»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The War (one more time around)
| The Alley |
|
The War (one more time around) |
|
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space 
|
Ok so I said I'd stay away from the alley and i said i'd stay away from the topic of war. So I lied, seems to be in vogue now anyway. Again I'll start by saying NOT AN ATTACK ON AMERICAN CITIZENS BUT AN ATTACK ON THE GOVERNMENT WHO DECIDED TO GO TO WAR. There must be some sort of outrage even from those who firmly believed in the reasons. Surely with all these things coming to light you must have changed your minds at least a little??? For those who couln'd believe the Bush government would start a war for distorted reasons http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030710.urums0710/BNPrint/International/ http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030718/UTENEN/TPInternational/TopStories For those who believed the Media and government stories could not be fabricated http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030709-121049-4754r.htm For people who can't understand why US foreign policy can sometimes ruffle feathers http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/12/60minutes/main558378.shtml "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II |
||
| © Copyright 2003 raphael giuffrida - All Rights Reserved | |||
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
I'm not a highly educated Government official, but I will say that in my personal opinion (even thought I voted for Bush), that sometimes I look at the news and I think that for all the reason I like him, there are also reasons that I don't. I do support our President and OUR TROOPS! However, I keep thinking that we are hurting ourselves here because we keep sending "our" troops over there and they keep getting blown to bits. I do have questions about our Government, and well...I guess I will just have to spend more time studying the issue before I comment on them. I overheard someone say (at the beginning of this War) that this would be simple...What the hecks simple about War? or Death? No, Rome was not built in a day and I would be stupid in thinking that this War could be over quickly, but sometimes I think ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Is this another Viet Nam War? I think it's time to bring our boys home and secure the homeland... Once again...just my opinion and maybe not what you were looking for in response to your post, but you just got me to thinking out loud. Tima Some women wait for something to change and nothing does, so they change themselves. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
No Tima it's a great answer, you're thinking you're questioning that's more than most have or would have done a few months ago. |
||
PoetryIsLife
since 2001-10-27
Posts 1763...in my boxers... |
As a soon-to-be US Marine, protecting all US citizens, this thread is of importance to me. I have always agreed with the war, not the goverment. Everything is politcal, and everything has a dose of BS. Realizing this, I knew that while their stated reasons may be BS the world - along with the US - had to accept whether or not it wanted to. The fact remains that it was neccessary, as the US continues to protect itself via ridding the world of hotspots of terrorism against you (if you're an American), against me, and against all US citizens. The "Axis of Evil." Saddamn and his sons, and his government tortured and murdered at whim, andled their country via terror, and assisted those with hatred toward the US. I'm not naive to think that oil had a heavy hand in the War, but I do know there can more more then one reason for an action, such as my multifacited reasoning for joiing the US Marine Corps. My heart goes out to civilians lost, and to the families of soldiers lost, brothers and sisters lost. I fear I may one day be one of them lost. But I am williing the sacrifice myself to protect the United States of America, now and in the future, through this war on terror. Terrorism will never stop, but breading grounds can take a hit. ~Titus PS: Whatever views you have, I respect. These are just my own. "I want you to hit me as hard as you can." No, really, I do. [This message has been edited by PoetryIsLife (07-19-2003 04:52 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If this one piece of 'intelligence' that may have been unverified at the time it was put into the State of the Union Address is the only thing that proves to be eventually discredited, then I think the opposition party should work a little harder from now until election time if they seek to be successful in putting one of their own candidates into office for the Presidency. All things considered, this one item did not carry the day in making the determination to go into Iraq. What some folks conveniently are downplaying at this time is the fact that the consensus of the the world powers was that Saddam was a real threat to world security for the past 12+ years. This was not something manufactured by the Bush administration. Now, if they can demonstrate that the majority (or even a signifcant amount)of the intelligence that was gathered was erroneous, then I'd say they have a leg to stand on in condemning the Bush administration's decision. But then they'd also have to condemn themselves too, along with the rest of the world (U.N. etc.), to be fair, since it was something that they were all purporting to be truth. Maybe the whole world was/is wrong and Saddam was/is really a benevolent sort of chap afterall. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Poetryislife of course you should defend your country there's no doubt. But if you're going to attack a country who is hostile and poses a threat then Saudi Arabia, which houses most of the terrorist camps in question, should have been first target. Why wasn't it first? Maybe because Saudi Arabia is one of the only middle eastern countries that is business friendly with the US and therefore it's largest supplier of oil. As for Saddam being a threat it always amuses me how Republicans like to blame the Clinton administration for letting it go. Bush Sr. could have easily ousted Saddam after the victory of the first Gulf War but left it unfinished business, a bad habit on the part of the US and British. Afghanistan? Isn't there still a terrorist threat? It was important enough to destroy last year but how many stories do you here about it now? It's been left as unfinished business in the hands of the rest of the first coalition. There are reasons for war and some are of course security. This war was not one of them. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise please tell me you're kidding, this one item isn't a simple offhand remark. It was the intelligence used to determine that Saddam was a threat to the US and the world. The fact that this threat not only didn't exist but was falsified by your own administration or the FBI themselves isn't cause for alarm? We're not just talking about the invisible weapons of Mass destruction. We're talking about forged documents by your own government to sell you a war This isn't cause for alarm???? The entire Jessica Lynch hero story that you rallied behind is unravelling as a lie. Government has already admitted it exaggerated the events and the media has too. You may think oh well, so they lied a little to sell the war back home. Well as a tax payer I'd be pretty upset to know the used the resources the did to stage that rescue and MORE importantly put the lives of those soldiers in danger. Now is the world a better place without Saddam? Undoubtedly, but the reason for the war wasn't to oust a tyrant it was to oust a global threat. The ousting of Saddam was secondary at best. And if it's all about ousting tyrants why is Castro still in power and Cuba under embargo? No Saddam wasn't benevolent Denise but let's not be naive as to think that our 'free' governments and their motives are either. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (07-19-2003 01:58 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Nope, not kidding, Raph. No one has shown to me that this information was manufactured by the Bush administration, FBI, CIA, etc., or any other entity to sell a war, but was intelligence supplied by the British, that was at the time unverified, and later charged to have been based on falsified documents. To my understanding, Tony Blair, up to this moment, still stands behind that intelligence, unless I have missed something on the news in the last half day. And no one has shown to me that this information was pivitol in the decision to oust Saddam. It was merely one small piece of many intelligence reports. How many of the other of those reports have been purported to be or have since been proven to be erroneous? I think it is a giant leap, to say the least, to go from one possible unreliable piece of intelligence to the claim that Bush/Blair, etc. have lied to sell a war to their respective countries. If that is ever proven to be the case, then yes, I would say that that would be a cause for alarm. As for Jessica Lynch, the story of her being injured while engaging in hand to hand combat was, within days, said to be under investigation. The Government did not exaggerate anything, to my understanding, unless you attribute the first reports, that turned out to be rumors, to the Government. But that doesn't make sense to me when it was the Government that immediately said that the facts were still under investigation, and nothing conclusive could be determined until all involved (who survived) could be interviewed and nothing official could be released until that time. Regardless of the details of that battle or any other, all the service people over there are heroes in my eyes. Are one's injuries during combat any less significant because they were caused by a grenade or missile hitting their vehicle and causing the vehicle to crash, as opposed to direct gunfire in hand to hand combat? The fact that they are over there putting their lives on the line is what makes them heroes, whether they actually receive injuries or not, and regardless of the circumstances under which any injuries are received. There are many things that I resent my tax dollars going to in our increasingly 'socialized' society, but the support of our military doesn't happen to be one of them. As for the senior Bush, he made the mistake that his son didn't make...he caved in to the consensus of the U.N. not to finish off Saddam, and thus a 12+ year cease fire fiasco. Who said the war was all about ousting a tyrant? I'd say that there were many reasons enumerated to evidence the necessity of disabling a global threat. The work in Afghanistan is ongoing, even if it doesn't happen to be the media darling at the moment. Our soldiers are still there even if the camera crews and reporters have gone home. Saudi Arabia and other Islamist countries, China, North Korea, etc., are all threats in my opinion, and I don't trust any of them. Perhaps diplomacy can work with them where it didn't work with Saddam. Only time will tell. I'm not naive, Raph. Neither am I cynical. I prefer to keep an open mind and let the facts speak for themselves. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Despite the forged evidence being discredited by the CIA, Bush did not refrain , but instead used it in the state of the union address. In a climate where the people of the world were becoming increasingly wary about the war the Bush administration used this information to justify their actions. I'd call that selling the war. As for the Lynch story the army or government could've have easily refrained from giving footage to media outlets until the truth was sroted out under investigation. By leaking the footage it fed a media frenzy which created a face for an unpopular war. As for the report debunking the story it was only published within the last week or so, long enough time for the story to have blown over and served it's purpose. You ask "How many of the other of those reports have been purported to be or have since been proven to be erroneous?" I ask what other evidence or reasons have been given for the war at all? You say that there were many reasons enumerated to evidence the necessity of disabling a global threat. and yet months after we're still waiting for the reasons. The primary reasons were WMDs none of which have been found, the secondary reasons were the now debunked links to Africa. I'm not mocking you but please share with me the many reasons for disabling the global threat of Saddam Hussein. The Bush adminstration has been under fire for months and have yet to provide the world any clear cut evidence or reasons for the action. What seperates Saddam Hussein as a more dangerous threat to security then Saudi Arabian backed terrorist groups and camps? North Koreans? etc etc? I never called you naive Denise, i did say it naive to believe that it is impossible that governments even of free countries like ours to falsify or 'spin' wars for their own agendas. It's called propaganda and it amazes me how easy people can believe it happens in other countries but not theirs. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (07-19-2003 09:46 PM).] |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Raph- There is absolutely no one that should fault you for respectfully voicing your opinionabout life... whatever form it takes. Democracy is advanced citizenship. Yes, I stole, and paraphrased that from a movie, however, I feel it to be absolutely the truth. It is a citizen's responsibility to question its government, and to demand the tough answers... within reason. There are certain things it is best the general populace doesn't know. Now, to answer one of your questions: The reason we didn't go all the way into Iraq and topple the regime at the end of Gulf War 1.0 is because we would have completely and dangerously lost ALL support that we had from the Arab League of Nations that we enjoyed at that point. The stated and agreed upon goal of the first war was to get the Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait and to free that tiny nation. We only went as far into Iraq as was needed to ensure the mission was done. George Sr. SERIOUSLY considered going for the bonus round but was told (by the Saudi's and others) what the consequenses would be. I would also agree that we need to take care of the terrorist camps inside the Saudi desert, however going to war with the Saudis to stop their involvement is NOT the way to do it. Granted, there is the matter of the opil reserves to deal with, however, the most important issue at hand is that of attacking an ally... especially our most powerful ally in the region. In a hypothetical world, this is the way that would play out: US, having enough evidence to prove that King Faad and his loyal minions are harboring terrorists and are doing it for the sole purpose of financial gain... and to assist with the recrowning of the Palestinian state. After numerous attempts by the world, the UN and all of the other barely effectual treaty organizations available, and the demands of the US government, the Saudis continue with their defiance of the world's wishes. Finding no other alternative, the President of the United States decides to threaten military action. To back us up, we have ONE ally.. the sraelis, who are not offering any military aid, but rather moral support. THey don't wish to even provide logistical support, because they don't want EVERYONE in their back yard to attack them. We attack anyways, and not only do we lose an ally, but we lose all respect from the region, and from all of our allies... INCLUDING the British. The United States has just gained the reputation for unilaterally attacking its allies. the remainder of our treaties begin falling and more terrorist attacks are targeted to the United States, and its populace. The final outcome is that 100 years from now, school children from around the world are forced to do book reports on the newly released best seller, "Rise and Fall of the American Empire" by Akmhed Sanzibahr. As for leaving Afghanistan to the colaition, we are still losing American military over there. They just showed a memorial service for one from the region on a local station not long ago. The reason you don't see anything on the news is because as Americans, most of us have a very short attention span, and are too wrapped up in our own lives to care about anything except what is news right this very moment. And with the news casts only getting 1/2 hour at a time, they choose to deal with the more pressing matters. You did indeed make valid points... these are just the ones that I would tend to dispute. We see the light of those Who find the world has passed them by Too late to save a dream from growing cold... [This message has been edited by Ringo (07-20-2003 12:27 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
