn the US and Isreal on their actions against other countries and terrorist organizations, you fail to comment on the actions these countries and organizations have committed against them. I guess in your mind it is quite exceptable for some one to walk into a restraunt and detonate explosives, but if that country responds then they are wrong. Its real simple, they stop killing innocent people and we won't blow them to Hades!
Every action causes a reaction, basic law of physics. Also basic law of human kind. Go ahead and defend these poor illequipped countries and organizations because the big bad US is taking advantage of them with our superior military might, guess they should have thought about that might before they gave their blessing on killing innocent people in the Trade Centers or in the case of Isreal blowing up innocent people in Tel AVIV. You whole non violence attitude is crap in the real world. You lay down and whimper when you get kicked by these fanatics and they are just going to keep doing it. Like someone I know says, you turn the other cheek and they will hit that one to.
Point #1 - ill equipped countries
Many of your so called illequipped countries are well equipped with U.S. and Russian issue weapons.
Point #2 - WTC and 9/11
Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Guess what the main source of income is in Saudi Arabia??? The cognitive dissonance is insane.
http://subintsoc.net/images/sr_20050426_bush_abdullah.jpg
steelman59
03-21-2008, 11:23 AM
Point #1 - ill equipped countries
Many of your so called illequipped countries are well equipped with U.S. and Russian issue weapons.
Point #2 - WTC and 9/11
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Guess what the main source of income is in that country? Guess what we are doing about it?
http://subintsoc.net/images/sr_20050426_bush_abdullah.jpg
outdated weapons and even though they were from saudi arabia, they were not financed by the Saudis nor given safe haven. It has nothing to do with their origin it has everything to do with who supports them.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 11:37 AM
outdated weapons and even though they were from saudi arabia, they were not financed by the Saudis nor given safe haven. It has nothing to do with their origin it has everything to do with who supports them.
Ahhhhhhhhhh yes...Saudi Arabia had NOTHING to do with 9/11, Saudi Arabia has NOTHING to do with the islamic jihad movement, and Saudi Arabi has NOTHING to do with the Iraqi insurgency...:rolleyes:
Very good then...carry on...everyone fill your cars with another tank of gas. Everything is peachy....Now let's not do anything to displease the Saudis...that would not be good...The Saudis are our friends :rolleyes:
mallorian69
03-21-2008, 12:48 PM
I'm very sorry for 250 years ago.
Now let's talk about relevant things.
And for your information, we actually greatly valued your help in the World Wars. So quit lying and get back to what you were previously doing in this thread. I do not disrespect America, I disrespect Bush's foreign policy and it is well within my rights to do that as a rational member of a democracy. If you want to close your ears and put your head in the sand (ie. run off and watch Fox News) then go do so. I will forever challenge what I see as wrong.
it is relevant when when you imply we are the only country that has ever had double standards. you seem to forget it wasn't only US aid that saddam recieved during the late 70's early 80's.http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0306britdirty.htm
you also seem to forget it wasn't only US troops that invaded iraq, or that the decision to go into iraq was based in no small measure on what british intelligence reports claimed.
you bash the US for overthrowing the rightful governments in various nations around the world but forget your own country's long and sordid hisrtory of not only overthrowing the governments of many nations and peoples around the world but subjecting them to british rule and draining them of their own resources to support your empire.
so go ahead, sit back and act all high and mighty while sipping you tea and eating your crumpets. just remember that your own country has desposed of more governments and conquered more peoples that almost anyone else in history, and that the US learned how to do it from the best.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 01:37 PM
it is relevant when when you imply we are the only country that has ever had double standards. you seem to forget it wasn't only US aid that saddam recieved during the late 70's early 80's.http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0306britdirty.htm
you also seem to forget it wasn't only US troops that invaded iraq, or that the decision to go into iraq was based in no small measure on what british intelligence reports claimed.
you bash the US for overthrowing the rightful governments in various nations around the world but forget your own country's long and sordid hisrtory of not only overthrowing the governments of many nations and peoples around the world but subjecting them to british rule and draining them of their own resources to support your empire.
so go ahead, sit back and act all high and mighty while sipping you tea and eating your crumpets. just remember that your own country has desposed of more governments and conquered more peoples that almost anyone else in history, and that the US learned how to do it from the best.
You think I support my government?
Oh yeah, cos everyone in Britain is on the Blair coat-tails...
Frankly, we had an empire - that was wrong, we went to war in Iraq on false pretences based on Alastair Campbell's lies. We were wrong. But so were you. And I will bash both the Blair government and Bush government for the war.
Don't bury your head, and don't be ignorant of how being from a country can equal supporting a country's foreign policy. If only more Americans would hold Bush accountable...
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 01:38 PM
Give me a break already Jamie, something I have noticed with you. While you are quick to condemn the US and Isreal on their actions against other countries and terrorist organizations, you fail to comment on the actions these countries and organizations have committed against them. I guess in your mind it is quite exceptable for some one to walk into a restraunt and detonate explosives, but if that country responds then they are wrong. Its real simple, they stop killing innocent people and we won't blow them to Hades!
Every action causes a reaction, basic law of physics. Also basic law of human kind. Go ahead and defend these poor illequipped countries and organizations because the big bad US is taking advantage of them with our superior military might, guess they should have thought about that might before they gave their blessing on killing innocent people in the Trade Centers or in the case of Isreal blowing up innocent people in Tel AVIV. You whole non violence attitude is crap in the real world. You lay down and whimper when you get kicked by these fanatics and they are just going to keep doing it. Like someone I know says, you turn the other cheek and they will hit that one to.
They were terrorist groups, not nation states. They should be dealt with as such.
There, consider the matter considered.
mallorian69
03-21-2008, 02:57 PM
You think I support my government?
Oh yeah, cos everyone in Britain is on the Blair coat-tails...
Frankly, we had an empire - that was wrong, we went to war in Iraq on false pretences based on Alastair Campbell's lies. We were wrong. But so were you. And I will bash both the Blair government and Bush government for the war.
Don't bury your head, and don't be ignorant of how being from a country can equal supporting a country's foreign policy. If only more Americans would hold Bush accountable...
ah i see. instead of spending your time to try to right what you see wrong with you own government you would rather spend it bashing a government in which you have no say on a message board that has no influence with that government. if you spent half as much time working to change your own government as you have spent bashing mine you might have actually accomplished something by now.
instead of admiting that your own government is just as responsible for the war in iraq as mine you have repeatedly laid the blame entirely on my government and omitted you own government's involvement untill confronted with it.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 03:08 PM
ah i see. instead of spending your time to try to right what you see wrong with you own government you would rather spend it bashing a government in which you have no say on a message board that has no influence with that government. if you spent half as much time working to change your own government as you have spent bashing mine you might have actually accomplished something by now.
instead of admiting that your own government is just as responsible for the war in iraq as mine you have repeatedly laid the blame entirely on my government and omitted you own government's involvement untill confronted with it.
I don't actually have a clue what you are on about, here. So what you're saying is essentially that because I don't like my government I should concertrate solely on that and completely ignore the mess that's your government's foreign policy.
I am not "bashing" your government, I am pointing out its shortcomings. Maybe its time for the American people to extract their head from their collective **** and engineer the change needed in your country.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 03:37 PM
no what i'm saying is that if you and others like you would worry more about their own country's problems instead of what the big bad americans are doing your country wouldn't have very many problems. incase you haven't noticed your country's crime rate has risen over the last several years and your economy isn't doing all that hot either. and while internationally your country doesn't take the heat that the US does it is still seen as america's sidekick and willing accomplice. why don't you do something about those issues, issues that you do have some power to control, instead of those that you have no control of over here.
Because, my dear, this is an American message board. If I want to discuss British issues I shall do it on a British message board.
Hence my country's problems are not up for discussion - yours are. And just because I'm not from your country does not exempt me from having an opinion.
mallorian69
03-21-2008, 03:37 PM
I don't actually have a clue what you are on about, here. So what you're saying is essentially that because I don't like my government I should concertrate solely on that and completely ignore the mess that's your government's foreign policy.
I am not "bashing" your government, I am pointing out its shortcomings. Maybe its time for the American people to extract their head from their collective **** and engineer the change needed in your country.
no what i'm saying is that if you and others like you would worry more about their own country's problems instead of what the big bad americans are doing your country wouldn't have very many problems. incase you haven't noticed your country's crime rate has risen over the last several years and your economy isn't doing all that hot either. and while internationally your country doesn't take the heat that the US does it is still seen as america's sidekick and willing accomplice. why don't you do something about those issues, issues that you do have some power to control, instead of those that you have no control of over here.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 03:39 PM
Because, my dear, this is an American message board. If I want to discuss British issues I shall do it on a British message board.
Hence my country's problems are not up for discussion - yours are. And just because I'm not from your country does not exempt me from having an opinion.
An opinion of what? You don't live here. All you base your judgements on are what everyone else in the world thinks.
Gawd, its like Canadians offering their 'opinions' on our government.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 03:40 PM
An opinion of what? You don't live here. All you base your judgements on are what everyone else in the world thinks.
Gawd, its like Canadians offering their 'opinions' on our government.
Is this sarcastic?
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 03:41 PM
Is this sarcastic?
Half. It does irritate me when people volunteer their opinions on my country, only pointing out the shortcomings, instead of making a point of what is done correctly.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 03:42 PM
And what change would that be Jamie? Changing to a dictatorship? Communism? Monarchy?
Changing to a nation which cares about other countries, that takes care of its poor and that when something goes wrong admitting it and taking accountability.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 03:43 PM
I don't actually have a clue what you are on about, here. So what you're saying is essentially that because I don't like my government I should concertrate solely on that and completely ignore the mess that's your government's foreign policy.
I am not "bashing" your government, I am pointing out its shortcomings. Maybe its time for the American people to extract their head from their collective **** and engineer the change needed in your country.
And what change would that be Jamie? Changing to a dictatorship? Communism? Monarchy? Or something simple, like changing our leader?
VCU Rams
03-21-2008, 03:45 PM
Changing to a nation which cares about other countries, that takes care of its poor and that when something goes wrong admitting it and taking accountability.
*Gives standing ovation*
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 03:46 PM
Changing to a nation which cares about other countries, that takes care of its poor and that when something goes wrong admitting it and taking accountability.
Unfortunately, it isn't just a switch that we can flip on and off. The American people don't control the foreign policy of the country, and a new leader can only do so much. Seriously, the world acts like we are a Darfur, or a China. We do the best we can, 'We' being the people of our country, to help the people in need. The democratic party is not the same as it was 50 years ago, that being, the party that represented the workers. There will be no one taking accountability, there will be not a care in the world for the poor, because all they care about are their own interests and money.
Both parties only represent themselves. They don't care about the people.
There isn't much the American people can do to "Get their collective heads out of their ****" short of an open, armed rebellion. Why would we want to do that? We're fat, rich and spoiled, and frankly, the American people are too frickin lazy to do anything more than wave a sign around in front of the white house.
VCU Rams
03-21-2008, 03:51 PM
Unfortunately, it isn't just a switch that we can flip on and off. The American people don't control the foreign policy of the country, and a new leader can only do so much. Seriously, the world acts like we are a Darfur, or a China. We do the best we can, 'We' being the people of our country, to help the people in need. The democratic party is not the same as it was 50 years ago, that being, the party that represented the workers. There will be no one taking accountability, there will be not a care in the world for the poor, because all they care about are their own interests and money.
Both parties only represent themselves. They don't care about the people.
There isn't much the American people can do to "Get their collective heads out of their ****" short of an open, armed rebellion. Why would we want to do that? We're fat, rich and spoiled, and frankly, the American people are too frickin lazy to do anything more than wave a sign around in front of the white house, which historically does absolutely nothing.
Ugh, ever heard of Martin Luther King, the women's suffrage movement, animal rights, increasing benefits (UAW), etc. etc. etc.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 03:54 PM
Unfortunately, it isn't just a switch that we can flip on and off. The American people don't control the foreign policy of the country, and a new leader can only do so much. Seriously, the world acts like we are a Darfur, or a China. We do the best we can, 'We' being the people of our country, to help the people in need. The democratic party is not the same as it was 50 years ago, that being, the party that represented the workers. There will be no one taking accountability, there will be not a care in the world for the poor, because all they care about are their own interests and money.
Both parties only represent themselves. They don't care about the people.
There isn't much the American people can do to "Get their collective heads out of their ****" short of an open, armed rebellion. Why would we want to do that? We're fat, rich and spoiled, and frankly, the American people are too frickin lazy to do anything more than wave a sign around in front of the white house, which historically does absolutely nothing.
You could vote in a candidate who could bring real change. You could set up a political party and run. You could try to get into people's heads. If enough people want change - it should happen if you're a decent and open enough democracy.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 03:54 PM
Ugh, ever heard of Martin Luther King, the women's suffrage movement, animal rights, increasing benefits (UAW), etc. etc. etc.
That was more than 40 years ago. I am referring to America after the 80's.
What do you think Animal Rights workers do? They wave signs around.
devils advocate
03-21-2008, 03:56 PM
There is much the American people can do to advocate change.We can limit the terms of all government tenures,including the Supreme Court.The problem is Americans believe what they are told by their leaders.A disproportionate amount of Americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11.This is unacceptable.The government has betrayed its peoples trust...out in the open,I might add.Protecting "American interests" means something entirely different to those in power,than it does to you and me,believe that!!
VCU Rams
03-21-2008, 03:56 PM
That was more than 40 years ago. I am referring to America after the 80's.
What do you think Animal Rights workers do? They wave signs around.
You used the word "historically" right? Which is an absolutely false claim.
EDIT: And yes, they do just waive signs, but they have also successfully lowered the amount of animal testing with cosmetic products as well as raised the standards on the meat packing plants which were far below standard till just recently.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 03:59 PM
You used the word "historically" right? Which is an absolutely false claim.
Yes, I shouldn't have used a generalization like that. Sorry, I'm referring to more recent. I'll change it.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 04:01 PM
You could vote in a candidate who could bring real change. You could set up a political party and run. You could try to get into people's heads. If enough people want change - it should happen if you're a decent and open enough democracy.
But we are not in a democracy. It was never even intended for there to be political parties.
Who do you think the founding fathers were? Poor working class farmers?
They were the richest and most powerful men in the new country, and they structured the constitution so that only the intellectually elite could rule over it, for the betterment of the poorer, less fortunate. While that was a noble aim, it has been so corrupted today by the political parties and by money that the whole goal has been completely forgotten. Which is the basis for my point that there will not be a leader who cares about this country, who cares about its people or who cares about anything else but personal gain.
mallorian69
03-21-2008, 04:03 PM
Changing to a nation which cares about other countries, that takes care of its poor and that when something goes wrong admitting it and taking accountability.
so america doesn't give more foreign aid to other countries then any other country in the world? we didn't send more peacekeepers into bosnia to try to stop the ethnic cleansing in the begining then any other country in the world? your country that you seem to think is so great has eliminated poverty and has no homeless people? i still have yet to see anything from your country where they have taken responsibility for helping to create the monster that was saddam and the current mess in iraq.
you know jamie if i didn't know any better i would think with all of your hatred for america that you were actually french and not english.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 04:03 PM
You used the word "historically" right? Which is an absolutely false claim.
EDIT: And yes, they do just waive signs, but they have also successfully lowered the amount of animal testing with cosmetic products as well as raised the standards on the meat packing plants which were far below standard till just recently.
And why do you think government officials cave to these people? Because there are large groups of people who are pushing for it. If an official fears his reelection, he is going to listen to a large group, because of his own personal gain. See? It all comes back to that one thing.
Also, a change in the government will not happen by waving signs. Yes, you can alter laws that are in place or put pressure on to create new ones, but you can't change a system of government that has been in place for any amount of time by waving signs.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 04:04 PM
so america doesn't give more foreign aid to other countries then any other country in the world? we didn't send more peacekeepers into bosnia to try to stop the ethnic cleansing in the begining then any other country in the world? your country that you seem to think is so great has eliminated poverty and has no homeless people? i still have yet to see anything from your country where they have taken responsibility for helping to create the monster that was saddam and the current mess in iraq.
you know jamie if i didn't know any better i would think with all of your hatred for america that you were actually french and not english.
Actually, percentagewise we don't give crap. Based on what we have compared to what we give, it is tiny.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 04:06 PM
There is much the American people can do to advocate change.We can limit the terms of all government tenures,including the Supreme Court.The problem is Americans believe what they are told by their leaders.A disproportionate amount of Americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11.This is unacceptable.The government has betrayed its peoples trust...out in the open,I might add.Protecting "American interests" means something entirely different to those in power,than it does to you and me,believe that!!
Funny thing about Supreme Court Justices is how they time their retirements and sometimes fight the grim reaper until their party is in power to appoint their replacement. Near the end of his lengthy Supreme Court career, Justice Thurgood Marshall joked that in order to hang onto his judicial power until a Democratic president was in office to appoint his successor, "I've instructed my clerks that if I should die they should have me stuffed and continue to cast my votes." Marshall died of heart failure at the age of 84. He died at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, at 2:58 p.m. on January 24, 1993....Bill Clinton was inaugurated January 20, 1993. There are other cases as well, but that one was kind of extreme. Crazy stuff you don't find in Mrs. Smith's history class!
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 04:08 PM
so america doesn't give more foreign aid to other countries then any other country in the world? we didn't send more peacekeepers into bosnia to try to stop the ethnic cleansing in the begining then any other country in the world? your country that you seem to think is so great has eliminated poverty and has no homeless people? i still have yet to see anything from your country where they have taken responsibility for helping to create the monster that was saddam and the current mess in iraq.
you know jamie if i didn't know any better i would think with all of your hatred for america that you were actually french and not english.
I have no hatred of America, I thoguht you'd be intelligent enough to work out that criticism doesn't mean hatred. I criticise Gandhi's attitude towards black people but admire his work for freedom.
Our country has poverty and homeless people, but at least there are people in government who care about that, instead of their relationship with big business. Blair never went back on going in on Iraq, Thatcher never apologised for helping would but she didn't care about anyone or anything unless it helped her or the people who voted her in.
jamiethelanky
03-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Actually, percentagewise we don't give crap. Based on what we have compared to what we give, it is tiny.
