a new long political thread

[Timebuilder]

350 Driver:

While you complain that I lack facts, you are saying that there are facts of some sort in your argument. There is only ONE fact that you have suggested, the one that I am happy to acknowlege: there has been no public release of ANY evidence of WMD in Iraq.

After that, you have given not a single additional fact.

From my point of view, I don't give a rat's behind whether we release any such information or not. It would be interesting, but I don't think of it as a requirement. This is because I TRUST the President and his team to be doing the right thing in policy and personal matters alike. These are people of honor, and if GW mentioned something in a speech, I believe he thought it to be a 100% irrefutable truth.

My friend, I know something about the intelligence community. Many of my old chums are still working in that area. You can call it "BS", in fact it's probably better if you do, but I can tell with a high degree of certainty that we have the operatives that I mentioned.

Not every administration feels compelled to run to the press with all of the available information that they have, whimpering and simpering at the feet of Dan Rather, uring the press to show the American people that they are telling the truth.

In fact, the better Administration takes a different road, keeping the powder dry for a time to keep secret what we actually do know, so that the business at hand can be continued to a substantial victory.

merikeyegro

I'm invoking my first amendment right to come to my own conclusions from you posts, and to share those conclusions with you, just as you are want to do.

So, when you say:

Maybe he forgot to note that I mentioned our government was already getting TOO BIG FOR ITS BRITCHES...Does that sound like a communist thing to say, TB?

..I recall the speeches that I heard as a young left winger in NYC back in the 70's. Yes, it does sound exactly like that.

 

[merikeyegro]

...

TB-

This country is founded on the right and duty of its citizens to question its leaders. You do no such thing. GWB is the president, thus he is right. He's not a good CITIZEN, let alone American. He says things to sway opinion and votes, not because he thinks they're right. But, like I said, smoke if you got 'em. Apparently, you already are.

Funny that the same document that allows you to have your own opinion is the same one that keeps you from shutting me up and spouting my "communist" blather. Maybe we'll meet for a beer someday (funny, I think we'd all get along just fine if we did just that - guess the anonymity is a strange thing here). You'll see what a real "communist" I am. I would venture to say that, if you asked my friends exactly that or had a chance to talk to me, they'd likely laugh at you and you'd have a different view. But, denouncing big government and spying, etc., is apparently a "communist" thing to do.

Call me Gorbachev...

 

[Timebuilder]

I have no idea if you are a communist or not. You could be a Unitarian for all I know!

I had observed that you said something that was consistent with those "worker's party" speeches that I heard in NYC. You don't have to BE a communist to say something that fits in with those beliefs. Along with that, I disagree with your observation that our government is too big for its britches. Considering what our government faces on the world stage, our britches are just about right.

And I'm glad that you have the right to blather, as you put it. I hope others hear views just like yours. It's importnat that people become fully conversant with fringe views (IMO) like yours and 350's. It's a part of the process of self governance, and makes for an informed electorate.

This country is founded on the right and duty of its citizens to question its leaders.

You're right. But, and this is a BIG "but", there are many situations where we have no right to expect an answer. A time of war is the best example, with several war experiences in just over 227 years to give creedence. Secondly, there is the already constitutional-tested idea of government secrecy for many purposes, particularly military secrecy and national security.

Many of our actions in Iraq are under this umbrella of legalized secrecy, and it is a sensible idea while those actions are underway or while intelligence sources, especially agents and other operatives, could be compromised. Compromised means revealed, captured, tortured, or killed.

You do no such thing. GWB is the president, thus he is right.

No.

GW is "right" becuase I have made my own assesment of his actions from my perspective as a citizen, and I often agree with him. Second, I trust him because of the person he is: not perfect, but honest and straightforward, and working in an environment not known for these qualities.

He says things to sway opinion and votes, not because he thinks they're right.

In the extreme, you can say this about ANY leadership position. How often does a memo go out praising a staff member, while the boss really doesn't agree with everything in the memo? There can be reasons of motivation, inclusion, even affirmative action at work. Similarly, a President may make compromises within the scope of his duties, making choices that he wishes he didn't have to make at all; doing things he would not normally endorse. Having been in that situation, I can tell you that it is a burden of command. Some struggle against it, and rightfully so. Some relish it, like the Clintons, almost gleeful in their manipulation of public sentiments for their own ends.

I wouldn't want to be in Bush's shoes right now. He has to walk a tightrope between the America we knew before 9/11 and the America we are facing as a result, and that rope could be long enough to hang even the greatest of our White House residents.

But, like I said, smoke if you got 'em. Apparently, you already are.

No thanks. I put down the left wing crack pipe a long time ago. And when I hear Libertarians talking about their core issues, like legalizing dangerous and addictive drugs, I cast a wary eye on their platform, too.

 

[vossdr1]

If Saddam did not have WMDs, why did he not disclose the disposition of the ones known to exist at the end of the first Gulf War? He gassed Kurds in his own country remember?

Is it just possible that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have access to information that would endanger the informants if they were sighted as sources? Would you want to expose these informants to the likes of Saddam or expose their families to the Bath party remnants so that you could mull over their veracity?