When the mouse laughs at the cat there is a hole nearby. -- Nigerian Proverb -- |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well now here's the thing. I still haven't seen any justification for the war on Iraq. The US saw Saddam Hussein's Iraq as an immediate and dangerous threat to US/world security. SO much so that against the vote of the United Nations they decided to take actions. No I'll ask again what are the immediate threats that neccessitated the war against Iraq. WMDs? Months later we still haven't found any. Nuclear weapons? They learned early on the uranium intelligence was forged. What is was the overwhelming need that began this war, there are still no real reasons, no real proof, no real answers to this question. As for Afghanistan I didn't mean to imply Americans had left it they are still fighting and maintaining peace in certain regions. My point is finish the job first then move on to the next target. It's a bad habit of many nations to leave the job unfinished. as for the quote: "There are certain things it is best the general populace doesn't know" Well when your kids are being sent to war,government are spending billions in tax payers money to finance it, and the reasons are slim to none I think there's a definite NEED to know. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (07-20-2003 05:36 PM).] |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
Aenimal, I think what you’re referring to is the well known mushroom method of government – keep them in the dark and feed them....well you get the idea.  |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Toad LMAO thats the one and we label it democracy grins |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Raph- I didn't actually make myself clear on the part of not knowing everything .(I know, I know... nothing unusual). As for the reasons my son is going to eventually go off to war (he's already talking about following the old man's footsteps, and every generation has theirs), I would very much feel that there is a reason for the country to know why. I was actually referring to matters of national secutiry (real, as opposed to imagined). At the risk of sopunding like I am patting myself on the back, because of the job I had, I was given (limited) access to classified material and gained knowledge of classified weapons systems, and the outlay of the cockpits for almost all of the military aircraft, as well as other sensitive bits of information. THe public has absolutely no need to know any of it, and- in a few cases- should never know that information. I was also privvy to a drunken conversation by a couple of Vietnam Vets who had been involved in the Special Operations Group, and heard them talking about a few of the missions they had performed. (I was the waiter hiding around the corner to make sure they were being proerly served). There is no way the general populace has any reason to know what went on with this group of Marines. If what I heard was true (and they were all there,m so why would they lie to themselves??) then the general populace doesn't want to know. Anyways, that was my intended thought, not that we don't deserve to know why our sons and daughters are off to die. We see the light of those |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, I have to first disagree with your premise that the war was 'increasingly unpoplular' necessitating a 'selling of the war' by the Administration. If my memory serves me, here in the States at least, I believe that, according to the polls, 70+ % of Americans were behind the President regarding the necessity of going to war to oust Saddam if he did not come into compliance. Secondly, here are the portions of the State of the Union Address pertinent to your questions regarding the intelligence gathered on Iraq, "the many reasons for disabling the global threat of Saddam Hussein". I have italicized the portion that is the cause of the current controversy. "Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families. Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained." Where are all the WMD's? Probably most were shipped off to Syria, some probably buried deep in the desert. Some we did find, don't forget...those long range missiles that he had, and those vehicles that were possibly mobile bio labs. If we find Saddam, we can ask him where he's hidden it all. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Stalin "It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed." Lenin |
||
|
Paula Finn Member Ascendant
since 2000-06-17
Posts 5546missouri |
Ok I have to put my two cents worth in here...after being a miltary wife for over ten years I have to say no one, and I mean NO ONE person knows everything that it took to decide to make war on Iraq...I'm not the most intelligent person when it comes to politics, but I get so tired of all this second guessing and placing blame. No war is just. No war is totally right. But that doesnt stop young men and women from giving up thier lives to protect and serve people like you and me so we can sit in front of our computers while they sit in front of enemy guns. You can argue til hell freezes over. There is no right answer. There is no wrong answer. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Did I ever once attack the military or the soldiers for being there Paula? I don't even disagree with Ringo for saying we shouldn't know or don't want to know everything. But I do think the things that the government say should be responsible or at least half truths. Look it's nothing new that governments BS the public I'm just looking for good BS something believeable something with BS proof to back it up. With all the resources in the CIA FBI can't we get some better lying done? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: But that doesn't mean you can avoid the decision, the responsibility to judge the rightness or wrongness is yours as much as it is mine or any other American. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