True dat. I think it's Norway that gives the most as a %.
VCU Rams
03-21-2008, 04:09 PM
But we are not in a democracy. It was never even intended for there to be political parties.
Who do you think the founding fathers were? Poor working class farmers?
They were the richest and most powerful men in the new country, and they structured the constitution so that only the intellectually elite could rule over it, for the betterment of the poorer, less fortunate. While that was a noble aim, it has been so corrupted today by the political parties and by money that the whole goal has been completely forgotten. Which is the basis for my point that there will not be a leader who cares about this country, who cares about its people or who cares about anything else but personal gain.
I agree with much of this, but ultimately it is the American people who hold the power to make change. Last time I checked we are the ones who nominate those who even run for president. The problem is that sooooo many people get caught up in their political affiliations, like:
"I'm a republican, and even though Bush has butchered the budget and put us in a national debt we will never be able to recover from, I will still vote for him. Even though that goes completely against what my party stands for."
Of course the fact that both our candidates for pres. in 2004 were among the worst in American history didn't help that fact. I actually feel we have two of the strongest candidates running for president in a while should Obama get the nomination. At least in my case, deciding who to vote for won't be who is less bad, but rather who is the best of the two very strong candidates.
Should Hillary get the nomination, my decision will have been made for me :angry:
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 04:13 PM
I agree with much of this, but ultimately it is the American people who hold the power to make change. Last time I checked we are the ones who nominate those who even run for president. The problem is that sooooo many people get caught up in their political affiliations, like:
"I'm a republican, and even though Bush has butchered the budget and put us in a national debt we will never be able to recover from, I will still vote for him. Even though that goes completely against what my party stands for."
Of course the fact that both our candidates for pres. in 2004 were among the worst in American history didn't help that fact. I actually feel we have two of the strongest candidates running for president in a while should Obama get the nomination. At least in my case, deciding who to vote for won't be who is less bad, but rather who is the best of the two very strong candidates.
Should Hillary get the nomination, my decision will have been made for me :angry:
EXACTLY.
Also, and I can say that this is historic, is that a party that was not republican or democrat has not won since the late 19th century. These two parties have ruined our country.
devils advocate
03-21-2008, 04:17 PM
America was intended to be a Republic,where states have individual rights,united in war and on a global scale.Political parties is a by-product of being able to elect officials which,ironically has hindered the election process.The electorate has its hands binded by the two party system,incapacitating any third party advocating real change.The choice between two becomes the choice between the lesser evil,in turn making it not a choice at all.Speaking of choice,the illusion of choice does not make one free.The government understands this and would have you believe that choice equals freedom,which it most certainly does not.
Unfortunately, it isn't just a switch that we can flip on and off. The American people don't control the foreign policy of the country, and a new leader can only do so much. Seriously, the world acts like we are a Darfur, or a China. We do the best we can, 'We' being the people of our country, to help the people in need. The democratic party is not the same as it was 50 years ago, that being, the party that represented the workers. There will be no one taking accountability, there will be not a care in the world for the poor, because all they care about are their own interests and money.
Both parties only represent themselves. They don't care about the people.
There isn't much the American people can do to "Get their collective heads out of their ****" short of an open, armed rebellion. Why would we want to do that? We're fat, rich and spoiled, and frankly, the American people are too frickin lazy to do anything more than wave a sign around in front of the white house, which historically does absolutely nothing.
Well, it took some persistence, but it ended the Vietnam war, among other things...
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 04:20 PM
Well, it took some persistence, but it ended the Vietnam war, among other things...
With bloodshed involved in the protesters.
Would you put your life on the line for a cause like changing our government?
Ugh, ever heard of Martin Luther King, the women's suffrage movement, animal rights, increasing benefits (UAW), etc. etc. etc.
like these things
But we are not in a democracy. It was never even intended for there to be political parties.
Who do you think the founding fathers were? Poor working class farmers?
They were the richest and most powerful men in the new country, and they structured the constitution so that only the intellectually elite could rule over it, for the betterment of the poorer, less fortunate. While that was a noble aim, it has been so corrupted today by the political parties and by money that the whole goal has been completely forgotten. Which is the basis for my point that there will not be a leader who cares about this country, who cares about its people or who cares about anything else but personal gain.
But thou art an Avenger. How canst thy hopes be so limited?
VCU Rams
03-21-2008, 04:22 PM
Well, it took some persistence, but it ended the Vietnam war, among other things...
like these things
We've already addressed that :thumbsup:
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 04:25 PM
But thou art an Avenger. How canst thy hopes be so limited?
The people of this country are beyond noobs, friend.. There is only so much one avenger can do. :(
artanis
03-21-2008, 04:27 PM
Look Sinatra, you can buy the lines that the government feeds you...As for me, I'll do my own research.
The truth is hard to swallow sometimes. I understand that. If you want to debate the facts, be my guest.
If you just want to slander me...go for it. I don't have the time for shenanigans.
You won't silence me.
You can't silence the truth.
Silence the truth?...what a load of Rothlesburger!
I slander you?...sorry...I am just not "sophisticated" enough to converse with the great and wise tbone-head.
We've already addressed that :thumbsup:
Yeah, for some reason I am not getting updates in "real time." Sorry for going over old ground and kudos for your efforts in the discussion today.:thumbsup:
With bloodshed involved in the protesters.
Would you put your life on the line for a cause like changing our government?
Noob, take a happy pill, please. You are one of the rational, informed, voices that gives me hope while I hang out on the MB. I really want there to be more hope in your heart. :thumbsup:
artanis
03-21-2008, 04:34 PM
Artanis, I agree with you that US guilt played a large role in US support for Israel. But in order for Israel to be founded, the Israelis had to take somebody's land. That was ok with the US because the somebody was Arab and the land "not much" in the American's view. And by the way, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt did not wait until the '60s to launch a military response to protect Palestinians being run of their villages.
You seem to know more about the subject though, because I am not aware of any attempts by the state of Israel to either purchase the land taken or give it back peacefully. Who in the world would stop them from returning the land they had taken to its rightful owners?
You keep using the term "Arabs" so generally. All "Arabs" do not want to kill every last Israeli, man woman and child, though some understandably do having had family killed by the IDF and their land taken by force and their homes bulldozed. You did know there are Israeli Arabs, didn't you? I doubt if many of them would like to see every Israeli man woman and child die, since that would include them and their families. And why do you call Israel an "underdog" in the Middle-East? Which other country has anywhere near the airpower or armor as this nuclear power?
I would say the primary beef most of the world has against Israel is that its founding goes against those Enlightment values embodied in US constitution and UN charter, namely that all people have EQUAL rights, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. Israel is not a state founded on that notion of equality, and neither can support for it be so founded. People support Israelis over Arabs simply becuase they think Arabs are not equal, do not have equal rights. That is all.
States which have been colonial powers, or like the US have taken land from their own indigenous populations, often have difficulty seeing the Palestinian/Arab position on this point. To them, when a group of Europeans plants their flag somewhere in the 3rd world, well, you have to stand for the people who wear the same clothing styles you do. If the subjected population rebels, then you must support help the Europeans fight their terrorism.
PS Most Arabs LIKE Americans. Last week I had to file a traffic report at a police station in the middle of the desert. The Major there kept me an hour there drinking tea and asking me questions about Pennsylvania. He was so happy to actually meet and talk with an American. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me. Most Arabs separate the American people and the values America used to stand for from the current administration.
Gothcha!...yes...you are correct....I used the term "Arab" much too loosely...but that is not really the point...and yes, land was taken, by force, from said "Arabs"....again...not really the point...as awful as that seems...over the years Israel has offered monetary compensation for the dislocation of families...that is what I ment by buying the land...a subtle diffrence, but an important one.
PS...most Americans like Arabs...or Persians...or Indians or Afghans or Bengals...hehehehehe...get it...Bengals....thats pretty good huh?...no?...I thought it was funny.
mallorian69
03-21-2008, 04:34 PM
i think it's funny that people criticize the US for taking action to end an oppressive government that had used chemical weapons on it's own people and had death squads that went around murdering and raping it's own citizens because they didn't conform to what that government thought. but at the same time they criticize the US for not taking actions in places like darfur where another oppressive government is killing it's own people.
jamie, if you are so worried about what is happening in some of the poorer more war torn places around the world, why aren't you there trying to help those people? wait i know, cause it means you wouldn't beable to get on american message boards and criticize us.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 04:35 PM
Silence the truth?...what a load of Rothlesburger!
I slander you?...sorry...I am just not "sophisticated" enough to converse with the great and wise tbone-head.
Like I said....if you want to debate the facts, let's go.
If you want to call each other names, I don't have time.
The Noob Avenger
03-21-2008, 04:36 PM
Noob, take a happy pill, please. You are one of the rational, informed, voices that gives me hope while I hang out on the MB. I really want there to be more hope in your heart. :thumbsup:
:(:(
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
artanis
03-21-2008, 04:42 PM
Like I said....if you want to debate the facts, let's go.
If you want to call each other names, I don't have time.
Debate?...what debate...you rant about how we have installed puppet govts in S. America...yes...that true...to fight the Cold War...and your response?
You claim Israel was not partially founded by American (and Western) guilt...well how was it founded?...what "sinister" forces arose from the depths of hades to create the un-holy Israelie state?
You claim to have no agenda yet trumpet the left at every turn...how are you unbiased?
You never gave many any links to squash my opinion...wait...its not an opinion...its fact...the US helped establish Israel based largely on the guilt the West felt about the Holocaust...that was my original main point...you objected and have yet to supply any sort of eveidence to the contrary...oh yeah...Wikipedia.
:(:(
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Wow, those pills work fast. I gotta find a new pusher, I mean doctor.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 05:08 PM
Debate?...what debate...you rant about how we have installed puppet govts in S. America...yes...that true...to fight the Cold War...and your response?
You claim Israel was not partially founded by American (and Western) guilt...well how was it founded?...what "sinister" forces arose from the depths of hades to create the un-holy Israelie state?
You claim to have no agenda yet trumpet the left at every turn...how are you unbiased?
You never gave many any links to squash my opinion...wait...its not an opinion...its fact...the US helped establish Israel based largely on the guilt the West felt about the Holocaust...that was my original main point...you objected and have yet to supply any sort of eveidence to the contrary...oh yeah...Wikipedia.
From 1964 -1973, the American-backed overthrow of the Democratic Government of Chile, resulted in the terror campaign of General Pinochet and 1000's of civilian deaths and 10,000s of people tortured under Pinochet, who was finally indicted in 1998 and charged with Murder.
To kill an innocent man, based on fear and paranoia that that man might someday kill you in the future, is no excuse for killing the man. That is insecurity. To put it bluntly, intelligence failures, starting back with the cold war, have put us in the position we are in today.
devils advocate
03-21-2008, 05:16 PM
i think it's funny that people criticize the US for taking action to end an oppressive government that had used chemical weapons on it's own people and had death squads that went around murdering and raping it's own citizens because they didn't conform to what that government thought. but at the same time they criticize the US for not taking actions in places like darfur where another oppressive government is killing it's own people.
jamie, if you are so worried about what is happening in some of the poorer more war torn places around the world, why aren't you there trying to help those people? wait i know, cause it means you wouldn't beable to get on american message boards and criticize us.
Sorry my man but it is funny,but not laughable.The only reason America is in Iraq or the Middle East for that matter is oil.We are running out of it.Saudia Arabia is said to suppose to peak around 2014.When they peak...we peak.Iraq has much oil that the US was not privvy to and was an easy target.The rest is just an afterthought of reasons for being there.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 05:43 PM
Israel is involved in serious land disputes at the center of the world. I think that the following website explains it most concisely and clearly: http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/intro-pal-isr-primer.html
"The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews is a modern phenomenon, which began around the turn of the 20th century. Although these two groups have different religions (Palestinians include Muslims, Christians and Druze), religious differences are not the cause of the conflict. It is essentially a struggle over land. Until 1948, the area that both groups claimed was known internationally as Palestine. But following the war of 1948-49, this land was divided into three parts: the state of Israel, the West Bank (of the Jordan River) and the Gaza Strip.
This is a small area: approximately 10,000 square miles, or about the size of the state of Maryland. The competing claims are not reconcilable if one group exercises exclusive political control over the total territory.
Jewish claims to this land are based on the biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants, on the fact that this was the historical site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel (which was destroyed by the Roman Empire), and on Jews' need for a haven from European anti-Semitism. Palestinian Arabs' claims to the land are based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years and the fact that they represented the demographic majority. They reject the notion that a biblical-era kingdom constitutes the basis for a valid modern claim. If Arabs engage the biblical argument at all, they maintain that since Abraham's son Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, then God's promise of the land to the children of Abraham includes Arabs as well. They do not believe that they should forfeit their land to compensate Jews for Europe's crimes against them...
In the 19th century, following a trend that began earlier in Europe, people around the world began to identify themselves as nations and to demand national rights, foremost the right to self-rule in a state of their own (self-determination and sovereignty). Jews and Palestinians both began to develop a national consciousness, and mobilized to achieve national goals. Because Jews were spread across the world (in diaspora), their national movement, Zionism, entailed the identification of a place where Jews could come together through the process of immigration and settlement. Palestine seemed the logical and optimal place, since this was the site of Jewish origin. The Zionist movement began in 1882 with the first wave of European Jewish immigration to Palestine.
At that time, the land of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, this area did not constitute a single political unit. The northern districts of Acre and Nablus were part of the province of Beirut. The district of Jerusalem was under the direct authority of the Ottoman capital of Istanbul because of the international significance of the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as religious centers for Muslims, Christians and Jews. According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants of the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were perhaps 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects. The great majority of the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) lived in several hundred rural villages. Jaffa and Nablus were the largest and economically most important Arab towns.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, most Jews living in Palestine were concentrated in four cities with religious significance: Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad and Tiberias. Most of them observed traditional, orthodox religious practices. Many spent their time studying religious texts and depended on the charity of world Jewry for survival. Their attachment to the land was religious rather than national, and they were not involved in -- or supportive of -- the Zionist movement which began in Europe and was brought to Palestine by immigrants. Most of the Jews who immigrated from Europe lived a more secular lifestyle and were committed to the goals of creating a Jewish nation and building a modern, independent Jewish state. By the outbreak of World War I (1914), the population of Jews in Palestine had risen to about 60,000, about 33,000 of whom were recent settlers. The Arab population in 1914 was 683,000.
Although orthodox Jews continued to oppose the creation of a Jewish state for several more decades, they supported mass settlement of Jews in Palestine as a means of strengthening and protecting the community. And following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, most orthodox Jews who previously had resisted Zionism adopted the belief that Israel's overwhelming victory in the war was a sign of God's support, and a fulfillment of God's promise to bring about the Messianic era. The areas captured and occupied in 1967, especially the West Bank, were important to religious Jews because they are the core of the biblical Land of Israel (Judea and Samaria). Consequently, Israel's victory in 1967 gave rise to a more religious variation of Zionism. Some existing political parties representing orthodox Jews came to embrace religious nationalism, and new parties and movements formed to advocate Israel's permanent control and extensive Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.
The religious-nationalist parties and groups that constitute the far right of the Israeli political spectrum maintain a hard line on matters relating to territory and the Arab-Israeli conflict. They have allied with the Likud Party. Although the Labor Party also has supported Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza, a key difference is a willingness to consider a territorial compromise with Palestinians as a means of ending the conflict. The Likud and its allies oppose any territorial withdrawal. In 1977, the Likud won the national election, for the first time unseating the Labor Party that had governed Israel since independence. Since then, Likud and Labor have alternated as the governing party, sometimes forming coalition governments when neither could achieve a clear electoral victory.
A minority of Jewish Israelis belongs to left-wing Zionist parties, which formed a political coalition known as Meretz in the 1980s. Meretz often joins Labor-led governments. Leftist Zionists are fully committed to maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, but tend to be more willing than the Labor Party to compromise on territorial issues, and have relatively greater sympathy for Palestinian national aspirations for a state of their own. A tiny minority of ultra-leftist Jewish Israelis identify themselves as non- or anti-Zionists. Some of them aspire to see all of Israel/Palestine transformed into a single state with citizenship and equal rights for all inhabitants, and others advocate the creation of a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. "
Again that website is http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/intro-pal-isr-primer.html
steelman59
03-21-2008, 09:41 PM
There is much the American people can do to advocate change.We can limit the terms of all government tenures,including the Supreme Court.The problem is Americans believe what they are told by their leaders.A disproportionate amount of Americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11.This is unacceptable.The government has betrayed its peoples trust...out in the open,I might add.Protecting "American interests" means something entirely different to those in power,than it does to you and me,believe that!!
Let me make a correction here, the people believe what the media tells them. A candidate any candidate may make promises and such, but is he to blame if it is not kept. Sometimes that may be the case, other times it may be shot down by lobbyists, congress, house of representatives or other interest groups that have enough clout. What gets me is that the people in this country are so niave that they will believe anything the media tells them as gospel. Truth is the media is a business and like any business they do what is best for them irregardless of the true facts. Also take into consideration that the information they are given by the government may not be the whole story or may have a twist in it. The reason for this is national security as well as logistical or strategical purposes. A great number of our enemies rely on CNN and Fox news to provide them with intel. We know this, so something may be leaked to the media that is entirely false, but gives us an advantage. The problem is people will here this on the media and latch on to it, so the media continues to run with it and thats when the snow ball starts.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 09:57 PM
Let me make a correction here, the people believe what the media tells them. A candidate any candidate may make promises and such, but is he to blame if it is not kept. Sometimes that may be the case, other times it may be shot down by lobbyists, congress, house of representatives or other interest groups that have enough clout. What gets me is that the people in this country are so niave that they will believe anything the media tells them as gospel. Truth is the media is a business and like any business they do what is best for them irregardless of the true facts. Also take into consideration that the information they are given by the government may not be the whole story or may have a twist in it. The reason for this is national security as well as logistical or strategical purposes. A great number of our enemies rely on CNN and Fox news to provide them with intel. We know this, so something may be leaked to the media that is entirely false, but gives us an advantage. The problem is people will here this on the media and latch on to it, so the media continues to run with it and thats when the snow ball starts.