There will be people around the world who will always hate the United States, regardless of its foreign policy. The U.S. is a sovreign state and accountable to its citizens, not the citizens of a different country.

As to the UN, well, as enigma has said, Cuba (and I think Syria and Lybia) are on the Human Rights council. That, to me, speaks volumes of insincerity or incompetence on the part of the organization.

In principle, I agree that our government is too big. The further away from local government issues are decided, the less input the individual has. However, I am at loss to suggest a remedy to it.

It is interesting to me that, TB was in the military. At sometime in his past he took a vow to die, if necessary, to defend the right of others to make their posts on this thread. That fact alone lends a degree of credibility to his opinion that is absent from those who lack similar credentials.

 

[s.o.sJTB]

If Saddam did not have WMDs, why did he not disclose the disposition of the ones known to exist at the end of the first Gulf War? He gassed Kurds in his own country remember?

Is it just possible that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have access to information that would endanger the informants if they were sighted as sources? Would you want to expose these informants to the likes of Saddam or expose their families to the Bath party remnants so that you could mull over their veracity?


.

Of course he had them everyone knows that, but it is becoming more and more obvious that they were destroyed during the UN inspections. And dont forget when he gassed the Kurds he was a US ally at the time, we did not break off diplomatic relations with him, we slapped his wrist and continued supporting him (Rumsfeld was trying to build the Aqaba pipeline at the time working with Saddam on behalf of Bechtel). In fact when He was gassing the Iranians we continued giving him logistical support and even increased oue support to Saddam, this whole scam had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi's" or protecting the world from Saddams tyranny, thats just good proppaghanda to gain the americans populations support for war.

As far as the claim that the US cannot disclose its sources of information and intelligence, thats just another scam. What threat do these sources face now? Bathhaist loyalist?, if that is case they would be here with there families and protected under Asylum (remember the lawyer who "saved" private Lynch?) I doubt any of them would want to stay in Iraq given the choice. Also if their Intelligence and informayion they provided to the CIA was good and solid WHY HAVE THEY NOT FOUND ANYTHING IN OVER FOUR MONTHS!!!

Rumsfeld was working for Bechtel in trying to build the Aqaba pipeline through Iraq and Jordan, when the final proposals were given to Saddam he thought it was to expensive and he turned to the Russians who had a cheaper proposal. This was in the late eighties, no doubt Rumsfel was pissed and the demonization process of Saddam; and the US and Bechtels plans for regime change began. The Demonization didnt begin when he gassed the Iranians or the Kurds or during is dictatorship of rape and murder in the eighties, it began when Rumsfeld and Bechtel were denied the Aqaba pipeline.

 

[vossdr1]

That is very interesting information.

I don't understand one thing. If a government is requested and then gives asylum to its intelligence sources (families and all), that government would not have very many sources in field.

 

[vossdr1]

You also assert that the WMD were destroyed during the UN inspections. Was this done under UN supervision?

I don't doubt that we assisted Saddam Hussien during the Iran/Iraq war. This country is not perfect since it is populated and administered by people.

In summary, are you saying that Saddam made D. Rumsfeld angry and this is why we have troops in Bagdad? This is a conspiracy to oust Saddam because Rumsfeld couldn't get an Iraqi oil deal for his company?

 

[Timebuilder]

It is interesting to me that, TB was in the military.

Actually, while I have a military background, I have to step forward and make a correction. I was not IN the military, per se. I do, just the same, maintain a network of contacts. At one time, I overlooked the involvement of these friends who did take the oath, back when I was a liberal. As I grew in understanding of life, the world, and the uniqueness of the United States, I also grew in respect of the work that these old friends did on our behalf, all over the earth. They deserve our support, and so does their Commander in Chief.

Of course he had them everyone knows that, but it is becoming more and more obvious that they were destroyed during the UN inspections.

Obvious? Wouldn't that be reassuring. I don't think we can afford to draw that conclusion right now, considering how unlikely it was for Sadaam to comply with the order to destroy his WMD, and yet remain unwilling to show that he had done so.

And dont forget when he gassed the Kurds he was a US ally at the time, we did not break off diplomatic relations with him, we slapped his wrist and continued supporting him (Rumsfeld was trying to build the Aqaba pipeline at the time working with Saddam on behalf of Bechtel).

In the past, we, that is to say the US, has given support to a country under a theory of "the lesser of two evils". This does not mean that the recipient is an "ally". Bechtel's interest as a contractor was just not sufficiently important to make this relationship a necessity.

While a pipeline helps provide economic stablity to the region, and hopefully lures a dictator like Sadaam into the arena of nations where we can bring his people out of tyranny through working economic relationships, and therefore enhance our interests, it is not a reason to overlook the murder of the Kurds.

In fact when He was gassing the Iranians we continued giving him logistical support and even increased oue support to Saddam, this whole scam had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi's" or protecting the world from Saddams tyranny, thats just good proppaghanda to gain the americans populations support for war.

Consider the other possible outcomes of the Iran/Iraq war, and you will see that another possibility would have been a larger, stronger Iran, and a situation that could be worse than the one we face now. As humans, we don't make perfect choices, but the knowlege that this area of the world is a complex mess cannot justify our withdrawl from this area because it is not clear cut and definitive.

There is good propaganda and there is bad propaganda.
When it is good, it represents the truth of our position and the reality of the conflict, the players, and what is at stake. This "good" variety is usually practiced by nations of free poeple, and the bad kind is usually used by dictatorships.

As far as the claim that the US cannot disclose its sources of information and intelligence, thats just another scam. What threat do these sources face now?

Not all of these sources are in Iraq, and the threat to them is great. Our operatives in Syria, for example, are monitoring the movements of important Iraqi figures, just as our people in Iran are doing. I can't tell you what has been discovered through these agents, but these sources face being compromised every day.

Also if their Intelligence and informayion they provided to the CIA was good and solid WHY HAVE THEY NOT FOUND ANYTHING IN OVER FOUR MONTHS!!!

It only takes a little imagination to picture different scenarios. First, the length of time Sadaam had to move and conceal on a daily basis. This creates "lag time" in intel. As the likelihood of war increased, and we talked and talked and talked, it very likely became increasingly difficult to maintain any semblance of a normal chain of intel in this primitive region. There is another factor, too. It's the "sucker factor". There are remnants of the Republican Guard who may be still working secretly to determine security leaks. Say they purposely let some small WMD location be known to a possible US operative to see if we show up there the next day. If we take the bait and swoop down, the agent is compromised and we only have a small "trophy" item to show for our efforts. Then we have lost the agent, who will be shortly disposed of by the Guard, and we can no longer find out anything through this channel. Get the idea?

This was in the late eighties, no doubt Rumsfel was pissed and the demonization process of Saddam; and the US and Bechtels plans for regime change began.

This would actually be funny, if I wasn't convinced that you believe it. I know of no one at Bechtel or the intel community who agrees with this position, and you can bet that it would be well known if it were the truth. Sadaam was a demon long before Bechtel. As I explained, sometimes a Sadaam is just the lesser of two evils, and not making a choice to support one or the other is not an option.

The Demonization didnt begin when he gassed the Iranians or the Kurds or during is dictatorship of rape and murder in the eighties, it began when Rumsfeld and Bechtel were denied the Aqaba pipeline.

No, the demonization happened long before that. We hoped to use this demon to advance our interests in stability and freedom in the region. As imperfect men, we often make errors along the way. Hopefully fewer errors than those who are unconcerned about tyranny in general.

Of course, you are free to characterize the US in any way you like. Your view may actualy be popular elsewhere. Perhaps Europe? Certaily among those UN nations named to important councils like human rights. Just an observation.

 

[Timebuilder]

This is a conspiracy to oust Saddam because Rumsfeld couldn't get an Iraqi oil deal for his company?

I believe that this is precisely what sosJTB is claiming.

 

[TXCAP4228]

TXCAP-

Wake up and take the blinders off. Obviously if the UN and all other nations knew that Iraq posed a serious threat to any country's security then they would have backed this Wdumbya led war . The bottom line is they did NOT and I am thankful to this day for them not backing the Bush administration and I am just as thankful present day for all the other nations that continue to be extremely outspoken against Bush and his entire administration... This was absolutely uncalled for and unjustified and Bush will pay during the next election. I know you have already bought into this nonsense and propaganda but what has Bush done for this country since he took office (meaning the USA). I thought so.... What a complete joke. Take a look at this economy without the blinders on.

How compelling.


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, MY POST WAS A CHALLENGE TO YOU TO BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID, AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.

LOL. No other country is doing this either present day.? If it were up to you we can go into Cuba, North Korea, etc, next since they have done the same. Come on you can do better than that..... Bush is the PRESIDENT of the US of A NOT of other countries, wake up..

04" will be here soon enough

3 5 0

This was the part where I said that you had a choice. If you oppose action in Iraq then that NECESARILY means you support Sadaam's regime. You have tried to dance around it without an answer. Let me be clear - AGAIN. You have 2 choices:

1) You may either support the President's actions in Iraq

2) You support the Iraqi regimne as it was.


350, IF YOU CANNOT SAY EITHER CHOICE NUMBER ONE OR CHOICE NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE A GUTLESS COWARD WHO THROWS WORDS LIKE WAR CRIMINAL AROUND BUT CALLS IN SICK ON THE DAYS WHEN A MORAL DECISION IS REQUIRED.

 

[Ralph]

Now look here, I'm not real smrt but I know one thing.

You will be told what you need to know when you need to know, and we don't need you to question anything thats going on.

Second of all the world is black and white. You are pro USA or anti USA. And EVERY issue that confronts us is just the same. You are with us or you are part of the axis of evil. Question me and you are against us, agaisnt the USA, and pro Saddam. And if you are pro Saddam then you are anti Jesus. Love Jesus and love this land or leave it because if its not one its the other!

"1) You may either support the President's actions in Iraq

2) You support the Iraqi regimne as it was."

Thats exactly right. 0 middle ground you tree huggin' macintosh usin' long haired loosers. Why don't you guys go to Canada and marry your boyrfriends. You gay Jesus hatin freaks don't belong here!