I think they hide behind the "national security" excuse too often...oldest Machiavellian trick in the book..."Trust us. We know what we are doing. And we are protecting you from bad guys." Call me a skeptic, but I think it's a cheap excuse for shrouding democracy in a cloak secrecy for primarily Machiavellian aims...
Whenever someone asks you a question, just say "That's classified, next question" :rolleyes:
And when that excuse doesn't work just say "That's an ongoing investigation...we cannot comment on that right now" :rolleyes:
wilson
03-21-2008, 09:57 PM
i think it's funny that people criticize the US for taking action to end an oppressive government that had used chemical weapons on it's own people and had death squads that went around murdering and raping it's own citizens because they didn't conform to what that government thought. but at the same time they criticize the US for not taking actions in places like darfur where another oppressive government is killing it's own people.
Very true.
tbone77
03-21-2008, 10:12 PM
Very true.
The action should fit the problem/crime.
Multi-lateral solutions are most effective. The root of the Darfur refugee crisis is ecological...
In 2007, a UN representative said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by climate change and the "drying out" of sub-Saharan Africa.
UN statistics showed that rainfall declined ~40 percent over the past two decades in the region as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons....
The rep said that when Darfur's land was rich, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water. With drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out. A UN peacekeeping force may stop the fighting, he said, and more than two million people may return to rebuilt homes in safe villages.
Land, food, and water insecurity are usually ignored in global conflict. There's always more to the story.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0
steelman59
03-21-2008, 10:20 PM
I think they hide behind the "national security" excuse too often...oldest Machiavellian trick in the book..."Trust us. We know what we are doing. And we are protecting you from bad guys." Call me a skeptic, but I think it's a cheap excuse for shrouding democracy in a cloak secrecy for primarily Machiavellian aims...
Whenever someone asks you a question, just say "That's classified, next question" :rolleyes:
And when that excuse doesn't work just say "That's an ongoing investigation...we cannot comment on that right now" :rolleyes:
I was in the military and I know differently then what your saying, to quote Jack Nicholson, "the truth, you want the truth? Son you couldn't handle the truth!" That is very much true with a lot of things.
Give me a break already Jamie, something I have noticed with you. While you are quick to condemn the US and Isreal on their actions against other countries and terrorist organizations, you fail to comment on the actions these countries and organizations have committed against them. I guess in your mind it is quite exceptable for some one to walk into a restraunt and detonate explosives, but if that country responds then they are wrong. Its real simple, they stop killing innocent people and we won't blow them to Hades!
Every action causes a reaction, basic law of physics. Also basic law of human kind. Go ahead and defend these poor illequipped countries and organizations because the big bad US is taking advantage of them with our superior military might, guess they should have thought about that might before they gave their blessing on killing innocent people in the Trade Centers or in the case of Isreal blowing up innocent people in Tel AVIV. You whole non violence attitude is crap in the real world. You lay down and whimper when you get kicked by these fanatics and they are just going to keep doing it. Like someone I know says, you turn the other cheek and they will hit that one to.
Another huge, general THEY which apparently covers the entire mideast except Israel.
If "every action causes a reaction" then shouldn't we expect Palestinians to fight back if their land is taken, their children killed, their homes destroyed? Should Israel and the US have "thought of that"? Why are they the only ones who get to kill innocent people?
If a burglar shoots a US home owner during a robbery, he won't get very far in court claiming self defense, or that the homeowner should have thought of the consequences before reaching for his gun, or "every action causes a reaction."
I was in the military and I know differently then what your saying, to quote Jack Nicholson, "the truth, you want the truth? Son you couldn't handle the truth!" That is very much true with a lot of things.
Well then Tbone is right, and we have a government which patronizes us the way dictatorships do their people, and the way the feudal governments of Europe patronized their populations before democracy. Back then, "the truth" was no business of the common people.
Let me make a correction here, the people believe what the media tells them. A candidate any candidate may make promises and such, but is he to blame if it is not kept. Sometimes that may be the case, other times it may be shot down by lobbyists, congress, house of representatives or other interest groups that have enough clout. What gets me is that the people in this country are so niave that they will believe anything the media tells them as gospel. Truth is the media is a business and like any business they do what is best for them irregardless of the true facts. Also take into consideration that the information they are given by the government may not be the whole story or may have a twist in it. The reason for this is national security as well as logistical or strategical purposes. A great number of our enemies rely on CNN and Fox news to provide them with intel. We know this, so something may be leaked to the media that is entirely false, but gives us an advantage. The problem is people will here this on the media and latch on to it, so the media continues to run with it and thats when the snow ball starts.
Devil's Advocate is not refering to genuinely "classified" material, but to deliberate misinformation and innuendo put out by the administration to make policies fly which would not on their own merits. E.g., Cheney's repeated mention of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein together before the Iraq War, his claim that a supposed meeting between Mohammad Atta and the head of Iraqi security in Czechoslovakia was "pretty well confirmed" etc. Non of this was "leaked to the media" to mislead enemies. It's purpose was to mislead the American public--which it did. And those who distrust "the media" have been the easiest to fool.
So the problem with this country has not been people "believing whatever the media tells them as gospel." The problem has been people believing what Bush/Cheney report in the media as gospel.
You seem unaware of how the administration uses the media, from grand drama like the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch to infomercials, to paying journalists to write what they want. And you seem unaware that Bush and Cheney are also businessmen, and the Iraq war has been very profitable for their friends.
There is supposed to be a difference between the military and civil society, Steelman. I don't detect any awareness of this difference in your posts, which always priveledge opsec over democracy.
The Noob Avenger
03-22-2008, 12:44 AM
Devil's Advocate is not refering to genuinely "classified" material, but to deliberate misinformation and innuendo put out by the administration to make policies fly which would not on their own merits. E.g., Cheney's repeated mention of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein together before the Iraq War, his claim that a supposed meeting between Mohammad Atta and the head of Iraqi security in Czechoslovakia was "pretty well confirmed" etc. Non of this was "leaked to the media" to mislead enemies. It's purpose was to mislead the American public--which it did. And those who distrust "the media" have been the easiest to fool.
So the problem with this country has not been people "believing whatever the media tells them as gospel." The problem has been people believing what Bush/Cheney report in the media as that were gospel.
You seem unaware of how the administration uses the media, from grand drama like the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch to infomercials, to paying journalists to write what they want. And you seem unaware that Bush and Cheney are also businessmen, and the Iraq war has been very profitable for their friends.
There is supposed to be a difference between the military and civil society, Steelman. I don't detect any awareness of this difference in your posts, which always priveledge opsec over democracy.
The problem is that people are inherently ignorant and stupid, and will believe anything that is fed to them. Thus, Clinton, Bush, Democrats, Republicans and The parade of crap for this coming election.
But we are not in a democracy. It was never even intended for there to be political parties.
Who do you think the founding fathers were? Poor working class farmers?
They were the richest and most powerful men in the new country, and they structured the constitution so that only the intellectually elite could rule over it, for the betterment of the poorer, less fortunate. While that was a noble aim, it has been so corrupted today by the political parties and by money that the whole goal has been completely forgotten. Which is the basis for my point that there will not be a leader who cares about this country, who cares about its people or who cares about anything else but personal gain.
There will be such leaders, but people won't vote for them because they are all told it is wise to "vote your pocketbook."
And by the way, we are "in a democracy," so long as leaders still have to be elected by the people.
The problem is that people are inherently ignorant and stupid, and will believe anything that is fed to them. Thus, Clinton, Bush, Democrats, Republicans and The parade of crap for this coming election.
No one is inherently ignorant and stupid. The problem is that certain groups have worked to undermine civic education of the sort required to make a modern democracy work. That why it was easy for the administration to link Saddam and Al Qaeda via the vacuous racial/ethnic category "Arab." And that is why so many people complain about democracy--under the guise of critizing "the media."
steelman59
03-22-2008, 01:14 AM
Devil's Advocate is not refering to genuinely "classified" material, but to deliberate misinformation and innuendo put out by the administration to make policies fly which would not on their own merits. E.g., Cheney's repeated mention of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein together before the Iraq War, his claim that a supposed meeting between Mohammad Atta and the head of Iraqi security in Czechoslovakia was "pretty well confirmed" etc. Non of this was "leaked to the media" to mislead enemies. It's purpose was to mislead the American public--which it did. And those who distrust "the media" have been the easiest to fool.
So the problem with this country has not been people "believing whatever the media tells them as gospel." The problem has been people believing what Bush/Cheney report in the media as that were gospel.
You seem unaware of how the administration uses the media, from grand drama like the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch to infomercials, to paying journalists to write what they want. And you seem unaware that Bush and Cheney are also businessmen, and the Iraq war has been very profitable for their friends.
There is supposed to be a difference between the military and civil society, Steelman. I don't detect any awareness of this difference in your posts, which always priveledge opsec over democracy.
I am very aware of the differences i was in the military during the cold war, when cloak and dagger was the main theme of the day. However today it is not cloak and dagger it is an actual shooting war and that is the difference. The point here dill is that you nor I know what really went on behind the scenes. You can surmize and form your own hypothesis and theories all you want and I can do the same. Of course the administration uses the media, name one that didn't? Were you born before watergate? If you were then you witnessed first hand how the media works. The age old argument about this war or any war being fought over oil is really pathetic. Vietnam it was supposed to be all about money, now it is all about oil, or so you all say. It wasn't and its not. The media spins it that way of course, but its not. We have lost almost 4000 lives in Iraq, 1000's more in vietnam and it was about money? Not hardly. Your not in this country and neither is Jamie, I got to sit in front of my television and watch the trade centers, and pentagon get hit by american planes hijacked my terrorists, Less then 100 miles from me flight 93 hit the ground. I spent 2 monthes sleeping very little, wondering what was going to happen next. Paranoid? Maybe. Today I don't have a problem with going to bed. Why, because we took the fight to them instead of cowering in fear and waiting for them.
You say the Iranians like us? Do they? My father in law was in Nam. Want to know how many so called friendly vietnamese picked up a gun and turned into an enemy? Realize this, it is not a game, it is not like the cold war, there are countries and people in the world that want to take this country down and like it or not, we are not going to let them do it. If that goes against what you or Jamie believe in, so be it. Frankly I could care less what other countries think, I don't live there, I live here and I served in the military before and I'll do it again gladly because it is the best place in the world to live.
You like living in Qutar? Fine stay there and let us Americans worry about our country, we have made it through 200 plus years and we will continue to do so. I don't like bush or Cheney,but they have managed to keep another strike from happening and I thank them for that as well as the military, especially the military.
The Noob Avenger
03-22-2008, 01:16 AM
No one is inherently ignorant and stupid. The problem is that certain groups have worked to undermine civic education of the sort required to make a modern democracy work. That why it was easy for the administration to link Saddam and Al Qaeda via the vacuous racial/ethnic category "Arab." And that is why so many people complain about democracy--under the guise of critizing "the media."
I complain about the party system. That is where the indoctronization stems from.
Gothcha!...yes...you are correct....I used the term "Arab" much too loosely...but that is not really the point...and yes, land was taken, by force, from said "Arabs"....again...not really the point...as awful as that seems...over the years Israel has offered monetary compensation for the dislocation of families...that is what I ment by buying the land...a subtle diffrence, but an important one.
PS...most Americans like Arabs...or Persians...or Indians or Afghans or Bengals...hehehehehe...get it...Bengals....thats pretty good huh?...no?...I thought it was funny.
We are living in a time when the general "Arab" was used to justify a disastrous, unnecessary war, because one "Arab" hit the US and the current administration found it very easy to get the country all hyped up to hit back at "them."
And, with all due respect Artanis, land taken by force is the point. If I jack your car and shoot your wife in the process, then offer to pay for the car later, I doubt that would hold up as a defence in court.
But I am curious as to where your info about Israeli compensation comes from. Also, how do you compensate families that have been stood against a wall and shot? Send a check to the distant relatives? More often than not, Israel has simply disputed any Palestinian claims to land they live on, or claimed they forfeited it when they ran for their lives in ''48.
steelman59
03-22-2008, 01:26 AM
We are living in a time when the general "Arab" was used to justify a disastrous, unnecessary war, because one "Arab" hit the US and the current administration found it very easy to get the country all hyped up to hit back at "them."
And, with all due respect Artanis, land taken by force is the point. If I jack your car and shoot your wife in the process, then offer to pay for the car later, I doubt that would hold up as a defence in court.
But I am curious as to where your info about Israeli compensation comes from. Also, how do you compensate families that have been stood against a wall and shot? Send a check to the distant relatives? More often than not, Israel has simply disputed any Palestinian claims to land they live on, or claimed they forfeited it when they ran for their lives in ''48.
so how do you compensate the people in Tel Aviv and others cities in Isreal that have had their people killed. Mind you these are not military people, there ordinary people just going to work or coming home. How about the trade centers and the pentagon? How are you going to compensate them, oh wait i forgot, you don't really care about them, you only care about these poor countries that are suffering t he wrath of the U S and Isreal, heck might as well throw Turkey in their also, seems like they are kicking some serious butt in Iraq, if yiou can believe the media that is.
mallorian69
03-22-2008, 01:38 AM
The action should fit the problem/crime.
Multi-lateral solutions are most effective. The root of the Darfur refugee crisis is ecological...
In 2007, a UN representative said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by climate change and the "drying out" of sub-Saharan Africa.
UN statistics showed that rainfall declined ~40 percent over the past two decades in the region as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons....
The rep said that when Darfur's land was rich, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water. With drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out. A UN peacekeeping force may stop the fighting, he said, and more than two million people may return to rebuilt homes in safe villages.
Land, food, and water insecurity are usually ignored in global conflict. There's always more to the story.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0
so what you are saying is that the weather is taking guns and shooting people by the thousands, and raping the women that live there?
here is the biggest issue i have with any involvement in the affairs of any nation by the US. if any group of people from any nation doesn't like whatever situation they are in for what ever reason (famine, lack of a stong central government, or a tyrannical government) before they should even think about asking the US for help they should first try to fix the problem themselves. if they try and fail at least we would know that they aren't looking to us for a free hand out as so many countries in need do. their attempting to fix their own internal problems shows to me that they care enough about their own plight to be part of the solution and not thpart of the problem as so many groups of people tend to become.
i can already hear the arguments. how do you expect a bunch of farmers and herders to overthrow a government with a military. trust me it can be done. we wouldn't be the country we are today if it couldn't. when we threw off the shackles of an oppressive government there was very little industry in the american colonies. we were almost entirely dependant on england. we had no standing army and very few leaders with any real military experience. england had the largest and best army and navy in the world at the time, the "superpower" of that era if you will. we had no government that could raise money on it's own. england was the wealthiest nation in the world. the only thing that we had in our favor was a belief that our cause was just and bigger then any one person and the willingness to sacrafice everything for that cause.
next i'm sure i'd hear how many of those people are starving or how they are ravaged by disease. just a few days ago i finished reading a book called 1776 by david mccullough. in this book he very accuratly portrays the plight of the american soldiers in the first year of the war based on accounts taken from letters and personal journals of the men who were actually there on both sides of the lines. here is a quote from 1776 that very vividly portrays the state of the men who bested the mighty british army. "To Charles Wilson Peale, walking amoung them by the light of the next morning on the Pennsylvania shore, they looked as wretched as any men he had ever seen. One had almost no clothes. 'He was in an old dirty blanket jacket, his beard long, and his face so full of sores that he could not clean it.' So 'disfigured' was he that Peale failed at first to recognized that the man was his own brother, James Peale, who had been with a Maryland unit as part of the read guard." starvation and disease were a way of life for the continental army that had at times only half of the men under arms who were actually fit to fight, and even counting those were still often outnumbered by anywhere from 5:1 to 10:1
ok i'm now gonna step off of my :SoapBox:
I am very aware of the differences i was in the military during the cold war, when cloak and dagger was the main theme of the day. However today it is not cloak and dagger it is an actual shooting war and that is the difference. The point here dill is that you nor I know what really went on behind the scenes. You can surmize and form your own hypothesis and theories all you want and I can do the same. Of course the administration uses the media, name one that didn't? Were you born before watergate? If you were then you witnessed first hand how the media works. The age old argument about this war or any war being fought over oil is really pathetic. Vietnam it was supposed to be all about money, now it is all about oil, or so you all say. It wasn't and its not. The media spins it that way of course, but its not. We have lost almost 4000 lives in Iraq, 1000's more in vietnam and it was about money? Not hardly. Your not in this country and neither is Jamie, I got to sit in front of my television and watch the trade centers, and pentagon get hit by american planes hijacked my terrorists, Less then 100 miles from me flight 93 hit the ground. I spend 2 monthes sleeping very little, wondering what was going to happen next. I unlocked my gun cabinet (we don't have any children so that was not a problem), but I kept it unlocked, jumping at any noise I heard. Paranoid? Maybe. Today I don't have a problem with going to bed and my gun cabinet is locked up. Why, because we took the fight to them instead of cowering in fear and waiting for them.
You say the Iranians like us? Do they? My father in law was in Nam. Want to know how many so called friendly vietnamese picked up a gun and turned into an enemy? Realize this, it is not a game, it is not like the cold war, there are countries and people in the world that want to take this country down and like it or not, we are not going to let them do it. If that goes against what you or Jamie believe in, so be it. Frankly I could care less what other countries think, I don't live there, I live here and I served in the military before and I'll do it again gladly because it is the best place in the world to live.
You like living in Qutar? Fine stay there and let us Americans worry about our country, we have made it through 200 plus years and we will continue to do so. I don't like bush or Cheny,but they have managed to keep another strike from happening and I thank them for that as well as the military, especially the military.
You have still never figured out that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, have you? That's why you keep saying we are taking the fight to "them," those foreigners over there who complain when we bomb their civilians.
A few days ago the Stars and Stripes had list of every American military member killed in Iraq--page after page after page for THOUSANDS of names. Imagine how big that paper would have to be if they listed Iraqi civilians killed in this war as well. You can thank your president for that while you are at it, and imagine that destabilizing the middle east and boosting Al Qaeda recruiting has made you safer.
What I saw during Watergate was a couple of reporters exposing the lies of an administration counting on people to trust them.
Let me see if I understand your Iranian argument correctly. Because your father was in Vietnam where people picked up guns to fight against occupying Americans, we should not trust Iranians?