 

[Timebuilder]

Do I detect a note of humor?

Actually, we can question all we like. You can write to your congressman, your paper editor, even the white house. If you choose to be stupid while doing so (Miss Maines, for example) you had better be prepared for possible consequences. Freedom of speech is not without risk, just like everything else in life.

Just because we have this right to question, we cannot expect any right to the appropriate information, as we see it. The national security act is covered in the freedom of information act, and secure information is not to be released. Just ask the Senators and Congressmen who have tried to get information about the activities at Groom Lake, or the new unnamed facility that is farther from public scrutiny located within minutes of Groom Lake by air. They can't find out squat, and for good reason.

One of the questions I like to ask those who routinely criticize the President regarding homeland security and our military activities is this "What would you do if you were the President?"

I get darn few reasonable answers.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Now look here, I'm not real smrt but I know one thing.

You will be told what you need to know when you need to know, and we don't need you to question anything thats going on.

Second of all the world is black and white. You are pro USA or anti USA. And EVERY issue that confronts us is just the same. You are with us or you are part of the axis of evil. Question me and you are against us, agaisnt the USA, and pro Saddam. And if you are pro Saddam then you are anti Jesus. Love Jesus and love this land or leave it because if its not one its the other!

"1) You may either support the President's actions in Iraq

2) You support the Iraqi regimne as it was."

Thats exactly right. 0 middle ground you tree huggin' macintosh usin' long haired loosers. Why don't you guys go to Canada and marry your boyrfriends. You gay Jesus hatin freaks don't belong here!

Hi Ralph. I do, in fact, see the humor. The tone of my posts comes from the fact that 350 accused President Bush of being a war criminal. It is one thing to disagree with the policies and actions of your government. This is healthy for a democracy.

However, it is something else entirely to accuse President Bush of being a war criminal purely for political reasons and then gutlessly avoid the REAL WORLD ramifications of the statements you have made. This is why I have framed it as I did.

I am still giving 350 a chance to substantiate his accustation and stand up for what he said.

When you accuse the President of the United States of a war crimes when the standard for comparison is Sadaam Hussein, then you have run out of middle ground.

So Ralph, do you REALLY disagree with that?

 

[350DRIVER]

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, MY POST WAS A CHALLENGE TO YOU TO BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID, AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO.

TXCAP-

A challenge.... Ahhaaa.....I looked at it as more of a "joke" than anything. You have said/posted nothing more than opinionated personal beliefs that are nieve and incorrect with regards to what has actually transpired. You have failed to look at the factual evidence to date and instead have based all your conclusions on "propaganda" and off the wall outrageous scenarios that you find on the news. It is even more comical that to date you are supporting a administration that has done absolutely nothing positive for this country. These current screw ups are going to take years and years to correct. I just wonder what other diversionary tactics Wdumbya will do next after Iraq, possibly Liberia but who knows.

This was the part where I said that you had a choice. If you oppose action in Iraq then that NECESARILY means you support Sadaam's regime. You have tried to dance around it without an answer. Let me be clear - AGAIN. You have 2 choices:

1) You may either support the President's actions in Iraq

2) You support the Iraqi regimne as it was.

350, IF YOU CANNOT SAY EITHER CHOICE NUMBER ONE OR CHOICE NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE A GUTLESS COWARD WHO THROWS WORDS LIKE WAR CRIMINAL AROUND BUT CALLS IN SICK ON THE DAYS WHEN A MORAL DECISION IS REQUIRED.

I actually support neither. I surely do not support "Wdumbya" for this war action which was absolutely uncalled for and which will ultimately get him out of office in 04". I also did not support The Iraqi regimne but a fool could clearly see that it posed no threat to us. You are a complete moron to believe otherwise and your misinformed off the wall posts show just that. Why jump on a band wagon that is slowly coming to a halt.? You clearly could have done better than that. There is a reason why "our" congress is now looking into the "why" of this war and thank God the other nations will continue to be outspoken as well.


If you had your way we would also invade Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc, since they are also in the "wrong" and have done just the same things as Iraq has been accused of. Wake up bud, take the blinders off and look at the problems facing OUR country present day and the lack of everything that Bush has done since he took office.

3 5 0

 

[CitationLover]

GWB is acting like a democrat

so much for less govt.....

under GWB the fed govt has grown TONS and TONS. this homeland security dept nonsense is the worse. it was created to "assist the fbi/cia/and us intelligence agencies in communicating with each other". you're telling me this costs $35 billion?!?! he should've cut the fbi/cia budgets to force them to talk with each other.

 

[TXCAP4228]

TXCAP-
I actually support neither. I surely do not support "Wdumbya" for this war action which was absolutely uncalled for and which will ultimately get him out of office in 04". I also did not support The Iraqi regimne but a fool could clearly see that it posed no threat to us. You are a complete moron to believe otherwise and your misinformed off the wall posts show just that. Why jump on a band wagon that is slowly coming to a halt.? You clearly could have done better than that. There is a reason why "our" congress is now looking into the "why" of this war and thank God the other nations will continue to be outspoken as well.

Ok, you don't support American action against a criminal regime, even when that action has the support of an international coalition AND the backing of resolution 1441 (which called for serious consequences) not to mention a finding by th eUN Securtity Council of Iraq being in material breach of 16 resolutions.

(side note - in spite of the facts I have cited you say that my position is based on propaganda and not facts and that somehow I am a moron.... )

Then you say that you also do not support the Hussein Ba'ath party regime in Iraq. So tell me, 350, what exactly have you done to oppose it? Tell me what YOU have done to bring about a democratic government for the Iraqi people?

You see? When you get down to brass tacks, you are a windbag who blows around a lot of hot air and accuses your own president of being a war criminal but when it comes to actually making the world a better place you prefer to sit on the sidelines and criticize.

350 - 8 years of leadership like yours culminated in the fiery deaths of 3000 good people one morning a little less than 2 years ago. After a chain of attacks that lead up to it....

How compelling your opposition of all and support for nothing is. I'm moved.

If you had your way we would also invade Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc, since they are also in the "wrong" and have done just the same things as Iraq has been accused of. Wake up bud, take the blinders off and look at the problems facing OUR country present day and the lack of everything that Bush has done since he took office.

3 5 0

You speak of blinders. I suggest you remove yours.

If you are not worried that a nuclear capable North Korea or Iran could destabalize the world then I'm not the one with blinders on.

Let's speak of these for a moment. North Korea blackmailed the previous administration into using American taxpayer's dollars to fund the electric power in Pyong Yang (somehow, I am a moron for lacking facts.... but it seems I know about these things....). We got jipped - as many oponents to this plan said we would - and now we have to pay the piper.

Let me ask you something 350. Be honest, because this is a tough question. If the last President did such a great job for 8 years, why are there so many problems in the world today? North Korea had nukes before Bush became President. Iraqi weapons programs WERE known to exist in 1998 when member of your own party were publicly supporting military action (but I know you will avoid this in your reply) based on THE SAME EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOW.

So. If you are honest you will admit that these problems have festered for years. If you are honest you will acknowledge that the world is a better place without Sadaam Hussein. If you are honest, you will give credit to this administration for progress in Middle East peace - hell, Palestine even has a new prime minister.

Finally:

YOU HAVE STILL FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE CALLING THE PRESIDENT A WAR CRIMINAL.

 

[Ralph]

http://www.earthside.com/bush-war-crimes.html



"......Count one of the indictment was "Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War." The Casefiles says: The "common plan or conspiracy" charge was designed to get around the problem of how to deal with crimes committed before the war. The defendants charged under Count One were accused of agreeing to commit crimes.

And count two was "Waging Aggressive War, or Crimes Against Peace." From Casefiles: This evidence was presented by the British prosecutors and was defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."

The conclusion one is forced to now draw from the facts that have been demonstrated, is that there is certainly reasonable doubt that there was a solid foundation for the attack on Iraq. A war crimes investigation is therefore necessary to ascertain whether or not the Bush administration conspired to ignore evidence that Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were indeed already destroyed or did not pose a threat. Furthermore, an investigation is required to judge whether or not the Bush administration premeditatedly planned to violate the U.N. charter (and thereby Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution) and wage a war of aggression against Iraq.
Put plainly -- because an imminent threat from Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction has clearly not been demonstrated by the discoveries, or lack of discoveries, resulting from the prosecution of the war, it is entirely reasonable to examine if Bush lied and deceived for the purpose of starting a war......"

 

[enigma]

http://www.earthside.com/bush-war-crimes.html



"......Count one of the indictment was "Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War." The Casefiles says: The "common plan or conspiracy" charge was designed to get around the problem of how to deal with crimes committed before the war. The defendants charged under Count One were accused of agreeing to commit crimes.

And count two was "Waging Aggressive War, or Crimes Against Peace." From Casefiles: This evidence was presented by the British prosecutors and was defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."

The conclusion one is forced to now draw from the facts that have been demonstrated, is that there is certainly reasonable doubt that there was a solid foundation for the attack on Iraq. A war crimes investigation is therefore necessary to ascertain whether or not the Bush administration conspired to ignore evidence that Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were indeed already destroyed or did not pose a threat. Furthermore, an investigation is required to judge whether or not the Bush administration premeditatedly planned to violate the U.N. charter (and thereby Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution) and wage a war of aggression against Iraq.
Put plainly -- because an imminent threat from Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction has clearly not been demonstrated by the discoveries, or lack of discoveries, resulting from the prosecution of the war, it is entirely reasonable to examine if Bush lied and deceived for the purpose of starting a war......"

Ralph, I went to earthside, it is clearly labeled as COMMENTARY and OPINION. While I am not a UN supporter, it is clear that the UN did sanction actions against Iraq. Iraq had repeatedly broken the surrender agreement that it signed in 1991 and seemed to be openly inviting attack. Hussien could have avoided attack at almost any time by ceasing hostile actions against us. Iraq continually fired upon coalition aircraft that were patrolling the no-fly zone, an act of war that justified action all by itself.