And by the way I was in the US on 9/11. And I was in Indiana, PA, when flight 103 hit the ground, much less than 100 miles from me. And I didn't sit up nights making sure my guns were loaded and ready. Jesus!! talk about paranoia. You make sound like you are suffering from PTSD from television reports. I live right in the middle of "them" and barely a hundred miles from Iranian missiles and I'm not losing any sleep, while you have to suffer through, what, some television coverage? So I have no idea how hard life is in the US now?
But you have given me a clue as to Bush's popularity among 30% of the population--he made you FEEL safer.
And you haven't heard me say that the Iraq war was fought over oil, though I will say now that was a big part of it. North Korea is more of a threat to world peace and US interests than a weak little Iraq, but Bush didn't invade that end of the "Axis of evil" did he? In my view, one of the biggest incentive for the war was its potential to transfer billions in tax money to US corporations under the new model military, which contracts out so many of its services.
There might actually be a connection between Vietnam and Iraq--paranoia about communism was important to right wing politics back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and now an endless war on "terror" may be taking its place. Keep people fearful and irrational and you can control them more easily--keep them up at night with their gun cabinets unlocked. Make them believe they are in a war RIGHT NOW with no end in sight and democracy has to take a back seat. OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC.
so what you are saying is that the weather is taking guns and shooting people by the thousands, and raping the women that live there?
here is the biggest issue i have with any involvement in the affairs of any nation by the US. if any group of people from any nation doesn't like whatever situation they are in for what ever reason (famine, lack of a stong central government, or a tyrannical government) before they should even think about asking the US for help they should first try to fix the problem themselves. if they try and fail at least we would know that they aren't looking to us for a free hand out as so many countries in need do. their attempting to fix their own internal problems shows to me that they care enough about their own plight to be part of the solution and not thpart of the problem as so many groups of people tend to become.
i can already hear the arguments. how do you expect a bunch of farmers and herders to overthrow a government with a military. trust me it can be done. we wouldn't be the country we are today if it couldn't. when we threw off the shackles of an oppressive government there was very little industry in the american colonies. we were almost entirely dependant on england. we had no standing army and very few leaders with any real military experience. england had the largest and best army and navy in the world at the time, the "superpower" of that era if you will. we had no government that could raise money on it's own. england was the wealthiest nation in the world. the only thing that we had in our favor was a belief that our cause was just and bigger then any one person and the willingness to sacrafice everything for that cause.
ok i'm now gonna step off of my :SoapBox:
I have read something of the Revolutionary War too, and if memory serves me correctly, the British had no cruize missles, blackhawk helicopters, or stealth bombers. It was musket against musket back then, mano a mano, and Britain's Army was largely engaged elsewhere during the time period in question. And the US did have a superpower ally in France, without which it is unlikely the revolution could have been a success. Nowdays it is not so easy to revolt against a modern military--ask the Shia whom Bush I encouraged to revolt against Saddam.
One thing you seem to be missing about US foreign aid is that it is generally designed to further US foreign policy goals. E.g., when the US funnelled money to General Pinochet to help him overturn a democratically elected government in Chile, that was precisely to PREVENT the country from solving its own problems. You need to get past the idea that foreign aid is just some kind of hand out the US gives people because Americans are so nice, like some kind of internaitonal welfare. The three billion that goes to Israel yearly is to keep a US beachhead in the Middle east. The billions that went to the Shah of Iran (after the US helped over throw democracy there) created another platform from which to project US power, and all that came back to bite the US in the ***. The billions the US gives the Saudis and Egypt are also not about altruism. How much aid do you think is going to countries like Poland and Albania for becoming part of Bush's "Coalition of the willing"? How much aid do you think was funnelled to the Carribbean countries who "invited" the US to invade Grenada?
At the moment, the only country I am aware of that actually gives significant foreign aid without any strings attached is China.
One last point--in some places there is really no government as people in the US and the West know it. In North Africa there are vast open areas with nomadic herders and subsistence farmers who move from place to place, and may not even know what country they are "citizens" of. Central governments are weak and often controlled by one tribe or faction. When resources dry up and competition over what remains heats up, as is the case in Sudan, then yes that leads very quickly to mass murder and rape, as what was only a nation on paper divides along ethnic lines and starts endless rounds of revenge killing.
so how do you compensate the people in Tel Aviv and others cities in Isreal that have had their people killed. Mind you these are not military people, there ordinary people just going to work or coming home. How about the trade centers and the pentagon? How are you going to compensate them, oh wait i forgot, you don't really care about them, you only care about these poor countries that are suffering t he wrath of the U S and Isreal, heck might as well throw Turkey in their also, seems like they are kicking some serious butt in Iraq, if yiou can believe the media that is.
Ha, ha, I am starting to enjoy these random jumps from one ethnic group and conflict to another, with no more in common than that they are "over there" somewhere and spin off from US foreign policy.
Ordinary Israelis are living on land in homes they have taken from others. Imagine that two burglars go into a house and kill the owner's husband but she manages to kill one of them too. Now imagine them all in court and when she demands compensation for her husband, the burglar asks but who will compensate him for his partner? At the moment you appear to be on the side of the burglar against the homeowner.
But I guess if you think of the homeowner as Arab and the burglar as Israeli or US, then its ok to apply a legal double standard.
no what i'm saying is that if you and others like you would worry more about their own country's problems instead of what the big bad americans are doing your country wouldn't have very many problems. incase you haven't noticed your country's crime rate has risen over the last several years and your economy isn't doing all that hot either. and while internationally your country doesn't take the heat that the US does it is still seen as america's sidekick and willing accomplice. why don't you do something about those issues, issues that you do have some power to control, instead of those that you have no control of over here.
Yeah, I am thinking that if Jamie spent less time on an NFL message board and more time on the Manchester United or the Arsenal message board, then maybe the crime rate would drop in the UK. (And he still hasn't apologized for the Stamp Act--oh wait, yes he did. Well ok. but see that it doesn't happen again, Jamie.)
Wait, I just had an horrible idea. What if this is not an either/or situation at all. What if Jamie votes in British elections and criticizes his own government AND posts critical comments about the US government on an NFL forum?
Darn, if that is the case we won't be able to just ask him why he doesn't criticize his own country when he points out inconvenient truths about the US. If only this weren't a free and open forum, we could close out these foreigners and just post good stuff about the US that makes us all feel good. The US did not throw off British rule just to found a country that tolerated free speech and dissent from Brits!!
mallorian69
03-22-2008, 02:57 AM
I have read something of the Revolutionary War too, and if memory serves me correctly, the British had no cruize missles, blackhawk helicopters, or stealth bombers. It was musket against musket back then, mano a mano, and Britain's Army was largely engaged elsewhere during the time period in question. And the US did have a superpower ally in France, without which it is unlikely the revolution could have been a success. Nowdays it is not so easy to revolt against a modern military--ask the Shia whom Bush I encouraged to revolt against Saddam.
One thing you seem to be missing about US foreign aid is that it is generally designed to further US foreign policy goals. E.g., when the US funnelled money to General Pinochet to help him overturn a democratically elected government in Chile, that was precisely to PREVENT the country from solving its own problems. You need to get past the idea that foreign aid is just some kind of hand out the US gives people because Americans are so nice, like some kind of internaitonal welfare. The three billion that goes to Israel yearly is to keep a US beachhead in the Middle east. The billions that went to the Shah of Iran (after the US helped over throw democracy there) created another platform from which to project US power, and all that came back to bite the US in the ***. The billions the US gives the Saudis and Egypt are also not about altruism. How much aid do you think is going to countries like Poland and Albania for becoming part of Bush's "Coalition of the willing"? How much aid do you think was funnelled to the Carribbean countries who "invited" the US to invade Grenada?
At the moment, the only country I am aware of that actually gives significant foreign aid without any strings attached is China.
first let me start of with this. in places such as darfur, those commiting the autrocities generally don't have cruise missles, blackhawks, and no one in the world besides the US currently has an operational stealth fighter. so that point is moot. they are also often not much more then rabble themselves, not a superpower such as we fought. often times the those murdering and raping entire populations are hit nearly as hard as those asking for US aid when it comes to famine and disease. it is still soldier against soldier, although muskets have fallen from the wayside ak's have taken their place.
the british still far outnumbered the americans and had better trained troops and more artillery, as well as more ammunition and highly experienced commanders. inspite of their army being stretched all over the world.
the french didn't start giving any aid to the colonies untill 1778, so we were able to keep the fight up on our own for nearly 3 years as the war actually started in the summer of 1775.
US foreign aid does not only go to further it's own goals. you seem to forget that over the last few decades alone the US has sent billions of dollars worth of food and medical supplies to many different areas around the world to places that had been hit by famine or natural disasters such as ethopia (famine), somalia (famine), turkey (earthquake), and several different nations in asia and the pacific after the tsunami just to name a few. all for humanitarin reasons, not political or military as you imply. our monatary contributions to the relief efforts after the tsunami alone were more then all the nations of the european union combined, which has roughly the same gross domestic product as the US. that doesn't count the 2 naval groups sent to give aid and that as usual US air force c130's were among the first to arrive with much needed food, water and medical supplies.
i am not saying that we should make these people fend for themselves for years like the french did with us. if those in places like darfur who are crying for help would only say give us the tools and we will make a better life for ourselfs, i would have no problem with sending aid. what i am against is people around the world that expect our troops to die fighting to free others when they aren't willing to stand next to our soldiers to fight for their own homes and freedoms such as those in somalia.
A lie would be KNOWING something's false but stating it as if it were true.
An actual Bush confession would be nice. ;) Seriously, though, newspaper reports and leaked memos would not really count. There are too many people with an agenda in the news media and since the forged documents incident during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaigns, I'm very skeptical of any news reports or leaked memos.
People who were on state dept. and CI committees might hold more weight, but first you would have to prove the absence of an agenda and provide corroborating evidence.
Frankly, proof for me would have to be more than one thing. If you had multiple documents, multiple testimony of reliable witnesses with corroboration, then I would find it hard NOT to believe what they were saying.
Would the proof make any difference? In the grand scheme of things, no it wouldn't. When it comes to the war, frankly, how we got to this point should only be remembered so that we don't repeat our mistakes. Outside of that, we need to focus on winning this war.
. . . I do admire the man 'cause it's evident to me that ever since he's been in office, Democrats and liberals have openly demonstrated their hatred for the man. I'm generalizing, but it amazes me how so many would seemingly root for our country to fail in all things just so that Bush looks bad.
With that said, I would lose respect and I would have to question if maybe the Dems might've been right if there was tangible proof that Bush lied just to start a war.
Which Democrats root for the US to fail? Or is it just what any criticism of Bush policy is anti-american?
Newspaper reports are usually based on memos and other documents, not to mention the words of the major players before and behind the scenes. They also contain much undisputed material, like when the president said what at what press conference. And forgeries usually come out as such within a few weeks, don't they? If there were internal white house memos and witnesses which said that Bush began planning for the war in Iraq in 2001 and had already ordered Franks to revise two plans by fall of 2002, and newspapers reported the white house press secretary as saying there were no war plans on the president's desk, would that count as a Bush lie? Or would that be on the press secretary, or would the newspapers untrustworthy because of their "agenda"? Would you argue that president might not have really said what was reported in all newspapers here and abroad? (What was Judith Miller's agenda, by the way, when she feed the public exactly what the administration wanted everyone to believe about the hunt for WMDs?)
I am wondering what you think of Richard Clarke's testimony that, when told there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, Bush said "find some"?
Two last questions, before we really get cooking: Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, sold 24 million dollars of Enron stock before the company folded. He also told his stockholders that he had purchased 4 million dollars worth of Enron stock, and what he told the stockholders was true. He just didn't tell them about the 24 million he had sold, so they would continue to believe the company was viable. So my first question is, was Ken telling a lie when he told the truth? I.e. is telling a partial truth to mislead a form of lying? The court thought so in Lay's case. My second question: should we hold Bush to a similar standard, or is there something that would exempt him? The Enron collapse defrauded thousands of people of hundreds of millions in savings and investments. The Iraq disaster has cost countless thousands of lives, and still counting, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars. Should the standard for Bush be higher or lower?
mallorian69
03-22-2008, 03:26 AM
Yeah, I am thinking that if Jamie spent less time on an NFL message board and more time on the Manchester United or the Arsenal message board, then maybe the crime rate would drop in the UK. (And he still hasn't apologized for the Stamp Act--oh wait, yes he did. Well ok. but see that it doesn't happen again, Jamie.)
Wait, I just had an horrible idea. What if this is not an either/or situation at all. What if Jamie votes in British elections and criticizes his own government AND posts critical comments about the US government on an NFL forum?
Darn, if that is the case we won't be able to just ask him why he doesn't criticize his own country when he points out inconvenient truths about the US. If only this weren't a free and open forum, we could close out these foreigners and just post good stuff about the US that makes us all feel good. The US did not throw off British rule just to found a country that tolerated free speech and dissent from Brits!!
maybe he does vote and maybe he doesn't i don't really know. but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person based on his posts on this board that often writes his elected officials making his displeasure known with how things are or someone who would spend his time drafting a petition and then circulating it and submitting it to those same officials. i have actually done both. just this year alone, i have written my elected officials (both state and federal) with my opinions on several issues 3 times. just a guess but i'm gonna bet neither you or jamie have done that 3 times in you entire life. i actually got to meet former sen. john glenn when he was still in office because of how often i wrote and the opinions i expressed. although it was only for 15 minutes i was still able to discuss with him my views, face to face, on several subjects ranging from the economy to healthcare to foreign policy.
in order for a democratic government to work for the people, the people must be involved in it, which is why our government is the way it is now. a very large portion of americans can't even find the time to vote, let alone get personally involved in the government that most of them like to complain about.
maybe he does vote and maybe he doesn't i don't really know. but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person based on his posts on this board that often writes his elected officials making his displeasure known with how things are or someone who would spend his time drafting a petition and then circulating it and submitting it to those same officials. i have actually done both. just this year alone, i have written my elected officials (both state and federal) with my opinions on several issues 3 times. just a guess but i'm gonna bet neither you or jamie have done that 3 times in you entire life. i actually got to meet former sen. john glenn when he was still in office because of how often i wrote and the opinions i expressed. although it was only for 15 minutes i was still able to discuss with him my views, face to face, on several subjects ranging from the economy to healthcare to foreign policy.
in order for a democratic government to work for the people, the people must be involved in it, which is why our government is the way it is now. a very large portion of americans can't even find the time to vote, let alone get personally involved in the government that most of them like to complain about.
And so we are off on a different subject. In fact, for a democratic government to work, people need to tolerate dissent. And they need to listen to non-american and even anti-American views of American policy. And you basically told Jamie to shut up and take care of his own country because he was putting out info you didn't want to hear. The Bush administration has shown us where shaping intel leads.
And by the way, I don't think "letter writing" to politicians does much good when powerful interests are at stake. You got to "discuss your views" with John Glenn. Has it ever occurred to you that politicians may glad hand and "discuss" views with a smile that they have no intention of ever taking seriously. That can't be a measure of political effectiveness can it?
Why would you assume that neither Jamie nor I is active in politics?
first let me start of with this. in places such as darfur, those commiting the autrocities generally don't have cruise missles, blackhawks, and no one in the world besides the US currently has an operational stealth fighter. so that point is moot. they are also often not much more then rabble themselves, not a superpower such as we fought. often times the those murdering and raping entire populations are hit nearly as hard as those asking for US aid when it comes to famine and disease. it is still soldier against soldier, although muskets have fallen from the wayside ak's have taken their place.
the british still far outnumbered the americans and had better trained troops and more artillery, as well as more ammunition and highly experienced commanders. inspite of their army being stretched all over the world.
the french didn't start giving any aid to the colonies untill 1778, so we were able to keep the fight up on our own for nearly 3 years as the war actually started in the summer of 1775.
US foreign aid does not only go to further it's own goals. you seem to forget that over the last few decades alone the US has sent billions of dollars worth of food and medical supplies to many different areas around the world to places that had been hit by famine or natural disasters such as ethopia (famine), somalia (famine), turkey (earthquake), and several different nations in asia and the pacific after the tsunami just to name a few. all for humanitarin reasons, not political or military as you imply. our monatary contributions to the relief efforts after the tsunami alone were more then all the nations of the european union combined, which has roughly the same gross domestic product as the US. that doesn't count the 2 naval groups sent to give aid and that as usual US air force c130's were among the first to arrive with much needed food, water and medical supplies.
i am not saying that we should make these people fend for themselves for years like the french did with us. if those in places like darfur who are crying for help would only say give us the tools and we will make a better life for ourselfs, i would have no problem with sending aid. what i am against is people around the world that expect our troops to die fighting to free others when they aren't willing to stand next to our soldiers to fight for their own homes and freedoms such as those in somalia.
I have some trouble decoding this, especially the last paragraph. Americans fought for homes and freedom in Somalia but the Somalians didn't "stand next to" US soldiers when they were fighting fellow Somalians? The French "made" us fend for ourselves? (The bastards!). Did it ever occur to you that wars represented in the US as the US "freeing others" might have a very different look on the ground--more like the US occupying a country to pursue US interests?
And I am not forgetting anything about US foreign aid. Regarding the Tsunami, Countries like Japan, Germany and Norway raised more quickly and gave far more than the US. The US aid package only ballooned as the opportunity for US banks and corporations to finance and reconstruct became apparent in the months following the Tsunami--the kind of aid now presently used, e.g. in Sri Lanka, to sweep people from their former homes and build hotels (for whom, do you suppose?). I have not forgotten how often the Air Force is on the spot providing aid to people. And I have not fogotten which party and politicians have constantly sought to cut back on that sort of aid, though they are always happy to take credit for America's "goodness."
And all aid to the Tsunami victims combined is what percentage of one year's "humanitarian" aid to Israel?
And the Darfur conflict is rarely solidier vs soldier. It is largely unarmed villager vs Janjaweed gangs and militia armed with automatic weapons and rpgs. That is why people are applying the term genocide to the conflict.