Your cut and paste, as well as the article itself are misleading. The paragraphs you pasted are refering to Germanys role in starting WW2, not the US's role in Iraq.

The author is trying to gain traction for a favorite Democratic gripe. He is trying to make this a single issue problem. The WMD were only a partial reason for the invasion, and President Bush did not need to lie and deceive to start a war.

regards,
8N

 

[350DRIVER]

Ok, you don't support American action against a criminal regime, even when that action has the support of an international coalition AND the backing of resolution 1441 (which called for serious consequences) not to mention a finding by th eUN Securtity Council of Iraq being in material breach of 16 resolutions.

TXCAP- You must be a complete fool which is obvious by your posts. You keep using the word "criminal" this and "criminal" that but what you neglect to wake up and realize is that Iraq is no different than many other countries present day that are just as criminal if not more so that Iraq was. Wake up bud..... ( you may want to switch the coffee brands) Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc, are just as bad if not worse than Iraq was BUT that is not our business since they pose absolutely NO security threat to this country ( the US of A) that you call "home". We currently have a "moron" in office who has been doing absolutely nothing for the economy, unemployment situation, etc, etc,.. wake up. It is great for him to play Texas cowboy and be an outlaw but it is getting this country no where at all. As for the UN, they did NOT back this war (thank God) and I will leave it at that. - That speaks marvels in itself.

(side note - in spite of the facts I have cited you say that my position is based on propaganda and not facts and that somehow I am a moron.... )

You are buying into complete propaganda. Read what you have written. You cannot make one claim on how Iraq was tied into 911, you cannot make a statement pertaining to these so called weapons of mass destruction, etc, etc, I could keep going on and on but I woun't waste my time on your replies. They are comical though to read.

You see? When you get down to brass tacks, you are a windbag who blows around a lot of hot air and accuses your own president of being a war criminal but when it comes to actually making the world a better place you prefer to sit on the sidelines and criticize.

I see you are a fool with pretty thick blinders on who likes to "follow". He is NOT "my" president, you may have been one of the boneheads who helped elect him but I can proudly say I was NOT one of them. What has he done positive for this country.? Wake up bud. 04" will be here soon enough.

Let me ask you something 350. Be honest, because this is a tough question. If the last President did such a great job for 8 years, why are there so many problems in the world today? North Korea had nukes before Bush became President. Iraqi weapons programs WERE known to exist in 1998 when member of your own party were publicly supporting military action (but I know you will avoid this in your reply) based on THE SAME EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOW.

It is so comical that due to Wdumbya's lousy doings thus far you must continue to blame someone who is not even in office present day. LOL I must give you credit. What has Bush done to date for this country since he is so great.?? Maybee you should take a look at the "current" shape of this place .

So. If you are honest you will admit that these problems have festered for years. If you are honest you will acknowledge that the world is a better place without Sadaam Hussein. If you are honest, you will give credit to this administration for progress in Middle East peace - hell, Palestine even has a new prime minister.

I admit these problems have been here for years, BUT Wdumbya has done nothing "positive" thus far since he took office. That is the bottom line. Give him credit for Middle East relations.?? You must be on the verge of insanity, wake up bud..... He doesn't even know where that is located let alone taking credit for doing nothing.


u are too funny

3 5 0

 

[Timebuilder]

u r a yng guy r nt u?

 

[DarnNearaJet]

I suppose that in the Sixties one was either:
1) In support of the US Government or;
2) In support of Hanoi.

Nothing in between? How about complex thought? Analytical reasoning? Stumbling upon the possibility that our government can and does occasionally make mistakes (Gulf of Tonkin.)

For those of you who claim that nothing less than flag-waiving Bush-worshipping, country-music listening hysteria is unpatriotic, I'm sure that the Joseph Goebbels would have agreed with you 100%.

 

[JHook]

Wow, this is getting interesting. It seems like yesterday that I was standing on a deck in the early morning hours of 20 March watching 2 American jets taking off that, during their mission, would drop the first bombs of Iraqi Freedom. The reason it seems like yesterday is because it practically was. I don't know where the WMD's are and you know what, I don't care either. Bill Clinton goes to war with a dictator who is committing human rights travesties and the war is hailed as "justified." Nevermind the fact that the war was in the middle of an impeachment. President Bush goes to war against a dictator who was committing human rights travesties and we are concerned that a single piece of information in a speech may not be accurate. Nevermind the fact that Saddam Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons in the past. Nevermind the fact that there were countless UN resolutions that he was in violation of. Nevermind the fact that he was promised that we would not come to Baghdad in 1991 if he signed a cease fire agreement, which he also violated. You see, at the core of a cease fire agreement lies an idea completely lost on the minds of the left that you actually cease firing. In my mind, our war was justified in the simple fact that he was firing at our airplanes legally patrolling areas that he agreed we could patrol. If he didn't want to stop firing why should we?

It is hilarious watching leftists say there is no evidence that Saddam had links to terrorism. How's this for some evidence. How many suicide bombers killing innocent Israeli's were we hearing about on the news prior to the war? How many are we hearing about now? The reason we aren't hearing about a lot of them isn't because Dan Rather decides not to tell you.