At Monmouth court, the Americans and English each had roughly 10,000 men. At the siege of Yorktown, the US had almost 20,000, troops plus a French naval blockade, vs 7,000 for Cornwallis. Sounds like it wasn't always so dire.
steelman59
03-22-2008, 10:32 AM
You have still never figured out that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, have you? That's why you keep saying we are taking the fight to "them," those foreigners over there who complain when we bomb their civilians.
A few days ago the Stars and Stripes had list of every American military member killed in Iraq--page after page after page for THOUSANDS of names. Imagine how big that paper would have to be if they listed Iraqi civilians killed in this war as well. You can thank your president for that while you are at it, and imagine that destabilizing the middle east and boosting Al Qaeda recruiting has made you safer.
What I saw during Watergate was a couple of reporters exposing the lies of an administration counting on people to trust them.
Let me see if I understand your Iranian argument correctly. Because your father was in Vietnam where people picked up guns to fight against occupying Americans, we should not trust Iranians?
And by the way I was in the US on 9/11. And I was in Indiana, PA, when flight 103 hit the ground, much less than 100 miles from me. And I didn't sit up nights making sure my guns were loaded and ready. Jesus!! talk about paranoia. You make sound like you are suffering from PTSD from television reports. I live right in the middle of "them" and barely a hundred miles from Iranian missiles and I'm not losing any sleep, while you have to suffer through, what, some television coverage? So I have no idea how hard life is in the US now?
But you have given me a clue as to Bush's popularity among 30% of the population--he made you FEEL safer.
And you haven't heard me say that the Iraq war was fought over oil, though I will say now that was a big part of it. North Korea is more of a threat to world peace and US interests than a weak little Iraq, but Bush didn't invade that end of the "Axis of evil" did he? In my view, one of the biggest incentive for the war was its potential to transfer billions in tax money to US corporations under the new model military, which contracts out so many of its services.
There might actually be a connection between Vietnam and Iraq--paranoia about communism was important to right wing politics back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and now an endless war on "terror" may be taking its place. Keep people fearful and irrational and you can control them more easily--keep them up at night with their gun cabinets unlocked. Make them believe they are in a war RIGHT NOW with no end in sight and democracy has to take a back seat. OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC.
I have stated many times that I do not know if Iraq played any part in 9/11. nobody but those that need to know can answer that question. If I had to take a guess, I would say probably not. however after we went in and found the torture chambers and mass graves, the 9/11 and the WMD's were no longer an issue with Iraq. I fully support our troops in Iraq, what I do not support is the way the whole mess is being handled.
You never sat up at night worrying about anything because you have tunnel vision. Oh the bad boys slapped us, now they will go away. You really should have spent some time in a combat unit with the military, probably would not have made it though. Here is a guess of reality for you, when someone smacks the US, they better understand that they are going to get smacked back twice as hard. Thats the way it should be, however the bleeding hearts like yourself make it hard to get the message across, because your always coming to the aid of the poor defenseless people that made the boneheaded mistake of attacking the United States.
Do you understand anything about guerilla warfare. Let me explain how it works, you strike fast and then disappear. You become friends with the soldiers, the whole time though you are gathering information. Sorry rule 1 of combat, you trust NOBODY. You say the Iranians are friendly, I say thats a load of BS.
forget about Iraq, how many times have you said anything about the poor families who lost loved ones in the trade centers or in the Pentagon. Those families who have children that will no longer see mom or dad or maybe both? These same kids that will someday will be old enough to start asking questions, like what happened to my mom and dad. How many times have you mentioned the atrocities that are being carried out by al qaeda and other terrorist groups. All I hear from you is how ruthless we are in dealing with them. Heck I was as ticked as the next when it was determined that Iraq had no WMD's. I did feel that someone misled us, whether it was the media or whoever. But after learning about how Hussein treated his people, I realized it was worth it in the end. I know you don't understand that though, your empathy leans towards the barbarians and not the innocent, so carry on with your believe it is your right and I will continue on in the real world.
jamiethelanky
03-22-2008, 11:20 AM
maybe he does vote and maybe he doesn't i don't really know. but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person based on his posts on this board that often writes his elected officials making his displeasure known with how things are or someone who would spend his time drafting a petition and then circulating it and submitting it to those same officials. i have actually done both. just this year alone, i have written my elected officials (both state and federal) with my opinions on several issues 3 times. just a guess but i'm gonna bet neither you or jamie have done that 3 times in you entire life. i actually got to meet former sen. john glenn when he was still in office because of how often i wrote and the opinions i expressed. although it was only for 15 minutes i was still able to discuss with him my views, face to face, on several subjects ranging from the economy to healthcare to foreign policy.
in order for a democratic government to work for the people, the people must be involved in it, which is why our government is the way it is now. a very large portion of americans can't even find the time to vote, let alone get personally involved in the government that most of them like to complain about.
5 letters:
2 to David Blunkett,
One to John Reid,
One to Tony Blair.
What was your point again?
jamiethelanky
03-22-2008, 11:21 AM
I have stated many times that I do not know if Iraq played any part in 9/11. nobody but those that need to know can answer that question. If I had to take a guess, I would say probably not. however after we went in and found the torture chambers and mass graves, the 9/11 and the WMD's were no longer an issue with Iraq. I fully support our troops in Iraq, what I do not support is the way the whole mess is being handled.
You never sat up at night worrying about anything because you have tunnel vision. Oh the bad boys slapped us, now they will go away. You really should have spent some time in a combat unit with the military, probably would not have made it though. Here is a guess of reality for you, when someone smacks the US, they better understand that they are going to get smacked back twice as hard. Thats the way it should be, however the bleeding hearts like yourself make it hard to get the message across, because your always coming to the aid of the poor defenseless people that made the boneheaded mistake of attacking the United States.
Do you understand anything about guerilla warfare. Let me explain how it works, you strike fast and then disappear. You become friends with the soldiers, the whole time though you are gathering information. Sorry rule 1 of combat, you trust NOBODY. You say the Iranians are friendly, I say thats a load of BS.
forget about Iraq, how many times have you said anything about the poor families who lost loved ones in the trade centers or in the Pentagon. Those families who have children that will no longer see mom or dad or maybe both? These same kids that will someday will be old enough to start asking questions, like what happened to my mom and dad. How many times have you mentioned the atrocities that are being carried out by al qaeda and other terrorist groups. All I hear from you is how ruthless we are in dealing with them. Heck I was as ticked as the next when it was determined that Iraq had no WMD's. I did feel that someone misled us, whether it was the media or whoever. But after learning about how Hussein treated his people, I realized it was worth it in the end. I know you don't understand that though, your empathy leans towards the barbarians and not the innocent, so carry on with your believe it is your right and I will continue on in the real world.
How about the families who lost loved ones in the tunnels in London? From terrorists who were recruited because of the Iraq war...
jamiethelanky
03-22-2008, 11:28 AM
I am very aware of the differences i was in the military during the cold war, when cloak and dagger was the main theme of the day. However today it is not cloak and dagger it is an actual shooting war and that is the difference. The point here dill is that you nor I know what really went on behind the scenes. You can surmize and form your own hypothesis and theories all you want and I can do the same. Of course the administration uses the media, name one that didn't? Were you born before watergate? If you were then you witnessed first hand how the media works. The age old argument about this war or any war being fought over oil is really pathetic. Vietnam it was supposed to be all about money, now it is all about oil, or so you all say. It wasn't and its not. The media spins it that way of course, but its not. We have lost almost 4000 lives in Iraq, 1000's more in vietnam and it was about money? Not hardly. Your not in this country and neither is Jamie, I got to sit in front of my television and watch the trade centers, and pentagon get hit by american planes hijacked my terrorists, Less then 100 miles from me flight 93 hit the ground. I spent 2 monthes sleeping very little, wondering what was going to happen next. Paranoid? Maybe. Today I don't have a problem with going to bed. Why, because we took the fight to them instead of cowering in fear and waiting for them.
You say the Iranians like us? Do they? My father in law was in Nam. Want to know how many so called friendly vietnamese picked up a gun and turned into an enemy? Realize this, it is not a game, it is not like the cold war, there are countries and people in the world that want to take this country down and like it or not, we are not going to let them do it. If that goes against what you or Jamie believe in, so be it. Frankly I could care less what other countries think, I don't live there, I live here and I served in the military before and I'll do it again gladly because it is the best place in the world to live.
You like living in Qutar? Fine stay there and let us Americans worry about our country, we have made it through 200 plus years and we will continue to do so. I don't like bush or Cheney,but they have managed to keep another strike from happening and I thank them for that as well as the military, especially the military.
Dill has moved to Qatar. So what? He's got as much of a right to an opinion as those still on US soil. Maybe more because he isn't indoctrinated by your media.
You had planes fly into towers, we had trains blow up. Both terrorist attacks, both serious. ut you don't see me advocating going after ill-timed and in the grand scheme of things, unimportant wars.
The Noob Avenger
03-22-2008, 11:28 AM
Dill has moved to Qatar. So what? He's got as much of a right to an opinion as those still on US soil. Maybe more because he isn't indoctrinated by your media.
You had planes fly into towers, we had trains blow up. Both terrorist attacks, both serious. ut you don't see me advocating going after ill-timed and in the grand scheme of things, unimportant wars.
Yes, well the American people weren't looking at the grand scheme of things after 9-11. They were out for blood, Bush offered it to them, and they took it. 93% approval rating at that time. There are very few people who can say they have been against the conflict from the beginning.
jamiethelanky
03-22-2008, 11:30 AM
i think it's funny that people criticize the US for taking action to end an oppressive government that had used chemical weapons on it's own people and had death squads that went around murdering and raping it's own citizens because they didn't conform to what that government thought. but at the same time they criticize the US for not taking actions in places like darfur where another oppressive government is killing it's own people.
I find it funny that if this was the case - why didn't the USA and Britain wait until the UN gave them the go ahead. Because they apparently had "good" intelligence that was thoroughly wrong.
Iraq wasn't the only evil regime that killed its own people at that time, y'know. What about Zimbabwe, China, Sudan etc.
The Noob Avenger
03-22-2008, 11:38 AM
I find it funny that if this was the case - why didn't the USA and Britain wait until the UN gave them the go ahead. Because they apparently had "good" intelligence that was thoroughly wrong.
Iraq wasn't the only evil regime that killed its own people at that time, y'know. What about Zimbabwe, China, Sudan etc.
You know, I've thought about the same thing.
I think its because of a few reasons. First off, we wanted to go with something that worked in the past. We had already beaten the crap out of Iraq, so why not do it again, but for good this time? The size of China and the failed operation in Somalia may have discouraged the US from those two stages. Also, by this point, Saddam was already a 'Villain' of sorts as a result of the first gulf war, so we just go in as the white knights 'liberating' the Iraqi people, and get out. This is why the Spanish-American war created virtually no dissent- Because it was so quick. However, the resulting insurgency in the phillipines DID create dissent.
I feel that the insurgents are fighting the same war we fought with Britain over 200 years ago. Drag it out, put stress on the invading economy, sow dissent among its people, make it look bad on the world stage. In that sense it can be compared to Vietnam as well, and I feel they are doing a pretty good job of it.
Personally, I didn't listen to the 'intelligence' at all. I had heard for years that he had WMD's all the way back through the Clinton administration, so I figured it was correct, and it just seemed his character to kick the inspectors out. That, and I never really considered him much of a threat, anyway. I knew from the beginning that if this dragged on, people were going to get ******, and now it has, and people are ******.
artanis
03-22-2008, 03:00 PM
Israel is involved in serious land disputes at the center of the world. I think that the following website explains it most concisely and clearly: http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/intro-pal-isr-primer.html
"The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews is a modern phenomenon, which began around the turn of the 20th century. Although these two groups have different religions (Palestinians include Muslims, Christians and Druze), religious differences are not the cause of the conflict. It is essentially a struggle over land. Until 1948, the area that both groups claimed was known internationally as Palestine. But following the war of 1948-49, this land was divided into three parts: the state of Israel, the West Bank (of the Jordan River) and the Gaza Strip.
This is a small area: approximately 10,000 square miles, or about the size of the state of Maryland. The competing claims are not reconcilable if one group exercises exclusive political control over the total territory.
Jewish claims to this land are based on the biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants, on the fact that this was the historical site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel (which was destroyed by the Roman Empire), and on Jews' need for a haven from European anti-Semitism. Palestinian Arabs' claims to the land are based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years and the fact that they represented the demographic majority. They reject the notion that a biblical-era kingdom constitutes the basis for a valid modern claim. If Arabs engage the biblical argument at all, they maintain that since Abraham's son Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, then God's promise of the land to the children of Abraham includes Arabs as well. They do not believe that they should forfeit their land to compensate Jews for Europe's crimes against them...
In the 19th century, following a trend that began earlier in Europe, people around the world began to identify themselves as nations and to demand national rights, foremost the right to self-rule in a state of their own (self-determination and sovereignty). Jews and Palestinians both began to develop a national consciousness, and mobilized to achieve national goals. Because Jews were spread across the world (in diaspora), their national movement, Zionism, entailed the identification of a place where Jews could come together through the process of immigration and settlement. Palestine seemed the logical and optimal place, since this was the site of Jewish origin. The Zionist movement began in 1882 with the first wave of European Jewish immigration to Palestine.
At that time, the land of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, this area did not constitute a single political unit. The northern districts of Acre and Nablus were part of the province of Beirut. The district of Jerusalem was under the direct authority of the Ottoman capital of Istanbul because of the international significance of the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as religious centers for Muslims, Christians and Jews. According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants of the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were perhaps 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects. The great majority of the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) lived in several hundred rural villages. Jaffa and Nablus were the largest and economically most important Arab towns.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, most Jews living in Palestine were concentrated in four cities with religious significance: Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad and Tiberias. Most of them observed traditional, orthodox religious practices. Many spent their time studying religious texts and depended on the charity of world Jewry for survival. Their attachment to the land was religious rather than national, and they were not involved in -- or supportive of -- the Zionist movement which began in Europe and was brought to Palestine by immigrants. Most of the Jews who immigrated from Europe lived a more secular lifestyle and were committed to the goals of creating a Jewish nation and building a modern, independent Jewish state. By the outbreak of World War I (1914), the population of Jews in Palestine had risen to about 60,000, about 33,000 of whom were recent settlers. The Arab population in 1914 was 683,000.
Although orthodox Jews continued to oppose the creation of a Jewish state for several more decades, they supported mass settlement of Jews in Palestine as a means of strengthening and protecting the community. And following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, most orthodox Jews who previously had resisted Zionism adopted the belief that Israel's overwhelming victory in the war was a sign of God's support, and a fulfillment of God's promise to bring about the Messianic era. The areas captured and occupied in 1967, especially the West Bank, were important to religious Jews because they are the core of the biblical Land of Israel (Judea and Samaria). Consequently, Israel's victory in 1967 gave rise to a more religious variation of Zionism. Some existing political parties representing orthodox Jews came to embrace religious nationalism, and new parties and movements formed to advocate Israel's permanent control and extensive Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.
The religious-nationalist parties and groups that constitute the far right of the Israeli political spectrum maintain a hard line on matters relating to territory and the Arab-Israeli conflict. They have allied with the Likud Party. Although the Labor Party also has supported Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza, a key difference is a willingness to consider a territorial compromise with Palestinians as a means of ending the conflict. The Likud and its allies oppose any territorial withdrawal. In 1977, the Likud won the national election, for the first time unseating the Labor Party that had governed Israel since independence. Since then, Likud and Labor have alternated as the governing party, sometimes forming coalition governments when neither could achieve a clear electoral victory.
A minority of Jewish Israelis belongs to left-wing Zionist parties, which formed a political coalition known as Meretz in the 1980s. Meretz often joins Labor-led governments. Leftist Zionists are fully committed to maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, but tend to be more willing than the Labor Party to compromise on territorial issues, and have relatively greater sympathy for Palestinian national aspirations for a state of their own. A tiny minority of ultra-leftist Jewish Israelis identify themselves as non- or anti-Zionists. Some of them aspire to see all of Israel/Palestine transformed into a single state with citizenship and equal rights for all inhabitants, and others advocate the creation of a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. "
Again that website is http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/intro-pal-isr-primer.html
Although many Jews became Zionists by the early 20th century, until the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and the institution of a "Final Solution" to exterminate world Jewry, most Jews were not Zionists. Most orthodox Jews were anti-Zionist. They believed that only God should reunite Jews in the Promised Land, and regarded Zionism as a violation of God's will. Some Jews in other parts of the world, including the United States, opposed Zionism out of concern that their own position and rights as citizens in their countries would be at risk if Jews were recognized as a distinct national (rather than religious) group. But the horrors of the Holocaust significantly diminished Jewish opposition or antipathy to Zionism, and following World War II most Jews throughout the world came to support the Zionist movement and demand the creation of an independent Jewish state.
Did you deliberatly leave out the above paragraph?...the one that supports my point?...that the holocaust, and more specifically the anger and guilt it caused led directly to US and European support fot the creation of Israel...you left the paragraph out on purpose...that is decietful...that is lying by omission...congratulations...you must be proud.
artanis
03-22-2008, 03:42 PM
We are living in a time when the general "Arab" was used to justify a disastrous, unnecessary war, because one "Arab" hit the US and the current administration found it very easy to get the country all hyped up to hit back at "them."
And, with all due respect Artanis, land taken by force is the point. If I jack your car and shoot your wife in the process, then offer to pay for the car later, I doubt that would hold up as a defence in court.
But I am curious as to where your info about Israeli compensation comes from. Also, how do you compensate families that have been stood against a wall and shot? Send a check to the distant relatives? More often than not, Israel has simply disputed any Palestinian claims to land they live on, or claimed they forfeited it when they ran for their lives in ''48.
UN resolution 194...from 1950? or there abouts...there have been times, the only one that comes to mind is the Mid-east peace talks with Carter, when the Israelies have been in a moderate enough frame of mind to discuss 194 and begin to come to a figure...but the PLO would always blow something up and a hard line would be taken by the Israelies...194 is not popular in Israel, but discussing its particulars has been in the offing on several occasions.
tbone77
03-22-2008, 05:11 PM
Although many Jews became Zionists by the early 20th century, until the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and the institution of a "Final Solution" to exterminate world Jewry, most Jews were not Zionists. Most orthodox Jews were anti-Zionist. They believed that only God should reunite Jews in the Promised Land, and regarded Zionism as a violation of God's will. Some Jews in other parts of the world, including the United States, opposed Zionism out of concern that their own position and rights as citizens in their countries would be at risk if Jews were recognized as a distinct national (rather than religious) group. But the horrors of the Holocaust significantly diminished Jewish opposition or antipathy to Zionism, and following World War II most Jews throughout the world came to support the Zionist movement and demand the creation of an independent Jewish state.
Did you deliberatly leave out the above paragraph?...the one that supports my point?...that the holocaust, and more specifically the anger and guilt it caused led directly to US and European support fot the creation of Israel...you left the paragraph out on purpose...that is decietful...that is lying by omission...congratulations...you must be proud.
You know what? I only included page one and about half of page two....I just realized that there are several more pages that I ommitted, but I don't want to drown the MB with 5 pages of history....I just thought the first couple pages summed it up pretty well...I included a link for anyone who wants to read about it...You know it took me a little while to find a relatively "neutral" website that just covered the history without "passing judgment" against one side or the other.
steelman59
03-24-2008, 02:38 AM
I guess my final say in all these debates regarding us being in other countries fighting is this.
It is a quote from an old song. "I can understand a man not wanting to take another life, but I can not understand a man who won't fight for his home". Jamie and Dill I respect your views, however I can not understand them, its just not the way I was raised or what I was taught. The USA has got its share of problems, but problems come with responsibility and because of our history and our belief's that responsibility has expanded beyond this countries borders because in some countries the persecution and tyrrany has gone on so long that the people have just accepted it, they may not like it and may pray for it to change, but they either won't or can't do anything to change it. So why do we take it upon ourselves to be the ones change it for them, I guess its because truth be told we are the only ones who can do anything. I am not disrespecting your country Jamie or any other country when I say that you have your hands full just protecting your country. As you stated earlier, we have an ocean between us, not just land. Sure we can be reached, 911 proved that and so did Pearl Harbor, but its not easy to do.
I was a soldier, not a politician, I followed the orders of my superiors, a lot of times I did not understand them or even liked them, however it was not my concern, politics are for politicians. Was going into Iraq the right thing. The only honest answer can be I don't know, we are not privy to all the facts and information, however as a veteran I can not and will not stand against the soldiers who are there or the ones that ordered them there. I pray for them and hope that they get home safely but I will never ever criticize what they are trying to accomplish.
You dill and I live in different parts of the world and probably grew up in different times, when I served in the military it was a different world then it is today.When you take all this into consideration our points of view have to be different.
jamiethelanky
03-24-2008, 10:19 AM
I guess my final say in all these debates regarding us being in other countries fighting is this.
It is a quote from an old song. "I can understand a man not wanting to take another life, but I can not understand a man who won't fight for his home". Jamie and Dill I respect your views, however I can not understand them, its just not the way I was raised or what I was taught. The USA has got its share of problems, but problems come with responsibility and because of our history and our belief's that responsibility has expanded beyond this countries borders because in some countries the persecution and tyrrany has gone on so long that the people have just accepted it, they may not like it and may pray for it to change, but they either won't or can't do anything to change it. So why do we take it upon ourselves to be the ones change it for them, I guess its because truth be told we are the only ones who can do anything. I am not disrespecting your country Jamie or any other country when I say that you have your hands full just protecting your country. As you stated earlier, we have an ocean between us, not just land. Sure we can be reached, 911 proved that and so did Pearl Harbor, but its not easy to do.
I was a soldier, not a politician, I followed the orders of my superiors, a lot of times I did not understand them or even liked them, however it was not my concern, politics are for politicians. Was going into Iraq the right thing. The only honest answer can be I don't know, we are not privy to all the facts and information, however as a veteran I can not and will not stand against the soldiers who are there or the ones that ordered them there. I pray for them and hope that they get home safely but I will never ever criticize what they are trying to accomplish.
You dill and I live in different parts of the world and probably grew up in different times, when I served in the military it was a different world then it is today.When you take all this into consideration our points of view have to be different.
Good post. First off I have to say I respect everything that the armies of both our countries do - however I do not respect the way the governments of the countries have treated their people.
Politics is not just for politicians, its for the people - and I as a person have felt betrayed by both governments.
philhos
03-24-2008, 01:37 PM
Which Democrats root for the US to fail? Or is it just what any criticism of Bush policy is anti-american?
Any Democrat that pushed for our unequivocal and immediate departure from Iraq was essentially saying that they wanted America to lose.
Whether going to war in the first place was right or wrong, we need to win it and leaving before Iraq is able to stand on its own will be a loss.
Newspaper reports are usually based on memos and other documents, not to mention the words of the major players before and behind the scenes.
And the people that make up these memos and documents and give their testimony all tell the truth all the time, right? I'm not saying Bush didn't lie (though I want proof of it before believing it to be true), but why is it easy to believe Bush lied, but no one lied about Bush?
They also contain much undisputed material, like when the president said what at what press conference. And forgeries usually come out as such within a few weeks, don't they? If there were internal white house memos and witnesses which said that Bush began planning for the war in Iraq in 2001 and had already ordered Franks to revise two plans by fall of 2002, and newspapers reported the white house press secretary as saying there were no war plans on the president's desk, would that count as a Bush lie?
Ultimately, the President's responsible for the actions his "employees" take, but I would only count it a lie by the President if he told his "employees" to say something false knowing it to be false.
Or would that be on the press secretary, or would the newspapers untrustworthy because of their "agenda"? Would you argue that president might not have really said what was reported in all newspapers here and abroad? (What was Judith Miller's agenda, by the way, when she feed the public exactly what the administration wanted everyone to believe about the hunt for WMDs?)
I don't harbor illusions that Bush tells the truth all the time, however, I also know that others don't always tell the truth either. I like to think I have an open mind (for example, I can believe Bush lied, but I'd like to see proof of it), but I find it amazing how many people automatically believe Bush lied and everyone else is telling the truth (I'm not saying that's YOU, Dill, just others) when it's just as possible that Bush is telling partial truths and others are also telling partial truths.
I need evidence and that evidence needs to be corroborated before I'll buy it.
I am wondering what you think of Richard Clarke's testimony that, when told there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, Bush said "find some"?
Can you prove to me that Clarke didn't have an agenda? Wasn't he put in his position by Bill Clinton? Wasn't he also trying to make money off what he said by writing a book?
Two last questions, before we really get cooking: Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, sold 24 million dollars of Enron stock before the company folded. He also told his stockholders that he had purchased 4 million dollars worth of Enron stock, and what he told the stockholders was true. He just didn't tell them about the 24 million he had sold, so they would continue to believe the company was viable. So my first question is, was Ken telling a lie when he told the truth? I.e. is telling a partial truth to mislead a form of lying? The court thought so in Lay's case.
Telling a partial truth to mislead IS a form of lying. I would have to agree. Here's a question to YOU that I won't answer 'til after you do: is there ever a time that telling a partial truth to mislead could be beneficial?
My second question: should we hold Bush to a similar standard, or is there something that would exempt him? The Enron collapse defrauded thousands of people of hundreds of millions in savings and investments. The Iraq disaster has cost countless thousands of lives, and still counting, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars. Should the standard for Bush be higher or lower?
I think every governmental official should be held to at least the same standards (if not higher) than the average citizen.
Does this mean you also think Clinton should go to jail for perjury?
tbone77
03-24-2008, 01:57 PM
1) No body is saying that we shouldn't do something about tyranny and injustice in other parts of the world. We agree that tyranny is bad. We disagree over how to handle it. Do you bomb the tyrant and accept casualties? Do you supply a new, less hostile, tyrant and give him money and weapons? Do you give political asylum to refugees? Do you agree on UN sanctions, resolutions, boycotts, and inspections to pressure the oppressive government and keep a closer watch on it? Do you go unilateral, bi-lateral, multi-lateral??
2) No body is saying anything bad about the troops. Some people want to bring them home. Some people want to leave 'em there. You can still support the troops AND criticize the commander in chief and his brass when they make dumb decisions....You can still support the troops AND protest the war. You can still support the troops AND bring them home.
3) If you are unable to criticize a commander in chief when he makes unwise and dangerous mistakes then you may live in a semi-autocratic or semi-fascist state.
philhos
03-24-2008, 02:14 PM
1) No body is saying that we shouldn't do something about tyranny and injustice in other parts of the world. We agree that tyranny is bad. We disagree over how to handle it. Do you bomb the tyrant and accept casualties? Do you supply a new, less hostile, tyrant and give him money and weapons? Do you give political asylum to refugees? Do you agree on UN sanctions, resolutions, boycotts, and inspections to pressure the oppressive government and keep a closer watch on it? Do you go unilateral, bi-lateral, multi-lateral??
My opinion is if we truly wanted to help another country, we take it over. Seriously. We go in, make it a US territory, then make it a US state. Saves us all kinds of logisitical nightmares (though it introduces all kinds of new ones). At the very least, this would make things interesting. Plus, if someone attacks our new state, we could go to war quicker and easier. ;) :p
2) No body is saying anything bad about the troops. Some people want to bring them home. Some people want to leave 'em there. You can still support the troops AND criticize the commander in chief and his brass when they make dumb decisions....You can still support the troops AND protest the war. You can still support the troops AND bring them home.
Question: if the troops support the war, then if you support the troops, shouldn't you also support the war? (For the record, I don't mind people criticizing the government. I think it's necessary and a basic right, but I do believe people do go to far (i.e. to the point of supporting our enemies)).
jamiethelanky
03-24-2008, 03:08 PM
Question: if the troops support the war, then if you support the troops, shouldn't you also support the war? (For the record, I don't mind people criticizing the government. I think it's necessary and a basic right, but I do believe people do go to far (i.e. to the point of supporting our enemies)).
Troops have no say in where they go. If they refuse to fight somewhere they get discharged. They put their lives on the line if a country needs it or not. If the country doesn't need the war, i'll support the troops but criticise the circumstances in which they have been ordered into battle.
steelman59
03-24-2008, 06:02 PM
1) No body is saying that we shouldn't do something about tyranny and injustice in other parts of the world. We agree that tyranny is bad. We disagree over how to handle it. Do you bomb the tyrant and accept casualties? Do you supply a new, less hostile, tyrant and give him money and weapons? Do you give political asylum to refugees? Do you agree on UN sanctions, resolutions, boycotts, and inspections to pressure the oppressive government and keep a closer watch on it? Do you go unilateral, bi-lateral, multi-lateral??
2) No body is saying anything bad about the troops. Some people want to bring them home. Some people want to leave 'em there. You can still support the troops AND criticize the commander in chief and his brass when they make dumb decisions....You can still support the troops AND protest the war. You can still support the troops AND bring them home.
3) If you are unable to criticize a commander in chief when he makes unwise and dangerous mistakes then you may live in a semi-autocratic or semi-fascist state.
1) No body is saying that we shouldn't do something about tyranny and injustice in other parts of the world. We agree that tyranny is bad. We disagree over how to handle it. Do you bomb the tyrant and accept casualties? Do you supply a new, less hostile, tyrant and give him money and weapons? Do you give political asylum to refugees? Do you agree on UN sanctions, resolutions, boycotts, and inspections to pressure the oppressive government and keep a closer watch on it? Do you go unilateral, bi-lateral, multi-lateral??
That is actually a case by case situation. Sometimes there is just no alternative, other then taking military action. Saddam was a good example of this. The UN tried the resolutions, they layed out the terms and he ignored both. There was no compromising with him. I honestly feel that if we would have waited, the situation would have been worse. Other times, sure you may pull some covert operations and install someone else, if you feel that you have control over him. As far as which way to go, that depends again on the situation.
2) No body is saying anything bad about the troops. Some people want to bring them home. Some people want to leave 'em there. You can still support the troops AND criticize the commander in chief and his brass when they make dumb decisions....You can still support the troops AND protest the war. You can still support the troops AND bring them home.
I disagree to a certain degree on this. There is that church whom I can not recall the name of, because I can not listen to it with out getting thoroughly upset. Anyway they have shown up at funerals for soldiers and made a disgrace not only of themselves but they have disgraced the whole ceremony, making comments like your son or daughter got what they deserved, calling them murderers and such. We can not bring the troops home without finishing what has been started, to do so would be worse then pulling out of Vietnam or Korea. YOu are giving into the fanatics and leaving yourself open by doing so. It is sending the wrong message completely and that could be fatal.
3) If you are unable to criticize a commander in chief when he makes unwise and dangerous mistakes then you may live in a semi-autocratic or semi-fascist state.
In the military there is no democracy, and there is nothing wrong with criticizing the President, however to jump to conclusions about why a particular order was given, is not fair. unfortunately when you are dealing with national security or with the safety of soldiers who are in harms way, half - truths and misleading information is very much the norm. It is necessary for for both sakes.
We just don't have all the facts as to why Iraq happened and we can not 100% trust what was reported either.
devils advocate
03-24-2008, 06:28 PM
There is way too much evidence that points to Iraq's non-involvement in 9-11.Overlooked is the fact that Saddam is secular,thus considered an infidel by hard-line Muslims.
Bin -Ladin and Al-Quada wanted to battle Saddam in the first Gulf war but were denied the oppurtunity by the the Saudis.The notion of a meeting taking place between Al-Quada and the Iraqi government has been disproven.
As I said before,not one of the conditions of war,given to us by our government has come to fruition.Humanitarian issues aside,because they were not a stipulation of war.
Bush and Cheney refused to be questioned seperately by the 9-11 Commission,why?Is not the most defined rule for the President and the V.P. to never be at the same place at the same time?
Just an afterthought,
Bush has been critized heavily for the seven minutes of sitting once he learned we had been attacked.I for one do not have problem with this...my problem is with him flying around the country for hours the day of the attack.It speaks of his leadership,or lack there of.Do you think Teddy roosevelt would have reacted in the same manner.To me, Bush acted cowardly in his most defining moment by basically hiding that day.
artanis
03-24-2008, 06:36 PM
There is way too much evidence that points to Iraq's non-involvement in 9-11.Overlooked is the fact that Saddam is secular,thus considered an infidel by hard-line Muslims.
Bin -Ladin and Al-Quada wanted to battle Saddam in the first Gulf war but were denied the oppurtunity by the the Saudis.The notion of a meeting taking place between Al-Quada and the Iraqi government has been disproven.
As I said before,not one of the conditions of war,given to us by our government has come to fruition.Humanitarian issues aside,because they were not a stipulation of war.
Bush and Cheney refused to be questioned seperately by the 9-11 Commission,why?Is not the most defined rule for the President and the V.P. to never be at the same place at the same time?
Just an afterthought,
Bush has been critized heavily for the seven minutes of sitting once he learned we had been attacked.I for one do not have problem with this...my problem is with him flying around the country for hours the day of the attack.It speaks of his leadership,or lack there of.Do you think Teddy roosevelt would have reacted in the same manner.To me, Bush acted cowardly in his most defining moment by basically hiding that day.
Flying around in a plane that is equiped with everything he needs to stay in touch with all parts of the govt is insane?...they did not know if there were further plots to kill him or anyone else...it was a precautionary measure...If GW is as dumb as you liberals think then he was pretty smart in being a moving target...or do you think it was the Secret Service that requested his constant movement...or perhaps the military...or perhaps Uncle Cheney...who knows...but cowardly?...if GW sneezes you liberal will accuse him of being a bio-hazard.
devils advocate
03-24-2008, 06:55 PM
If he sneezes he would be a bio hazard...thats funny!!
Anyway,who knows what actually took place.Maybe it was precautionary.I'm almost positive,given his military record,that he did little to get involved immediately.By contrast,other Presidents would not have taken this stance or lack of,by hiding.Just curious,what did FDR do when Pearl Harbor was attacked?He had no way of knowing if more attacks were on the horizon at the moment.What did he do?
artanis
03-24-2008, 10:54 PM
If he sneezes he would be a bio hazard...thats funny!!
Anyway,who knows what actually took place.Maybe it was precautionary.I'm almost positive,given his military record,that he did little to get involved immediately.By contrast,other Presidents would not have taken this stance or lack of,by hiding.Just curious,what did FDR do when Pearl Harbor was attacked?He had no way of knowing if more attacks were on the horizon at the moment.What did he do?
It was also 1941...not very likely that an attack would reach the White House...in 2001 there are several ways to hit the White House...they invented a new way on Sept 11th.
Jom112
03-24-2008, 11:06 PM
There is way too much evidence that points to Iraq's non-involvement in 9-11.Overlooked is the fact that Saddam is secular,thus considered an infidel by hard-line Muslims.
Bin -Ladin and Al-Quada wanted to battle Saddam in the first Gulf war but were denied the oppurtunity by the the Saudis.The notion of a meeting taking place between Al-Quada and the Iraqi government has been disproven.
As I said before,not one of the conditions of war,given to us by our government has come to fruition.Humanitarian issues aside,because they were not a stipulation of war.
Bush and Cheney refused to be questioned seperately by the 9-11 Commission,why?Is not the most defined rule for the President and the V.P. to never be at the same place at the same time?
Just an afterthought,
Bush has been critized heavily for the seven minutes of sitting once he learned we had been attacked.I for one do not have problem with this...my problem is with him flying around the country for hours the day of the attack.It speaks of his leadership,or lack there of.Do you think Teddy roosevelt would have reacted in the same manner.To me, Bush acted cowardly in his most defining moment by basically hiding that day.
Flying around in a plane that is equiped with everything he needs to stay in touch with all parts of the govt is insane?...they did not know if there were further plots to kill him or anyone else...it was a precautionary measure...If GW is as dumb as you liberals think then he was pretty smart in being a moving target...or do you think it was the Secret Service that requested his constant movement...or perhaps the military...or perhaps Uncle Cheney...who knows...but cowardly?...if GW sneezes you liberal will accuse him of being a bio-hazard.
I disagree with you here devils advocate. It's not Bush's decision it's the Secret Service. Not only that but they will separate the President and the VP and also in those sorts of times take the President to an "undisclosed location" (Such as Camp David).
I commend Bush for not trying to be the cowboy he portrays himself to be in this situation. And also for allowing those around him who are properly trained on what to do make the decisions on his transportation and safety...
deviant
03-25-2008, 01:34 PM
To Bush's credit, the oil price is not his fault and is uncontrollable by presidents (hence why Hillary's claim that she will lower oil prices is unfeasible).