350, you aren't entitled to the evidence that President Bush had when he made the decision to go to war. You may think it had to do with oil or you may think it was for personal reasons...like the fact that Saddam Hussein was in the middle of a conspiracy to kill a US President. That was personal to me too and the US Preisdent wasn't even my father. You are just going to have to wait and see what turns up in Iraq. It hasn't been very long. But while you are waiting, go ahead and meet the challenge to back up your earlier statements that President Bush is a war criminal. And while you and your friends are on the bandwagon that President Bush has done nothing for the war on terrorism, how many more attacks have we had in this country since 9/11/01? You say they are coming. Since you are so bent on evidence, where is it? Have you notified the FBI? I'm not saying that we aren't vulnerable and I doubt President Bush would say that either but obviously you know something is coming and coming soon. Could it be that you have read too many Maureen Dowd columns and are using the same scare tactics you accused the Bush Administration of using.

Since you are looking forward to '04 so much, debate this for me because I have no opinion: Will the Democratic party really try to win in '04 knowing full well that if by chace they win, Hillary will not only be going up against an incumbent Preisident in '08 but one from her own party?

 

[bart]

We now have an armored force in the middle east capable of rolling into any major capital in 24 hours. Made Yasser Arafat share power and tone down his murdering. That alone makes it worth it.

Lets get a government in place in Iraq, then go to Iran, then Syria and end it all by taking out the House of Saud.

Democrats frivolously waste the lives of soldiers, Republicans win wars.

 

[Easywithit]

Jhook,

Kitty, Lincoln, Connie? or a med bubba? Lincoln's food blows, but its clean!

Obviously I concur with your opinion. I think a point must be made about the search for WMD. This operation was called "Shock and Awe" not "Creep and search". You absolutely must secure the battlefield before you start sending in the WMD detectives. People were complaining about WMD proof while I was still doing CAS in Karbala....that was 10 days into the war! Right now we have a US troop getting ambushed and possibly killed as we speak. We blew by many towns on our way to Baghdad, and just as many military complexes. Our troops were on the verge of going into Baghdad and we were still avoiding flying over Basrah, Al amarah, An Najaf, An Nasiriah, etc. due to S-60's and other nasty little SAM threats. What is my point you ask?

1. Air supremecy
2. Fast and furious into Baghdad
3. Cut the head off the leadership
4. Secure order
5. Find WMD's.

We are on step 4. WMD's will be found, whether you lean left or right. If I walked into a known drinking establishment, found empty bottles, hops, barley, and tanks to brew in.....well, I'd expect to find some beer. We will find the beer (WMD's).

Sorry, I really like beer. I will try to gather my thoughts and respond to the President Bush attacks....

 

[TXCAP4228]

TXCAP- You must be a complete fool which is obvious by your posts. You keep using the word "criminal" this and "criminal" that but what you neglect to wake up and realize is that Iraq is no different than many other countries present day that are just as criminal if not more so that Iraq was. Wake up bud..... ( you may want to switch the coffee brands) Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc, are just as bad if not worse than Iraq was BUT that is not our business since they pose absolutely NO security threat to this country ( the US of A) that you call "home". We currently have a "moron" in office who has been doing absolutely nothing for the economy, unemployment situation, etc, etc,.. wake up. It is great for him to play Texas cowboy and be an outlaw but it is getting this country no where at all. As for the UN, they did NOT back this war (thank God) and I will leave it at that. - That speaks marvels in itself.

1) 350, one of the two of us has supported his words with facts and reason. The other one accused the President of the United States of being a war criminal and failed to substantiate it.

2) North Korea invaded a peaceful neighbor and we beat them back. To this day a state of war exists on the Korean Penisula. The other examples you cite have not perpetrated wars of aggression against peaceful neighbors. So much for your argument.

3) You have still not supported your accusation of President Bush as a war criminal.

You are buying into complete propaganda. Read what you have written. You cannot make one claim on how Iraq was tied into 911, you cannot make a statement pertaining to these so called weapons of mass destruction, etc, etc, I could keep going on and on but I woun't waste my time on your replies. They are comical though to read.

1) Iraq has supported terroists. We know this. This is not propaganda. We have demonstarted that meetings took place between Senior Iraqi officials and members of the Al Aqsa martyrs brigades.
2) Iraq had a known program for developing WMD. The previous adminstration (you remember, the one from your party) acknowledged it.
3) I defy you to actually show me that any of what I am saying is untrue.

I see you are a fool with pretty thick blinders on who likes to "follow". He is NOT "my" president, you may have been one of the boneheads who helped elect him but I can proudly say I was NOT one of them. What has he done positive for this country.? Wake up bud. 04" will be here soon enough.

If I could find something in here worth responding to I would.

It is so comical that due to Wdumbya's lousy doings thus far you must continue to blame someone who is not even in office present day. LOL I must give you credit. What has Bush done to date for this country since he is so great.?? Maybee you should take a look at the "current" shape of this place .