The main villains of this piece are OPEC, who through operating as a cartel are damaging free trade.
Right-o, Right-o...
It's a simple calculation of supply and demand... (which is why our foreign policy partially controls price). Our demands have increased, yet the OPEC nations keep the supply close to the same... hence forth higher and higher prices.
Jom112
03-25-2008, 01:43 PM
To Bush's credit, the oil price is not his fault and is uncontrollable by presidents (hence why Hillary's claim that she will lower oil prices is unfeasible).
The main villains of this piece are OPEC, who through operating as a cartel are damaging free trade.
For the most part but there are a couple of things that the President with the help of Congress can do:
- Establish minimum mileage limits for cars that the auto industry must adhere to.
- Threaten to and sometimes actually release the oil from the US Reserves
- Put legislation in place to force states to use more alternative power (Solar, Wind, etc...).
- Increase funding and usage of nuclear power
- Legalize marijuana which would lead people to stay in their basements more and just smoke up instead of driving as much. Except for the occasional munchies run.
None of those are a solution but it could decrease our dependence on oil which could drive down the price a bit. Not substantially but it does help...
I have stated many times that I do not know if Iraq played any part in 9/11. nobody but those that need to know can answer that question. If I had to take a guess, I would say probably not. however after we went in and found the torture chambers and mass graves, the 9/11 and the WMD's were no longer an issue with Iraq. I fully support our troops in Iraq, what I do not support is the way the whole mess is being handled.
Torture chambers and mass graves? That is the only thing the US knew for sure was there. And if torture chambers and mass graves are the issue, then why not North Korea? And what about US torture chambers?
You never sat up at night worrying about anything because you have tunnel vision. Oh the bad boys slapped us, now they will go away. You really should have spent some time in a combat unit with the military, probably would not have made it though. Here is a guess of reality for you, when someone smacks the US, they better understand that they are going to get smacked back twice as hard. Thats the way it should be, however the bleeding hearts like yourself make it hard to get the message across, because your always coming to the aid of the poor defenseless people that made the boneheaded mistake of attacking the United States.
You accuse me of "tunnel vision" but consistently get the facts wrong about Iraq and the mideast in general. If Iraq did not "smack" the US then why are they getting smacked back? They did not make the "bone-headed mistake" of attacking the US. You are not on patrol anymore. Lay the guns down.
Do you understand anything about guerilla warfare. Let me explain how it works, you strike fast and then disappear. You become friends with the soldiers, the whole time though you are gathering information. Sorry rule 1 of combat, you trust NOBODY. You say the Iranians are friendly, I say thats a load of BS.
The "Iranians" are not one group of people all of one mind. Like many modernizing countries, there are progressives and conservatives. The conservatives there are not much different than here. They see every conflict in religiouis and military terms and claim to protect the country against "them." Liberal Iranians do not like mullahs controlling every aspect of their lives. Many Iranians have had to flee the country because of their conservatives and would be only too happy to see a regime change there. But Iran is surrounded by an aggressive US war machine, and that shores up the conservatives' power. They are the mirror image of Iraq war supporters in the US.
forget about Iraq, how many times have you said anything about the poor families who lost loved ones in the trade centers or in the Pentagon. Those families who have children that will no longer see mom or dad or maybe both? These same kids that will someday will be old enough to start asking questions, like what happened to my mom and dad. How many times have you mentioned the atrocities that are being carried out by al qaeda and other terrorist groups. All I hear from you is how ruthless we are in dealing with them. Heck I was as ticked as the next when it was determined that Iraq had no WMD's. I did feel that someone misled us, whether it was the media or whoever. But after learning about how Hussein treated his people, I realized it was worth it in the end. I know you don't understand that though, your empathy leans towards the barbarians and not the innocent, so carry on with your believe it is your right and I will continue on in the real world.
Well now there are 4,000 more dead in a war against a country that never attacked the US. 7,000 dead now. How do you explain to ANY of their children what the US is doing in Iraq while Bin Laden is still on the loose? Why is it somehow sympathetic to victims of 9/11 if 4,000 more die for a mistake in Iraq?
Now you vaguely realize you may have been misled into supporting the Iraq disaster by "someone", but your best guess is it must have been "THE MEDIA"--of course, they are the ones who paraded all that silly "evidence" about aluminum tubes and yellowcake before the whole world. They urged the president to forget diplomatic solutions and go to war.
And you have never heard me talk about how "ruthless" the US is in dealing with Al Qaeda or terrorist groups. All you have heard me talk about is how "ruthless" the US is in dealing with a country that NEVER ATTACKED THE US. Still you somehow mix all this up so that you are the one who sympathizes with the innocent while I am sided with the barbarians--this in the same post in which you talk about the US "smacking back" a country that, I repeat, never attacked the US.
Have you noticed that you are only worried about Arab lives when they conveniently serve to justify an invasion, but not when they are dying at US hands? If they are getting what they deserve from the US right now then why weren't they getting what they deserve from Saddam?
devils advocate
03-25-2008, 04:58 PM
You're completely wrong in this point devils advocate. It's not Bush's decision it's the Secret Service. Not only that but they will separate the President and the VP and also in those sorts of times take the President to an "undisclosed location" (Such as Camp David).
I commend Bush for not trying to be the cowboy he portrays himself to be in this situation. And also for allowing those around him who are properly trained on what to do make the decisions on his transportation and safety...
I understand the SS wisked the CIC away for fear for his life.My thought is that other Presidents would not have been so subserviant.It bothers me,regardless of protocol.I do not believe the likes of John Kerry or McCain would have been so easliy lead into hiding....Not debating Kerry,guys.
like I said,there is nothing in GW's past that would suggest he would stand on his own and make a decision to fight,rather,he must have been quite compliant to hide.This is what I'm talking about.
Any Democrat that pushed for our unequivocal and immediate departure from Iraq was essentially saying that they wanted America to lose.
Whether going to war in the first place was right or wrong, we need to win it and leaving before Iraq is able to stand on its own will be a loss.
If going to war was "wrong," then the US still needs to "win" it? Why??? That sounds like Saddam's rationale for continuing the war against Iran. It sounds like a continuation of the thinking that got the US stuck there in first place.
And the people that make up these memos and documents and give their testimony all tell the truth all the time, right? I'm not saying Bush didn't lie (though I want proof of it before believing it to be true), but why is it easy to believe Bush lied, but no one lied about Bush?
Ultimately, the President's responsible for the actions his "employees" take, but I would only count it a lie by the President if he told his "employees" to say something false knowing it to be false.
If a memo is sent from one bureaucrat to another, and never intended for public eyes, then it probably was not written to sway public opinion, wouldn't you say? And if Bush says one thing at one date and transcripts, memos, video conferences and the testimony of generals and other engaged in planning the war show that something else entirely was going on, then a lie can emerge without anyone specifically calling Bush a liar, can't it? And what entitles you to assume that I am operating as if only Bush lies?
I don't harbor illusions that Bush tells the truth all the time, however, I also know that others don't always tell the truth either. I like to think I have an open mind (for example, I can believe Bush lied, but I'd like to see proof of it), but I find it amazing how many people automatically believe Bush lied and everyone else is telling the truth (I'm not saying that's YOU, Dill, just others) when it's just as possible that Bush is telling partial truths and others are also telling partial truths.
I need evidence and that evidence needs to be corroborated before I'll buy it.
Clearly people haven't "automatically" belived Bush lied, or not very many of them. Many people believe so now because so many of the original intelligence reports hidden or distorted in the lead up to the Iraq war have now come into the public domain. E.g., now it is clear the the Department of Energy, along with the Air Force, vigorously disputed the Bush team's claim that the Aluminum tubes purchased by Saddam were fit only for nuclear centrifuges, even as the Bush team was telling the public that all US departments and agencies involved in this assessment were in agreement on this point. And when apprised of the DOE's assessment, the white house was instructing the DOE scientists NOT to talk to the press on the same day it was making its case about those tubes.
Can you prove to me that Clarke didn't have an agenda? Wasn't he put in his position by Bill Clinton? Wasn't he also trying to make money off what he said by writing a book?
Telling a partial truth to mislead IS a form of lying. I would have to agree. Here's a question to YOU that I won't answer 'til after you do: is there ever a time that telling a partial truth to mislead could be beneficial?
If Clarke produces memos and testimony corroborated by others, it hardly matters if he is "making money" or "has an agenda." Looks to me like his agenda was to blow the whistle on people cooking intel and they only way he could do that was to get the info into a book. After that people can ALWAYS say "he was just out to make money." Nothing in Clarke's back ground says "agenda" like the Project for a New American Century.
Off hand I cannot think of a time that a sworn public official telling a partial truth to mislead the public into supporting policies it would otherwise not support could be beneficial. What do you hope to accomplish by asking me that, when clearly we are talking about people who told partial truths because they knew the couldn't get what they wanted with the full truth, even though they were legally bound to present the full truth? The only "benefit" of Bush and Co. misleading the public in this case was so they could fly a war by congress on the flimsiest of evidence with the least amount of scrutiny and resistance possible. The only question here is do you think such misleading occured and if so was THAT was beneficial.
I think every governmental official should be held to at least the same standards (if not higher) than the average citizen.Does this mean you also think Clinton should go to jail for perjury?
Did Clinton lie about Iraq's imminent nuclear program, or the "confirmed" meeting of Mohammad Atta with Iraqi intelligence? If so then the answer is yes. If Clinton played no role in misleading the public into supporting the Iraq war, then why mention him here?
devils advocate
03-25-2008, 05:09 PM
Look into the bombing during the first Gulf War.Something like one bomb dropped every 30 seconds for 40 some days,crushing Iraqi infrastructure,in turn starving woman and children and killing thousands of innocents.This is overlooked by apologists....the atrocities caused by America to innocent people.
Jom112
03-25-2008, 05:10 PM
I understand the SS wisked the CIC away for fear for his life.My thought is that other Presidents would not have been so subserviant.It bothers me,regardless of protocol.I do not believe the likes of John Kerry or McCain would have been so easliy lead into hiding....Not debating Kerry,guys.
like I said,there is nothing in GW's past that would suggest he would stand on his own and make a decision to fight,rather,he must have been quite compliant to hide.This is what I'm talking about.
There are specific protocols in place regardless of who the president is. Back when Teddy was president they probably weren't as well defined but in today's government they are.
To say those plans show weakness is not an attack on GW but an attack on the ones who created it (i.e. Secret Service and other Government agencies). And I for one would much rather trust the protocols that they have developed over time than to trust GW's (Or any other presidents) opinion on the fly when a disaster such as 9/11 occurs.
Believe me my brother worked in the White House for several years while Bush was in office (And hates his guts, policy wise not personally), and he would tell you that you have to follow protocol in those situations. It's not a matter of choice...
steelman59
03-25-2008, 05:14 PM
Torture chambers and mass graves? That is the only thing the US knew for sure was there. And if torture chambers and mass graves are the issue, then why not North Korea? And what about US torture chambers?
You accuse me of "tunnel vision" but consistently get the facts wrong about Iraq and the mideast in general. If Iraq did not "smack" the US then why are they getting smacked back? They did not make the "bone-headed mistake" of attacking the US. You are not on patrol anymore. Lay the guns down.
The "Iranians" are not one group of people all of one mind. Like many modernizing countries, there are progressives and conservatives. The conservatives there are not much different than here. They see every conflict in religiouis and military terms and claim to protect the country against "them." Liberal Iranians do not like mullahs controlling every aspect of their lives. Many Iranians have had to flee the country because of their conservatives and would be only too happy to see a regime change there. But Iran is surrounded by an aggressive US war machine, and that shores up the conservatives' power. They are the mirror image of Iraq war supporters in the US.
Well now there are 4,000 more dead in a war against a country that never attacked the US. 7,000 dead now. How do you explain to ANY of their children what the US is doing in Iraq while Bin Laden is still on the loose? Why is it somehow sympathetic to victims of 9/11 if 4,000 more die for a mistake in Iraq?
Now you vaguely realize you may have been misled into supporting the Iraq disaster by "someone", but your best guess is it must have been "THE MEDIA"--of course, they are the ones who paraded all that silly "evidence" about aluminum tubes and yellowcake before the whole world. They urged the president to forget diplomatic solutions and go to war.
And you have never heard me talk about how "ruthless" the US is in dealing with Al Qaeda or terrorist groups. All you have heard me talk about is how "ruthless" the US is in dealing with a country that NEVER ATTACKED THE US. Still you somehow mix all this up so that you are the one who sympathizes with the innocent while I am sided with the barbarians--this in the same post in which you talk about the US "smacking back" a country that, I repeat, never attacked the US.
Have you noticed that you are only worried about Arab lives when they conveniently serve to justify an invasion, but not when they are dying at US hands? If they are getting what they deserve from the US right now then why weren't they getting what they deserve from Saddam?
I really don't care whether Iraq was responsible in part or not, Saddam needed to go, your buddies in Iran couldn't get the job done, so now your ticked that we did. Germany never attacked us, Japan did, so were we wrong to go and fight in Europe? Take of your blinders dill, either you support the US or you don't.
Jom112
03-25-2008, 05:15 PM
I really don't care whether Iraq was responsible in part or not, Saddam needed to go, your buddies in Iran couldn't get the job done, so now your ticked that we did. Germany never attacked us, Japan did, so were we wrong to go and fight in Europe? Take of your blinders dill, either you support the US or you don't.
But Germany was attacking other nations (Multiple other nations). If Iraq invaded Kuwait again or declared war on Saudi Arabia, then we would have more of a case to attack Iraq.
Seeing as how Iraq didn't when we invaded them several years ago this analogy doesn't work...
devils advocate
03-25-2008, 05:18 PM
I just don't see the SS agents telling any President where to go,if said President was defiant and said "No,take me to Iron Mountain",or what have you,"because the American people need to know that I am here to lead"!!
Jom112
03-25-2008, 05:18 PM
I just don't see the SS agents telling any President where to go,if said President was defiant and said "No,take me to Iron Mountain",or what have you,"because the American people need to know that I am here to lead"!!
I hear what your saying but the fact of the matter is that those protocols do exist. I dislike GW as much as the next guy but he was right in this situation...
devils advocate
03-25-2008, 05:21 PM
Iran couldn't get the job done because the U.S. backed Iraq.The blinders are on the ones who are mislead and follow without question.One can criticize his government in support of his country.The arguement of Germany not attacking America is naive.
steelman59
03-25-2008, 05:21 PM
But Germany was attacking other nations (Multiple other nations). If Iraq invaded Kuwait again or declared war on Saudi Arabia, then we would have more of a case to attack Iraq.
Seeing as how Iraq didn't when we invaded them several years ago this analogy doesn't work...
Iraq not only attacked Kuwait, he attacked his own people, he slaughtered them because of their differing views from his, worse yet he used chemical weapons on them, much the same as hitler did. You should do a comparison of hitler to Saddam and you will be amazed at the similarities. The only difference is we did not give a long leash to saddam as hitler had.
Jom112
03-25-2008, 05:25 PM
Iraq not only attacked Kuwait, he attacked his own people, he slaughtered them because of their differing views from his, worse yet he used chemical weapons on them, much the same as hitler did. You should do a comparison of hitler to Saddam and you will be amazed at the similarities. The only difference is we did not give a long leash to saddam as hitler had.
And Stalin had an even bigger leash. Yet we never invaded Russia instead we allied with them in WWII.
If we're going to use the "We went into save their people" line, then there are a lot of other countries we should be invading right now (Sudan comes to mind).
There is a right way and a wrong way in today's world to invade a country. We should have worked with the UN better instead of circumventing their decisions and invading Iraq. There was no imminent threat...
devils advocate
03-25-2008, 05:34 PM
the chemical weapons were used,not because they had differing views,becuase they weren't subserviant.All of the population had differing views.Remember,Saddam ran a secular gov't.Those weapons were used on a small portion of the population that was incoherent to saddams rule.I am not defending Saddam,he was evil,but created,in part by the US.
tbone77
03-26-2008, 12:50 AM
I have stated many times that I do not know if Iraq played any part in 9/11. nobody but those that need to know can answer that question. If I had to take a guess, I would say probably not. however after we went in and found the torture chambers and mass graves, the 9/11 and the WMD's were no longer an issue with Iraq. I fully support our troops in Iraq, what I do not support is the way the whole mess is being handled.
You never sat up at night worrying about anything because you have tunnel vision. Oh the bad boys slapped us, now they will go away. You really should have spent some time in a combat unit with the military, probably would not have made it though. Here is a guess of reality for you, when someone smacks the US, they better understand that they are going to get smacked back twice as hard. Thats the way it should be, however the bleeding hearts like yourself make it hard to get the message across, because your always coming to the aid of the poor defenseless people that made the boneheaded mistake of attacking the United States.
Do you understand anything about guerilla warfare. Let me explain how it works, you strike fast and then disappear. You become friends with the soldiers, the whole time though you are gathering information. Sorry rule 1 of combat, you trust NOBODY. You say the Iranians are friendly, I say thats a load of BS.
forget about Iraq, how many times have you said anything about the poor families who lost loved ones in the trade centers or in the Pentagon. Those families who have children that will no longer see mom or dad or maybe both? These same kids that will someday will be old enough to start asking questions, like what happened to my mom and dad. How many times have you mentioned the atrocities that are being carried out by al qaeda and other terrorist groups. All I hear from you is how ruthless we are in dealing with them. Heck I was as ticked as the next when it was determined that Iraq had no WMD's. I did feel that someone misled us, whether it was the media or whoever. But after learning about how Hussein treated his people, I realized it was worth it in the end. I know you don't understand that though, your empathy leans towards the barbarians and not the innocent, so carry on with your believe it is your right and I will continue on in the real world.
So what's your point? I'm not trying to be facetious. I just don't see your logic.
Here we are. It's 2008, and people still try to justify the war in Iraq by alluding to 9/11. Are you aware that Al-qaeda makes up a very small percentage of the insurgency in Iraq? And are you aware that Al-qaeda has actually grown in Iraq since we invaded that country?