1) 350, this is a legitmate question that I pose to you. If your world view is so valid, this adminstration so inept, and the previous administration so successful, then how did we ever get to 9/11?
**I know you like facts, so here are just a few.
2) The DOW is up over 12 percent from a year ago.
3) Investors now have some confidence that there is no fudging going on with earnings reports.
4) Prescription drugs for senior citizens - something that your friend Bill & Hil never managed to get together.
5) An Education bill that leaves no child behind. (I dare you to try and attack this one)

Hey, you said you wanted facts. I'll bet you will call these things propaganda though.....

I admit these problems have been here for years, BUT Wdumbya has done nothing "positive" thus far since he took office. That is the bottom line. Give him credit for Middle East relations.?? You must be on the verge of insanity, wake up bud..... He doesn't even know where that is located let alone taking credit for doing nothing.


u are too funny

3 5 0

OK, lets analyze your statement. I warn you that this may be a little dificult for you, so you might want to take some Advil first.

The problems have been here for YEARS but President Bush has done nothing positive during his term. If these problems have been here for years - and you have just admitted this, then I have a few responses for you:

1) Why exactly is the current President responsible if these problems have been here for years? You have JUST ADMITTED that he didn't CREATE these problems, he INHERRITED THEM.
2) For the first time in history, Israel has agreed to begin leaving their west bank settlements. They have agreed to this based on the roadmap for peace that this administration has pursued. The old guys didn't make that happen. Are you going to keep telling me to wake up? Are you going to say that this is propaganda? Are you going to tell me for the umpteenth time to wake up? Do you even bother keeping up with current events?
3) If the measure of a President is what positive work has been done since he took office then I can give you a huge list. But at some point you have to ask yourself that if these problems have been there for years, and the measure of a President is what he (or she... someday) has done to ameliorate them then why do we not see you criticize the past administration? After all, you have admitted that they dropped the ball.


In closing:

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO JUSTIFY CALLING PRESIDENT BUSH A WAR CRIMINAL. THAT YOU HAVE CALLED HIM THIS IS REPREHENSIBLE. THAT YOU HAVE FAILED YET AGAIN TO SUPPORT YOUR WORDS IS GUTLESS.

 

[350DRIVER]

TXCAP-

Your posts never seem to amaze me, quite hilarious as well so I welcome your stupidity and off the wall opinions. You have shown nothing bud, I can only hope one day down the line someone could knock some sense into you. I guess you must have been abused as a child judging from your posts. I feel for ya but keep drinking that kool aid and continue to ride on a bandwagon that is slowly coming to quite an abrupt stop. Ignorance is bliss. You are a complete fool so I will not continue to waste my time on you since I don't want to drop down to your level and share in your stupidity. Obviously you are a fool that has done nothing more than buy into propaganda. To date Wdumbya "Bush" has done NOTHING for this country, has NOT found the WMD that the fool based the war on, let the US of A economy go right down the drain, etc, etc, ... 2004 will be here soon enough so keep supporting this fool for the remainder of his term and continue to be a "follower" since the role fits you extremely well. (no sarcasm intended). What is even more hilarious is that you cannot back anything you have stated with hard facts and documentation, obviously you are not the "sharpest" tool in the shed but you can hide your stupidity or atleast attempt to.. food 4 thought.

Iraq has supported terroists. We know this. This is not propaganda. We have demonstarted that meetings took place between Senior Iraqi officials and members of the Al Aqsa martyrs brigades.

You are a complete joke... They were also behind 911 too right? lol-

God Bless you

3 5 0

 

[350DRIVER]

I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO JUSTIFY CALLING PRESIDENT BUSH A WAR CRIMINAL. THAT YOU HAVE CALLED HIM THIS IS REPREHENSIBLE. THAT YOU HAVE FAILED YET AGAIN TO SUPPORT YOUR WORDS IS GUTLESS.

His actions speaks for itself, I wouldn't do the moron justice to add anymore... Fact was he went against the majority, against the UN, etc, to do this, enough said... I as well as many millions continue to praise the UN, France, and every other country that continues to verbally attack Wdumbya and his entire administration.

3 5 0

ps> Hearings are currently being held to look into this.
pss>> going to head over to France for a vacation sometime soon, would you like a souvenir?

 

[350DRIVER]

Ralph- Sure the repubies will try to claim that this is false as well..

how true..and to think this "joke" is the leader present day.lol Go get em Wdumbya. I still find it quite hilarious on how the speech was downplayed.


3 5 0

 

[cherokee]

[QUOTE3 5 0

ps> Hearings are currently being held to look into this.
pss>> going to head over to France for a vacation sometime soon, would you like a souvenir? [/B][/QUOTE]



Yes 350, please send me a postcard wearing your fruity little French beret and tell me that you are staying in France and never coming home. Enjoy the socialism bud......

 

[TXCAP4228]

pss>> going to head over to France for a vacation sometime soon, would you like a souvenir?

Alors, bien sur! J'aurais du expliquer en francais - comme ca tu aruais pu repondre au lieue de m'insulter! Il faut dire que ta capacite de raisoner en anglais, c'est pas evident du tout!

Oui, c'est moi l'idiot. Si toi, tu seras notre competition en '04, notre victoire est assure.


Non, aucun souvenir pour moi.