I hope that when those kids grow up and ask what happened, that they get an honest answer. I think they deserve and honest answer, and I think they will get one in the 21st century because the truth is not as easy to suppress as it was 20 years ago. The kids will grow up and learn about the mistakes that were made.
tbone77
03-26-2008, 01:05 AM
The question is how many more mistakes will be made?
How many more lies will we accept before we seek the truth?
When will everyday U.S. citizens decide that we have had enough lies and that we need to accept some responsibility for the mistakes made by the incompetent decision makers who we elected to spend our tax dollars?
THAT is our decision to make...
No body will "win" this war in Iraq. The whole notion of "winning" this kind of conflict is an absurd and abstract debate, a waste of time really. The REALITY is that we have a regional conflict that needs to be resolved...we rarely even debate WHAT we intend to accomplish, nevermind HOW we intend to do accomplish it. The insanity of this whole thing is how ignorant all of us are about the country and region in which we are fighting. Oh but i guess it's better to fight the enemy on foreign soil. Which brings up my next question...
Most U.S. citizens don't even know who the real enemies are today. Who exactly are we fighting??? Even our politicians are confused about this one. Who is Iran training now?
Many U.S. citizens don't know what the difference between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are. Anyone need to take a "Ba'ath"?
Most of us don't even know that back in 1963 our CIA backed a successful coup to overthrow then prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim of Iraq (because he befriended the Russians) bringing the Ba'ath regime and eventualy Saddam Hussein to power. Later in the 1980's the U.S. gave Saddam Hussein and Iraq military aid to fight Iran, after our all-time favorite puppet (the Iranian Shah) was overthrown by religious zealot Ayatollah Khomeni.
Most of us are not aware that back in the 1980's the CIA funneled money and weapons to the mujahideen, "holy warrriors" of Afghanistan, which later splintered into the Taliban, and harboured Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Many Americans still forget the reason we went to war in 2001, which was to capture Bin Laden.
Many Americans, even Bush, seem to ignore the fact that the Taliban was supported by wealthy Saudis and that many young religious extremists (not to mention 15 of the 9/11 highjackers come from Saudi Arabia). "Please more oil!" "Don't cut us off!" "We need more oil!" "We'll do anyting....PLEASE!"
Most of us are unaware that we may be repeating history right now. I believe the Brits have tried this occupation thing at least once before in Iraq: http://http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6337.htm
I could go on and on and on....but you get my point....They say that those who forget history are bound to repeat it.
What does this say about the state of education in the U.S.?
The most ignorant war mongers are considered the most patriotic citizens....The whole thing is rather insane from my point of view. The cycle repeats itself.
We need to stop ovethrowing foreign governments who do no harm to us, unless the victims of oppression specifically ask us to come to their rescue and aid. We also need to stop rigging and buying elections in foreign countries. We need to worry about our own democracy, which has its own problems.
Cheney tells us that, if we elect the wrong people, the terrorists will show up at our doors. But I say we need to resist that paranoia and fear mongering. The only thing we have to fear is oursleves. The downfall of most great countries is usually from within, brought on by the country itself. Again, read the history of past great countries and empires around the world.
Our military industrial complex would like to send our kids to war, especially to places with lucrative foreign assets and trade routes. Don't buy into the hype. Don't be so gullible. Anytime you buy a product from someone, you need to do your research and understand what it is you are getting. Don't allow yourself to be bamboozled by salesmen and politicians. Lately politicians brag about their CEO experience. That means that they are especially good at selling stuff to make a profit. Don't assume that they know how to handle domestic and foreign affairs (or at least avoid making disastrous decisions). Look back at the intelligence failures and the unintended consequences of sending billions of $ and weapons to hostile foreign governments in the past 50 years. Don't be so quick to write off the $9 billion dollars of Iraqi oil funds and reconstruction cash that is MIA since the beginning of the war. This money will fund the next group of thugs in the Middle East. How soon we forget. The cycle repeats itself.
artanis
03-26-2008, 02:48 AM
The question is how many more mistakes will be made?
How many more lies will we accept before we seek the truth?
When will everyday U.S. citizens decide that we have had enough lies and that we need to accept some responsibility for the mistakes made by the incompetent decision makers who we elected to spend our tax dollars?
THAT is our decision to make...
No body will "win" this war in Iraq. The whole notion of "winning" this kind of conflict is an absurd and abstract debate, a waste of time really. The REALITY is that we have a regional conflict that needs to be resolved...we rarely even debate WHAT we intend to accomplish, nevermind HOW we intend to do accomplish it. The insanity of this whole thing is how ignorant all of us are about the country and region in which we are fighting. Oh but i guess it's better to fight the enemy on foreign soil. Which brings up my next question...
Most U.S. citizens don't even know who the real enemies are today. Who exactly are we fighting??? Even our politicians are confused about this one. Who is Iran training now?
Many U.S. citizens don't know what the difference between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are. Anyone need to take a "Ba'ath"?
Most of us don't even know that back in 1963 our CIA backed a successful coup to overthrow then prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim of Iraq (because he befriended the Russians) bringing the Ba'ath regime and eventualy Saddam Hussein to power. Later in the 1980's the U.S. gave Saddam Hussein and Iraq military aid to fight Iran, after our all-time favorite puppet (the Iranian Shah) was overthrown by religious zealot Ayatollah Khomeni.
Most of us are not aware that back in the 1980's the CIA funneled money and weapons to the mujahideen, "holy warrriors" of Afghanistan, which later splintered into the Taliban, and harboured Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Many Americans still forget the reason we went to war in 2001, which was to capture Bin Laden.
Many Americans, even Bush, seem to ignore the fact that the Taliban was supported by wealthy Saudis and that many young religious extremists (not to mention 15 of the 9/11 highjackers come from Saudi Arabia). "Please more oil!" "Don't cut us off!" "We need more oil!" "We'll do anyting....PLEASE!"
Most of us are unaware that we may be repeating history right now. I believe the Brits have tried this occupation thing at least once before in Iraq: http://http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6337.htm
I could go on and on and on....but you get my point....They say that those who forget history are bound to repeat it.
What does this say about the state of education in the U.S.?
The most ignorant war mongers are considered the most patriotic citizens....The whole thing is rather insane from my point of view. The cycle repeats itself.
We need to stop ovethrowing foreign governments who do no harm to us, unless the victims of oppression specifically ask us to come to their rescue and aid. We also need to stop rigging and buying elections in foreign countries. We need to worry about our own democracy, which has its own problems.
Cheney tells us that, if we elect the wrong people, the terrorists will show up at our doors. But I say we need to resist that paranoia and fear mongering. The only thing we have to fear is oursleves. The downfall of most great countries is usually from within, brought on by the country itself. Again, read the history of past great countries and empires around the world.
Our military industrial complex would like to send our kids to war, especially to places with lucrative foreign assets and trade routes. Don't buy into the hype. Don't be so gullible. Anytime you buy a product from someone, you need to do your research and understand what it is you are getting. Don't allow yourself to be bamboozled by salesmen and politicians. Lately politicians brag about their CEO experience. That means that they are especially good at selling stuff to make a profit. Don't assume that they know how to handle domestic and foreign affairs (or at least avoid making disastrous decisions). Look back at the intelligence failures and the unintended consequences of sending billions of $ and weapons to hostile foreign governments in the past 50 years. Don't be so quick to write off the $9 billion dollars of Iraqi oil funds and reconstruction cash that is MIA since the beginning of the war. This money will fund the next group of thugs in the Middle East. How soon we forget. The cycle repeats itself.
Oh man...give it a rest already!
Why do you get on here and speak as if you are the only person who knows anything?...we already know we created Alqueda...yeah...WE KNOW...you remind us as if its news...as if you just dug up this fact for us...that we are all too dumb to get it...we get it...our nation in the past, in the present, and in the future will make decisions in this world that are not pretty...they dont teach that in Sunday school...and we know that...stop acting like you are the only source of information.
History does not repeat itself...folks like to take two similar events and draw comparisons...but they are often just as diffrent as they are similar...saying history repeats itself is something people hear and then parrot because they think it makes them sound smart...its ridiculous...what...is magic involved?...yes people keep making similar mistakes...but that does not mean history is repeating itself...go ahead...tell me Iraq is like Vietnam...I will list three times as many diffrences.
Trade routes?...like Portuguese explorers?...trade routes?...ever heard of planes?...trade routes?...are you talking about Boeing or Ponce Deleon?
I bet you use oil...I bet you drive or ride to work...buy clothes that were flown into town or driven into town...you use oil just as much as anyone...yet you belittle us for needing oil?...WTF?
Yes...we all know how Saddam came to power...do you want a lollipop?...it was the Cold War...we backed anybody who would keep out commies...thats what we did...OKAY!...all you do is hammer away at the same old crapola and say noone hears you...we hear you...I have never, neither has anyone else, disputed many of the things you say...but you just repeat yourself...kinda like history?...naw...history does not repeat.
You ramble on about all the injustices in the world and then indirectly blame all of us...you tell us not to buy the hype...okay...I wont buy the hype...whatthehell does that even mean?...If I or some other poster supports our efforts, our troops, our goals, you say we are puppets, suckers, that we are "not sophisticated enough" to argue with you...but you don't really argue...you rant...and ramble about this injustice...or that injustice...or some travesty that led to some other travesty...well...guess what...thats the way the world works...Is Steelman supposed to back the insurgents?...or American troops?...or should he turn off his TV and have a beer?...you belittle him for supporting his country men...what exactly is that all about...if you don't like your country, well, find another one that you do like...name a guiltless nation on this earth...Tibet?...maybe.
You remind me of a teenager who is full of angst...it is not cool...or impressive...I will leave you with a quote from Winston Chucill...if you are young and conservative, you have no heart...if you are old and liberal, you have no brain.
tbone77
03-26-2008, 09:29 AM
Please Artanis -- Give yourself a rest.
You are the master of straw man argument.
But I appreciate that you read my posts. I think that you may actually learn something, even though you try to deny it.
Enlightenment comes gradually.
You don't need to feel guilty. You just need to consider these facts, before you support the next rush to pre-emptive invasion.
The cycle does repeat itself.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
philhos
03-26-2008, 01:54 PM
If going to war was "wrong," then the US still needs to "win" it? Why??? That sounds like Saddam's rationale for continuing the war against Iran. It sounds like a continuation of the thinking that got the US stuck there in first place.
Yes, if going to war was wrong, we still need to win it. If we pull out and/or lose this war, it will first and foremost embolden our enemies. They won't see the U.S. as being as strong as she can be. They will see her as being weak and unable to sustain any long term battles. You can "rest assured" that if we lose, there will be more and more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil if we pull out.
If a memo is sent from one bureaucrat to another, and never intended for public eyes, then it probably was not written to sway public opinion, wouldn't you say?
But, how can you be certain that it wasn't sent without the intent of others seeing it as opposed to being created specifically to "leak" it? I'm not saying that it never happens or even that the latter happens more than the former, but one should always view things with skepticism.
And if Bush says one thing at one date and transcripts, memos, video conferences and the testimony of generals and other engaged in planning the war show that something else entirely was going on, then a lie can emerge without anyone specifically calling Bush a liar, can't it?
I guess, but then who would you claim would be lying? A lie cannot just happen. It has to come from someone.
And what entitles you to assume that I am operating as if only Bush lies?
I didn't mean to imply that you only believe Bush to be lying. But, I will say that it seems you only care about whether Bush is lying.
Clearly people haven't "automatically" belived Bush lied, or not very many of them.
I disagree. There are people who blindly agree with everything Bush says and does and there are people who blindly disagree/hate everything Bush says and does. Look at how many people instantly believed the forged documents on Bush's national guard service.
If Clarke produces memos and testimony corroborated by others, it hardly matters if he is "making money" or "has an agenda." Looks to me like his agenda was to blow the whistle on people cooking intel and they only way he could do that was to get the info into a book. After that people can ALWAYS say "he was just out to make money." Nothing in Clarke's back ground says "agenda" like the Project for a New American Century.
It depends on the veracity of the corroborating evidence. If it holds up under scrutiny, then you could start to buy his testimony.
I don't remember what Clarke said, but I do remember not believing much, if any, of what he said. I just don't remember why.
The only question here is do you think such misleading occured and if so was THAT was beneficial.
I can tell you that I don't know if misleading occured. I will admit that it's a possibility, but I don't have all that evidence and quite frankly, no one really does. Whether or not it was beneficial really depends on how the situation in Iraq turns out. If we somehow turn Iraq into a strong democratic country able to fend for itself and becomes a strong ally against terrorist nations, then, yes it was beneficial. If Iraq remains an unstable country that is constantly beset by infighting and civil wars, then obviously it was not beneficial.
Did Clinton lie about Iraq's imminent nuclear program, or the "confirmed" meeting of Mohammad Atta with Iraqi intelligence? If so then the answer is yes. If Clinton played no role in misleading the public into supporting the Iraq war, then why mention him here?
I only mentioned him 'cause it seems that you want something done to Bush for his lying/misleading. If not, then I apologize for the assumption and bringing Clinton in, though he is KNOWN to have lied to the public.
However, Clinton's assessment of the dangers of Iraq are similar to Bush's, wouldn't you say?
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
This was in 1998. http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech
steelman59
03-26-2008, 05:32 PM
The question is how many more mistakes will be made?
How many more lies will we accept before we seek the truth?
When will everyday U.S. citizens decide that we have had enough lies and that we need to accept some responsibility for the mistakes made by the incompetent decision makers who we elected to spend our tax dollars?
THAT is our decision to make...
No body will "win" this war in Iraq. The whole notion of "winning" this kind of conflict is an absurd and abstract debate, a waste of time really. The REALITY is that we have a regional conflict that needs to be resolved...we rarely even debate WHAT we intend to accomplish, nevermind HOW we intend to do accomplish it. The insanity of this whole thing is how ignorant all of us are about the country and region in which we are fighting. Oh but i guess it's better to fight the enemy on foreign soil. Which brings up my next question...
Most U.S. citizens don't even know who the real enemies are today. Who exactly are we fighting??? Even our politicians are confused about this one. Who is Iran training now?
Many U.S. citizens don't know what the difference between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds are. Anyone need to take a "Ba'ath"?
Most of us don't even know that back in 1963 our CIA backed a successful coup to overthrow then prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim of Iraq (because he befriended the Russians) bringing the Ba'ath regime and eventualy Saddam Hussein to power. Later in the 1980's the U.S. gave Saddam Hussein and Iraq military aid to fight Iran, after our all-time favorite puppet (the Iranian Shah) was overthrown by religious zealot Ayatollah Khomeni.
Most of us are not aware that back in the 1980's the CIA funneled money and weapons to the mujahideen, "holy warrriors" of Afghanistan, which later splintered into the Taliban, and harboured Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Many Americans still forget the reason we went to war in 2001, which was to capture Bin Laden.
Many Americans, even Bush, seem to ignore the fact that the Taliban was supported by wealthy Saudis and that many young religious extremists (not to mention 15 of the 9/11 highjackers come from Saudi Arabia). "Please more oil!" "Don't cut us off!" "We need more oil!" "We'll do anyting....PLEASE!"
Most of us are unaware that we may be repeating history right now. I believe the Brits have tried this occupation thing at least once before in Iraq: http://http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6337.htm
I could go on and on and on....but you get my point....They say that those who forget history are bound to repeat it.
What does this say about the state of education in the U.S.?
The most ignorant war mongers are considered the most patriotic citizens....The whole thing is rather insane from my point of view. The cycle repeats itself.
We need to stop ovethrowing foreign governments who do no harm to us, unless the victims of oppression specifically ask us to come to their rescue and aid. We also need to stop rigging and buying elections in foreign countries. We need to worry about our own democracy, which has its own problems.
Cheney tells us that, if we elect the wrong people, the terrorists will show up at our doors. But I say we need to resist that paranoia and fear mongering. The only thing we have to fear is oursleves. The downfall of most great countries is usually from within, brought on by the country itself. Again, read the history of past great countries and empires around the world.
Our military industrial complex would like to send our kids to war, especially to places with lucrative foreign assets and trade routes. Don't buy into the hype. Don't be so gullible. Anytime you buy a product from someone, you need to do your research and understand what it is you are getting. Don't allow yourself to be bamboozled by salesmen and politicians. Lately politicians brag about their CEO experience. That means that they are especially good at selling stuff to make a profit. Don't assume that they know how to handle domestic and foreign affairs (or at least avoid making disastrous decisions). Look back at the intelligence failures and the unintended consequences of sending billions of $ and weapons to hostile foreign governments in the past 50 years. Don't be so quick to write off the $9 billion dollars of Iraqi oil funds and reconstruction cash that is MIA since the beginning of the war. This money will fund the next group of thugs in the Middle East. How soon we forget. The cycle repeats itself.
How many more lies will be told? That is solely dependent on the other countries in the world. I served during the height of the cold war. Lies were the norm. If the American people knew even a third of what went on and what still goes on, they couldn't handle it. Things like freedom, money, and are way of life is what most countries want. However the governments of these countries do not want to lose control of the population, however as long as the US survives, the people will want the same things we have, that is a sore spot with the governments of these people and that is why they want us gone, oh yeah there are plenty of other reasons, I just don't want to get into them here. I am so glad the bleeding hearts weren't around when this country was founded, or we would still be under the thumb of England. Face the facts, what we have in this country came at a great cost and to keep it will also mean paying a great cost. You think it is bad here, then move to one of these countries like Iran or Syria or even Africa.
You claim the government lies to the American people BRILLIANT! You just now figured that out huh. All governments lie to their people. It is a necessary evil, its called keeping your enemies guessing. Trouble is your type think that we make our own enemies, thats a hoot. Stop complaining about what is wrong with this country and start looking at what is right and you may be surprised. I am a war monger because I back what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and heres a shock for you other places also that we are not even aware of. funny thing about Spec Ops, Navy Seals and Special forces, you here very little of them, wonder why that is? Try looking up covert operations. Every country has them and have country is involved in them.
If supporting the troops and questioning the validity of the facts makes me a war monger, OK then I am a war monger, the truth is I am a realist, I do not look at the world with rose colored glasses and think that we are the big bad bullies that you make us out to be. What I see is a country that has been free for over two hundred years, fighting to stay free.
Your right, as long as there are bleeding hearts like you, no war will be won.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.